Month: May 2005

Dateline: Jerusalem, Holy Sepulchre

Oh, goody. ABC’s Elizabeth Vargas — the journalist who brought you the straight scoop on Jesus and Mary Magdalene’s luv-‘n-marriage, according to the Gospel of Dan Brown — is doing a special for 20/20 on the Resurrection of Christ to be aired on Friday, May 20. Guess who will be joining her as special guests?

Did you say Fr. Richard McBrien and (Episcopal) Bishop John Shelby Spong (among others)? How’d you figure it?

Sample Quotes:

McBRIEN: "If they had digital cameras in those days, and they took … tried to take a photo of Jesus, you know, ‘Get over there with Peter … would you stand with Mary Magdalene? This would make a great shot. I mean, no one will ever believe this.’ You take a photo of that scene and you’d get Peter and Mary Magdalene, but not Jesus."

You’d think a college professor would speak more coherently.

SPONG: "I don’t think that most of the resurrection narratives in the New Testament are historical at all. But I don’t think there would have been a New Testament or a Jesus movement had there not been some astonishing experience of power that caused these people to see Jesus in a way they had never seen him before."

Translation: "The Gospels are pretty fakey, but those poor misguided souls who spun those fairy tales must have experienced some weird Christ event to get them to make that stuff up."

GET THE STORY.

(Nod to Relapsed Catholic for the link.)

Be sure to wake me when it’s over.

Consecration Validity

A reader writes:

Hello again Jimmy,

What do you do, or rather, what is the appropriate response and/or teaching about the following situation:

I have been at Mass several times where the priest changes the words of consecration.   For the words of consecration for the bread, he says "Take this, all of you, and eat it.  This is My Body, which will be given up for all of you."   For the consecration of the wine he says, "Take this, all of you, and drink from it: this is the cup of my blood, the blood of the new and everlasting covenant.   It will be shed for you and for everyone
so that sins may be forgiven.  And as often as you do this, you do it in memory of me."

Are these extra words and the changing a big deal? 

Yep. The words of consecration are the most important words in the whole Mass, and it is objectively gravely sinful to knowingly and deliberately tamper with them in any way, even a way that does not invalidate the consecration.

So far, whenever it has happened (and it happens at other places too, not just with this priest, but I am specifically asking about this priest because I’ll be at an event this week where he will celebrate the Mass), I pray for him,

Good reaction.

for the Church,

Also good.

for an increase in love for the Blessed Sacrament,

Very good.

and I refrain from communing because I’ve never been sure if this is a valid consecration or not.

Not good.

If the changes are of the nature you say then the consecration is going to be valid. As long as he conveys the ideas "This is my Body" and "This is . . . my blood" then the consecration will take place because the words he uses signify the reality of transubstantiation.

Is it a valid consecration? 

Yes, as indicated.

If it is not, am I doing right to stay in the pew? 

If it were not valid then you should, of course, refrain from receiving, but since the consecration is valid the Church would encourage you to receive as long as you are otherwise qualified and properly disposed (e.g., you’ve fasted for an hour before Communion, you aren’t in a state of mortal sin, etc.).

When I am at the Mass with him it is usually a small group and all the rest of the group is Catholic and in the past, everyone else has gone for communion except me. 

God is pleased by your willingness to honor him by allowing yourself to be left out in this manner, even though it has not been objectively necessary.

A couple of times Father has actually motioned to me or asked if I would like to come to communion, too. 

Father is behaving irresponsibly. (But then you already knew that.) Neither priests nor anybody else should ever put pressure on individuals to receive Communion. They particularly should not do so publicly. This is unconsionable. They may preach about the good of frequent, properly disposed Communion (as long as they are not giving the impression of targeting any particular person or group of persons with this preaching), but if someone is refraining from coming then it is an abuse of the rights of the faithful to pressure them into coming. Church law and teaching is clear that nobody is to be forced to the sacraments, and that includes putting public pressure on them to receive the sacraments.

Is there a way to approach Father and ask him about this or have an apologetic moment?  I’m not 100% sure that I am going to teach him anything new that he didn’t learn in seminary.

It sound as if there is a good deal he didn’t learn in seminary that you could teach him. That being said, you know the saying: "You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him drink." It is a judgment call whether you think that he’s teachable and what the benefits and costs would be of trying to educate him on the matter.

One thing, if you conclude that the thing to do is to talk to him about it, that can maximize your chances is quoting official Church documents. He’s not likely to care about what I’ve said on a blog. Arguing on that basis will distract and bog down the discussion. But if you show him official Church documents, you have a better chance of helping him to see the difficulty with what he is doing.

To that end, I suggest that you look up

CANON 846 §1 OF THE CODE OF CANON LAW.

Since this canon says that in celebrating the sacraments the liturgical books are to be faithfully observed, with no one adding, deleting, or changing anything in them, and since the words of consecration are printed in the liturgical books (specifically, the Sacramentary) it is impermissible to tamper with the words of consecration.

20

Cracking Spines

One sure way to end a promising friendship is to crack someone else’s spine.

Well, yes, putting someone in a wheelchair tends to be a relationship buster, too, but that’s not what I have in mind. I am referring to borrowing a person’s paperback book and destroying the book’s spine through ruthless handling:

"I had a rude awakening my first year of college when I discovered these book guidelines [of the proper care and treatment for paperbacks] weren’t universal: there are creasers [of book spines] and non-creasers. I worked in a used bookstore for a few summers, so I brought a number of books with me to my dorm. One of my roommates was a creaser. I didn’t mind as much when she was reading the used books, but she treated new books the same way. Oh, the horror! It got to the point where I would hide my new books in drawers or under my mattress or pillow so she couldn’t get to them."

GET THE STORY.

I can relate to this writer’s sorrowful tale. I first became aware of the phenomenon of creasers when I was in high school. I had so many new and used paperbacks that I could have opened a used bookstore in my bedroom, and all of the books I bought new still appeared to be new. One day I was chatting with a girl in my science class — the teacher was otherwise occupied 😉 — and discovered she shared my love for romance novels. I recommended a book I’d recently bought and offered to lend it to her, an offer she snapped up.

I lived to regret it. The book I gave her to read was brand new. The book I received back was thoroughly trashed, to such an extent that I doubted it was the same book. Perhaps it was petty of me, but that budding friendship withered.

I’ve heard the various justifications for spine-cracking: It demonstrates love for the book; like the Velveteen Rabbit, the book becomes Real; breaking the spine makes the book easier to read. I don’t buy it. I can manage to flop on a couch, soda in one hand, book in the other, snack nearby. The book will be thoroughly read and loved, but escape the experience unscathed. On the rare occasions that drops of liquid touch the pages, I dry them out carefully. I remove any crumbs from the pages before turning a page. In other words, you can love your books and still respect them the next day. You can leave them fit for someone else to love.

Moral of the story: Creasers can lend books to non-creasers without worry, but non-creasers would be well-advised to interview potential borrowers about their reading habits.

Here's A Man Who Lives A Life Of Danger

I mean, how many Islamic dudes do you get writing for the L.A. Times who say things like:

One can appreciate the Koran’s inherent worth, as I do, while recognizing that it contains ambiguities, inconsistencies, outright contradictions — and the possibility of human editing. This is not simply a reform-minded Muslim speaking. This is Islamic tradition talking.

For centuries, philosophers of Islam have been telling the story of the "Satanic Verses." The Prophet Muhammad accepted them as authentic entries into the Koran. Later, he realized they deify heathen idols rather than God. So he belatedly rejected the verses, blaming them on a trick played by Satan. Which implies that the Prophet edited the Koran.

Let’s push this point further. Because pious Muslims emulate Muhammad’s life, those who compiled the Koran’s verses after his death might have followed his example of editing along the way. The compilers were, after all, only human — as human as Muhammad himself.

Moreover, they collected the Koran’s verses from sundry surfaces such as bones, stones and bark. How did the passages get there? According to Islamic lore, the Prophet, an illiterate trader, couldn’t personally record them. His companions served as scribes, often writing from memory. Given so much human involvement, isn’t it possible that errors infiltrated the "authoritative" Koran?

In asking this question, I’m neither impugning the allegorical wisdom of the Koran nor inviting another fatwa on my life [EARTH TO THOUGHTFUL DUDE: Actually, you are inviting "another" fatwa against your life, but more power to you]. I’m saying that Muslims have to get comfortable asking such questions — and not merely whispering them — if we’re going to avoid a further desecration of human life. Riots in Afghanistan have already resulted in at least 14 deaths. Aid workers have been attacked; their offices burned. How does this benefit the cause of dignity — for anyone?

What this gentleman points out is all true, and all part of Islamic tradition, but it is deliberately neglected. It’s surprising to find a Muslim willing to take on this subject with such frankness in such a major newspaper–even here in America.

The guy’s got moxie!

GET THE STORY.

Here’s A Man Who Lives A Life Of Danger

I mean, how many Islamic dudes do you get writing for the L.A. Times who say things like:

One can appreciate the Koran’s inherent worth, as I do, while recognizing that it contains ambiguities, inconsistencies, outright contradictions — and the possibility of human editing. This is not simply a reform-minded Muslim speaking. This is Islamic tradition talking.

For centuries, philosophers of Islam have been telling the story of the "Satanic Verses." The Prophet Muhammad accepted them as authentic entries into the Koran. Later, he realized they deify heathen idols rather than God. So he belatedly rejected the verses, blaming them on a trick played by Satan. Which implies that the Prophet edited the Koran.

Let’s push this point further. Because pious Muslims emulate Muhammad’s life, those who compiled the Koran’s verses after his death might have followed his example of editing along the way. The compilers were, after all, only human — as human as Muhammad himself.

Moreover, they collected the Koran’s verses from sundry surfaces such as bones, stones and bark. How did the passages get there? According to Islamic lore, the Prophet, an illiterate trader, couldn’t personally record them. His companions served as scribes, often writing from memory. Given so much human involvement, isn’t it possible that errors infiltrated the "authoritative" Koran?

In asking this question, I’m neither impugning the allegorical wisdom of the Koran nor inviting another fatwa on my life [EARTH TO THOUGHTFUL DUDE: Actually, you are inviting "another" fatwa against your life, but more power to you]. I’m saying that Muslims have to get comfortable asking such questions — and not merely whispering them — if we’re going to avoid a further desecration of human life. Riots in Afghanistan have already resulted in at least 14 deaths. Aid workers have been attacked; their offices burned. How does this benefit the cause of dignity — for anyone?

What this gentleman points out is all true, and all part of Islamic tradition, but it is deliberately neglected. It’s surprising to find a Muslim willing to take on this subject with such frankness in such a major newspaper–even here in America.

The guy’s got moxie!

GET THE STORY.

Here's A Howdy-Doo!

Stone_darthLEIA: I love you!

HAN: I know.

Vader gives the order, and Han Solo begins to be lowered into a steaming pit of carbonite.

Then, using a lockpick device secreted in his belt, Han frees himself from the table-thingie he is strapped to and springs toward Lord Vader.

Vader, taken totally by surprise, loses his balance and falls into the pit of carbonite.

The result may be seen to the left.

NOT!

This here is actually a close-up of the Vader head on the Washington National Cathedral that TimJ told us about.

Got the picture off the sculptor’s site.

LEARN MORE.

Here’s A Howdy-Doo!

Stone_darthLEIA: I love you!

HAN: I know.

Vader gives the order, and Han Solo begins to be lowered into a steaming pit of carbonite.

Then, using a lockpick device secreted in his belt, Han frees himself from the table-thingie he is strapped to and springs toward Lord Vader.

Vader, taken totally by surprise, loses his balance and falls into the pit of carbonite.

The result may be seen to the left.

NOT!

This here is actually a close-up of the Vader head on the Washington National Cathedral that TimJ told us about.

Got the picture off the sculptor’s site.

LEARN MORE.

Blogs Not That Great, Study Finds

A new study by the Pew Internet & American Life Project has found that Blogs are no big deal.

Charting the discussion of issues during the 2004 presidential campaign, the study found political blogs — online opinion and information sites — played a similar, but not greater role, as the mainstream media in "creating buzz" around the candidates’ campaigns.

The study dispels the notion that blogs are replacing traditional media as the public’s primary source of information, said Michael Cornfield, a senior research consultant at Pew.

The headline of the article trumpeted "Study: Blogs haven’t totally displaced media yet" (okay, words in red are mine). Only in the funhouse-mirror world of the MSM would the admission that your influence has been cut effectively in half be a cause for celebration.

Remember in the first Rocky movie, how Rocky and Apollo Creed fought to a split decision? Afterward, do you remember Apollo jumping up and down in relief and shouting "Yay! I fought a totally inexperienced newcomer to a near-draw!! Who da man?" – No, you do not. Because he was too busy trying to decide whether he should feel more "stunned" or "humiliated".

The spin, just in the headline, is dizzying. I don’t know much about the Pew Internet & American Life Project, except that the Pew Charitable Trusts are a big supporter of NPR. The story came from CNN.com via Reuters.

Unbroken!–Live

Like most folks, I s’ppose, I listen to albums (yes, I still call them "albums") over and over again, learning every note of the songs (if not every line of the lyrics).

Every so often, tho, I start hankering for a new album to inject into my mental, musical universe.

Unfortunately, I’m kinder picky. Not everything tickles my fancy. Even in genres I know and love, I don’t like a lot of what I hear. I imagine that’s the same for everybody.

But every so often I encounter a "breakout" album–something that, after hearing it a few times (or even just once) I totally get into.

On my recent trip to Kentucky, I encountered such a breakout album, titled Unbroken!–Live by the Nitty Gritty Dirt Band.

I’ve been a fan of the Dirt Band for some time, but I’d never heard the side of them that’s presented on this album before. Up to now, I’ve been listening to their own studio albums (like Symphonion Dream) or their multi-way collaborations (like the different volumes of Will the Circle Be Unbroken), but I’d never heard a recording of one of their live shows.

Unbroken!–Live gave me that chance. The album is a 2-CD recording of a performance they gave at Doc Severinsen’s Showplace in OKC way back in 1984 (despite the fact the album was only released in 2003).

WHAT A TREAT!

The Dirt Band’s stage presence is amazing. These guys Know What They’re Doing. There is a huge amount of technical skill that they put into the performance, a wonderful selection of tunes, a great deal of showmanship, and a surprising amount of humor (a.k.a., "humour" for our friends over The Pond).

Now, any time a buncha technically-proficient guys get together with electric guitars, banjos, fiddles, and harmonicas to deliver hard-drivin’, toe-tappin’, foot-stompin’ upbeat music, I’m all up for that, but this performance was something really special.

The genre selection includes classics from Rock, Surf Music, Rockabilly, Bluegrass, Country, and Cajun, as well as intriguing, little-known tunes that you probably haven’t encountered before.

I was impressed by the way the band handled the introductions to some of these. To introduce certain songs they’d play an altered version of the melody that wasn’t immediately recognizable until, in a moment of recognition, it suddenly clicked into place what they were playing.

This was done particularly effectively in the build up to the Cajun classic "Diggy Diggy Lo," in which an unrecognizable version is played while the artists gave a patter introduction to the song, explaining that it is the song of two bayou lovers who fell in love for life. You have no idea what they’re building to until the speaker announces that these two lovers are known by "two mystical names." As soon as he identifies the first mystical name as "Diggy Diggy La" you immediately know what the song is going to be (assuming that you know "Diggy Diggy Lo"), the crowd cheers, and they kick right into it.

This kind of slow-reveal ain’t the only expression of showmanship that the band displays. As noted, there’s a lot of humor. This includes both comments they make to the audience and even some of the songs themselves. For example, they have a filk of "Help Me Make It Through The Night" re-written as "Help Me Make It Through The Yard" (the story of a guy crawling home after an all-night bender).

The guys in the band are clearly having fun on stage, and their personalities are much more in evidence than on a studio album. You get a much clearer sense of bandmembers as individuals as they make comments to each other during the songs and call each other by name as they throw different solos to each other ("Look out, Johnny! Play the fiddle!"), mix up who sings what verses ("Talk to me, Jimmy!"), make notes on what they’re about to sing ("I like this part!"), and report problems ("I don’t know how to get out of this!"–though they manage to do so flawlessly anyway).

The band is joined on stage by a couple of guest stars from a group called Doc’s Outlaws (connected to the place they were playing), and one of the guests (Rusty Allen) displays particular showmanship, using his role as lead singer on a couple of songs (notably the Bluegrass standard "Way Downtown") to set-up solos ("Toot that harp!"), ask for more ("Take two, they’re small!"), and speak of the amazing technical prowess we’ve just heard as if it were the product of a child prodigy ("Only thirty-five years old!").

The album also features a number of medleys (I wish they’d put CD track breaks between songs on these!) that are very successful. One starts with crowd-pleasing Rock classic "Runaway," moves to an awesome version of Rockabilly classic "Rave On," then into Rock standard "The Weight" ("Pulled into Nazareth…"), and finally into the band’s signature song, Country classic "Will the Circle Be Unbroken?"–a pro-faith song about wanting your whole family to go to

heaven. This time the song is delivered with a more upbeat tone than

I’ve heard them do it before, though it’s more raw and has less polish

than on a studio album.

Of course, on any live concert recording, there are imperfections. The mics aren’t positioned in the best way to catch crowd reaction (so you can’t really hear it when the audience is invited to sing along–an engaging asset to showmanship in a live performance but hard to pull off on an album). There are also a couple of mild bad words in one song ("Bowlegs") and another word in a second song ("The Battle of New Orleans") that counts as bad if you live in England, but in the digital era, you can easily make sure that your iPod never plays these songs for you if you don’t want.

There are also songs that contribute positive moral content, such as "Dance, Little Jean," which is a strong statement of the value of marriage, despite the difficulties it involves.

A special tune is the song "The House on Pooh Corner"–a celebration of childhood portrayed through the lens of Winnie the Pooh.

Another pro-morality song is "Face on the Cutting-Room Floor," which is about a talented young actress who goes to Hollywood to make it big. But when she discovers the moral price that must be paid for such success, it’s

Goodbye, Hol-ly-wood!
She’s leaving tonight, on a 2:30 ‘Hound–
sunrise on Sunset, she won’t be around.

(I like that part!)

All in all, it was a real treat to discover this album. Listening to it makes we wish three things: (1) I wish I could play like these guys! (2) I wish I could have seen them in concert night (or any night), and (3) I WANT the Song-Longer!

GET THE ALBUM!

Unbroken!–Live

UnbrokenliveLike most folks, I s’ppose, I listen to albums (yes, I still call them "albums") over and over again, learning every note of the songs (if not every line of the lyrics).

Every so often, tho, I start hankering for a new album to inject into my mental, musical universe.

Unfortunately, I’m kinder picky. Not everything tickles my fancy. Even in genres I know and love, I don’t like a lot of what I hear. I imagine that’s the same for everybody.

But every so often I encounter a "breakout" album–something that, after hearing it a few times (or even just once) I totally get into.

On my recent trip to Kentucky, I encountered such a breakout album, titled Unbroken!–Live by the Nitty Gritty Dirt Band.

I’ve been a fan of the Dirt Band for some time, but I’d never heard the side of them that’s presented on this album before. Up to now, I’ve been listening to their own studio albums (like Symphonion Dream) or their multi-way collaborations (like the different volumes of Will the Circle Be Unbroken), but I’d never heard a recording of one of their live shows.

Unbroken!–Live gave me that chance. The album is a 2-CD recording of a performance they gave at Doc Severinsen’s Showplace in OKC way back in 1984 (despite the fact the album was only released in 2003).

WHAT A TREAT!

The Dirt Band’s stage presence is amazing. These guys Know What They’re Doing. There is a huge amount of technical skill that they put into the performance, a wonderful selection of tunes, a great deal of showmanship, and a surprising amount of humor (a.k.a., "humour" for our friends over The Pond).

Now, any time a buncha technically-proficient guys get together with electric guitars, banjos, fiddles, and harmonicas to deliver hard-drivin’, toe-tappin’, foot-stompin’ upbeat music, I’m all up for that, but this performance was something really special.

The genre selection includes classics from Rock, Surf Music, Rockabilly, Bluegrass, Country, and Cajun, as well as intriguing, little-known tunes that you probably haven’t encountered before.

I was impressed by the way the band handled the introductions to some of these. To introduce certain songs they’d play an altered version of the melody that wasn’t immediately recognizable until, in a moment of recognition, it suddenly clicked into place what they were playing.

This was done particularly effectively in the build up to the Cajun classic "Diggy Diggy Lo," in which an unrecognizable version is played while the artists gave a patter introduction to the song, explaining that it is the song of two bayou lovers who fell in love for life. You have no idea what they’re building to until the speaker announces that these two lovers are known by "two mystical names." As soon as he identifies the first mystical name as "Diggy Diggy La" you immediately know what the song is going to be (assuming that you know "Diggy Diggy Lo"), the crowd cheers, and they kick right into it.

This kind of slow-reveal ain’t the only expression of showmanship that the band displays. As noted, there’s a lot of humor. This includes both comments they make to the audience and even some of the songs themselves. For example, they have a filk of "Help Me Make It Through The Night" re-written as "Help Me Make It Through The Yard" (the story of a guy crawling home after an all-night bender).

The guys in the band are clearly having fun on stage, and their personalities are much more in evidence than on a studio album. You get a much clearer sense of bandmembers as individuals as they make comments to each other during the songs and call each other by name as they throw different solos to each other ("Look out, Johnny! Play the fiddle!"), mix up who sings what verses ("Talk to me, Jimmy!"), make notes on what they’re about to sing ("I like this part!"), and report problems ("I don’t know how to get out of this!"–though they manage to do so flawlessly anyway).

The band is joined on stage by a couple of guest stars from a group called Doc’s Outlaws (connected to the place they were playing), and one of the guests (Rusty Allen) displays particular showmanship, using his role as lead singer on a couple of songs (notably the Bluegrass standard "Way Downtown") to set-up solos ("Toot that harp!"), ask for more ("Take two, they’re small!"), and speak of the amazing technical prowess we’ve just heard as if it were the product of a child prodigy ("Only thirty-five years old!").

The album also features a number of medleys (I wish they’d put CD track breaks between songs on these!) that are very successful. One starts with crowd-pleasing Rock classic "Runaway," moves to an awesome version of Rockabilly classic "Rave On," then into Rock standard "The Weight" ("Pulled into Nazareth…"), and finally into the band’s signature song, Country classic "Will the Circle Be Unbroken?"–a pro-faith song about wanting your whole family to go to
heaven. This time the song is delivered with a more upbeat tone than
I’ve heard them do it before, though it’s more raw and has less polish
than on a studio album.

Of course, on any live concert recording, there are imperfections. The mics aren’t positioned in the best way to catch crowd reaction (so you can’t really hear it when the audience is invited to sing along–an engaging asset to showmanship in a live performance but hard to pull off on an album). There are also a couple of mild bad words in one song ("Bowlegs") and another word in a second song ("The Battle of New Orleans") that counts as bad if you live in England, but in the digital era, you can easily make sure that your iPod never plays these songs for you if you don’t want.

There are also songs that contribute positive moral content, such as "Dance, Little Jean," which is a strong statement of the value of marriage, despite the difficulties it involves.

A special tune is the song "The House on Pooh Corner"–a celebration of childhood portrayed through the lens of Winnie the Pooh.

Another pro-morality song is "Face on the Cutting-Room Floor," which is about a talented young actress who goes to Hollywood to make it big. But when she discovers the moral price that must be paid for such success, it’s

Goodbye, Hol-ly-wood!
She’s leaving tonight, on a 2:30 ‘Hound–
sunrise on Sunset, she won’t be around.

(I like that part!)

All in all, it was a real treat to discover this album. Listening to it makes we wish three things: (1) I wish I could play like these guys! (2) I wish I could have seen them in concert night (or any night), and (3) I WANT the Song-Longer!

GET THE ALBUM!