Mass in Latin again

[InLove]

So I think all this talk of the Latin Mass by the media is hokum and typical trouble-making. It will not replace the vernacular mass, but will be offered alongside it, if the parish so chooses, and they are under no obligation to choose, so I fail to see how a widening of choice will cause more conflict.

Not everything I've read regarding this issue makes sense to me, but this does. And Thomas, I can't help thinking that it would be really cool if the people who came to hear the Latin each heard the message in his or her own language. Now THAT would be something, wouldn't it? (Sorry, couldn't resist--probably should've resisted, but couldn't. )

InPeace,
InLove

 

[Thomas]

Hi Saltmeister —

Luke 5:32
"I came not to call the just, but sinners to penance."

There's a huge amount in what you have said, and really the argument could go either way. Personally, speaking as I do as 'the voice of Catholicism' around here (one of them, at least) I would say there is stuff 'wanting' as regards the letter, but the spirit, at first sight, seems to be in the right place, and pointing the right way.

Vindication is a precarious word in this context however, as it can imply that the sinner was right in doing what he or she did, and I don't think Jesus said that, or agreed with it. His opponents were constantly trying to trip Him up, to make Him break the law, which He did not, but rather illuminated it — but He spoke of Himself as its fulfillment, not as a replacement.

I think more than vindication, is forgiveness.

Jesus forgives, which is what society does not do. Now in some aspects society is right, one is not obliged to suffer the persistent and habitual criminal because he truly says sorry, then goes on to repeat the same crime again.

But society is very quick to condemn, when it is not blameless in the affair, as Jesus made evident at the trial of the woman taken in adultery — 'let he who is without sin cast the first stone' and if there was one without sin, then the woman would have been stoned.

So I agree with the sociological aspect, but from my perspective that is 'true' because it derives its reality ontologically from the forgiveness of God — if God does not forgive, then the law of an eye for an eye still stands. Revenge is vindicated, vendetta is justified.

And if philosophy — which is the pursuit of wisdom — is abandoned so easily as it is today, then we live in a culture tailored to the whims of the foolish virgin, and pretty soon we will vindicate ourselves on the basis of the idea that God loves us whoever we are, so who we are (and consequently what we do) doesn't matter ...

... that is a very dangerous road, and one already well-founded and well-trod in modern culture.

Personally, I agree in that we have to distinguish between 'eyes wide shut' attitude of some of the 'born again' types (as a person once said to me, "we're all shits, but God doesn't mind!" to which I responded, "no we are not, and yes He bloody does," one the one hand, and on the other the assumption that being a Christian means one is automatically saved — nor that it allows one to set the agenda for one's own salvation, and the informed certainty of faith — and this is where Lunamoth invariably speaks from, even if, and dare I speak for her here — she sometimes undervalues herself with 'I know this sounds simple'.

I warm to a Celtic Christian's idea of Christianity — it's a challenge.

I think Our Lord's use of Gehenna – a place His audience would know — as an anaology for whatever-you-want-to-call-it is worthy of a lot more philosophical investigation and speculation than, to my knowledge, it has received. I think in these post-modern, spirtual-materialist times, it says more than either the Hebraic or the Hellenic images.

That would be a thesis worthy of a PhD, "Yes, I Believe in Hell"

Thomas

 

[Muslimwoman]

In that knowledge we realize all the hurt, pain and suffering our choices and actions caused in this world, whether that pain was caused by our climb up the corporate ladder or because we murdered someone. Everyone causes such pain and suffering, even the best of us, it's part of human life although some cause more than others.

Wow Lunamoth, what an amazing description, thank you. Makes you kind of worry about it huh?! Can you even begin to imagine that amount of emotion in our hearts at one time, that is the stuff of nightmares.

Yes, one could say that. I think we might be a tad more dogmatic, as your statement could be used to argue that we might not sin ...

Oh no, I wasn't suggesting that for a moment, we are human therefore we sin. I just believe that a young baby is without sin, only the potential to sin until they are old enough to make choices, as it is surely our choices that create sin?

We as humans do not know what the end is, for ourselves, for our neighbours, for the Kosmos ... so when we are good, we act 'in the best interest of' — as any reasonable humanist would do.

You get not argument from me here.

The assumption that the devout Moslem is subject to God is wrong, the devout Moslem has chosen God as his object — God stands at the centre of the Moslem Kosmos, and irradiates every atom of it — but man is still subject to apetites and passions, the gravity of the flesh — but God willing, Insha'Allah, he can be redeemed.

Excellent anaylsis of the Muslim relationship with Allah. We are submissive to Him by choice. I have heard Muslims say that all Muslims will be accepted into heaven simply by virtue of being Muslim - it takes me a while to stop laughing.

So Baptism is a Sacrament that actually infuses the Holy Spirit in the soul (a gift of Divine Love) and thus opens up a potentiality for the person ... whether that potentiality is realised or not, is up to us ... baptism is not, as many assume, a guarantee, nor is it an insurance policy.

On CR I am constantly astonished at how ignorant we really are of others beliefs. I keep seeing threads where people of different faiths tell each other what the other believes, rather than asking them what it really is that they believe.

Thank you for your explanations Thomas. May I ask your intentions in your studies? Do you wish to become a theologian, a priest or just for your knowledge? If you ever write a book on comparative religion I shall be requesting a signed copy.

Salaam
Sally

 

[Muslimwoman]

Before I start rambling, may I explain where I am coming from in this discussion. As you probably know I grew up in the British Army and then joined the army myself. My whole life was surrounded with the troubles in Northern Ireland and the terrorist activity outside their own shores, which I have been very personally a victim of. I am however a hypocrite, I try to ask people to see past the crazy political terrorist actions of some Muslims and see the 'real Islam', to open their minds to the fact that many notions they hold about Islam are misconceptions. Yet, I have been completely mentally closed to Catholicism and clung fast to my misconceptions of their faith. It is time I 'practice what I preach' and open my mind to try to find the truth of their beliefs, not allow past violence to make me fear a faith. So this discussion is very difficult for me, particularly in that it has shown how many misconceptions I hold about the Catholic faith. So I am taking baby steps, please bear with me as it is much more about simply learning but about healing deeper scars.

Do we really know for sure if God accepts us? My views on this have evolved over the last few years, but in the last few weeks I'm starting to see things in a completely different way. My response to the question now would be to say that some of us can be sure, while some of us cannot, regardless of whether or not we're "Christian" in the conventional sense.

Please explain Saltmeister, how can anyone be sure? Surely Prophets and Saints have sinned, so could even they have been sure?

Matthew, Zaccheus and Mary Magdalene .......... Society had alienated them. Society could not forgive what they had done.

What had they done? I thought there was doubt now as to whether Mary Magdelene was the same Mary referred to as a prostitute?

Redemption isn't invalid, but vindication, I believe is important. No redemption was necessary as the painful treatment they received far outweighed any injustices they would have committed. It was just a relief for those people that there was a God who didn't care what other humans thought.

It sounds as though you are saying if people are outcast from society then their sins don't count? I agree there is no tick list applicable to everyone, I believe G-d has more Wisdom than that but surely He will judge us all according to what He knows of us and how we lived our lives? That is not to say that I could even suggest how any person should lead their lives, I can only try to do the best I can and hope it is enough.

 

[Thomas]

May I ask your intentions in your studies? Do you wish to become a theologian, a priest or just for your knowledge? If you ever write a book on comparative religion I shall be requesting a signed copy.

In the 12th century St Anselm defined theology as 'faith seeking understanding', and that is why I began this course, but at my age there was no thought of a new career, or new direction.

The Course Director is a published theologian, and when I said, "I'm looking forward to reading your book," his reply was, "and I'm looking forward to reading yours." I like to think Fr. John is more astute than most people give him credit for.

Comparative religion is always difficult, because really you need two lifetimes to really get to grips. Before I began the course, I had a pretty good idea at where I might head off as a writer ... now I'm not so sure, but I'm not even half way through yet, so I'm in no rush.

But when I do, I'll let you know.

A priest? My mother's prayer! My wife thinks I'd prefer a monastic cell, a hermit's cave, a hole in the ground ... anywhere as long as my books stay dry and I will be left in peace ...

Pax tecum

Thomas
(ps — I never knew you were of army stock!)

 

[Muslimwoman]

Hi Thomas

I had no idea you were a writer or tempted in that direction, must just be something about the way your posts come across.
I accept it would take 2 lifetimes, or more, to really understand comparative religion but then again if no-one tries we would have no books on the subject. I really enjoy Karen Armstrong, she writes in a very 'humble' way, with no suggestion that she is an expert or attempts to 'show off' her intellect.

Yes I was an army brat (with the emphasis on brat ). So bear with me if I have some very odd ideas about your faith, they are deeply ingrained.

Just remember if you go for the cave option, to ensure you have decent plumbing, wives can cope with most things but bad plumbing isn't one of them.

Salaam
Sally

 

[Saltmeister]

Vindication is a precarious word in this context however, as it can imply that the sinner was right in doing what he or she did, and I don't think Jesus said that, or agreed with it..........

Jesus forgives, which is what society does not do. Now in some aspects society is right, one is not obliged to suffer the persistent and habitual criminal because he truly says sorry, then goes on to repeat the same crime again.

Revenge is vindicated, vendetta is justified.

Pretty soon we will vindicate ourselves on the basis of the idea that God loves us whoever we are, so who we are (and consequently what we do) doesn't matter ...

... that is a very dangerous road, and one already well-founded and well-trod in modern culture.

Personally, I agree in that we have to distinguish between 'eyes wide shut' attitude of some of the 'born again' types (as a person once said to me, "we're all shits, but God doesn't mind!" to which I responded, "no we are not, and yes He bloody does," one the one hand, and on the other the assumption that being a Christian means one is automatically saved

Hi Thomas,

What I was alluding to was the fact that contemporary and even classical and conventional Christianity have made the notion of God accepting individual human beings a "black and white matter." "Forgiveness" is of course, "black and white"; God either forgives, or he does not. However, how does God go about deciding who to accept/forgive and who to reject? Contemporary, classical and conventional Christianity make it look so straightforward with the so-called philosophy of "redemption."

I disagree with the idea that the whole point of Christianity is just "redemption" as well as the idea that there should be any philosophy involved at all. Matthew, Zaccheus and Mary were never redeemed. They were misunderstood people who needed vindication. They were vindicated by Jesus and God. Under Christianity's contemporary philosophy, they would have been twice humiliated, twice condemned and twice vilified. They had already suffered a lot through alienation by society and I would think they had had enough pain. Whatever wrong they had committed had already been punished and they didn't need "redemption." To subject them to a philosophy that insisted on redemption was to punish them twice. But Jesus didn't do that.

The idea of redemption is meant to fit into a neat system of thought that missionaries use today to target 20th/21st century society. But it simply disregards the situation of people like Matthew, Zaccheus and Mary 2,000 years ago.

Another thing I don't like about the popular "philosophy of redemption" is that it puts people into two categories: you are either redeemed or not. You are accepted because you accept the philosophy. It has nothing to do with how you have been treated and how much pain you have suffered in life.

Rather than God separating us into two groups, I think it would be better to grade/rank us according to our needs. In life we're not all equal. We all have our highs and lows (and to varying degrees). We have misunderstandings, and are therefore, possibly, all victims of society to a different extent. When we feel guilty, that is when we seek the so-called "redemption." When we feel persecuted and oppressed, we seek vindication or liberation. Ah -- see that was another word I forgot -- liberation.

We all need redemption, vindication, liberation, love, comfort and acceptance to different varying degrees and to simply say that we belong to two categories -- redeemed and unredeemed, is a black and white view that disregards personal and individual differences. Those having the greatest needs would receive first precedence, those having the fewest needs would receive the least from God.

That is the assumption that I would make here.

We assume that God would treat people according to their deeds, not according to the way they are treated by society, and from our point of view, the most needy are often the most unworthy. But actually the least needy obviously don't need the same kind of love from God as the ones most dependent on it. From a moral and legal perspective, God may appear to be unethical, but from a "natural justice" point of view He is actually doing what's best. Rather than God treating you according to what you have done, God treats you according to what others have done to you.

As Christians we think we're so good with our philosophy of redemption -- "to repent and ask for forgiveness." But Jesus didn't come to give support to followers and adherents of philosophy, which is what most of us are. He came to give support to those who had, above everything else, a personal need for a benevolent God, especially with the way they had been treated by society. But once again, I believe we are all victims to different degrees, and God will choose a fate/destiny based on that degree -- giving first precedence to the most oppressed/persecuted/victimised.

......and you never never know -- the deranged serial killer may actually be one of the most favoured by God simply because they are so deranged and depraved. The rest of us have it easy. We've got our dignity and self-respect. We're doing much better. We assume by default that the punishment should match the crime. We assume also, that the crime is the most important thing, more important than the person.

 

[Saltmeister]

Please explain Saltmeister, how can anyone be sure? Surely Prophets and Saints have sinned, so could even they have been sure?

This is perhaps what comes up in the dark chapters of the history of Christianity. Christianity is about giving a certain group of people an assurance that God accepts them. The mistake is to think it's a group of people adopting a particular philosophy: ie. philosophy of redemption. As Christians we assume this "assurance" and "certainty" belongs to us because we think that by aligning ourselves to that philosophy we become one of God's "most favoured." But the truth may be that the Gospel was always meant for the least fortunate ones in society -- that the assurance and certainty was offered to those people. The rest of us have a diminished amount of certainty with regards to our relationship with God since we are much more fortunate than those people.

This may sound cynical, but there's this prevailing urge to put Christianity above other religions to make ourselves feel better for the choice that we have made. That is what drives the sentiment that in Christianity "you have more certainty than the Muslim because they aren't sure about their destiny." But if the purpose of Christianity was God voicing His support to the "least fortunate ones" as "His most favoured" then it really has nothing to do with Christianity or its philosophy(ies). It has to do with a person's natural yearning for God, driven by his own pain and suffering. Perhaps this is the "real Christianity."

That puts me in the middle, rather than being one of the first, into the kingdom of God.

What had they done? I thought there was doubt now as to whether Mary Magdelene was the same Mary referred to as a prostitute?

Never mind if I got it wrong. The important thing is whether you knew what I was hinting at.

It sounds as though you are saying if people are outcast from society then their sins don't count? I agree there is no tick list applicable to everyone, I believe G-d has more Wisdom than that but surely He will judge us all according to what He knows of us and how we lived our lives? That is not to say that I could even suggest how any person should lead their lives, I can only try to do the best I can and hope it is enough.

Their "sins" do count, but not as much. The conventional Christian (and from my impression, perhaps even the Muslim, correct me if I'm wrong) perspective is that God judges people only by their deeds, but not the deeds of others done to them, or the way others have treated them. My suggestion in the last one or two posts was that maybe God doesn't just look at our deeds, but also the way people have treated us and our social standing.

We don't live in isolation. It's a world of interactions, a world of relationships. To judge us only by deeds is to disregard our distinctive personalities, life story, life experiences, suffering, hurt and our level of personal dignity.

If we have been treated badly or misunderstood, I don't think it would be wrong for God to be more lenient.

Moreover, I disagree with the idea that the whole world is a court-room and that the sole purpose in life is to earn points or commit misdeeds just so that we can get a shower of hot coals over our heads and get slammed in the divine court-room.

I think, as a possibility, it could be much like the movie of Scrooge, where a rich man is visited by three ghosts that take him on a tour through the life that he has lived: the past, present and future. Scrooge is given an opportunity to explore his life and discover its eventual fate. The future? A stingy rich man goes to the grave without any positive contribution to society.

 

[Thomas]

Hi Saltmeister —

I disagree with the idea ... that there should be any philosophy involved at all.

Well, I've pulled that ou of context, but I'm not sure I get it? I don't think you're saying we should not reflect upon the message, or upon our own existence ... but on the other hand, you seem to have a pretty well-sorted philosophical position?

I disagree with the idea that the whole point of Christianity is just "redemption"

Then what is it, in a nutshell?

For me the idea of the Abrahamic Tradtions is to put right a relationship that went wrong — the relationship between creature and Creator — I consider it a 'healing' and, having been healed, certain possibilities are opened that were not open before ... we might call this redemption, salvation, justification, deliverance, nirvana, satori, whatever (within reason).

This healing of the rift between God and man underlines everything, and from it everything flows, naturally and supernaturally.

When we look at individual cases, then we are into shades of grey and degrees of discrimination ... and this human tendency cascades into all our dealings, we reflect it in all our dealings ... and it's then a case of saying that this particular relationship or that, is not right ... which Jesus did, a lot ... half the time He seemed to be upsetting someone, by 'consorting' with the wrong sort of people, but I don't think He was vondicating or validating what sinners did, but rather showing that it is possible to forgive.

And to repeat, the Abrahamic Traditions are about 'right relation' and the human, being a creature open to transcendance (and none others are) is to a degree partly defined and determined by relationships — with God first, and on that model, everything else subsequently.

And I think we're getting too involved in minutae, and we're missing the big picture — or perhaps I'm not getting a 'big picture' from your viewpoint?

Thomas

 

[Thomas]

And Thomas, I can't help thinking that it would be really cool if the people who came to hear the Latin each heard the message in his or her own language. Now THAT would be something, wouldn't it? (Sorry, couldn't resist--probably should've resisted, but couldn't. )

Hi InLove —

I remember watching 'Babylon 5' on TV and an episode in which a super-advanced species, who seemed to be all energy, and who occupied something akin to a sarcophagus to enable them to communicate with the various other species, were seen outside its casing...

and ... you guessed it ... each species saw an angelic image of its own kind. A wonderfully cheesy moment, but we are human, after all.

+++

It suddenly struck me ... opera! I happen to know a real East End Londoner who is an opera fan, loves it, goes often. Does he speak Italian, or whatever? Not a word. Should it then all be sung in English for him? I would think he would say no.

Sometimes I want to follow the Mass ... sometimes I want to sink into it ... when the latter moves me, sung Latin is sublime and, I am sure, a Greek Orthodox Synaxis would serve equally well ... I have a CD of Corsican Polyphony I play often ... Gregorian Chant ... even plainsong.

I was a guest at a Benedictine House, and attended the Office of the Hours with the sisters there. The choir is split into two halves, and they sing the psalms, two verses each ... but the way it works, you sing one verse, then leave a long pause, and then the second, at which point the other side picks up without pause and sings their first verse ... long pause ... second, and so on ... very meditative ...

The thing is, the Liturgy is not an intellectual exercise, an instruction, a lesson ... it's an experience ... and many feel that the use of everyday language can turn something sublime into something quite ordinary.

I have nothing against the English vernacular mass, except that it was formulated by a committee and thus is bare of any poetry, accept that which is there by accident ... one aspect of the King James Bible is the sheer poetry of its language, and even the modern bible we use for readings at mass is often, to me, drab and dreary.

I was made to learn poetry at school. So here's a sample.

You're crossing Waterloo Bridge at sunset, and you think:
"That's really nice ... I like London"

Wordsworth thought:
"Earth has not anything to show more fair:
Dull would he be of soul who could pass by
A sight so touching in its majesty:
This City now doth, like a garment, wear
The beauty of the morning; silent, bare,
Ships, towers, domes, theatres, and temples lie
Open unto the fields, and to the sky;
All bright and glittering in the smokeless air.
Never did sun more beautifully steep
In his first splendour, valley, rock, or hill;
Ne'er saw I, never felt, a calm so deep!
The river glideth at his own sweet will:
Dear God! the very houses seem asleep;
And all that. mighty heart is lying still!"

A bit of a difference, I think you'll agree, and I feel that our Liturgies should endeavour to match the beauty of our poetry.

Thomas
(who likes London, too)

 

[Thomas]

Hi Thomas

I had no idea you were a writer or tempted in that direction, must just be something about the way your posts come across.

Oh, I've been a scribbler since I was 16.

I am currently researching the development of Trinitarian doctrine, which brings in a lifelong interest in metaphysics and philosophy ... and the evolution of language to try and cope with expressing something that is essentially a Mystery.

The big area at the moment is in the definition of terms, "ousia", 'hypostasis", "prosopon" and their Latin near-equivalents, "substantia", "essentia", "subsisteria" ... and a raft of others ... a theological lexicon, in fact.

It's still an open question, the definitions varying, depending upon how we understand the terms.

This, for me, is made all the more interesting by the theological wranglings from the 3rd-7th centuries, a succession of theological 'heavy-hitters' that stride through the pages of history, plus some later figures that cannot be ignored, so we have the Catholic A-Team: Athenasius, Augustine and Aquinas, plus others from Irenaues (2c) to John Henry Newman (19c).

When it's written, it'll make Harry Potter look like a pamphlet, the Jew will say, "He's got a point, you know," the Orthodox will rush to Rome with open arms, and the Moslem will cry with delight, "You do believe in One God, just like us!"

Get your orders in now. A bargain at £3m — signed by the author, too!

Thomas

 

[flowperson]

Hi Thomas...As one writer to another...you have my sincere condolences, but I wish you well.

If I were you, and it's probably a really good thing for both of us and the rest of the world that I'm not, I would do some reading in the physical sciences on issues having to do with concepts of "time" and how they are bound up with the fabric of the universe. Lisa Randall's recent book, Warped Passages, is especially informative for the lay person. It gives one a good sense of where physics has been and where it might likely go in the future.

My belief has always been that the "trinitarian" concept has its roots there, and that it naturally arose over the centuries based upon human observations related to time and its effects upon life. The birth, death, rebirth thingy y'know.

Write on !

flow....

 

[InLove]

Hey Thomas

I remember watching 'Babylon 5' on TV and an episode in which a super-advanced species, who seemed to be all energy, and who occupied something akin to a sarcophagus to enable them to communicate with the various other species, were seen outside its casing...

and ... you guessed it ... each species saw an angelic image of its own kind. A wonderfully cheesy moment, but we are human, after all.

+++

It suddenly struck me ... opera! I happen to know a real East End Londoner who is an opera fan, loves it, goes often. Does he speak Italian, or whatever? Not a word. Should it then all be sung in English for him? I would think he would say no.

Funny, you should bring this up, as only a couple of days ago, I was thinking about this thread and I also thought of opera. Good example!

I also thought about one of my favorite films, "Life Is Beautiful". When I first saw this movie, I recommended it highly to several of my friends, but when they tried to watch it, they came back with ambivalent reviews. I asked them why, and they each said something along the lines of "It was just too confusing with all the subtitles...now, if it were in English, I might like it better." To which I responded, "Oh no, no, no!!! It would not be the same!" Nevertheless, when the English version became available, some of them gave the story a second chance, but again, the reports were not so great. Of course, this did not surprise me at all, and I wanted to say, "I told you so, " and keep pushing the original film in Italian, but I like my friends and decided not to harp anymore about it. Later, I happened to run across the English version on the telly--and....lol... "No, no, no! It just wasn't the same!" And I'm not just being a romantic, either--the story really does lose quite a bit in the translation process, especially since the original also contains some German and some English. It just doesn't work so well.

However, I will say that whether it is an opera or a “foreign” film, or perhaps even a Latin mass—it really is helpful to have some idea of what is being said (as in subtitles, a program, etc.). By this, I don’t mean that there is not intrinsic value in any of these, even without the “story line”. (I am being a bit clumsy again with my language here, I know.) And even though I was being a little sarcastic with my allusion to the Pentecost, I don’t disregard the mystical element that may actually be there for someone who doesn’t understand the Latin, yet is open to whatever blessing may be received. And I do appreciate a service anywhere that places the emphasis on the message rather than the priest, pastor, or singers. I have always been so much more comfortable and especially more focused when I know that people are closing their eyes or studying the cross at the front of the sanctuary instead of looking at what I am wearing (or not wearing, as I prefer to remove my footwear whenever possible!) or the expression on my face.

To be honest, I really don’t know what to make of this particular Pope. But then, I would not be the person to ask about that office, anyway, no matter who occupies it. All I know is that John Paul II would be a tough act to follow, as he was truly so well-liked. Benedict is obviously dedicated to reform, and reformation is hardly ever a simple task. I just think it would benefit him as well as many people around the world if he were a bit more tactful. I don't mean any disrespect to him--it is just the personal observation of an "outsider" looking on. After all, as you have pointed out, the Latin does take a great deal of study to understand, and the average person simply does not have the luxury of all that free time, even if it might be a very worthy endeavor.

And as has been discussed at length here, there are those in the media and elsewhere who feel they must stir up trouble in order to keep their own positions. But let’s be fair—the issue is without a doubt newsworthy! I am just glad to see that most of the Jewish responses do not seem angry, but moderate and flavored with that all-important grain of salt. There is much to be applauded in this regard.

Well, on that note, I wonder what Wordsworth would write about Dallas? Would he find the beauty in the midst of all the corruption and greed? Would he find the blg, blue sky that hides in the smog and the stars that are eclipsed by all the flourescent and neon? I dunno…

It might be a s-t-r-e-t-c-h.

InPeace,
InLove

 

[Thomas]

Hey InLove —

I nevver went to a Catholic junior school as a kid, so I missed out, but most Catholics would have learnt the Latin Mass at school, so would be expected to know, or at least have a vague recollection, of what's going on.

I admit now that many wouldn't have a clue.

Probably the basis of a whole new thread, but Catholics regard the Liturgy not as the product of theological reflection, but properly the object of theological reflection ... for which reason I am very glad the Liturgy is in English, it means I don't have to learn Latin, for a start.

+++

Re Dallas — I remember seeing in the TV listings that Philip Glass had written the score for a film called The Thin Blue Line, and thought any film that Glass has written for is worth a look.

The opening shot was at night, across what looked like dry prairie, to walls of glass that rise suddenly out of a desert, as if there was no interim, one step on sand, the next step into the reception of some steel-and-glass skyscraper. Fantastic image from the word go. I would recommend the film on the strength of that shot alone...

Pax tecum,

Thomas

 

[Muslimwoman]

The rest of us have a diminished amount of certainty with regards to our relationship with God since we are much more fortunate than those people.

Salaam Saltmeister

I have to agree with you here. I have met such a wide variety of people in my life but never have I met anyone as poor as my in-laws. Yes my mother in law never fails to give a few piasters (egyptian money) to anyone less fortunate than herself. Yes, I give charity but I know my deed is less than hers because she has so little to spare.

That puts me in the middle, rather than being one of the first, into the kingdom of God.

This is where I have trouble with such discussions. How can any of us guess whether we will do enough, given our circumstances, to even get in, let alone be one of the first. Should we not assume that we are not doing enough and try harder? Would that not make the world a better place, rather than saying I am in the 'in' crowd and lording it over others (not a reference to you personally, just a general one).

Never mind if I got it wrong. The important thing is whether you knew what I was hinting at.

Message received and understood.

Their "sins" do count, but not as much. The conventional Christian (and from my impression, perhaps even the Muslim, correct me if I'm wrong) perspective is that God judges people only by their deeds, but not the deeds of others done to them, or the way others have treated them. My suggestion in the last one or two posts was that maybe God doesn't just look at our deeds, but also the way people have treated us and our social standing.

For me that is a little too black and white. Certainly for Muslims no-one will be able to speak for us on the Day of Judgement and we will not be able to speak for anyone else. However, our personal deeds will be judged. So I believe that if I am a selfish, arrogant person that will reflect in the way I am treated by others. Whereas if I am a good person and treat others with decency then again that will reflect in others.

I do see what you are saying and of course G-d doesn't miss a trick about us. So yes, I should think our relationships will count because they are a reflection of who we are. Some would say I am a bad Muslim, or even not a Muslim at all, because I do not share their views but only G-d knows what is in my heart and only He can judge me. However, even if the whole world declares me to be the vice president of hell, that does not make it true and G-d will know and judge me accordingly. I believe you are right, in that if I am declared the VP of hell then this would naturally change my behaviour, as others would treat me differently and G-d will know this. He tells us that He will judge each of us fairly and I for one believe Him.

Moreover, I disagree with the idea that the whole world is a court-room and that the sole purpose in life is to earn points or commit misdeeds just so that we can get a shower of hot coals over our heads and get slammed in the divine court-room.

Why do people always refer to hell? Why see G-d as this big meany that will judge us harshly and punish us needlessly? I do believe my life is a big court room but I see it as an opportunity to learn and grow, to defend myself, to vindicate the trust G-d put in me. He has given me the free will and the tools so that I can choose. He never said "one tiny sin and it's off to hell", I have the opportunity to sin and be forgiven, to ensure my good deeds outweigh my bad. I for one am happy for the opportunity to prove to G-d that I am worth saving and He is ever merciful, not petulant and unfair. Yet people choose to sin and then try to 'blame' G-d for an unfair system.

 

[Muslimwoman]

When it's written, it'll make Harry Potter look like a pamphlet, the Jew will say, "He's got a point, you know," the Orthodox will rush to Rome with open arms, and the Moslem will cry with delight, "You do believe in One God, just like us!"

Get your orders in now. A bargain at £3m — signed by the author, too!

Salaam Thomas

If you could do this and stop all the squabbling it would be worth a lot more than £3m (just wish I had that much, then I would give it to you to prove this).

 

[InLove]

Hi Everyone--

I've been following along about whether how others treat us because of our lowly social status, particularly when due to our real or perceived transgressions, somehow figures into our salvation. My thinking is that what may count most in these situations is how we learn to react to this treatment. It makes sense to me that if we desire forgiveness for ourselves from God, then we should find out what it is to forgive others--even if they do not appreciate nor understand it. While none of us knows exactly what happens after we leave this existence, would it not be the best we could do to have given freely of that for which we hope?

InPeace,
InLove

 

[Muslimwoman]

Excellent point InLove.

What is your take on the verse about it being easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than a rich man to enter heaven? I feel sure it doesn't mean you have to be financially poor to enter heaven but never sure if it is talking about greed or humility.

Salaam

 

[InLove]

What is your take on the verse about it being easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than a rich man to enter heaven? I feel sure it doesn't mean you have to be financially poor to enter heaven but never sure if it is talking about greed or humility.

That's an interesting observation, Sally. I have often thought about greed in reference to this passage, but not much about humility. I think it means either, actually.

I have heard several interpretations. I even heard a sermon one time about the "eye of the needle" being the literal meaning of the name of a narrow and treacherous mountain pass in the ancient mideast somewhere. Don't know if that is true, but if it is, perhaps it was a colloquialism employed by Jesus which, when all is said, means about the same as it does for us today--that being that money and power can be a huge obstacle in our spiritual development if we let it. I don't think this means that because a person has money or social position, he or she is automatically condemned, but simply that it is something that merits a vigilant self-watch. And if it causes us to sin, then we should find why and do something about it. If your right hand offends....

InPeace,
InLove,
Deb

 

[Muslimwoman]

I have just been thinking about this verse a lot lately Deb. Being back in the UK and seeing the capitalist greed here made me think of it. I just wonder what we will all say on the Day of Judgement when we are shown how much we actually had and then asked why we allowed people to starve to death. How could we ever answer that?

There is simply no excuse to my mind, if each person with 'more than necessary' helped just one person with 'not enough' then the world would be a different place. I have been thinking recently about the meaning of 'rich man' in this verse. We tend to think of a rich man as someone with more than us but in reality if we have more than we actually need then surely we are rich too?

If one man has 1 kg of rice and another has 2 kg, is the second man rich in the eyes of the first?