There’s been a lot about ‘Catholics for a Changing Church’ (CCC), and other similar, bodies on the blogs recently; not least in the context of ‘Stand Up for Vatican II’. This appears to be an umbrella body which, it seems to me, could almost be prosecuted for misleading advertising, given that almost none of the things they want to stand up for were no part of the teaching of the Council, but were instead products of gross subsequent misrepresentation and lawlessness.
However : I have a very simple suggestion, which might solve a lot of problems in a wide variety of directions.
These people apparently want a whole list of things, all of which are available in the Church of England – so why don’t they go there ?
First, that would give them what they want.
Secondly, as the Church of England has been suffering falling numbers for many years, it would be of benefit to it – even if only temporarily, given the age of many of those involved.
Thirdly, a sizable proportion of those falling numbers have been Anglicans converting to the Catholic Church to escape exactly things which CCC & Co think are so wonderful; so they’d be spared having to cope with them.
Of course, they will say ‘Yes; but we’re CATHOLICS : we couldn’t possibly go and join a Protestant Church !’
However, in recent years, it has been very carefully – and on the whole kindly – explained to them (and everyone else) exactly what is wrong with the things they are seeking; and exactly why they are not compatible with the Magisterium of the Catholic Church : not least in the liturgical and doctrinal writings of one Josef Cardinal Ratzinger, sometime Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith . . . of course, he’s moved on since then . . . now where exactly did he go ?
Now : Canon 751 of the Codex Iuris Canonici reads :
‘Heresy is the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith;’
No-one (as far as I know) is suggesting that they have, at least en masse and ‘officially’, done either of those.
However, it continues :
‘schism is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.’
Now; our friends at CCC basically say ‘we know what Vatican II was about, and if you don’t agree, you’re wrong’. Josef Cardinal Ratzinger (who earlier in life was a peritus at VatII) has clearly and courteously – but nonetheless firmly – disagreed with them on more or less every point, observing that it is their version of Vatican II that is wrong : and since ascending the Throne of S. Peter has seen no reason to change anything that he has said on that topic. They nonetheless obstinately refuse to submit to his teaching on these matters.
Hhmmm . . . that would make them Schismatics, then ?
It looks like it, certainly : in which case, they already HAVE joined a Protestant Church – or, rather, they have in effect created one all of their own : a Church based on their peculiar concept of what Vatican II taught, with no reference to reality; or to what the Council really said - the 'Stand-up Church of Vatican II' perhaps ?
(Standing up in ecclesiastical circles is always a dicey business. Many years ago now a loyal Anglican wrote a book entitled 'What the Church of England Stands For'. A Catholic wag apparently commented 'Because there's only one seat, and the Holy Father's sitting on it !')
Dealing with this sort of situation officially is a messy business, of course, which tends to hurt people in all sorts of ways in all sorts of directions . . . not to mention the fact that ‘due Judicial Process’ invariably takes an extended period of time . . . so anno Domini will probably resolve this whole affair more effectively, as well as more speedily, than the Curia . . .
Meanwhile, the rest of us will simply get on with trying to implement the teachings of Vatican II in the light of the hermeneutic of continuity which has clearly been indicated by the Holy Father (who unlike the members of CCC was there !) as the way in which it should be interpreted.
Ad Multos Annos, Sancte Pater !
Sunday, 7 February 2010
Saturday 20th February
This Mass is at Blackfriars, Oxford, which has a reputation for doing the Extraordinary Form well, so I should think it would be well worth putting in your Diary - particularly if you are a member of the University, and have had the privilege of making use of 'Duke Humfrey's Library' !
Friday, 5 February 2010
Welcome the Holy Father
Sorry - turn your back (alright, go sick) for a day or two, and everything happens ! However, normal service is now resumed . . . more or less, anyway.
There is an excellent Petition, supporting the forthcoming visit of His Holiness to the UK; and I would encourage every Catholic - and indeed everyone of goodwill - to sign it, to show the Holy Father what 'Mary's Dowry' really feels about his visit.
As a footnote; whilst sick abed, I received a text message telling me of the Petition, and urging me to sign it . . . from an Anglican priest friend. That made me feel very good, and I thank him for it.
Sign the Petition HERE.
There is an excellent Petition, supporting the forthcoming visit of His Holiness to the UK; and I would encourage every Catholic - and indeed everyone of goodwill - to sign it, to show the Holy Father what 'Mary's Dowry' really feels about his visit.
As a footnote; whilst sick abed, I received a text message telling me of the Petition, and urging me to sign it . . . from an Anglican priest friend. That made me feel very good, and I thank him for it.
Sign the Petition HERE.
Monday, 1 February 2010
More about Relics
Following on from my comments earlier about relics, one of the things I would have hoped for from the visit of the Relics of S. Therese was that priests would have felt (and even been) encouraged to rummage in the presbytery attics, and find the boxes of relics which were put there in 1969, and put them back on display.
I don’t personally know whether that’s actually happened, though, simply because the churches I go to on the sort of days when you’d find reliquaries out didn’t actually put them away in 1969, so ‘no change’ sort of sums it up.
However, I’d be very interested to hear other people’s opinions and experiences about this.
What may be a telling indication was something I read the other day, namely that whereas for many years there was really only one shop in Rome where you could buy reliquaries, now practically everyone has them (Serpone’s catalogue, alone, has 44 – four of them specifically for relics of the True Cross !); so presumably there is something of a resurgence in the public display of relics - for which God be thanked !
The 1917 Code of Canon Law (c.1282 §2) allowed ‘non-important’* relics to be kept ‘even in private houses and carried about piously by the faithful’ (though S. Philip Neri had suggested many years earlier that they should not normally be carried about, for fear of irreverence). This provision is not replicated in the 1983 Code; but neither is there any proscription of the practice; so clearly there is nothing to stop the faithful Catholic from keeping relics at home if they are available to him.
However, in 1994 the Apostolic Sacristy published new norms, stating that ‘No relic from the Apostolic Sacristy will be given to individual faithful for private veneration’; so there will be no new relics coming from that source for the pious faithful – although, for example, Promoters of Causes, and other sources, may still be willing and able to make them available.
It should, of course, be noted that c.1190 §1 of the 1983 Code states unequivocally that ‘It is absolutely forbidden to sell sacred relics’; and the Sacred Congregation of Indulgences and Relics on 21 December 1878 (Decr.Auth. n.443) forbade the purchase of relics ‘even for the good purpose of rescuing them from the hands of some storekeeper who exposes them for sale’, and directed that ‘If anyone notices that relics which seem to be genuine are for sale in some store, he should inform the local Ordinary that he may take steps to stop this insult to religion.’
As that latter decree was not perpetuated in the 1917 Code, still less the 1983 one, it would seem to be a moot point whether or not it is in fact permissible for a Catholic to buy a relic which is offered for sale; but as in any event the Decree did not forbid it under pain of sin, but merely on a disciplinary basis, my personal opinion (for what it may be worth) would be that if by doing so one can preserve a certainly genuine Relic (ie, one which has proper Letters) from profanation, then it may be appropriate to do so – but again, it may depend on cost, practicality, &c; and I certainly cannot find anything which suggests that one is under any obligation to do so.
Still, there are still a fair number of Relics available, even if only ex vestis, or Tertiary ones, which allow even the ordinary pious Catholic to have some slight connection with the Citizens of Heaven whose intercession we implore, and I do commend the practice.
I myself am lucky enough to have been given several relics over the years; and I find their presence in my home comforting and welcoming – and being able to say the Office of some Saint’s day in the presence of his or her relic is not only a great privilege, but gives one a tremendous sense of contact with her/him, which must increase one’s devotion.
Not everyone is, I quite understand, fortunate enough to have this privilege : but there must be few Churches which do not have at least one or two relics – and if they were brought out, and the faithful encouraged to venerate them the way they venerated the relics of S. Therese last year, I believe that the benefits would be enormous.
Omnes Sancti Dei, orate pro nobis.
* ‘Important’ relics are ‘the body, head, arm, forearm, heart, tongue, hand, leg, or other part of the body that suffered in a martyr, provided it is intact and not little’.
I don’t personally know whether that’s actually happened, though, simply because the churches I go to on the sort of days when you’d find reliquaries out didn’t actually put them away in 1969, so ‘no change’ sort of sums it up.
However, I’d be very interested to hear other people’s opinions and experiences about this.
What may be a telling indication was something I read the other day, namely that whereas for many years there was really only one shop in Rome where you could buy reliquaries, now practically everyone has them (Serpone’s catalogue, alone, has 44 – four of them specifically for relics of the True Cross !); so presumably there is something of a resurgence in the public display of relics - for which God be thanked !
The 1917 Code of Canon Law (c.1282 §2) allowed ‘non-important’* relics to be kept ‘even in private houses and carried about piously by the faithful’ (though S. Philip Neri had suggested many years earlier that they should not normally be carried about, for fear of irreverence). This provision is not replicated in the 1983 Code; but neither is there any proscription of the practice; so clearly there is nothing to stop the faithful Catholic from keeping relics at home if they are available to him.
However, in 1994 the Apostolic Sacristy published new norms, stating that ‘No relic from the Apostolic Sacristy will be given to individual faithful for private veneration’; so there will be no new relics coming from that source for the pious faithful – although, for example, Promoters of Causes, and other sources, may still be willing and able to make them available.
It should, of course, be noted that c.1190 §1 of the 1983 Code states unequivocally that ‘It is absolutely forbidden to sell sacred relics’; and the Sacred Congregation of Indulgences and Relics on 21 December 1878 (Decr.Auth. n.443) forbade the purchase of relics ‘even for the good purpose of rescuing them from the hands of some storekeeper who exposes them for sale’, and directed that ‘If anyone notices that relics which seem to be genuine are for sale in some store, he should inform the local Ordinary that he may take steps to stop this insult to religion.’
As that latter decree was not perpetuated in the 1917 Code, still less the 1983 one, it would seem to be a moot point whether or not it is in fact permissible for a Catholic to buy a relic which is offered for sale; but as in any event the Decree did not forbid it under pain of sin, but merely on a disciplinary basis, my personal opinion (for what it may be worth) would be that if by doing so one can preserve a certainly genuine Relic (ie, one which has proper Letters) from profanation, then it may be appropriate to do so – but again, it may depend on cost, practicality, &c; and I certainly cannot find anything which suggests that one is under any obligation to do so.
Still, there are still a fair number of Relics available, even if only ex vestis, or Tertiary ones, which allow even the ordinary pious Catholic to have some slight connection with the Citizens of Heaven whose intercession we implore, and I do commend the practice.
I myself am lucky enough to have been given several relics over the years; and I find their presence in my home comforting and welcoming – and being able to say the Office of some Saint’s day in the presence of his or her relic is not only a great privilege, but gives one a tremendous sense of contact with her/him, which must increase one’s devotion.
Not everyone is, I quite understand, fortunate enough to have this privilege : but there must be few Churches which do not have at least one or two relics – and if they were brought out, and the faithful encouraged to venerate them the way they venerated the relics of S. Therese last year, I believe that the benefits would be enormous.
Omnes Sancti Dei, orate pro nobis.
* ‘Important’ relics are ‘the body, head, arm, forearm, heart, tongue, hand, leg, or other part of the body that suffered in a martyr, provided it is intact and not little’.
Amid the Pressures of a Secular Age
In the interests of speed, this is merely a link to the Bolletino, and its report of the Holy Father's address to the Bishops of England & Wales at the end of their ad limina visit, in which he speaks of the 'many signs of living faith and devotion among the Catholics of England and Wales'.
However, I am delighted to note that His Holiness also emphasizes a point which I - and many others - have recently made : 'I urge you as Pastors to ensure that the Church’s moral teaching be always presented in its entirety and convincingly defended'.
Let us pray that his encouragement will be heeded at this time when this is so urgently needed; and let us be ready to reciprocate His Holiness' warm welcome to our Bishops when he comes amongst us later this year.
However, I am delighted to note that His Holiness also emphasizes a point which I - and many others - have recently made : 'I urge you as Pastors to ensure that the Church’s moral teaching be always presented in its entirety and convincingly defended'.
Let us pray that his encouragement will be heeded at this time when this is so urgently needed; and let us be ready to reciprocate His Holiness' warm welcome to our Bishops when he comes amongst us later this year.
An Island of Saints ?
Am I the only Catholic in England who was slightly concerned by the huge excitement last year over the relics of S. Therese ?
Let me make it quite clear : I was delighted that they came to England, and I was amongst those who visited them, venerated them, and spent time in prayer before them – and I am delighted that they clearly were instrumental in a growth in devotion, holiness, and grace amongst Christians.
So why am I concerned ?
Well, I suppose for the same reason that I am slightly concerned about the passionate enthusiasm of English Catholics for Lourdes.
England was once known as an ‘Island of Saints’; and the tombs of many English Saints – and the relics of even more – are still readily available to the faithful, as well as an apparently limitless collection of relics of other saints from every age and nation : yet I have little doubt that more people venerated the relics of S. Therese in the short time they were in the UK than venerated all the relics put together in the whole of 2009; in just the same way that there always seems to be more enthusiasm in a parish for a pilgrimage to Lourdes than for one to Walsingham, despite the fact that Our Lady appeared at Walsingham almost 800 years before she appeared to S. Bernadette, and that England was ‘Mary’s Dowry’ half a millennium before she first appeared in the Grotto at Masabielle.
What I can’t work out is why this is so.
OK : I accept that many of England’s Saints rest in what are now Anglican cathedrals; but they are open to all, and in my experience give a warm welcome to Catholics who want to visit the shrines and tombs, whether to pray at them, or simply to visit them. (And, indeed, many of them are very happy for Catholic Masses to be said at them as well !)
And what about Westminster ? The queues to venerate the Little Flower there were tremendous. What I wonder, though, is how many of those people, who thought it worthwhile to queue for hours to venerate a splendid reliquary with some of S. Therese in it, also found a few moments to visit the Shrine of S. John Southworth, and light a candle and say a prayer there, before the body, clearly displayed, of that English Martyr who lies in the Cathedral which now stands in what used to be his ‘parish’, and who was born in heaven more than two centuries before S. Therese.
Could it just be another manifestation of the English refusal to believe that there is anything good in England ? Could it be that we find it hard to accept that there are any patterns worth imitating in English sainthood, or that we have any lessons to learn from them ? Or is it just that we’ve more-or-less forgotten that they exist, simply because they’re always there ?
I don’t know : but I do hope that, as part of the revival of enthusiasm and devotion which the relics of S. Therese kindled in England, a little part of it will be directed towards a restoration of interest in, and devotion towards, those ‘holy confessors, bishops, and kings, all those holy monks and hermits, all those holy virgins and widows, who made this once an island of saints’.
Let me make it quite clear : I was delighted that they came to England, and I was amongst those who visited them, venerated them, and spent time in prayer before them – and I am delighted that they clearly were instrumental in a growth in devotion, holiness, and grace amongst Christians.
So why am I concerned ?
Well, I suppose for the same reason that I am slightly concerned about the passionate enthusiasm of English Catholics for Lourdes.
England was once known as an ‘Island of Saints’; and the tombs of many English Saints – and the relics of even more – are still readily available to the faithful, as well as an apparently limitless collection of relics of other saints from every age and nation : yet I have little doubt that more people venerated the relics of S. Therese in the short time they were in the UK than venerated all the relics put together in the whole of 2009; in just the same way that there always seems to be more enthusiasm in a parish for a pilgrimage to Lourdes than for one to Walsingham, despite the fact that Our Lady appeared at Walsingham almost 800 years before she appeared to S. Bernadette, and that England was ‘Mary’s Dowry’ half a millennium before she first appeared in the Grotto at Masabielle.
What I can’t work out is why this is so.
OK : I accept that many of England’s Saints rest in what are now Anglican cathedrals; but they are open to all, and in my experience give a warm welcome to Catholics who want to visit the shrines and tombs, whether to pray at them, or simply to visit them. (And, indeed, many of them are very happy for Catholic Masses to be said at them as well !)
And what about Westminster ? The queues to venerate the Little Flower there were tremendous. What I wonder, though, is how many of those people, who thought it worthwhile to queue for hours to venerate a splendid reliquary with some of S. Therese in it, also found a few moments to visit the Shrine of S. John Southworth, and light a candle and say a prayer there, before the body, clearly displayed, of that English Martyr who lies in the Cathedral which now stands in what used to be his ‘parish’, and who was born in heaven more than two centuries before S. Therese.
Could it just be another manifestation of the English refusal to believe that there is anything good in England ? Could it be that we find it hard to accept that there are any patterns worth imitating in English sainthood, or that we have any lessons to learn from them ? Or is it just that we’ve more-or-less forgotten that they exist, simply because they’re always there ?
I don’t know : but I do hope that, as part of the revival of enthusiasm and devotion which the relics of S. Therese kindled in England, a little part of it will be directed towards a restoration of interest in, and devotion towards, those ‘holy confessors, bishops, and kings, all those holy monks and hermits, all those holy virgins and widows, who made this once an island of saints’.
Sunday, 31 January 2010
Welcome or Unwelcome
2 Timothy 4, 2-3
2 Proclaim the message and, welcome or unwelcome, insist on it. Refute falsehood, correct error, give encouragement - but do all with patience and with care to instruct. 3 The time is sure to come when people will not accept sound teaching . . . [NJB]
Today’s Gospel (Sunday 4 OT, year C) tells of Our Lord in the Synagogue at Nazareth; and in his homily this morning at the Oratory, Fr Fordham made the point that people are always happy to listen to you when you say what they want to hear . . . it’s when you start saying things that they don’t want to hear - when, as S. Paul says, they ‘refuse to accept sound teaching’ - that, as happened to Our Lord in this morning's Gospel, they run you out of town, and try and push you over the cliff.
Father made no specific mention of anyone or anything in particular : but I think it unlikely that I was the only person in the Church whose thoughts turned to a topic which has been conspicuous in UK Catholic blogs in recent weeks – the issue of the Catholic Education Service’s reaction to the Government’s plans for compulsory Sex Education in all non-private schools. To give but one example, Fr Ray Blake of S. Mary Magdalene, Brighton, has a good post on it here; although many other people have also posted on it in the recent past.
CES has made comments which are almost laudatory of the Government’s plans; comments which have not been disavowed by the Bishops, under whose control CES falls, and who are presumably ultimately responsible for its opinions.
I am sure that – to use S. Paul’s word in 2 Timothy (above), all this is very ‘welcome’ to the Government, as they can present it as effectively amounting to ‘official endorsement’ by the Catholic Church of their proposals.
However, I think it would be true to say that it is extremely ‘unwelcome’ to many Catholics.
If one looks at the blogs, it is painfully clear that many of the Catholic faithful – and the clergy – are extremely uncomfortable with the fact that the Bishops have not, as one man, risen in their pulpits to denounce the plan forthrightly, and make abundantly clear to the Government that Catholics cannot in good conscience support a party which attacks Christian values in this way – verb. sap. with a General Election due within the next six months.
Now : I fully accept that my Bishop has been set over the Diocese of which I am a part by the Holy Father, and that it is his job to lead the Church in that Diocese, and that – as a matter of holy obedience – I am expected to submit to him.
However, as I understand it, there is no guarantee that the Bishop cannot make mistakes; and there is also the point that (to the best of my knowledge and belief) I am not bound to follow a superior in any matter which is contrary to the teachings of the Church – and as far as I can see, what the Government proposes is (like their previous nonsense about Adoption Agencies) completely contrary to the teaching of the Church.
I’m sure that if the Bishops did publicly denounce the Government’s plans they would be criticised in all sorts of places – including within the Church, very probably – and no doubt the National Secular Society would suggest that this was evidence that religion was retrograde, and determined to interfere with the right of the population to enjoy the best possible life, and all that sort of bilge.
Indeed, I think it is likely that the Bishops would become quite unpopular with the Government, and that they might very well lose influence with Ministers, and support in parliament, and the civil service, and the media . . .
All I can say, in response to those no doubt excellent reasons for holding their peace, and dealing with things in whatever other way they have chosen (as I am sure they have) to adopt, is ‘What would S. Paul have said they should do ?’
I think, having read 1 & 2 Timothy, the answer is quite clear. Have the lessons of last year - the ‘Year of S. Paul’ - faded so quickly ?
UPDATE
And just to prove it's not uniquely an English problem, shadowlands has just posted this clip from the US !
2 Proclaim the message and, welcome or unwelcome, insist on it. Refute falsehood, correct error, give encouragement - but do all with patience and with care to instruct. 3 The time is sure to come when people will not accept sound teaching . . . [NJB]
Today’s Gospel (Sunday 4 OT, year C) tells of Our Lord in the Synagogue at Nazareth; and in his homily this morning at the Oratory, Fr Fordham made the point that people are always happy to listen to you when you say what they want to hear . . . it’s when you start saying things that they don’t want to hear - when, as S. Paul says, they ‘refuse to accept sound teaching’ - that, as happened to Our Lord in this morning's Gospel, they run you out of town, and try and push you over the cliff.
Father made no specific mention of anyone or anything in particular : but I think it unlikely that I was the only person in the Church whose thoughts turned to a topic which has been conspicuous in UK Catholic blogs in recent weeks – the issue of the Catholic Education Service’s reaction to the Government’s plans for compulsory Sex Education in all non-private schools. To give but one example, Fr Ray Blake of S. Mary Magdalene, Brighton, has a good post on it here; although many other people have also posted on it in the recent past.
CES has made comments which are almost laudatory of the Government’s plans; comments which have not been disavowed by the Bishops, under whose control CES falls, and who are presumably ultimately responsible for its opinions.
I am sure that – to use S. Paul’s word in 2 Timothy (above), all this is very ‘welcome’ to the Government, as they can present it as effectively amounting to ‘official endorsement’ by the Catholic Church of their proposals.
However, I think it would be true to say that it is extremely ‘unwelcome’ to many Catholics.
If one looks at the blogs, it is painfully clear that many of the Catholic faithful – and the clergy – are extremely uncomfortable with the fact that the Bishops have not, as one man, risen in their pulpits to denounce the plan forthrightly, and make abundantly clear to the Government that Catholics cannot in good conscience support a party which attacks Christian values in this way – verb. sap. with a General Election due within the next six months.
Now : I fully accept that my Bishop has been set over the Diocese of which I am a part by the Holy Father, and that it is his job to lead the Church in that Diocese, and that – as a matter of holy obedience – I am expected to submit to him.
However, as I understand it, there is no guarantee that the Bishop cannot make mistakes; and there is also the point that (to the best of my knowledge and belief) I am not bound to follow a superior in any matter which is contrary to the teachings of the Church – and as far as I can see, what the Government proposes is (like their previous nonsense about Adoption Agencies) completely contrary to the teaching of the Church.
I’m sure that if the Bishops did publicly denounce the Government’s plans they would be criticised in all sorts of places – including within the Church, very probably – and no doubt the National Secular Society would suggest that this was evidence that religion was retrograde, and determined to interfere with the right of the population to enjoy the best possible life, and all that sort of bilge.
Indeed, I think it is likely that the Bishops would become quite unpopular with the Government, and that they might very well lose influence with Ministers, and support in parliament, and the civil service, and the media . . .
All I can say, in response to those no doubt excellent reasons for holding their peace, and dealing with things in whatever other way they have chosen (as I am sure they have) to adopt, is ‘What would S. Paul have said they should do ?’
I think, having read 1 & 2 Timothy, the answer is quite clear. Have the lessons of last year - the ‘Year of S. Paul’ - faded so quickly ?
UPDATE
And just to prove it's not uniquely an English problem, shadowlands has just posted this clip from the US !
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)