Osculum Pacis

I am not one of those who hate the sign of peace. I hate it when it it is trivialised, when Mrs Brown offers a lukewarm handshake to Mr Brown, which hardly seems to symbolise they are 'one flesh' in the Lord, or when Mrs Green wonders why Mrs White hasn't run down the aisle to greet her and comes up to Holy Communion full of resentment or at least wondering at the precariosity of their friendship. Then I also hate being given an enthusiastic 'sign of peace' and then being ignored after Mass. The sign is supposed signify what we are, truly a community of brothers and sisters in the Lord, at peace with God and our neighbour and a source of peace for the world.

I am glad the Holy See has issued a new document on it and decided not to move too, to before the offertory, as in the Ambrosian Rite, after all the 'sign of peace' is intimately connected to Holy Communion. It is simple, if we are not in Communion with our neighbour, then we can't possibly be in Communion with the Lord. It is I think the offering of ourselves at Holy Communion that is more important than our offering of cash at the offertory, it is then that we should be leaving our offering (of ourselves) at the altar in order that we might be reconciled to our neighbour. The procession to communion is about us coming to receive Christ in communion but it also about Him receiving us, bot individually but also collectively as the Church, pure and free from sin. The sign of peace should be a significant pre-Communion rite, therefore it should be solemn and holy, not lightly undertaken. One reason for it remaining where it is is the assertion by liturgical scholars that in ancient times the Pater Noster ended by a kiss of peace.

Joe at Catholic Commentary suggests the sign of peace is meaningless and more about social inclusion than anything else. In the past a paxbrede was often used to take 'the peace' from the celebrant to at least significant members of the congregation. The paxbrede was often a silver or even wax plaque or an icon or a relic or a crucifix. The veneration of the Cross on Good Friday could be sign as a 'Peace' rite, the crucifix, or as our forefathers might have used the relic of the True Cross, being offered to the faithful only at the end of a rigorous Lent during which they were expected to have been reconciled to God and man.

The problem with the 'sign of peace', is like many of our rites, even Holy Communion, that it is trivialsed and without meaning. Amongst our servers, here, the sign of peace is offered in the traditional way, the Agnus Dei starts as soon as I  have offered it to the senior server or MC. In the Johannine Missal it always began with the celebrant who in a sense took it from Christ on the altar and it was passed on from to others on the sanctuary and those in choro, in large monasteries it could of course include several hundred people from the abbot down to the newest postulant. In the Pauline Missal it is supposed to bubble up from the community and presumably disappear as quickly as it appeared. What we do is wrong, apparently, though it eliminates on the sanctuary the hug-fest often seen and because it is hierarchical it gives a good indication that the proper for the priest just before Holy Communion is at the altar with the Body and Blood of Christ.

As I say, I think the sign of peace is important, but I can understand the frustration of those who see it as plain silly, the longer it goes on, the sillier it often becomes, we urgently need to find an alternative to the very secular handshake, which in the UK is often associated with dodgie car salesmen.  Perhaps the reason why it is often an uninspiring rite is related to the trivialising of Holy Communion itself.

Perhaps it ought to be restricted only to those going to Holy Communion, only to those truly at peace with God and their neighbour. Before the Reformation at York during Christmastide a bough of mistletoe was raised before the rood, it was a sign for reconciliation of enemies, the release of captives and slaves, the forgiveness of debts, the end of conflicts. Under it the estranged would kiss and be reconciled, this is presumably  what the sign of peace should be about, a truly sacred rite.

Save Us, O Lord

Syria, Iraq, Jordan,  Iran, Lebanon, Egypt, Libya, Nigeria, Sudan, Uganda, Kenya, Somalia; there the body of Christ is torn apart. I really cannot bear to look at the bodies of children and the suffering of so many. This video was sent to me with the request I post it by the Coptic Orthodox wife of a reader; no bodies, just the anguished plea of a mother for her abducted daughter.

Can we still continue to dialogue with Islam, when so much suffering, so much blood is being spilt?
We have heard of the Pope's distress at this suffering, he as asked for prayers for those who suffer but hasn't himself addressed the suffering of our brothers and sisters. Can we really continue with the dialogue set up in the last century, it is no longer 1960 or 1970?

"Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached."

Murderers continue to murder whilst the effete swap smooth words.

And what is Eccleston Square doing?

Archbishop Martin criticises one of his young priests

There is always a dark-side to the The Tablet, so maybe this report about Archbishop Martin of Dublin criticising one of his very few younger priests should be taken with a small pinch of salt but His Grace does have form  of being critical and unsympathetic towards his younger priests. That of course could explain why he has so few of them, and possibly why his diocese is so unattractive to young men who might have a vocation. It is obviously indicative of a poor management style and could well be a reason why the few young priests he does have might well be considering looking for bishops elsewhere in the world.

His comments made in Australia (what was it His Holiness said about 'airport bishops'?) seem indicative of a management style in the Church that would be unacceptable elsewhere and I would expect was one reason the abuse scandals were not addressed in Ireland. As there are so few young priests in the Archdiocese of Dublin it is not too difficult to identify who this individual actually is. Priests should certainly not be breaking confidences, the onus on a bishop not to do so is even greater, everything that has been said over the last 50 years about the father/son relationship of a priest to his bishop seems to be negated by the Archbishop's remarks. If a son of his is fearful or disconcerted about the actions of the Pope, and many are, it is a bishop's responsibility to give him the support he requires. Pope Francis has often spoken about the evils of gossip, especially clerical gossip, it seems that this young priest has been betrayed by both his Parish Priest and his Bishop, who see a problem rather than seeking to understand and help.

Many young priests are indeed disconcerted by this sudden lurch back to the 1970s, the rise of the personality cult of Francis, with the implications of a new-Ultramonatism, or at least a Church where the Pope is the sole arbiter of  everything, is indeed alien territory for many younger priests. It is not the faith they have been taught in the seminary, or in the catechism, or in the ordinary magisterium of St John Paul II or Benedict XVI, the fact that an Archbishop seems to greet this with incomprehension bodes ill indeed for the future of his Church, especially when so many Prelates, even those who are designated 'the Pope's theologian' seem to be teaching something contrary to the Lord himself.

Recently the Pope said if a priest has a problem with his bishop he should go and sort it out, even it means a shouting match. Well it is even more incumbent on a bishop to sort problems out with his priests, rather than do as Archbishop  Martin has in the case of this young priest, both his age and status demand this of him.
What is not acceptable for any bishop is gossiping or complaining, either to other priests, which is bad, or as appears here, to a group of laity, who then report his words in the press. No wonder Dublin has such a poor reputation for the pastora care of it priests.

Pope's 10 Ways

Credible Witnesses

My friend Fr Z writes about neo-martyrs crucified by ISIS. Since the Vatican Council it is easy to think that apart from one or two internal problems the Church lives in vibrant sunshine but of course the Church lives constantly with the blood of its children, thatThe great crisis of  Church is one of faith, fat sleek bishops, comfortable middle-class priests, nuns who embrace a secular agenda are hardly credible witnesses but is why the Pope has since the mid fourth century worn blood red shoes, and the Roman Pontiff's correct dress isn't the white cassock but blood red ornaments that are worn over it. The Church walks in blood, her clothes are spattered with blood. If there is no blood flowing in streams from her children, then the Church is a dead thing. It is the blood of Christ and his saints that gives her life and is a sign of her being alive. 

Without martyrdom there is no Church. The Way of Christ is the Way of the Cross and Christians are called to embrace it. As a priest the faithful have every right to ask me, "Father, would you be willing to die for our faith?" Fortunately no one has recently, and to be honest I don't know what my answer would be, I know what it should be, 

We are all called to be martyrs, the Greek word 'witness' is martyr. It strikes me that in the West we no longer have credible witnesses. Down the ages the number of children, of ordinary men and women, has far exceeded the number of  bishops and priests. The great crisis of  Church is one of faith, fat sleek bishops, comfortable middle-class priests, nuns who embrace a secular agenda hardly give the sign of being credible witnesses.

Perhaps the question, 'Would you be willing to die for our faith?' should be one we all ask ourselves and one another, especially our leaders and professional Catholics, for not only should we be willing to die for our faith but live for it too.

Man stuff

I am not sure I believe what many traditional Catholics say about the old Mass being more appealing to men, than the new. Lace and brocade certainly have a superficial appeal to a small percentage, the historical 'rootedness' and symbolism to a larger percentage. What is pretty obvious is that men don't come to Mass, and possibly working class men come less than other men. When men do come to the old Mass, some at least seem to respond to it in a rather amazing way, it sets light to their faith. 
In some parishes it seems that lectors and everyone else on the sanctuary, except the priest, are women or girls, and that in our Catholic schools the majority of our teachers are women, especially in our Primary Schools. In that sense the Church of today is really, if not feminine, it is dominated at parish and diocesan level by women. I think that accounts in many ways for the breach between the 'local Church' and what is invariably nowadays called the 'institutional Church'. The faith is invariably transmitted through feminine perspective.

After the first celebration of the Novus Ordo at the end of the Council Card Heenan famously said that men of England wouldn't put up with what the Council Fathers had just witnessed in the Sistine Chapel, but his complaint was actually not about the changed liturgy but the chanting and psalm singing, something above the normal fair of Englishmen: Low Mass, Mass in its simplest and most unadorned form, a reasonably brief and peremptory Rite.

As a man, I hate fuss. I like clarity, yes I respond to beauty, like the well designed lines of a piece of efficient machinery, which is why I like High Mass. I prefer Trooping of the Colour to the ballet, a Beethoven quartet to symphony, a classical painting to a piece of Cubism, a Modrian painting to a Jason Perry tapestry. 

I suspect like most men I could well be descried slightly autistic, I prefer the clarity of a legal document to the airy- fairiness of the Spirit of ... Give me the Canons of any Council rather than the pages of canonised ambiguity and contradiction, give me the hard edge of Thomas or Bonaventure rather than the fluffiness of modern feminist theologians.

I remember a sermon once on the healing of the Centurion's servant, in which preacher compared the Centiturion to Our Lady, the Centurion want orders, Our Lady was willing to 'ponder these things in her heart', we men do ponder but against clear guidelines of 'do this', 'do that', I remember a young man at Sandhurst, who loved all that marching up and down because it gave him the chance to pray, obeying orders came naturally to him,

The Lectionary of the Old Rite certainly seems to be clearer than that of the New, quite a lot about the evils of fornication and unchastity in the Epistles, and quite a lot about how to live a 'good' life in the Gospels, whereas the New Rite Lectionary, certainly on Sundays, presents morally ambiguous extracts from the Old Testament, a rather massaged series of extracts from the Epistles and Gospels. The theology is different, the selection of readings rather than organically developing over centuries gives us a very definite 'Christ of the Council', or at a least a Christ, a Christology and Ecclesiology taken from the decade or so over which the Lectionary was compiled and of those involved in its manufacturing. It comes from a time when ambiguity was fashionable, the Christ that is presented to us is ambiguous, or at least it is different from the morally and theogically directive Christ of the old Lectionary. That is not surprising considering the old Lectionary came into being in a time of real theological debate and ecclesial growth whilst the new Lectionary was put together by men who were essentially conciliatory towards what was then the 'modern world'.

I am not suggesting the Lectionary is 'unmanly' but the Christ it presents is of its time. Dr Shaw, interestingly, says of Pope Francis that he isn't interested in  philosophy or the theology, that he is essentially a politician. I think that is a fair description. In that sense I think he is indeed a conciliatory Pope. The words of Cardinal Kaspar, "the Pope's theologian" ring true in this context, when he speaks about ordinary Christians not being given to heroism, “But it's a heroic act, and heroism is not for the average Christian.” It is this absence of heroism that seems to be problematic for men (and boys) today. My Muslim friends, who are not wild sword wielding Islamic terrorists, see Christianity as wimpish and unmanly: The effeteness of the West, the destruction of the family, sexual ambiguity, amorality, materialism they put down to Christianity. Islam presents manliness in terms of heroism, a man is someone willing to die to defend his faith, his family and his country. A true man despite other pressures will pray five times a day and fast strictly during Ramadan. He will submit to the will of God and teach his family and neighbours to do the same. 

The post-Concilliar Chuch is very much one of, "Who am I to judge", it is seen as morally ambiguous: "gentle Jesus meek and mild" puts up with and accepts everything and anything, except and absence of gentleness, meekness and mildness, for most men this is profoundly unsatisfying.and is more likely to savage or criticise members of his household than act as leaven or source of change. >It is this kind of conciliatoriness that the Church n this country has been pushing for decades t has led to social acceptance, and reasonable relationships with those in power and the 'Establishment' but it has actually lost any power to change society, an often alienates its most committed members and leaves confused and ill informed those less committed, most especially men.

Job with SPUC?

I have been asked to run this ad:

Want to work for a leading charity in the UK Pro-Life Movement?
Personal Secretary to the Chief Executive
A key role in building grassroots support for the pro-life movement in the UK
The Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (SPUC) is looking to recruit a Personal Secretary to the Chief Executive based at its London HQ. The post is part-time (15-25 hours per week, negotiable). The deadline for applications is Friday 15th August. Salary details available on request.
The role
Applicants must have an absolute commitment to the pro-life cause, experience working at director/board level and the ability to cope with a wide range of secretarial responsibilities.
Duties will include drafting letters, taking dictation, maintaining a filing system, assisting in making travel arrangements, photocopying and printing.
Candidates must have a good level of word-processing skill and possess the ability to take dictation. Shorthand skills are highly desirable.
You must also have excellent communication and organisational skills and enjoy working under pressure.
For more information or to receive an application form please contact Patrick Kingman.
Tel: 020 7091 7091
Email: patrickkingman@spuc.org.uk

Magdalen Vestments

I love this set of vestments, they date from about 1910, I think. There is something about them that says, 'Magdalen'.
They are made up of embroidery, appliqué and gold thread, on the chasuble there are a few descreet pearls. The cope is completely perished, the silk has gone, the chasuble is almost unwearable and the decoration has become a little muted, the dalmatics aren't too bad.

Despite all that we were man enough to wear them last night at the High Mass for Magdalen Day.

As the choir are on holiday, it was a rather homely High Mass; De Angelis and a couple of motets sung by those lovely sisters.

One year, maybe, kettledrums, cornetti, citterone.  Call me an old liberal if you must, but I am not one of those fussy priests who object to the guitar in church, I have heard a quite adequate figured bass continuo played on an extended necked baroque guitar substituting for a bass vihuela.

There are more photographs here



p.s. say a prayer for Tom who is getting married to Vergine at an old rite Pontifical Mass in Paray-le-Monial on Friday, Tom is on the Gospel side.

Join us for St Mary Magdalen's Day

Tomorrow we celebrate our Holy and Glorious Patroness St Mary Magdalen, the chosen messenger to the Apostles.

The great problem is half our servers and most of the choir are away.

Actually we began our celebration on Sunday, anticipating her feast.
To help us out my friends those wonderful sisters have kindly agreed to come down to sing at our EF High Mass at 6.30pm.

 +++

Our Western tradition is that all of those women at the Lord's feet, the one who pours out costly ointment, the one who covers his feet with kisses and tears are the Magdalen, even Mary of Bethany, the sister of Martha and Lazarus, the one who chose the better part who sits at his feet.

I am tempted to see the woman caught in adultery is her too; what crueller thing to do than to get Jesus to condemn a woman who was once notorious but is now a disciple of Jesus.

She becomes a symbol of the Church and the faithful remnant of Israel, despised and rejected like Jesus himself, and yet delighting in his presence.

To be a follower of Jesus means to be a Magdalen, to weep over one's sins, to choose the better part and recognise Him and be united, with him.
I don't know if I am being over imaginative but there seem to be three stages to the Magdalen's relationship: weeping she shows us purgation, sitting and listening is about illumination and finally in the garden in her encounter with the Risen Lord she is united to him.
She is 'every disciple', we are all called to weep over our sins, then we are able to indeed choose the better part, to truly listen to Jesus, only then do we recognise him and are able to announce his Triumphant Rising.

Only then perhaps may we have the grace to suffer with him, for the legend is that after the Resurrection she lived the life of a penitent and contemplative, all was to prepare for that and was to prepare her for the day when she would see Jesus' Father and her Father, Jesus' God and her God.

The Smile of a Martyr, well no...

I found this on Facebook

This young Iranian has been sentenced to death by a judgment immediately executed by hanging because guilty of a heinous crime: being a Christian and do not abjure the faith by accepting the supreme sacrifice. The smile on his face is that of the first Christian martyrs in front of the mouth of the Lions. Don't know the name, but we know for a fact that is already listed in the Canon of Saints.
And I think with sadness to our lukewarmness in being followers (more often than not unworthy) of Christ (always ready with distinction and always ready for mediation of worldliness).

It has gone 'viral' under such a heading,
but apparently not, he is murderer ....

 Two men have been hanged in a Tehran square for the murder of a prominent judge, thought to be the first public execution in Iran's capital since 2002.
Majid and Hossein Kavousifar's deaths come a day after nine public hangings in other parts the country.
The government says it is part of a major effort to tackle violent crime and the illegal drug trade in Iran. .......

Prayers: Mosul

Brothers and sisters, pray for our brothers and sister under threat in Mosul, pray for those who have been forced to leave their ancient homeland.
Pray for those who murder, abduct, rape, mutilate, destroy and threaten.
We are at the beginning of a Christian Holocaust, will the world leaders act or be as silent ans as hard hearted as they were 70 years ago?

Breaking Cricket Bats

Archbishop Welby recently backed away from addressing 'gay' issues because he said he feared that in places like Nigeria pushing that particular agenda in the CofE would cause problems for the Anglican Communion and Christians in general.

A priest who works in an Islamic environment tells me that the paedophile crisis is often exploited by Islamic evangelists: Islam sees men as strong valiant defenders of their religion, of the families, of fellow Muslims, whilst Christians see men as weak and effeminate, meek and mild; not surprising as their priests are either paedophiles and homosexuals and any man involved with Christians was probably likely to be drawn into that lifestyle.

Geoffrey Howe spoke of his relationship with Margaret Thatcher, in his resignation speech as Foreign Secretary,  "It is ... that their bats have been broken before the game by the team captain". La Repubblica's interview and the claim that one in fifty, two per cent of the clergy are paedophiles, seems very much like the sound of breaking cricket bats, yet again.

Now what was it Jesus said about Peter strengthening the brethren?

Francis against 'orthodoxy'?

For those who have a little theological insight or understanding of the history of theology in the last 150 years it is pretty obvious that what is commonly described as orthodoxy has been struggling for existence against a pragmatic approach to belief. Really, the big difficulty many of us have with Pope Francis' theology is that he seems to be an advocate of pragmatism and disfavours orthodoxy. In the previous papacy orthodoxy seemed to be triumphing over the theological approach Congar, Rhanner and the greatest of all proponent of this new approach to Catholic theology Hans Kung. Now, under Francis, orthodoxy is becoming a dirty word. the 'formlessness' of Kung seems to be on the rise.

My Italian is pretty poor, with 'google translate' I can with a bit of difficulty begin to make sense of something. Have a look at this article, which tries to understand Francis' theology The significant paragraph is this - my translation.

....the formulas and dogmas cannot be understood in terms of historical evolution, but every problem must be placed in its historical and socio-political context. The concept of orthodoxy must be overcome, or at least reduced, because it is used as a "reference point to stifle freedom of thought and as a weapon to police and punish" ... They define orthodoxy as "a metaphysical violence."The primacy of doctrine should be replaced by that of pastoral practice ... " (Concilium, 2/2014, p. 11).

Is this why the Franciscan Friars are being dealt with apparent harshness - because they were seen as the thriving proponents of 'orthodoxy'? Is this the reason why we seem to be into a 'hermeneutic of incoherence' - because those who equate being Catholic with being 'orthodox' suddenly find themselves in a Church where they are no longer at home or even belong?

Where have all the bloggers gone?

It is four months since Protect the Pope went into 'a period of prayer and reflection' at the direction of Bishop Campbell, someone recently asked me why tend not to post so often as I did, and I must say I have been asking the same question about other bloggers.

The reign of Benedict produced a real flourish of 'citizen journalists', the net was alive with discussion on what the Pope was saying or doing and how it affected the life of our own local Church. Looking at some of my old posts they invariably began with quote or picture followed by a comment, Benedict stimulated thought, reflection and dialogue, an open and free intellectual environment. There was a solidity and certainty in Benedict's teaching which made discussion possible and stimulated intellectual honesty, one knew where the Church and the Pope stood. Today we are in less certain times, the intellectual life of the Church is thwart with uncertainty.

Most Catholics but especially clergy want to be loyal to the Pope in order to maintain the unity of the Church, today that loyalty is perhaps best expressed through silence.