... had a good thing, on Lepanto Day, in OnePeter. He reminded us of the heroic figure of Marcantonio Bragadin, the Captain of Famagusta, victim of the perfidy and the sadistic cruety of his Islamic adversaries; flayed alive eis marturion Christou.
I am not filled with horror at last October 4's 'ecological' event; since Metropolitan Hilarion took part, it may have been defensible in terms of traditional Christianity. But any such event can be polluted if statements are made by any participant implying syncretism or relativism. We do not all worship the same god. Marcantonio, and the monsters who flayed him, could at least have agreed about that.
Where is the problem? Does a part of it lie in the weakness within modern Catholicism of the proper realisation that we are Jews? We are the intolerant monotheists who pulled down the altars of the Ba'alim and defiled their High Places and had no truck with Asherah. There is only One God, and his Name is HWHY. Our identity was further hardened in the centuries of Roman persecution; not even the slightest suggestion of a pinch of incense ...
I have little doubt that the Usus Deterior has some culpability here. The repetitions in the Usus Authenticus of Dominus [that is, HWHY] vobiscum were cut down.
And, in the Usus Authenticus, the last thing the priest says before his act of Holy Communion is Panem caelestem accipiam, et Nomen HWHY invocabo.
And, as he takes up the Chalice, he asks Quid retribuam HWHY pro omnibus quae retribuit mihi? Calicem salutaris accipiam, et Nomen HWHY invocabo. Laudans invocabo HWHY et ab inimicis meis salvus ero.
We who murmur these verses every morning, such as this very morning, as we stand upon the Temple Mount and take the Immaculate Lamb into our unworthy hands, should never be unaware of the origin of these words in Psalms 115 and 17 (vg). And as we say Dominus in our Mass or our Office as a humble representation of the Tetragrammaton, it should never be a mere commonplace.
"Those who choose another god multiply their sorrows; their libaton of blood I will not pour out, or take their names upon my lips. HWHY is my chosen portion and my cup; thou holdest my lot. The lines have fallen for me in pleasant places; yea, I have a goodly heritage ... in thy presence there is fullness of joy, in thy right hand are pleasures for evermore."
14 comments:
Father, why the reversal of the letters of the Tetragrammaton? Hasidim and other haredim, when speaking in English, refer to the Lord as ha-Shem...
Dear Father - I have always said your column should be required reading for all clergy. Today's column proves it. Thank you for reminding us of what we should already know.
In the 16th century, the Muslims tried to expand their jihad against Europe by clear martial force.
In the 21st century, it is by deception, the hijra, the migration of millions of "refugees" and "immigrants."
In the 16th century, the Church, the Pope above all, resisted with all its might.
In the 21th century, the Church, the Pope above all, submits. Even defiling the Holy Week rites to do it.
Muslims flood into Europe, the British Isles included, taking territory and power and not one priest raises his voice in protest.
Ad frjustin,
Possibly because Hebrew reads right to left?
I was momentarily confused, until I realized that one was supposed to read the Tetragrammaton right-to-left, hebraice.
I asked about reversing the standard transliteration of the Tetragrammaton in an English text, because I have not seen this done anywhere else.
"When someone wants to refer in third person to either the written or spoken Name, the term HaShem 'the Name' is used in standard Jewish usage (Stanley S. Seidner,"HaShem: Uses through the Ages." Rabbinical Society Seminar, Los Angeles, CA,1987).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetragrammaton
"... the sadistic cruelty of his Islamic adversaries; flayed alive eis marturion Christou. ... We do not all worship the same god. Marcantonio, and the monsters who flayed him, could at least have agreed about that."
They would surely agree. However, lest the reader gets the impression that the cruelty is a sign that marks the true religion from the false one, it should be noted that such cruelty Catholics have applied to each other, too. Flaying, as well as burning on stake and impaling have been among accepted methods of death penalty in Christian Europe across confessional boundaries.
"... since Metropolitan Hilarion took part, it may have been defensible in terms of traditional Christianity". Hilarion as a standard for traditional Christianity? I am afraid that this prelate is a bit overappreciated in the West.
Pulex, then you have blasphemously to ascribe cruelty to the Almighty, who commanded death by burning (e.g., Lev 20:14).
The fact that it us a horribke punishment does not make it wrong.
AvB.
I would very much like to know the source of this information. At least Wikipedia gives very few examples of flaying in Christian Europe - all of them connected to lèse-majesté crimes. It seems to have been a very unusual and rare punishment...
Albrecht von Brandenburg, I did not write of whether such punishments are wrong or right, only that they are not characteristic to false religions only, as you have shown by your Scripture reference.
Victor, some legal history sources indicate flying as punishment of a vassal who murdered his feudal lord. Probably they were rare.
Monotheists must, as a matter of logic, worship the same God. The problem is that some of them (who will remain nameless lest I be paraded before a 'human rights' and 'anti-discimination' kangaroo court) have a highly defective understanding of the one God and thus worship Him in a highly defective manner. And I do not refer here to the Jews, who received a revelation (as Dei Verbum aptly put it) that was provisional and incomplete but nonetheless authentic divine revelation to be treasured.
Only, AvB, if you indulge in excessive anthropomorphism and (univocally) think of God as a moral agent just like ourselves only more powerful and invisible.
Whatever the merits of those arguments, it is very wrong for us to take it upon ourselves to do such things.
- “Where is the problem? Does a part of it lie in the weakness within modern Catholicism of the proper realisation that we are…?”
- “Our identity was further hardened….”
- “We do not all worship the same god.”
I almost envy olden ancestors, who fought and died within the Faith of my Roman Catholic family, in that they were spared the scourge of “modern Catholicism.” In relation to paragraph three, that they would not have considered themselves to have, in modern terms, the identical DNA of Christ goes without saying. As to whether or not, through the ages, before modern Catholicism, their ‘realisation’ of Christ was ‘proper’ in literal relation to the point made in paragraph three, well, if the question’s point is not tongue in cheek, I think they might have agreed that such a question resonates in the mystery of, what Fr. Hunwicke calls, “our identity.”
If in exploring the mystery of our identity it behooves us not to borrow another’s identity, wherein umbrage could be taken at such an association, whether or not the idea of it in paragraph three is offered with lighthearted irony or in dead pan seriousness, Fr. Hunwicke is nevertheless right on the nose when he states: “We do not all worship the same god.” Modern Judaism proves his point, as it not only grapples with the mystery of “our identity,” it grapples with the mystery of our Triune God. In this sense and our place in time, I imagine that my olden ancestors, if given a voice from their eternal place of rest, might counsel that, in spite of the weakness in the spirit of modern Catholicism, our identity cannot be their identity; and, in spite of the violent history behind modern Judaism, their identity duly belongs to them.
"we are Jews. We are the intolerant monotheists who pulled down the altars of the Ba'alim and defiled their High Places and had no truck with Asherah....we stand upon the Temple Mount and take the Immaculate Lamb into our unworthy hands".
This understanding draws upon the Anglican patrimony as expressed by George Herbert in his poem "Aaron", in which Herbert identifies himself with Aaron:
Holiness on the head,
Light and perfection on the breast,
Harmonious bells below, raising the dead
To led them unto life and rest.
Thus are true Aarons dressed.
Profaneness in my head,
Defects and darkness in my breast,
A noise of passions ringing me for dead
Unto a place where is no rest.
Poor priest thus am I dressed.
Only another head
I have, another heart and breast,
another music, making live not dead,
without whom I could have no rest:
In him I am well dressed.
Christ is my only head,
My alone only heart and breast,
My only music, striking me even dead;
That to the old man I may rest,
And be in him new dressed.
So holy in my head,
Perfect and light in my dear breast,
My doctrine tuned by Christ, (who is not dead,
But lives in me while I do rest)
Come people; Aaron's dressed.
Post a Comment