Sentire Cum Ecclesia

A priest friend of mine has been wondering whether, had Bishop Morris merely speculated upon the recognition of protestant orders in his pastoral letter in 2006, and not raised the possibility of the ordination of women, he might have been able to retain his position as bishop of Toowoomba.

I don’t know. But I do know that the recognition of Lutheran orders as they stand is as impossible as the recognition of the attempt to convey Catholic orders upon women. An email from Pastor Weedon on another mail list some time ago has prompted me to follow a line of investigation that he suggested in that email, referring to the dialogue statements of the American Lutheran Catholic dialogue.

In May 2004, the USCCB published The Church as Koinonia of Salvation: Its Structures and Ministries.

95. What follows for the relations between our churches from the analysis above, supported by the biblical and historical explanations that follow below? Building upon the earlier Lutheran-Roman Catholic dialogues, Eucharist and Ministry and Facing Unity,(156) we propose steps toward a full, mutual recognition and reconciliation of our ministries and the ultimate goal of full communion. We are aware of common challenges to overcome. Nevertheless, the mutual recognition of ministries need not be an all-or-nothing matter and should not be reduced to a simple judgment about validity or invalidity. In order to assess the degree of our koinonia in ordained ministry, a more nuanced discernment is needed reflecting the way that an ordained ministry serves the proclamation of the gospel and the administration of the sacraments, stands in continuity with the apostolic tradition, and serves communion among churches.

96. We recommend that our churches recognize our common understanding of the interdependent structures of church life and ministry, namely, the diocese/synod with its bishop and parish/congregation with its pastor or priest. This common understanding is reflected in a shared sense of the single sacrament of Order (sacramentum Ordinis) or the one office of ministry (Amt). The differences between us in emphasis and terminology need not be church dividing even though they challenge each church to overcome imbalances in its own tradition.

This statement was made with a certain degree of “hopefulness”, which it may not be so possible to sustain today. Yet it is notably less positive than the quotation given in the footnote (156) above from the 1970 US Catholic Lutheran dialogue report “Eucharist and Ministry”. In that dialogue report 24 years earlier, the Catholic theologians on the dialogue had positively concluded:

As Roman Catholic theologians, we acknowledge in the spirit of Vatican II that the Lutheran communities with which we have been in dialogue are truly Christian churches, possessing the elements of holiness and truth that mark them as organs of grace and salvation. Furthermore, in our study we have found serious defects in the arguments customarily used against the validity of the eucharistic Ministry of the Lutheran churches. In fact, we see no persuasive reason to deny the possibility of the Roman Catholic church recognizing the validity of this Ministry. Accordingly, we ask the authorities of the Roman Catholic church whether the ecumenical urgency flowing from Christ’s will for unity may not dictate that the Roman Catholic church recognize the validity of the Lutheran Ministry, and correspondingly, the presence of the body and blood of Christ in the eucharistic celebrations of the Lutheran churches. (pp. 31,32)

A lot has changed since 1970. Let us not say that our Catholic doctrine has “developed” in this area (I don’t want to open that can of worms again) but it is true that the perennial teaching of the Church (even as it was in 1970) has been greatly clarified since the days in which theologians could, with a straight face, use the phrase “in the spirit of Vatican II” in a dialogue report! The chief difficulty facing both these reports, and one that the 2004 report is obviously trying to find a way around, is the 2001 statement “Dominus Iesus” which declared in no uncertain terms that

the ecclesial communities which have not preserved the valid Episcopate and the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic mystery, are not Churches in the proper sense…

All hope is not lost, of course. That same paragraph goes on to say:

however, those who are baptized in these communities are, by Baptism, incorporated in Christ and thus are in a certain communion, albeit imperfect, with the Church.62 Baptism in fact tends per se toward the full development of life in Christ, through the integral profession of faith, the Eucharist, and full communion in the Church.

It is clear then that the opinions of the Catholic theologians expressed in the 1970 statement were simply mistaken. They believed there was “no persuasive reason to deny the possibility of the Roman Catholic church recognizing the validity of this Ministry” because Lutheran Churches “are truly Christian churches”. “Dominus Iesus” made it clear that the problem was the other way around, that the Lutheran Churches could not be recognised as “Churches in the proper sense” precisely because they “have not preserved the valid Episcopate and the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic mystery”.

The 2004 statement “The Church as Koinonia of Salvation” grapples mightily with this problem, suggesting that “a shared sense of the single sacrament of Order (sacramentum Ordinis) or the one office of ministry (Amt)” might be the solution. They believed that “the mutual recognition of ministries need not be an all-or-nothing matter and should not be reduced to a simple judgment about validity or invalidity”. They called for “a more nuanced discernment” on the question of what pertains to “continuity with the apostolic tradition” in this matter.

Well, since then, there have been a couple of clarifications that make even this a somewhat vain hope. In 2007 the Holy See with the approval of Benedict XVI released a document called “Responses to some questions regarding certain aspects of the doctrine of the Church”. The fifth and final question in this document was:

Why do the texts of the Council and those of the Magisterium since the Council not use the title of “Church” with regard to those Christian Communities born out of the Reformation of the sixteenth century?

Response: According to Catholic doctrine, these Communities do not enjoy apostolic succession in the sacrament of Orders, and are, therefore, deprived of a constitutive element of the Church. These ecclesial Communities which, specifically because of the absence of the sacramental priesthood, have not preserved the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic Mystery[19] cannot, according to Catholic doctrine, be called “Churches” in the proper sense.[20]

The footnotes to this answer are references (19 & 20 respectively) to the Second Vatican Council Decree “Unitatis redintegratio,” 22.3 (so much for the “spirit of Vatican II) and “Dominus Iesus,” 17.2.

In other words, it will take more than just some “nuancing” to get around the difficulty that from the point of view of what is neccessary for full validity of Catholic orders, Lutheran orders are deficient. There is, of course, a simple solution to the problem, and it is one that many Anglican priests and bishops are currently availing themselves of in order to have their ministry fully recognised as valid by the Church: entering into communion with the Roman Pontiff and accepting ordination at the hands of validly ordained Catholic bishops in that communion. It is a gift that the Church is more than happy to offer to our separated brethren, but a gift which, I expect, Lutherans are not inclined to either desire or accept. In the end, Lutherans, like Anglicans, will need to accept that there is simply no amount of “nuanced” reflection and interpretation that can get around a simple historical fact: that the continuity of apostolic orders within their communions was interupted at the at time of the Reformation.

I picked this up from the news feed from CatholicCulture.org:

Vatican prelate: ‘The Church has something to learn from bloggers’
June 21, 2011
L’Osservatore Romano has published an interview with the president of the Pontifical Council for Social Communications following a May meeting with bloggers at the Vatican.

“The Church has something to learn from bloggers,” said Archbishop Claudio Maria Celli. “One particular feature of digital communications is the fact that it is a grass-roots initiative, not something official or institutional. One and all can bring to bear their ideas, their personal witness in this area … If, indeed, it is true that every disciple of Christ is called to bear witness in his or her environment and to be a leaven, the dynamic of blogging favors this mission of evangelization.”

And, as they say, “there’s the rub”. It is precisely because “one and all can bring to bear their ideas, their personal witness” that makes Catholic bloggers such a powerful resource for the New Evangelisation on the one hand, and on the other hand, such a “loose cannon” for the Church and her leaders. As I said in a previous post, the relationship between the Church’s leadership and her faithful (or, as the case may be, unfaithul) bloggers is a dicey one that will take some time to sort out to everyone’s benefit and satisfaction…

And for another point of view when the “one and all” includes the bishops themselves, see this post by a law professor at Villanova University.

It’s cold here in Melbourne at the moment. Well, by our standards, anyway. 7 degrees celsius after a high of only 10 degrees. But the rain has stopped and the wind has completely died down, so I have lit a fire outside in my “hermitage”. That’s what my family calls my glorified, self-built, portable hut-cum-verandah out the back. It is quite snug, actually, with the fire and because it is near the ducted heater outlet from the house. It’s not completely weather proof, but gives me a dry and sheltered place to smoke my pipe, blog, read, etc. The dog keeps me company.

On Glosses From an Old Manse, Pastor Henderson is having a go at Blessed John Henry Newman’s theory of the “development of doctrine”.

He writes:

Has the belief that doctrine develops always been the norm in the church’s history, or is it in fact a novum (a new thing, an innovation…itself a development!)? Your answer to that question probably turns on whether you are a Roman Catholic or not, for modern Roman Catholicism is, as far as I am aware, the only church body to officially work with the notion that doctrine can be developed…

I suspect this is in response to a comment I posted on his blog a little while ago, to the effect that to deny that the doctrines of the Church have developed is to deny plain reality. In this post, he does admit that:

“1) there has been growth in the church’s subjective understanding of the apostolic deposit of faith. This growth in understanding has come about particularly as the church has had to confront various heresies, disputes occasioned by the erroneous public interpretation of aspects of the deposit of faith whose resolution called for more specific definitions of doctrine than had hitherto existed (the Christological definitions are the classic case).”
2) “various heresies” have required “more specific definitions of doctrine than had hitherto existed (the Christological definitions are the classic case)”
3) And (although he makes this affirmation by rejecting the negative) he also accepts that “actual new doctrines…explicitly contained or logically implicit [my emphasis] in the apostolic deposit of faith could develop or grow out of these confrontations” with heresy [Nb. he rejects the possibility that such developments could arise apart from confrontation with heresy, ie., through the “a normal process in the life of the church”]

So, it would be worth asking if in fact Pastor Henderson protests too much, and whether the theory of the “development of doctrine” is not, in at least some sense, also assumed by the Protestant theologians? But let us take him at his word, and agree that this is a peculiarly Roman notion. Why would it be that only Catholics have taken to this idea of “the development of doctrine”? Is it in order that we might have our cake and eat it too (eg. by proclaiming “actual new doctrines” such as the Assumption of Mary) (while claiming that we preserve the apostolic faith in its purity)? Pastor Henderson, like a modern day Charles Kingsley, certainly accuses Blessed John Henry of such duplicity, and even goes to the length of quoting Aidan Nichols in defence of this proposition.

Or is there another reason? I would like to suggest one for your consideration.

A singular difference between the Catholic Church and other Christian Churches and Communions is that we have a real, living, effective Magisterium. I don’t mean just the extraordinary magisterium of the pope, of course; I mean that ordinary magisterium that is exercised by the bishops of the Church in communion with the Successor of Peter. I would hold that apart from a true Magisterial voice, it would be impossible to speak of the “development of doctrine”.

For in order to demonstrate that doctrine has developed in the first place, it is necessary to demonstrate that a given doctrine once authoritatively taught is now – in its contemporary form – authoritatively taught in a different way – that is, in a “more developed” way – from what was taught in former times. This “development” cannot, of course, be an entirely “new thing” (Pastor Mark’s “novum”). Newman himself outlined the requirements of what kinds of “changes” may be regarded as authentic “developments”.

My point is that if your communion doesn’t have an authoritative, living magisterial voice, there is no way in which you could measure whether or not “development” has actually taken place! This is demonstrated by the fact that Pastor Mark is willing to accept the “developments” of Christological doctrine, because, like a good Lutheran, he accepts the magisterial authority of the first four Ecumenical Councils. Otherwise, he would be a Nestorian, or worse, an Arian (both Nestorius and Arius are condemned in the Augsburg Confession, if I remember correctly).

Do you think there is merit in this idea? I mean, if the Church has the authority to declare and define doctrine in reaction, not only to specific heresies, but also in the “normal process in the life of the church”, then some kind of theory of “the development of doctrine” is absolutely necessary. But if it hasn’t, then it would naturally mean that the only admissible form of doctrine would be that originally expressed by the Church in her earliest authoritative documents, aka, the Scriptures, and that every theologian, every pastor, would have the problem of determining exactly what was (and was not) originally contained in that “apostolic deposit of faith”.

And here I would like to make another observation. Pastor Henderson also runs a blog called “Lutheran Catholicity” on which he delights in finding snippets of the Church Fathers which seem to contradict present teachings of the Catholic Church. I wonder if he discovers such “snippets” as a result of his personal reading of the Church Fathers, or if he is not using some list somewhere (possibly from early Lutheran theologians such as Martin Chemnitz) which has amassed such “snippets” for his convenience. It was certainly the practice of early Reformed and Lutheran theologians to compile such “evidence” in support of their own peculiar “new doctrines” (cf for instance, the work of Ester Chung-Kim, Inventing Authority: the Use of the Church Fathers in Reformation Debates over the Eucharist).

My thought here is that his conclusions about the witness of the early Church Fathers might be quite different were he actually to immerse himself in the reading of the Church Fathers themselves, and to see these comments in their original context.

It is just a thought. I could be entirely wrong.

One of our commentators sent me this information about the “Tim Staples – Know Your Faith Tour”.

It appears to be organised by Parousia Media. I have listened to Tim on Catholic Answers and he certainly is the “bees knees” as an apologist. In fact the Catholic Answer’s website describes him as “Catholic Apologist Extraordinaire!”. It also lists his charges for speaking events… I wonder how one becomes a CAE? If you can tell me, it might help with the kids’ school fees…

Seriously, I am sure this will be a great opportunity to hear Tim and to be encouraged and more deeply established in your faith. And since none of the promotion material I have seen mentions any costs, I guess Parousia Media are doing this as a favour to us all!

Here is the speaking schedule:

CANBERRA

Tuesday June 21 @ 6:30pm
“The Bible Made Me Catholic”
Guinness and God – King O’Malley’s Irish Pub, Canberra City

MELBOURNE

Wednesday June 22 @ 2pm
“The Bible Made Me Catholic”
Freedom Publishing – 35 The Whitehorse Road, Balwyn

Wednesday June 22 @ 6:30pm
“The Eucharist – God’s Extravagant Love Revealed”
Theology at the Pub – Pump house Hotel, 128 Nicholson St, Fitzroy

Thursday JUNE 23 @ 6pm
Thursday “Catholics and The Culture War”
Our Lady Star of the Sea Parish – 3 Howard St West, Melbourne

BRISBANE

Sunday June 26 @ 11am Corpus Christi Mass followed by talk at 1:30pm
“The Eucharist: Bread or Body?”
Marian Valley, Shrine of Our Lady Help of Christians – 2541 Beechmont Rd, Canungra

SYDNEY

Friday June 24 @ 7:30pm
“Mary the Mother of God: What’s All The Fuss?”
Lumen Verum – St Michaels Parish Hall, 24 Margaret St, Belfield

Sunday June 26 @ 8pm
“The Eucharist: Bread or Body?” (Feast of Corpus Christi)
Our Lady of Lebanon Parish – 40 Alice Street Harris, Park

Monday, June 27 @ 7:30pm
Debate – “The Eucharist: Real or Symbolic?”
Between Tim Staples and Dr Peter Barnes
Laity Ablaze – Bowmans Hall, Civic Lane the corner of Campbell St, Blacktown

Tuesday, June 28 @ 7pm
“Bible, Benedict or Both : Is the Bible Alone Enough?”
The Western Deanary – Our Lady of the Rosary Parish,
The corner of Vine and Weston Streets, Fairfield

Wednesday, June 29 @ 8pm
“Are You Saved? Is Faith Alone Biblical?”
Guardians – St Charbels Church – 142 Highclere Ave, Punchbowl

Thursday, June 30 @ 5pm
“Stump the Apologist- Q&A with Tim Staples”
6:30pm, Break for Dinner
7:30pm – “The End – Closing the Final Book of the Bible”
Westella – Renaissance, 2 New St, Lidcombe

The Third Typical Edition of the Roman Missal offers an option never before seen in a Catholic missal for the Eucharistic Liturgy – and practically unknown even among the major protestant traditions: the option of using the Apostles Creed at the Mass instead of the Nicene Creed “. Given the baptismal character of the Creed, the rubrics suggest that this Creed “may be used” “praesertim tempore Quadragesimae et tempore paschali” (“especially during Lent and Easter Time”).

Apart from any possibile controversy over this “novelty” of this option, from a purely practical point of view the concern has been expressed to me that the minimalists will take over and prefer the Apostles Creed simply because it is shorter (and gets around that shiboleth of the opponents to the new translation: “consubstantial”). Surely not, I thought.

I attended mass in a parish outside my diocese this past weekend, the first weekend of the introduction of people’s parts of the new liturgy. Here is how the priest introduced the Creed: “We won’t be using the Nicene Creed anymore, we’ll use the Apostles Creed. The other one is too long, too long. We will use the shorter one.” Mmmm.

Readers of this ‘ere blog will be well aquainted with the different history, origin and purpose of the two Creeds. There may be times when it is appropriate to use the Apostle’s Creed. After all, at the Easter Vigil, the Nicene Creed is not said, but baptismal vows are renewed by using the ancient Roman Symbol in the form of questions. Nevertheless, there are many aspects that make the Nicene Creed unique and still the preferred “option” for the Mass, such as the confession of the true deity of the Son and the Spirit. A little bit of education about the nature of the two creeds would surely be helpful, rather than watering down the difference to a “word count”.

Otherwise the transistion to the new words of the Liturgy went fairly smoothly. We all (yours truly included) missed the “and with your spirit” at the announcement of the Gospel and responded with “and also with you” – we just were not paying attention. But after that all went okay, as we were redirected to the mass cards in front of us.

Just one thing I noticed about the mass cards being used around Australia for the transitional period. The type face used for the priest’s doxology at the end of the Eucharistic Prayer is slightly different from the typeface used for the priest’s parts on the rest of the card. Like all the priest’s parts, it is in normal print rather than the bold print that is used for the people’s words. But another way in which the priest’s words and the people’s words are differentiated on the card is the use of a slightly smaller font for the priest’s parts. Only at this point, we find that the font-size for the priest’s doxology is the same size as that for the people’s part…

Just something I noticed.

Just a little question for those in the know. I am currently reading Dr Adam DeVille’s “Orthodoxy and the Roman Papacy”, which concentrates on the question of the place of the “patriarch” in ecclesiology.

I am interested that the archbishop of Venice is accorded the title “patriarch”. I read in Wikipedia that:

The Patriarch of Venice (Latin: Patriarcha Venetiarum, Italian: Patriarca di Venezia) is the ordinary bishop of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Venice. The bishop is one of the few Patriarchs in the Latin Rite of the Roman Catholic Church (currently five Latin sees, including the Diocese of Rome itself, are accorded the title of Patriarchate, together with Lisbon, the East Indies and Jerusalem). Currently, the only advantage of this purely formal title is the bishop’s place of honor in papal processions.

Does anyone have any information about why Venice is accorded this title? Or Lisbon or the East Indies for that matter? I can understand the Jerusalem title – that is historical from the time of the Crusades (just as there was once a Latin Patriarch of Constantinople – finally abolished only in 1964). Would it be possible to accord this title to any other Latin jurisdictions? And under what circumstances would it be considered appropriate?

Something like this was inevitably going to happen. The plans for the Ordinariate ordinations were so well publicised, and expectations were so high, that there were bound to be disappointments along the way. What makes the particular case of the postponement (hopefully that is all it is) of Fr Hunwicke’s ordination as a Catholic priest so interesting is that it is bound up with the Church’s struggle to come to terms with the activity commonly known as “blogging”.

I have more than just a little sympathy for Fr Hunwicke. A protestant clergyman (or woman, for that matter) converting to the Catholic faith is faced with a decision, for the sake of his conscience, that requires a relinquishing of a vocation central to his own self-identity: the call to the ministry of word and sacrament. As Anglicanorum Coetibus acknowledges (by allowing the Anglican clergy who are re-ordained as Catholic priests to date their priestly ministry from the time of their Anglican ordination), a certain priestly character is formed even by the exercise of a ministry arising from an invalid ordination.

But no clergy convert to the Catholic faith – not even under Anglicanorum Coetibus – is given any promises ahead of time that they will be ordained to the priestly ministry of the Catholic Church. An authentic conversion must be with no strings attached. One cannot say to oneself: “I will submit to the authority of the Catholic Church IF they ordain me.” The submission to authentic authority must always be primary. It is a submission which is carried out in faith, a submission which requires one to trust that God calls people to their rightful vocation through the institution of the Church. This is a decision I had to make ten years ago, when I was not even certain that I would ever be able to be confirmed, let alone ordained.

As it was, I never sought priestly ordination, but I did put myself forward as a candidate for the diaconate. I then had to face the question of submission all over again when it was gently indicated to me that this path was not my vocation. The anguish caused by that decision lasted all of about six hours. In the years since then, I have been able to experience God’s grace as he has led me deeper into the discovery of a lay vocation within the Church.

Our ways are not God’s ways. What our heart wants is not always what God wants. I have just finished reading the “Gethsemane” chapter of “Jesus of Nazareth: Volume II”. In it, Ratzinger discusses the necessity for our human will to be aligned by grace to God’s will. If this was not easy for Jesus, how can we expect it to be easy for ourselves? But it is necessary. The path to true blessedness and holiness will not be found in seeking a vocation which is not from God.

All that said, I do pray that Fr Hunwicke will one day have his Anglican orders fulfilled by his ordination to the Catholic priesthood. If I am not mistaken, I believe he has already been ordained to the diaconate – and if this is so, then at least, to that extent, he is now in valid holy orders.

But of course, there is another side to all this, and that is the issue that has delayed his hopes of priestly ordination: blogging.

Blogging is a very new phenomenon in the modern age, barely a decade old as a universal means of communication. The Blogosphere has changed the way in which information and opinions are disseminated. I now read more blog articles than newspaper articles. Usually by the time a newspaper picks up a story, I have already read all the information and opinions on which those print articles are based. The remarkable thing about blogs is that they are direct, immediate, universal and unpoliced by editors or peer reviews.

And this raises a difficulty for the Church, which has only been highlighted by recent attempts of the Holy See to reach out to Catholic bloggers. On the one hand, the evangelising potential of blogs is obvious. Catholics now have an avenue for spreading the good news of Jesus Christ and for defending the faith against its detractors in public which was previously very difficult to access. On the other hand, blogs are powerful means for the dissemination of ideas and opinions which may or may not be in line with either the Church’s magisterium or the interests of the local Church and its agencies. The power of blogging cuts both ways.

In this sense, coming to terms with the Blogosphere is a challenge at least as great for the Church as coming to terms with the printing press was five hundred years ago. During the Reformation, it was the printing press which disseminated powerful ideas that challenged the established authority of the Church. In the end, the Church came to terms with this invention. What could be used by her enemies could be used in her favour by the Church as well. The Church responded by requiring all books by Catholic authors to have an “imprimatur” from ecclesiastical authority. It also used the idea of an “index” of banned books. These approaches worked for a time, but neither approach will work for the Blogosphere.

For faithful Catholics, and especially for Catholics who have any responsibilities to the Church arising either from vows of holy orders or consecration or from employment by the Church, the only really viable approach is self-regulation by the blogger himself. The blogger has to realise that what he writes may (and almost certainly will) have consequences. He has to remember his obligations to the Church in everything that he writes. He has to seek not to serve himself or his own glory, but rather the greater interests of the Church whom he serves out of love for Christ and his Gospel.

We are still in early days. The relationship between the Catholic Blogosphere (which is vast) and the Church has a long way to go before it is properly developed. The Holy Father has been very encouraging of bloggers, and perhaps this – the path of encouragement – will eventually reveal itself as the way to go. The trust will have to work both ways. The Church needs to trust her erstwhile defenders in the Blogosphere, just as the bloggers need to learn to trust the Church and her guidance and abide by her directives.

Perhaps one sign of a new relationship is the fact that there are today many bishops, priests and deacons of the Church who have their own blogs, as they have found it to be an effective way of communicating with their people. But there are limits. As yet there are no bloggers from within the Roman Curia (can you imagine a “blogging pope”?). Priests who blog are especially aware that they blog AS priests, with a responsibility to their bishops and to the Church. Employees of Catholic agencies realise the same. There is a careful line to be walked here, and it is crucial for the growing mutual trust which is so essential for the beneficial use of the Blogosphere by Catholics of all callings that we carefully adhere to this line.

Please pray for Fr Hunwicke and a resolution to the issue that has arisen for him and for the Ordinariate. And pray for all Catholic bloggers and for all who are in authority over them that mutual trust will develop and be honoured by all for the good of the Church.

Today is the official Queen’s Birthday Holiday here in Oz (one reason many Australians are against changing to a Republic is that we would lose an excuse for a long weekend), but as you all know, it isn’t actually her birthday. But it was the birthday of her consort, Prince Phillip, the Duke of Edinburgh on Saturday, when he turned a very respectable 90 years of age.

One of the endearing character traits of the Duke is what are often referred to as his trademark “gaffes”. Of course, these are really not so much “gaffes” as the manifestation of a highly insensitive, non-PC, devil-may-care, and “I’m almost the bloody king, after all, you know” sense of humour. Had he been a touch younger and moved in different crowds, he would have made an excellent addition to the Monty Python crowd.

So, in celebration of his 90th Birthday, the Independent decided to publish 90 of the Duke’s “gaffes” for our enjoyment. Some have been questioned for historical veracity. Just about all of them can be questioned for appropriateness in the given situation. But there is no doubting it: The Duke of Edinburgh is a funny guy!

I find this quite astounding.

Here is a Rome Reports snip on the plans for the American bishops to honour Pope Benedict on the 60th Anniversary of his priestly ordination. That’s pretty well par for the course, but the “astounding” thing is that this snip is actually film footage OF Joseph Ratzinger’s priestly ordination in 1951. Today we take for granted the fact that ordinations are filmed and every priest has footage of his own ordination. But was that usual in the early 50’s?

Given the happy fact therefore that Ratzinger’s ordination was recorded for the sake of posterity (surely the first film footage we have of the priestly ordination of a future pope), it is even more astounding that, during the procession of newly ordained priests, the camera actually zooms in and follows Ratzinger in the group. It’s like someone back then knew that this footage would be historically significant at some stage in the future.

Astounding. Even perhaps a little spooky.