Listen in!
Books and music featured on today's show:
| 
|
|
|
Other titles mentioned:  | |
| A book I read over and over when I was 10. |
 |
| Found at long last! Sprockets, a Little Robot! |
Thursday, June 27, 2013
Airtime and summer reading (UPDATED)
I was scheduled to host "The Winds of Change" radio show tomorrow at noon, but with the Blackhawks' Victory Parade (for bringing the Stanley Cup back to Chicago) I figured it would be next to impossible to get in and out of the city with the street closings and security measures... So I was on the air today instead.
Listen in!
Books and music featured on today's show:
And--bonus!--someone on Google + alerted me to the presence of YouTube videos in which the book is read aloud:
Listen in!
Books and music featured on today's show:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I was interested in your distinction between a civil marriage and the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony. My husband and I, both baptized, married in a civil ceremony 40 years ago(first marriage for each of us). As Anglicans we were permitted to do so. Upon our conversion to Catholicism we were not required to have our marriage convalidated because, we were informed, it was our valid baptism which made our civil marriage valid and sacramental in nature in the eyes of the R.C. Church.
It has always puzzled us that baptized Catholics must have their marriages validated when married civilly, as we would have thought their baptisms would have made their marriages sacramental as well, but this is not the case. On the contrary, if not married in church their marriages are deemed invalid. Between this and the marriage tribunal/annulment processes it's no wonder the Church loses credibility in the eyes of the faithful when it comes to promoting the Sacrament of Matrimony. - Jean
That was interesting. I keep wondering why we don't go back to the way the primitive Church dealt with marriage: a couple had a typical wedding ceremony according to the culture (unless, I suppose, the ceremony itself had some pagan observances in it) and after a few years and a couple of kids, they would come to the priest to have their marriage, as it were, "recognized" as a sign of Christ and the Church. It was their own witness of (genuinely) Christian married life that testified to the sacramental reality. My understanding is that there is no way we as a Church will be returning to that, but ... society may force us into it anyway!
It took the Church a thousand years to put together a theology of marriage as a sacrament. It's so foundational for society--and then "elevated" by Christ--well, that's why it takes Canon Lawyers so long to get their degrees. I think that Theology of the Body could really help the ordinary folks, though. If people had a better grasp of the meaning of marriage in a faith context, there could be less need of the tribunals.
Well, now I've learned something new about the primitive church from you! Many years ago I was a guest at a Muslim ceremony which took place one year after the couple had married, at which time they made their declaration that they would remain married. Prayers, delicious feast.
No matter how much marriage prep a couple undertakes (and Hubby and I had none) marriage has to be lived to be understood and appreciated. As I said, 40 years with no prep and a civil ceremony and we're still together - God can work miracles with willing believers. - Jean (BTW love your blog!)
Post a Comment