Over the past few months, the articles in the Catholic Weekly from Dr Philippa Martyr have had me writing either rebuttals or questioning the assumptions upon which the assertions in her articles were made. Even though they didn’t make it to publication here, they have caused me to reflect deeply.

In particular, could this part of her response be true?
"Perhaps I should have also said in my limited 750 words that the laity also need to learn to be less trigger-happy. What you're describing are not major challenges to faith and morals, like having all the laity 'co-consecrate' or things of that sort. They're minor liturgical hiccups that irritate you personally."

You need to know that I was speaking of the breaking of the one cross per altar rule and the replacement of the homily with a few brief words prior to the penitential rite. On the surface level maybe they do look like minutiae.

Lay co-consecration is serious because it is a strong ideological statement about the priesthood of all believers, and a denial of what pertains only to the ordained priesthood.

Yet a brief stroll through the Scriptures shows that God takes unlawful acts very seriously.

In Leviticus 10:1-2 we have two of Aaron’s sons taking a short cut by using ordinary fire for their incense censers instead of fire from the perpetual flame on the altar. God caused the unlawful fire consumed them immediately.

In Numbers 16 we have a lay rebellion, Korah who was descended from Levi but not from Aaron, said to Moses and Aaron, ‘You take too much on yourselves! The whole community and all its members are consecrated, and the Lord God lives among them. Why set yourselves higher than the community of the Lord God?’ What was God’s response? When all the rebels were gathered together in one place, the earth split open and swallowed them all.

And lest we think this was just a caution for Old Testament times, read 1 Cor 11:28-32: ‘Everyone is to recollect himself before eating this bread and drinking this cup; because a person who eats and drinks without recognizing the Body is eating and drinking his own condemnation. In fact that is why many of you are weak and some of you have died. If only we recollected ourselves, we should not be punished like that. But when the Lord does punish us like that, it is to correct us and stop us from being condemned with the world.’

We might then ask, well why hasn’t God done something dramatic about it? The answer might be in 1 Samuel chapters 2 and 3. Here we have the sons of Eli, Hophni and Phinehas, who were scoundrels at the altar of God. It continued for some time. Eli did warn them that sinning against God was truly serious. Then God sent an adult prophet to prophesy judgment on Eli for permitting it to happen, as well as on the two culprits. Later God spoke through the boy Samuel and warned Eli again. When Samuel had grown up, then God’s judgement came swiftly onto the whole family of Eli.

So if God hasn’t acted yet, then He has been sending warnings to both bishop and priest, and when the cup of iniquity is full, God will then act in swift judgement.

But in the meantime, there is a punishment from God that St John of Avila writes about eloquently in ‘Audi, Filia’, it is the utter misfortune of being left by God in your own errors. Because if you are in error, and you don’t know that you are in error, how can you possibly get out of that error? Ponder that until the full horror of that finds a place in your heart.

It is truly a mercy from God when He shines a light into our hearts, let’s us perceive what is wrong, and invites us to change in order to grow closer to Him.

To escape the consequences of error – if God has withdrawn from you -, someone would have to take pity upon you; and plead with God assiduously for your conversion. All of us should be afraid of this punishment; and pray with King David ‘Do not deprive me of Your holy spirit’ Psalm 50(51)11 and ‘God, examine me and know my heart, probe me and know my thoughts; make sure I do not follow pernicious ways, and guide me in the way that is everlasting’ Psalm 138(139):23-24.

So let’s now go through the breaking of the one cross per altar rule and the replacement of the homily with a few brief words prior to the penitential rite and determine whether they are minor liturgical hiccups or not.

The General Instruction of the Roman Missal (G.I.R.M.) has a lot to say about the relationship between the cross/crucifix and the altar. See Appendix A below.

Here we pause for a little and consider that if such precise instructions have been laid out by the Church Universal, then ipso facto these instructions have to be far from trivial.

G.I.R.M 308. 'There is also to be a cross, with the figure of Christ crucified upon it, either on the altar or near it, where it is clearly visible to the assembled congregation. It is appropriate that such a cross, which calls to mind for the faithful the saving Passion of the Lord, remain near the altar even outside of liturgical celebrations.'

In some churches this is done by having a crucifix suspended above the altar, and the processional cross placed on a side wall out of general sight when the entrance procession is over.

When there is a suspended crucifix, then having an additional small portable upright crucifix on the altar to aid the devotion of the priest is not licit. Possibly it would be licit in such cases to have a small crucifix laying flat on the altar – but it wouldn’t be a good thing. It is the crucifix either on or near the altar that denotes that this particular table-like structure is indeed an altar. There is a one-to-one correspondence of crucifix to altar, and this is underlined in the rubrics for the entrance procession when, if there is incense, only the cross and altar are incensed.

This lack of a devotional crucifix on the altar for the priest underscores that in the Mass we are publicly worshipping God, and that the Church – presumably after much argy-bargy in centuries past – came down on the side of clear visible signs for the people of God, and not on the personal preferences of the priest.

Can you now see that an important liturgical principle is at stake here? Liturgy is a public solemn act of worship of God by the Head (Jesus) and members (us) of the Body of Christ. In it is no room for private devotional preferences.

Pope Francis in Desiderio Desideravi 48 says this: 'The rite is in itself a norm, and the norm is never an end in itself, but it is always at the service of a higher reality that it means to protect.'

All of us are custodial servants of this profound gift of Liturgy. It is God’s work, we are but participants by His grace.

Whenever we start thinking of ourselves as masters of the liturgy, with the ability to change parts of it at will according to personal preference, instead of thinking of ourselves as grateful servants, then we have got it very wrong.

Here we come to the missing homily, and this is generally a weekday issue and not a Sunday issue. Yes G.I.R.M. 66b says this, itself a quotation from ‘Inter Oecumenici’:
‘There is to be a homily on Sundays and holy days of obligation at all Masses that are celebrated with the participation of a congregation; it may not be omitted without a serious reason. It is recommended on other days, especially on the weekdays of Advent, Lent, and the Easter Season, as well as on other festive days and occasions when the people come to church in greater numbers.’

And G.I.R.M. 43b
'They should, however, sit while the readings before the Gospel and the responsorial Psalm are proclaimed and for the homily and while the Preparation of the Gifts at the Offertory is taking place; and, as circumstances allow, they may sit or kneel while the period of sacred silence after Communion is observed.'

What is happening locally? First one, and when he left us, now a second priest, has started giving brief remarks prior to the penitential rite, while we are still standing, and then no homily at all, on weekdays. We normally range between 20 and 50 persons for weekday Masses, with greater numbers on Wednesdays and Fridays.

What does that mean in practice? We are standing to listen to commentary on readings which have yet to be read to us, and by the time they are read to us, we have either forgotten the commentary or are scratching our heads to connect the commentary with the readings, unless we have hearing aids and thus have only experienced gibberish. It can become a good guessing game of ‘which readings do the commentary relate to’ – but that isn’t breaking open the Word of God, is it?

There is good reason why the Church places the homily after the readings.

But it goes deeper than that on at least two levels.

The first level of these came home to me when I was visiting an elderly gentleman parishioner in the local hospital. He had been in and out of hospital for the previous few weeks. He was completely alert, albeit a bit uncomfortable, so I was surprised when he kindly and firmly said ‘What I need now is Jesus, only Jesus’. To my even greater surprise he died a few hours later. But what he said has stayed with me, and has resonated with me for over 25 years.

What our frail elderly who show up at Mass every morning need beyond anything else is Jesus, only Jesus. They need their hearts to be refreshed by the wonder of who Jesus is in every homily. Mind you, so do the rest of us as well.

Evangelii Gaudium 135b: ‘The homily is the touchstone for judging a pastor’s closeness and ability to communicate to his people. We know that the faithful attach great importance to it, and that both they and their ordained ministers suffer because of homilies: the laity from having to listen to them and the clergy from having to preach them! It is sad that this is the case. The homily can actually be an intense and happy experience of the Spirit, a consoling encounter with God’s Word, a constant source of renewal and growth.’

Evangelii Gaudium 137: ‘It is worth remembering that “the liturgical proclamation of the Word of God, especially in the eucharistic assembly, is not so much a time for meditation and catechesis as a dialogue between God and His people, a dialogue in which the great deeds of salvation are proclaimed and the demands of the covenant are continually restated”. The homily has special importance due to its eucharistic context: it surpasses all forms of catechesis as the supreme moment in the dialogue between God and His people which lead up to sacramental communion. The homily takes up once more the dialogue which the Lord has already established with His people. The preacher must know the heart of his community, in order to realize where its desire for God is alive and ardent, as well as where that dialogue, once loving, has been thwarted and is now barren.’

The second level is that breaking open the Word of God is the way our hearts are touched and changed; and unless they are touched and changed our reception of Jesus in Holy Communion remains unchanged too.

Romans 10:13b-15a,17 says it all: ‘For everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved. But they will not ask His help unless they believe in Him, and they will not believe in Him unless they have heard of Him, and they will not hear of Him unless they get a preacher, and they will never have a preacher unless one is sent. So faith comes from what is preached, and what is preached comes from the word of Christ.’

Homilies don’t have to be long, they can be extremely brief if only they go some way towards connecting our hearts to Jesus, and opening them in gratitude to the Father. Being in a receptive posture helps too, that is why sitting is important. Remember that standing for those who are frail or unwell or in joint pain is an ordeal.

What isn’t acceptable is a pastor who no longer has an assistant priest being perfunctory about the Mass in order to get on with all his other duties, thereby reducing any homily to an introductory commentary and saving time by returning to the altar (instead of to the presidential chair to sit), thus reducing the time after communion to a minimum, and giving out the concluding prayers from the altar.

Shouldn’t something else get sacrificed instead of preparation to preach the Word of God? Peter and the Apostles thought it of such importance that they appointed deacons to take care of food distribution and other matters. Acts 6:1-6.

If there is anything else in his life for which it is considered necessary to consistently take short cuts in the Mass, then something is seriously wrong. Once in a while, as long as good reason is proffered, is quite a different matter.

It smacks of being master of liturgy instead of being a grateful servant of the liturgy, cutting the liturgy according to personal preference and availability for other things. In some ways this is more dangerous than our lay co-consecration friend. Why? Because the majority of priests and people will sense and abhor the wrongness of lay co-consecration. And because those priests who don’t consider preaching a homily to be an honoured privilege will think it a great idea – and copy him! And because those who don’t mind the shortest Mass possible, will also think it a great idea.

Nothing any of us can do each day can shine even a candle to the magnitude of what the Lord God does in the Mass each day.

Am I being mean? Is this a minor liturgical hiccup? Poor father, he is looking after this whole big parish on his own, who knows how many sick calls, meetings and funerals are on his plate, and all the other calls upon his time and energy. But then I look at the 94 year old who is there rain, hail or shine; and I look at those who have chronically ill husbands at home; and I look at those who come in with a walker; or with the combination of walking stick and Parkinson’s; or who have got there despite failing lungs and failing kidneys; and I suspect that looking upon this combined hunger for Him, Jesus would set Himself to teach them at some length adapted to their capacity, Mark 6:34b.

When it comes to Liturgy nothing that seems to be minutiae actually is minutiae, nor a minor liturgical hiccup only due to personal irritation. More is always at stake than what appears to be on the surface.

Appendix A
GENERAL INSTRUCTION OF THE ROMAN MISSAL

49. When they reach the sanctuary, the priest, the deacon, and the ministers reverence the altar with a profound bow.
As an expression of veneration, moreover, the priest and deacon then kiss the altar itself; as the occasion suggests, the priest also incenses the cross and the altar.

75. The bread and wine are placed on the altar by the priest to the accompaniment of the prescribed formulas. The priest may incense the gifts placed upon the altar and then incense the cross and the altar itself, so as to signify the Church’s offering and prayer rising like incense in the sight of God. Next, the priest, because of his sacred ministry, and the people, by reason of their baptismal dignity, may be incensed by the deacon or another minister.

117. The altar is to be covered with at least one white cloth. In addition, on or next to the altar are to be placed candlesticks with lighted candles: at least two in any celebration, or even four or six, especially for a Sunday Mass or a holy day of obligation. If the diocesan Bishop celebrates, then seven candles should be used. Also on or close to the altar, there is to be a cross with a figure of Christ crucified. The candles and the cross adorned with a figure of Christ crucified may also be carried in the Entrance Procession. On the altar itself may be placed the Book of the Gospels, distinct from the book of other readings, unless it is carried in the Entrance Procession.

122. On reaching the altar, the priest and ministers make a profound bow.
The cross adorned with a figure of Christ crucified and perhaps carried in procession may be placed next to the altar to serve as the altar cross, in which case it ought to be the only cross used; otherwise it is put away in a dignified place. In addition, the candlesticks are placed on the altar or near it. It is a praiseworthy practice that the Book of the Gospels be placed upon the altar.

123. The priest goes up to the altar and venerates it with a kiss. Then, as the occasion suggests, he incenses the cross and the altar, walking around the latter.
​
308. There is also to be a cross, with the figure of Christ crucified upon it, either on the altar or near it, where it is clearly visible to the assembled congregation. It is appropriate that such a cross, which calls to mind for the faithful the saving Passion of the Lord, remain near the altar even outside of liturgical celebrations.

On 16 Jul 2021 Pope Francis issued a Motu Proprio about the Roman Liturgy used prior to the Reform of 1970 with new guidelines for when (and to some extent how) it can be legitimately celebrated.
​https://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/motu_proprio/documents/20210716-motu-proprio-traditionis-custodes.html

More colloquial ways of referring to this Liturgy are the ‘Latin Mass’ or the ‘Tridentine Mass’ or ‘Traditional Latin Mass’ or ‘TLM’.

As you might expect, there’s been a bit of a social media storm about these new regulations, and there’s been a lot of hot-off-the-cuff ink spilled about it already – most of it without due reflection on the positive sides of the document.

Because this document is about pruning the TLM movement for its own health, and for the health and unity of the Church.

And this pruning has been needed.

When Summorum Pontificum was issued by Pope Benedict XVI; many times in his excellent blog Fr John Zuhlsdorf requested that adherents to the Tridentine Mass be exemplary in their conduct, be helpful to clergy and parishes, and to not give any cause for offence lest these permissions be withdrawn.

Not everyone heeded him, hence this need for pruning so that the good may be preserved and the diseased parts be separated away lest they infect the whole Church.

Pope Francis does spell out clearly what the issues are, and the criteria by which local bishops are to do any necessary pruning, viz:
*The concord and unity of the Church
*Ecclesial communion
*That those who deny the validity and legitimacy of the 1970 liturgical reform put that unity, concord and communion at risk
*That the risk has reached levels requiring the removal of TLM from parochial churches so that there is no confusion about the validity and legitimacy of the Novus Ordo Mass (1970 liturgical reform).

(Note: Mass centres, oratories, chapels, retreat centres would then still be OK, including designated mass centres within say a cathedral parish which has several mass centres in addition to the Cathedral. ie. It cannot be celebrated at the principal church of a parish.)

Those TLM communities which are in full communion with the Church, and are animated by ecclesial communion, will be preserved.

The risk of new TLM communities forming has been deemed to be too great.

Healthy and wholesome expressions of TLM will remain, be preserved, and even encouraged.

How did it get to this? People forgot Fr Z’s advice.

There has been far too much public criticism of the Pope and far too much questioning of the legitimacy of the papacy, leading far too many believers to distrust the Pope, to distrust God’s choice of the Pope, and thereby opening the door to distrust of God and from there to loss of faith. (There are private ways of seeking answers and clarifications.)

Where has this criticism and questioning been the most vociferous? From those attending the Tridentine Mass. Some have just been the usual hot heads that every community that aspires to a radical life attracts, but some have been publicly well respected in education, theology, journalism, blogging, apologetics etc and among the clergy.

It hasn’t been here and there either; it has become a consistent questioning of every action and motive of the Pope - which would do the Pharisees proud.

Where protest has become normative and taking pride in ‘being more Catholic than the Pope’ takes hold, then those communities have exited out the other side of being Protestant.

Above all else, hear and listen to this:
Unity with the Pope is our sole guarantee of remaining in the true faith of the Apostles and not getting shipwrecked in error and heresy.
Unity with the Pope is our sole guarantee of the whole Church being guided by God.

This is so because Jesus said to Peter, ‘On this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell will never hold out against it’.

Yes, I fully understand the flight to the TLM given the continuing abuses of the liturgy that are happening in the Novus Ordo Mass. I understand in a time of uncertainty, that flight to where things are whiter than white, and blacker than black, and no grey in between is really attractive. I understand that being with others trying to take God seriously is really attractive.

But the TLM was never meant to be a flight-from-the-world option, a la St Benedict.

Permission for the TLM was to preserve the patrimony living in the Tridentine Mass from centuries past for future generations to be able to love and appreciate in living form. It is to be fueled by love for the Church, and love for the patrimony of the Church, not fueled by protest.

An analogy might help. The reason people volunteer to help keep steam engines alive on heritage railways is to keep the memory alive of the amazing engineers and workmen that formed that heritage, and for the beauty and majesty of those locomotives in action – not because they want steam to replace diesel electrics anymore, nor because they are protesting at the pollution caused by diesel-electrics.

That’s why Pope Francis is calling a ‘motive check’ on those priests who already celebrate or wish to celebrate the Mass in its pre 1970 form, and on those religious communities set up precisely for the preservation of this liturgical form.

This Motu Proprio is pruning the TLM for the health of the Church, and for the health of the TLM.

Should it be successful in its intent, healthy communities of TLM will remain, and will remain healthy.

As one would expect, only when this has occurred will it be possible to consider new TLM communities, and that could be 10 years away or longer, and only if they don’t fall into the same errors in the meantime.

Instead of grouching, let us be extremely thankful to God for giving us a Pope, and the bishops united with him, who are willing to do this pruning for the sake of the Church, and for the sake of the salvation of souls, despite the enormous backlash they are experiencing, and will experience in the times to come.

To God be the glory, in the Church, and in Christ Jesus, now and forever. Amen.

This Easter I came across a very strange phenomenon – Evening Masses on Easter Sunday being scrapped. Sometimes they were replaced with late morning Masses, but sometimes they were just scrapped.

This is Wrong!

Biblically Wrong! 

And it is time the Liturgy was updated too!

John 20:19-31 contains the answer.
It is the Gospel for every Mass held on the 2nd Sunday of Easter (Divine Mercy Sunday).

But curiously it contains two stories: what happened on the first ever Easter Sunday evening, AND what happened a week later.

Other big solemnities have different readings for vigil and for Mass during the day (eg Pentecost). Christmas has different readings for vigil, during the night (a.k.a. Midnight), dawn and during the day.

Easter already has vigil and during the day, why not also have special readings and prayers for Easter evening?

You see, Easter Sunday evening should be celebrated with special gusto for two important biblical reasons.
1. It is the time that Jesus first showed His risen Self to His disciples.
2. It is when He initiated the sacrament of Penance.

That’s when Jesus showed up to be with His apostles and disciples.
Shouldn’t we be there to meet Him?
Shouldn’t we be celebrating both things ‘at the time it happened’, like all the other events of the Paschal Triduum?

Wouldn’t it be dreadful if Jesus showed up in our churches at that time with bucket loads of graces to give away – and there was no one there to receive Him, nor His gifts?

The liturgical gurus tell us that the Paschal Triduum does not end until vespers (evening prayer) on Easter Sunday, and there are in some liturgical rites quite a bit of pomp and circumstance attached to Easter Sunday vespers.

There’s no reason why we can’t have the Gospel for Easter Evening as John 20:19-23, and still have John 20:19-31 on Divine Mercy Sunday.

Surely it is time that we gave God proper thanks and praise for the institution of the sacrament of penance!

And then give Him due thanks and praise for His whole grand plan of unfathomable Mercy on the second Sunday of Easter.

It isn’t ‘double handling’.
Both are truly worthy of liturgical veneration.

It is time this ‘missing link’ in the Paschal Triduum was no longer missing.
​
Can I get an Amen, please?

​There's a lot to like about Pat Keady's book 'Spearhead: Reshaping the Church to Engage the Word'. But there's a dangerous 10% which concerns me greatly. Let's focus on the good stuff first:

When I first heard about this book I was excited because there has been prophetic word over the last 6 months about God releasing anointing upon writers and songwriters, and this book began when Pat Keady woke very early one morning with an impetus to write from the Holy Spirit. So I really wanted to read it.

The font is easy to read, the paper has a lovely glossy feel and the graphic design layout is beautiful.

The first half of the book is particularly good. For anyone wanting an easy to digest synthesis of what God has been saying through Pope Francis and various parish renewal movements over the last 3 years, it is brilliant, particularly if you delight in Australian idioms. If you are deep in the trenches of parish renewal, in the first half you won't be reading anything new, but you might be reading it from a fresh perspective.

However, as a book to invite someone from the sidelines into the trenches, that's where its true value is to be found.

Two insights I found particularly helpful. The first is the story of Jonathan, son of Saul, and his armour-bearer from 1 Samuel 14 about how the two of them trusting in the help of God made a daring foray into enemy Philistine territory and began a battle that inspired traitors to turn back to allegiance to God's people and eventually involved the whole army of Israel in victory. A few committed people doing something brave and unusual, but filled with faith, can have a very big impact.

The second is an insight into the story of Pentecost, Acts 1, about how God met people where they were at by giving His Apostles and disciples the gift of the languages of the people. It wasn't about various languages now becoming a single language.

Pat uses this story to make his case that we have to learn the cultures of the groups we wish to evangelise, so that we can build a bridge – mainly through music – with which to present the Gospel. Now Pat is looking at the inculturation possibilities in the liturgy through music.

This is where my thoughts diverge from his. Pentecost didn't take place within the liturgy, it took place out in the streets, in the marketplace. I think we do the liturgy a disservice if we try to make it into a vehicle for evangelisation. Firstly, the liturgy only makes sense once a person has been evangelised and awakened by the Holy Spirit. Secondly, for the early church an invitation to the liturgy was the last thing you did with a newcomer, and not the first thing. Even today when I read modern stories of conversion the majority of people darken the doors of a church as one of the last steps on their journey home to Catholic faith.

Therefore we need intermediate steps between the secular world and the liturgy. In such intermediate steps lay preaching, testimonies and contemporary music that engages the culture of the groups you desire to evangelise find their natural home.

It is worth trusting the wisdom of Mother Church on this one, when she insists that ordained ministers preach during the liturgy. They have been anointed and set apart for this purpose and have a minimum of 7 years of study behind them. While it is true that many of them don't have an obvious gift of preaching, we have to allow God to be God, knowing that a homily that does not engage you and me at all might contain the very words that someone else needs to hear. Instead of the satisfaction of complaining, our energies are much better directed to praying that our priests do receive the charismatic gift of preaching and praying that they preach according to the mind and heart of Jesus, in full harmony with the teachings of His Church and to the maximum spiritual benefit of those that will be present when they preach.

I've got no troubles with lay preachers if they exercise their ministry before or after the liturgy, but not during it.

My definition of culture is different too. Again we do a disservice if we only think about culture in terms of liturgical elements, eg architecture, music (eg African drums), decorative motifs on vestments and liturgical vessels, artwork (eg Our Lady of China).

For me culture is expressed primarily in public, private and family devotional practices. That's the fiestas, the processions, pilgrimages, special food for feast days, grace before meals, traditions passed down in families and nations, preferred spiritualities of prayer (people from exuberant cultures will prefer loud praise and dance, people from reserved cultures will prefer reflective silence and Eucharistic adoration) etc.

A cultural group votes with their feet about what is important to them. In Australia we seem to like setting off fireworks at major celebrations, gathering friends and family around a barbecue, Anzac Day touches us deeply, we like singing Christmas carols in big groups, and 'don't interrupt me if the footy, tennis or cricket is on'. These are the areas where creativity and Holy Spirit inspired ingenuity can take something naturally wholesome and elevate it to something supernaturally good.

On the very vexed subject of liturgical music, here's my two cents worth. While hip contemporary music for all songs at all Masses might seem like the answer, it isn't. Let me count the ways. Firstly if your average congregation is aged 70+, you are going to alienate them. Secondly, from my studies of conversion stories it is experiences of the historicity of the Church that make a difference. Thirdly, when people decide to come home to the Church (eg cradle Catholics returning after an absence), a familiar song really helps. Be a wise musical scribe and bring out from the liturgical music storehouse music that is both old and new. We need to sing new songs to the Lord, no question about that, but we need a mix; hymns that have stood the test of centuries of time, hymns that have stood the test of decades of time, hymns that have become favourites during the past decade and the new stuff. In other words we need to show our Catholicity (universality) in our musical selections and not narrow it down to one genre and era. The new is good, and the old is good; use both.

I was so hoping to read about fresh new ideas for spreading the good news of Jesus. That's what I was hungering for. So I'll contribute my own weird and wacky idea instead. Many Australians love going to live sporting events. There's plenty of God-loving-Catholics who rush home after Mass to watch the footy on TV. So if you have a youth group, a Cursillo group, a covenant community group etc, that has lots of sports loving members, consider this:

Make a group booking at a sporting event. Get yourselves matching T-shirts to wear (a slogan like 'Ask me about Jesus' on them or similar would be good). Sit together. Be clued up before you go as to how to act if unusual things transpire. For example, if a fight starts on the field, you all drop to your knees and pray for peace and reconciliation; if a player gets injured, you drop to your knees and collectively pray for the injured player, his/her family and the medical people assisting them; if the crowd starts boo-ing, you sit silently and pray for conversion of hearts; as you go from your seat to the toilets, to purchase merchandise or food and drink, silently beg God's blessing on every person on your path there and back, and if someone stops you and asks you the reason for the hope that you have (1 Peter 3:15), give it to them.

One thing Pat Keady does well is underline how all renewal has to start with us, with us taking God more seriously than we have ever taken Him before. Surrendering to His will; seeking the grace and power of the Holy Spirit; spending quality time in prayer and listening to Him; spending quality time reading from the Bible and studying His ways; making daily Mass and regular recourse to the sacrament of Penance a priority.

Another thing Pat Keady does well is talk about the difficulties faced by anyone who wants to try something new to further the kingdom of God. None of us like change, none of us are real keen on being challenged, so there's both this natural battle and the supernatural battle to contend with. Kick-back comes with the territory. This is true, but some kick-back is natural/supernatural resistance and some kick-back is 'hey, you are truly going the wrong way', and you need to pray for the wisdom and humility to know the difference.

He also speaks well about the times when everything just flows and the times when it is a test of grit and endurance through manifold difficulties. Lots of people in ministry need to hear his encouragement to keep on going.

In conclusion, yes it is a worthwhile book to read, however I personally would only invite someone to read it after first sharing the concerns I have about that 10% of content with them.

Write Non Fiction In November : #WNFIN Day 20
​
Warning: enter Part 2 of this rant at your own risk. There'll be more liturgical and Catholic jargon, but hopefully some useful stuff as well.

On the plus side, our visiting knowledgeable person gave us some good reminders:

At the opening prayer at Mass (otherwise known as the Collect) after the 'Let us pray' there is a short pause for us to add in our own intentions silently before the priest goes on with the prayer – having gathered all those intentions in and transforming them into a united prayer. It is a good reminder, but most of us have shopping list lengths of intentions and there's really only time to remember one of them at the opening prayer. Practically, if you've got a long list, it has to be offered either before Mass starts, or while the gifts are being prepared (while all the to-ing and fro-ing with the bread, water and wine is going on), or both.

Are we really listening to the prayers we are saying Amen to? Because many of them promise that we will keep various commitments. How intentional are our Amen's?

During the Creed, whether we are praying the Nicene or Apostles versions, at the words that recall the Incarnation of Jesus we are to bow. At the solemnities of Christmas and at the Annunciation that bow becomes a genuflection. It is a good reminder. Remembering to bow at the right place is the hard part, but doing the bow transforms that long prayer of the Creed into something intentional and wonderful and away from rote and routine.

Now onto the less cut and dried stuff:

The renewed words of the Confiteor have 'through my fault, through my fault, through my most grievous fault' with the action 'all strike their breast'. You can interpret this rubric as one strike of the breast, but I don't think it precludes the three times that fits with the words which most people are doing. Three times helps focus my soul much better than once, and I hope they will one day knock enough sense into me to view sin in its true ugly light and do more to avoid it. For someone who loves, a single action of contrition is never enough.

Who or what do we bow to, especially if you are a reader coming up to proclaim the scriptures? Our knowledgeable person said forget the priest, bow to the altar. I've got a problem with that, and yet it isn't a simple black and white situation. How do we balance "Christ is present in the liturgy in four unique ways: These ways are: • especially, in the Eucharist broken and shared; • in the person of the minister; • in the Word of God; and • in the assembled people of God (Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, CSL #7)" with the words from the 5th preface of Easter, "Christ …showed Himself the Priest, the Altar and the Lamb of sacrifice". Note that those four unique ways do not include the altar, and yet when the incense is in use, the priest, the altar, the people, the paschal candle (if lit), the gifts, the Gospel and the cross all get incensed. On the other hand, outside the liturgy we reverence the tabernacle. For me, if the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy says that Jesus is uniquely present in the priest, then the priest gets the bow. Doing both altar and priest, or altar only, is a confusion that we don't need. All of the four unique ways either move or are moved during the liturgy, they are active presences not passive ones.

Our knowledgeable person also had a narrative for the priestly actions: at the presentation of the gifts: set them aside; at the consecration: show them, at the doxology; offer them. Low…medium…high. For centuries upon centuries the action of the priest during the consecration has been called the elevation. The newly consecrated bread and the newly consecrated wine are to be lifted up high enough for all of us to see and to adore. So no, this idea doesn't sit right at all.

The purification rites after communion are where there is a lot of grey and difference from one place to another. In a perfect world it probably should take place at the credence table rather than at the altar (like in the kitchen rather than at the dining table). But that doesn't take much account of the degree of mobility (and health) the priest has, nor the amount of confidence he has that it will be done correctly out of his direct line of sight.

Another thing our knowledgeable person had to say was that when the last people have been to communion, those dispensing the precious blood should minister the remaining consecrated wine to each other. Yes, I agree that it is much better for the remains to be consumed standing still near the credence table, than while walking back to the credence table. No argument there. But there is an argument to say that the precious blood was ministered to the 'extraordinary ministers of holy communion' at the time the cup was entrusted to them (part 1) and that any remains are just a part 2 of that original action. The former definitely looks better, and may reinforce that we don't take but receive the Eucharist, the latter is usually a matter of practicality. For example: What if the other cup bearers were already empty and sitting down, and you are the only one left. This is not an unusual situation. Do you go seeking one of them and making a fuss to get them to minister the remainder of the precious blood to you, or to coax them to have the rest of it?

Our knowledgeable person told us off for having both a brazier of incense as well as a thurible during exposition of the Blessed Sacrament and benediction. On closer inspection the thurible was there to incense the monstrance at the beginning of exposition and then it went out in procession, only to return to incense the monstrance at benediction. It was active. The brazier was a passive presence of incense throughout the whole time, indicative that our prayers were rising the whole time. Maybe that wasn't as obvious because the Mass that day had extra solemnity and length and the time of exposition was shorter as a result.

Also getting a pasting was hymn choice. The green hymn books we have for exposition only contain a small selection of hymns, and an even smaller selection of them do we actually know how to sing. The green books are purpose designed for exposition/benediction. It was a day of major parish thanksgiving, so the sung version of the Te Deum (Holy God we praise Thy Name…) was appropriate, and more appropriate at the beginning than at the end so that more people could join in that thanksgiving. Tell me how the Church's official prayer of high thanksgiving (Te Deum) is inappropriate at Exposition/Benediction when 'Eucharist' translates as 'Thanksgiving'. Is it more or less Eucharist-y  than 'Jesus, my Lord my God my all'?

'Go the Mass is ended'. Our knowledgeable person's take on this is, 'If I said go, then Go!'. Jesus said 'Go' to the ten lepers He healed, but only the one who stopped to thank Him before 'going' was the one Jesus held up as an example we should follow. The Saints tell us that lingering with Him in prayer after Mass ends is the most fruitful time of prayer, and are we to be flung straight out into the secular car park after an encounter with the Lord? It doesn't quite work, does it? Yes, I know, a lot of people have already exited before during and after the 'Go', and for reasons of various validity, but that doesn't make it the most blessed or most perfect thing to do. We all eventually 'Go', but a recessional hymn of thanksgiving sung in unity beats an instrumental solo played during a mad scramble for the exit door. I want to be one of the ones who stopped to thank Him, don't you? And to do it in unity. 

End of rant.

Moral of story: Don't be hasty in making liturgical judgements. You normally don't have the full story and there are often very good counter arguments for why things have been done in a way that seems imperfect or lacking to you. Put love in first place because the essence of liturgy is love and not the liturgical correctness that brow beats a brother or sister in Christ.

Write Non Fiction In November : #WNFIN Day 19
​
Warning: enter this rant at your own risk. I'll try to keep it as civil as possible, but I'm likely to fail. As the old joke goes, at least with a terrorist you can negotiate, but not with a liturgist.

To any reader who doesn't have a good grasp of the Catholic Mass, I apologise in advance because there's going to be lots of unexplained jargon.

Yesterday a knowledgeable person gave a talk on liturgy. This talk followed on from a special occasion Mass at which this knowledgeable person was the principle celebrant.

During the Mass things felt a little 'off', initially I thought it was just due to the normal adjustments that happen with someone different leading. When the talk began, it then became obvious that there was more behind it. Said knowledgeable person hadn't really come to enter into the liturgical celebration of our special day with us, said person was counting in detail each liturgical infraction committed in his opinion. The talk was going to be a step by step run through of where we had blown it.

On so many levels this was wrong/anger inducing.

For starters the parish had been under the rule of another knowledgeable person for many years, one who was not afraid to publicly correct and infractions immediately. It seems both knowledgeable persons are probably not the best of mates, (grudges from one about the other giving poor grades in seminary etc), but you shouldn't take that out on the people.

Secondly there was no seeking to understand the reasons why the minutiae are done a certain way here.

Thirdly there was a delight in unsettling people, first of all in the liturgical celebration itself, ie. shaking them out of routine, and then introducing confusion into the minds and hearts of those present and leaving them wondering where the actual truth is – given that these two knowledgeable persons had quite differing interpretations of them.

Above all else it wasn't done in love. If it had been done in a Holy Spirit inspired way people would have left feeling uplifted and encouraged even if acknowledging that some changes could and should be made. After all the touchstone of when the Holy Spirit has been at work are love, joy , peace, patience, kindness etc – not the negative emotions, confusion and murderous thoughts that actually happened (some were inspired during the talk to air long held liturgical grudges about each other's habits).

You see, if it had been done in love there would have been some humble respect for the liturgical culture that had developed in this place, and a desire to learn as much from what God had been doing in and through us as to teach us.

Let's get down to brass tacks and provide some counter arguments to what the knowledgeable person was imparting, and some support for the good bits.

There's no question that the option to substitute the Apostles Creed for the Nicene Creed has been abused. It should only be an option in Lent and Easter where the link with the renewal of baptismal promises is closest, not as a way to save time.

There's no question that using Eucharistic Prayer II all the time, again because it is the quickest, is unhealthy for both priest and people.

Encouraging the reading of the scriptural texts prior to Mass is always a helpful thing to do.

Questioning the use of missals during Mass was dubious. For starters, you cannot expect the people to do their part with the entrance antiphons, communion antiphons etc on one hand and then to not use their missals for everything else. That's asking them to switch between two modes frequently, and to do it successfully.  The argument put forward was that reading the scriptures in their missals as they were proclaimed was more passive than just getting the input from the proclaimer. As a parent I know that a child doesn't have to be sitting still with their complete attention on me to be truly listening. They can listen to a story equally well by playing with a toy truck or in a sandpit, and for some the story will be imprinted better that way. We know that faith comes from what is heard, (Rom 10:17) so the audio part is more important than the visual part, and if reading along in the missal helps you to decode the proclaimer's accent, lack of audible volume, or lack of spoken punctuation, then go for it. Sure the proclaimers of the Gospel would feel better if all eyes were on them, but blanket judgements about what constitutes the more or most active ways of participation aren't possible – that's something for each individual to work out with God.

This almost fiendish desire to throw the congregation a curve ball and to mix up the elements of the ritual without prior warning is of concern. The other knowledgeable person liked to do that too. How petty to take delight in seeing people scrambling to find the right page because you decided to do a votive Mass with a special preface or one of the Eucharist Prayers for Reconciliation! Yes, the desire to shake up the routine a little and give us poor sods some variety from the treasury of the Church is laudable, but not at the expense of unity and good order. To lead the assembly in worship is to desire to serve God and to serve His people, not to show off how clever and in control you are and how insignificant and ignorant they are. The more loving thing to do, the thing that will bring greater unity and flow is to give the people a heads-up as to which proper, preface, Eucharistic prayer and Eucharistic acclamation you are going to use. When and how you give that heads-up is up to you.

Posture during the Our Father: Yes, some people like to hold hands as a symbol of unity as the Our Father is prayed. Some don't. As long as it is a free choice where's the problem? Others object to those who pray with their hands partially raised, saying that only the priest is allowed to use that posture. It is the ancient 'orans' posture of prayer, how all Jews prayed not just the Rabbis and Elders. Get over it. If it helps you enter into this prayer of Jesus more fully, go for it.

The trouble with most of these liturgical controversies is that it divides people into two groups, 'the clever ones who know what to do and what not to do' and 'the ignorant ones'. They destroy both love and unity, the two things that God most wants to see among us. Such schoolyard pettiness of 'I'm better than you' has no place in the sacred liturgy. The things that we must do are in the rubrics, they are non-negotiable and yet they need to be taught with sensitivity and kindness. For the rest, let love be the guide, the kind that seeks to understand why an action has been chosen, and to work together to value the good and to together to seek the best for all.
​
There's lots more… (sadly)... but that's enough for today.

Write Non Fiction In November : #WNFIN Day 18

'There's a difference between ritual and routine'. That's a line from a talk this morning about liturgy. We'll see where it takes us.
​
If I got it right, ritual is worship that we enter into that the Holy Spirit can empower and routine is where a habitual action has become unthinking and automatic. Ritual is intentional and active, and routine is mindless and passive.

There's more to it than the 'say the black, do the red', although that is a necessary part which enables us to be in unity with those in worship across the globe and across time.

It is how you 'say the black and do the red' that makes the difference. For example you can say the black like it is a chore to be got through as quickly as possible. On the other end of the spectrum, you can have so many bits of silence between the 'say the black' parts that the flow is lost and micro-sleeps multiply. When as Goldilocks would say, 'it's just right'; then something worthy and magnificent comes into being which is worthy of being offered to God.

Being creatures of habit it is important to use the options for variety that the liturgical ritual affords us. That is our best defense against routine. Always using the shortest versions does no one any real good. Certainly our ears get dulled if we hear the same long prayer and we pay more attention to prayers we haven't heard in a while or of ones we've never heard before.

It is a very good reason for thanking God for providing us with four Gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Can you imagine how dreary things would be without the subtle differences in each of those four texts? They enable us to catch onto the words that seem a little out of place and ponder them afresh, even when we've heard the same Gospel scene a few hundred times before.

Taking our cue from God's providence in the seasons of winter, autumn, summer and spring we can see that variety in liturgical ritual also needs to be seasonal and at different layers of intensity. There has to be a difference between ordinary, and 'pull-out-the-stops' super special, with graded steps in between. Normally this is regulated with music, incense, numbers of candles, colour of vestments, and length of processions – among other things.

Yet all of these things, good as they are, only set up conditions favourable for an encounter with God. It takes preparatory prayer and the overshadowing of the Holy Spirit to enable the liturgical ritual to become the encounter and dialogue of love between the soul and God and the community and God that it was designed to be from the beginning.

Apart from the black text, the red rubrics should never be discounted, since they balance the wordy texts with actions. Every so often it is worthwhile sitting down with a few others and discussing where the red rubrics are being followed and where they aren't, and why that might be so. An annual review, as long as it is truly honest, is probably sufficient.
​
Getting it right is worth aiming for.
May the holy angels assist and help us to achieve this. Amen.