So far, my creative output has been limited and all over the spectrum. They range from thrown together in a matter of minutes to painstakingly tweaked to my satisfaction over the course of months. Strict Common Practice counterpoint versus freer (but still tonal) counterpoint, good voice leading versus creative license, and secular versus sacred texts. All, however, have been for choir. One for men's voices, one for 5-part mixed, but usually just the conventional four-voice mixed chorus. I've begun a slew of others, but these are the main ones:
Paraphrase Mass: Dominator Deus [SSATB] (2008, unfinished)
Ave Maria [original, scored TTBB] (2009)
Ave Maria [revised scoring for SATB] (2009)
Regina Coeli [SATB] (2010)
Quid Est Caritas? [SATB] (2010)
Suscipe [SATB] (2010, premiered at Ave Maria University, November 2010)
I need to start writing again. I haven't touched anything since October/November 2010, and here it is, June of 2011. I've jotted down snippets and ideas, but by the end of the summer, I'm dedicating myself to writing an Adagio for Strings. Deadline: August 31. Will keep you appraised of my progress...mostly to hold myself to my word. Wish me luck!
Wednesday, June 8, 2011
Sunday, April 17, 2011
Hosana filio David...
The same crowd of Jews spreading palm branches out one day, crying "Hosanna to the Son of David...blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord", "Benedictus qui venit in nomine Domini", are the same to haughtily scream and clamour: "Crucifigatur"...let Him be crucified.
And how we resemble them.
We glorify and follow God as it is convenient for us. We do what we want when we want it. If it strikes our fancy to adhere to what we know is right, we'll do it, and pat ourselves on the back for our fidelity to Divine Law. (Benedictus...) But the clock ticks, the hours pass, and the Truth of Christ is no longer convenient, no longer comfortable. We decide that it's easier to get rid of the One telling us this inconvenient Truth. (Crucifigatur.) --(Thanks to Fr. C.M. for inspiring these thoughts by preaching on the inconvenience of Truth.)--
When we decide that Truth, that Christ, is enough for us, and that we are willing to pay any price or make any sacrifice to remain loyal to Him, we will be able to accept the Resurrection and life which inevitably follows the Cross upon which we have thrown Him.
And how we resemble them.
We glorify and follow God as it is convenient for us. We do what we want when we want it. If it strikes our fancy to adhere to what we know is right, we'll do it, and pat ourselves on the back for our fidelity to Divine Law. (Benedictus...) But the clock ticks, the hours pass, and the Truth of Christ is no longer convenient, no longer comfortable. We decide that it's easier to get rid of the One telling us this inconvenient Truth. (Crucifigatur.) --(Thanks to Fr. C.M. for inspiring these thoughts by preaching on the inconvenience of Truth.)--
When we decide that Truth, that Christ, is enough for us, and that we are willing to pay any price or make any sacrifice to remain loyal to Him, we will be able to accept the Resurrection and life which inevitably follows the Cross upon which we have thrown Him.
Monday, April 4, 2011
Daybreak
The moment you feel the weight of the world has been lifted from your shoulders...
The clear-headed feeling of all being right with the world...
The perfect and peaceful joy, indescribable and unshakable...
The knowledge that everything will work out in the end...
The sight, whether literal or figurative, of a sunrise so profound and beautiful that you're standing on top of the world...
And thank God for it. Sometimes it comes so suddenly and unexpectedly that you can't help but praise Him. Maybe He purposefully designed such movements of the heart, to draw man back to Himself a little more obviously. A wonderful reminder of our total dependence on His providence and mercy.
The clear-headed feeling of all being right with the world...
The perfect and peaceful joy, indescribable and unshakable...
The knowledge that everything will work out in the end...
The sight, whether literal or figurative, of a sunrise so profound and beautiful that you're standing on top of the world...
The daybreak of the soul.
I believe in Christianity as I believe the sun has risen: not because I see it, but because by it, I see everything else. (C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity)
And thank God for it. Sometimes it comes so suddenly and unexpectedly that you can't help but praise Him. Maybe He purposefully designed such movements of the heart, to draw man back to Himself a little more obviously. A wonderful reminder of our total dependence on His providence and mercy.
Sunday, April 3, 2011
What Matters Most
Often times, we're taken off guard in life - we're so set in our ways and theories and our comfort zone that when something radical is asked of us, we shy away. Unless even the surprise catches us by surprise. Sometimes the most natural inclinations and intuitions we have toward a situation (fight, flight, or anything in between) are what are most true. Fr. McTeigue has long told me that being patient is merely being present to the present, enjoying (or enduring) what is right in front of us, labouring neither over the past nor worrying about the future. For someone as serious-minded, meticulous, and detail-oriented as myself, I am naturally disinclined to follow such logic. I worry about almost everything. But then God comes along and reminds me that He already knows how things are going to turn out, that everything happens for a reason, and that joys and sorrows alike are hand-picked by Him for my salvation. What matters most is responding to the grace He offers when He offers it. It's easy to put it off, to "think about it" for a while, and to delay making a decision. But, to take St. Joseph, the earthly father of Jesus (the one to whom God Almighty entrusted both His Son and His most precious creature, Mary) for an example...when the Holy Ghost acted in his soul, he moved. Without question, without hesitation, no matter how bizarre the request. He acted on it wholeheartedly, without delay. And so should we act. Responsiveness to God's grace in our lives is crucial. Whether it's a conversation in passing, a "debate", a meaningful friendship, however it manifests itself, recognizing and pursuing the Truth is something God offers us on a daily basis. If we have the ears to hear and the eyes to see...let us pray for the courage to act.
Wednesday, March 23, 2011
Saturday, March 19, 2011
Religious Beliefs and Society: Part 2/2, In a Public World
After almost a month of keeping you few readers waiting with bated breath (I'm sure), here, at last, is part two. Before I left Ave Maria, I was looking forward to vast amounts of free time to write music, read, relax, sleep, and do whatever else it is people with free time do. Now that I've been out of school for almost a year, I've found that I have far less of this coveted time than before. C'est la vie. Work, choir, and friends keep me entirely busy. This weekend, however, I have plenty of downtime for the first time in many weeks. Meryl and Chris are up at Sweetwater, Thomas is restricted to Carmel for a tennis tournament, I have a concert tonight and another tomorrow afternoon, and it doesn't look like it's going to stop raining, so I don't want to leave my house. This means that I can write blog posts, respond to theological discussions about Orthodoxy and Catholicism, write music, watch a movie on my sweet new TV (!!), enjoy a quiet weekend, and actually cook something exciting tonight rather than swiping an apple and some yogurt out of the fridge and calling it "dinner".
NOTA BENE: I don't really have an opinion on what type of government is best. They all have their flaws, and I wouldn't care to speculate. Whatever we're doing right now isn't working, according to the thoughts expressed below. Obviously, I'm open to criticism, suggestions, further thoughts, etc. I did not bother to go into Vatican II documents on modern Catholic social teaching, but drew solely from Aquinas, scripture, and my own thoughts. These are merely my own reflections on the separation of Church and state and religious beliefs/Truth in a public realm.
How much influence can a religious institution have on a social/secular institution? Or perhaps the more salient question would be to ask if the Church can dictate how people outside of her fold live their lives. In this world of tolerance, coexistence, diversity, and relativism, it's a difficult question to answer, and I'm not even sure I can answer it. Luckily, that's above my pay grade. But being the critical thinker that I am, I'm about to take a stab at it anyway.
Let us start by defining the theoretical roles of the Church and of the state. St Thomas Aquinas writes in De Regno that "Just as the founding of a city or kingdom may suitably be learned from the way in which the world was created, so too the way to govern may be learned from the divine government of the world." The role of the Church is to guide souls to heaven. Simple. Whether they are formally inside of the Catholic Church, just associated by baptism, or entirely outside of the Church, the role of the Church is to bring men to heaven. The role of state governments should, in theory, be to maintain civility, peace, and goodness for the people under her rule, and to make society a place for the betterment of her people. From there, laws can arise, civil disputes settled, customs and practices undertaken or done away with, etc. Aristotle wrote that "[s]ince every communication, whenever it is found among men, is ordained to something necessary for life, that community will be the perfect community which is ordained to the end that man may have the fullness of human life: and this is the city. For it is in the city that man finds the satisfaction of whatever needs human life may have in the circumstances in which it is lived (sicut contingit esse)." (As quoted from Aquinas in In Libros Politicorum Aristotelis Expositio; emphasis mine.)
The Church's primary concern is for the spiritual realm, to care for the soul of man, though one cannot rationally argue that the Church cares only for the soul. Catholic relief services, Catholic social teaching, giving alms, the corporal works of mercy, etc. all point toward a care for the complete human person. The Church looks first at the soul, then sees the human person in the context of his higher calling - that He was made to know, love, and serve God, being made in His image, and that he is destined for heaven, if he has the strength to consent to the will of God.
Conversely, the (modern) state's primary concern is for the human affairs of men, to govern his day-to-day life and to preserve society from violence, unrest. The state, at least in practice, cares for men from the outside in, that is, laws will inevitably touch upon the moral, the good, and the true. But herein lies the problem with government as such: because it is concerned with maintaining peace and stability - which naturally cater to the masses - upholding morality is not always the first priority, as evidenced by the legal termination of nascent human life. This is in sharp contrast to what Aristotle believes to be the ideal city/state.
Later in De Regno, Aquinas writes: "[T]hrough virtuous living man is further ordained to a higher end, which consists in the enjoyment of God, as we have said above. Consequently, since society must have the same end as the individual man, it is not the ultimate end of an assembled multitude to live virtuously, but through virtuous living to attain to the possession of God. If this end could be attained by the power of human nature, then the duty of a king would have to include the direction of men to it. We are supposing, of course, that he is called king to whom the supreme power of governing in human affairs is entrusted. Now the higher the end to which a government is ordained, the loftier that government is." (All emphasis mine.) Christ Himself admitted that "[His] Kingdom is not of this world." He unabashedly proclaimed that he "[came] not to bring peace but the sword." Christ's teaching was for all men of all times, and yet He didn't hesitate to teach and admonish the elders and command them about social issues as well ("render unto Caesar...").
Now the question is: where, if anywhere, do the heavenly kingdom and the earthly kingdoms intersect? The Church is the heavenly kingdom as can be had on earth, and the earthly kingdoms are the governments instituted by men throughout the world. How can Rome influence civil law? How can morality be imposed by the Church onto a civil, earthly government? As stated above, I do not claim to be qualified to answer this question, nor do I claim to have the correct answers. But it seems to me that Christ Himself did not intend for a complete separation of the two. It's true, His Kingdom is not of this world. But it IS in this world. Man is a composite creature, made of body and soul. To care for one and not for the other would be to separate man from himself, and thus from God, in Whose Image we are made. If state government had certain standards that would not be compromised, certain moral standards to uphold, if not by Divine Law, at least by Natural Law, we wouldn't have to have this discussion, because some element of morality and goodness would be inherent to civil, state government. We wouldn't have to worry about separation of Church and state, but for the time being, while it may not be right to impose morality, it is nevertheless the role of the Church to safeguard the souls of men, even if that means influencing or insisting upon a standard of morality in civil government.
NOTA BENE: I don't really have an opinion on what type of government is best. They all have their flaws, and I wouldn't care to speculate. Whatever we're doing right now isn't working, according to the thoughts expressed below. Obviously, I'm open to criticism, suggestions, further thoughts, etc. I did not bother to go into Vatican II documents on modern Catholic social teaching, but drew solely from Aquinas, scripture, and my own thoughts. These are merely my own reflections on the separation of Church and state and religious beliefs/Truth in a public realm.
How much influence can a religious institution have on a social/secular institution? Or perhaps the more salient question would be to ask if the Church can dictate how people outside of her fold live their lives. In this world of tolerance, coexistence, diversity, and relativism, it's a difficult question to answer, and I'm not even sure I can answer it. Luckily, that's above my pay grade. But being the critical thinker that I am, I'm about to take a stab at it anyway.
Let us start by defining the theoretical roles of the Church and of the state. St Thomas Aquinas writes in De Regno that "Just as the founding of a city or kingdom may suitably be learned from the way in which the world was created, so too the way to govern may be learned from the divine government of the world." The role of the Church is to guide souls to heaven. Simple. Whether they are formally inside of the Catholic Church, just associated by baptism, or entirely outside of the Church, the role of the Church is to bring men to heaven. The role of state governments should, in theory, be to maintain civility, peace, and goodness for the people under her rule, and to make society a place for the betterment of her people. From there, laws can arise, civil disputes settled, customs and practices undertaken or done away with, etc. Aristotle wrote that "[s]ince every communication, whenever it is found among men, is ordained to something necessary for life, that community will be the perfect community which is ordained to the end that man may have the fullness of human life: and this is the city. For it is in the city that man finds the satisfaction of whatever needs human life may have in the circumstances in which it is lived (sicut contingit esse)." (As quoted from Aquinas in In Libros Politicorum Aristotelis Expositio; emphasis mine.)
The Church's primary concern is for the spiritual realm, to care for the soul of man, though one cannot rationally argue that the Church cares only for the soul. Catholic relief services, Catholic social teaching, giving alms, the corporal works of mercy, etc. all point toward a care for the complete human person. The Church looks first at the soul, then sees the human person in the context of his higher calling - that He was made to know, love, and serve God, being made in His image, and that he is destined for heaven, if he has the strength to consent to the will of God.
Conversely, the (modern) state's primary concern is for the human affairs of men, to govern his day-to-day life and to preserve society from violence, unrest. The state, at least in practice, cares for men from the outside in, that is, laws will inevitably touch upon the moral, the good, and the true. But herein lies the problem with government as such: because it is concerned with maintaining peace and stability - which naturally cater to the masses - upholding morality is not always the first priority, as evidenced by the legal termination of nascent human life. This is in sharp contrast to what Aristotle believes to be the ideal city/state.
Later in De Regno, Aquinas writes: "[T]hrough virtuous living man is further ordained to a higher end, which consists in the enjoyment of God, as we have said above. Consequently, since society must have the same end as the individual man, it is not the ultimate end of an assembled multitude to live virtuously, but through virtuous living to attain to the possession of God. If this end could be attained by the power of human nature, then the duty of a king would have to include the direction of men to it. We are supposing, of course, that he is called king to whom the supreme power of governing in human affairs is entrusted. Now the higher the end to which a government is ordained, the loftier that government is." (All emphasis mine.) Christ Himself admitted that "[His] Kingdom is not of this world." He unabashedly proclaimed that he "[came] not to bring peace but the sword." Christ's teaching was for all men of all times, and yet He didn't hesitate to teach and admonish the elders and command them about social issues as well ("render unto Caesar...").
Now the question is: where, if anywhere, do the heavenly kingdom and the earthly kingdoms intersect? The Church is the heavenly kingdom as can be had on earth, and the earthly kingdoms are the governments instituted by men throughout the world. How can Rome influence civil law? How can morality be imposed by the Church onto a civil, earthly government? As stated above, I do not claim to be qualified to answer this question, nor do I claim to have the correct answers. But it seems to me that Christ Himself did not intend for a complete separation of the two. It's true, His Kingdom is not of this world. But it IS in this world. Man is a composite creature, made of body and soul. To care for one and not for the other would be to separate man from himself, and thus from God, in Whose Image we are made. If state government had certain standards that would not be compromised, certain moral standards to uphold, if not by Divine Law, at least by Natural Law, we wouldn't have to have this discussion, because some element of morality and goodness would be inherent to civil, state government. We wouldn't have to worry about separation of Church and state, but for the time being, while it may not be right to impose morality, it is nevertheless the role of the Church to safeguard the souls of men, even if that means influencing or insisting upon a standard of morality in civil government.
Thursday, February 24, 2011
Religious Beliefs and Society: Part 1/2, On Friendship
This post is the first of two posts on religious beliefs in contemporary society. The first part deals with person-to-person interaction on a day-to-day basis; in other words, friendship. The second part will deal with Church-and-state, and the question of imposed morality in the government of the state.
------------------------------------------
My convictions about my religious beliefs are strong - anyone who knows me even a little bit can bear witness to that fact. Not everyone has the same convictions as I, even some of my close friends. People are atheist, agnostic, pagan, Christian, Muslim, Jewish, etc. But not even everyone who professes to be Catholic is well-versed in their faith. Some "Catholics" pick and choose what teachings to believe. Some "Catholics" are so open-minded and liberal that their brains have fallen out. I care very much for the few people that I allow myself to get close to. But even if I'm not very close to someone, I do find myself genuinely caring for them; I want them to come to a fuller understanding of the truth. The real truth. The only truth worth talking about. And let's not fool ourselves...there's only one Truth. If you truly care about someone, Truth is what you should focus on.
That being said, I've thought a lot about the idea of religious tolerance. Everyone's entitled to their beliefs, and I can't force my views on anyone the same way they can't force theirs on me. So how can one with strong beliefs or morals relate to someone whose beliefs differ?
There are two extremes of tolerance. In one corner, you have the "I care, but not enough to speak the Truth and risk offending someone I care about in order to help them see that Truth" view. This tolerance is better described as apathy in disguise. The Truth is radical, hard to accept, but the most important realization one can come to in this life. Christians who are apathetic towards religion and towards other's beliefs can't possibly be true Christians. If we're supposed to go out and preach the Gospel, if we are really sure of our faith and of the Truth that Christ gave His Church, the Church and her teachings that have been handed down to us for 2000 years of tradition, we wouldn't sit around, listen to what others have to say, and not care about it. We'd engage them in discussions, encourage them (with the utmost compassion, kindness, and charity) to seek the one Truth that there is. This wouldn't force our beliefs on them, but at the same time, call them to a higher contemplation of the Truth, and at the same time, call ourselves out of apathy, for if we only give ourselves to God, we're like the worker in the parable in the talents who merely buried them and gave back to his master what his master gave him. If we can't bring others, as well as ourselves, to Christ, our "Christian" lives are in vain. After all, merely giving Him back the sole talent He gave us (i.e., our own soul) is not what is expected...or required.
Some view empathy as being in the middle of apathy and cruelty. I know that Aquinas viewed virtue as "the mean between extremes", but I'm not sure that quite applies here, as a closer looks sheds light on the true nature of empathy. If one empathizes with people and their plights too much without being grounded in objective Truth, you quickly lose sight of the goal (truth), and you fall into a state of moral relativism - one of the most dangerous ideas to plague our modern times. Pope Benedict XVI said: "We are moving toward a dictatorship of relativism which does not recognize anything as for certain and which has as its highest goal one's own ego and one's own desires." The empathetic mostly have the right intentions of sympathizing with other's moral plights in the attempt to help them out of them and to come to know the truth, but it's certainly a delicate balance between kindness, sympathy, and love of Truth. The empathetic again sometimes slip away into the same fate as the apathetic: not accomplishing much on their end or on the person's that they are trying to help.
People (like myself) with strong convictions, particularly those tending toward the more conservative, orthodox, and traditional side of Roman Catholicism, tend to go too far on the opposite extreme of "tolerance" in fear of becoming apathetic towards other's beliefs, and therefore, to other's immortal souls and happiness. I'm not perfect, nor will I ever claim to be. The convictions and beliefs that these people hold to so strongly, coupled with pride and human weakness, can effect a sort of the "my way or the highway" type of mentality. Cruelty and pride drive people away from the very truth you've sworn to defend. Again, all things need to be tempered with charity and truth. There's no excuse to back down from convictions, but this approach comes on a little strong and turns most people off, which is far from the goal.
So how far IS too far? They're all too far. It's hard to find a certain, objective, set-in-stone definition for religious tolerance. I've encountered various sorts of people thus far...the worst of sinners and the best of saints. Whether I like it or not, people have come to me with a variety of problems: drug addictions, suicidal thoughts, carnal desires and sins, loss of faith, pride, jealousy, despair, eating disorders, anger, hate, violence, you name it. Some of these sins I have had firsthand experience with, and I don't believe in coincidence. Our God is a very deliberate God, and there's a reason people come to me, and there's a reason that I've been placed in the situations I've been through. God has given me my talents. I've been known to be quite handy with the shovel, and I can see various dirt mounds scattered around where I've buried the talents He's given me. If I don't meet people where they are and attempt to guide them, in word and in deed, to the Truth that I know, I won't have lived out my duty as a Catholic. If I can't push aside my pride, live as a virtuous woman modeled after Mary, be diligent and careful in my life, draw others to Christ, and learn charity for all I encounter, my life shall have been in vain.
------------------------------------------
My convictions about my religious beliefs are strong - anyone who knows me even a little bit can bear witness to that fact. Not everyone has the same convictions as I, even some of my close friends. People are atheist, agnostic, pagan, Christian, Muslim, Jewish, etc. But not even everyone who professes to be Catholic is well-versed in their faith. Some "Catholics" pick and choose what teachings to believe. Some "Catholics" are so open-minded and liberal that their brains have fallen out. I care very much for the few people that I allow myself to get close to. But even if I'm not very close to someone, I do find myself genuinely caring for them; I want them to come to a fuller understanding of the truth. The real truth. The only truth worth talking about. And let's not fool ourselves...there's only one Truth. If you truly care about someone, Truth is what you should focus on.
That being said, I've thought a lot about the idea of religious tolerance. Everyone's entitled to their beliefs, and I can't force my views on anyone the same way they can't force theirs on me. So how can one with strong beliefs or morals relate to someone whose beliefs differ?
There are two extremes of tolerance. In one corner, you have the "I care, but not enough to speak the Truth and risk offending someone I care about in order to help them see that Truth" view. This tolerance is better described as apathy in disguise. The Truth is radical, hard to accept, but the most important realization one can come to in this life. Christians who are apathetic towards religion and towards other's beliefs can't possibly be true Christians. If we're supposed to go out and preach the Gospel, if we are really sure of our faith and of the Truth that Christ gave His Church, the Church and her teachings that have been handed down to us for 2000 years of tradition, we wouldn't sit around, listen to what others have to say, and not care about it. We'd engage them in discussions, encourage them (with the utmost compassion, kindness, and charity) to seek the one Truth that there is. This wouldn't force our beliefs on them, but at the same time, call them to a higher contemplation of the Truth, and at the same time, call ourselves out of apathy, for if we only give ourselves to God, we're like the worker in the parable in the talents who merely buried them and gave back to his master what his master gave him. If we can't bring others, as well as ourselves, to Christ, our "Christian" lives are in vain. After all, merely giving Him back the sole talent He gave us (i.e., our own soul) is not what is expected...or required.
Some view empathy as being in the middle of apathy and cruelty. I know that Aquinas viewed virtue as "the mean between extremes", but I'm not sure that quite applies here, as a closer looks sheds light on the true nature of empathy. If one empathizes with people and their plights too much without being grounded in objective Truth, you quickly lose sight of the goal (truth), and you fall into a state of moral relativism - one of the most dangerous ideas to plague our modern times. Pope Benedict XVI said: "We are moving toward a dictatorship of relativism which does not recognize anything as for certain and which has as its highest goal one's own ego and one's own desires." The empathetic mostly have the right intentions of sympathizing with other's moral plights in the attempt to help them out of them and to come to know the truth, but it's certainly a delicate balance between kindness, sympathy, and love of Truth. The empathetic again sometimes slip away into the same fate as the apathetic: not accomplishing much on their end or on the person's that they are trying to help.
People (like myself) with strong convictions, particularly those tending toward the more conservative, orthodox, and traditional side of Roman Catholicism, tend to go too far on the opposite extreme of "tolerance" in fear of becoming apathetic towards other's beliefs, and therefore, to other's immortal souls and happiness. I'm not perfect, nor will I ever claim to be. The convictions and beliefs that these people hold to so strongly, coupled with pride and human weakness, can effect a sort of the "my way or the highway" type of mentality. Cruelty and pride drive people away from the very truth you've sworn to defend. Again, all things need to be tempered with charity and truth. There's no excuse to back down from convictions, but this approach comes on a little strong and turns most people off, which is far from the goal.
So how far IS too far? They're all too far. It's hard to find a certain, objective, set-in-stone definition for religious tolerance. I've encountered various sorts of people thus far...the worst of sinners and the best of saints. Whether I like it or not, people have come to me with a variety of problems: drug addictions, suicidal thoughts, carnal desires and sins, loss of faith, pride, jealousy, despair, eating disorders, anger, hate, violence, you name it. Some of these sins I have had firsthand experience with, and I don't believe in coincidence. Our God is a very deliberate God, and there's a reason people come to me, and there's a reason that I've been placed in the situations I've been through. God has given me my talents. I've been known to be quite handy with the shovel, and I can see various dirt mounds scattered around where I've buried the talents He's given me. If I don't meet people where they are and attempt to guide them, in word and in deed, to the Truth that I know, I won't have lived out my duty as a Catholic. If I can't push aside my pride, live as a virtuous woman modeled after Mary, be diligent and careful in my life, draw others to Christ, and learn charity for all I encounter, my life shall have been in vain.
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
Tales from the Harp
It's hard to follow such a liberating post as my last. It's also important to remember that good feelings are just that - feelings and emotion, which make them quite susceptible to sway and rapid change. What's important to hold onto is the principle behind the feelings, the Rock upon which our lives are built. The mercy of the Lord never ceases to amaze me, in good times and in bad. Because I cannot adequately put what I want to say into words, I'll let the Psalmist do it for me.
From Psalm 33, and from the Traditional Office of Compline for Wednesday - a great gift of the Church!
Exquisívi Dóminum, et exaudívit me: et ex ómnibus tribulatiónibus meis erípuit me.
[I sought the Lord, and He heard me: and from all of my tribulations, He rescued me.]
... Iste pauper clamávit, et Dóminus exaudívit eum: et de ómnibus tribulatiónibus ejus salvávit eum.
[The poor man has cried out, and the Lord has heard him: and from all his tribulations, He has saved him.]
...
Multae tribulationes justorum: et de omnibus his liberabit eos Dominus.
[Many are the trials of the just: and from all of them, the Lord will deliver them.]
No matter how dark and desperate the psalm, the Church always ends with the Gloria Patri.
From Psalm 33, and from the Traditional Office of Compline for Wednesday - a great gift of the Church!
Exquisívi Dóminum, et exaudívit me: et ex ómnibus tribulatiónibus meis erípuit me.
[I sought the Lord, and He heard me: and from all of my tribulations, He rescued me.]
... Iste pauper clamávit, et Dóminus exaudívit eum: et de ómnibus tribulatiónibus ejus salvávit eum.
[The poor man has cried out, and the Lord has heard him: and from all his tribulations, He has saved him.]
...
Multae tribulationes justorum: et de omnibus his liberabit eos Dominus.
[Many are the trials of the just: and from all of them, the Lord will deliver them.]
No matter how dark and desperate the psalm, the Church always ends with the Gloria Patri.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)