The Case for ad orientem

During the Sacra Liturgia conference being held in London on July 5, Robert Cardinal Sarah, prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Sacraments, made some comments that sent ripples through the Roman Catholic Church.  Not for the first time, he recommended that priests celebrate the Mass "ad orientem," which literally means "towards the East."  This is as opposed to the "versus populum" celebration we most typically see today.  He further recommended that this begin on the first Sunday of Advent, for reasons I will explain.  As of yet, there has been no official change.  By why would the Church want the priest to celebrate the Mass "with his back towards the people" as some say?  There are four main arguments that I would like to highlight.

First, there is the argument of precedent.  To fully make this argument would take more time than I have here.  Essentially, if we look at the history of the Liturgy of the Roman Catholic Church, Mass, and indeed all prayer, was always celebrated facing the East up until roughly fifty years ago.  There were a few reasons, but in essence it was because all people were to be facing the Lord, the focus of the Mass, and He was to come from the East.  This, by the way, is why Cardinal Sarah recommended the change be made in Advent, the time when we most explicitly anticipate the coming of the Lord.  The other argument of precedent is that all other Catholic rites, the Tridentine Mass or the Extraordinary Form, the Ordinariate, as well as all Eastern Catholic rites, celebrate Mass "ad orientem."  Only the "Novus Ordo," the new Mass coming from the Second Vatican Council, allows for Mass to be said "versus populum," and even then it is a choice.  Returning to Mass "ad orientem" would be a return to history and in solidarity with all other Catholics.  (For more on this topic, I highly recommend Uwe Michael Lang's Turning Towards the Lord.)

Second, there is the spiritual argument.  This is where many people may ask, "why is the priest turning his back to us?"  The important thing is to think of "ad orientem" as the priest leading the people facing the Lord, in the form of the crucifix behind the altar.  There is also a practical side to this argument.  Priests, and all those at the altar, are humans.  Humans can get distracted.  If the priest is facing the people, any number of things can distract him from what should be the focus of the Mass: God.  If, however, the priest is facing Christ, his attention is completely focused on Christ.  I can also say this applies to the people in the pews.  Instead of watching every movement of the priest and being distracted by his movements or his clothing or anything else, they, too, can focus completely on Christ.

Third, there is the argument of translation.  In the original Latin of the General Instruction of the Roman Missal (the document that guides all Liturgical worship), paragraph no. 299 states "Altare extruatur a pariete seiunctum, ut facile circumiri et ineo celebratio versus populum peragi possit, quod expedit ubicumque possibile sit."  The English translation has this as "The altar should be built separate from the wall, in such a way that it is possible to walk around it easily and that Mass can be celebrated facing the people, which is desirable wherever possible."  Thus, it sounds as though Mass "versus populum" is desirable.  The problem is that this is a bad translation, as many Latin scholars have noted.  The final clause beginning with "quod" actually refers to the first part of the sentence, and thus more accurately means "the altar should be built separate from the wall, which is desirable wherever possible," etc. 

Finally, there is the argument from the Missal itself.  Numerous times it remarks that the priest at certain points is facing the people.  This would not be necessary to mention if he were already doing so.  The final indication is that when the priest consumes the Body of Christ, he is to be "facing the altar," as opposed to facing the people.  Again, if facing the altar meant facing the people, there would be no reason to distinguish the two.

This is not to say that celebrating Mass "versus populum" is wrong, since clearly it is the norm now.  Whether the Mass is said "ad orientem" or "versus populum" at the moment is up to the discretion of the priest.  It will be interesting to see if any changes or further recommendations will be made.

Star Trek...Beyond

I will begin this mini review of Star Trek Beyond by saying I am not a big fan of the Star Trek reboot series.  I have said this many times before, but it's a bit too much Star Wars and not enough Star Trek (which might seem weird since I'm a huge Star Wars fan, but the two need to be separate).  That being said, either I have softened my stance, or this third one really is the best of the bunch so far.

Pros:

The effects and makeup are fantastic.  There's one scene at the end (I don't want to spoil anything) with the good guys facing off against the bad guys in space.  If you've seen it, you know what I mean.  That looked great.

The cast has always been the strongest part of the reboot, though they've had a bit of a problem balancing between playing the originals and being themselves.  I think they've finally got it down just about right.  And the relationships, especially between Bones and Kirk, are good.  Idris Elba was pretty good.  Sofia Boutella was a stand out.  Jaylah is a great character.

The story was original but still "Trek-y" enough.  It was a fun movie.  And, unlike the first movie (outrunning a black hole) there wasn't any obnoxiously bad science.  Bad science, yes, but not stupid.  And no second-rate retreads of baddies.

Cons:

Still a little too much action for me.  I guess you can tell I'm a fan of the Next Generation, because they were the pinnacle of the series for me.  They had action when needed, but they also made you think.  The series is missing the cerebral part that makes Star Trek Star Trek.

Speaking of action, this runs into the same problems as too many action movies today: quick cuts, close up cameras, and too dark making it impossible to see what's going on.  You get the general idea, but at times it's very hard to follow the action.

Conveniences.  This kind of goes with the cerebral part.  We need something...oh there it is!  This happens a bit too many times and it gets annoying.

Again, overall it's a good addition to the franchise. 

7.5/10

Now, let me share my unquestionably perfect ranking of the Star Trek movies:

13.  Star Trek V: The Final Frontier  2/10

            The pretty much universal worst of the bunch.  There's nothing good to say about it.  And then Nichelle Nichols dances.

12.  Star Trek: The Motion Picture  4/10

            It took me three tries to get through this dull attempt at copying the terrible 2001.  The only good thing about this is it includes the best score of the franchise.  That poster is a thousand times more interesting than the movie.

11.  Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home  4/10

            Some people love this (one in particular I have argued over this), I hate it.  The "humor" is mostly dumb and it just doesn't feel like a Star Trek movie.  Heavy handed environmentalism much?

10.  Star Trek: Nemesis  5/10

            The first time I saw it, I thought it was alright.  Each subsequent viewing it gets worse.  Too bad this was the send-off for the best crew.

9.  Star Trek Into Darkness 6/10

            The bombing scene is pretty great, the rest is a mess of over-the-top action and bad copies of Wrath of Khan.

8.  Star Trek III: The Search for Spock 7/10

            It's not a bad movie, but there's also little in it that stands out.

7.  Star Trek (reboot) 7/10

            I remember walking out of seeing this in IMAX at Kennedy Space Center and immediately disagreeing with my two friends who said this was the best Star Trek movie ever.  The villain is lackluster, and I can never get over them escaping a black hole.

6.  Star Trek: Generations 7/10

            I think this movie gets more flack than it deserves.  It's a pretty good bridge between the crews.  And get over the ending.

5.  Star Trek Beyond 7.5/10

            See above.

4.  Star Trek: Insurrection 7.5/10

            Saw this in the theater and didn't like it.  For a long time it was in the bottom three for me.  Rewatched a couple of years ago and really liked it.  My love of the Next Generation crew comes out.  One thing that can't be argued: that's got to be the worst Star Trek movie poster.

3.  Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan 8/10

            Start the hate.  Yes, it's a good movie with a great villain and an iconic ending.  That doesn't mean it's the best.

2.  Star Trek: First Contact 9/10

            Such a great use of the Next Generation cast and the best villains in Star Trek.  The borg are frightening, the tension is always there, but it doesn't have to be a non-stop action thrill ride because the movie lets the story play out.

1.  Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country 9/10

            The first one I saw in the theater.  It still blows me away.  I nearly used it in class as an allegory for the Cold War.  And you can have Khan, give me Christopher Plummer's Chang quoting Shakespeare (in the original Klingon) any day.

Bonus: Galaxy Quest 9/10

            Yes, if I were to rank this (as one Star Trek convention poll did), I would have it #3.  That's right, above Wrath of Khan.  Again, bring the hate.  The best parody movie ever.

A quick ranking of the scores, because there are some great ones.

13.  Voyage Home (Leonard Rosenman) F

            The only one I don't bother having.

12.  The Final Frontier (Jerry Goldsmith) D-

            Nearly as bad as the movie.

11.  Nemesis (Jerry Goldsmith) D

            Pretty forgettable, unfortunately.

10.  Insurrection (Jerry Goldsmith) C

            Goldsmith losing his touch.

9.  Beyond (Michael Giacchino) C+

            I have yet to hear it on its own, but in the movie it did not stand out.

8.  Generations (Dennis McCarthy) C+

            I like the Nexus theme, but the rest is somewhat forgettable.

7.  Wrath of Khan (James Horner) C+

            Some people have this #1, and that's because they're idiots.  It's more important for basically making Horner's career.

6.  Search for Spock (James Horner) B-

            Basically just a copy of Wrath of Khan with some good

5.  Into Darkness (Michael Giacchino) B

            Like the movie, the bomb scene is great, the rest is ok.

4.  First Contact (Jerry Goldsmith) B

            Some good action cues.

3.  The Undiscovered Country (Cliff Eidelman) A-

            Here's a composer who came out of nowhere, wrote a fantastically epic score, then has done basically nothing, unless you count The Beautician and the Beast something.

2.  Star Trek (Michael Giacchino) A

            Giacchino does a great job of making the themes to the original series epically great.

1.  The Motion Picture (Jerry Goldsmith) A+

            It might be Goldsmith's best ever. The six minute Enterprise flyby is one of the greatest compositions ever.  Oh yes, and it gave us the Next Generation theme.

Another bonus: Galaxy Quest (David Newman) B

            Sounds a little too television at times, but that's kind of the point.  Somewhere around #5 on the list.

Pixar Movies Ranked

I finally got to see Finding Dory, which allows me to complete my ranking of Pixar movies.  This is the only studio which I have seen every movie in the theaters.  I guess you could say I'm a big fan.

Cars 2 (5/10)

            Cars wasn't the best movie, and Mater was the most annoying character, so let's make a sequel based on him!  The only truly bad step by Pixar.  The concept was interesting, a throwback spy movie, but the execution and, again, focus on Mater, made it fall...flat.

The Good Dinosaur (7/10)

            I really wanted to love this movie.  I even thought it was cool how it turned out to be a Western.  It just did not really resonate.

Cars (7/10)

            This was the first Pixar movie that I wasn't really looking forward to, and only saw in the theater to keep my string going.  It's ok, and that's about the best I can say about it.  There's nothing really bad I can say about it, but nothing great either, except for the commitment to everything being cars (from bugs to mesas).

Brave (7/10)

            I actually think this movie could be better than this ranking, but it's not one that I tend to revisit often.  It's funny at times, especially with her brothers, but not very memorable.

Up (7/10)

            I've seen this as high as #1 on some lists.  I don't get it.  Yes, the opening montage is brilliant.  As one meme puts it, Pixar got more emotion out of 5 minutes and no dialogue than the Twlight movies did in however many movies that was.  But for me once they get to South America it loses a lot of steam and then kind of ends.

Monsters Inc. (7/10)

            I've seen this much higher on most lists.  Yes it's a good movie.  The characters are pretty good.  But somewhere in the middle of the movie I lose a little bit of interest in the story.  I can't explain why.

Finding Dory (7/10)

            I don't know, maybe I expected more.  Again, it was fine, but not really as memorable (ha) as the first.  Technically great, but missing a plot somewhere.

Monsters University (7.5/10)

            Why higher than the original?  For one, the art is better.  Two, the story is a little more exciting. 

Inside Out (8/10)

            Here's a bad confession, based on what others have said I suspect this is better than I remember, but I kind of fell asleep a little during the movie and have not rewatched it.  I should, because what I remember was quite good.

A Bug's Life (8/10)

            I'm never really sure why people don't like this as much as others.  I suppose because it was the first after Toy Story so people expected more?  Maybe I like it because I love Magnificent Seven so much and appreciated this take on it.  I also thought the casting was spot on.  Overall, it's well done and fun.

Finding Nemo (8/10)

            Not as high on this as many are.  Yes, it looks great.  The story and characters are fun.  It's just not one of the first ones I go to.

The Incredibles (8/10)

            Some have called this the best Fantastic Four movie ever made, and that just might be true.  It's a fun joining of superhero and spy movies.  It's well made.  The only criticism might be it goes on for one or two endings too many.

Ratatouille (9/10)

            The most surprising Pixar movie.  I went into this with fairly low expectations.  It's beautiful, funny, exciting, overall great.  That first view of Paris, three years before I saw it myself, is still stunning.

Toy Story 2 (9/10)

            Yes, I'm partial to the Toy Story movies.  This one isn't the best, but it's probably my favorite because it is where my favorite character, Rex, gets to shine the most.  Plus, I love the introduction of Woody's Roundup and the historical look at space overtaking Westerns in the 50s.

Toy Story (10/10)

            One of the most groundbreaking movies of all time, and one of my major childhood touchstones (even though I was 12 when it came out).  I love this movie, the characters, and it still holds up among the best.

WALL-E (10/10)

            I love this movie so much because I remember coming out of it an emotional wreck.  I never thought I would think of an animated robot so much.  It's also a great commentary on the modern life of convenience and being stuck with our faces in screens which is more important now than even then.

Toy Story 3 (10/10)

            The perfect ending to the greatest trilogy off all time (talking quality here, Star Wars is still the best).  You've lived with these characters for 15 years, and you feel for them in this fantastic finish.

Astros First Half Review

Boy, what a first half this has been for the Astros (yes, I know it's more than half the season).  At the end of April, they looked like the most disappointing Astros team I can remember.  Heading into the All Star Break, they are still 6.5 games behind in the West (thanks to a Rangers team playing way over their heads) but only 2 games back in the Wild Card race.  So what happened?

The Astros won opening day.  They only won six more games in April.  Here's their month-by-month records:

April 7-17 (.292)

May 17-12 (.586)

June 18-8 (.692)

July 5-4 (.556)

It's pretty easy to see they've improved remarkably over the last couple of months.  Most people will point to one difference: George Springer was moved to the leadoff spot.  The Astros were 17-28 on May 22.  Springer hit leadoff on May 24, and since then they are 30-13.  Case closed!  It's not that simple.  While undoubtedly that has made a huge difference, Springer has been a different player since then, for instance, there have been other factors.

First was the shakeup in the bullpen.  Luke Gregerson struggled frequently as the closer.  Ken Giles gave up a home run nearly every time he was brought in.  Will Harris was unhittable.  Finally seeing the light, Harris closed for the first time on June 5.  With a simple shakeup of the bullpen, the pitching got a lot better.

The starters also have been much better.  Dallas Keuchel still isn't great, but he has been better in June and July.  Doug Fister started 1-3, he has been 7-3 in the last three months with sub-3.00 ERAs in May and June.  Colin McHugh had a 6.65 ERA and 1.892 WHIP in April, he is down to 4.50 and 1.461.  Mike Fiers has a mid-3.00 ERA since June.  Lance McCullers finally joined the rotation.

I can't not mention the contributions of the young pitchers.  Chris Devenski was the most reliable (non-Will Harris) pitcher on the staff for most of the first half.  He pitched so well in relief he was given four starts, which weren't bad but he got no run support to help.  Then there's Michael Feliz.  April 6, he gave up six runs in 4.1 innings.  He was sent down (Devenski came up).  Feliz came back and on April 26 gave up three earned runs in one inning.  Since then, he has given up ten runs in 34.2 innings.  He's been a completely different, great pitcher. 

Unfortunately, the rookie hitters have not panned out.  Any of them.  That's been the most disappointing part, even as they've turned the season around.  Yes, Tyler White crushed the ball the first week of the season, but he turned ice cold, his OPS dropped to a horrific .682, and he's been down on the farm since June 13.  Preston Tucker was worse and didn't make it past mid-May.  Colin Moran got a brief look, but went 2-19 and was sent back down.  Tony Kemp stayed around longer, and looked better, but has been demoted.  Then we finally got to see A.J. Reed on June 25.  I picked him up in fantasy baseball.  He's the can't-miss first baseman of the future.  He's 5-35 with a couple of home runs, 16 Ks, and a .558 OPS. 

Really, nearly all the hitters outside Jose Altuve are disappointing.  Yes, Springer has been much better since hitting leadoff and has 19 home runs.  Luis Valbuena has had a couple of big hits recently and, after another slow start, has 12 home runs and a .838 OPS.  Carlos Correa, while not bad, has not been as good as we hoped.  Colby Rasmus was the other guy who started hot, but has been ice cold since the end of April.  Carlos Gomez...the less said the better.

Oh, I suppose I have to mention Evan Gattis, who was terrible in April but has at least brought more power since his jaunt down to AA to get some experience behind the plate.  For awhile, he was hitting home runs every time he caught.

Then there's Marwin Gonzalez, this generation's Jose Vizcaino.  He's not going to put up huge numbers, but he is going to step in wherever needed and play well.  That essential utility stopgap guy any winner needs.

A brief look at my preseason predictions:

AL East is fairly close.  Not sweating it, especially how the Blue Jays are playing better.

AL Central is right on-if I moved KC down to 4th.  I did have the Indians in the Wild Card, though.

AL West is swapped at the top, and I should have known better than to trust in the Angels.

NL East = perfect!

NL Central = perfect!

NL West is similar to AL West.

Overall, not bad.  I would be 6 of 6 for playoff predictions in the NL and 4 of 6 in the AL.

And my Astros notes:

White and Reed have disappointed.  Neither has secured anything.  Strike one.

Nothing has really been done to the outfield, outside of Tucker going back to AAA and Gattis being the backup catcher.  No trades in sight.  Foul ball strike two.

McCullers is not quite an ace, but very good.  Keuchel has not been solid.  Fiers and Fister are holding down #4 and #5.  Feldman is still the long man.  Ball one.

Giles good?  No.  Not as dominant as last year?  Clearly.  Best bullpen outside KC?  Not yet.  Foul ball.

Wins total is still to be seen, but 95 will be difficult.  Correa will not win MVP, unless he blows up in the second half.  White may not sniff the Majors again the season, so not even close to ROY.  Strike three.

So, what to expect?  The Astros are trending up, and will continue to climb.  The team we're saying now is more accurate for the talent on the team than the first month and a half.  They should at least make the Wild Card, if not overtake the extremely lucky and less talented Rangers.  Keep the faith.

Independence Day: Resurgence

Let me just say, the fact that I am writing this is not a good sign.  In fact, I'll cut to the chase: the Independence Day sequel is terrible.  Awful.  There's really nothing good going for it.

The worst thing for me was the editing.  It looked like it was cut by someone with the attention span of a 3 year old.  It's like every scene is missing a beat at the beginning and the end.  And, some of the cuts make no sense, going to a character just so they can make a "funny" comment.  But that's another thing, all of the "comedy" falls flat.  Unlike the original, which was greatly aided by Will Smith and Jeff Goldblum, none of the "funny" bits land, at all.

While we're on actors, yeesh.  This is some of the worst acting I've seen in a while, even from some otherwise good actors (Goldblum, Bill Pullman, Brent Spiner, Sela Ward).  The young actors are all terrible.  You can probably find better acting in a SyFy movie.

The plot: what can you say?  It's so rushed you don't really have time to think about it, which is probably a good thing.  It's so full of clichés and false cliffhangers it's ridiculous.  You can tell exactly what is going to happen with each character well before it does.

Should I mention science?  Only because it's so bad it's not even funny.  I'm not an expert (SPOILER) but I'm pretty sure a giant hole drilled into the ocean "a mile wide" that comes within a minute of reaching the core (whatever that means) would cause immense damage, not to mention all of the seawater that would drain into it.  Would there be any left?  I don't know, but it seems like those who made the movie didn't bother to think about it.

It's really not worth it to go into it any more, except that it's so bad it almost made me angry.  That's hard to do, especially since I went into it with low expectations thanks to all the bad press.

Make no mistake, this is one of the worst movies I have seen.  It should not be surprising, coming from the men who have made 2012, 10,000 BC, The Day After Tomorrow, and Godzilla (1998).  Stargate seems like a long time ago.

Grade: 2/10