“Live blogging” in this case means that I expect to be popping over the the computer periodically over the course of the day, while things are in the oven, for instance, with a variety of Easter-y comments. I should warn you not to expect any particularly profound reflections; these are just a few miscellaneous thoughts.
We don’t really have any big Easter traditions around here. Some years we go to my parents’; this year we’re staying at home both because my oldest is playing trumpet with the teen choir, and because we were just there last weekend. My brother and his family are moving to suburban Milwaukee shortly, so maybe next Easter we’ll invite them, or the reverse. We also don’t have any big traditions as far as meals, and it’s been fairly relaxed this morning, largely because the teen mass is at 11:30. And some years I go to Triduum services and others it’s more of a mix-and-match.
Last night I decided I needed a good dose of Easter Vigil, but didn’t want to spend the whole evening there, so I left after the first hour, that is, just after the Litany of the Saints. Did I cheat? You tell me. I knew I’d be heading back today anyway (see above: teen choir). I do wish that the parish did a more complete Easter vigil rather than slicing away at some of the readings (only 4 + epistle + gospel), though I recognize that a two-hour service is already a tough sell (if you’re not Orthodox, anyway) and that there’s a balancing act going on. Maybe I should call around: “how many readings do you have for the Easter Vigil?” – but I know that there are other ways to do an Easter Vigil badly, besides taking shortcuts: I recall one service I went to a while ago where they really, despite following the liturgy reasonably correctly (though I don’t recall the particulars) they managed to place the baptisms and professions-of-faith front-and-center and really turn it from a celebration of the Resurrection into a celebration of these particular people joining their particular church.
So tell me, what are your church’s liturgies like (Catholic or not)?
UPDATE:
11:30 mass, followed by lunch, followed by a family walk; now my husband is watching The King’s Speech with the older boys upstairs while my youngest and I have Big Hero 6 going downstairs in the living room.
Mass was, of course, Easter-crowded. I found myself wondering: who are the extra people? Are they the stereotypical “C&E Catholics” who go to church twice a year? Is attendance at Easter as large, really, as at Christmas, anyway? True, there are overflow chairs in the “donut room” with the liturgy on the TV screen, but are these people who don’t ordinarily go to church, or just all those people who do go to church, but just more sporadically, say, more like once a month or so? (On the other hand, how many people really go on a “regular” but not weekly basis? We’re creatures of habit, after all.)
Christmas church attendance, after all, I can see as a “nice family tradition” even if you are not really sure whether you believe that Jesus was anything other than a nice guy — because you can still perceive of Christmas as a nice metaphor for hope, in the same way as the Christmas Spirit has come to mean a generic feeling of joy, and, besides, everyone likes singing Christmas carols. But Easter? Can you really feel warm-and-fuzzy if the readings and proclamations are all about something you don’t believe in — the Resurrection of Jesus? Sure, there are people who call themselves Christian who believe that Jesus was just a man who said some inspirational things, but do they feel moved to show up at Easter?
And lunch — yes, around here, we have to say “lunch” as my husband just doesn’t buy the idea that you call your main meal “dinner” even if it’s the middle of the day (German doesn’t have such a concept) — was good, but simple: Aldi ham (but I splurged on the more expensive, pre-glazed version), green beans and bacon, pasta with Alfredo sauce, and zopf (German braided bread — basically, take a challah recipe but skip the egg wash). I would have taken a picture but we didn’t get the tablecloth out, and served things right out of the pots and pans, so visually it didn’t win any prizes.
In any case, here are a few links to share with you:
From the National Review, a piece with the latest research on the Shroud of Turin. The author, Myra Adams, marshals a variety of evidence to support claims that the Shroud is, indeed, authentic, from the corrected carbon dating to the time of Christ (initial tests had incorrectly used medieval patches), to pollen and dust native to the Holy Land, to the fact that the blood penetrates the cloth, but the image itself does not penetrate the cloth but appears to rest on top; a 2012 study “strongly suggested that the force causing the man’s image to be imprinted on the cloth was radiation released in the form of an electrical discharge: in layman’s terms, a burst of light and energy. This means that the Shroud may be proof not only of Christ’s Passion and crucifixion but also of his resurrection.”
What do I think? I read what wikipedia had to say about the history of the Shroud: before 1390, there is no definitive history, just references to relics that may have been taken from Constantinope in the Sack of Constantinope in 1204. Is it possible that the Shroud was kept by one of the disciples and then passed on through the generations, ultimately to resurface in medieval Europe? Yes, of course. Many things are possible. Is it likely? Not really.
If the consensus of reputable scholars is that the image is such that it simply would not have been possible for a pre-modern artist, of whatever skill, to have forged it, and that, what’s more, the re-dating of the Shroud cloth itself to ancient times means that it’s simply not believable that an Italian forger could have found himself in possession of such ancient cloth to work with — well, then, the reasonable thing is to draw the conclusion that is consistent with the available information.
But then: is the Shroud miraculous? Did God cause the image to come into existence, and protect it for all these centuries? (though he sure didn’t do a particularly careful job, as it was damaged by fire in the 16th century.) Why would God do so, when he could make is presence known in far more unmistakable ways anytime he chose? The statement above, that the image was caused by a “burst of light and energy”? I don’t know — I don’t really see why Jesus would particularly need to emit energy in order to resurrect himself.
Second article: it’s just a snippet, really, the Bono version of what’s been said multiple times, as quoted elsewhere on patheos:
It’s a defining question for Christians. Who was Christ? I don’t think you’re let off easily by saying He was a great thinker or great philosopher. Because, actually, He went around saying He was the Messiah. That’s why He was crucified. He was crucified because He was the Son of God.
So, He either, in my view, was the Son of God, or He was nuts. Forget rock-and-roll messianic complexes, I mean Charlie Manson-type delirium. And I find it hard to accept that millions of lives, half the Earth, for 2,000 years, have been touched, have felt their lives touched and inspired by some nutter.
Now, that’s not quite an either/or — the third view of Christ is what we see fairly often, that Jesus was a prophet to wanted to reform Judaism, make it less legalistic, and that anything in the scriptures that indicates he considered himself as anything more than a human was later additions by the early Christians. In the view of these revisionists, it’s mostly Paul’s fault, as he shaped Christian beliefs through the epistles, written before the gospels where themselves written, just as Paul is the villain for Christianity’s views on everything from homosexuality to women.
But, of course, once these revisionist scholars get their “Bible” cleaned up of all of what they suppose to be inauthentic later additions and present what they deem to be the “true” words of Jesus, there’s not much left, certainly not much reason for anyone to imagine that he came back to life (because these scholars also discard any truth the the Resurrection) and called them to spread his message, certainly not much worth dying for. And it seems equally improbable that Paul would have convinced a group that had indeed set about on a mission of reforming Judaism (anticipating, apparently, the Jewish Enlightenment by 1800 years), that their dead mentor was, indeed, the Son of God.
MORE:
Speaking of secular people and Easter, Ann Althouse just linked to the Obama’s “Happy Easter” picture: Obama and the Easter Bunny, standing side-by-side, facing away from the camera and toward the Washington Monument. There’s another picture, too, of the family, on the White House lawn. For Passover, there’s a picture of the White House seder, and then there’s a clip of a message from the president celebrating Easter and Passover. Now, I haven’t listened to this, but here’s the sentence that the facebook page curators chose to highlight: “I hope that among our many blessings, we pause and give thanks for the chance to live in a country where everyone has the right to worship and pray and love as they choose.” This is so obnoxious — using Easter as an opportunity to sneak in a pro-gay-marriage sentiment — that I don’t have any interest in listening to the whole thing.
Now, if you hunt a bit further, there seems to be an official White House Easter greeting which does communicate an actual Christian message:
Michelle and I join our fellow Christians around the world in observing Good Friday and celebrating Easter this weekend. With humility and awe, we give thanks for the extraordinary sacrifice that Jesus made for our salvation. We rejoice in the triumph of the Resurrection. And we renew our commitment to live as He commanded – to love God with all our heart, soul and mind, and to love our neighbors as ourselves. I look forward to continuing our celebration on Tuesday when I host our annual Easter prayer breakfast as we remember the teachings of Jesus in our daily lives, stand with those around the world who are persecuted for their faith, and pray for peace, justice and freedom for all people.
So I suppose it depends on which speechwriter or PR flack is in charge of any given message.
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In