Motu Propio Released!

I interrupt this hiatus to bring you the following news:

Vatican has released the Motu Propio, liberating the Tridentine Mass according to the 1962 missal. Here's the official Latin version. It was released today, the 7th of July, in the year of Our Lord 2007.

And apparently, the 1962 Missal was never abrogated to begin with!

I think this is good news for the furtherance of the continuing Orthodox/Roman Catholic relations. With the widespread celebration of the ancient Roman rite in Roman Catholic parishes, it will signal to the Orthodox that the Catholics are serious about liturgical piety and the mystical and transcendent nature of the Mass. Monsignor Klaus Gamber (+Requiescat in Pace) talked quite a bit about this.

This could mean the reconcilliation of the Society of Pius X with the Holy See. This, along with ROCOR's reconcilliation with the Moscow Patriarchate (effective May 18, 2007) would be nothing but good news.

Mind you, the road to reunion between Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches is still a long, crooked road, and it should continue with honesty on both sides. The long-awaited restoration of the old mass is a step in the right direction, in my humble opinion.

Now back to my dissertation!

Blogging hiatus

Given the pressures of writing a dissertation, I have decided to take a long break from blogging. I hope to be done with my dissertation in January, and to meet that deadline, I must make every use of my long vacation from teaching this summer.

I will conitnue to post a few things here and there, but will not be doing so with any degree of regularity.

Please keep me in your prayers, that I may take on this task with due diligence.

American Liberty

Today is Independence Day. It is a common ritual for me, on this day, to read the Declaration of Independence in order to reconnect with the "ideals" of liberty that have shaped this country's identity for the past 231 years. I put "ideals" in qutation marks because I am more and more dissatisfied, and a bit impatient, with the word. When men fight, they fight for something much more concrete than "ideals". They fight for home, family, community, and honour (for my fellow Americans, yes, I know, it shouldn't have a "u", but it just does not seem right without it).

"Ah," you ask, "is not honour an ideal?" Well, no. You see, when we describe someone who is honourable, there usually is good reason to do so. For instance, we may call someone who is reliable, consistently moral, upright, magnanimous, and generally worthy of high estimation as an "honourable man." Such individuals are looked upon with a great degree of respect because there is a history of a commitment to honouring their commitments, and are thus worthy of that high estimation. Dignity, worth, nobility, esteem-all of these are wrapped up in the word honour.

Honour is in fact the very last word of the Declaration of Independence: "And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the Protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our Sacred Honor." Now what precedes these stirring words are, first of all, general guidelines for when and under what circumstances one people may dissolve political ties with another, and alter their form of government (argued in good Lockian fashion). A detailed set of "evidences" that occasioned the move towards separation from Crown and Parliament follows. Since Crown and Parliament had not honoured their commitments to treat the colonials as free Englishmen, then they, the signers of the Declaration, would put their worth, esteem, and dignity on the line for the cause of liberty.



Now what is meant by liberty? It seems clear that, for the signers of the Declaration, liberty was no abstract notion or ideal. After all, Frenchmen would later in 1789 take up the fight against the French crown on the ideals of liberte, egalite, fraternite, resulting eventually in a cartload of headless corpses and a tyrant. As Edmund Burke would argue, the French Revolution was fought for the sake of abstractions. Noot so for the signers of the Declaration: something more substantial than an "ideal" was at stake-their rights as Englishmen. It is on this basis-i.e. their traditional and ancient rights as Englishmen-that they made their case. Liberty, then, like honour, is tied up in very specific and historically-rooted circumstances. John Locke argued along the lines of traditional English constitutional law in order to establish the common rights of men living in civil society (Second Treatise on Government). Likewise, the signers of the Declaration appeal to their common inheritance of English Common Law tradition, and this Burkian sense of ratioanl liberty that takes into account the "consent of our ancestors," as well as the governed. By "rational liberty," Edmund Burke meant one in which men are free to pursue their just and equitable needs and desires for happiness (as in Aristotle's eudaemonia, or that condition of well-being that results from virtuous actions), always with a view of our ancestors' input. He underscores this relationship between tradition and liberty in Reflections on the Revolution in France (1789):

"Through the same plan of a conformity to nature in our artificial institutions, and by calling in the aid of her unerring and powerful instincts, to fortify the fallible and feeble contrivances of our reason, we have derived several other, and those no small benefits, from considering our liberties in the light of an inheritance. Always acting as if in the presence of canonized forefathers, the spirit of freedom, leading in itself to misrule and excess, is tempered with an awful gravity. This idea of a liberal descent inspires us with a sense of habitual native dignity, which prevents that upstart insolence almost inevitably adhering to and disgracing those who are the first acquirers of any distinction. By this means our liberty becomes a noble freedom. It carries an imposing and majestic aspect. It has a pedigree and illustrating ancestors. It has its bearings and its ensigns armorial. It has its gallery of portraits; its monumental inscriptions; its records, evidences, and titles. We procure reverence to our civil institutions on the principle upon which nature teaches us to revere individual men; on account of their age, and on account of those from whom they are descended. All your sophisters cannot produce anything better adapted to preserve a rational and manly freedom than the course that we have pursued, who have chosen our nature rather than our speculations, our breasts rather than our inventions, for the great conservatories and magazines of our rights and privileges."

Thus, far from being an abstract "ideal", liberty is grounded on a bedrock of experience and natural law. For Burke, as well as for the signers of the Declaration, the common Englishman (and American) knows his rights not on the basis of abstractions, but on the basis of an inherited trust, one bequethed by his ancestors, forging a bond between the past, the present, and the future. What is bound up with with liberty? History, tradition, and natural law.

By birth, I am Cuban, but by adoption (if I can co-opt a Pauline metaphor) I am an Anglo-American. This means that this nation's history has become my history, its laws, rooted in English Common Law tradition, are my laws. As a result, I hold deeply a love and admiration for English history, law and institutions, which gave birth to the country I now call home.

So I raise a good pint of Sam Adams to my dear Republic. Long may it prosper! And I also raise my glass to Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II. Long may she reign!

Feast of the Visitation of the BVM

Sermon by St. Bede the Venerable, from Rosary Blog

Mary proclaims the greatness of the Lord working in her soul:

My soul proclaims the greatness of the Lord, and my spirit rejoices in God my savior. With these words Mary first acknowledges the special gifts she has been given. Then she recalls God's universal favors, bestowed unceasingly on the human race. When a man devotes all his thoughts to the praise and service of the Lord, he proclaims God's greatness. His observance of God's commands, moreover, shows that he has God's power and greatness always at heart. His spirit rejoices in God his savior and delights in the mere recollection of his creator who gives him hope for eternal salvation. These words are often for all God's creations, but especially for the Mother of God. She alone was chosen, and she burned with spiritual love for the son she so joyously conceived. Above all other saints, she alone could truly rejoice in Jesus, her savior, for she knew that he who was the source of eternal salvation would be born in time in her body, in one person both her own son and her Lord.

For the Almighty has done great things for me, and holy is his name. Mary attributes nothing to her own merits. She refers all her greatness to the gift of the one whose essence is power and whose nature is greatness, for he fills with greatness and strength the small and the weak who believe in him. She did well to add: and holy is his name, to warn those who heard, and indeed all who would receive his words, that they must believe and call upon his name. For they too could share in everlasting holiness and true salvation according to the words of the prophet: and it will come to pass, that everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved. This is the name she spoke of earlier: and my spirit rejoices in God my savior.

Therefore it is an excellent and fruitful custom of holy Church that we should sing Mary's hymn at the time of evening prayer. By meditating upon the incarnation, our devotion is kindled, and by remembering the example of God's Mother, we are encouraged to lead a life of virtue. Such virtues are best achieved in the evening. We are weary after the day's work and worn out by our distractions. The time for rest is near, and our minds are ready for contemplation.

Feast of the Precious Blood of Christ

St. John Chrysostom's Homily 16 on Hebrews

Hebrews ix. 15-18
"And for this cause He is the Mediator of the New Testament, that by means of death for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first Testament, they which are called might receive the promise of an eternal inheritance. For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. For a testament is of force after men are dead, otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator lives. Whereupon neither the first [testament] was dedicated without blood."

[1.] It was probable that many of those who were more weakly would especially distrust the promises of Christ because He had died. Paul accordingly out of a superabundance introduced this illustration, deriving it from common custom. Of what kind is it? He says, "indeed, on this very account we ought to be of good courage." On what account? Because testaments are established and obtain their force when those who have made them are not living, but dead. "And for this cause," he says, "He is the Mediator of the New Testament."A Testament is made towards the last day, [the day] of death. And a testament is of this character: It makes some heirs, and some disinherited. So in this case also: "-->I will that where I am,"Christ says, "they also may be."( John xvii. 24 .) And again of the disinherited, hear Him saying, "I pray not for" all, "but for them that believe in Me through their word."( John xvii. 20 .) Again, a testament has relation both to the testator, and to the legatees; so that they have some things to receive, and some to do. So also in this case. For after having made promises innumerable, He demands also something from them, saying, "a new commandment I give unto you."( John xiii. 34 .) Again, a testament ought to have witnesses. Hear Him again saying, "I am one that bear witness of Myself, and He that sent Me bears witness of Me."( John viii. 18 .) And again, "He shall testify of Me"( John xv. 26 ), speaking of the Comforter. The twelve Apostles too He sent, saying, "Bear ye witness before God."

[2.] "And for this cause"(he says) "He is the Mediator of the New Testament."What is a "Mediator"? A mediator is not lord of the thing of which he is mediator, but the thing belongs to one person, and the mediator is another: as for instance, the mediator of a marriage is not the bridegroom, but one who aids him who is about to be married. So then also here: The Son became Mediator between the Father and us. The Father willed not to leave us this inheritance, but was angry against us, and was displeased [with us] as being estranged [from Him]; He accordingly became Mediator between us and Him, and prevailed with Him.
And what then? How did He become Mediator? He brought words from [Him] and brought [them to us], conveying over what came from the Father to us, and adding His own death thereto. We had offended: we ought to have died: He died for us and made us worthy of the Testament. By this is the Testament secure, in that henceforward it is not made for the unworthy. At the beginning indeed, He made His dispositions as a father for sons; but after we had become unworthy, there was no longer need of a testament, but of punishment.
Why then (he would say) do you think upon the law? For it placed us in a condition of so great sin, that we could never have been saved, if our Lord had not died for us; the law would not have had power, for it is weak.

[3.] And he established this no longer from common custom only, but also from what happened under the old [Testament]: which especially influenced them. There was no one who died there: how then could that [Testament] be firm? In the same way (he says). How? For blood was there also, as there is blood here. And if it was not the blood of the Christ, do not be surprised; for it was a type. "Whereupon,"he says, "neither was the first [Testament] dedicated without blood."
What is "was dedicated"? was confirmed, was ratified. The word "whereupon" means "for this cause."It was needful that the symbol of the Testament should be also that of death.
For why (tell me) is the book of the testament sprinkled? (Ver. 19, 20) "For" (he says) "when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book itself and all the people, saying, This is the blood of the testament, which God has enjoined unto you."Tell me then why is the book of the testament sprinkled, and also the people, except on account of the precious blood, figured from the first? Why "with hyssop"? It is close and retentive. And why the "water"? It shows forth also the cleansing by water. And why the "wool"? this also [was used], that the blood might be retained. In this place blood and water show forth the same thing, for baptism is His passion.

[4.] Ver. 21, 22 Moreover he sprinkled with blood both the tabernacle and all the vessels of the ministry. And almost all things are by the law purged with blood, and without shedding of blood is no remission." Why the "almost"? why did he qualify it? Because those [ordinances] were not a perfect purification, nor a perfect remission, but half-complete and in a very small degree. But in this case He says, "This is the blood of the New Testament, which is shed for you, for the remission of sins." ( Matt. xxvi. 28 .)

Read the rest here