In recent weeks I have been doing a deep drive into local history. Rapidly it went from how did British settlement start in this area?: to what can be discovered about them?: to horror at how the native peoples were treated: to what was the unwritten side of the story?

The British had lived for centuries under an accepted cultural system.

The native peoples had lived for millennia under a completely different accepted cultural system; in fact you could say it was a road untraveled by any other culture.

The British and most other cultures worked on a notion of private property, and understood that this system accepted violence as a cost of civilisation. If you had something, you had to be prepared to defend it; and if you wanted to grow in importance then you had to usurp the property of others either by violence or coercion.

The native peoples came up with a completely different solution.

Instead of regular patterns of group vs group violence they chose mutual benevolence. Admittedly being human, disputes over mating rights did occur. However that is observable behaviour in the animal kingdom. What they chose was mutual survival. Part of this was choosing hospitality towards strangers to diffuse any possible violent intent.

Even now it is a difficult concept for Western minds to grasp.

The native people used what they needed from the land, and then moved on to a new location. They never depleted an area of resources. Tribes consisted of a number of family groups. Estimates for this location have a minimum number of 10 family groups, but there could have been 15 family groups, or even 20 family groups as part of one tribe. Survival depended on being part of a family group.

At certain times during the year and at agreed locations the whole tribe would gather together to conduct necessary tribal business including dispute resolution. When children neared the age of becoming an eligible mating partner, the men took the boys for initiation rites and the women took the girls for initiation rites. There were complicated rules to prevent relationships between close blood lines.

Picture an area of some 240 km2 and that would be a tribal area or country. Within it the various family groups are moving independently. Place names within country either describe geographical features, or the specific flora and fauna of a sub area, or the tribal purpose of the area. Therefore the next family group to pass where your family group has had a sojourn is most likely to be another family group within the tribe. Making sure your family group didn’t deplete the resources of a sub-area meant that the next family group to stay in that sub-area would have enough to survive.

You could think of this locality as a submerged mountain range. Which means getting anywhere other than along the waterline is going to be up hill and down dale, over rocks and timbered terrain with an occasional cave or hard rock surface. Therefore it made a lot of sense to leave tools made of natural materials where the next family group could find and use them than to carry them from place to place. In hospitality to each other on hard rock surfaces simple images of the safe game to hunt were painstakingly carved, or sometimes simple images conveying other messages to the initiated.

The other thing about this locality was the threat of flood, bushfire and drought. Anything built would either get washed away or burned away, so it truly was pointless to build anything permanent. But what was possible was working with the seasons and the locations of flora and fauna to obtain the best outcomes for everyone.

Here’s an example: In most places the tree line came down to the waterline. But there were areas that were flat, having been built up by natural sand deposits from the beach. These places were covered with native grasses due to specific cultivation. At the right time of year when the wind was in the necessary direction this flat land would be set on fire in such a way that the fire went towards the beach and burnt itself out for lack of fuel. The fire did two things: it dissuaded trees from growing and the fresh shoots of grasses after the fire would attract game animals. What this meant was that when the tribe gathered annually in that location to be together there was a plentiful food supply.

If someone was guilty of grave misdemeanor there was effective punishment. The miscreant was obliged to become the ‘first taster’ of the family group. Until a new miscreant emerged, the current miscreant became the go-to person to test whether a food stuff was poisonous or not, and if a food stuff was sufficiently ripe or not. The rest of the group would wait a day or two to see what happened to the first taster before sampling the food stuff themselves. As both a deterrent strategy and as a way of safeguarding the group from toxins it is quite brilliant.

What we often fail to appreciate is that this way of life was so successful that it didn’t need to change. It had remained a successful way of life through long stretches of drought and through long stretches of rain, through hail, storm and bushfire. It was a way of life sufficiently adaptable that paradigm change wasn’t necessary.

What this culture did do was to closely observe the natural environment. They studied the plants, the animals, the weather patterns and the landscape patterns. It wasn’t for interest, it was for survival. If you studied the life cycle and the migration patterns and eating patterns of the kangaroo then the hunt would be more successful. Not only did they study, but they used what they had learned in dancing in imitation of kangaroo and emu and through that medium passed knowledge to the younger members.

Stories were passed down from generation to generation which contained not only knowledge of the local animals but also moral lessons. On the surface they were simple and entertaining stories, but they had multiple layers of meaning. The deeper layers of meaning were only taught when a member was considered ready to learn them. This is not dissimilar to memory by association techniques.

These patterns of listening and observing the created world, and the stillness necessary for successful observation meant that this ancient culture was also in tune with the spiritual realms. Most tribes would be in tune with the good, the true and the beautiful, but some tribes would align with the darker elements in the spirit world. Not everything in the dreamtime is safe. Human beings wherever they reside are capable of both cruelty and gentleness; they thrive under good leadership and they suffer under poor leadership.

When the explorers arrived in 1770 with their western eyes they saw a natural landscape bereft of built structures; no stone structures like the Aztecs, no tents like the native Americans, no huts like the Polynesians. What they didn’t have eyes to see was a respectfully and minimally cultivated native landscape with everything needed for the survival of an ancient culture.
The description of the land as terra nullius was incorrect and wrong, yet convenient for a small island nation with dense population and many persons convicted of crime to punish. It was the first injustice upon which other injustices were perpetrated.

If not for help the native peoples gave to these strange idiots who were beginning to starve due to lack of local knowledge, the fledgling colony would not have survived. This pattern of help was repeated as explorations and new settlements began. When a convict absconded into the woods, or when someone got lost or shipwrecked, native tribes enabled them to survive.

Due to terra nullius the governor of the colony felt free to award large areas of land firstly to non-convicts, and later to convicts who had either proved themselves useful or who had served their time. No consideration was given to the what the native tribes had used these tracts of land for. The more important the ancient land use, the more likely native retaliation would be, and ancient weapons - lethal though they could be - were no match for guns.

The native population only had naturally occurring sugars in their diet from honey and berry-like fruit. Therefore the introduction of complex sugars and especially alcohol had severe effects including addiction and diabetes. Neither were they immune to the diseases that the settlers brought with them. Due to this many lives were lost prematurely.

When settlers began looking further afield than the Sydney colony there were two motives; one to find farm land with which to feed the colony and the other to exploit any other resources they found to the best of their ability. Hence the deforestation of cedar trees in the Brisbane Water area, and the commercial harvesting of seafood, particularly crayfish. No consideration was given to the impact of these exploitive activities upon the stable ecosystems and the well-trodden hunting and gathering routes of the native tribes. Local resistance was met with violence, written complaints to colonial authority, and with imprisonment and deportation. Some natives were tried for snatching the equivalent of a cigar out of a local colonial bigwig’s hands, and sentenced to deportation to Tasmania. It was commuted to two years’ hard labour in iron chains quarrying rock on a rocky outcrop island near Newcastle.

The net effect over several decades of occupation was the genocide of some native tribes and the decimation of other tribes. Since the early settlers had a very high male to female ratio of inhabitants many of the local tribeswomen were impregnated against their will and the resulting children suffered from not fully belonging to either culture. Such practices broke down the kinship bonds designed to transmit culture from one generation to the next.

The losses sustained by the native tribes are incalculable.

Sadly it has taken almost 235 years for us to begin to understand those immense losses.

This cannot have been God’s original plan.

Only the evil one is known for robbing, killing and destroying.
The losses of the early decades were followed up by the White Australia policy, and the systematic destruction of families by taking the children of native tribes to be raised in anglo-celtic families, and continued with other government policies which ultimately harmed more than helped.

So what could have been God’s original plan, and what’s behind this implacable hatred of the evil one for the native peoples of this land?

God’s plan must have been that we should learn the best from each other in order to build a completely new society based on respect for God, respect for creation, the cherishing of family life and the mutually beneficial sharing and conserving of resources.

Why the evil one’s hatred? Because this ancient culture was remarkably resilient against temptation to sin. Because it had so much good to teach and bequeath to humanity. Consider that greed, the root of all evil, did not have a foothold in this culture. Sloth is deadly in a survival culture, so it didn’t have much of a foothold either. That’s why the vehement desire for it to be snuffed out, disfigured and destroyed as quickly as possible.

Yet despite that hatred, despite the areas of genocide, the threads of that ancient culture are being slowly put back together with each artefact return, with each rediscovery of the wisdom in ancient practices and in ancient stories, and with each discovery of the gentle imprints upon the land by the ancient cultures. The deposit of good is beginning to be treasured as it should have been from the beginning.

What can we do to co-operate with God’s Plan?
​
We can ask God’s pardon and mercy upon all the sins and crimes perpetrated against the native peoples of this land.
We can ask God’s blessing upon the descendants of the native peoples of this land.
We can ask God to recompence the native peoples for all the losses and injustice they have suffered.
We can ask for God’s perfect will to be accomplished in this land.
We can work on eradicating greed and sloth from our own lives.

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.

This Gospel text from St Luke Chapter 14, verse 1, then verses 7 to 14 is used on the 22nd Sunday in Ordinary Time Year C. Frequently when it comes up in the liturgical cycle preachers speak about humility. But it isn’t primarily about humility at all, it is however about relationship to Jesus.

In context, the previous passage from St Luke for 21st Sunday in Ordinary Time Year C, was describing those who are the friends of God, and reminding us of the trials and tribulations they went through to get their seat at the banquet of heaven.

Luke Chapter 14 opens with Jesus accepting a dinner invitation at the home of an influential Pharisee. However, the missing verses 2 to 6 tell us that this dinner was far from a meeting of hearts and minds assisted by good food and drink. It begins with a man with dropsy being presented to Jesus, and since this dinner fell on a Sabbath, controversy was expected. Hence it feels like a well thought out trap, and that Jesus is more their entertainer than their guest.

Jesus, of course, heals the man. But before and after the healing He asks the assembled group of scribes and Pharisees a different question as an entry way for discussion about the Law and the Sabbath, and about normal emergency situations where the Sabbath Law gets bent (e.g. a son falls into a well).

Jesus gets met with stony silence. None of them wish to engage with Him on this issue, and Jesus must have been deeply disappointed because it should have been quite a fascinating discussion with so many learned minds in the same place. He would have been grieved too, because these men more than most knew that a rabbinical question was the starting place for learning, and this refusal indicates that there was nothing they wanted to learn from Jesus, and that their hearts were quite closed to Him.

Not deterred, as a good guest Jesus gives them something else as a discussion starter, in the form of a parable. Now a parable is a bit like a riddle, except that it uses everyday situations and includes an unexpected twist, and from that twist people could begin to fathom the purpose and meaning of the parable. The thing is, we often think of this part of scripture as pure teaching, and not a parable at all.

Perhaps, you, like me, have always envisioned a long straight banqueting table with at least 20 chairs or more, when this Gospel gets read out. But the Greek is very clear that at this dinner they were all reclining in the ancient manner. If so, please do yourself a favour, and go and read this blog post about the dining customs of Ancient Rome, and in particular how the couches were arranged in a Triclinium, and where the hosts reclined, where the higher valued guests reclined, and where the lower valued guests reclined.

The best positions had both proximity to the host, and the best uninterrupted views. The worst positions had less proximity to the host, and the worst views, and needed head swiveling when anything important took place eg. new food arriving, new guests arriving, entertainers arriving and performing.

http://blogs.getty.edu/iris/reclining-and-dining-and-drinking-in-ancient-rome/

The Romans based their practices on the Greeks, and the Greeks based their practices on the more ancient cultures of Egypt, Persia and Israel. Due to the Hellenistic era in Israel (see Maccabees), and due to the Roman occupation at the time of Jesus, everyone was familiar with this dining arrangement – and it is highly likely that the dinner Jesus went to was arranged upon similar lines.

In this parable Jesus sets two scenarios before His dining companions.

In the first scenario, a more distinguished guest arrives.
In the second scenario, Jesus suggests that the best place to aim for is the lowest place.

Most of you have had a share in arranging wedding receptions or other sit-down dinner events. Quite a lot of time is taken in working out the best seating arrangements for the guests to try and maximize everyone’s enjoyment of the occasion. Anyone at enmity with each other you wanted seated far apart from each other. Often you even work out place cards, or at least make sure all the family knows where you want each guest to sit.

The only time this apple cart gets overturned is when an uninvited guest shows up, or when someone who didn’t think he could make it suddenly finds that he can.

With the Jewish emphasis on hospitality, and the necessity of finding lodgings on a journey of several days, having an uninvited guest, or a guest added at the last minute, was far from uncommon.

In fact, this parable could easily be called the parable of the uninvited guest, or the parable of the extra guest.

The context in which Jesus placed this parable was the jockeying for the best reclining positions that went on as they entered the dining area, and this jockeying had probably even begun as each one arrived and had a guess at where he fitted on the pecking order of influence.

For them this dinner was more about enhancing or maintaining their power and influence than anything else. At such dinners among influential scribes and Pharisees lots of insider deals were done, or sensitive information shared.

Can you get the image of a group of men playing a game of one-up-man-ship among themselves to decide who is the most important person to take the best dining position near the host? Can you see that such a masculine gaggle completely ignores whatever the host may want? Can you perceive the underlying assumption that the host plays these games too, and that for them this group of men such behaviour is quite normal?

Now look back at the parable of Jesus, in the first part the host says, ‘Give up your place to this man’. It’s rather brusque, isn’t it? And it is more likely said to an acquaintance or to an unknown, than to a friend.

In the second part of the parable of Jesus, the host says, ‘My friend, move up higher’.

Therefore, it is friendship with the host that determines your table place far more than any power and influence you may wield.

To some extent, the advice of Jesus is practical, since if you are an uninvited guest or a latecomer, then it is pragmatic to take the lowest place, and not earn everyone else’s wrath for dislodging them from where they were. Far better for the host to initiate that rearrangement. The advice of Jesus also contains a revelation; because if you take His advice, you will learn whether how close you think your relationship with the host is matches how close the host thinks your relationship is – especially if your host leaves you in that lowest place.

When we think of the heavenly banquet to come, and Who the divine host will be, perhaps we will now put a lot more effort into our relationship with God, and a lot less effort in comparing ourselves to others.

Jesus also leaves us clues about how to improve our relationship with God.

Remember that He said, ‘Which of you, if his son falls into a well, or his ox, will not pull him out on a Sabbath day without any hesitation?’

What did Jesus do? He healed the man with dropsy without hesitation. This man, despised by the dinner group, was considered as important as a son or an ox to Jesus.

Let that sink in.

Consider that the vast number of recipients of the miracles of Jesus were poor, or crippled, or lame, or blind…. Consider how many miracles were worked for scribes and Pharisees.

Who was the one excluded from the dinner? The man healed of dropsy.

Who would Jesus have included, if He were the host for this dinner beyond all the others? The man healed of dropsy.

What else did Jesus tell us? ‘When you have a party, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind’.

He is inviting us to get to know the people who are special to Him, and the ones He highly values. Doing good towards whom Jesus accounts as His friends is the path of wisdom. Even on earth, if you help a friend that I care about, my heart is going to be extra kindly disposed towards you, yes?

Is any of this about humility?
Is all of this about friendship with Jesus?
​
May the Lord Jesus grant us the grace to act upon this. Amen.

Earlier this week I watched the [S]election Code movie online. It took about an hour to watch. I highly recommend that you take the time to view it for yourself – and to consider sharing it with others:

https://selectioncode.com/

If you saw 2000 Mules, this one will have around 10 times the impact upon you.
If you didn’t, 2000 Mules was about how geo-tracking and CCTV proved that election fraud was taking place at voting drop boxes in the USA. It too is worth viewing:

https://2000mules.com/

Why? You might ask. Because unless we begin to comprehend just how deep the swamp goes, we won’t be able to comprehend the depths from which God is saving us, and we won’t appreciate fully the unlikely warriors He has been raising up for this purpose.

​On the one hand it is truly sobering; on the other hand there is hope. Hope, that by many people of goodwill co-operating with God’s help, that these evils will be eradicated, and never permitted to happen ever again.

Thankfully I live in a place where paper ballots are obligatory, and all ballots are tabulated by hand, under multiple scrutineers, and re-counted whenever necessary.

But this movie rings alarm bells for any place where there are electronic voting systems and electronic vote counting systems.

It should also ring alarm bells for any electoral official who has a social media account.
​
May God in His great mercy cause the eradication of all corruptible electoral systems from the face of the earth, never to return. Amen.

The Gospel for this Sunday, the 21st Sunday in Ordinary Time Year C comes from the Gospel of St Luke, Chapter 13, and has Jesus advising those listening to Him to struggle to enter by the narrow door into the kingdom of heaven.

This reflection has been written homily-style.

Luke 13:22-30
Lord, will only a few be saved?
That’s a good question, isn’t it?
And one we all want, and need, an answer to.
Even Jesus thought it was a good question,
because He answered it with a message that we struggle to decode,
so we may as well call it a parable.
In essence the answer Jesus gave was,
‘It’s up to you, how much do you want to enter the kingdom of heaven?’
Perhaps this seems strange to us,
because we are so accustomed to thinking,
‘Doesn’t everyone get to heaven?’
Let’s look at the criteria for getting in,
and the examples Jesus gave of those who were already in.

The first criteria is that it will take some considerable effort on our part.
The second criteria is that it will be through a narrow door, which indicates that it has to be traversed on foot since it isn’t wide enough for a horse or a car, and it will fit only one person at a time.
The third criteria is that we have to be recognisably kin to the master of the house, God the Father.
We need to look, dress, sound, and act, like members of the kingdom of heaven.
I’m sure you have had the experience of saying about someone, ‘they’ve got a strange accent,
there’s something European in it,
and yet there’s something North American in it as well.
I wonder where on earth they come from?’
We can’t have an accent tinged by the world; or be ‘half of the kingdom’ and ‘half of the world’.
Getting rid of the vestiges of the world from our lives is going to take effort, isn’t it?

Jesus gives us a few more tips.
The first tip is that we don’t know when God the Father is going to decide to bolt the door,
so we shouldn’t delay any of our efforts.
The second tip is that staying at the acquaintance level of relationship with Jesus is not enough.
It is very easy to eat and drink a meal with someone,
and yet not become committed to them.
It is very easy to listen to good teaching,
and yet not commit to putting it in to practice.
Where can we easily eat and drink with Jesus,
and listen to His teaching?
We are doing that right now, here at Mass.
But are we taking these opportunities of being with Jesus,
and letting these encounters with Jesus change us?

So, who has already arrived?
Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and all the prophets.
Did any of these people have easy lives? No, far from it.
Did God put them all through a testing process before adjudging them His friends? Yes, He did.
Some had heart-wrenching decisions, some had long years waiting for God’s promises to be fulfilled, many were scorned and laughed at, many were persecuted, many had great sorrows.
All of them prayed, remained faithful through trials, and were obedient to all God’s requests.
None of them were perfect, far from it;
but whenever they fell, they got up and began again.

There it is, what Jesus Himself says is necessary to be saved.
How much do you want to enter the kingdom of heaven?
Are you ready and willing to begin the struggle, with the help of the Holy Spirit?
May God in His mercy help us all.

......................................................................................
There's a downloadable printer-friendly version below,
​single A4 page.

In recent times I have been pondering how difficult it is to tell the true from the counterfeit; and the charism from the charisma. The truth is, that I’ve been duped many times into believing that exterior-good clothed interior-good. Even though I don’t have all the answers, maybe my musings will help you weigh up your own experiences.

We know that we aren’t alone in this quest because St Paul has gone before us, referring to counterfeit apostles who were taking fees, unlike St Paul who was either supporting himself or receiving donations from other church communities: 2 Cor 11:13-15

‘These people are counterfeit apostles, they are dishonest workmen disguised as apostles of Christ. There is nothing unexpected about that; if satan himself goes disguised as an angel of light, there is no need to be surprised when his servants, too, disguise themselves as the servants of righteousness. They will come to the end that they deserve.’

St John also has a similar warning for us: 1 John 4:1-2

‘It is not every spirit, my dear people, that you can trust; test them, to see if they come from God; there are many false prophets, now, in the world. You can tell the spirits that come from God by this: every spirit which acknowledges that Jesus the Christ has come in the flesh is from God;’

Perhaps it is worthwhile to note that it is at the high levels that this discernment is necessary, not at the mundane levels. It stands to reason that you only bother to counterfeit the high stakes stuff.

On the charism side, Fr Jim Esler s.m., now deceased, moral theologian, had the real thing. When he taught, the impulse was strong to receive that teaching on one’s knees, as was the urge to honour him as thoroughly as possible, because he walked with God, and he left you in awe of God’s mercy and wisdom.

An experience of hearing Fr Raniero Cantalamessa live in Kibble Park evoked similar interior responses.

Then there is the charism of suffering which radiates Jesus, which St John Paul II imparted to us, and which a layman I knew had something similar. There’s an inner radiance in holy people like this, and a weightiness that evokes awe.

Encounters like this, with true examples of holiness, we treasure and never forget.

On the charisma side, being in the presence of Bob Hawke and Blanche was a clear example. They weren’t doing anything but standing still, but still attention was drawn to them as to a magnet.

Maybe we learn more from the ones it took us a while to wake up to.

In this category goes a high-ranking American prelate who came to a Sydney based, but national event. Well-spoken, with gleaming white hair, neat, energetic, and with some excellent initiatives happening in his archdiocese. It certainly looked like he walked the walk, and talked the talk, and yet the homily he gave had none of the heart impact or vista-opening impact expected. You might say there was no Holy Spirit wham behind the glam.

With him goes Scott Morrison, elected as prime minister of Australia on a winning smile, folksy charm, and the hope that God really was no.1 in his life. But as information about bullying tactics and WEF internship grew, so did our disillusionment.
In a similar bucket was Barrack Obama as U.S. president. He looked so suave, cool, and nonchalantly in control. Yet bit by bit the amount of anti-life legislation passed under his administration caused a complete re-think.

Then there was the cleric, unusually gifted with music, and with the kind of gentle dramatic flair that could bring an auditorium of people into prayerful unison. Seemingly completely transparent and trustworthy, and yet now serving time for multiple offences against minors.

To which must be added the cleric with outstanding oratorial and intellectual gifts, preaching the truth brilliantly but not seeing a harvest of converted souls because the hearers either detected a lack of love or weren’t inspired by the content to give God a greater place in their hearts.

Many years it took for the truth to come to the fore for some of these.

Why am I currently mulling this over?

It’s like this: I went down an online rabbit hole recently and read about someone being totally impressed with the livestreamed replay of a pastor’s final session at a major church conference. Apparently there were manifestations of the Holy Spirit to an unusually high degree at this event. Before I commit myself to 2 hours’ viewing, I thought, I’d better get some background on this highly-rated pastor. I didn’t like what I found. Uppermost in those red flags were a lifestyle which included a private jet, and the beginnings of a blog-post - which due to a web page loop I couldn’t click through to the full-length version of - but was more or less saying that patient acceptance of sufferings wasn’t part of what Jesus meant when He said, ‘Take up your cross and follow Me’. Yet this pastor had a mega version of a mega church.

….And I ended up with a lot of questions:
How many of these manifestations of the Holy Spirit were true and how many were counterfeit?
How is it that God can seemingly work so powerfully through a red-flagged person?
How many of those who experienced manifestations of the Holy Spirit will produce a harvest of good?
How big is the risk that we seek manifestations and spectacular works of God, and that we neglect to seek God Himself for Himself?

Since I have seen true manifestations of the Holy Spirit, I know they are real.

On the other hand, if the evil one can counterfeit an angel of light, he can counterfeit anything lesser. Sobering, isn’t it?

I’m also reasonably sure that if what He wants to do in a person’s life is urgent, then God isn’t too fussy about the level of holiness of the means, as long as the means gets the person’s heart to open sufficiently for Him to act.

What else is certain is Romans 11:29: ‘God never takes back His gifts or revokes His choice.’

Which means that true charisms can be operating in someone, albeit at a lower and more mangled level if their lives aren’t corresponding to the degree of holiness necessary to match the charism.

This is rather amazing, because a friend of mine who operated in the word of knowledge charism said that the more her soul had been cleansed by repentance and confession, the more easily this charism flowed.

So what’s the bottom line?

Firstly, that we need to take seriously the need to pray for discernment; and I daresay to pray daily.

Secondly, that whenever we come across someone who appears to be operating in a charism of a higher order than average, that we then have a duty to pray for this person.
Here’s why: If they are already good, prayers will both defend them and help them to become even more effective in God’s service. If they are not so good, and yet they are having this level of impact, imagine how immeasurably greater that impact would be if they grew in goodness. Since often we don’t know if they are at the level of goodness which God desires for them, it makes sense to not bother too much about ascertaining this situation, and to bother instead about praying for them.

Will I watch that conference session video? Probably not.
I’d prefer to spend the limited time I have on content with a better track record of holy sources. But I can’t say never, because at some point in the future God may indicate that He wants me to watch it.
​
You see, I keep circling back to the notion that if that final night conference session was of the ‘God stepped in’ order of magnitude, then people would be talking about it all over the place; they’d have an inner compulsion to share it far and wide, and as far as I can tell that hasn’t happened.

Some of you are familiar with the journalist Wayne Root. For the last few years he’s been a journalist whose work I will take time to read. From time to time I also share with those close to me the articles he has written.
 
This time he has compiled a very long list of vaccine related reports, with hundreds of links from online sites across the world, reports that haven't been making it onto mainstream news.
 
I was finding it hard to upload, and suspect others might be having the same trouble, so I've copied it onto a document and taken out all of the advertisement breaks.
 
It's still 20 x A4 pages long (downloadable file below).
 
My suggestion is that you read the first 2 to 3 pages, and then skip through the links until you find something of interest, go down that link, return, and then skip through till you find another link worth looking at in detail.
 
I did read through the nurse report Wayne recommends, and it matches with local stories I’ve heard from pharmacy assistants and from those who live near major hospitals.
 
Should you have been following the vaccine saga with interest, many of these links you will have already come across in your own research, so it makes this document useful as a reference manual.
 
It would also be worthwhile sharing with anyone who has begun to suspect that only carefully selected parts of the whole story have been released by traditional media.
 
Why am I sharing it, and why am I sharing it here?
​Because it is only by going down these links that you start to get a sense of the depth of the evil swamp that God is draining in our time, and begin to comprehend the magnitude of His work; and why it is taking so long to see our prayers answered.

During the past few weeks, I have been pondering what determines an authentic healthy relationship with God. Two particular conundrums have been highlighted in my life, Person A and Person B, although there are others, and there have been some online conundrums as well.

Person A has considerable time set apart for prayer on a daily basis; and is displaying devotional warmth and a noticeably higher level of reverence than the average. But has not been seen beginning new relationships on own initiative, and is very reserved in personal interactions, i.e.. a person of few words and minimal answers.

The question is: how authentic can this be if there is no observable deepening in relationships with others, and no observable outward focus in either service to others or in an intercessory prayer burden for others?

If you recall the galactic analogy, if you place God as the largest star in the centre, and yourself as a tiny star attracted to the centre, then in order to get closer to God you necessarily have to get closer to the other tiny stars; since the closer to the centre of the galaxy you are the more densely packed it is.

Person B has a substantial daily prayer routine with a somewhat regular touch of the supernatural happening.

The question is: how authentic can this be if there doesn’t seem to be a corresponding growth in reverence, in commitment to going the extra mile, and in outward focus on others. General impressions have a focus on ‘why me?’ and ‘what does this mean’?

At this point a personal stock take is necessary. Is there a daily committed time for prayer? Is there service in my life beyond friends and family? Is love and reverence for God growing? Is there any evidence of more patience, trust, gentleness etc than last year?

Person C has a committed prayer life with deep devotion, and a Mary of Bethany type focus in prayer. There is a degree of outward service and willingness to serve.

The question is: how authentic can this be if that outward service is usually either publicly visible, or at least visible to the priest, and people tend to tread on eggshells in this person’s presence lest they do something incurring disapproval and verbal reprimand?

Person D looks like they are walking the talk, have fingers in many service pies, are social to a point, and seem to have a regular prayer life.

The question is: how authentic can this be if you feel like purchasing a lottery ticket when they arrive for Mass on time or two lottery tickets if they are ever early?

Person E is a seminarian yet either comes to Mass just in time; or comes in for personal prayer early and doesn’t greet anyone. Then when Mass is over leaves without any eye contact; or heads off to a private chapel to pray alone rather than in common with others – unless the priest or someone relatively important makes a beeline to talk to him.

The question is: do they train them in seminaries to behave like this? How authentic can training for priesthood be if it actively discourages interaction with parishioners? Where is the balance between loving God and loving others?

Person F is usually a religious or ex-religious who is vastly superior to everyone else, and who can with ease make someone else feel like an insignificant gnat.

The question is: how authentic can a religious life be if it doesn’t possess the kind of humility that helps build others up, or at least treat others as befits their dignity as children of God?

Yet God loves them all, and is infinitely patient with them, always seeking to lead them along the path of greater authenticity of relationship with Himself.

Now for the online conundrums.

The biggest litmus test for these is, have they been written primarily for an audience of one (i.e. God)?

The first one is both insidious and commonplace. You start out reading reflections on a particular passage of scripture, or a written conversion testimony, or something that passes for a written prophetic word, or a topic relevant to living the Christian life. The content is useful and good until you get near the end. Then you get hit with a ‘buy my book’, ‘listen to my podcast’, ‘join my online mentorship group’ or similar. And you feel duped because what you’ve just read has been primarily a sales pitch.

The next one is easier to suspect from the get-go, and therefore easier to avoid. Because they usually have ‘wealth’, ‘prosperity’, ‘financial breakthrough’ or similar in the title. It normally goes something like: if you do X, Y and Z in that order, and exactly as I say, then God will give you everything you want. Some a little more sophisticated than that, but otherwise essentially the same. The truth is that there is no substitute or short cut for developing a relationship with God, and a relationship with God is the ultimate prize, compared to Him riches rank as dust.

After that come the ‘sow a seed’ websites, citing the scripture that says assistance to a prophet earns a prophet’s reward. As you might have already guessed, I have a problem with these. That’s because throughout Christian history God has called some to live trusting completely in His providence, only going out to beg on the streets when things are grim. When God’s ministers are doing good work, the natural impulse is to assist them. There is a significant difference between those who don’t have a ‘sow a seed’ or donation page, and those who do. With the former you know they are trusting in God, and writing as He directs, because there are no kick-backs in it for them. With the latter there’s an aspect of turning what God has asked you to do into an income stream. With that comes the temptation to write to attract donations instead of writing to attract God’s blessing; and the temptation to turn God’s anointing into a business.

The last type is insidious because it appeals either to our curiosity or to our need, making them difficult to resist. The former has click-bait style titles promising answers to satisfy our curiosity about heaven and hell, but which don’t lead us to greater love, awe and worship of God. Will you see your favourite pet in heaven? Did your favourite actor get to heaven? That kind of thing. The latter has click-bait style titles promising to do something God and only God can do, e.g. get the key to release everything the Holy Spirit wants to give you; conquer your demons and love with abandon; get success in petitioning the courts of heaven. That kind of thing. The most anyone of us can do on earth is to tell how God has worked wonders in our lives and in the lives of those we are close to. Frequently that sparks new wonders because those stories raise faith and expectancy in others. But no one can claim that they have a never-fail gifting from God. e.g. Some people are gifted by God with a charism of healing, and many do get healed, but it is always God who does the healing, and the gifted person cannot predict who will be healed and who won’t be.
​
Can God use powerfully the gifted people who are the catalysts for these disappointing online offerings. Yes He can. But approach them with significant caution and don’t make them your primary go-to websites. God will always speak clearer where the sources are cleaner than where the sources are muddied.

Here is the verse that was quoted so often at the Plenary Council, Gal 3:28
“And there are no more distinctions between Jew and Greek, slave and free, male and female, but all of you are one in Christ Jesus.”
 
It was quoted with an emphasis on the equality of all the baptised, with a view to implying that if all are equal, then all roles in the Church should be open to all people, including priesthood.
 
The equality of all persons before God is not in dispute, but the deduction that this means equality of roles is.
 
Firstly we need to remember that St Paul is writing this letter to the Galatians, someone who has studied the Old Testament with particular diligence and who is very familiar with the worship conducted in the Temple at Jerusalem.
 
Therefore when he talks about distinctions between Jew and Greek, male and female, he expects his audience to bring to mind that in the Temple at Jerusalem there was a court of the Gentiles which excluded those of gentile birth from entering the inner court. Also in that Temple is a court of the women which excluded them from the inner court too.
 
Slave and free likely refers to the freedom a non-slave possesses to travel to the Temple at any time. A slave however can only go to the Temple when the person who owns him/her permits it.
 
In Christ Jesus then, everyone has equal access to God the Father, everyone may approach Him in the inner court.
 
These distinctions with regard to Temple worship are man-made. Therefore they can be changed, and in Christ Jesus they are.
 
It is noteworthy that St Paul did not add ‘priest and non-priest’ to that list.
 
A priest has access to the Holy of Holies, and only a priest, by the eternal decree of God about the sons of Aaron, recorded in the Old Testament. That’s unchangeable.
 
During the history of Israel, God underlined the seriousness of that eternal degree several times.
 
The sons of Aaron were under strict obedience to fulfill what God had decreed. In Leviticus 10:1 we find that when two of Aaron’s sons took a shortcut and filled their censers with ordinary fire instead of the fire from the altar, they died immediately.
 
In 2 Sam 6:6-7 we see a Levite, who as a Levite had permission to handle and carry the holy things in prescribed manner, reach out with his hand to touch the ark of the covenant when it seemed unsteady. He died immediately because he had not touched the ark in the prescribed manner.
 
But the really big story is in Numbers 16. Here we have a group of Levites and a few non-Levites complaining that since the whole community is consecrated to God why do Moses and Aaron have extra special roles and not others? This is exactly the same argument those working towards a pathway to the priestly ordination of women were using at the Plenary Council.
 
The complainers in Numbers 16 asked, ‘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?’
 
Moses answered them, ‘the Lord God will reveal who is His, who is the consecrated man that He will allow to come near Him. The one He allows to come near is the one He has chosen.’
 
In effect, this is God’s choice, not ours, and this depends on God’s permission, not ours.
 
As the Letter to the Hebrews reminds us in Heb 5:4, ‘No one takes this honour on himself, but each one is called by God, as Aaron was.’.
 
As emphasis, fire came down from heaven to consume the complainers who wanted to assume the priesthood, and the earth opened up and swallowed their tents and families alive.
 
No one in Israel tried that argument again!
 
You may retort, but the 12 apostles of Jesus weren’t priests or levites. Shocking isn’t it?! Theirs is a priesthood according to the order of Melchizedek not according to the order of Aaron. Melchizedek was chosen directly by God, around the time of Abraham, and in this different non-temple order of priesthood Melchizedek offered to God bread and wine. Even more shocking, the order of Melchizedek isn’t a hereditary priesthood.
 
This is God’s direct choice, His calling, which needs to be both responded to and discerned.
 
Remember, this about God’s own decrees, not about the kind of human laws that can change from time to time.
 
When the Church confirms that she has no authority to ordain women, that’s what the Church means, ie. that this particular authority is reserved to God alone, with Whom there is no such thing as alteration, no shadow of a change. James 1:17
 
It’s one of those things that you can accept, or reject, but which you can’t change.
 
So although each of us has equal dignity before God, and everyone has access to His Heart, we do have different roles given by Him.
 
As a cautionary tale, lest anyone think those roles are interchangeable, have a look at 1 Maccabees 5. The desecrated Temple has finally been cleaned and purified, and the temple sacrifices have resumed. Much effort, much prayer and many battles made that possible. Now the threats to Israel have multiplied. Because there are threats in both Galilee and Gilead the warriors in Israel form into two groups to go and meet those challenges. But the Temple they have all fought so hard for, it needs protecting too. So a priest and a community leader were placed in charge of the remnant in Jerusalem, of the people, levites and of the remaining warriors left behind. These were placed under obedience to guard the temple and to not go and fight the enemy until the other two groups of warriors returned. However the desire for military glory tempted them, they left their post at the temple, went out against the enemy, and got completely slaughtered.
 
The role of warrior was important. The role of guarding the temple was important. Both were needed. When those with the role of guard wanted to take on the role of warrior, disaster followed.
 
Heed this, please! It is God’s choice alone who is to undertake the role of priest. If that is not the role God has given to you, then do not set your heart upon it. Only disaster will result if you insist on a role that God has not given to you.
 
If we were not so scripturally illiterate and not so lacking in reverence towards the Lord God, we would see how groundless the push for the priestly ordination of women really is.
 
May God help us in His mercy, lest we perish at the frown of His face. Amen.