Sentire Cum Ecclesia

Today is the feast of my patron, St Joseph. Sadly, I didn’t make it to mass today. It has been Fete Day in my parish and I have been in charge of parking. In fact that is where I am right now.

If you live in another country or if you are not Catholic, you perhaps will not be able to appreciate the scale of the average Australian suburban parish fete. The football oval has been full since 10am this morning. The only thing I can compete it to is the country shows that I grew up with as a boy. It is the chimed effort of the parish and its two schools, and brings on a significant percentage of our annual budget.

It is, I think, an appropriate way to mark St Joseph’s day, as he is also the patron of our parish. But it is a little disappointing that they day will not be concluded with a special mass for the patronal festival. I will get to mass tonight after the pack up, but that will be for Sunday not for the feast.

Ah well. It’s not a perfect world!

A very good question, but one that Barney Zwartz does not help by giving us only two choices for the answer: “the people or the Pope?”

That is rather like asking “To whom do you belong? Yourself, or the State?” The answer is, of course, neither. Rather you belong to God, and thus render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and unto God the things that are God’s (“That’s just what Jesus said, sir!”, as the Life of Brian leper put it).

So, to whom does the Church belong? Jesus Christ. That is something which all Christians can agree upon. And to whom did Jesus Christ entrust the office of teaching, governing and sanctifying the Church which is always his and only his? To the Bishops in communion with the Successor of Peter (at least that is how the Catholic Church understands it – if you are not Catholic, you will no doubt have other ideas). The Church does not “belong” to said Bishops and Pope, of course, but the authority to “teach, govern and sanctify” his Church does.

So when the entire body of English speaking Bishops – after a very long and extensive consultation process (okay, they didn’t ask me or Dr Paul Collins or Fr Blogs, but they did ask everyone who had the duty of “teaching, governing and sanctifying” God’s Church) – determines what translatin we are to use of the Roman Missal in English speaking Church, that should be that, shouldn’t it?

Or is it that the noise makers really want answer the question “To whom does the Church belong?” with the answer that “It belongs to ME!”? Newsflash: it doesn’t. It belongs always, only and forever to Jesus Christ. Take up your complaint with him, rather than with your friendly neighbourhood religious journalist.

For more good commentary on this article, see Fr Nick’s peice on his blog here, and Kate’s comments here.

Pastor Mark has left a comment on my post on shrouding images during Lent:

Never mind the shrouding , David, what about the mangled Mass? Not offering both kinds? Surely, you don’t buy concomitance? After all, if true, why would our Lord bother with the wine anyway? Another reason not to be Catholic, I’m afraid.

Well, yes, Pastor, I do “buy concomitance” because it is a doctrine of the Catholic Church. The Catechism has a simple statement on this (without using the technical term):

1390 Since Christ is sacramentally present under each of the species, communion under the species of bread alone makes it possible to receive all the fruit of Eucharistic grace. For pastoral reasons this manner of receiving communion has been legitimately established as the most common form in the Latin rite. But “the sign of communion is more complete when given under both kinds, since in that form the sign of the Eucharistic meal appears more clearly” [GIRM 240]. This is the usual form of receiving communion in the Eastern rites.

But I am aware of the need to give a little more consideration to the matter. The usual story given in liturgical histories is that the chalice was first withheld from the faithful around the 11th Century due to a growing respect for and adoration of the Eucharistic species. This is a little too simple. It certainly doesn’t take into account the broad history of the varying practices regarding communion. The Catholic Encyclopedia (1911 – and so not “up to date” with current ecclesiastical law, but still helpful) notes that:

there existed from the earlist times the custom of communicating in certain cases under one kind alone. This custom is exemplified (1) in the not infrequent practice of private domestic Communion, portion of the Eucharistic bread being brought by the faithful to their homes and there reserved for this purpose; (2) in the Communion of the sick, which was usually administered under the species of bread alone; (3) in the Communion of children which was usually given, even in the churches, under the species of wine alone, but sometimes under the species of bread alone; (4) in the Communion under the species of bread alone at the Mass of the Presanctified, and as an optional practice, in some churches on ordinary occasions. To these examples may be added (5) the practice of the intinctio panis, i.e. the dipping of the consecrated bread in the Precious Blood and its administration per modum cibi. We will notice briefly the history of each of these divergent practices.

The Encyclopedia gives more detail on each of these, but I believe there is more detail yet that we should take into account. For instance, what are “the pastoral reasons” (as the Catechism calls them) for communion “under one kind”?

Keep in mind first that Catholics understand the Eucharistic action a little differently from Protestants. Since Protestants see it primarily as a “meal” for the whole community to share (a not infrequent understanding to be found in some modern Catholic writing) it is, of course, necessary that the “Do this” of our Lord is seen to apply to all the people. But for Catholics, the Mass is offering of the Eucharistic Sacrifice, and this sacrificial act is completed when the celebrating priest communes himself on both Eucharistic species. As the Encyclopedia article states:

In reference to the Eucharist as a sacrifice, the communion, under both kinds, of the celebrating priest belongs at least to the integrity, and, according to some theologians, to the essence, of the sacrificial rite, and may not therefore be omitted without violating the sacrificial precept of Christ: “Do this for a commemoration of me” (Luke 22:19). This is taught implicitly by the Council of Trent (Sess. XXI, c. i; XXII, c. i). (b) There is no Divine precept binding the laity or non-celebrating priests to receive the sacrament under both kinds (Trent, sess. XXI, c. i.) (c) By reason of the hypostatic union and of the indivisibility of His glorified humanity, Christ is really present and is received whole and entire, body and blood, soul and Divinity, under either species alone; nor, as regards the fruits of the sacrament, is the communicant under one kind deprived of any grace necessary for salvation (Trent, Sess. XXI, c., iii).

That being said, back to the “pastoral reasons” why the laity and non-celebrating priests might well receive communion only under the “kind” of the species of the Eucharistic bread.

Some years ago, as a Lutheran pastor, I was put in charge of organising a Eucharistic liturgy for a large gathering of Lutherans in Geelong. There were about 600 or 700 communicants. We procured additional chalices and flagons for the wine, and we had several “distribution points” around the large gymnasium in which the service was held. To facilitate the communion and the pouring of the wine into the chalices for all the people, we had tables set up around the space at each “distribution point”. Afterward, when it was time to pack up, I was somewhat distressed to see that there was spilt wine over all the tables where the pouring had taken place.

First keep in mind that up until recently (in both Lutheran and Catholic liturgies) only the ordained minister(s) could distribute the Eucharist. This meant that way of distribution was needed to commune large numbers of people efficiently (time-wise) and with a minimum of possibility of profanation of the Eucharistic species. Using unleavened bread pre-baked into wafers was one way of ensuring that crumbs of the Eucharistic bread were not spilled in the “breaking”. In the East, where leavened bread was used, the solution was found to place the bread in the chalice and for the priest to distribute it with a spoon into the mouths of the communicants. Even this method was difficult for a large number of communicants. In the West, communion under one kind seemed the best way to go, given the historical precedent for this (as outlined in the Encyclopedia).

At the same time, numbers of communicants at liturgies in the middle ages in both East and West were not as high as they have customarily become in recent years in the West. You might think of the 400,000 that received communion at the Papal Mass at Randwick during the 2008 World Youth Day. Or you might think simply in terms of the couple of hundred of people at St Mary’s in Cowes yesterday, or even the regular hundreds who attend masses in St Patrick’s Cathedral in Melbourne. In all these cases, communion under both kinds would be very difficult both in terms of efficiency (keeping the communion time to under 10-15 minutes) and in terms of protecting the Eucharistic species from profanation.

So it seems to me that given the truth that “Christ is really present and is received whole and entire, body and blood, soul and Divinity, under either species alone”, it is a suitable and responsible pastoral decision to offer communion under only the species of the Eucharistic bread.

I would have to do much more study on the history of the practice to understand it completely. If I had a time machine, one thing I would like to do is to do a documentary on the development of the practice of the Eucharistic Liturgy over the ages. We don’t have any such thing, of course, but I simply caution Lutherans, Orthodox and Catholics alike not to assume that just because “this is the way we do it today”, that this is the way communion has always been administered.

HT to Kate for alerting me to this one.

Fr Frank Brennan has a piece in the current issue of Eureka Street in defence of the legal recognition of same-sex unions. He introduces his piece thus:

I remain of the view that we should [a] not extend the definition of marriage to include same-sex unions; that we should [b] legislate to recognise same-sex unions; and that we should [c] leave questions about the legal availability of new technologies for the creation of children by same-sex couples for determination at a later date.

A tick on [a], but a big X on [b] and [c], Fr B. Your positions on [b] and [c] have some merit to it from the point of view of secular politics. It has no merit from the point of view of Catholic doctrine, and it is inappropriate for a Catholic priest to write in this way.

I know that the Jesuits are free of the oversight of local bishops – they are, in fact, directly answerable to their Superior General, a priest, who is directly answerable to the Pope – but Fr Brennan indicates in his article that he is aware of the June 3rd 2003 CDF document addressed to all the bishops of the world to

be used by Bishops in preparing more specific interventions, appropriate to the different situations throughout the world, aimed at protecting and promoting the dignity of marriage, the foundation of the family, and the stability of society, of which this institution is a constitutive element.

He attributes this document to Cardinal Ratzinger, who was indeed the head of the CDF at the time and a co-signatory of the document, but it was issued with the full authority of Pope John Paul II. It remains in force today.

In this document, it is stated (with my emphasis) that

5. Faced with the fact of homosexual unions, civil authorities adopt different positions. At times they [a] simply tolerate the phenomenon; at other times [b] they advocate legal recognition of such unions, under the pretext of avoiding, with regard to certain rights, discrimination against persons who live with someone of the same sex. In other cases, [c] they favour giving homosexual unions legal equivalence to marriage properly so-called, along with the legal possibility of adopting children.

Note at this point that Fr Brennan’s position is [b] in the above quotation. The documentation goes on to explain:

Where the government’s policy is de facto tolerance and there is no explicit legal recognition of homosexual unions, it is necessary to distinguish carefully the various aspects of the problem. Moral conscience requires that, in every occasion, Christians give witness to the whole moral truth, which is contradicted both by approval of homosexual acts and unjust discrimination against homosexual persons. Therefore, discreet and prudent actions can be effective; these might involve: unmasking the way in which such tolerance might be exploited or used in the service of ideology; stating clearly the immoral nature of these unions; reminding the government of the need to contain the phenomenon within certain limits so as to safeguard public morality and, above all, to avoid exposing young people to erroneous ideas about sexuality and marriage that would deprive them of their necessary defences and contribute to the spread of the phenomenon. Those who would move from tolerance to the legitimization of specific rights for cohabiting homosexual persons need to be reminded that the approval or legalization of evil is something far different from the toleration of evil.

Fr Brennan should take note of this document, even if he is not under the authority of any bishop other the Bishop of Rome. Nevertheless, even under the authority of said Bishop, we should ask whether it is right and prudent for him to write as follows:

Though homosexual acts committed by a heterosexual person might be judged immoral, one cannot credibly cast judgment on all such acts committed by a homosexual person without first taking into account the personal and relational context of the sexual act.
There are homosexual persons who enter into loving, faithful and committed relationships. These persons should [a] be able to live in society free from discrimination, without state interference and with state support and approval. They should [b] enjoy the same state protection as de facto couples enjoy under existing state and territory laws.

I agree with him on [a]. That is in accord with the CDF document’s counsel of prudence in this matter. However, he is out of line on [b]. The CDF document argues from “the order of right reason” that

Laws in favour of homosexual unions are contrary to right reason because they confer legal guarantees, analogous to those granted to marriage, to unions between persons of the same sex. Given the values at stake in this question, the State could not grant legal standing to such unions without failing in its duty to promote and defend marriage as an institution essential to the common good.

Fr Brennan states that “Some Catholics agree completely with this teaching. Others find it problematic.” This is true. But that does not give him the right, as a priest of the Catholic Church sworn to obedience to the Holy Father, to promote this dissent.

We visited St Mary’s in Cowes today for Mass. It’s a fairly normal parish, with the unusual fact that it has an even higher than normal proportion of pensioners (local retirees on the Island), and parish priest of the “good old” sort. Today it was packed with holiday makers for the long weekend (actually its nice to see lots of young families, on holidays, turn up for mass). The music is presented by a fairly enthusiastic guitar and flute group (with a choir of sorts) even though the repertoire is limited (you can always expect “Here I am Lord” or “Come as you are”). It is singable at least.

As I said, the parish priest, who can’t be more than a few years off retirement age, is a traditional kind of guy. Not a “traditionalist”, but the sort of guy who does what is “traditional”. For instance, I have never seen communion offered under both kinds at St Mary’s. They still have two collections (“Hobbit first and second collections”, as I commented to my daughter – that got a giggle).

But is this a “tradition”? Or was it ever? I know that it is usual to shroud the images and statues and crucifixes etc. from “Passion Sunday” onwards (6th Sunday in Lent in the new money, 5th in the old), but I was never aware of a custom in which the shrouding took place from the very beginning of Lent.

Dear Mr Paul (St),

It has come to our attention that your “requirements for a bishop” may violate this country’s anti-discrimination laws.

We refer to your letter to Timothy (St) of March 11, 62AD. We understand that your “questionnaire” has been designed to be used to assess candidates for the position of bishop in your denomination.

In your letter you tell ecclesiastical employers that:

“A bishop must be:

• above reproach,
• married only once,
• temperate,
• sensible,
• respectable,
• hospitable,
• an apt teacher,
• not given to strong drink,
• not violent but gentle,
• not quarrelsome, and
• not a lover of money.
• He must manage his own household well, keeping his children submissive and respectful in every way— for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how can he take care of God’s church?
• He must not be a recent convert, or he may be puffed up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil.
• Moreover, he must be well thought of by outsiders, so that he may not fall into disgrace and the snare of the devil.”

We are concerned about the questions to do with marital status, family life, “respectability” and the implied “religious test”. It’s hard to see how that could be relevant to doing the job. Discrimination on these levels could be breaking the law in Australia.

The private family life of a potential candidate should be irrelevant when considering employment. It is also inappropriate to ask about a potential candidate’s alcohol usage, if the only usage is in private and does not directly affect his work. It is certainly illegal to discriminate on the basis of marital status.

As for the requirement that the prospective candidate not be “quarrelsome”, is this intended to ensure that only conformists are chosen for the job?

Australian States have different laws regarding discrimination, but if the reference to “respectability” is to be interpreted as including such matters as personal appearance and grooming, you should know that in Victoria it is illegal to discriminate on the basis of appearance.

We are also concerned that the requirement regarding that the candidate “not be a recent convert”. This could be construed as a religious test, which the majority of Australians believe to be discriminatory in every instance. Some “exceptions” to allow religious tests are granted by the States to religious organisations, but you should be aware that such privileges are not to be taken for granted.

In the same vein, we further note that your “questionnaire” implies that female candidates will not be considered for appointment. Discrimination on the basis of sex is also against Australian law. Again, Australian States do provide for “exceptions” for particular religious positions, but as above, we warn you that you should not take such privileges for granted.

With this letter, we are placing you on notice. We expect to receive a copy of your revised “questionnaire”, in full harmony with modern social expectations and Australian anti-discrimination laws, within 21 days if you wish to avoid further action.

Yours sincerely,

(name and address withheld, sub secreto bloggero)

Further reference:
On “Catholics for Ministry” website: “Vatican Secrets – Selection of Bishops” by Dr Paul Collins (link not provided because to do so would break the requirement for Pontifical Secrecy of the document published there)
Vatican survey to select bishops ‘could be illegal’
Hating the Church in Australia

Further information: In his commentary on the Catholics for Ministry website “Vatican Secrets” (link not provided because to do so would be to break the Pontifical Secrecy of the document published there), Dr Paul Collins writes (with my emphasis):

Under the heading it [the ‘Questionnaire for Episcopal Candidates’] is marked in block letters ‘SUB SECRETO PONTIFICIO’ which means ‘subject to pontifical secrecy’. This attempts to suggest [it does not “attempt to suggest” – it actually DOES mean] that the recipient is bound to maintain an extremely high level of confidentiality about the contents of the document and their comments about the proposed candidate. According to one canonist [actually, according to Canon Law] it binds recipients to maintain the secrecy ‘under pain of mortal sin’. However, in fact the threat is meaningless and no one takes a great deal of notice of it [does Dr Collins suggest that the “threat” is meaningless because HE and Catholics for Ministry don’t take “a great deal of notice of it”?]. The questionnaire itself says that it ‘must be returned to the Apostolic Nunciature with your answer.’

Instead, someone sent it to Catholics for Ministry and they/Dr Collins decided to publish it on the internet…

Matt MacDonald, of the Melbourne Archdiocese Life, Marriage and Family Office, writes: 

Dear Friends,

In just over one month, Share the Dream will be taking place in Melbourne. Most of you already know about the conference. Many of you may find this one and a half minute Share the Dream YouTube clip helpful in letting your friends, family or other interested people know about it.

Warm regards,

Matt MacDonald
Executive Officer
Life, Marriage and Family Office

Click on here to go to their website for full details. I will be doing a small workshop with Denise Lacey of Centrecare on Interfaith Marriage on the Saturday before lunch, if you are interested!

Cathy asked me yesterday: “What’s your list?” “What?”, I replied. “It’s your birthday on Saturday, or had you forgotten?” “No, I remembered that it was my birthday, I’d just forgotten that you get gifts on your birthday.” Really. I had. It hadn’t even entered my conciousness.

One thing I would have put on my list if (a) I hadn’t already pre-ordered and paid for it at Ignatius Press (b) Cathy would have known where to get a copy (3) it would have had Buckley’s chance of arriving on time, would have been Pope Benedict’s “Jesus of Nazareth: Volume II”.

But not to worry, there’s some pre-release stuff on the web. Zenit has published three extracts in full, “Christ’s Betrayal”, “Christ’s Accusers” and “What is Truth?”.

The Jewish Community have been excited by Pope Benedict’s personal reiteration in the new book of the Church’s doctrine that neither the Jewish people of today nor (as a whole) the Jewish people of of Jesus’ time were guilty of the death of Christ (well, no more than any other Christian or non-Christian sinner, anyway – see the Catechism p.597 & 598).

But I have found more exciting the passage where he considers the conversation between Pilate and Jesus on the nature of Kingship and Truth. I know that the book has no “magisterial” authority, but paradoxically it is in sections like this in “Jesus of Nazareth” that Joseph Ratzinger is reveal as a true “magister”, a teacher whose insights lead us into deeper knowledge and awareness of the Truth:

The classic definition from scholastic philosophy designates truth as “adaequatio intellectus et rei” (conformity between the intellect and reality; Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae I, q. 21, a. 2c). If a man’s intellect reflects a thing as it is in itself, then he has found truth: but only a small fragment of reality—not truth in its grandeur and integrity. We come closer to what Jesus meant with another of Saint Thomas’ teachings: “Truth is in God’s intellect properly and firstly (proprie et primo); in human intellect it is present properly and derivatively (proprie quidem et secundario)” (De Verit., q. 1, a. 4c). And in conclusion we arrive at the succinct formula: God is “ipsa summa et prima veritas” (truth itself, the sovereign and first truth; Summa Theologiae I, q. 16, a. 5c).

This formula brings us close to what Jesus means when he speaks of the truth, when he says that his purpose in coming into the world was to “bear witness to the truth”. …The world is “true” to the extent that it reflects God: the creative logic, the eternal reason that brought it to birth. And it becomes more and more true the closer it draws to God. Man becomes true, he becomes himself, when he grows in God’s likeness. Then he attains to his proper nature. God is the reality that gives being and intelligibility.

“Bearing witness to the truth” means giving priority to God and to his will over against the interests of the world and its powers. God is the criterion of being. In this sense, truth is the real “king” that confers light and greatness upon all things. We may also say that bearing witness to the truth means making creation intelligible and its truth accessible from God’s perspective—the perspective of creative reason—in such a way that it can serve as a criterion and a signpost in this world of ours, in such a way that the great and the mighty are exposed to the power of truth, the common law, the law of truth.

Let us say plainly: the unredeemed state of the world consists precisely in the failure to understand the meaning of creation, in the failure to recognize truth; as a result, the rule of pragmatism is imposed, by which the strong arm of the powerful becomes the god of this world. At this point, modern man is tempted to say: Creation has become intelligible to us through science. Indeed, Francis S. Collins, for example, who led the Human Genome Project, says with joyful astonishment: “The language of God was revealed” (The Language of God, p. 122). Indeed, in the magnificent mathematics of creation, which today we can read in the human genetic code, we recognize the language of God. But unfortunately not the whole language. The functional truth about man has been discovered. But the truth about man himself—who he is, where he comes from, what he should do, what is right, what is wrong—this unfortunately cannot be read in the same way. Hand in hand with growing knowledge of functional truth there seems to be an increasing blindness toward “truth” itself—toward the question of our real identity and purpose.

What is truth? Pilate was not alone in dismissing this question as unanswerable and irrelevant for his purposes. Today too, in political argument and in discussion of the foundations of law, it is generally experienced as disturbing. Yet if man lives without truth, life passes him by; ultimately he surrenders the field to whoever is the stronger. “Redemption” in the fullest sense can only consist in the truth becoming recognizable. And it becomes recognizable when God becomes recognizable. He becomes recognizable in Jesus Christ. In Christ, God entered the world and set up the criterion of truth in the midst of history.

Truth is outwardly powerless in the world, just as Christ is powerless by the world’s standards: he has no legions; he is crucified. Yet in his very powerlessness, he is powerful: only thus, again and again, does truth become power. In the dialogue between Jesus and Pilate, the subject matter is Jesus’ kingship and, hence, the kingship, the “kingdom”, of God. In the course of this same conversation it becomes abundantly clear that there is no discontinuity between Jesus’ Galilean teaching—the proclamation of the kingdom of God—and his Jerusalem teaching. The center of the message, all the way to the Cross—all the way to the inscription above the Cross—is the kingdom of God, the new kingship represented by Jesus. And this kingship is centered on truth. The kingship proclaimed by Jesus, at first in parables and then at the end quite openly before the earthly judge, is none other than the kingship of truth. The inauguration of this kingship is man’s true liberation.

This is all wrong. Just all wrong. Not just in the sense that Kate points out (as in what’s a Bishops’ Conference sponsored website doing hosting such open opposition?), but in the substance of its argument.

“Liturgy no place for dead language”?

It is very hard to get past that pejorative term “dead language”. Of course, the usual language to which the term “dead” was applied was Latin and Greek.

Latin is a dead language,
As dead as dead can be.
First it killed the Romans,
And now it’s killing me!

Well, you can sympathise with the school boy who wrote that, but watch this and ask yourself if Latin is a dead language:

And so, of course, we know that Latin isn’t dead. Ancient hieroglyphic Egyptian is, as far as I know. So is ancient Hittite. Aramaic isn’t. Hebrew and Greek isn’t. Latin certainly isn’t.

Still, this isn’t about Latin. This is an argument about English! The Queen’s English! The language you and I speak! How can a style of English language – which uses words easily found in the Oxford English Dictionary – be called “dead”?

Okay, the language of the new translation of the missal isn’t street or pub language, but is that an argument for saying its “dead”. I don’t think so.

Reader: “But David, but David, there are words in the new missal I don’t understand.”

That doesn’t mean the language is “dead”. I read words in books and novels every day that are new to me, and I find I have to look them up. Just the other day, I came across the word “prurience”. That’s a real word with a real meaning. Not used often, granted, but not “dead”. And the meaning of the word is quite specific. It hasn’t been replaced by any other form of the word. It’s in the dictionaries. I know what it means now, and could use it in conversation if the opportunity arises. And if you google it, so will you. See? You’ve learned something. (Just as an aside, have I mentioned that I heard Stephen Fry use the term “consubstantial” in a casual, non-religious conversation recently on TV?).

You all know that joke in those B grade comedies when the smart sassy girl calls some big tough gangster a “troglodyte”, and he says “What’s a troglodyte?” and she says “a big tough ganster like you”, and he says (puffing out his chest) “Yeah, I’m a troglodyte and proud of it!” and we all laugh. We laugh because he is also an ignoramus. Knowing what words mean is a “smart sassy” thing. People who say we should only use words whose meaning is utterly plain to even the uneducated are…well, troglodytes.

So, what about the style of the language? Should Liturgical language not only be allowed to use “big words”, but also be free to be a distinctive style from other language?

Well, duh. Have you ever seen the play “Cyrano de Bergerac”? If you have, you know the importance of style. Whether you saw it in the original French (which is delightful even for someone who doesn’t understand a word of French, such as me – I recommend the Gerard Depardieu version) or in English (I saw a live performance by our Aussie star, David Wenham in the lead role) or even the spoof “Roxanne” (with Steve Martin), you will soon get the idea of how important style is when you are wooing a girl. Okay, the language would sound flowery and silly in any other context, but when uttered between two lovers…

“And what is a kiss, specifically? A pledge properly sealed, a promise seasoned to taste, a vow stamped with the immediacy of a lip, a rosy circle drawn around the verb ‘to love.’ A kiss is a message too intimate for the ear, infinity captured in the bee’s brief visit to a flower, secular communication with an aftertaste of heaven, the pulse rising from the heart to utter its name on a lover’s lip: ‘Forever.'”
– Edmond Rostand, Cyrano de Bergerac, Act 3

Ah, poetry. Ah, the Liturgy. The liturgy isn’t a newspaper. It isn’t a text book even. It isn’t something designed purely to convey information to the people gathered to celebrate it. In fact, it isn’t designed “to communicate” to people at all. It is designed as the communication of lovers to the One whom they adore. It is the language of love, of poetry, of adoration, of desire, of passion.

A brief example.

When I was on the Liturgical Commission of the Lutheran Church of Australia, we were preparing a Lutheran version of the order of Compline. There is that great response after the Little Chapter, which begins (traditionally in English):

“Into thy hands, O Lord, I commend my spirit…”

We had a very good linguist on our committee. I loved him dearly and was deeply sorrowed by his passing a few years back. But he had a knack for taking a beautiful line of English prose and boiling it down to the level of pure information. It still said the same thing, but not in the same way. The response became:

“I put myself in your hands, Lord.”

Compared to the previous version, this line fell like a lead sinker to the mud on the bottom of river of the soul. Plop.

But the author of the Cathnews blog piece objects:

Under the at-times gleeful dismissal of ‘banal’ is the turn to an esotericism indicative of all mystery religions, and especially hostile to the universality of a revealed religion as is Christianity.

The Good News is not about secrecy. The Good news is not about special languages by which only initiates will nod in exclusive and excluding assent. The Good News is not about a restless and never-ending search for the perfect liturgical language – as if the current push for the arcane will be the last.

Let’s see: “gleeful”, “esotericism”, “indicative”, “universality”, “initiates”, “arcane”, … I wonder if those are the kind of words that he means are “dead” language? Surely they are not any more common in English than “consubstantial” and “dewfall”? Oh, but they are, you say. Yes, in the realm of the academy, but not down at the pub. He does you the honour of not treating you like a troglodyte. He uses exalted language in his writing to honour you, his reader, with the compliment that you can understand such words.

Ah, but no such exalted language is to be used in the liturgy. NO! The Liturgy is for the simple people! It is to communicate information at the lowest common denominator! Nothing above the Daily Mail and the Herald Sun should be allowed to appear in the black bits between the red bits. How utterly patronising.

Reader: “David, David, calm down. Take a Bex or get to your point.”

Sorry, my point is that there IS mystery at the heart of what is going on in the Liturgy. Okay, Christianity isn’t just a mystery cult, but there is a good reason why it was mistaken for one in both the ancient and modern world. There really is a real dinky-di, ozzie-cobber-wombie mystery at the base of our religion: the mystery of the dying and rising God-Man, officially referred to as “the Paschal Mystery”.

The Cathnews Blog author seems to be under the modern Protestant “Church Growth Movement” (have I mentioned that phenomena recently?) impression that the whole purpose of the Liturgy is communication of “the Good News” to the “Great Unchurched”.

NEWSFLASH! NEWSFLASH! The Liturgy is “Divine Service”, worship paid to the Creator of the Universe, who is a Triune God, an Undivided Unity and yet Three Persons, the Second Person of Whom was Incarnate of the Virgin Mary and Became Man (“for us men”) and suffered death and rose and now lives exalted at the Right Hand of the Father and who comes to us in the mystery of the Transubstantiated Bread and Wine with his Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity.

Like, WOW!!!

And you want to use street-speak to talk to this Guy?

Reader: “David, calm down.”

It’s okay. I’ve had a cup of tea. I’m better now.

Really, though. The whole thrust of this article is wrong. Just wrong.

That wonderful phrase in the KJV of Acts 9:5 and 26:14 seems perfect for the latest news from Reuters: “Saudi clerics condemn protests and “deviant” ideas” and “China says Dalai Lama has to reincarnate”. Across the Islamic universe there is turmoil at the moment as predominantly Shi’ite muslim populations “kick against the pricks” and demand greater democracy in their lands. The long fight of Buddhist Tibet for its own independance from its communist China overlords is not dissimilar.

Saudi Arabia is in the hands of the Sunni Wahhabist sect. Many Muslims decry the fact that their most sacred sites are under the control of this sect. The clampdown on demonstrations by the Wahhabist clerics is a direct challenge to the mainly Shi’ite led call for greater democracy. In Egypt, the dominant Muslim forces turned against their overlords. But in Saudi Arabia, the Sharia courts are shoring up the Kingdom’s regime.

The Dalai Lama is investigating ways in which he can use his religious tradition to maintain the freedom of his people and their religion. One way is for him to “reincarnate” before he actually dies (yes, this is possible it seems), and in this way choose his own successor. The real possibility is that after his death there will be a Tibetan Dalai Lama (who will continue as the current DL does in exile) and an official “anti-Dalai Lama” appointed by the Chinese Government.

Pope Benedict in his World Day of Peace message valiantly sought to draw the world’s attention to the necessity and plight of religious freedom. What we see in these two stories are the dominant powers trying to use “religious tradition” against their subjects.

What we are used to here in the West is religious freedom challenged by dominant secularism. But in the Middle East and in Asia, the fight for religious freedom is often one traditions fight against another tradition – claimed by those in power.

In your prayers for our non-Christian brothers and sisters in humanity, please pray for the Saudi muslims and for the Tibetan Buddhists that they may prevail in their “kicking against the pricks”!