Daily Archives: August 21, 2011
You may think that the title of this blog post is a joke, but it isn’t.
Taking Lessons from Luther is exactly what our heroes, the “Conciliar Fathers”, should have done once come back to their diocese after V II. Luther would have told them that communion must be:
1. kneeling, and
2. on the tongue
That much is what the great Athanasius Schneider has implied in an interview given to Radio Maria Suedtirol (= Alto Adige), in German, and reported by kreuz.net.
In the words of the Bishop:
„Die Lutheraner haben bis vor kurzem und bis heute noch in den skandinavischen Ländern die kniende Mundkommunion bewahrt.“
The Lutherans have preserved until a short time ago, and to this day in the Scandinavian countries, communion kneeling and on the tongue”.
According to him, the idea of communion in the hand in the way practiced today – the article goes in detail about the way communion was practised in the first centuries, and makes clear that the former, infinitely more reverent practice had been completely and, crucially, un-controversially abandoned by the V century – comes from the Calvinists. And even in this case not from the original ones, but from Dutch Calvinists of the XVII century.
This means that even people who did not believe in the Real Presence managed to deal with the host in a more respectful way than the “Conciliar fathers” did once returned to their dioceses.
I do not know whether, when talking about the “Spirit of V II”, mockery or anger is more fitting; but I feel irresistibly attracted toward the second.
Like the excellent Charles Pope in this blog post (and thank God for a priest saying to us that he “joined the church choir to meet the pretty girls who sang there”) I always felt a strong connection between music and God. Not in the sense that I though that there must be a God because I hear beautiful music (I am one of those fortunate being who always had, since childhood, a strong interior feeling of the existence of God; something you can’t explain to those who haven’t it more than you could explain how it is to be in love to those who never were) , but because in my eyes music must tell even to the atheists that man con achieve summits by which one can, even as an atheist, seriously doubt that this is purely the work of man.
I still remember the first time I heard, for the first time, Schubert’s Incompiuta.
I wasn’t the youngest anymore (perhaps thirteen or fourteen), and it literally (as in: no air) took my breath away and sent such shivers down my spine like I had never had before. I still can’t hear the start of this wonderful example of truly divine beauty without having a shiver sent down my spine again, every time.
Much as I admire Schubert as one of the very, very greatest, I simply can’t see in this the unaided work of a human mind. No doubt, Heaven came down to give us a glimpse of Its glory and majesty and stunning, aching beauty. And the same impression happens, by the chap in question, rather often to me (for example by listening to this and this, pieces by which you wonder how humanity coped before having them). If you consider that he himself declared that his Ave Maria was composed in a period of “overpowering devotion to the Blessed Virgin”, you get my drift.
Music truly catapults us in another dimension, throws away all our reasoning and rationalising and takes control of us in such a way that, with such an instant immediacy, really should let us think .
The problem with the atheists is that in their fantasy of omnipotence they think that man can do everything. Therefore, they will not recognise God’s work when they are put squarely in front of it.
Beethoven used to say (can’t find the citation anymore) something on the lines that his music (not only sacred music, of course; but also glimpses of Divinity like this one) was able to led people to God more than many priests would. Whilst a composer certainly can’t effect the consecration, I think we get his drift, too.
Words of wisdom from this blog (emphases mine):
You may have noticed that I do not use the term “same sex marriage” very often. In fact, I am making a conscious decision not to use the term at all any more. I think the term gives away too much ground to our opponents. Continually using the term makes it possible to believe that such a thing as a marriage between people of the same sex is possible.
I don’t use the term “square circle” because such an entity is not possible. Likewise, I think it is not possible for two people of the same sex to be married to each other. So, I use another term that I believe is more accurate.
I use the phrase “redefinition of marriage” or “so-called same sex marriage,” or in a pinch, “genderless marriage,” depending on the context.
Even “genderless marriage” is questionable because it is naming something that is an impossibility. Gender is essential to marriage. The move to make same sex unions the legal equivalent of opposite sex unions requires that gender be removed from the understanding of marriage. If this legal movement to redefine marriage succeeds, it will be creating something entirely new. Nothing will be left of marriage but the name, as I have said in articles and lectures called, “The Institution Formerly Known as Marriage.” But at least the term “genderless marriage” calls attention to what is at stake in the debate.
Whilst I do not get the one with the “genderless marriage” either, a very important point is made here: if we acquiesce to the demands of political correctness, we allow the enemy to shape the debate.
You see this everywhere, for example when whining homos complains that their “existence” is denied if one criticises their mentality. But more in general, even the use of that most stupid of words, “gay” to say “homosexual”, must be fought against with great energy.
A vocal homosexual must be an object of laughter and ridicule. The day we have started to suffocate our laugh for fear of “hurting” the pervert is the day we have started to allow them to give a shine of legitimacy to their requests for legitimation of their perversion.
I am pleased to see that whilst only six months ago I felt rather isolated in condemning the use of the word “gay” and using “insensitive” language, the decision of the State of NY is clearly shifting the debate toward a more aggressive language.