Excerpted from my SMME entrance application:
I want to enter the SMMEs for a few reasons. The first year of my discernment from 2006 through 2007 was spent in prayer and I did not have a spiritual director at that time. I was in contact with a few different religious orders: Mission San Jose Dominicans, Daughters of Charity and School Sisters of Notre Dame. I liked different things about each one, but I soon recognized an undercurrent of apprehension: were those convents the right place? What did they think of me? Would I fit in? Why don't they practice their traditional charism? why the denuded chapels? why do they have to schedule in community time or prayer time together? why this and why that? When I stepped foot into the SMME motherhouse that Friday evening none of those previously ever-present questions arose in my mind. I was completely focused on God and on just enjoying myself during the retreat. I felt this sense of peace within myself, that I no longer had to search and question and research; no more comparison and contrast with my beliefs and practices with that of the religious community. I felt that it was over - which is why I so readily asked for papers Saturday morning before that evening's Eucharistic Adoration - I had already asked Jesus Friday night where He wanted me. He gave me the answers one after the other. The whole weekend God was saying "Yes, this is the place" in all those special ways He does in our own understanding of Scripture, prayer, music, people, etc. Lastly, as I was leaving Sunday to go home, I tried to see myself at the SMMEs just as I had tried with the MSJ Dominicans, the DCs, and SNDs; never had pictured myself that way before, so fully.
I'm very attracted to the Dominican Sisters of Mary, Mother of the Eucharist way of life and community for reasons that echo the above. In the years since my Confirmation I have had to re-teach myself the mechanisms of the Catholic Church. I've had to learn about charisms, evangelical counsels, virtues of the flesh and theology. Few religious orders and communities actually practice a vow of obedience and poverty as I have seen in the SMMEs. There is a true sense of community: in the Eucharist and prayer life, in your daily life, and your interaction with each other. The vows and community life are faithfully lived out - sacrifice is not questioned, it's expected. I'll never forget the visit I made to convent here in Los Angeles and I was asked "Why should you have to sacrifice XYZ?" I don't have to sacrifice. I could enter a religious community that would permit me to own things - but then I'm not really, fully loving God, am I? Isn't that Who this is all about? God invites us, we say "yes," and I'm only supposed to give up what I think I can manage? No. I'm reminded of the verse in Revelations that describes what type of service and love God enjoys -- either be hot or cold, but not lukewarm. The Sisters of Mary, Mother of the Eucharist are definitely filled with love and passion for God and interested in doing His service and His will. Oh, and you're faithful to the Magisterium.
Tuesday, December 2, 2008
Sunday, November 30, 2008
entitlement 2
Entitlement is an attitude that says you have a right to recieve something. In looking it up in the Dictionary, it's also a term the government uses to address things that should be guaranteed to a citizen. That's how this world works - everyone's got a right to this or that and it's all based on how each person views something. There's no absolute standard, I'm no more right than you are wrong; I wouldn't even be able to say that you are wrong, because in your special grand scheme of things you are right.
On the other hand, there's someone called God, and the spiritual is just as real as the material. You know the ozone layer exists even though it cannot be seen, and bacteria exist in uncooked food even though you can't see it, feel it, or taste until it's too late. Same with God, you can ignore His commandments and precepts and have your "fun" and raise "hell," but once you die, then you will see, hear, know the consequences. You only know the difference until it's too late. This isn't about entitlement, but merit. Have you lived a life that merits eternal reward or punishment? Do you merit eternal reward after a little purgatorial refinement, or straight to punishment?
On the other hand, there's someone called God, and the spiritual is just as real as the material. You know the ozone layer exists even though it cannot be seen, and bacteria exist in uncooked food even though you can't see it, feel it, or taste until it's too late. Same with God, you can ignore His commandments and precepts and have your "fun" and raise "hell," but once you die, then you will see, hear, know the consequences. You only know the difference until it's too late. This isn't about entitlement, but merit. Have you lived a life that merits eternal reward or punishment? Do you merit eternal reward after a little purgatorial refinement, or straight to punishment?
...Thoughts of mine after Thanksgiving Day with relatives.
Saturday, November 29, 2008
Not Entitled
What is it about people that makes thenk they are automatically entitled to their desires?
You, and me, deserve nothing.
We merit nothing.
All that we have is a gift, even the mere act of breathing is a gift.
Friday, November 28, 2008
Is the Novus Ordo Mass Actually the Indult Mass?
by Fr. Paul Kramer’
The following is taken from Fr. Paul Kramer’s article entitled, "The Legal Status of the Tridentine Mass" in which he argues that the "Mass of the Ages" is the official liturgical rite of the western Church.
Bishop Forester, in Fr. Brian Houghton’s book, MITRE AND CROOK observes: This has been the most puzzling history of all. May I remind you, Fathers, that we already have two documents of the highest conceivable authority: the Bull QUO PRIMUM and the Constitution SACROSANCTUM CONCILIUM, which are, moreover, in line with each other. What happens next?
On April 3rd, 1969, a Papal Constitution entitled Missale Romanum was promulgated purporting to be the law governing the New Order of Mass, as yet unpublished. In this original version it is not a law at all but an explanatory introduction to a permission. Even the word ‘Constitutio’ is nowhere to be found in the text, merely in the title:
This of course did not prevent the powers that be from saying that it was a binding law. To do so they had recourse to a mistranslation. What is so curious is that the mistranslation was common to all languages. I have read it myself in English, French and Italian I am told that it is the same in German and Spanish. How can this possibly come about? How can all these expert translators make the identical mistranslation? Your guess is as good as mine. Here is the sentence, the fourth before the end of the original version, the fifth in the Acta: Ad extremum, ex iis quae hactenus de novo Missale Romano exposuimus quiddam nunc cogere et efficere placet... I have underlined the mistranslated words. "Cogere et efficere" is a well known Ciceronian phrase to be found in most dictionaries. Even if the translators could not be bothered to look it up, it is perfectly clear that "quiddam cogere" breaks down into "agere quiddam con" = to work something together, which is in the context "to sum up." Equally, "quiddam efficere" breaks down into "facere quiddam ex" = to make something out, which is in the context "to draw a conclusion."
And what did all the translators make of it? "In conclusion, We now wish to give the force of law to all We have declared..."; and in French, "Pour terminer, Nous voulons donner force de loi a tout ce que Nous avons expose..."; and in Italian etc. It is strange, my dear Fathers, but such is the truth: "to sum up and draw a conclusion" becomes "to give the force of law." And what did I do about it? Absolutely nothing for the simple reason that I did not bother to read the Latin until two or three years later. Do not judge me too severely. Have you read it?
But that is not the end. Worse is to come. The Acta for June, 1969, were published as usual about two months later. When it appeared, a brand new clause had been inserted into the original document as the penultimate paragraph. It reads: Quae Constitutione hac Nostra praescripsimus vigere incipient a XXX proximimensis Novembris hoc anno, id est a Dominica I Adventus. That is, "What we have ordered by this Our constitution will begin to take effect as from November of this year (1969), that is the first Sunday of Advent." You will notice: 1) that for the first and only time the word "Constitutio" appears in the text. 2) For the first time, too, a word signifying "to order" is introduced - "praescripsimus." 3) For the first time a date is given on which the order is to become effective. This is a permission turned into a law. Actually, there are a couple of snags even about this insertion. The word "praescripsimus" = We have ordered - is not the proper term in Latin, but I shall not bother you with refinements. More important, it is in the wrong tense. Up to this point the legislator has prescribed nothing at all. It is precisely in this clause that he claims to do so. The verb, therefore should be in the present tense: "praescribimus" = "what We are ordering by this our Constitution": not in the past perfect, "what we have prescribed." The only explanation I can think of for this howler is recognition by its author that he is tampering with a pre-existing text. Moreover, the logical conclusion from the use of the wrong tense can scarcely be what its author intended: since nothing was prescribed, nothing is prescribed; and the legislator, to boot, is still prescribing nothing. What a mess! I wonder how long a civil government would last which thus tampered with its own laws?
There is a last remark I wish to make about this strange document. It winds up with the usual clause de style: "We wish, moreover, that these decisions and ordinances of ours should be stable and effective now and in the future, notwithstanding - in so far as may be necessary - Constitutions and apostolic regulations published by Our predecessors and all other ordinances, even those requiring special mention and derogation." At long last - indeed it is the last word - there is a "technical" term in the constitution, so we know exactly where we stand: "derogation". The New Ordo is therefore only a permission after all. It is merely a licit exception, a derogation, to the previous laws which are still in force. They have not been abrogated...It is nonsense to claim that the bull Quo Primum has been abrogated.
Source
The following is taken from Fr. Paul Kramer’s article entitled, "The Legal Status of the Tridentine Mass" in which he argues that the "Mass of the Ages" is the official liturgical rite of the western Church.
Bishop Forester, in Fr. Brian Houghton’s book, MITRE AND CROOK observes: This has been the most puzzling history of all. May I remind you, Fathers, that we already have two documents of the highest conceivable authority: the Bull QUO PRIMUM and the Constitution SACROSANCTUM CONCILIUM, which are, moreover, in line with each other. What happens next?
On April 3rd, 1969, a Papal Constitution entitled Missale Romanum was promulgated purporting to be the law governing the New Order of Mass, as yet unpublished. In this original version it is not a law at all but an explanatory introduction to a permission. Even the word ‘Constitutio’ is nowhere to be found in the text, merely in the title:
1) There is no abrogation of previous legislation and no clause ordering
the use of the new rite.
2) There is no sentence to show that it is obligatory, let alone
exclusive.
3) There is no dating clause to show when it should come into
effect.
This of course did not prevent the powers that be from saying that it was a binding law. To do so they had recourse to a mistranslation. What is so curious is that the mistranslation was common to all languages. I have read it myself in English, French and Italian I am told that it is the same in German and Spanish. How can this possibly come about? How can all these expert translators make the identical mistranslation? Your guess is as good as mine. Here is the sentence, the fourth before the end of the original version, the fifth in the Acta: Ad extremum, ex iis quae hactenus de novo Missale Romano exposuimus quiddam nunc cogere et efficere placet... I have underlined the mistranslated words. "Cogere et efficere" is a well known Ciceronian phrase to be found in most dictionaries. Even if the translators could not be bothered to look it up, it is perfectly clear that "quiddam cogere" breaks down into "agere quiddam con" = to work something together, which is in the context "to sum up." Equally, "quiddam efficere" breaks down into "facere quiddam ex" = to make something out, which is in the context "to draw a conclusion."
And what did all the translators make of it? "In conclusion, We now wish to give the force of law to all We have declared..."; and in French, "Pour terminer, Nous voulons donner force de loi a tout ce que Nous avons expose..."; and in Italian etc. It is strange, my dear Fathers, but such is the truth: "to sum up and draw a conclusion" becomes "to give the force of law." And what did I do about it? Absolutely nothing for the simple reason that I did not bother to read the Latin until two or three years later. Do not judge me too severely. Have you read it?
But that is not the end. Worse is to come. The Acta for June, 1969, were published as usual about two months later. When it appeared, a brand new clause had been inserted into the original document as the penultimate paragraph. It reads: Quae Constitutione hac Nostra praescripsimus vigere incipient a XXX proximimensis Novembris hoc anno, id est a Dominica I Adventus. That is, "What we have ordered by this Our constitution will begin to take effect as from November of this year (1969), that is the first Sunday of Advent." You will notice: 1) that for the first and only time the word "Constitutio" appears in the text. 2) For the first time, too, a word signifying "to order" is introduced - "praescripsimus." 3) For the first time a date is given on which the order is to become effective. This is a permission turned into a law. Actually, there are a couple of snags even about this insertion. The word "praescripsimus" = We have ordered - is not the proper term in Latin, but I shall not bother you with refinements. More important, it is in the wrong tense. Up to this point the legislator has prescribed nothing at all. It is precisely in this clause that he claims to do so. The verb, therefore should be in the present tense: "praescribimus" = "what We are ordering by this our Constitution": not in the past perfect, "what we have prescribed." The only explanation I can think of for this howler is recognition by its author that he is tampering with a pre-existing text. Moreover, the logical conclusion from the use of the wrong tense can scarcely be what its author intended: since nothing was prescribed, nothing is prescribed; and the legislator, to boot, is still prescribing nothing. What a mess! I wonder how long a civil government would last which thus tampered with its own laws?
There is a last remark I wish to make about this strange document. It winds up with the usual clause de style: "We wish, moreover, that these decisions and ordinances of ours should be stable and effective now and in the future, notwithstanding - in so far as may be necessary - Constitutions and apostolic regulations published by Our predecessors and all other ordinances, even those requiring special mention and derogation." At long last - indeed it is the last word - there is a "technical" term in the constitution, so we know exactly where we stand: "derogation". The New Ordo is therefore only a permission after all. It is merely a licit exception, a derogation, to the previous laws which are still in force. They have not been abrogated...It is nonsense to claim that the bull Quo Primum has been abrogated.
Source
Thursday, November 27, 2008
Let Us Give Thanks
Thoughts of thanks right now:
- for the ability to freely express thanks and speech without censor
- for each and every one of YOU my friends online and off-line
- for my family and relatives and all the different ways they shape and form my life
- for the basic things to live life like sight, hearing, taste, touch and scent
- for a roof over my head, blankets on my bed, and things strewn around my room
- for change in my wallet and leftovers in the refrigerator
- the passage of Prop 8
I started to put together a list like this the evening of adoration at the SMMEs. This one says:
- "Blessed I thank You for:
- the gift of vocation
- the graces
- the gift of my parents
- sight and hearing
- the silence
- for leading me home
- for my sister
- the mystery
- the beatific vision
- Your mother
- La Virgen de Gaudalupe miracle
- for life
- for the course of my life
- the cult experience
- the gift of education
- the gift of desiring You
- the Church
- those who were able to lead me home August 2005: Mike, Fr. Aaron, Pat Ku, Christie Swanson, Jenny Schwartzkoff, and all others who were online friends at that time, and Sumer Alvarez, for which I would not have been at Mass if it weren't for her death and funeral.
This week I've heard "thanks" from patients:
- for giving hope
- for re-focusing
- for teaching its all right to ask God for things (not just praise; ask and ye shall recieve)
- for calming them
- for letting them know that people care
- for companionship
Last night driving home I tried to think of the ONE thing I am thankful for: the gift that God gives us all in His own time and in our spiritual readiness - the ability to desire Him and return it.
Happy and Blessed Thanksgiving
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)