deaconinstructionsoblate110708.pdf

deaconspiritualdirectionfrbill110708.pdf

deaconspiritualdirectionfrbill110808a.pdf

deaconspiritualdirectionfrbill110808b.pdf

deaconlectorsrlale110908.pdf

deaconlectiodivinafrleisy110908.pdf

Spiritual_Direction_and_Faith_Development_-_Lubbock.doc

Spiritual_History_Assignment_-_Lubbock.doc

In light of this apparent difficulty, Whispers in the Loggia has collected statements by bishops of the Roman Catholic Church on abortion and the role this issue plays in the 2008 elections. In short, 63 diocesan and 19 auxiliaries (out of 197 dioceses and 250 bishops/auxiliaries/coadjutors) have issued statements to the effect that no issue can trump that of the sanctioned murder of 1.3 million babies each year.

Here’s a snapshot of that list, with cardinals and archbishops in order of seniority and all others alphabetically by name of diocese. Keep an eye on Whispers in the Loggia for updates as you consider and discuss this critical issue.

• Cardinal Francis George OMI of Chicago (USCCB president; 15 Oct)
• Cardinal Edward Egan of New York (23 Oct)
• Cardinal Justin Rigali of Philadelphia (USCCB Pro-Life Chair; 23 Oct, 12 Sept)
• Archbishop Daniel Buechlein OSB of Indianapolis (3 Oct)
• Archbishop Eusebius Beltran of Oklahoma City (5 Oct)
• Archbishop Michael Sheehan of Santa Fe (8 Oct)
• Archbishop Charles Chaput OFM Cap. of Denver (18 Oct)
• Archbishop Alfred Hughes of New Orleans (11 Oct)
• Archbishop Timothy Dolan of Milwaukee (28 Sep)
• Archbishop Joseph Naumann of Kansas City in Kansas (8 Sept)
• Archbishop Jose Gomez of San Antonio (10 Oct)
• Archbishop John Nienstedt of Saint Paul and Minneapolis (19 Oct)
• Bishop Patrick Zurek of Amarillo (24 Sept)
• Bishop Robert Vasa of Baker (16 Oct)
• Bishop Robert Baker of Birmingham (20 Oct)
• Bishop William Lori of Bridgeport (USCCB Doctrine Chair; 28 Sept)
• Bishop Joseph Galante of Camden (6 Oct)
• Bishop Peter Jugis of Charlotte (26 Oct)
• Bishop Michael Sheridan of Colorado Springs (17 Oct)
• Bishop Kevin Farrell of Dallas (8 Oct)
• Bishop Samuel Aquila of Fargo (23 Oct; 8 Oct)
• Bishop Kevin Vann of Fort Worth (8 Oct)
• Bishop David Ricken of Green Bay (17 Oct)
• Bishop Larry Silva of Honolulu (20 Oct)
• Bishop Jerome Listecki of La Crosse
• Bishop William Higi of Lafayette in Indiana (28 Sept)
• Bishop Glen John Provost of Lake Charles (7 Oct)
• Bishop Earl Boyea of Lansing (22 Oct)
• Bishop Robert Morlino of Madison (16 Oct)
• Bishop Alexander Sample of Marquette (17 Oct)
• Bishop Arthur Serratelli of Paterson (15 Oct)
• Bishop Thomas Olmsted of Phoenix (18 Sept)
• Bishop David Zubik of Pittsburgh (28 Oct)
• Bishop Thomas Tobin of Providence (29 Oct)
• Bishop Michael Burbidge of Raleigh (26 Oct)
• Bishop Thomas Doran of Rockford (24 Oct)
• Bishop Paul Coakley of Salina (17 Oct)
• Bishop Joseph Martino of Scranton (30 Sept; 19 Oct)
• Bishop Walker Nickless of Sioux City (4 Sept; 23 Oct)
• Bishop Timothy McDonnell of Springfield in Massachusetts (3 Oct)
• Bishop Leonard Blair of Toledo (3 Oct)
• Bishop J. Vann Johnston of Springfield-Cape Girardeau (3 Oct; 26 Sept)
• Bishop Robert Hermann, archdiocesan administrator of St Louis (17 Oct; 24 Oct)
• Bishop Robert Finn of Kansas City-St Joseph (17 Oct; 8 Sept)
• Bishop Paul Swain of Sioux Falls (2 Oct)
• Bishop Gerald Barbarito of Palm Beach (24 Oct)
• Bishop Michael Jackels of Wichita (24 Oct)
• Bishop Bernard Harrington of Winona (2 Oct)
• Bishop Robert McManus of Worcester (24 Oct)
• Bishops of Florida (7 diocesans, 2 auxiliaries; 15 Sep)
• Bishops of Kansas (4 diocesans; 2006 statement reissued 15 Aug 2008)
• Bishops of New York State (8 diocesans, 11 auxiliaries; 1 Oct)
• Bishops of Pennsylvania (7 diocesans, 6 auxiliaries; 10 Oct)
• Bishops of Virginia (2 diocesans; 1 Oct)

Over time, various traditions emerged as to whether the facade of the church should face the east, or the people inside should face east (putting the apse at the east end of the church). The origins, intentionality, and authority of these traditions are subject to dispute, so let’s not go there, but simply acknowledge that the common usage as of the first half of the 20th century was that the priest and people faced toward an common altar located such that the priest and people all faced Ad Apsidem, towards the Apse (the part of the church where the clergy sit), as towards the “spiritual East” of the church, whether that were in fact the geographical east or not.

Arising from Protestant Eucharistic theology which perceives the Eucharist to be a “memorial supper”, and coming to a head in the 1960’s, this tradition of both priest and people facing the altar came to be interpreted as the priest “having his back to” the people, thereby excluding the assembly from fully entering into worship. Allowances were subsequently made for the altar to be moved away from the wall so that the priest could celebrate Mass facing the people and the altar simultaneously. Some found the new arrangement less desirable than the old, but this new arrangement came to be almost universally implemented as the arrangement of choice for the western church. The argument smouldered for the most part, flaming up rarely, and primarily among mostly-ignored ranks of traditionalists and liturgists.

The Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI recently fanned those embers into full flame when he began publicly celebrating some masses Ad Apsidem, facing the altar with the people rather than facing the altar towards the people. This should not have come as a complete surprise, as in his 2000 book “The Spirit of the Liturgy” Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) wrote “facing toward the east…was linked with the ’sign of the Son of Man’, with the Cross, which announces Our Lord’s Second Coming. That is why, very early on, the east was linked with the sign of the cross… Where a direct common turning toward the East is not possible, the cross can serve as the interior ‘East’ of faith. It should stand in the middle of the altar and be the common point of focus for both priest and praying community.”

We will allow the liturgists to continue their arguments, but the point for most of us is this: the priest and the people all face their physical and spiritual beings towards Jesus during the mass. Facing the same direction implies the priest leading the people towards Jesus, while facing towards an altar between the priest and people implies the desire to allow the assembly to entere into the celebration more fully. Some priests have taken Pope Benedict XVI’s advice, and place a crucifix upon the altar so it is more obvious that he is facing the cross with the people, and that the focus is not the priest (as can be construed from facing away from the people) or the people (as can be construed from facing towards the people), but Jesus.

However the local Bishop and his priests choose to arrange the altar, we can’t go wrong if we heed the advice of Eleanor Farjeon’s Advent hymn, and turn our hearts towards the spiritual East: Jesus.

“People, look east and sing today: Love, the guest, is on the way”

Latin experts… I can’t seem to get a clear answer on “Ad Orientem” versus “Ad Orientum”. “Ad Populum” seems to be used exclusively rather than “Ad Populem”, but I seem to find “orientem” and “orientum” used interchangeably, even within what appears to be identical context and grammatical constructs by the same authors and within the same sentences. Which is more correct, or which is correct in a particular context or usage, “Ad Orientum”, or “Ad Orientem”?

With love and thanks,

e

Time for my annual Alzheimer’s Walk

As many of you know, I try to participate in the Alzheimer’s Memory Walk each year. I am again participating in the walk on September 6, 2008. The walk is a 5k / 3.1mi walk.

Alzheimer’s is the seventh-leading cause of death in the United States today. To help fight it, I’m participating in the 2008 Alzheimer’s Association Memory Walk®, which raises funds and awareness for this fatal disease.

Since 1989, walkers and donors have raised $230 million for Alzheimer care, support and research. I hope to raise at least $1200 to help support this cause. I want to do my part – but I can’t do it without your help.

You can donate by clicking the link below. Thank you in advance for your support – together we can make a difference!

Memory Walk is nationally presented by Genworth Financial.

I appreciate any help you can offer.

Roberta

Follow This Link to visit my personal web page and help me in my efforts to support Alzheimer’s Association Colorado Chapter

http://memorywalk.kintera.org/faf/r.asp?t=4&i=260727&u=260727-184331518&e=1793932823

http://www.earlychurchfathers.org/index.php

Unlike many similar websites, this one refrains from commentary other than the commentary implicit in the decision to include or exclude specific teachings or teachers.

1. “Father, forgive them, they know not what they do.” Luke 23:34
2. “This day thou shalt be with me in Paradise.” Luke 23:43
3. “Woman, behold thy son.” John 19:26-27
4. “My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me?” Mark 15:34 Matthew 27:46
5. “I thirst.” John 19:28
6. “It is finished.” John 19:30
7. “Into thine hands, O Lord, I commend my spirit.” Luke 23:46

Growing up in the South, and with a very conservative/literalist background, I was always troubled by his fourth pronouncement:

My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me? (Matthew 27:46)

How could it be that Jesus would be forsaken, as so many well-respected brothers in Christ have proposed? He was the sacrifice, and a sacrifice only has value if it is accepted by God. How could God the Father turns his back on his only begotten son while he bore the burden of all the sin of the world, and yet so love the world (full of sinners) that he sent that son? What does this say about Jesus, and the unity of the Trinity? So many uncomfortable questions… For the most part, I relegated this to the category of “stuff I don’t understand”, and put it on a back burner to evaluate at another time. Thankfully, the Lord presented the opportunity to consider the problem by offering the solution.

We use our family road trips as an opportunity to listen to The Chronicles of Narnia radio theater or similar CDs. We got acquainted with Dr. Brant Pitre during the 2008 Footsteps in Faith conference, and picked up his Jesus of Nazareth: A Biblical Christology for our spring 2008 travels. We (yes, even the kids) thoroughly enjoyed this recording of his masters-level Christology course. During the course of the CDs, Dr. Pitre mentioned the ‘last words’ that had troubled me, and that I’d not revisited for several years, and drew our attention to the relationship between his words and Psalm 22.

Knock, Knock… You did it, didn’t you? “Who’s there…” came to mind, right? When we refer to “the Our Father” or “the Lord’s prayer” today, most of us recognize that we’re referring to the prayer Jesus gave as an example to his disciples when they asked that he teach them how to pray. You don’t have to be Catholic to recognize that “Hail Mary” refers to the prayer we use when we meditate upon Christ with his mother using the words of Elizabeth (mother of John the Baptist). “The Lord is my shepherd” instantly brings Psalm 23 to mind for Jews, Christians, Muslims, and every flavor of secularist. This is not a new phenomenon, and similarly, when Jesus called out “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me”, those to whom he was speaking (that is, not the Roman guards) would have recognized that he was referring to Psalm 22.

The 22nd Psalm is an intense expression of an innocent’s suffering. Unlike many of David’s psalms of lament, there is no expression of remorse for sin. This is, as the heading suggests, the prayer of an innocent person, who despite the horror of his circumstances, trusts in the Lord, and has confidence in his ultimate victory. Take a look at the psalm, and consider them in the context of Jesus’s last moments. Isn’t it so much more in keeping with his character that his last words would be comforting and encouraging to his mother and beloved disciples gathered there at the cross with him, than an expression of absolute despair?

A linguistic note
Often, the discussion of language and associated literary criticism complicate the argument. Psalm 22 is no different, and you’ll find arguments with varying degrees of integrity that attempt to attack specific portions of the translation of Psalm 22. In this case, while perhaps interesting and relevant in some context, the linguistic issues are less critical to the spirit of the relationship. The Hebrew, (which corresponds to the Greek translation), matches the text in Psalm 22. The Aramaic matches the spirit. Even if you present a consistent argument that Psalm 22 is not Messianic, David himself is a prefiguration of the Christ. There’s just no way to look at these words and not recognize that Jesus, despite appearances, was triumphant, not forsaken.

Hebrew: Sabachthani
Lama הםל (Mark 14:34), or lema in some texts, is the stock Hebrew Old Testament word for “why?”, and is used over 170 times in the Hebrew Bible. The identical word, lama, also means “why?” in modern Hebrew. Sabachthani, ינתקבש is directly from the Mishnaic Hebrew קבש, sabach, meaning “forsake, abandon”. The modern Hebrew for “forsake” – “zab” or “sab” – may suggest an abbreviated form of sabach. See comments by Brint Minge and Douglas Hamp on the Hebrew. Note also that the early church fathers believed and taught that Matthew wrote his gospel first, and in Hebrew, avoiding any difficulties with regional accents, while Mark wrote in Greek what Peter taught, and would have presented Jesus’s words as pronounced by Gallilean Peter.

Aramaic: nashatani vs. Shabakthani
shabaktani - spared or destined
nashatani - forsaken or deserted
If you subscribe to Jesus having spoken Aramaic, and/or the scriptures being originally Aramaic, Jesus would say “”My God, my God, for this I was spared.” Search the web for more information on those who propose Aramaic as the language Jesus spoke.

Boo: “So the Rosary is like Mary’s baby book?”

MommyDaddy: “<thoughtful pause> yeah, just like that.”

Scrapbook queen April should be proud.

Page 861 (After the index and before the glossary) has a list of abbreviations helpful in understanding the footnotes and references in the CCC. This list, combined with the Index of Citations (page 689 and following) is critical to tracking down references.

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com
Keep in mind that it has a Jewish perspective, which may not always mesh well with Christian thinking and teaching, but there’s some good information here.

http://virtualreligion.net/iho/index.html
I don’t appreciate much of the commentary, since it comes from a very rationalist perspective, but the readings from Josephus and other ancient sources are presented in a manner that makes them very accessible, and some of the notes and discussions on the “historical Jesus” are helpful, if you can avoid being overly influenced by the Jesus Seminar’s heretical view of Jesus as just another rabbi, denying his deity and the authenticity of the scriptures.