The Catholic Book Club discussion

1. Use this thread for sharing thoughts or observations that you have while reading Eifelheim, especially those that don't fit to any other topic.

Hello firstly to say thanks to the members of Catholic Book Club. I read the book some years ago. I think that This year was the year in which i Read the best books.
My friend The Professor Manuel Alfonseca Will be able to say that every year i decided my best readings of fiction, and not fiction. The year in which i Read "Eifelheim" there was Four books that they share the best position. "Eifelheim" by Michael Flynn, "Black Robe" by Brian Moore a nivel about the Jesuits in the Canada with echoes of Shusaku Endo's novel. The book of my friend Jorge Sáez Criado "Apocalypse the day of Lord" in my opinion This novel is as good as the Father Elijah's novel by Michael D. O'Brien and at Last "Operación Quatuor" was written by the Professor Manuel Alfonseca.
I regret exagerating but i must say that i think. In my opinion "Eifelheim" is One of the most important books were written by in the 21th century. It is a máster piece and antydote against "The name of the Rose" by Umberto Eco despite the aliens. In my opinion better novel than "The name of the Rose". Eifelheim is a shower of reality and a Big treasure for the historians. As he said Frollo in "The Hangback of Notre Dame" This book Will kill false books as The Name of the Rose. It is only waiting to be rediscovered by the academics. We must open the door we Will not come back to Read something like This.

It's been a long time since I read a novel where I had to look up so many words--some real, some invented!

Jill wrote: "It's been a long time since I read a novel where I had to look up so many words--some real, some invented!"

Orange Clockwork is more complicate. They are scientific terms.

There is a controversy referred to early in the book about priests turning their backs to the congregation to face God together, contrary to universal prior practice. Does anyone know if this accurately depicts the timing of an actual liturgical change?

If true this would parallel the earlier controversy over changing liturgical language from Greek to Latin and of course foreshadows (and maybe even provides some light on) our modern controversies over the same subjects

John wrote: "There is a controversy referred to early in the book about priests turning their backs to the congregation to face God together, contrary to universal prior practice. Does anyone know if this accur..."
I will start to read the book on wednesday but i do not remember any controversy about the face God conrary to universal prior practice, indeed Dietrich looks me an orthodoxy person. Indeed Dietrich is somebody loyalty to the Orthodoxy a strange case in the fictional priests.

John wrote: "There is a controversy referred to early in the book about priests turning their backs to the congregation to face God together, contrary to universal prior practice. Does anyone know if this accurately depicts the timing of an actual liturgical change?"

I think it is not accurate. According to Klaus Gamber's book Reform Of The Roman Liturgy: Its Problems And Background and other sources, originally both the priest and the people used to face East (the altar) except where the altar was West, as in St.Peter's Basilica in Rome, where the people faced West and the priest faced East (therefore towards the people).

See also here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_orie..., where it says the following:

It was in the 8th or 9th century that the position whereby the priest faced the apse, not the people, when celebrating Mass was adopted in the basilicas of Rome. This usage was introduced from the Frankish Empire and later became almost universal in the West. However, the Tridentine Roman Missal continued to recognize the possibility of celebrating Mass "versus populum" (facing the people), and in several churches in Rome, it was physically impossible, even before the twentieth-century liturgical reforms, for the priest to celebrate Mass facing away from the people because of the presence, immediately in front of the altar, of the "confession" (Latin: confessio), an area sunk below floor level to enable people to come close to the tomb of the saint buried beneath the altar.

I think Michael Flynn may have mistaken the date when the Mass was first performed not facing the people, when he places it in the fourteenth century.

Manuel wrote: "John wrote: "There is a controversy referred to early in the book about priests turning their backs to the congregation to face God together, contrary to universal prior practice. Does anyone know ..."

I will read this part and i will look by my own eyes, when i read it i do not realize of anything. If the author wrote thios i think that it was a mistake and there was not bad inctention in the author.

Fonch wrote: "I will read this part and i will look by my own eyes, when i read it i do not realize of anything. If the author wrote this i think that it was a mistake and there was not bad intention in the author."

Nobody has suggested that.

Manuel wrote: "Fonch wrote: "I will read this part and i will look by my own eyes, when i read it i do not realize of anything. If the author wrote this i think that it was a mistake and there was not bad intenti..."

However it is convenient to say it for avoiding that the people could misunderstand the novel, or to think that the novel was unorthodox. I think that despite of this mistake we must continue reading the book. I continue saying, that despite this mistake that i did not realize in my first reading it is a good book and a revolutionary book in his genre.

Nobody has suggested that we stop reading the book!

Well i admit that This morning i have been more nervous that It is usual in me. i apologize sincerely.

Fonch wrote: "Well i admit that This morning i have been more nervous that It is usual in me. i apologize sincerely."

I think you have been fighting an enemy that isn't there! :-)

I have read almost half of the book in 3 days. A real page turner.

Mariangel wrote: "I have read almost half of the book in 3 days. A real page turner."

It is a very good book. Tomorrow i will start my reread.

I did not know, where i should to share this link, but this book is a renewed focus of the catholic science fiction novel and it is very interesting to know writers with a close interest for this reason is very important that we know the writers of Silver Empire between this writers it would be our friend Declan Finn https://silverempire.org/ I think that this kind of the literature is very positive, especially in the millenials and Woke time. I know this group for this article of Dwight Longenecker in The Imaginative Conservative, although more interesting than the Dwight Longenecker`s article were the replies of the users https://theimaginativeconservative.or...
Concern the catholic science fiction i recomend this marevellous article was written by Sandra E. Miesel in Catholic World Report The cross and the stars https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2... In the Sandra E. Miesel`s article she wrote about Eifelheim.

Eifelheim was praised by the science fiction writer Orson Scott Card, although there is a thing, in which i totally disagree he compared with In the name of the Rose. In my humble opinion as i wrote in my first comment this book is exactly the opposite.

Manuel wrote: "John wrote: "There is a controversy referred to early in the book about priests turning their backs to the congregation to face God together, contrary to universal prior practice. Does anyone know ..."

Wikipedia also says: "Anglican Bishop Colin Buchanan writes that there "is reason to think that in the first millennium of the church in Western Europe, the president of the eucharist regularly faced across the eucharistic table toward the ecclesiastical west. Somewhere between the 10th and 12th centuries, a change occurred in which the table itself was moved to be fixed against the east wall, and the president stood before it, facing east, with his back to the people."[61] This change, according to Buchanan, "was possibly precipitated by the coming of tabernacles for reservation, which were ideally both to occupy a central position and also to be fixed to the east wall without the president turning his back to them.""

And: ""Over the course of the last forty years or so, a great many of those altars have either been removed and pulled out away from the wall or replaced by the kind of freestanding table-like altar", in "response to the popular sentiment that the priest ought not turn his back to the people during the service; the perception was that this represented an insult to the laity and their centrality in worship.""

So as best as I can tell, there was a general practice, nearly universal in the early centuries of the church, but becoming less so, in which the priest faced east during worship, and the people faced the altar, whether east or west. The coming of tabernacles resulted in a near universal change to priest and people facing the altar (and the Lord in the tabernacle). The reason given for the modern reform, that the priest having his back to the people is insulting and that the laity are central in worship seem to me idolatrous and atheistic - at the very least forgetful that it is the Lord who is and ought to be central to worship.

Coming back to Eifelheim, it seems Flynn moved the transition back a few centuries - either in error, or in an attempt to show (as has been done with the early transition from Greek to Latin) that modern reforms are just echoes of earlier controversies. If the later, then his error is much graver, as he glosses over the critical difference between "disputes" that revolve around how best to reflect the centrality of God to worship and modern practice which results in placing the congregation at the center of worship.

In any case, it was never my intent to suggest that we stop reading the book.

John wrote: "Manuel wrote: "John wrote: "There is a controversy referred to early in the book about priests turning their backs to the congregation to face God together, contrary to universal prior practice. Do..."

The only thing that i can say is that i do not think that there was bad faith or bad intention and this is only a human mistake for his part. None of the critics who have reviewed his mistake has sgned this fail on contrary a lot of critics have praised the catholicism of his book.

I object to the priest baptizing the alien without any sign of understanding or consent! Sure, it was conditional, but baptism is conditional on faith, either the baby's or his parents'!

Jill wrote: "I object to the priest baptizing the alien without any sign of understanding or consent! Sure, it was conditional, but baptism is conditional on faith, either the baby's or his parents'!"

The pope Francis commented this posibility and the aliens in my oinion show understanding perfectly the faith and his good colaboration to accept the baptism.

Dietrich baptizes on his very first encounter with the alien, without any communication between them that might indicate "understanding" or "collaboration" except lack of resistance! On that logic, should we be baptizing animals or robots?

Jill wrote: "Dietrich baptizes on his very first encounter with the alien, without any communication between them that might indicate "understanding" or "collaboration" except lack of resistance! On that logic,..."

I also noticed this. But Jill, the alien was dying, but he was human-like, and Dietrich couldn't communicate with him. I took him to mean this:

"I baptize you in articulo mortis under the following conditions: a) that you haven't been baptized before; b) that you are prepared for baptism."

Priests must sometimes make decisions like this when there's danger of death and no way to ask questions.

John quotes this from Wikipedia: "the perception was that this represented an insult to the laity and their centrality in worship."
And adds this: "The reason given for the modern reform, that the priest having his back to the people is insulting and that the laity are central in worship seem to me idolatrous and atheistic."

Remember that the quotation is from an Anglican. I have never seen any official Catholic document give that reason for the modern reform. Have you?

Jill wrote: "Dietrich baptizes on his very first encounter with the alien, without any communication between them that might indicate "understanding" or "collaboration" except lack of resistance! On that logic, should we be baptizing animals or robots?"

At that point, Dietrich thought they were intelligent beings with a soul, it was several chapters later that he started suspecting they may be animals. So I don't see him or the author advocating for animal baptism.

And he only baptized the one who was dying, it was an emergency. He didn't try it with any of the others. Later, when they start becoming interested in his faith, he puts Joachim to teach them, as would be done with any catechumen, and tries to ascertain if they really understand.

Manuel wrote: "John quotes this from Wikipedia: "the perception was that this represented an insult to the laity and their centrality in worship."
And adds this: "The reason given for the modern reform, that the ..."

Thank you for pointing that out, possibly merely one of their heresies. :-) As to your question, no, I haven't, though I haven't made a study of the reasons for the reform.

John wrote: "As to your question, no, I haven't, though I haven't made a study of the reasons for the reform."

In catholic.net (Spanish version) there is a post about this subject. This is the translation into English of the appropriate paragraph:

In the last forty years, however, this shared orientation was lost; now the priest and the people have become accustomed to looking in opposite directions. The priest looks at the people while the people look at the priest, although the Eucharistic prayer is addressed to the Father and not to the people. This innovation was introduced after the Vatican Council, in part to help the people understand the liturgical action of the Mass by allowing them to see what is happening, and in part as an adaptation to contemporary culture, in which it is expected that the one who has authority looks directly at the people he serves, like a teacher sitting behind a desk.

This is the address: http://es.catholic.net/op/articulos/1...

Benedict XVI said, when he was Cardinal Ratzinger, that in his opinion the position "ad orientem" would be better and should be restored, but once he was elected Pope he just said that the crucifix should be located on top or near the altar, so that both the people and the priest would be looking at it.

another note objecting to the baptism: It shouldn't be conditional on the subject having lived a just and good life, since baptism washes away all sin. None of us merits salvation.

Yes, that is a strange formula for baptism.

On a different note, it is mentioned that during the consecration, heaven is opened to the souls of purgatory. Had anyone heard this before?

I have continued to follow a custom that some politicians used to do, that in my time of a crisis, to meditate, and reflect on how to solve it, they took a period of rest in a country house. Not that I did the same, but I decided to take two days off to reflect, since I was a little tense. The first thing is to thank the youtuber Turbiales for helping me redirect my bad mood. The second thing is to apologize for having reacted with excessive virulence in defending the book. One factor must be taken into account, that when a book is criticized, indirectly there is an implicit criticism towards the one who has recommended it, and I risked the prestige. Apart from that I consider this book years ago as one of the four best I had ever read, but I have to be honest I have begun to read it, and I have found two errors, which I do not know how I could have let them pass. The first case is curious (and this may not be Flynn's mistake, or it was the translator's error, or Sharon who is not a historian has confused the Late Middle Ages with the Upper Middle Ages). If you are talking about the Plague of Eifelheim this occurred in what is called the Late Middle Ages in the fourteenth century. The curious thing is that on a page before Tom does use the proper term of the Late Middle Ages (this I have already written in my review of Schiller's "Jungfrau von Orleans", that the bad reputation of the Middle Ages is due in part to these two centuries that conditioned the derogatory vision of the humanists of the Renaissance. Because of the issue of plagues, and wars. However there is a slight improvement at the end of the fifteenth century, I believe as a historian that the sixteenth century is worse than the fifteenth century because of the Wars of Religion, and because social uprisings return, and epidemics, and the seventeenth century is even harder with epidemics and the war of the 30 years.

The second mistake, if on page 51 of the Spanish edition Gregor is referring to Marco Polo (the traveler who arrived, and returned from Cathay) this was not Genoese, in fact, he was from the rival city was from Venice, and was taken prisoner by the Genoese. This is a serious failure, and I do not understand how it was passed.

Regarding the pretridentine ritual, Michael Flynn says that on this question he was advised by Father William Seifert about the liturgy prior to the Council of Trent.

Jill wrote: "another note objecting to the baptism: It shouldn't be conditional on the subject having lived a just and good life, since baptism washes away all sin. None of us merits salvation."

>
It is also true that whoever believes in good faith can be saved, because of Natural Law (we saw an example of this in the last book of the Chronicles of Narnia The Last Battle in this case the character of Emeth). Anyway, this is a special case, and hypothetical, because they are creatures that are not of this world. As Bernanos would say in" A Diary of a Country Priest" "What matters everything is grace?" . As for when baptism is granted, although it can be administered by a lay person in case of need, if the newborn is going to die. I believe that it is a task, that it should be left to the priest. If someone wants to receive baptism I think the priest is the one who should decide whether to give it, or not.
It is very possible that when Flynn wrote his novel he was not catholic, or he was a recent convert. I can not know it.

Coincidentally, my previous book was also fantasy set up in the middle ages, in France at the time of St. Louis.

https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...

Even though the characters are children with unusual powers (the fantasy part), the author, a writer of children’s books whose wife is a medievalist, has taken pains to research the time and portray it accurately. The historical note at the end explains in detail what is historical, and the legends in which the fantasy parts are based on. He also mentions that he wanted to make known to modern children how the middle ages were the opposite of dark.

Fonch wrote: "One factor must be taken into account, that when a book is criticized, indirectly there is an implicit criticism towards the one who has recommended it, and I risked the prestige. ."

You take this too seriously, Fonch. Most of the books we read, I don't even remember who nominated them. And even if I remember and I happen not to like the book, that is not criticism against the person who recommended it.

Also, pointing out flaws or errors in a book does not mean that we don't like it.

Mariangel wrote: "Fonch wrote: "One factor must be taken into account, that when a book is criticized, indirectly there is an implicit criticism towards the one who has recommended it, and I risked the prestige. ."
..."

I apologize and admit that I'm taking it very seriously, but that's because I was the one who recommended the book, and I don't want to look bad. If the book comes out badly I am touched, and my image damaged. That's why I'm trying so hard to defend it. When I read it I considered as I said at the beginning as the best reading of the year. I can't understand how these theological, scientific, and historical errors crept in at me. In addition, this book was recommended to me by my friend Julie Davis, and I fully trust her and it has been praised by authors such as Sandra E. Miesel, and Orson Scott Card.

It is of course hypothetical, but the possibility that there are aliens who want to receive baptism is already theorized, and analyzed by Guy Consolmagno in this book https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2... "Would You Baptize an Extraterrestrial?: . . . and Other Questions from the Astronomers' In-box at the Vatican Observatory" I think His Holiness Pope Francis half jokingly half seriously also referenced the subject. On the existence of extraterrestrial life, as I said I am agnostic, they may or may not exist. I wouldn't mind anything if they existed, in fact, I would like to, although there are people who do not think like me on this issue.

I am now on page 74 where Dietrich recalls his memories as a university student in Paris with Buridan, when Manfred hands him the books of Buridan, Oresme, and Peter Aureoli, and also his memories with William of Okcham. That scene reminds me of that of the wonderful novel "The quiet light" by Louis de Wohl (the novel centered on St. Thomas Aquinas) when the protagonist, and fictional character Piers Rude shows the Sorbonne to visitors, and they can see all the glory of medieval thought. I think of St. Albert the Great, St. Bonaventure, St. Thomas Aquinas, and Roger Bacon (Bacon I say this because of the head, and the glass comes out in the novel Black Rose by Thomas Costain, and also comes out in another novel by James Blish the same writer of "A Case of Conscience". It is very interesting that Dietrich has with the Swiss about the victory of these against Albert of Habsburg, and Austria's attempt to dominate them. When Dietrich is able to foresee what is going to happen when instead of asking a man for an account, the mass is asked, who will ask him for an account. Schiller leaves very similar thoughts in his works. Both in "María Stuart", and in "Wilhelm Tell".

Michael Flynn has made another mistake (and this time fat) has confused the battle of Poitiers with that of Crecy. It was at Poitiers that John of Luxembourg was killed, and John II the good King of France was taken prisoner by the English. In fact, neither the future Charles IV Luxembourg, who later became one of the best emperors of the Holy Roman Empire (despite the anti-Jewish progrom of a few years later). Charles IV's relations with his father John of Luxembourg were bad, and only in the end did they make peace. His father was instrumental in his becoming Holy Roman Emperor (this is told in a wonderful Czech film that aired on 13 TV. Unfortunately, despite its quality they have never replenished it :-(, as the future Charles V Valois had a very brilliant role in the battle of Poitiers. This theme was told by the French novelist Maurice Druon author of the saga of the Accursed Kings https://www.goodreads.com/series/1677..., which begins with the burning of the Templars, and the curse and the curse of the king and his descendants until the fourth generation.

On the other hand, it is correct the way in which Louis IV Wittelsbach was deposed (and Charles IV was voted emperor). His son Sigismund is one of my favorite characters, and I feel real veneration for him), who was a very controversial monarch, and criticized, also his death in a hunting accident.

Two more things. It will seem that plague would have been transmitted, because in a siege the Mongols would have used corpses of people who had suffered from the disease, and so it reached Europe. What Flynn says about Pope Clement's bull protecting the Jews, or saying they were not responsible for the plague is also true.

The structure of "Eifelheim" and Tom's conversation with Judy Cao reminds me of a gem from the crime novel "The Daughter of Time" by Scottish writer Josephine Tey https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/7..., where like Eifelheim they were trying to solve an enigma of the past. In this case if Richard III murdered the children of the Tower. The work is a classic, and one of the best detective novels in history, but unlike Eifelheim historians did not come out very well.

I have a question. I missed why not all the Krenken left?

Faith wrote: "I have a question. I missed why not all the Krenken left?"

Please don't answer this question yet, it would be a spoiler and a few of us have not finished the book.

I must correct my previous correction the novel is right John Luxembourg died in the Battle of Crecy not in Poitiers like i Thought previously 😅. It had to mistake because Druon wrote of the two battles at the same time comparing the behaviour of the two Charles in the Accursed Kings saga.

In chapter XII, in a conversation between Dietrich and one of the Krenken, they equate "energy" with "spirit." Therefore, God would be made of energy. This is a heresy. Energy is just another form of matter, in the broadest sense of the word. Spirit is not energy. I know, in the 14th century they didn't have a clear idea of energy and could mistake it for spirit, but the author, from our perspective, should have made that difference clear, and I haven't seen it explained, although maybe this will come later (I have not finished the book).

But the conversation is between 14th-century characters. And I think that equating spirit with energy would be a very easy and one way of seeing the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit has appeared as wind, fire, dove, and why not think of these manifestations as "energy?"

Faith wrote: "But the conversation is between 14th-century characters. And I think that equating spirit with energy would be a very easy and one way of seeing the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit has appeared as win..."

It gives a false idea of God. The Krenken, who are materialist, understand energy as we do. Dietrich can make this mistake, but the Krenken will misunderstand him. I miss some indication of this. For instance, in their conversation they could arrive to the conclusion that they are speaking about different things. In other conversations this is done, but not in this one.

The Krenken misunderstand many things about religion, as it is pointed out when Christmas and Easter are celebrated.

I saw that discussion about energy and spirit as a consequence of the language barrier. Even after the Krenken learn many words and can carry a conversation, they are aware that the terms Dietrich uses don't have the same meaning the Krenken give them in their language. Even if this is not explicitly mentioned in this particular conversation, I feel it has been said enough times.

I also think that Dietrich is doing his best to explain these difficult topics to Krenken, and he would be the first to accept that some explanations fall so short as to be possibly misunderstood as heretic.

Mariangel wrote: "The Krenken misunderstand many things about religion, as it is pointed out when Christmas and Easter are celebrated.

I saw that discussion about energy and spirit as a consequence of the language..."

I agree with Mari Ángeles.

Mariangel wrote: "The Krenken misunderstand many things about religion, as it is pointed out when Christmas and Easter are celebrated... Even if this is not explicitly mentioned in this particular conversation, I feel it has been said enough times."

I am not concerned about the Krenken, but about present readers. In these times of New Age and a fluid pantheism, the idea that God is energy is attractive for many people and a special effort should be done to dispel it.

If Flynn was afraid of repeating himself, he should have moved his explanations from another less important conversation to this one. I consider this the most important conversation up to this point. In this one, at least, it should be clear for the readers that the idea that God is energy is heretic.

I do not think that Michael Flinn was a promotor of the New Age. He colaborated with Jerry Pournelle in the novel "Fallen Angels" and Pournelle was Catholic https://www.religionenlibertad.com/cu... besides Julie Davis (Julie Davis recomended to me This book) and Sandra E. Miesel would have realizad if the novel and the author were heretic. *i am calm i give my Word*.

Fonch wrote: "I do not think that Michael Flinn was a promotor of the New Age. He colaborated with Jerry Pournelle in the novel "Fallen Angels" and Pournelle was Catholic https://www.religionenlibertad.com/cultu..."

Fonch, please read what I say. I've never hinted that Flynn was a New Ager. I only said that, in my opinion, he should have left his anti-New Age ideas clearer.