The abridged version of this documentary:
[googlevideo]-6331994107023396223&ei=HzrcSKINmtSoA8qXtOQL&q[/googlevideo]
You can watch the full version of this interesting doco in 10 short parts here:
Part 1:
Part 2:
Part 3:
Part 4:
Part 5:
Part 6:
Part 7:
Part 8:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TLXZpOG4VCI&feature=related
Part 9:
Part 10:
Protestants seem to do a lot of protesting. 
I was prompted to reflect on this when I read two stories on the awesome NZ Catholic website. There was one about some tribal Indians getting a bit confused and holding Cardinal Toppo (the first tribal Asian prelate) responsible for a wonky translation of the Bible into their tongue by a Protestant organisation. Seems one of the words used was not used correctly, which is apparently justification for burning effigies of a clergyman.
The other story is about the Anglican Archbishop Rowan Williams getting a telling off for giving a homily in Lourdes about the apparitions of Our Lady to St Bernadette. According to one Rev. Jeremy Brooks:
“Lourdes represents everything about Roman Catholicism that the Protestant Reformation rejected, including apparitions, Mariolatry and the veneration of saints”
Why can’t we all just get along?
I can’t remember how old I was when I first heard about the differences between what Catholic and other Christians believe…maybe 13? But I do remember studying a little about the Anglicans and Luther and the whole Reformation and feeling a bit bewildered by it all.
My learnings about the differences between Catholic and Protestants were accerlated somewhat when I went to university. There I was introduced to a group who claimed to be Christian and who put posters up around campus quoting the Book of Leviticus stating “God hates gays – the Bible says we should round them up and do what God says we should do with abominations like them.” Or words to that effect. Needless to say, the posters didn’t stay up long.
I felt like asking these “Christians” what right they felt they had to spread such rubbish? On who’s authority? They just had a read of their copy of the Bible and figured it out all for themselves, did they? Or did their Pastor interpet for them? It’s dangerous when you don’t have a clear authority on the Word of God. Look at how many different Christian denominations we now have. I knew of one church down the road from where I lived that started up, grew very big, and then split into three simply because the three pastors disagreed on one line in Scripture.
Not to tread on Beardy’s territory, but there’s a great Simpsons episode where Flanders has had a tragedy befall his family and he’s a bit miffed at God. So, he asks God why he’s being punished and he states that he’s followed the whole Bible – “even the stuff that contradicts the other stuff”. I think of that every time I hear a Protestant acquaintance points to the sola scriptura doctrine that they follow – i.e. “by Scripture alone.” I always wonder about which translation that applies to? King James? New International? The Vulgate of St Jerome? Basic English Version? And what about the stuff that contradicts the other stuff? What about some of those other laws in Leviticus and Exodus – do you eat much bacon?
I suppose my questions about how Protestants make peace with all this are best summed up by this clip from the West Wing:
[youtube]xWqgD7lGneU[/youtube]
Putting aside the misguided accusations of idolatry and whatnot, how can we come together with our separated bretheren when they feel that their individual interpretation of the Bible is just as valid as an uninterrupted tradition (dating back to those who walked with Christ) of interpreting Scripture and being led by the Holy Spirit? Is there a way to get over this stumbling block?
I’m not a fan of modern minimalist art, cubism or art that looks like splattered paint and scribble. Likewise with big ugly concretey monuments that cities always seems to pay thousands for and according to the artist have immense meanings that never seem very apparent to me. Although beauty is in the eye of the beholder it’s true…
Anyway, perhaps we should make an effort to create more beauty around us, because apparently beauty has been proven good for you! Research from the University of Bari in Italy has shown a connection between pain relief and beautiful art.
The study looked at the link between people’s responses to pain and their contemplation of art. The Maxim Institute reported that the “research demonstrates a clear connection between aesthetic beauty and pain relief, reminding us that the human being is complex and interconnected, that there is mystery to the way we work and that beauty has an intrinsic place in human existence.” It is true the spiritual and reflective needs of people are often forgotten or disregarded in modern therapy where pills are more and more common.
Apparently, diversional therapy has always worked on the basis that distracting a person’s attention away from their pain or anxieties makes life more pleasant. However this study goes further by showing that beauty is not merely a distraction, but actually changes the level of pain a person experiences.
I find this quite surprising as I would never have thought that beautiful things could actually cure you of pain. Which perhaps means that we should make more of an effort to go and see the beautiful things in our world, like bush walks, rivers, flowers and art galleries.
Isn’t that also the purpose of having beautiful churches, reminders of saints / great Christians that have gone before us and beautiful music and liturgy? They enable us all to appreciate and be distracted by the grandeur and beauty of God’s message, causing us to look outwards to others and to God rather than inwards to ourselves or personal pain.
Max Thurian, the theologian of the ecumenical Monastery of Taize, who later became a Catholic and a priest, wrote an article on church architecture in L’Osservatore Romano (July 21, 1996). He wrote in the article this beautiful passage about what he thought a church should be:
“The whole church should be arranged so as to invite adoration and contemplation even where there are no celebrations. One must long to frequent it in order to meet the Lord there …. The Church, by its beautiful liturgical layout, its tabernacle radiating Christ’s real presence, should be the beautiful house of the Lord and of His Church, where the faithful love to recollect themselves in the silence of adoration and contemplation. Every church must be “praying” even when no liturgical celebrations are taking place; it must be a place where in a restless world, one can meet the Lord in peace.”
This is what a Church should look like for us shouldn’t it? It should allow time for prayer, reflection and peace, without having to provide ‘entertainment’ or fill the space with too much noise. Perhaps studies like this back up what the Church has always known – beauty is good for you!
I have recently read a book called “The organic growth of the liturgy” by Dom Alcuin Reid, a benedictine monk and priest. In it he outlines a key principle which has guided the development of Catholic liturgy throughout the ages, and that is, that the liturgy must grow organically, gradually, and in continuity. He also discusses the form of the liturgy and how important “the form” is for us Catholics to enter properly into the Sacred Mysteries and to worship God in Spirit and Truth. He traces through all the liturgical developments since the Council of Trent and stops on the eve of the Second Vatican Council. Without going into massive detail of this incredibly well researched book, one key thing stuck out for me: during the first part of the 20th century, the Liturgical Movement (which had started in the 19th century to help Catholics enter into the liturgy more deeply) began to lose its way and embraced some very dubious principles. One of these is called the “theory of corruption”, that for the first 500-800 years of Christianity we had a pure liturgy, and then for the next 1000-1400 years (approx), including the high periods of the middle ages, the liturgy became corrupted and decadent, and filled with all sorts of parasitic additions. According to many who still hold to this theory, the liturgical reform undertaken after Vatican II finally set everything right, and now we have a liturgy that is worthy of the Church. Unfortunately, many (including A Jungman, SJ – famous Vat II liturgist) who worked on the Concilium, which was the body set up by Pope Paul VI and given the responsibility for reforming the liturgy, held this notion of the “theory of corruption” – so it deeply influenced their work of reform following the Council. Suffice to say, that theory is not true, and this is why it is important to understand the key principle at play in liturgical growth: gradual organic development guided by the Holy Spirit throughout the ages.
Cardinal Ratzinger praises the book and wrote the preface for it; and he also says similar things in his own writings.
I raise this topic because I would like us to discuss some of our own understandings of why we have had such trouble and flux with the liturgy following the Council. Why has there been such a mess in so many places? Why such banality and superficiality? Why has the liturgy lost its way in some, or many, places?
I have some of my own ideas, but I’d like to discuss it. This is deeper than just disobedience. If you aren’t aware of some of these abuses (some of them quite sacriligious) that have taken place in the liturgy, have a look at some of these little videos from youtube. I obviously don’t hold all the views and attitudes contained in these videos, but they show forth much of the evidence of what I am asking us to discuss. Have look if you can.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SsWClQ_NDO4 - this one is quite commical.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dFHb8WkTHho&NR=1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQPkYwIOCRM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wedpLBTKd84
After a long hard day at work, I like to come home and sit on the couch in front of the TV. Or if the stars are aligned the right way, I may go for a walk. On those rare days when the wind’s blowing in the right direction, going for a run may even be on the cards. Or if it’s too windy/dark/wet/cold/sunny to be outside, a quick 4 hour game of Football Manager may be on the cards.
Sometimes though I pick up a copy of the NZ Catholic and have a quick perusal of this fine newspaper. I sometimes also wonder how good it would look as a magazine. Anyway, I stumbled on the ‘Opinions’ page this week. It’s kind of like being on Being Frank, except there are no long lengthy discussions. So you can make all sorts of crazy claims in your opinion (provided it gets past the Editor).
Anyway there was an opinion piece on latecomers to weekday Mass still going up for Communion. I’ve always wondered about how late you have to be to Mass before you’re invalidated from receiving Communion. Are you ok if you scrape in before the end of the opening hymn? I’ve heard you have to get in before the Gospel. Of course you should be in Mass at least 15 mins before the actual start you can check out the artwork, read through the newsletter, and try and decipher what’s been carved into the pew by some bored teenager. Oh and a bit of prayer before hand would be good too.
Oh and isn’t it great that the election is just around the corner? Can’t wait to see how much more petty dirt can be dug up by both sides.
I saw a fabulous card last week (nothing better than a good greeting card, I say) that said: “When I was young, I knew everything. Now I’m not so sure.”
I often think something similar, and have done for a few years now, about how things (as far as I can see) get less black and white, and far more grey, the more time I spend on this earth.
Abortion is the (what should be) black-and-white issue that’s been occupying space in my brain lately – which I’m sure is not entirely unrelated to the fact it’s been taking up space in James the Least’s posts as well. See, as far as I’m concerned – have been raised thinking so, and now fully and completely choose to believe so – it’s pretty straightforward; not a good thing. No wheedling out of this; no cries of “in the cases of incest and rape”, no cries of “unmarried mothers would be beaten and cast out by families”, no cries of “the poorest people in the world need to have fewer children” have held any sway with me on this issue.
That has not changed. Let me repeat that for people who may be inclined to accidentally not completely read what I’m saying: My position on abortion has not changed; I am still vehemently anti in any situation and at any stage. But things surrounding this issue have been bothering me…
For starters, rather than saying I’m anti-abortion I prefer to think I’m pro-life. Pro human rights for everyone, regardless. A beautiful person I’m lucky to know once said to me (leaving me speechless, I might add) something to the effect of: “Everyone’s entitled to their human rights. No person, regardless of what they do, isn’t entitled. You can’t do anything that makes you not deserve them: that’s why they’re called human rights.”
He’s right, and it’s an explanation I carry with me often. This person is not Catholic but that, for me, was and still remains one of the most profoundly Christ-like phrases I’ve heard. This may not be revolutionary for you, but it sure helped put things in perspective for me!
God gave us life; we deserve all it has to offer, regardless of where we were born, what we believe, what we do, where we go, how we get there.
So, after that long-winded aside, let me get back to my original point…
If we see abortion as a black-and-white issue (just say no!) then we can – and this is obviously already happening – lose focus.
What happens after they’re born?
Surely, the reasons for why children should be born in the first place hold true for the remainder of their natural life? Yet so often, the pro-life movement is focused on the unborn child. It’s focused on getting them through the nine months in the womb, then runs out of oomph when they’re born!
If this isn’t the case, how do we explain the fact that people focus so heavily on bringing children into a world that is suffering under the grossly fatal weight of criminal inequality and neglect? That the very Christian “right” who champions the public “stoning” of politicians who won’t lie and say they’re anti-abortion is the same group of people who support the wilful slaying of children through war, economic sanctions, lack of relief and development?
Not for the first time on this blog, I’m lamenting the fact that the political left and right get it spot on on one end of the human rights/pro-life spectrum and so criminally wrong on the other.
Some things never change…
Disclaimer: I’m not having a go at any pro-life organisation, as I think their work is important and thank God someone’s doing it. I am just trying to raise an issue that affects us all, and hopefully challenge the way we think about/approach it.
A mate of mine (who works for a cracking good Catholic NGO managing development projects in Latin America and America) introduced me to a fantastic concept…
The front page of the site says…ImpactGames is a world renowned pioneer in creating compelling interactive experiences around current events. Our aim is to partner with and enable organizations to change the way people consume information and understand the world around them.
How cool is that. People can ‘Play the News’ or ‘Peacemakers’, like video games, where you work in real life, current event scenarios, making decisions for the major players, and see what course of history prevails. I think you can even get points if you predict the correct outcome…!
It definitely throws a new light on the way in which we interact with history in reality. If we could predict it like a game, could that ever actually affect it’s course? Hmm
Recent Comments