Noble Simplicity

The Detroit parish of the Assumption Grotto has had several blog sites quoting from its pastor's letter explaining why, with the support of his parish council, he has removed the "low" altar and restored use of the "main altar in his church.You can read at Te Deum Laudamus, the NLM, Fr Ray Blake's Blog and the Hermeneutic of Continuity. Here is part of what the pastor, Fr Perrone says:

The sanctuary now looks much as it did when the church was built in 1929, except for the two missing banks of ‘choir stalls’–those pews on each side, where altar boys sometimes now sit. (What could be done to restore the now absent stalls is a subject for another time). After the Second Vatican Council there was a popular movement in liturgical circles to have the Mass celebrated with the priest facing the people, even though this was never mandated by the Council nor by any subsequent directive of the Holy See. Grotto Church, like most others, began the practice with a temporary altar set up in the great open space before the high altar (which space had been created for the old solemn ceremonies of the Latin liturgy) so that a priest could celebrate Mass towards the people. While everyone could now see what was going on at the altar, the priest had his back symbolically to the Lord (the Eastward direction) or actually so (if the tabernacle were behind him). There were other logistical problems created by celebrating towards the people, such as in getting altar servers and concelebrating priests to look and perform decorously at Mass (which is one reason why so many Masses of recent decades have been celebrated so sloppily.) In 1978 Monsignor Sawher decided to replace the temporary low altar with a dignified and indeed beautiful marble altar that would in many ways be harmonious with the existing decor.

When I carefully studied the book The Spirit of the Liturgy by then-Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI), I realized that we ought to be facing East once again and not towards the people since that position inadvertently created a “closed circle” that did not aim towards heaven, towards God (East), but towards man (symbolically indicating that man and not God was the focal point of the Mass). In the early years of my pastorship here, the low altar was used variously: first, facing the people; then facing East; and then, with a move of the altar farther back some feet towards the main altar, with the priest still facing East. We were getting progressively more in line with an ideal. 

It struck me that the expanse of sanctuary now available for proper liturgical processions and activity is the ideal of noble simplicity referred to in the Document on the Liturgy from VII.  No matter what style the church architecture, even if it is ornate, seeing it through a broader prism, the eye is led to the most important place in the church - the altar on which the sacrifice of the Mass takes place.  Every eye-line draws you there, all the surrounding beauty is the context for where the eye is drawn and what happens there.

The facing the people position for the priest, rejected as far from the ideal by Pope Benedict in his book "The Spirit of the Liturgy", and never mandated by VII has become one of the most contentious areas of liturgical change.  Once a priest has returned to the ideal (as Pope Benedict describes it) there is no chance of the priest falling into the trap of "playing to the audience" for that part of the Mass, he is addressing God the Father, he looks at the sacred species of the crucifix.  There is a noble simplicity in where his attention is fixed.  My own experience of offering the Mass ad Dominum both in my previous parish of nine years and now here is that it is perfectly possible to do but more importantly, it is the major single thing that changes the sense of what is going on - for both priest and people.  This is, perhaps, why it is greeted with such antipathy by those so vehemently in favour of the liturgical innovations witnessed since, but not called for by, the Second Vatican Council.

Regarding the forward facing arrangement: "the whole scene is reminiscent of the studio set up for a television cooking show" which often has the effect of making the priest behave like Jamie Oliver and do a bit of explaining, entertaining and general banter while the cooking is going on. "From a sociological point of view, placing the priest behind the altar, facing the people, turns him into an actor, totally dependent on his audience and also into a salesman, offering his wares to the public." 

"The intended coming closer together around the Lord's supper table hardly contributes to a strengthening of the sense of community.  It is only the priest who is actually at the table."

(Quotes taken from Klaus Gamber's "The Reform of the Roman Liturgy" page 170/1.)

N.B. For readers from beyond these shores (25 from Turkey this week?!?) Jamie Oliver is a particularly ebullient TV chef.

Amazing discovery: Churches are Houses of God

The former Chrystal Cathedral - encapsulating all that's wrong with modern worship - associated with performance and entertainment and a desperation to "look modern".

Many priests will recall from their seminary days hearing the Liturgy Prof  wax lyrical about the difference between Domus Dei and Domus Ecclesiae.  Domus Dei is the House of God - churches as they had been built for 1,700 years since the wicked Emperor Constantine corrupted the Church by making it grand and imperial.  You know, all those awful formal buildings in the classical style, the Romanesque, the Gothic, and the Baroque.  In fact, all that most people think of when they think "church".  Now, the Liturgy prof would tell us, we want churches that are Domus Ecclesiae - House of the gathered people.  A worship space that skips over all that terrible history back to the pre-Constantine church when the simple Christian folk met in ordinary domestic homes for prayer and praise and an agapé meal.  Hence the wonderful inspirational ecclesial spaces we are now building or trying to create by re-ordering all those false and wicked Gothic, Romanesque and Classical features in our existing buildings.  Getting us back to the good old days - but the good old days have to be pre-fourth century.  They can't, of course, be 9th century 16th century, or 19th century!

The only slight difficulty is that study and archaeology have now shown that to be a load of old nonsense.  Archaeology is discovering that pre-Constantine Christian places of worship were already much more "church" than "meeting room".  But have the seminary liturgy Profs and the diocesan Liturgy teams caught up with modern thinking or are they still stuck in the other golden age of the 1970's? You can read about this at Church Architecture in an article by Stephen J. Schloeder entitled "The Myth of Domus Ecclesiae".

 Saint Georgeous Church, Rihab, Jordan, of 230 AD, which stands atop an archeological site of a first century church discovered in 2008 (photo: rihabresearchcenter.blogspot.com).

Recognisable as a House of God rather than Meeting House.

This myth still continues to dominate Catholic architecture with disastrous results, abandoning what has nourished generations of believers for a dubious archaeologism that mimics the worst of the world around us.  A prime example of this is the purchase of the Crystal Cathedral by Orange Diocese in the US, the former Mega-Church focused around its former leader's glitz and entertainment-style worship ministry (now defunct).  Renowned architect Duncan Stroik speaks of it thus:

Can the Crystal Cathedral be converted to a Catholic Cathedral? We shall see. After all, the much noted cathedrals of Oakland, Los Angeles, and San Francisco are all expressionistic modernist sculptures. The diocese has said that they will not change the exterior of the church and will not compromise the architectural integrity of the 2700-seat interior. Yet, without a radical transformation the building will always come across as a technological mega-church rather than as a sacred place. It needs to be totally gutted and reconceived. And even if the interior can be functionally retrofitted for Catholic liturgy, many believe that its identity will always be that of the Crystal Cathedral.

One of the major criticisms of Catholic architecture during the past fifty years is that it has incorrectly adopted many of the forms of low-church Protestantism: the theater form, a fear of sacred images, asymmetrical layouts, vacuous sanctuaries, minimalist liturgical elements, prominently placed Jacuzzis for baptism, and the banishment of the Blessed Sacrament to the baptistry. The altar area becomes a stage with a focus on entertainment alongside praise bands that perform upbeat music. In response, liturgists have argued that all of these things are simply the outgrowth if not the requirement of Vatican II. Are they finally admitting their agenda by purchasing a ready for TV megachurch complete with a jumbotron and three huge balconies for the “spectators”?

The timing of this is wrong. A whole new generation of priests, laity, and theologians has grown up with this stuff and find these Protestant innovations dated and lacking in substance. They desire an architecture that grows out of the Church’s rich tradition and that will enable them in worship. Asked what cathedrals should look like in the twenty-first century, they point to Saint Patrick’s in New York, Saint Peter’s in Rome, Notre Dame in Paris, and other obvious suspects. These are buildings constructed hundreds of years ago, yet continue to speak to believers and unbelievers alike today. A timeless architecture built for the ages, a cathedral should be a durable building constructed out of masonry, transcendent in height, and directional in length. Unfortunately for the new generation and their children, the Orange diocese has chosen the opposite direction and will foist on them a building that is of its time and not particularly suited to Catholic worship and devotion. Twenty years from now, it will not matter that Orange got a really good deal whereas another California diocese quadrupled its budget. People will simply ask if it is a beautiful cathedral, worthy of the Creator.

Catholic wins case to tell the truth about abortion

It's not that unusual to hear about Christians getting into hot water at work in this country for displaying their Faith in some way.  The story below tells of Margaret Forrester who was sacked in 2010 by her National Health Service employers for sharing her views on abortion with other colleagues. Having taken her employers to court, She has now been completely vindicated, as evidenced by the fact that they have settled out of court with undisclosed damages.  Particularly as at the time a spokesperson for the Central and North West London NHS Foundation Trust told the Telegraph, “The Trust thoroughly disputes these allegations and will continue to defend its position vigorously. We are confident that we will be able to successfully defend these claims.”

Despite the fact that such cases are usually given quite a lot of publicity, I've not seen much about this one.  I wonder if it is because this time, the Christian won? 

Apart from that, there is the issue of what this has cost the NHS - in other words what money has been wasted on this politically correct persecution?  Tax-payers' money in these cash-strapped times and money that could have been spent on the real work of the NHS - and I mean saving lives rather than killing them off in the abortion clinic. (Which the NHS already spends £189 million on each year.)

So, God bless you Margaret for your stand and for giving us an example of the true apostolate of the laity:  "The lay faithful, in fact, "are called by God so that they, led by the spirit of the Gospel, might contribute to the sanctification of the world, as from within like leaven, by fulfilling their own particular duties. Thus, especially in this way of life, resplendent in faith, hope and charity they manifest Christ to others" (Christifideles Laici 1988)

THE BACKGROUND:

May 30, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) A British Christian mental health worker who was fired for “gross professional misconduct” after discussing with colleagues the mental health problems faced by women who have had abortions, launched a human rights lawsuit against her former employer at England’s High Court on May 28.

Margaret Forrester, who is being represented by the Thomas Moore Legal Centre, is claiming the Central & North West London Mental Health Trust violated her rights to free speech and religion.

Forrester, who is Roman Catholic, was a psychological wellbeing practitioner for the National Health Service. She was suspended in Nov. 2010 after she told colleagues in a private conversation she was concerned that women are not being given adequate information on the dangers of abortion to their long-term mental health. 

She showed co-workers a booklet on post-abortion syndrome called “Forsaken – Women From Taunton Talk About Abortion” that featured the personal testimonies of women who have suffered negative effects following abortion.

Subsequently, Forrester was called into a meeting with her manager and questioned about her views. At first she was suspended from her job, but then the Trust changed her status to a special leave with pay, during which she was required to sit in an office and not work.

Following this, Forrester was given a different job with the NHS, which she eventually left due to stress. According to court papers cited by The Telegraph, Forrester’s lawyer describes this new position as a “punishment posting” that involved demeaning duties inappropriate for a professional with her skills and training.

At a disciplinary hearing on December 22, 2010, Forrester was told that she could continue to work only if she never spoke of her beliefs about abortion again. She was told never to “give materials like this to colleagues at work.”

Claire Murdoch, chief executive of Central and North West London NHS Foundation Trust, said in a statement after the disciplinary hearing, “It is clear that the booklet Miss Forrester distributed offers a seriously unbalanced and one-sided view of abortion and that it is offensive to NHS staff. 

“The booklet implies that abortion can lead to alcohol and drug abuse, suicidal thoughts and increased risk of cancer. This could be very worrying and deeply offensive for women who may need an abortion and want balanced, sensible advice. We simply cannot allow NHS staff to distribute material that we know to be seriously unbalanced.”

Subsequently, Forrester commented, “The fact that you cannot have an informal discussion with a colleague in the interests of patient care seems unbelievable.”

“It was incredible that I was suspended in the first place, just because I expressed a personal opinion,” she said. “I should be able to express my opinion privately without fear and act freely in good conscience.”

Andrea Minichiello Williams, CEO of the Christian Legal Centre, said following the Trust’s verdict that it was “staggering” that Forrester was being persecuted for her attempts to help patients.

“The level of intolerance in the public sphere, particularly in public sector employment, is deeply worrying and suggests that we are living in less and less of a free society,” Williams said. “We cannot let this kind of intolerance go unchallenged.”

A spokesman for the Thomas Moore Legal Center told The Telegraph, “The attitude of the NHS in the Margaret Forrester case is not only harmful to its employees. By limiting free discussion of the experiences of patients who have had abortions or any other type of medical treatment the NHS is harming the interests of patients.”

“If Abortion is as problem-free as the NHS claims then there should be no objection to the subject being discussed amongst Health Service professionals,” the spokesman said. “If the NHS is not willing to allow the effects of abortion to be discussed by NHS staff it raises a real question as to what the NHS is afraid of.”

A spokesperson for the Central and North West London NHS Foundation Trust told the Telegraph, “The Trust thoroughly disputes these allegations and will continue to defend its position vigorously. We are confident that we will be able to successfully defend these claims.”

Forrester is also challenging her dismissal in a separate Employment Tribunal trial, which will begin with a court hearing on Oct. 8.

THE OUTCOME:

August 15, 2012, (LifeSiteNews.com) – Margaret Forrester, the Christian nurse who was fired for sharing her views on abortion with colleagues, has settled out of court for an undisclosed amount in her suit against her former employers, the National Health Service.

Forrester, 40, was sacked in June 2011 after she shared a booklet showing the medical realities of abortion and its effects on women to her co-workers. Her employer called the book “offensive” and said that she had been guilty of “gross professional misconduct” for discussing the subject.

Forrester said that the move was a form of discrimination, which she called “dangerously totalitarian.” She took the Central and North Western London NHS Foundation Trust to court, accusing the public service of violating her rights to free speech and religious belief.

She was being represented by the Thomas More Legal Centre, a public advocacy group defending Christians in their increasingly common clashes with British officialdom. She brought two actions against the Trust, one with the courts and the other with an employment tribunal for unfair dismissal, religious discrimination, and religious harassment under the Human Rights Act.

Forrester, a Roman Catholic with “religious and moral objections to abortion,” was employed by the NHS as a Psychological Well Being Practitioner. The booklet she shared, titled “Forsaken,” gave the personal accounts of women who have had abortions and its effects on them.

The Thomas More Legal Centre said they were “privileged to have been able to represent Margaret Forrester in this important case and stands ready to support any other NHS employees who may find themselves being threatened for expressing religious or pro-life views.

Regrettably, No Comment

The church prepared for a Requiem Mass in my own parish.

 

I was somewhat surprised this morning to receive a phone call from  The Tablet journalist, Christopher Lamb asking me if I would like to comment on - according to his information - the fact that my Archdiocese of Liverpool is to commission 22 lay people to preside at funeral services.

I don't know if this is so or not.  We did have a leaflet through to all the parishes recently entitled "Planning a Christian Funeral" that mentions that a funeral may be led by a "Lay Funeral Minister" (you can read it here at the Archdiocesan website - scroll down to the 5th heading.)  I have heard that such things do already happen in the Archdiocese where, apparently, Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion lead the Service!  I presume this is because of the shortage of sacred ministers in the diocese - 146 active and 74 retired (excluding Religious) and 106 Permanent Deacons.

However, you will not be reading my interview in The Tablet, as I felt I had to tell him that, regrettably,  I had "No Comment" to make.

Where have all the celebrities gone when it really matters?

Many other bloggers, including  Fr Ray Blake, have posted about the case of the Russian girl band who desecrated St Saviour's Cathedral in Moscow and have now been sentenced.  There has been great outcry from the Western media and figures of popular culture, such as Madonna and Sting, whining about human rights and freedom of speech but contrast that with the many, many human rights abuses against vulnerable people with no voice going on every day in countries such as Pakistan, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia.

In Pakistan Rimsha Masih, an 11 year old Christian girl with Down's Syndrome, has been arrested for supposedly burning pages of the Quaran. (Fr Tim Finigan here and the British Pakistani Christian Association here.)

In Saudi Arabia 15 girls died in a school fire after police forced them back into the blazing building because they were not wearing the correct Islamic dress.  (See here - even the BBC manged to report it!)

In Nigeria the ongoing attacks on the Christian community resulted in three more dead after a car bombing outside a church this week.  See here.

At the Thinker Blog, Bill Warner posted on The Silence of the Pulpits  yesterday suggesting some reasons for why we hear so little of these atrocities and others - not just against Christians - which makes interesting reading.

But for these outrages against human rights and attacks on freedom, where is the outrage we have seen against the women from Pussy Riot being arrested in Russia?  Where are Madonna and Sting when it comes to defending disabled 11 year old Christian girls?  NOWHERE.  The women of Pussy Riot knew just what they were doing.  They are articulate, middle class, politically active women with liberal views.  I heard a piece on Radio Four the other day where the journalist had been with them at their rehearsals for the song they were to desecrate the Cathedral with, practising and being interviewed.  It was an act that was conscious, well prepared and media aware.

But why is it the liberal establishment of press and pop stars will rush to defend these savvy types but not those who really need someone to speak out for them - those with no voice, those who are really vulnerable, those terrified for their lives to speak out or even profess their faith?  Their liberal care and outrage of figures like Sting and Madonna is hollow and self-serving.  Speaking out in support of the women of Pussy Riot gets the liberal media massaging their egos and they can present themselves as modern day heroes but who wants to speak up for disabled Christian girls in Pakistan that might only win you bad press in the Islamic world?  

Not Sting or Madonna, it would seem.

The Black Stump

Due to the kindness of friends I am enjoying a case or two of a red wine that I particularly like - the Black Stump Durif Shiraz 2009, which is rather good. "Velvety, voluptuous, and irresistible" according to its review! 

Why am I telling you this?  

I came across an article in the latest issue of the Chesterton Review (which first appeared in the online Crisis Magazine) by Sean Daley about a Catholic manner of drinking - all very Chestertonian.

Here it is below.

The Lost Art of Catholic Drinking

There is Protestant drinking and there is Catholic drinking, and the difference is more than mere quantity. I have no scientific data to back up my claims, nor have I completed any formal studies. But I have done a good bit of, shall we say, informal study, which for a hypothesis like this is probably the best kind.

To begin with, what is Catholic drinking? It’s hard to pin down, but here’s a historical example. St. Arnold (580-640), also known as St. Arnulf of Metz, was a seventh-century bishop of Metz, in what later became France. Much beloved by the people, St. Arnold is said to have preached against drinking water, which in those days could be extremely dangerous owing to unsanitary sewage systems — or no sewage system at all. At the same time, he frequently touted the benefits of beer and is credited with having once said, “From man’s sweat and God’s love, beer came into the world.”

Wise words, and St. Arnold’s flock took them to heart. After his death, the good bishop was buried at a monastery near Remiremont, France, where he had retired. However, his flock missed him and wanted him back, so in 641, having gotten approval to exhume St. Arnold’s remains, they carried him in procession back to Metz for reburial in the Basilica of the Holy Apostles. Along the way, it being a hot day, they got thirsty and stopped at an inn for some beer. Unfortunately, the inn had just enough left for a single mug; the processionals would have to share. As the tale goes, the mug did not run dry until all the people had drunk their fill.

Now, I’m not saying that Catholic drinking involves miracles, or that a miracle should occur every time people get together to imbibe. But good beer — and good wine for that matter — is a small miracle in itself, being a gift from God to His creatures, whom He loves. And as G. K. Chesterton wrote in Orthodoxy, “We should thank God for beer and burgundy by not drinking too much of them.” In other words, we show our gratitude to God for wine and beer by enjoying these things, in good cheer and warm company, but not enjoying them to excess.

Just what constitutes excess is for each person to judge for himself. However, we now approach the main difference between Catholic drinking and Protestant drinking. Protestant drinking tends to occur at one extreme or another: either way too much or none at all, with each being a reaction to the other. Some people, rightly fed up with the smug self-righteousness of teetotalers, drink to excess. And teetotalers, rightly appalled at the habits of habitual drunkards, practice strict abstinence. It seems to occur to neither side that their reaction is just that: a reaction, and not a solution. If they considered it a bit, they might see a third way that involves neither drunkenness nor abstinence, yet is consistent with healthy, honest, humane Christian living.

Here we encounter Catholic drinking. Catholic drinking is that third way, the way to engage in an ancient activity enjoyed by everyone from peasants to emperors to Jesus Himself. And again, it is not just about quantity. In fact, I think the chief element is conviviality. When friends get together for a drink, it may be to celebrate, or it may be to mourn. But it should always be to enjoy one another’s company. (Yes, there is a time and place for a solitary beer, but that is the exception.)

For example: The lectures at the annual Chesterton conference are themselves no more important than the attendees later discussing those same lectures over beer and wine (we tend to adhere to Hilaire Belloc’s rule of thumb, which is to avoid alcoholic beverages developed after the Reformation). These gatherings occur between talks, during talks — indeed, long into the night — and we typically fall into bed pleasantly stewed. I cannot imagine a Chesterton conference without this. And yet I also know how detrimental it would be if we all stumbled back to our rooms roaring drunk.

Avoid each extreme — that’s how you drink like a Catholic. This is the art of Catholic drinking. There are plenty of our brethren who consider drinking somehow immoral, and there are plenty of others who think drinking must end with great intoxication. But the balanced approach — the Catholic approach — means having a good time, a good laugh, sometime a good cry, but always with joy and gratitude for God’s generosity in giving us such wonders as beer and burgundy. Remember that, and the lost art of Catholic drinking may not remain lost.

Assumpta est Maria

Fr Z has picked up a piece from the Catholic Herald by Michael Jennings on Why the Church should make life harder for Catholics.

You will get the drift from what he says about Holydays of Obligation:  

More mollycoddling is in evidence with the recent transferring of various feast days to Sunday. This has saved Catholics a trip to church or otherwise having another thing to own up to in Confession – that’s if they happen to be part of the majority who don’t do Holy Days of Obligation.

Certainly, we had less than half of Sunday's congregation at Mass today, despite a fulsome reminder on Sunday that our commitment to the Assumption should be just as it is for a Sunday.  Mind you, it's hard to expect Catholics to turn up today when so many other Days of Obligation are transferred to the nearest Sunday. Common sense tells people that they can't be that important if we can chop and change them around with so much ease.

Anyway, we had a lovely celebration of Our Lady's Assumption into Heaven with a simple OF Mass this morning with a little singing and Missa Cantata this evening.

There is a good piece by my friend Fr Leon Periera, O.P. over at Linen on the Hedgerow.  Thank you for this morning's homily, Father Leon!

Hail Queen of Heaven

Transalpine Redemptorists

 

Congratulations to the Transalpine Redemptorists who have announced today that they have been granted canonical recognition as a Clerical Institute of Diocesan Right by His Lordship the Right Reverend Dom Hugh Gilbert, O.S.B., Bishop of Aberdeen.  

Great news for the Church in the U.K. as I understand that they have men ready to ordain and hopefully this can now take place.  As orthodox thinking and Traditional groups come fully into the Church under the pastoral care shown by Pope Benedict the dioceses in this country will find themselves influenced for the good by staunch supporters of the Holy Father and exemplars of living Catholic life to the full.

Well done to Bishop Hugh as well for sorting out this long overdue recognition.

 

Official Statement

from the

Congregation of the Sons of the Most Holy Redeemer

On this festive solemnity of the Assumption of the Holy Mother of God body and soul into Heaven our spiritual joy and fraternal rejoicing is great indeed:

 

Beneath Her mantle and on this occasion of Her solemn feast, today, 15 August, 2012, our community, The Congregation of the Sons of the Most Holy Redeemer, has been granted canonical recognition as a Clerical Institute of Diocesan Right by His Lordship the Right Reverend Dom Hugh Gilbert, O.S.B., Bishop of Aberdeen.

We invite you to rejoice with us on this solemn feast of Our Lady through Whose Perpetual Succour, we have received a great favour from Our Lord. 

We also announce the community’s public profession of vows that will take place in Our Lady’s Chapel (at the head of the pier) Stronsay, on 22 August, feast of the Immaculate Heart of Mary at 18.15 (6.15 p.m.). 

The profession will be celebrated by His Lordship, the Right Reverend Dom Hugh Gilbert, O.S.B., Bishop of Aberdeen.

Olympic Fireworks

I was surprised that I actually took to watching the Olympics and enjoyed it!  Cycling and sailing, diving and swimming, athletics and boxing (although not the ping pong).  It called forth a proper sense of national pride and respect for the athletes who worked so hard and with such dedication.

What I didn't much care for were the opening and closing ceremonies, which seemed self-indulgent and appeared to exalt not dedication, hard work and commitment but all the very opposite qualities of instant fame, self-gratification a mish-mash of unrelated  P.C. approved "good bits" from history and culture without reference to any foundation of where that culture might have come from (Christianity - and more specifically, Catholicism, by the way).  In the closing ceremony we couldn't have Churchill speaking any of Churchill's words (strangely popping out of the top of Big Ben's Tower like some manic Punch and Judy show) but rather, something from Shakespeare's Tempest.  Nothing wrong with either Churchill or Shakespeare but why mash them together?  

I thought that the opening ceremony was like a second rate West End show while all the music for the closing ceremony could have been nicely packaged together in a twenty minute slot - although, for the most part, I would have chosen different music.  If you are going to have Queen's Freddy Mercury at the Olympics, then why not the obvious choice of "We are the Champions"?  No doubt the line "no time for losers" was considered un-P.C. even though in 2011 this song was  named by a team of scientific researchers the  the catchiest song in the history of pop music! Most bizarre of all was the choice of John Lennon singing "Imagine there's no countries" in the presence of thousands of athlete who had just proudly represented their respective countries - with the winning medalist introduced as "representing" their country with flags, national anthems, etc.  A close second was The Who - singing "My Generation" at nearly seventy years of age. (I would have prefered Dame Vera singing "We'll meet again" - much more fitting & she's not much older!) So much of the music choice was dull or rather obscure (and no, not just because I'm not with it enough to know what I'm hearing).

I liked the fireworks, though.

I am inspired to write now after just reading Joseph Pearce's piece "Slimy Limeys" at the St Austin Review Blog. He's certainly fired up!  Here are Joseph's fireworks for your edification:

Against my better judgement I watched the closing ceremony of the London Olympics last night. I was expecting the worst and it was even worse than I expected! The whole thing was a nasty and narcissistic celebration by the denizens of modern Britain of how wonderful it thinks it is. It was a debauched celebration of atheism and hedonism, including schoolchildren singing Lennon's atheistic anthem, Imagine, as hundreds of people came together to create a giant icon of Lennon's face. Lennon, the most ethno-masochistic and anti-Christian of the Beatles, had once claimed that the "Fab Four" were more popular than Jesus. Judging by last night's closing ceremony, he is right. Everything is more popular than Jesus in modern Britain. The Son of God is well and truly hated as is His Church. Anti-Catholicism reared its intolerant head during the ceremony as dozens of roller-skating women, dressed as nuns, cavorted across the stage, lifting their habits to reveal their underwear.

Another feature of the closing ceremony was the celebration of the homosexual lifestyle, demonstrated by the resurrection on the big screen of Freddie Mercury to lead the crowd in inane chants. There was also a performance by the leather-clad George Michael, sporting a skull on his belt buckle, symbolic of the culture of death of which he is a symbol. There was much more that was much worse but I don't have the stomach to continue with the litany of smut.

As an Englishman, I might have felt ashamed of such a spectacle. Instead I just felt as if my body had been covered with slime. I also felt a great sense of gratitude that I had shaken the smut and dirt from my sandals and had left the sordid culture of which I was once a part. Deo gratias!

As for the land of my birth, I am reminded of the words of C. S. Lewis who would have been as appalled by last night's spectacle as was I. In The Great Divorce, he wrote that in the end there are only two possibilities for each of us. We can either say to God, "Thy Will Be Done", or else God will ultimately say to us, "Thy will be done". Modern Britain has what it deserves; it has what it wants. The slow and tortuous decay of its barely living corpse will continue until it dies of self-abuse. Its passing will be a blessing.  

Mass of Ages

I was interviewed recently by Greg Murphy, the Editor of the Latin Mass Society's "Mass of Ages" magazine.  It has now appeared in their autumn edition. Click on the pictures to read or HERE to go to a PDF format.  It is for a short series on priests who blog.  Last time it was Fr Tim Finigan - so I am in good company!

Greg has only been the editor for just over a year but the magazine looks and feels much improved in his time there, so congratulations to him and to the LMS. I would strongly recommend that readers who do not already, should consider subscribing to this regular publication through their website.

Church's rules will help you live longer - Scientific proof

 
Radio Four

Click on the above link to hear the segment.

 

I caught an item on the BBC Radio 4 "Today" programme this morning about the research now showing that fasting regularly each week has positive health benefits.  Not just on weight but on general health and on brain cells in particular.  The "Horizon" programme on BBC1 this evening at 9pm will look at the research in more detail.  What the neuro-scientist interviewed described was almost exactly the sort of regime recommended by the Church for centuries on each Friday (and Wednesdays in the past in some parts of the Church) - a decent breakfast, no lunch and fish with vegetables for supper.  Apparently, the stress on cells helps them to grow stronger and this applies particularly to brain cells, strengthening them against such things as Alzheimer's disease and Parkinson's disease.

So, scientific proof that what the Church has taught for centuries is good for your physical and mental health and helps you to live longer.  Following the Maker's instructions given through the Church is good for the human person.  Another indication that an organisation with 2,000 years experience might just have learnt some valuable lessons over the centuries and that we abandon our traditions at our peril.

The only thing the poor old Beeb missed out was to add in a light sprinkling of prayer so that body and spirit will be in good shape!

Tradtional High Mass in St Peter's

 Good Pope John XXIII celebrating the Mass in St Peter's

Many of you will already know from other blogs that there is to be an international "Summorum Pontificum" Pilgrimage in Rome around the Feast of All Saints on 1st November this year including a High Mass in St Peter's on 3rd November.  As the Eponymous Flower writes, "The unspoken hope for some is that the Pope himself will celebrate it himself for the first time as head of the Church."

It is sometimes said that one difficulty might be that the old Pontifical Mass with the Holy Father was so complicated that there is now hardly a soul still alive who would know how to organise it!  Also that it was so elaborate that the whole effect might be too much to suddenly return to.  I wonder if the Papal Mass as it was in every detail would need to be replicated?  The Holy Father - as the supreme liturgist - could simply celebrate Pontifical High Mass, as even bishops in this country have done.

However it might be done, it would be a wonderful gesture and boost for the Holy Father's obvious and continuing support of the traditional Form of the Roman Rite.I think the Pilgrimage is already giving new impetus to the recent petition to be sent to Rome expressing the desire for just such a celebration.  Apparently, 12,000 signatures are needed before Rome will look at such petitions so anyone who wants can sign the petition HERE.

Addition: Mr Thomas Murphy, Secretary of the FIUV, asks me to make it clear that the petition is nothing to do with the the Pilgrimage organisers. 

-----------
By the by, in reference to a comment on my last post, (and others occasionally received) if you don't happen to like the views expressed on this blog - you really don't HAVE to read them.  No, honestly, you really don't have to!  Seriously, I wouldn't mind.

Suggest a new bishop

Your priest may not thank you for putting him into the position of having to choose one of these!

 

I posted a while ago about making sure that we do not just complain about the status quo but that we do what we can to work for change and the good of the church by writing in to the papal Nuncio to put forward names of prospective bishops for the presently vacant and numerous soon to be vacant diocese around England and Wales.  If no one tells him about good priests, how will they come to his attention?  Especially as it's rumoured that he is trying to look outside the usual circles - magic or otherwise.

I write this now as I've just been putting pen to paper with my own suggestions - and no, I'm not suggesting myself, as some wag commented this morning.  Your suggestions to the Nuncio should be realistic!  Nor am I letting on who I have been suggesting

The Nuncio's address is: 

His Excellency the Most Rev. Antonio Mennini,Apostolic Nunciature,
54 Parkside,
Wimbledon,
London.
SW19 5NE