March 2005 – Page 14

Lord of the Rings – The Musical?!

The Lord of the Rings – The Musical is set to premiere in Toronto next year.

Producer Kevin Wallace, apparently attempting to assuage Tolkien fans who immediately recognize in their marrow that this is a Bad Idea, insists that it will all be in good taste, promising, "There will be no singing and dancing Hobbits."

Which seems like a strange thing to say, because, you know, Hobbits actually DO sing and dance.

Ever since I first heard of this project — oh, two years ago, it must be — I’ve had alarming snatches of verse running through my head. They go something like this (the meter is terrible, but you can make it work if you try hard enough)…

BILBO:
There’s a bright, golden haze on the Shire
There’s a bright, golden haze on the Shire.
The pipe-weed’s as high as an oliphant’s eye
And my Ring’s in my pocket till the day that I die…

Oh, what a beautiful mornin’
To strike out Middle-earth to roam.
I’ve got a beautiful feelin’
The Sackville-Bagginses won’t get my home.

GANDALF:
I am the very model of a Middle-earth wizard supreme.
I’ve long grey beard, and staff in hand, and pointed hat, and eyesight keen.
I know the kings of Rohan, and what happened at the White Council
(The Necromancer was expelled for actions problematical!).

I’m very well acquainted, too, with magic and the wizard biz.
I don’t know Bilbo’s ring, but I know where to find out what it is.
In Minas Tirith’s archives I’ll research the Ring and come to grips
With where the Ring came from and if there will be an apocalypse!

ALL:
With where the Ring came from, etc….

Please, make it stop!

Blessed Palm Scrap Disposal

A reader writes:

I am leading a church mom’s group and one of our projects this week will be to weave palms (like we get on Palm Sunday) into different shapes (crosses, birds, fish, etc.). In the weaving process, little scraps off the palms are sometimes cut off. May we use blessed palms in such a project, and if so, should we dispose of the scraps in a certain way?

There is no set law on this.

One could argue that the scraps lose their blessing by the act of being cut off, but if you want to be safe it is a pious non-binding custom (not a law) to disposed of blessed items either by reverently burning them or buying them, whichever the object’s nature is most suited for.

Gospel Reading & Kentucky

A reader writes:

A-while back in this post (HERE) you categorically state that only the ordained can proclaim the Gospel (with the two exceptions of Palm Sunday & Good Friday). As you alluded to later in this post, my parish is also suffering from a creeping tendency to involve more and more people (since January it’s gone from just the priest and a deacon to those two plus our pastoral director (female, non-ordained, non-religious)).

Before I — politely — call the priest and/or liturgy committee, is there an exact source/citation that you can provide to me about this matter? I’ve tried the Catholic Answers fora, but they also provide no precise reference to Church documents.

Here’s whatcha need: The current edition of the General Instruction of the Roman Missal which is approved, translated, and in force in the U.S. says–

59. By tradition, the function of proclaiming the readings is ministerial, not presidential. The readings, therefore, should be proclaimed by a lector, and the Gospel by a deacon or, in his absence, a priest other than the celebrant. If, however, a deacon or another priest is not present, the priest celebrant himself should read the Gospel. Further, if another suitable lector is also not present, then the priest celebrant should also proclaim the other readings.

Also, the recently-released instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum states:

[63.] “Within the celebration of the Sacred Liturgy, the reading of the Gospel, which is “the high point of the Liturgy of the Word”, is reserved by the Church’s tradition to an ordained minister. Thus it is not permitted for a layperson, even a religious, to proclaim the Gospel reading in the celebration of Holy Mass, nor in other cases in which the norms do not explicitly permit it.

The reader also writes:

PS You mentioned last week that you plan to be in Kentucky next month. I’m in Frankfort and would welcome the chance to come hear a talk by you. Any details as yet?

Sure. I’m supposed to give my conversion story in Hopkinsville at 10 a.m. Saturday, April 23. Hope to see you there! (Will post the name of the parish later. Don’t have it handy.)

Gospel Reading & Kentucky

A reader writes:

A-while back in this post (HERE) you categorically state that only the ordained can proclaim the Gospel (with the two exceptions of Palm Sunday & Good Friday). As you alluded to later in this post, my parish is also suffering from a creeping tendency to involve more and more people (since January it’s gone from just the priest and a deacon to those two plus our pastoral director (female, non-ordained, non-religious)).

Before I — politely — call the priest and/or liturgy committee, is there an exact source/citation that you can provide to me about this matter? I’ve tried the Catholic Answers fora, but they also provide no precise reference to Church documents.

Here’s whatcha need: The current edition of the General Instruction of the Roman Missal which is approved, translated, and in force in the U.S. says–

59. By tradition, the function of proclaiming the readings is ministerial, not presidential. The readings, therefore, should be proclaimed by a lector, and the Gospel by a deacon or, in his absence, a priest other than the celebrant. If, however, a deacon or another priest is not present, the priest celebrant himself should read the Gospel. Further, if another suitable lector is also not present, then the priest celebrant should also proclaim the other readings.

Also, the recently-released instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum states:

[63.] “Within the celebration of the Sacred Liturgy, the reading of the Gospel, which is “the high point of the Liturgy of the Word”, is reserved by the Church’s tradition to an ordained minister. Thus it is not permitted for a layperson, even a religious, to proclaim the Gospel reading in the celebration of Holy Mass, nor in other cases in which the norms do not explicitly permit it.

The reader also writes:

PS You mentioned last week that you plan to be in Kentucky next month. I’m in Frankfort and would welcome the chance to come hear a talk by you. Any details as yet?

Sure. I’m supposed to give my conversion story in Hopkinsville at 10 a.m. Saturday, April 23. Hope to see you there! (Will post the name of the parish later. Don’t have it handy.)

Here Comes Peter Cottontail! RUN!!!

A reader writes:

Is there an ‘official’ Church teaching on the Easter Bunny?

Yes: The Easter Bunny is our friend.

I can explain how Santa Claus is St. Nicholas at Christmas to the kids (even though they now figure they should get gifts on St. Nicholas’ Feast Day Dec. 6 AND Christmas).

Yeah, kids’ll do that. I would if I were a kid.

It still seems odd to me on the great day of Easter Sunday, we give our children candy attached to the really bizarre story that a bunny delivered it.

Yeah, well, I’ve never been a fan of these society-wide conspiracies to deceive small children. Seems like a bad idea to me. Y’know, what with the lying and the deceiving an’ all. I think God said something about that once.

I mean, sure it’s fun an’ all to exploit the gullibility of children, the instinct that God built into them to trust what adults and–particularly–their parents tell them so that they’ll grow up and survive in the world. I mean, with that instinct in ’em, they’ll believe whatever nonsense you tell ’em, and you can have a real good chuckle at how they believe the most patently absurd stuff and how "cute" they are when they get all wide-eyed at the prospect of the imminent arrival of a non-existent magical being that you’ve got their expectations up for.

And I know it’s like a big happyfun game for adults to manufacture and plant false evidence that will reinforce their belief in the magical being and reinforce the attachment of their affections to the non-existent bestower-of-gifts.

But it still doesn’t seem to be a good idea to me.

Though don’t quote me on that because the Church doesn’t have an official teaching on this subject. I lied and decieved you when I told you that the Church teaches that the Easter Bunny is our friend. It actually doesn’t teach that. For all the Church says, the Easter Bunny could be the mortal enemy of mankind, ready to ascend from his sunken city of R’lyeh and destroy the human race and inaugurate a reign of murder and madness and mayhem. (Oh, wait. That’s Cthulhu, not the Easter Bunny.)

That being said, if you want a moral, ethical way to allow your children to have some fun with "the Easter Bunny experience," it seems to me that you could simply make it clear to them from the beginning that the Easter Bunny is make-believe and that it’s all just a happyfun game we can play as long as we remember that the real reason for Easter is that Our Lord Jesus Christ rose from the dead on that day.

Which is why–incidentally–the bit with the Easter eggs seems to have gotten started: In some places in prior years they didn’t eat eggs during Lent and so you had all these eggs at Easter that you needed to get rid of before they went bad, as many already had during Lent due to absence of refrigeration.

Oh, and remember to teach your children to bite the heads off chocolate bunnies first.

The Church is very firm on the need to do that.

Chocolate bunnies are the enemies of mankind.

At The Temple Of Templates

Made some changes to the templates governing this blog last night.

With the addition of new guest bloggers, folks had pointed out a problem that was first reported back when SDG began guest blogging some: Difficulty in telling at the start of a post who was blogging.

I contacted TypePad to see if there was a way that I could include the blogger’s name at the top of a post. (They don’t have all the features I think they need, but they do have excellent customer service. Plug, plug!). I asked them:

The blog visitors are finding it confusing figuring out who is talking in a blog post. They find it frustrating that they have to look down to the end of the post (which may run off their screen) to figure out who is speaking in a post and are requesting that the notification of who posted be placed at the top of the post instead of the bottom. I looked for a way to do this and couldn’t find one. Is there a way to do something along these lines?

They responded:

If you’re using an Advanced Template Set, you could modify your templates to display the author name above the post as well as (or instead of) below the post.

Let us know if you’re using an Advanced Template Set and would like further help in doing this.

To which I replied:

Yes! I am using an advanced template set! And I would love help with this, along with general info about the eldritch nether-tongue in which the advanced templates need to be written.

I’ve only made the tiniest changes for fear of upsetting the cosmic balance of the universe by uttering the wrong syllable in an incantation and having to start over.

Much obliged!

Now, up to now it has be a HUGE ORDEAL to make any modifications to my templates, compounded by the fact that I haven’t had an understanding of the language in which the templates are written. (It ain’t ordinary HTML. It’s a propietary Dark Speech used by TypePad.) As a result, I have only been making the smallest changes to the templates, like my favicon (the picture of me you get if you link me in IE).

But thanks to their help, I got the info I needed to crack the Dark Speech and begin making more neat-o cool, user-friendly changes, such as how to add the blogger’s to the top of each post. I’ve played with that and don’t have it quite where I want–BUT–at least it’s there and I can continue trying to tweak it.

Kudos to the folks at TypePad!

Heaven Before Jesus & Luther: The Motion Picture

A reader writes:

I was hoping you could help me with a question I received from my JW brother.

He asked …….."Before Jesus came, What happened to good people when they died? What happened to bad people when they died?"

My belief was that the gates of heaven were open when Jesus died on the cross. However, where then did Elijah go when he was "taken up into heaven"….or Moses for that matter?

Any help would be appreciated.

The state of the typical soul before the time of Christ is not as clear as we would like since the Old Testament is not fully explicit about the matter and the New Testament sometimes says cryptical things about such souls.

It is clear that there was a belief in an afterlife among the Jewish people (contrary to what you hear from some folks today). This belief appears to be reflected in the oft-repeated formula used when someone died "and he was gathered to his people." The belief in the afterlife was so strong that God had to repeatedly warn the Jewish people not to go in for mediumship and necromancy (the channelling or calling up of the dead; cf. Deuteronomy 18).

Nevertheless, if God allowed, such things could happen, as in the famous incident in which Saul consults a medium ("the witch of Endor"–which later gave us the name "Endora" on the Bewitched show) who is able to successfully call up the dead prophet Samuel (who then tells Saul he’s doomed–DOOMED, I TELL YOU!!! So don’t mess with the dead–or Texas–unless you want to be doomed).

The place that the dead are referred to as going is called sh’ol (*not* "shee-oll"), but the meaning of the term is not entirely clear. It may just mean "the grave" but it also may mean "the netherworld." The dead are depicted as being conscious in sh’ol, but their lives there seem rather gloomy. In the Septuagint when hadEs (i.e., hades) is encountered it is normally representing sh’ol in the original Hebrew.

There is not the prospect of being united with God in heaven except in the case of certain rare individuals who are assumed directly into heaven, such as Enoch and Elijah (and maybe Moses). In their cases, the ordinary Hebrew word for "heaven"–sh’mayim–is used to describe where they went. They thus seem to be exceptions to the general rule that most folks didn’t get to go to heaven before Jesus.

(Why people find that concept hard to grasp, I don’t know, but I find myself having to repeatedly tell resistant callers on the radio that Enoch, Elijah, and mayby Moses are what we in the business refer to technically as "exceptions." Maybe it would be clearer if I called them teachers’ pets. *JOKE!*)

In any event, they seemed to get in early in anticipation of what Jesus would do on the cross whereas the rest of us get in afterward looking back at what he did. It’s the credit card/debit card difference.

Later in the Old Testament, as progressive revelation continues, we have the expectation of the resurrection come more to the fore (e.g., Dan 12:2). We also get more detail about what the intermediate state before the resurrection is like. For example, in 2 Maccabees Judah Maccabee has a vision of Jeremiah the prophet, who is praying for the people of Israel in the afterlife.

The most direct description of what the intermediate state we have at this time is actually found in the New Testament, when Jesus tells the parable of Lazarus and the rich man. In that parable Lazarus and Abraham are in a condition described as being one of comfort, while there is a gulf between them and the rich man, who is in torment. Thus the dead of this period seemed to occupy a position in sh’ol in which they enjoyed comfort but did not have the full beatific vision that they would enjoy after Christ.

Now a couple of tips since you mention your brother is a JW:

1) The book of Revelation describes what is going on in heaven now, in the age following Christ, and it repeatedly shows us folks who are conscious and praying and worshipping in heaven (e.g., the martyrs who have been killed).

2) JWs have a misperception of what Christians think heaven is. They have the idea that we think that after the resurrection we’ll leave earth in order to be in God’s presence up yonder. No. At the end of Revelation it is made clear that the new heavens and the new earth will be united, with the city of God coming down from heaven onto earth, so the heavenly, presence-of-God experience and the earthly paradisaical existence will both be enjoyed by the blessed at the same time for "the dwelling place of God [will be] with men." Here’s the text:

Revelation 21

2: And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband;
3: and I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, "Behold, the dwelling of God is with men. He will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself will be with them;
4: he will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning nor crying nor pain any more, for the former things have passed away."

The reader also writes:

On another note, a protestant friend of mine suggested we watch the movie "Martin Luther" together. Have you seen this movie? I am a cradle catholic but hadn’t really embraced it until this past year but I am strong in my faith. Can anything good come of a situation like this?

Not much except maybe a good opportunity for you to evangelize your friend by showing him the way the film whitewashes Luther and distorts what really happened.

MORE INFO HERE.

Heaven Before Jesus & Luther: The Motion Picture

A reader writes:

I was hoping you could help me with a question I received from my JW brother.

He asked ……..”Before Jesus came, What happened to good people when they died? What happened to bad people when they died?”

My belief was that the gates of heaven were open when Jesus died on the cross. However, where then did Elijah go when he was “taken up into heaven”….or Moses for that matter?

Any help would be appreciated.

It is clear that there was a belief in an afterlife among the Jewish people (contrary to what you hear from some folks today). This belief appears to be reflected in the oft-repeated formula used when someone died “and he was gathered to his people.” The belief in the afterlife was so strong that God had to repeatedly warn the Jewish people not to go in for mediumship and necromancy (the channelling or calling up of the dead; cf. Deuteronomy 18).

Nevertheless, if God allowed, such things could happen, as in the famous incident in which Saul consults a medium (“the witch of Endor”–which later gave us the name “Endora” on the Bewitched show) who is able to successfully call up the dead prophet Samuel (who then tells Saul he’s doomed–DOOMED, I TELL YOU!!! So don’t mess with the dead–or Texas–unless you want to be doomed).

The place that the dead are referred to as going is called sh’ol (*not* “shee-oll”), but the meaning of the term is not entirely clear. It may just mean “the grave” but it also may mean “the netherworld.” The dead are depicted as being conscious in sh’ol, but their lives there seem rather gloomy. In the Septuagint when hadEs (i.e., hades) is encountered it is normally representing sh’ol in the original Hebrew.

There is not the prospect of being united with God in heaven except in the case of certain rare individuals who are assumed directly into heaven, such as Enoch and Elijah (and maybe Moses). In their cases, the ordinary Hebrew word for “heaven”–sh’mayim–is used to describe where they went. They thus seem to be exceptions to the general rule that most folks didn’t get to go to heaven before Jesus.

(Why people find that concept hard to grasp, I don’t know, but I find myself having to repeatedly tell resistant callers on the radio that Enoch, Elijah, and maybe Moses are “exceptions.”)

Now a couple of tips since you mention your brother is a JW:

2) JWs have a misperception of what Christians think heaven is. They have the idea that we think that after the resurrection we’ll leave earth in order to be in God’s presence up yonder. No. At the end of Revelation it is made clear that the new heavens and the new earth will be united, with the city of God coming down from heaven onto earth, so the heavenly, presence-of-God experience and the earthly paradisaical existence will both be enjoyed by the blessed at the same time for “the dwelling place of God [will be] with men.” Here’s the text:

Revelation 21

2: And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband;
3: and I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, “Behold, the dwelling of God is with men. He will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself will be with them;
4: he will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning nor crying nor pain any more, for the former things have passed away.”

The reader also writes:

On another note, a protestant friend of mine suggested we watch the movie “Martin Luther” together. Have you seen this movie? I am a cradle catholic but hadn’t really embraced it until this past year but I am strong in my faith. Can anything good come of a situation like this?

Not much except maybe a good opportunity for you to evangelize your friend by showing him the way the film whitewashes Luther and distorts what really happened.

MORE INFO HERE.

First Comes Confession

From our Restating-The-Obvious Department: John Paul II reminds priests that those aware that they are in mortal sin cannot go to Communion.

"In keeping with Church teaching, John Paul II issued a reminder that no one who is aware of being in a state of mortal sin can go to Communion.

"The Pope confirmed the traditional teaching of the magisterium in a message published by the Holy See on Saturday. The message was addressed to young priests who attended a course last week on the "internal forum" — questions of conscience — organized by the tribunal of the Apostolic Penitentiary.

[…]

"Only someone who is sincerely conscious of not having committed a mortal sin can receive the Body of Christ," states the papal message, recalling the doctrine of the Council of Trent. "And this continues to be the teaching of the Church also today."

GET THE STORY.

Memo from Cardinal to U.K. Yahoos:

"[R]eligion and politics do mix." –Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor (Archbishop of Westminster)

"Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor ensured that abortion would play a greater part in the coming election than any other by praising the Tory leader’s call for a cut in the legal abortion limit from 24 to 20 weeks.

"The Archbishop of Westminster went on to admit that Labour was no longer the natural party of choice for the UK’s six million Catholics.

"His views could be particularly significant in marginal constituencies with large Catholic populations such as the West Midlands, the North West and parts of London."

I can’t wait to see the country map following England’s election and find out where the red and blue counties in England lie.

GET THE STORY.