Benny Parson RIP

Benny Parsons Dies (1941-2007)

Met him once for a fleeting second at the Indianapolis Motor Speedway about 10 years ago. Nice guy, great announcer--he'll be missed--and that's all any of us can hope will be said about us.

"We were waiting for the kids to die"

Senior divorce rates on the rise...you can't make this stuff up!

From Kane County Chronicles:

A couple in their 90s who had decided to divorce sought the advice of a lawyer. “You’ve been married so long,” said the lawyer. “Why on earth would you split up now?”

“We were waiting for the kids to die,” came the reply.

Call it “late-life divorce black humor.”

Preface to Pope's "Jesus" Book

From Sandro Magister's chiessa:

I came to this book about Jesus - the first part of which I now present to the public – after a long interior journey. In the time of my youth – during the
1930’s and ‘40’s – there was published a series of exhilarating books about
Jesus. I recall the names of just a few authors: Karl Adam, Romano Guardini,
Franz Michel Willam, Giovanni Papini, Jean-Daniel Rops. In all these books, the
image of Jesus Christ was outlined beginning with the Gospels: how He lived upon
the earth and how, although He was truly man, He at the same time brought God to
men, being one with God as Son of God. Thus, through the man Jesus, God became
visible, and beginning with God one could see the image of the just man.
Beginning in the 1950’s, the situation changed. The rift between the “historical
Jesus” and the “Christ of faith” became wider and wider; the one pulled away
from the other before one’s very eyes. But what meaning can there be in faith in
Jesus Christ, in Jesus the Son the of living God, if the man Jesus is so
different from how the evangelists present Him, and from how the Church
proclaims Him on the basis of the Gospels? Progress in historical-critical
research led to increasingly subtle distinctions among the different levels of
tradition. Behind these layers, the figure of Jesus, upon whom faith rests,
became increasingly more uncertain, and took on increasingly less definite
outlines. At the same time, the reconstructions of this Jesus, who had to be
sought behind the traditions of the Evangelists and their sources, became
increasingly contradictory: from the revolutionary enemy of the Romans who
opposed the established power and naturally failed, to the meek moralist who
permitted everything and inexplicably ended up causing his own ruin. Those who
read a certain number of these reconstructions one after another will
immediately notice that these are much more the snapshots of the authors and
their ideals than they are the unveiling of an icon that has become confused. In
the meantime, distrust has grown toward these images of Jesus, and in any case
the figure of Jesus has withdrawn from us even more. All of these attempts have,
in any case, left behind themselves as their common denominator the impression
that we know very little for sure about Jesus, and that it was only later that
faith in His divinity shaped His image. This impression, in the meantime, has
deeply penetrated the general consciousness of Christianity. Such a situation is
dramatic for the faith because it renders uncertain its authentic point of
reference: intimate friendship with Jesus, on which everything depends,
threatens to become a groping around in the void.
* * *I felt the need to provide the readers with these indications of method because these determine the route of my interpretation of the figure of Jesus in the New Testament. For my presentation of Jesus, this means above all that I trust the Gospels. Naturally,I take for granted what the Council and modern exegesis say about the literary genres, about the intention of various expressions, about the communitarian context of the Gospels and the fact that they speak within this living context.
While accepting all this as much as possible, I wanted to make an effort to
present the Jesus of the Gospels as the real Jesus, as the “historical Jesus” in
the real sense of the expression. I am convinced – and I hope that I can also
make the reader aware of this – that this figure is much more logical, and from
the historical point of view also more understandable, than the reconstructions
we have had to confront in recent decades. I maintain that this very Jesus – the
Jesus of the Gospels – is an historically sensible and convincing figure. His
crucifixion and the impact that he had can only be explained if something
extraordinary happened, if the figure and the words of Jesus radically exceeded
the hopes and expectations of his time. Around twenty years after the death of
Jesus, we find already in the great hymn to Christ in the Letter to the
Philippians (2:6-8) the full expression of a Christology, in which it is said of
Jesus that He was equal to God but stripped Himself, became man, and humbled
Himself to the point of death on the cross, and that to Him is due the homage of
creation, the adoration that in the prophet Isaiah (45:23) God proclaimed as due
to Himself alone. Critical research quite rightly poses this question: what
happened in those twenty years after the crucifixion of Jesus? How did this
Christology develop? The action of anonymous communitarian formations, whose
representatives are being sought out, in reality doesn’t explain anything. How
could unknown groups be so creative, how could they be convincing and impose
themselves? Isn’t it more logical, even from the historical point of view, to
suppose that the great impulse came at the beginning, and that the figure of
Jesus burst beyond all of the available categories, and could thus be understood
only by beginning from the mystery of God? Naturally, to believe that even as a
man He was God, and made this known by concealing it within parables while
nevertheless making it increasingly clear, goes beyond the possibilities of the
historical method. On the contrary, if one begins from this conviction of faith
and reads the texts with the historical method and with its openness to what is
greater, the texts open up to reveal a way and a figure that are worthy of
faith. What then becomes clear is the multilevel struggle present in the
writings of the New Testament over the figure of Jesus, and despite all the
differences, the profound agreement of these writings. It is clear that with
this view of the figure of Jesus I go beyond what Schnackenburg, for example,
says in representation of a good portion of contemporary exegesis. I hope,
however, that the reader understands that this book was not written against
modern exegesis, but with great recognition of all this has given and continues
to give to us. It has made us familiar with a great quantity of sources and
conceptions through which the figure of Jesus can become present to us with a
liveliness and depth that we couldn’t even imagine just a few decades ago. I
have sought only to go beyond mere historical-critical interpretation, applying
the new methodological criteria that allow us to make a properly theological
interpretation of the Bible that naturally requires faith, without thereby
wanting or being able in any way to renounce historical seriousness. Of course,
it goes without saying that this book is absolutely not a magisterial act, but
is only the expression of my personal search for the “face of the Lord” (Psalm
27:8). So everyone is free to disagree with me. I ask only that my readers begin
with that attitude of good will without which there is no understanding. As I
said at the beginning of the preface, my interior journey toward this book was a
long one. I was able to begin working on it during summer vacation in 2003. In
August of 2004, I gave definitive form to chapters 1 through 4. After my
election to the episcopal see of Rome, I used all of my free moments to carry
the project forward. Because I do not know how much more time and strength will
be granted to me, I have now decided to publish the first ten chapters as the
first part of the book, going from the baptism in the Jordan to the confession
of Peter and the Transfiguration.
Rome, the feast of Saint Jerome September 30,2006

Comet--A Sign?

Has anyone spotted this commet yet? The pictures all seem impressive. I remember trying to find Halley's comet in a very clear night sky--one might remember the Miller Lite commercial with Bob Ueker trying to spot it.."there it is, there it is" and then he bends down to get a Miller Lite and it goes swooshing over his head--well I had a similar experience minus the Miller Lite and it swooshing over my head.

Anyway in ancient times these sightings would portend something big happening on the earth and of course in the past cults have used them for horrible undertakings.

I must say, though that the pictures I've seen of this one are impressive.

Pope Appeals for Just Treatment of Migrants

Many of whom in Europe are Moslems and of course many of whom in this country are Catholics.

From Asia News Italy:

The Pontiff mentioned the international scope of migration. “According to
United Nations estimates, there are almost 200 million migrants, about 9 million
refugees and 2 million international students;” to these we must add, “a great
number of brothers and sisters who are internally displaced people or
irregular”, and especially remember that to each “corresponds, one way or
another, a family”.

For Benedict XVI we must first look at this phenomenon in religious
terms and remember the Holy Family, “icon of all families, because it reflects
the image of God that is held in the heart of each human family even when it is
weakened and sometimes scarred by life’s experiences.”

“In this misfortune experienced by the Family of Nazareth [. . .] we
can catch a glimpse of the painful condition in which all migrants live,
especially, refugees, exiles, evacuees, internally displaced persons, those who
are persecuted. We can take a quick look at the difficulties that every migrant
family lives through, the hardships and humiliations, the deprivation and
fragility of millions,” he said.

New Book--Highly Recommended

Vinnie Flynn has a beauitiful, meditative new book

on the Seven Secrets of the Eucharist. Check it out!

When Should a Liturgist be Prophetic?

My answer: Never! The 70's are over...in fact that was last century.

Press release on Bishop Trautman's address:

The Catholic Academy of Liturgy met on January 4, 2007 in Toronto, Canada, prior to the annual meeting of the North American Academy of Liturgy. The keynote speaker was Bishop Donald Trautman of Erie, Pennsylvania and chair of the Bishops’ Committee on the Liturgy of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB). In his address entitled “When Should Liturgists Be Prophetic?” Trautman raised concerns about current directions in the revision now underway of the English edition of the Roman Missal being prepared by the International Commission on English in the Liturgy (ICEL). The first edition in English of the Roman Missal was issued in 1973. Drawing on biblical scholarship, historical theology, and his many years of pastoral experience as a bishop, he contended that the new translations do not adequately meet the liturgical needs of the average Catholic and expressed fears that the significant changes in the texts no longer reflect understandable English usage. Trautman argued that the proposed changes of the people’s parts during the Mass will confuse the faithful and predicted that the new texts will contribute to a greater number of departures from the Catholic Church.

The Bishop cited various problematic texts, criticizing their awkward structure and arcane vocabulary that would be very difficult for the priest to pray aloud and for the people to follow. Just as problematic for Trautman was the recent decision to change the words of consecration that refer to Christ’s blood being shed “for all” to “for many.” That change could be easily misinterpreted as denying the faith of the Roman Catholic Church that Christ died for all people.

Bishop Trautman challenged Catholic liturgical scholars of North America to assist the bishops in promoting a liturgy that is accessible and pastorally aware. He urged them, in a spirit of respect and love for the Church, to be courageous in questioning those developments that would render the liturgy incomprehensible and betray the intention of the Second Vatican Council (1962-65).

I've spent a lot of time pouring over the new translation...it is faithful to most English translations of the Scripture--and that is what these responses that we are saying are taken from.

When we gather at Mass we gather as the Body of Christ--we die to ourselves. We do not speak our own words but by and large the Word of God taken directly from Scripture--as the Body of Christ we speak with His Word, not ours. We do not move as we'd like but our gestures in unison move as one Body--again the Body of Christ. I sure wish that Bishop Trautman had spent time encouraging liturgists to catechize people versus sowing discord among them.

By the way, if you don't want your parish to be blind sided by these changes--invite me to come to your parish and speak a very simple message about why they are being made and the nature of full and active particpation as the Body of Christ in the reformed Rite--my new book A Pocket Guide to the Mass will provide an excellent resource for those looking for the Biblical basis for the words we speak at Mass, as well as what the gestures and postures mean--look for it in March of this year.