nthngbtcnsnnts

Can you read that? It's nthngbtcnsnnts!*

In 2004 archaeologists and researchers were able to translate a tiny silver scroll (shown above close to life-size) found in 1979 at Ketef Hinnom, an archaeological site near Jerusalem. It's understood to be the oldest extant written record of a Bible passage, dating back to the 6th century BC. Written in old Hebrew, it has no indication of vowel sounds. That's not unusual for very old alphabets. As far as I know, all alphabets started with just consonants. And not only were there no vowels, but there were no spaces between the words, or punctuation, or upper/lower case, which was also typical. For example, I don't think the West began to space words until the late Middle Ages. There wasn't much demand for making reading easy until the printing press made books widely available, and a newly-literate public didn't want to labor over their Romance novels. The scribes made a nice living for a few millennia...then literacy became a do-it-yourself job.

Imagine reading a manuscript which is simply page after page of a single uninterrupted stream of consonants. To read it at least the first time could require the assistance of someone who already knew what it 'said'. 'Reading' would be a combination of sounding out the text while hearing or remembering the meaning at least in general terms. And learning the contents of a book might involve more listening and repeating than time spent actually 'reading' the text, especially if a group of students and their teacher had but one copy to share. The Greek word 'catechize' hints at this, meaning to sound-out, or as its root suggests, to echo: the teacher speaks, the students echo back. What we'd call being functionally literate with the Jewish Bible, the Tanakh, in Jesus' day would have thus been a full-time pursuit, involving years of reading/memorization, and restricted to such as scribes and Pharisees. But memorization (think of Homer and the Iliad) would allow for instant access to swathes of information that I can't come up with except by turning lots of pages, or cheating with an online Bible (heh). Easy-to-read prose has stunted my memorization skills. Pharisees would surely roll their eyes at me: just wait a sec, I gotta look that up.

I use the NAB (New American Bible) for general reading. For quoting, I usually use the KJV if it's not too fusty. I like the NAB for its notes; I haven't found another version whose references and commentaries suit me as well. They help me compensate for not having a scribe or Pharisee's instant command of memorized text.

Speaking of the Tanakh, have you ever heard this before:

"And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves,
And said unto them, It is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves. And the blind and the lame came to him in the temple; and he healed them."

I understand this. Greedy moneychangers, no respect for the Holy Precincts, righteous anger, Jesus steps on other peoples' turf, heals a wretch or two. No problem. Heard this & read it for 40 years, I got it.

Then one day two items in the notes caught my eye: 'house of prayer' comes from Isaiah 56:7, and 'den of thieves' from Jeremiah 7:11. Oh. Jesus is quoting prophets; I thought he was just talking. But rest assured that any scribe within earshot knew right away that Jesus had just quoted Isaiah and Jeremiah, and wasn't just showing off. He was using the small phrases as oral shorthand to refer to the bigger passages in which they were found, and he meant something by putting both passages together.

Just wait a sec, I gotta look that up.

Isaiah 56:7 Even them will I bring to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my house of prayer: their burnt offerings and their sacrifices shall be accepted upon mine altar; for mine house shall be called an house of prayer for all people.

Who's gonna be joyful? To get some context, we have to read verses 1-8 (edited):

1Thus saith the LORD: my salvation is near to come, and my righteousness to be revealed.

2Blessed is the man that keepeth the Sabbath.

3Neither let the son of the stranger, that hath joined himself to the LORD, speak, saying, The LORD hath utterly separated me from his people: neither let the eunuch say, Behold, I am a dry tree.

4For thus saith the LORD unto the eunuchs that keep my Sabbaths, and take hold of my covenant;

5Even unto them will I give in mine house and within my walls a place and a name better than of sons and of daughters: I will give them an everlasting name, that shall not be cut off.

6Also the sons of the stranger, that join themselves to the LORD, to be his servants, every one that keepeth the sabbath, and taketh hold of my covenant;

7Even them will I bring to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my house of prayer: their burnt offerings and their sacrifices shall be accepted upon mine altar; for mine house shall be called an house of prayer for all people.

8The Lord GOD, which gathers the outcasts of Israel saith, Yet will I gather others to him, beside those that are gathered unto him.

My synopsis: there will be a time when God's Covenant will extend to all people, including foreigners; even outcasts such as eunuchs. What will matter is not one's status as a son of Abraham, but whether one truly believes God's law and acts accordingly. Indeed the faithful eunuch may be closer to God than sons and daughters.

Just another sec while I look up the other one:

Jeremiah 7:11 Has this house, which bears my Name, become a den of thieves to you? But I have been watching! declares the LORD.

Uh...watching what, exactly? Once again we need context, verses 1-15 (edited):

1 This is the word that came to Jeremiah from the LORD : 2 "Stand at the gate of the LORD's house and there proclaim this message:

"Hear the word of the LORD, all you people of Judah who come through these gates to worship the LORD. 3 This is what the LORD says: Reform your ways and I will let you live in this place. 45 If you really change your ways then I will let you live in this place, in the land I gave your forefathers forever. 8 Do not trust in deceptive words and say, "This is the temple of the LORD, the temple of the LORD, the temple of the LORD!"

9 "Will you steal and murder, commit adultery and perjury, burn incense to Baal and follow other gods you have not known, 10 and then come and stand before me in this house, which bears my Name, and say, "We are safe to do all these detestable things? 11 Has this house, which bears my Name, become a den of thieves to you?"

12 "Go now to the place in Shiloh where I first made a dwelling for my Name, and see what I did to it because of the wickedness of my people Israel. 13 While you were doing all these things, I called you, but you did not answer. 14 Therefore, what I did to Shiloh I will now do to the house that bears my Name, the temple you trust in, the place I gave to you and your fathers. 15 I will thrust you from my presence, just as I did all your brothers, the people of Ephraim."

My synopsis: Jeremiah stands at the Temple Gate and warns: one's status as one of the Chosen people will not compensate for failing to observe God's law. If God's people do not repent of numerous sins, He will not allow them to stay in "the land I gave your forefathers forever." God offers Shiloh's fate as an example of what could (and did, in 587 BC) happen to the Temple.

What happened at Shiloh? Just another sec while I look it up: 1Samuel: 4 (heavily edited):

Now the Israelites went out to fight against the Philistines; Israel was defeated. The elders of Israel asked, "Why did the LORD bring defeat upon us today? Let us bring the Ark of the LORD's covenant from Shiloh, so that it may go with us and save us from the hand of our enemies."

4 So the people sent men to Shiloh, and they brought back the Ark. And Eli's two sons, Hophni and Phinehas, were there with the Ark.

When they learned that the Ark had come into the Israelite camp, 7 the Philistines were afraid. "A god has come into the camp," they said. 8 Woe to us! Who will deliver us from the hand of these mighty gods? They are the gods who struck the Egyptians with plagues. But the Philistines fought bravely, and the Israelites were defeated again. The Ark was captured, and Eli's two sons, Hophni and Phinehas, died.

12 That same day a Benjamite ran from the battle line and went to Shiloh. 13 When he arrived, there was Eli sitting on his chair by the side of the road. The man hurried over to Eli. "Israel has suffered heavy losses. Also your two sons, Hophni and Phinehas, are dead, and the ark of God has been captured."

Eli fell backward off his chair, broke his neck and died. 19 His daughter-in-law, the wife of Phinehas, was pregnant. When she heard that the Ark had been captured and that her father-in-law and her husband were dead, she went into labor and gave birth to a son, but was dying herself.

21 She named the boy Ichabod, saying, "The glory has departed from Israel"-because of the capture of the ark of God and the deaths of her father-in-law and her husband. 22 She said, "The glory has departed from Israel, for the Ark of God has been captured."

My synopsis: Shiloh was Israel's first assembly-place, a proto-capital where the Ark of the Covenant was originally kept in a tent. Thus it was where God dwelt among his people. Israel had a misplaced faith that God would never abandon them, regardless of any failure on their part to observe his law. The result was this catastrophic disaster. Israel could not have imagined that God would permit the loss of the Ark. Shiloh was destroyed as well (1067 BC). Israel eventually recovered the Ark, but it never was returned to Shiloh.

Now I assume that as fast as Temple cognoscenti heard Jesus say house of prayer and den of thieves, they would have recalled Isaiah and Jeremiah's prophecies; and any Jew would remember Shiloh, as I remember the Alamo and Pearl Harbor.

Putting Jeremiah and Isaiah together I get this:

Jesus stands at the Temple Gate as Jeremiah did, acting out Jeremiah's authority. He says the people (and especially the current Temple staff) are as unfaithful as they were in Jeremiah's day, and predicts through Jeremiah that Jerusalem will suffer a catastrophe as great as Shiloh, which was destroyed and never served as God's dwelling again. A disaster that exceeds any worst-case scenario. Yet somehow amidst that disaster, outsiders, outcasts, and Gentiles might join themselves to the LORD, take hold of His covenant, and enjoy a status that exceeds that of sons and daughters. And this will happen in God's house of prayer, which Jesus implies won't be in Jerusalem, which will have suffered Shiloh's fate.

I expect the chief priests and the teachers of the law understood Jesus' underlying, and more ominous message clearly and quickly; they'd have known the message was for their ears; they would have felt insulted and threatened far beyond the "house of prayer-den of thieves" couplet. And let's not forget, "....the blind and the lame came to him in the temple; and he healed them." Jesus acts out Isaiah, receiving these outcasts into the Temple court, and shows his divine authority to admit them by healing them, a further provocation.

Small wonder that within a few days, Annas & Caiaphas arranged Jesus' crucifixion.

That's an awful lot of Christian prophecy to extract from the zipfile of "house of prayer/ den of thieves."

And this is the problem with lots of easy Bible reading: first I don't memorize, don't remember whole contexts (well, sometimes I do). Second, it's hard to extract deeper meanings from text that makes adequate sense on the surface. There's no boldface indicating "deeper meaning." So I have to ask myself how would a scribe read this? Or better yet, how would a scribe listen to it?

A possible help is that I don't read books of the Bible straight through, except for Philemon and other shorties. Probably due to the influence of my Latin training and 12 years of Internet use, I am always looking sideways as much as vertically. For every few passages I read in a given book, I'm reading another passage in another book, which may require reading yet another passage in a third book before returning to the original. This is why the Bible is so fascinating: the process of seeing and understanding the dim web that knits it all together is also the process of knowing the Mind of God. Sometimes it's exhilarating, like the Enterprise moving at warp-speed through the galaxy; or plunging through spacetime in the Millennium Falcon. Not that spacetime has anything to do with the Mind of God!

It'd be great to have the instant recall that those consonant-only scribes must have had. But in the meantime, thank ya Jesus, for the cross-references.

* nothing but consonants

Nomads & Revelations

Yet another example of 6th graders teaching themselves:

Hey y'all, what's a nomad? Somebody who wanders around. Do they live in houses? No, tents. Trick question: where do nomads start from? Nowhere, they just wander. Next trick question: where do they finish? They just wander, they don't start or finish!

Yes. What's a pilgrim? Somebody like a nomad?

Mmm...sort of. Who were the Pilgrims, the Thanksgiving Pilgrims? They were people from England who came to America. Yes. And they came here on a schoolbus, right? Ha! They came on a boat, the Mayflower!

Yes, a ship. And I suppose being like nomads they just wandered around the ocean until they bumped into Massachusetts? No, they were coming here on purpose. I see...and when they arrived, did they grab tents and horses and take off for California? No, they settled down where the Mayflower dropped them off. Oh. They weren't wandering then, they had a destination. So pilgrims aren't nomads; pilgrims don't wander.

Where'd the Pilgrims start? England. And they stopped in...? America. Yes, in Massachusetts. Did they vacation there & then go back home to England? No, America was their new home. And if you lived in one place but journey to another place to live you aren't wandering. Do you know what we call people who journey from an old home to a new one? No guesses? Who are these monkeys that invented Thanksgiving? Acrobats?

Oh....Pilgrims? Yes, Pilgrims, they called themselves Pilgrims because they did not wander; they knew where they were headed, and when they got there, their journey was over.

Hey, at Mass, have you ever heard the priest say, "Strengthen in faith and love your pilgrim Church on Earth?" Ehh...yes? Of course you heard it, but if you were daydreaming you wouldn't remember.

Look at this beat-up book, what is this old thing? The Bible! (I hold it so that Genesis is loose in front and Revelations is loose in the back.) What's this book in front, the Adam & Eve one? Genesis! And this one at the end...the one where everything is finally revealed...? Revelations! A bit in the front, a bit in the back, and a thousand or so pages in between.

Speaking of Adam & Eve, in the beginning, in Eden, were they separated from God? No! Why not? They hadn't eaten the apple yet! That's right, they hadn't sinned. And Adam & Eve were unseparated too, in a way: Adam said Eve was 'bone of my bone; flesh of my flesh." Remind me again, was that his toe-bone? No, his rib! Which is near his...elbow? No, his heart! Because...? He loves her! Yes, with his whole heart.

Speaking of separation, what do we call it when souls separate from bodies? Death! And could souls separate from bodies in Eden? No! And why not? If you don't sin, you don't die. Right. In Eden, they sort of just hung out with God all the time....must've been great: pizza buffets and everything. So after they sinned, how were they separated from God? The angel threw them out of Eden! And not only were they separated from God, they would eventually have their souls separate from their bodies, and die. Man was created to be with God, but since we left Eden, we've been separated.

So back to the pilgrim Church...if it's a pilgrim Church, what is it doing...is it wandering? No. Right, it's not a nomad Church. So...if it's not wandering, what is the pilgrim church doing? It's going somewhere.

That's right...where's it going? No guesses? That's OK, it's a hard question. Look at the back of the Bible again: this last book....called....? Revelations. This last book tells us, reveals to us, where the Church is going. And are we part of the church? Yes. Right, all the faithful make up the Church. So if we're part of the pilgrim church that means we are....? Pilgrims. Who are on a...? A trip! Yes, on a journey. Just like the American Pilgrims, we and the Church will end our journey at our destination. Let's see what Revelations says about that destination.

The first thing we'll look at is the Second Coming. Who is coming the second time? Jesus. And when was the First Coming? What? When did he come the first time? Oh...Christmas? Yeah, at Christmas. And at the Ascension when Jesus rose up on a cloud, angels told the apostles, "why do you stand here looking into the sky? This same Jesus, who has been taken from you into heaven, will come back in the same way you have seen him go into heaven." So, how is Jesus going to come the second time? C'mon, the same way he went up. He rose up to the sky on clouds, so how will he return? Umm, down from the sky on clouds? Yes. Or something equally impressive; I expect everyone will know what's going on.


The Second Coming will signal that it's time for the Final Judgment, when everyone in Heaven, Hell, and Purgatory gets their bodies back. People who are alive haven't lost theirs. Revelations says "the dead [are] judged according to what they had done" and "each person [is] judged according to what he had done." St. John, who wrote Revelations, says it twice....just to remind you, it matters what you do, not just what you believe. So everyone goes to Heaven or Hell with their body & soul no longer separated. Adam & Eve's sin caused body & soul to separate, but in the end they become one again. And those who go to Heaven are no longer separated from God by Adam and Eve's sin, but are reunited with Him. Ever since Genesis, people have suffered separation, but in Revelations, everything good is reunited: Creation, Man, and God are all together again, just as they were in Eden.

Because everyone has their bodies back, we'll have to live somewhere physical. But not on Earth as it is now, with hurricanes, earthquakes, and tornadoes. Could weather kill people in Eden? No, there wasn't any bad weather. Why not? Because there was no sin. Yes. Sin doesn't just mess up the spiritual world, but the physical world, too.

And here's what St. John says about this physical place: "I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away.... " So we'll have a new home. And not only will Earth be new, but heaven as well, and they will also be one.

Then John says, "I saw the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband." And I know exactly what John means. I remember how beautiful my wife was when she was walking down the aisle to marry me. Why, let's look at that picture again (I show a wedding photo they've seen before). She looks like she came down out of heaven just like the New Jerusalem. So where are we going to live? The New Jerusalem!

Then John says, "Now the dwelling of God is with men, and he will live with them. They will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God." Does anyone remember another time when God told someone "you will be my people, and I will be your God"? OK, this is from Exodus: "I will take you as my own people, and I will be your God. I will bring you out of Egypt and to the land I promised to give to Abraham, to Isaac and to Jacob." Who was God talking to? Moses? Yes, Moses. Didn't y'all see Prince of Egypt? But when God says it in Revelations, it means more. God brings us out of sin, and brings us to a perfect land, a perfect home.

Here's a question: Jews worshiped God in a temple in Jerusalem; where do Christians worship? In a church! Yes. Now, about the New Jerusalem John says, "I did not see a temple in the city." Why wouldn't there be temple or a church there? .....That's a hard question, tell me this: in Eden did Adam & Eve go to church to visit with God? No. Why not? They were with God already. Yes. But after they got thrown out of Eden, we had the Temple and the Church as ways to stay connected to God, even though sin had separated us from Him. In the New Jerusalem will we be separated from God? No. So why won't there be a temple or a church? Because we'll be with God again. Yes, not separated.....like another place a long time ago which would be....? Eden! Yes.

So back to pilgrims. When the pilgrims were sitting at home in England were they pilgrims yet? No. Right, they were at home, not going anywhere. When they got on the Mayflower were they pilgrims? Yes! Once they settled down in their new home, were they still pilgrims? Not really. OK. Were Adam & Eve at home with God in Eden? Yes. But then they had to leave. We know from St. John that they and their children, that's us, will someday have a new home with God, the New Jerusalem. Right now we're on a long journey from our old home, Eden, to where? Our new home! Which is called...? The New Jerusalem! And when people are on a journey from an old home to a new home they are called...? Pilgrims! Yes, and that makes us...? Pilgrims, too.

Did the Pilgrims swim to America? Ha! No, we already said they took the Mayflower. Oh yeah....I forgot. Swimming is cheaper- why did they take a ship? 'cause it's safe. Yes, to have a safe ocean journey you need a sturdy ship. There's an Italian saint named John Bosco who once dreamed about a ship on a dangerous ocean. The ship was called the Bark of Peter. It wasn't a dog or a tree: the Italian (and Spanish) word for 'boat' is 'barco.' The captain was the Pope. What did the ship represent in the dream? A hard question? OK, What's the Pope in charge of in the real world? The Church. And in the dream he's in charge of the ship, so what's the ship? The Church? Yes...the Church is our Mayflower. It carries us safely from our old home to our new one. Is it a wandering Church, a nomad Church? No, a pilgrim Church. Yes, just like we hear at Mass.

So, look again at the Bible. One book in the front, about the old home before the journey became necessary, and one in the back about the new home, and all the middle books are about the pilgrims' progress along the way. A pilgrim's journey is called a pilgrimage; we are on a pilgrimage. We know where we're going, and when we arrive, our journey will be over.

When the pilgrims arrive in the New Jerusalem, they become united with God. Like in Eden, there won't be a Church or Temple...once the pilgrims arrived in America, they didn't need the Mayflower anymore, either. St. John explains why there's no temple in New Jerusalem. He says, "the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are its temple."

Revelations is the end of the Bible, and it marks the end of our pilgrimage. All the things that were messed up and separated by sin are healed and made whole: Man's body and soul are one; God and man are united; even Heaven and Earth are joined forever. John says, "there will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away." And the great image of this unity is the wedding feast of....? The Lamb! Who is...? Jesus! And who does he marry? The Church! Yes, who St. John said was as beautiful as ....? as....? My wife when we got married! Do I need to show that picture again?


And the 6th grade boys say: NOOoooo!

Naissance de Français

It'd be hard to overestimate the influence Latin has had on me. This post isn't about Latin, though, except indirectly. But if my mind hadn't been trained by Latin, this post wouldn't exist. Specifically because Latin was my entree to French; but generally because Latin gave me an intellectual framework, a cadre, on which to hang practically everything I've learned. Latin provided a Grand Unified Theory of Everything such that no information is of value only in its own category, but incrementally adds to a coherent whole, the Biggest Possible Picture. And in the past 15 years or so, I've come around to the idea that all knowledge points to God...because it seems like more and more that's what my life points to, and everything I know reinforces that....as if by accident.

Didn't I say this post isn't about Latin? That's right: it isn't. It's about...French? No....it's about people, and how God's creative energy infuses everything they do, especially when they speak.
In A.D. 842 a couple of Charlemagne's grandsons, brothers Ludwig and Charles, swore loyalty to each other and against third brother Lothar. The oaths they swore, and other information about the alliance, were recorded. What makes this otherwise mundane event fascinating is that while the clerks wrote their account of the event in Latin, they wrote Ludwig's oath in a kind of proto-French, the precursor to Old French, because that was the 'language' he was speaking when he took the oath; or to paraphrase Chris Tucker, because those were the words that were coming out of his mouth.

Why wouldn't Ludwig just speak Latin? Well, my guess is that he and the rustic Franks he was addressing thought he was speaking (vulgar) Latin, the Roman tongue. The clerks however, being familiar with written Latin, considered it something else. The Franks' vernacular Latin had diverged so far from written Latin that it was treated as another language.

Here's Ludwig's oath in English:

For love of God and for Christian people, and our common safety, of this day forth, as much as God gives me to know and to be able, I will protect this my brother Charles, and will aid him in each thing, as one in justice must protect his brother, in which he would do the same for me; and I will make with Lothar no pact, which of my will can injure this my brother Charles.

Here's what Ludwig said in the Rustic Roman of the day:

Pro Deo amur et pro Christian poblo et nostro commun salvament, d'ist di in avant, in quant Deus savir et podir me dunat, si salvarai eo cist meon fradre Karlo et in ajudha et in cadhuna cosa, si cum om per dreit son fradra salvar dift, in o quid il me altresi fazet, et ab Ludher nul plaid numquam prindrai, qui, meon vol, cist meon fradre Karle in damno sit.

Here it is in modern French:

Pour l'amour de Dieu et pour le chrétien peuple et notre commun salut, de ce jour en avant, en tant que Dieu savoir et pouvoir me donne, ainsi secourrai-je ce mien frère Charles, et en aide en chacune chose si comme homme par droit son frère sauver doit, en ce (à condition) qu'il me fasse autant; et de Lothair nul accord jamais ne prendrai, qui par ma volonté, à ce mien frère Charles à dam soit.

If you're familiar at all with Latin, you'll see right away that Ludwig's oath just isn't very Latin-y; my first impression was that it was some primitive type of Spanish or Italian (Deo, poblo, nostro, podir, fradre); then looking at other words, it seemed a bit French as well (dreit, plaid, prindrai).

So even though it's not very Latin, it's not especially French...yet. Like a newborn baby it's distinct and separate from its mother, but not fully formed. So I think of the Oath of Strasbourg as marking the birth of French. But regardless of how we might name it, ('Rustic Roman,' for example; thus books written in the new Frankish common tongue were Romances) it shows how rapidly people will change a language. Practical changes; and aesthetic changes, which interest me more. Changes of rhythm, lilt, vowel and consonant shifts, stress, eliminating or adding sounds to existing words, I assume are made collectively over generations to make language more beautiful. People just can't leave well-enough alone.

Funny: growing up, the only speaking I thought was beautiful were some Southern U.S. accents, not often heard in South Louisiana. In high school, I had 2 years of Spanish; I decided Spanish was lovely too. Then 2 years of Latin, plus a pre-Vatican 2 Catholic childhood: discovered Latin was elegant. Over the next couple of decades, using my Latin cadre, I've learned other languages, some fairly well, others just at a tourist level...or less....and surprise, they are all beautiful. My preferred way to learn them is by memorizing poetry or better yet, songs. Beauty and affection first, then vocabulary and grammar.

Decades ago I was struck by Jesus' admonition in Matt 25:
'Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.' Could this be taken at face value? As many would put it: can you see God in other people? I decided to try. It was very artificial for the first few years, but I'm used to it now, though with room for improvement. Now virtually every good thing anyone does looks like God bursting out of them, like in Alien....bang! right out of their breastbones.

And that's how all language looks to me. Nameless, insignificant people in their millions create these beautiful systems, no two alike. A language contains not mere information, but also a way of thinking, a way of interacting with the world. People are created, born, little bits of God, but their creation continues under the influence of language. The power of language to shape our humanity is clear in this 1908 critique of the Polish-born polyglot author Joseph Conrad: "A writer who ceases to see the world coloured by his own language‑‑for language gives colour to thoughts and things in a way that few people understand‑‑is apt to lose the concentration and intensity of vision without which the greatest literature cannot be made." Yet Conrad said of himself: "...I have a strange and overpowering feeling that [English] had always been an inherent part of myself. English was for me neither a matter of choice nor adoption. The merest idea of choice had never entered my head. And as to adoption‑‑well, yes, there was adoption; but it was I who was adopted by the genius of the language..."

(As Peter Schramm's Hungarian father told his son in '56: we were born Americans, but in the wrong place.)

Both Conrad and his critic understood the power of language to affect who you are as a human being. The critic maintains Conrad can't be true to himself in English, Conrad responds that he can be true to himself only in English.

This gets to the point of the post....at last....part of the value of speaking another language even a little bit offers a glimpse of who you might've become, what culture you might've belonged to, who your fellow citizens might've been, but for the accident of birth. And through another language you make a human connection to strangers, even if it's no more than 'gracias/ de nada.'

It helps us see we're all children of God; and reminds us, as the clerks in 842 may have noticed to their annoyance, that those children continue His creation in every good thing they do.

Trou de Ver & the Mass (not mass..the Mass)

Recent posts by RedCardigan such as And Sometimes Tea: Let the Mass be the Mass and And Sometimes Tea: Obedience and the Liturgy (or, Let Go, Already!) prompt me to elaborate on the 'continuity' theme discussed in Pneuma & Einstein. RedC stated, in reference to liturgy and its, ummm, variants, "The liturgy matters. And obedience in the liturgy, especially, matters." And I agree. In any given year, I probably attend Mass at 3 or 4 different parishes, and reflect on the likely effects of different ways of doing liturgy, i.e., effects upon the congregation, the servers, the priest. But as we know, the Mass is not just an Earthly process, but a Heavenly one as well, which makes me wonder, might changes in Liturgy affect the invisible parts of Mass as well? I don't know. It just occurs to me.

Critical to my thinking are ideas expressed by others, such as in A Short Primer on the Mass...by I. Shawn McElhinney, wherein he quotes Dr. Jeff Mirus: "Catholic worship is not primarily about what we do for Christ, but about what Christ does for us......The Mass is first and foremost an action of Christ Himself......while a non-Catholic worship service is a human action, the Catholic Mass is a Divine action."

And Fr. Dwight Longenecker says in one of his books (I can't remember which, and so I paraphrase here), sacrifice opens a temporary door between Heaven and Earth; the sacrifice goes up, grace comes down.

I envision this door, this connection, as a wormhole, (French: trou de ver) which in this case doesn't connect two remote parts of spacetime; rather, it briefly connects spacetime to heaven. (And I wouldn't tell the kids this, but Jesus was a sort of wormhole connecting heaven to earth for 30 odd years.)

When we cover the Liturgy of the Eucharist in 6th grade, a major idea is that Mass takes place simultaneously in Heaven and Earth.

What do we call it when we go to church on Sunday? Mass. Yes. But over in the gym, where St. Rafka's meets, they don't call it Mass, they call it the Divine Liturgy. Mass is a Latin word, so Liturgy is probably....? Greek! Yes. Different words for the same thing. East and West. By the way, Liturgy means work, more or less: the -urgy is like the -ergy in energy. So Divine Liturgy means what? Divine Work? Yes. And if it's Divine Work, who's doing the work? God? Yes, God, and of course we and the priest do some work too, but God does most of the work....as usual. Why doesn't God mind doing most of the work? Because he loves us. Yes. (a recurring question)

The kids already know the priest is an alter Christus. I draw an altar and a priest, and then some clouds above (clouds = heaven, see?) with Jesus and a couple of angels on them. Then I ask the children to describe any time-travel/ magic-door/ Stargate sort of movies they've seen (e.g., Lion/Witch/Wardrobe). Then we discuss how something similar happens at Mass, and I draw a wormhole/tornado connecting the clouds to the priest & altar. We note that we say 'Holy, Holy, Holy' and burn incense here, and the angels in Revelations do the same in Heaven, too. And at Mass we hear the priest say, "Almighty God, we pray that your angel may take this sacrifice to your altar in heaven. Then, as we receive from this altar the sacred body and blood of your Son, let us be filled with every grace and blessing." A quick quote from Rev 8 shows the Catholics aren't just making all this up: "And another angel came and stood at the altar, having a golden censer; and there was given unto him much incense, that he should offer it with the prayers of all saints upon the golden altar which was before the throne."

Then we discuss how as a tornado can briefly connect the ground to the clouds, so can God create an invisible link from Heaven to Earth during Mass.

Trick question! Is the invisible link only spiritual? Yes!....wait, No!...Yes.......?

OK, when Jesus ascended, did his body separate from his soul? No! It went up, too.
And why didn't Jesus' soul & body separate? Because he didn't commit any sins! He couldn't die.
Right...Jesus' parts don't separate due to sin (except on the Cross, God died...they know).....what's his other part, besides the human part? He's God, too.
And would the God and Man parts separate? No.
So, Jesus ascended...to where, the beach, the mall? Ha! to Heaven! Oh yeah, right...and where's his body? It's in Heaven, too. Yes....because His parts don't....? Don't separate!
Yes. So, at Mass, when God creates a special connection for a little while, the angel carries our offering up to heaven. What comes back down to us? The angel? I don't know, maybe...I'm looking for something else...let me read this again and you tell me what comes down:
"Almighty God, we pray that your angel may take this sacrifice to your altar in heaven. Then, as we receive from this altar the sacred body and blood of your Son.....Jesus! Jesus comes down!
Yes. Jesus comes down....just spiritually? No his body, too. Because...? The parts don't separate! Yeah? I look around at Mass, I don't see Him.....he's in the bread and wine. That's right. But to believe that, I need what? Faith. Yes. You know, I have to pray for faith every time I go up for Communion, because it just looks like bread to me.
So, back to the holy tornado that connects the earth altar and the heavenly altar: is that link just spiritual? No it's physical, too. Yes. because Jesus comes down spiritually and....? Physically. Which is nice, because Jesus has what two natures.....? Human and God. Yes, and they don't ever...? Separate. And we have two parts......? bodyandsoulandtheyshouldn'tseparate either! (learned early on in the year and regularly reviewed).
So when we are at Mass, body & soul, Jesus is there body and soul, too.
And if heaven and earth are not separated in all these ways at Mass, if we aren't behaving properly, not singing, looking around, daydreaming, nose-picking (EEeeeww!), could that affect what goes on in Heaven? Ehhh...ummmm....
Something to think about, maybe? Ehhh.....
OK class over, go to Mass this weekend and pay God some attention!

Pneuma & Einstein

Trick question to start: is this a balloon? Yes, of course....well, technically, yes. This isn't a 'Ceci n'est pas une pipe' trick question, is it? No, it's a regular trick question. OK.

Next trick question: is this a swimming pool? About as much as that balloon is a balloon.

Well, is it or isn't it? I don't like the question, stop annoying me.

These are pictures of real things, but they really aren't what I'm pressing you to say they are: a balloon, and a swimming pool. We know that their reality isn't complete without air and water, respectively. Obviously if we imagine balloons and pools, if we think about them as ideal forms, our image of each form includes the air and water.

The pool has two distinct physical parts, but conceptually they make a unity of 'poolness.' An empty pool is zero swimming pool; a few thousand gallons of water without a container is zero swimming pool. The same goes for the balloon and the air; let's just stick with the balloon at this point, since in class I bring a balloon, but not a swimming pool. The airless balloon has the potential of 'balloonness,' but without the air, it's just some rubber. Pointless. "Wow, those are great party balloons! When are we going to blow them up? We aren't...I like them better without any air in them." What?

Sort of like a convertible top that will never be put down....heh.

Now the only reason we know the balloon has air inside it is we've blown up plenty of balloons. If you showed an inflated balloon (an ideal balloon?) to an isolated tribesman in Amazonia, he'd reasonably think it was a single entity. But after a day or so, it'd go flat. If you blew it back up, he'd learn that it was really two things: the rubber, and your breath. Plus he'd see it wasn't ideal, either. Ideal balloons don't go flat. Real ones do.

Einstein derived the formula E = mc² about a century ago. I love this equation...it's easier to understand than you might guess. E is energy, m is mass, and c² is the speed of light squared which as you may guess is a big, big, number with a whole lotta zeroes. Anyway the equation means that even a little piece of anything (remember the Flux Capacitor in 'Back to the Future'?) has a preposterous amount of energy in it at the subatomic level. I know you will be relieved that none of that 'matters' right now. Haw! What punishment! I kill myself.

What matters in this post is that the equation shows that Energy and Mass are interchangeable. Einstein said Energy and Mass are "manifestations of the same thing," sort of like 1 gallon = 4 quarts; or 1 pound of ice = 1 pound of water. We perceive Energy and Mass as different, intrinsically separate, as un-alike as two things can be, but our perceptions do not reflect reality. The reality is that at the most fundamental level of physical existence (not existence in the sense of life, but in the more absolute sense that there is anything at all, instead of an empty universe consisting of dissipated energy) matter is just very tightly bundled subatomic wads of energy. I am doing my best not to digress.

Oh, yeah, Pneuma. I forgot. Pneuma (πνεύμα) is Greek for breath or air, as in pneumonia or pneumatic. It also means soul, as does spiritus in Latin (breath, as in respire, aspire, perspire, transpire, inspire, expire, ok now I am digressing.)

We understand our souls animate our bodies as our breath 'animates' a balloon. Our souls & bodies go together, but are separate things, as are the rubber and the air; or the pool and the water. Body over here, soul over there; God puts 'em together, it's a unique person. Dirt + Pneuma = Adam. Remove the pneuma and you have a deflated balloon, a dead body. Yeah, that's so...but, but...

We know life isn't ideal....but don't we all think it should be, ought to be, ideal? It's just cosmic unfairness that balloons lose air, people do bad things, bad stuff happens like earthquakes. What's wrong with the tectonic plates? Stop that! I object to earthquakes on a moral basis! The universe is a mess! Yeah, it is. It's mess due to sin. As God said, "cursed is the ground because of you." The physical world is Fallen, not just we people, the moral agents. That's why, as St. Paul says, we see dimly. Not just spiritually, but physically.

So we can't see what's true about our individual creation: each of us is a continuous, whole person, which we perceive as as a body and a soul because sin blocks our full perception of our seamless selves, and also makes that unity imperfect. As Einstein observed that Energy and Matter are manifestations of the same thing, our bodies & souls are manifestations of the same thing, a person. But due to sin, Body & soul are separable. It's not normal, but it's what we're stuck with for the time being. The person is still ideally one essence, but sin pries the singular into two parts, by no coincidence into a part we can perceive, and another part we only dimly perceive, because sin also stunts our perception. (I imagine saints have no trouble seeing the unity of things we perceive only in parts.) As an ideal balloon doesn't lose its air, an ideal person doesn't lose his pneuma. An ideal person would of course also be sinless.... more than coincidence?

Anyway, somebody in the 20th century (no, not Sting) once described the body as simply the manifestation of the person in the material world, which is not the totality of our existence, but just the totality of what we can physically perceive, what we can measure. Yeah, but in Genesis God clearly made man out of two distinct parts, dirt and breath, body and soul, they're separate items combined by God to create one thing out of two, this is all silly carrying on about Einstein and balloons.

Well.....I don't think so. If all creation is an expression of God's love (Einstein might say God's energy) then the physical parts and non-physical parts are just...manifestations of the same thing...God's love. In fact, long before Einstein, Dante described the energy of the Universe as "L'amor che move il sole e l'altre stelle/ the love that moves the sun and the other stars." So matter, and thus my body, is just very tightly bundled subatomic wads of divine love. Although it's true that due to sin, the oneness, the continuity, is presently imperfect. So why do I care about this continuity business? Because it shows why Works are part of Faith. Faith & Works are not separable, they are manifestations of the same thing. What are Works? They're manifestations of Faith in the physical world. I can't view salvation as a soul issue but not a body issue. Oneness: believe/do. Don't believe/don't do. I can always say 'I believe x,' but I know I believe by what I do. Do I believe Jesus is our Savior, or am I just telling myself I believe? Well, do I act as though I believe? And of course the body can train the soul, that's why parents instill good habits in children, so that over time their bodies, physically trained in virtue, will likewise train their souls. Why, even Socrates* knew as much, and he was just a pagan: "Socrates, what should we aspire to? You should aspire to be virtuous. And how does one acquire virtue? By doing what virtuous people do." And in my own life I've stuck my neck out to do virtuous things I didn't want to do, only to discover that by the doing, my soul came to believe.

And the body/soul continuity also sheds particular light on Catholic sensibilities, especially with respect to the sacraments, and even Jesus Himself, a oneness of not just body & soul, but also God & Man.

*I think it was Socrates.

Fin de Siècle

The Wednesday Sunday School year is over until regular school starts up next August.

I flipped through my class notes and Bible (is that possible, to flip through a Bible?) and here are most, maybe all, of the stories I use in our 30 sessions. 'Story' being a broad term, since Levitical sacrifice, e.g., isn't a story per se. Lots of other bits and verses are also used, but only briefly, and usually to add to one of these stories.

Creation: each successive day/ higher life forms >Hebrew, Shabbat, why did God rest, cui bono? >Hebrew Adam/ Adama > Adam's authority/ dominion over animals shown by naming them, but not eating them. >Rib-bone vs. toe-bone vs. heart >Eve is God's last (best?) creation > creation before sin >friendship with God

The Fall: everybody thinks they know better than God >creation messed up by sin: death, tornadoes, germs, you name it >driven out of Eden, physical separation from God.

Noah, the Ark: eating meat >40 >morality after the Fall >see Lent and Meat

Abraham, Sara, Isaac and the Ram: marriage >miraculous conception >children >laughter >firstborn sacrifice >substitution

Isaac, Jacob & Esau: the permanence of laying of hands >see Yet another dose of the Holy Spirit?

Moses: Burning Bush >showing respect

Moses: Plagues, Passover (Pesach) Pharaoh/ Egyptian/ Hebrew Big House >killing & eating Paschal Lamb >sprinkling blood >see Big House

Moses: Manna, Water from the Rock >physical conduits of God's power >40 > see Wednesday Sunday School

Moses: Golden Calf, Decalogue >40 > Egyptian false gods >idols vs. icons

Moses: Levitical Sacrifices >sprinkling blood on the people >hyssop >sprinkling water in Ezekiel >sprinkling water at Mass (Asperges) >blood and water >atonement vs. forgiveness

David & Saul: Psalms >Envy

David, Bathsheba, Uriah, Nathan, Solomon: chastity >fidelity >aural confession & absolution >atonement vs. forgiveness >see David & Nathan

Solomon, Bathsheba, Abishag, Adonijah: Mother's intercession

Elijah cloaking Elisha, crossing the Jordan, fiery chariot: physical media of divine power >body & soul not separated >Ascension >Assumption >see Wednesday Sunday School

Elisha and Naaman: baptism >physical media >Gentile healing

Elisha's bones: physical media of divine power >relics >saints

Isaiah: unclean lips, etc., >sin purged by fire >Purgatory

Isaiah: Shebna & Eliakim >authority of office >Jesus & Peter

Isaiah: the feast for all nations >Chosen people vs. Gentiles >Wedding feast of the Lamb

Ezekiel: I will sprinkle you, etc. >baptism >change of heart >sprinkling vs. immersion > sprinkling water vs. blood

Annunciation: free will >miraculous conception >Mary and Eve >Isaiah: virgin >Hail Mary prayer

Visitation: miraculous conception >Sara >leaping John >abortion >Hail Mary prayer

Nativity, Magi, Herod >Chosen people vs. Gentiles >gifts >refuge in Egypt >Isaiah >see: Christmas Party!

Cana: marriage >wedding feast >Mother's intercession > 4th commandment >wine miracle >best for last >abundance >alcohol

John the Baptist: baptism of repentance >drowning/cleansing >Isaiah >Lamb of God >Trinity >Jesus- a sinner? >40

Salome: marriage >chastity

Rich Young Man: decalogue >materialism >Jesus loved

Mt 25 Judgement of nations through least of my brothers: Jesus judges by works >see Jesus in fellow man >body/soul/faith/works

Heal paralytic: action required, not just faith > sin and illness >intercession >authority >forgiving sin > see Dat ain't God

Heal blind man, clay, Pharisees: healing through physical media >obstinate pride >pride/blind/humble >see Dat ain't God

Heal centurion's servant, Jairus' daughter, demon-possessed son: healing through intercession >action required, not just faith >Mass (I am not worthy...) >see Mass Density (Mass, not mass)

Woman w/ hemorrhage: healing through physical media >action required, not just faith

Render to Caesar: legitimate authority

Loaves & Fishes through Bread of Life: delegated authority of apostles > eating flesh & blood >Mass >faith vs. understanding >see Don't Reach...Ask!

Wedding Feast parable: Revelations Wedding Feast of the Lamb > proper attire >Chosen people vs. Gentiles >see

Heal on Sabbath/ Rub grain on Sabbath: cui bono Sabbath?

Prodigal Son: repentance >selfishness >confession >forgiveness >happiness >Rembrandt

The Two Sons: faith & works

Last Supper: old & new Passover meal >Bread of Life discourse > Melchizedek >Mass

Gethsemane: prayers answered, sometimes God's answer is no.

Arrest thru Crucifixion: Peter breaks oral contract, denies 3x >Lamb >broken bones >blood & water >hyssop >Good Thief

Resurrection up to Ascension: Anastasis >Sheol >faith & doubt >apostles receive Holy Spirit, authorized to forgive/ retain sins >confession >Jesus in & out of time >explains OT to apostles >restore oral contract 3x love/feed sheep >see Anastasis

Ascension >Second Coming >Assumption >Elijah >Enoch >Jesus physically in Heaven

Replacing Judas with Matthias, Acts 13 hands laid on Paul, 2Tim Paul's hands laid on Timothy: authority physically transmitted >Isaac and Jacob >bishops

Acts: episkopos, presbuteros, diakonos: papa >hierarchy >office >authority >see Bishops and Telescopes

Acts: Paul healing through facecloths & aprons >faith & works >healing through physical media >relics >see: Let's Get Physical

Paul discussing burning away of dross: works >Purgatory >Malachi 3 purifying fire >Isaiah

James: body & soul/faith & works >dead faith

1John: spirit, blood, water > baptism >Paschal Lamb >blood & water at crucifixion

Revelations, resurrection of the dead, General Judgement, New Jerusalem >Judged by works >Pilgrims vs. nomads >pilgrim church reaches destination >no temple >restoration of status quo ante, i.e., Earthly Paradise >body & soul restored >Eden restored >Lamb's Supper >Mass >see Nomads & Revelations

Convertibles & Choice

We revisit subject matter in class all through the year, depending on how important it is, or how much it relates to the topic at hand. Abortion is a big deal (no, not the only big deal), so it comes up in different contexts. One such context is the issue of free will (a good thing), which some kids will conflate with 'choice' in the abortion sense. We discuss the incorrect idea that some of them have already imbibed, that to endorse 'choice' is not a de facto condoning of abortion.

For most of my life I've been around convertibles. I grew up in a convertible family, and I currently have an inherited Oldsmobile that's a bit older than the one in the picture.

What do you call a car that has a roof that goes up and down? A convertible.

Yes. I have one. I can choose to have the the roof up or down. Most cars aren't like that. The roof is permanently up. You can't choose to have the roof up or down on most cars. With a convertible you have an alternative.

So...trick question, do I have a convertible so I can have that choice, up or down? Well.....why else would you have it? They sense something is wrong with the question, how it's phrased.

Let me ask it this way: suppose I buy a new convertible. My neighbor comes over, says: pretty car, is it nice with the top down? I say, I don't know. I'm not ever going to put it down. What would he think? Then why did you get a convertible?

Well, maybe I just like the idea of being able to have the top up or down even if I'll never put it down. What's wrong with that? But if you aren't going to ever put it down it doesn't matter if it goes down or not.

So if the reason to have a convertible isn't to be able to put the top up or down, what is the reason for one? To put the top down.

Yes. The whole idea of being able to choose doesn't mean anything if no choice is going to be made. I can choose to punch myself in the nose...am I ever going to? Ha! NO!

And if I choose to not punch myself in the nose, am I really choosing anything? No, it only matters if you pick the other thing.

Yes. Not hitting myself is normal, typical, standard, just like the roof on a car. It's not a choice, not an alternative. I don't sit around all day & constantly choose not to hit myself. But I would have to choose if I did punch myself; that would be the alternative.

So does it matter that I can choose to punch myself in the nose? No. Why? Because you won't ever do it.

Right, that'd be what we'd call a theoretical choice, I'd never choose that, it's just a idea with no practical value. Like a convertible top that never goes down.

On the other hand, a long time ago it was against the law to drink alcohol, but adults are free to choose to drink nowadays. I like being able to choose....why? 'Cause you like to have a beer after class! (having a beer after class is a running joke)

That's right, I do! But at the same time I know a lot of lives are ruined by drinking and thousands of people get killed by drunk drivers. But I want a beer sometimes, or wine with dinner, and even though much pain is caused by other people's drinking.....it's worth it to me. I don't support drunk driving, but I have to accept that by insisting on my right to have a drink, that other innocent people will die because of alcohol. I have to be OK with that...in a small way, I share responsibility for those deaths & ruined lives because I am pro-choice on alcohol, even though personally I have never hurt anyone by drinking alcohol.

Now suppose I say I'm not in favor of the death penalty, but I'm pro-choice on the death penalty. I support the right of judges & juries to choose to have criminals executed, but I don't support the death penalty. Is that ok? No...that doesn't make sense.....

Yes. And if I say I'm pro-choice on abortion but don't support abortion? That doesn't make sense either.

Now, y'all know that people can have abortions in America. People will say they don't support abortion, abortions are terrible, but they want us to have the right to choose an abortion. Now if someone wants the right to choose an abortion, but refuses to ever have one, what's the point?
There isn't a point. Right, so what is the point of choice in this case? To have an abortion.

Yes. Remember the convertible top, remember my un-punched nose, and remember my beer: if you don't want to choose the alternative, then you won't care about the choice. And if you support the choosing, you share in the responsibility for the choice.

Speaking of my nose: do you know why it is such a handsome nose? It's not handsome!
Please...be charitable...do you know why it's so handsome? Why?
Because....it's hand-picked!
And the 6th grade girls say "EEEeeewww!"