Come, Holy Spirit

...fill the hearts of Your faithful, and enkindle within them the fire of Your Love.

Send forth Your Spirit, O Lord, and they shall be created. And You shall renew the face of the earth.

O God,

Who by the light of the Holy Spirit,

did instruct the hearts of Your faithful,

grant that by that same Holy Spirit,

we may be truly wise,

and ever rejoice in His consolation.

Through Christ our Lord. Amen.

I love the alabaster window above the Altar of the Chair at the back of St Peter's basilica in Rome. Sometimes, art gets it way off - but this one of the best examples of a genuine spiritual - Spiritual - work. Even today, after all these years, it still inspires the hearts of pilgrims to this Eternal City. Few moments have exceeded my expectations as much as when assisting Mass at the Altar of the Throne, hearing the preface sung with immaculate perfection in a floral interpretation of ecclesiastical Latin, while gazing up into the profundity of this little window. So clean are the lines and shapes, so perfect the design, that it appears as if the Holy Spirit is sweeping down to earth to catch you for God, reeling you in. Whenever I see this window, I always take the bait.

This is a very special and Spiritual time; it is perhaps fitting that this is my last comment here for about a month. I hope that we are all able to open our hearts and minds to His abundant gifts, receiving too the fruits of those gifts, in order that we are able to orientate our lives towards Him. Like the Apostles who gathered around Our Lady in prayer and consolation on that fiftieth day after Easter, we may be able to to do the same in our own lives this day and always. We have rejoiced in the Lord's resurrection, now we share our gifts with others. I hope and pray that the Holy Spirit will, in some way, touch your own life in a profound way, that He will indeed show His mercy and love, granting salvation. One of the most remarkable comments I have heard - for me anyway - was being told that the Holy Spirit, in advocating our cause, penetrates the very depths of the heart of God and sighs for us. I wish I could find words, but I don't think any of our concepts could do Him justice.

Pray also for me, lest I am unable to wait patiently for His love. It is a special day for me. The Vigil of Pentecost is the anniversary of my formal return to Holy Mother Church. I feel I have been the recipient of so many blessings - especially in preparation for this Pentecost, I have truly come to understand some of what God's consolation actually means - I pray I am constantly reminded of them, and I never forget God's love and the love of my friends, and vice-versa.

See you, God Willing, in a couple of weeks.

"We are the Catholic Church"

"We are the Catholic Church"

A quotation from the Anglican 'bishop' (and grandfather) of South-East Florida, Leo Frade, a former Cuban-born Methodist made good...well, different.

A Cuban-born former Methodist Anglican Bishop? I bet there is only one in that category.

He was giving a speech to the media about a Roman Catholic priest who has lost his way called Alberto Cutié (pronounced Koot-e-ay - I think I mentioned it a while ago). A TV celebrity priest, Fr Cutié was found recently in the romantic embrace of a woman (which is something I suppose), and was summarily suspended.

Events took a different turn this week, however, and Fr Cutié is now excommunicated for apostasy, for 'converting' to the Anglican/Episcopal Church, and will be made a 'priest' in that community within a year. He appeared next to his new 'ordinary' in a press conference sans collar.

Is it just me, or is Fr Cutié's spiritual revelation and conversion an amazing coincidence?

He is now engaged to the woman he was getting jiggy with.

Of course, he is still a priest...

Curia on parade...

The Cardinals' cat-walk proves a hit for their adoring fans.

Papal Paraphanalia

Over at the NLM, they often post pretty pictures of vestments and ostentatious liturgical celebrations in the present-day.

One post from today, however, has interested me a little. Someone has taken some pictures of some plain gold vesments belonging to Pope Clement II, who reigned over our Church for less than a year before his death in 1047 and, like our present Pontifex Maximus, was a Bavarian bishop.

He loved his home diocese so much (which he retained in his litany of titles upon his election to the Supreme Pontificate), he was buried their after his death in his mid-40s (pretty good going for the eleventh century!).

In the Second World War, they dug him up to protect him from Allied bombing (it's a good job he wasn't buried in Dresden), and decided to restore his outfit, as it was looking a bit worn after all these years. I hope they remembered to dress him up again in something, the poor man, when they solemnly reburied him in 1947, as those vestments are now on display in the cathedral, fully restored, and thus, are the oldest set of papal vesments.

From a glance, one can see the similarity between this and what +Vincent wore recently at his enthronement. The chasuble looks a bit plain in the picture, put there is a fine embroidery picked out of the gold close up, I promise! If you look carefully, in the reflection on the glass, you can also see the lovely gold buskins (socky-slipperettes with fetching tie-backs) and a cope (don't know where that came from, but I can see it).

Likewise with the pontifical dalmatic. They were wearing these in the 11th century.

Finally, we have a selection of paraphanalia also found in the sarcophogus, including pectoral crosses, stoles, fluffy bits, tassels, rings, bracelets (?), cincture, cuffs (he had gloves on). I assume the alb and the mitre were restored to the pope!

They were supposed to be smaller in the olden days, and I don't know about you, but that chasuble (which is basically a golden sheet with a hole cut out in the middle) looks like it would drown any average man of today. It's no wonder they cut the sleeves off and invented fiddlebacks!

It's good to see all these liturgcal things: dalmatics, gauntlets, buskins and what not in regular use a thousand years ago; it's a shame they have been dropped by the wayside. Mediaeval nonsense indeed?! I wonder if Pope Clement II thought they were useless? Needless to say, these very same vestments were being used in the Most Holy Sacrifice way before good old St Thomas Aquinas defined what was happening on top of those ad orientem altars.

Dominus Iesus: part VIII

From the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith

Declaration DOMINUS IESUS on the unicity and salvific universality of Jesus Christ and the Church

Part eight: Conclusion

The intention of the present Declaration, in reiterating and clarifying [note, saying nothing new] certain truths of the faith, has been to follow the example of the Apostle Paul, who wrote to the faithful of Corinth: “I handed on to you as of first importance what I myself received” (1 Cor 15:3). Faced with certain problematic and even erroneous propositions, theological reflection is called to reconfirm the Church's faith and to give reasons for her hope in a way that is convincing and effective.

In treating the question of the true religion, the Fathers of the Second Vatican Council taught: “We believe that this one true religion continues to exist in the Catholic and Apostolic Church, to which the Lord Jesus entrusted the task of spreading it among all people. Thus, he said to the Apostles: ‘Go therefore and make disciples of all nations baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you' (Mt 28: 19-20). Especially in those things that concern God and his Church, all persons are required to seek the truth, and when they come to know it, to embrace it and hold fast to it”.

The revelation of Christ will continue to be “the true lodestar” in history for all humanity: “The truth, which is Christ, imposes itself as an all-embracing authority”. The Christian mystery, in fact, overcomes all barriers of time and space, and accomplishes the unity of the human family: “From their different locations and traditions all are called in Christ to share in the unity of the family of God's children... Jesus destroys the walls of division and creates unity in a new and unsurpassed way through our sharing in his mystery. This unity is so deep that the Church can say with Saint Paul: ‘You are no longer strangers and sojourners, but you are saints and members of the household of God' (Eph 2:19)”.

[Many of the quotations in the document are taken from the teachings of the Second Vatican Council - many others, of course, are Biblical. This one of the greatest councils of the Church; read it with all its predecessors and the completeness of Church teaching and come to a fuller understanding of the Christian faith. It is such a shame to hear, mainly extremists, degrade the value of Vatican II to the Council which modernised the Church; it is not as simple as that.]

The Sovereign Pontiff JOHN PAUL II, at the Audience of June 16th, 2000, granted to the undersigned Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, with sure knowledge and by his apostolic authority, ratified and confirmed this Declaration, adopted in Plenary Session and ordered its publication.

Rome, from the Offices of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, August 6th, 2000, the Feast of the Transfiguration of the Lord.

Joseph Card. Ratzinger
Prefect

Tarcisio Bertone, S.D.B.
Archbishop Emeritus of Vercelli
Secretary

Dominus Iesus: part VII

From the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith

Declaration DOMINUS IESUS on the unicity and salvific universality of Jesus Christ and the Church

Part seven: The Church and the other religions in relation to salvation

From what has been stated above, some points follow that are necessary for theological reflection as it explores the relationship of the Church and the other religions to salvation.
Above all else, it must be firmly believed that “the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and baptism (cf. Mk 16:16; Jn 3:5), and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through baptism as through a door”. This doctrine must not be set against the universal salvific will of God (cf. 1 Tim 2:4); “it is necessary to keep these two truths together, namely, the real possibility of salvation in Christ for all mankind and the necessity of the Church for this salvation”.

The Church is the “universal sacrament of salvation”, since, united always in a mysterious way to the Saviour Jesus Christ, her Head, and subordinated to him, she has, in God's plan, an indispensable relationship with the salvation of every human being. For those who are not formally and visibly members of the Church, “salvation in Christ is accessible by virtue of a grace which, while having a mysterious relationship to the Church, does not make them formally part of the Church, but enlightens them in a way which is accommodated to their spiritual and material situation. This grace comes from Christ; it is the result of his sacrifice and is communicated by the Holy Spirit”; it has a relationship with the Church, which “according to the plan of the Father, has her origin in the mission of the Son and the Holy Spirit”.

With respect to the way in which the salvific grace of God — which is always given by means of Christ in the Spirit and has a mysterious relationship to the Church — comes to individual non-Christians, the Second Vatican Council limited itself to the statement that God bestows it “in ways known to himself”. Theologians are seeking to understand this question more fully. Their work is to be encouraged, since it is certainly useful for understanding better God's salvific plan and the ways in which it is accomplished. However, from what has been stated above about the mediation of Jesus Christ and the “unique and special relationship” which the Church has with the kingdom of God among men — which in substance is the universal kingdom of Christ the Saviour — it is clear that it would be contrary to the faith to consider the Church as one way of salvation alongside those constituted by the other religions, seen as complementary to the Church or substantially equivalent to her, even if these are said to be converging with the Church toward the eschatological kingdom of God.

Certainly, the various religious traditions contain and offer religious elements which come from God, and which are part of what “the Spirit brings about in human hearts and in the history of peoples, in cultures, and religions”. Indeed, some prayers and rituals of the other religions may assume a role of preparation for the Gospel, in that they are occasions or pedagogical helps in which the human heart is prompted to be open to the action of God. One cannot attribute to these, however, a divine origin or an ex opere operato salvific efficacy, which is proper to the Christian sacraments. Furthermore, it cannot be overlooked that other rituals, insofar as they depend on superstitions or other errors (cf. 1 Cor 10:20-21), constitute an obstacle to salvation.

With the coming of the Saviour Jesus Christ, God has willed that the Church founded by him be the instrument for the salvation of all humanity (cf. Acts 17:30-31). This truth of faith does not lessen the sincere respect which the Church has for the religions of the world, but at the same time, it rules out, in a radical way, that mentality of indifferentism “characterized by a religious relativism which leads to the belief that ‘one religion is as good as another'”. If it is true that the followers of other religions can receive divine grace, it is also certain that objectively speaking they are in a gravely deficient situation in comparison with those who, in the Church, have the fullness of the means of salvation. However, “all the children of the Church should nevertheless remember that their exalted condition results, not from their own merits, but from the grace of Christ. If they fail to respond in thought, word, and deed to that grace, not only shall they not be saved, but they shall be more severely judged”. [i.e. be humble and loving about it; the first thing you do to followers of other religions is embrace them in the manner of Christ, not condemn them - but always keeping in mind preaching the Gospel, which does not need to be done with words, but actions and lifestyle, as St Francis would have it. There is a something a little scary and off-putting, though, about these wordy people who bang on about the Bible and the Law; in our culture at least, this is not an effective method of evangelisation] One understands then that, following the Lord's command (cf. Mt 28:19-20) and as a requirement of her love for all people, the Church “proclaims and is in duty bound to proclaim without fail, Christ who is the way, the truth, and the life (Jn 14:6). In him, in whom God reconciled all things to himself (cf. 2 Cor 5:18-19), men find the fullness of their religious life”.

In inter-religious dialogue as well, the mission ad gentes “today as always retains its full force and necessity”. [in the same way, in my view, that the ultimate goal of ecumenism is to convert all Christians to the Catholic Church, then inter-religious dialogue is not a method to find a lowest common factor between the religions, but on one level at least, to gain further understanding of each other, with a mind of evangelisation as not all the religions are the same, thought individual adherants are equal in receiving God's love and - one would hope - ours] “Indeed, God ‘desires all men to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth' (1 Tim 2:4); that is, God wills the salvation of everyone through the knowledge of the truth. Salvation is found in the truth. Those who obey the promptings of the Spirit of truth are already on the way of salvation. But the Church, to whom this truth has been entrusted, must go out to meet their desire, so as to bring them the truth. Because she believes in God's universal plan of salvation, the Church must be missionary”. Inter-religious dialogue, therefore, as part of her evangelizing mission, is just one of the actions of the Church in her mission ad gentes. Equality, which is a presupposition of inter-religious dialogue, refers to the equal personal dignity of the parties in dialogue, not to doctrinal content, nor even less to the position of Jesus Christ — who is God himself made man — in relation to the founders of the other religions. Indeed, the Church, guided by charity and respect for freedom, must be primarily committed to proclaiming to all people the truth definitively revealed by the Lord, and to announcing the necessity of conversion to Jesus Christ and of adherence to the Church through Baptism and the other sacraments, in order to participate fully in communion with God, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Thus, the certainty of the universal salvific will of God does not diminish, but rather increases the duty and urgency of the proclamation of salvation and of conversion to the Lord Jesus Christ.

Will Thatcher become a Catholic

I shouldn't think so. She has met 3 out of our last 4 Popes, and none of them have convinced her yet. Moreover, I can think of at least one person who would apostatise themselves if this were to be the case! You know who you are! And I'm sure she would not be able to suffer a greater sovereign than herself, but it would be interesting if she did...hopefully someone will get her a larger mantilla next time; this one is not very flattering.

Dominus Iesus: part VI

From the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith

Declaration DOMINUS IESUS on the unicity and salvific universality of Jesus Christ and the Church

Part six: The Church: Kingdom of God and Kingdom of Christ

The mission of the Church is “to proclaim and establish among all peoples the kingdom of Christ and of God, and she is on earth, the seed and the beginning of that kingdom”. On the one hand, the Church is “a sacrament — that is, sign and instrument of intimate union with God and of unity of the entire human race”. She is therefore the sign and instrument of the kingdom; she is called to announce and to establish the kingdom. On the other hand, the Church is the “people gathered by the unity of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit”; she is therefore “the kingdom of Christ already present in mystery” and constitutes its seed and beginning. The kingdom of God, in fact, has an eschatological dimension: it is a reality present in time, but its full realization will arrive only with the completion or fulfilment of history.

The meaning of the expressions kingdom of heaven, kingdom of God, and kingdom of Christ in Sacred Scripture and the Fathers of the Church, as well as in the documents of the Magisterium, is not always exactly the same, nor is their relationship to the Church, which is Church, which is a mystery that cannot be totally contained by a human concept. Therefore, there can be various theological explanations of these terms. However, none of these possible explanations can deny or empty in any way the intimate connection between Christ, the kingdom, and the Church. In fact, the kingdom of God which we know from revelation,

“cannot be detached either from Christ or from the Church... If the kingdom is separated from Jesus, it is no longer the kingdom of God which he revealed. The result is a distortion of the meaning of the kingdom, which runs the risk of being transformed into a purely human or ideological goal and a distortion of the identity of Christ, who no longer appears as the Lord to whom everything must one day be subjected (cf. 1 Cor 15:27). Likewise, one may not separate the kingdom from the Church. It is true that the Church is not an end unto herself, since she is ordered toward the kingdom of God, of which she is the seed, sign and instrument. Yet, while remaining distinct from Christ and the kingdom, the Church is indissolubly united to both”. [i.e. the maxim Jesus: yes, Church: no does not make sense]

To state the inseparable relationship between Christ and the kingdom is not to overlook the fact that the kingdom of God — even if considered in its historical phase — is not identified with the Church in her visible and social reality. In fact, “the action of Christ and the Spirit outside the Church's visible boundaries” must not be excluded. Therefore, one must also bear in mind that “the kingdom is the concern of everyone: individuals, society and the world. Working for the kingdom means acknowledging and promoting God's activity, which is present in human history and transforms it. Building the kingdom means working for liberation from evil in all its forms. In a word, the kingdom of God is the manifestation and the realization of God's plan of salvation in all its fullness”.

In considering the relationship between the kingdom of God, the kingdom of Christ, and the Church, it is necessary to avoid one-sided accentuations, as is the case with those “conceptions which deliberately emphasize the kingdom and which describe themselves as ‘kingdom centred.' They stress the image of a Church which is not concerned about herself, but which is totally concerned with bearing witness to and serving the kingdom. It is a ‘Church for others,' just as Christ is the ‘man for others'...[many Catholics hold to this sort of thing] Together with positive aspects, these conceptions often reveal negative aspects as well. First, they are [1] silent about Christ: the kingdom of which they speak is ‘theocentrically' based, since, according to them, Christ cannot be understood by those who lack Christian faith, whereas different peoples, cultures, and religions are capable of finding common ground in the one divine reality, by whatever name it is called. For the same reason, they put [2] great stress on the mystery of creation, which is reflected in the diversity of cultures and beliefs, but they keep silent about the mystery of redemption. [for the convenience of their argument, they distort or omit the Truth, which frustrates the Spirit's Will] Furthermore, [3] the kingdom, as they understand it, ends up either leaving very little room for the Church or undervaluing the Church in reaction to a presumed ‘ecclesiocentrism' of the past and because they consider the Church herself only a sign, for that matter a sign not without ambiguity”. These theses are contrary to Catholic faith because they deny the unicity of the relationship which Christ and the Church have with the kingdom of God. [you cannot have Christ without the Church, and - lest we forget it - vice versa; remember, as Paul says somewhere, anyone who says he is for Christ has to be inspired]

Dominus Iesus: part V

From the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith

Declaration DOMINUS IESUS on the unicity and salvific universality of Jesus Christ and the Church

Part five: Unicity and unity of the Church

[We have just established that, whether it is acknowledged or not, all goodness comes from Christ and his 'salvific mystery'; bear this in mind as it starts to talk about the Church] The Lord Jesus, the only Saviour, did not only establish a simple community of disciples, but constituted the Church as a salvific mystery: he himself is in the Church and the Church is in him (cf. Jn 15:1ff.; Gal 3:28; Eph 4:15-16; Acts 9:5). Therefore, the fullness of Christ's salvific mystery belongs also to the Church, inseparably united to her Lord. Indeed, Jesus Christ continues his presence and his work of salvation in the Church and by means of the Church (cf. Col 1:24-27), which is his body (cf. 1 Cor 12:12-13, 27; Col 1:18). And thus, just as the head and members of a living body, though not identical, are inseparable, so too Christ and the Church can neither be confused nor separated, and constitute a single “whole Christ”. This same inseparability is also expressed in the New Testament by the analogy of the Church as the Bride of Christ (cf. 2 Cor 11:2; Eph 5:25-29; Rev 21:2,9).

Therefore, in connection with the unicity and universality of the salvific mediation of Jesus Christ, the unicity of the Church founded by him must be firmly believed as a truth of Catholic faith. Just as there is one Christ, so there exists a single Body of Christ, a single Bride of Christ: “a single Catholic and apostolic Church”. Furthermore, the promises of the Lord that he would not abandon his Church (cf. Mt 16:18; 28:20) and that he would guide her by his Spirit (cf. Jn 16:13) mean, according to Catholic faith, that the unicity and the unity of the Church — like everything that belongs to the Church's integrity — will never be lacking. [From even a basic reading of this section, one can see already that the Magisterium - the Church's teaching authority - is Scriptural, which itself if the result of Tradition]

The Catholic faithful are required to profess that there is an historical continuity — rooted in the apostolic succession — between the Church founded by Christ and the Catholic Church: “This is the single Church of Christ... which our Saviour, after his resurrection, entrusted to Peter's pastoral care (cf. Jn 21:17), commissioning him and the other Apostles to extend and rule her (cf. Mt 28:18ff.), erected for all ages as ‘the pillar and mainstay of the truth' (1 Tim 3:15). This Church, constituted and organized as a society in the present world, subsists in [subsistit in] the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him”. With the expression subsistit in, the Second Vatican Council sought to harmonize two doctrinal statements: on the one hand, that the Church of Christ, despite the divisions which exist among Christians, continues to exist fully only in the Catholic Church, and on the other hand, that “outside of her structure, many elements can be found of sanctification and truth”, that is, in those Churches and ecclesial communities which are not yet in full communion with the Catholic Church. But with respect to these, it needs to be stated that “they derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church”.

Therefore, there exists a single Church of Christ, which subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him. The Churches which, while not existing in perfect communion with the Catholic Church, remain united to her by means of the closest bonds, that is, by apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist, are true particular Churches. [e.g. the Orthodox faithful are true Churches among others] Therefore, the Church of Christ is present and operative also in these Churches, even though they lack full communion with the Catholic Church, since they do not accept the Catholic doctrine of the Primacy, which, according to the will of God, the Bishop of Rome objectively has and exercises over the entire Church. [whether they accept it or not, the Pope is the spiritual leader of all Christians]

On the other hand, the ecclesial communities which have not preserved the valid Episcopate and the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic mystery, [e.g. many protestants, though interestingly, not all - see my note at the bottom*] are not Churches in the proper sense; 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. 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.

“The Christian faithful are therefore not permitted to imagine that the Church of Christ is nothing more than a collection — divided, yet in some way one — of Churches and ecclesial communities; nor are they free to hold that today the Church of Christ nowhere really exists, and must be considered only as a goal which all Churches and ecclesial communities must strive to reach”. In fact, “the elements of this already-given Church exist, joined together in their fullness in the Catholic Church and, without this fullness, in the other communities”.

“Therefore, these separated Churches and communities as such, though we believe they suffer from defects, have by no means been deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church”. [this is a good point to remember; the Lord uses very strange means indeed for salvation, as he did in scripture!]

The lack of unity among Christians is certainly a wound for the Church; not in the sense that she is deprived of her unity, but “in that it hinders the complete fulfilment of her universality in history”. [i.e. the current state of affairs is not what is intended, and by reading this, one can learn what the intention probably is, according to our perspective at least]

[*Simon's note on a valid Episcopate: This is something I take a keen interest in, though I'm certainly no expert! From what I understand, there are two broad views, which are related to what one views the episcopate as. First: is it another level of Order? In which case, ordinations to the episcopate can be done by any bishop who has been validly ordained in this way; this has happened in the cases of various different 'wandering bishops', who have been ordained such without approval, and thus the priests which they ordain are also valid priests. Many Anglicans who should be Catholics have told me they agree with this view, as do some wayward Catholic groups. Second (which is the view I agree with at the moment): that the episcopate is the fullness of priesthood. When ordained, all priests are imbued with the apostolic succession by virtue of their consecration etc, but it takes a further consecration to unleash this episcopal power which is already part of the ontological change experienced at ordination. Therefore, several things are required for a valid episcopate: that the candidate has been ordained to the presbyteral order by a valid authority, that the ordaining bishops are validly ordained themselves, and that they have an authority from a valid Church (which was explained earlier in this section) to consecrate the candidate]

Embroidery eye-candy for May

To interrupt the run of text with our serialisation of Dominus Iesus, check out this chasuble, which I saw was on display at the Cathedral this morning. Occasionally, different vestments will get put on display at the back. This one recently replaced a plain white Latin fiddleback with gold edging. The other one on display is too trendy to show on here.

It is a lovely floral embroidered piece (which one would usually class as white Marian - I don't know whether anyone was thinking that when putting out this May) with some fine dark red damask orphreys, which is embellished with black edging and gold embroidered studs and a purple lining. Along with the flowers, there are grapes and birds. I don't know what the birds are supposed to be; they seem to be generic birds, nothing like a phoenix or pelican or something like that. I'm not very up on the use of birds in vestment making. I have included some details below. I haven't seen this one in use before, which is a shame, as it looks hand-embroidered (unless someone has cheated and used one of those clever embroidery machines you can get nowadays!).

This lovely flower has been picked out in the same colour as the lining.

Has anyone seen this bird?

I don't know what happened to the maniple...!

It all reminds me a little of the Pope's recent visit to Monte Cassino. The nice Benedictines there presented him with a fine set of replica mediaeval vestments made by Italy's finest vestment maker, and placed him in a marvellous throne with some amazing embroidery on the chair and canopy. Sorry about the watermark...

Dominus Iesus: part IV

From the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith

Declaration DOMINUS IESUS on the unicity and salvific universality of Jesus Christ and the Church

Part four: Unicity and universality of the salvific mystery of Jesus Christ


The thesis which denies the unicity and salvific universality of the mystery of Jesus Christ is also put forward. Such a position has no biblical foundation. In fact, the truth of Jesus Christ, Son of God, Lord and only Saviour, who through the event of his incarnation, death and resurrection has brought the history of salvation to fulfilment, and which has in him its fullness and centre, must be firmly believed as a constant element of the Church's faith.

The New Testament attests to this fact with clarity: “The Father has sent his Son as the Saviour of the world” (1 Jn 4:14); “Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world” (Jn 1:29). In his discourse before the Sanhedrin, Peter, in order to justify the healing of a man who was crippled from birth, which was done in the name of Jesus (cf. Acts 3:1-8), proclaims: “There is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12). St. Paul adds, moreover, that Jesus Christ “is Lord of all”, “judge of the living and the dead”, and thus “whoever believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name” (Acts 10: 36,42,43).

Paul, addressing himself to the community of Corinth, writes: “Indeed, even though there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth — as in fact there are many gods and many lords — yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist” (1 Cor 8:5-6). Furthermore, John the Apostle states: “For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not perish but may have eternal life. God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him” (Jn 3:16-17). In the New Testament, the universal salvific will of God is closely connected to the sole mediation of Christ: “[God] desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God; there is also one mediator between God and men, the man Jesus Christ, who gave himself as a ransom for all” (1 Tim 2:4-6).

It was in the awareness of the one universal gift of salvation offered by the Father through Jesus Christ in the Spirit (cf. Eph 1:3-14), that the first Christians encountered the Jewish people, showing them the fulfilment of salvation that went beyond the Law and, in the same awareness, they confronted the pagan world of their time, which aspired to salvation through a plurality of saviours. [a bit like today then] This inheritance of faith has been recalled recently by the Church's Magisterium: “The Church believes that Christ, who died and was raised for the sake of all (cf. 2 Cor 5:15) can, through his Spirit, give man the light and the strength to be able to respond to his highest calling, nor is there any other name under heaven given among men by which they can be saved (cf. Acts 4:12). The Church likewise believes that the key, the centre, and the purpose of the whole of man's history is to be found in its Lord and Master”.

It must therefore be firmly believed as a truth of Catholic faith that the universal salvific will of the One and Triune God is offered and accomplished once for all in the mystery of the incarnation, death, and resurrection of the Son of God.

Bearing in mind this article of faith, theology today, in its reflection on the existence of other religious experiences and on their meaning in God's salvific plan, is invited to explore if and in what way the historical figures and positive elements of these religions may fall within the divine plan of salvation. In this undertaking, theological research has a vast field of work under the guidance of the Church's Magisterium. The Second Vatican Council, in fact, has stated that: “the unique mediation of the Redeemer does not exclude, but rather gives rise to a manifold cooperation which is but a participation in this one source”. The content of this participated mediation should be explored more deeply, but must remain always consistent with the principle of Christ's unique mediation: “Although participated forms of mediation of different kinds and degrees are not excluded, they acquire meaning and value only from Christ's own mediation, and they cannot be understood as parallel or complementary to his”. Hence, those solutions that propose a salvific action of God beyond the unique mediation of Christ would be contrary to Christian and Catholic faith.

Not infrequently it is proposed that theology should avoid the use of terms like “unicity”, “universality”, and “absoluteness”, which give the impression of excessive emphasis on the significance and value of the salvific event of Jesus Christ in relation to other religions. In reality, however, such language is simply being faithful to revelation, since it represents a development of the sources of the faith themselves. From the beginning, the community of believers has recognized in Jesus a salvific value such that he alone, as Son of God made man, crucified and risen, by the mission received from the Father and in the power of the Holy Spirit, bestows revelation (cf. Mt 11:27) and divine life (cf. Jn 1:12; 5:25-26; 17:2) to all humanity and to every person.

In this sense, one can and must say that Jesus Christ has a significance and a value for the human race and its history, which are unique and singular, proper to him alone, exclusive, universal, and absolute. Jesus is, in fact, the Word of God made man for the salvation of all. In expressing this consciousness of faith, the Second Vatican Council teaches: “The Word of God, through whom all things were made, was made flesh, so that as perfect man he could save all men and sum up all things in himself. The Lord is the goal of human history, the focal point of the desires of history and civilization, the centre of mankind, the joy of all hearts, and the fulfilment of all aspirations. It is he whom the Father raised from the dead, exalted and placed at his right hand, constituting him judge of the living and the dead”. “It is precisely this uniqueness of Christ which gives him an absolute and universal significance whereby, while belonging to history, he remains history's centre and goal: ‘I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end' (Rev 22:13)”.

Dominus Iesus: part III

From the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith

Declaration DOMINUS IESUS on the unicity and salvific universality of Jesus Christ and the Church

Part three: The incarnate Logos and the Holy Spirit in the work of salvation


In contemporary theological reflection there often emerges an approach to Jesus of Nazareth that considers him a particular, finite, historical figure, who reveals the divine not in an exclusive way, but in a way complementary with other revelatory and salvific figures. The Infinite, the Absolute, the Ultimate Mystery of God would thus manifest itself to humanity in many ways and in many historical figures: Jesus of Nazareth would be one of these. More concretely, for some, Jesus would be one of the many faces which the Logos has assumed in the course of time to communicate with humanity in a salvific way.


Furthermore, to justify the universality of Christian salvation as well as the fact of religious pluralism, it has been proposed that there is an economy of the eternal Word that is valid also outside the Church and is unrelated to her, in addition to an economy of the incarnate Word. The first would have a greater universal value than the second, which is limited to Christians, though God's presence would be more full in the second.

These theses are in profound conflict with the Christian faith. The doctrine of faith must be firmly believed which proclaims that Jesus of Nazareth, son of Mary, and he alone, is the Son and the Word of the Father. The Word, which “was in the beginning with God” (Jn 1:2) is the same as he who “became flesh” (Jn 1:14). In Jesus, “the Christ, the Son of the living God” (Mt 16:16), “the whole fullness of divinity dwells in bodily form” (Col 2:9). He is the “only begotten Son of the Father, who is in the bosom of the Father” (Jn 1:18), his “beloved Son, in whom we have redemption... In him the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, and through him, God was pleased to reconcile all things to himself, on earth and in the heavens, making peace by the blood of his Cross” (Col 1:13-14; 19-20).

Faithful to Sacred Scripture and refuting erroneous and reductive interpretations, the First Council of Nicaea solemnly defined its faith in:

“Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the only begotten generated from the Father, that is, from the being of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, one in being with the Father, through whom all things were made, those in heaven and those on earth. For us men and for our salvation, he came down and became incarnate, was made man, suffered, and rose again on the third day. He ascended to the heavens and shall come again to judge the living and the dead”.

Following the teachings of the Fathers of the Church, the Council of Chalcedon also professed:

“the one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in divinity and perfect in humanity, the same truly God and truly man..., one in being with the Father according to the divinity and one in being with us according to the humanity..., begotten of the Father before the ages according to the divinity and, in these last days, for us and our salvation, of Mary, the Virgin Mother of God, according to the humanity”.

For this reason, the Second Vatican Council states that

"[Christ] the new Adam...‘image of the invisible God' (Col 1:15) is himself the perfect man who has restored that likeness to God in the children of Adam which had been disfigured since the first sin... As an innocent lamb he merited life for us by his blood which he freely shed. In him God reconciled us to himself and to one another, freeing us from the bondage of the devil and of sin, so that each one of us could say with the apostle: the Son of God ‘loved me and gave himself up for me' (Gal 2:20)”.

In this regard, John Paul II has explicitly declared:

“To introduce any sort of separation between the Word and Jesus Christ is contrary to the Christian faith... Jesus is the Incarnate Word — a single and indivisible person... Christ is none other than Jesus of Nazareth; he is the Word of God made man for the salvation of all... In the process of discovering and appreciating the manifold gifts — especially the spiritual treasures — that God has bestowed on every people, we cannot separate those gifts from Jesus Christ, who is at the centre of God's plan of salvation”.

It is likewise contrary to the Catholic faith to introduce a separation between the salvific action of the Word as such and that of the Word made man. With the incarnation, all the salvific actions of the Word of God are always done in unity with the human nature that he has assumed for the salvation of all people. The one subject which operates in the two natures, human and divine, is the single person of the Word.

Therefore, the theory which would attribute, after the incarnation as well, a salvific activity to the Logos as such in his divinity, exercised “in addition to” or “beyond” the humanity of Christ, is not compatible with the Catholic faith.

Similarly, the doctrine of faith regarding the unicity of the salvific economy willed by the One and Triune God must be firmly believed, at the source and centre of which is the mystery of the incarnation of the Word, mediator of divine grace on the level of creation and redemption (cf. Col 1:15-20), he who recapitulates all things (cf. Eph 1:10), he “whom God has made our wisdom, our righteousness, and sanctification and redemption” (1 Cor 1:30). In fact, the mystery of Christ has its own intrinsic unity, which extends from the eternal choice in God to the parousia: “he [the Father] chose us in Christ before the foundation of the world to be holy and blameless before him in love” (Eph 1:4); “In Christ we are heirs, having been destined according to the purpose of him who accomplishes all things according to his counsel and will” (Eph 1:11); “For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers; those whom he predestined he also called; and those whom he called he also justified; and those whom he justified he also glorified” (Rom 8:29-30).

The Church's Magisterium, faithful to divine revelation, reasserts that Jesus Christ is the mediator and the universal redeemer: “The Word of God, through whom all things were made, was made flesh, so that as perfect man he could save all men and sum up all things in himself. The Lord...is he whom the Father raised from the dead, exalted and placed at his right hand, constituting him judge of the living and the dead”. This salvific mediation implies also the unicity of the redemptive sacrifice of Christ, eternal high priest (cf. Heb 6:20; 9:11; 10:12-14).

There are also those who propose the hypothesis of an economy of the Holy Spirit with a more universal breadth than that of the Incarnate Word, crucified and risen. This position also is contrary to the Catholic faith, which, on the contrary, considers the salvific incarnation of the Word as a trinitarian event. In the New Testament, the mystery of Jesus, the Incarnate Word, constitutes the place of the Holy Spirit's presence as well as the principle of the Spirit's effusion on humanity, not only in messianic times (cf. Acts 2:32-36; Jn 7:39, 20:22; 1 Cor 15:45), but also prior to his coming in history (cf. 1 Cor 10:4; 1 Pet 1:10-12).

The Second Vatican Council has recalled to the consciousness of the Church's faith this fundamental truth. In presenting the Father's salvific plan for all humanity, the Council closely links the mystery of Christ from its very beginnings with that of the Spirit. The entire work of building the Church by Jesus Christ the Head, in the course of the centuries, is seen as an action which he does in communion with his Spirit.

Furthermore, the salvific action of Jesus Christ, with and through his Spirit, extends beyond the visible boundaries of the Church to all humanity. Speaking of the paschal mystery, in which Christ even now associates the believer to himself in a living manner in the Spirit and gives him the hope of resurrection, the Council states: “All this holds true not only for Christians but also for all men of good will in whose hearts grace is active invisibly. For since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partners, in a way known to God, in the paschal mystery”.

Hence, the connection is clear between the salvific mystery of the Incarnate Word and that of the Spirit, who actualizes the salvific efficacy of the Son made man in the lives of all people, called by God to a single goal, both those who historically preceded the Word made man, and those who live after his coming in history: the Spirit of the Father, bestowed abundantly by the Son, is the animator of all (cf. Jn 3:34).

Thus, the recent Magisterium of the Church has firmly and clearly recalled the truth of a single divine economy: “The Spirit's presence and activity affect not only individuals but also society and history, peoples, cultures and religions... The Risen Christ ‘is now at work in human hearts through the strength of his Spirit'... Again, it is the Spirit who sows the ‘seeds of the word' present in various customs and cultures, preparing them for full maturity in Christ”. While recognizing the historical-salvific function of the Spirit in the whole universe and in the entire history of humanity, the Magisterium states: “This is the same Spirit who was at work in the incarnation and in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus and who is at work in the Church. He is therefore not an alternative to Christ nor does he fill a sort of void which is sometimes suggested as existing between Christ and the Logos. Whatever the Spirit brings about in human hearts and in the history of peoples, in cultures and religions, serves as a preparation for the Gospel and can only be understood in reference to Christ, the Word who took flesh by the power of the Spirit ‘so that as perfectly human he would save all human beings and sum up all things'”.

In conclusion, the action of the Spirit is not outside or parallel to the action of Christ. There is only one salvific economy of the One and Triune God, realized in the mystery of the incarnation, death, and resurrection of the Son of God, actualized with the cooperation of the Holy Spirit, and extended in its salvific value to all humanity and to the entire universe: “No one, therefore, can enter into communion with God except through Christ, by the working of the Holy Spirit”.

So, what we have here is a recognition of the continued teaching that Christ is the Son of God, one of the Divine Persons of the Blessed Trinity, affirmed by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit in the writing of Holy Scripture and in the Church's Magisterium, and thus divine action continues today in the Church. The Spirit, as stated earlier, also works outside of the Church, but only does so because of Christ's redemptive action. Because all three Divine Persons are One God, they cannot act independently of each other. In fact, any work of the Holy Spirit outside of the Church is in preparation for the reception of the Gospel of Christ.

Dominus Iesus: part II

From the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith

Declaration DOMINUS IESUS on the unicity and salvific universality of Jesus Christ and the Church

Part two: The fullness and definitiveness of the revelation of Jesus Christ

As a remedy for this relativistic mentality, which is becoming ever more common, it is necessary above all to reassert the definitive and complete character of the revelation of Jesus Christ. In fact, it must be firmly believed that, in the mystery of Jesus Christ, the Incarnate Son of God, who is “the way, the truth, and the life” (Jn 14:6), the full revelation of divine truth is given: “No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son wishes to reveal him” (Mt 11:27); “No one has ever seen God; God the only Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, has revealed him” (Jn 1:18); “For in Christ the whole fullness of divinity dwells in bodily form” (Col 2:9-10).

Faithful to God's word, the Second Vatican Council teaches: “By this revelation then, the deepest truth about God and the salvation of man shines forth in Christ, who is at the same time the mediator and the fullness of all revelation”. Furthermore, “Jesus Christ, therefore, the Word made flesh, sent ‘as a man to men', ‘speaks the words of God' (Jn 3:34), and completes the work of salvation which his Father gave him to do (cf. Jn 5:36; 17:4). To see Jesus is to see his Father (cf. Jn 14:9). For this reason, Jesus perfected revelation by fulfilling it through his whole work of making himself present and manifesting himself: through his words and deeds, his signs and wonders, but especially through his death and glorious resurrection from the dead and finally with the sending of the Spirit of truth, he completed and perfected revelation and confirmed it with divine testimony... The Christian dispensation, therefore, as the new and definitive covenant, will never pass away, and we now await no further new public revelation before the glorious manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ (cf. 1 Tim 6:14 and Tit 2:13)”. [There is nothing more to add to revelation before the end of days; Christianity is religion at its 'completeness']

Thus, the Encyclical Redemptoris missio calls the Church once again to the task of announcing the Gospel as the fullness of truth:

“In this definitive Word of his revelation, God has made himself known in the fullest possible way. He has revealed to mankind who he is. This definitive self-revelation of God is the fundamental reason why the Church is missionary by her very nature. She cannot do other than proclaim the Gospel, that is, the fullness of the truth which God has enabled us to know about himself”.

Only the revelation of Jesus Christ, therefore, “introduces into our history a universal and ultimate truth which stirs the human mind to ceaseless effort”.

Therefore, the theory of the limited, incomplete, or imperfect character of the revelation of Jesus Christ, which would be complementary to that found in other religions, is contrary to the Church's faith. Such a position would claim to be based on the notion that the truth about God cannot be grasped and manifested in its globality and completeness by any historical religion, neither by Christianity nor by Jesus Christ. [Christ, therefore, and the Church he created, is complete already...if one holds that view, then the whole point of the Christian religion collapses]

Such a position is in radical contradiction with the foregoing statements of Catholic faith according to which the full and complete revelation of the salvific mystery of God is given in Jesus Christ. [as people always put it more simply: there is a hole in the heart yearning for God, which is most perfectly filled by Christ, and with discernment, one will find that Christ is cemented into that hole by Catholicism] Therefore, the words, deeds, and entire historical event of Jesus, though limited as human realities, have nevertheless the divine Person of the Incarnate Word, “true God and true man” as their subject. For this reason, they possess in themselves the definitiveness and completeness of the revelation of God's salvific ways, even if the depth of the divine mystery in itself remains transcendent and inexhaustible. [who would even argue against that?!] The truth about God is not abolished or reduced because it is spoken in human language; rather, it is unique, full, and complete, because he who speaks and acts is the Incarnate Son of God. [Perhaps this point is reflected in the fact that God is not reduced by using earthly substances in the sacraments] Thus, faith requires us to profess that the Word made flesh, in his entire mystery, who moves from incarnation to glorification, is the source, participated but real, as well as the fulfilment of every salvific revelation of God to humanity, and that the Holy Spirit, who is Christ's Spirit, will teach this “entire truth” (Jn 16:13) to the Apostles and, through them, to the whole Church.

The proper response to God's revelation is “the obedience of faith (Rom 16:26; cf. Rom 1:5; 2 Cor 10:5-6) by which man freely entrusts his entire self to God, offering ‘the full submission of intellect and will to God who reveals' and freely assenting to the revelation given by him”. Faith is a gift of grace: “in order to have faith, the grace of God must come first and give assistance; there must also be the interior helps of the Holy Spirit, who moves the heart and converts it to God, who opens the eyes of the mind and gives ‘to everyone joy and ease in assenting to and believing in the truth'”. [what a wonderful thought to meditate upon as we approach Pentecost]

The obedience of faith implies acceptance of the truth of Christ's revelation, guaranteed by God, who is Truth itself: “Faith is first of all a personal adherence of man to God. At the same time, and inseparably, it is a free assent to the whole truth that God has revealed”. Faith, therefore, as “a gift of God” and as “a supernatural virtue infused by him”, involves a dual adherence: to God who reveals and to the truth which he reveals, out of the trust which one has in him who speaks. Thus, “we must believe in no one but God: the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit”. For this reason, the distinction between theological faith and belief in the other religions, must be firmly held. If faith is the acceptance in grace of revealed truth, which “makes it possible to penetrate the mystery in a way that allows us to understand it coherently”, then belief, in the other religions, is that sum of experience and thought that constitutes the human treasury of wisdom and religious aspiration, which man in his search for truth has conceived and acted upon in his relationship to God and the Absolute.

This distinction is not always borne in mind in current theological reflection. Thus, theological faith (the acceptance of the truth revealed by the One and Triune God) is often identified with belief in other religions, which is religious experience still in search of the absolute truth and still lacking assent to God who reveals himself. This is one of the reasons why the differences between Christianity and the other religions tend to be reduced at times to the point of disappearance.

The hypothesis of the inspired value of the sacred writings of other religions is also put forward. Certainly, it must be recognized that there are some elements in these texts which may be de facto instruments by which countless people throughout the centuries have been and still are able today to nourish and maintain their life-relationship with God. Thus, as noted above, the Second Vatican Council, in considering the customs, precepts, and teachings of the other religions, teaches that “although differing in many ways from her own teaching, these nevertheless often reflect a ray of that truth which enlightens all men”. [this may have been taught here by the Second Vatican Council, but any good historian will be able to tell you that the Church has being saying this for as long as it's been around; I have found this, for example, in my Andean research. As with many Councils, Vatican II re-stated definitively what was already the practice of some]

The Church's tradition, however, reserves the designation of inspired texts to the canonical books of the Old and New Testaments, since these are inspired by the Holy Spirit. [not all of which, mind, can be found in protestant canons] Taking up this tradition, the Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation of the Second Vatican Council states: “For Holy Mother Church, relying on the faith of the apostolic age, accepts as sacred and canonical the books of the Old and New Testaments, whole and entire, with all their parts, on the grounds that, written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit (cf. Jn 20:31; 2 Tim 3:16; 2 Pet 1:19-21; 3:15-16), they have God as their author, and have been handed on as such to the Church herself”. [i.e. all of Bible is inspired, not just the nice flowery bits used selectively by relativists and the media in denouncing the Catholic Church] These books “firmly, faithfully, and without error, teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures”.

Nevertheless, God, who desires to call all peoples to himself in Christ and to communicate to them the fullness of his revelation and love, “does not fail to make himself present in many ways, not only to individuals, but also to entire peoples through their spiritual riches, of which their religions are the main and essential expression even when they contain ‘gaps, insufficiencies and errors'”. [this is something we must not forget. The Church may be right, but we cannot be arrogant about it, as this is sinful. God works fully in the Church, but he can also be seen elsewhere because not only does He have a corporate relationship with humanity, he has personal relationships with individuals in addition] Therefore, the sacred books of other religions, which in actual fact direct and nourish the existence of their followers, receive from the mystery of Christ the elements of goodness and grace which they contain. [i.e. any goodness found in other religions - and not all of it is goodness - is a direct result of the Resurrection and the goodness of the Triune God and what he has decided to bestow upon others according to his will, not some other religious truth, as there is only one Truth.]

So our conclusions so far are that all goodness comes from the Triune God. Christ perfectly satisfies our hearts, no matter our backgrounds or traditions, because of his personal manifestation in our history both at one moment and throughout, whether we knew about Christ or not. Any other goodness found outside of Christianity is not spontaneous, it is God's own work and will. In the same way that the Triune God was present at creation, He is present now in everything that is good. This includes Sacred Scripture, all of which is inspired and taught to us by the Church, and interpreted within the Church. You cannot really understand Christ and Christianity from without.

Dominus Iesus: part I

I'm happy today because it is the first day of the rest of my life. As such I'm breaking my rule of only using one word titles for my posts. Sorry to disappoint anyone who enjoyed this former practice!

I was thinking about the document Dominus Iesus, released nearly 9 years ago now (phew!), recently, and funnily enough, it came up in conversation today. As a result of my musings, I shall post the document in parts and add my comments. It's quite meaty, but it's really good, and I will use the time I have left on Sequere Me this week to publish it here - in English - for you, in eight easy to read chunks. And with the time I'm spending away, there is plenty of time to catch up!


---


From the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith


Declaration DOMINUS IESUS on the unicity and salvific universality of Jesus Christ and the Church


Part one: Introduction


THE LORD JESUS, before ascending into heaven, commanded his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to the whole world and to baptize all nations: “Go into the whole world and proclaim the Gospel to every creature. He who believes and is baptized will be saved; he who does not believe will be condemned” (Mk 16:15-16); “All power in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the world” (Mt 28:18-20; cf. Lk 24:46-48; Jn 17:18,20,21; Acts 1:8).
The Church's universal mission is born from the command of Jesus Christ and is fulfilled in the course of the centuries in the proclamation of the mystery of God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and the mystery of the incarnation of the Son, as saving event for all humanity. The fundamental contents of the profession of the Christian faith are expressed thus:

“I believe in one God, the Father, Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all that is, seen and unseen. I believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one being with the Father. Through him all things were made. For us men and for our salvation, he came down from heaven: by the power of the Holy Spirit he became incarnate of the Virgin Mary, and became man. For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate; he suffered death and was buried. On the third day he rose again in accordance with the Scriptures; he ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end. I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father. With the Father and the Son he is worshipped and glorified. He has spoken through the prophets. I believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church. I acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins. I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come”.

In the course of the centuries, the Church has proclaimed and witnessed with fidelity to the Gospel of Jesus. At the close of the second millennium, however, this mission is still far from complete. For that reason, Saint Paul's words are now more relevant than ever: “Preaching the Gospel is not a reason for me to boast; it is a necessity laid on me: woe to me if I do not preach the Gospel!” (1 Cor 9:16). This explains the Magisterium's particular attention to giving reasons for and supporting the evangelizing mission of the Church, above all in connection with the religious traditions of the world.

In considering the values which these religions witness to and offer humanity, with an open and positive approach, the Second Vatican Council's Declaration on the relation of the Church to non-Christian religions states:

“The Catholic Church rejects nothing of what is true and holy in these religions. She has a high regard for the manner of life and conduct, the precepts and teachings, which, although differing in many ways from her own teaching, nonetheless often reflect a ray of that truth which enlightens all men”.

Continuing in this line of thought, the Church's proclamation of Jesus Christ, “the way, the truth, and the life” (Jn 14:6), today also makes use of the practice of inter-religious dialogue. Such dialogue certainly does not replace, but rather accompanies the missio ad gentes, ['mission to the nations', as commanded by Christ] directed toward that “mystery of unity”, from which “it follows that all men and women who are saved share, though differently, in the same mystery of salvation in Jesus Christ through his Spirit”. Inter-religious dialogue, which is part of the Church's evangelizing mission, requires an attitude of understanding and a relationship of mutual knowledge and reciprocal enrichment, in obedience to the truth and with respect for freedom.

In the practice of dialogue between the Christian faith and other religious traditions, as well as in seeking to understand its theoretical basis more deeply, new questions arise that need to be addressed through pursuing new paths of research, advancing proposals, and suggesting ways of acting that call for attentive discernment. In this task, the present Declaration seeks to recall to Bishops, theologians, and all the Catholic faithful, certain indispensable elements of Christian doctrine, which may help theological reflection in developing solutions consistent with the contents of the faith and responsive to the pressing needs of contemporary culture.

The expository language of the Declaration corresponds to its purpose, which is not to treat in a systematic manner the question of the unicity and salvific universality of the mystery of Jesus Christ and the Church [that Christ and His Church are the one, universal path to salvation], nor to propose solutions to questions that are matters of free theological debate, but rather to set forth again the doctrine of the Catholic faith [i.e. reaffirming, repeating in one document] in these areas, pointing out some fundamental questions that remain open to further development, and refuting specific positions that are erroneous or ambiguous. For this reason, the Declaration takes up what has been taught in previous Magisterial documents, in order to reiterate certain truths that are part of the Church's faith.


The Church's constant missionary proclamation is endangered today by relativistic theories which seek to justify religious pluralism, not only de facto but also de iure (or in principle). As a consequence, it is held that certain truths have been superseded; for example, the definitive and complete character of the revelation of Jesus Christ, the nature of Christian faith as compared with that of belief in other religions, the inspired nature of the books of Sacred Scripture, the personal unity between the Eternal Word and Jesus of Nazareth, the unity of the economy of the Incarnate Word and the Holy Spirit, the unicity and salvific universality of the mystery of Jesus Christ, the universal salvific mediation of the Church, the inseparability — while recognizing the distinction — of the kingdom of God, the kingdom of Christ, and the Church, and the subsistence of the one Church of Christ in the Catholic Church. [that is a lot of arguments to refute!]

The roots of these problems are to be found in certain presuppositions of both a philosophical and theological nature, which hinder the understanding and acceptance of the revealed truth. Some of these can be mentioned: the conviction of the elusiveness and inexpressibility of divine truth, even by Christian revelation; relativistic attitudes toward truth itself, according to which what is true for some would not be true for others; [what is true is true, not matter whether you adhere to it or not] the radical opposition posited between the logical mentality of the West and the symbolic mentality of the East; [there is still a long way to go before reunion can happen] the subjectivism which, by regarding reason as the only source of knowledge, becomes incapable of raising its “gaze to the heights, not daring to rise to the truth of being”; the difficulty in understanding and accepting the presence of definitive and eschatological events in history; the metaphysical emptying of the historical incarnation of the Eternal Logos, [what a beautiful use of language] reduced to a mere appearing of God in history; the eclecticism of those who, in theological research, uncritically absorb ideas from a variety of philosophical and theological contexts without regard for consistency, systematic connection, or compatibility with Christian truth; finally, the tendency to read and to interpret Sacred Scripture outside the Tradition and Magisterium of the Church. [so, that all sounds good to me so far! I'm looking forward to hearing the arguments against all these errors]

On the basis of such presuppositions, which may evince different nuances, certain theological proposals are developed — at times presented as assertions, and at times as hypotheses — in which Christian revelation and the mystery of Jesus Christ and the Church lose their character of absolute truth and salvific universality, or at least shadows of doubt and uncertainty are cast upon them.

[So essentially, Dominus Iesus is arguing against BBC Christianity, or, commonly called Anglicanism. Well perhaps, but this is a response to various teachings put forward by different theologians using arguments already found within the treasury of Catholic teaching. It has already been made known that certain assumptions need to be made, mainly that God exists, He became incarnate, died, rose from the dead and ascended into heaven. He left us a Church which, guided by his Spirit over the ages, has held to the truth and still does today. It also states that theological discussion is free, and in fact, these things should be discussed.]

Forwarning

Today, I am very happy. I have sorted many things out, and I'm thankful that at last, my own prayers and the prayers of some others on my behalf seem to have paid off. A great millstone around my neck has been broken into a million pieces.


Thanks, Lord, and thank you, you.


In other news, I have been appointed to some liturgical position in Walsingham on a temporary basis, starting on Pentecost. This means I shall probably be without internet access (though hopefully my phone will get some signal!). I'm very disappointed to leave you, but from Sunday, I shall probably be away for at least three weeks, and as such, Sequere Me will be taking a bit of a holiday while I work and iron linens and scrub floors and what not.



Jammy bastard.

New

Because I'm special, I'm allowed to see where my viewers come from, and it displays little flags of the nation state. I haven't seen this one before...

Now Europe appears as a country in its own right when viewing my blog, though it didn't give a location - although I'm intregued as to the search that brought them here whoever it was. The Pope may have kept in mind St Benedict, co-patron of Europe, on his visit to Monte Cassino recently, but I'm sure it didn't mean it has to come to this.

Controversial

It's amazing this internet malarky and where you get read. Today, I penetrated the realms of my first proper communist:

Vietnam.

---

Today hasn't been a very good day at all, so I'm hyper. I'm also going to be a bit controversial and make a few comments about the Pope's Motu Proprio... So controversy warning...

I'm of course very glad that the Holy Father has, by his example, has very slowly (and outside of pontifical liturgies, it is very slow indeed) been re-introducing a sense of awe into the Sacred Liturgies, which was lost a little in certain places over the years. However, I'm a bit nervous about the long-term effects of Summorum Pontificum.

There is a danger, I feel, that by championing a separation of forms and practice, the visible unity of the western Church Latin rite-ers is being threatened. We must remember that the Second Vatican Council taught us that the Roman Rite used in the period of the council was in need of reform.

I'm sure many readers will agree with me when I say that the reform we got was not entirely what was intended for us by the Council fathers. Whatever form one prefers, and whatever style of worship one appreciates, no-one can say rightly that the Council approved our current liturgies, as the Council had closed by the time they were promulgated. I reject claims that these ordinary liturgies are those given to us by Vatican II and are infallible. Neither are the rites which came before it. Rites must change from time to time, lest we become petrified and time and die spiritually as a result.

It would be wrong of me to suggest that none of us really approve fully of our current form of liturgy. A majority of Catholics - even well-educated ones - will look blindly at you if you start talking about Forms of Mass. It is simply not an issue for most people, who simply come to Mass every week and that's it, saying their own prayers at home from time to time. Start changing the Mass and other liturgies, people will not really notice, rather they will wonder what Father is doing now, and forget about it quickly. They approve of our liturgy tacitly by their presence because they know no different. I can imagine the same went for parishioners with the liturgical changes of the 1920s, 1950s and early 1960s. Nobody really noticed. They noticed in the late 60s, because Father was now looking at them in most cases, but since then, they have forgotten what altar rails are. It is not their fault, and honestly, their own sense of spirituality hasn't changed that much. In fact, with many of the novelties we have now, I would argue that many laypeople get more nourishment from attending Mass in the ordinary form (post-Vatican II), intellectually at least.

A small number of people take an interest in the liturgy, beyond the norm. There are those extremists who deny the validity of the ordinary form. There are those who just like to go to extraordinary form Masses, those who go to both, those who want a mingling of the two, and those who think guitars and tambourines are necessary for the validity of the sacrament.

[Pope Paul VI celebrating Mass in St Peter's during the Council]

[Pope Benedict XVI celebrating Mass at the same altar recently]

We must get something straight. Vatican II, as I said above, teaches that what the extraordinary form is now should be reformed. It is not appropriate to assume it will remain forever as it is until the end of time (unless, of course, time ends tomorrow). And many accept that the common celebration of our modern liturgy is sometimes rediculous (we must bear in mind that liturgical abuse is not a new thing, and has happened since the liturgy was granted to us). The Holy See recognises this, the Holy Father recognises this personally, as did our previous HolyFather, who gave approval to the document Redemptionis Sacramentum, which provides proper guidelines for the celebration of Holy Mass (however, even in the celebration of his own liturgies, these rules were often broken).

However, Redemptionis Sacramentum doesn't really go far enough. In the 1960s, we had an in-organic rupture in the method of the celebration of the sacraments. Even my own mother wonders how you get the Masses we have today out of the Masses she had as a child. They are too different to argue that the change was organic, in such a short space of time.

I'm increasingly being drawn towards the idea that our two forms of liturgy need to be used in a way that assumes one day this temporary, in-organic solution will be rectified. It is wrong and unprecidented for the same rite of Christians, us western Christians of the Roman Rite, have two outwardly distinct liturgies. The same rite requires the same liturgy in my view. Anything which gives the impression that we will forever have two forms should be expunged, though I don't think it is the will of the Holy Father to split up the Church in such a way as some, by their actions, are in danger of doing.

In my hometown, there are about 5 or 6 Anglican parishes. The main one in the centre of town is broad Church. It's a little bit of a via media. They celebrate 'Mass' (well, they claim to), believe in the Real Presence in the Eucharist, wear vestments and when they had a man in charge, called their 'priest' Father.

Now, down the road, there is another parish. It is a Church of England community - the same as the parish I have described above. They have a trendy evangelical who hates the idea of a 'clergy'. They do not celebrate any form of Eucharist, do not use things such as candles, and instead of an altar in their Church, they have a big projector screens to allow everyone to follow along in their heretically minded 'praise and worship' sessions.

I can imagine in about a hundred or two hundred years - following the path we are on at the moment so rigidly - we as Catholics will have something similar. In big towns in one Church, we shall have ad orientem altars, Roman vestments, only extraordinary form celebrations of Mass and other liturgies etc. Then down the road, you will have another Church, with a wooden 'communion table' surrounded by schol chairs, breeze-block walls, a tabernacle in the corner, carpeted floors, a religious sister chaplain, and music stands and a guitar case left next to the altar. Next to a picture of Oscar Romero flanked by children, will be a justice and peace board and Cafod posters, neglecting to mention their support for condoms, monopolising Catholic charity giving (basically, what a lot of Catholic Churches look like nowadays) . Maybe in this big town, you shall have a Church run by a personal prelature, who have dubious liturgies, but stick rigidly (and, frankly, quite unchristian-ly) to Catholic social doctrine, but unfathomably produce about a million new priests every year.

I don't know about you, but I don't want our glorious Holy Mother Church to become any more fragmented than it already is. The liturgy - though some refuse to accept this - is usually the sole way many Catholics communicate with God on a weekly basis, and we should give it all we have. It should not confuse people and put them off - either by giving them a sense of psychological rejection, neither should it confuse their image of God and make Love seem all hip. Everything in the liturgy is there for a reason, and bits shouldn't be rejected or inserted according to our personal needs. The primary purpose of the Mass is for the worship of God, not as a device to satisfy our own decadent hypochondria.

[Via media? The celebration of Holy Mass using the Missal promulgated after Vatican II in the Birmingham Oatory - is this perhaps the kind of celebration the Council Fathers invisaged?]

There are many changes which could, and should, be made to the ordinary form. We should look into the feasability of, for example, a silent Eucharistic prayer, prayers at the foot of the altar, longer forms of the offertory prayers, the expansion of the uses of votive Masses, Vigils and octaves, in any language in all sorts of directions. Perhaps, as Cardinal Godfrey argued during the council, the Church didn't use Latin enough, or maybe we use it too much liturgically. We should abide by Church Council teaching and teach and be taught the prayers in Latin (we are required to know how to respond to Mass in Latin) and sing parts to basic tones at least. We should completely re-orientate our view of where we place ourselves in the liturgy, especially as lay people, but we should also recognise that the our current practices actually seem to increase clerical control over the liturgy. I don't really care about the Latin, nor frankly the orientation (though for the latter, I do have a personal preference for ad orientem), rather we should remind ourselves continuously that what we are doing is for the glory of God and it should appear such.

[Mass in the square of St Peter's at Easter this year: noble simplicity correcly interpreted]

The work of Vatican II, in my view, hasn't even begun yet, so let's not let us get stuck into our ruts and comfortable spaces just yet.

Iniquity

The Calendar adapted for England requires the celebration of the feast of St Bede today, but as we have thousands of saints, there are several remembered every day. From the martyrology today:

At Salerno, the death of blessed Pope Gregory VII, a most zealous protector and champion of Church liberty.

O, that all our leaders were as inspiring as this saintly pontiff.

If I were to pick a century to live in, the eleventh would not be my first choice. Gregory - whose birth-name was Hildebrand - had no choice, and the thought of being a prelate in that era is such a horrible concept! In the middle of that century, the Church was in a complete mess. There were several people claiming to be popes (and one pope who was deposed twice, managing to get himself re-elected time after time), presbytries known-world-over were becoming dens of iniquity, secular leaders were dismantling ecclesiastical authority and worse: goodly monks were trying to make everyone all holy! The calls of St Peter Damian and the like, demanding sanctity and good behavior, fell mostly on deaf ears, but Gregory VII was one of those who listened an, unfortunately, suffered the consequences.

This is the mediaeval period. One thing which annoyes me about liberals, especially Churchy liberals, is that they know nothing of history (which is probably why they are the way they are), and when they do, they get it wrong. They often complain about the Church and its exterior features being mediaeval, yet most of what the Church looks like today comes out of the late fifteenth century and beyond - the Church, by this very definition, is modern, not mediaeval. Some of these people even complain that the Church is mediaeval - I'd say transcendant - without contemplating that the actual mediaeval period has produced a suspicious number of saints and sinners. The Church is - and always has been - the Body of Christ, the people of God in mystical union with Christ and each other, and thus it automatically reflects contemporary society. I don't doubt that the Church of the eleventh century was exactly the same as the Church of today, underneath all the layers of smoke and damask.

I don't wish to present a biography - there is just far too much to write about this man - but needless to say, he tried to reform the Church's behaviour and put the emperor in his place. He is a good reminder that, as Joseph Ratzinger once said, truth is not determined by a majority vote. If it did, Greogry would be one of just a handful. He stood by the Church and Christ as others abandoned it - Apocalypse-esque - and demonstrates if one decides to that, you are punished in this life, but with the grace of God, we shall eventually be victorious.

We don't get our reward in this life. No matter what we truly desire here, we shall not be fully satisfied. This is something - myself especially included - we need to remember every day: Utopia ain't gonna happen before we die, folks. I have kept a devotion to this saint ever since I continuously wrote about him when I studied Church history at university, so I think I'm going to be naughty and exempt myself from the local calendar and keep the feast of this Pope.

On his deathbed in 1085, according to legend, Gregory said: "I have loved justice and hated iniquity; therefore, I die in exile."

Novena

Humans are sensual beings. Most of us see, smell, hear, taste, feel and what not. Having some or all of these senses remind us that we are fully part of creation: we can enjoy it and use it.

God, through His Church, has provided us with Sacraments which help us integrate with the spiritual reality beyond this temporal creation we inhabit at the moment. Using elements of benefit to our own senses - bread, wine, oil, water, smoke, bells, words, gestures, movement, colours, wax, singing, fire, salt, textures, sounds, silences - we can appreciate our spirituality on a more profound level. Heaven debases itself to our level so we can become a part of it, which is especially expressed at the moment of the Eucharistic Sacrifice, prefaced by the union of heaven and earth singing the praises of God during the Sanctus. We fall to our knees at this moment, as we recognise that, yet again, God has joined us down here.

Another temporal reality is time itself. The Church offers her people a beautiful gift in the liturgy and the liturgical cycle. The renewal experienced in the passage of the liturgical year mirrors our own year and the seasons therein. The whole Christian year is anchored on one moment: the Resurrection. Our measure of time begins with preparation for the visual incarnation of Christ in Advent, the celebration itself and his manifestation to the world represented by the wise men. Keeping in mind this exposure to us, He leads us through the wilderness - representing both Christ's action and that of Moses and the Hebrews - and lets us suffer liturgically. In Lent, the Christian people are deprived of some of these physical elements such as bells, music and colours, and even statues. We are reminded that for a short while, we are alone with God the Father, as Christ was alone. Gradually throughout this season, we lose more and more until at the end: Good Friday, we have nothing left, not even plain linens, smoke or candles for very long. Just Christ on the cross.

Then, all of a sudden, the world is turned upside down. We are given everything back, the change is so great we are bowled over. It is Easter.

In this season too, time changes. During the Octave at the end of Mass, Alleluia is added to the dismissal rites. The Paschal candle remains lit in the sanctuary. The liturgical colour is white like the blood-stained wool of the Lamb. But we lose the Alleluia after the Octave; things start to calm down.

Yesterday, at the Ascension, the Paschal candle is extinguished as Christ has risen to the Father. The scaffold is the same, but the mood has changed.

We are celebrating the resurrection - we are always celebrating that - but we are a bit sad that the Lord had to leave us again. But he has promised us that another will come, an Advocate for our cause (Acts 1:5). After the Ascension, we give thanks and pray that the Holy Spirit will come as He promised.

Scripturally, it is quite clear that the Lord was taken up into heaven 40 days after his resurrection, which is why the Ascension was kept yesterday (Acts 1:3). Ascension Thursday is Ascension Thursday, it cannot just be moved around. It was the Ascension yesterday, but in some places, the celebration is kept at a later date and the obligation to attend Mass is translated to the Sunday in that geographical area. I'm not sure if some votive Mass can be used on this day. What happens with the liturgy in this case is that it is bunched up, so we celebrate the readings designed after the Ascension to be read before it a day earlier; crazy or what?

Anyway, it is also clear that the Apostles prayed earnestly - continuously - after this event (Acts 1:14) which culminated in the election of a new Apostle, Matthias. Then after the chosen are complete again in number, and led by Mary, the Mother of Jesus, in consolation and prayer, they arrive at the day of Pentecost. This is the fiftieth day after the resurrection. Therefore, we know from scripture that the Holy Spirit did not descend until 10 days after the Ascension (Acts 2:1).

So we know that the Apostles prayed in preparation for nine days: a Novena. There are perhaps few things as Catholic as a Novena, yet it's right there in the Holy Bible, folks. This is kind of a miniature liturgical season: Ascensiontide. It has its own emphasis and meaning, more than just Easter time (which it is too). The honeymoon is over. We have enjoyed just relaxing in the warmth of Easter. On his way up to heaven yesterday, Jesus told us to take what we have just taken to other people. This is a command, a vocation, we are given by the Lord himself. We've been nourished spiritually by Lent and Easter, now it's time to get on a live it too.

But woe betide anyone who things he can do this alone. No, we need God's grace for this, and the gifts of His Holy Spirit. We don't (always) just get given these things, we have to ask for them by opening our hearts and minds to what the Holy Spirit has to offer us. This doesn't mean we jump up and down and wave our hands around, start speaking differently and telling each other prophesies - though this certainly does happen, not just as regularly as some people claim it does in my view; I'm sure the Holy Spirit doesn't limit himself to the wiles of the Pentecostal and Charismatic movements: we are all Pentecostal and Charismatic - but it does mean we open our heart as wide as we can. God's love is so limitless we can't possibly fit it all in, but we can try our best to be open to it. By doing this, and with others, we can try to understand what the Holy Spirit is going on about - pick up the hints and clues as to when we should and shouldn't do something. I often say we should stop meddling around in things and leave things for a bit to allow the Spirit to work. I don't think two people have ever interpreted that in the same way, however. But then again, if we get it a bit out this time, God's forgiveness is bountiful, and there is always next year!

We must change from time to time. We must represent outwardly what we possess inwardly. This is found in our forms of worship too. But we are organic, and this change too must be organic: natural, Spiritual. The more we start to inorganically play around with things to suit purely our designs, then that is inhibiting the Holy Spirit. Sacraments are natural, not manufactured.

Anyway, the purpose of me writing here is to suggest the importance of appreciating this short season we have for the next nine days. Like the Apostles, we must pray for the Holy Spirit to come at Pentecost. We can and should pray on our own initive in this season, but also the Church gives us an easy way for us to do this in addition (but really, the two are not incompatable). Every day this this season, I shall post here the daily prayer of consecration to the Holy Spirit and the prayer for that day. Over time, we shall grow spiritually together and the Love of God shall be unleashed upon us. This is an important time. It will be the birthay of the Church. Who dares forget his mother's birthday?...

---

Novena to the Holy Spirit:
First Friday after Ascension Thursday

Antiphon:
Holy Spirit! Lord of Light!
From Your clear celestial height,
Your pure beaming radiance give!

Prayer
Almighty and eternal God,
Who has promised to regenerate us by water and the Holy Spirit,
and forgiven all our sins,
send forth your sevenfold Spirit upon us:
the Spirit of Wisdom and Understanding,
the Spirit of Counsel and fortitude,
the Spirit of Knowledge and Piety,
and fill us with the Spirit of the Fear of the Lord.
Amen.

Our Father...
Haily Mary...
Glory Be...

Act of Consecration
On my knees before the great multitude of heavenly witnesses,
I offer myself, soul and body to You, Eternal Spirit of God.
I adore the brightness of Your purity,
the unerring keenness of Your justice,
and the might of Your love.

You are the Strength and Light of my soul.
In You I live and move and am.
I desire never to grieve You by unfaithfulness to grace and
I pray with all my heart to be kept from the smallest sin against You.
Mercifully guard my every thought and
grant that I may always watch for Your light,
and listen to Your voice,
and follow Your gracious inspirations.

I cling to You and give myself to You and ask You,
by Your compassion to watch over me in my weakness.

Holding the pierced Feet of Jesus and looking at His Five Wounds,
and trusting in His Precious Blood and
adoring His opened Side and stricken Heart,
I implore You, Adorable Spirit, Helper of my infirmity,
to keep me in Your grace that I may never sin against You.

Give me grace, O Holy Spirit,
Spirit of the Father and the Son
to say to You always and everywhere,
"Speak Lord for Your servant is listening."
Amen.

Prayer for the Sevenfold-gifts of the Holy Spirit
O Lord Jesus Christ Who,
before ascending into heaven
did promise to send the Holy Spirit
to finish Your work in the souls of Your Apostles and Disciples,
deign to grant the same Holy Spirit to me
that He may perfect in my soul,
the work of Your grace and Your love.

Grant me the Spirit of Wisdom
that I may despise the perishable things of this world
and aspire only after the things that are eternal,
the Spirit of Understanding to enlighten my mind with the light of Your divine truth,
the Spirit of Counsel that I may ever choose the surest way of pleasing God and gaining heaven,
the Spirit of Fortitude that I may bear my cross with You and that I may overcome with courage
all the obstacles that oppose my salvation,
the Spirit of Knowledge that I may know God and know myself
and grow perfect in the science of the Saints,
the Spirit of Piety that I may find the service of God sweet and amiable,
and the Spirit of Fear that I may be filled with a loving reverence towards God
and may dread in any way to displease Him.

Mark me, dear Lord,
with the sign of Your true disciples
and animate me in all things with Your Spirit.
Amen.

Benediction

Here is a nice piece of news from Zenit. I remember reading about it when it was being planned, but this has just reminded me:

The Pope will be visiting the monastery founded by the saint he chose as his patron upon taking the name Benedict XVI.

The Holy Father will travel Sunday to Monte Cassino, the monastery St. Benedict founded that is the cradle of the Benedictine order.

The visit will begin with a Mass in the plaza of Cassino, the city just east of the monastery. The site of the Mass will be renamed after Benedict XVI.

After Mass, the Pontiff will inaugurate a "House of Charity" for homeless immigrants. The project is being carried out in a former hospital under the sponsorship of the abbot of Monte Cassino.

The second part of the day will be dedicated to the Benedictines, as the Bishop of Rome will meet with abbots and abbesses from around the world, as well as a large number of monks and nuns.

Finally, before his return to Rome, the Holy Father will visit the Polish cemetery, one of the cemeteries from World War II. This year marks 65 years since the bombing of the monastery in the Battle of Monte Cassino, also known as the Battle for Rome.

---

Monte Cassino is the hill upon which the monastery of the same name was founded by St Benedict in the 6th century and therefore is the spiritual home of the western monastic movement. The Pope will be visiting it on the Sunday after the Ascension in his calendar (though I think the rest of Italy keep the Ascension on the Sunday itself).

We have all heard about the Battle for Rome, which culminated in the virtual destruction of the site and region for no apparent reason - a bit like the allies' justification for the bombing of Dresden.

In fact, that was really the culmination of a very un-prayerful history of this foundation. Shortly after it was built in the 6th century, it was destroyed by wandering barbarians, but it was later rebuilt just in time for Charlemagne to visit it in the 8th century. Shortly after this in the 9th century, the Muslims burned it down, but it was rebuilt only to be destroyed by an earthquake in the 14th century. A completely new structure was built and it was raised to the dignity of a cathedral, after which it entered a period of decline, dissolved by Napoleon and later turned into a museum by republicans in the mid-19th century.

The remains were caught in between the two armies in the second world war, even though the place was being used largely as a shelter for refugees from the surrounding towns. The monastery was rebuilt in the 1960s, thankfully according to the 14th century designs, and reconsecrated by Paul VI.

The relics of St Benedict and his sister St Scholtastica - among many others - can be found here.

Enthronement

I suppose I should mention a few of my thoughts on today's enthronement of the newby Metropolitan Archbishop of Westminster. I don't like the word 'installation', as it makes the poor man sound like a utility fitting.

Not that I'm ungrateful to the BBC or anything - in fact, I'm very thankfull that they broadcast the Mass - but did Huw Edwards have to speak all over the nice new musical pieces especially composed for the occasion?

Some of these musical pieces - mostly by James Macmillan - were taken from a Cantuariensian Pontifical from the fifteenth century. The preceeding rites were also of this origin. Ever since the restoration in 1850, this formula has been used to install new Archbishops, and as a result, one can argue that this see claims succession from the old Archbishops of Canterbury, making the Lord Vincent the eightieth (give or take a handful for historical inaccuracies) successor to St Augustine of Canterbury in communion with Rome. As a result, the provost of the metropolitical chapter of the archdiocese inherited the right to hold the archbishop's elbow and take him to his throne, playing the role of the prior of Canterbury. The crozier was presented by the Apostolic Administrator/Archbishop Emeritus.

This rite - all performed in a cope with a marvellous morse - involved a lot of kneeling. I think my favourite moment during the broadcast was the entrance of the Archbishop, he imediately kneeled at the threshold of the Church with a profound sense of emotion on his face. Only after this did he presume to approach the chapter and later the altar. Kneeling was the main issue of the day at the foot of the high altar too, this time at a faldstool draped in green, as the provost prayed over him.

After sitting down on a very comfy-looking throne, he received the obedience of the chapter and a carefully selected cross-section of other, less silky-vermillion people, and his new coat of arms were unveiled by the master of ceremonies Fr Witon. Then these rites suddenly became Mass, as the Gloria (Palestrina!) was intoned, during which the archbishop was vested for the celebration.

At the collect, I realised that the Mass was a votive of St Paul. Note a liturgical nicety here: St Paul requires red because he is a martyr, but red can be replaced by gold vestments. Having been a bit weary of the vestments seeing them beforehand, they looked good in real life, but still a bit plain. The matching dalmatics were in the same set for the honour deacons, but the altar deacons wore different (and much nicer) dalmatics in a cream fabric. Sad, too, not to see the pontifical dalmatic. A good Marian-themed gold mitre.

The Eastery Alleluia was sung to greet the Gospel, though I must say that while the choir - in my opinion, one of the best in the world and should be exported to Rome to replace that atrocious body in the Sistine Chapel - were truly excellent, some of the chanting was something to be desired at this moment! I have to admit, the homily was interrupted for me as I had to bring the washing in out of the rain outside, but the parts I heard were really good (I heard the bit about the media). Archbishop Nichols has one of those really gentle voices: a rare quality in a person. Some voices agitate or relax or anger or bore, but this one is calming. Voices such as these get listened to. Also, from what I have seen of him from afar and in real life, he is a bit paradoxical in a way, because he is both aloof and down-to-earth, if you can understand that! I like this dichotomy in bishops. Simply by their mannerisms one can tell they are a bishop, but very 'regular' at the same time.

Credo III was sung - the one usually put with the Missa de Angelis (the tone of which was used for the Sanctus and intoning the Gloria, though I wouldn't have used that Mass setting for a votive of the thirteenth Apostle). The Palestrina was used again for the Agnus Dei.

I must say I saw several people I recognised in the congregation and sanctuary, which was nice. Having been to the Cathedral a lot, I didn't get the same feeling watching it on the TV - and I found it looked a lot smaller on the screen too - Westminster Cathedral has a sort of aura about it which obviously cannot be transmitted through the cameras.

I also enjoyed a surprised Te Deum at the end, though I thought it a bit superflouous to walk all the way to the back to venerate Cardinal Hume's tomb, and then go back to give a proper episcopal blessing. However, in the knowledge this man was consecrated by Basil Hume, and finding this picture earlier, it makes sense with hindsight.

One other thing...why do clergy carry birettas when they are not going to wear them? Personally, of course, all the clergy should wear them in my opinion, but if you don't want to wear it, don't carry it around like a millstone; I find it a bit arrogant (or, as I have recently christened it, negative humility). Also, while I'm talking about clergy in choir, is everyone given a standard surplice to wear? They are so boring, these little embroidered strips with a cross on; where are the lacy rochets? And what ever happened to watered-silk...these are all so plain looking!

Overall, thumbs up, I say. I'm sure he'll do really well.

Murphy-O'Connor

Is that one word? Well, we have reached the end of our posts on the archbishops of Wesminster. I hope you have enjoyed them. Here is our last instalment:

Cormac Murphy-O’Connor, in spite of his crazy accent, was born in Berkshire and educated there, and in Bath. Aged 18, he was enrolled into the English College along with his two brothers, training as a priest for the diocese of Portsmouth.

After serving as parish priest for several years upon his ordination in 1956, he became the bishop’s secretary and director of vocations. As the 1970s got going, he was parachuted again to Rome, this time as rector and named monsignor, presiding over the college during the period of great reform and settlement.

Staying in the Eternal City a further 6 years, he was appointed and consecrated bishop of the south-coast diocese of Arundel and Brighton, where he remained for 23 years.

Nearly a year after the death of Cardinal Hume, he was surprisingly appointed his successor in the early spring of the second millennial year of our salvation, receiving the pallium three months later, and the red hat after less than a year, from the pope whom he welcomed in his previous diocese 20 years before on his historic visit.

Like his predecessor, he quickly became absorbed into the socialites’ lives of Westminster-dwelling folk, becoming the first Cardinal to preach to a sovereign since the seventeenth century, and regularly appeared on television. One piece of news he regularly discussed was the Nolan report on child abuse scandals which he commissioned, and instigated his suggestions along with the other bishops. His name was often mentioned in important circles, and his opinions is respected (if not heeded) in the Catholic and non-Catholic world of London north-of-the-Thames. This has led some to suggest he will be given a title and a seat in the upper house of parliament – completely un-canonical of course – which I must say I heartily disprove of for several reasons.

Upon reaching the age limit, he submitted his resignation, though the Pope ignored it, asking him to remain much longer in order to find a successor. Never before had an archbishop of this diocese retired in office: all had died. When his successor was announced, he became Apostolic Administrator, and spent the remaining time in Archbishop house giving long, protracted goodbyes. Like all good bishops, he is not without his critics, but his pastoral and preaching ability and love for God and His people are admirable.

He now lives in retirement Chiswick, though I doubt this archbishop emeritus will spend much time out of the lime-light.

Hume

George Basil Haliburton Hume O.S.B. was, at one point, my diocesan bishop. This half-Scottish, half-French Newcastle supporter became the leader of English and Welsh Catholics at the end of the turbulent 20th century, He is appropriately remembered as the Monk-Cardinal, being the only Benedictine to serve the archdiocese of Westminster as ordinary since its inception in 1850. To my understanding, he is the only Cardinal of the Holy Roman Church to have had a walk-on cameo on This is Your Life; he wasn’t even featured as the actual guest celebrity.

Born in 1923, after being educated at the school, he entered the Benedictine foundation at Ampleforth in Yorkshire in 1941, after which he was educated further in Switzerland and Oxford, and ordained a priest in 1950.

For thirteen years, he was a teacher, housemaster, sportsman and even a diplomat, before being elected Abbot for a fixed term in 1963 (a term which was later renewed). Funnily enough, the Abbot of Ampleforth is the successor of the Abbot of Westminster (not sure how they work that out, but men like to award themselves titles from time to time – on the vigil of his enthronement, he led his brethren in worship in their former Church). Aged only 40, he was perhaps an appropriate appointment, considering the vitality expressed from the Council which was sitting in Rome at the time, and Hume presided over the period of change for the Abbey. Ampleforth was able to absorb the Council without loss to the community, and it maintained about 120 brethren at the time, and it remains a large institution today.

Some have said that the appointment of an Abbot to the primatial Catholic see in England is a peculiar choice, though in this case, I would suggest otherwise. Ampleforth is a large monastery; larger, in fact, than some English dioceses in terms of number of clergy. It runs schools and even parishes, thankfully reminiscent of these mediaeval mega-monasteries. And so as well as administrative formation which goes with the position – more than called for in Westminster – the appointment of a religious to the post added a sense of monastic spirituality sadly lacking until then. Though religious are primarily called to their communities, it seems a shame that not more bishops in this country do not herald from these backgrounds. All but one of our ordinary bishops are of the secular (or at least, non-monastic) clergy. Benedict XV promised (nearly a century ago now), that there would always be a Benedictine somewhere in the English hierarchy. This position is vacant at the moment.

So this Abbot Hume succeeded Cardinal Heenan in 1976. As an Abbot, he had worn pontifical paraphernalia for years, but was un-consecrated. His episcopal office was sacramentally unleashed, unusually, by the nuncio himself, Bruno Heim, the abbot of Downside and the bishop of Middlesbrough, from whose diocese Hume had travelled for the occasion.

He ruled Westminster for over 20 years, a period which was perhaps more interesting than the preceding 20, for it was a time of settling dust and re-orientation. Archbishop Hume – who was elevated to the Sacred Purple shortly after his consecration in Paul VI’s penultimate consistory, and for a while, was the only Benedictine Cardinal – presided over a period of ecumenism, continuing the archbishop’s friendship with the archbishop of Canterbury, and even welcoming the Queen to his Cathedral in 1995. She was to award him the Order of Merit shortly before his death. He was also the Archbishop during the historic first – and so far only – visit of a reigning Roman Pontiff to English soil. Many had tipped Hume to be a potential Pope himself one day. He was perhaps the closest England came to provided the world with another Holy Father in the second half of the last century.

There can be no doubt in Hume’s popularity, and he greatly benefited the Church in this country. Though I have always felt slightly uncomfortable with his celebrity status, he was a very Catholic archbishop – a skill which is sometimes lacking – being all men to everybody, a gentle and humble soul who had both spiritual depth and a life beyond his Cathedral. His death in 1999 was mourned by many.

Heenan

Woops, I seem to have not written anything since Sunday. This is because I have been around the houses a bit, and have only just had the opportunity to sit and write anything. I shall, therefore, be writing two articles today, and we start thus (astute readers will remember a previous article on Heenan; this is an edited version with new exciting facts):



John Carmel Heenan.


Need I say more? The beautifully named archbishop of Westminster, who reigned from 1963 until 1975. He presided over the implementation of the second Vatican council and subsequent declarations (including those regarding the liturgy, hierarchy and what not).


Heenan was the first archbishop to be born in the 20th century, and modernity was not something he would avoid. Born in the then Westminster diocese in 1905, he was sponsored to enter the Westminster Cathedral Choir School, but after rejection due to an inability to sing (the director was dreadfully un-enlightened), he entered the Jesuit grammar school in Stamford Hill (which was a long train-journey away for this day-student from Ilford; he was nearly expelled on one occasion, and incident which upset him dreadfully, and seemed to give him a good kick up the backside!).


He kept his desire to be a priest quiet from everyone bar his mother, who was concerned by his activities in school, afraid he would be unable to proceed to major seminary. He succeeded, however, and was sent to Ushaw. He did not last here for long. Thankfully for him, he won a sponsorship to attend the English College in Rome. Heenan did not enjoy his time at Ushaw, thinking it too puritanical in its treatment of the students, especially their dietry requirements. Formation of seminarians was a keen interest of his because of his own poor experiences.


Ordained priest in 1930, he was told - to the annoyance of his own bishop - that he would one day be elevated to the episcopate. Later, Cardinal Hinsley thrust a mitre on his head and said something along the lines of: you shall be given a hat like this one day, and it shall be like a crown of thorns. He served as a curate, opposed the eugenics and pro-death movements of the time, and became interested in the emerging science of psychology. He posed as a psychologist on an undercover expedition to the Soviet Union during the great purges. Not even his rector knew about it, who was told he was going on holiday to Rome, the danger was so great for a priest to enter the communist dictatorship. The young priest was exempted from the Divine Office so that nothing may be found about his person if arrested.


On his return, he remained as a parish priest, but after the war, became the head of the Catholic Missionary Society. He could be found driving around the country with a chapel attached to the back of his car - Our Lady of the Wayside. People would be summoned to Mass by recordings of the bells from St Peter's in Rome.


Such activities got him noticed, and the episcopal order was opened to him by his consecration as bishop of Leeds in 1951: the Cruel See. That crown of thorns was placed upon his head after all. Heenan was not popular. He alienated his clergy very quickly by reshuffling virtually all the parish clergy throughout the diocese (he even tried to move a priest of a neighbouring diocese, thinking the parish lay within his juristiction). It was here, however, he sung High Mass, which was to become the first Mass to be televised in the UK.


The new bishop did not last long in Yorkshire, and he was moved to the other side of the Pennines in 1957 as Archbishop of Liverpool. He imediately rejected the new Cathedral plans of his predecessor Godfrey (who had been moved to Westminster), though construction had already begun. He approved the Church Liverpool Catholics can now call their own (I shall not pass judgement on that; I think it best to avoid the subject here!).


Neither did he last long in Liverpool, and was translated to Westminster in 1963 after Godfrey's death. This was the time of the Council, and though his public participation was more limited that Godfrey's he was key in ensuring the Church in this country was not fractured (very much) by the upheaval. Thankfully, he was fully aware of his own opinions, and enforced doctrine and teaching without the flowery language and terminology which sprouted in the 1960s and 70s.


He is known as a keen ecumenist - though I'm sure his ultimate aim was to convert heretics to the true religion. He promoted the idea (something which was evident from his early priestly career) of personal friendships, particularly among Catholic and protestant clergy, was the primary organ of the movement. He was close friends with both the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Chief Rabbi.

His demise occured at the same time at Paul VI, of whom he was a great supporter (the Supreme Pontiff was criticised by most groups of Catholics - traddies disliked his changes, trendies feared his changes did not go far enough, especially after the publication of Humanae Vitae). He was aware of his impending doom by 1971, when he suggested the clergy nominate potential successors (I wonder if anyone's suggestions were ever passed on), and died of a heart attack in 1975. He is buried in his Cathedral behind the pulpit and near the queue for confessions.

Heenan I think was one of those 'quick' people: busy, busy, busy. We all know one or seven. Meetings were quick, letters brief efficency 'chilling', abrupt and unconfortable. He was the opposite of gentle Godfrey, who was quiet, reflective, consultative and introspective. However, in Heenan's written words particularly, we find not only humour and eloquence, but a zeal for the love of God and His people, to whom he dedicated this life.

Godfrey

William Godfrey (second from left) is certainly one of the gentlest Cardinals one could have met. As Archbishop, he could often be found in his Cathedral – which he treated as his parish church – hearing confessions, speaking to parishioners and directing visitors without the airs and graces of a Cardinal; in the same way as our present Pope could be found dressed down in Rome as a Cardinal, Godfrey walked around his domain dressed as a humble priest.

Godfrey, unusually, was ten years older than his predecessor and was the last Archbishop of Westminster to be born in the nineteenth century. He was born in Liverpool, and trained for the priesthood of that diocese in Ushaw. He also taught at this seminary, and was soon moved to the English College as Rector, succeeding Arthur Hinsley. While in Rome, he was charged with additional responsibilities, serving as the first Apostolic Delegate to Britain (and its European colonies) since the Mary I was queen. This renewal of diplomatic ties was renewed due to the imminent war on the horizon. Godfrey was chosen as he was already Apostolic Visitor to the English seminaries and his previous position as papal legate to the king’s recent coronation.

In 1938, he established the nunciature in Wimbledon, and left is position as rector in Rome. After working with the Polish government-in-exile for most of the war, he translated Vatican documents and Papal addresses for the non-Latin and Italian speakers.

After 15 years in the nunciature (he was replaced by an American), and became Archbishop of his home city, Liverpool, remaining there for three years. During this brief period, however, he visited every parish community, and approved scaled-down designs for the new Cathedral, designed to outshine the Anglican one.

However, before he could break the ground, he found himself once more in London as Archbishop of Westminster from the end of 1956 after Griffin’s death, and was also appointed Exarch of the Ukrainians. Having longer in this city than the previous one, Godfrey was able to establish an administration and policy, overseeing an expansion of parishes and Catholic schools, and took a great interest in everyday concerns – he even urged dog-owners to include their pets in Lenten fasts, and just before Crufts, argued that dogs would enjoy their life without being pampered. It was not until the election of John XXIII however, that he donned once again the watered silk, but this time as a Cardinal. His Poodle letter was written when he had been given the red hat.

Godfrey lived long enough to see the opening of the great second ecumenical council of the Vatican, and was commended on his flawless, poetic Latin in the plenary session. His area of interest was primarily liturgical, arguing against the reception of the chalice by the laity because of lipstick (about which he was proven correct), and that the Church should proceed to use more Latin in its liturgy, not less. He refuted the application of political terms in the Church (such as conservative and liberal), and held that a Catholic should uphold doctrine if he was to remain a Catholic, for Church teaching was infallible.

In 1963, he died of a heart attack, and was suffering from cancer at the time. This anonymous, silent Cardinal, as his successor called him, was not known for his oratory or writings, but for his personal holiness and commitment to Christ and His Church. Being an example of personal holiness is perhaps the most difficult goal to accomplish, but Cardinal Godfrey succeeded.

Griffin

Bernard William Griffin took the reigns of the archdiocese of Westminster as the city was still in the throws of the Second World War.

It was however, during the Great War that Griffin gained his first post, as an airman and also where he realised a problem with his heart. After the war, he entered Oscott seminary as a student for the Birmingham archdiocese, but was later transferred to Rome for personal reasons, and studied under the Rector Arthur Hinsley.

He worked in his archdiocese for 11 years before he was appointed an auxiliary of Birmingham. This was no ordinary bishop, however, for he was also an air raid warden during the earlier years of the war.

Towards the end of 1943, just before the course of the war was about to shift, Griffin succeeded his former rector in Westminster, to the surprise of everyone, though was only elevated to the Sacred College when the war had concluded. At 46, he was the youngest Cardinal; Hinsley’s Cappa Magna just fit the new pastor at the consistory.

He went to work quickly in the nation’s capital, for this was the time of unprecedented social upheaval. He worked hard to gain many exemptions for Catholic institutions in the face of regularisation and nationalisation, particularly in the realm of education, conscription and the new National Health Service. As well as this, he presided over a period of post-war reconstruction of Churches and rolled back some of Hinsley’s ecumenical adventures.

Even by the end of this decade, his health was failing quickly, and struggled to attend engagements, and when he did, he suffered much pain. His illnesses kept him away from the public eye and pastoral activity for a long period, though he was the quasi-primate who reigned in England during the Marian celebrations of the 1950s.

In 1956, ten years after he received the red hat, he suffered another heart attack during Mass for war veterans, though amazingly kept composure. While recovering in Cornwall, he passed from this life on the feast of St Bernard.

Seminary

Something inside me was telling me I was dreaming. But when I woke up this morning, it has actually all happened.

Yesterday, I was accepted for seminary formation by my bishop. I shall begin in September at an English diocesan seminary in the UK. I'm very excited about it, especially as for me, this process of application has been going on for about 3 years (though I formally applied in October last year).

This shall be the 6th time in my life when I have been a first year, and hopefully the last. I have visited several times already, but still I really don't know what to expect, so I'm sure it will be a very exciting journey for me.

I won't turn this into an Oscar acceptance speech, but I'd just like to say thanks. But don't forget me yet; I'm sure I'll need your support now more than ever as I begin to dip my toe in the waters of Mother Church (or, jumping in the deep end more like!).

Hinsley

Arthur Hinsley is someone I wish I could have heard in real life. The thought of the great vaults and domes of Westminster Cathedral being filled with thick Yorkshire strains from the pulpit of this elderly Cardinal fills me with pride and excitement. Being a great fan of Cardinal Heenan, I have enjoyed reading lively descriptions of this man (whose biography was written by his later successor) who, while only reigning in Westminster for 8 years, has certainly left an impression in the psyche of England’s premier diocese.

A Yorkshireman of the diocese of Leeds, Hinsley was born the year Wiseman died and was educated in both Ushaw and the English College, returning to England after his ordination in 1893. However, conflict with his bishop and others led him to be incardinated into Southwark 11 years later, where he ministered in parishes suffering from the effects of the Great War.

A year before the conclusion of this bloody conflict, he again found himself in the Eternal City, this time as Rector of his alma mater aged 52. Hinsley was to model the college on his own lines, which gave birth to many of the major prelates of England and Wales even to the end of the century.

It was while holding the position of rector he found himself in a very unusual situation, being given the nickname ‘Africanus’ by the Pope. In 1927, he was appointed Visitor to Africa (later Apostolic Delegate), which required episcopal consecration, a sacrament performed by Merry del Val. However, he had to retire from this position in 1934, upon which he returned to Rome and was appointed a Canon in the Vatican Basilica. Now aged 70, it was assumed he would remain there for the rest of his days.

Fortune was not with the Canon Archbishop, however, for the next year, Pius XI appointed Africanus as Archbishop of Westminster, after gaining attention while promoting the cause of Ss Thomas More and John Fisher.

Shortly after his appointment, the nation found itself again at war, and Hinsley was a vociferous opponent of both Nazism, Fascism and Communism. An early (and, according to the Vatican, an over-eager) supporter of ecumenism and inter-faith relations, the new old Cardinal delivered regular addresses to all British troops, banned the pacifist Catholic magazine Pax, and earned a reputation in Berlin as a Jew-lover.

He was a very humble man indeed. His secretary commented that he would often verbalise his thoughts unconsciously, and even during Mass, one could hear him whispering prayers: ‘O God have mercy on me’. Normally, one would bite their tongue in order to avoid offense, but Hinsley protruded his jaw, providing that very familiar feature which was jocularly mentioned by his friends and colleagues on a regular basis.

Throughout what turned out to be the middle of the conflict, Hinsely suffered from many heath problems, which he was bound to at such an age. However, he bore his illnesses nobly and quietly, celebrating Mass in great pain and even delivered an address shortly after having a heart attack. His heart did eventually fail him, and he died in Hertfordshire on St Patrick’s Day in 1943.

His support was strong, described as England’s most loved Cardinal in the press, and his Requiem was attended by members of the Anglican clergy and other establishment dignitaries, and the king was disappointed when his advisors told him he was unable to attend the Mass in Westminster Cathedral, where his corporeal remains were interred afterwards.

Bourne

Francis Alphonsus Bourne was the longest reigning, and perhaps one of the quietest, archbishops to date. It is a shame that I had to look up the details of his 32 year episcopate in the city; so hopefully, I shall be able to do him justice. One of his successors, Cardinal Heenan noted that while his reign was a quiet one, his gentle persuasions ensured that the hated Catholicism which Bourne inherited in 1903 was respected by the time of his death in 1935.

Scion of Clapham – where he was later ordained – he was educated with his brother in Ushaw. Sadly, his brother died at the same time as their father, and such emotional turmoil, according to the Cardinal later in life, affected his personality. He was moved to St Edmund’s, Ware, where he received his haircut after deciding the priesthood was his vocation. His further education included a stint with a Dominicans – he was initially unsure whether he was called to this life – and later in Paris. His insecurities led him to meet Don Bosco, who told him definitively that secular priesthood was his calling.

After only 5 years as a priest in Southwark, he became rector of Wonersh, the brand-new seminary for the south coast, and after 12 years a priest, he was consecrated to the episcopate, later taking the throne of Southwark. He was to remain there for only 6 years, and was translated to Westminster in 1903, pipping Merry del Val to the post.

Bourne’s long, quiet rule was not filled with controversy, however. After 7 years in Westminster, England and Wales were declared no longer missionary territory, and in that same year, London hosted the Eucharistic Congress. The king and establishment were greatly displeased, and Bourne negotiated the terms of the Catholic event, culminating in his benediction of the city from the loggia of the recently completed, though as yet, un-consecrated Cathedral in Victoria.

To some extent, Bourne was pivotal in bringing Westminster into the modern age. He was the first archbishop in London to use a motor car (to the displeasure of his carriage driver), and opened a new diocesan seminary, withdrawing Vaughan’s support for Oscott. This later became Allen Hall.

Neither was he shy of controversy. During the Great War, he visited troops on the front line in France – often in a helmet, with bombs around him – and even visited British battleships in full choir dress. He intervened directly with the government to halt its bombing of Cologne during Eucharistic processions. Similarly, he represented his views to Rome in no uncertain terms. He oversaw the proliferation of dioceses in England and Wales, but his intervention drastically reduced that number. Such language probably delayed his elevation to the Sacred College until 1911.

It was clear he was not a supporter of popular social-worker movements as his predecessors had been, opposing the strikes of the 1920s, and (rightly) defending papal teaching on socialism in the face of criticism by James Ramsay MacDonald.

Throughout his episcopate, he toured various parts of the world as official representative – legate – of the Pope, including Canada, Poland, the Middle East, France and – most importantly – Buckfast. In spite of this jet-setting (well, steam-setting) living, he certainly preferred the simple, quieter life, relishing the opportunities to visit his country retreat in Hertfordshire, where he could write and meditate. Preaching and writing did not come to him naturally, and Bourne exerted a great deal of energy in living up to expectations. He could often be seen in the city in a simple clerical outfit – his pectoral cross glinting through the gaps in his jacket – on trips to various institutions and exhibitions.

Cardinal Bourne was not a Roman prelate. He did not feel at ease with the city and its lifestyle, in start contrast to his predecessors. It was in Rome, however, where he contracted an illness, which made him unwell for over two years. In this time, he celebrated his Golden Jubilee and opened the National Shrine in Walsingham. He is buried in St Edmund’s Ware, his heart in Wonersh.

Thousands

Congratulations for my thousandth reader. I know who you are, in a non-creepy way! Hopefully, I shall let you know in person rather than pointing you out here!

I wonder how long it will be before I get to hundreds and thousands...according to my crude calculations: in about 40 years.

Also, I have been mentioned briefly on the BBC. Scroll down to the bottom to see if you can spot me. I had hoped to maintain some anonymity, but I have thrown that out the window; I hope not to my disadvantage! I think it is due to my publishing the BBC article on this blog with my own comments. I wish I had given it a more inventive title now, rather than 'blah'.

Chasubles

OK, folks, here it is:


Followers of the Archbishop of Westminster posts will note that the Byzantine style of the Cathedral was chosen - in part anyway - because it was cheap (at the time). It certainly doesn't look cheap now, and neither do the new vestments.

What would have once been called a 'High Mass set' of vestments were hand embroidered by the ladies at Watts & Co (you can see the label at the neck). The pieces are made of cloth of gold, weaved in the UK, and diapered with heraldric symbols, lined with purple fabric. The cynical side of me is saying that it's not Roman nor flowery enough for my tastes, but it is certainly very good, and I'm pleased the style of the sanctuary in which they are to be used has been the main source of inspiration. Noble simplicity and all that. It looks very well made (because it is), and I'm really looking forward to seeing it in action.

I'm sure they have many ancient (and prettier) vestments in some vault somewhere, and perhaps ones which have been worn by some of our saints and blessed. It seems a shame that none of these can be used, but I suppose a new emperor needs new clothes! And new vestments are perhaps an outward sign of a new administration. You see, everything has meaning and purpose in the Catholic Church.

Needless to say, my ticket for the celebration of Mass next week has not landed on my doorstep, by which I assume I am not going. I will have to watch it on television.

But a reminder: 2 days later on the Saturday (23rd) is the CIEL conference in the Oratory. It starts with Pontifical High Mass at 11am and finishes at tea time. God willing, I shall be able to go to that in compensation!

Update:

Apparently, the fabric was initially commissioned by Archbishop Raymond Burke (not Prefect of the Apostolic Signatura) when in St Louis, and the design of the diapering was based on heraldic designs in the Cathedral itself. However, he preferred red on gold, as opposed to this much nicer and muted gold on gold. This is the first new set of vestments for purpose in 40 years, cost about 8,000 pounds (surely a bargain for a gold, handmade high Mass set of vestments!). Older pieces would have been used, but most are in a state which requires repair.

Vaughan

Herbert Alfred Vaughan is a man whose life we should reflect from time to time. Though I really shouldn’t rank them, Cardinal Vaughan is one of my favourite Archbishops of Westminster.

Born in 1832, he was one of thirteen siblings who survived into adulthood. Eleven of these children entered clerical or religious life. The other two produced equally large families with a large number of vocations. How proud their mother, Eliza, would have been to see so many of her children accept God’s call, a wish she prayed for daily. Unfortunately, she died in childbirth, and did not see all these miracles in this life, but I’m sure she saw them from heaven. If he were a young person today, I’m sure Cardinal Vaughan would be labelled as one of the EWTN-John Paul II generation, these large families filled with zeal and dog-collars (hopefully).

But one cannot appreciate a person simply because of his pedigree. Vaughan did not think very highly of his achievements, which were numerous; achievements which gained attention in Rome. At his appointment as Manning’s successor in 1892, he complained to the Pope that he was unable to fulfil this vocation, saying:

“…it is no mock modesty or fashion of speech which makes the confession that I have no qualification of learning for such a post. I do not excel as a preacher, an author, a theologian, a philosopher, or even as a classical scholar. Whatever I may be in these matters, in none am I above a poor mediocrity.”

The Holy Father’s will – and that of the Holy Spirit – remained, and he was translated from his own see of Salford the same year.

Vaughan was as different from Manning as Manning was from Wiseman. A cradle Catholic for starters – one of noble stock at that – he studied in various Catholic institutions where he decided he would become a priest. He was sent to Downside, and later Rome, where he got to know Manning, and was ordained in Lucca (which has nice city walls) and celebrated his first Mass in Florence. Like Wiseman, he became very attached to the Roman style of doing things (and thinking), which didn’t earn him too many friends back home in England. Fortunately, Wiseman appreciated it, and appointed him to St Edmund’s, Ware, though soon after this, he felt a desire to pursue the missionary way of life, at home and abroad, and founded many societies to assist this goal of his.

Most of all perhaps, he is remembered as the founder of the Mill Hill Missionaries, and rightly so. This society began as a small group of priests who ministered to the newly emancipated people of the United States, which had recently emerged from civil war and struggling to rebuild from the ruins. In fact, his society (properly called St Joseph’s of the Sacred Heart) was the first to ordain a black man to the priesthood in the USA.

In England, we should all be very grateful that he founded the Catholic Truth Society in 1868, which still follows to the letter its founding mission: that it should be a vehicle to inform English speaking Catholics of Church teaching, Papal documents and explanations in an accessible and inexpensive way. Unbelievably perhaps in the present climate, but he acquired the ownership of the Tablet magazine, which he later bequeathed to the Mill Hill Missionaries and the English and Welsh hierarchy.

Four years later, he was consecrated to the fullness of Holy Orders as the bishop in Manchester. Here too, he was aware of the needs of priest and people. He was an early advocate of human-pastoral care for priests after their ordination, and established a college to aid their continued formation, to assist in their adaptation to parish life after living in seminaries for years and years. Twenty years he served the people of this diocese, his longest single appointment.

He must have filled the diocese with enthusiasm after Manning. One strange thing about Catholicism is that you don’t get to pick your leaders; you feel you have been given them by the Holy Spirit. Like the election of a new Pope, one is often sad that you have lost a good man, but grateful that you have been given another one. Zeal for change at the beginning is a sign of respect for the spirit of continuity, rather than disrespect for the predecessor. Nothing in the world, in my view, is stranger than the human atmosphere in Rome at conclave time, as mourning becomes exultation, at the sign of a puff of smoke.

We must return to Cardinal Vaughan. As his tenure in Salford suggests, one of his keen interests was the care of his priests. In Westminster, he closed Manning’s new seminary and sent all his students to a central, nation-wide seminary at Oscott. This was not the only Manning policy he undid, however, Vaughan gained dispensation from Rome to allow Catholic students to return to Oxbridge, enabling the establishment of Catholic chaplaincies in those cities.

The Cardinal, now in his sixties, took a keen interest in the relationship between the Roman Catholic Church and the Anglican Communion. The relative success of High Church Anglicanism led many to argue that a full, corporate communion between the two was inevitable. He ensured that the Pope commissioned a full enquiry into the status of the Anglican clergy, which resulted in his definitive declaration that their Holy Orders were invalid, scuppering the chances of those on the High end of the established Church in England.

Vaughan was quite liturgically minded. Upon his accession to Westminster, he asked the Pope to have it sent to the Oratory, to ensure the Anglicans were aware of this resurgent, triumphal Catholicism in the heart of London. Similarly, he was fastidious enough to gain a special papal indult to wear the pallium over a cope in the later part of his life, when he was too ill to celebrate Mass himself.

Along with the Mill Hill Missionaries, Vaughan is most renowned for his commission of the jewel of the English Catholic Church: Westminster Cathedral. Manning was not enthused by the idea, but had procured the site where the Cathedral now stands. Even though the Pope gave some of his own money for the fund, the Cardinal and the architect were keen to keep costs down, and as a result, the Byzantine style was chosen, which at the time, was the cheapest architectural style in England, rather than for making any ecclesial statement. His dream was for a community Cathedral with a Benedictine establishment attached (he asked the Abbey of Solesmes to set up a house there). Though this aim was not fulfilled, his vision of a Church with a daily sung office. Sadly, he did not see the building complete. Vaughan’s reign was only 11 years long, but in this period he achieved a great deal, and perhaps did the most to lay the longest lasting foundation stones in the diocese.

His Requiem was sung in the scaffold-clad sanctuary of the half-built Byzantine monument, and he was interred in his beloved community at Mill Hill (then outside the city). 102 years later, his remains were translated to his greatest architectural legacy – that Cathedral of the Precious Blood – perhaps the most marvellous building anyone has given to the city and people of London.

And so, we must thank God that He gave Cardinal Vaughan to London.

Nations

I'd just like to say a very specific welcome to anyone from Sweden; a few have popped up recently.

A Facebook quiz told me that I'm most suited to be Swedish, so I've added the language to my list of ones to get under my belt! I have always felt a deep attachment for Sweden for some reason, and I'm sure it's not just down to Ikea and the really tasty hot dogs they sell in the stand at the end.

However, in the spirit of European and general world unity, I'm also very glad to be able welcome readers in the last couple of weeks from the United States (there are a lot of you guys!), Spain (I have some Spanish blood!), Finland, Japan, Belgium, Australia, France, Hungary, Portugal, Hong Kong, Canada, and Italy (especially ye readers from Rome and other parts of Lazio). And how could I forget old blighty? Welcome.

Date

...your 'oliness?

Manning

Henry Edward Manning’s likeness can now be found above the Cardinal public house down the road from the Cathedral in Westminster. The delicate Cardinal would not have appreciated this gesture, for he was the infamous abstainer. He even obtained an indulgence from the Pope (which has since become defunct) for those who abstained from alcohol on St Patrick’s Day, which I can sympathise with! It is a shame that his severe appearance is stereotypical of this temperance movement. He could not have been as different to Cardinal Wiseman. That Friar Tuck of an Archbishop was replaced by an austere, positively protestant puritan, one who in later life, refused to change biretta or cassock, even though they were torn and a shade of faded pink.

But to remember Cardinal Manning for one thing would be unfair. His contemporary clergymen called him the Cardinal of the Seven Sacraments, for he is our only Cardinal-Archbishop of Westminster to be married (believe it or not, most of our Cardinals before the Victorian age were married – or at least had a mistress and a few children).

He started life as an Anglican, and having gone to Oxford and spent a couple of years as a civil servant when Earl Grey was Prime Minister. He did not last long in this job, however, and he was ‘ordained’ as an Anglican minister in 1833.

His marriage to Caroline Sergeant was a short one; she died of consumption – what we now call TB – after 4 years. However, this brief union was not one without love, as he expressed throughout his life, especially towards the end. I can imagine that this marriage was one which, in such a short time, was cut short in its prime, before either of them was even 30 years old – the honeymoon period, as I suppose we would deem it today. Manning’s sense of romance is a heart-warming one indeed.

The lanky Cardinal became increasingly involved in the Oxford movement, but it was the Church of England’s approval of a heresy – that baptism had no redemptive effects – which tipped him over the edge, and he became a Catholic a year after the restoration. Unbelievably to our modern minds, Cardinal Wiseman gave him a haircut (i.e. ordained him to the minor orders) a couple of days later, and two months after that, he was ordained a priest. Father Manning was packed off to the Eternal City, where he was taught with his successor, Vaughan, and the future Cardinal Howard (Manning, Howard and Newman would all be Cardinals at the same time, English largest stock of members in the Sacred College at any one time).

14 years later, after service as a parish priest and provost of the diocesan chapter, he was chosen by Blessed Pius IX to succeed Wiseman as archbishop, much to the chagrin of the cradle-Catholic clergy. Manning was not on the terna sent to Rome, and was ordained by William Ullathorne in the pro-Cathedral of St Mary Moorfields. Shortly afterwards, he was in Rome again for the Vatican Council – the first ecumenical council since Trent – where he was an advocate of papal infallibility, a move which alienated him from another former Tractarian, Newman. Just before the death of Pius, he received the red hat, and participated in the 1878 conclave.

Manning was a confusing man when it comes to policies. He opened many Churches, including a new pro-Cathedral, Our Lady of Victories in Kensington. However, he refused to pay for a new Cathedral built for purpose, the money for which he would rather spend on children and the education services which he established. He was certainly not shy of his support for left-wing movements. ‘What you call socialism, I call Christianity.’ His picture appeared on banners alongside those of Karl Marx in many socialist marches towards the end of his life, being a key voice in calling Leo XIII to write an encyclical on the subject, which he did: the famous Rerum Novarum.

Contrary to what some would say about Catholic social policy enthusiasts, Manning did not compromise his orthodoxy. He was keen to ensure that Catholics were safe from protestants and temptation. Not only did he take all children out of Dr Bernardo’s orphanages, but he also took out all Catholics from Oxbridge, lest their minds wander. He ultimately failed in establishing a proper Catholic university in England, but he did create a new London seminary (which was closed shortly afterwards).

He became somewhat of a celebrity – which considering his personal views, he would not have appreciated, but fortunately, living in the clouds as he did (which is no bad thing), he was probably unaware of it. The Pope was greatly grieved when the Cardinal died in 1892. His Requiem was sung in the Oratory (the new pro-Cathedral didn’t suffice for diocesan events). Though he opposed the idea of its construction, he can now be found in the crypt of Westminster Cathedral, his dusty galero still clinging to the ceiling. Go down past Archbishop House, and you can see his image on the pub. Needless to say, his ghost won't be propping up the bar.

Cheers.

Prayers

I very rarely ask for prayers.

However, I am doing today, if you are inclined towards prayer.

First, I have a very important interview on Thursday, one which could determine the rest of my life (well, for now anyway!). I'm quite anxious about this meeting, and I'm praying hard that God's will is done - and that I may accept it with an open heart. Please pray for the interviewer too; he's very unwell.

Second, please pray for a private intention of a friend. Praying is the only thing to do in this particular situation; sometimes that is all that is necessary.

Wiseman

In ten days, the Most Reverend Vincent Nichols will be enthroned as Archbishop of Westminster, taking formally taking possession of England's de facto primatial see and sitting upon the magnificent throne in the Byzantine-style cathedral. This man - who was consecrated bishop in this Cathedral, though whose home diocese is Liverpool - will return to this place to a warm welcome. As a little token, I'd like to write a short article on each of his predecessors in the archiepiscopal see every day from now until his installation. There have been ten of them, so it should fit perfectly!

Before we start with our subject, something must be said of another man. Blessed Pius IX resurrected the Catholic hierarchy in England and Wales in 1850, a move which angered both Queen and Parliament, though the Prince of Apostles, Father of Kings, obviously didn't not care about such petty issues. Cardinal Allesandro Barnabo, Prefect of the Propaganda Fide, declared that another man, Bishop Thomas Walsh should be England's first metropolitan, living or dead. This man served for many years as Vicar Apostolic of the Midland District, and was a key figure in the foundation of Oscott college and St Chad's Basilica in Birmingham. He had served as an early president of Oscott (which at that time was a school, later becoming Maryvale) and a spiritual director, and was a key figure in the foundation of the present institution. He was a popular man in Rome, though they were largely ignorant of his disabilities by the 1840s. Despite his zeal, he was infirm and almost blind, but to Westminster he would go, and was translated to the Vicariate Apostolic of London. He died shortly before he could be made Archbishop. I have included mention of him here due to the Pope's intention in the heart.

Now we shall come to our main subject, who succeeded Walsh as Vicar Apostolic of London in 1849.

Nicholas Patrick Stephen Wiseman was born in Spain in 1802, shortly before the violent collapse of the Spanish state and the long, devasting war in that country which concluded ten years after his birth-year. He was the son of Irish merchants, who lived in this port city due to the father's work. However, his father, James, died when Nicholas was aged only 3. He did not remain on the Emerald Isle for long, however (just enough time to learn English however), he was sent by his mother to Ushaw, which had opened as the French lopped off the head of Marie Annetoinette. It was here he discerned a vocation to the priesthood.

By descriptions from the school staff, he reminds me a little of myself, often to be found on his own, reading. Otherwise, he would be walking the corridors with a book under his arm, avoiding all sports. This habit of his clearly made an impact on his future life in London. Even the Oratorians were shocked by his four course meal habit - even in Lent, a man who often had a lobster with every sitting.

He was sent to the English College in Rome, just as the city was recovering from French oppression. It must have been a vibrant time in the Eternal City; Pope Pius VII was keen to restore the city. He was quickly recognised as a great mind, and became a doctor of divinity - his examination was observed, among others, by the future Gregory XVI, who had travelled to the college in his Benedictine habit specifically to hear the words of this young English soon-to-be pirest. Before he had reached his quarter-century, he had become rector of the college, and served on the staff of La Sapienza.

Though he was deeply attached to Rome, he yearned to return to England, enthused by the potential conversion of the country at the hands of the Oxford movement. Before he left perminantly for Albion, he was consecrated bishop on the order of that Benedictine supporter - now Pope. Thankfully, his mother was able to attend his consecration in 1840. He departed for England, and resided in Birmingham, though he was not popular: too Roman.

He travelled to Rome in 1850 to receive the red hat, at which point he was to return to England as Archbishop of Westminster. His brother bishops felt he was too magisterial, too primatial, as excellently demonstrated in the painting of the Synod of Westminster in 1852, held at Oscott college, where Newman preached his 'Second Spring' sermon from the high pulpit. The archbishop is arrayed in scarlet, while the other bishops and clergy are gathered around him in choir.

The first few years of his reign were not easy ones. The state was opposed to the Pope's move, and being the bishop of the Parliamentary city, Wiseman spent much effort in calming the popular hostility against Catholics, which was stirred up by the government (an act was hurried through parliament in 1850 which made holding non-Anglican ecclesiastic titles illegal). Many feared his life was in danger, though the Cardinal appeared very relaxed about the situation, certain of himself and of his own mission.

He welcomed with open arms many Anglican converts to the Catholic fold, including his successor, Manning and the Venerable Newman. English Catholics with long pedigrees were often hostile to these converts, as well as Ultramonatane bishops like Wiseman. The Duke of Norfolk was so horrified in 1850, he went the other way and became Anglican (his grandson made up for it, though, by building some Cathedrals). His Roman attitude was far too exotic for many of his clergy; everyone was aware that he had spent more years abroad that at home.

While in London, he invited many priestly orders: Oratorians, Redemptorists, Passionists, Rosiminians and Marists. He opposed the visit of Garibaldi in 1864 and poplarlised forms of worship lost on the English in the penal years, including the Divine Office and Benediction (maybe we should be thinking the same mind as Wiseman today).

Wiseman's lobsters and four course dinners caught up with him, however. Fortunately for him, he was aware of his impending demise, and meticulously planned every detail of his funeral, ordering his secretary to ensure every rubric was followed. He died in early 1865, after nearly 15 years as Archbishop. The nation was enthralled by the Catholic splendour of his Requiem, sung in St Mary Moorfields, the pro-Cathedral at the time. So much black was draped in this Church that, according to the Times of London, the sunlight was blocked out, the sable broken only by silver candlesticks and embroidery on his funeral pall. The Tablet reported that a million people mourned Wiseman on his way to be buried (though we know how accurate the Tablet is). His galero was carried on a golden cushion on a carriage behind the herse; it now hangs above his grave - which was carved later by Pugin (the less famous one) - in the crypt of a Cathedral which he never dreamt would be built.

Baptising

The other day, we heard that the Jordanian government allowed the nation's Christians to take a day off to attend Holy Mass in Amman yesterday. Today, happily I have read that the Muslim King is to build a Church at the site of Christ's baptism.

The site on the river Jordan will play host to five new Churches - there is archeological evidence for 20 historical Churches in the area - according to different rites. In fact, two foundation stones were blessed by Pope Benedict, one for the Latin Church, another for the Melkite Church.

Unfortunately, the traditional site of the baptism is closed most of the time, and is made up mostly of archeological digs. Despite its pedigree - which according to historians goes right back to the Way - the former place of mass pilgrimage is much neglected nowadays. I am really glad and pleased to see that one day, this may change and that a new Christian community will be based around this venerable site.

Last year, I think, there were news reports that the river Jordan is at risk of drying up due to climate change and other factors. Hopefully this will not happen - and if it does, that it is not our fault. I hope the waters of this river will continue to flow until the end of time, a reminder of our redemptive baptisms (if we've had them). The first annointed (Christ) - Moses - did not cross this river, but looked over the land of milk and honey from a distance. The Hebrew people were redeemed by Joshua who led them through the water to the other side: their new life to live out their covenant with God away from enslavement. In the same way, the second Joshua - Jesus - led everyone through these same waters, so that we may achieve the fullness of redemption. Unlike the old covenant, this one is eternal.

Parliament

It has only been in the past century or so that parliamentary constituencies in the UK have returned one representitive to Parliament. In the nineteenth century, for example, there were three parliamentary constituencies in Norfolk, but the whole county returned 6 MPs.

This is a bit complex, so follow carefully if you'd like!

Also a hundred years ago, investing the Royal Prerogative in one man - the Prime Minister - was unheard of. If an election was to be held, the whole Cabinet had to agree and petition the king to dissolve parliament.

Now, we live in a 21st century democracy, a country which prides itself on being home to the mother of all modern parliaments. Being a democracy, of course, our constitution invests the entire Royal Prerogative in one man. This man doesn't need to be elected by anyone. Convention dictates that he should be the leader of the largest group of members in the lower chamber of parliament.

Let's consider a scenario. A man - say, Mr. T - is elected to lead a party about 15 years ago. This party wins the election, and Mr. T becomes the prime minister. He goes on to win a further two elections. For some reason, people vote for him even though no-one really likes him (but that is a different point, at least he has been elected). One day, Mr. T decides he fancies another job, so he retires. When he was first elected 15 years ago, he promised a friend of his - Mr. G - that he could lead the party when he retires. So this is what happens: Mr. G becomes the party leader. Because they are already in power, Mr. G also becomes the leader of the country: with all that power of the Royal Prerogative. Mr. G was elected neither by his party nor the country, but he was appointed by popular acclamation of a small group of people in parliament. Now, in any other country, this would be called a coup d'etat.

I'm not one for banging on about democracy, however, I am one for constitutionalism. First of all, that situation described above - the one we live in right now - is unconstitutional. Moreover, because of scandal, the very institution of parliament - as well as the government - has lost authority in the mind of the electorate. Any politico will be able to tell you that any government (etc) needs three things to justify itself:

1. Power: the government certainly has that
2. Legitimacy: the government is using the mandate of the 2005 election. Since then, the leader has changed, and the government is pursuing policies which are not only different to their manifesto (from which came their mandate by election), but policies, namely financial policies, contrary to that manifesto/mandate. Because our constitution de facto invests its power in one man, the constitution de facto requires that than man lead the party which has one that mandate at the election, even though this is not the case de jure. Therefore, this government has not constitutional legitimacy; it is unconstitutional.
3. Authority: this means that the will of the government and parliament is performed by its agents and the electors. Authority derives from a combination of power (in which case, one may call it coersion, an authoritarian state) or because the government has legitimacy. If the government has no constitutional legitimacy, then it has no constitutional authority. Therefore, the government is authoritarian, because its authority is derived from its power, not legitimacy.

Because we have no codified constitution (in fact, our consitution is entirely written, contrary to popular belief, just not in one document), the power, legitimacy and authority are invested in the sovereign body (which in this country is the Crown-in-Parliament) by nothing more than trust.

I believe that not only the government, but parliament itself, has lost trust, legitimacy and constitutional authority, and as a result, the Prime Minister are both constitutionally and morally obliged to dissolve parliament imediately. De jure, the Sovereign Lady can do this. However, de facto (in which the UK is one of about 3 countries where a de facto situation is the constitutional preference) she has neither authority and legitimacy to do this, and therefore, even though legally she can, she has no power to act in this manner.

That power is devolved into a man who, like her, has been unelected. If the Queen had the power of the Prime Minister, the country would be in uproar. Why do we put up with the current situation, then? We have an autocratic monarch in charge of our 'parliamentary constitutional democracy', and we dare to lecture the European Union and other such tin-pot institutions around the world.

I'm proud of my nation, but right now, I'm ashamed of her leaders. It's not very British, but I feel the need to call for their heads to roll.

More

This one passed me by earlier, but here is another picture oriental enthusiasts will appreciate.

Look closely, and hopefully you will be able to see the staff carried by the patriarch in choir.

Both this picture and the previous one (of the blessing with candles) were taken in the Cathedral of St George the Victorious in Amman, which is a Greek Orthodox Church, explaining the liturgical peculiarities for this Latin rite bishop. I think, however, it is a really good outward sign of Christian unity: proper ecumenism. More please! And being the pastor of all the world's Christians as successor as Prince of the Apostles, it makes sense for the Holy Father to diversify, using the valid rites of the whole Church. Clever man, is Pope B.

Orient

I wasn't expecting anything exciting in terms of eye candy from the Holy Land this week. I am expecting some good preaching. You may or may not be interested to know that I was born in the Latin diocese being visited by Pope Benedict this week, so I have some connection!


However, the orient seems to have affected the Holy Father's benediction methods:


Ad multos annos!

The Pope celebrated Holy Mass today (in Latin-English) in the stadium in Amman. I was very pleased to hear that the Christians in the country were given a holiday today by the government so that they could attend if they wanted to.

It wasn't a very busy Mass by the looks of the clips I have seen. This is unsurprising, not only because there aren't many Catholics in Jordan, but many Christians have fled the region, afraid of Christophobic violence from their Muslim neighbours. The many gaps in the stadium, for me at least, was a shocking reminder of the fact that while we complain of persecution from our government here in the UK, many more of our brethren around the world suffer many greater intolerances on a daily, practical basis. My university parish is sponsoring a seminarian in Amman; he will be ordained this summer. I hope he has managed to meet the Holy Father, and this apostolic journey has strengthed him and his soon-to-be flock in the desert country.

Galileo

I read something which annoyed me today.

It was a clerical person talking about science and religion. It was quite good, except one thing: Galileo Galilei.

I hate people using him as an example, because they usually always use him out of context, and get their information wrong, because they rely on hearsay and engrained protestant propaganda.

The astronomer, of course, believed in the theory of heliocentricism. Therefore, Galileo was incorrect, wrong. Even though he was factually incorrect, several members of the heirarchy supported his research. His principal sponsor was the archbishop of Siena, another key advocate being the abbot of Monte Cassino, a former student of the scientist. Indeed, Pope Urban VIII asked him specifically to write a book on his subject, noting the arguments for and against his theory of heliocentricism.

In fact, the first modern western advocate of heliocentricism was Father Copernicus, who fascinated sixteenth century Popes with his theories, and dedicated his principal work to Pope Paul III. Galileo's ideas were not really revolutionally, coming nearly a whole century after the idea was first heard in the European courts of the Renaissance age (and thanks to the work of the Jews in the re-discovery of many ancient European philosophical and scientific works from around the thirteenth century, the west was made aware of more ancient scientists. Interestingly, this also confirmed their belief that the world was round).

Galileo, however, seems to have become acutely obsessed with his theories, which brought him to the Inquisition. They decreed that Galileo could not and should not seek ecclesial approval of his work - not because they were heretical ideas - but because they could not be proven scientifically. Later, when he published his work requested by the Pope, it became clear that Galileo was not only explaining his theory - fair enough, as this is what he had been asked to do - but he went further, denouncing many theories of Aristotle. The Church regarded this as a potential attack on the doctrine of transubstantiation, and as a result of his behaviour, he was denounced and condemned to house arrest (which amounted to living in the various palaces and villas of his friends, pursuing his studies away from the public gaze).

The then Cardinal Ratzinger said at La Sapienzia University in Rome, that the Church was right to do what she did, not only because the scientist was wrong, but he acted unreasonably, and did not consider the social consequences of his works. And it's a good job the Church acted so rationally, as if she didn't, the fabric of society could have been threatened on a scientific theory which was later proven erroneous.

So next time we start using Galileo as an example of how the Church didn't always get on with science (whatever that means), let's look at the whole picture, bearing in mind that if it wasn't for Mother Church, I wouldn't be writing at this computer.

Scary

I do strange things at night time. I have just realised I can change my name on the internet for a measly 33 pounds. Personally, I think the online option should be disabled, just in case I sleep-surf and sign my life away accidentally.

Anyway, I did briefly consider names other than my own - just in case (today has been one of my eccentric days).

Given my slight Mediterranean heritage, I reckon I can get away with preteding to be a bit more exotic. Even though I'm not Italian, I would have opted for a regal sounding Italian name, such as Raffaele Borghese. Then again, I've always liked the name Alessandro. Borghese is a bit much perhaps. Maybe something like Piccolomini. Vitelleschi sounds good.

Whenever I return to the birth-land of my childhood, I tend to pick up the sun very quickly, but not in a horrific English way, in a nice Iberian way, and I go all bronze. It makes an interesting combination with my splash of blonde hair. Therefore, I wouldn't look that stupid with an exotic name.

Then again, even though I'm barely English, I'm quite proud of that fact, and I wish I had a proper English name from time to time!

Corbinian

Ever heard of St Corbinian?

I hadn't, if I'm honest. But I've been looking him up now I have finished me education (and have a bit more time), and even though his feast is in September, I feel the need to write a bit about him now.

A hermit from the region of Orleans, Corbinian decided to go on pilgrimage to Rome. On his way, his horse was killed by a big German bear. Corbinian tamed the bear by his sanctity, and made the bear carry his things all the way to Rome. When they got to the Eternal City, the bear went back home to the Alps.

As happened a lot in them days, the Pope in Rome told Corbinian off for being a hermit, and made him a bishop, sending him to the pagans in Bavaria, so he went off - sans bear - to this brutish land, and converted the Duke. However, Corbinian and the Duke didn't get on very well, and the Duke called the saint, "a British bishop", which was obviously quite offensive in those parts!

The saint founded a monastery near Freising - the then Residenz of Bavaria - but died in 730. A few years later, St Boniface - who was a real British bishop - arrived in the region and elevated Freising to a diocese, and appointed Corbinian's brother as the first bishop, though it debated as it whether Corbinian was the first (I'll give him the benefit of the doubt).

It is, however, the bear which is oft remembered. The bear story is understood to mean preparation for Corbinian for the mission to be given to him by the Pope, of which he was unaware on his pilgrimage. The tempestuous bear (Corbinian) was tamed by the holy man (God), and a having no horse, he placed his heavy travel kit (the weight of the episcopal office) upon his shoulders. St Corbinian's bear was one of the symbols which represented the diocese of Freising, and this was the case when this diocese was merged into the archdiocese of Munich in the nineteenth century.

Pope Benedict, former bishop of Munich and Freising, successor of St Corbinian, adopted the bear on his episcopal arms when he was elected (indeed, he used it as a Cardinal). He said he identified with St Corbinian, however, this time, the Pope is the bear, weighed down by the burdens of the office of Supreme Pontiff.

I felt a bit guilty I didn't know anything about this missionary! St Corbinian's feast day is Our Lady's birthday, 8th September.

Tansjordania

Byzantine

So, for his installation (not wishing to make him sound like a new boiler), Archbishop Nichols will be sporting a fine set of new vestments. They are made by Watts & Co, which seems to be a bit Anglican for my tastes, but we can't have everything. They always seem to make really fine vestments, and this set, which are inspired by the Byzantine architecture of the Cathedral, will be no exception I'm sure. There aren't any pictures yet, but looking at the Byzantine inspired sets on their website, I'm sure I'll be pleased. And judging from what I have seen of his liturgical tastes, the Archbishop will also be pleased.

And they will get free advertising on BBC2 on the day too apparently.

This company seem to be a bit eclectic in their liturgical art (which is why they look Anglican), and seem to make chasubles in all the cuts and patterns I can think of: Latin, Gothic, monastic Gothic, Spanish, Byzantine themed ones. The notable exceptions are trendy gothic and recently revived Roman (Borromeo) style.

I have thought though, that living in the UK as we do, what need have we of Spanish chasubles? Being a bit of a purist, I'm of the opinion that the vestments of celebration should match the surroundings. If you live in a monastery, go for a monastic style. If you are in a gothic revival masterpiece, use gothic revival vestments. Baroque churches (which admittedly are rare in the UK) surely should sport baroque vestments?

And then you get Westminster Cathedral. It's beautiful, one of the finest churches in England, but it's just too weird. I suppose in that sense, paradoxically, it's so English - an inexlicable eccentric megastructure in a style totally unsuitable for this climate. But somehow, it works. It's not entirely Byzantine. Yes there are the arches and mosaics and other bits and pieces, but it's Italian-y Byzantine - it's very Roman Catholic. So, to solve my mystery, the solution for such a Latin church are Latin vestments with a hint of Byzantium.

Guards

I have just read the oath said by new guards - which are sworn in yesterday.

Apparently, they swear that they

...will faithfully, loyally and honourably serve the Supreme Pontiff Benedict XVI and his legitimate successors, and also dedicate myself to them with all my strength, sacrificing if necessary also my life to defend them. I assume this same commitment with regard to the Sacred College of Cardinals whenever the See is vacant. [it's evidently ok for the Cardinals to take the bullet when the Holy Father is alive!]. Furthermore I promise to the Commanding Captain and my other superiors, respect, fidelity and obedience. This I swear! May God and our Holy Patrons assist me!

[Then, as he holds the flag with his first three fingers raised, he says:] I, N., swear I will observe faithfully, loyally and honourably all that has now been read out to me! May God and his saints assist me!

I like the Swiss Guards. Not only do they look tremendously stylish, and add that extra splash of colour to Papal events in the Eternal City, but it's good to know that the Holy Father does actually have someone who would willingly give up their life to save his. I wouldn't do any harm, though, to bring back some of the other military orders to the Vatican...

Pastors

As pointed out in Fr Z's blog, the following two canons shed light on the role of the pastor of a parish.

Canon 528

Section 1:
The parish priest has the obligation of ensuring that the word of God is proclaimed in its entirety to those living in the parish. He is therefore to see to it that the lay members of Christ’s faithful are instructed in the truths of faith, especially by means of the homily on Sundays and holydays of obligation and by catechetical formation. He is to foster works which promote the spirit of the Gospel, including its relevance to social justice. He is to have a special care for the Catholic education of children and young people. With the collaboration of the faithful, he is to make every effort to bring the gospel message to those also who have given up religious practice or who do not profess the true faith.

Section 2:
The parish priest is to take care that the blessed Eucharist is the center of the parish assembly of the faithful. He is to strive to ensure that the faithful are nourished by the devout celebration of the sacraments, and in particular that they frequently approach the sacraments of the blessed Eucharist and penance. He is to strive to lead them to prayer, including prayer in their families, and to take a live and active part in the sacred liturgy. Under the authority of the diocesan Bishop, the parish priest must direct this liturgy in his own parish, and he is bound to be on guard against abuses.

Canon 529

Section 1:
So that he may fulfill his office of pastor diligently, the parish priest is to strive to know the faithful entrusted to his care. He is therefore to visit their families, sharing in their cares and anxieties and, in a special way, their sorrows, comforting them in the Lord. If in certain matters they are found wanting, he is prudently to correct them. He is to help the sick and especially the dying in great charity, solicitously restoring them with the sacraments and commending their souls to God. He is to be especially diligent in seeking out the poor, the suffering, the lonely, those who are exiled from their homeland, and those burdened with special difficulties. He is to strive also to ensure that spouses and parents are sustained in the fulfillment of their proper duties, and to foster the growth of Christian life in the family.

Section 2:
The parish priest is to recognize and promote the specific role which the lay members of Christ’s faithful have in the mission of the Church, fostering their associations which have religious purposes. He is to cooperate with his proper Bishop and with the presbyterium of the diocese. Moreover, he is to endeavor to ensure that the faithful are concerned for the community of the parish, that they feel themselves to be members both of the diocese and of the universal Church, and that they take part in and sustain works which promote this community.

[And personally, my favourite quotation from the code, which is taken from the very last Canon, number 1,752:]

"Always...keeping in mind the salvation of souls, which in the Church must always be the supreme law."

Exultet

The new, 21st century Easter proclamation is shown in bold text, the older 1970s version is italicised in parantheses after each strophe. I have added some comments, and emboldened bits which I find interesting or important. Some sections are really very different.

[Step 1: so the priest/other tells everyone to rejoice at what has happened, starting with heaven, and the exultation floods down to earth, and fills the Church with such a great surge, that the very walls of the Church building should be shaken]

Exult, let them exult, the hosts of heaven,
exult, the Angel ministers of God exult,
let the trumpet of salvation
sound our mighty King’s triumph!
(Rejoice, heavenly powers!
Sing, choirs of angels!
Exult, all creation around God's throne!
Jesus Christ, our King, is risen!
Sound the trumpet of salvation!)

Be glad, let earth be glad, as glory floods her,
ablaze with light from her eternal King,
let all corners of the earth be glad,
knowing an end to gloom and darkness.
(Rejoice, O earth, in shining splendor,
radiant in the brightness of your King!
Christ has conquered! Glory fills you!
Darkness vanishes for ever!)

Rejoice, let Mother Church also rejoice,
arrayed with the lightning of his glory,
let this holy building shake with joy,
filled with the mighty voices of the peoples.
(Rejoice, O Mother Church! Exult in glory!
The risen Savior shines upon you!
Let this place resound with joy,
echoing the mighty song of all God's people!)

[Step 2: pray for the priest/other who is about to tell the story of why we are rejoicing, why this candle is standing in the sanctuary...this is the ecclesiastical equivalent of 'are you sitting comfortably? Then I'll begin...']

Therefore, dearest friends,
standing in the awesome glory of this holy night,
invoke with me, I ask you,
the mercy of God almighty,
that he who has been pleased to number me,
through unworthy, among the Levites,
may pour into me his light unshadowed,
that I may sing this candle’s perfect praises.
(My dearest friends,
standing with me in this holy light,
join me in asking God for mercy,
that he may give his unworthy minister
grace to sing his Easter praises.)

V. The Lord be with you.
R. And with your spirit.
V. Lift up your hearts.
R. We lift them up to the Lord.
V. Let us give thanks to the Lord our God.
R. It is right and just.
(V. The Lord be with you
R. And also with you
V. Lift up your hearts
R. We lift them up to the Lord
V. Let us give thanks to the Lord Our God
R. It is right to give him thanks and praise)

[This is like the preface in the Mass, the bit which starts it off. In this case, it is the story of salvation history, which of course begins with the Holy Trinity, then the creation of man]

It is truly right and just,
with ardent love of mind and heart,
and with devoted service of our voice,
to acclaim our God invisible, the almighty Father,
and Jesus Christ, our Lord, his Son, his Only-Begotten.
(It is truly right
that with full hearts and minds and voices
we should praise the unseen God, the all-powerful Father,
and his only Son, our Lord Jesus Christ.)

Who [qui] for our sake paid Adam’s debt to the eternal Father,
and pouring out his own dear Blood
wiped clean the record of our ancient sinfulness.
(For Christ has ransomed us with his blood,
and paid for us the price of Adam's sin to our eternal Father!)

These them are the feasts of Passover,
in which is slain the Lamb, the one true Lamb,
whose blood anoints the doorposts of believers.
[alluding more definitively to the first passover, more graphic]
(This is our passover feast,
when Christ, the true Lamb, is slain,
whose blood consecrates the homes of all believers.)

This is the night, ['haec nox est' in Latin...beautiful]
when once you led our forebears, Israel’s children,
[In this case, the older 'fathers' is correct]
from slavery in Egypt
and made them pass dryshod through the Red Sea.
(This is the night
when first you saved our fathers:
you freed the people of Israel from their slavery
and led them dry-shod through the sea.)

This is the night
that with a pillar of fire
banished the darkness of sin.
(This is the night
when the pillar of fire destroyed the darkness of sin!)

This is the night
that even now, throughout the world,
sets Christian believers apart from worldly vices
and from the gloom of sin,
leading them to grace,
and joining them to his holy ones.
(This is the night
when Christians everywhere,
washed clean of sin and freed from all defilement,
are restored to grace and grow together in holiness.)

This is the night
when Christ broke the prisonbars of death,
[chains is better than prisonbars]
and rose victorious from the underworld.
(This is the night
when Jesus Christ broke the chains of death
and rose triumphant from the grave.)

Our birth would have been no gain,
had we not been redeemed.
O wonder of your humble care for us!
O love, O charity beyond all telling,
to ransom a slave you gave away your Son!
(What good would life have been to us,
had Christ not come as our Redeemer?
Father, how wonderful your care for us!
How boundless your merciful love!
To ransom a slave you gave away your Son.)

O truly necessary sin of Adam,
destroyed completely by the Death of Christ!

O happy fault
that earned so great, so glorious a Redeemer!

[the old translation mucked these lines up:]
(O happy fault,
O necessary sin of Adam,
which gained for us so great a Redeemer!)

O truly blessed night,
worthy alone to know the time and hour
when Christ rose from the underworld!
(Most blessed of all nights,
chosen by God to see Christ rising from the dead!)

This is the night
of which it is written:
The night shall be as bright as day,
dazzling is the night for me,
and full of gladness.
(Of this night scripture says:
"The night will be as clear as day:
it will become my light, my joy.")

The sanctifying power of this night
dispels all wickedness, washed faults away,
restores innocence to the fallen, and joy to mourners,
drivers out hated, fosters concord, and brings down the mighty.
(The power of this holy night dispels all evil,
washes guilt away, restores lost innocence,
brings mourners joy;
it casts out hatred, brings us peace,
and humbles earthly pride.)

[This line doesn't belong here...it will appear again later, but this is where it is in the older version. I don't know why it was plucked out of its home and plonked here]
(Night truly blessed when heaven is wedded to earth
and man is reconciled with God!)

[Wait for it...]

On this, your night of grace, O holy Father,
accept this candle, a solemn offering,
the work of bees [:D] and of your servants’ hands,
an evening sacrifice of praise,
the gift from your most holy Church.
(Therefore, heavenly Father,
in the joy of this night,
receive our evening sacrifice of praise,
your Church's solemn offering.

[Another problem with mixing up the words. The following is the first part of the next bit, the second part is show afterwards because it was taken out of the 70s one]
Accept this Easter candle,
a flame divided but undimmed,
a pillar of fire that glows to the honor of God.)

But now we know the praises of this pillar,
which glowing fire ignites for God’s honor,
a fire into many flames divided,
yet never dimmed by sharing of its light,
for it is fed by melting wax,
drawn out by mother bees
to build a torch so precious.
[I'd put a translation here, but the 70s Missal didn't give one for the second part of this strophe...the bees are back!]

O truly blessed night,
when things of heaven are wed to those of earth,
and divine to the human.

Therefore, O Lord,
we pray you that this candle,
hallowed to the honor of your name,
may persevere undimmed,
to overcome the darkness of this night.
(Let it mingle with the lights of heaven
and continue bravely burning
to dispel the darkness of this night!)

Receiving it as a pleasing fragrance,
and let it mingle with the lights of heaven.

May this flame be found still burning
by the Morning Star:
the one Morning Star who never sets,
Christ your Son,
who coming back from death’s dominion
has shed his peaceful light on humankind,
and lives and reigns for ever and ever.
(May the Morning Star which never sets
find this flame still burning:
Christ, that Morning Star,
who came back from the dead,
and shed his peaceful light on all mankind,
your Son, who lives and reigns for ever and ever.)

R. Amen.
(R. Amen)

[So they got one bit right! It seems as though there are many American nuances, which I assume will be altered for the British syntax! Then again, it may all change...it's only a draft]

Quiz

Various quizzes I have completed on Facebook have seem to have suggested I'm some sort of schitzophrenic.

Apparently, the two historical figures I am most like are Martin Luther and Saladin.

In terms of Popes, I am similar to Pope St Pius X. And I have things in common with Padre Pio.

It's certainly making me very confused, but entertained at least.

Vestments

This picture cropped up on the English conference's picture website. It is of a priest protesting at a rally in favour of granting an amnesty to immigrants in the UK who are remaining here illegally.

Now, I don't want to go into the politics of this - I don't have the time for an informed discussion, and I'm sure you all have your own opinion anyway, so there is no point - but rather point out the problem with this picture. I'm sure before you read any more, you know what I don't like about it.

Many priests and even some bishops I noticed went along to this protest. That is all well and good - priests are people too you know! Sometimes, I do think clergy can get a bit too fearful of being involved in some political points, especially if they are relevant to their people.

Something inside me, however, is cautious, and I don't think one should necessarily jump into the pulpit and proclaim on political matters at these events, as the bishop of Brentwood did. There is a danger that the Church is seen as an explicit supporter of an entirely political movement, because one or two of the speakers are wearing dog-collars. The same goes for environmentalism (I'm sorry, but I don't go to Mass to be preached at about using energy saving light bulbs, as I have been of late; that is in my own sphere thank you).

This priest, who is also brandishing a loud-speaker in a manner which makes my spiritual stomach churn violently, is attending the protest not in choir (which I wouldn't have a problem with), but in (well, partly) Mass vestments. He definately means well, and is doing what he is doing out of love for people, which is no bad thing certainly! I just disagree with the manner in which he is doing it, especially as it is an issue which the Church leaves, on the whole, to one's own judgement.

Vestments are different from choir dress (though I suspect many people don't know the difference). Choir dress says you are in choro as a clergyman. Wearing vestments, however, is something entirely different. A priest (or other ordained minister) wears vestments as a sign that they are putting on Christ in order to perform a sacred duty, not only in his name, but in his place, in his person. Even though he probably didn't intend it (and thus, demonstrating a lack of proper formation in this area), by wearing an alb and a stole, this priest is saying to the world:

"I am endorsing the secular, political views of this process, and I am doing so not only as an ordained priest of the Roman Catholic Church, but as one who is in the person of Christ, who has been uniquely aligned to him as a result of the ontological change I experienced at my ordination."

The scariest thing is that I know people who would applaud that statement, if he were to shout it through his megaphone.

Hmm. I'm unimpressed.

And disappointed.

Martyrs

I am the good shepherd: I pasture my sheep and I lay down my life for them. Alleluia.

Nobody really knows how many people were martyred in England and the other countries of these isles during the period of persecution. All of those - whose name we remember or not - are commemorated today, 4th May, under the title 'the beatified martyrs of England and Wales'. The canonised Martys (the Forty Martyrs) are commemorated on 25th October, and two others, Ss Thomas More and John Fisher, are commorated on June 22nd. However, the other 160 beati (on their way to being called saints) are remembered today.

The second reading at Matins today came from a homily at the canonisation Mass of the 40 Martyrs back in 1970, where he says:

What most truly makes a man a man, at the fine point of his being and the root of his personality, is his capacity for loving, for loving to the utmost, for giving himself in a love which is stronger than death and which reaches out into eternity.

There was a documentary about William Byrd on BBC4 the other day (it may still be available on iPlayer; I recommend it), telling the world of his music and his rather unique situation as a known Catholic recusant in the court of Elizabeth I. She really loved his music (which is why his life was relatively easier than most of his Catholic brethren), though behind many of his motets is a hidden pain, a sense of persecution, for he often set pieces of scripture to music which were written as lamentations of the Jewish people in their various exiles, applying (rightly) their sufferings with the suffering of the Church in Byrd's day. (Incidently, many of Byrd's Mass settings are for only a handful of voices - as they were written to be sung during clandestine services in small oratories in the great Catholic manor houses across the country - and so with a good conductor and time, many of his pieces can be easily performed even in small parishes).

In good fashion, the responsory for that reading reminds me of what Byrd was talking about; one can hear the voices of these martyrs, which now echo in heaven:

They have poured our blood like water in Jerusalem, no one is left to bury the dead. We have become the taunt of our neighbours, the mockery and scorn of those who surround us. Do not hold the guilt of our fathers against us. Let your compassion hasten to meet us; we are left in the depths of distress. Do not hold the guilt of our fathers against us.

O God almighty and everlasting,
you fashioned the blessed Martyrs of England and Wales after the likeness of your Son,
who is glorified in his death for the world's salvation:
listen now to their prayesr,
and grant us the strength that their love and faith imparts,
so that we may come to the fulness of life.
Through Christ our Lord.
Amen.

Ordinations

English

Did you know that 3 nuncios around the world are clergy of England and Wales?

I have been unable to find who the last English (well, Anglo-Irish if you like) Augustinian bishop in this country was. The closest I can find was a man called Bishop Daniel O'Connell O.S.A., who was Vicar Apostolic of Madras, which was administered by the East India Company. I think I will have the trawl every diocesan necrology to find out who was the last on within England itself.

Why would I want to know this information?

Well, on Friday, the first day of May, England became host to its first Augustinian bishop regnant since the reformation. We all know it is Michael Campbell, former coadjutor of Lancaster, now its shepherd:

In data 1° maggio 2009 il Santo Padre ha accettato la rinuncia al governo pastorale della diocesi di Lancaster (Inghilterra), presentata da S.E. Mons. Patrick O’Donoghue, in conformità al can. 401 § 1 del Codice di Diritto Canonico. Gli succede S.E. Mons. Michael Gregory Campbell, O.S.A., finora Vescovo Coadiutore della medesima diocesi.

Quiz

OK, it's quiztime again, this time:

What film is your (in my case, theoretical) love life like?:

"Promise me you'll survive. That you won't give up, no matter what happens, no matter how hopeless." You think that you only really have one true love in your life. And that you better do anything and everything to be with that person. You tend to be very nostalgic about past loves that didn't work out. There are many secret feelings that you keep to yourself. Your love style: Deep and emotional Your Hollywood Ending Will Be: Bittersweet

What Movie Is Your Love Life Like?

So, I'm like the Titanic. Evidently, I just go steaming in, in full knowledge of all the ice-burgs lurking, and in my blindness, hit one of them, and sink to the bottom of the ocean, never to be seen again. Yep, that sounds all correct to me! Blogthings proves its wisdom once again.

Solidarity

Ok, this is from I can has cheezburger?, but if enjoy LOLpigs, to brighten up this piggy sniffy season.

Piggies

You know you've hit rock bottom when you realise you'd rather be alone in your room, listening to rare Alessandro Moreschi voice recordings on Youtube than doing anything else. Well, my dreams have been fulfilled, and that is what I am doing.

It's not very Paschal (in the liturgical sense), but why not join in with me...

While listening to an old man-whose-balls-were-massaged-away-in-a-warm-bath-as-a-pre-pubescent-child sing to his heart's content, I must muse over the sad (though as yet, unconfirmed) demise of Percy Pig, now that he is ill with a sniffle. I still yearn one day to own a Percy Pig bed linin set, to go along with the mug and other merchandise. Then I realise, there is so much I still do not have: the Percy Piggy bank, the Percy Pig mug which makes a sound when you tip it, the Percy Pig biscuit tin, the Percy Pig fluffy cushion, the Percy Pig paper plates and picnic cups, the Percy Pig party bag, the Percy Pig birthday cake and birthday cake candles, and now the Percy Pig cupcakes (available in packets of four). Marks and Spencer have certainly achieved much when it comes to this little sweetie, and rightly so with a company with such obsessive business sense. You can get a giant white chocolate Percy Pig as well as Percy Pig biscuits (which I don't really recommend; it's a butter biscuit shaped like a two-legged camp mincing pig with a pink nose which tastes a little like an even sweeter liquid version of the fruity sweet). Personally, my next aim - after the bedset - is the Percy Pig doormat.

I wonder what will come out next. Please God, it will be a Percy Pig handkerchief and face mask set.