Showing posts with label love. Show all posts
Showing posts with label love. Show all posts

Friday, June 7, 2013

Favorite Poetry: Litany for the Feast of the Most Sacred Heart (Part II)

As promised, here is the rest of the poem.  Please do read both parts! (Last time I did a two-part post, the second one got way less views than the first.)
Also, a most blessed Feast of the Sacred Heart to you all!


via Google Images

Litany for the Feast of the Most Sacred Heart (con't)
by Gertrude von Le Fort

Red-thorn of our gladness, 
Sorrow-thorn of our repentance,
Fair evening glow of our own setting,
We ask Thee for Thy love.
Crimson cloth that turns sin pale as death:
We ask Thee for Thy love.
Ruby stream after which the sick souls thirst:
We ask Thee for Thy love.
Whispering nearness in which parted friends may meet:
We ask Thee for Thy love.

Comforting lamp of the distressed,
Lighthouse of the persecuted and the disgraced,
Hidden chamber in which the gentle dead may yet breathe;
All-knowing Heart, all-guiding Heart, ultimate Heart:
We ask Thee for Thy love!

Heart that takes us all to itself,
Heart that strikes the centre of all our hearts,
Heart that breaks the proud hearts of us all:
We ask Thee for Thy love!

Heart that makes solitude into a great people:
We ask Thee for Thy love.
Heart that makes discord into a united people:
We ask Thee for Thy love.
Heart in which the whole world becomes Thy people:
We consecrate ourselves to Thy love.
Overflowing Heart, overflaming Heart, overstorming Heart:
Be loved, Love, everlasting Love, be everlastingly loved.

That Thy Dawn may break with kindling light,
We consecrate ourselves to Thy love.
That Thy day may bring fire to our hearts,
We consecrate ourselves to Thy love.
That Thy day may burn all our hearts into Thine,
We consecrate ourselves to Thy love.
That Thy day may bring fire to our hearts,
We consecrate ourselves to Thy love,
Mighty Heart, ineluctable Heart, all-consuming Heart.

Fire! Fire!  The angels' wings are burning, the swords of the
seraphim are aflame!  
The lights of heaven are burning, the depths of earth are burning,
rocks and yesterdays are all aflame!
 The expectation of all creatures burns -- the spirit burns in the
darkness of high thought,
All has been taken from love, all must become love; sing "Holy,
Holy, Holy!" rustling flames of the seraphim!

Heart from which the heavens draw their glory,
Heart from which the suns and constellations draw their
beginning and their end,
Heart from which the souls of the blessed draw their blessedness.
World-ordering Heart, world-conquering Heart, Thou only Heart
of hearts:
Amen. Amen.  May the day of Thine infinite love come quickly.

Monday, June 3, 2013

Favorite Poetry: Litany for the Feast of the Most Sacred Heart (Part 1)

In honor of the month of the Sacred Heart, I thought I'd post a bit of this very special poem apparently composed for the feast, which, by the way, is this Friday.  It is very long, so I won't post all of it today - I know that you people grow faint of heart at the prospect of very long pieces of writing.  (And I'm not necessarily blaming you - I get the same way sometimes.)  So I shall post some of it now and then the rest on Friday.

As I was writing it out, I was reflecting that non-Catholics or weak Catholics might find it a bit bizarre or over-the-top.  Well --- all I have to say to that is: let no one say that Catholicism is cold, sterile, or repressive. You can't read this and tell me that the religion inspiring it is repressive.
I think it's one of those poems that have to be pondered - I know a priest who made it the subject of his daily meditations, a stanza every day.  That's my favorite kind of poetry.  And its imagery is just perfect.  Agh, just read it already.  More coming on Friday.


Litany for the Feast of the Most Sacred Heart
by Gertrud von Le Fort 

Now I will pray the ardour of the soul as a great litany is
prayed.  Now I will raise the song of praise that is not sung
but loved.  Blood-red secret of all that is:
Holy Heart, divine Heart, almighty Heart.
Be loved, Love, eternal Love, be thou eternally loved.

Hearth in the dark of the frozen world,
Be loved, Love!
Flame-shadow over all the false brightness of the world,
Be loved, Love!
Burning sign in all the false rest of the world;
Lonely Heart, flaming Heart, unquenchable Heart:
Be loved, everlasting Love.

Heart deep as the nights that have no face:
Be loved!
Heart strong as the waves that have no shores:
Be loved!
Heart tender as little children that have no bitterness:
Be everlastingly loved.

Rose from the flower-beds of the invisible,
Rose from the chalice of the humble maiden,
Blossoming rose-bush, in which heaven and earth are entwined,
Be loved, everlasting Love!

Royal Heart in the flowing mantle of Thy blood:
Be loved!
Brother-Heart in the wild mockery of the thorny crown:
Be loved!
Breaking Heart in the stark ornament of Thy death wounds:
Heart dethroned, Heart betrayed, Heart cruelly martyred:
Be loved, everlasting Love, be everlastingly loved.

Heart before whom the mighty find their knees,
We ask Thee for Thy love.
Heart before whom the careless find their tears:
We ask Thee for Thy love.
Herat in whom thieves and murderers yet find forgiveness,
Great Heart, Heart of mercy, Heart of glory, 
We ask Thee for Thy love!

Thursday, March 21, 2013

Favorite Poetry: Batter My Heart

While doing English 12 work today I learned about John Donne, about whom I had previously known very little.  I was struck with the selections of his poetry in my textbook, though, and I think I shall look for more.
This particular poem I especially liked for its intensity, almost violence.  I also love the marriage/love imagery - as a "wannabe nun," I'm always a sucker for lovers' terminology applied to the spiritual!

I could almost use this poem as a prayer.  Is that "allowed," do you think?

via Google Images

Batter My Heart
By John Donne
 
Batter my heart, three-personed God; for you
As yet but knock, breathe, shine, and seek to mend.
That I may rise and stand, o'erthrow me and bend
Your force to break, blow, burn, and make me new.
I, like an usurped town, to another due,
Labor to admit you, but oh, to no end;
Reason, your viceroy in me, me should defend,
But is captived and proves weak or untrue.

Yet dearly I love you and would be loved fain,
But am betrothed unto your enemy;
Divorce me, untie or break that knot again, 
Take me to you, imprision me, for I,
Except you enthrall me, never shall be free,
Nor ever chaste, except you ravish me.


Isn't it striking?  *sighs in poetical bliss*
Incidentally, do any of you know anything about Donne?  Have any favorites you could recommend to me? Do tell!

Friday, December 21, 2012

I SAW THE HOBBIT.

And it was....pretty glorious.  Not perfect, but I am not disappointed in the least.  I don't really know where to start in reviewing it, especially since I feel like by now y'all have heard it all a million times.  Oh! It was also the first time I've seen a 3-D film.  At first it seemed a little weird, with moths flying out at me and stuff, but after a while I got used to it and appreciated it.  It does make things more realistic.  It also makes it easier to *cough* hide unobtrusively from the scary orcs.

This is me when there were orc closeups. Take the glasses off, orcs go bye-bye and there's just a bunch of blurry movements.
 Okay, actually, the orcs weren't as scary as I remember them being in the Lord of the Rings films.  I really did make them nice and blurry a couple times, though - just cause they're so gosh-darn ugly.

Spoilers ahoy and fangirling ahead.  Motorists, proceed with caution.

Speaking of orcs, that is one thing I was not super happy about.  As most of you know, the whole Azog thing was not in the original book.  He was killed, by Dain, I believe, but I guess the producers wanted to have a present and tangible villain.  It makes sense.  I didn't mind for most of the time, but I felt the deviation from the fifteen birds in five fir-trees scene to be dramatic license overkill, just to bulk up the drama.  The pathetic "fight" between Thorin and Azog was just not necessary, and to have Gandalf either heal Thorin or bring him back to life (which it was, I couldn't decide) just doesn't make sense. If he could heal like that, why didn't he heal all those who fell in the Battle of Five Armies, and later, Faramir, Eowyn, and Frodo in The Lord of the Rings?  The only good thing that fiery Azog/Thorin/Bilbo fight scene did was to give Richard Armitage a chance to melt his poor fans with his ability to act pain and dismay with such heartbreaking perfection. All the man has to do is look.
 Also, I wish they had kept the original Hobbit way of calling them goblins instead of orcs.  The "orcs" in The Hobbit are a bit different than the LOTR ones, and anyway I just like the word "goblin."

I didn't realize it while I watching the film, but they really cut a lot of good dialogue.  What happened to "I am Mr. Bilbo Baggins, and I have lost my dwarves, my wizard, and my way?"  That's just one example. Of course, I do understand that as I was not personally consulted by the producers (an insufferable slight, but what can I do?), I cannot blame them for skipping my personal favorites.  They've got a lot of fans to please.  BUT.  They added dialogue, some of which made me laugh, some of which I found quite unnecessary, so why couldn't they keep more of the original dialogue?

The trolls were actually better then I expected, but the...er...use of Bilbo as a handkerchief was just flat-out gross.  I don't know why they had to do that.

One more thing before I'm done complaining.  Radagast.   Though we hear next to nothing about him in the books, I'm sure Tolkien didn't mean for him to be a dirty, mentally unstable kook.  In my mind, Radagast was a clean-shaved, brown-haired, introverted man who just quietly went about the job of being a steward of the forest.  Also, I don't see why he had to meet up with the dwarves.  I was hoping to just see Gandalf go to visit him and talk about wizardy stuff, and I do hope that he's not going to replace Beorn, as Rosamund suggests.

Well, that's all for my complaints.  It looks more extensive than it should be.

I actually didn't mind the little White Council meeting at Rivendell.  Galadriel looked gorgeous and wasn't as creepy as she usually is.  Also, I didn't see the supposed flirtation between her and Gandalf as a flirtation at all, just friendship.  I think it could be interpreted either way.

Another deviation that I actually liked was the insertion of Gollum's split-personality problem into the riddle-game.  I especially enjoyed how he kept telling himself to shut up.  I feel for you, Gollum.  My internal monologues go kinda the same way.  And, I never thought I'd say this, EVER, but his expression when Bilbo's about to smite him was really almost heart-wrenching.   Another thing I loved about the Gollum encounter was the line "if Baggins loses, we eats it whole," accompanied my a matter-of-fact shrug.  And then Bilbo replies, "Eh...fair enough."  I LOVE IT.

That brings me to the Hobbit himself.  Guys.  I don't think they could have found a more perfect actor for the part then Martin Freeman.  He was just Bilbo all over, exactly how I imagined.  Of course, there was a certain act of almost-disloyalty which was not true to the character at all, but that is not Mr. Freeman's fault.  I just can't get over what perfect casting it was.



 I'm going to be just be honest here and say that yes, I do find Fili and Kili to be annoyingly attractive.  I like that Kili's not just a pretty face like Legolas, though - his character actually has depth.

Speaking of attractiveness and perfect casting....THORIN.  You knew this was coming, internet.  As a North & South fan, I can't help but be a Thorin fan.  Richard Armitage plays the role to PERFECTION. (Chills-inducing voice, check.  Glowering expression, check.  Regal bearing, check.  Ability to convey volumes with a look, check.  All-round awesomeness, triple-check.) I was a little worried as to how he was going to be transformed into a dwarf, but I had nothing to worry about.  There's an internet meme going around about Thorin's majesticness (which isn't even a word), and I think that just about sums it up. Thorin is majestic.  He's just...gah.  I always loved the character (and would cry at a Certain Tragic Event which will happen in the third movie), and then to bring Mr. Thornton into it was the icing on the cake.  Absolutely perfect icing, too.



Now for my very favorite aspects of the film: the music and the scenery.

They did a lovely job with creating the right atmosphere for each place...can I just live in them all at once, please?  Bag End was so homey and cozy, you could definitely see why Bilbo missed it on his Adventure.  It was the nicest home a hobbit (or a human) could wish for.

Then there's Erebor. (Quick note: wasn't Erebor the Elves' name for Lonely Mountain? Why would Thorin, who hates Elves, use the elvish name for his home?) I've never been able to imagine what the Mountain looked like in Thror's day, so I was uncritical.  And it was breathtaking, as was the astounding amount of gold.  In a story with goblins, elves, wizards, and dragons, the amount of gold was the only thing I couldn't believe.

The sweeping panoramas of plains and mountains and green fields just made me want to book a plane ticket to New Zealand on the spot.  It was beautiful.

Then Rivendell.  Once again, I don't know what to say.  It was just lovely.  All the little waterfalls catching the moonlight and the sunrise...just...ahhh.  The sunrise scene especially was just unbelievably lovely.

And finally, the music.  They included Crack the Plates and, of course, the beloved Misty Mountains song from the book.  I did miss the tra-la-la-lally song from the entrance into Rivendell, but I am not surprised that they omitted it, as it doesn't quite fit with the more solemn portrayal of the Elves in LOTR, and thus with Peter Jackson's portrayal of them.  Once again, if they had consulted me....
There's also the fifteen birds in five fir-trees song that the goblins sing, but since the fifteen birds were stuck in one tree, it wouldn't have made sense.  Also, I'm not sure I really wanted to hear goblins sing.  It might have given me nightmares for life.

I thought that the Crack the Plates song was well done - rowdy enough for a bunch of rather unmannerly dwarves, but with a melody that made it pleasant to listen to.  As a matter of fact, I thought the whole dish-washing scene particularly well-done.

I needn't even say how lovely and perfect the Misty Mountains song was, especially since it would include more squeeing over a certain individual and his voice.  I shall simply say that it was just as I had always imagined it and I can't think how it could possibly be bettered.  That's saying a lot, too, because I've always loved it to bits.  They carried it over instrumentally throughout the film, which I think was a perfect artistic decision, as it conveys the sense of the deep longing and sadness of the dwarves for their lost homeland.  And of course it sounds gorgeous.

I haven't even actually seen all of the three LOTR movies, but when they played the theme Concerning Hobbits I could have cried.  I love that theme.  Howard Shore is wonderful.  The end.

*dies of excessive fangirling*

I think I shall go before I embarrass myself further.  Long story short, the book is always better, but the film was very lovely and OBVIOUSLY good enough to warrant an excessive post such as this.

Oh, wait.  One word of warning before I resume dying.  As you may have noticed, I'm a Tolkien fan.  You're probably a Tolkien fan too, if you've read this far.  However, if by some chance you're not, I will say that the film will not be as bright and shiny and perfect to a non-fan.  The thing is three hours long, people.  My dad, who, unfortunately, is at best a casual fan, was not amused.  So if you're not a fan, consider carefully.  If you are, and you haven't seen it yet, WHAT IN MIDDLE-EARTH ARE YOU WAITING FOR?  Four-and-a-half out of five stars, and I'd say suitable for ages 13 and up.  If you've seen LOTR, you'll be fine.  We didn't take my eleven-year-old sister, and I was glad we didn't.  There's nothing sinful, just what the rating association calls "disturbing images."  LIKE ORCSES.  AND GOLLUMS, PRECIOUS.

*resumes dying*


Editor's note: re-reading this review-ish thing, it is not as good as I at first hoped.  However, I shall not continue to edit it cause life calls.  So sorry if I am at all unintelligible or uninformative.  It's hard to make sense when you're dying of an excess of fangirling.

Thursday, August 16, 2012

The Essence of Charity

A couple of days ago I came across an extra-beautiful meditation in the book Divine Intimacy, which, as you may remember, I have posted about before.   This one is about the essence of love of God, and I thought it was pretty amazing.  Some of it could apply to human love as well, I think, tying in with that one post I wrote about true love.  But, leaving that aside, it's just lovely.  Read and see:

Meditation 255: The Act of Love
p. 762-763

"To love a person is to desire his well-being.  We understand, therefore, that the essence of love is in the act of the will by which we wish good.  This does not take away from the fact that the act may often be accompanied by sensible affection, making our love both an act of the will and of the sensibility.  Nevertheless, it is clear that the substance of real love is not to be found in the emotions but in the act of the will.  Charity does not change our manner of loving, but penetrates it, supernaturalizes it, making the will and the sensibility capable of loving God.  Yes, even sensible affection can be engaged in the act of supernatural love; God does not despise this humbler and less lofty manifestation of our love for Him, because He has commanded us to love Him not only with our whole mind and our whole soul, but also with our whole heart.  All our powers---intellectual, volitive, and affective---are engaged in the act of love, and yet the substance of this act is not found in the feelings but in the will.  Therefore, when our emotions are cold in our love of God, and we "feel" nothing, there is no reason for us to be disturbed; we will find less satisfaction in our love---for it is much more peasant for us to feel that we are loving---but our act of love will be equally true and perfect.  Even more, lacking the impetus and pleasure which come from our feelings, we will be obliged to apply ourself more resolutely to the act of the will and this, far from harming it, will make it more voluntary, and therefore, more meritorious.  Precisely because the substance of love is in the act of the will that wishes good to God, in order to make our love purer and more intense, Our Lord will often deprive us of all consoling feelings; we will no longer feel that we love God---and this will give us pain---but in reality, we will love Him in the measure that we will with determination what He wills, and want His good pleasure and delight above all things.  Besides, it is not [always] in our power to feel love but it is always in our power to make voluntary acts of love; it is always in our power to wish good to God, striving with all our strength to live for Him and to please Him."


Photograph by me, edited with Picmonkey.


Friday, July 6, 2012

In Which I Rant On The Phenomenon Of The Crush

*Warning for male audiences: very girl-oriented post ensues*

Modern parlance is really something.  When a girl likes a boy (or vice versa), we say that she has a crush on him.  Ummm....please tell where this term came from?  The etymology must be fascinating.  For my part, when I hear it I think of cans of crushed pineapple.  Seriously.

I have many levels of distaste for this word (which I will admit I use in daily life because I'm too intellectually lazy to think of a better term), but the aspect which I encounter most often is the all-encompassing meaning of the word, especially when used as a synonym for "like" - which is, incidentally, another rant-worthy topic itself, which I shall not go into at present.  A crush can be anything from "the really cute cashier at Giant" to "Ohmygawsh the actor who plays X (insert fangirled movie character here)" to "that random person I just talked to for three minutes" to "my neighbor/friend/companion-in-hanging-about-after-Sunday-Mass who just happens to be a guy."  All these people (and you know about most, if not all of these situations, I know you do), lumped under the one term: "crush."  I cringe just seeing it, it's so expressive of teenage drama and silliness.  I think some of this very silliness could be dispelled if we called things by more proper terms.  What you feel for the good-looking young man at the grocery-store cash register is just passing admiration of his external features.  What you feel for the movie character is something between the cashier situation and what can only be called obsession.  The guy whom you had one short conversation with has inspired interest.  And as for your partner in after-church socialization (or whatever) - it could be simple friendship, or a sort of infatuation, or maybe, possibly, it could be a liking which will turn out to be much more.

You can easily see that all of these situations are vastly different, and ought to be considered as such.  (And, if I may say so, teasing is always called for, EXCEPT in the pure friendship case.  In the others, it provides a comic relief for overly-dramatic drama.)  I think we girls would be much less confused about these matters if we called them what they are.  Personally, when I was first introduced to the concept of "having a crush" I was horribly muddled and very anxious.  I thought that it was something very serious which one was pulled into against one's will.  I would frantically review every male being I knew and apprehensively try to ascertain if I had a crush on any of them.  My journals from 2007 and 2008 are the most mortifying (and laughable) things you can imagine.   This was one of the few matters in which I wish I had had an older sister to ferret things out and show me what was what.

The other aspect of crushes, intertwined with and illustrated by my first objection, is that of every single guy near one's age being, as my little sister used to put it, "crushed upon."  This is basically what happens to a girl who is called boy-crazy.  Everyone is looked upon as possible crush material when really they should just be looked on as a possible friend.  We girls confuse the two.  Sometimes we decide that we "like" a person when really all we want is to be friends with them.  This is the biggest thing I have had to contend with.  I think that when our feelings start getting carried away, we should sit down, give ourselves a mental shake (and perhaps some non-caffeinated tea) and really think what we want from this person.  Sometimes a so-called crush is just a desire to know more about someone.


Well, I believe I've exhausted my ranting capacity for the day - for two days, actually, since my rambling has now brought me to midnight.  See how much I love you all, to stay up till midnight for you?  Anyway, so, if you've made it down here, what do you think?  Do you disagree?  If you do I'd love to hear about it, with the reasons why you think that way.  I've had some awesome discussions in the comments section - particularly on the Hunger Games posts.  And of course if you agree I'd love to hear that too.  Always nice to know that one is not alone in one's strange opinions.

This is a peace offering in case you were discouraged by what might be construed as cynicism, on my part, about "love." :)

Tuesday, May 1, 2012

Wuv, Twoo Wuv

About the title - I just couldn't resist.  But I promise, I will try to make this a serious post.

True Love.  It's a common phrase.  "True love" is everywhere - music, films, stories, and especially daydreams.  But what is true love?  What makes the difference between true love and false love?  Perhaps you already know.  But do you?  Here's an example.  We tend to think that love and like are synonyms.  "Oh my gosh, I love your dress," or "I just love pizza."  Really?  You do?  You are willing to sacrifice your life for the dress or the pizza?  Hm.  I should hope not.  No, darling, you like pizza and you like your friend's dress.  "Love" is so overused nowadays, it's not going to add any extra conviction to your sentence anyway.  (Note: I myself am not always innocent of this transgression.  Just thought I'd make that clear.) 

The same goes for love and romanceRomance itself has been degraded to mean something much worse, but never mind that right now.   Love doesn't just mean walking on air and chocolates and roses, people.  You can be "in love" without truly loving the person at all, because true love is not an emotion, not a feeling.  It's an act of the will - something that you choose to do.  This is why, as a certain rather brilliant acquaintance of mine once pointed out, the arranged marriages so common in the past actually worked out when the couple sincerely made an effort.  They made the choice to love each other. (Note: I am not advocating arranged marriages.  I would freak if someone arranged a marriage for me.)


If I have true love for someone, my greatest aim is not to be with them forever.  My greatest aim is to do whatever is best for them, even if it means being with someone else, because my love isn't selfish.  All that matters is their welfare.  I am unimportant except where I can be of use, and I will do whatever it takes to for that person's true happiness.

Also, true love is not reserved for just a man and a woman.  One can truly love anyone - parents, friends, siblings, students, whatever.

True love is not a feeling.  It's not destiny.  It's not a chemical reaction.  It's a conscious choice by which a person puts someone else above himself or herself in all things.  It's what Our Lord has for each one of us.  And it's very beautiful.

Made with Pixlr and Picmonkey.  I quoted from memory, so I apologize if I got the wording wrong somehow.


Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...