Guy Sebastian embraces Papistry...

...well, at least for his Wedding. And no, I am not implying by that that he and his beloved were married according to the rites of the Catholic Church or by a Catholic celebrant--as far as I know, they used neither.

But as Mother Nagsus points out over at Cooees, they DID use a Papist shrine for the occasion. I left a comment there to the effect that they it was interesting that they prefered a Catholic church over an AOG barn.

Which reminds me of an interesting fact. Ceremonial lives on in popular rites of passage long after we have forgotten their original purpose. How many guests at a modern wedding ceremony have any idea why there is a cake and why the bride and groom have to cut it?

I don't have any sources for this, but the pop-wisdom is that when the puritans tried to do away with all papist ceremonies in England during the Republic, weddings were one area that refused to submit. Many later non-conformist churches (eg. old congregationalist churches even here in Australia) were built with two side aisles instead of a central aisle for the single purpose of preventing processions. Which might have suited the local pastor, but not the brides and brides' mothers who wanted to get married in such churches. It was, I understand, the pressure for a "traditional marriage procession" down the aisle that saw the restoration of central aisle in many of these anti-papist churches.

Today, we see that even Japanese couples want a "traditional western wedding" with all the trappings, and civil celebrants offer "chalices" of wine to couples to drink together "as a sign of their union". We can't blame the Sebastians too much then. Their puritan barns might suit their puritanical theology of worship, but when it comes to such key social occasions as a wedding, even the most ardent protestant will succumb to the very human instinct to lay on the ceremony with a trowel.

Dean Phillip Jenson: Not a Defender of The Faith, but a Defender of World Youth Day nonetheless

Make no mistake about it: Sydney Anglicans are Protestants and they ain't finished protesting against us yet. But at least they do not extend their protestations to inhospitality, and that is something.

Dean Phillip Jenson, the brother of the Sydney Anglican Archbishop, has written an article in the Sydney Morning Herald called "Church of Rome hath erred, but Anglicans won't rain on Pope's parade". If nothing else, it is an encouragement to see that some Anglicans in Australia are sticking to their historic identity as "Protestors":

So we protest against Roman Catholic claims to authority. We object to the Pope claiming to be the Vicar of Christ. We reject all claims to authority that imply the insufficiency of scripture. We reject any implication that Jesus's work on the cross was insufficient or is received by more than faith or requires some other mediator.

No, don't bother explaining to Dean Jenson that he has most of this wrong. He won't listen. He will assure you that he knows the Catholic Church better than we Catholics do. If you want another example of Sydney Anglican Protestation, go read the book "Nothing in my hand I bring" by Ray Galea. He gets most of it twisted too, but again, at least he knows what he is. He is a Protestant.

One would think that the Jensons would have enough protesting to do about the current state of the Anglican Church to keep them from being too worried about their neighbours who are Catholic. But no, Sydney Anglicans are so good at Protesting that they can protest on more than one front at the same time.

Nevertheless, Sydney Anglicans will be, according to Dean Jenson, good hosts for the World Youth Day. These Anglicans may protest, but they are civil and polite after all. One day, however, it is to be hoped that they might wake up to the fact that one the current religious landscape the Catholics may be the best friends and allies they have.

A point by point critique of Robinson's book?

According to Cathnews:

Marist Fr Michael Whelan, director of the Aquinas Academy in Sydney, Australia, responded to the bishops' criticisms saying: "We have a right to know precisely what is doctrinally unsound with what Bishop Robinson has written and why it is unsound.

"It is a serious book and it demands a serious response," Father Whelan added in his statement posted on the Aquinas Academy Web site May 19.

The "imprecision and vagueness" in the bishops' "bland and defensive" statement, Fr Whelan said, is a "sad and discouraging reflection on the leadership of the Catholic Church in Australia, likely to confirm those who are unlikely to read Bishop Robinson's book and alienate those who find it worth reading."

Do they really want that? I do not believe that Fr Whelan is incapable himself of identifying the passages to which the "imprecise and vague" statement of the Australian Bishops refers. (He is, after all, an intelligent man). Nor can we seriously believe that the lay readers of Geoffrey Robinson's book are so ill-informed. Essentially, the errors may safely be taken to be those bits of the book that simultaneously warm the hearts of dissenters and inflame the hearts of faithful Catholics.

In the meantime, Cathnews also reports that "at least 11 bishops, including Cardinal Roger M. Mahony of Los Angeles, asked Bishop Robinson to cancel his tour." Unfortunately, we are not given a list of who these "at least 11" are. I take it that would be "at least" each of the 11 bishops in the 11 dioceses he would be visiting? No red carpet then? Small wonder.

I may not be judging Tony, but Cherie stands convicted...

In the past I have defended our new brother Catholic Tony Blair. And some readers have pointed out that I was wrong to do so. Apparently, they had evidence. Well, I don't know about Tony, but Mrs Blair, the good Catholic girl, is certainly convicted out of her own mouth. Sorry, Cherie, contraception has no place in the kitbag of the faithful Catholic.

That combox is a real gold mine...

So you really DO have to read it. One of the gems (sorry, I said "goldmine" didn't I? I meant "gemstone mine"...) in it is this spectacular one from Past Elder:

There is no difference whatsoever in saying I believe this because I agree with it and in saying I believe this because I believe in the authority which says it.

Okay, can the Logicians reading this please get to work on it? I think he is wrong.

Let's try an example: I do not think going 10kmh over the speed limit is wrong. Yet I respect the authority of the police. When they pull me up for going 110kmh in a 100km hour zone I am not going to argue the point. I submit. I pay the fine. Do I agree with the authority? No. Do I submit? Yes. Do I, over time, come to see their point about the danger of speeding. Maybe. Let's say I do, even if it is only because they keep fining me until I realise that at least one thing wrong with speeding is that it costs me a lot of money.

Or try this one. A homosexually active person becomes a Christian and accepts the literal authority of the bible as the word of God. In the bible he reads that homosexuality is wrong. Although it goes against all his inclinations, and involves a deep struggle to change his behaviour, on the basis of his acceptance of the authority of the bible he ceases his homosexual activity.

Sorry, Past Elder. It simply is not true (or at least it is too cynical) to say that we only accept those authorities who command us to do what we already agree is right. Sometimes, it is in accepting valid authority (an objective, rather than a subjective decision, as my example of the police and the speeding ticket should indicate) that we learn, against our natural inclinations, that certain behaviour or beliefs are wrong.

Ergo, accepting the authority of the Catholic Church is not simply a shifting of the Protestant doctrine of private judgement from the issue at hand to the authority in question, but a recognition of the objective reality of that authority and modifying our beliefs and actions accordingly.

You really have to read that combox...

By which I mean this one at the end ofthis post.

It has elicited the most remarkable declaration from our good Lutheran correspondent, Pastor Weedon. To wit:

This Lutheran has NO intention of becoming Roman or Orthodox; I believe that the Lutheran Symbols express exactly the same faith articulated in the Sacred Scriptures. I know the comments are meant kindly "not far from the kingdom" or whatever, but know that they are really an insult to all of us who believe that the Church lives from the receiving end of God in the means of grace. When the Church is put at spot #1, it become an idol, and that's what I fear has happened to many who convert from Lutheranism to the Roman or Orthodox jurisdictions. I have no intention of doing so and I wish that folks would stop implying that that's where I'm headed. No way, no how. If I once thought along those lines, I no longer do and I'm rather glad that neither Rome nor the East hold any enticement to me in the least. I'll take the poverty of the Lutheran Church with her pure confession anyday.

Ah well. I can't say I ever set out with the intention to become Roman or Orthodox myself. I don't believe it works that way. Pastor Weedon is to be thanked for such a clear statement, but one would remind him of his own Catechism:

I believe that I cannot by my own reason or strength believe in Jesus Christ, my Lord, or come to Him; but the Holy Ghost has called me by the Gospel, enlightened me with His gifts, sanctified and kept me in the true faith; even as He calls, gathers, enlightens, and sanctifies the whole Christian Church on earth, and keeps it with Jesus Christ in the one true faith...

That's the way it works, old boy, and when it happens, God doesn't take your own intentions much into account. But of course, you must protest your innocence of any such nefarious intention on your part. Otherwise, how could you continue in your ministry?

Thanks to Dan at "Beatus Vir"; and a Defence of Newman's "Development" thesis

I just want to say a big "Thank you" to Dan at Beatus Vir (a rather odd blog which has nothing on it except a link to three excellent documents that every Lutheran should read and then ask himself: Why I am not a Catholic?) for doing an excellent job in the combox discussion to my post below on Sacred Scripture establishing doctrine.

I have been a little pre-occupied with mundane matters of late, and have not had the opportunity to pursue my argument with Pastor Weedon as the topic deserved (with relentless logic and multiple quotations from the Fathers). Riding to the rescue comes Dan with the most excellently argued and well expressed reposts. Truly, Dan, you should put something on your own blogsite. No, on second thoughts, I am quite happy with you continuing your excellent apologetics on my blog!

And, while I can understand how Past Elder rejects the thesis of Newman's "Essay on the Development of Doctrine" (clear proof of history and logic of argument meaning little in that quarter), I can't quite make out how Pastor Weedon can dismiss it in such a cavalier fashion. He wrote (in the same combox string):

You have frequent recourse to Newman; I do not buy his entire line of argument of development and hence growth of the doctrinal corpus.

The faith of the Church is the faith of the Apostles; and the Apostles under the Holy Spirit's influence wrote for us an inspired record of what they believed and what they taught and the Church is bound to this record in her teaching. To quote another Father on this very matter:

“What is the mark of a faithful soul? To be in these dispositions of full acceptance on the authority of the words of Scripture, not venturing to reject anything nor making additions. For, if ‘all that is not of faith is sin’ as the Apostle says, and ‘faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the Word of God,’ everything outside Holy Scripture, not being of faith, is sin.” Basil the Great (The Morals, p. 204, vol 9 TFOTC).

Dan nicely shows how Pastor Weedon's interpretation of the matter is clearly at odds with what St Basil himself wrote in another place, but nevertheless, can it truly be said that, by reflecting upon the deposit of faith which the apostles received from our Lord, authentic Catholic theology has been guilty of "rejecting anything or making additions" to that faith once received? Applied strictly, Pastor Weedon would require that we only use the words of Scripture itself in our preaching, and not interpose any interpretation or elucidation of our own. The fact is that in his essay, Newman describes and seeks to explian nothing other than what has actually and indisputably taken place in regard to the dogmatic affirmations of catholic and orthodox Christianity.

How anyone can deny it is beyond me. It is like denying that the sun comes up every morning simply because one has read somewhere in a science book that it is the earth which goes around the sun, and not vice versa.

Kneeling for Communion: "For I have Given You An Example" (John 3:15)

The great thing about modern tele-communications is that whatever happens in Rome is known throughout the world within five minutes. The rest is up to bloggers.

Throughout Catholic history, liturgical developments have spread via imitation. While often the last to adopt new liturgical "fads", Rome has itself often been a trend-setter, imitated by Churches throughout the world. In the past that process was slow, today it is (by ecclesiastical standards) practically instantaneous.

Witness the example of what some are calling the "Benedictine" (after the Pope, not the Order) style of placing a crucifix on the altar so that the celebrant might still be said to be celebrating "ad dominum" even though he is not facing liturgical east (cf. here for the effect of that example in Melbourne).

Now the eagle eyes of the world's cameras have pounced on the fact that "four dozen people received the Eucharist on the tongue while kneeling from Pope Benedict on the feast of the Body and Blood of Christ." Instantly the speculation on the blogosphere goes wild about some new command coming down from on high dictating a return to kneeling and reception on the tongue. Demonstrating once again what a power the blogging world is in terms of public opinion and media, the Holy See has been just as quick to respond:

Secretary of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Sacraments Archbishop Albert Malcolm Ranjith Patabendige Don says "there are no new norms coming" that would change the Vatican's 1969 decision that local bishops could allow their faithful to receive the Eucharist in their hands while standing.

He also says "there is no discussion" about insisting those who receive Communion from the Pope do so kneeling or that they receive it on the tongue rather than in their hands.

"But the gesture of the Holy Father is to be appreciated. It brings out in a better way the fact we adore the Lord whom we receive" in the Eucharist, Archbishop Ranjith said.

"It was a special occasion and I hope this practice spreads."

(See Cathnews for the whole story here).

Get that? No commandment, no dictate, no arm-twisting. Just an example of a good practice, and one that the Congregation (and presumably Pope Benedict himself) hopes will spread.

Long ago in the Lutheran Church of Australia, the Commission on Worship realised that it was no good trying to tell Lutherans what they had to do in the liturgy. They would simply and stubbornly insist on their Christian freedom to do otherwise. So the Commission adopted the practice of providing good resources and making them easily available, and simply setting an example whenever possible of good practice. It didn't happen overnight and it didn't happen everywhere, but today the standard of liturgy in the LCA is 100% up on what it was twenty years ago.

Modern Catholics are much like modern Lutherans in this way. Or should we say that they are all simply human. They are much more likely to adopt good practice when they see its merits and they see it well modelled than they are if they are simply told "Thou shalt do it this way".

John 13:15: "For I have given you an example, that you also should do as I have done to you."

Do I dare to sing the Sequence tomorrow?

Big dilemma at the moment. I am on music in my local parish tomorrow morning. Its Corpus Christi and the question is: Do I dare to sing the Sequence, Lauda Sion?

Now, Lauda Sion is a very tricky text. There are a few English translations (The one in the missal is dreadful, but this one is better).

The problems are principally the following:

1) it is extremely long (24 verses!)

2) the 8.8.8 metre is unusual, and it goes pear-shaped at verse 19 (8.8.8.8) and then again at verses 23 and 24 (8.8.8.8.8)--so there are no well known tunes to sing it too

3) None of the English translations are modern, and some are really twee (eg. "the very music of the breast") or tortured ("We break the Sacrament; but bold / and firm thy faith shall keep its hold; / Deem not the whole doth more unfold / than in the fractured part resides") or simply grating ("the bread for God's true children meant, that may not unto dogs be given"--I know the biblical allusion, but can one actually sing this?)

4) No Catholic hymnal I possess has any setting of it at all, not even the Adoremus Hymnal (I did find a translation to the original Gregorian tone in the New English Hymnal and a paraphrase by Alexander Ramsay Thompson in the Australain Lutheran Hymnal).

Given all this, it is no wonder that no one knows the damn thing. Yet the Liturgy Office of England and Wales lists it in their draft "Core Music Repertoire" (which is quite a neat document in itself).

Now, here's the rub. Do I dare to sing it tomorrow morning? My parish priest usually likes a bit of music or something solo during the offertory instead of a hymn, so this would be a perfect opportunity to stick it in as a solo piece. In Latin? Or in English?

PS. While doing this blog, I came across this Spanish(?) site that has all the missal texts for the Sundays of this year on it in easy printing PDF form. Check it out!

The New Missal: A Progress Report from the Australian Bishops Conference

A report in Cathnews today includes this:

Work towards new Missal proceeds

The Australian Catholic Bishops Conference voted to approve the completed draft texts for the Roman Missal entitled: Masses and Prayers for Various Needs and Intentions (January 2008) Ritual Masses (January 2008) and Eucharistic Prayers for Masses with Children (January 2008).

This follows the approval at the November 2007 Plenary Meeting of the completed draft of the new translation of the Roman Missal.

It is now anticipated that the completed Missal, with Australian adaptations, could be sent to Rome for recognition by the Holy See in 2009.

The Missal Implementation Team for Australia continues its work on making preparations for the new translation of the Missal.

A comprehensive multi-media resource is in the early stages of preparation. It is hoped that there will be an international resource able to be adapted for the needs of Australia.

Well, they say all things good come to those who wait. And wait. And wait. But at least they are doing this properly this time. Not like last time. Who was it on this blog telling me that all the preparation they got for the vernacular mass was "Next Sunday the Mass will be in English"? Now, after 40 years, it just might be true...

Does the Bible "establish doctrine" and "govern practice" in the Church?

In a combox comment below, Pastor Weedon said:

The Lutheran Church is a community of faith, as also the Roman Church is. The difference between the two communities has to do, above all, with their approach to the Sacred Scriptures and whether these Scriptures are sufficient for the establishment of the Church's dogma and to govern her practice.

The question that needs to be asked is this: Regardless of whether the Scriptures are held to be all-sufficient or not, is it possible that in the Christian community (or in any particular Christian community) the Sacred Scriptures themselves are able to "establish the Church's dogma and govern her practice"?

Tell me, when did a book--even a book filled to the gills with the Word of God as surely the Scriptures are--ever, on its own, establish beliefs or govern practices?

It always has been and always will be the people who have the power/authority in any given community who do the establishing and the governing. This may or may not be done on the basis of what they read in the Scriptures.

And, in my experience, what one reads in a book depends to a very great degree on what is already in your head when you read it. In this respect, I cannot see that either Lutherans or Catholics differ one jot.

Imagine two Christian communities setting out separately to "establish and govern" according to purely "Scriptural" principles apart from any human tradition.

I can absolutely guarentee you that these two communities would, probably sooner rather than later, emerge as quite different in their character. And that in fact they would probably each denounce the other as being "unscriptural".

So it comes back to the guys (or girls) with the power. In the Church there must be people who have Christ's own authority to "establish and govern". Because although the Scriptures must always be their inspiration, their guide and their rule, the Scriptures will never do their job for them.

You get the chance to vote for a bishop...

No, it's not Geoffrey Robinson's dream come true, rather it is Catholica Australia's latest poll. They have two questions:

1) Who do you think might best lead & rejuvenate the Catholic Church in Australia after WYD?
2) Who do you think might be the best Archbishop of Sydney?

The odd thing is that while you get the chance to vote for any of Australia's 44 bishops (and a few priests) for the first question, you only get a list of the current Archbishops and a smattering of other bishops to chose from for the second question (Bishop Pat Power - Aux Canberra-Goulburn, Bishop Geoffrey Robinson - Retired Sydney, Bishop Chris Toohey - Willcannia-Forbes, Bishop David Walker - Broken Bay, Bishop Michael Putney - Townsville, Bishop Kevin Manning - Parramatta). It seems odd that none of the current auxiliaries of Sydney are included here, nor even all the NSW bishops. How democratic is a survey like this that doesn't even offer you a full ticket?

Mind you the first question is rather problematic too... Here is how it reads:

In the first question we are asking the question as to who you believe might provide the best "perceived leadership" of Catholicism in this nation if Cardinal Pell leaves Sydney? Who do you think has the best qualities as a leader to inspire Catholics in this nation and to generate some resurgence in the Church? So, we are leaving open whether that person occupies the position of Archbishop of Sydney, whether or not they become a Cardinal, or if they are President of the Bishops' Conference. (Interestingly the appointment of Cardinals is made by Rome, as is the Appointment to the position of Archbishop or Bishop of a Diocese. The position of President of the Australian Catholic Bishops Conference is decided not by Rome but by a democratic vote by all the active bishops in Australia.)

It seems to suggest that Cardinal Pell is the "perceived" leader of Catholicism in this nation. And seems surprised that the President of the Bishops Conference is elected by the Conference. What odd ideas they have over there at Catholica...

Of course, we do well to remember Cardinal Pell's quip about the Holy Spirit sometimes getting it right and sometimes getting it wrong with respect to the appointment of popes and bishops (the Cooees crowd have a good take on this one). We shouldn't imagine that by taking a "democratic" vote we would do any better!

Anyway, go and have a bit of fun by voting here.

Doesn't he look happy?

Full story on Whispers in the Loggia.

Mahony's Letter to Robinson: A Case for the Church Police?

HT to Cooees. Here is the Letter from Cardinal Mahony denying permission to speak in LA archdiocese. The Cardinal does not sound happy.

Anyone know if Robinson went ahead anyway? I mean, what was Mahony going to do? Call the Church Police?

Building Perpetual Eucharistic Adoration at St Benedict's Burwood

Great stuff happening at the parish of St Benedict in Burwood, 299 Warrigal Rd, here in Melbourne. The Missionaries of God's Love, a charismatic new Australian order, have the care of the parish, and their (bursting) seminary is there too. They are working towards introducing perpetual adoration of the Blessed Sacrament there--by increments! They have just up-ed their hours to the following:

Monday : 8:00am - 9:00am, 7:00pm - 10:00pm
Tuesday : 8:00am - 9:00am, 2:00pm - 11:00pm
Wednesday : 6:00pm - Midnight
Thursday : 2:00pm - 11:00pm
Friday : 9:30 am - Midnight
Saturday : Midnight to 9am, 7:00pm - 11:00pm

Eucharistic Adoration: get into it any time you can!

Bishop Anthony Fisher, Director of World Youth Day, speaks to the Media

But not to Stephen Crittenden. Mr Crittenden might well learn a thing or two about getting people to accept his demands that they appear on his show by listening to John Cleary's interview of Australia's youngest bishop and Director of World Youth Day. John's interview is interesting and respectful, rather than domineering and manipulative.

That doesn't mean that Cleary doesn't ask Bishop Anthony the 'hard questions' - about the organisational issues, the numbers, the tax payers contribution, the ecumenical impact - he does, but he gives Anthony a fair chance to respond, and (as far as I can tell) the interview is live and not cut and pasted to get the interviewer's message across rather than the interviewee's. Plus some good music (in additon to Guy Sebastian).

You can listen to the interview and download it from here.

Archepiscopal Anniversary blessing for Schütz & Beaton

Cathy and I celebrated our wedding anniversary on the weekend, staying overnight in the city. We went to 11am mass at St Patrick's Cathedral and were treated to the regular liturgical and musical excellence that takes place there for the Archbishop's mass every week. This is what we heard:

Gregorian Introit: Benedicta sit
Missa Papae Marcelli - Palestrina
Tibi laus - Philips
Gregorian Communion: Benedicimus Deum
Postlude: Prelude in E-flat (BWV 552) - Bach

The better half found it very worshipful, especially the way in which the choir did not "take over" from the congregation but melded their parts with the parts of the congregation (it was a fully sung mass, of course). Chatting with the Dean afterwards, we have to agree that Archbishop Hart has achieved a great deal liturgically at the Cathedral. +Denis was once Assistant Priest and Master of Ceremonies at St Patrick’s himself from 1969-74). One could say he is now "Grand Master" of Ceromonies!

After listening to the postlude and lighting candles, we went outside where most of the crowd of worshippers had thinned away. But +Denis was still there, accepting the invitation to be photographed by and with the tourists. We took the opportunity of asking and receiving a blessing from our Pastor-in-Chief. He commended Cathy especially "for all your support you give David without which he would not be able to do so much for us." Mmmm. A lot of truth in that...

As night follows day - Responses to Robinson's censure by the ACBC

All that one can say is that it was expected. Here are two responses to the ACBC censure of Bishop Geoffrey Robinson's book "Confronting Sex and Power in the Church". The first is from the author himself circulated on the Cathnews website:

Response to the Statement of the Australian Bishops

The statement of the Australian bishops is not unexpected, but it is disappointing. My book is about the response to the revelations of sexual abuse within the church. Sexual abuse is all about power and sex, so it is surely reasonable to ask questions about power and sex in the church.

In their statement, the bishops appear to be saying that, in seeking to respond to abuse, we may investigate all other factors contributing to abuse, but we may not ask questions concerning ways in which teachings, laws, and attitudes concerning power and sex within the church may have contributed.

This imposes impossible restrictions on any serious and objective study, and it is where I have broken from the Bishops Conference. We must be free to follow the argument wherever it leads.

Bishop Geoffrey Robinson
15th May 2008

The second is from a journalist, appearing in Saturday's edition of The Age by one Juliette Hughes.

The sad, but anticipated, fact is that both these responses choose to interpret the bishops' censure as a backhanded rejection of any attempt to deal responsibily and pastorally with the sexual abuse issue. Anyone who bothers to read the bishops' statement carefully will note that they have rightly separated the issues. But it suits the combatants to link the tragic, shameful and scandalous issue of sexual abuse to the Church's right and proper exercise of apostolic authority, because their true aim is, in fact, to attack the Catholic faith itself.

However, I also am not surprised to find that the first American bishop to ban Dr Robinson from speaking in his diocese is Cardinal Roger Mahony of Los Angeles. While applauding the Australian bishops for their statement, I must say that, coming from this particular bishop in this particular diocese, I can understand why Bishop Robinson and Ms Hughes might feel justified in rejecting the distinction of issues we are rightly trying to maintain. I will be more interested to see how Cardinal Sean O'Malley reacts when Bishop Robinson arrives in Boston. In the meantime, you can see how Robinson's rebellion is being used by some on this blog here.

Metropolitan John (Zizioulas) of Pergamum on Apostolic Succession

Metropolitan John of Pergamum is a very interesting character. He is co-president of the joint commission for Orthodox-Catholic dialogue, a job he took over from our local Bishop Ezekiel. He has written many interesting essays and books, including this one on the Kasper-Ratzinger Universal/Local Church controversy.

Today I found this article on Apostolic Succession by Metropolitan John, which is a great read, and gives deep cause for pondering a topic that comes up regularly on this blog. I offer his remarks with the full awareness that he is an Orthodox, rather than a Catholic, theologian. But he is a GOOD theologian, and a good historian, and so any opinion he has is worth listening too (a bit like our friend Tom Wright, the Anglican bishop of Durham).

There are many comments I would like to highlight, but I thought this one worthwhile for starters:

Ireneaus is known for his insistence on the continuity of apostolic teaching through episcopal succession as a reaction against the claim of the gnostics that they have some kind of secret succession of teaching that goes back to the apostles (the Gnostics must have been the first ones to insist on succession of apostolic teaching).

Sehr interessantes, nicht wahr? And, for that matter, why did Ireneaus bother pointing to the succession of bishops as the guarantee of apostolic teaching, if he could simply have pointed to the apostolic scriptures alone?

New Year of Grace Blog entry

For those of you following my "Year of Grace" Conversion Retro-Blog, I have posted a new entry.

John Paul II Institute Spe Salvi Colloquium (Days in the Diocese 8-10 July)

I am participating in this Colloquium on the first evening (July 8) presenting on the topic of Purgatory in Spe Salvi. It looks like a good program!

Info on the Pope's Pastoral Staff (his "new crosier")

I found this fascinating, and you might too if you are interested in such things. It comes from the May 13 edition of Zenit, in Fr Edward McNamara's liturgy column:

Q: I noticed that the Holy Father is carrying a new processional cross. Can you tell us about that new cross and perhaps why the Holy Father made the decision to carry this new cross rather than the one that he has carried for the past several years -- the same one that Pope John Paul II carried? Are there norms and guidelines for what type of shepherd's staff the Holy Father can carry? -- B.D., Columbia City, Indiana

A: I too have noticed this new pastoral cross used by Benedict XVI. While I have no particular insights into the Holy Father's mind, I doubt that we need to try to dig out profound theological motives. The most probable reason is that he found this cross more to his taste than the other one.

The slightly abstract pastoral staff that John Paul II carried all over the world was first designed for Pope Paul VI, a connoisseur and promoter of modern sacred art. The Italian Pope established a modern arts gallery in the Vatican Museums and commissioned the huge Risen Christ bronze sculpture in the Paul VI audience hall.

Before the conciliar reform the use of a crosier or pastoral staff was almost unknown in papal liturgies.

This was because the practice of assigning the pastoral staff to a bishop did not originate in Rome but, probably, in Spain during the seventh century from whence it spread to the rest of Europe.

The popes never adopted the use of the crosier. Even today the new rite for installing a pope foresees the imposition of the pallium and placing of the Fisherman's Ring, but not the handing over of the pastoral staff.

Among the reasons adduced for this omission during the Middle Ages was that it would be improper since the reception of the pastoral staff implied investiture on behalf of a superior whereas the popes received their power from God alone.

On some rare occasions, however, such as the opening of the Holy Door and the consecration of a church, the popes did use a staff surmounted by a cross and this custom was adopted after the liturgical reform which foresaw a much more frequent use of the pastoral staff in papal liturgies.

The cross that Benedict XVI has been using belonged originally to Pope Blessed Pius IX and is much lighter than it looks. This is another plus, considering Benedict XVI's age.

There is no particular law that would oblige the Holy Father to choose one design of cross over another, and it is entirely a question of pontifical artistic sensibility.

Pope's Sermon on Pentecost settles old argument with Cardinal Kasper

It was once just an argument between academics (Cardinals though they were), but in his sermon at Pentecost, Joseph Ratzinger was able to have the final word, incorporating his side of the argument into the magisterium of the Church: The Universal Church is ontologically prior to the particular Church. He also takes the opportunity to point to the authenticly Catholic nature of the true Church. For the whole sermon, see here.

I would like to reflect on a particular aspect of the Holy Spirit, on the intertwining of multiplicity and unity. The second reading speaks about this, treating of the harmony of the different charisms in the communion of the same Spirit. But already in the passage from Acts that we have listened to, this intertwining reveals itself with extraordinary evidence. In the event of Pentecost it is made clear that multiple languages and different cultures belong to the Church; they can understand and make each other fruitful. St. Luke clearly wants to convey a fundamental idea, namely, in the act itself of her birth the Church is already "catholic," universal. She speaks all languages from the very beginning, because the Gospel that is entrusted to her is destined for all peoples, according to the will and the mandate of the risen Christ (cf. Matthew 28:19). The Church that is born at Pentecost is not above all a particular community -- the Church of Jerusalem -- but the universal Church, that speaks the language of all peoples. From her, other communities in every corner of the world will be born, particular Churches that are all and always actualizations of the one and only Church of Christ. The Catholic Church is therefore not a federation of churches, but a single reality: The universal Church has ontological priority. A community that is not catholic in this sense would not even be a Church.

In this regard it is necessary to add another aspect: that of the theological vision of the Acts of the Apostles in respect of the journey of the Church from Jerusalem to Rome. Luke notes that among the peoples represented in Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost there are also "foreigners from Rome" (Acts 2:10). At that time Rome was still distant, "foreign" for the nascent Church: It was a symbol of the pagan world in general. But the power of the Holy Spirit will guide the steps of the witnesses "to the ends of the earth" (Acts 1:8), to Rome. The Acts of the Apostles ends precisely when Paul, by providential design, arrives at the empire's capital and proclaims the Gospel there (cf. Acts 28:30-31). Thus the journey of God's Word, begun in Jerusalem, arrives at its goal, because Rome represents the whole world and thus incarnates the Lucan idea of catholicity. The universal Church is realized, the catholic Church, which is the continuation of the chosen people and makes its history and mission her own.

The Guts of PE's argument against the Catholic Church

Finally we are getting somewhere. In the combox to his apologia below, PE wrote:

In fine, the post conciliar church was false because it was a disconnect with the pre conciliar church, which in turn must be false because it did not endure...

You might say, the pre conciliar church is the true Catholic Church, which is my point on this blog to converts to its post conciliar replacement, however, the true Catholic Church is wrong.

What Lutheran belief added was an explanation for how the church didn't in fact end, which in turn for me implied maybe there was something to Jesus as Christ after all, and where I was wrong was in thinking the Catholic Church in any era was the only "true" church, or the church in which the fulness of the true church subsists.

And that is about as succint as I think we can ever hope to have it from our dear brother (once-removed) in Christ.

But in fact, it is very interesting because it raises the following questions:

1) in what sense is "continuity" an important concept in ecclesiology? In other words, how does the "Hermeneutic of Continuity" apply here?

2) if we say that the "true Catholic Church is wrong" what do we mean when, in the Creeds, we say "I believe...in the holy Catholic Church/in one, holy, Catholic and apostolic Church"? Is the Catholic Church a real entity existing in this world, and are we or are we not obliged to be a part of it if we wish to have a share in Jesus Christ?

For the record, I too left the ecclesial community in which I was raised for the reason that it was discontinuous with what went before it, ie. the Catholic Church. I believed that continuity was necessary for authenticity, in particular the continuity of the apostolic authority of the bishops.

However, PE has attached himself to a community that is clearly discontinuous with the apostolic Church. His argument that "the post conciliar church was false because it was a disconnect with the pre conciliar church", opens the charge that "the Church of the Reformers was false because it was a disconnect with the pre Reformation church". By the same argument, the fact that the pre-Reformation Church DID endure after the Reformation should prove that it was the true Church in continuity with the apostles, no?

When he says that "Lutheran belief added...an explanation for how the church didn't in fact end", he must have some idea of the existence of "a" church of some kind. What kind exactly? And if it "didn't in fact end", it must in some sense be continuous with what went before. How so?

Too many holes in your argument, PE. I can see the experiential, existential side of the matter, but I think we all have the duty to expose our experiences to the rigour of reasoned interrogation.

OK, I promised: Past Elder's Apologia Pro Vita Sua...

Here it is, from a combox to one of the posts below. We challenged PE to give his reasons for why he continually states that the Catholic Church is not the Church,and here is his reply. We invite your conversation in the combox.

For openers, here it is not at all a matter of faith in Jesus Christ. It's a matter of faith in the Roman Catholic Church. I am sorry if the difference is not apparent. Yes, I was an academic and am a PhD, but my faith journey, as some call these things, was not an academic matter primarily. I did not read this or that and come to some conclusions. While it did include some classes while in high school and college, primarily my conclusion re the RCC was something arrived at over time as a lived out experience. So to summarise it, the result would be not so much a position paper, but a, shall we say, apologia pro vita sua.

Nietzsche, the only philosopher worth reading, wrote once that a person's life is the compost, sometimes the dung, that results in his thought, and what is important is not the compost but the thought. That is why I have always referenced those who ask why I think what I think about the RCC to paricularly two papers on the SSPX site, the Ottaviani Intervention re the novus ordo, and the paper on the new Catechism. These two -- which I did not read until years after I had left, for that matter the catechism itself did not appear until years after I had left -- state as papers things which did not at all happen for me in academic form, but express in a straightforward exposition things that to me were collected over time in experience in no particular ordering, some of them clear and some not clear other than a sense that something is wrong here. I should think it much more to the point to read them, since I find them an organised exposition of things that grew within me in anything but an organised fashion, rather than for me to either attempt same when it has already been done or to attempt a summary of my experience in a single post or even a separate blog -- perhaps entitled "Years of Agony" (wink, Nietzschean dance).

That said, I will set out a few things experientially rather than academically which are things I have already tried to say over time on this blog.

The council convened when I was 12. I had been an altar boy already for several years. Serving Mass, and the RC faith and church generally, were far and away the most important things to me. I continued to serve well past the years when boys generally didn't, and served as what would become the novus ordo in 1970 when I was 20 was introduced piecemeal. In both this and the religion classes in school, it was explicitly clear that with "the changes" we were emerging from a dark reactive era to the Protestant Reformation into a breath of fresh air of the Spirit where we were actually becoming more and not less Catholic by stepping out of this late mediaeval ghetto mentality both forward into our own times and backward to more consistency with the earlier church.

Of course, exactly how this was to be effected admitted of all sorts of things, all of them OK by the invocation of Vatican II and/or the spirit thereof. To the extent that I was actually afraid to read the documents of Vatican II for fear of what I would find. After all, there clearly (I thought at the time) was no other church that had any tenable claim to be the church founded by Christ, therefore however well intended they were there was no point in looking at them for an answer, and if the RCC had stumbled then the gates of hell had prevailed and Christianity itself unravelled.

Many then argued as many do now on this blog, Oh, but that's not what the church REALLY teaches. After getting a little tired of various versions of what the church REALLY teaches and having to pick and choose where to go based on that, finally in academic year 1972/3, my first year of graduate school, I determined to read the documents myself.

If there was a turning point, that was it. I was amazed at what I found. On the one hand, I found little to justify most of what I experienced, and on the other, what I did find did not sound like the voice of the Church I knew. You want details. It wasn't something I wrote out. It was more like the reaction of an infant put at some other woman's breast who instinctively knows this is not mom (or mum).

I was aware of the good archbishop and the society he formed, and was sympathetic with their efforts, however, I found their position untenable. It cannot be that Truth would be conserved in this manner, the Roman faith held apart from Rome and against Rome, yet on the other hand, Rome allowed anything and everything except that which it formerly only allowed. Those who taught what the church doesn't really teach continued on their merry way in pulpit and podium, those who taught what the church really taught me were squashed, all the while this post-conciliar church of the documents, neither what I saw around me now nor what I had seen around me before, existed as a mirage, and even when found, wasn't home at all though it said it was. And so, at the start of the 1973/4 academic year, it was clear enough to me that even if the post-conciliar church of the documents prevailed (which those loyal to it have been saying is just around the corner for 35 years now) what would emerge is not, to resume the imagery, the mother's milk at breast.

The Roman Catholic Church had ceased to exist. Which meant, so I thought, Christianity was false. Therefore, not only was what they taught now false, what they taught before was false too. It had all been false all along. I asked myself, borrowing from the title of one of the books I read at college) if the fulfillment turned out to be not the fulfillment, does that mean the promise was false too? My answer was no, and as the High Holidays were nigh, I attended services at the Jewish Student Center, and began twenty years as a Gentile believer in Judaism (which is to say, Orthodox Judaism).

That's a lonely business. A Righteous of the Nations (look it up if you don't know) remains of the Nations, and periodically over that time I would read this or that, watch this or that, go here or there, in an attempt to prove myself wrong, only to find the "spirit" of Vatican II, the religion I knew outside the church from which I learned it, or the religion of the documents of Vatican II that was not my mother.

I'll leave the Lutheran part out, except to say that did not begin until 1993 when I married an LCMS woman -- as estranged from that by the Serminex years as I was from the RCC by Vatican II. You don't like my tone now? You should have heard my first discussions with the LCMS pastor who married us, as I was concerned for the religious identity and upbringing of such children as we hoped to have! (PW, I find out, has known him for years, small world!)

Wir sind am Ende damit. No, Christine, I will quite happily retire from this blog. How many times have I said that? Once. Retracted because I quite frankly was pissed (by which, for our Aussie readers, I mean angry, not drunk) by the call on this blog for one of our pastors to convert -- Newmanism all the way, one is either agnostic or Roman Catholic, or just not thinking it though, so think it through and come home.

Which is, ironically, the only way I could come to what you call your, my and everyone else's home. Newman's way. Belief by first believing in the authority of the Roman church. Since this is the Church of Christ, it remains the Church of Christ, its tribulations being ever present and notwithstanding, and if it says it is the same then it is the same, because it cannot err on such matters.

Aw geez, no specifics, no points to argue, no proof texts. No, there isn't. At least, not from me. You will find the things that were clear to me, the things that at the time were but partially clear to me, and the things that were akin to the instictive reaction of an infant to another woman's milk, laid out in expository form on the links provided on my blog on the sidebar "The Tiber, For Swimmers er al." I read them years later, in the Internet age, and they spell it out -- what I might be able to, what I might in part be able to, and what I sensed rather than spelled out even to myself, and minus all the compost and dung to which this post has subjected those who read it.

Further the deponent sayeth not (Nietzschean dance, my Germans, and my non-Germans!!).

Wednesday, May 14, 2008 3:44:00 PM

Well, there are many questions. Such as "Why is Nietzsche the only philosopher worth reading?" such as "Why Lutheranism?" Such as "What then is the Church and where is it?" And some things needing pointing out, such as "Just because it sounds like a circular argument to say that the Roman Church is the Church of Christ because it says it is doesn't mean that it isn't." Perhaps the real question is "What is 'belief' anyway?" And a reminder about what Trollope said about the fervant Romanist: he is always ready to believe.

Anyway, folks, over to you.

Last rant for the morning: On Robinson, the Pope's Apologies, and Various forms of Abuse

If I had been listening to live radio this morning, I would have had warning about the fire blocking Boronia Rd and the overturned truck blocking Springvale Rd and I would have gotten to work an hour early. Instead, I was listening "on the pod" to an old Religion Report, in which mine host, Stephen Crittenden, was reviewing the Pope's trip to America--all reduced to one topic: the Sexual Abuse Crisis and the Pope's apologies.

He was interviewing Yankee priest Tom Doyle, who has been something of a campaigner in the States for those who have have experienced sexual abuse by priests. Any way, what got me thinking was this comment by Doyle on bishops who have actually responded pastorally to the crisis:

There have been some bishops in this country who are really good, and there've been bishops in your country who've been outstanding, and one of them is going to be coming over here, Bishop Geoff Robinson, who has been prophetic.

Which is the real tragedy of the Bishop Robinson situation. Even his brother bishops noted in their statement on his book that they

are grateful for the contribution Bishop Robinson has made to the life of the Church... [and] are deeply indebted to him for his years of effort to bring help and healing to those who have suffered sexual abuse and for what he has done to establish protocols of professional standards for Church personnel in this area.

So why did he go and muck it up by putting all that other nonsense in his book? Why didn't he simply stick to calling for justice for those who had been abused?

If it is right to hold priests to account for physically abusing the little ones in their charge, then it is also right to have the courage hold bishops to account--even though they may be otherwise deeply caring and loving pastors--if they spread doubts about the truth of the Church's faith. It would be better for both kinds of abusers (and their victims) if they had millstones tied around their necks and were thrown into the sea (Luke 17:2).

You see, I could not help but wonder what the reaction of Fr Tom Doyle OP would be to hear that our Australian bishops have censured Robinson's book. He would, no doubt, interpret it as the "boys club" closing ranks against one that has dared to hold them to account for the sexual abuse that has gone on under their noses. But many people (including Stephen Crittenden) have no concept of the enormity of the abuse that bishops commit when, despite all the love and care in the world, they betray their vows and the trust of their people by leading their flock astray from the Faith of the Church.

This is real, spiritual abuse. I contend that it is just as serious and just as harmful as sexual abuse. You will think I am overstating it. But only if it is not your faith and your spiritual life that is being abused. Those who have suffered under the spiritual abuse of false shepherds know what I am talking about. I know that no court, no support group, and certainly no radio station will ever hold a bishop accountable to his vows to faithfully teach the Gospel in accordance with the faith of the Church, but we should.

The Young People of Today; or, There's No Mind Like a Closed Mind...

Still in the Sunshine State, it is hard to credit this morning's news that the Student Union of the University of Queensland has put the campus Newman Society on "probation" for distributing and displaying pro-life, pro-women material.

"I know the Newman Society thinks the union is being heavy handed, but the student union voted in 1993 for free, safe abortion on demand so all women have a genuine choice when faced with unwanted pregnancy," Mr [Joshua] Young [President of the Student Union] said.

Mr Young said the vote was about 1,900 pro-choice, 1,400 against and 200 abstaining.

Asked if it precluded other viewpoints being put forward in debate on campus he said: "It does."

Deary me, what ever happened to young people's disdain for the past? A vote is held sometime back in the dark ages of the early 1990's (in this case by people who would now be old enough to be Mr Young's parents, for God's sake) decrees that from now on the "right thought" for everyone to think must be "abortion on demand", and today's students will brook no dissent from that view? Methinks that Mr Young ought to get out his copy of Orwell's 1984 and "read, learn and inwardly digest" a bit.

Fr John Fleming to speak on his Conversion: A treat for Brisbane!

A name that pops up from time to time in my conversion retro-blog Year of Grace (yes, I know I haven't put up a new entry for a while--patience!) is that of Fr John Fleming. Back in 1986 he was parish priest of the Anglican parish of the Good Shepherd in Adelaide, and being pestered by young Lutheran seminary students interested in learning more of the Western liturgical tradition. At that time I also knew him because of his work in bioethics, a field in which he was closely associated with my aunt and a Lutheran theologian, Pastor Daniel Overduin (one Anthony Fisher hung around in these circles too way back then). In any case, in 1987 he swam the Tiber, deeply influencing my own spiritual journey. He re-entered that journey again in 2000, and on again off again since. Now of course, he is president of Campion College, a job that keeps him so busy you need to make an appointment a year ahead to meet with him!

However, for those in Brisbane there is a treat: He is coming to you to tell his story. I should have added that it was listening to a recording of his own conversion that re-set me on my journey back at the beginning of 2000. It is a powerful story, not because it is dramatic, but because it is related by Fleming with a relentless logic and consistency. When all is said and done, there ain't no place for someone who sets out on the path toward full submission to the Truth of Christ but the Catholic Church.

Anyway, here are the details:

Rev Dr John Fleming's Conversion Story (May 22)

A True Practical Faith - Worth Pursuing: Chesterton once said "The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting. It has been found difficult; and left untried."

Rev Dr John Fleming will tell his inspiring ‘conversion’ story at St. William's on 22nd May. It is the story of a courageous transformation from Anglican to Catholic priest. Fr John is now President of Campion College in Sydney and comes with impressive credentials in philosophy, bioethics, and as an author and radio talkback host.

Fr John Fleming's conversion will surprise us and challenge us, young and old, to value our Faith more, as a Truth which invites deeper commitment.

Thurs 22nd May, Daley Centre, 67 Dawson Parade, Keperra, 7.15 for a 7.30pm start - Gold coin donation at door appreciated

OK, John Garratt's gone too far now...

I stopped buying from John Garratt's bookstore when they published Bishop Robinson's book. They also run a series of "Thursday talks". Here is the latest I received in my "in tray" today:

Free Thursday Night Talk Series
Topic: Christian Spirituality and the Gay Experience
Presented By: Michael Kelly

Michael Kelly is an internationally known writer, speaker and educator in the area of Christian spirituality and the gay experience. He has led retreats and spoken on these issues throughout Australia, in the United States and in Britain. He will be speaking on this subject at our May Bookroom evening.

Michael Kelly is a freelance writer, activist, counsellor and educator, known internationally for his ministry in spirituality, sexuality and human integration.

Details:
When: 29 May 2008 - 7.30pm for 8pm
Where: John Garratt Bookroom
32 Glenvale Cres MULGRAVE VIC 3170

We’re just half an hour down the Monash Freeway from Melbourne’s CBD

RSVP: sales@johngarratt.com.au or Phone 1300 650 878 by Wednesday 28 May 2008 for seating purposes & catering

Kelly has repeatedly and publically opposed the teaching of the Church on matters of homosexuality. Cf. His "radical challenge of Christianity" in "Seduced by Grace".

Just for the record, I am not homophobic. I do have an aversion to people dressing up their own private lives as authentic Christianity when it is counter to what the Church expressly teaches. I have nothing but respect for those homosexually inclined persons who do live out a truly Catholic spirituality (cf. John Heard at "Dreadnought"). In any case, I would contend that Heard shows us a more authentic grasp of the "radical challenge of Christianity" than Kelly does when he dresses up his licentiousness as "grace".

According to their mission statement, John Garratt publishing seeks to "assist the Church to fulfil its mission". With help like this, who needs enemies?

An Error in the Lectionary of the Australian Missal

I was lector today at mass, and almost stumbled when I found myself reading the following from the first reading (Acts 1:15-17, 20-26):

We must therefore chosse someone who has been with us the whole time that the Lord Jesus was travelling round with us, someone who was with us right from the time when Jesus was baptising until the day when he was taken up from us.

Did you spot the mistake? Yes, it should read "when John was baptising". I have checked a number of editions of the lectionary and various missals and they all have the same thing in them. Hopefully that will be fixed up with the new edition in preparation, but for what it's worth you might like to take out your missals/lectionaries and make the correction.

"The journey of liturgical renewal is only in its early phases" - Archbishop Coleridge

HT to Peterand to Athanasius for putting me onto this statement by Archbishop Coleridge (late of Melbourne) to his flock in Canberra-Goulburn, in which he also makes the point that

Bowing is the preferred gesture, but those who are accustomed to genuflect before receiving or to kneel to receive will be free to follow their custom.

I think that, in legal terms, there is a body of authoritative interpretation of the canon developing here upon which we can rely. Probably the freedom to chose the exact action (head bow, profound bow, genuflection or kneeling) is intended in the broad category of the word "bow". I believe this method of interpretation has its authority from Monty Python's "Life of Brian", where it was stated that Jesus' words "Blessed are the cheese-makers" was not to be interpreted narrowly, but applies equally to all manufacturers of dairy products...

More significant, however, is His Grace's comments on the journey of liturgical renewal begun with Vatican II:

The new version of General Instruction is one of a number of indications that the Church is moving into a new phase of the ongoing journey of liturgical renewal, the roots of which reach back to the Second Vatican Council and beyond. In earlier times, it seemed that the process of liturgical renewal begun by the Council was complete. But that is not the case. The journey of liturgical renewal, we can now see, is only in its early phases, and the appearance of the General Instruction is one indication of this. Other still more important indications will be the appearance in the not too distant future of the new translation of the Roman Missal and the new translation of the Lectionary. Now is the time, the Spirit is saying to the Church, to take stock of the liturgical renewal of the last forty years, to discern as clearly as possible what has succeeded and what has failed, and to make adjustments in the light of that discernment.

It is certainly curious how some liturgical "experts" seem to have assumed that what was done in the 1970's somehow or other was carved in stone, much like the traditionalist assumptions of the Tridentine rite whom they love to ridicule for making exactly the same assumptions!

His comments on language are also spot on (as one would expect from someone working directly on the new translations for the English missal):

When the Fathers of the Second Vatican Council approved the use of the vernacular languages in the liturgy, they had no idea of what was on the way. They imagined that some parts of the liturgy would move into English (in our case), but that Latin would remain in general the language of worship. ...[I]t seemed that the Church went from Latin to English overnight. Some in the Church have continued to worship in Latin – as is their right – but most are happy to have moved into English. At the same time, it does not have to be a stark choice of one or the other. In the Cathedral [in Canberra] at least...the Kyrie is sung at times in Greek, and the Common of the Mass, the Gloria and the Creed are sung at times in Latin. Similarly some of the great hymns of the Gregorian repertoire – especially the Marian anthems – are sung at times. It would be a pity if such a heritage were wholly lost to us.

To be sure!

His comments on music are certainly noteworthy:

Some of the texts used are also decidedly feeble and even at times questionable theologically. [He can say that again!] Historically, the Roman Rite used only the Psalms in the Eucharistic liturgy: hence the Entrance and Communion Antiphons which were sung with the Psalms and accompanied the Entrance and Communion Processions. [And it is a great pity that we do not today have a way of singing these properly.] ...I might add that the Holy See has asked Bishops’ Conferences around the world to draw up a list of music approved for use in worship. This is part of a pruning process of the repertoire that has built up over the last forty years, and it is already taking place in Australia.

Yes, I know that this process is continuing, in fact, I have often dropped in on the meetings of the Australian committee to whom this work has been charged. This little group of three meets here in the same building in which I work, and believe me, they have their work cut out for them. They are attempting to do two tasks: First, to draw up a draft list of song for the Bishops according to the Holy See's request; and Second, to come up with a new hymnody resource for the Australian Churches. One of the members told me especially of the frustration of there being so few really decent hymns and songs for the Entrance and Communion. We will all experience this dearth in the next few weeks at the Feast of Corpus Christi (I am on music in that day in my parish, and believe me the choice is not good...)

But I do wonder about this comment from the good bishop:

It is worth recalling too that singing or music should not be prolonged unnecessarily. In the Roman Rite, singing or music tends to accompany action rather than stand in its own right. Therefore, the music or singing should stop once the action is complete.

Well, maybe. Depends on the hymn. Some hymns don't make sense if you stop it after verse two, when all verses are integral to the sense of the whole. On the other hand, I did have this experience at mass yesterday when we were singing Farrell's "Praise to you, O Christ our Saviour" for the Entrance--it did go on too long and could have been cut down.

I might pick up a couple of Archbishop Mark's other points later in the day, but for the moment, here is a question Athanasius suggested I pose for you all. If you were making a list of hymns to be sent to the Holy See, which would you insist were put in and which would you insist were left off (ie. FORBIDDEN!). That's a big question, so limit yourselves a bit, eh?

Time IN Eternity?

And while we're at it surveying opinions, how do you think of the afterlife/eternity? Does it, or does it not, include the dimension of time?

I must say that I have always thought of "eternity", the realm of God beyond creation, as "non-temporal". And I have usually thought that this was the realm that we entered in the next life (ie. "eternity" as external to time). After all, we do talk about "the end of time", don't we, and "The Last Day"?

But I was challenged in this view by listening to some recordings by William Lane Craig on the Cosmological Argument. In one of these lectures, Craig made the point that God "entered" time by his initial act of creation--arguing that an event, an action, requires time. He went on to say that time will continue in the afterlife because what we await is a "new creation", in a bodily existence, a "new age".

These considerations were then given extra fuel by the fact that I am currently preparing a presentation for the John Paul II Institute colloquium on Spe Salvi during the Days in the Diocese in the Melbourne lead up to World Youth Day (nb. the date is wrong on this link--I will be on the panel on Tuesday 8th, not Tuesday 9th). My topic is Benedict's take on Purgatory, and I am, of course, coming at it from an ecumenical point of view.

Now a big issue with Purgatory--in both Catholic and Protestant writing--is the issue of the "intermediate state" and the question of whether it is appropriate to speak of "time" or "duration" in terms of those who have died. Have they not "entered eternity"? Are they not "free" from the space-time continuum? Some, indeed, posit the theory of "resurrection in death", ie. that the moment you die you are "raised to life" because the "Day of the Last Judgement" and the "particular judgement at time of death" are in fact the one event in eternity beyond time.

Well, it seems that this may not be so. Creation--even the new Creation--doesn't appear so eager to let go of the category of time, and there is a fair bit written in this regard. Personally, I am coming around to the biblical terminology of "this age" and "the age to come". It is interesting that in this Jewish conception, the Messianic Age is precisely that, an "Age", an "Era", different from this age, but still in some sense a "time". And given that we will have bodies in heaven, and thus there must be some spatial dimension to the afterlife, then it would follow that there must be some sort of temporality as well.

What do you think?

Does anyone know a good DVD series on the History of the Church?

I'm sure EWTN must have something that would be good content--but I want more than just talking heads.

I was disappointed with a recent purchase (which I returned today) from Koorong. I should have known better, as it was produced by the "History Channel" in the States. It was a 4 DVD set called "Christianity: the First Thousand Years" and "Christianity: the Second Thousand years". The contents are listed here on Wikipedia. And you can read some reviews here on Amazon. You will see that there are a variety of opinions among the reviewers, but I go with the guy who lists the following outright falsehoods contained proposed by the series:

1) James, not Peter, was the leader of the first Christian community.
2) The role of women in the early Church.
3) The film says that the three-fold hierarchy of bishop, priest, and deacon was "proposed" by Ignatius of Antioch, in the 100s A.D..
4) Not once in the first disc of the film is it mentioned that the orthodox branch of Christianity was known as "the Catholic Church".
5) The DVD says that Pope Saint Leo I was the first Pope to assert authority over the East.
6) In Disc 2, Post-Reformation Catholicism is passed off as completely anti-intellectual and anti-technology.
7) The series ends on a negative note with the document "Dominus Iesus".
8) The Church in Colonial America is presented as pro-slavery, with certain exceptions among friars.
9) The lie that Pope Pius XII did nothing to help Jews is told in this documentary.

Other errors could be listed, but that is good for starting with. Add to this the so-called experts that they wheel on to verify their claims: Elaine Pagels of Gnostic gospel fame, and John Dominic Crossan of the Jesus Seminar!!!

So, back to the original question: anyone know any decent audiovisual material on Church history out there?

Australian Bishops Censure One of Their Own: Geoffrey Robinson's book "casts doubt upon" the teachings of the Church

It's old news to most Australian Catholics by now (meaning, it has been known for about 24 hours already), but I still find it somewhat incredible that the Australian Catholic Bishops Conference have actually issued a statement censuring a member of their own collegium. They are, of course, quite right to do so, for as the statement points out, Bishop Geoffrey Robinson's book "Confronting Power and Sex in the Catholic Church", does indeed pose "doctrinal difficulties". But what I find surprising is that the ACBC has gone so far as to actually issue a statement to that effect--a sure sign that here in Australia (as with the USCCB in the States) the bishops are past ignoring direct challenges to the faith of the Church, even--and perhaps especially--if it comes from within their own ranks.

Robinson was not, of course, at the recent meeting of his brethren when the topic of his book came up. He was, in fact, on a tour of the Untied States promoting the very volume for which he has been censured (talk about a dereliction of duty...). There he will be appearing in a number of locations, including a Voice of the Faithful meeting, a Future Church meeting, at "St. Susanna’s Parish Hall (Downstairs)", AND (...wait for it...) at St Mark's LUTHERAN Church in Morristown, New Jersey. Birds of a feather...?

Among other things, the Bishops censure their brother for

• questioning of the authority of the Church
• uncertainty about the knowledge and authority of Christ himself
• questioning of Catholic teaching on, among other things, the nature of Tradition, the inspiration of the Holy Scripture, the infallibility of the Councils and the Pope, the authority of the Creeds, the nature of the ministerial priesthood and central elements of the Church’s moral teaching

Whatever else this might mean for the Australian Church it means this: the bishops are not going to tolerate any silly business with regard to faith. And their lack of tolerance is not a lack of love, but a truly pastoral concern as they themselves explain:

People have a right to know clearly what the Catholic Church believes and teaches, and the Bishops have a corresponding duty to set this forth, as we seek to do in this statement.

We at Sentire Cum Ecclesia would simply like to make it known that we are extremely grateful to our most reverend Pastors for their constant vigilance and assure them of our prayers and support.

Newman's "Development of Doctrine" -- get it on your Pod!

Following Bob Carr's advice, I have been listening to an "audio book" of Newman's Development of Doctrine. Although disconcertingly read by a female voice, and rather too soft at that, it is a reasonably good and clear reading in the public domain. And I must say that in this classic Newman puts his finger on the real point between Protestantism and Catholicism. If you are not Catholic, and have ever asked yourself the question "WHY am I not Catholic?", you might benefit from reading (or listening) to this book. As Fr Andrew Hamilton said with uncharacteristic wisdom in a recent Eureka Street article:

We judge books partly by their content but even more by their voice. Writers of another age speak oddly. They stop to reflect on what we slip lightly past, acquiesce in what we find outrageous.

He was speaking specifically of Augustine. But it applies to Newman as well.

PS. If you enjoy Jane Austen, you will love listening to Newman. He has just the same elegant late Regency/early Victorian "voice". Poetry and logic rolled into one.

John L. Allen Jnr. in our Local Press: On World Youth Day

And as usual, the world's best Catholic journo (weellll... perhaps equal first with Sandro Magister) speaks sense, and this time in a "local" rag, the Sydney Morning Herald. He compares Denver WYD to Sydney. I have actually read a number of conversion stories in which the Denver WYD figures prominantly. Pray that it may be so here too!

Latin "new" to the Vatican Website?

Well, not really, despite the beat up in the English press (the usual suspects). The Vatican website has always been the "go-to" place to find the original latin of the various decrees and documents of the Holy See. Latin has always been there (if that was the original language of the document) along with English, French, Italian, German and Spanish for most documents. The difference (and you will see it as soon as you go the Vatican home page) is that there is now a actual "Latin" version of the website, just as there has always been an English, German, Italian etc. version. It is a change in emphasis rather than anything else. And a welcome one.

Note, however, that not everything is there yet. The "Curia" only has the congregations, and not the Pontifical Councils (eg. for Inter-religious relations or Christian Unity). And if you click the "Latin" page, you will find set up somewhat different in appearance from the other languages. Latin will have won the day when it is truly an "equal partner", if not the "first among equals" in the languages represented on the Vatican Website.

The Church speaks in Tongues!

A marvelous point in the Office of Readings on the Saturday before Pentecost Sunday from "a sermon of an unknown African author of the sixth century":

And so if anyone says to one of us: 'You have received the Holy Spirit; why do you not speak in tongues?', he should reply: 'I do speak in every tongue. for I am in the Body of Christ, the Church, which speaks in every tongue. For what did god signify by the presence of the Holy Spirit if it was not that his Church would speak in every tongue?'

Rather amazing that this "unknown author" should have at his fingertips the answer for today's hard-core pentecostalists, isn't it?

Did they stand at the "Pray brethren" where you went to mass this morning?

'Coz they didn't where I went to mass.

Nothing said. No-one moved. Nor did I see any bowing before receiving communion. The very slight changes to our liturgical ritual that were to have begun everywhere throughout Australia today went completely unremarked and unnoticed.

Now, I hasten to add that I attended Mass in a parish just outside the borders of the Glorious See of Melbourne, in a diocese that is currently without a bishop and under an administrator, so there is every chance that the changes were not given sufficient airtime for the priest and people to be aware of them. Always put the best construction on everything, as the eighth commandment teaches us.

So how did things go in your parish? I'd be interested to hear.

Bishop Jarrett explains upcoming Mass changes

Just in case plain English can't be understood by some, or in case some want to make the new directions say what they do not say, in this AD2000 article, Bishop Jarrett of Lismore in NSW (a convert to the Church from Anglicanism in his youth just like our Bishop Peter Elliot) had dotted every 'i' and crossed every 't' in this excellent instruction he has prepared for his diocese. Given that every word he says is taken directly from current laws applying to all Australian dioceses, you can fairly well take this as gospel for wherever you may attend mass this Sunday (and thereafter) in Australia.

Theology @ the Pub - May (Another one for those who are still young)

John Smyth from VCSYA has sent through this notice that might interest some of you:

Speaker - Dr. Nick Tonti-Fillipini
Topic - Marriage: Just a Piece of Paper?
Date - Tuesday, 13th May
Time - 6.30pm
Venue - Dante's Pub, 150-156 Gertrude St., Fitzroy

The April session saw over 100 young Catholics get together at Dante's in Fitzroy to hear Mike Willesee. Go to www.theologyatthepub.com.au to see his whole talk on video and photos of the evening.

This month the speaker is Dr. Nick Tonti-Fillipini, a world renowned bio-ethicist and lecturer at the John Paul II Institute for Marriage and Family.

The topic is 'Marriage: Just a piece of paper?' ---Is marriage just a piece of paper? Isn't love all that really matters? What if two people aren't "in love" anymore? Find out the answers

See you there
John Smyth and Gerald Keane
0430 032 666 / 0400 044 431

Is 58 Comments a record? Continuing the "Antichrist/Justification" discussion

I don't know if 58 comments is a record on this blog, but the post below called "Stirring Pastor Weedon" certainly generated a lot of interest.

But it's about to fall of the end of this blog page, and go into archives, so in case anyone wanted to continue the discussion, here is your opportunity.

And here is something to excite you a little more:

He is not saved, however, who, though part of the body of the Church, does not persevere in charity. He remains indeed in the bosom of the Church, but, as it were, only in a "bodily" manner and not "in his heart." All the Church's children should remember that their exalted status is to be attributed not to their own merits but to the special grace of Christ. If they fail moreover to respond to that grace in thought, word and deed, not only shall they not be saved but they will be the more severely judged. [Lumen Gentium 14]

You are what you read...

C.S. Lewis is said to have said:

“A young man who wishes to remain a sound atheist cannot be to careful of his reading.”

It seems that ex-Premier of New South Wales, the very urbane and honourable Bob Carr, has managed to avoid reading the "wrong" books while recommending to a new generation his own canon of "right" books in a new book all of his own called: My Reading Life.

I listened to this interview with Rachel Kohn on the ABC's Spirit of Things today. I must say that I have never been very "high brow" in the matter of reading matter. (No Nietzsche, sorry, PE.) I've been to a Patrick White play and hated it. I like Shakespeare (he's good entertainment) and Jane Austen (whom Carr has not read according to the interview) and Dickens, all because they are a good read. And I read theology "voraciously" (to quote my wife). But I have never touched Norman Mailer or Gore Vidal, Primo Levi or Alexander Solzhenitsyn. I've read Orwell's 1948, Camus' The Outsider, and Salinger's Catcher in the Rye. But I far rather curl up with a Douglas Adams or a Terry Pratchett novel, or a Hornblower or Bolitho sea adventure, or a P.G. Wodehouse farce!

Most notable is Carr's comments on religion (which, of course, is why Kohn was interviewing him). It seems that Geza Vermes and A.N. Wilson are his authorities on the matter, but he is convinced that Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius lived "in the 2nd century after Jesus but before Christ, if you know what I mean". No, sorry Bob, I don't know what you mean, and I'm not sure if you do either, because not much later you say that

Yes, someone put Vermes's book in front of me and said that the Fourth Gospel, 'you've got to understand that'. That's when Christ was invented.

Well, now hold on, John's gospel was written at least 60 years before Marcus Aurelius, so what do you mean, Bob? Have you actually learned anything about New Testament history? Why isn't Joseph Ratzinger on your reading list? He's got this great new book called "Jesus of Nazareth". No don't tell me...

Again, he agrees with Paul Monk, author of The Bible and the Risen Ape who says

The Bible is fundamentally untrue in the most fundamental sense that we are not a fallen species of being at all, we never were. We never needed redemption, whether by a Jewish Messiah, by Christ crucified and raised on the third day, or by adherence to the Surahs of Muhummad.

Yet moments later he is saying that

While I've got to reject the notion of Original Sin, I don't hold any view that we are a species of enlightenment, that man is the measure of all things, I can hardly call myself a humanist, with the awareness of the horrors that humanity has brought about and seems to have been hardwired to bring about.

"Hardwired", Bob? That sounds awfully like our doctrine of Original Sin, you know...

Carr is right about one thing. If you find reading a particular book a bit of tough going, get the audio book. He did it for the bible. I did it for Crime and Punishment. I'm doing it now for Newman's Development of Doctrine (see here for downloads).

Bad Scriptural Exegesis leads to bad Christianity

I have obviously been reading too much good scriptural exegetical work lately (esp. Benedict's Jesus of Nazareth and Tom Wright). It is therefore a bit of a shock to realise that there are some really, really, really bad academics out there masquerading as scripture scholars.

Here is one Bruce Chiltern on the ABC's The Ark. I made an attempt at engaging his argument, but realised half way through that (contra Rachel Kohn's gushing "Well Professor Chilton, that's quite a convincing argument") Chiltern really does not follow consistent logic in his approach. In such a case, engagement is rendered almost impossible. "Resistance is futile" (as the Vogon said to Arthur Dent).

Anyway, just a taste:

Bruce Chilton: ...It represents a kind of baroque development of his very simple words, 'This is my blood', 'This is my flesh', and what I came to realise is that within the context of Jesus' own Jewish environment, those words can not have had the highly evolved theological meaning that eventually was attributed to them.

Rachael Kohn: And that's because for Jews the ingesting of blood was abominable.

Bruce Chilton: It was thought of as being a form of blasphemy, that's right. ...The idea of consuming blood of any kind, any kind of animal, and the notion of eating human flesh were anathema to Judaism...

Later on, of course, he dismisses the reliability of John 6, which precisely deals with the Jewish abhorence of the idea of eating a man's flesh, for understanding the meaing of the Eucharist, because

John's Gospel is the last of the Gospels in the New Testament to be written. It is permeated with philosophical ideas from the Hellenistic world, and it has long been thought that it's also influenced by some of the ritual concepts that came from the Hellenistic world. One of those concepts was the idea that one could enter into festivity and celebration of a god, let us say, Dionysius, and (in) the course of consuming a feast in his honour, one was consuming the god himself, so that one internalised that deity. This internalisation of the deity came to be celebrated in what were called Mystery Cults, because the idea was that each of them had an esoteric tradition , a mystery, that they've guarded very carefully, and then took their initiates into.

This conception obviously is at odds with the Jewish understanding that flesh and blood should not be consumed, but by the time of the Gospel according to John, which was written in Ephesus around the year 100, there had been a shift in cultural sensibility, away from a strict adherence to Judaism and into a much more Hellenistic environment. As a result, it's in this gospel and in this gospel alone that Jesus can say in Chapter 6 'Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the son of man, and drink his blood, you have no life in yourselves. The one who consumes my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life.' There Jesus is speaking in a way that he doesn't speak in the other gospels and he virtually uses the same language that one can find in Mystery religions.

So, with a backhanded swipe he dismisses the very good scholarship that suggests both that John's Gospel is intensely Jewish and that it is historically reliable, and at the same time embraces the long discredited idea that Catholic Christianity originated with the mystery religions.

So what did Jesus actually really truly mean?

The pre-eminent issue on his mind was sacrifice. What appropriate sacrifice truly was. So when he said 'This is my blood', he was thinking in terms of what was ordinarily poured out on the altar in Jerusalem. And he was saying that the wine share within his fellowship was a more acceptable sacrifice than what was offered in the temple, where there were commercial surrogates involved. And similarly when he said, 'This is my flesh', his intention was to insist that his heavenly father preferred the mealtime fellowship offered with forgiveness and sincerity to the elaborate mechanism that was going on in the temple in collaboration with Rome.

Seriously, give me the Da Vinci Code any day! It makes more sense and is better scholarship...

Back in the pulpit...

"The aim is to try not to be dull," as Neuhaus said in the blog below. I will take that advice to heart as I enter the pulpit for the first time in about six years tomorrow at St Patrick's Church, Murrumbeena, for their Week of Prayer for Christian Unity service at 1:30pm tomorrow.

Don't worry, I won't post my sermon here. Not good style for preacher/bloggers, I reckon. Sermons are preached into a specific context and are meant to be listened to rather than read.

Neuhaus--the reason for my First Things subscription

If nothing else, it is worth subscribing to First Things just for Neuhaus' regular column (the original "blog" in hardcopy), the Public Square. Only subscribers will be able to get in to that link I just gave, but an online subscription is cheap and it goes to a worthy cause!

Anyway, here's a taste of the current column for non-subscribers:

1) Neuhaus on preaching

The aim is to try not to be dull. It is an extraordinary act of clerical abuse to bore a captive audience for fifteen minutes, or thirty minutes, as is the case in many Protestant churches. Catholics priests routinely claim that people today have a short attention span. Maybe they do—for the kind of preaching to which they’re accustomed. They have a long enough attention span for many other things that interest them. I don’t think we want to suggest that Protestants are genetically disposed to greater attentiveness. To preach interestingly does not mean to be theatrical but to provide something of intellectual substance. In my experience, people are intensely interested in what Christianity teaches, and why. Which is to say they are intensely interested in doctrine.

2) How many will be saved? (PS. note that Neuhaus is a Catholic)

Better, it seems to me, to stay with the response of Jesus in Luke 13. He does not satisfy the curious by answering the question but says: “Strive to enter through the narrow door. For many, I tell you, will seek to enter and will not be able.” Gradations of wickedness are known only to God. All of us are by our sinful nature under the judgment of God and our only hope is the grace revealed in Jesus Christ. As Jesus says in John 10, “I am the door; if any one enters by me, he will be saved, and will go in and out and find pasture.” We are to strive for righteousness, but we cannot enter through that narrow door by our own efforts. Whether all will enter by the door who is Christ only God knows. We may hope so, and that is enough.

3) Neuhaus on Mr Rudd's Apology

One may applaud Mr. Rudd for doing so [for his apology to the Aboriginal people of Australia], even if one wishes that, for such a solemn occasion, he might have come up with something of greater gravitas than “We say sorry.” On the other hand, “We ask you to forgive us” might raise questions about guilt, contrition, and satisfaction, generating suits and countersuits without end. Forgiveness is so very specific.

4) Neuhaus (actually Haught) on the New Atheism:

Marx, Freud, and, above all, Nietzsche are atheists for whom one can have a measure of intellectual respect. They, says John F. Haught in his book God and the New Atheism, understood that when God and religion are eliminated life does not go on as usual. Haught calls them the hard-core atheists. It’s quite a different matter with the new crop of soft-core atheists.

5) On the Good Friday Prayers and the Jewish Protest

Cardinal Walter Kasper, Rome’s point man on Jewish-Christian matters, is just a touch testy about such complaints. “I must say that I don’t understand why Jews cannot accept that we can make use of our freedom to formulate our prayers,” he told an Italian newspaper. “We think that this prayer cannot reasonably be viewed as an obstacle to dialogue since it reflects the faith of the Church. Also, Jews have prayers in their liturgical texts that we Catholics don’t like.” In an interview with Vatican Radio, Kasper said: “The Holy Father wanted to say, ‘Yes, Jesus Christ is the savior of all men, including the Jews.’ This doesn’t mean we are embarking on a mission [to convert Jews]. We are giving witness to our faith.” A very different Jewish response is offered by Hillel Halkin in the New York Sun. “Are [the Jewish protestors] worried that God might actually listen to such a prayer? . . . Are there really so many Jews who are ready to run to the baptismal font with the first knock of a Christian missionary at their door? One doubts it, but, if it’s true, it’s a sad comment not on the predatoriness of Christianity but on the weakness of contemporary Judaism and Jewish identity,” writes Halkin. ...It is quite possible, writes Halkin, to respect another religion while believing one’s own is more true. “Jews have always thought this about Judaism and it’s hypocritical of them to want Christians not to think it about Christianity. If anyone cares enough about my soul to pray for me, I might as well take it as a compliment.”

See? Go and subscribe.