The Church: a hostelry or a field hospital? Or both?

Today is the feast of St Catherine of Sienna, Virgin and Doctor of the Church, and one of the six co-patrons of the continent of Europe. It is one of those feast days the celebration of which is enriched by my having visited St Catherine's Shrine in Sienna a number of years ago.

I am reminded of St Catherine's image of Christ as a Bridge that joins earth and heaven, a way across which we must walk to gain salvation. Part of the saint's description of the Bridge is headed by this introduction:

How this Bridge is built of stones which signify virtues; and how on the Bridge is a hostelry where food is given to the travellers; and how he who goes over the Bridge goes to life, while he who goes under It goes to perdition and death.

The section of the following passage that describes the hostelry reads:

His also is the Hostelry in the Garden of the Holy Church, which  keeps and ministers the Bread of Life, and gives to drink of the Blood, so that My creatures, journeying on their pilgrimage, may not, through weariness, faint by the way; and for this reason My love has ordained that the Blood and the Body of My only-begotten Son, wholly God and wholly man, may be ministered to you. 

As I am reminded of this image of St Catherine, I am also prompted to think of Pope Francis' characterisation of the Church as a field hospital. The two images strike me as being entirely complementary to each other.

As I briefly re-read St Catherine in order to write this post, I notice too her emphasis on the Blood of Christ - in the passage referred to above, she describes it as moistening the mortar binding the stones of the Bridge. When our post-pandemic practice allows a return to receiving Holy Communion in both kinds, St Catherine would make valuable reading to inform that renewed practice.

Offerte vobis pacem - a further thought

 In my last post, I reflected on how the absence of the celebration of the sign of peace at Mass during the earlier stages of the COVID-19 pandemic prompted me to think more deeply about the meaning of the dialogue immediately preceding the invitation to the sign of peace: Offerte vobis pacem.

At that time, I also had a thought arising from Pope Francis' Amoris Laetitia. In an earlier discussion of this Apostolic Exhortation, I suggested that the pastoral programme of Chapter 8 is focussed on discerning how those in an "objective state of sin" with regard to their marital situation, but with a genuine wish to "seek God", can engage in the Church's mission of charity in order to work out their salvation. The post involved - Correcting the correction ... looks at his question quite carefully.

My further thought was that someone in this kind of situation could be encouraged in their participation in the sign of peace at Mass by recognising the deeper meaning suggested in my post Offerte vobis pacem. An enriched celebration of the sign of peace cannot replace being able to receive Holy Communion itself; but for a person whose objective situation means they cannot receive Communion, it might represent a pastoral proximation to receiving Communion. This discernment could be valuably undertaken alongside that of the way in which a person engages in the mission of charity, as suggested in Correcting the correction ...

Offerte vobis pacem

The celebration of Mass during the months of the COVID-19 pandemic has seen the absence of Holy Communion received under the form of the Precious Blood by the faithful and the absence of the invitation for the sign of peace. The celebration of the sign of peace is beginning to occur as we gradually return to a more normal form of celebration, though in my parish it is occurring at a certain initiative of the faithful towards each other and without Father generally offering the invitation. Mass attendance is still reduced compared to pre-pandemic Sundays, and the faithful are still giving attention to social distancing and the wearing of face coverings, though both of these have been indicated as a matter of our own choice.

In the earlier days of the pandemic, it was interesting to find an enhanced sense of the significance of the sign of peace being expressed in the prayer and dialogue that immediately precede the invitation to the sign of peace itself:

Lord Jesus Christ, who said to your Apostles: Peace I leave you, my peace I give you, look not on our sins, but on the faith of your Church, and graciously grant her peace and unity in accordance with your will. Who live and reign for ever and ever.

Amen.

The peace of the Lord be with you always.

And with your spirit.

This prayer and dialogue express a peace that is offered by the priest, in his gesture from the altar, towards the faithful; and they capture the essence of the physical sign of peace to which the faithful are then subsequently invited. 

As the celebration of the sign of peace gradually returns to the liturgy, there is perhaps an opportunity for clergy to offer a catechesis on the sign of peace, so that we do not return to the situation where, because it is generally marked by such a-liturgical practices as hand shakes or (in the circumstances of retained social distancing) hand waves, it is celebrated with very little real appreciation of its significance.

There seem to me to be two key elements of such a catechesis. The first is captured by the word "offer" in the invitation to the sign of peace. The sign of peace is not something that is shared in a kind of horizontal, equal way between two people. This is one reason why the a-liturgical hand shake and wave are so poor as expressions of the sign of peace; they are unable to express a dynamic of a sign that is offered by one person and received by the other. In this dynamic of offering/receiving, the person who offers should be seen as representing the person of Christ; and the person who receives should be seen as representing the Church. This gives the same representative character to the sign celebrated between the faithful and that expressed in the dialogue between priest and faithful that precedes it. This understanding alters completely our sense of what we are doing as we celebrate the sign of peace.

The second element of this catechesis is more tricky. It is about encouraging the faithful to adopt a physical way of celebrating the sign of peace that is genuinely liturgical in its character. Perhaps, within families, the father (representing Christ) might be encouraged first to offer the sign of peace to his wife (representing the Church); and then, together, they might offer the sign of peace to their children. Perhaps a bow, such as that customary when the name of Jesus is mentioned in the liturgy, could be offered first to another person, who then, subsequently, returns the bow in receiving the sign. Or, in the spirit of mutual enrichment from the old rite, the embrace in which the person offering the sign offers their outstretched arms with the hands facing downwards to place them above the lower arms of the person receiving, who in their turn reaches out with their hands facing upwards to place them under the lower arms of the person offering. 

The General Instruction on the Roman Missal (n.154) says of the sign of peace:

According to what is decided by the Conference of Bishops, all express to one another peace, communion and charity. While the Sign of Peace is being given, it is permissible to say, The peace of the Lord be with you always, to which the reply is Amen.

The second sentence here certainly suggests a dynamic in which one person offers the sign of peace and the other person receives it. The first sentence is interesting in referring to "peace, communion and charity" rather than to an idea of reconciliation (which would be the meaning of the sign of peace in those rites where it takes place at the beginning of the offertory rite); but I suspect that this is mostly read in a more social and less theological sense than I am suggesting above.

Freedom in reading the Scriptures

I have recently been reminded, twice, of a thought that I not infrequently mull over. That thought relates to how one approaches Sacred Scripture as a Catholic. The reading of Scripture within the life of the Catholic Church's tradition and teaching authority at first sight suggests a serious restriction to how an individual Catholic, be they an ordinary member of the faithful or a Scripture scholar, may read the Scriptural text. But what I mull over from time to time is the thought that, though the life of the Church does define how some passages of Scripture are to be understood (for example, on the office of the successor of St Peter and the institution of the Eucharist), these passages are relatively few compared to the entirety of the Scriptural canon, and there is enormous freedom with regard to how much of the Scriptural text can be understood. The Catholic, who reads Scripture in the framework of the tradition and teaching authority, therefore actually has much more freedom in relationship with the text than the Evangelical Christian, whose only source of the content of faith is the text alone and whose relationship to the text is make-or-break on every question.

The first reminder came in a conversation with a lady I have only recently come to know. Over a lunch break, she steered conversation very quickly from asking whether or not I was a believer via the recent decision of the Methodist Church in the UK to allow same sex marriage to asking whether or not I thought the Catholic Church would give in on the issue as well. I pointed out that the arrangements which give the Holy See an existence as an independent state as well as a universal authority of faith protects the Church at a local level from political and social influences that might affect other ecclesial bodies - even if local bishops wanted to give in on the issue, they wouldn't be able to do so. But what struck me was this lady's very brief observation that same sex marriage was against Biblical teaching, which suggested that no other authority sat behind her belief on this question than that. The lady in question did not appear to recognise an insecurity that exists in that basis.

The second reminder came in the homily at Mass this last Sunday. Preaching on St John's account of the feeding of the 5 000, a visiting priest suggested that Jesus' intention in performing this sign was to teach the necessity for the Christian life of caring for the material needs of our neighbour. Noting St John's statement that the event occurred "shortly before the Jewish feast of passover", Father suggested that St John was putting this sign into the context of the first passover, where the Jewish people were to enter the desert with the need there for them to receive earthly nourishment. Father saw this as a first stage in St John's presentation of Jesus teaching, with the later parts of the chapter of his Gospel building up in steps from this first stage. This is not the customary Catholic reading of the text and its parallels in the other Gospels. The more usual reading sees in it, perhaps particularly in St John's Gospel, a sign of the abundance of the Eucharistic gift to the Church (cf Catechism of the Catholic Church n.1335, but see also n.1397, where commitment to the poor is indicated as one of the fruits of reception of the Sacrament). There is a question about the wisdom or otherwise of offering such an unusual interpretation (from the Catholic point of view) during a homily at Sunday Mass in a parish and in the context of a sequence of Sunday Gospel readings that are essentially eucharistic in their intent; but, if that question is put to one side, the interpretation lies within, but perhaps at the boundaries, of the range of freedom that a Catholic exegete has with respect to the Scriptural text.

International Eucharistic Congress 2016: Christ in you, our hope of glory

It is perhaps because it is taking place so far away that the International Eucharistic Congress 2016 currently under way in Cebu City, Philippines has not attracted much attention in the UK. The Congress describes itself as being an occasion when the local Church in the Philippines turns in celebration towards the Eucharist and invites believers from throughout the world to join them in that celebration.

The "basic text", a theological/pastoral presentation of the Congress theme can be found here. Though I have not had time to read the complete text, it is the account of Eucharist as source and goal of dialogue, and of mission in dialogue, (sections IV to VIII) that caught my attention.

In the life of the Church, the Eucharist stands as both the source and goal of this dialogue. By our participation in the Eucharistic celebration we enter into a communion of life with the Triune God because we are inserted into the dialogue of life and salvation that began in history and now perpetuated in liturgical mystery in the power of the Holy Spirit. The various elements of the celebration engage our body, our senses, our consciousness, and our affectivity in that dialogue which unfolds enabling us to share in the rhythm of Christ’s life offered for our salvation. By gathering and forming an assembly of worship we respond to the Father’s summons to be his covenanted People. By listening to and assimilating the Word proclaimed we engage in a dialogue whereby the Father heals, forms and enriches us with his life and love, especially with the help of a homily which, on account of its Eucharistic context, surpasses all forms of catechesis because it leads up to sacramental communion.  

In a singular way, we enter into a dialogue of life with the Triune God by eating Christ’s body and drinking his blood, for responding to our prayer of epiclesis the Father sends the Holy Spirit through His Son upon the bread and wine so that they may become the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ. Emerging from the Eucharistic gathering, we are sent to continue and extend this Trinitarian dialogue of life and salvation in the form of loving service especially toward the least, the last, and the lost.  

The dynamic movement of the celebrative action, then, (gathering-word-meal-mission)makes us realize that the Eucharist is the living memorial of the dialogue that took place in the entire life and ministry of Jesus Christ but which finds its climax in the Paschal Mystery of his suffering, death, and resurrection and final glory. It was a dialogue that constitutes both an act of obedience to the Father (ascending movement) and compassion towards weak sinners (descending movement), a sacrifice of both adoration (ascending movement) and service (descending movement).

The presentation in terms of dialogue has a specific character that is proper to the Church in Asia, a timely reminder that we should not give to the term only a European/North American context.

In two respects, an International Eucharistic Congress prefigures those world scale Catholic events that catch much more media attention,  World Youth Day and the World Meeting of Families. It comes before them in time as an international celebration of Catholic faith, participation in which constitutes an experience that is deeply ecclesial in its nature, an experience in which one's own living of a Christian life encounters that others from distant parts of the world. And it comes "before" them in the celebration of the Mass "statio orbis" on the last Sunday of the Congress. On that day every celebration of Mass, wherever it takes place in the world, has an orientation towards the celebration that takes place at the Eucharistic Congress, giving to each and every celebration of Mass on that day a very particular character of ecclesial communion.

The term "Statio Orbis" came into being at the concluding celebration of the 37th Eucharistic Congress held in Munich 1960. Since then, the concluding celebration of Eucharistic Congresses has had particular Churches from various parts of the world join in communion with the Pope or one of his Legates, called a "Statio Orbis" Mass.

The word "Statio" means "station," as in "station days" in Tertullian's De Oratione. Because Wednesday and Friday, as "station days," were characterized by watchings and processions, when the faithful remained standing, the word "statio" eventually came to mean the place where the faithful walked in procession and stood for the celebration of the liturgy. The churches to which they went came to be known as "stationes" and the route to them became known as the "statio ad" (station to, meaning the procession route to) that place. Station days of that kind were once held in Rome, Constantinople and Jerusalem. Records that remain today give us the most information about such processions in Rome. Going to the "statio" was a major ceremony at one time, in which people carried all of the papal vessels used for the celebration of the Eucharist to a pilgrimage site or station church. The concept may be somewhat familiar today from the station churches of Rome during Lent.

The word "Orbis" means "circle," "ring" or "orb." In ancient Latin documents, it referred to the world. In the phrase "statio orbis," it refers to the global nature of the gathering for the closing Mass of each Congress.

When we celebrate Mass in our local communities this coming Sunday we might like to be conscious of the particular significance of that celebration.

The Sign of Peace - CLARIFICATION ADDED

I have hesitated to comment on the recent Circular Letter on the sign of peace without being able to read the text itself. An English version has been posted here, though the blog posting it has not been sympathetic to the Letter in its own comments.

I have been thinking about a number if inter-related points over the last few months, relating both to the sign of peace and to the practice of people who are not able to receive Holy Communion approaching the priest for a blessing. One prompt has been Fr Tim's post in June: The modern Sign of Peace is a distortion, a certain affinity to which you will recognise in what follows. The discussion around access to sacramental Communion for the divorced/re-married adds some immediacy to my points.

1. Approaching the priest for a blessing.
From a liturgical point of view, this does not seem to me to be envisaged by the rite of reception of sacramental Communion (a neutral point, in itself). From a pastoral point of view, it seems to be motivated by a desire at a social level that no-one appears to be left out, that everyone can feel to be taking a full part even if they are unable to receive sacramental Communion. It also seems to provide for two quite distinct types of pastoral situation: firstly, those who will at some point in the future receive Communion sacramentally (young children, catechumens and those entering into full communion with the Catholic Church); and, secondly, those who regularly attend Mass but whose life situations mean that they are not foreseeably going to be able to receive Communion (non-Catholics, non-Catholic partners, those who have re-married).

The most fundamental difficulty lies in the social sense of communion that is encouraged by this practice. It certainly seems to me a rather less appropriate practice with regard to those who will at some point in the future receive sacramentally - not approaching for a blessing in this case appears to me a better reflection of the nature of sacramental Communion as a completion of the cycle of the sacraments of initiation - than for those who regularly attend Mass but are not going to foreseeably be able to receive Communion.

2. The form of the sign of peace.
So far as I can tell, the sign of peace is always exchanged between the people in parishes in the form of a handshake (though, of course, there is some individual variation from this, say, between close family members, and my experience is limited to Europe and does not extend to the Far East, where a quite different form might be used). In the majority of those countries, a handshake is a sign that does not have a religious significance - it is the greeting that might be exchanged at the start of a business meeting, for example. A sign without a religious significance is therefore used at a point in the liturgy where the representation is one deeply laden with a religious significance.

3. A sign that is celebrated without understanding.
The explanation/directions with regard to the sign of peace in the Roman Missal only partly communicate the weight of the sign being offered (cf General Instruction nn. 82, 154):

There follows the Rite of Peace, by which the Church entreats peace and unity for herself and for the whole human family, and the faithful express to each other their ecclesial communion and mutual charity before communicating in the Sacrament....

... all express to one another peace, communion and charity.

The suggested dialogue (cf the General Instruction n.154) is, in my experience, entirely neglected, though its use would go some way towards practising the religious character of the sign:

While the Sign of Peace is being given, it is permissible to say, "The peace of the Lord be with you always", to which the reply is "Amen". 

My experience suggests that most of the clergy and most of the faithful celebrate the sign of peace as a sign of communion at a social level, and little more.

So, what is to do?

A. Restore a sense of communion in the order of grace.
It seems to me that this represents the fundamental pastoral challenge, or purpose, that practical suggestions about the sign of peace and the practice of approaching the priest for a blessing needs to meet. The "peace, communion and charity" expressed by both the sign of peace and by sacramental Communion are the "peace, communion and charity" that are given by Christ to his Church and, in the liturgical context, are given through the action of the priest ("in persona Christi") at the altar and then shared from the altar to the people. In this respect, the practice of the sign of peace in the celebration of High Mass in the Extraordinary Form is instructive, and offers a clear opportunity for enriching the celebration of Mass in the Ordinary Form.

The suggestion in the Circular Letter that Bishops Conferences might give consideration to changing the way in which the sign of peace is exchanged seems to offer a significant opportunity to achieve this. The Letter also attributes to Pope Benedict XVI a recognition of a contemporary relevance to the question:

Pope Benedict XVI, further than shedding light on the true sense of the rite and of the exchange of peace, emphasized its great significance as a contribution of Christians, with their prayer and witness to allay the most profound and disturbing anxieties of contemporary humanity ...

If the faithful through their ritual gestures do not appreciate and do not show themselves to be living the authentic meaning of the rite of peace, the Christian concept of peace is weakened and their fruitful participation at the Eucharist is impaired.

A period of catechesis in this regard seems important, if the changes suggested below are to be implemented successfully.

B. Change the manner of exchanging the sign of peace.
I think that the handshake should be replaced by the more liturgical practice of the person offering the sign placing their hands on the shoulders of the person receiving the sign, while the person receiving the sign places their hands under the elbows of the person offering. At the level of the individual members of the congregation there is therefore mirrored the offering of peace by Christ and its being received by the Church. I would also suggest that, as the Circular Letter indicates, there are circumstances where omitting the exchange of the sign of peace among the congregation is appropriate (I know one parish, for example, where the exchange of the sign of peace is reserved to Sunday Mass and major celebrations). If the relation of the exchange among the congregation to the dialogue between priest and congregation that immediately precedes it is taken seriously, then there has still been an exchange of peace. The exchange of a sign of peace among the congregation becomes a fuller liturgical expression of the exchange contained in this dialogue.

The Extraordinary Form offers an additional possibility that could inform the Ordinary Form - that the priest should kiss the altar before the dialogue with the people, so that there is represented the origination of the peace with the person of Christ represented by the altar and its subsequent communication to the Church represented by the lay faithful. See The modern Sign of Peace is a distortion.

C. End the practice of people approaching to receive a blessing.
I suggest this with two strands in support. For those who are able to receive sacramentally, or can be foreseen as being able to do so in the future, this would reduce the sense of the social in the reception of the Eucharist and enhance the sense of communion in the order of grace.

For those who are not going to be able to receive sacramentally, the promotion of a much more sacred sense of the sign of peace offers opportunity for that to become the point at which they are able to participate in an act of communion. This is, of course, a suggestion that has particular relevance to the discussion around the admission of those who are divorced/re-married to sacramental Communion.


The practical points of the Circular Letter (n.6 (a)-(d)) contain nothing that is new or has not already been said - but I have yet to see a text of the attachment to the Circular Letter referred to in (d). This is indicated as offering "helpful guidelines" to help Bishops Conferences in preparing catecheses on the rite of peace and its proper realization in the Liturgy.

And, for those who would insist on a practice of the sign of peace that reflects a social, pastoral care or congratulatory role (cf n.6 (a) of the Circular Letter), I would end with the same suggestion made by Fr Tim at the end of his post. All of these pastoral needs can be met by adopting strategies outside of the immediate liturgical celebration - greeting people before or after the celebration, arrangements for a social gathering after Mass.

CLARIFICATION
I wish to make clear that the above post does not assert that the Sign of Peace of the Ordinary Form is meaningless, nor that it is about a social inclusion only. I express the view, based on my own experience, that "most of the clergy and most of the faithful celebrate the sign of peace as a sign of communion at a social level, and little more" - an observation about the practise rather than the principle of the meaning of the sign. The post intends to suggest a way in which clergy and faithful can celebrate the sign such that its full liturgical and ecclesial meaning is better expressed; and it goes on to suggest a relevance of this to the question of the admission of divorced/re-married Catholics to sacramental Communion.

Pope Benedict XVI at Westminster Cathedral and Edith Stein

See here. I have enjoyed by fast read of this post, and will be going back to study it more fully.

Being an altar server: thoughts on an article in the Osservatore Romano

An article entitled "Un'esperienza per educare alla fede: A scuola dai chierichetti" in a recent issue of the Vatican newspaper, L'Osservatore Romano has given rise to the trouble with girls and sisters in the sanctuary at tigerish waters, and Girl Altar Servers Endorsed by Vatican Newspaper at Catholic Analysis. Do go and read these posts before reading on.

An experience for education in the faith: at school with the altar servers. My translation of the title of the Osservatore Romano article. It is interesting to read the full article and try to understand the sense in which the title of Catholic Analysis's post accurately represents its content. The article certainly writes approvingly of the practice of girl altar servers. The arguments presented in support of that approval are educational and catechetical .... they are not arguments arising from the nature of the liturgy or of the priesthood. I would suggest that the endorsement of girl altar servers is on educational and catechetical grounds, and not on liturgical or theological grounds. This is interesting, as it means that the Osservatore Romano article offers only a partial perspective on the subject.

Lucetta Scaraffia's article sees the role of the altar server as being one of

assisting the priest ... to assist closely, or better, to collaborate directly in the central mystery of our faith....

To be an altar server has always been seen, in fact, as a service but also as a privilege because it leads to the heart of the liturgical celebration, to the space of the altar, to direct contact with the Eucharist.

I do find attractive in the article a very strong sense of the high value to be placed upon the ministry of the altar server.

But the author's key context for understanding the role of the altar server is to place it within the wider context of catechesis or education for the faith, and the two key sentences from the article make for interesting reading. I have added bold, not for emphasis, but to connect to my comments that follow:

To be an altar server constitutes a profound and responsible way of living one's Christian identity, an experience that has no equal, that is distinctive compared to the reading of Scripture or from attending catechism classes, even though these are without doubt central moments of a Catholic education ....

The exclusion of girls from all of this [service at the altar], for the only reason that they are of the feminine sex, always weighs heavily and has signified a profound inequality at the centre of Catholic education, which luckily has been cancelled for several decades.

There seems to me an implicit suggestion in the first paragraph that being an altar server is in some way a key expression of the Christian identity of the person who serves, a key expression of their lay identity since they are not priests or deacons. It is certainly a great privilege, but I do think we need to be cautious in considering it an expression of lay Christian identity. Those boys who do not serve might well still live a Christian life in another way, so, if being an altar server is to be seen as a form of Christian identity, it must be a form that is accepted as not being universal, even among boys.

The second paragraph clearly puts the argument for girl altar servers in the context of its educational value [though the author does subsequently observe that the removal of the ban on girl altar servers ended once and for all any attribution of impurity to their sex]. I don't think the question was ever one of the exclusion of girls simply being because they were girls; it related to the sign value of the male altar server in relation to the male priest, a theological/liturgical discussion that is not pursued one way or the other in the Osservatore Romano article.

It is certainly the case that serving at the altar represents an opportunity to grow in knowledge and understanding of the liturgy, and the good pastoral priest or MC will make use of this opportunity on behalf of their servers. Allowing girls to serve at the altar does, as Lucetta Scaraffia points out, give them an access to this same educational opportunity that was previously only available to boys. It also represents an interesting situation when a priest comes to talk about vocations with his altar servers. That conversation can no longer be limited to the vocation to the ordained priesthood, but now needs to be broadened out to include the possibilities of religious life, possibilities that are open to both boys and girls. I think this would lead to an education in a wider sense of the liturgy, that is not limited to just the celebration of Mass, but which embraces a sense of the celebration of saints feast days, of the liturgical seasons and of a sense of private prayer in relation to liturgical prayer.

But serving at the altar is not the only way in which this type of closeness to and growth in knowledge of the liturgy can be achieved. Taking part in a liturgical choir is another way of doing this. At one time, I attended Mass in a parish where most of the altar servers at the family Mass on a Sunday were boys, and most of the choir were girls. Times of Eucharistic Adoration can also be used to allow children to come up close to the altar, to achieve a sense of closeness without it constituting service at the altar. These are ways equally accessible to girls and boys.

Catholic Analysis and tigerish waters offer some other thoughts around this article. As far as tigerish waters observations on suitable dress in the sanctuary is concerned - my smart sanctuary wear (I don't usually have need to wear it at all now) used to take a good hour to press before a major Solemnity, so I think the ladies are getting away lightly with their linen tabards!

Ages

An informal suggestion has been made, on the grounds I think that children are gaining intellectual maturity at a younger age than in the past, that they should be able to receive Holy Communion for the first time before the currently typical age of seven years.

My own diocese has a "new policy" with regard to the Sacrament of Confirmation. I haven't been able to check this on the diocesan website, and nothing seems to have been done to communicate it to the ordinary faithful. The recent change of practice in two nearby parishes has been to move the age at which the Sacrament is conferred from 14+ to 16+ (ie second year in the 6th Form). I assume therefore that the new policy involves raising the age of Confirmation in this way. There is also a greater emphasis on the young people who wish to be confirmed expressing their own interest in receiving the Sacrament, rather than being encouraged to receive it by parents or receiving it just as a matter of course.

Is it in accordance with the nature of the Sacrament to lower the usual age for receiving Holy Communion for the first time?  The expected conditions are that the person receiving the Sacrament has reached the "age of reason" (ie that they are able to understand Who it is they receive in Holy Communion), that they have been suitably prepared and that they are not impeded from receiving the Sacrament due to grave sin (first reception of the Sacrament of Penance before first Holy Communion contributes to this last). As a Sacrament of Initiation, anyone who is suitably disposed (ie who shows a basic level of good will and understanding) should be able to receive the Sacrament; a sense of life commitment, though hoped for, is not a necessary condition for the Sacrament. It might well be the case that a lower age meets these conditions.

But would it make sense to raise the age of Confirmation at the same time? Again, as a Sacrament of Initiation, Confirmation should not have a sense of life commitment set as a condition for conferring the Sacrament. It might be hoped for, but should not be defined as a necessity; a basic level of good will and understanding should, in my view, suffice. Much of the justification of a raised age for the Sacrament of Confirmation is that young people often lapse after receiving the Sacrament, that asking of them a greater commitment and offering the Sacrament at a later time, will mean that those receiving the Sacrament are less likely to lapse since they will have a greater commitment to what they are doing.

I have three comments on this idea of raising the age of Confirmation. The first is that, to be consistent, the same logic could apply to first reception of Holy Communion, and perhaps should do so with a much greater seriousness given the nature of the Sacrament as the Body and Blood of the Lord. The second comment is that, in the theological understanding of the order of the Sacraments of Initiation, the reception of Holy Communion is the completion of the three Sacraments; and so Confirmation should come before first Holy Communion (cf the practice of Salford Diocese, introduced a good number of years ago now). Thirdly, the range of vocational commitments in the life of the Church (religious life, marriage, priesthood, consecrations and promises in lay movements) are all presented as the living out in a particular way of the consecration received in Baptism and Confirmation. In other words, while some seriousness in trying to live the Christian life may be appropriate as part of the goodwill towards the Sacrament, "commitment" per se is not an expectation ahead of receiving the Sacrament of Confirmation.

So, if the age for receiving first Holy Communion is going to be lowered, and one can see the case for that,  I would be in favour of lowering the age for Confirmation as well. The problem of young people leaving the practice of their faith is not one caused by the age of Confirmation; it is caused by weak catechesis and spiritual formation. If you want to keep young people practising, it is those weaknesses that need to be addressed. Tinkering with the age of Confirmation is not going to solve the problem of lapsation.

Communion under both kinds and EMHC (2): lay ministers of Holy Communion

In the current edition of the Diocesan Directory for my own diocese of Brentwood is a section headed "Guidelines for Ministers of Holy Communion". These guidelines were revised by the Bishop in 2005. One might reflect on the absence of the words "special" (used in the instruction Immensae Caritatis that gave legislative permission for lay people to be commissioned as ministers of Holy Communion and to which the guidelines make reference in their first paragraph) or "extraordinary" (used in the revised 2002 General Instruction on the Roman Missal) in this title. Most of the guidelines set out the practical provisions to be followed in the diocese, and, as such, are quite reasonable.

The one paragraph in the guidelines that refers to Communion under both kinds is as follows:

Holy Communion has a fuller form as a sign when it is distributed under both kinds. For in this form the sign of the Eucharistic banquet is more clearly evident and clear expression is given to the divine will by which the new and eternal Covenant is ratified in the Blood of the Lord, as also the relationship between the Eucharistic banquet and the eschatological banquet in the Father's Kingdom (General Instruction on the Roman Missal n.281).
Now that we have had the experience of Communion under both kinds for a good number of years, made possible by Ministers of Holy Communion, I would like to re-emphasise that this should be the norm at all Masses.

In the context, the reference to Ministers of Holy Communion is to commissioned lay ministers, and there can be no doubt about this being the intended reference.

Now, as I suggested in my first post in this series, there is every reason to encourage the reception of Holy Communion under both kinds.

The use of lay ministers to achieve this, however, gives rise to a set of considerations in addition to those relating to the nature of Communion under both kinds itself. These considerations are about the nature of the ordained ministries of the priest, deacon and bishop as ministers of the Eucharist to others. They are the "ordinary" ministers of the Eucharist. In other words, distributing Holy Communion to the faithful, be that during the celebration of the Liturgy itself or in circumstances outside the Liturgy, or leading a Eucharistic celebration outside Mass, relates to and arises from their office in the Church as ordained ministers; it is a proper part of their ministry. When a lay person undertakes a Eucharistic ministry of this type, they do so in an "extraordinary" or "special" way. It is not something that relates to or arises from their office as lay people in the Church; instead, it is an assistance to the ministry that is proper to the priest, deacon or bishop undertaken, as the instruction Immensae Caritatis suggests, so that access to Holy Communion does not become impossible or excessively difficult for the lay faithful.

Now, the word "ordinary" does have an everyday meaning in addition to its technical meaning with regard to different ministries in the Church. Something is "ordinary" when it happens regularly, frequently or, indeed, all the time. Now, in Brentwood diocese (and, I expect, in many other English dioceses) the use of lay ministers to distribute Holy Communion is "ordinary" in this second sense though "extraordinary" in the first sense. This every day use of lay ministers does act as a counter-sign, a kind of going against the sign-value of the office of the ordained ministry with regard to the Eucharist. Expressing this in traditionalist terms, some would talk about the hands of the priest being anointed or consecrated in order to handle the Body and Blood of the Lord, and therefore the lay faithful should not handle them or, the sacred vessels. This counter-sign to the office of the priest or deacon is why many, and not all of us traditionalist by any means, prefer not to receive under both kinds when doing so involves receiving the Precious Blood from a lay minister.

There are situations where the use of lay ministers is quite understandable - taking Holy Communion to the sick and housebound or in situations of genuinely large Mass attendance, for example. But I do find it a bit ironic that, in many situations, the positive sign-value of Holy Communion under both kinds provides a basis, by the use of lay ministers, for undermining the sign-value of the office of the ordained minister with regard to the Eucharist. It would be very helpful if something could be done to deliver a better balance between these two sign-values in pastoral practice. I offer some suggestions below, based on the principle that lay ministers are only used in a way that is clearly "extraordinary".

1. At a weekday Mass in many parishes, the numbers receiving Holy Communion are actually small enough to allow the following practice. The celebrating priest could distribute the Sacred Host to the faithful and then the Precious Blood - either by the faithful queueing a second time to receive from the chalice (after all, this is what they do when a lay minister is used) or by them forming a line across the front of the Church and the priest going along the line once with the Sacred Host and a second time with the Precious Blood. When lay ministers are used to assist with the larger numbers at Sunday Mass there is some sense of the "extraordinary" nature of that assistance. Both of the sign-values are in play, and can be the subject of suitable catechesis in the parish.

2. At any celebration of Mass, the practical provisions of nn.162-163 of the revised (2002) General Instruction on the Roman Missal with regard to lay ministers could be observed. These provisions expect the lay ministers to only approach the sanctuary after the celebrating priest has received Holy Communion, to themselves receive Communion and then to assist with distributing Communion to the faithful. Purification of the sacred vessels and the transfer of the ciborium to and from the tabernacle are to be carried out by the priest or deacon. The required assistance in distributing Holy Communion is provided, but nothing more - the assistance can be seen to be "extraordinary" and only to meet the necessity.

3. In situations where lay ministers play a large role in Eucharistic ministry - in taking Holy Communion to the sick or housebound, or in arranging times of Eucharistic adoration or celebration outside of Mass - priests should keep a visible participation in this ministry. Lay people might well take a lead in the practical arrangements, but priests should not be absent. The activity of the lay faithful does not relieve priests of their own ministry in these respects, though clearly the precise circumstances will vary from parish to parish.

Communion under both kinds and EMHCs (1): Communion under both kinds

In the development of the Liturgical life of the Church in England and Wales there are two questions that have been, in practice, interrelated but are often treated distinctly. One of the questions is that of Holy Communion being received under both kinds and the other is that of the use of lay people as ministers of Holy Communion. I think I am right in suggesting that my experience - that the receiving of Communion under both kinds has been a major driver in the expansion of the use of lay people as ministers of Communion during the celebration of the Liturgy - is not untypical.

Much comment on this focusses around the question of Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion, which I reserve to the second of these posts. However, the other aspect is that of the Liturgical meaning of Holy Communion received under both kinds, and that is what I would like to discuss in this post.

Two preliminaries should perhaps be recognised. The first is that the priest celebrant always has received Communion under both kinds, so one can see a restricted sense in which receiving under both kinds is always "intrinsic" to the celebration of Mass, even when the people only receive under one kind. The second is the teaching of the Council of Trent, referred to by the General Instruction on the Roman Missal n.282, that Christ, whole and entire, is received under one kind only, so that a person who receives only under the form of the Sacred Host does not "lose out" in terms of the grace of Holy Communion. The General Instruction is explicit in identifying the value of Communion received under both kinds as lying in its sign value, receiving under both kinds being "a fuller form as a sign" (n.281); and in encouraging the practice of receiving under both kinds (n.282):

...the faithful should be encouraged to seek to participate more eagerly in this sacred rite, by which the sign of the Eucharistic banquet is made more fully evident.

So what are the different parts that make up this value of Communion under both kinds as a "fuller form as a sign"?

1. "This is the Lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the world". The invitation to Communion draws attention, through its reference to the Lamb whose Blood is shed, to the Scriptural roots of the sign value of Communion under both kinds. To briefly describe three moments in this Scriptural rooting of the sign value of Holy Communion received under both kinds ...

It is the blood of the Passover lamb, painted on the door of their houses, that saves the people of Israel from the destruction of the first born in Egypt (Exodus 12:1-14): "Some of the blood must then be taken and put on the two doorposts and the lintel of the houses where it is eaten".

St Paul teaches the reconciliation of the Jews and the pagans in terms of the blood of Christ: "... you that used to be so far apart from us have been brought very close by the blood of Christ .." (Ephesians 2:11-18); and St John, in his account of the Passion, lays great emphasis on the blood and water that flow from the side of Christ: "..This is the evidence of one who saw it - trustworthy evidence .." (John 19:33-37).

And the book of Revelation offers us the image of the saints in heaven, worshipping he Lamb in the Eucharistic banquet of heaven: "... because they have washed their robes white again in the blood of the Lamb, they now stand in front of God's throne and serve him day and night in his sanctuary..." (Rev.:7:9-17).

2. The tradition of the Church also offers examples of a recognition of the salvific meaning of the blood of Christ. There is the reading from the instructions of St John Chrysostom to catechumens used at the Office of Readings on Good Friday. St Catherine of Siena's Dialogue also speaks frequently of the blood of Christ: "How was heaven opened? With the key of His Blood .."

3. From an ecclesial point of view, there are three reflections that can be added to these Scriptural and historical dimensions. The washing from sin that is represented in the Blood of Christ, and is an aspect of the grace of receiving Holy Communion is also represented in the washing with water of the sacrament of Baptism. Receiving under both kinds brings out more clearly the way in which the Eucharist is the "destination" to which the other sacraments of initiation lead; it reminds us of the baptismal character of Eucharistic communion. The second reflection is suggested by the General Instruction on the Roman Missal (n.281) - receiving under both kinds gives a clearer expression of the way in which "the new and everlasting covenant is ratified in the blood of the Lord". It draws our attention to the covenantal nature of Christ's sacrifice on Calvary and the covenantal nature of the Eucharistic celebration. The third reflection is also suggested by the General Instruction (n.281) - receiving under both kinds gives a clearer expression of the relationship between the banquet of the Eucharist celebrated in the world of today and the eschatalogical banquet in which we will take part in the future in heaven. The language of the General Instruction is that of "banquet" and not of "meal" - trying to draw attention to its sacral nature rather than reducing it to the mundane and every day, pointing us towards heaven from earth. These ecclesial reflections are, of course, rooted in the Scriptural considerations already referred to above.

If these ecclesial reflections are taken seriously, they bring to the fore the profoundly sacral, indeed heavenly, nature of Holy Communion.

Whilst all of this suggests that we should be keen to receive Holy Communion under both kinds when the circumstances allow, it leaves us still with the question of the appropriateness of using lay ministers as the way of making this possible. And it leaves, too, the question of doing this in such a way that the due sacredness, emphasised by the underlying meaning of receiving Communion under both kinds, is actually reflected in the practice. These questions are for my second post, but one can perhaps finish this post by asking: does the way in which priests in parishes make provision for Communion under both kinds, and the disposition of the lay faithful as they receive Communion under both kinds, as a general rule, reflect the reality outlined above?

Anglican contrasts

This weekend has seen the vote in the Church of England Synod that may prove decisive for many in that church's Catholic wing. Narrowly, a compromise provision that would have allowed some sort of place for those opposed to the ordination of women as bishops was defeated.

Within the last ten days I have, by accident of circumstances and not by any deliberate intention, encountered directly the contrast between the liberal and the Catholic aspects of the Church of England. That both encounters took place at locations within a mile of each other just makes the contrast more poignant.

The first encounter was at an Anglican celebration of baptism, confirmation and holy communion. I had been invited by a neighbour who was being confirmed. In his homily, the celebrant (Rt Rev Keith Newton, Bishop of Richborough) spoke strongly, and with a conviction that would have done a Roman Catholic priest proud, about the real presence of Jesus in the eucharistic species. His prompt was the occasions when he saw notices in Church of England parishes during the swine flu scare that "the wine would not be given". After the words of consecration, it is no longer bread and wine, but the body and blood of Jesus Christ! My exclamation marks here are an attempt to reflect the emphasis communicated by the celebrant's body language as he emphasized this point. And then emphasized it again.

The second encounter was part of a session on care for patients of different faiths in a hospital context. At one point an Anglican priest was talking about the distinction between Sunni and Shia traditions in Islam, and the hostility that exists between them. This he could not understand; but he drew a comparison to the persecutions that existed between different Christian denominations at the time of the Reformation. For him it was a nonsense that Christians should have killed each other over the question of whether or not it was the body and blood of Christ or just bread and wine. One might want to agree that killing each other over questions of doctrine is now, with the benefit of hindsight, a matter of some regret. But the suggestion implied here that the question of belief or not in the real presence of Jesus Christ as the Eucharist doesn't matter ... that is doctrinal indifferentism of the highest order. For those on the Roman Catholic side who died rather than renounce their faith in the doctrine of the Eucharist and in the unity of the Church, the difference really did matter.

The challenge being posed by the ordination of women as bishops in the Church of England is not unrelated to this question about the real presence; the same challenge was posed by the ordination of women as priests, though that challenge could be averted for traditionalists in some degree by the provision of alternative episcopal oversight for those Anglican parishes that did not accept the ministry of women priests. Both questions have their roots in how priesthood, and therefore the Church, is understood.

Whether the events at the General Synod bring nearer the creation of an Ordinariate under the provisions of Anglicanorum Coetibus has yet to be seen. They do perhaps call on us to renew the commitment of prayer on behalf of those who now have to discern their way forward in this situation.

PS. A wake up call can be found here.

Commissioning the chief cook and bottle washer (or, doesn't baptism suffice?)

Among the suggestions for how parishes might prepare for and participate in the forthcoming visit of Pope Benedict to the UK is one about holding a service of commissioning, perhaps at the priniciple Mass on the Sunday before the visit or at an occasion specifically for that purpose, of those from the parish who are going to attend one of the events with Pope Benedict.

The parishioners who do attend a main event will do so as parish representatives. Perhaps pencil in a prayer and commissioning time during the Sunday Mass or on a week day preceding the Pope’s arrival? This will provide an opportunity for parish representatives to be sent to a Papal event with the love and prayer intentions of the whole parish. Attendees could in turn be invited to share their experiences (testimony) and photographs with parishioners the following Sunday.

What's the problem with "commissioning"?

As practised in parishes here in the UK, this usually involves one of two things. Either a lay person is being "commissioned" to take on a role as an "extraordinary" minister (ie to take on a task that properly belongs to the ordained ministry, but which they will take on to help out the ordained ministry) - in which case the "commissioning" is probably inappropriate because it gives the impression that this task is somehow proper to the lay state when in fact it isn't. Or a lay person is being "commissioned" to take on a responsibility that is proper to their lay state - in which case "commissioning" is probably inappopriate because the mission received by the lay faithful in baptism and confirmation is sufficient as the basis for the taking up of that task (this a big theme of Vatican II's thought on the lay apostolate).

In both of these cases, a lay person acts in unity with the parish priest and bishop, and perhaps "commissioning" has some meaning in that sense. But I can think of many a thing that I have done over the years in unity with a parish priest without it occuring to anyone to "commission" me to do it ...

So my first question about the suggestion of commissioning people to go to Papal events is: surely the mission received in baptism and confirmation suffices?

What's the problem with "parish representatives"?

The Successor of St Peter is the universal pastor of the Catholic Church, and the aspect of Pope Benedict's visit that is "pastoral" is an exercise of this office as universal pastor. One language for this office as universal pastor is to see it as a universal jurisdiction, though one that is exclusively ecclesial and not political. But this universal pastoral office is exercised in a relation to the local pastoral office of the bishop. It is events like the Year for Priests that has just ended, the Year of the Rosary and the Year of the Eucharist that best represent the way in which an exercise of a univeral pastoral office by the Pope (it is the Pope who called these different years of celebration into being) in a relation to the local pastoral office of the bishop (the years have been celebrated by events in the local dioceses) has come to take place.

In this sense, strictly pastoral rather than just juridical, every Catholic, by virtue of their communion with their parish/diocese and therefore the universal Church, can see themselves as being under the universal pastoral care of the Successor of St Peter. This doesn't mean that they can play off their love for the Pope over and against their Bishop - the two loyalties exist in a relation to each other. But it does mean that their being a part of the universal care of Pope Benedict when he comes to the UK in September is not something delegated to them by their parish or diocese - it is something that is proper to them simply as being a Catholic in communion with their parish/diocese and the Holy See.

Now, practical arrangements might well make it necessary for the events at which Pope Benedict is present to be all-ticket, and some way of allocating tickets more or less fairly to people is a consequence of that. Using dioceses and parishes as the structures through which to do that allocation is as likely to be as fair as any other way.

But I am afraid I do not buy into the premise underlying the idea of "commissioning" that those who are allocated tickets through their parish are therefore "representatives of the parish".

My second question about people being "commissioned" to attend Papal events is: aren't they going simply as Catholics - perhaps Catholics a bit more lucky than others - and isn't it their communion with the Catholic Church that suffices as their basis for going to be with the Pope?

Postscript

Regardless of parish shenangins, I suspect that a lot of us who don't have tickets will in any case exercise our status as baptised and confirmed Catholics and simply go off to London on the Saturday to catch our glimpse of Pope Benedict XVI and to cause as much traffic chaos (totally peacefully, of course) as we can. I just dare Transport for London to try closing down most of the tube network on that particular day!

Apology

.... to any chief cooks and bottle washers to whom this post has given offence. Vitriolic comments (within reason) will be published and penance done (eventually)!

Preparing for First Holy Communion

I recently came across - and not by any means for the first time - an approach to first communion catechesis focussed on the Eucharist as a "special meal". Now, I can see how the idea of analogy (both in its theological/philosophical sense and in its pedagogical sense) can justify the approach described below, in which we move from our every day understanding of meals towards an understanding of the Eucharist as "heavenly banquet". Except that you will notice in the presentation below - quoted verbatim - the analogy isn't actually followed through to anywhere near that level. To follow it through would also need an implementation of that aspect of the philosophical/theological idea of analogy that expresses the difference from the analogue to the reality. It could be done, if one wanted, but I think experience of the practice of this style of catechesis is that it isn't.

MEALS ~ EUCHARIST
This second topic Meals is the centre and heart of the R.E. programme, Here I Am. Your child(ren) will begin to recognise how meals are a special way of sharing life together. That will help them understand how the Mass is Jesus’ special meal which is shared by the parish family. In the Eucharist, (a word that means thanksgiving and is another way of speaking about the Mass), Jesus shared his life and love with us. He is the bread of our life.


Help at home

When you are at Mass ask your child(ren) if they notice the signs that they are at a very special meal, e.g. table, candles, etc. Help them to pay special attention to the Consecration at Mass and encourage them to say a special thank you prayer for the gift of Jesus whom they receive at Mass, e.g. Jesus I love you and thank you very much for giving me yourself in Holy Communion

In this context, I was very interested in this post at In hoc signo vinces. I have for some time thought that there is another reason for the inadequacy of this "special meal" approach to catechesis on the Eucharist. When one reads books like Louis Bouyer's Eucharist or the same authors Life and Liturgy, which study the historical origins of the Church's liturgy in the different rites of the Church, it becomes apparent that the structure of the Eucharistic Liturgy - the prayers, use of Scripture, etc - can be traced back to the liturgy of the Jewish synagogue and temple, and to the texts of both Old and New Testaments. Even the notion of the "assembly" as the gathering of the people to worship God, and just possibly open to analogy of the "special meal", has its comparators in several Old Testament accounts of the calling together of the Jewish people to hear the word of God spoken to them and then to respond in offering sacrifice. These accounts, as presented in Life and Liturgy, really do not bear the interpretation that would be given to them in the "special meal" approach.  

The implication of all this for catechesis is that the analogical approach that is going to be taken needs to be true to the Scriptural/Judaic origins of the form of the Eucharistic Liturgy. The "special meal" is, in this context, a totally incorrect analogy to use; it is not an analogy that is actually true to the original, to the sources of the Eucharistic liturgy; it is not an analogy that actually works.

This is why the following part of the post at In hoc signo vinces particularly caught my attention:

Sir Mark (as he now is) goes through the bible taking themes relevant to the Mass (sacrfice, covenant, salvation, expiation, incarnation) and expounding on them in an intelligent way. After each of our sessions, it's quite clear the lad gets it and can ask and answer questions about it with ease.

 
This approach seems to me to offer a much more appropriate catecehetical approach, an approach that is more genuinely analogical.
 
[Amette Ley also has an interesting approach to seeing the Eucharist as meal - it is food for the life of grace in our souls - as part of an "On the Spot" article in the July-September 2009 issue of The Sower.]

What make you of the sign of peace?

A tongue in cheek letter in The Times last week suggested that, if the Church (of England) was stopping the sign of peace in the interests of helping control the spread of swine flu, then the correspondent might consider starting to attend again. And recently I had a (good-natured) conversation with a Catholic who described attending Mass in a parish other than her own - where the priest comes all the way down one aisle to give the sign of peace to members of the congregation and all the way back down the second aisle to do the same. My interlocutor spoke highly of the fact that the priest involved could recall her name when he would have known her as a parishioner something like 15 years ago. My first thought was to wonder where this particular priest had been in recent years - considering the provisions of the revised version of the General Instruction on the Roman Missal 2000 that the priest should always remain in the sanctuary at the sign of peace, and the agenda of "mutual enrichment" expressed in Pope Benedict XVI's letter accompanying the motu proprio Summorum Pontificum, which would discourage such a de-sacralisation of the signs of the Liturgy. My second thought was to wonder at the liturgical formation, or lack of, of my interlocutor.

I subsequently reflected on the meaning of the sign of peace, particularly in the Roman Rite, where it is placed within the Communion Rite. Other Liturgical rites place it just before or just after the preparation of the gifts, and, after a suggestion from the 2005 Synod on the Eucharist a suggestion to move the sign of peace to that point in the Roman Liturgy is under consideration by the relevant Vatican dicastery. However, the historical development of the Roman Rite has placed it differently, and I think that gives the sign a different meaning. Accordingly, I rather hope that the Vatican will not decide to move the sign of peace, though one can see theological, historical and ecumenical reason to do so.

The practice of the sign of peace in the High Mass of the Extraordinary Form indicates that it is about the peace of Christ being communicated (deliberate choice of word) from the Divine Presence on the altar to the Church, represented in the hierarchy of her ministers. It is not about being friendly to your neighbour, which is simply to reduce the Liturgical sign to a sociological sign. [Side note: but how many of our people see it as no more than this? And how many of our priests?] The Ordinary Form develops this, perhaps, by including the members of the congregation in the sign. I have started to think that we should view the sign of peace as an act of spiritual communion, which prepares those who are able to receive for the act of sacramental communion, and catechise accordingly. This does respect the nature of the Liturgy itself - even when the sign of peace is not exchanged among the congregation the immediately preceeding prayer and the dialogue - The peace of the Lord be with you always/And also with you - expresses the essential content of the sign of peace. And by raising its status in the eyes of the people, it would meet the pastoral need currently being seen as being met in the blessing given to non-recipients who approach the priest in the Communion procession. I think it would demand, though, a review of the way in which the sign is exchanged between members of the congregation; some form of more explicitly sacral sign is needed. And the optional nature of the sign of peace in the Ordinary Form might be used to preferentially include the sign of peace in circumstances where many people are not able to receive sacramentally and, with suitable catechesis, enable them to enter into communion in so far as they are able.

My thoughts were pre-empted to an extent by Fr Ray's post on Communion Blessings, and you can find a comment from me among those at this post.

Some time ago now, I was put on the spot at lunch in a conversation with an Anglican priest. He indicated, very charitably, that he felt quite hurt by the Catholic Church's refusal of communion to Anglicans when they attended Mass. I took advantage of the delay provided by a mouth full of food to gain some thinking time before replying, anxious to be equally charitable yet honest in my reaction! My reply was to suggest that, for the Catholic, the question of truth and of holding to the same content of faith had a bigger part to play in the conception of ecclesial communion than it did for the Anglican.

In the context of the discussion of blessings at communion and of an understanding of the sign of peace as an act of spiritual communion, I think this idea of truth as a component of communion is valuable too. Communion is not just about letting people feel included socially, which is what I fear the blessing at communion often achieves; for those who are not able to receive sacramentally, it is about achieving the degree of spiritual communion that is possible in the circumstances. And I think this would be better achieved by abandoning the practice of blessings at communion and instead catechising on the sign of peace as an act of spiritual communion accessible to those who are not able to receive sacramentally.

"Eucharistic Moments" - Mirroring the broken Christ

Thinking Faith have published an article with this title. The article can be accessed here. I am reminded of one of the catecheses at last years International Eucharistic Congress, on the theme of the Eucharist and Mission. That catechesis can be accessed here.

As I read Fr Barnes article from Thinking Faith, there was something that made me feel instinctively uncomfortable with it. One aspect to this is a background that might be described as Rahnerian. There is a complex philosophy of religion behind this background, which leads to a recognising in ordinary things of life instances of specific Christian revelation. If you are used to thinking in a different philosophical/theological framework it is quite difficult to read an article written in this Rahnerian context.

A couple of phrases in the article bring in to focus the disagreements that I would have with it. The first is in the introductory paragraph, which refers to "our experience of the eucharist, during the liturgy and in our everyday lives". This is a phrase which has a clearly Rahnerian dimension to it - in not distinguishing between "eucharist in everyday life" and "eucharist in the liturgy". However, I do not think you should speak univocally of Eucharistic experience in these two areas of Christian life; there is a Eucharistic experience in these two different areas of Christian life, and those experiences should be in complete conformity with each other and not contradictory; but the nature of those two different experiences is not the same, is not identical. I think this is a point that could be made within a Rahnerian perspective, as well as through addressing the question from a different philosophical/theological perspective.

The second phrase refers to the "same ordinary objects and the same everyday gestures recorded in the Gospel story". The Rahnerian perspective is again apparent here. In one sense, the phrase is correct - bread and wine are ordinary objects. But, on the other hand, does it do justice to the Gospel accounts to reduce the choice of those objects (rooted in the historic tradition of the Jewish liturgy) to the "ordinary"? In the context of the Jewish liturgy from which they have come, are these objects and gestures really "ordinary"? Isn't it truer and more faithful to the intent of the Gospel texts to see them as being actually quite "extraordinary"?

In passing, Fr Barnes' account of Jesus' appearance to the disciples on the road to Emmaus, where he relates their recognition of Jesus in the breaking of bread as a "eucharistic moment", seems to shy away from the suggestion that it is a "Eucharistic Moment" - Jesus disappears from their physical sight because he is present in the Bread of the Eucharist.

I think Cardinal Toppo's catechesis on "Eucharist and Mission" at the International Eucharistic Congress is interesting to read in conjunction with Fr Barnes' article. I think you should read it as a whole, but here are two extracts, one referring to the nature of the bread and wine brought in the offertory procession and the second to the nature of the mission received from participating in the Eucharist.

The bread and wine that they bring to the altar is the symbol of their daily life of interaction with one another. They are not mere ritual elements. They represent the community with its life of relationships. In the early Church these were taken from the table of sharing and thus expressed their relationship among themselves. Today, I believe it is again necessary to emphasize the social and communitarian dimension of the bread and wine that is brought to the altar. This can be done in the following manner. In the first place it is ideal that the faithful bring these gifts to the altar as a symbol of their own lives. Moreover, together with the bread and wine, it would be good if they bring other gifts which express the concern for the community. The offertory collection could be given a greater community building significance. The community gathered together as the body of Christ should realize that there are members among them who do not experience God’s love because there are not enough people who translate this love into human love and sharing.

I think one can add to Cardinal Toppo's presentation, without in any way undermining it, an idea that the bread and wine brought to the altar represent the renewed creation that is the specific work of the lay person in the life and mission of the Church. This idea gives an eschatological expression to the Cardinal's pastoral/missionary presentation.

We are sent out into the world to make the symbols of the Eucharistic worship become realities of a Eucharistic life. We go out into the world after the Eucharist challenged by the word of God, prophetically charged by the Spirit of the risen Lord and committed to work for the transformation of the world.

What I find interesting in this second extract is its direction - from our celebration of the Eucharist towards the world - where Fr Barnes' suggests a primacy of a movement in the opposite direction. Our own brokeness finds a meaning in the brokeness of Christ, and so there is a correct sense in which we experience a movement from the world towards the Eucharist. But, when viewed as a mission in the world, the primacy of movement is, I believe, in the opposite direction. We are sent to live Christ's brokeness for others - the Eucharist is a "gift of God for the life of the world".

Pope Benedict XVI promotes Eucharistic Adoration

ZENIT are today carrying a report of Pope Benedict's meeting with participants in the plenary assembly of the Sacred Congregation for the Divine Worship and the Sacraments. This assembly has been dedicated to consideration of Eucharistic Adoration. The full text of Pope Benedict's address, in Italian, can be found on the Vatican website.

In his address, Pope Benedict referred to his visit to Cologne in 2005 for the World Youth Day, and his account of Eucharistic Adoration offered to the young people there:

"The doctrine of the transubstantiation of the bread and wine, and of the real presence, are a truth of faith," the Holy Father affirmed, "already evident in sacred Scripture and later confirmed by the Fathers of the Church.""Adoration must become union," Benedict XVI added, "union with the living Lord and with His mystical Body."

I have now lost count of the number of occasions on which I have used Pope Benedict's two-fold presentation of Adoration as "going down before the Lord" and "entering into union with Him", based on the words proskynesis and ad-oratio. This can be found in his homily at the closing Mass in Cologne, and is quoted in the Italian text of the Pope's address here.

I have wondered for some time now about the anxiety that some have to import into the Liturgy, and in particular into Sunday Mass, things that do not really belong there. Sometimes what is introduced is pastorally or catechetically useful - but it is in the wrong place. Not unusually, this happens when there is little other pastoral and catechetical activity in a parish, perhaps driven by concern for the welfare of overworked clergy. Sunday Mass is then only place of parish life ....

Times of Eucharistic Adoration, however, can provide opportuntities for catechesis adapted to the needs of different ages or ecclesial experience, without it being in conflict with the celebration of the Liturgy. One can have a freedom in terms of catechetical style, of music etc, without it offending the nature of the Liturgy. And, done carefully, it leads to a deepening of our understanding and celebration of the Liturgy.

I look forward to finding out more about the work of this plenary assembly.

Questions and Answers reflecting on Blackfen's "little spot of bother"

To read first hand about Blackfen's "little spot of bother", go here and here.
Updated: The Tablet article and comments are now here.
Updated again: I rather like Tigerish Waters observations here and here.

Q1: What is the significance of the language of "extraordinary form" and "ordinary form" in Summorum Pontificum?
A1: Explicitly, Summorum Pontificum speaks of "one Roman Rite" with two forms. From a juridical point of view, one should not consider one of the two forms as being in any way more "traditional" than the other form. [One might discuss in academic journals the historical development of the texts, but that is a completely different sort of question.] In a similar vein, a particular form of spirituality should not be seen as attaching to the celebration of one form rather than the other.

Q2: Should there be more celebrations of the extraordinary form in parishes as a result of implementing Summorum Pontificum?
A2: No, not necessarily. Summorum Pontificum makes it easier, from a juridical point of view, for celebrations of the extraordinary form to take place. This is intended, on the one hand, to help create a situation where groups who are not in a proper communion with the Holy See can be helped to regularise their situations, and, on the other hand, to ease the situation of those attached to the extraordinary form who take part in what one might call the ordinary life of parishes and dioceses. Nowhere in Summorum Pontificum, or in the accompanying letter to Bishops, is there envisaged the campaign to promote celebration of the extraordinary form that can be seen in some Catholic blogs, and associated with coverage of events such as the Latin Mass Society's training conferences.

Q3: Are there situations where celebrating Mass according to the extraordinary form should take precedence over celebrating according to the ordinary form?
A3: Two observations here. Pope Benedict XVI's letter to Bishops that accompanied Summorum Pontificum explicitly contains the expectation that the ordinary form of celebration will continue to be precisely that, the ordinary form. The letter bases this on the fact that appreciation of the extraordinary form arises from a particular liturgical formation that is not commonly found among ordinary Catholics, and on the "juridical norms". So my first observation is that the ordinary form remains the ordinary form, remains the ordinary form and remains the ordinary form. In the majority of pastoral circumstances, the presumption should therefore be in favour of celebrating in the ordinary form, and not allowing it to be in a certain sense "displaced" by the extraordinary form. As a second observation, Summorum Pontificum permits one celebration of the extraordinary form on Sundays and Holy Days, with, in my view, the intention that this permission should be used to respond to the situation of those attached to the extraordinary form; it should not, in my view, be used to promote the extraordinary form. In my view, the arrangement of such celebrations should take place in such a way that there is no appearance of the celebration of the extraordinary form "displacing" a celebration of the ordinary form - that would be to offend against the notion of the ordinary form remaining the ordinary form. One way to achieve this, but not the only way, might be for such celebrations to be seen as celebrations at deanery level, rather than individual parish level, with collaborative arrangements for celebration of the ordinary form in nearby parishes.

Q4: Does Summorum Pontificum have any implications for parishes where no celebrations of the extraordinary form take place?
A4: Yes, and one should not underestimate the importance of this for having a complete perspective on Blackfen's "little spot of bother". Pope Benedict's letter proposes an idea of "mutual enrichment" between the celebrations of the two forms, and this is clearly relevant to every celebration of the ordinary form wherever it takes place. The relevant passage from the letter follows, with my own emphasis added:

The celebration of the Mass according to the Missal of Paul VI will be able to demonstrate, more powerfully than has been the case hitherto, the sacrality which attracts many people to the former usage. The most sure guarantee that the Missal of Paul VI can unite parish communities and be loved by them consists in its being celebrated with great reverence in harmony with the liturgical directives. This will bring out the spiritual richness and the theological depth of this Missal.

The ordinary form can, in my view, contribute to the development of the extraordinary form in areas of participation by the congregation and a wider range of texts such as prefaces. But the extraordinary form can contribute to the celebration of the ordinary form a real sense of the sacredness of liturgical celebration and an attitude of faithfulness to the rubrics. This aspect of the phenomenon that is Summorum Pontificum has, frankly, been almost totally ignored in parishes and dioceses. And yet, it appears to me an essential part of the intentions of Summorum Pontificum with regard to its two directions of glance: both towards those outside proper communion with the Holy See (they will the more readily be reconciled if they can see the ordinary form being celebrated properly, in addition to their access to the extraordinary form for their own use) and towards those attached to the extraordinary form in normal parish and diocesan situations (there will be a real possibility of a kind of "mutual respect" between those attached to the two forms of celebration, that would avoid the occurence of "bother"). It is also the aspect of Summorum Pontificum that is relevant to most ordinary Catholics; it is in my view much more important pastorally than arranging for more celebrations of the extraordinary form.

Q5: Do I think Summorum Pontificum was a good thing?
A5: I have no attachment to the extraordinary form, so the juridical provisions of Summorum Pontificum with regard to the celebration of the extraordinary form do not directly affect me. I suspect that this is true of the vast majority of ordinary Catholics in the UK. I have no dissatisfaction with the Motu Proprio and accompanying letter in themselves. However, I am disappointed by the almost complete failure to implement the idea of "mutual enrichment", both in terms of the celebration of the ordinary form as discussed above and in terms of the development of the extraordinary form. Among the proponents of the extraordinary form, for example, I have tended to see a resistance to any development in the liturgical form (though I do recall an observation once about it being again a living liturgical form in the Church!). Another thing I am unhappy with is the feeling of being forced into "taking a stance" with regard to the extraordinary form, something that has happened, not because of Summorum Pontificum itself, but because of the promotion in favour of the extraordinary form that has taken place since. I am also disappointed in the continued use of the term "Traditional Latin Mass" (for example, in the title of a recently published CTS pamphlet) to refer to the extraordinary form, for reasons which should be apparent from my answer to Q1 above. It fails, in my view, to reflect the juridical status of the extraordinary form established by Summorum Pontificum.

Visit to the John Fisher School (continued)

This is the second instalment of the notes I used for my recent talk at the John Fisher School.

2.2 The Covenant with Israel: Abraham, Moses, and the prophets

8. What are the next stages of God's Revelation?
God chose Abram, calling him out of his country, making him “the father of a multitude of nations” (Genesis 17:5), and promising to bless in him “all the nations of the earth” (Genesis 12:3). The people descended from Abraham would be the trustee of the divine promise made to the patriarchs. God formed Israel as his chosen people, freeing them from slavery in Egypt, establishing with them the covenant of Mount Sinai, and, through Moses, giving them his law. The prophets proclaimed a radical redemption of the people and a salvation which would include all nations in a new and everlasting covenant. From the people of Israel and from the house of King David, would be born the Messiah, Jesus.


Exodus 24:3- 8
Moses came and told the people all the words of the LORD and all the ordinances; and all the people answered with one voice, and said, "All the words which the LORD has spoken we will do." And Moses wrote all the words of the LORD. And he rose early in the morning, and built an altar at the foot of the mountain, and twelve pillars, according to the twelve tribes of Israel. And he sent young men of the people of Israel, who offered burnt offerings and sacrificed peace offerings of oxen to the LORD. And Moses took half of the blood and put it in basins, and half of the blood he threw against the altar. Then he took the book of the covenant, and read it in the hearing of the people; and they said, "All that the LORD has spoken we will do, and we will be obedient." And Moses took the blood and threw it upon the people, and said, "Behold the blood of the covenant which the LORD has made with you in accordance with all these words."

Exodus 25:10, 12-18, 20-22
"They shall make an ark of acacia wood; … you shall cast four rings of gold for it and put them on its four feet, two rings on the one side of it, and two rings on the other side of it. You shall make poles of acacia wood, and overlay them with gold. And you shall put the poles into the rings on the sides of the ark, to carry the ark by them. The poles shall remain in the rings of the ark; they shall not be taken from it. And you shall put into the ark the testimony which I shall give you. Then you shall make a mercy seat of pure gold; … And you shall make two cherubim of gold; of hammered work shall you make them, on the two ends of the mercy seat. The cherubim shall spread out their wings above, overshadowing the mercy seat with their wings, their faces one to another; toward the mercy seat shall the faces of the cherubim be. And you shall put the mercy seat on the top of the ark; and in the ark you shall put the testimony that I shall give you. There I will meet with you, and from above the mercy seat, from between the two cherubim that are upon the ark of the testimony, I will speak with you of all that I will give you in commandment for the people of Israel.

The Ark of the New Covenant: The rings and poles at the side, the two angels with wings folded around the sides of the Ark - to represent the Ark of the Covenant carried through the desert by the people of Israel. The photograph shows the Ark of the New Covenant being carried, with the Blessed Sacrament, during a parish event in prepration for the International Eucharistic Congress. The Eucharist replaces the presence of God around the mercy seat of the Ark of the Old Testament; you can see the angels wings at either end of the Ark and the carrying poles and the rings.