Latin, Gregorian, Ad Orientem Novus Ordo Mass Monthly at St Brigid's Fitzroy

Joseph sent me this copy of the announcement of the Mass last Sunday:

Solemn Mass in the Modern Roman Rite (Novus Ordo) "ad orientem", in Latin with Gregorian chant at St Brigid's Church, Fitzroy North, commencing Sunday, 25 March at 6pm

A new initiative is being launched to offer Mass celebrated in a way that more closely follows the teachings of the Second Vatican Council in its Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy (Sacrosanctum Concilium) to restore a greater sense of reverence, mystery, beauty and the sacred to the celebration of Holy Mass.

Solemn Mass in the Modern Roman Rite (the Novus Ordo) will be celebrated in Latin, with Gregorian chant and in an "ad orientem" direction for the Liturgy of the Eucharist: where Priest and Congregation together face Liturgical East toward the Tabernacle, in accordance with the venerable tradition.

Why: Many people think that the Second Vatican Council mandated the removal of Latin and Gregorian chant in the Mass and required the Priest to face the people when saying Mass. However, the Second Vatican Council's Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy (Sacrosanctum Concilium) mandated none of these things. It actually required that Latin and Gregorian Chant remain an essential part of the Mass and
envisaged no change to the venerable tradition of the Priest and Congregation together facing the Tabernacle ("Liturgical East" or "ad orientem").

This initiative of the Parish of St Brigid's in conjunction with the Glorificamus Society seeks to answer the call of Cardinal Ratzinger, now His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI, for a return to a greater sense of reverence, mystery, beauty and sacredness in the celebration of Holy Mass, by recovering these traditions of Latin, Gregorian chant and ad orientem posture, for an authentic renewal of the liturgical rites sought by the Second Vatican Council.

When: Commencing on Sunday, 25 March 2007 at 6pm. It is hoped this will be a monthly event.

Next mass is apparently scheduled for April 29th at 6pm

Where: St Brigid's Catholic Church, 378 Nicholson Street, Fitzroy North (Melways Map 2C Ref A4).

The Principal Celebrant will be Fr Maurizio Pettenà CS, Parish Priest of St Brigid's. All are most welcome to attend. Mass booklets with full Latin/English
translations will be available for those without their own Novus Ordo missals.

For more information: This initiative is supported by the Glorificamus Society for the renewal of Catholic Liturgy. Contact us at glorificamus@gmail.com for more information.

We invite you pass on this notice to as many people as you can. We look forward to welcoming you, your family and friends to these Masses.

Viva la Revolucion!Let's get behind this endeavour and make it the start of a serious movement in our Church!

Rights, Privileges, and Allegiances

"We Catholics," concluded Cardinal Murphy-O'Connor, "and here I am sure I speak, too, for other Christians and all people of faith -- do not demand special privileges, but we do claim our rights. We come not to impose, but to serve, according to our beliefs; and to be given the freedom and support to do so, as long as these do not undermine the rights and freedoms of others." (Zenit)

I know that Cardinal Murphy-O'Connor is probably better known for his platitudes than his incisive commentary, but I reckon thems fighting words. Possibly the addition of the "as long as" clause at the end blunts the cutting edge of the statement a bit (it is, after all, presupposed in the "we come not to impose" statement). Nevertheless, let this be heard: It is our right and our duty to serve our society according to our beliefs.

Of course one has great sympathy for the good Cardinal. He is, after all, the highest ranking Catholic in a country in which it was once a capital offense of treason to be Catholic. When emancipation was finally granted in 1830, it perhaps did seem to the government of the day that they were extending a privilege rather than a right. It seems that in politics, one can never quite shake that uncomfortable feeling that Catholics, for all their protestations of loyalty, do not ultimately give their highest allegiance to the state.

Fr Neuhaus, over on the First Things site, has been musing about a recent statement of the British Prime Minister that is not unrelated. Tony Blair had said:

But when it comes to our essential values-belief in democracy, the rule of law, tolerance, equal treatment for all, respect for this country and its shared heritage-then that is where we come together, it is what we hold in common; it is what gives us the right to call ourselves British. At that point no distinctive culture or religion supersedes our duty to be part of an integrated United Kingdom.

As Fr Neuhaus says, "No Christian who thought about it carefully could subscribe to such a statement."

Would you enter this box?

I mean, would you?

Zenit reports that Pope Benedict XVI has been fulfilling his priestly duty by hearing confessions of young people in preparation for the local World Youth Day celebrations this Palm Sunday in Rome. I mean sure, it would be really neat to have your own 3 minutes private audience with the Pope, BUT make your confession to him??? I must say I almost wet myself when I once entered the box at St Patrick's to discover Archbishop Denis on the other side of the grill.

For all that, can you imagine yourself in a basilica, where there were 200 priests to chose from to whom you could make your confession--wouldn't it be an act of pride to line up outside the Papal Box?

And think about how you would treasure his pastoral advice: you would be there with pen and paper scribbling it all down, you would keep it with you till your dying day--your very own privatised EX CATHEDRA Papal pronouncement for your life.

It doesn't bear thinking about...

I really respect the pope doing this--after all, there is an example to be set and he sets it--but I just can't for the life of me imagine myself going inside that box.

Schütz gets published in Kairos

Kairos is our local Catholic Diocesan rag--a quality production thanks to the team at Catholic Communications Melbourne. We are, sadly, farewelling our long time editor Jeanette Mentha, who will be sorely missed around the office and in the courtyard at smoko time (although she has given up the nasty habit).

Coincidentally, the day after writing my "Descent into Hell" blog, Jeanette came into my office and asked me if I knew anything about the subject...

So she set me the task of writing an article, and here it is, all published, in this week's Easter edition.

If I got paid for it, I would have to give up my status as an "Amateur Catholic Blogger"! No danger of that, methinks.

Pope John Paul II Movie on SBS This Sunday and Easter Sunday at 10pm

TV Tonight has brought to our attention the fact that the motion picture of the life of Pope John Paul II will air in two installments on SBS beginning this Sunday night at 10pm and concluding on Easter Sunday night. I have it on good authority from Shannon that this is a must see movie and that the actors who play the pope get him spot on. .

What or Who is a "Christian/Catholic Warrior"?

A little search on the new widget I have added to my side bar (from CatholicBlogs.com) threw up a blogsite called "The Catholic Warrior". On his page he has two prayers: the traditional "Prayer to St Michael" and the prayer that is often erroneously attributed to St Francis "Make me a channel of your peace". Both prayers taken together perhaps answer the question I pose in the title to this blog.

I have been thinking about this because of that "Soldier's Creed" business I unearthed in the blog below. The Creed has the statement "I am a warrior". Maybe it is something of the "wild man" in us blokes, but to stand up and declare confidently "I am a warrior" does have a certain "feel-good" effect upon one.

So what is a "Christian/Catholic Warrior"? Peter Holmes has some answers in his blog review of "The Compleat Gentleman". Peter also blogs about some of the old hymns we used to know in our Protestant days. In this context, "Onward Christian Soldiers" comes to mind. You may think that there is nothing to match this in Catholic circles, but "We stand for God" comes instantly to mind. I very well recall the sound of an entire cathedral full of Catholic folk (guys and gals) singing this at Bishop Anthony Fisher's episcopal ordination in Sydney a few years back.

Having a strong interior spiritual warrior ethos is, I believe, almost essential for taking a stand against the many dangerous evils of the world which surround us. Particularly as male Christians, we are tempted by the big three--power, money and sex. So I suspect that, as I said at the beginning, there is a "St Michael" element in being a Catholic Warrior (the Archangel is my co-patron Saint, along with St Joe--blokey stuff) -- the real need for evil to be faced head on without any cowardice.

But also, as I hinted in my comments on the afore mentioned "Soliders Creed", there must be something of the St Francis also. The little fellow was a warrior in his own way, but also exemplified the fact that we live out our warrior ethos in peace, love, faith, pardon, hope, light, joy and (above all) forgiveness. This is not stuff for wusses.

So here, I think are the two elements of Catholic/Christian Warriorship: Always standing up against falsehood and evil, and always being a peacemaker acting in love toward every human being. What are your thoughts?

"Petrol Sniffing Scourge Over": Can it really be?

I'm catching up with some reading and found this article in
The Australian from March 17:

Petrol sniffing scourge defeated
The Australian, by Ashleigh Wilson

THE petrol sniffing crisis in central Australia is over.

After years of government inaction, dozens of inquiries and reports, and hundreds of young lives crippled by the debilitating habit, Aboriginal leaders, social workers and police told The Weekend Australian that the problem finally appeared to be beaten.

A cautious optimism is now spreading throughout the region, with only about 20 people believed to be sniffing in central Australia north of the Northern Territory border - down from about 600 just 18 months ago. ...The dramatic development has largely been credited to non-sniffable Opal fuel, now rolled out across central Australia, and strong community leadership.

..."The crisis has passed," says Blair McFarland, a social worker with close knowledge of petrol sniffing trends in remote communities in the Northern Territory.

If this is true, it is a cause for great thanksgiving. Back in 1996, I was called to be the head pastor of the community at Hermannsberg (West of Alice Springs). I didn't accept the call in the end, but I did go up to have a look around. I had been there in the early 70's as a kid, but hadn't been back since the Missions were taken over by the Government.

The only way I could describe what I saw was that in the intervening 25 years Hermannsberg had "gone to Hell in a Handbasket". Whether it can be called a cause or a symptom, one of the most devasting was the prevalence of petrol sniffing among the young people. The women of the town used to do "night patrols" of the dry river beds to find the kids sniffing and bring them back in. I was shown a number of recent graves where young men had been buried, having died from this practice.

So I rejoice that a solution has been found, and I pray that it is a lasting one.

By the way, I almost accepted the call. I was single at the time and planned to embrace celibacy as a way of life. Put simply, I didn't because I didn't.

St Benedict's Eucharistic Adoration Vigil (and Papa Benny's weakness)

OK, one more blog for the night. I was highly amused to read the Pope's confession of his "weakness" in his conversation with the Roman priestssome weeks back:

The Gospels tell us that by day he worked and by night he was on the mountain with his Father, praying. Here, I must confess my weakness. At night I cannot pray, at night I want to sleep.

Well, we can forgive him. He is an old man. But what's my excuse? Last Saturday morning I got up before dawn to go to St Benedict's in Burwood (Warrigal Road) where they made their first step toward establishing Perpetual Adoration in the parish by having a 24 hour vigil. (The Missionaries of God's Love seminarians were there too at the same time, so I wasn't alone). Anyway, I set myself the intention of prayerfully saying the Office of Readings and Morning Prayer. But sleep overtook me: an hour after sitting down in the pew I woke up--where had all the time gone?! Pope Benedict and I would have made good companions for Peter, James and John in the garden, methinks.

While Anglicans and Episcopalians sweat it out, Swedish Lutherans have a bet both ways

We all know by now that the Episcopalian Bishops have rejected the recommendations of the Primates Tanzanian meeting for a Pastoral Solution to the crisis of communion in the Anglican Church.

In the meantime, the (Lutheran) Church of Sweden has declared that they will not comply with a government commission recommendation to recognise same-sex marriages. Well good for you guys, you might say.

BUT read the fine print: Archbishop Anders Wejryd went on to say that

The Church of Sweden of course will continue to give its blessing to same sex couples in partnerships, as we have done for some time. Same sex couples in committed, faithful relationships are entitled to God's blessing.

I should point out to non-Lutheran readers that (despite the pretensions of the Lutheran World Federation) there is no such thing as a world wide Lutheran "communion" to fall apart over this matter (as in the Anglican case), nevertheless, the "North-South" thing could hit the LWF as hard as it has hit the Anglican communion because the growth Lutheran churches are all African and Asian. The General Secretary of the LWF himself is an African (but not in the Bishop Peter Ankola mould).

It may not be the Church Police but...

the US Bishops are becoming rather more vigilant than in the past. Who'd have thought that we would ever see the day when the US Bishops Conference Doctrinal Committee actually issued a condemnation of a "Catholic" theologians erroneous assertions about Catholic doctrine? Yet that is just what has happened over Marquette University professor Daniel Maguire's pamphlets on contraception, abortion and same-sex marriage. According to this Zenit report, in these pamphlets Professor Maguire has stated that "there is no authentic Church teaching that is binding on all members of the Catholic Church," and that neither pro-choice or pro-life "is more Catholic than the other."

Well, a pretty binding and Catholic response has come from the Bishops, who declared that

despite his claims to authority as a Catholic theologian, the views of Professor Maguire on contraception, abortion, and same-sex 'marriage' are not those of the Catholic Church and indeed are contrary to the Church's faith."

It seems that the patience of the Church with dissenters is wearing thin in places.

Bishop Finn on Confession

I like that Bishop Finn guy over in Kansas City, Missouri. The Lutherans in the area might like to check out what he's up to. He wrote a bold Lenten Letter--not about generalities, but about a specific scourge of our modern age: pornography. It seems that on the Internet today, if it isn't a Catholic Bloggers page, its a pornographic website. Well, the good bishop is tackling it head on in his pastoral program, and has even established group akin to AA to help those in need.

But in an interview with Zenit recently, he also had something to say about the readiness of priests to hear confessions. Get a load of this comment:

We will figure out when people will come and we will be more generous in being available. We are short of priests to hear all the confessions that should be heard, but without this sacrament, a large percentage of our parishioners are probably not even living in sanctifying grace. Consider the widespread use of pornography, of contraception, and the falloff in attending Sunday Mass. These are serious/mortal sins. If people are also not using the sacrament of confession, then the "good works" they are trying to do have no supernatural or meritorious content.

A few parishes that have many confessional times available, and the priests are dependably there when people come, still have long lines. We must make this a reality in all our parishes.

Go Bishop Finn!

Is Oscar Romero back on track for Sainthood?

We had some visitors today at the Cathedral in Melbourne: about 40 students from the Tabor Bible College "Year in the Son" course (Tabor is a Pentecostal/Evangelical bible college). James McDonald (the once and future Youth Ministry Director) and I spent the whole morning with them talking about the Catholic Church and Faith and answering their questions. Then we did the stations of the cross in the Cathedral with them, answered more questions, and they stayed for lunchtime mass. Cool.

But I was intrigued that their course leader, Stephen Said, said that he was a keen fan of Archbishop Oscar Romero. Mmm, I thought. A pity a few more people weren't. Can't understand why he isn't yet at least a Blessed... All that business about Liberation Theology, they say.

Blow me down then if I didn't come across the Archbishop's name again later that afternoon when reading none other than Pope Benedict's Angelus address for Sunday. Here's what he said:

The "yes" of Jesus and Mary is in this way renewed in the "yes" of the saints, especially the martyrs, who are killed because of the Gospel.

I emphasize this because yesterday, March 24, the anniversary of the assassination of Archbishop Óscar Romero of San Salvador, we celebrated the Day of Prayer and Fasting for Missionary Martyrs: bishops, priests, religious, and lay people who were cut down as they carried out their mission of evangelization and human betterment.

These missionary martyrs, as this year's theme says, are the "hope for the world," because they bear witness that the love of Christ is stronger than violence and hate. They did not seek out martyrdom, but they were ready to give their lives to remain faithful to the Gospel. Christian martyrdom is justified only as the supreme act of love for God and our brothers.

That sounds to me as if Oscar Romero is on his way in from out of the cold. And it could also be that John Allen's analysis of the Sobrino case was right--it isn't about Liberation Theology (which was yesterday's fight) but about Christology.

Anyway, its about time Oscar became Saint Oscar. Or at least Blessed Oscar. (Anyone want to argue about whether or not he was a martyr?)

Meanwhile, the "Other Oscar", Cardinal Oscar Rodriguez of Honduras, has a bold plan (according to John Allen) to revitalise the Church in Latin America: Preach the Gospel! According to Allen, the new approach will be about "aggressive grassroots evangelization", "led by passionate Catholic laity", and "rooted in scripture." Rodriguez himself says:

Our current pastoral model is exhausted. We lost our people by the Word, and we have to recover them by the Word.

The Latin American Church will make its impact yet on World Catholicism, and it won't be Liberation Theology that makes that impact.

Papa Benny Quote for the Day

Here's one for all you Lutherans out there. I love playing "spot the Luther reference" with Pope Benedict. He seems to know the great Reformer much better than any other pope has done over the last 500 years! This one came from his conversation with the Priests of Rome (yes, another "Question and Answer" session):

[This] seems to me a typically Catholic reality. Luther said: we cannot add anything. And this is true. And then he said: our acts thus do not count for anything. And this is not true, because the Lord's generosity is revealed precisely in his invitation to us to enter and also gives value to our being with him.

Axios! Axios! Axios! New Priest for Ukrainian Catholic Eparchy in Australia

"Dad, I hope we are going to have lunch before we have tea..."

Thus said my daughter at 2:50pm this afternoon. We were in the dining hall at the Ukrainian Catholic Cathedral (Sts Peter and Paul) in North Melbourne following the priestly ordination of Father Robert Stickland. Grace had been said twenty minutes ago, and now we were into the fifth speech! The girls were real troopers. They had been to Sunday School in their Lutheran parish (10-11am) and then I picked them up and took them to North Melbourne for the ordination liturgy. The liturgy started at 11:30 and ended two hours later. At first we stood up in the balcony, where we had a fine view of the ordination, and then we came downstairs and sat in the front for the Eucharistic part of the liturgy. A real education for the kids ("Dad, what was that on the spoon that he was giving you?").

The entire liturgy was sung in English. The Ukrainian Rite was translated from Old Slavic to Ukrainian about 50 or 60 years ago according to a well informed parishioner, and apparently they have had spoken English liturgies at the Cathedral before, but this is the first time that the choir had mastered the liturgy in English. Hopefully it will be a fixture for future liturgies--but at the same time we don't want to lose the Ukrainian, do we? Bishop Peter Stasiuk, the Ukrainian bishop, was assisted by Bishop Hilton Deakin, one of our auxiliaries. There was a wide assortment of priests of various rites assisting.

Father Robert was raised Baptist--but his family are Catholic now. His mother, sister and brother (who is also a priest, but of the Western rite) were present also. He has been an associate of our Ecumenical and Interfaith Commission--bringing an Eastern perspective to our work. Truly, the presence of the Ukrainians, and the other Eastern Churches in communion with Rome, demonstrate what John Paul II meant by the Church breathing with both lungs. The Catholic Church IS Catholic--for it is not just the Latin Rite, but 22 different Churches in all, all sister churches in full communion with our Mother Church, the Church of Rome.

The pictures on this page are Father Deacon Robert at the top carrying the Gospel book before his ordination to the priesthood, and Father Robert below giving communion afterwards. The Cathedral is a real "must-see" with lifesize icons painted on the walls.

Needless to say, the food afterwards was absolutely delicious--no Lenten stinting on sausage and wine and cake! The kids ended up eating enough to do them for tea as well. I was very tempted to stay in town for the Latin Novus Ordo Mass at St Brigid's Fitzroy at 6:00pm, but I thought that the kids had had more than enough liturgy for one day (Is that POSSIBLE? I hear some of you ask!).

How Catholics Pray...

The other day in the Cathedral at lunchtime Mass, I was merrily sailing through the Lord's Prayer, only to find myself (to my horror and embarrasment) ringing loud and clear in a solo tenor: "For thine is the Kingdom..." Oops. Spot the Protestant. I've been Catholic for six years, but sometimes old habits die hard!

I led grace at a gathering of my Lutheran friends on my birthday, using the Grace from Luther's Small Catechism "The eyes of all look to thee, O Lord..." But of course, I said it the decent pace required of any ritualist, and thus got the comment at the end: "Praying like a Catholic..."

So what is the difference between how Catholics and Protestants pray? You may think the only difference is that we pray to Mary and the Saints and Protestants use a lot of "we just's" but no, my friends, the difference is much greater. Here's how to spot a Catholic at prayer:

1) He prays fast. Very fast. Quicker the better. Liturgy can often turn into a race between the priest and the people as to who can get the response in quickest.

2) This is related to the fact that Catholics love to say memorised prayers. Book prayers don't frighten us. Why make up your own prayer when someone has already said it much better? AND in Latin?

3) And finally, the best way to pray is to say memorised prayers as fast as you can and REPEAT them over and over again. Three Our Father's, three Hail Mary's, and three Glory be's? A doddle! Favourie repeated prayer: The Rosary.

Now a Protestant will point to all this and call it "False Prayer". He points to Jesus' saying in Matthew 6:7 "And in praying do not heap up empty phrases as the Gentiles do; for they think that they will be heard for their many words."

So here's how to spot a Protestant at prayer:

1) He makes his prayers up as he goes along. The best prayers are "ex corde", from the heart. Or "ex sleeve", as one of my old Seminary lecturers used to put it. Spontaneity is a virtue!

2) He says his prayers slowly. You have to "mean it". If you have to use rote prayers (like the "Lord's Prayer") take about five minutes to say it. And "think about every word".

3) By definition, such prayer cannot and is not repeated.

Not that Protestants mind using lots of words, mind you. And contrary to Jesus' instruction in Matthew 6:5-6, it is taken as a sign of spiritual maturity if you are able to pray freely out loud in a prayer group. Silent prayer doesn't cut it, and using memorised prayers... well, as I said above.

All this is, of course, a complete characterisation. But a warning to the wise if you are a Catholic going to a Protestant Church service: Make sure you pause at least a second before saying any response printed in your service order, or they will "Spot the Catholic!".

Chaos is Preferable to Blindness...

I haven't commented much on the Sobrino case. My general opinion is that John Allen's take is probably more accurate than Sandro Magister's, ie. it is really about Christology and Pluralism rather than about Liberation theology and Marxism.

Nevertheless, I was intrigued by the comment on the CatholicCulture.org newsletter.

The latest liberation theologian to earn Vatican censure is Jon Sobrino, SJ. See the full text of the admonition on CatholicCulture.org. While you're at it, consider that it took over fifteen years after the publication of one of his major errant theological works for Fr. Sobrino to be thus admonished.

Consider also that Fr. Sobrino is a member of the Society of Jesus, an order which is in many respects in rebellion against the authority of the pope whom it exists to serve, or, at the very least, cannot bring its own members to heel. If you consider these things, you'll be no more impressed with Catholic discipline than you have been in the preceding fifty years.

I have friends who often ask me why the Catholic Church doesn't just excommunicate the dissenters in its ranks (those who call themselves "the Loyal Opposition". I commented recently somewhere that (contra Monty Python) we don't have Church Police--more of a sort of "Neighbourhood Watch" (The Catholic Blogosphere).

But doesn't all this dissent just prove that the Catholic Church is in no better state than any of the protestant denominations when it comes to disunity and heretical teaching and behaviour? Not at all. There is a major distinction to be made between the role that dissenters try to play in the Catholic Church and the role that the heterodox play in the ecclesial communions. CatholicCulture.org went on to comment:

But at least we have this document [the CDF judgement]. While we are right to be concerned about the lack of discipline in the Church, we should still be very thankful for the clarity of her teaching. Few Christian groups have this consolation. The nature of modern individualism makes the disciplinarian appear evil. As a result, we live in chaos, but not, thankfully, in blindness.

In short, our dissenters don't get a vote at Synod!

Actually, I just realised I could have a little fun with this...

It just occurred to me that I could have a bit of fun with the "Soldier's Creed" (see previous blog), along these lines:

I am a Catholic Blogger.
I am a Thinker and a Member of a world-wide Team.
I serve the Catholic Church and live the Catholic values.
I will always place the mission of the Church first.
I will never accept rebuttal.
I will never quit an argument.
I will come to the defence of the Truth.
I am disciplined, mentally tough,
trained and proficient in rational thinking and argumentation.
I will maintain my bible, my catechism and my blogsite.
I stand ready to pounce, engage, and pick to pieces the enemies of the Catholic Church in reasoned debate.
I am a guardian of Orthodoxy and the Catholic way of life.
I am a Catholic Blogger.

Wasn't that inspiring?? Could someone please set THAT to music?

So you can sleep safely in your beds tonight...

I was listening to an edition of the Journey Home program on EWTN, and they had this Catholic military chaplain on. He presented something called "The Solider's Creed" as "an example" of how deeply rooted in moral goodness the US military is, something that is drummed into all US soldiers (and chaplains, it appears). Read this, and tell me if it makes you feel safer:

I am an American Soldier.
I am a Warrior and a member of a team.
I serve the people of the United States, and live the Army Values.
I will always place the mission first.
I will never accept defeat.
I will never quit.
I will never leave a fallen comrade.
I am disciplined, physically and mentally tough,
Trained and proficient in my warrior tasks and drills.
I always maintain my arms, my equipment and myself.
I am an expert and I am a professional.
I stand ready to deploy, engage, and destroy, the enemies of the United States of America in close combat.
I am a guardian of freedom and the American way of life.
I am an American Soldier.

According to this Wikipedia article, it is a product of the "Warrior Ethos" program authorized in May 2003. The same article has a previous version on it. Today's "Creed" is certainly snappier, but you don't need to be Sherlock Holmes to detect the direction in which it has "snapped".

I don't know about you, but I certainly wouldn't want to be defined as "the enemy" in this little example of dogmatic nationalism.

You can get the whole text set to music here.

The Very Model of a Modern Permanent Deacon!

What surprising things you find in the dustbin of the Vatican website! They've got a great new search engine there, and I've been dipping in there on various subjects. Here I found Pope Paul VI's 1967 Motu Proprio on the restoration of the Permanent Diaconate. And there I found Paragraph 10, which says that permanent deacons should be practice and be trained in:

in teaching the elements of the Christian religion to children and other faithful, in familiarizing the people with sacred chant and in directing it, in reading the sacred books of Scripture at gatherings of the faithful, in addressing and exhorting the people, in administering the sacraments which pertain to them, in visiting the sick, and in general in fulfilling the ministries which can be entrusted to them.

It's a good list of the functions of a modern peramanent deacon. BUT, pick which task I bet modern deacons are NOT practiced or trained in!

Homer and Bart Simpson Convert to Catholicism

I am not a huge Simpsons fan--I leave that department to the excellent Fraser Pearce who has compiled an entire dogmatic theology textbook on the basis of this long running animated comedy. Me, I prefer Monty Python...

BUT, Peter has sent me another YouTube link (I'm supposed to be doing some work tonight, Peter) which I just had to share. You may have missed this episode in which Bart and Homer Simpson convert (or almost convert) to Catholicism. Very witty, as Oscar Wilde would have said--who by all accounts actually did finally make it into the Catholic Church--hell, if he can do it, why not Bart and Homer? In fact, why not YOU, dear Reader?

Here's the link. Enjoy.

New Post on "Year of Grace" - My Conversion Journal

I want to welcome all the new readers to Sentire Cum Ecclesia who have joined us since Sacramentum Caritatis came out. [A hint to other Catholic Bloggers out there: When a new and long awaited papal document is due out, be sure to be one of the first to blog on it: Google will lead people by the millions (well, hundreds anyway) to your page.] Readership has more than doubled since Tuesday 13th, with the last two days peaking at 95 a day. I know that's chickenfeed compared to Amy Welborn or Rocco Palmo, but it humbles me to think that there are so many of you out there who really want to know what I'm thinking!

[Reader: No it doesn't. Be honest. You love it.
Schütz: Is it that obvious? Oh, all right, I admit it. It's a major ego trip for me.]

New readers may not be aware that not only does the marvellous technology of the Blog enable you to see right into my head, but you can look right into my SOUL as well by going to Year of Grace, my "Conversion Retro-Blog" of the time that I call "The Difficulties": Easter 2000-Easter 2001--the year of my conversion from Lutheran Pastor to Catholic Layman. During all that time, I kept a regular journal (I didn't know about blogging back then). Now I am posting it as if it were a regular blog, with the result that you can actually see blow by blow how it happened.

I have just put up a new entry. If you head over to Year of Grace, you will find the latest entry listed at the top. If you haven't visited before, and you want to read the whole thing, you have to read it backwards (like a blog, rather than a book). You can do this easily with the archive list on the left hand side which has the entries in chronological order. I hope it is of benefit to those of you out there who may be having similar "difficulties", and for those of you who are already Catholics, I hope it strengthens your faith to see what treasures the Catholic Church has.

Converts from Lutheranism on EWTN Journey Home

Melbourne folk will remember Paul and Carol Quist, who were studying at John Paul II Institute 2004-2006. Paul is an ex-Evangelical Lutheran Church of Canada minister. They were received into full communion in the Catholic Church with their whole family at the Easter Vigil at St Patrick's Cathedral here in Melbourne by Archbishop Hart in 2005. They have a great story to tell, and EWTN's Journey Home program is going to give them a chance to tell it. They are scheduled for 8pm US Eastern time on May 14, which means you can watch it live on the Internet link at 10am EST in Australia.

Martin Luther Does the Chicken Dance

I am told that Papa Benny has had "ein gute Laff" over this one. Thanks to Peter Holmes for the link!

The Gospel of Mark on the Stephen Crittenden Show

I highly recommend you listen or read the transcript of the session on the Gospel of Mark on the ABC's Religion Report recently. John Carroll is a sociologist, and author of the recently published The Existenial Jesus (Melbourne: Scribe, 2007).

I am personally fascinated by the gospel of Mark, and share Carroll's opinion that in comparison, Luke and Matthew are boring (though Luke has some really great original stories). I share Carroll's fascination with the narrative of Mark, and the way in which it is really "strange"--especially when you try to read it without any of the reference points we tend to gather from the other synoptics. I also think it is significant that he has linked John's Gospel directly to Mark's, saying that it is John which really gets Mark, and which amplifies his story by way of footnotes.

So there is much that I found intensely interesting in his presentation. I will probably buy (or at least borrow) his book to read it.

However... Carroll's is an "extra-ecclesial" reading of the text. I may have said before that "Context is everything", and the "context" for the Markan text is "THE CHURCH" (capital letters intended). When you try to read the Gospel not only outside of the Church (which has been its context ever since it was written) but as if it were opposed to the Church, you end up with an incredibly skewed reading.

The best way I can show this is with the question of the identity of Jesus. Carroll is quite right that this is the central issue of the Gospel of Mark. He is not, of course, the first to notice it. He points to the passage of Jesus walking on the water of the Sea of Galillee toward the disciples and saying "Do not be afraid. I AM." Now we usually translate that as "It is I", but Carroll's rendering is quite accurate. Not only does it link this revelatory statement with the Johannine "I AM" sayings, but every Christian scholar will immediately connect it (as the Johaninne sayings are connected) with the passage in Exodus 3 where YHWH reveals himself as the great "I AM". Yes, it is about identity--Jesus' DIVINE identity. But Carroll makes it into some sort of existential angst on Jesus' part. Carroll wants us to believe that Mark is some sort of 1st Century Albert Camus and Jesus is the quintessential "Outsider". It's existentialism 1500 years before Martin Luther ever tripped over the line from medieval to modern by expressing the faith as "I believe that God created ME and all that exists." In other words, its a little "retrospective" for my tastes.

The result of this reading is that the text ends in typically post-modern meaninglessness. Here is the conclusion to the programme:

Stephen Crittenden: Well let's come back to the reason you wrote the book though. I imagine one of the things you're hoping people who read your book will do is go back and read Mark. But what are you hoping they'll do then? Are you hoping they'll go back to church? That sounds like a stupid question after this conversation, but what are you hoping they'll do?

John Carroll: I don't know. I've been as best I can a servant of this text, trying to re-tell it and interpret it in a way that will speak today. What happens then, I don't know, in fact I don't even know if my - I'm still sort of submerged in the text.

There are some good observations: the connection between "rockiness" and "withering" is interesting--although Carroll interprets this as anti-Petrine rhetoric, which is at odds with the traditional Petrine reading of the Gospel. I also like the way he points out that whenever the disciples are told "Do not be afraid",they almost faint from fear! I am also a fan of narrative criticism or the narrative approach to reading scripture (which is why I am so insistant on the "literative" meaning of scripture), and so I appreaciate his statements along the lines that the gospels are foundational stories for our civilisation and that Jesus can only be known by his story.

Mark is a great story. I am nearing the end of my "Walk through the Scriptures" for Anima Education, and I intend on the last day to show the video produced by Scripture Union many years ago of an Australian actor doing a performance reading of Mark's gospel. Oscar Wilde was quite right when he wrote that "For pity and terror there is nothing in the entire cycle of Greek tragedy to touch it". But an "extra-Ecclesial" reading will only ever see it as a meaningless tragedy, and will never experience it as the revelation of God's glory (which St John shows it to be in his gospel).

For a good review by someone who knows something about existentialism but not much more about Christianity than John Carroll, see here.

How to teach kids about the Sacrament of Reconciliation without mentioning sin...

Years ago, an ex-Uniting minister, now Lutheran, said to me that he became Lutheran because Lutherans were not afraid to use the word sin. Time was when Catholics weren't either. I'm afraid that time is long gone in some quarters.

Tonight we had the second session of preparation at my daughter's Catholic primary school for the Sacrament of Reconciliation. Yes, I know you know that my daughter is a Lutheran, but we have reached a wonderfully ecumenical solution to (at least) this stage of her Christian initiation: she is doing her preparation for Reconciliation with her classmates, and will then actually do her first "Private Confession and Absolution" with her own Lutheran pastor. A rather neat solution, methinks.

Tonight was the second of three sessions held to prepare for this. The first, about a month ago, was just a prayer and meditation service at the parish church for parents. Cathy went to that. She said it was very nice, but not much detail was given about the rest of the preparation.

Next week the third session will be held: another prayer service for the whole family at the church for about an hour.

Tonight then was the only really "content-based" session. It was at her school and went for about an hour and a quarter. After gathering together and learning a couple of songs for next week's service, we split into four workshops: 1) Writing a Sorry Prayer, 2) Listening to the Story of the Forgiving Father (the Prodigal Son), 3) Looking at Family Choices, 4) The rite of Reconciliation.

It was all quite good--as far as it went. It gave me a good opportunity to talk about many issues of sin and forgiveness and the rite of reconciliation with my daughter. But it was really only introductory stuff--I was the one supplying the detail from my own knowledge. It would have been great if this was the first of (say) three or four similar sessions, each successively going a little deeper into the catechesis of this sacrament.

Did my child learn what the three requirements of a good "act of contrition" was? Was she told what the three parts of the sacrament were? Was she told that she should go to confession regularly (every month or two weeks or at least once a year)? Was she told she shold not go to communion if she was not in a state of grace? Was she told what a mortal sin was? Or a venial sin? Was she told that to make a good confession she should confess all the sins she could remember? Was the connection between baptism and confession explained? Was she instructed in how to do an examination of conscience? Was penance properly explained? In fact, was the word "sin" used at all at any point in the whole session? Was it explained that the priest actually "forgave" the sins confessed? Was the absolution formula read to the children so they could hear what the priest actually said--ie. the real "stuff" of the sacrament?

The answer to all these questions is "No". In fact, as I said to my wife, it was like going with your child to a sex-education session run by the school only to find that it is being taught by celibate nuns who used euphamisms all the way through without naming any of the "naughty bits", showing pictures, or even mentioning how the "seed got from the daddy to the mummy".

Every day in every way I am learning to understand the state of the Australian Catholic Church more and more.

Have you heard the one about the Archbishop, the Biologist, and the English Lit Professor?

Richard Dawkins is apparently a distinguished evolutionary biologist, but as a theologian he wouldn't past muster at undergraduate level, and I say that as one who has read an awful lot of undergraduate theology over the years. Dawkins would doubtless be appalled if a student handed him an essay in which it was clear that basic reading hadn't been done, or had been done so badly that it was hard to take seriously. Archbishop Mark Coleridge

...or looked just like the essay he had read a minute ago by someone else...

For more on this story see here and here. The only bit of the review still left on the the web (its been pulled from The Australian website) is here.

Welcome, Luthero-Anglo-Papist Marco!

Many years ago, a very good friend and fellow Lutheran pastor and I parted ways. He went to the Traditional Anglican Communion, I went to the Catholic Church. I never doubted, however, that we were searching for the same thing. I have never had my doubts that I have found it in the Church which is in communion with the Bishop of Rome. Marco however has had a longer road to walk, but I thank God that he has answered their prayers and that Marco and Penny and their family are now to be received into the Catholic Church. The banner above comes from Marco's Blog "A Seriously [one could say terminally] Confused Anglo Papist". I wonder which picture of the Holy Father best expresses his feelings at Marco's coming reception? No. 2 or No. 5?

Before St Joseph's day has finally ended...

St Joseph is my patron saint (along with St Michael), and after a long and weary day (which included much blogging and rewriting my "Descent into Hell" blog for the Diocesan rag), I should acknowledge what a support and inspiration the sainted Spouse of the Blessed Virgin has been to me over the last six or so years. I look to him for inspiration in both my role as a father and my role as a husband. I find in him a deep call to purity and faithfulness, and a love for the Church of Christ. I will never be able to emulate his silence (!), but I do emulate his dreaming. I don't know if goes with Pisceans (!) but I share that aspect of his character. St Joseph, Spouse of Mary, pray for us.

What our religion teaches IS "in the best interests of our community" Mr Bracks!

According to today's edition of The Age the Victorian Premier, Mr Bracks (who calls himself a Catholic) said that

the separation of church and state in Australia should be respected by the Pope.

"We are in a secular state and we make decisions based on what we believe is in the best interests of our community. That's how I have always operated," he said.

And that is exactly how the Pope and all faithful Catholic politicians operate also, Mr Bracks. So there is no opposition between you and the Pope on that score.

As I have pointed out in other posts, the Pope, and Archbishop Hart, and other Catholic hierarchs who speak out on human rights and social justice are not trying to force their "religious ideas" on politicians. All their arguments in the sphere of political life are based on natural law philosophy, not upon religious ideas.

But they are:

1) Calling those who wish to call themselves Catholic to actually practice what the Catholic faith teaches (nota bene, Mr Bracks);
2) Convinced that embryonic stem cell research and cloning is not "in the best interests of our community."

"Baptised in the Spirit", "Intentional Disciples" or "Docile Converts"?

How do you talk about the clearly observed difference between the visible fruits of the Spirit in the Baptised?

Charismatic Renewal has chosen to emphasise the difference within the (I think fallacious) terminology of "Baptism in the Holy Spirit" as something additional to sacramental baptism. This sees the problem in a lack of the Holy Spirit.

The Siena Institute ("Called and Gifted" program) has chosen the term "Intentional Disciples", which sees the problem in a lack of human will (intentionality) to dedicate oneself to following Christ.

At his Ash Wednesday public audience, the Holy Father described it as follows:

From the outset, therefore, Lent was lived as the season of immediate preparation for Baptism, to be solemnly administered during the Easter Vigil. The whole of Lent was a journey towards this important encounter with Christ, this immersion in Christ, this renewal of life. We have already been baptized but Baptism is often not very effective in our daily life.

Therefore, Lent is a renewed "catechumenate" for us too, in which once again we approach our Baptism to rediscover and relive it in depth, to return to being truly Christian.

Lent is thus an opportunity to "become" Christian "anew", through a constant process of inner change and progress in the knowledge and love of Christ. Conversion is never once and for all but is a process, an interior journey through the whole of life.

This process of evangelical conversion cannot, of course, be restricted to a specific period of the year: it is a daily journey that must embrace the entire span of existence, every day of our life.

Ah, how beuatifully he puts it. Living one's baptismal vocation involves both the grace of the Spirit and the intentionality of the will, for it is about nothing less than CONVERSION.

We have fallen into the trap of thinking that conversion (like Baptism which is the sacrament of conversion) is a once-off event, or a once-for-all-time event. Evangelicals often talk about "when I was converted". But the Holy Father reminds us that conversion is a DAILY event. Every day we need to beseech God for the gift of the Holy Spirit anew. Every day we need to rise with the intention of following Jesus as his disciples. And every day God answers our prayers and renews our baptismal grace within us.

This is nothing new for me--but then I was brought up with Luther's Small Catechism drummed into me.

What does such baptizing with water signify?

It signifies that the old Adam in us, together with all sins and evil lusts, should be drowned by daily sorrow and repentance and be put to death, and that the new man should come forth daily and rise up, cleansed and righteous, to live forever in God's presence.

But the Pope gives us even more to reflect upon in his Ash Wednesday audience. He uses a word that has been popping up lately in much of his teaching: "docile":

What does "to be converted" actually mean? It means seeking God, moving with God, docilely following the teachings of his Son, Jesus Christ; to be converted is not a work for self-fulfilment because the human being is not the architect of his own eternal destiny. ...

We might say that conversion consists precisely in not considering ourselves as our own "creators" and thereby discovering the truth, for we are not the authors of ourselves.

Conversion consists in freely and lovingly accepting to depend in all things on God, our true Creator, to depend on love.

If you do a search on the Vatican website with the author "Pope Benedict" and the words "docile" or "docility", you will come up with 35 separate documents. In Sacramentum Caritatis (just out) he emphasises that priests should be "docile" in their service of Christ. Above all, Mary is the one who is "docile" in obedience to the Lord, and like her, we should be "attentive and docile disciples of the Lord" (1st Jan 2006). Nor is docility antithetical to courageous action, for on the 3rd Sunday of Easter last year he said that we should "be docile disciples and courageous witnesses of the Risen Lord".

The wonderful thing about this "docility" is that it is precisely the right word to describe what is required for us to both receive the power of the Holy Spirit and to place our wills in the right relationship to this grace. It is not that we do not have the Spirit gifted to us at Baptism and Confirmation. It is not that we are not "intentional" enough in our discipleship. Rather we are too willful--and we block the effectiveness of the Spirit by our selfish assertion of our personal "liberty". Docile Conversion and Discipleship requires a relinquishment of this will, so that we may become vessels which may, like Mary, be filled with the Holy Spirit for his service.

Read the whole answer, Jeanette...

Our wonderful Diocesan Magazine editor, Jeanette Mentha, has had a tradition over many years of leading us in the general knowledge questions from The Age at the staff lunch table. Today, she strayed into an article in the Age Education supplement about a highly intelligent local lad, who at the age of eight was able to answer the following question:

I take 30 minutes to get home from school, and my brother takes 40 minutes. If he leaves five minutes before me, how long will I take to catch up with him?

She then read out the answer exactly as the boy gave it when he was eight years old:

35 minutes. Because if we both left at the same time, I would get there 10 minutes before him.

Now, that answer caused quite a stir, because it was simply impossible (the boy having only walked for 30 minutes total). Then came a very long argument around the table as we tried to work out the right answer.

I eventually got the right answer after working at it with a pen and paper. It was fairly obvious in the end, but we were still arguing about it, when it was realised that Jeanette had overlooked to read the whole answer in the paper. Apparently the boy also realised he had made a mistake and went on to say...

(see the comment section for the answer)

I'm no enemy of the Old Rite...

Call it what you will (Tridentine Rite, Mass of Pius V, Old Mass, or -- most incorrectly -- the Latin Mass), it was and still is a beautiful and immensely rich way to celebrate the Holy Eucharist.

One blog reader took offence when he thought I said that I wanted "the Old Mass to die off". I didn't say that, and did not mean that. I said that "My guess is that if this were the practice [ie. Mass of Paul VI done in Latin, ad orientam, with gregorian chant and kneeling for communion], the demand for the Rite of Pius V would disappear overnight".

I did not mean that I wanted those celebrations of the Holy Mass in those communities to whom this rite has been entrusted (like the wonderful Confraternity of St Peter) to "die off". I meant that most of the complaints about the Paul VI mass and most of the praise of the Pius V mass are over aspects such as language and music and ceremony and the decorum with which it is celebrated, and have nothing to do with the rite itself--in other words, the issue is not really one of the rite at all, but the manner in which it is conducted.

With regard to the rites themselves, many proponents of the Pian Rite see only richness lost in the Paul VI rite. In fact, a great deal of richness has been added, which is not at all alien to the tradition, such as the Old Testament reading and the traditions incorporated into the additional Eucharistic Prayers.

If we are going to have an argument (and I don't see why we should) let's base our arugment on the rite, and not on how well or how poorly either rite is conducted.

As for me and my house, we will treasure both for what they are: the great and glorious Liturgy of the Holy and Divine Eucharist.

Very Droll, Amy, Very Droll...

Here's what Sir Humphrey would call a "very droll" blog by Amy Welborn.

Sometimes you just get lucky
...and you hit a Mass in which you get not one, not two, but three homilies. (At the "greeting," (3 minutes), at homily time (20 minutes) and at the end of Mass (7 minutes or so. Which includes introduction of guest speaker, guest speaker, and then comment on guest speaker.) It's great.

Since our new priest has come, I have been mercifully spared the Five Homily mass in my local parish (in addition to Amy's outline, this used to include two more homilies incorporated in the Offertory Prayer and the Eucharistic Prayer).

I note with great approval and incredible surprise that this morning our new pastor celebrated a baptism during mass with the FULL RITE, including prayers of exorcism, anointing with the oil of catechumens as well as the oil of chrism, full blessing of the baptismal water, and full triple renunciation and triple affirmation of faith. And no extra homily added in during the rite either. Thank you, Father!

Ratzinger Quote of the Day

Pastor Weedon, over on his blog, has a regular "Old Lutheran" and "Patristic" "Quote of the Day". I have been thinking about putting up a regular "Papa Benny" Quote of the Day. Here's today's (but I don't promise that this will be very regular). Re the "Pentarchy":

It is evident that the historical basis of this construction is very weak as far as Alexandria and Constantinople are concerned. What is important is that with this structure the East too maintained the idea of a Petrine foundation of unity and of the concreteness of the unity and universality of the Church in the succession of St Peter.

[Note that Jerusalem, Antioch and Rome are all Petrine Sees]

Unity does not result from some vague harmony of a polite conciliarism of different local Churches among themselves; unity has a name: Peter, and a See: Rome. Thus we celebrate Mass not only in union iwth the local bishop, but also 'una cum Papa nostro'.Theological Notes, 19

Quoted in Garuti, "Primacy of the Bishop of Rome", page 69-70.

Terry Lane's latest bit of Anti-Catholic Sectarianism

In a democracy, we are entitled to know who we are electing to represent us in parliament. This is nothing more than consumer advice. Some people will say: she's a good Catholic, I'll vote for her. And others will say: there is no way that a person opposed to embryonic stem cell research, abortion and euthanasia will get my support. Terry Lane, Perspective, The Sunday Age

Quite right, ol' boy, and let's have a law requiring politicians who are pro-abortion, pro-embryonic stem cell research, pro-euthanasia, pro-same sex marriage, pro this that and the other ALSO declare their hand fully so that before we vote for them we can say "That sheila's a downright secular humanist" or "That bloke's a positivistic relativistic utilitarian" or whatever, "I won't go near them with a 40 foot barge pole".

Funny picture time...

"Hold still so I can get ya!"

Or:

"A little more of the back, perhaps, Holy Father?"

Christus Victor and the Descenus ad Inferno: Why Pitstick, Oakes and Von Balthasar are all wrong!

I am going to make a short comment about something that requires pages and pages of discussion. I don't know if you have been following the discussion in First Things between Alyssa Pitstick and Edward Oakes on the issue of the "Descent into Hell" as taught by Hans Urs von Balthasar. It began with this exchange in the December issue, and continued with this exchange in the January issue, and kept going (with a shift in gear into the discussion of what is and is not heresy) in the "On the Square" blog (here, here, here, and--Stephen Barr entering into the discussion--here). My guess is that it hasn't ended yet...

This is a discussion only for the brave of theological heart. But I confess that I find myself quite befuddled by it--for at times I agree with Pitstick and at times with Oakes. Both have good arguments in themselves and good criticisms of the other. But I also find myself frustrated with the categories in which the discussion is taking place.

For a start, I am no expert on von Balthasar's theology. I am a little disorientated by the fact that the argument over a key Christological doctrine has become tangled up with the defence of a reputation of a great (but not infallible) scholar. I am the last person who needs convincing that theologians can err--infallibility only pertains to the magisterium. Nor do I think a bloke should be crucified for getting it wrong every now and again--except when he continues to do so by obstinately rejecting correction (for eg. see here). I agree with the opinion posted on the Pontifications blog, that

many of the great theologians of the Church have blundered on important matters: Origen, Gregory Nyssen, and Augustine immediately come to mind. Not bad company to be in, I would think.

I also find that somehow the discussion has strayed into a bit of Prottie-bashing--that somehow the Protestants are being branded with teaching that Christ's descent into hell was a part of his humiliation rather than part of his glorification. Now some Protestants may have taught this (eg. Calvin, Barth, I don't know, I'm no expert on their theology either) but the official Lutheran position is fully consonant with the faith of the Catholic Church:

Because among the teachers of the ancient church as well as among some of us different explanations of the article on Christ's descent into hell may be found, we remain with the simple explanation of the Christian creed... Therefore, we confess, 'I believe in Jesus Christ, our Lord, God's Son, who died, was buried, and descended into hell.' In this Creed the burial and Christ's descent into hell are distinguished as two different articles, and we believe simply that the entire person, God and human being, descended into hell after his burial, conquered the devil, destroyed the power of hell, and took from the devil all his power. (Formula of Concord, Solid Declaration, Article IX, par. 1-3).

It is clear from this passage that they regard the "descent" as part of Christ's glorious victory and not a part of his redemptive suffering. On this point, Catholics and Lutherans at least agree.

The difficulty, it seems to me (and I am not the first to note it) is with the meaning of the "Hell". In Latin it is "infernum", in Greek it is "Hades" and in hebrew it would have been "Sheol" (or "the pit"). Now, Pitstick thumbs her nose at historical-critical readings of scripture, and at the same time embraces the medieval "structure" (her word) of the afterlife, complete with heaven, hell, purgatory, limbo for unbaptised infants and the "limbo of the fathers". I had never heard of the latter before reading this debate. Now, the first three are a part of Catholic doctrine, but the last two are (I believe) not obligatory for faith. In fact, I have equally as much skepticism and respect for both the historical-critical reading of the scriptures and the full medieval schemata of the afterlife. I have never before heard of anyone discussing "purgatory" in terms of those who died before Jesus' death and resurrection. Pitstick gets into one hell of a mess (if you will excuse the pun) discussing whether or not the righteous dead whom Christ liberated during his descensus had already been purified in purgatory or not. As far as I have understood, purgatory is a purification (rather than a place) which the baptised faithful must undergo if at the time of their death they are not fully free of attachment to venial sin (attachment to mortal sin has an entirely different result!).

But if an historical-critical approach were to be taken, it would become clear that the word "Hades" in the original creed (and in the scriptures) cannot hold the full weight and meaning of what we have come to know as "hell", namely the place of eternal damnation and exile from the presence of God. The Septuagint translation of the Old Testament makes clear that "Hades" is the Greek equivalent of "Sheol" in Hebrew, which the King James Version translates as "the grave" and the Vulgate translates as "infernum". To me then, it seems pretty clear that (even though the Lutheran Confessions point out that the "burial" and "descent" are two separate articles of the Creed) the original version of the Creed conceptually linked the idea that Christ was buried in the tomb with the idea that he descended to the place of the dead. Furthermore, in both the Hebrew and Greek thought of the time, there was no concept that anyone ever "went to heaven" when they died (indeed, this concept is impossible to find in the New Testament, let alone the Old Testament), everyone (without distinction) went to Sheol/Hades. This is the import of Psalm 88, a Psalm which in the Christian tradition is interpreted with reference to Christ's own descent into Sheol.

It is not conceptually difficult, therefore, for one to envisage what havoc was wraught upon the "place of the dead" by the entry into it of the "Holy One" of God (Ps 16:10), the one who was Life itself. The effect would have been exactly that which both the Lutheran Confessions and traditional Catholic/Orthodox theology describe: the complete destruction of the power of "the place of the dead" to hold those who belong by faith in Christ to God, ie. the "Harrowing of Hell" as depicted in the classical Orthodox iconography. The Catechism upholds this interpretation by saying:

632 The frequent New Testament affirmations that Jesus was "raised from the dead" presuppose that the crucified one sojourned in the realm of the dead prior to his resurrection [Acts 3:15; Rom 8:11; 1 Cor 15:20; cf. Heb 13:20]. This was the first meaning given in the apostolic preaching to Christ's descent into hell: that Jesus, like all men, experienced death and in his soul joined the others in the realm of the dead. But he descended there as Saviour, proclaiming the Good News to the spirits imprisoned there [cf. I Pt 3:18-19].

and again

636 By the expression "He descended into hell", the Apostles' Creed confesses that Jesus did really die and through his death for us conquered death and the devil "who has the power of death" (Heb 2:14).

This still, I believe, leaves room for those who wish to explore the matter of whether or not Jesus Christ, the Incarnate Word and Second Person of the Holy Trinity, experienced "Hell" in the more specific sense of the experience of the complete alienation from the presence of God. Here I think von Balthasar's theology has something to say--only he got the timing wrong. The Scriptural accounts of Jesus' last words upon the Cross give us two completely certain facts:

1) that Jesus was forsaken by God when he was dying upon the Cross (Matt 27:46; Mk 15:34)
2) that Jesus completed our redemption and his suffering for sin before he breathed his last breath and died (John 19:30)

You can add to that the very clear scriptural and patristic theology that the time Jesus spent in the tomb was a "sabbath rest" in perfect fulfillment with the Law of God, rather than a continuation of Christ's work (which, like the work of Creation, was completed on the sixth day).

So I am quite happy for people to speculate that Jesus experienced the depths of hell in the moment of his abandonment by God upon the Cross (in fact, in far greater torment than we ever could, since we have never known the intimacy of the presence of God in the way Jesus, as Second Person of the Holy Trinity, could have). Of course, there is a very great mystery here, but I will leave that to the theologians! It is quite clear, however, that Jesus' suffering did not continue after his death, and therefore that his "descent to the place of the dead" can not be interpreted as an experience of the eternal damnation of hell.

As for the Holy Father's own point of view, I find it significant that he has repeated in Sacramentum Caritatis a phrase from his own encyclical, Deus Caritas Est, that:

[Jesus'] death on the Cross is the culmination of that turning of God against himself in which he gives himself in order to raise man up and save him. (§12)

I cannot read that in anyway to suggest that the "culmination" was still to come in the descent of Christ into hell. That was the first act of Christ's victory over death.

As for Fr Oakes' insistence that we do not celebrate the victory of Christ over death until Holy Saturday has been completed, I suggest that he is simply insufficiently familiar with the ancient Christian doctrine of the "Christus Victor", or the ancient hymnody which celebrates the victory over death as taking place on Good Friday and on the Cross. The Resurrection is confirmation of this Victory, but the Victory itself was won when Jesus cried out: "It is finished!"

[Reader: Well, thank goodness this blog is finally "finished"! I thought you said it was going to be a short comment?
Schütz: You want to see my long comment? I have said before, have I not, that everything is relative?]

Environmental Change: Or More Global Warming toward the Reform of the Reform?

While we are searching the Catholic Blogosphere, Rocco Palmo reports on yet another change in the Vatican Curia, this time no. 2 at the Congregation for the Clergy is put out to pasture so that Cardinal Hummes gets a free hand. The enviroment heats up by just another degree, perhaps?

When I was a Lutheran pastor, there was always talk about the choice of strategies when entering a new parish. Either make all the changes you intend to make in the "honeymoon period" while they are all still too starry-eyed over their new pastor to object; or change nothing for the first six months until you have their confidence and then gradually make the necessary changes. Pope Benedict seems to be very much of the latter opinion.

Note that "Change nothing at all ever" was never seriously considered as an option when entering a new parish; all new clergy always presume that they can improve upon the work of their predecessor. Here too, Pope Benedict appears to be something of an anomoly. His basic view is that he is there to build upon the foundation which others (especially his venerable predecessor, the Great Servant of God John Paul II) have laid. He doesn't seem too fussed that he is getting older every day and certainly has a limited time in which to put his agenda into action. Perhaps that in itself tells us more about the nature of his agenda than anything else.

Translating from German to Italian to Latin and finally to English...

I have had a devil of a time getting onto this post, referred to by Amy Welborn a day or two ago. Apparently it went into meltdown because so many people were trying to access it. The source is Fr. John Zuhlsdorf on his blogsite "What does the prayer really say". The gist of it is that whereas the english translation of Sacramentum Caritatis at paragraph 62 says in regard to large-scale international liturgies that "with the exception of the readings, the homily and the prayer of the faithful, such liturgies could be celebrated in Latin." The problem is with the "could be", which in latin is "aequum est" (lit. "it is fitting that"). Most other languages have something along the lines of "it is good to". English has "could". Fr Z. asks "What gives?"

In my blog below, I note that there are more than 180 directives in this 31,000 word document. These directives are worded in a huge variety of ways, including "I ask that", "it is imperitive that", "shall", "must", "needs to be", "should", "may", "could be", "we cannot", "are obliged to", etc. etc. How is one to judge the relative degree of importance of each direction? AND, given Fr Z.'s revelations, how are we to be sure that there is any consistency in the terms of direction used? A mine field for liturgists and canon lawyers of a legalistic frame of mind.

[Reader: Is there any other sort?
Schütz: Point taken.]

Sacramentum Caritatis: Creating an "Environment of Desire" for the Reform of the Reform

Amy Welborn has drawn attention to this blog by "Drew" on the Holy Whapping blogsite. He suggests, wisely it seemeth to Us:

The Exhortation plays an important role in this movement, then, by codifying Ratzinger's ideas on liturgy into the written magisterium of the Church. He gave the reform of the reform much of its steam by expressing these ideas in popular books; it can only continue to pick up steam now that these ideas are more fully incorporated into the magisterium. The momentum of liturgy seems, from my vantage, to be clearly swinging in favor of a this reforming of the reform: by this exhortation, will it not continue to pick up speed, and continue to be desired by the people and priests themselves? Certainly, creating an environment in which the Church wants the "reform of the reform," though this takes longer than reform by fiat, is more effective in the long run. It may be less satisfying than a glorious smack-over-the-head delivered to those with whom one disagrees, but glorious smacks-over-the-head are not effective in the long term. How many people, pining for a liturgical smack down akin to Pius X's smack-down against "Modernism," are willing to concede that Modernism dissapeared consequent to being "smacked down?"

Meanwhile Sandro Magister has a good wrap up of the Sacramentum Caritatis Exhortation by Pope Benedict on his www.chiesa site. He distills the following at the main points:

• THE MISSAL OF SAINT PIUS V
• THE LAST SUPPER
• TRANSUBSTANTIATION
• THE ORTHODOX AND PROTESTANTS
• CONFIRMATION AND FIRST COMMUNION
• COMMUNION AND CONFESSION
• VIATICUM
• HOLY ORDINATION
• PRIESTLY CELIBACY
• POLYGAMY
• DIVORCED AND REMARRIED PERSONS
• BEAUTY
• SACRED ART
• SACRED MUSIC
• THE LITURGY OF THE WORD AND THE HOMILY
• THE OFFERTORY
• THE EXCHANGE OF PEACE
• COMMUNION IS NOT FOR ALL
• ITE, MISSA EST
• INTERCOMMUNION
• THE LATIN LANGUAGE
• GROUP MASSES
• EUCHARISTIC ADORATION
• THE SUNDAY PRECEPT
• IN ABSENCE OF A PRIEST
• CONSISTENCY BETWEEN THE EUCHARIST AND POLITICS
• AT THE COST OF ONE’S LIFE
• "SINE DOMINICO NON POSSUMUS"

"Catholic Catholics", "Anglican Anglicans", and the rest

In a letter to the editor in yesterday's edition of The Age (entitled oddly "Catholic Catholics"), esteemed philosophy professor Max Charlesworth wrote in opposition to Archbishop Denis Hart's position against embryonic stem cell research. He wrote:

Many Catholics I know, including a number of theologians, do not agree with the Catholic Church's present position on stem cell research. They believe, as I do, that the organisms that are experimented on are not real embryos since they cannot possibly develop into a human being, and that it is quite misleading to say that this kind of stem cell research involves bringing embryos into being in order to destroy them.

One hardly knows where to begin to offer a criticism of such an idea.

To assert that embryos created in vitro without any intention of implantation are "not real embryos" but some other kind of "organism" seems to define the objective reality of the embryo in terms of the agent's subjective intention towards it. Radically stated, Dr Charlesworth is arguing that "you are not human because I don't think you are and I am not going to treat you if you were." His argument displays an utter failure to respect all human beings as subjects to be treated with love rather than objects for our utilisation. It is hard to imagine any philosophical basis for such an idea which would not also lead our society directly to the horrors of the Nazi Holocaust (and I don't make such an assertion lightly).

I leave aside the question of how Dr Charlesworth can continue to call himself a Catholic when he rejects a core teaching of the Catholic Church with regard to the sanctity of life from conception till death. We have come to expect such things from those who prefer what "most Catholics" and "theologians" believe to what the Word of God teaches (speaking through scripture, tradition, and the magisterium of the Catholic Church). Dr Charlesworth and his ilk are anything but "Catholic Catholics".

What a relief it is therefore to read in today's edition of The Age a letter from a truly Anglican Anglican, the Anglican Bishop of Ballarat Michael Hough. Although there is no such thing as an Anglican magisterium, he is surely standing more securely in the Anglican tradition than the non-Anglican Anglican Alan Nichols ( The Age, 14/3) against whom he is writing:

ANGLICAN bioethics expert Alan Nichols is wrong : many Anglicans do in fact oppose the proposed changes to legislation that would allow for therapeutic cloning of human embryos. We oppose it because we support the sanctity of all human life, in all stages of its development and the thought of cloning human life purely for the sake of experimentation is morally repugnant to many of us.

Premier Bracks continues to use two worrying arguments to justify ethically suspect proposals. He argues that Victoria needs to proceed so that we do not lose the financial advantages that come with such research: that is, if the money is good we can ignore important ethical issues.

The second flawed ethical argument is his even more worrying insistence that the ends justifies the means, a moral argument that history has shown us time and time again to be fundamentally flawed and inherently dangerous.

I would hope that men and women of all faiths, along with those of none, combine to oppose this degrading of the sanctity of human life.

I couldn't agree more. There remains today, an extremely important area of ecumenism which is insufficiently explored, namely the ecumenism of morality and ethics. Methinks that there is probably a much wider degree of agreement here than popular news reports would seem to indicate. Those Christians who still take the scriptures seriously and are open to the logical arguments of the natural law (as Bishop Hough obviously is) will always find much unity with the Catholic Church.

Doing the Novus Ordo Mass so well we wouldn't need a universal indult for the Tridentine Rite

I published this as a comment to the blog below, but thought that I would post it as a main entry for all to see, since it is one of my most dearly held opinions regarding the liturgy.

Tony had stated that

if the Missal of Paul VI is celebrated with care and devotion, showing its continuity with what has gone before, but retaining the much needed reforms it offers, then calls for the Tridentine Mass will die a natural death.

Anonymous had replied that

It is difficult to see how the Novus Ordo, so chopped up that it looks as if a child designed it, could ever be beautiful.

I answered as follows:
-------------
I agree with Tony and disagree with Anonymous. One of the things the Holy Father stresses in Sacramentum Caritatis is that there is beauty in the noble simplicity of the rite itself. eg. paragraph 40:

The simplicity of its gestures and the sobriety of its orderly sequence of signs communicate and inspire more than any contrived and inappropriate additions. Attentiveness and fidelity to the specific structure of the rite express both a recognition of the nature of Eucharist as a gift and, on the part of the minister, a docile openness to receiving this ineffable gift.

Certainly the Old Mass is not evil, but it is not the Ordinary Universal Rite of the Catholic Church. For better or for worse, the Rite of Paul VI is what we've got.

But there are, as Benedict points out, discrepencies between the way in which this rite is performed today and what was envisaged by the Second Vatican Council. Although he makes the point specifically in relation to large-scale masses, nevertheless his point holds that it would be "in harmony with the directives of the Second Vatican Council" if "with the exception of the readings, the homily and the prayer of the faithful, [the liturgy] could be celebrated in Latin."

Thus it is perfectly legitimate (and simply requires papal and episcopal encouragement) to celebrate the Novus Ordo mass:

1) ad orientam
2) in Latin (as suggested above)
3) receiving Communion kneeling
4) with full Gregorian chant

I am not suggesting that this should be done at all or even most masses, but it could be done at some masses.

My guess is that if this were the practice, the demand for the Rite of Pius V would disappear overnight.

Generosity in Administering the Sacrament of Reconciliation

All priests should dedicate themselves with generosity, commitment and competency to administering the sacrament of Reconciliation. In this regard, it is important that the confessionals in our churches should be clearly visible expressions of the importance of this sacrament. Sacramentum Caritatis §21

Dear Fathers in the Faith,

Please take heed of what the Holy Father says here. In the power to absolve sinners and to reconcile them to God and the Church, you have a great treasure. Perhaps you don't fully appreciate what a treasure this is. Perhaps you have come to appreciate it less seeing the way in which the [sometimes] "faithful" have shown it such little esteem over recent decades.

Some of you wait for us to come to you ("Confessions by appointment"); some might sit for half an hour in the confessional on Saturday mornings ("Confessions: 10am to 10:30am every Saturday"). Some schedule confessions often and regularly (thank you to all those who do this), but then fail to provide a fill in if something else comes up at a time when you scheduled hearing confessions.

Sometimes we come to the Church for confession and can't see the confessional, or don't know what the local custom is for queuing in the pew, or what the system of lights mean. Sometimes we get there and find there is no confessional at all, and we have to actually face our confessor (scary)! Sometimes, we get into the confessional, only to find that our confessor shows no respect for the rite--failing to give a penance, or even botching the absolution formula itself.

Dear Fathers, I want you to know that some times some of us find it really difficult to work up the courage to go to confession. It is made harder when after all that psychological preparation, we are confounded by the confessor's lack of generosity or commitment or competency.

If our experience is negative, we might not come back. If our experience if positive, wild horses--or at least the wild horses of our shame and guilt--will not keep us away.

Yours most sincerely,

A sinner needing forgiveness.

If my kids can do it, so can you: Learning to sing the Latin Prayers

Nor should we forget that the faithful can be taught to recite the more common prayers in Latin, and also to sing parts of the liturgy to Gregorian chant. Sacramentum Caritatis §62

Of course they--WE--can. We're not stupid, are we? My own children have learnt to say and sing the Pater Noster and Ave Maria in Latin, they can say the In Nomine and Gloria Patri, and they are learning to sing the Salve Regina. And in case you think I am making performing monkeys out of them, I am also teaching them to know what the words mean, like "a malo"--"from evil". (They make the connection with Malfoy, the "doer of evil", in Harry Potter). It is their language of choice when we say prayers at night.

And in case anyone thinks that this is simply "what the Pope prefers" or "his culture", then they should take a look at the Compendium to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, where all the traditional prayers are given in Latin as well as the vernacular. The Pope is not asking us to do something which he has not already equipped the Church to do.

(Sorry, did I say all? No, not all. There is one huge ommission: namely the "Our Father". All the other prayers are given in Latin as well as English, but the Our Father must have been overlooked because there was already a whole section in the Catechism on it, but sadly, no Latin text. Has someone pointed this out to the editors?)

What a load of cobblers... Cathnews report on Sacramentum Caritatis

According to Church rules adopted in the aftermath of the Second Vatican Council of 1965, congregations wishing to celebrate Mass in Latin were forced to seek permission from Rome or from their local bishops.

Yes, dear friends, this little snippet of wisdom comes from none other than that most excellent of news sources, Cathnews.

One can tell from their report that no-one at Church Resources actually bothered to read the Exhortation before reporting on it. As usual, they have simply relied on second-hand reportage about the document. Never-the-less, the clergy on the team--or even the moderately educated layperson--knows that this claim is false. Any priest has the right to say the Mass in Latin, and any parish that wants it can have it. It's the pre-Vatican IIrite that can't be used without the local bishop's permission. The official language of the Novus Ordo mass remains Latin.

And while "Archbishop Adrian Doyle, who attended the bishops' synod" may well believe that "the Pope's preference for Latin prayers would be unlikely to change the celebration of Mass at parish level", the Exhortation is more than the "Pope's preference". In saying "I ask that future priests ... be trained to understand and celebrate Holy Mass in Latin, use Latin texts and execute Gregorian chants," the Pope is actually issuing a directive which has the highest authority in the Church and which each and every Catholic Seminary is now obliged to make a part of their curriculum. From there on in, once seminarians have again been trained in the art of saying mass in Latin and have experienced the beauty of the Gregorian Chant, it will only be a matter of time before we begin to experience the same liturgical renewal that was experienced in many parishes in the early 20th Century. It happened then (with the opposition of many bishops, take note)--it can happen again.

Arabella (who often posts comments on this page) has left a sensible reply on the Cathnews Discussion board to "Judith":

Have you read the document? It seems you are reaching conclusions from a reading of the article on the front page of CathNews. This article is very misleading in a number of ways. I’m amazed a Catholic news service has done such a bad job of summarizing the document.

The document does not say there will be a return of the Latin Mass. It merely says that when the ‘modern’ Mass is celebrated with an international congregation that it would make sense to pray some of the most common prayers in Latin.

Imagine, for example, World Youth Day. It would make a lot of sense if participants knew some prayers in Latin thereby giving them a means to pray together.

Yes, there is talk of an upcoming document enabling the ‘Latin Mass’ (meaning the Mass last in common use prior to 1962 (? or about then)), but that will only be for those who prefer this Mass. It will not be enforced upon anyone.

The distinction between the context of large international masses and the local parish Sunday mass is important, and is made on the basis of what the Pope has actually written in paragraph 62 of the Exhortation. Her suggestion about World Youth Day is a good one and an obvious one--which surely the WYD director has already noted and underlined with purple pen (as is his wont).

As for the rest of the Cathnews article, well. Pinch of salt. As Arabella advises, read the Exhortation for yourself here. And for just what the Pope did direct the Church to do, see this blog below.