Being Kind

I think I understood Benedict, I have to admit I don't understand Francis!
Benedict amazed with his brilliance in his sermons and catechesis, Francis will probably remembered for the simple homely preaching at his early morning Masses at Domus Mater, for rubbish collectors and policemen, with their simple homely message: be faithful to Christ, tell the truth, be meek, be gentle.
Benedict was that wise scribe who drew out from his store room things both old and new. Francis, maybe it is his Jesuit sense of poverty, doesn't seem to have a store room. Benedict and Francis are obviously closely related, Benedict was the kind and wise grandfather, Francis the kind old uncle, who delights in surprising you.
I was rather taken by this story:

Recently, when he left his apartment at Domus Marta and went out into the hall, the Pope found a Swiss Guard standing at attention outside his door.
He asked him, “And what are you doing here? Were you awake all night?
“Yes,” the guard answered respectfully.
“Standing?”
“One of my colleagues gave me a break.”
“And you’re not tired?”
“It’s my duty Your Holiness, for Your safety.”
The Pope looked at him with kindness. He went back into his apartment and, after a few minutes, returned with a chair in his hand: “At least sit down and rest.”
Shocked, the Swiss Guard replied, “Forgive me, but I can’t! The rules don’t allow it.”
“The rules?”
“My captain, Your Holiness.”
“Oh, is that so? Well, I’m the Pope and I am asking you to sit down.”
So, between the rules and the Pope, the Swiss Guard, complete with his halberd, chose the chair. And then the Pope brought him some bread and jam for a snack, saying, “Buon appetito, brother.”

Quite what Il Capitano and his fellow guardsmen made of this I wonder.
What I find rather exciting is Benedict taught us to connect our worship, theology and belief, Francis seem to teach us to connect simple kindness to belief.
Christians should be known for their kindness. which I think he said in one of his sermons to the binmen, policemen and cleaners. Perhaps that is one of the qualities above all else that we need to relearn.

Post Script
A hearwarming picture from Rorate:

Pope Benedict's Health a Concern

The health of Benedict XVI has dramatically diminished in the last two weeks, Paloma Gómez Borrero wrote Tuesday night in the Spanish paper El Mundo. According to her, Benedict suffers from something – quote – “very severe”. She adds: “We won't have him with us for very much longer”.

Lello Scorzelli's Ferula: a return to the past

Broken, tortured, twisted, contorted are the words that come to mind looking at this crucifix. It has the sense of  being in flux, half-formed, raw in its conception. It is still incredibly disturbing, what it represents is truly disturbing, the death of Christ, which represents something beyond the story of the Gospel but actually what I find disturbing is the mind of the artist that imagined it. It comes from the era of brutalism of concrete and "machines for living in", from that artistic period when art itself hung stretched and distorted before its own death, screaming in agony at its fear of its own pain, confronting humanity with its own ugliness.

Some have suggested it is a Jansenist image, I don't know about that. It represents humanity debased. Here is the victim of man's inhumanity to man, there is nothing divine here, it is absolute self emptying. Here is man mangled and remade by the regimes of Stalin and Hitler, Pol Pot and Mao, and yes, of the murderous torturers of South America. Here, grace is excluded, the hand of God is absent.

It symbolises too the uncertainty of the post-concillior Church, stripped bare, in flux, not fully formed, a broken human institution, humbled, gasping in a particular moment of history, more dead than alive. It is austere without any beauty. It is the Church of Good Friday, devoid of any sense of Grace, or of Easter hope.

I can understand its appeal to Paul VI, it seems to sum up everything we know about his tortured loneliness, and for John Paul II it seemed to sum up his sense of the "victimhood" of his rather Polish spirituality, in the same way I can see why Pope Benedict rejected it, it fitted uneasily with his theology of "Joy" and "Man-Redeemed", the traditional Papal Ferula, gilt empty victorious cross of the now risen Christ, spoke eloquently of his own theology.

Last night Lello Scorzelli's ferula reappeared at the enthronement in the Lateran in the hands of Pope Francis. More than any other Papal ornament it symbolises a return to the time before Benedict and a return to the uncertainties of Paul VI, and to a more austere Church. For Pope Francis it perhaps a symbol of "the poor", and a sign of an austere Church, in an austere world. For a Pope ordained priest in 1969 it is perhaps "the" symbol of the "modern" Papacy, for someone whose priesthood was spent in Villas and in the oppression of the Peronist and post-Peronist Junta, it is perhaps the perfect symbol.

For the rest of us it is a return to a period in the history of the Church which many priests of my age and older see as being the Church of their youth, it marks a rupture with Benedictine reforms, whether Pope Francis intends this to be said I doubt but it certainly marks a return to the past.

Perhaps it was too soon to put away those arrangements of Kum-by-yaa.

The Living Magisterium

Messy thing the Incarnation: it is all about nappies and bodilly fluids on the part of the Incarnate and worry and misunderstanding on those who love him. If only God became a set of ideas, rather than a person. I have been fascinated by the reaction of a few clerical bloggers and twitterers who either shocked or delighted by finding themselves in the "precarious class", the bottom one, of the BBC's class survey. I have always been amused that there actually exist one or two Catholic institutions that would refuse admittance to Jesus because he wasn't really the right class - not enough quarterings on his Father's side.

At times I am a little horrified by my own reaction to people: would it have been possible that if I lived in first century Palestine that I might have lost the chance of salvation simply because I had a predjudice against Gallilean's wth bad table manners, who had just too much of the odour of the fish market about them? The terrifying thing is that it is possible!

Protestants really have things much better than us, they believe in book, which can be translated, printed, edited and even bound exactly to their taste. We however believe in a person but who rather dangerously is brought to us by other people. "Whoever listens to you listens to me". Frightening!

I knew of a rather "refined" woman who having been received into the Church by a rather charming, well educated, aristocratic Irish priest, she promptly lapsed when he was replaced by a rather boorish and dull English one. She stayed lapsed for thirty years while he was in her parish, coming back only a few months before her death.

Being Catholic is about our relationship with the Church. What unites us to it is the theological virtue of Charity and therefore the recognition that we have no choice but to love - remember Jesus commands us to love, "I give you a New Commandment: Love on another". It is this commandment to love which is at the basis of a Catholic sense of Communion.

I had a conversation with a follower of the SSPX recently, it was late and I wasn't thinking clearly, his concern was that Rome was now demanding Bishop Fellay et al accept the "Living Magisterium". We could both agree on the meaning of "Magisterium". It is after all something tangible it can be found in various catechisms or Denziger, we had a problem with "Living Magisterium".

As important as doctrine is, merely accepting a list of proposition does not make one a Catholic. In fact many good Anglicans, who have not joined the Ordinariate but stayed in the Anglican Communion could do that with more understanding than many Catholics, but evidently they are not Catholics. What makes a person Catholic is communion with Bishops in Communion with the Pope and wanting to be in that Communion for love of Christ.

The precarious nature of Catholicism is that everything depends on an obedient filial love (even if one loathes or disagrees violently with them) of the Pope and those bishops in Communion with him. The Magisterium cannot be treated by Catholics as Protestants treat the Bible. We  must treat it as something which "is being" passed on and therefore something living, rather than something which "was once" passed on and therefore is now dead.

The Apostolic Faith, the Living Magisterium, comes from the Bishops in Communion with the Pope, they and those in Communion with them are the possessors of it, it exists in their communion, rather than as something separate from them. It comes from their Apostolicity, rather than being found on a library shelf in a book.

This is the difference between the Magisterium as some object and something alive within the Church. Thus whether the Pope wears red or black shoes, is ascetic like Pius V or a blackguard like Alexander VI, it is in him and those Bishops in Communion with him where we find the Living Magisterium, apart from him it is something dead, the home of bookworms and experts, beetles and historians.

The problem for the SSPX (and Protestantism) is the objectivaction of the Magisterium and seperating from the life of the Church, it is a heresy that springs from regarding the teaching of Christ as something that can be contained on a printing page rather than something which is lived and living.

In the messiness of the Incarnation the Living Magisterium is to be found in the prejudices, myopia, stupidity, folly, sin, ineffectuality, even infidelity and heresy of the Apostolic college - if I were God I would do things differently but I am not - thank God!

Zee on Francis on Women

My friend, the good Fr Zeee has a new sub-heading to his blog:: reading Francis through Benedict, I hope he keeps it up. He has this very insightful post up on the Pope's catechesis, which took place today on the women witnesses to the resurection. I reproduce the relevant section here the heavy type is Fr Z's and the red his "fisking" (sorry it looks a bit of a mess). I like Father's repeat mention of angels as the first witnesses, the Incarnation and resurrection are first witnessed by Heaven.

Another element. In the professions of faith of the New Testament, only men are remembered as witnesses of the Resurrection, the Apostles, but not the women. This is because, according to the Jewish Law of the time, women and children were not considered reliable, credible witnesses. [See what he is doing?  See?!?] In the Gospels, however, [!]women have a primary, fundamental role. [There it is!  The GOSPEL account is NOT culturally-conditioned, locked into a woman-repressing mentality.  The Gospel, the Christian message, breaks with that.] Here we can see an argument in favor of thehistoricity of the Resurrection: if it were a invented, in the context of that time it would not have been linked to the testimony of women. Instead, the evangelists simply narrate what happened: the women were the first witnesses.[Actually, the angels were the first... but let that pass.] This tells us that God does not choose according to human criteria: the first witnesses of the birth of Jesus are the shepherds,[again, the first were really angels... but let that pass...] simple and humble people, the first witnesses of the Resurrection are women. This is beautiful, [this is fantastic!! Now wait for it...] and this is the mission of women, of mothers and women, [MOTHERS!] to give witness to their children and grandchildren that Christ is Risen! Mothers go forward with this witness![MOTHERS!] What matters to God is our heart, if we are open to Him, if we are like trusting children. But this also leads us to reflect on how in the Church and in the journey of faith, women have had and still have a special role in opening doors to the Lord, in following him and communicating his face, because the eyes of faith always need the simple and profound look of love. [By being MOTHERS.  He isn't talking about Church ministry.  Far from suggesting anything about leadership positions in ecclesiastical structures, Francis is talking about having babies and being strong Catholics.] The Apostles and disciples find it harder to believe in the Risen Christ, not the women however! Peter runs to the tomb, but stops before the empty tomb; Thomas has to touch the wounds of the body of Jesus with his hands. In our journey of faith it is important to know and feel that God loves us, do not be afraid to love: faith is professed with the mouth and heart, with the word and love.

I think that one of the hopes of some people, that the new Pope will condemn heresy and sin, it is unlikely, what he will is simply to present orthodox Christianity as the better way, as did Benedict. This, and his allegorical style of preaching is very much in the style of his predecessor. The difference is that at the moment the secular media have not been attacking him from the very beginning

Don't talk, just do it!

A friend of mine reminded me of the old saying, "As lost as a Jesuit in Holy Week". I don't want to get into another discussion about liturgy and the relationship of Popes to Law of the Church, because the same friend reminded me that there was a time when no-one in the Church really spoke about Liturgy, they simply got on and did it.

I was struck that in this morning's Gospel the Magdalene is so involved in her grief, so bound in on her misery that she doesn't recognise the Lord, in fact I am not sure which woman in the Gospels is Mary Magdalene or who isn't, I tend to think the women who is on her knees at the Lord's feet or sitting at them is the same woman. In the Resurrection she is raised up and sent to the Apostles, with words, "Go, tell ...".

Jesus is always about imperatives, he holds up the Centurion who says, "I say to my servant do this and he does it," and seems to expect to be treated the same by Jesus. The soldier, Ignatius of Loyola seems to have seen himself doing the same thing with his new Order, he was all about imperatives, "Go, convert China!". "Go, risk death in England!"

When the disciples seem to want a nice spiritual chat about prayer, Jesus simply says, "When you pray say, Our Father...", he gives the explicit instruction which could be, "When you pray do this".

Over the last fifty years he Concilliar model of Church has dominated, discussion, endless discussion has dominated but the Gospel has nothing about discussion, it seems to be the very antithesis of the Gospel, the demons or Satan want Jesus to get into a discussion with them, it the desert Satan is rebuffed by a verse of scripture.

The practicality of the Gospel's call to feed, clothe, visit is about doing, there is no discussion, or even much thought, if you see someone hungry, the Christian response is to feed them, that is it.
At the end of the Gospel, at least Mathew's, Jesus really says, "Go and teach...".

As I have said I find Pope Francis washing of the feet of a Muslim girls quite disconcerting, even Popes must be bound to the Law, by the same token I actually rather approve of his spontaneity. He said something recently about self help courses can turn us into Pelagians, we really do have to learn to start doing things as Christians, it seems in that way Christ teaches us how to be Christians.

One of the things we Catholics seem to have lost sight of is that we are called to do good, so that we might actually be good. The great problem for us today is the world does not see us "doing good" and therefore doubts we are good.

Alive or a Vampire or a Zombie: Easter Day Sermon

A happy and Haly Easter to you all!

The controversial former Anglican Bishop of Durham David Jenkins cause controversy by saying the Resurrection was more than a conjuring trick with bones. He was a silly man but here he was spot on, though a little irreverant, though I am not convinced he was convinced the resurrection had much to do with flesh and blood, or even bones, at all.

Christ rose in the flesh, this is the Christian faith but the Ressurrection is far more than a remembered historic fact.

Today, Easter day, is about another Truth of the faith, it is about our resuurection. Christ descends to earth, to suffering, the Cross, death and even into Hell, as we say in the Creed so we might ascend into Heaven. "He came down so we might go up", "He died, so we might live", "He died so we might rise with him", "By dying he has conquered death". The ancient icon of the Anastasis which belongs to both East and West shows Christ descending into hell and grasping the hands of our first parents and leads them and righteous dead who died before him into heaven.

He, "the Resurrection and the Life" opens not Paradise but Heaven. Adam and Eve lost us Paradise but he has opened Heaven to us. We were enemies of God, rebels against his Law, strangers, foreigners, his death and resurrection has made Co-heirs, adpted sons and daughters, a holy nation, a royal priesthood a people set apart.

His Resurrection is for us even more significant than Creation for it is our Re-Creation, re-creation according to Grace, that is why we keep Sunday as our Holy Day, it is the day on which God begins creation, the first day of the week. The Resurrection is the beginning of mankinds recreation. The first was creation by nature but the re-creation is according the Grace, God's Free Gift, which is what Grace is.

Resurrection is not simply Life after death, after our last breath or even at the end of time.

It is Life here and now too. The saints were fully alive, they are our models. Many Christians today are far from saints, far from alive, even the Church herself seems only partially alive, sometimes like a body lying in ITU with a feint heart beat, or sometimes we are rather like Zombies, moving but more dead than alive, sometimes like vampires really dead but appearing to be alive, sucking the blood out of the living, and reality affecting other Christians with the contagion of not taking either the practice or the day to day living of the faith seriously.

Today's feast makes us ask, "Are we alive or dead", do we prefer the grave to the Life of Grace God offers us. Pope Francis in a sermon as Archbishop said that some people prefer their pets or cosmetics or a whole lot of other things to serving the poor. Christians who are alive want to serve the poor either by caring for their physical or spiritual needs. We can gauge whether we are alive by whether we do that: Is our relationship with Christ something we want to share or something we keep to ourselves imprisoned in the tomb?

The Pope speaks about a poorer Church, if it sold off every art treasure or chalice bought by the pennies of the poor, it would do little for the world but if Christians, Christians who are alive really used their own wealth, their money, their time, their skills for the poor, rather than merely worldly pursuits, then the Church would come life, then we would be the leaven that raises the dough, the light in the darkness of the world.

We, ourselves, as the Body of Christ, would be the Resurrection and the Life.

Do you want to be alive or do you prefer death?