Topics: Video: Ave Verum Corpus by William Byrd...Picture: Bishop Jackals at St. Anthony 125th...
@@@@@@@@@@@@@
+ This Friday will be the 1st Class feast Day of SS. Peter and Paul, red vestments. I am wondering if some of you more experienced folks (ok...older folks) used to observe these feast days in a special way, beyond the obvious prayers. I guess what I am asking is; did folks actually celebrate these days with some sort of remembrance outside of liturgical functions and prayers? Special foods? Flowers? It seems silly of me to ask but what I don't know...I don't know.
To post a comment, ask a question, or submit an article contact me, Mark, at bumpy187@gmail.com.
..and now for the necessaries.
Please note: St. Anthony Catholic Church is one of only two churches celebrating the Traditional Latin Mass (EFLR) in the Wichita area. Though this blog is loosely centered around this parish and it's members, Venite Missa Est! is by no means, in any way an official voice of, or for, St. Anthony Parish or the Diocese of Wichita. Venite Missa Est! is strictly a private layman's endeavor.
@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Ave Verum Corpus
William Byrd
William Byrd
William Byrd was an English composer, born in London in 1542 or 1543; died 4 July, 1623. He was the son of a musician, and studied music principally under Thomas Tallis.
He became organist at Lincoln Cathedral in 1563, chorister in the Chapel Royal in 1570, and in 1575 received the title of Organist of the Chapel Royal without being obliged to perform the functions of that office. Byrd was the most distinguished contrapuntist and the most prolific composer of his time in England. Fétis calls him the English Palestrina. He was the first Englishman to write madrigals, a form which originated in Italy in the thirteenth century, and received its highest development in the sixteenth century at the hands of Arcadelt and other masters.
An organist and performer of the first order upon the virginals, Byrd wrote for the latter instrument an enormous number of compositions, many of which are played today. His chief significance lies, however, in his compositions for the Church, of which he produced a great many. In 1607 he published a collection of gradualia for the whole ecclesiastical year, among which is to be found a three-part setting of the words of the multitude in the Passion according to St. John. A modern edition of this setting was published in 1899.
In 1611 "Psalms, Songs and Sonnets, Some Solemn, Others Joyful, Framed to the Life of the Words, Fit for Voyces or Viols, etc." appeared. Probably in the same year was issued "Parthenia", a collection of virginal music, in which Byrd collaborated with J. Bull and Orlando Gibbons. Three masses — for three, four, and five voices, respectively — belong to the composer's best period. The one for five voices was reprinted by the Musical Antiquarian Society in 1841, and in 1899 the same work was issued by Breitkopf and Hartel.
Two of his motets, "Domine, ne irascaris" and "Civitas sancti tui", with English texts, are in the repertoire of most Anglican cathedrals. In spite of the harrowing religious conditions under which he lived, in the reigns of Queen Elizabeth and James I, Byrd remained faithful to his principles and duties as a Catholic, as is shown in his life and by his works.
In his last will and testament he prays "that he may live and dye a true and perfect member of the Holy Catholike Churche withoute which I beleeve there is noe salvacon for me".
@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Bishop Jackals at St. Anthony 125th Anniversary Celebration
.jpg)
@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Biblical Evidence for Catholicism
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/
Submitted by Michael O'Neill
Catholicism and Protestantism fundamentally differ with regard to authority: the "rule of faith," the basis or standard Christians use to determine true (and false) doctrine and practice. Protestantism tends to see a divide between the "pure Word of God" in the Bible and the Tradition of the Catholic Church, which is considered to be corrupted by "traditions of men" (Matt 15:3-6, Mk 7:8-13).
For Protestants, Scripture alone is the source and rule of the Christian faith. It is sufficient in and of itself for a full exposition of Christianity and for the attainment of salvation, and the only infallible authority. This is what sola scriptura means. In Catholicism, however, Scripture and Tradition — revealed Christian truths passed on outside of Scripture — are (to use a common word-picture) two fonts of the one spring of divine revelation. Without one or the other, revelation is incomplete.
Holy Scripture frequently refers to the notion of tradition[s]: a body of knowledge or doctrine that existed prior to and is larger than Scripture itself. For example:
The "word" or "word of God" in this context is clearly not Scripture (because Scripture is compared with it): it is, rather, apostolic preaching, which is synonymous with Sacred Tradition. All true Tradition, like the preaching that is examined in the above passage, is harmonious with Scripture. This is the Catholic and biblical teaching.
Other terms besides "word of God" are used in the Bible to refer to apostolic Tradition, such as "the faith" (Eph 4:13; Col 1:23; 1 Tim 4:1; Jude 3), "the truth" (Rom 2:8; Gal 5:7; 1 Tim 2:4), "the commandment" Mk 7:8; 2 Pet 2:21; 1 Jn 2:7-8), "the doctrine" (Rom 16:17; Titus 2:10; 2 Jn 1:9), and "the message" (1 Cor 2:4; 2 Cor 5:19; 2 Tim 4:15). The biblical data on this score is overwhelming. A concise Catholic definition of Sacred Tradition is found in the decrees of the First Vatican Council (1870), in the Dogmatic Constitution on the Catholic Faith:
There are many subtleties and complexities and nuances involved in this discussion of Christian authority, which will become apparent as we delve into it. Catholics and Protestants have tragically misunderstood each other for centuries. Yet although there are deeply held differences, there is also more common ground than one might suspect.
Before going any further, I should like to verify the preceding definitions of sola scriptura by citing three of its contemporary Protestant defenders. Norman Geisler, a very prominent Evangelical Protestant apologist who has published many books, defines it as follows:
Reformed Protestant writer Keith A. Mathison concurs, while emphasizing the role of the Church a little more strongly:
Reformed Baptist James R. White, despite belonging to the extreme anti-Catholic fundamentalist wing of Protestantism, nevertheless agrees with Geisler and Mathison in this respect, as we see in his series of helpful expositions detailing first what sola scriptura is not:
White then proceeds to show what sola scriptura is:
In this book, I will be presupposing the above definitions of sola scriptura: good and clear definitions from three of its ablest defenders. Let the reader take note! For it is the almost-invariable practice of Protestants to accuse Catholics of not understanding what sola scriptura is in the first place. I'm sure there are many Catholics who don't understand. But I do understand what sola scriptura is. I used to adhere to it myself, precisely in these terms, and I defended it, as a Protestant apologist and evangelist, for nine years. I know what it is, and I reject it as a falsehood.
Let me conclude with a word on my premises and methodology. The entire discussion of Christian authority is rife with miscomprehensions on both sides. People are used to reading unsophisticated and inadequate treatments of this crucial topic: from both proponents and opponents of sola scriptura.
It's not enough, therefore, merely to cite biblical evidences of Tradition or an authoritative Church. Those things are not, by their mere mention, sufficient to refute sola scriptura (as our three Protestant proponents cited above point out). The Catholic needs to go further than that and establish, based on unassailable biblical evidence, examples of Tradition or of Church proclamations that were binding and obligatory upon all who heard and received them. Whether these were infallible is another, more complex question, but a binding decree is already either expressly contrary to sola scriptura, or, at the very least, a thing that casts considerable doubt on the formal principle.
Thus, one of my favorite counter-arguments is to point out that the Apostle Paul and his companions Silas and Timothy made their way "through the cities" and "delivered to them for observance the decisions which had been reached by the apostles and elders who were at Jerusalem" (Acts 16:4). This council at Jerusalem was described in the previous chapter as having reached its decisions by the direct aid or guidance of the Holy Spirit (15:28).
When we put all of that together, and consider it as objectively as possible, we see an infallible council, presided over by bishops (Peter: 15:7-11, and James: 15:13-21), and proclaimed by an apostle (Paul). It was a development of Tradition and Mosaic Law (about circumcision and what was proper to eat) and a binding exercise of Church authority at the highest levels; even seemingly infallible. All of this is strong counter-indication of sola scriptura, which proclaims that no Church or council can bind the conscience of a Christian believer, or can claim to be infallible. For the Protestant, only Scripture can do that. Yet here the same Scripture seems to refute that very proposition.
This is how one goes about refuting sola scriptura: by demonstrating how biblical teaching makes the Protestant rule of faith collapse into endless self-contradictions and incoherence. It's a death by a thousand qualifications (and worse).
@@@@@@@@@@@@
Knowledge and Information
I once had a Mennonite man come out to service my furnace. This particular strain of Mennonite dress quite obvious to their tradition: men with beards and simple clothes, women in dresses and black bonnets. While trouble shooting my furnace he kept glancing at all the Catholic "stuff" I have on the walls. Crucifixes, pictures of Mary, the Saints and Jesus....and he finally couldn't hold it in any longer.
He asked me why Catholics didn't consider Jesus the Son of God and Savior but a mere prophet? Did we use the Bible (I showed him my Douay-Rheims)? Why did my bible have that funny name on the front? Do we worship Mary (which I led to "Do we worship statues?").
In turn I asked him all about his faith and gave him the usual responses to his questions. It was one of the most enjoyable conversations I had had in a while.
My son in law, who I sponsored in Confirmation and vouched for through three Knights of Columbus degrees...became a Catholic partially because he discovered what the Catholic Church was not.
Knowledge and information are powerful beautiful weapons.
No comments:
Post a Comment