The Penitential Rite

In looking at the changes to the English translation of the Penitential Rite, this piece will concentrate on the Confiteor, where three significant changes can be found. Previously we began with; ‘I confess to almighty God, and to you, my brothers and sisters, that I have sinned through my own fault, in my thoughts and in my words…’ whereas now we have the edition of ‘I have greatly sinned in my thoughts and in my words...’ The addition of the adjective greatly, is at first glance, not a major change but it is worth briefly reflecting on what is being drawn out here. Many of our sins we, quite naturally, think trivial. We may think of them as ‘private’ sins because we cannot see how they could harm another, albeit whilst offending God. However, whilst we should not blow matters out of all proportion, it is worth considering that no sin is ‘private’. All sins do injury, not just to ourselves, but to the body to which we belong; the Body of Christ – the Church. When we sin we have to recognise that in some way we do injury to this Body and to its members and this is the very point of our public recitation of the Confiteor; we publically announce that we recognise the injury done and that we seek forgiveness from God and from each other. The words ‘greatly sinned’ help us to remember that no sin affects us alone.

This goes for our second addition, the threefold repetition of; 'through my fault, through my fault, through my most grievous fault'. The repetition here is not just for dramatic effect, though no one could argue that it fails to get the message home. However, by its threefold nature it reminds us of the three persons of the blessed Trinity against whom we have sinned. When we sin, we sin against the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and when we say these words we publically acknowledge that fact and that we seek the mercy and help of the Triune God whom we seek to draw closer to.

Lastly, we find that as we once proclaimed ‘and I ask Blessed Mary...’ we now say: ‘therefore I ask Blessed Mary...’ It looks a very minor change, hair-splitting some might say, but again there is real depth of meaning here. We sin and we pray to Our Lady or we sin and therefore pray to Our Lady? The latter option certainly brings out the need we have of our most powerful intercessor. We don’t sin and pray, we pray because we have sinned. We turn therefore to Our Lady and all the Saints to plead on our behalf, to heal the gulf that sin opens in our lives and we recognise the vital place which the prayers of Our Lady and the Communion of Saints have in helping us to heal that gulf. Again, we recognise that our sins are not ‘private’ but also that we are not alone on the journey toward the Kingdom of God.

Deacon's Homily, Sunday 31st week Year A

Readings: Mal 1:14b-2:2b, 8-10, Ps 131:1, 2, 3, 1 Thes 2:7b-9, 13, Mt 23:1-12

Dear friends.

In today’s Gospel we find two opposite attitudes. On the one hand Jesus points out the hypocrisy of the scribes and the Pharisees, those who lay heavy burdens on the people’s shoulders without lifting a finger themselves. On the other hand, Jesus explains us what attitude we should have: ‘The greatest among you shall be your servant’. Now, what do these two attitudes have in common? Nothing, at first glance. The former addresses what is corrupt: the search for elevation and honour, but it is built on a lie. It is a lie, because a hypocrite gives the impression of having virtues that he or she in fact neglects to fulfil. But the second attitude, about being a servant, is built on truth and humility, the one who willingly puts others first in order to help and who carries the burdens with others and for others. The two attitudes are direct opposites of each other.

It is not a coincidence that Jesus puts humility up against pride, the humble servant up against the hypocrite. What is the purpose of this? Is it a moral question? Is it Jesus demanding us to have the attitude of a servant, just as Jesus serves us? I don’t know about you, but I think I would get exhausted quite quickly if that were the only and ultimate goal. I think we would run dry quickly trying live the life of a servant for its own sake. It’s not about running after humility for humility’s own sake, nor self sacrifice for self sacrifice’s sake. These are all important values, but Jesus explains to us that they all stand in service of a very precise aim, -that is friendship. Or, as Jesus tells us in the Gospel of John: I don’t call you servants, but friends (John 15,15).

There may be sacrifices, but always for the sake of friendship: ‘Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends’ (John 15,13). For friends. The whole project of salvation has as its ultimate purpose to recreate full friendship between humanity and God, and among men.

And this is where the two attitudes that we have pointed out will converge. Both humility and hypocrisy has all to do with friendship. The biggest problem with hypocrisy is not simply the immorality of it in itself, or the lies it tries to cover. The biggest problem is that as it is built on a lie, it makes it impossible to construct real friendship. The means of open communication are blocked, and so also the friendship that God wants to offer. Humility, on the other hand, is nothing but a silent ‘yes’ to God’s friendship. It is the open-hearted, open-minded attitude towards the other. Celebrating the mysteries is to celebrate God’s infinite friendship towards us.

But didn’t Jesus tell us to serve him, and serve the world? Are we not called to be God’s servants? Well. What is the difference between friendship and serving? We may discover the difference by applying the word duty. A friend doesn’t serve out of duty. If I get a visit from a friend when I’m lying ill in bed, the reason why it feels so good is exactly because this person didn’t do it out of duty. He did it out friendship. Jesus did not go the way of the Cross out of duty. He did it out of infinite love, out of the desire of friendship with the whole human race. It is this desire that Jesus wants to share with us. When Jesus talks about who is the greatest among us, he really talks about who is the greatest friend! This is what true greatness is about. And the greater a friend, the more unselfish he or she will be. This is the Christian vocation. We are called to be friends. And that goes beyond the comfy-zone of our daily life. We are talking about an attitude, a way of meeting all people, from family members to colleagues to those living on the street. There is none who do not deserve to be met as equal human beings.

This kind of true friendship is not first and foremost about giving advice and help, showing sympathy or giving comfort. It is rather to give oneself. To be a friend means that I am myself for another person, without pulling back, without trying to hide. It is to take initiative without demanding any guaranties. For these reasons, it can be a temptation to replace friendship with friendliness. It’s nothing wrong in being friendly, but we need to be aware of the difference between this and the Christian vocation. Anyone can be friendly. I’m sure that the devil, in arguing with Jesus after his stay in the desert, was quite friendly, maybe even charming. But was he a friend? And maybe Jesus wasn’t always friendly in the sense of always wanting to charm, but he never rejected anybody who truly sought him. He never does, he remains faithful.

Friendship is not something particular to Christianity, the whole world praises true friendship. Still, as religion, Christ’s Gospel stands out as it makes friendship the heart of life, the absolute to which all else is relative. This is the heart of the Christian revolution. Christianity is the religion of friendship. Let us then, friends, be nourished by this mystery, as we receive our friend, The Son of God, in the humble form of the Eucharistic banquet.

What the Rosary means to me - 18

My first impressions of the Rosary were not overwhelmingly positive: from the outside, the recitation of a fixed number of set prayers seemed tediously repetitious, and the beads themselves seemed more suited to the florid piety of the medievals than to a 21^st century Englishman. Surely, I thought, there must be a more enlightened way of praying?

Serendipitously, it was during Blessed John Paul II’s Year of the Rosary that I began to take my faith more seriously. Reading his Apostolic letter Rosarium Virginis Mariae, I heard of the “urgent need to counter a certain crisis of the Rosary”, so that the Rosay could be rediscovered as “among the finest and most praiseworthy traditions of Christian contemplation”, which still remains “at the dawn of the third millenium, a prayer of great significance”. Realising my own reservations to be prejudice, I bought a Rosary, and decided to give it a go.

What I discovered is that the form of the Rosary is not a condescension, but a distillation of wisdom, an accretion of centuries of insights into human nature, that recognizes the difficulties we have in bringing our restless bodies and minds to meditative stillness. The recitation of the prayers, and the telling of the beads, are not the ‘main event’, but form a space in which the Spirit can draw us into the mysteries we contemplate: in the Spirit, we too become ‘eyewitnesses’ to the life, death, and resurrection of the Lord, through the eyes of His mother.

So for me, praying the Rosary is an ‘expression of communion’ not only with those throughout the world who pray it today, but with those countless generations who have gone before us. The Rosary may seem peculiar by modern standards, but that is because it is the wisdom of the carpenter, not the wisdom of the world: it represents one answer - provided by the Spirit through the Church - to the question the Lord’s disciples have put before Him from the very beginning – “teach us how to pray!” (Lk 11:1).

"And With Your Spirit"

One of the most noticeable changes to the new translation of the Roman Missal is the shift from And also with you to And with your spirit. This has been in practice the most difficult change for me personally and even now I have occasionally slipped into the former translation. People have become accustomed to this translation There does not seem to be much difference between the two translations One therefore has to ask why such a change?

And with your spirit is the literal translation of et cum spiritu tuo, which itself is a literal translation from the Greek found in much early Christian writing. St. Paul uses it in many of his letters: The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit brethren. Amen” (Gal 6:18; cf Phil 4:23; Philemon 25); “The Lord be with your spirit. Grace be with you” (2 Tim 4:22). It is not too presumptuous to assume that this reflects a liturgical greeting within the Church. By the third century however we have strong evidence from The Apostolic Tradition that the phrase And with your Spirit was used in Christian worship.

One one level the expression And also with you seems to fulfill the function of et cum spiritu tuo but I think we lose the fullness of expression. And also with you can seems quite banal, almost like a informal greeting, such as 'How do you do' or a doffing one's hat. When one uses the more literal translation And with your spirit we are not only referring to the minister as an individual but the grace and gifts of the Holy Spirit that the minister has received. As St. Paul says "The Holy Spirit has established you shepherds and bishops". Theodore of Mopsuestia in one of his baptismal homilies says :

"In saying ‘and with your spirit, they do not refer to his soul, but to the grace of the Holy Spirit by which his people believe that he is called to the priesthood”.

In using the translation And with your Spirit we come closer to seeing that the Mass is not just a series of human rubrics and actions but as John Chrysostom puts it:

"the mystic sacrifice is brought about by the grace of the Holy Spirit

and his hovering over all.”"

Deacon's Homily, Thursday 30th week Year 1

Rm 8:31-39, Ps 108:21-22,26-27,30-31, Lk 13:31-35

In today's Gospel, two animals are mentioned – a fox and a hen. Now there's another well known story which features a fox and a hen, Henny Penny, also known as Chicken Licken. In the story of Henny Penny, an acorn falls on a hen's head, and so she goes around telling the other animals 'the sky is falling in, the sky is falling in; join me on my quest to inform the king.' Eventually this band of animals comes across a fox who says to them 'I will lead you to the king.' Of course he's lying. Instead the fox leads them to his lair and eats them all. End of story. So the moral of the story is don't be like a hen. Such are the ways of the world.


Now this story is turned on its head in today's Gospel. Jesus the hen goes to the fox's den, Jerusalem fully aware of the inevitable outcome. He doesn't quite preach that the sky is falling in – it's more like the Kingdom of heaven is coming down. Nevertheless, Jesus relentlessly goes on towards Jerusalem. From a worldly point of view, what Jesus is doing is totally futile. There can only be one outcome when a fox and a hen come across each other.

In our Gospel story, mother hen wants to gather her brood under her wings, but they won't let her, and perhaps this isn't that surprising. If you're a chick in a fox's den, you'd be deluding yourself if you felt nice and snug under mother hen's wings - she's not going to provide much protection against a determined fox. The result is inevitable. But if you're a chick, what's the alternative. If the moral of Henny Penny is 'don't be like a hen,' that doesn't really help, because if we're chicks then we can't help but be like hens. We may run away from mother hen, but that won't stop the fox from thinking we're tasty. The fox will still get us.

Putting aside the analogy of Jesus the hen and we the chicks, it seems that on the human level we have two alternatives – either we die with Christ, or we die without Christ. Either way, on the natural level, there doesn't seem to be much hope. But we don't just place our trust in nature. The good news of the Gospel is that there has been a dramatic reversal of roles. Victim has become victor. On the natural level, it may look like the powers of violence and hatred triumph over gentleness and love, but on the supernatural level, it is gentleness and love which have triumphed over violence and hatred. The natural level is thus transformed. Calvary is where this victory is won.

So the moral of this fox and hen story in the Gospel is as St Paul puts it in the letter to the Romans:

neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord.

LMS Oxford Pilgriamage

The Latin Mass Society made their annual pilgrimage to Oxford on the 22nd October, to commemorate the Martyrs of the City. Mass was celebrated in the Dominican Rite. The celebrant was Fr Richard Conrad OP, the deacon Fr Thomas Crean OP, and subdeacon Br Gregory Pearson OP. The Mass was served by Dominican students.

At the end of Mass, a statue of Our Lady of Walsingham was blessed before the pilgrims processed from St. Michael's at the North Gate to the site of the town gallows. The pilgrims then returned to Blackfriars for Benediction

All the pictures are from the LMS website. More photos and information can be found on the Chairman's blog and their flickr photostream.

What the Rosary means to me-17

When I grew up, the prayer of the Rosary was compulsory to all of us at home. My brother and my sisters were members of the Legion of Mary. So, I grew up very well used to the Rosary. But it had not yet a deep meaning in my life as it was kind of a humdrum prayer. I used to feel some warmth in my heart as I would be praying the Rosary but that would fade away as soon as I would have finished praying.

Then there was the 1994 Genocide in Rwanda, when Africa experienced the 20th century's most brutal Genocide, I was only11 years old, turning 12. I saw most of it happening as I lived in Kigali, the capital city of Rwanda. I saw many lifeless bodies, I saw abandoned children, and
I experienced the bombing of my city; in a sentence: I endured hell on earth. For many people, hope was a forgotten word and the only thing that mattered was survival for at least one day. Many people stopped praying, but at home we used to pray. We hoped in better days. During the bombings and the other times we went through, prayer remained our weapon for survival. We used to pray the Rosary together as did many other Catholic families. When the Genocide stopped, many of those families never forgot the role of the Rosary in their survival. It
symbolises a companion in times of loneliness and despair.

Those who have read the book Left to Tell know the story of Immaculée Ilibagiza, the Rwandese lady who survived Genocide hiding in a tiny bathroom. In that book, “Immaculée shares her miraculous story of how she survived during the Rwanda genocide in 1994 when she and seven other women huddled silently together in the cramped bathroom of a local pastor’s
house for 91 days! In this captivating and inspiring book, Immaculée shows us how to embrace the power of prayer, forge a profound and lasting relationship with God, and discover the importance of forgiveness and the meaning of truly unconditional love and understanding—through our darkest hours.”

To me –as to Immaculée – the Rosary is prayer that would always help me to get through tough times because it brings me closer to the mother of Jesus Christ ,our Saviour. The danger with this would be that I might forget about it when I am experiencing peaceful times. But then the Rosary still has its own meaning outside my immediate experiences and as a Dominican it has an even greater meaning to me.

As one would read on the website of the Order of Preachers, ‘the Rosary was popularized by
Alan de la Roche (1428-1475), a Breton Dominican with a great reputation for sanctity. He propagated devotion to the Virgin's Psalter in northern France and in Flanders, organizing Rosary Confraternities everywhere for all people, who were avid for indulgences in a period of war, famine and schism, eager "to be preserved from sudden death and the assaults of the devil”. [And further we read that] While Dominicans wear the Rosary on their belts like the professed Carthusians, while generations of Preachers have devoted themselves to apopular apostolate, in the sense of the ecclesiology of the "People of God" long before this expression became so highly valued, we can realize what medieval men were trying to do by attributing the invention of the Rosary to St. Dominic. They wanted, in their poetic way, to express the power of
prayer in which the Founder so confidently believed, and the role of the Virgin
in salvation history.’

As a young Dominican brother, praying the Rosary does not only mean that I am grateful to Our Lady for the Role she prayed in our salvation, but I am at the same time reflecting and meditating on the stages of our Saviour’s life. The Rosary summarizes well the story of our salvation and invites to continually be part of that plan of God to bring the Good News to all God’s creatures. And as I mentioned at the beginning of this short article, it brings me closer to God and makes me feel God’s presence through the communion with God’s mother and our mother Mary.

Lost in translation?

Traduttore – traditore (the translator is a traitor) runs the Italian play on words, and its own English translation already gives us an example of what it’s talking about: the English words don’t sound as similar as the Italian, and so the wordplay doesn’t work as well. The translator faces a huge challenge in trying to convey the fullness of the original text, and inevitably something has to be compromised: perhaps the translator will feel the need to sacrifice the conciseness of the original, for example, in order to make the text more intelligible, or perhaps the importance of preserving the poetic form will be placed above the exact literal meaning of the words.

Furthermore, there is no hard and fast rule for which elements of a text should be best preserved, and where the translator ought to compromise: it depends on the genre of the text, the target audience and the purpose of the translator, to name but a few factors.

All of these issues, then, have been at play in the question of liturgical translation, too, and it’s a different judgement of the best balance of these competing elements which has resulted in the differences we find in the new translation. To take one of the most obvious examples, the Latin et cum spiritu tuo with which we respond to the priest’s Dominus vobiscum (‘The Lord be with you’) has been changed, in the English translation from ‘and also with you’ to ‘and with your spirit’.

The old translation is clearly further away from the Latin original, and we can get a sense of the translators’ attempt to make the text more immediately intelligible and sound more like something we might say in “normal English”. At the same time, we see that the translators have gone, as it were, a step beyond what the Latin says to try and convey what it’s talking about.

Now, that approach to translation is certainly justifiable in itself. However, at the same time it’s clear that ‘and also with you’ is not the only thing the Latin could mean: by going that extra step from what the original says to trying to explain what it means, the translators have been forced to exclude other possible interpretations that et cum spiritu tuo bears, such as references to the Holy Spirit we share through our baptism, or perhaps the particular charism the priest has received in the sacrament of Holy Orders.

As I understand it, the new approach to vernacular translations which the Church has adopted in the light of her experience over the last 40 years recognises the importance of preserving as far as possible this range of meanings of the original Latin. In many cases, that has resulted in something less immediately and easily intelligible because, as it were, the translators have done less work, and left us more to do ourselves: rather than settle on one possible interpretation (which would have enabled them to make the language simpler), our liturgical translators have given us an English text which is open for us to explore in the light of the Holy Spirit: as we pray the common prayer of the Church, we can find in the liturgy a means of deepening our understanding of the common faith we profess.

6015 Years Ago.....

In the 17th Century, the Anglican Archbishop of Armagh , James Ussher, published:

Annales Veteris Testamenti, a prima mundi origine deducti, una cum rerum Asiaticarum et Aegyptiacarum chronico, a temporis historici principio usque ad Maccabaicorum initia producto.(Annals of the Old Testament, deduced from the first origins of the world, the chronicle of Asiatic and Egyptian matters together produced from the beginning of historical time up to the beginnings of Maccabes)

This Verbosely titled work has become more commonly known as 'Ussher Chronology'. In it Ussher attempts to chronicle history through a fundamentalist reading of the King James Bible. In this work Ussher estimates that God began creating the world on the evening before the 23rd of October 4004BC. There had been many attempts at producing such work over the centuries. Jose ben Halafta,Bede the Venerable and even Sir Issac Newton had produced such works, however the Ussher Chronology seems to have been the most popular.

Modern scientific evidence , especially within the field of cosmology, certainly seems to suggest that the universe is much, much older that just over 6000 years. This however is not a matter of conflict for Christians. It is not a tenet of the faith to hold that God created the World in six 24-hour periods. Pius XII, in his 1950 encyclical Humani Generis, declares that Catholics are at liberty to believe that creation took a few days or a much longer period, according to how they see the evidence, and subject to any future judgment of the Church.. They need not be hostile to modern cosmology. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states:

"Many scientific studies . . . have splendidly enriched our knowledge of the age and dimensions of the cosmos, the development of life forms, and the appearance of man. These studies invite us to even greater admiration for the greatness of the Creator"

This view does not conflict with Sacred Scripture as one must accept that the Bible is a 'Book of Books' , with many different styles and genres within its pages. One can read the Genesis creation accounts literally and still hold a belief in the Big Bang and evolution. This is because Genesis is not or was never intended to be a historical account. What is important is that one realises that God is the creator of all, and that all of creation is sustained through Him and by Him.

Solemn Profession of Dominican Nuns

Our brothers in Peru have posted a video of the Solemn Professions of Sister Yolanda del Niño Jesús & Sister Victoria de nuestra Señora del Rosario from the Monastery of Saint Catherine of Sienna in Cusco.

More information about Dominican nuns throughout the world can be found here. The Dominican Nuns in Drogheda, Ireland also have a very informative blog and site

What the Rosary Means to Me-16

My earliest memory of the Rosary comes from family gatherings and holidays. My grandfather would sit all of us around the room and lead the Rosary, usually after the evening meal. It was not until much later that I realized the extraordinary way the Rosary influenced my own love for the Gospel at such a young age.

Whether I consider my aunt who was a nurse or myself, a small child not old enough for school, we all pondered some experience of the mysteries of Christ’s life. Each of us, in his or her own way, could contemplate the Nativity, Crucifixion and Resurrection. No one needed theological training or a commentary to appreciate the depth of Christ’s love as presented in the Sacred Scriptures.

“Hail Mary, full of grace…blessed are you among women.” We joined both Gabriel’s and Elizabeth’s prayers of invocation to Our Lady. And Our Lady invited us to sit with her, pondering all the things she heard and experienced while following her Son from the earth, to the cross, and to the Throne of Heaven.

This modest rural family full of very different people, all praying the Rosary as one, is a microcosm. Throughout the world, Christians of all walks of life unite under the patronage of The Queen of the Holy Rosary and contemplate the mysteries of our loving Savior. If we do so with faith in what these mysteries proclaim, we too will witness the love, humility and virtue of Our Blessed Mother to all the world.

Solemn Evensong & Benediction on the Feast of St. Frideswide

Blackfriars was once again honoured to host the Personal Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham on the feast of St. Frideswide, the patron Saint of Oxford. Solemn Evensong was led by Monsignor Andrew Burnham and Dom Aidan Bellenger, Abbot of Downside, preached on the example of St. Frideswide on the Church in Oxford and England.

Please keep the Ordinariate in your prayers and also please remember the endeavour to establish a similar structure across the Atlantic

Saints the Month-18 October: St. Luke The Evangelist

When we think of St. Luke, the first associations that come to our mind are his Gospel and the Acts of the Apostles. It is a shame that in the West we rarely think of him as an artist. One of the earliest traditions that developed around St. Luke was that he was the first icon painter. This tradition is still very much alive in the churches of the East and India but alas is rather secondary in the West. This was not always the case; throughout medieval cities artists formed Guilds of St. Luke and we also see many art academies dedicated to him.

Tradition has always held that the subject of the first icon was Our Lady with the Christ-Child. It is thought that he painted Mary whilst she lived on Patmos with St. John. There are nearly fifty images (and one sculpture) accredited to St. Luke. Most famously The Black Madonna of Częstochowa or Our Lady of Vladimir (The others can all be found here). Of course it seems unlikely that all are the work of St. Luke and many have suffered under primitive 'restoration' techniques.

St. Luke's example gives us an important message as Christians. Through his writings and art he shows not only that the preaching of the Gospel is not contained to one set form, but that the Faith is transmitted through both Sacred Scripture and Tradition.

What the Rosary means to me – 15

As a Christian, I think the Rosary has universal value. I like how it is simple enough for anyone to pray; and so also a good medicine to any who, out of spiritual pride, might consider it too simple for them. It should draw me into the simple love between Mary and Jesus and teach me their humility. There isn’t a technique to saying the Rosary: if I’m looking for one, or make an effort to pray it ‘better’, I’m probably still thinking too much about myself, not enough about God. The Rosary is also Biblical: it gets me to pray in the very words of Jesus, the angel Gabriel and Elizabeth; and it inspires me to meditate on the ‘mysteries’ of the Gospel. Its themes are the universal stories of Jesus’ life, death and resurrection: how could I enter these mysteries and not accordingly feel joyful, sorrowful and full of wonder?

As a Dominican, the Rosary has long had a special place in our tradition: we popularised it around the world, and in its current form it is known as ‘the Rosary of St Dominic’. The Rosary is also part of our habit – so it is something I wear in public – and with its Cross and beads can be a good, symbolic witness to faith in Jesus and the importance of prayer.

More personally, the Rosary meditations on Christ’s life are an opportunity for me to offer prayers for my friends, family and anyone else. While every aspect of Christ is relevant to everyone, I find the Mysteries are sometimes particularly appropriate: the Wedding at Cana for those recently married or preparing for marriage, the Carrying of the Cross for those struggling under the weight of their problems, or the Institution of the Eucharist for priests. So for the brethren (including myself), I like to pray while meditating on the Third Luminous Mystery: The Proclamation of the Kingdom of God and the Call to Repentance!

Saints the Month-13 October: St. Edward the Confessor

Above the main entrance to Westminster Cathedral, the mother-church of English and Welsh Catholics, is a wonderful mosaic of Christ Enthroned. He is surrounded by Our Lady, St. Joseph, St. Peter and on the far-right St. Edward the Confessor, King of England. St. Edward is the only King of England to be canonised and was the patron saint of the realm until about 1350, when Edward III proclaimed the more military figure of St. George as the "patron on the English race." Nevertheless, St. Edward's inclusion in the mosaic is rather apt. He represents the temporal order of England.

St. Edward is the patron Saint of difficult marriages. His own marriage produced no children and was tied up in dynastic disputes. However his other 'marriage' between his crown and subjects was also turbulent. He was born under the shadow of constant Viking invasion and when Cnut seized the English throne, the thirteen year old Edward went into exile for nearly a quarter of a century. After Cnut died in 1035, there were numerous attempts to put Edward on the throne of England. Finally in 1047 he returned to his homeland and was crowned King in Winchester.

Edward's reign was a constant struggle to maintain order. The English Earls were a constant threat to his crown and the peace of the realm; The Welsh Princes and Scottish Kings were often a treat in the border regions; and many of the Church leaders were under the control of his enemies and he had not produced an heir. His succession famously was also a messy affair leading to "1066 and all that".

Many historians have argued that his subsequent canonisation was a political act by his Norman successors but there is much evidence that after his death a cult very quickly established itself around the saintly King. Despite his love of hunting and well known fits of rage, he was regarded as a good King and more importantly as a holy man who tried to carry out his royal duties according to the Gospel.

Christians do not live in a bubble. Most of us live in the world and can not escape the chaos and activity around us. Nevertheless we must use Christ as our guide whether we are dealing with tax returns, office politics or troublesome Welsh princes. This is never always easy and we can fall in to the trap of indulging in realpolitik. The fact is the Gospel is not only realistic but the only way.

Why a New Translation?

Over the next few weeks the Godzdogz team will be giving a series of reflections on the new Mass translation.

Anyone who has studied a foreign language will understand that translation is a tricky business. What can be expressed with great elegance in one language may sound very awkward in another if one tries too hard to capture the exact meaning. An alternative strategy is to use a principle called dynamic equivalence. Dynamic equivalence gives translators the freedom to effectively paraphrase the original text so that whilst the translation may not be very precise, the result is much more natural and easier to understand. The principle of dynamic equivalence was used for the first translations of the Mass that came out after Vatican II. Over the years, many people have grown to love these translations and there is a recognition of the positive results they've had in bringing about the liturgical renewal urged for by the Council. But that's not to say things can't be improved.


The English translation has suffered from a number of defects. Of course this doesn't mean that the Mass was in any way invalid, but still, the use of dynamic equivalence has ended up obscuring the original meaning rather than making it more accessible. Expressions of our need for God's grace, expressions of humility before God, the mystery of the Mass, the relationship between the Mass and Sacred Scripture – many people have complained that these expressions were lost in translation.

In 2001 an official instruction, Liturgiam Authenticam was issued which marked a departure from the principle of dynamic equivalence in the translation of liturgical books. The new guidance was that translations should be characterized by a kind of language which is easily understandable, yet which at the same time preserves the original texts' dignity, beauty, and doctrinal precision. Of course balancing all these demands is very challenging and the instruction recognized this and said 'in translating biblical passages where seemingly inelegant words or expressions are used, a hasty tendency to sanitize this characteristic is to be avoided.' Translators were also urged to 'allow the signs and images of the texts, as well as the ritual actions, to speak for themselves; they should not attempt to render too explicit that which is implicit in the original texts.'

The new translation may take a long time to get used to, and perhaps some people will never get used to it, but whatever feelings we have, we can still pray that the new Mass translation will have a positive effect in renewing the life of the Church.

Academic Mass 2011

The academic year at Blackfriars began with a votive Mass of the Holy Spirit and Vespers. It is very apt to begin the year by asking the Holy Spirit, to fill us with wisdom and understanding, to enlighten our minds and to aid our studies in the year to come. It is also a good opportunity for the new students to meet each other and the friars. In his homily, the Regent of Studies, Fr. Richard Finn encouraged the congregation to allow the Holy Spirit to enflame their hearts and minds with a love of study and love of each other.

After the Mass the community and students of the hall and studium enjoyed an opportunity to socialise over curry and a glass of wine

.

Godzdogz Team 2011-2012

Front Row L to R: Robert Verrill, Gustave Noël Ineza (Vicariate of Rwanda and Burundi), Fr. David Sanders (Student Master), Augustine J. DeArmond, (Province of St. Martin de Porres), Andrew Brookes, Gregory Pearson

Back Row: Mark Davoren, Matthew Jarvis, Haavar Simon Nilsen (Vicariate of Dacia), Nicholas Crowe, Oliver Keenan, Graham Hunt

Is There a Doctor in the House?

This week in Oxford many of the buses have carried an side-advertisement stating: " There's Probably No Dawkins. Now Stop Worrying and Enjoy Oct 25th at the Sheldonian Theatre." The advert is for the Reasonable Faith Tour with William Lane Craig. Richard Dawkins has refused to debate with Professor William Lane Craig, the American analytic philosopher and philosophical theologian at the event. Dr. Dawkins has branded Professor Craig a 'ponderous buffoon' who uses logic to 'bamboozle his faith-head audience', but has failed to respond to any of Professor Craig’s academic arguments. The Oxford philosopher Dr. Daniel Came, an atheist himself, has written to Dr Dawkins stating that 'the absence of a debate with the foremost apologist for Christian theism is a glaring omission on your CV and is of course apt to be interpreted as cowardice on your part'.

Whilst I profoundly disagree with Dr. Dawkins' views on religion, it is real shame the leading (or least loudest) secularist atheist should act in such a way.

An ecumenical H/T to Cranmer,The British blogger and examiner or religio-political agendas with politico-religious objectives

Why Only Twitter Deep?

Deacon's Homily, Thursday 27th week Year 1

Yesterday, we heard how the disciples asked Jesus to teach them how to pray. Jesus answers by teaching them the prayer that will become the most frequently used of all Christian prayers, the Our Father. Jesus teaches them how to pray, but he doesn't stop there. He knows just all too well that if his disciples pose the question of how, it will sooner or later be followed by the question of why. It is this why that today's reading is concerned with.

Jesus assures us that God the Father will be there for us as a father is there for his child. He is even mocking the disciples gently, giving them absurd examples to show how the Father would never act: If his son asks for a fish, will he then instead of a fish give him a serpent? No, the Father is there, listening and acting, providing us with what we need.

But even if Jesus asserts that the Father always listens to anyone who prays to him, some of us may have experienced moments of doubt. There might have been times when we have begged God for help, without getting an answer. At least not the answer we hoped for. And we feel from within ourselves this troubling question: Why?

This why may contain resignation and despair, a why without any visible chance of solution. But this is also a question that God wants to hear from us. Children pose this question all the time. Why is it like this or that? And we answer: Because so and so. Yes, but WHY? And in the end, it might be the child who makes us wonder why.

This fundamental question is rooted in the core of our very existence. God created us in his image, we are made for relationship, we are made for divine interaction! We are called to turn to our Creator in a constant dialogue, or to say it with John Henry Newman as he quotes St Augustine: Cor ad Cor Loquitor - heart speaks to heart. To enable this open-hearted relationship, God gives us the Holy Spirit. This is the ultimate gift that our Father wants to offer us. This is the gift that can lead us to an answer for all our why's.

In a moment, we will pray the prayer that Jesus taught us. Let us then silently open our hearts to the mystery we celebrate, as we ask our father: Thy will be done.

Biblical Beasts: Whale

Is there any mention of whales in the Bible? Your first reaction might well be, “Of course there is: there’s the story of Jonah being swallowed by a whale.” Even if you were trying to be more thorough, you might still think this was a fairly straightforward question to answer in the age of fully searchable texts of Scripture in programs like BibleWorks. However, we soon find that this seemingly simple question is actually rather more complicated. In many English versions of the Bible, it turns out, there is no mention of whales at all! Other translations, on the other hand, do have some references to whales, but none in the book of Jonah! So what’s going on?

Basically, it’s a question of translation: in the case of Jonah specifically, many English translations use the word ‘whale’ when Jesus talks about the sign of Jonah in St Matthew’s Gospel (Mt 12: 40), because the Greek word used there sometimes means whale. It also, however, refers to any large fish or sea-monster, and thus was used by the Greek translators of the Old Testament to refer to the ‘great fish’ of which the Hebrew speaks in the book of Jonah (2: 1). This highlights the care that must be taken in the interpretation of the Bible, because if we only knew the English version, we might think Jesus mistakenly thought a whale was a large fish, whereas in fact, if it’s anyone’s mistake, it’s the translators’.

Indeed, the difficulty of identifying the meaning of words referring to the fauna of the Bible has been a recurring theme in our series on Biblical Beasts. It reminds us that the Scriptures are written in the words of human beings, and present us with all the ordinary challenges that language presents: that is why a ‘scientific’ study of Scripture is useful and important. However, we must never allow such study to distract us from the fact that Scripture is the Word of God, and points beyond the human realities its words usually describe to the divine realities that it reveals: in the end, the importance of the sign of Jonah is not to be found in the question of whether it was a whale or some other sea creature, but in the death and resurrection of Christ, of which Jonah’s re-emergence from the creature is a type.

Fruits of Study 8: The Notion of Love

Our faith is based on love, and love is the foundation of our whole life. Of course we know what it is, but trying to describe it is not always that easy. Can we at all give a definition of such an all-embracing, profound notion?

One who did exactly that was Eric Fromm. Born in in 1900, he witnessed two world wars with all its horror and life threatening violence. He came from a Jewish family with strong academic traditions, and he did his formation as psychoanalyst in Germany before moving to the United States in 1934. His religious background and insight in the Talmud strongly influenced his elaboration of the understanding of humanity. In a time where hate and contempt for the dignity and worth of the human being had marked the world society, Fromm sought an answer to the question of the fundamental needs of humanity. He was opposed to the Freudian understanding of the human being, claiming that it is not sexuality, that first and foremost constitutes the drive in humanity, but the deep need of belonging. Fromm developed a humanistic philosophy based on the Biblical story of Adam and Eve becoming strangers in front of God, each other and even themselves. From the moment of the fall, life becomes a struggle to reunite with the world.

Fromm explains how the human being may unite with the world in many different ways; many of them false, others resulting in a limited freedom and peace. (Examples of unsatisfying ways of uniting with the world, says Fromm, can be found in narcissism, submission or domination. The most common way of our time though, is what can be called a herd conformity which in its ground is rooted in a rather primitive feeling of clan identity.) The only way that can fully answer this the deep desire of belonging is love. And we are not talking about being loved, but developing the capacity of loving. Fromm confronted the same difficulty as we started with: What is love? Fromm introduced four notions to describe the quality of loving, each of them describing a certain attitude: care, responsibility, respect and knowledge. These qualities lead man out of himself and draw his attention to the other. Through care he is concerned with growth and happiness of the other person. He takes responsibility by responding to the others articulated or non-articulated needs. He respects the other person and sees him objectively (and not the way he wishes to see him), and he search to know the other sufficiently to see the world from the perspective of the other. This is the fundamental attitude that every human being can take part in, and it should be underlined that this not only to applies to certain people, like the ones we prefer, but to all of humanity. Fromm writes: 'if I can say "I love you", I say, "I love in you all of humanity, all that is alive; I love also myself". Self-love, in this sense, is the opposite of selfishness'. This kind of all-embracing love is in its nature a brotherly love; an equal, respectful and caring attitude, always leaving the other person free.

Egypt: St. Menas designated by Christ as his trusted friend and adviser. 6th century

This is a way of describing love that we as Christians are invited to meditate upon. It corresponds to the Christian notion of love which is at the same time universal and personal. Fromm's description helps us to see clearer how love should be realized, yes, it can even be used to prepare ourselves for confession. After all, we often fail in meeting with those around us, in one or several of the notions that Fromm mentions.

If you would like to know more of Eric Fromm, I recommend his bestselling book, The Art of Loving, which through a simple language describes the depths of our inner selves.

Biblical Beasts: Vulture

Those parts of the Old Testament canon originally written in Hebrew have a number of words for birds but a significant one among them is ‘nesher’. This bird is described as having magnificent wings and soaring high, of nesting in high rocky outcrops, of having keen eyesight and descending swiftly on its food source. Well, it could be an eagle (see the blog from 20 July) but it could equally be a vulture. In particular it could very well be the Griffon Vulture, also called the Great Vulture, its modern scientific Latin name being Gyps fulvus. It was common in Palestine and indeed is still found all around the Mediterranean. This bird does not correspond to the stereotype we now tend to have of vultures as scruffy, quarrelsome and unintelligent. The Griffon Vulture is a very large bird, being little short of five feet in total length, and the wingspan measuring about eight feet. The adult bird is a yellowish brown colour, augmented by the black quill feathers and the ruff of white down that surrounds the neck. (All photos here are of the Griffon Vulture.)

There are several species of eagle found in Palestine so why argue the case for nesher meaning or including the vulture? Well, because the (Griffon) vulture fulfills all the qualities already ascribed to nesher. And there are further attributes of nesher that eagles do NOT meet that the Griffon vulture (and other vultures) do. Micah 1:16 describes nesher as having a bald head: eagles are feathered on the head but vultures, including the Griffon, are not. It has light down. Nesher is described as feeding on the dead, i.e. carrion (Prov 30:17; Job 39:27-30): again only vultures, and not eagles, do this. Nesher is described as being long-lived, prompting the suggestion that it renews its youth (Ps 103:5): eagles can be long lived but the Griffon exceeds them all – living in the wild typically for at least 40-50 years and in excess of 100 in captivity. The Griffon is known to be intelligent, to care for its young, assisting them in early flight, thus ‘bearing them on their wings’ (cf Ex 19:4; Rev 12:14).

Although vultures are not highly esteemed nowadays (in the west) they had high prestige in the ancient world. It was a symbol of a deity among both the Egyptians and Assyrians, often linked to war. This is partly because they seemed to follow armies and to descend with lightning speed in battles. Indeed, the speed with which they found the dead and their capacity for being present when battles occurred gained them a reputation for foresight, and even a share in divine foresight and insight – and more widely divine knowledge. (All this means that the vulture could lie behind the bird in Ezek 1:10 and, though in a Greek text, in the Book of Revelation 4:7.)

It is all of this that Jesus seems to refer to and draw on when he cites the saying ‘Wherever the corpse is, there the vultures will gather (Matt 18:24). The context is the sudden but very public coming of God at the end of time and in judgment. Vultures, previously tiny specks high in the sky, swoop down suddenly and with devastating effect - and seemingly with divine knowledge. They gather in very obvious numbers. Eagles do not gather like this, but vultures do, and among the vultures, the Griffons then feed in a social manner, not disturbing each other. Jesus clearly had the vulture, not the eagle in mind. This is almost certainly true of the similar phrase in Lk 17:37: there is a gathering of birds though Luke uses ‘soma’ which can mean a living or dead body. The context suggests the same kind of meaning as above: the disciples can be sure that God will come, and with speed and power and thus they should be vigilant and indeed stay awake and spiritually alive. A vulture also fits better in the context of Rev 8:13 than an eagle, ‘seeing’ destruction and presumably also death.

If nesher represent one species of bird (as we understand species) then the Griffon vulture is the only candidate. It is also the vulture that Jesus has in mind. Why then is the eagle and not the (griffon) vulture seen as the great religious bird and symbol of divinity in the Christian tradition? The problems begin with the Septuagint translation of the Hebrew texts into Greek from around 200 BC and later. They sometimes use aetos for nesher. Sometimes they use ‘gups’ but they also use this for other Hebrew bird words, and of seemingly smaller birds. They were attempting some sort of biological classification different to what was in the Hebrew words before them and I wonder how well they knew the Palestinian fauna. The ancient Greeks in general did not always distinguish vultures and eagles, but many translators since then have considered that aetos ought in general to be translated as eagle. (Some note that it means vulture if the reference is to a bird feeding on carrion – but ornithological expertise is often lacking.) Only aetos is used in the New Testament. In Roman and Latin culture the eagle, not the vulture, was considered the bird of prowess and a military symbol of power and this view has spread to modern cultures. In translations, eagle has thus dominated over vulture (often to its complete exclusion), sometimes creating exegetical problems. All seem to have lost sight of the magnificent Griffon Vulture. Perhaps the Hebrews intended to include eagles in some of their references to nesher. But the Griffon Vulture, which they clearly knew about, has to all intents and purposes been ‘lost in translation’. To make matters worse, it is now an endangered species in Israel.

Friars' Passions; Cricket?

I had for some time by various cunning ruses and strategems managed to avoid contributing to Godzdogz's 'friars' passions' series. Indeed, i was just begining to relax my vigilance thinking myself safe after two years on the Godzdogz team when, alas, the long arm of the law finally caught up with me in the form of Br. Mark.

The problem is I don't really have a 'passion' anymore. Before I joined the Order I would have perhaps claimed to be passionate about cricket, but it would probably be more truthful to say that I was passionate about winning cricket matches, which is not quite the same thing. As teenagers my team was often told by one of our coaches: 'I want you to enjoy the game, but I'd rather you enjoyed winning.' This became something of a motto for me. I spent hours plotting the downfall of opponents, both on my own and with teammates. We used to disect and analyze matches, training sessions, our techniques, our tactics. We always maintained a brutal honesty, searching for incremental improvements that would cumulatively build to significant leaps in quality. On match day itself we would fight tooth and nail to win.

The fact that cricket (partly because the game takes so long) is so multifaceted meant that in this process of analyzing and struggling I learnt an awful lot about myself, about team dynamics, about leadership, about dealing with pressure, about achieving goals. All of these skills have been enormously beneficial to my academic and personal development from adolescence upwards, and I have been surprised by just how much 'cricket wisdom' is transferable to religious life. But in the end this hyper-competitive outlook destroyed the game for me. As I became older cricket became more and more a chore, something I felt compelled to do rather than something I wanted to do and it was with some relief that I stopped playing after University. Sometimes I think about starting again now that I am older and possibly more mature, but I haven't done anything about it yet.

Now I spend my free time in a number of different ways, all of which i enjoy, but none of which consume me in the way that cricket used to. They are not passions. Indeed, my favourite way to while away an evening is with a good pint with good friends in a proper pub. Maybe next time I'll write a post about that...