Sentire Cum Ecclesia

Yesterday fell into place quite nicely for me and my family – Cathy attended the Anima Women’s Network conference in the morning, then we met with friends in Federation Square for lunch (in time to see the Focolare Youth Community do a “flash mob” dance), and went to the Fred Williams exhibition at the National Art Gallery. Then, as I was planning to go to my “church-in-law” with my wife and family for Mother’s Day, in took the opportunity of going to mass at St Aloysius in Caulfield for their first “Reform of the Reform” mass – the Ordinay Form done in traditional mode. This will be a standard form of the mass at St Aloysius for the Saturday Vigil in time to come.

Happily, in celebration of the announcement on Friday of the Ordinariate of Our Lady of the Southern Cross, there were a goodly number of folk from the Ordinariate group available. After the mass, I said to the Anglican priest, Fr Seeton, “That’s the first time I have ever experienced the Mass done that way in the Catholic Church”. He replied: “That’s the way the Anglo-Catholics have been celebrating the Novus Order for decades.” Of course, with one difference, we now have a new translation that is far more in line with the language of the BCP than the old one.

Speaking of the new liturgy, today I was worshipping, as I said, at my family’s Lutheran Church, where they used their “Service Alternative Form”. The LCA also has two forms of their eucharist. The old one, sung to Gregorian tones, is based on the Common Service from the late 19th Century (which was itself based on the liturgical work of Wilhelm Loehe in the mid 19th Century in German, who did a lot to restore the traditional liturgy to the Lutheran Churches of Germany and the United States). The new form is, as said, the “Alternative Form”, which follows the American Lutheran Book of Worship, and hence uses the old ICEL translations. Various modern settings exist for this service form, none of them Gregorian. While their old form uses “and with your spirit”, the new form uses “And also with you”. The old form has “I believe in one God” and the new form has “We believe…” The old form has “Holy, holy, holy Lord God of hosts” and the new form “Lord, God of power and might”. I certainly found it a little bit jarring, after more than a year of using our new translation (which is very close to the Lutheran traditional service), to have to go back to the old ICEL translations.

Anyway, I am sure you are all really wanting to know: What did they do at St Aloysius in this “Reform of the Reform” mass? And that’s really the point of this post, because there is more than one way in which this has been envisioned. There is, for instance, the “Oratory style” mass, which uses the Ordinary Form, but completely in Latin. That would have been a natural fit for St Aloysius, because it is an Extraordinary Form parish. But perhaps just a little bit confusing for regular parishioners, as they would probably have had some difficulty knowing whether the Ordinary or Extraordinary Form was being used if the OF was not done in English – which is, of course, what they did.

There are some things all ROTR’ers agree on: the Eucharistic Prayer should be said “ad orientem” being the main one, but also, kneeling for Holy Communion and reception on the tongue, use of the proper chants, and a Gregorian setting. After that… Well, it depends what elements of the new you want to import into the old and vice versa.

For instance, communion in both kinds? Surprisingly, given that many “Summorum Pontificam” priests don’t usually have communion in both kinds even when they celebrate the Novus Ordo in their parishes, Fr Tattersall decided to go with communion in both kinds via intinction. Fr Andrew Wise, the Dean of the Sale Cathedral, was assisting with the cup and, as Fr T went along the communion rail, he held the cup while Fr T intincted the host and placed it on the tongues of the communicants. This is probably a good decision, I think. It modelled how intinction should be properly done, and showed that there is an alternative to the use of an “extraordinary minister” (or three or a dozen) for the cup. It also meant that one cup and one cup only was required to be consecrated (and a small amount of wine at that).

There were other choices to be made. Sure, the Eucharistic Prayer would be said from the altar “ad orientam”, but what about the opening rites? The prayers of confession at the start of the service were done from the steps of the altar, but then Fr Tattersall moved to his chair while the Choir led us in the Lord have mercy and the Gloria, and he chanted the collect from the chair. All this could have been done from the altar, as in the Extraordinary Form. I was a bit surprised that Fr T didn’t take this direction.

Then, what about the Prayers of the Faithful? The EF doesn’t have them, of course, but the OF does. However there were no prayers of the faithful last night. Not sure why this choice was made.

Then the whole posture thing. Josh and I have commented on our blogs before about the interesting phenomenon of mass attenders who usually attend OF masses trying to use OF postures when they attend an EF mass. I discovered last night plenty of folk trying to do the opposite, ie. using EF postures during the OF mass. A small case in point is that half the congregation knelt for the blessing at the end of mass.

Other than that, all the rest of my observations concern musical issues.

When I entered the church, I was handed a copy of the Vatican II Hymnal, a handsome volume prepared by the Corpus Christi Watershed folk in the states. This was all I was given – no bulletin or outline of directions. I was told that the relevant page numbers were on the hymn no. board. And indeed they were: the numbers 4, 119, and 217 were on the board (I may have remembered these incorrectly – no matter, I am simply using them as examples). Page 4 turned out to be the order of service – in both Latin and English. Page 119 (or whatever) was the St Ralph Sherwin setting of the Ordinary. Page 217 was the propers. Okay – a three finger job, given that the book has no ribbons to act as bookmarks. As it turned out, page 217 was for Year A, and it was only at the readings (these are included in the VII Hymnal) that I realised that Year A was in fact page 219.

The choir (a three person job) entered with the other ministers in the procession singing the Entrance Chant in English. But it wasn’t the translation from the New Roman Missal, nor was it any setting that I could find on my collection on my iphone (neither the American Gradual, nor the Anglican Use Gradual). The Choir also sang the Responsorial Psalm (using an Alleluia as a response rather than the musical setting included in the Vatican II Hymnal – and then a setting that wasn’t one of the 10 or so Alleluias in the front of the VII Hymnal, so that wasn’t really very helpful for a congregation trying to join in with it), and the Gospel Acclamation (using the same Alleluia setting – which I still hadn’t been able to pick up). They didn’t sing the Offertory Chant, although the VII Hymnal includes one. They did sing a Communion Chant, but again, the antiphon wasn’t the translation from the Missal (which is what the VII Hymnal includes). They did okay, but the singing was a bit uncertain. Nevertheless, it was in English and the words were easily understandable. I think if you are going to hand out a particlur hymnal as the resource for use in the service, it would make sense to use the translations for the chant that are actually included in that hymnal.

Again, one thing that EF mass regulars are not used to doing is joining in with the choir in singing the Ordinary of the Mass. That, and the fact that a not-very-well-known mass setting was used could explain for the rather uncertain congregational singing. The mass setting was the St Ralph Sherwin setting, which is freely available on the net and is included in the Vatican II Hymnal. It is quite nice, and I notice that quite a few US congregations are using it. Perhaps it was chosen because of the dedication to an English saint (for the occasion). Still, it was entirely unfamiliar to the congregation. Perhaps with regular use they will pick it up, but I did wonder why they didn’t just make it easier on all of us and just use the standard Gregorian setting available in the Roman Missal, which can be sung to both English and Latin, and is becoming well known around the Archdiocese (Sherwin is only set for the English).

Then too, another point that was confusing is that the choir (and organist) obviously intended us (the congregation) to sing the Gloria and Creed antiphonally with the Choir (something we only picked up slowly as we went along). This is quite traditional, but the setting as printed in the VII Hymnal doesn’t indicate when the choir is to sing and when the people are to sing, so we had to guess by listening to the organist (louder for the people’s parts). BTW, the Creed is not included in the Sherwin setting, so we used Credo I as pasted into the back of the Hymnal – although no one ever told anyone that that was where it was to be found (I am a great explorer of new hymnals so I noticed it there before mass began). Again, using the normal Gregorian setting for the Gloria would have made this easier for those of us who were at least to singing it this way.

There was one hymn – Soul of My Saviour – which was sung after communion. This was sung well, but the number for it was not put up on the hymnboard. You just had to recognise it, and quickly look it up in the index to the Hymnal, if you didn’t know it off by heart. There was no final hymn after mass, just an organ postlude – I would have liked another hymn.

All in all, the service was quite nice, and shows one direction in which the “Reform of the Reform” can go. But I would still have preferred the usual celebration of the OF that we have at St Philip’s in North Blackburn where I usually worship. We have the option of kneeling to receive communion there, and perhaps one day Fr D will re-introduce “ad orientam” celebration and perhaps on occasion we can have the singing of the Proper chants as in the Missal. Of course, last night was just the first time that this had been done at St Aloysius, and it may take time to settle in. My suggestions for the future would be:

1) Include all details of the service (page numbers and hymn numbers etc) in a small bulletin sheet
2) Use the chants in the translation and the setting in the Vatican II Hymnal since this is the resource the people have in their hands
3) Use the standard Gregorian setting, which will allow the option of using the Latin Ordinary chants from time to time (which are all printed in the VII Hymnal anyway)
4) Sing the Offertory chant according to the translation in the VII Hymnal
5) Include prayers of the faithful
6) Conduct all the entrance rites from the altar
7) Add a hymn at the end of mass – even if it is simply a Marian antiphon

This media release just in from the Australian Catholic Bishop’s Conference.

Personal Ordinariate to be established in Australia on 15 June Media Release 11 May, 2012

The President of the Australian Catholic Bishops Conference, Archbishop Denis Hart, announced today that Pope Benedict XVI intends to announce the establishment in Australia of a Personal Ordinariate for Former Anglicans to commence on 15th June 2012.

A Personal Ordinariate is a church structure for particular groups of people who wish to enter into communion with the Catholic Church.

In 2009 Pope Benedict announced special arrangements to cater for groups of Anglicans who wished to join the Catholic Church. This provision allows them to maintain some of the traditions of prayer and worship of Anglicanism.

Personal Ordinariates have already been established in the United Kingdom (2011) and the United States of America (2012).

The Australian Bishops have already put in place procedures to enable clergy and lay church members to join the Catholic Church through the Ordinariate.

Archbishop Hart hopes that there will be a warm welcome to those wishing to enter the Catholic Church through the Ordinariate.

“I am confident that those former Anglicans who have made a journey in faith that has led them to the Catholic Church will find a ready welcome”, he said.

This new community will have the status of a diocese and will be known as the Personal Ordinariate of Our Lady of the Southern Cross under the patronage of St Augustine of Canterbury.

Thanks be to God! This is a significant step toward Christian Unity. We must keep all those considering being a part of the Ordinariate in our prayers.

Most people join the Catholic Church “on their own” after a lot of soul searching. Every such “conversion” takes considerable soul searching and working things through with oneself and one’s family and community. It might, at first glance, seem to be a simpler step to do this “as a group” with others, but in fact, it raises a whole lot of other questions, as the “soul searching” is done not just on one’s own but in cooperation with others. This can produce unexpected tensions and difficulties, especially where some are more ready to take the step than others, or when there are conflicting views at work about what the new community being formed will be. It is not a simple or straightforward process. So our Anglican friends considering joining the Catholic Church through the Ordinariate will need our special prayers for a good dose of patience and tolerance with one another and with the Church as they take this step.

St Augustine of Canterbury, pray for the Ordinariate of the Southern Cross!

Some of you will be very interested in reading the actual letter that the Holy Father sent to the German bishops regarding the proper translation of the words of Jesus in the consecration at the Mass regarding “pro multis” (“for many”). You will find it here, on Sandro Magister’s site.

Many of you are probably wondering why I haven’t made any comment about the Seminar on Pius XII held at Temple Beth Israel on Sunday May 5th with Dr Paul O’Shea. The reason is simply because the hosts of the event, the Council of Christians and Jews and the B’nai B’rith, are currently working on writing up an article for publication reporting the matter. Also, we have recorded the event, and in due time a transcript will be made available. But these things take a little time when working cooperatively, and I will post the links to the article and the transcript when it becomes available.

I just want to say a big “Hi!” and “Welcome!” to any Yr 11 students from Luther College in Croyden who are visiting this blog for their “homework” after today’s sessions with me.

Yes, thanks to the kind invitation of the RE staff at Luther College, I had the privilege today to address two groups of Yr 11s on the subject of the Catholic Church. Actually, I had a lot more prepared than just about the Catholic Church – I was going to go on to talk about my work in Ecumenism (especially with the Lutheran Church) and Interfaith Relations – but there just isn’t that much time in a 50 minute period.  We had some interesting questions after my presentations, and even more interesting questions after the second period had ended. A bunch of eager searchers-after-truth mobbed me (I think that might be the only word for it!) to ask questions about the Catholic Church’s stand on “gay marriage”. If any members of that mobe are reading this, and are interested in what we discussed concerning those matters here on the blog, click here and here).

Since Ms Dymke gave the classes of both sessions the homework task of looking at this ‘ere blog, I would welcome any comments you would like to leave on any of my posts. Just be aware that if you are a first time commentator, you need to email me identifying yourself after you have posted your comment, because I will only approve your comment (and thus you as an approved commentator) if I know who you are. Read here for more information on first time commenting. I keep this information private for myself, and you are welcome to use a pseudonym when you post a comment.

One last thing. All of the students who were part of the after-session-inquisition asked intelligent questions. Some stayed to listen to my replies. Some didn’t. Rule number one for dialogue: it is as much about listening as saying your piece. The Jews say God gave us two ears and one mouth so we get the speaking and listening in the proper proportion. That’s another thing I admire about our Jewish brothers and sisters: while they are always ready to challenge you with hard-hitting questions, they are also always ready to listen.

And one really last thing: if you ask yourself a question, show some self-respect and put some effort into seeking an answer. For whoever seeks will find, someone once said.

And here is a replay of the video that I used to open my presentation today:

I have been living under a rock the last 48 hours and had not picked up this news until this morning after mass from Zenit: Archbishop Denis Hart – my bishop – has been chosen by his brother bishops in Australia to lead them as the President of the Australian Bishop’s Conference.

Our heartiest congratulations to his Grace from the SCE blog, and the assurance of our prayers and support.

On Sunday, I will join Rabbi Fred Morgan and historian and blogger Dr Paul O’Shea in a panel discussion of Pius XII and the Holocaust. I have prepared as well as I can for this important event, being jointly organised by the Council of Christians and Jews and B’nai B’rith Antidefamation Commission, but I have to admit to being a little trepadacious (is that a word?). The reason for this is that there is so much about the topic which I simply don’t know. I am somewhat comforted, however, by the fact that someone who has studied the matter as deeply as Dr O’Shea has, also admits that ignorance on this topic is something we will all have to get used to – there is so much we simply will never know (not this side of eternity anyway). So, going into Sunday’s event, I have been rehearsing saying that phrase which is really very difficult for me to admit: “I don’t know.”

I like to think of myself as a scripture scholar and a theologian, and, as my wife will tell you, I am something of an omnivore when it comes to the reading of works by scriptures scholars and theologians. Yet the more astute of my readers will have notices the absence of PhD or even MTh or MDiv after my name. The lack of such qualifications are for me what one might call a “thorn in my pride”. Yet do not fear, my self-image remains intact, as common experience has taught me that many holders of such qualifications tend increasingly to be more and more informed about less and less, as doctoral dissertations demand (by their very nature and by sheer practicality) that the scholar focus on a very narrow field of enquiry. My point in this rambling is that even if one is a Doctor of Philosophy or Theology (or of Economics or Science for that matter), one’s amount of knowledge always remains finite, while what one does not know always remains infinite. As Douglas Adams famously opined, “Any finite number divided by infinity is as near to nothing as makes no odds”, hence the learned scholar is just as ignorant as the layman.

Well, that’s as may be. (You may notice that my blog ramblings tend to be a string of connected ideas, rather than an actual single argument; I say: “Live with it”.) I read a great piece in The Age today by retired Senator, Nick Minchin, on Climate Change and Climate Change Skepticism (“They tried to change my mind but I’m still a climate skeptic” ). On the infamous QandA program with Cardinal Pell and Richard Dawkins, the compere had a go at the good Cardinal for being a Climate Change Skeptic. The irony is actually rather sweet when you think about it. The Atheist criticises the Believer for believing in something for which there is no evidence (the Believer, on the other hand, believes that there is plenty of evidence, and that the Atheist is simply too blind to see it). But then the Climate Change Believer criticises the Climate Change Skeptic for being too blind to see the evidence which is before their eyes (evidence which, according to the Climate Change Skeptic, is only there if you have already decided to believe in the claim in the first place).

Now the piece by Nick Minchin is about another ABC program in which he participated, called “I Can Change Your Mind”. I haven’t heard of it before, nor have I watched it. The article in The Age, however, shows that while Mr Minchin has every respect for climate change activists, the whole issue does come down to a matter of belief. He concludes his article by saying:

Indeed, the absence of warming since 1998 despite rising carbon dioxide levels shakes the foundations of the alarmists’ cause, as green icon James Lovelock, father of the Gaia theory, recognised this week when he backtracked from his alarmism. He now says: “The great climate centres around the world are more than well aware how weak their science is.”

What I do know about science is that it is dynamic, that there are always unknowns and that there is much we don’t know about Earth’s climate. May the debate continue.

The admission “that there is much we don’t know” is worth taking on board. “But we DO know!”, I can hear the Climate Change Believers retorting (in much the same way that I assure you that I DO know that Christ is risen from the dead), “We have the evidence.” No, my dear CCB’s, what you have is exactly what I have for my faith in the Risen Christ – the witness of those who claim to know. You (unless you have personally dedicated your life to the study of climate and the impact of human created carbon emissions upon the climate) and I are forced to rely on the witness of this or that scientist as much as I rely upon the witness of the apostles for my knowledge of Jesus Christ. What you have is faith that their witness is reliable, a faith which I personally do not share. Yes, indeed, you may be able to examine the results of those scientific studies for yourself, just as I can study the veracity of the apostolic witness, but in the end, both you and I have to admit that what we don’t know is in fact much more than what we do know.

If you were to ask me whether or not I “believed in Climate Change”, I would have to tell you “I don’t know”. I know that there are a lot of people who want me to join them in their new-found eco-faith, and a lot of others who condemn me for my failure to “make a decision for Climate Change”, but the fact is that on this matter, I simply have to say “I don’t know”. Nor, I think, does anyone else.

I am currently preparing for my one-day Anima Education seminar (following up the all to short “Opening the Old Testament”) “Kings and Prophets” (May 5th at Benedict House in Burwood).

I am doing this in two ways: first, I am listening to the entire corpus of the “historical books” of Joshua to 2 Chronicles on the “Spoken Word” app on my iphone. Every minute when I am not reading or writing is dedicated to this at the moment. The translation and tone of voice used by the app tends to put one to sleep, but listening to the bible being read is a very good way of getting into it in a fairly authentic manner. The thing that strikes one directly (especially in this translation which preserves a lot of the Hebraisms of the text) is how very, very alien these books are. Whoever their orignal “intended audience” may have been, they were not 21st Century Australians.

The other thing I am doing is finishing reading James Kugel’s “How to Read the Bible”. I have blogged on this work before, but it is simply one of the very best books I have read on the Old Testatment, as much because it is written from the perspective of an Orthodox Jew as anything else. Kugel’s fundamental intention in writing this book was, in his own words, to demonstrate that the “two agendas” – of the modern biblical scholar on the one hand and of the Bible’s role in bible-based religions on the other – have “no operational significance” for one another:

I believe that, after a period of confusion on this matter throughout much of the twentieth century, a growing body of scholars has now come to understand that these two agendas are indeed incompatible. In writing How to Read the Bible, all I attempted to add to the current discussion was a detailed demonstration that this is the case and the assertion that, moreover, the Bible was from the beginning understood to mean something quite different from the apparent meaning of its various parts. This fact, exemplified in hundreds of specific interpretations, might, it seems to me, serve as a model for modern readers, encouraging them (again, in varying degrees and through different explicative strategies) to seek in the words of Scripture a message beyond that seen by the modern critical eye.

That quotation comes from an online “appendix” to “How to Read the Bible”, “Apologetics and Biblical Criticism Lite”, and it is a very challenging article indeed to anyone who seeks to teach the Scriptures in the context of the believing community today. Basically Kugel’s point is “You can’t have your Bible and criticise it too.”

The anxiety in this case derives from the inescapable fact that, in the light of all that modern scholarship has discovered, the Bible necessarily looks very different from the way it looked only a century or so ago. Yet these commentators still want it to be the Bible in the old sense – divinely inspired (at least in some attenuated way), a guide to proper conduct and proper beliefs, a book of truth and not falsehood, as free of error and internal contradiction as possible, in short, despite everything they know, a book still worthy of being called the Word of God. Their repeatedly apologetic remarks give the lie, I think, to the claim that people schooled in modern scholarship, even those at the forefront of biblical research, have entirely made their peace with its implications. They may sometimes sound blasé, but the truth, it seems to me, is that most of them are simply doing the best they can to have it both ways, to have their Bible and criticize it too.

What makes his article particularly challenging is that, despite the fact that he puts his finger on the problem in a painfully accute way, all that this “finger-putting” achieves (for me at least) is a degree of pain and discomfort. There is no “cure” for the disease in Kugel’s writing, just the diagnosis.

Let me give an example. One of the questions I have already been asked by a student who has enrolled in the course is how we are to understand the various passages in the books of Joshua, 1 Samuel etc. where God instructs the Israelites to attack this or that city and to put every inhabitant, man, woman, child and beast, to the sword. I have read dozens of apologetic explanations for this. It is of course well know that these are the very passages the likes of Richard Dawkins like to point to as proof of the genocidal tendancies of religion.

There appear to me to be two options here. I could take the modern biblical critical approach, which identifies an “evolution” in the religion of Israel, from such primative texts to a more highly evolved ethical sensistivity. Or, an alternative modern approach would be to point out that the stories of the conquest as outlined in Joshua and the stories of the kingdoms of Saul and David probably have no historical basis and “never happened”. I must say that these do not seem to me to be very satisfactory, true that they may be. After all, these texts are in the Bible, and don’t we take the Bible to be in some sense directive for our life today?

But the latter is exactly what Kugel means by the agenda of reading the Bible AS “Bible” within the context of believing communities. To this agenda, he points out, the modern biblical critic has nothing to say. And since the problem that the student raises is precisely “How can I accept the Bible as God’s Word for me today when it has these nasty stories in it?”, the modern biblical critic isn’t going to help me.

So the second option is to ask myself, “How did the Ancient Christian interpreters – the Church Fathers – read these texts?” In order to help me on this, I have recently purchased the entire 29 volume set of the Ancient Biblical Commentary on CD-ROM (which uses the same platform as my Logos 4 bible software, so is available on the Android Tablet and the iPhone as well once installed – very neat). I looked up the comments of the Church Fathers on these passages, and was not very surprised at what I found. Basically, the passages are all interpreted spiritually to indicate than when rooting out sin from one’s life, one ought not allow even the very smallest sin to remain – all must be extinguished utterly. If that is the true meaning of the text, it certainly gets around the problem of genocide. But yet… the modern biblical critic at the back of my mind still says, “but weren’t these stories somehow originally based on the ancient Israelite understanding of who Yahweh was and what he was like?”

I am some point away from finding a comfortable solution within my own mind on these issues. I have some conception that the solution is to be found in the four senses of reading scripture expounded by the Catechism – the literal, the allegorical, the moral and the anagogical – and in an understanding that the Bible is what it is because of the authority of the Church in canonising the Scriptures in first place – but that is not a point easily arrived at, and, in practical terms, not one easily dealt with in the class room (or the pulpit for that matter – though that isn’t my concern).

One of the things I first noticed when I became executive officer for the Ecumenical and Interfaith Commission in 2002, was the difficulty of getting agreement among the Churches on issues of a moral nature concerning our society. For instance, there had been some attempt in the past (our files had the draft statements) to organise a joint Christian stand on the matter of abortion in Victoria. These attempts never finally saw the light of day, as the period in which they were attempted coincided with a new division among Christians themselves on moral issues surround matters of human life and sexuality. To this day, “moral ecumenism” seems a doomed endeavour.

And yet, and yet… We have seen at the same time a coming together, precisely over moral questions, not only of Christians previously divided but also with other religous groups, particularly some groups of Jews and Muslims. Here in Victoria this is evidenced by the existence of the Ad Hoc Interfaith group which includes members of protestant groups such as the Presbyterians (not known otherwise for their ecumenical engagement in this country), Lutherans and Evangelicals, together with other Evangelicals and Catholics, and indeed with some significant input from a significant member of the Jewish Community. In the US there are movements such as “Evangelicals and Catholics Together”, a particular project of the late Fr Richard John Neuhaus. The anti-abortion movement in the US has seen a quite astonishing coming together of Evangelicals and Catholics – overcoming many previously existing animosities.

Now, the new Health Scheme mandate of the Obama administration in the US seems to be forging another round of ties between groups not previously regarded as obvious bedfellows. Here is an example from the blog of my one time neighbour and friend, Pastor Matt Harrison, the President of the Lutheran Church – Missouri Synod: Lutherans Support Catholics on HHS Mandate (From the LCMS Reporter online. Catholic bishop ‘overwhelmed’ by Lutheran support). The story includes some neat pictures of pastors and members of the LCMS in Fort Wayne, Indiana, standing in solidarity with the local Catholic community and their bishop Kevin Rhodes against the restriction of religious freedom represented by the HHS Mandate.

Of course, the pictures also tell a story about who isn’t there. The Evangelical Lutheran Church of America congregations and pastors did not take part in this protest. And so we see the sad side of even this “good news story”: while moral issues draw together members of some religious communities with those communities from which they have been historically divided, never-the-less new divisions are opened up (or should I say, exposed?) precisely within those very communities over these very issues. What kind of times do we live in, when we see Lutherans of one ilk standing side by side with Catholics over an issue on which they cannot stand together?

This should be a warning to Catholics also. It is no secret that there are divisions between the members of the Catholic Church on issues of morality. Not that the Church is divided, of course – communion remains intact, and the Church’s magisterial teaching has not wavered. But we should be aware of how crucial it is that the members of the Church (and her bishops) remain united in their stand on these moral issues, lest these real divisions of opinions between Catholics manifest themselves in a real division of communion. Thankfully, as far as one can tell, the issue of the HHS mandate has done more to unite Catholics in the States than divide them. Yet we cannot ever take such a stand for granted.

Perhaps here too is a connection with the (otherwise seemingly unrelated) issue of the possibility of the SSPX returning to the fold of the Catholic Church. From a Catholic point of view, when there is a formal division in the Catholic Church (such as occured with the Lefebvre movement), this is not seen as a split “within” the Church, but a split “from” the Church. Yet there can be no doubt that the Pope has set the goal of restoring communion with the Lefebvrites so high precisely because of the danger of a permanent split “within” the Church. The recent review of the LCWR in the US could be seen in a similar light – a significant group “within” the Catholic fold whose position, especially on moral matters, threatens to create division within the Church. An argument has been mounted that, even though the SSPX disagrees with (say) 5% of what the Catholic Church officially teaches on some lesser points of doctrine, is it not ironic that this bars them from communion when other groups currently in full communion with the Catholic Church disagree on a much larger percentage of much more fundamental doctrines of the Church?

This might be seen within the context of another issue. I have, in recent days, been debating in another circle the question of the movement that has come to call itself “progressive Christianity”, and whether or not this movement can claim to be an authentic Christian “tradition”. Not yet a denomination as such, this movement exists across the Christian community as a real threat to the inner unity of many Christian denominations – our Catholic community included. These “progressive Christians” question not only the traditional morality of the Christian tradition, but also fundamental doctrines concerning Christology, Scripture, and the nature of the Triune God. Yet they remain within their particular folds – most of which have public confessions of faith and morality which are perfectly traditions – as a destabilising factor in the inner unity of their communties.

All this leads me to wonder whether, under our very noses, the whole ecumenical landscape is being drastically redrawn. No longer is it a matter of repatching old divisions between (for eg.) Catholics and Protestants. These traditional divisions continue to exist on a formal level at the level of the public institutions known as “the Churches”, but within the various Christian communities themselves, the rise of “progressive Christianity” appears to be taking place at the same time that a drawing together of more traditional forms of Christianity is taking place. I, for one, have no idea where this will all eventually lead. For the moment, it is of great interest to me to see the new friendships being forged at the line of battle for Christian freedom and traditional morality in our society.

Most readers of this blog are the type of Catholics who rejoiced (and are rejoicing) in the Holy Father’s Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum. We have rejoiced to see (in some places at least) the way in which openness to the ancient form of the rite impacts upon a reverent and faithful celebration of the new form of the rite and vice versa. In his letter accompanying the MP, Pope Benedict wrote:

For that matter, the two Forms of the usage of the Roman Rite can be mutually enriching… The celebration of the Mass according to the Missal of Paul VI will be able to demonstrate, more powerfully than has been the case hitherto, the sacrality which attracts many people to the former usage. The most sure guarantee that the Missal of Paul VI can unite parish communities and be loved by them consists in its being celebrated with great reverence in harmony with the liturgical directives. This will bring out the spiritual richness and the theological depth of this Missal.

In an earlier post on this blog, we saw how the way in which the Extraordinary Form is celebrated now is (compared to the days before the Council) is being subtly affected by the more common Ordinary Form – principally in the degree to which the congregants expect to be able to participate in the liturgy by means of adopting the postures of the OF and by joining in praying some of the prayers (most notably the Lord’s Prayer, which, in the EF, is actually prayed by the celebrant rather than by the people).

But the effect goes the other way as well, as is seen by this news item on the blog of the St Aloysius Parish, The Reform of the Reform in Melbourne.

The promulgation of the new translation of the Roman Missal of 1970, invites us to reflect further on the “hermeneutic of continuity” articulated by Pope Benedict XVI, and the importance of this being demonstrated consistently in the celebration of the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite.

Beginning Saturday 12th May (at 6 pm), in response to the requests of the Faithful, a weekly Vigil Mass in the Ordinary Form will be offered at St Aloysius’ Church [ 233 Balaclava Rd, Caulfield North, 3161] which will aim to exemplify “sacredness in continuity”.

The Mass will be celebrated in English, “ad orientem” at the High Altar, with both the Propers of the day and the Ordinary being sung. Communicants are invited to kneel at the Altar rails to receive Our Lord on the tongue ‘under both kinds’ by intinction. Books will be provided containing all the readings, Mass Ordinary and Propers, and music including hymns.

The inaugural Mass, at 6 pm on Saturday 12th May, will be offered for the intentions of Pope Benedict XVI.

This is a very welcome development. Caulfield is a bit of a hop, skip and a jump from my part of the world, so I probably won’t get there very often, but I hope that this style of celebrating the OF finds its way into more and more parishes, as Parish Priests find the courage to “turn their backs on the people” and “turn toward Christ” WITH the people!