Personal Note: My New Backyard Family

We had unexpected guests this summer that have stayed around.  We have graciously fed them.  They are treating our home as if it’s their own.  They don’t really repay us in our kindness.  They just hang around thinking their cuteness is enough of a gesture to offset our generosity.  You know what, they are right!

The unexpected guests are a mother cat with five kittens.  I have a one-step platform deck in my back yard, and sometime around mid-July a mother cat took possession of underneath the deck and is raising her five kittens there.  I don’t know if she was pregnant and gave birth there or she brought her kittens over after birth.  I suspect she gave birth there but we only saw the kittens when they were small.  Tiger, our house cat, was estimated by the veterinarian to be five weeks old when we took him in.  When we first noticed the kittens, they seemed to be around the same size as Tiger back then, or maybe a shade smaller.

The mother cat is a black cat, and all five kittens are predominantly black.  Mama has a small white patch on her chest, so she is not all black.  Three of the kittens are completely black and we can’t tell them apart.  One kitten has a white patch on his chest like his mother.  Perhaps the white patch on the kitten is a shade bigger and from a distance looks like a star.  I call him Star.  The fifth kitten, the biggest one and perhaps the most skittish, is a tuxedo pattern.  He or she, I can’t tell the difference with cats, has a black overcoat with a white chest and belly.  He has white paws as well.  I call him Tux.  (Gender pronouns are a generic male because I can’t tell the difference.)

Rochelle started feeding them almost immediately. 

Let me share some pictures.  These are some of the early pictures when the kittens were really small.

Look at how tiny they are.  We have a couple of stairs from the deck to the backdoor and they love to scramble under there when we come out. 

 

I think that’s the mother all the way in the back, and that looks like Star up front.  I think I see the little white patch on his chest.

Here is a full view of Mama.

 

She hisses every time we take a step toward her or the kittens.  Here’s a little video clip of two of the kits munching away while Rochelle sits in the chair a couple of feet beside.

 

Matthew took that video.  Matthew and I want to take one of the kittens into the house for keeps but Rochelle won’t let us.  We have two pets already and she doesn’t want to take care of another.  Even though she has been feeding them twice a day regularly now for almost three months.  Plus I worry about how Tiger will react to another cat, especially a kitten.  Cats I understand don’t always like other cats.

Here’s a little one on the lounge chair.

 

One day from the deck above overlooking the deck below I saw the Mama nursing two of the cats in that lounge chair.  I did not get a picture unfortunately. 

Here’s a video clip of me intruding on them in the yard and the three or four of the kits scrambling to hide.

 

They are so cute.  You can see how much they’ve grown in that video, which must be around early September.  One of them is Star.  Here is a good photo of Star.

 

Here’s another video of two rough housing.

 

I think that’s Star and Tux.

We take a lot of pictures of them.  Here are a bunch.  Hope you don't get bored but I'm a proud daddy.

 

 

You can kind of get a view of my garden in some of these pictures and clips.  Most of my gardening is done in pots.  It’s been a magnificent year overall for my garden but especially for tomatoes and eggplant.

One of the all black cats has become the friendliest.  He might even be the smallest.  He comes close to me as I work in the garden.  I call him Shadow because he’s all black and because he sticks by me like my shadow.  Here are a couple of pictures of Shadow.

 

Here is Shadow playing with a toy with Rochelle.

 

 

Finally, they are getting big.  Here they are like a pack of lions feasting.

 

I must admit, they eat rather kindly with each other.  The mother has done a nice job of raising them with manners.  Finally all six in one shot.

 

Bless them.  I think they have blessed us.  I hope they stay in my backyard for a while.

Sunday Meditation: The Compassion of the Great Healer

For the Twenty-Eighth Sunday in Ordinary Time in Year C, we get Jesus healing of the ten lepers.  Three years ago I pointed out important healing was in Christianity.  We see Jesus the healer in this passage.  But there is also Jesus the priest.  Part of the duties of an Old Testament priest was to determine what was ritually pure and what wasn’t.  Those with a skin disease were not ritually pure, and the priests had the authority to exclude anyone with a skin disease and then accept them back when cured.  And so, having heard of the miraculous powers of this Jesus of Nazareth, ten lepers appeal to Jesus to be cured.

 

Here is the Gospel passage.

 

As Jesus continued his journey to Jerusalem,

he traveled through Samaria and Galilee.

As he was entering a village, ten lepers met him.

They stood at a distance from him and raised their voices, saying,

"Jesus, Master! Have pity on us!"

And when he saw them, he said,

"Go show yourselves to the priests."

As they were going they were cleansed.

And one of them, realizing he had been healed,

returned, glorifying God in a loud voice;

and he fell at the feet of Jesus and thanked him.

He was a Samaritan.

Jesus said in reply,

"Ten were cleansed, were they not?

Where are the other nine?

Has none but this foreigner returned to give thanks to God?"

Then he said to him, "Stand up and go;

your faith has saved you."

~Lk 17:11-19

 

There are several twists in this passage.  The first is that the lepers know of Jesus as having the power to cure.  Second that the one who is grateful is a Samaritan.  I’ll save the third for below.

Let Fr. Geoffrey Plant explain the passage and how it connects to the First Reading.

I think it particularly important that the healing allowed the diseased to return to society.  The healing makes them whole in various ways.

The pastoral homily is from a Dominican Friar from the Western Province, Br. John Vianney Russell, O.P.  Br. John Vianny, and yes he is not even a priest yet, provides the third twist that blew my socks off.

Is that impressive!  The third twist is that the cured leper does go to the priest.  He returns to Jesus, the Great High Priest who can make anyone pure.

Now one last thing.  The pastor (Fr. Anthony Gonzales) at this morning’s Mass at my parish in his homily said all ten were healed but only one was saved.  Do you think that true? 

 

Sunday Meditation: "Go show yourselves to the priests."

 

Let’s return to John Michael Talbot with “Healer of My Soul” for the hymn.

 

 

That lovely melody heals as well.

 

 

Faith Filled Friday: The Gloria Patri, Which English Translation?

The Gloria Patri prayer, commonly known in English as the Glory Be, dates back to the patristic times of the Church.  It is the Christian adaptation of the Jewish Sh’ma (“Hear, O Israel, the Lord is our God, the Lord is One”) and the Baruch shem (“Blessed is/be the name of the glory/honor of His kingdom forever and ever”) doxology prayers.  I would not be surprised if the Gloria Patria went all the way back to apostolic times.  Indeed, there are elements of it within the letters of St. Paul.

There are two versions of English translations.  First the older, more common translation:

 

Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit:

As it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.

The more recently translated version which has been installed as the preferred translation in Liturgy of the Hours books:

 

Glory to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit:

as it was in the beginning, is now, and will be forever. Amen.

There is some confusion between Catholics as to which version to use.  I’m going to offer my opinion as to why I think the newer translation is more accurate.

There are three distinctions between the two versions: (1) the opening “Glory be” versus simply “Glory to;” (2) “shall be” versus “will be” in the last line; and (3) the “world without end” ending versus simply “forever” ending.  Let’s first start with some of the history.

It would be fantastic to find the original formulation of the prayer, which probably was in Aramaic, but I don’t have access to that if it exists at all.  The contemporary adaptation in Aramaic seems to be a back translation to the Aramaic, so I can’t quite trust the existing Aramaic as being the original.  The oldest I can trust is the Greek Orthodox version which translates into

 

Glory to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit,

Both now and always, and unto the ages of ages. Amen.

There are two elements to the composition: a statement in regards to the Trinity and that statement extending for eternity. 

First, I think, one must decide whether the prayer intends a declaration of a static statement as in Ps 41:14 (“Blessed be the Lord…”) or as in the Divine Praises (“Blessed be God, Blessed be His Holy Name…”) or intends an action, and I would call that action an act of bestowing—“to give something as an honour or present” (Cambridge Dictionary)—glory (that is, praise and honor) to the Trinity.  Is the “glory” a static declaration or is it an act of bestowing?  For me, the notion of an action onto the Trinity seems to me to be implied in the earliest form of the prayer. 

Next, “unto ages of ages” is the English translation of the Greek which is a poetic way of saying never ending.  “Now and always” situates the action in the present “now,” but “always” must be looking back toward the eternity from the past since the next phrase covers the eternity going forward.

At some point—probably not very long after the original composition—the prayer was translated into Latin, whether it came from the original Aramaic (if Aramaic was first) or the Greek is not known.  Here is that Latin translation.

 

Gloria Patri, et Filio, et Spiritui Sancto,

Sicut erat in principio, et nunc, et semper, et in sæcula sæculorum.

You can see the same elements in the Latin: Glory bestowed onto the Trinity, from now to eternity backwards and forever forward.  The Latin re-orders it in temporal sequence (beginning, now, future) but adds an interesting coda, “et in sæcula sæculorum.”  “Sæcula sæculorum” is the Latin way of saying “onto ages and ages,” which provides a neat closing cadence to the prayer.

The English “Glory Be” translation from the Latin dates to at least the 16^th century.  The oldest known publication comes from the Anglican Book of Common Prayer dating back to 1549.  I could not identify whether the translation was first absorbed by the Anglicans from Catholic sources or if at some point Catholics appropriated a Protestant translation.  But it is interesting to note that the oldest known documentation of the English “Glory be” translation is from a Protestant prayer book.

The newer “Glory to” version was translated by the English Language Liturgical Consultation (ELLC), an ecumenical group established in the 1960s to address common translations of liturgical and prayer texts into English.  In 1971 it translated the Gloria Patri to a revised version.  In 1973 the new translation was adopted as the version for the Liturgy of the Hours. 

So with that historical and syntactical context, let’s compare the two English translations. 

What does the “be” add in the “Glory be to the Father?”  Glory be to the Father instead of Glory to the Father?  There are two reasons I can see the translator might have intended. 

First he could have meant the sentence be in the subjunctive mood.  The subjunctive mood articulates a wish, hope or hypothetical situation.  Hope or hypothetical would not apply here but certainly the translator might have thought the prayer expressed a wish for the Trinity to have glory.  It would be articulating, “May glory be in the Father, son, and Holy Spirit.”  If this is what he meant, I think it would not be an exact translation.  I don’t see the subjunctive mood in the Latin or Greek origins.  He would have added this to the English.

The second possibility is that the translator wanted to emphasize the existence of glory in the Trinity, the static expression I alluded to above.  Here he would be saying, “Glory exists in the Father.”  But he doesn’t use the preposition “in,” he uses the preposition “to.”  Glory be to the Father…  If the translator wanted to emphasize glory’s existence in God then he would have to switch prepositions to “in the Father.”  Frankly I don’t know what the “be” adds.    

Both possible intents of adding the “be” fail to replicate the original prayer.  Perhaps the subjunctive mood comes close.  Perhaps the translator is just trying to echo the Divine Praises.  Nonetheless, one must admit the “Glory Be” articulation gives it a poetic emphasis, and I think is the reason why so many are reluctant to change.  Glory Be has wormed into our lexicon that will just not let go.

Now let’s look at the “shall be” versus the “will be.”  What is the grammatical difference between the two?  The grammatical context is in the last clause: “it was, it is, and it will/shall be…”  It will be or it shall be?  I’ve gone to five different grammar websites, and they each have a different distinction.  I think English Club makes the best argument.  It points out there are two conjugations for the verb “will.”

First conjugation: objective, simple statement of fact:

 

I shall be…

You will be…

He/she/it/they will be…

Second conjugation: subjective, strong assertion, promise or command

 

I will be…

You shall be…

He/she/it/they shall be

It’s the complete opposite between the conjugations.  So which conjugation does the clause intend?  Frankly I have no idea.  Is it an objective, simple statement of fact or is it a strong assertion?  You can make the argument for both, and I don’t think it’s discernable what the original prayer intended.  I would lean to an objective statement of fact, and so “will” I think is more accurate, but I can see someone else having a different opinion.

Finally, we come to the ending phrase “world without end.”  First before we get to the translation, let’s take note that “world without end” is not a true statement both scientifically nor theologically.  We know the world will scientifically come to an end one day when the sun flames out or the universe reverses expansion and collapses on itself or by some other cosmological theory.  But it will all end, and certainly life will end on earth. 

We also know that the world will end theologically.  “The heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything in it will be laid bare” (2 Peter 3:10).  See also Matthew 24 and Revelation 22:13.  So “world without end” is a discordant note on its face.

Now let’s look at the translation.  It appears that the “and world without end” is an attempt to translate the Latin ending phrase, “et in sæcula sæculorum.”  The Latin second half of the prayer praises God from the infinite past (in principio), the present (et nunc), and the future (et semper), and because the original prayer implied not just the future but an infinite future (unto the ages of ages) the Latin translator captured that by adding et in sæcula sæculorum.

So the English translator of the Latin translates in sæcula sæculorum as “world without end.”  But is that what in sæcula sæculorum means?  That’s not what I find.  When I look up the meaning of et in sæcula sæculorum I find “and forever and ever,” which echoes the “unto ages of ages.”  But the Gloria Patri is not the only place where in sæcula sæculorum appears in liturgy.  We find it in the Mass in the great doxology when the priest lifts the consecrated body and blood of Christ.  In Latin the rubrics call for these words:

 

“Per ipsum et cum ipso et in ipso, est tibi Deo Patri omnipotenti, in unitate Spritus Sancti, omnis honor et gloria, per omnia sæcula sæculorum.”

It might be more familiar to you in English:

 

“Through Him, with Him and in Him, in the unity of the Holy Spirit, all glory and honor is yours, almighty Father, for ever and ever.”

So, sæcula sæculorum here is not translated “world without end.”  At Mass we do not say “world without end” to close the doxology.  It is properly translated as “for ever and ever.”  It is incorrectly translated in the Glory Be.

Now let’s look at a couple of translations from other languages and see if they translate that last phrase to “world without end.”  Here is the Gloria Patri in Italian:

 

Gloria al Padre e al Figlio e allo Spirito Santo.

Come era nel principio, ora e sempre, nei secoli dei secoli.

And in Spanish:

Gloria al Padre, Y al Hijo, Y al Espíritu Santo,

Como era en el principio, Ahora y siempre, Por los siglos de los siglos.

​Amén.

Unlike the English, both the Italian nei secoli dei secoli and the Spanish  Por los siglos de los siglos translates to forever and ever.  [Notice too, both in Italian and in Spanish Gloria al… translates to “Glory to,” not “Glory be.”]

So we have seen that “world without end” phrase doesn’t make logical sense, isn’t the correct translation for sæcula sæculorum, and is not found in the translation of any other language.  One can conclude that “world without end” is a mistranslation when the Gloria Patri was first translated into English.

To conclude, it was probably within the English translator’s discretion to translate “Glory be” instead of “Glory to,” within the translator’s discretion to translate “shall be” rather than “will be,” though I think both are subtly less precise, but incorrectly translated the ending phrase.  Therefore I think the 1971 corrected translation (Glory to…) should be the preferred English translation.

Sunday Meditation: Me, the Unprofitable Servant

On the Twenty-Seventh Sunday in Ordinary Time in Year C, the apostles ask Jesus to increase their faith.  And Jesus tells them they only need a little bit of faith to do miracles.  But then that leads him to something else, to what it means to be a humble servant of God.  Why does one lead to the other? 

 

Here is the Gospel passage.

 

The apostles said to the Lord, "Increase our faith."

The Lord replied,

"If you have faith the size of a mustard seed, you would say to this mulberry tree, 'Be uprooted and planted in the sea,' and it would obey you.

 

"Who among you would say to your servant who has just come in from plowing or tending sheep in the field, 'Come here immediately and take your place at table'? Would he not rather say to him, 'Prepare something for me to eat. Put on your apron and wait on me while I eat and drink. You may eat and drink when I am finished'?  Is he grateful to that servant because he did what was commanded?  So should it be with you.

When you have done all you have been commanded, say, 'We are unprofitable servants; we have done what we were obliged to do.'"

~Lk 17:5-10

What may confuse you in the parable is that the worker out in the field is asked to do more work when he walks in, and the worker, we are told, would prefer to do more work.  The expectation would be to have the worker “take his place at the table.”  Jesus expects more work, not a reward.  But that is the twist of the parable.  The Master of the house is God and we should be willing to do more and more work for the Lord, and have the humility to not be rewarded.   

Fr. Terrance Chantier of the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate explains the passage.

I liked this from Fr, Terrance: pride has “I” in the center while trust has “U” in the center.  Lord, please increase not just my faith but my humility.  Perhaps what Jesus detected from the apostles was a show of spiritual pride when they asked Him to increase their faith.

I chose for the pastoral Pope Leo XIV from this day’s homily which was coordinated with a celebration for the Jubilees for World Missionaries and for Migrants.

I have become impressed with Pope Leo’s homilies.  You can read it here.  There are so many heartfelt ideas in this homily.  Let me quote a couple.

“This is a salvation that is fulfilled when we take responsibility and, with the compassion of the Gospel, care for the suffering of others; it is a salvation that leads the way, silently and apparently without success, in daily words and actions, which become precisely like the tiny seed of which Jesus speaks; it is a salvation that slowly grows when we become “unworthy servants”, namely when we place ourselves at the service of the Gospel and of our brothers and sisters, not seeking our own interests but only bringing God’s love to the world.”

And the first line of his concluding paragraph: “I entrust all of you to the intercession of Mary, the first of her Son’s missionaries, who went in haste to the hill country of Judea, carrying Jesus in her womb and putting herself at the service of Elizabeth.”  If there was ever a perfect example of an unprofitable servant, it was our Blessed Mother,

 

Sunday Meditation: “When you have done all you have bee commanded, say, 'We are unprofitable servants; we have done what we were obliged to do.'"

 

The wonderful “Servant Song” for our hymn.

 

 

What do you want of me, Lord?

Where do you want me to serve you?

Where can I sing your praises.

I am your song.

Sunday Meditation: The Parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man

On the Twenty-Sixth Sunday of Ordinary Time in Year C, we hear Jesus tell us the Parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man.  Have you ever passed a beggar on the street without even thinking about him?  I know I have.  Three years ago I mentioned how this parable convicts.   Sure we are to use our prudential judgement when handing out money to beggars, but often that is just an excuse.  Three years ago I mentioned how the rich man is in hell without committing an actual physical sin.  His sin is of omission, and yes that can be just as grave as any consciously committed sin.  Some other things to point out this time around.  Lazarus is in heaven for not necessarily doing anything of good.  He is just in heaven because he suffered.  In some ways, this parable is a fulfillment of the Job’s suffering in the Book of Job.  Another observation is that Lazarus is a Christ figure having undergone his own passion.

Here is the Gospel passage.

 

Jesus said to the Pharisees:

"There was a rich man who dressed in purple garments and fine linen and dined sumptuously each day.

And lying at his door was a poor man named Lazarus, covered with sores, who would gladly have eaten his fill of the scraps that fell from the rich man's table.

Dogs even used to come and lick his sores.

When the poor man died, he was carried away by angels to the bosom of Abraham.

The rich man also died and was buried and from the netherworld, where he was in torment, he raised his eyes and saw Abraham far off and Lazarus at his side.

And he cried out, 'Father Abraham, have pity on me.

Send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, for I am suffering torment in these flames.'

Abraham replied,

'My child, remember that you received what was good during your lifetime while Lazarus likewise received what was bad; but now he is comforted here, whereas you are tormented.

Moreover, between us and you a great chasm is established to prevent anyone from crossing who might wish to go from our side to yours or from your side to ours.'

He said, 'Then I beg you, father, send him to my father's house, for I have five brothers, so that he may warn them, lest they too come to this place of torment.'

But Abraham replied, 'They have Moses and the prophets.

Let them listen to them.'

He said, 'Oh no, father Abraham, but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.'

Then Abraham said, 'If they will not listen to Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded if someone should rise from the dead.'"

~Lk 16:19-31

 

Dr. Brant Pitre explains the passage.

Love of neighbor requires compassion for those who are struggling, and compassion requires some commission (as opposed to omission) of generosity. 

The pastoral homily I found most interesting was that from Archbishop Edward J. Weisenburger of Detroit.  The tables have turned.

Another thing that is interesting to me is that Jesus is speaking this directly to the Pharisees.  I like that the Archbishop gives this challenge to archbishops as well.

 

Sunday Meditation: “'If they will not listen to Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded if someone should rise from the dead.'"

 

Let’s return to John Michael Talbot for today’s hymn with “The Cry of the Poor.”

 

“The Lord hears the cry of the poor.”