In the unlikely event that I should ever wed and pour forth my spawn onto the unsuspecting earth, it will be made that all 1st Class Feasts in the Church will be obligatory family occasions involving assisting at Mass followed by a scrumptious feast.

Head knowledge? Heart Knowledge? Huh????

 ‘Huh? Heart knowledge? That doesn’t exist right? Lolz’

‘I don’t know how to define that… is that where you get all the virtues like compassion, and charity?’

‘It’s the subjective experience right? Emotions and opinions that we have on God?’

Scarily enough, these are some of the answers that I got when I asked youth to define the term, ‘heart knowledge’.

Head knowledge and heart knowledge are favourite terms of catechists and adults in charge of formation and the like. I always hear them getting thrown around. You know, ‘David, you have too much head knowledge. You need to learn more heart knowledge!’? Well, actually, no, I don’t know. These terms have actually caused me much angst for a very long time now, because, 1) they are extremely vague and ambiguous terms, so I have spent quite some time trying to figure what they mean, and 2) growing up as an impulsive nerdy teenager, I obviously read a lot and acquired a lot of ‘head knowledge’.

As a confused youth, I went through several phases where I was confused about the terms and just nodded to trying unsuccessfully to ditch ‘head knowledge’, to trying unsuccessfully to ditch ‘heart knowledge’ in a reactionary manner, to finally finding peace after dropping the concept totally for one with clearer and well defined terms. It should be interesting to note that, as someone who has read books and extracts of Catholic teaching fairly decently across the history of the Holy Mother Church’s two thousand history, such terms where never employed until the last fifty years, and then, mostly in evangelical protestant circles. They’re essentially new age fluff as my theologian/teacher mentor calls it.

It tastes good, it sound good, but no one is sure about what it is.

Ambiguity

The ambiguity of terms is a great cause for concern and as a pseudophilosopher and student of science, I do not like ambiguous terms at all. While, head knowledge is easy enough to define, and is 'limited' to the theoretical knowledge or reason that one attains through reading and so on, often these are concrete concepts like ‘Jesus Christ was crucified for our sins.’, however, ‘heart knowledge’ is much more difficult to define. It is anything from between, ‘practical experience’ to ‘feelings and emotions’ to ‘subjective opinions’, but exclude what is head knowledge (after all, they cannot be the same in order for a distinction to occur).

Now, each of these three things are very different and shouldn’t lie under the same umbrella. ‘Subjective opinion’ is something not unique to ‘heart knowledge’ since it will exist in the realm of theory as well, thus the terms will overlap, and remain ambiguous.

Next, ‘feelings and emotions’ are not a good foundation for the faith at all; the church fathers warn that emotions are fickle and easily manipulated. For example, when we are in the presence of the Blessed Sacrament, we should not expect to feel anything at all, because the transubstantiation happens at a level beyond our sensory ability to perceive. What we look at, smells, tastes, looks and feels exactly like ordinary bread and wine. Yes, we often feel a supernatural sense of peace in His presence under the veil of a sacrament, but what happens if all that is taken away, and we presented with the consecrated host that looks, tastes, feels and smells like ordinary bread? Well, our mind intellectually reminds us that piece of bread before is really the body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ hiding under the appearance of bread. I can imagine several possibilities where one will not feel this feeling at Mass, for example being in a state of anger or in a state of distraction. Thus, if one’s foundation of faith is based on feelings, it will surely fall like the house built on sand. (This is not to say that there are not emotions involved in our spiritual life. That supernatural sense of peace that signifies God’s presence is mystical experience, and a great consolation, but should not be the bar for our faith. Neither does it not mean that there is only one way to know things, only that not all ways of knowing things are equal.)

Finally, we are left with ‘practical experience’, which is only one that provides somewhat of a clear distinction between knowledge from the Heart and from the Head. However, even here there lies ambiguity. For example, say, I was meditating on a piece of scripture and was then granted an epiphany of said passage by God, and felt his supernatural peace as reassurance, now would that be head knowledge or heart knowledge? It was certainly a theoretical and reasoned gain of knowledge yet, it was also a practical experience. Furthermore, the seat of knowledge is the head in western philosophy and the heart is the seat of emotion. It is from the west that we as Catholics derive our philosophy. Thus, that is how society has come to view these terms. No one says, ‘my head is filled with sorrow’ or ‘I have grasped the theory of relativity in my heart.’ That certainly sounds odd.

Anti-intellectualism

To add to the problem, when heart knowledge is used in juxtaposition to head knowledge, it is usually taken to mean all three aforementioned definitions at once, with the further presumption that intellect is limited to head knowledge. Yet, knowledge is function of the intellect, in fact, to know something is also act of the intellect (and yes, there is a difference between knowing and knowledge, whereby the former is a spiritual/emotional perception of information and the latter an ownership of information).  Thus, I can know Christ in my heart, but in order to do that, I must have knowledge of Him in my head.

However, this article is not meant to deal with that epistemology, and I trying to make this as readable as possible, so we’ll get back onto the real point, the separation and limitation of the intellect to the ‘head knowledge’. Often, when these terms are used, they are done so, while probably unwittingly, in an antagonistic fashion. At catechism classes and retreats, I so often hear the teacher or retreat master say after a very short and simple lecture, ‘Okay, I think that’s enough head knowledge, let’s do activity X to use our heart to learn instead.’ or during planning sessions, ‘that’s too much head knowledge, we don’t want to go too much in depth, it will fly over their heads.’ Unfortunately, an unintended consequence of keeping lessons ‘practical’ in such a manner is that the kids then go through life with the idea and complacency that I don’t actually need to learn about God, I’m just fine the way I am. Jason T. Adams, a high school theology teacher, sums it up rather neatly, with my emphasis:

In the religion classes at Catholic schools, the academic breakdown and failing interest of the students is caused by two factors. First, students have been conditioned to think that faith and reason are opposed. Catechists have coined an expression that reveals this: "When it comes to faith, I want to teach my students heart knowledge instead of head knowledge." Contrary to this trite philosophy, "head knowledge" (a grasp of the tenets of faith), and "heart knowledge" (the application of understanding to concrete practices) are not mutually exclusive; rather, they are mutually beneficial and inextricably related.

The result of this false dichotomy is an attitude in the students that religion is about feelings, not substance. Because their orientation is non-intellectual from the onset, they are ill equipped to handle concepts that stretch their minds or call for mental discipline. The content of faith becomes so subjective to the students that they believe there are no such things as right or wrong answers to questions of faith.

You can read the rest here. Again, that is not to say that these teachers do it on purpose. I firmly believe it is well intentioned and done as a means of maintaining interest or not to ‘scare’ the kids off. Moreover, these terms and the conventional way that they are used appear to my mind to be remnants of the great anti-intellectual movement of the 1960s. Yes, yes, intellectualism and the intellect are different things, but it is this general I-don’t-want-to-use-my-brain attitude that has prevailed and created the Generation Y and now Generation Z eras of mental laziness and apathy. I had a dear young friend cheekily remark to me the other day, ‘don’t you ever get bored talking about intelligent things? Talk about meaningless things, it’s more fun.’ Personally, I feel this particular attitude is annoying thorn left in society side, amongst other things, from the hippie revolution in the ‘60s.

Hippism. Bringing the world back to the stone age since 1969.

Another problem is that catechists don’t give their teenage students enough credit. In school, by the age of fourteen, they are learning abstract concepts like trigonometry or photosynthesis. These things seem rather easy to understand, however try to recall when you were fourteen trying to grasp the idea that light could be used to split water into hydrogen ions and oxygen ions and the H⁺ ions were then used to power the enzyme that made energy in the body. It probably took you a while, but you learnt it nevertheless and passed your examination.

Theology is no different, it has terms which seem foreign when first discovered, but the definitions are memorised and churned about in the head until an understanding is formed. For example, the idea of Transubstantiation. It essentially means that the substance or essence of the bread and wine, that is their ‘breadness’ and ‘wineness’, the things that make bread and wine, bread and wine, are changed into the substance of Christ, while the accidentals, the smell, shape, colour, texture, etc caused by this ‘breadness’ and ‘wineness’ remains. This is certainly not beyond the average teenager to comprehend, though it will take a bit of time to reflect upon.

However, all this is not to say that one should throw the Summa Theologica at young rebellious teenagers. There are of course different levels of understanding, and the appropriate level should be taught, however the point is that what is taught should not be watered down and diluted like a homeopathic therapy.

Devotion and Theological Thinking

A possible solution to the ambiguity of head and heart knowledge is simple to drop the terms altogether for something which is completely concrete and understandable at an instant.

Consider the third definition of head and heart knowledge, which is the only useable one, that of theoretical and practical application or experience of theology. Theology, very simply put, asks the question of if God exists, and He could talk to us, what would He say? In Christianity, God talked to us, He gave us the Word, and the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us. So, what did this loving word say? In summary, God loves you so much that he sent His only Son to die for your sins, now love Him back with all your being and love your neighbour as yourself.

So how is this translated into theoretical and practical knowledge? Theoretically, one has to have the knowledge that God loves you; practically, one has to love God. Thus, to get the knowledge, one must first learn it and reflect on it, this we call ‘Theological Thinking’. This knowledge is then put into practice in an act of love towards God, simply put, a ‘devotion.’

The Rosary, both a devotion and contemplation.
Archbishop Fulton Sheen calls it 19 minutes of perfect prayer.

Recently, after a talk, my priest reminded us that most people nowadays perform a great deal of devotion but they leave out theological thinking. He said that the two of them go hand in hand and they cannot be separated from each other and that absolutely everyone is capable of some form of theological thinking.

This is certainly true, while not everyone will reach the same depth of thought, it is more than possible to meditate or contemplate on the word of God. That is why a church is usually filled with statues, paintings and stained glass windows that depict saints and various stories from their lives or from the bible. Together with the priest’s homily every Sunday, the simple illiterate folk from olden times probably had a much greater appreciation of theology than we do despite being unable to read.

Intellect

These acts of devotion and theological thinking are in fact acts of the intellect. Thus, in an ironic strict sense, ‘heart knowledge’ is ‘head knowledge’. While knowing God can come through various means, the act of devotion and theological thinking are both acts of intellect, because one must will oneself to perform the action. Since they both stem from the intellect, one cannot separate the practical from the theoretical, so to speak, and one requires both of them together to nourish the intellect and gain a greater knowledge of God. True to the both/and mentality of Catholicism, neglecting one of these acts will result in a stumping of spiritual growth.

This is one of the reasons that the Pentecostal Renewal movements that spring up megachurches have such high attrition rates, they are all devotion without any real foundation. The same can be said for the movements within the church which are influenced by it and similar groups. ‘Head knowledge’ gives ‘heart knowledge’ its foundation.

However, with ‘head knowledge’ being eschewed for ‘heart knowledge’ for the last fifty years, most will be found wanting for even the most basic foundations of the faith to begin some meditation. Which begs the question, over the last year, how many books on the faith has one actually read? They don’t strictly have to be theology, but even books about the lives of saints and spirituality, because if they are good books, they will spring out from theology. Or even articles online, which are very easy to find.

Yes, my friends, this very long article was to inspire you to go pick up a nice good Catholic book. But seriously, the words we use are important because of the concepts that they hold. You'll be doing what the Holy Father, and all his predecessors have been telling us, LEARN about the faith.

Fr William Doyle, SJ

I have been reading the biography of Fr William Doyle, SJ by Professor Alfred O'Rahilly. Go buy it. I am enjoying as much as I loved reading the Little Flower's autobiography, The Story of a Soul. In a way, this is second biography of a saint (he's not been canonised yet, but as with the Servant of God, Fulton Sheen, I'm certain he's up there!) that I am properly reading, the rest being summaries and abstracts. It's made me want to get a book on St Guiseppe Moscati, the first canonised modern doctor.

Fr Doyle was an irish jesuit who showed signs of sanctity from his very boyhood. The biography quotes him as being notorious for his kindness and generosity, taking great pleasure in looking after the poor in his neighbourhood, in terms of helping them with chores, supplying them with a cup of tea, and most importantly reminding them to visit the sacraments and pray. He later joined the Society of Jesuit and became a missionary, touching and changing many lives along the way, before becoming a military chaplain. He did so because he had a great desire for martyrdom since young, and eventually obtained it whilst carrying out his ministry in the trenches. He also had a great sense of humour and a jolly nature, often playing practical jokes on friends.

I'm only two or three chapters in the book, and he has already become a hero of mine. Growing up in a Jesuit parish run by good Irish Jesuits, it is only nature to have an affinity of Jesuit saints and spirituality; albeit I will probably have to rediscover the more authentic form of Jesuit spirituality, even my parish was not spared the dilution of the sixties. I have much in common with his never ending energy, impatience and impetuous nature, and love of jokes, though little in common with his sanctity. I hope he will aid me from on high in the road to sanctity. Here's an entry from his private spiritual diary, with the title, 'The Practice of Humility'

I will strive to get a great contempt for myself, to think little of and despise myself, and to pray and desire that others may do the same. I have nothing which God has not given me; I can do nothing without God's grace and help. In a few, very few years, my name will be forgotten. What would people think of me if they knew as I know myself? My pride and desire for praise; my mean uncharitable thoughts about others; my fear of humiliation; the imperfect way I have lived in the Society; the sins I have committed, the scandal give, the terrible harm done to others by making them tepid, breaking rules, etc.; my resolutions broken in an hour; the many faults not corrected after sixteen years of religious life. In spite of all this I deceive myself that I am pleasing God...'

The good Fr Doyle also used to mortify himself, and during a talk about him during the Eucharistic Congress, a story was read about how he used to lie prostrate on the cold floor of his church before the Blessed Sacrament in the early hours of the morning, every so often moving to another spot, 'to make best use of the cold.'

He used to be a popular inspiration in Ireland prior to the '70s. I showed the book to Fr Keane, the last of the Irish Jesuits at my parish and his face lit up in nostalgia (he can't really talk anymore). Though, in more recent times, no one has really heard of him. It's not hard to imagine why though. I can't imagine a Jesuit today doing the things that Fr Doyle did!

Anyway, I love a good Jesuit story and I love good Jesuits! Fr Doyle, pray for us!

PS: For more information and interesting articles about Fr Doyle, do visit this website, http://fatherdoyle.com/ and do pray to him for favours so we can advance his cause for canonisation!

EDIT: I forgot to mention that Fr Doyle also pioneered retreats for the working man and was a big inspiration of St Josemaria in the setting up of Opus Dei

The Gender Inclusive Pronoun.

For those of you who do not know, in many languages, including English, when the gender of a particle subject (person) in a sentence is not known, it is the rule of grammar to use the gender inclusive pronoun, 'he'. This is not due to some strange patriarchal oppression of women, as any rabid feminist will immediately cry out, it is merely a law of grammar from a language that was influenced largely by Christianity, a religion that brought women to equal status in society. There is a similar concept in Chinese and Latin as well. (Hence prayers in Mass open with, 'fratres' or 'brothers'.)

Anyway, it irks me when people try to skirt around the laws of grammar to appease some flailing political machinery. So, here's Dr Petter Kreeft on the subject, from a footnote in his book, Socratic Logic:

The use of the traditional inclusive generic pronoun 'he' is a decision of language, not of gender justice. There are only six alternatives. 1) We could use the grammatically misleading and numerically incorrect 'they'. But when we say 'one baby was healthier than the others because they didn't drink milk,' we do not know whether the antecedent of 'they' is 'one' or 'others', so we don't know whether to give or take away the milk. Such language codes could become dangerous to baby's health. 2) Another alternative is the politically intrusive 'in-your-face' generic, 'she,' which I would probably use if I were an angry, politically intrusive, in-your-face woman, but I am not any of those things. 3) Changing the  'he' to 'he or she' refutes itself in such a comically clumsy and ugly revisions as the following: 'What does it profit a man or woman if he or she gains the whole world but loses his or her soul? Or what shall a man or woman give in exchange for his or her soul?' The answer is: he or she will give up his or her linguistic sanity. 4) We could also be both intrusive and clumsy by saying 'she or he'. 5) Or we could use the neuter 'it', which is both dehumanizing and inaccurate. 6) Or we could combine all the linguistic garbage together and use 'she or he or it,' which, abbreviated would, sound like 'sh...it.'

Gotta love Dr Kreeft.

Titivillus, the Patron Demon of Scribes

I found this on the preces latinae website. The patron demon of scribes. A must read for the writer/blogger.

Titivillus is often referred to with the somewhat fanciful title of "The Patron Demon of Scribes". For much of human history the mechanical printing press did not exist, so any copies of a book or document had to be made by hand. Such copying was always done by professional scribes who were oftentimes monks in the Scriptorium of their monasteries (a tradition we can thank Cassiodorus for, not to mention for the preservation of texts and learning during the "Dark Ages"). Except for the shortest of documents, the work was generally laborious. The text had to be carefully drawn and faithful to the original document. Consider the labor required to copy an entire Bible or Missal, for example! I, for one, would not want to copy all of my Latin prayers by hand, much less an entire Bible. 

As with even the best of us, minds can wander from time to time and the monks were no exception. When this happened, errors would be introduced into the text. No one likes to take credit for his own mistakes, and true to human nature the monks invented Titivillus. He was invented somewhat in jest by them, both to take the blame for their mistakes and as a warning to the hapless monk whose mind strayed from the task. Titivillus is first mentioned by name in the Tractatus de Penitentia, written around 1285 by John of Wales, and then again in the 14th century by Petrus de Palude, the Patriarch of Jerusalem.

Titivillus, so the story goes, would wander the earth every day collecting scribal errors until he had collected enough to fill his sack a thousand times. As he completed his collections for the day, the sack would be taken to the devil and each mistake was duly entered in a book against the name of the monk who had made the error. Upon Judgement Day, each of errors would be read out loud and would be held against the monk who had made it.

Keeping in mind what awaited for the careless scribe come Judgement Day, Titivillus helped the monastic community keep its standards up and its errors down. By 1460, the monks were doing such a good job that poor Titivillus was said to be reduced to slinking about churches and recording the names of women who gossiped during Mass. Hardly the sort of thing a once proud demon would want to stoop to, but times were tough.

However, that situation did not last. With the advent of the Renaissance, the rise of Universities and the merchant class, there was a sudden demand for manuscripts.... 

Read the rest there.

5 Reasons to Have a Marian Devotion Part 1

Author's Note: I originally began writing this on the 31st of May, following the close of my last examination, however several things popped round and I was unable to finish it. Hence, I will finish this post in parts.

Today is the last day of the Month of May. The Month of May is also called the Month of Mary, because it is spring, and from spring comes new life, and the spring of all life is the God, Jesus Christ, who sprung forth from her womb. Also, today, if it wasn't the Thursday in the Octave of Pentecost, would be the Feast of the Queenship of Blessed Virgin Mary. Thus, it wouldn't be appropriate if I didn't write about my beloved Mother and Queen of Heaven at least once this month. Yes, it's still May by five hours over here.

To all my protestant buddies who are reading this, yes you, I think you should foster a devotion for Our Lady too. Now, before you take our the pitchforks and torches and accuse me of the idolatry, I should probably explain to you what a devotion is. A devotion is where one particularly reflects and meditates upon an aspects of the faith, for example, say you can have a devotion to the Sacred Heart of Jesus or to the Child Jesus. When the devotion is to a person, like a Saint, or your guardian angel, then you would add praying and talking to particular Saint or angel as well. Now, read this about what it means in Catholicism to pray to someone or something. Got that? This is dulia prayer, not latria prayer. Through these devotions, with the help of these spiritual guids, we cannot help but be led closer to God. So, who best of all to have a devotion to, then to Our Blessed Mother, Mary?

Also, I think you'd be interested to know that Martin Luther, John Calvin and Thomas Cranmer all loved our Lady very much. To deny her any honour at all is essentially to deny Christianity.

And for all my dear Catholics brethren who haven't thought of picking up a Marian devotion, or haven't started, here are five reasons to start.

1. She is the Mother of God.
I suppose, that is obvious enough. Though, some might say, what's the big deal, God could have chosen anyone to be His mother. Well, you see, the thing is, He could have, but He didn't. To dwell on that idea is rather redundant speculation, since history has unfolded in such a manner, the Blessed Virgin Mary was chosen to be the Mother of God by God, to which she humbly accepted. If God had theoretically chosen someone else,  say, the Blessed Virgin Beatrice, well then, we still be having this same conversation now, except with Beatrice instead of Mary. It's like vehement atheists or secularist who argue that it is possible to create a moral society without religion, except due to history, all morality in all societies stems from some form of religion, and thus everyone in society is influenced by the morality of religion in some way or another. It's rather redundant speculation, because, no matter what, one cannot undo the knots of the past. What God has willed, He has willed.

In light of that fact, consider that Mother Mary is about the most special and unique person in the whole of creation. Throughout all ages, she is the only human who has and will ever house God in her womb.  Moreover, Christ chose to take her flesh for His humanity. She was essentially, the first tabernacle, literally, bringing Christ into the world. And, I have written about how foetal cells cross the placenta and stay in the Mother's body for the rest of their lives before, so if you think about it, she remained his tabernacle for the rest of her life, always nearby, even at the foot of His cross. For this alone, we must give her the greatest respect. YOU have Jesus Christ and all of your life as it is today because she said yes.

'My soul doth magnify the Lord.
And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour.
Because he hath regarded the humility of his handmaid;
for behold from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed.
Because he that is mighty,
hath done great things to me;
and holy is his name.' - Lk 1:46

These words in the gospel today ring true, and there are at least 1.3 billion people who called her 'Blessed', and for the last two thousand years, you can imagine the number who have done so.

Think about that.

Summer Reading and Academics

Not sure why I am posting this. Perhaps to appease my inner narcissist, but whee.... I have updated my current reading list. So far this year, I have [finally] finished Chesterton's Orthodoxy, as well as Michael Cohen's 'Why Catholics Are Right' and St Therese's Story of a Soul. Not too shabby for a Medical Student. I'm also actually setting aside time this summer to do quite a bit of heavy reading. In addition to the books on my list, which I have started reading, the following will have to be perused at some point as well:

The Imitation of Christ by St Thomas á Kempis
A History of the Protestant Reformation Vol. 1
Catholic Sexual Ethics
Medical Ethics by Fr Haarding
Holiness is Always in Season by Pope Benedict XVI
The Sacrament of the Present
Introducation to the Devotional Life by St Francis de Sales.

I also have one more spiritual book and one more book on ethics from my SD. I'm currently reading Introduction to the Devotional Life on iPieta, should try and find a hardcopy, would be much easier to read.

Also, I plan to finish Reading Latin this summer, which is long overdue, as well as Ma Yan's diary. As you can probably tell, I plan to brush us on my mandarin and cantonese and attain a certain level of fluency and literacy. I wonder if three languages is a bit of stretch. There are also quite a lot of ethics in the works and I hope to get my hands of Aristotle's Nicomanchean Ethics so I  can jump onto St Thomas' Summa. If time persists. Not to mention getting a head start on anatomy and physio.

Busy, busy. And with quite lofty goals. I wonder how many I'll actually finish :/

Finally, I promise the next post will be something a bit more substantial. I still have to write those reflections on Our Lady, otherwise the Madonna del Soccorso might just appear and turn her club in my direction. Do no mess.

Archbishop Prendergast's Homily

Archbishop Prendergast preached a very lovely homily when he said Pontifical Mass at St Kevin's. Here is an excerpt:

This is an important point as we gather to celebrate the Mass in its Extraordinary Form during an International Eucharistic Congress when most of our fellow Catholics—and we ourselves—will celebrate in the Ordinary Form.

For, sometimes many in the Church make the mistake of thinking that the Roman Rite has two different Masses, and it’s a matter of taste, which one a person prefers. But the beautiful, profound truth is that we have only one, holy sacrifice of the Mass in two usages: the ordinary and extraordinary forms. This is perhaps one of the best examples of that most Catholic expression of “both/and” and not “either/or.”

It can be a challenge, though, to explain to people who know little of the Church’s history, how we embrace as Catholic, valid, holy and beautiful, these two different forms of the Eucharist. The differences most often grab our attention. We can overlook the shared, fundamental basis of the sacrament of the Eucharist. Sadly, for some, a particular devotion to one form can result in a reluctance to appreciate the truth, goodness and beauty of the other. Tragically, the preferred form of celebrating the sacrament of the Most Holy Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ can divide Catholics. In our human weakness, we can become competing camps rather than a united Mystical Body of Christ.

You can read the rest here.

7 Quick Takes Friday

I'm going to try something new today. Well, partially because all the cool kids are doing it, and mostly because I have a bunch of short anecdotal microreflections from the last week, and completely because my body still thinks it's late evening even though it's 5am at night. Yes, night.

--- 1 ---

Firstly, and most importantly, I have returned home to the boiling little inferno on the equator, also known as Singapore. It's a hot 27 deg C outside, and the weather says it's going to be 32 deg C for the next five days. Good ol' Sol missed me so much, then I when I stepped off the nice cool cabin of the plane, he straight on spear tackled me, and within seconds, I was sweating out all the hot chocolate I drank on the plane.

--- 2 ---

I assisted at my first ever Solemn Pontifical High Mass. Sung by the Archbishop Terrence Prendergast, SJ, of the Archdiocese of Ottawa, for the feast of St Barnabas with Palestrina's Missa Papa Marcelli. It was absolutely gorgeous. He gave a lovely homily as well. I managed to meet His Grace afterwards, and we had a short chat. He's a very holy man. I managed to snag a picture of him that reminds me of Bl. Cardinal Newman.

I showed this picture to the bishop's secretary, and the good Monsignor said, with a loving twinkle in his eye and a gentle smile, 'That's my bishop.' Which reminded me of the great love and respect that, we, in the Catholic Church have for our shepherds, the great descendants of the apostles. They have been chosen by God to lead their flock, and when they do a good job, one is some how paternally drawn to them, like to Christ, they are after all, alter Christus.

--- 3 ---

I also met quite a few clerics from the Fraternity: Fr Bizard, the vice rector of their Seminary in Wigatzbad, and Fr de Malleray, the chaplin of Juventutem, and the two recently ordained Deacons and a seminarian. It was a great honour to take Fr Bizard and Deacons Passo and Young on a brief tour of Dublin City. I must say, it is always very inspiring to keep company with the FSSP. The conversation is always edifying and never without a good dose of humour.

One of the Carmelites of Clarendon St giving the FSSP clerks and C a brief history of the beautiful church.

--- 4 ---

The Servant of God, Archbishop Fulton Sheen, once remarked that, 'To see a priest making his meditation before Mass. does more for an altar boy's vocation. than a thousand pieces of inspirational literature.' In my limited experience, in places where the EF is offered, I have often seen priests praying before Mass in the church. Often, I see them praying in thanksgiving after Mass as well, usually before they have to make the usual rounds with the congregation, sometimes before. While waiting for the Pontifical to start, this amusing dialogue took place:
'Where is Fr M?'
'He's in church praying.'
'Right, of course he is.'

Now, if only this would happen back home in my parish and often!

--- 5 ---

I was telling Fr de Malleray how disappointed I was for missing his talk on Transubstantiation and he said, 'Don't worry. You can find it all in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.' WIN.

--- 6 ---

I almost finished my first year of medical school (awaiting promos results now). Yay! My best friend finished law school, triple yay! And, so he came over for a short, albeit unfortunately further shortened trip, to Dublin. He says he came to visit me, but I know his real aim was to sample the Guinness.

Well... I had some too.

--- 7 ---

Finally, I was craving some authentic bolognese, so I decided to treat myself and make some. I used this recipe, sans tomatoes and with red wine, and it turned out pretty awesome.

Though, I ended up eating it for a few days. A few awesome days.

Well, that's all for now. I didn't actually think it'd be that hard to squeeze out 7! Anyway, I'm going off to cower in my fridge until it's time to return to the emerald isle. 

For more Quick Takes, visit Conversion Diary!

ただいま！
我返屋企了！
:D

Trinity Sunday

Happy Feast of the Holy Trinity. A fitting feast to end the Octave of Pentecost and to completely end Paschaltide.

In the Divine Office of Prime (1st Hour) today, there is an addition to the psalms today of the Athanasian Creed. Also known as the Quicumque vult; which typical of all prayers and church documents, are the first words of it in Latin. I reproduce here for your meditation on the Blessed Trinity. FYI, the Athanasian Creed is also part of the rite of exorcisim with my emphasis.

Whosoever willeth to be saved, * before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic faith.

Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, * without doubt he shall perish eternally.

Now the Catholic faith is this, * that we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity. 

Neither confounding the Persons, * nor dividing the substance.

For there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son, * and another of the Holy Ghost.

But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost is one, * the Glory Equal, the Majesty Co-Eternal.

Such as the Father is, such is the Son, * and such is the Holy Ghost.

The Father Uncreated, the Son Uncreated, * and the Holy Ghost Uncreated.

The Father Infinite, the Son Infinite, * and the Holy Ghost Infinite. * The Father Eternal, the Son Eternal, * and the Holy Ghost Eternal.

And yet they are not three Eternals, * but one Eternal.

As also they are not three Uncreated, nor three Infinites, * but One Uncreated, and One Infinite.

So likewise the Father is Almighty, the Son Almighty, * and the Holy Ghost Almighty.

And yet they are not three Almighties, * but One Almighty.

So the Father is God, the Son God, * and the Holy Ghost God.

And yet they are not three Gods, * but One God.

So the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, * and the Holy Ghost Lord.

And yet they are not three Lords, * but One Lord.

For, like as we are compelled by Christian truth to acknowledge every Person by Himself to be God and Lord, * so are we forbidden by the Catholic Religion to say, there be three Gods or three Lords.

The Father is made of none, * neither created, nor begotten.

The Son is of the Father alone: * not made, nor created, but begotten.

The Holy Ghost is of the Father, and the Son: * not made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding.

So there is One Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; * one Holy Ghost, not three Holy Ghosts.

And in this Trinity is nothing afore or after, nothing is greater or less; * but the whole three Persons are Co-Eternal together, and Co-Equal.

So that in all things, as is aforesaid, * the Unity in Trinity, and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshipped.

He therefore that willeth to be safe, * let him thus think of the Trinity.

But it is necessary to eternal salvation, * that he also believe faithfully the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ.

The right Faith therefore is, that we believe and confess, * that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and man.

God, of the Substance of the Father, Begotten before the worlds: * and Man, of the substance of His mother, born in the world.

Perfect God, Perfect Man, * of a reasoning soul and human flesh subsisting.

Equal to the Father as touching His Godhead, * inferior to the Father as touching His Manhood.

Who, although He be God and Man, * yet He is not two, but One Christ.

One, however, not by conversion of the Godhead into Flesh, * but by taking of the Manhood into God.

One altogether, not by confusion of Substance, * but by Unity of Person.

For as the reasoning soul and flesh is one man, * so God and man is One Christ.

Who suffered for our salvation, descended into hell, * rose again the third day from the dead.

He ascended into heaven, He sitteth on the right hand of the Father, God Almighty, * from whence He shall come to judge the quick and the dead.

At whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies, * and shall give account for their own works.

And they that have done good shall go into life eternal, * but they that have done evil into eternal fire.

This is the Catholic Faith, * which except a man believe faithfully and firmly, he cannot be safe.

Sadly, I miss the Regina Cæli already ):

つるつるつるつる

Queen of the May

May, being the Month of Mary, I actually have a post on Marian devotion lined up, but because of exams and my inability to perform well in medicine, I was unable to write it. I will still post it up in parts over the next few days. I'm just a bit sad that I couldn't finish writing it tonight.

Anyway, today, if it weren't Pentecost Thursday, would be the feast of the Queenship of the Blessed Virgin Mary. What a fitting feast day to end the Marian month. So here's Canon Sydney MacEwan with Queen of the May. I just learned this month, and it is one of my new favourite Marian hymns C:



Queen of the May
Bring flowers of the rarest,
Bring blossoms the fairest
From garden and woodland
and hillside and dale.
Our full hearts are swelling,
Our glad voices telling
The praise of the loveliest Flower
of the vale.

O Mary we crown thee with
blossoms today,
Queen of the angels and Queen
of the May (2x)


Their Lady
They name thee,
Their Mistress
proclaim thee,
O grant they children on earth
be as true.
As long as bowers
Are radiant with flowers,
As long as the azure shall keep its bright hue.