I see from Gashwin's blog that "something major" has been released. I see from three feet long entries at Open Book that this "something major" is going to affect liturgy and practice. I'm looking forward to reading with time to digest this weekend. By then, all of the commentary will have been written, and I can look about for folks to explain the nuances.
In the meantime, for me and others who might feel they have frittered away time that they had planned to spend during Lent to improve their spiritual status, I'll share what I heard Sunday.
We had a visiting priest who gave a short homily that focused on the 1929 Rose Bowl Game. A California player -- Roy Riegels -- runs the ball 65 yards the wrong way on a recovered fumble. He was finally tackled at the one yard line -- this lead to a safety for Georgia Tech.
Halftime exchange between Riegels and head coach Nibs Price, as later reported by Riegels:
Fr. Guest Priest was pointing out to us that Lent was only half over, and that we should re-commit ourselves to what we'd said we'd do this season. The fig tree got one more chance and so have we received grace to try again."Coach, I can't do it. I've ruined you, I've ruined myself, I've ruined the University of California. I couldn't face that crowd to save my life."
"Roy, get up and go back out there — the game is only half over."
Sounded great, and I appreciated the encouragement.
Question: Does discovering that Georgia Tech went on to win the game 8-7 mess up the analogy? Is it important to know who won, or that the player came back out for the 2nd half? I think the story of courage may be better for me than one of triumph -- courage I can ask for--insisting on triumph as the only acceptable outcome may lead me to not try at all.
More to think about this Lent.
Posts
3 comments:
Question: Does discovering that Georgia Tech went on to win the game 8-7 mess up the analogy?
In fact I think it's helpful. A second chance is just that: a second chance. There's no assurance we won't freely choose something other than God the second time around, too. Of course the grace we get in our second (third, fourth, seventy times seventh) chance helps, but a second chance is not the same as automatic salvation.
Motu Proprio coming right up, I hope. :-)
That Apostolic exhortation, apparently in Latin, says "the whole liturgy, except certain parts, SHOULD BE celebrated in latin", and the english translation was made "COULD BE".
In other words, a strong encouragement, "you should be doing some things in latin", gets rendered "you could do that".
Father at "What does that prayer really say" has a post about that:
http://wdtprs.com/blog/2007/03/bad-translation-in-english-version-of-exhortation-about-latin/
Warren
That line from SC (hmm. I guess we need some other acronymn, to distinguish Sacramentum Caritatis from Sacrosanctum Consilium of the Council?) referred to large celebrations such as those that are held at international gatherings. The original isn't "ought to be" ("debit") but more on the lines of "it would be better if" or "it is becoming" ("aequum est")... which is still stronger than "could be" but not a mandate. (Check Fr. Z out! :))
Of course, I welcome this. I'd much rather have the bulk of the Mass in Latin instead of bits and pieces in a smorgasbord of languages as a sop to some kind of multiculturalism.
He also mentions that seminarians should be taught how to say Mass in Latin right from the beginning, should be taught prayers in Latin early on, and that prayers in Latin are a good thing to be learned by the faithful as well.
:-D
My reactions will be forthcoming soon. This week is busy with estate paperwork in Babu's Wonderful Land of Probate :)
Post a Comment