Mike's musings

Going up the 23 candles

I slept for somewhere around 24 hours last night, and felt _considerably_ refreshed. Really very well indeed. I was up and breakfasted in time for the 9am service at Christ Church Saint Laurence. It's about 1 and half kilometres from the hotel, so was a pleasant walk. I'd put my clerical shirt and collar on, as Fr Adrian (with whom I'd been in touch via email) had said to make myself known once I arrived. I did, was made welcome, and was introduced to a member of congregation who chatted while we waited for the service to begin. I'd got confused, and had thought that the 0900 service was a Sung Eucharist, but, instead, it was "Low Mass". This, the fact that everyone called me "Father", and the lady altar dedicated to Our Lady of Walsingham, should have been enough to clue me in that I was in for something higher than I'm used to, but bar the birettas on all the clergy (red pom-pom for the rector, black for the others), it was fairly standard fare from my point of view. During coffee afterwards, I discovered that the next service was with the choir, and as they were singing some rather nice music (a mass setting by Victoria), I thought I'd stay for the 1030, as well.

This was High Mass, and really quite high. Birettas again, of course, lashings of incense, copious genuflection and the gospel canted, which I'd not experienced before. I'd been informed before my arrival that vestments are banned in the Sydney diocese, but apparently it's _chasubles_ that are banned. This means that stoles, dalmatics, birettas and copes are just fine. It was jolly nice, and I went for drinks and lunch with the choir in the pub afterwards. They also invited me to evensong at 1830, which I decided I'd get to if I was still vertical (in danger owing to jetlag, not alcohol consumption, you'll understand), as they were to sing Leighton's Mag. & Nunc Coll. Mag., which I've not heard for ages.

So, back to the hotel via a yarn shop (possum:merino mix is _very_ soft), and then footled and called Moo and the girls. Footled some more, then headed off to Paddy's market. Despite the name, this is a very strongly Chinese market, just opposite Sydney's Chinatown. In fact, the whole area reminded me strongly of Singapore: lots of Chinese people, lots of Chinese being spoken, but signs in English and Chinese, and just a Chinese feel to how shops are laid out. And then to evensong.

I also enjoyed evensong very much (the choir did a good job of the Leighton), and discovered what the clergy and altar party are _supposed_ to do during the singing of the Magnificat. They're supposed to cense things. The altar. The Paschal Candle. Each other (individually), the choir, the people, the lot. Marvellous (if a little distracting from the main event: the music). But I realised, as I looked at the order of service, that it was going to be followed by a Service of Benediction.

It was my first experience of a Service of Benediction, and is likely to be my last. There was too much Marian devotion for me, but worse was the whole reverencing the Host. In a monstrance. And the presiding priest put on a lovely little shawl to do the monstrance bit. Apparently it's called a "Humeral Veil". I didn't even know these things existed. There were 16 candles on the altar, 6 behind it, and the Paschal candle all lit. What an education. Anyway, not my cup of tea, but fair enough if you like heresy, I guess.

However, I did discover a useful piece of information: why you need both a deacon and a sub-deacon. It's so that they can waft around the celebrant holding his cope out like a pair of wings.

I've had a lovely day, met some great people, listened to some fantastic music, and thoroughly enjoyed myself. I even bought a book called "Rescuing Sex from the Christians" at the church bookshop. You can't lose with a title like that, can you?

Labels: catholicism, church, communion

An ordination

(backposting) Slept in, then headed out to a proper continental breakfast: freshly squeezed orange juice, croissant, tea/coffee, convivial surroundings...

And then off to l'Église Saint Jean Berchmans for Hervé-Pierre's ordination to the priesthood. He's a Jesuit with a passionate belief in ecumenism and integration, and I was so honoured when he asked me if I'd read the Gospel in English, after a deacon (diacré) friend of his read it in French. The language was mainly in French, with English explanations, and also bits of the service in German and Flemish: quite the multi-lingual affair. I enjoyed it immensely, I have to say, though there were issues. I'd already known that I wouldn't be able to receive communion or to lay my hand on him as part of the ordination, but it was more difficult than I'd expected. In particular, watching all the other priests - there must have been over over 40 of them - file past, and lay their hand on him, was very, very hard. I don't think I've ever felt more a priest, and I had tears in my eyes and flowing down my face.

All the priests concelebrated, too: holding out their hands, and saying the words of institution, and I couldn't do that either. Nor receive communion. It was hard. But the rest of the service was joyous, it really was, and I'd not have been anywhere else. And Hervé-Pierre was radiant. There was only one thing that I felt that I couldn't join in during the service was the invocation of the Saints during the litany. There was a lot of "priez pour nous", and I just didn't feel happy, theologically, so I just kept my mouth closed during that part: the rest was fine. I'm not theologically convinced by the dedication of the Eucharist to Hervé-Pierre. For me, the suggestion that you can dedicate a Mass / Eucharist / Communion to someone (living or dead) is senseless. But I can understand why, if you took the view that it was sensible, then dedication of this service to the ordinand was touching.

After the service, there was a buffet lunch. I spoke lots of French, which was a real treat. Although far from perfect, my French is good, and I had some interesting chats with some Jesuits - and non-Jesuits. A number of them seemed to have no problem with my ministry or ordination: the best comment was the one of them said he thought that my ordination (as long as it wasn't too "low"!) was more valid that an of those by Bishop Lefebvre! (Note: not sure I mean this one, but can't track the right one down).

We headed off, walked around the centre of Brussels - Kate had never visited the Grande Place before - and then we had a meal, headed caught the Eurostar, a tube, a train, drove back, and got home around 2310. A great day.

Labels: catholicism, family, joy, ordination, travel

The Pope

There's some interesting discussion going on around the Pope's visit. The Humanists and the Secularists are against the visit: the Anglicans don't seem to care very much. I'm not particularly happy about his mouthing off against the government for passing a Bill which in my opinion doesn't go far enough to protect people. And I'm not a fan of the changes he's making within the Catholic Church, either. But he's coming, and there are a great number of Roman Catholics in this country who'll be very happy about it.

Labels: catholicism

To venerate or not to venerate: that is the question

On Good Friday, we have a service entitled "Veneration of the Cross and Liturgy of the Passion". This is taken from Common Worship's Good Friday Liturgy (though the service isn't called that in the relevant booklet), and includes this as part of the introduction (also not part of the booklet):

During this service a crucifix is brought into the Church and we all have the opportunity to come forward in prayer and adoration. As the crucifix is brought in we proclaim "This is the wood of the cross" remembering that our crucifix is a spiritual help in contemplating the Cross of Christ. As we come forward we gently kiss the feet of our Lord and Saviour, or bow our heads, and give thanks for the tremendous gift of Christ who shared our humanity and suffered with and for us.

The service uses the reserved sacrament, rather than consecrating on Good Friday: a practice which is traditional, and which I quite like (although I've previously enjoyed an ante-communion, where we start a service, and then finish it abruptly just before the eucharistic prayer).

Unluckily, I have some major problems with the service theologically. The first two are easily dealt with: there is no confession or absolution before receiving of the sacrament. I'm very unhappy about this, but we're going to have a hymn with a confessional element, and I think we'll put in an absolution.

The third issue is a more major one for me. I'm unhappy about the veneration of the cross. To me, it feels like idolatry. I know I'm coming over all Protestant on this, but I think this is an extension of one of my first major theological feelings, when I was very uncomfortable about a Roman Catholic service I once attended of Corpus Christi, where the host was processed - paraded - around the cathedral. A clergy friend of mine (from a more catholic tradition than mine) notes that:

[t]he first dictionary definition [of "veneration"] says "a feeling of profound respect for someone or something". Surely we can have profound respect for the representation of the cross because of what it represents.

First of all, I not sure that I agree with the definition, and secondly, I'm not sure that we can. How can you have respect for something, rather than somebody? He also makes a comparison with a picture of somebody, to which we might be attached, and compare it with a representation of a cross, to which we might be attached. But I don't think I can be attached to the cross, although I feel strongly that it's a powerful symbol and reminder of the person who died on it and who I worship. I think that part of my concern arises from part of the liturgy:

This is the wood of the cross, on which hung the saviour of the world.

All come, let us worship.

Now, maybe I'm being too critical, but it's not clear to me what the object of our worship is supposed to be. The obvious answer is that it's supposed to be the the subject of the preceding sentence: "the wood of the cross". I think that's a legitimate reading of the text, and if someone were to come to it with an unnuanced theology, then I think that might be what they thought was going on. And I don't believe that we should hold a cross as worthy of worship. Or any other object. Or anything other than God - the Father, the Son, the Holy Spirit, three in one and one in three.

The veneration of the cross is an old tradition - and a catholic one. There's nothing wrong with that, but I feel that the liturgy that's been put together within Common Worship goes too far towards what I believe are the errors of (certain types of) (mainly Roman) Catholic practice.

I know that I'm in danger of condemning practices which are very helpful for many people, and I'd stress that I enjoy ceremony and tradition and liturgy in many instances. But this feels like a step a little too far for me. It's made me think hard about other aspects of my worship - receiving a blessing before the Gospel reading (is it the book that's being blessed, or the reader and the reading?), kissing my stole before putting it on (is this to allow me to reflect on the responsibility I am taking on, or veneration of an object?) - but I think that's a good thing. In many ways, I'm a reformation protestant - or Reformation Protestant - but I need to understand how (and whether) that can be reconciled with more recent theological insights.

I see all of this as part of my growth and development as a minister: I appreciate comments and thoughts. And prayers, of course.

Labels: catholicism, liturgy, theology

And back home again

The residential was supposed to last through till Sunday, but it's my nephew Frankie's baptism tomorrow, and I decided to come home first, and then drive over tomorrow morning. Made a new friend on the course, I think: Will, who wasn't at our pre-ordination retreat. From a very different tradition, but an interesting guy, and we had some interesting chats.

I also finished Catholicism by Jean de Lubac, about which I've posted previously. I very much enjoyed parts of it, and I'm happy to accept his general views on Catholicism, but not the low-level premise that the Roman Catholic Church is the sole guardian of the Catholic Faith and the true Body of Christ. Learnt a new word, as well: "circumincession", which seems basically to be the same as "perichoresis", but in Greek.

Labels: catholicism, diaconate, home

Redemption

I was given a recommendation to read Jean de Lubac's Catholicism a few weeks ago, and I'm getting through it bit by bit. I'm enjoying it, though there's much in it with which I don't agree. Some of it I like very much, in particular de Lubac's insistence on the importance of the redemption of the entirety of the Body of Christ, the Church. But there are facets of his theology with which I disagree, and it's not just de Lubac, I think.

I'm aware that he was writing in the early part of the 20th Century - the 1920's - and things may be different in modern (Roman) Catholic theology, but it feels like too much of the argument through which he has, at times. to wade, is to deal with the fact that it's impossible for him seriously to question Roman Catholic doctrine and the theology of major theologians and Popes in the Roman Catholic church. That's not my major issue, however. My main issue, which shouldn't surprise anyone, is that de Lubac's theology is underpinned by the assumption that redemption comes through the grace available through the (catholic) church: by which he means the Roman Catholic Church. We - by whom he explicitly means everyone not part of the Roman Catholic Church - are in the same boat as pagans with regards to redemption:

"[O]utside the church, no salvation. Obviously it cannot mean that no one is ever saved who does not belong exteriorly to the Church ... [b]ut the explanation for which a formula has been found during the last few centuries in the distinction between the body and soul of the Church is neither sufficient nor entirely exact; for the axiom refers, more often than not, not to the soul but to the body of the Church, her social visible body. Following Innocent III's example Piux IX is more explicit: he speaks of the Roman Church."

Clearly, I don't accept the position that it is only through the grace which it is the privilege and ability of the Roman Catholic Church - and only the Roman Catholic Church - to grant to its members that we can come to redemption. On the other hand, I do believe in the importance of the catholic church (note capitalisation) as the Body of Christ, and I like the role that de Lubac gives it in terms of corporate - communal - redemption. So I'm not happy in a solely "personal" redemption. But if, as Protestants, we reject the suggestion of a singular authority enshrined in the Roman Catholic Church, then we need to think about where we believe redemption sits in our relationship with God and the church. It is the question of authority and the church which interests me - fascinates me - and which I hope to study over the next few years. I also think it's vital that we address the whole question of authority and the church, particularly the Church of England.

Labels: authority, catholicism