The Canon of the Mass: The Anaphora of Hippolytus

The form and structure of liturgies is something that churches which employ these in worship either take for granted or argue over intensely. But very few people understand how a) these came into being or b) how they should be revised or replaced in times of liturgical change. What kind of theology is embodied in a liturgy? What attention to the rhythm and metre is given? How will a liturgy work in a language other than one the one it’s written in? How well does a liturgy communicate its message, in addition to being the setting for the “sacred pledge” of the Eucharist? All of these important questions frequently get the short shrift, either by defenders of an existing liturgy of by proposers of a new one?

Liturgical change is the time when these questions do get asked the most. Probably the most important liturgical transition of the last one hundred years took place when the Roman Catholic Church promulgated the Novus Ordo Missae, which was instituted in 1970. That mass was the result of both theological and liturgical forces that had been going on in the Church for most of the preceding century.

Many of those changes—and probably some of the process that led to the NOM—were set forth in Cipriano Vagaggini’s book The Canon of the Mass and Liturgical Reform. Published in 1967, it is a careful and thorough treatment of the subject, and probably represents the thinking of those in charge of the liturgical reform initiated by Vatican II.

The focus of his work is the anaphora, which is, by Vagaggini’s definition, “the liturgical text which accompanies and expresses the offering of the Church’s sacrifice to the Father.” The RCC had used the Roman Canon for nearly fourteen centuries and, while Vagaggini is careful to underline the importance of the Roman Canon to the life of the Church, he is also clear that it has its defects as well.

In this series (which starts here,) we will reproduce the various historical anaphorae he sets forth, plus two Projects “B” and “C” which are his proposals (or perhaps those at the Vatican in the process of formulating the then really “new” NOM) for new anaphorae to be used in the church. Vagaggini also has extensive explanations for all of this; consult the book for these.

I will reproduce the English translations of these anaphorae only. Serious liturgists would do well to consult his original Latin, as the translations look like they were taken from the Italian without consideration of the original Latin text. I have tried to winnow out errors in the OCR process but, if you find some, please bring them to my attention.

A general overview of this topic can be found here.

(Here ends the fixed portion of the introduction; the variable portion follows.)

The first in this series is the anaphora of Hippolytus, taken from Chapter IV of his Apostolic Tradition. It is the “minimalist” anaphora of the group, and probably was much of the inspiration for the NOM’s Rite II.

All should give the kiss of peace to whoever has become a bishop, honouring the dignity he has received. The deacons should give him the offering, and as he and all the priests extend their hands over it, he offers thanks, saying:

I

The Lord be with you.

All reply: And with you.

Lift up your hearts.

We have raised them up to the Lord.

Let us give thanks to the Lord.

It is right and fitting.

He continues:

II

We give you thanks, O God, through your beloved Son, Jesus Christ, whom in these days you have sent to save and redeem us, and to show us your will. He is your Word, inseparable from you, through whom everything was made. In your goodness, you sent him from heaven to be a virgin’s son. Conceived in her womb, he took flesh and was revealed as your Son, born of the virgin and the Holy Spirit.

III

In carrying out your will, and forming for you a holy people, he stretched out his hands as he suffered, to free from suffering those who had faith in you. When be allowed himself to be given up to suffer, so that he could conquer death and break the bonds of sin in crushing the power of bell, and so lead the just to the light, make a covenant with them and manifest the resurrection, he took bread, and giving thanks to you, said: Take, eat, this is my body, which is broken for vou. He did the same with the cup, saying: This is my blood which is poured out for vou. When you do this, do it in memory of me.

IV

Remembering therefore his death and resurrection, we offer you this bread and cup, thanking you for holding us worthy to stand in your presence and to serve you as priests.

V

We ask you to send your Holy Spirit down upon the offerings of your holy Church. Gathering together all those who receive these mysteries, grant that they may be filled with the Holy Spirit, and their faith may thus be strengthened in your truth.

VI

So may we praise and glorify you, through your Son Jesus Christ. Through him be honour and glory to you, the Father, Son, with the Holy Spirit, in the holy Church, now and always. Amen.

The Millionaire Episcopal Minister Makes an Impact

VirtueOnline chronicles the adventures of the Rev. Marta Weeks in her quest for same sex marriage:

The American Anglican Council blew the whistle on the “Listening process” revealing that a $1.5 million gift came from The Rev. Marta Weeks, a retired Episcopal priest. Now Meeks openly advocates same-sex blessings. The money given by the Episcopal priest will be monitored by a group of sex “experts” who advocate a vision of sexual freedom and “justice” that bears little resemblance to mainstream Christian doctrine or tradition. At least one of these “experts” believes that pornography, bestiality, and multiple sex partners are not inherently harmful or wrong, wrote Robert Lundy of AAC.

I think the “listening process” has always stunk.

But my first question when reading this was simple: how did an Episcopal minister (or “priest” as they like to say, although they turn around and don’t want women to be referred to as “priestesses,” even though it’s logical) become a millionaire?  Isn’t this the church of social justice?  Haven’t we gotten past the church where scions of prominent families who weren’t cut out for the family business encouraged to become men of the cloth?

Not entirely.  Not, evidently, in the land where the animals are tame and the people run wild.

This piece, from the University of Miami’s website, explains things in part:

The Reverend Weeks and her late husband, L. Austin Weeks, have provided significant philanthropic support for the University in many areas, including a naming gift for the Marta and Austin Weeks Music Library and Technology Center at the Frost School of Music, a naming gift for the L. Austin Weeks Center for Recording and Performance also at the Frost School, endowed scholarships at the School, the Lewis G. Weeks Chair in Geology at the Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science, established by Marta in memory of her father-in law, the L. Austin Weeks Family Endowed Chair in Urologic Research at the Miller School of Medicine, generous support for tactual speech at the Mailman Center for Child Development, International Education and Exchange scholarships through the Division of Continuing and International Education, and the building fund for the M. Christine Schwartz Center for Nursing and Health Studies, among others.

Marta, Austin and their children came to Miami in 1967 during his employment as a geological oceanographer with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Austin later began his own consulting business, became involved with Weeks Petroleum Ltd., a Bermuda-based company founded by his father, and passed away in February 2005.

It’s easy, rich kids: she inherited it.  (Looks like her husband did, too.)  Some things don’t change in the Episcopal Church.

If she really wants to do something worthwhile, she could work to send civil marriage to the bottom of the Straits of Florida, unlike her idiotic bishop who won’t afford “Christian” marriage to those who don’t want it from the state.

One side note: I did know a scion of the Lodge family (they make the cast iron cookware) who was an Episcopal minister, and a Charismatic one at that.  But he actually worked in the business as well.  The liberals then didn’t like charismatics, and they sure don’t like them now…

An Additional Note to my Roman Catholic Friends on “Think Before You Convert”

Think Before You Convert was, in the wake of the Pope’s Apostolic Constitution re the Anglo-Catholics, the most popular place on this blog. It’s still a frequented stop.

However, I get regular comments from Roman Catholics re my supposed position about the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist and the nature of authority in the church.

I enjoy discussing any and all of these subjects but have added the following note to this article:

As you can see in the comments below, I get many comments from Roman Catholics on some of the things I say here.  My only request is this: before you comment away, take a look at one or more of the following:

I enjoy the dialogue, but make a stab at least at understanding my position before initiating it.

What I’m really waiting for is for my own church people (especially my pastor) to understand my true beliefs on this subject.  That’s when the fun will begin!

The White House’s Thankless Thanksgiving: But at Least They Squared Things With the Native Americans

E.J. Dionne, of all people, found that our President’s Thanksgiving message falls flat:

The Gawker Web site called it an “uninspiring first effort from our most literary president” and expressed hope that he would spend “a little more time on it next year.” Politico damned it with faint analysis — it was “basic” and “brief” and “tread lightly” to avoid controversy.

Mostly, the message reiterated familiar Obama themes of diversity, community and service. The opening line referred to Thanksgiving as “a harvest celebration between European settlers and indigenous communities,” and Obama called attention to “the contributions of Native Americans, who helped the early colonists survive their first harsh winter and continue to strengthen our Nation.”

Although Dionne predicts that “a right-wing talk jock near you will soon be declaring the ‘indigenous communities’ reference as “un-American,'” count me out of that. Obama missed an opportunity to note the service of Native Americans in the armed forces a few weeks ago.  Living as I do in the land of the Cherokees (with many of their descendants, including our Congressman Zach Wamp (R)) the Native Americans deserve the salute.

It’s also noteworthy that Native Americans tended to support the Confederacy during the Civil War.  Since the Feds headed up most of the “Indian wars” (to say nothing of the Cherokee Removal,) that’s unsurprising.  But it’s also dreadfully politically incorrect, and for another post…

The basic problem that the Obama White House has with Thanksgiving–and the reason for the mushy response–is that they are uncomfortable with the holiday’s religious nature.

Thanksgiving implies that we are thankful to Someone or something.  That “Someone” is God.  The secularist mindset that is deeply embedded in the current administration (and the Democrat Party as well) recoils at the idea. So he’s forced to dance around the truth, and did such a poor job of it that even a liberal like Dionne–along with others on his side–took note of it.

Dionne noted that Franklin Roosevelt was unapologetically political (and unashamed to quote the Scriptures) in his Thanksgiving message:

Contrast it to a Thanksgiving message Franklin D. Roosevelt offered in 1934 that was unapologetic in declaring his political goals. “Our sense of social justice has deepened,” Roosevelt insisted. “We have been given vision to make new provisions for human welfare and happiness, and in a spirit of mutual helpfulness we have cooperated to translate vision into reality. … We can truly say, ‘What profiteth it a nation if it gain the whole world and lose its own soul.'”

A year later, Roosevelt was at it again. “We can be grateful,” he wrote, “that selfish purpose of personal gain, at our neighbor’s loss, less strongly asserts itself.”

I’ve come to realise that secularists would rather have us be godless failures than theistic successes.  For a group of people who turn around and claim that science is the solution to all our problems, that’s pitiful.

Moody Blues: Days of Future Passed, and a Reflection on the New Age Idea

This is the last in the series of music videos from music alluded to in the novel The Ten Weeks. But it’s not a video: it’s a more prosaic “photo and sound clip” combo from a scene in the book combined with a brief excerpt from the Moody Blues’ Days of Future Passed.

This album is, IMHO, the best fusion of rock and symphonic music to come out of the 1960’s and 1970’s.  There were others that tried the same thing, and then there were those who performed classical music in a rock way (like Emerson, Lake and Palmer.)  But none of them quite pulled it off the way the Moodies did in on this album.

Below: the starry scene from the novel (with the planets conveniently annotated.)  You can click on the image for the audio clip, which comes from the first part of the album.

“Look over there,” Alicia blankly replied, pointing in the direction she was facing. “There’s Mercury just above the horizon.” She moved her pointing hand upward. “There’s Venus. Up from that is Jupiter. Star charts say that Neptune is just next to Venus, and Uranus is further up in the sky from that.”

“‘Pinprick holes in a colourless sky/Let insipid figures of light pass by…’” Vannie recalled. She turned to Alicia. “You came up here just to see that?” (p. 197)

Thoughts on the Album, and the New Age Idea

Although released in 1967, I didn’t get this in my collection until 1974.  It’s always been an album that appealed the most in times when things weren’t going well (for a Christian album that serves a similar purpose, click here.)  That’s not an accident; Days of Future Passed is a very strong expression of what has come to be called “New Age philosophy,” more so than even the more explicit In Search of the Lost Chord.  That deserves an explanation.

One leitmotif in G.K. Chesterton’s work is his idea that Eastern religions are basically pessimistic at heart, a giant sigh of despair.  It’s too bad that this album wasn’t out at the time, because it’s as powerful of an illustration of that as one could want.  The choice of using a day as the framework for the album, although seemingly benign, only adds to the gloom.  It implies that life is a giant cycle, that we are trapped in an inescapable round that, instead of centuries or aeons, only lasts 24 hours per course.  Transferred to the daily life of the urban and suburban 1960’s UK, and one longs for a Chestertonian characterisation.  The lyrics only add to the impression, including those in the audio clip.

“New Age” philosophy, which was most in vogue in the 1960’s but still very much influences our culture, is derived from Eastern religions, and specifically those of India.  For all of the happy face that many of its practitioners put on, it’s still a message of despair, that we’re trapped in a cyclical round and round we can’t get out of, not any time soon at least (I’m thinking about the reincarnation cycle.)  Happiness needs to have a stronger basis in fact than just raw “belief” or “positive thinking.”  It needs an objective that is real and attainable.

I think that one reason why people in places where religion such as this have been predominant are turning to Jesus Christ is that he offers them a way out of the cycle of despair, and he can do the same for you.

As I said at the start, this ends the series of music alluded to (or perhaps shouted out) in The Ten Weeks. I trust that you have enjoyed it and hope you have a blessed Thanksgiving.

Climategate? Don’t Dump Your Alternative Energy Stocks Just Yet

James Delingpole’s otherwise excellent article starts off with a suggestion that needs some challenging:

If you own any shares in alternative energy companies I should start dumping them NOW. The conspiracy behind the Anthropogenic Global Warming myth (aka AGW; aka ManBearPig) has been suddenly, brutally and quite deliciously exposed after a hacker broke into the computers at the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (aka Hadley CRU) and released 61 megabites of confidential files onto the internet. (Hat tip: Watts Up With That)

First: people in the scientific community like to think of their process as not subject to fraud or manipulation (as opposed to, say, religious matters.)  But anyone who has actually done the work there and knows the truth knows that this is not the case.  It may take a while for the truth to come out, but in the meanwhile the transitional costs can be enormous.

However, I wouldn’t dump the alternative energy company stocks just yet.  The liberals who have wanted to use climate change to impose their idea of life on the rest of us are simply wimps.  They run from one meeting to another (enlarging their carbon footprint in the process) dreaming up regulations to accomplish their purpose when a couple of well placed shipwrecks in the Straits of Hormuz would do more to advance their fossil-fuel free world–and do it in a hurry–than just about anything else.

But we don’t need liberals turning into commandos to accomplish this.  Our presently weak foreign policy will be encouraging to the power challengers of the Middle East, and that increases the danger of the Straits of Hormuz–along with such choke-points as the Bab al Manadab (the straits between Yemen and Eritrea, both a little flaky these days)–being unable to carry all of this fuel to burn.

There are many good reasons to wean our civilisation off of fossil fuels other than any climate change theory.  Those of us who got through the 1970’s should have learned that.  What we need is a rational, purposeful policy to accomplish that, and for the last forty years that’s what’s been missing.

Obama and the Chinese: Doing the Deal, A Personal Reflection Based on Experience

I find it odd that I’m seeing articles on the left on how Obama’s Asia trip has left many of them disappointed.  For example, this, from Leslie Gelb at the Daily Beast:

President Obama’s nine-day trip to Asia is worth a look back to fix two potent problems, past and future. First, the trip’s limited value per day of presidential effort suggests a disturbing amateurishness in managing America’s power. On top of the inexcusably clumsy review of Afghan policy and the fumbling of Mideast negotiations, the message for Mr. Obama should be clear: He should stare hard at the skills of his foreign-policy team and, more so, at his own dominant role in decision-making. Something is awry somewhere, and he’s got to fix it.

This goes to the whole heart of what diplomacy is all about, and especially diplomacy with the Chinese.

Having done my share of negotiating and business with the Chinese, I can make the following observations:

  1. The Chinese are very focused negotiators.  They have their objectives–especially their long-term ones–clearly in mind when they start.
  2. In common with most non-Americans, the Chinese put a premium on relationship building.
  3. The Chinese are very detail oriented in their approach.  They like to have all of their bases covered and questions answered.  That is, in part, a product of the fact that many of those you sit down across from in China have scientific and technical backgrounds, as opposed to the lawyers who dominate the field here.
  4. Much of what looks like stubbornness or obstructionism in the Chinese is in fact their way of finding out what you’re made of.  If you hang tough, they’ll respect you.  That’s why, with every new American president, there’s always an “incident” involving U.S. armed forces near the Chinese mainland.  They’re just trying to find out what the new occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue is all about.
  5. Identify the Chinese “deal breaker” types of difficulties.  (I had to learn this the hard way.)  If they’re not inconsistent with your own objectives, avoid them.
  6. Once all of this is done, and they do have confidence in you, they’ll move to a conclusion.  Not as quickly as we’d always like, but quickly enough.

Having said that, let me make some suggestions, if anyone in the administration is listening (I know I have liberals who are definitely listening):

  1. Obama–and any other American president–is at a disadvantage, because the Chinese know they’ll be gone in eight years (unless Obama finds a way around that.)  With their decent continuity of leadership, they can afford to take a longer view.
  2. The relationship building–and this is something that Gelb points out, in a way–should start with his lower people doing “advance work” before Obama’s visit.  By the time he visits, he can at least finalise something and perhaps make some progress on other things.  The advance work is also necessary to address the Chinese penchant for detail (#3 above.)
  3. Obama needs to get away from this mushy, idealistic concept that diplomacy consists of glad handling and saying nice multicultural nonsense.  People who think in this way have never “done the deal” but they’re the bane of international relations at any level.
  4. He needs to use his political capital to shove away Americans’ impatience for quick results irrespective of the quality of these results.
  5. Obama needs to make up his mind up front (and may have already done so) to dodge the “deal breaker difficulties.”  In terms of international relations, for the Chinese these days they’re threefold: Taiwan, Tibet and Xinjiang.  Things are sweetening a bit with Taiwan, and our President needs to ignore his left-wing crazies on the subject of Tibet and his Muslim leaning tendencies with Xinjiang.
  6. He needs to make up his mind as to what his objectives really are and pursue them.  The thing that bothers me about Barack Obama is that he seems to have bought hook, line and sinker the concept that any exercise of American power is for the bad.  The left has kept this drumbeat up for a half century now and it looks like he’s going to put it into practice.  If that’s the case, then his apparent ineffectiveness in Asia was part of the plan rather than the result of poor planning.  (I don’t see that as much in Hillary Clinton, but she’s not leading this team, either.)

One other personal note: I was blessed with world-class representation in China.  Most of those involved are still with us and, especially in the case of Kissinger Associates’ Paul Speltz, still active in the field of Sino-American relations and commerce (or “cooperation” to use the Chinese term.)  Obama’s team would do well to draw on the experience of those who have really “done the deal” and ignore those who have not.

The NEA: At Last, Something Everyone Can Agree On

If Larry Sands is to be believed. From his article in City Journal:

On the last day of the National Education Association’s convention this summer, its outgoing general counsel, Bob Chanin, gave a speech for the ages. After sharing fond recollections of his 41 years as the NEA’s top lawyer, he switched gears and started lobbing grenades at “conservative and right-wing bastards,” including Fox News, the Wall Street Journal, and Forbes. The NEA and its affiliates, by contrast, were “the nation’s leading advocates for public education and the type of liberal social and economic agenda that these groups find objectionable.” Chanin’s glowing portrait of the NEA was wildly wrong, of course, but so was his characterization of the union’s opponents. People of all political stripes—not just right-wing “bastards”—are starting to realize that the single biggest impediment to education reform is the NEA itself.

I wouldn’t have put it quite as baldly as he did in the last sentence, but he’s right: the NEA is holding up progress, and as long as it has the political clout it doesn, public education in the U.S. (esp. re math and science) will never be what it should.

Rowan Williams, the Pope, and the Nature of the Church

The Ugley Vicar tells us that the Archbishop of Canterbury is calling Rome’s bluff:

For a man hardly renowned for his robustness, the recent speech given in Rome by the Archbishop of Canterbury was remarkably robust. Of course, it was given partly in response to the announcement from Rome on October 20th of effectively a ‘safe haven’ for Anglicans disenchanted by the policies of the Church over which Rowan Williams presides. Few will forget his somewhat glum and deflated appearance at the press conference called for that purpose, which must have been an intensely difficult and embarrassing moment for him.

Could it be that the man has feelings just like the rest of us, and that his visit to Rome came as a personal opportunity to put a few things straight? Despite its donnish language, there are elements of the speech which are decidedly ‘in Rome’s face’, and some will welcome this.

Rowan Williams did put his finger on a core issue, i.e., the nature of the church:

… the major question that remains is whether in the light of that depth of agreement the issues that still divide us have the same weight — issues about authority in the Church, about primacy (especially the unique position of the pope), and the relations between the local churches and the universal church in making decisions (about matters like the ordination of women, for instance).

But then…

When so very much agreement has been firmly established in first-order matters about the identity and mission of the Church, is it really justifiable to treat other issues as equally vital for its health and integrity?

I don’t see the first order agreement.

One thing that comes through clearly in this debate: Rome knows what its objectives are.  Its idea is that it is the one true church, it is a formal agent in the dispensing of grace, and that unity won’t be until all are under the primacy of the Bishop of Rome.  It amazes me that Protestant churches of any kind continue flapping their gums with ecumenical dialogue.  Anyone who understands the Roman idea and system knows this is the case.  Rome’s central nature is an integral part of that.

Anglicanism, in its own inimitable way, is still wrestling with definitions of unity and grace.  It does not have a univocal response to this.  The Evangelical vs. Anglo-Catholic divide insures that the Anglican world does not have a unifying vision of the nature of the church, even though Anglo-Catholics for the most part don’t grasp the nature of the Roman vision of the church.  The Affirming Catholics insure disunity over the nature of grace.

The Orthodox are in somewhat of a stronger position from an intellectual standpoint.  Their division as national churches was a voluntary one, and their view of the church is closer to Rome than most Anglican ones.  It’s the see of Peter that is the main sticking point.

As far as women’s ordination is concerned, the Roman (and Anglo-Catholic) view of the priesthood bars this.  Priests are the representatives of God on earth; since Jesus Christ, His Son, was male, they must be too.  Women in ministry require at least a Protestant and in reality a Pentecostal theology to justify their existence.  Williams’ lack of comprehension of this is either a major lapse or disingenuous.

And, of course, we see that the Church of England is in a major mess over this issue.  How can there be a dialogue on a subject when one side doesn’t even know what it believes?

I agree with the Ugley Vicar that Rowan “Williams does not have the substance behind him to back it (his calling of Rome’s bluff) up” but perhaps not for the same reason.  Were it not for the liberal elements in its own camp, Rome would be pursuing its course of receiving Anglo-Catholics more aggressively than it is now.

Why People Hate Sarah Palin

Evidently, as Jonah Goldberg points out, there are a few people with a sense of humour who comment on Slate:

Slate magazine is just one of the countless media outlets convulsing with St. Vitus’ Dance over that demonic succubus Sarah Palin. In its reader forum, The Fray, one supposed Palinophobe took dead aim at the former Alaska governor’s writing chops, excerpting the following sentence from her book:

“The apartment was small, with slanting floors and irregular heat and a buzzer downstairs that didn’t work, so that visitors had to call ahead from a pay phone at the corner gas station, where a black Doberman the size of a wolf paced through the night in vigilant patrol, its jaws clamped around an empty beer bottle.”

Other readers pounced like wolf-sized Dobermans on an intruder. One guffawed, “That sentence by Sarah Palin could be entered into the annual Bulwer-Lytton bad writing contest. It could have a chance at winning a (sic) honorable mention, at any rate.”

But soon, the original contributor confessed: “I probably should have mentioned that the sentence quoted above was not written by Sarah Palin. It’s taken from the first paragraph of ‘Dreams From My Father,’ written by Barack Obama.”

The ruse should have been allowed to fester longer, but the point was made nonetheless: Some people hate Palin first and ask questions later.

And since William Ayers ghost-wrote Dreams From My Father, that only makes things sillier.

But the reason why people hate Sarah Palin is rather simple, if it has eluded most of the pundit world: she poses an existential threat to those who currently have the upper hand in this country.  If people who come from her kind of background and have her kind of education and style of mind (and that includes her religion) can end up at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, then those who believe themselves to be élites are toast.  It’s that simple.  And they know it.  Hence the 11 reporters sent to “fact check” her book.

People will go on at length about whether she’s “presidential material” or “good for the country.”  But, as polarised as we are, who knows what’s good for the country at large any more?  What’s good for the country depends on what part of the country you’re in, how you make your livelihood, and (to use a Marxist concept) whose surplus value you’re exploiting, if anyone’s.  It’s even to the point where some people would be ahead if it came apart.  (I think that’s where George Soros, the president’s darling, is at.)  How can you define a national interest under these circumstances?  Do we really have a “government by the people, of the people, and for the people?”  Or one which is the expression of whatever collection of interests that happens to be in power at the moment?

Like the Anglican Communion, we have become like “revolution and Russia:”

“For a long time, only two real forces have existed in Europe–Revolution and Russia,” the poet-diplomat Fëodr Tiutchev had written then.  “No treaties are possible between them.  The existence of one means the death of the other.”  (R. Bruce Lincoln, Passage Through Armageddon)

Those who hate Sarah Palin understand this dichotomy has been transported and transformed to these shores.  If her fans ever figure this out, we’ll really have a mess on our hands.