Sentire Cum Ecclesia

You should be getting used to these long silences by now – I have been busy.

So has my parish priest, Fr Nicholas Dillon. He has been working on setting up a new website for our parish of St Philip at Blackburn North. I understand that the way to get google to notice your website is by creating lots of links to it, so here is the link:

http://stphilipsblackburnnorth.weebly.com

For those in Melbourne, I want to bring to your attention two upcoming courses with Anima Education:

1) A Day Seminar on Saturday April 27, 10am to 4pm, at St Benedict’s Parish in Burwood. This will be a one day synopsis of the course that I did in First Term, “Face to Face with Jesus in the Gospel of John”. Click here for details.

2) Starting on Monday 6 May at 6:30pm at Mary Glowrey House, a new course “Reading Vatican II”. We will be taking Pope Benedict’s advice and reading the major documents of Vatican II together as a part of our Year of Faith contribution. Click here for more details.

(Actually, there is a plenary indulgence for those who attend 3 or more studies or homilies on the Second Vatican Council during the Year of Faith – I am seeking confirmation from our local authorities that attendance at “Reading Vatican II” will fulfill the action for the indulgence. Just noting it…).

I have been a little under the weather this week, with that common ailment “post-Easter lurgy”. Unlike “post-Christmas lurgy”, which is usually the outcome of eating and drinking too much, “post-Easter lurgy” is what comes down on you when you have been burning the candle at both ends to get all your work done before the Easter break, involved in leading or contributing to a large number of liturgical services during Holy Week and Easter, and (in complete contrast to Christmas) eating and drinking too little. In the end, the body says to the soul: “Okay, you’ve had your turn; now it’s mine!”

So not much blogging in the last few days. And that is why I have also been slow to put up these pictures taken by Margot Gallagher at our Vigil exactly one week ago, last Saturday night. Apologies for my tardiness, and a happy Second Sunday of Easter/“Low” Sunday/”Divine Mercy” Sunday/“Quasimodo Geniti” Sunday/”Thomas” Sunday/Sunday “in albis” to everyone.

In a combox to a previous discussion, I raised the point that on Good Friday Fr Cantalamessa, the pope’s preacher, preached on the topic “Justified as a gift through faith in the blood of Christ”.

Lutheran Pastor Mark Henderson commented “I can only rejoice if Fr Cantalamessa preached the Gospel as Lutherans confess it”, and Josh, who confessed that on a quick perusal he thought “How very Lutheran!” went on to say: “Since I’m Catholic, of course, I may have been quite mistaken as to how Evangelical it was – Pastor Mark and ex-Pastor David, how Lutheran was it?”

Well, on the level of what is truly “evangelical”, I think it passes muster by a long shot. Especially towards the end as it precisely emphasises the call to evangelise the world with the Good News of Jesus Christ. As to whether it is “Lutheran” I also think that any faithful, catechised and practicing Lutherans listening to it (and there were not many who did) would barely distinguish it from what they hear preached in their own parishes, except that it was in Italian (not many Italian Lutheran Churches, although there is one in Rome).

oHowever, On the level of whether it would satisfy a Lutheran dogmatician of the confessional variety (such as our own Pastor Mark), I think the answer would be “no”. Despite Fr Cantalamessa’s repeated emphasis that justification is a gift and that we do nothing to earn it (music to a Lutheran’s ears), there was too much emphasis on faith as our free response to this equally free and gracious act of God in Christ. Lutherans of the confessional variety would stipulate that it is not only the justification which is given as a free unmerited gift, but also the faith which is necessary to receive it.

Remember that Fr Cantalamessa is not only a Franciscan but a member of the Catholic Charismatic Renewal. You will find stuff on the internet where he has written in defense of “baptism in the Holy Spirit” as something different from Baptism or confirmation – something which I am not prepared to accept is orthodox Catholic teaching (none of this usually comes through in his public preaching). So even in this sermon we find some stuff that is not unlike Billy Graham’s “decision theology” coming through, in passages such as:

What is required is only that we do not hide from the presence of God, as Adam and Eve did after their sin, that we recognize our need to be justified; that we cannot justify ourselves. The publican of the parable came to the temple and made a short prayer: “O God, have mercy on me a sinner”. And Jesus says that the man returned to his home “justified”, that is, made right before him, forgiven, made a new creature, I think singing joyfully in his heart (Lk 18:14). What had he done that was so extraordinary? Nothing, he had put himself in the truth before God, and it is the only thing that God needs in order to act.

Of course, orthodox Catholic teaching teaches that even the response of faith to the grace of God in Christ is the result of pre-venient grace that leads us to that point, nevertheless the one remaining fact which (for Lutherans like Pastor Mark) brings the whole evangelical edifice crashing to its semi-Pelagian conclusion is that the human will remains free and acts freely in the response of faith. It is this which (for Lutherans like Pastor Mark) undermines the Gospel in Catholic teaching and preaching, and ultimately makes even a sermon as evangelical as the one which Fr Cantalamessa preached on Good Friday as anathema as the preaching of the Tetzel on indulgences.

I pray and trust that your Easter celebration is/has been (or will be, for our Eastern brethren and sistern) a blessed one.

We did everything in good order at St Philip’s parish in Blackburn North, under the leadership of our parish priest, Fr Nicholas Dillon. It is a privilege to be a member of the our little choir there and to contribute to the celebrations in a small way. Everyone put in a lot of hard work, and it paid off. As I said to the choir just before we began: remember, this is about prayer, not about performance. I also got to do the fire this year. That was fun too, as I got to combine two of my greatest delights – liturgy and camp fires (sans guitars).

I love the Easter vigil. There is something so elemental, so primitive, so wonderful about gathering under a full moon after nightfall to light a fire according to an ancient ritual, walking silently into the darkened church, sharing the flame with our candles so the whole building is lighted with the glow of the new fire, reading ancient creation texts and singing 2500 year old songs before ringing bells and tossing water around to reconfirm our vows of baptismal commitment, finally culminating in the sacrificial meal at the heart of our faith.

What it all means is another thing altogether, for the vigil is not only more ancient than many of our other Holy Week ceremonies, but more elemental. The symbolism is less the symbol of “re-enactment” (like the, for eg. the foot washing or the Palm Sunday procession) and more on the level of fundamental realities: light and darkness, fire and water, bread and wine. I guess it is not a very rational way to spend two and a half hours on a Saturday night, but if we are approaching a mystery as great as that of the Resurrection, I can hardly imagine a more appropriately mysterious way of doing so.

Pope Francis joked at his audience with the press corps that one of his brother cardinals suggested he should take the name “Adrian”, since he was going to be a reforming pope. I am pretty sure that one went over the heads of most who heard it (although they got the joke about taking the name Clement XV well enough).

Pope Adrian (or Hadrian) VI was the last non-Italian pope before John Paul II. He was pope from from 9 January, 1522, to 14 September, 1523. Not very long. Wikipedia contains a few bits of info I had not come across before (trust Wiki!) such as:

The pope was mocked by the people of Rome on the Pasquino, and the Romans, who had never taken a liking to a man they saw as a “barbarian”, rejoiced at his death.

and

Adrian, who had never before been to Rome, was so ignorant of affairs that he had written asking that some suitable lodgings be obtained for him in Rome whence he could discharge his duties as pope.

A bit of déjà vu going on now perhaps?

Anyway, if you note the years of his pontificate, you see that they were crucial ones for the history of the Catholic Church. Poor old Adrian got sandwiched between Leo X and Clement VII, whose combined papacies unfortunately left more of a mark upon the Church than Adrian’s.

Now is probably not the time for a full history lesson. Suffice it to say that had Adrian lived longer and been able to bring into reality more of his agenda for the Church, the entire Protestant Reformation could have been (if not “nipped in the bud”) greatly reduced in fervour, the Great Council (eventually to be held in Trent) called sooner, and the Counter-Reformation anticipated by a crucial forty years. The English Reformation may not have happened at all!

For those not familiar with Pope Adrian’s most (in)famous piece of magisterium, here is a taste:

”We freely acknowledge that God has allowed this chastisement to come upon His Church because of the sins of men and especially because of the sins of priests and prelates . . . We know well that for many years much that must be regarded with horror has come to pass in this Holy See: abuses in spiritual matters, transgressions against the Commandments; indeed, that everything has been gravely perverted.” [Nb. This quote can be found all over the internet, sourced from Karl Adam’s “One and Holy”, but this is only a snippet of the whole thing. I have read the full text somewhere else – could anyone please give a reference?]<>

It is that sort of acknowledgement that earned Pope Adrian the hatred of the people of Rome.

But, but…, you say, why should the people hate Pope Adrian when it was the Curia he was wanting to reform? Well, here is the point I am trying to make in this post: Don’t think that the Curia can reformed without the whole Church being reformed; and don’t think that the Church can be reformed without YOU (and me) being reformed.

Personally, I feel like I am going through a bit of reluctant reformation myself in these days. We have a new shepherd, Francis, and he is intent on taking the Church in a direction that some parts of the Church are not very happy to go. Every day, every moment since his election, Pope Francis has challenged everyone in the Church (from bishops and priests to youth and prisoners) to go “further in” to our faith and “further out” to our world. The things he does are one thing. The things he says only reinforce and make sense of what he is doing.

By now you should all be familiar with the notes of Cardinal Bergoglio’s address to the Conclave which Cardinal Ortega has made available . Essentially is the diagnosis of a doctor. He looks at the Church and sees a sickness. He names that sickness: “Self-referentialism”. He names the cure: Evangelisation. He proscribes the medicine:

The Church is called to come out from itself and to go to the peripheries, not only geographical, but also existential: those of the mystery of sin, of suffering, of injustice, those of ignorance and of the absence of faith, those of thought, those of every form of misery.

There are many who, like the Pharisees in the wheatfield (Mark 2:23-28 – what were they doing there, anyway?) have been watching Francis closely to see how he is “betraying the Church”. They do not seem to be listening so closely to what he is saying. Words like “cross”, “sin”, “devil” abound alongside other words like “forgiveness”, “mercy” and “joy”. His message to the priests at the Chrism mass , about the need for a shepherd to get “the smell of the sheep” apply as much to us would-be lay evangelisers as it does to the ordained ministers of the Church. I know what he is talking about. Believe me, I have been running from the smell of sheep ever since I left the farm at the age of 16. Probably coming from Argentina, the image is a vivid one for Pope Francis. I doubt if many in his audience would have the same direct contact with this image.

Some of the reaction to the foot washing ceremony at Casal del Marmo has turned my stomach, especially 99% of the comments on this post at Rorate Coeli Rorate Coeli. But note the comments by “Jason C.” and “Cosmos” – they understand what is at stake.
I guess there are many ways in which to define a “self-referential” Church, but one way would be this: a Church which is “self-referential” is one which believes the Gospel exists for it, rather than it for the Gospel.

In a surprising move – just to show how quickly things are changing in Rome – there has been a lightning-fast reaction from the press office of the Holy See to this criticism. And if we were expecting an apology, or an explanation that would sooth our love of pedantry, we may be even more surprised to find that what we have been served up is a sharp rebuke:

To have excluded the young women from the ritual washing of feet on Holy Thursday night in this Roman prison, would have detracted our attention from the essence of the Holy Thursday Gospel, and the very beautiful and simple gesture of a father who desired to embrace those who were on the fringes of society; those who were not refined experts of liturgical rules.
That the Holy Father, Francis, washed the feet of young men and women on his first Holy Thursday as Pope, should call our minds and hearts to the simple and spontaneous gesture of love, affection, forgiveness and mercy of the Bishop of Rome, more than to legalistic, liturgical or canonical discussions.

One is reminded of many passages in Scripture, starting with Matthew 9:13: “Go and learn what this means, ‘I desire mercy, and not sacrifice.’ For I came not to call the righteous, but sinners.” (Moreover, note that this warning was issued by the English speaking press-officer, Fr Rosica – could this be just a thing that is affecting the Anglophone blogs?)

George Weigel, author of “Evangelical Catholicism: Deep Reform in the 21st-Century Church” which I am reading right now, has recently also written:

The election of Pope Francis completes the Church’s turn from the Counter-Reformation Catholicism that brought the Gospel to America — and eventually produced Catholicism’s first American pope — to the Evangelical Catholicism that must replant the Gospel in those parts of the world that have grown spiritually bored, while planting it afresh in new fields of mission around the globe.

I think he is bang on the money here. The problem with the popular “left vs right” paradigm of the present divisions in the Catholic Church is that they do not get to the core of what is going on. I think Weigel, in his book, is right: it isn’t a “liberal vs conservative” thing, it is an “inward vs outward” thing. The Counter-Reformation was, of necessity, “inward”. But the time for “inward” is gone, and the time for “outward” – Evangelisation – is here. Yet a characterisation of both the old fashioned dyed-in-the-wool liberals and new Rad Trads is that they both share the view of an “inward looking”, aka, “self-referential” Church.

Francis is indeed a more appropriate name for our present Pope than Adrian. Adrian failed in his attempt to reform the Church. The radical message of St Francis on the other hand rescued the Church at the time of her greatest need and continues to bring the Gospel to the world today.

When I entered the Catholic Church, one of the most influential books I read was by Joyce Little, “The Church and the Culture War”. I still think it bears reading today. In the dedication, she writes:

To my mother, Josephine Fossett, from whom I first learned the Catholic faith, and from whom I inherited the good sense to heed her advice that even were the whole world to go against the Pope, I should stick with him, and Pope John Paul II whose faith and wisdom has made it easy to heed my mother’s advice…

Perhaps in 1995 when she wrote this book, it was “easy” to follow John Paul II. But many had difficulties with him in the first years of his pontificate, and towards the end, there were also many criticisms. Still, those of us who “stuck with the pope” know we have nothing to regret. For some of us, sticking with Papa Benny was even easier – so “easy” in fact that we became comfortable and smug in our own little zones confident in the fact that, as Rusty Reno recently declared on ABC Radio’s Religion and Ethics report, “We’ve won”.

Well, the battle’s not over, my friends. But the real battle, the real place where reform needs to take place, is not “out there”, in “the Curia”, or “in the Church”, but in me. For the sake of the Gospel, for God’s sake, let us follow Joyce Little’s mother’s advice and “stick with the pope”, even if we don’t find it “easy”.

See here.

Yesterday I debated whether I should post two predictions that had formed fairly definitely in my mind:

1) That, at the Mass of the Lord’s Supper at Casal del Marmo Juvenile Detention Centre, Pope Francis would wash the feet not only of boys but also of girls.

2) That this would be followed by an intense about of handwringing throughout the Catholic blogosphere.

I decided not to publish these prognostications on the grounds of there being no point to stirring up a sh*tstorm if it was unnecessary to do so. But hey, there it is. Last night he went and did it:

Pope Francis washed the feet of 10 young men and two young women – two of whom were Muslims – during the Mass of the Lord’s Supper at the Casal del Marmo young offenders’ institute in Rome this evening.

Now, I can just hear some of my non-Catholic readers saying “So what? What’s the problem?” Well, this is one of those in-house Catholic arguments that has been bubbling along merrily ever since the publication of the revised holy week ceremonies in the 1970′s.

You see, one thing that the new ceremonial did not revise was the rubric which stated that, if the foot washing were to be done (and note, it is optional – more on that in a moment), “Viri selecti deducuntur a ministris ad sedilia loco apto parata“, or, as the English Missal has it: “The men who have been chosen are led by the ministers to seats prepared in a suitable place.” “Viri” in Latin means “male human beings” in English. There is no doubt about that.

Why is this significant? Because

a) the foot washing is taken of being symbolic of Jesus washing the feet of his apostles (no argument there on any score – that’s pretty obvious), and

b) because there is a fairly long line of tradition which takes the foot washing ceremony to be connected to Jesus’ “ordination” of the apostles at the Last Supper.

Taken together, and in the context of a fairly lively and divisive debate about whether or not women can be ordained to the priesthood, that made the foot washing ceremony at the Mass of the Lord’s Supper something of a powder keg each year.

So, there are the facts. The rubrics say “viri” (although, you must admit that they use this term somewhat incidentally – the rubrics do not say that those selected MUST be men, it simply observes that those selected ARE men).

Yet, I must admit, that I rather felt on the side of those who thought there was something not quite right about the way the foot washing ceremony panned out each year. It did seem to convey a note of “privilege” on the part of those who were chosen to have their feet washed. “Why did Father choose to wash their feet and not mine?”

If it was about ordination, on the other hand, I rather agree with Dr Ed Peter’s suggestion that it should be shifted to the Chrism Mass and the bishop should wash the feet of his priests. But in the parishes we are not “ordaining” the twelve men whose feet get washed – they are and remain lay men. I think the ordination connection is therefore a little tenuous. But, but, you say, it is symbolic of the twelve disciples. Okay, but among Jesus’ disciples there were women also AND neither the scripture text nor the Missal rubric specify twelve men (as far as I can see).

Two things we must be clear about in relation to the foot washing ceremony: 1) the ceremony is optional, 2) the ceremony IS NOT A SACRAMENT. In other words, it does not belong to the essence of the Church’s liturgical tradition.

The question we should then ask is: “What does the ceremony mean?” And this is a fair question. After all, Jesus himself said to his disciples: “Do you understand what I have done for you?” (John 13:12). And here is the answer Pope Francis gave last night:

This is moving: Jesus who washes the feet of his disciples, Peter did not understand anything and refused but Jesus explained to him.

Jesus, God, has done this and he himself explains to the disciples, “Do you realize what I have done for you? You call me ‘teacher’ and ‘master,’ and rightly so, for indeed I am. If I, therefore, the master and teacher, have washed your feet, you ought to wash one another’s feet” I have given you a model to follow, so that as I have done for you, you should also do.” (Jn. 13, 12-15)

This is the example of the Lord, he is the most important and he washes their feet because among us, he who is greatest should be at the service of others and this is a symbol and a sign.

To wash the feet means ‘I am at your service’ and also us, among us, its not that we have to wash everyone’s feet everyday, but what does this mean? That we should help each other, [to help] one another. There are sometimes where I am a little angry with one, with another, and well, forget it and if they ask you for a favor, do it.

To help each other; this is what Jesus teaches us and this what I [will] do, I do it from the heart because it is my duty, as a priest and as a bishop, to be at your service. It is a duty that comes from my heart, I love it. I love it and I love doing it because the Lord has taught me so, but you must also help each other. Always help each other, the one for the other and in helping each other, we will do good.

And now we will do this ceremony of washing the feet, and we must think. Each one of us must think, ‘Am I really willing to help the other?’ Think only of that and think that this sign is a caress of Jesus, because Jesus came specifically for this: to serve, to help us.”

So, in a word, the ceremony is about service. And if it is about service, rather than ordination, then it really does not work as a symbol if we are selective about those who are eligible to receive this humble act of service.

None of us should be surprised for one moment that Francis, Bishop of Rome, included a couple of women in his group. This was SO predictable, I almost regret not now having predicted it publicly. Here is a man whose middle name is “humble-service” (okay, it’s a hyphenated middle name), and here is the quintessential symbolic act of service, and here are a bunch of kids both male and female – what did you think he was going to do?

The thing is, Pope Francis has basically told us that the core meaning of this (optional, non-sacramental) rite is SERVICE. And if that is the core meaning, it probably shouldn’t be obscured with other overtones which cut across that message and suggest that the priest is only there to serve one half of the population.

Does that mean that I think any priest can now do as he likes with that particular “viri” rubric? No, I am not advocating that – not until there is an official change or decree granting licence to include women in the foot washing. It is still there, still “written”, as they say. Before making any changes, priests should wait for the official word from competent authority*. I believe a local bishop would have the right to make such a change to the liturgical norms. And perhaps the Bishop of Rome is suggesting to his brother bishops that this would be a good change to make, so that the symbolic act actually conveys what it means, and so that in the future this beautiful ceremony can be surrounded by a little less angst and argy-bargy.
_________

* Competent authority was defined by the Second Vatican Council, in Sacrosanctum Concilium paragraph 22:

22. 1. Regulation of the sacred liturgy depends solely on the authority of the Church, that is, on the Apostolic See and, as laws may determine, on the bishop.

2. In virtue of power conceded by the law, the regulation of the liturgy within certain defined limits belongs also to various kinds of competent territorial bodies of bishops legitimately established.

3. Therefore no other person, even if he be a priest, may add, remove, or change anything in the liturgy on his own authority.

I read this article (“From Mount of Olives to Jerusalem, world’s Christians mark Jesus’ entry”) on CNS and it got me thinking…

Catholic Christians in the Holy Land have made the amazingly humble and gracious gesture of unity to their Eastern Christian counterparts: Catholics and Orthodox celebrate Easter according to the Julian calendar:

Most of the Catholic communities in Israel, the Palestinian territories, Jordan and Cyprus are preparing to celebrate the liturgies of Holy Week not these days but in the first week of May, according to the Julian Calendar followed by the Orthodox communities. The unification of the Easter dates in most of the area is an application of the directive issued on October 15, 2012 by the Assembly of ordinary Catholic bishops in Holy Land, where it was established that within two years all Catholics in the Diocese of Latin Rite and the various Eastern rites will celebrate Easter according to the Julian calendar, coinciding with the Easter liturgies celebrated in the Orthodox churches.

The CNS article, however, describes activities in Jerusalem for Palm Sunday this past week, and while it acknowledges the decision of the Catholic bishops, they can’t really do anything about all the pilgrims who show up wanting to celebrate Western Easter in situ (so to speak).

Which seems to raise for me the really hairy problem that while we are celebrating Easter here this weekend, at the very place where the events we commemorate took place, they will still be at the start of Lent.

I know that the issue of the divided Easter date needs resolution. Personally, since we all agree on the “first Sunday after the first full moon after the Spring Equinox” rule (which was, as I understand it, mandated at the First Ecumenical Council in Nicea), I think we should all simply adopt the most accurate astronomical method of counting that date – with the proviso that we also follow the other old rule of never celebrating Easter before Passover.

According to, this FAQ sheet, the only difference this would produce to our current western Easter would take place in 2877. I know that the Greek Orthodox bishops decided to go down this root some time ago, but it is a decision that has yet to be implemented because of the issues it would cause in the Orthodox world – especially among the Russians.

I used the expression “Eccles’ third boot” in the previous post, and just realised that only close readers of this blog would realise what I meant (I have used the expression in the combox before).

It is a fine thing to speak of “waiting for the other boot to fall” if you are waiting for the completion of a pair of things, but what if you are waiting for the completion of a trio – or more? That’s where the law of “Eccles’ third boot” comes in. The reference is, of course, to a Goon Show script, and here it is:

GRAMS:
Loud dull thuds, continue under following conversation:

MINNIE:
Ohhhhhhhheeoh. What, what’s that? What’s that? Ohhh.

HENRY:
It’s all right Min, it’s just those noisy people in the tent upstairs. (calls) Who’s that walking about upstairs?

ECCLES:
(off) I’m the famous Eccles! I got friends in.

HENRY:
He’s the famous Eccles and he’s got friends in, Min. (calls) Do you mind taking those noisy boots off?

ECCLES:
(off) OK.

FX:
Two thuds.

MINNIE:
Ahh, that’s better.

FX:
Thud

MINNIE:
Ohh, I didn’t know he had three legs, Henry.

HENRY:
He hasn’t, Min, he hasn’t, he has a one legged friend. Goodnight Min.

MINNIE:
Goodnight, buddy.

FX:
Thud.

MINNIE and HENRY:
Ohh!

HENRY:
He’s got two one legged friends!

FX:
Thud.

MINNIE:
That, or one three legged friend, Henry.

HENRY:
Yes. Well goodnight Min.

MINNIE:
Goodnight, little mmnnnn naughty Henry. Goodnight little Henry! … Goodnight.