In case you hadn't noticed, I am a fan of the late Monsignor Ronald Knox (there's a man who deserved an honorary title!).
His books of sermons (whether for adults or children) are all excellent, his introduction to the Faith likewise. I haven't read his detective stories, but want to do so. He was, I think the last individual to do a complete translation of the Bible, and he had a fantastic sense of humour.
He it was who posted this advertisement in a religious periodical: Evangelical vicar, in want of a portable, second-hand font, would dispose, for the same, of a portrait, in frame, of the Bishop, elect, of Vermont.
Which should, perhaps, be better presented thus (though not for the sake of the joke in the paper):
Evangelical vicar, in want
Of a portable, second-hand font,
Would dispose, for the same,
Of a portrait, in frame,
Of the Bishop, elect, of Vermont.
He also wrote an excellent satire, Absolute and Abitofhell 'in the manner of John Dryden' on the new approach to religious belief that was leaking into the Anglican Church around the turn of the century. It is worth reading in full (not least to remind us that there is little new under the sun - this was published in 1915) but some of my favourite lines include:
First, Adam fell; then Noah's Ark was drowned,
And Samson under close inspection bound;
For Daniel's Blood the Critick Lions roar'd,
And trembling Hands threw Jonah overboard.
Lux Mundi came, and here we found indeed
A Maximum and Minimum of Creed:
But still the Criticks, bent on Matthew's Fall,
And setting Peter by the Ears with Paul,
Brought unaccustom'd Doctrines oversea
Suggesting rather, Caeli Tenebrae.
You get the idea; and so it goes on, questioning the wisdom of those who:
Eschewing Luke, John, Matthew, and the rest
Read Mark, but could not inwardly digest.
But my absolute favourite couplet is:
When suave Politeness, tempering bigot Zeal,
Corrected, "I believe," to "One does feel."
As I say, a man of genius and wit: we could do with a few like him now.
Requiescat in pace.
Showing posts with label Knox. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Knox. Show all posts
Wednesday, 15 January 2014
Friday, 3 January 2014
A Note From My Father
My father died a long time ago, back in 1978.
This afternoon, I was looking unsuccessfully for a book by Knox (Mons Ronald, of course!), and found instead, squeezed between A Creed in Slow Motion and A Retreat for Lay People, a small notebook. Only a few pages have been written in, all in my late father's handwriting. The following is the first note he made.
This note is dated September 1972. Here is what he had to say:
Two views:
1 There was a Council, certain changes were made; it went to the heads of some people, others were distressed by the changes. Things are now settling down.
2 a) The above is what might have been expected to happen; it is not what did happen. In fact, (using the Council as its occasion, and the fact that people were prepared for changes as its opportunity) a heretical clique has seized power and is bent on the destruction of the Church from within - what the Pope has called 'auto demolition' - and the introduction of a new religion. The situation is more serious than the Reformation not because there are heretics about, but because of the complicity, or at least silence, of the authorities, and because the heretics have acquired the semblance of legality.
b) The root of the heretical movement is the idea of secular progress (most characteristically Marxist). The natural progress of the world from the atom to the fully socialised community is the great reality, and the Church is just one factor in this (at best).
c) The strategy is to destroy distinctions: the Pope is not much different from other bishops ("collegiality"); bishops are not much different from priests; priests are not much different from laymen ("democratisation"); Catholics are not much different from other Christians; Christians are not much different from the rest of men.
d) The means of achieving all this are (amongst others):
Two more views
1) Provided the essence of the Mass remains, all else - rubrics, language, music etc - is relatively unimportant. Tastes may differ.
2) a) But it can be argued that the new rite, while not necessarily invalid, is designed to obscure the Sacrifice and the Real Presence. It is used at Taizé, and indeed 'Prex' 2 could be used by anyone. It fits the new ecumenical religion.
b) Are the 'inessentials' really so inessential? The Roman rite was doctrinally unassailable; the Latin was a powerful bond and manifestation of unity.
c) The new rite does not follow the lines of the constitution on the Sacred Liturgy.
--
And there the note ends. There are other notes in the book, which I may transcribe in due course.
I found this very interesting, not least given its date. In particular I was struck by his reflections on the strategy and means (2 c and d above).
I notice that, while presenting two views (and then two more), he does not come down in favour of one or the other - but I think his thinking is clear, nonetheless…
On writing that, I realise that I am assuming that this was his own thinking: it may, of course, have been notes taken from a talk given by someone else, but I have some reasons for doubting that (for a start, I think he would have noted that fact, were it the case.)
It was his anniversary the other day: please spare a prayer for him.
Requiescat in pace.
This afternoon, I was looking unsuccessfully for a book by Knox (Mons Ronald, of course!), and found instead, squeezed between A Creed in Slow Motion and A Retreat for Lay People, a small notebook. Only a few pages have been written in, all in my late father's handwriting. The following is the first note he made.
This note is dated September 1972. Here is what he had to say:
Two views:
1 There was a Council, certain changes were made; it went to the heads of some people, others were distressed by the changes. Things are now settling down.
2 a) The above is what might have been expected to happen; it is not what did happen. In fact, (using the Council as its occasion, and the fact that people were prepared for changes as its opportunity) a heretical clique has seized power and is bent on the destruction of the Church from within - what the Pope has called 'auto demolition' - and the introduction of a new religion. The situation is more serious than the Reformation not because there are heretics about, but because of the complicity, or at least silence, of the authorities, and because the heretics have acquired the semblance of legality.
b) The root of the heretical movement is the idea of secular progress (most characteristically Marxist). The natural progress of the world from the atom to the fully socialised community is the great reality, and the Church is just one factor in this (at best).
c) The strategy is to destroy distinctions: the Pope is not much different from other bishops ("collegiality"); bishops are not much different from priests; priests are not much different from laymen ("democratisation"); Catholics are not much different from other Christians; Christians are not much different from the rest of men.
d) The means of achieving all this are (amongst others):
- The monopoly of the 'Catholic' press
- The catechetical movement
- The ecumenical movement
- The destruction of the whole web of authentic devotional life, and especially the new rite of the "coena domenica sine missa."
Two more views
1) Provided the essence of the Mass remains, all else - rubrics, language, music etc - is relatively unimportant. Tastes may differ.
2) a) But it can be argued that the new rite, while not necessarily invalid, is designed to obscure the Sacrifice and the Real Presence. It is used at Taizé, and indeed 'Prex' 2 could be used by anyone. It fits the new ecumenical religion.
b) Are the 'inessentials' really so inessential? The Roman rite was doctrinally unassailable; the Latin was a powerful bond and manifestation of unity.
c) The new rite does not follow the lines of the constitution on the Sacred Liturgy.
--
And there the note ends. There are other notes in the book, which I may transcribe in due course.
I found this very interesting, not least given its date. In particular I was struck by his reflections on the strategy and means (2 c and d above).
I notice that, while presenting two views (and then two more), he does not come down in favour of one or the other - but I think his thinking is clear, nonetheless…
On writing that, I realise that I am assuming that this was his own thinking: it may, of course, have been notes taken from a talk given by someone else, but I have some reasons for doubting that (for a start, I think he would have noted that fact, were it the case.)
It was his anniversary the other day: please spare a prayer for him.
Requiescat in pace.
Sunday, 19 May 2013
Pentecost Gospel
Today is an interesting day, for those who have been following my analysis of the treatment of the Gospels in the New Lectioanry.
On the one hand, the Gospel for the Extraordinary Form of the Mass, which would have been read on this day at every Sunday Mass, every year, closes with a pair of verses which is not read on any Sunday under the new arrangements.
It is St John, 14: 30 - 31: "I shall not talk to you any longer, because the prince of this world is on his way. He has no power over me, but the world must be brought to know that I love the Father, and that I am doing exactly what the Father told me."
Quite why that is no longer an important text is unclear to me, but clearly Bugnini and his team made that decision. Oddly, they don't seem keen on verses that describe Our Lord's relationship with His Father, nor those that mention the Devil.
The second reason today is interesting in this context is because it also features a Gospel reading with a passage cut out from the middle of it. The Gospel we heard was St John, 14:15-16, 23-26. So verses 17 - 22 were cut.
It is true that 17 - 21 are read on the sixth Sunday after Easter in Year A, so they have not disappeared altogether, except verse 22 itself. But it still strikes me as odd: the reading was not particularly long today. So why were these verses deemed inappropriate? Here they are in the Knox translation, with verse 22 (the one that is never read, even on 6th Sunday after Easter (Year A)) in bold:
It is the truth-giving Spirit, for whom the world can find no room, because it cannot see him, cannot recognize him. But you are to recognize him; he will be continually at your side, nay, he will be in you. I will not leave you friendless; I am coming to you. It is only a little while now, before the world is to see me no more; but you can see me, because I live on, and you too will have life. When that day comes, you will learn for yourselves that I am in my Father, and you are in me, and I am in you. The man who loves me is the man who keeps the commandments he has from me; and he who loves me will win my Father’s love, and I too will love him, and will reveal myself to him. Here Judas, not the Iscariot, said to him, Lord, how comes it that thou wilt only reveal thyself to us, and not to the world?
Any idea why these weren't appropriate for today?
On the one hand, the Gospel for the Extraordinary Form of the Mass, which would have been read on this day at every Sunday Mass, every year, closes with a pair of verses which is not read on any Sunday under the new arrangements.
It is St John, 14: 30 - 31: "I shall not talk to you any longer, because the prince of this world is on his way. He has no power over me, but the world must be brought to know that I love the Father, and that I am doing exactly what the Father told me."
Quite why that is no longer an important text is unclear to me, but clearly Bugnini and his team made that decision. Oddly, they don't seem keen on verses that describe Our Lord's relationship with His Father, nor those that mention the Devil.
The second reason today is interesting in this context is because it also features a Gospel reading with a passage cut out from the middle of it. The Gospel we heard was St John, 14:15-16, 23-26. So verses 17 - 22 were cut.
It is true that 17 - 21 are read on the sixth Sunday after Easter in Year A, so they have not disappeared altogether, except verse 22 itself. But it still strikes me as odd: the reading was not particularly long today. So why were these verses deemed inappropriate? Here they are in the Knox translation, with verse 22 (the one that is never read, even on 6th Sunday after Easter (Year A)) in bold:
It is the truth-giving Spirit, for whom the world can find no room, because it cannot see him, cannot recognize him. But you are to recognize him; he will be continually at your side, nay, he will be in you. I will not leave you friendless; I am coming to you. It is only a little while now, before the world is to see me no more; but you can see me, because I live on, and you too will have life. When that day comes, you will learn for yourselves that I am in my Father, and you are in me, and I am in you. The man who loves me is the man who keeps the commandments he has from me; and he who loves me will win my Father’s love, and I too will love him, and will reveal myself to him. Here Judas, not the Iscariot, said to him, Lord, how comes it that thou wilt only reveal thyself to us, and not to the world?
Any idea why these weren't appropriate for today?
Sunday, 17 February 2013
Learning from the past
As a traditionally-minded sort of chap, I am interested in learning from the past; indeed it strikes me as the height of folly not do so. A mind that declares 'History is bunk' is only revealing its own paucity of understanding.
With regard to my recurring theme of the need for Apologetics, (and here) that means, as Ttony has pointed out, considering the example of the Catholic Evidence Guild. I have been doing this mainly in the introduction to the CEG Training Outlines, but also reports such as this.
I am not quite clear if the CEG is still active anywhere: recent links seem harder to find. Further, I am not sure that their particular approach to the apostolate is now the best one: outdoor talks seem to me less and less likely to attract listeners.
However, I do think that their approach to training apologists is something from which we can learn a great deal.
To give some idea of that, here is a quick sketch of how volunteers were expected to prepare to talk about just one aspect of the Faith: The Visible Church.
First, they were given a reading list:
Tixeront: Apologetical studies (most important)
Sheehan: Apologetics (Ch ix)
Knox: Essentials of Spiritual Unity
Sertillanges: The Church (Chapters l, ll and V)
Adam: Spirit of Catholicism
Hughes: History of the Church (Vol l, Ch ii)
Rousselot: Life of the Church
(For the Mystical Body)
Sheed: Map of Life (Ch vi)
Benson: Christ in the Church.
They were also expected to be thoroughly familiar with relevant passages of Scripture, such as:
Matthew: xvi, xxviii; Mark iv 11; John, xvii 11, 20 -23; xxi; Acts: viii 17-19; xiii; xv etc 1 Timothy, iii 5 and 15, iv 14; Titus i 5, iii 10 etc; Ephesians iv 11-3; 1 Corinthians xi 34; and Galatians i 9.
They would then attend a talk by an experienced speaker and trainer on the topic, and ask questions. They would also present on the topic themselves and be asked questions. Sample questions that might be thrown at them included:
1) If visibility is an outstanding feature of the Church, why is the Church so difficult to find among all the conflicting sects? and how is it that so few find the Church?
2) The Kingdom of God is within you.
3) Why do we need an organisation to teach us Christ's Gospel?
4) Where two or three are gathered in My Name - nothing about a Church there.
5) The visibility of the Church is a mere political development
6) Visibility is but an ideal to be worked and prayed for
7) The Salvation Army is as much a visible body as your Church
8) I have the voice of God within telling me that I am right. What more do I need?
9) St John says: 'You need not that any man should teach you.'
10) Churches are only a means to an end: why do you worry so much about the means, when it is the end that matters?
11) Christ said: 'I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life." Why the Church?
(and so on - another six are listed, and speakers in training were encouraged to think up the hardest, most realistic questions they could think of - so in our times that would doubtless include issues of abuse, cover-up, corruption, dissent and so on).
Only when they were able to answer all questions quickly, succinctly and accurately were they put forward to be tested by a priest, and only then allowed to speak for the CEG.
Moreover, they were also offered spiritual formation, and instructed that for every hour they intended to practice their apostolate, they should spend an hour in front of the Blessed Sacrament.
They were expected to attend two training sessions every week, as well as the actual commitment to speak...
As I said above, I am not seeking to recreate this, but to learn from it.
I suspect that I am not alone in recognising that faced with the questions listed above in the pub or the workplace, I might not have good answers to offer on the tip of my tongue (backed up by appropriate quotations from Scripture, and examples from the lives of the saints of the lived reality...). And I feel that I should. The CEG were clear that their task was not to convert people: that is God's responsibility; but rather to be able and willing to give a clear, comprehensive, accurate, positive and compelling account of the Faith. To plough the soil, as it were, and scatter the seed: the miracle of germination is God's to work...
So the question I keep returning to, is how do we accomplish that, given (on the one hand) the difficulties of modern life (eg as highlighted by Joseph Shaw here) and (on the other) the opportunity presented by the social media?
Keep praying about this throughout Lent, please, and contribute any ideas.
With regard to my recurring theme of the need for Apologetics, (and here) that means, as Ttony has pointed out, considering the example of the Catholic Evidence Guild. I have been doing this mainly in the introduction to the CEG Training Outlines, but also reports such as this.
I am not quite clear if the CEG is still active anywhere: recent links seem harder to find. Further, I am not sure that their particular approach to the apostolate is now the best one: outdoor talks seem to me less and less likely to attract listeners.
However, I do think that their approach to training apologists is something from which we can learn a great deal.
To give some idea of that, here is a quick sketch of how volunteers were expected to prepare to talk about just one aspect of the Faith: The Visible Church.
First, they were given a reading list:
Tixeront: Apologetical studies (most important)
Sheehan: Apologetics (Ch ix)
Knox: Essentials of Spiritual Unity
Sertillanges: The Church (Chapters l, ll and V)
Adam: Spirit of Catholicism
Hughes: History of the Church (Vol l, Ch ii)
Rousselot: Life of the Church
(For the Mystical Body)
Sheed: Map of Life (Ch vi)
Benson: Christ in the Church.
They were also expected to be thoroughly familiar with relevant passages of Scripture, such as:
Matthew: xvi, xxviii; Mark iv 11; John, xvii 11, 20 -23; xxi; Acts: viii 17-19; xiii; xv etc 1 Timothy, iii 5 and 15, iv 14; Titus i 5, iii 10 etc; Ephesians iv 11-3; 1 Corinthians xi 34; and Galatians i 9.
They would then attend a talk by an experienced speaker and trainer on the topic, and ask questions. They would also present on the topic themselves and be asked questions. Sample questions that might be thrown at them included:
1) If visibility is an outstanding feature of the Church, why is the Church so difficult to find among all the conflicting sects? and how is it that so few find the Church?
2) The Kingdom of God is within you.
3) Why do we need an organisation to teach us Christ's Gospel?
4) Where two or three are gathered in My Name - nothing about a Church there.
5) The visibility of the Church is a mere political development
6) Visibility is but an ideal to be worked and prayed for
7) The Salvation Army is as much a visible body as your Church
8) I have the voice of God within telling me that I am right. What more do I need?
9) St John says: 'You need not that any man should teach you.'
10) Churches are only a means to an end: why do you worry so much about the means, when it is the end that matters?
11) Christ said: 'I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life." Why the Church?
(and so on - another six are listed, and speakers in training were encouraged to think up the hardest, most realistic questions they could think of - so in our times that would doubtless include issues of abuse, cover-up, corruption, dissent and so on).
Only when they were able to answer all questions quickly, succinctly and accurately were they put forward to be tested by a priest, and only then allowed to speak for the CEG.
Moreover, they were also offered spiritual formation, and instructed that for every hour they intended to practice their apostolate, they should spend an hour in front of the Blessed Sacrament.
They were expected to attend two training sessions every week, as well as the actual commitment to speak...
As I said above, I am not seeking to recreate this, but to learn from it.
I suspect that I am not alone in recognising that faced with the questions listed above in the pub or the workplace, I might not have good answers to offer on the tip of my tongue (backed up by appropriate quotations from Scripture, and examples from the lives of the saints of the lived reality...). And I feel that I should. The CEG were clear that their task was not to convert people: that is God's responsibility; but rather to be able and willing to give a clear, comprehensive, accurate, positive and compelling account of the Faith. To plough the soil, as it were, and scatter the seed: the miracle of germination is God's to work...
So the question I keep returning to, is how do we accomplish that, given (on the one hand) the difficulties of modern life (eg as highlighted by Joseph Shaw here) and (on the other) the opportunity presented by the social media?
Keep praying about this throughout Lent, please, and contribute any ideas.
Wednesday, 13 February 2013
The Knox Bible - Online
I have long been a fan of Monsignor Ronald Knox. His 'Slow Motion' series of books (The Mass in Slow Motion, The Creed in Slow Motion, and Retreat in Slow Motion) are favourites to which I return frequently.
His translation of the Bible is also the one I read on a daily basis. It is an astonishing feat, and I understand it to be the last translation (into English) made by a single individual (and apparently it took him nine years), rather than a committee. That shows: the style is consistent and individual. Knox has chosen a slightly heightened style (hieratic, one might say) including thee and thou, but also one that is clearly not old-fashioned; indeed at times it is quite idiomatic.
Thus reading Knox has the refreshing quality of seeing the text anew, without the disconcerting vulgarity, or simple infelicities of style which bedevil some more recent translations.
So I was delighted to see (courtesy a commenter on Fr Z's blog) that it his translation is available online.
To give you a flavour, here is Psalm 22 (or 23):
His translation of the Bible is also the one I read on a daily basis. It is an astonishing feat, and I understand it to be the last translation (into English) made by a single individual (and apparently it took him nine years), rather than a committee. That shows: the style is consistent and individual. Knox has chosen a slightly heightened style (hieratic, one might say) including thee and thou, but also one that is clearly not old-fashioned; indeed at times it is quite idiomatic.
Thus reading Knox has the refreshing quality of seeing the text anew, without the disconcerting vulgarity, or simple infelicities of style which bedevil some more recent translations.
So I was delighted to see (courtesy a commenter on Fr Z's blog) that it his translation is available online.
To give you a flavour, here is Psalm 22 (or 23):
Psalm 22 (23)
(A psalm. Of David.)
The Lord is my shepherd; how can I lack anything? 2 He gives me a resting-place where there is green pasture, leads me out to the cool water’s brink, refreshed and content. 3 As in honour pledged, by sure paths he leads me; 4 dark be the valley about my path, hurt I fear none while he is with me; thy rod, thy crook are my comfort. 5 Envious my foes watch, while thou dost spread a banquet for me; richly thou dost anoint my head with oil, well filled my cup. All my life thy loving favour pursues me; through the long years the Lord’s house shall be my dwelling-place.
and here is St Luke, telling of the Annunciation:
When the sixth month came, God sent the angel Gabriel to a city of Galilee called Nazareth, 27 where a virgin dwelt, betrothed to a man of David’s lineage; his name was Joseph, and the virgin’s name was Mary. 28 Into her presence the angel came, and said, Hail, thou who art full of grace; the Lord is with thee; blessed art thou among women.[d] 29 She was much perplexed at hearing him speak so, and cast about in her mind, what she was to make of such a greeting.30 Then the angel said to her, Mary, do not be afraid; thou hast found favour in the sight of God. 31 And behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and shalt bear a son, and shalt call him Jesus. 32 He shall be great, and men will know him for the Son of the most High; the Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, and he shall reign over the house of Jacob eternally; 33 his kingdom shall never have an end. 34 But Mary said to the angel, How can that be, since I have no knowledge of man? 35 And the angel answered her, The Holy Spirit will come upon thee, and the power of the most High will overshadow thee. Thus this holy offspring of thine shall be known for the Son of God. 36 See, moreover, how it fares with thy cousin Elizabeth; she is old, yet she too has conceived a son; she who was reproached with barrenness is now in her sixth month, 37 to prove that nothing can be impossible with God. 38 And Mary said, Behold the handmaid of the Lord; let it be unto me according to thy word. And with that the angel left her.
Knox's translation is also republished by Baronius Press, if you wish to buy a copy.
Tuesday, 21 February 2012
The Fame of Blessed Thomas More
I have just started to read The Fame of Blessed Thomas More.
It is a collection of talks given on the occasion of the More Memorial Exhibition organised in his honour at Chelsea in July 1929. The talks are by Fr (later Mons) Ronald Knox, Hilaire Belloc, G K Chesterton, Lord Justice Russell, Henry Browne SJ, Reginald Blunt and Bede Jarrett OP.
It also features, as an appendix, the catalogue of the exhibition: the first item is St Thomas' hair shirt and there are a further 16 relics; there are also portraits, first editions, statues and so forth: it must have been magnificent.
As you can imagine, I am looking forward to getting stuck into the book. However, I have read none of the talks yet, only the introduction. That is by Professor R W Chambers (later, in 1935, More's biographer).
I found his introductory essay fascinating. I had not realised that for centuries (from his own time until the early 19th Century) More was widely regarded as one of the greatest writers of English prose. Certainly in my education, his name was never mentioned in that context, nor was it ever suggested that I - or anyone -should read him. Yet Chambers points out, succeeding generations held to the view, expressed by More's nephew William Rastell: his works [are] worthy to be had and read of every Englishman that is studious or desirous to know and learn [...] the eloquence and property of the English tongue.
Chambers also quotes a colleague, Professor A W Reed, who makes the fascinating observation: It may seem incongruous to associate More's hair-shirt with his prose style; but both, I believe, derived from his early days of prayer, reading, recollection and discipline beside the monks of the London Charterhouse.
Irony, of course abounds: it was only when imprisoned by Henry Vlll in the Tower of London that More had time to write at his leisure; up till then his time had not been his own, and though he wrote plentifully, both in Latin and English, the quality of his writing in the Tower is unsurpassed; and from the Tower, of course, he watched those same monks of the Charterhouse being dragged to their executions, in the knowledge that his fate was likely to be similar.
It is a collection of talks given on the occasion of the More Memorial Exhibition organised in his honour at Chelsea in July 1929. The talks are by Fr (later Mons) Ronald Knox, Hilaire Belloc, G K Chesterton, Lord Justice Russell, Henry Browne SJ, Reginald Blunt and Bede Jarrett OP.
It also features, as an appendix, the catalogue of the exhibition: the first item is St Thomas' hair shirt and there are a further 16 relics; there are also portraits, first editions, statues and so forth: it must have been magnificent.
As you can imagine, I am looking forward to getting stuck into the book. However, I have read none of the talks yet, only the introduction. That is by Professor R W Chambers (later, in 1935, More's biographer).
I found his introductory essay fascinating. I had not realised that for centuries (from his own time until the early 19th Century) More was widely regarded as one of the greatest writers of English prose. Certainly in my education, his name was never mentioned in that context, nor was it ever suggested that I - or anyone -should read him. Yet Chambers points out, succeeding generations held to the view, expressed by More's nephew William Rastell: his works [are] worthy to be had and read of every Englishman that is studious or desirous to know and learn [...] the eloquence and property of the English tongue.
Chambers also quotes a colleague, Professor A W Reed, who makes the fascinating observation: It may seem incongruous to associate More's hair-shirt with his prose style; but both, I believe, derived from his early days of prayer, reading, recollection and discipline beside the monks of the London Charterhouse.
Irony, of course abounds: it was only when imprisoned by Henry Vlll in the Tower of London that More had time to write at his leisure; up till then his time had not been his own, and though he wrote plentifully, both in Latin and English, the quality of his writing in the Tower is unsurpassed; and from the Tower, of course, he watched those same monks of the Charterhouse being dragged to their executions, in the knowledge that his fate was likely to be similar.
Friday, 16 December 2011
Sundays
A recent post about Mass on Saturday evenings or Sunday mornings, prompted a bit of discusion in the Comms box.
Part-time Pilgrim wrote:
We also go to Adoration and Benediction, once a month (that's all that's on offer). We also do 'Sunday Morning Religion' with the kids: typically reading and discussing a chapter of Sheed, Knox (Mons R, not the other chap) or something.
We abstain from work (and shopping of course), as best we can (though sometimes the kids remember urgent homework, and occasionally I have a work crisis that needs addressing before Monday, usually due to poor planning...) and often go for a family walk, and sometimes play games around the fire.
But other than that, we don't do a lot to differentiate. I'd be intrigued to hear what others do.
Part-time Pilgrim wrote:
What lies behind this is (I think) the idea - correct idea - that fulfilling your Sunday obligation is necessary to keep the third commandment but not sufficient. A more interesting question is: "What else should a Catholic do on Sunday to mark it as the Lord's day?"A great question!
We also go to Adoration and Benediction, once a month (that's all that's on offer). We also do 'Sunday Morning Religion' with the kids: typically reading and discussing a chapter of Sheed, Knox (Mons R, not the other chap) or something.
We abstain from work (and shopping of course), as best we can (though sometimes the kids remember urgent homework, and occasionally I have a work crisis that needs addressing before Monday, usually due to poor planning...) and often go for a family walk, and sometimes play games around the fire.
But other than that, we don't do a lot to differentiate. I'd be intrigued to hear what others do.
Monday, 9 August 2010
A Classic!
A review of the late Monsignor Knox's classic The Creed in Slow Motion over at Catholic Book Reviews. If you have not yet read it, you should! (Knox that is, not Catholic Book Reviews...) The review seems to me to understate quite how good the book is...
Monday, 19 July 2010
Comparative seriousness of sins...
Last night I was reading 1 Kings 15, and came across this (Knox translation, of course!):
Rebellion is sin as witchcraft is sin, all one with idolatory is the unsubmissive heart. (v23)
This set me thinking about those who rush to point out that 'of course, nobody is saying that attempting to ordain women is as serious as abusing children.'
Are we so sure? Abusing children is intolerably evil: for whoever scandalises one of these little ones... and so on.
However, to attempt to ordain women within the Catholic Church is knowingly and deliberately to abuse the Church: the mystical body of Christ.
Are we really so sure we can say that is less evil?
Rebellion is sin as witchcraft is sin, all one with idolatory is the unsubmissive heart. (v23)
This set me thinking about those who rush to point out that 'of course, nobody is saying that attempting to ordain women is as serious as abusing children.'
Are we so sure? Abusing children is intolerably evil: for whoever scandalises one of these little ones... and so on.
However, to attempt to ordain women within the Catholic Church is knowingly and deliberately to abuse the Church: the mystical body of Christ.
Are we really so sure we can say that is less evil?
Tuesday, 11 May 2010
A good read
In fact 'a good read' is understating it.
I have been re-reading Mons Ronald Knox's sermons on Our Lord's parables and have been bowled over: his insights are so profound and challenging - and parables that I thought I knew well (and some that one almost passes over as one-liners) take on whole new depths of meaning. The worrying thing is that I am RE-reading, and have clearly forgotten everything I learned first time around... Live and don't learn, that's my motto.
(Also re-reading PG Wodehouse Golf Stories - less spiritually rich, perhaps, but wonderfully crafted!)
I have been re-reading Mons Ronald Knox's sermons on Our Lord's parables and have been bowled over: his insights are so profound and challenging - and parables that I thought I knew well (and some that one almost passes over as one-liners) take on whole new depths of meaning. The worrying thing is that I am RE-reading, and have clearly forgotten everything I learned first time around... Live and don't learn, that's my motto.
(Also re-reading PG Wodehouse Golf Stories - less spiritually rich, perhaps, but wonderfully crafted!)
Sunday, 11 April 2010
A good day...
Mass, breakfast with croissants (mmm!), Sunday Morning Religion with Charlie and Dominique (a chapter of Ronald Knox, followed by a crossword puzzle on the moral virtues), early lunch and dash to the station to drop of Ant who is going back to University, a sunny walk with Anna and Goldie, Benediction, Lawn Mowing and Gardening. Now to make the tea for Grandma and the little ones, as Anna and Bernie are out. A very satisfying day!
Sunday, 4 April 2010
Excellent article in the Tablet!
Credit where credit is due. Regular readers of this blog who are particularly perceptive and skilled at reading between the lines, may have gathered that I am not a huge fan of the Tablet.
However, I always like to give praise where it's due, and think the Easter meditation 'The Risen Christ' is truly excellent. It is by one Mons Ronald Knox and appears in the Tablet dated 8 April 1939 - At that time the Tablet was a Catholic paper.
For those who have not filed their back-copies of the Tablet, it can also be found in Knox's Pastoral Sermons.
However, I always like to give praise where it's due, and think the Easter meditation 'The Risen Christ' is truly excellent. It is by one Mons Ronald Knox and appears in the Tablet dated 8 April 1939 - At that time the Tablet was a Catholic paper.
For those who have not filed their back-copies of the Tablet, it can also be found in Knox's Pastoral Sermons.
Friday, 2 April 2010
Good Friday
Pleased that both Ant and Bernie wanted to come to Watching last night! We did 10.00 - 11.00 so they were a bit slow to get up this morning...
After walking Goldie, we read Mons Knox's sermon on the Agony in the Garden, from Pastoral Sermons (which I'd read last night and reminded myself how good it was).
The kids are Knox fans, thanks to the Creed in Slow Motion and the Mass in Slow Motion, and they found this sermon good, too, even though aimed at adults.
We then went to the Good Friday Liturgy, which was well done, though I would love some better music (either polyphony or chant), especially for the Reproaches...
Then home to home-made Hot Cross Buns to break the fast. Anna has tried to make these once before and they were not a success; but this year's were truly delicious!
About to read the kids the next Knox sermon on The Trial. Then there are two for Holy Saturday and one for Easter Day: all highly recommended!
After walking Goldie, we read Mons Knox's sermon on the Agony in the Garden, from Pastoral Sermons (which I'd read last night and reminded myself how good it was).
The kids are Knox fans, thanks to the Creed in Slow Motion and the Mass in Slow Motion, and they found this sermon good, too, even though aimed at adults.
We then went to the Good Friday Liturgy, which was well done, though I would love some better music (either polyphony or chant), especially for the Reproaches...
Then home to home-made Hot Cross Buns to break the fast. Anna has tried to make these once before and they were not a success; but this year's were truly delicious!
About to read the kids the next Knox sermon on The Trial. Then there are two for Holy Saturday and one for Easter Day: all highly recommended!
Thursday, 19 April 2007
Me - ahead of the times...?
For years I have annoyed those around me in Church (and embarrassed my family) by proclaiming 'I believe...' when the new translation required 'We believe...'
I did this for a few reasons - one is my inherent tendency to be counter cultural; more importantly, however, was a sense of outrage at the translators having the audacity to translate 'Credo' as 'We believe.' The official text of the Church had never changed, in other words, it was only in English-speaking countries that this innovation hade been introduced. The third reason was that I had been given good reasons for 'I believe' (eg in Mons. Knox's Creed in Slow Motion) whereas the reasons for 'We believe' had always seemed entirly bogus.
However, it now seems as though I am to be vindicated: the new translation reverts to 'I believe' and will be in force from Advent this year (I understand) so I am now officially ahead of the times...
(The new translation is better on almost every count - have a look at it on Fr Finnigan's valle adurni blog).
I did this for a few reasons - one is my inherent tendency to be counter cultural; more importantly, however, was a sense of outrage at the translators having the audacity to translate 'Credo' as 'We believe.' The official text of the Church had never changed, in other words, it was only in English-speaking countries that this innovation hade been introduced. The third reason was that I had been given good reasons for 'I believe' (eg in Mons. Knox's Creed in Slow Motion) whereas the reasons for 'We believe' had always seemed entirly bogus.
However, it now seems as though I am to be vindicated: the new translation reverts to 'I believe' and will be in force from Advent this year (I understand) so I am now officially ahead of the times...
(The new translation is better on almost every count - have a look at it on Fr Finnigan's valle adurni blog
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
.jpg)
