Catholic and Loving it!

It's been Christmas and I've been busy spending time with family and doing important things:

I am now back. I hope everybody is having a great Christmas (it's not over yet!) and a Happy New Year. Welcome to 2008.

Resolutions? I'm going to try and go to be earlier so I can get up earlier so I can do some praying while it is quiet in the morning and there are no wives to destract me. I also want to read more, draw more, carve more and paint more and to blog more about these things. We'll see...

Reading in the Holy Cross newsletter (here) I came across the following factoid about our new Bishop...

Bishop Terry says: "Gardening is not only a hobby, it is at the base of my spirituality and the root of my pastoral methodology!!"

The root... Get it?

They don't call him Terrence the Punmaster Drainey for nothing you know.

Joanna Bogle she say...

watching a long line of communicants on this Monday January morning - all ages, both sexes, a great mix of people - I had a sudden wish to haul in some of the gleeful doomsayers who love telling us that Everything In the Church These Days is Awful and telling them to be quiet, kneel down, and join in...

...and then she say...

Apparently the bike trade generally didn't do so well this Christmas :"Lots of kids prefer to have computer games and that." Golly. How ghastly. It makes one droop.

When I play the new Zelda - Phantom Hourglass. It makes me want to haul in some of the gleeful doomsayers who love telling us that Everything in Videogames These Days is Awful and telling them to be quiet, sit down, and join in...

I expect staring at a box pushing buttons looks about as fulfilling as kneeling in front of a box fiddling with beads.

So, resolved to read more I have been reading. Not lots but while Ella was away at Stonyhurst and once Leona goes to bed I had more peace and quiet than I've had in aeons. I'm reading The Spirit of the Liturgy by one Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger.

It raises a question and I believe it is a serious question. Which way should the priest face during the mass? Come to think of it... which way should the people face during mass?

Cue scoffing. I sort of half asked why the priest switched direction a while back. We've done this one James... before you were born... we used to say mass "facing away from the people" (ad orientem) and now we say mass "facing the people" (versus populum). The only rational explanation I have been able to aquire is "you are too young to remember it so I must know best". And on an on and ad hominem. If I am wrong about this, perhaps somebody could explain my mistake instead of simply pointing out the difference in our respective ages.

Cardinal Razinger quotes Bouyer:

"Never, and nowhere, before [that is, before the sixteenth century] have we any indication that any importance, or even attention, was given to whether the priest celebrated with the people before him or behind him. As Professor Cyrille Vogel has recently deomonstrated it, the only thing the insisted upon, or even mentioned, was that he should say the eucharistic prayer, as all the other prayers, facing East... Even when the orientation of the church enabled the celebrant to pray turned toward the people, when at the altar, we must not forget that it was not the priest alone who, then, turned East: it was the whole congregation together with him."

Then Ratzinger says himself...

Admittedly, these connections were obscured or fell into total oblivion in the church buildings and liturgical practices of the modern age. This is the only explanation for the fact that the common direction of prayer of priests and people were labelled as "celebrating toward the wall" or "turning your back on the people" and came to seem absurd and totally unacceptable.

...

In reality what happened was that an unprecedented clericalization came on the scene. Now the priest - the "presider", as they now prefer to call him - becomes the real point of reference for the whole liturgy. Everything depends on him. We have to see him, respond to him, to be involved in what he is doing. His creativity sustains the whole thing. Not suprisingly, people try to reduce this newly created role by assigning all kinds of liturgical functions to different individuals and entrusting the "creative" planning of the liturgy to groups of people who like to, and are supposed to, "make their own contribution".

Less and less is God in the picture. More and more important is what is done by the human beings who meet here and do not like to subject themselves to a "pre-determined pattern". The turning of the priest toward the people has turned the community into a self enclosed circle. In its outward form, it no longer opens out to what lies ahead and above, but is closed in on itself. The common turning toward the east was not a "celebration toward the wall"; it did not mean that the priest "had his back to the people": the priest himself was not regarded as so important. For just as the congregation of the synagogue looked together toward Jerusalem, so in the Christian liturgy the congregation looked together "toward the Lord".

But Raztinger (like myself) is not a member of the Traditionalists for the Mass as a Historical Recreation of the Past Society. He continues...

It would surely be a mistake to reject all the reforms of our century wholesale. When the altar was very remote from the faithful, it was right to move it back to the people. In cathedrals this made it possible to recover the tradition of having the altar at the crossing, the meeting place of the nave and the presbyterium. It was also important clearly to distinguish the place for the Liturgy of the Word from the place for the properly Eucharistic liturtgy. For the Liturgy of the Word is about speaking and responding, and so a face-to-face exchange between proclaimer and hearer does make sense. In the psalm the hearer internalizes what he has heard, takes it into himself, and transforms it into prayer, so that it becomes a response.

On the other hand, a common turning to the east during the Eucharistic Prayer remains essential. This is not a case of something accidental, but of what is essential. Looking at the priest has no importance. What matters is looking together at the Lord. It is not now a question of dialogue but of common worship, of setting off toward the One who is to come. What corresponds to reality of what is happening is not the closed circle but the common movement forward, expressed in a common direction for prayer.

I didn't write the paragraph above. The present Pope did. He says that turning to the east is "essential". If I was a priest, I would feel the need to have a bloody good reason for disagreeing. As Cardinal Ratzinger, he encountered some objections and he covers them in his book...

Haussling thinks that turning to the east, towards the rising sun, is something that nowadays we just cannot bring into the liturgy.

Is that really the case? Are we not interested in the cosmos any more? Are we today really hopelessly huddled in our own little circle? Is it not important, precisely today, to find room for the dimension of the future, for hope in the Lord who is to come again, to recognise again, indeed to live, the dynamism of the new creation as an essential form of the liturgy?

Another argument is that we do not need to look toward the east, toward the crucifix - that, when priest and faithful look at one another they are looking at the image of God in man, and so facing each other is the right direction for prayer.

I find it hard to believe that the famous critic thought this was a serious argument. For we do not see the image of God in man in such a simplistic way. The "image of God" in man is not, of course, something that we can photograph or see with a merely photographic kind of perception. We can indeed see it, just as we can see the goodness in a man, his honesty, interior truth, humiliy, love - everything, in fact, that gives him a certain likeness to God. But if we are to do this, we must learn a new kind of seeing, and that is what the Eucharist is for.

A more important objection is the practical order. Ought we really to be rearranging everything all over again? Nothing is more harmfull to the liturgy than a constant activism, even if it seems to be for the sake of genuine renewal.

Here's the part where it gets really interesting. Here's the part that affects us. Now. Today.

Facing east, as we heard, was linked with the "sign of the Son of Man", with the Cross, which announces the Lord's Second Coming. That is why very early on the east was linked with the sign of the Cross. Where a direct common turning toward the east is not possible, the cross can serve as an interior "east" of faith. It should stand in the middle of the altar and be the common point of focus for both priest and praying community. In this way we obey the ancient call to prayer: "Conversi ad Dominum", Turn toward the Lord! In this way we look together at the One whose death tore the veil of the Temple - the One who stands before the Father for us and encloses us in his arms in order to make us the new and living Temple.

Moving the altar cross to the side to give an uninterrupted view of the priest is something I regard as one of the truly absurd phenomena of recent decades. Is the cross disruptive during mass? Is the priest more important than the Lord? This mistake should be corrected as quickly as possible; it can be done without further rebuilding. The Lord is the point of reference. He is the rising sun of History. That is why there could be a cross of the Passion, which represents the suffering Lord who for us let his side be pierced, from which flowed Blood and Water (Eucharist and Baptism), as well as a cross of triumph, which expresses the idea of the Second Coming and guides our eyes toward it. For it is always the one Lord: Christ yesterday, today, and forever.

I don't have anything to add. He has spelled it out. However, one final objection remains. When Cardinal Ratzinger wrote this book he was only a Cardinal and we can ignore him because, you know, it's convenient. Has he said anything telling us to put a cross in the middle of the altar since he became Pope?

Well, a picture is worth a thousand words...

So here's a question... Should we not be doing what the Pope does? If not, why not?

Well it may be almost a week after the event but I have now found time to blog about the FAITH winter conference at the "salt free" school of Stonyhurst. It was excellent, though as with most weekend events no sooner are you there but you are leaving!

We had an an interesting journey there as we used Michelles satnav. as she requested I wont say any more about it but we did make it to the conference... via a garden center! Fr Massie convinced us to turn up really early to help set up but most things were sorted by the time we got there. The confernce was on 'Hearig God's word' and it was nice to collect ourselves with mass before the talk began.

Now, and this is why I am rubbish at apologetics, I was going to write a lovely in depth account of the talks however not only have they merged into one coherent talk in my mind but as I was writing I realised that I was bringing in my own proofs and scripture quotes, when discussing this topic area with people. Therefore I shall not go into it (unless my CDs arrive and I get to hear them again). All in all it was an excellent series of talks on a topic which clearly many people are being questioned on at uni, I certainly have had discussions on this area as I have said. It is nice that young people have the oppertunity to go to the well explained talks by FAITH as in my day there were not even youth groups where I lived and being plunged into the icy waters of university, you have to be very in your speedy reading (which I am not) as you are intsantly asked to prove what you believe and why. Oh how I wish someone had prepared me for that!

The outcome of the talk in brief explained in depth the following, the Bible was passed down orally and was then written. Christ apointed Peter as head of his church and Peter double checked that the correct message was being spread. When it came to picking the books of the bible the spirit-lead autority of the church removed books which clearly were not following Christ teaching but also those books which supported other texts but were not adding any additional insights. The Old Testament introduces us to God and predicts Christs coming, the New Testament reveals the message in the Old and the whole bible should be read focused on Christ, as that was how it is written. The Bible should also be read with a Catechism to hand, as Catholics the we look to the Pope for his guidence on moral areas and clarity of the scriptures, which often we can find in the Catechism. We also looked at if the Bible was historically correct and many arrows point that it is, in fact even now acrcheologist are digging up areas that were quoted to have existed in the bible.

As you can see not only have I not written the tip of the iceberg but there were may other points covered... basically you missed out!

The order of the talks was "The Bible belongs to the Church" by Fr Tim Finigan, "Christ – the Key to understanding the Old Testament" Fr Domonic Rolls, "The Gospels – Historical and true" Fr Whats-his-name and "The Bible in our prayer and in our lives" by Fr Patrick Burke.

What a mass reading today, it challenges you to the very core...

1 John 4:11-18

My dear people, since God has loved us so much, we too should love one another.

Sounds easy really but it is not, everyone is so different, we all have difficulties in our lives many that we do not share with the outside world. It is difficult sometimes there are those people at work that we do not get along with or we don't like their methods or choices but that is where we are challenged to not judge others but to be an image of Christ's love radiating out, why?...

No one has ever seen God; but as long as we love one another God will live in us and his love will be complete in us.

Wow, I mean wow... if we love others, Gods love will be complete in us, can you think of anything more comforting, but it is difficult we can strive as best we can, but what does that mean?

We can know that we are living in him and he is living in us because he lets us share his Spirit.

He is living in us, the more we let God in, the more we can know Him and rely on Him, the more we are given the strength to cope with life.

We ourselves saw and we testify that the Father sent his Son as saviour of the world. If anyone acknowledges that Jesus is the Son of God, God lives in him, and he in God.

So John and his bud's saw first hand that Jesus was the Messiah, and they have strived to pass this message on and for 2000 years the words has spread and strengthened, right down to those of us who have heard the message ourselves, who have challenged it and found it to be a solid rock. And what does that mean, that God lives in you... I mean thats is pretty big since like he created the world, why would He want to live in us? Because He loves us and as any father, wants to help us, ease our burdens etc.

We ourselves have known and put our faith in God's love towards ourselves. God is love and anyone who lives in love lives in God, and God lives in him.

So John and his bud's put it to the test themseves, they believe and put their trust in the Lord, it seems to work...

Love will come to its perfection in us when we can face the day of Judgement without fear; because even in this world we have become as he is.

So then the more we strive to love each other, that non judgemntal, forgiving love the more God's love is perfected in us giving us the graces needed to love our neighbor etc. Then this means that we can face judgement day withour fear... wow, I mean without fear! and why because the more we try to be like Christ the more He works in us, can you see the loop?

And so...

In love there can be no fear, but fear is driven out by perfect love: because to fear is to expect punishment, and anyone who is afraid is still imperfect in love.

So all in all, in the long run, it seems easier to strive to love those we work with, those we meet on the street as we will not only be bringing Christ to those people but we are helping ourselves become more like Christ, and this drives out fear, we can rely on Christ for anything no matter how big or small. To fear is to expect punishment and by striving to perfect our love we can hope to find Christ with open arms when that day arrives.

Wow

Even though we try and fail Christ is always there supporting us and to have that reassurance that the more we try the better it will be, is truly a comfort I think!

Father John and Jane in the West Hull Parishes

Father John Lumley and Jane Cook will be speaking at Masses in the West Hull Parishes Group on the weekend of 1st and 2nd March (by kind invitation of Father William Massie).

Mass at Corpus Christi is at 5pm on Saturday, at St Wilfrid at 9.30am on Sunday, and at St Joseph at 11am on Sunday.

Ella and I still have no idea if we are, technically, in the eyes of the Diocese, adults or youth. The Diocese defines "Youth" as people aged 18-30 so by that count we are youth and not adults. However, during the organisation of the Christ the King Youth events on National Youth Sundays we took part and lead discussion groups as adults and nobody challenged us... perhaps we look 31?

So... Speaking as one who is technically diocesan youth I hope the adults of the Parish are able to get lot's out of it. However, speaking as one who is a de facto adult helper at every local youth event I attend I look forward to John and Jane's visit but I half wonder if they will be allowed to offer me any adult formation unless I lie about my age.

I maintain that if as the Diocesan Youth Service have suggested, it is difficult for people aged 18-30 to take part in adult events and so they require special attention then instead of categorising them as youth and isolating them further it might be better to make the adult formation people aware of the problem and ask them to do something about it.

Kids these days...

The 14-year-old modified a TV remote control so that it could be used to change track points, The Telegraph reports. Local police said the youngster trespassed in tram depots to gather information needed to build the device. The teenager told police that he modified track setting for a prank.

"He studied the trams and the tracks for a long time and then built a device that looked like a TV remote control and used it to manoeuvre the trams and the tracks," said Miroslaw Micor, a spokesman for Lodz police.

"He had converted the television control into a device capable of controlling all the junctions on the line and wrote in the pages of a school exercise book where the best junctions were to move trams around and what signals to change.

"He treated it like any other schoolboy might a giant train set, but it was lucky nobody was killed. Four trams were derailed, and others had to make emergency stops that left passengers hurt. He clearly did not think about the consequences of his actions," Micor added.

[source]

A bit late for Christmas but I like this so I'm sharing it...

Ella says: Don't blog that it's ming!

Perhaps this is more to her liking...

What she definitely won't like is this.

Less than a week ago I wrote about the book Pope Benedict wrote as Cardinal Ratzinger. In Spirit of the Liturgy there is left no doubt whatsoever that Pope Benedict considers a return to eastward facing masses to be essensial. He wrote: a common turning to the east during the Eucharistic Prayer remains essential. This is not a case of something accidental, but of what is essential. Looking at the priest has no importance.. If you missed that blog entry you can catch it here.

At mass yesterday, the feast of the Baptism of the Lord, I tested the theory. I tried to look away from Fr Massie (the Pope says that looking at him has no importance) and instead at the Cross. Mass was different.

A few thousand miles away another mass was different yesterday morning. As reported in the New York Times (Try to ignore, for a moment, the horrendous impropriety of somebody writing publically about something that happened at a mass):

Pope Turns Back on Congregation In Old Mass Ritual

Pope Benedict celebrated parts of Sunday's Mass with his back turned on the congregation, re-introducing an old ritual that had not been used in decades.

The Pope used the Sistine Chapel's ancient altar set right against the wall under Michelangelo's dramatic depiction of the Last Judgment, instead of the altar placed on a mobile platform that allowed his predecessor John Paul II to face the faithful.

A statement by the Vatican's office for liturgical celebrations said it had been decided to use the old altar, where ballots are placed during papal elections, to respect "the beauty and the harmony of this architectonic jewel."

[source]

No negative bias there then. First of all, people need to remember that in Church terms "not used in decades" and "old" are not really synonymous. I've been alive for decades remember and I am not even old enough to understand why we can't say mass like the Pope! Besides which it has been used in decades, it's used regularly around the world by many priests when they celebrate mass in private. Can you imagine a priest stood away from the altar celebrating on his own to an empty room? Perhaps that's what the NYT think happens...

Also, they cut short the Vatican statement:

That placement of the altar, added the note, implied that in some moments the Pope "had his back to the faithful and his gaze upon the cross, orienting the attitude and disposition of the whole assembly in this way," though he did not use the 1962 missal.

[source]

Anyways... the long and the short of it is this:

The Pope celebrated the new mass in the ad orientem style yesterday. So it can be done. How about I repeat the question from last time...

Should we not be doing what the Pope does? If not, why not?

Are we not interested in the cosmos any more? Are we today really hopelessly huddled in our own little circle? Is it not important, precisely today, to find room for the dimension of the future, for hope in the Lord who is to come again, to recognise again, indeed to live, the dynamism of the new creation as an essential form of the liturgy?

So why not?

Richard over at Bashing Secularism has expressed his distaste for open floor bidding prayers during the mass. I have to say, I have heard some classics.

There was the time a lady said "I would like to pray for peace on earth, Lord hear us..." and before anyone could say "Lord graciously hear us" the priest interjected "No! We're not praying for that! Let's pray for something God can actually do."

My favourites though are the ones that go "Can we all pray for the meeting of the whatever at 4pm on Thursday and can everybody remember to bring £2 for the raffle and a contribution towards a shared table. Lord hear us..."

It's the same priest in both cases and funnily enough he never feels the need to correct the latter. Perhaps bidding prayers are intended for laypeople to use them as advertisements? Perhaps the smooth running of parish events is something God can do?

I shouldn't tell you which priest or where because what goes on at mass is totally secret and we are forbidden to speak of it afterwards under any circumstances. Especially on blogs. Let's just say I wasn't in Nottingham.

Fr Z of the WDTPRS blog has posted a marvelous pair of before/after shots of masses in the Sistine Chapel.

To my (clearly far too young to understand) mind it is obvious that in one of these photos Christ is the focus and in the other he looks like a long forgotten ornament.

Meanwhile, Amy Welborn has posted a similar photo and asked for peoples views:

In a charitable, clear manner, explain what you see here. What gratifies you about the action in the photograph. What bothers you. Those who see it as beautiful, explain why and its deeper relation to your Catholic faith. Those who are bothered by it or mystified by it, explain why.

You can see the responses here. In her followup post Amy says:

As I've said before, my big ah-ha moment over the past couple of years has been the realization that most of us - myself included - have been formed to think of the Mass as a prayer meeting. A highly structured prayer meeting, but a prayer meeting nonetheless, one which emphasizes community and who we are in the here and now, a prayer meeting which should somehow be expressive of who we are as individuals and a community.

Prayer meetings are good. But that's not what the Mass is.

And that understanding is what I see reflected in the comments below. It seems fairly obvious to me - those who respond positively to the photo seem to emphasize the Sacrificial aspect of the Mass, and the necessity of the ritual and other externals reflecting that reality.

I also find Fr Rob Johansen's anlysis of this particularly interesting. You can read his full analysis here.

I'm sure you've seen the headlines in the news recently... JK Rowling's Harry Potter condemned in Vatican newspaper, Harry Potter, wrong model of a hero, Vatican newspaper says, Vatican: 'Harry Potter is wrong kind of hero'., Vatican hits out at the Harry Potter 'lie' and EVIL HARRY POTTER, BY THE VATICAN among others.

So what's the deal? Did the Vatican hit out at Harry Potter? No.

What actually happened is that two writers, Paolo Gulisano (who doesn't work for the Vatican) and Edoardo Rialti (who doesn't work for the Vatican) wrote articles about Harry Potter which were published in the Vatican newspaper. One wrote a pro-Potter story, the other opposed him. The actual true story is described in this article from the Catholic New Service (who are also not the Vatican):

Writers in Vatican newspaper debate lessons of Harry Potter novels

VATICAN CITY (CNS) -- The Vatican newspaper sponsored a face-off between a writer who said the Harry Potter novels offer lessons in the importance of love and self-giving and one who said they teach that with secret knowledge one can control others and the forces of nature.

The newspaper, L'Osservatore Romano, dedicated a full page in its Jan. 14-15 issue to the debate about the novels by J.K. Rowling. The Italian translation of the last novel, "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows," was released in early January.

Paolo Gulisano, a physician and the author of a biography of J.R.R. Tolkien, said that the Harry Potter books counter the individualism of the modern age by making a hero of a boy "guided by moral values such as the choice of good, giving, sacrifice, friendship and love."

The stories, he said, teach young people "without moralizing" that material riches, immortality and anything obtained without effort "are illusions and that what truly counts is commitment, friendship and love."

"It is not power, not success, not an easy life that lead to the truest and deepest joy, but friendship, self-giving and adhering to the truth," he said.

But Edoardo Rialti, a professor of English literature at the University of Florence, said the books "communicate a vision of the world and of the human person that is full of profound errors and dangerous suggestions."

First, he said, the books teach that "evil is good," and that violence, lying, trickery and manipulation can be positive if used to obtain something good.

But the deeper problem, he said, is that the books advocate gnosticism, the idea that a select elite can develop special powers and gifts through specialized knowledge that is hidden from most mortals -- or "muggles," as normal humans are called in Rowling's books.

[source]

Yawn. The real news here is how manipulative the press have been with the facts. How do you go from "two writers debate the Harry Potter books" to "Vatican hits out at the Harry Potter 'lie'". You don't. Unless you are looking for even the tiniest of excuses to make the Pope look like an Evil Nazi Bastard.

Our Parish, like many others, has a youth group. I have been told that Michelle runs the best youth group in the diocese. I haven't seen quite so many youth groups in action but Michelle does run a good youth group. It's got a good balance of work and play with the kids learning something and enjoying themselves. The kids are great though and while they can get roudy at times they always quiet down for prayers.

This week Michelle was talking to the kids about how the youth group is a year old now and suggested thinking about apologetics as a topic for the new year. We got some classics. The following is accurate as best as I can remember, it's not the whole conversation, just the funny bits...

Michelle: Where do we Catholic's get our traditions from?
Kid 1: Is it the Saxons?
Kid 2: No! It's the Normans!
Kid 3: It's Vikings!
Kid 4: Is it other religions?

Michelle: What would you do if somebody attacked your faith?
Kid 1: Tell 'em to shurrup!
Kid 2: Karate Chop 'em!
Kid 3: Crucify 'em!
Michelle: I think you're being a bit medieval!

Michelle: Can you name the two parts of the Bible?
Kid: Fiction and Non-Fiction

Michelle: Can anybody name some books of the New Testament?
Kid: Genesis
Michelle: What about the four Gospels?
Kid 1: Matthew, Mark, Luke and John
Kid 2: But they are in the wrong order!
Kid 1: Oh yeah! Mark wrote his first and then Matthew copied it.
Kid 4: Plagiarised it. They told us at school.
Kid 1: Yeah, we learn loads at school now because Fr Stephen teaches us.

Michelle: Over the next year we're going to be working through the Bible
Girl: Can we do a play?
Boy: Can we not!

That last exchange neatly sums up why men don't go to Church anymore.

If you don't understand this then you don't understand me...

It was confirmation group the other evening, I went along as a helper but to be honest Fr Massie has it all well in hand. After the meeting I ended up talking with a parishoner (who can remain anonymous) when Fr Massie brought up the issue of... the Blog. Much of the following doesn't relate very precisely to what he/she said, but it relates to other things that other's have said.

Our new Bishop Terrence Drainey once wrote: "older people do not necessarily have all the answers, and probably need to listen much more and much more effectively" and also "it is wise neither to idealise nor to demonise the younger generation, and to be generous in interpreting their apparent attitudes, which are often completely misread."

I would like to suggest that my apparent attitude has been misread.

Some Important Points

Firstly and most importantly I must begin with an apology. I want to say that I have not set out to hurt anybody on purpose. I have set out to hurt certain points of view. There are certain theological ideas that I see it as my moral duty to ridicule until they are seen as foolish as a flat earth because they are as foolish. However. There is a fine line between laughing at a belief and laughing at the person who holds the belief and I have crossed that line. I offer my sincerest apologies.

Secondly and also vitally important. I must stress: Fr Massie does not write this blog. I have no idea how such an idea could come about. I do know that a copy of a book review I wrote was shown to an old school teacher of mine (I don't know which one) and they said "James couldn't have written this, the English is too good". I did write it. I know this sounds like one of those flat earth theories I just referred too but perhaps a person can improve their English after they leave school. Fr Massie has as much influence over my opinions as anyone else capable of presenting reasonable arguments based on logic and facts. When Fr Massie teaches in union with the Bishops and the Pope I listen, when he tells me that using a digital hymnal during mass is a good idea I say he is a fruitcake. (There I go laughing at the person again...)

How to Disagree with Priests?

There are certain situations nobody ever teaches you about. What to do when you disagree with a priest is one of them. Some say you must never disagree with a priest, others say you can disagree but you must never say so, other's say you may say you disagree but only in private. Perhaps the fact that these things only ever happen in private is the reason I haven't had much in the way of examples.

One example I have had is Fr Pat Day. I don't agree with everything that Fr Pat says and does but what nobody can deny is that he has courage in his convictions. If Fr Pat believes something to be true, Fr Pat lives as though it is. Theres a line in the book of revelation where God says: "I know your works: you are neither cold nor hot. Would that you were cold or hot! So, because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spew you out of my mouth". You can accuse Fr Pat of a lot of things, but lukewarmness is not one of them. He stands at the pulpit and he says what he thinks and he says "I don't care if you tell the Bishop or the Pope".

On the 30th anniversary of his ordination to the priesthood he was interviewed by the Hull Daily Mail. In that interview he said:

"A priest told me that once you become a priest, you can no longer be yourself," he says. "I never believed that. If you are trying to be someone you’re not, it’s telling a lie. In me, this is what you get."

Fr Pat's example was one I took to heart. As he stood up in public on the day of Benedicts ordination and said something along the lines of "I don't think the Holy Spirit was there at all" I thought... if a Priest can stand up in public to disagree with a Pope, why shouldn't a layperson stand up in public to disagree with a Priest?

So that is what I have been doing. Fr Pat lampoons the Pope, I lampoon Fr Pat. It's all fair.

Only apparently it isn't. Apparently he's a plucky rebel that everyone loves and I'm a bastard.

Forgive me if I haven't worked that one out yet.

I offer my sincere apologies to Fr Pat if I have offended him. It has not been my intention to attack him personally in any way (reports of my doing so have been greatly exaggerated). If I have done this then I apologise.

I do not apologise, however, for disagreeing with him. I do not believe he would want me to do so.

The big day arrived and we all piled into the coach to MIddlesbrough to see our new Bishop ordained. It was very exciting and everyone was looking forward to it.

We arrived with enough time to prepare ourselves before the service began. There were three entrance processions, the Ecumenical guests, the Civic Dignitaries and the Lord Lieutenant of North Yorkshire and then the priests about 200 give or take 10 or so. The Archbishop of Liverpool introduced the celebration, it was rather like a wedding in strucuture (which makes sense). It happened to be the feast of the conversion of St Paul today, which was a marvellous day to have it on as the two great leaders are Peter, who is forgiven by Christ and Paul who is called by Christ to undergo his great mission.

After the liturgy of the word the ordination bit began... Canon Alan Sheridan read the mandate from the Holy See (See, from the Latin sedes meaning seat, which refers to the episcopal throne (cathedra) of Rome, thus the Pope). Next comes the Examination of Candidate, the bishop elect was questioned will he be faithful and constant in proclaiming the Gospel? will he show kindness and compassion to all in need? The bishop elect then lies prostrate in profound prayer and we sang the litany of saints. The bishop elect then knelt before the Archbishop, who lays his hands on his head and then the assisting consecrating bishops did the same, after this the open Book of the Gospels is placed upon his head and held there throughout the prayer of Consecration. After this his head is anointed with Chrism (strength for the task ahead) and then he is presented with the Book of Gospels "recieve the Gospel and preach the word of God with unfailing patience and sound teaching" (thats not hard then!).

The Archbishop then presents the ring (marriage to the Church, the bride of Christ), the mitre (the symbol of authority) and lastly the Braganza Crozier, the pastoral staff... this one was given by the Queen of Braganza (King Charles II widow) to Bishop James Smith of York, where it found it's home and we were grateful to be allowed to use it today, the sign of the shepherd of God's Church. Our new Bishop Drainy then sat in the Bishops chair, (cathedra) and placed his staff to one side before recieving the kiss of peace from the Archbishop and subsequently the other bishops. The service then resumed to normal with the liturgy of the Eucharist. In the Concluding rite the Papal Nuncio (Diplomatic representative of the Pope) said a few words and a letter from the Cardinal, who was not able to attend, was read. Bishop Drainey then walked around the cathedral and blessed everyone and thus the service ended.

It was a lovely service, it really felt like a group of friends had got together to celebrate rather than it all going on at the front and us plebs watched from a safe distance, which was really nice. One of the ladies I was with said "it really made me feel like part of something bigger" and it really did. The Church is just as important now as 2000 years ago and will remain to be till the good Lord comes again. It's strength and guidence just as strong. The importance of this ocassion really resounded through out the celebration and was summend up with the presence of the Papal Nuncio. The music was beautiful and several nice pieces sung. It was really nice after the meal, when Bishop Drainey went round and spoke to everyone. It was not till he had left that I realised I had not asked for a photo to comemerate the ocassion... it was like the Pope all over again! Too excited to be there and listen to what was being said... but the better side of the coin I think.

Let the exciting times begin...