Claire Rayner now deified!

I was listening to the "Today" programme on Radio 4 this morning when I choked on my toothpaste. Mr Mike Smith of the Patients Association was speaking about standards in some of our hospitals - a subject which his old friend Claire Rayner had also pursued for many years. He got very excited and said that now Claire Rayner had died, that "we are her representatives on earth"!

The Vicar of Claire Rayner on earth - what a title!

I'm sure Claire Rayner believed she was fighting for good in many of her causes but much of her advice and her opinions were quite contrary to the teaching of the Church and indeed the Church's understanding of natural law. Interesting how those with no faith get caught up in supernatural terms that are rightly the Church's ambit of influence.
Also, the move to canonise the deceased (or in this case deify them!) that has not just seeped into most of our Catholic funerals but is indeed awash in them.

Despite the vitriol she spewed forth upon Christ's Vicar on earth she, like all the deceased would benefit from our prayers for her soul until the time that the Church decides to raise her to the altar.

"I have no language with which to adequately describe Joseph Alois Ratzinger, AKA the Pope. In all my years as a campaigner I have never felt such animus against any individual as I do against this creature. His views are so disgusting, so repellent and so hugely damaging to the rest of us, that the only thing to do is to get rid of him."

Oh dear!

You can listen to the interview here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_9165000/9165732.stm

Bishop Morino on supporting his priests and on Eucharistic reverence

I was most interested in this post on Fr Z's Blog about a bishop in the USA supporting his priests when they were criticised by parishioners for the "outrage" of introducing orthodox Catholic practices. The Bishop is Robert Morlino of the Diocese of Madison. Read about it here: http://wdtprs.com/blog/2010/11/d-of-madision-liberals-attacking-faithful-priests-are-harming-the-future-of-school-children/

In the above clip the Bishop has been offering Solemn Mass - going by the date given, on the anniversary of the Moto Proprio Summorum Pontificum - presumably in thanksgiving. A sharp contrast to the alleged cancellation, by Archbishop Nichols, of the LMS-arranged Mass in Westminster Cathedral in thanksgiving for the Holy Father's visit to Great Britain. Read about it here: http://www.lovingit.co.uk/

I also found this homily given by the Bishop, speaking about Eucharistic reverence.

All Souls Mass

A little after the event but even I get busy sometimes.

The Arrival

The Gospel

I was able to offer Sung Mass for All Souls Day with the help of servers, sacred ministers and just one (excellent) singer to chant the music. Very simple but very suitable for such an occasion. My thanks to those who assisted.

The Elevation.

One of our young servers tries on a saturno for size!

Models of the Church. No. 1 - Outdated bureaucracy.

After all the discussions we have been encouraged to engage in about the order of the Sacraments in the Archdiocese it turns out that discussion, like resistance to the Borg, is futile. The decision had already been made. The 'discussion' we as the body of all the priests of the Archdiocese gathered together were asked to engage in was simply:
- when would you like this to happen (not if),
-what age should the children be (within a year or two) and
- how wonderful do you think the new plan is (with no corresponding box to tick to say how bad you might think it).

It is being linked with a supposedly new idea of "Family Catechesis" where:

1. The same catechists will be with a family through Baptism, Communion and Confirmation (Confession loiters in the shadows, we know not where or when).

2. Whole families rather than just the particular children being prepared for a particular sacrament will be catechised together.

My own experience and that of many other priests is that it is notoriously difficult to get one parent let alone whole families to come to anything at all. Many priests are downcast at the lack of practice in their parishes and we just don't know what to do about it. Carry on pushing all those in our (supposedly) Catholic schools through programmes that don't work or go for the option of just making the invitation at church (you get about 2 candidates from a class of thirty). They are grasping hold of this "new" catechesis as the answer to their problems.

The other interesting thing is that we apparently need an indult from Rome to do this - although one has not yet been sought. Perhaps it will not be given. My own thought is that if this new order in the Sacraments is so desired by Rome, why does each new place that wants to do it need a special indult? We are told that Rome is keen on this but, as one priest pointed out very clearly at our meeting, the full reference in Sacramentum Caritatis is not quite so directive and admits of several possibilities so long as all is, ultimately, directed to the Holy Eucharist:

No. 18. In this regard, attention needs to be paid to the order of the sacraments of initiation. Different traditions exist within the Church. There is a clear variation between, on the one hand, the ecclesial customs of the East and the practice of the West regarding the initiation of adults, and, on the other hand, the procedure adopted for children. Yet these variations are not properly of the dogmatic order, but are pastoral in character. Concretely, it needs to be seen which practice better enables the faithful to put the sacrament of the Eucharist at the centre, as the goal of the whole process of initiation

Seems to me that we are suffering from following the pattern of the world again - this time, the world of bureaucracy:

We MUST do something,
this is something,
therefore we MUST do this.

Sir Humphrey Appleby would once again be proud!

What is it they say about deckchairs and the Titanic?




We are indeed failing but we are not tackling the underlying issues. We are giving the Sacraments to those who have neither faith nor The Faith. They have no interest or knowledge of the Deposit of the Faith and they have no personal relationship with Jesus as Lord and Saviour. For whatever cultural and social reasons great swathes of folk want the Sacraments but they have no interest in The Faith or faith. But the Sacraments are for believers. We do the Sacraments and the people a disservice to administer them before there is a founded hope that the children will be brought up in the practice of the Faith (indeed Canon Law tells the Priest specifically NOT to do this).

When anything like this is mentioned there is a great outcry that we must not make it difficult for people, that any sign of faith (including asking for the sacraments even without any intention of practising the Faith) is enough. BUT IT IS NOT. The model in the Church of the fourth century that is being hailed as the answer to all our problems made people catechumens, but years could go by before they went through the final Lenten catechesis and were at last received into the Church. Far from being inclusive, those who were not fully initiated were told to get out when the sacred mysteries were being enacted. I sometimes hear that coming to Mass isn't the be-all and end-all of everything. RUBBISH. If we are not centred on the Holy Eucharist then we might as well pack our bags and go home. And practising the Faith doesn't just mean coming to Mass - what about living the Christian life - prayer, chastity, the married state (or lack of it), people's view on abortion, in vitro fertilization, charity to the poor, understanding of sin, salvation and the supernatural life, etc etc etc.

In other words we are using the Sacraments of Initiation for a purpose for which they are not intended - evangelisation. I heard it said by a fellow priest that Confirmation in the teenage years helped the young people to "touch base" with the Church they were estranged from. But these are the Sacraments of Initiation, not a one night stand.

The Holy Father drew attention to this problem last month when establishing the new Pontifical Council for Promoting the New Evangelisation.

"there has been a troubling loss of the sense of the sacred, which has even called into question foundations once deemed unshakeable such as faith in a provident creator God, the revelation of Jesus Christ as the one Saviour, and a common understanding of basic human experiences: i.e., birth, death, life in a family, and reference to a natural moral law". MOTU PROPRIO - UBICUMQUE ET SEMPER

Clearly our first task must be to evangelise. As Pope Paul VI put it (some years ago!);

“as a result of the frequent situations of dechristianisation in our day, [evangelisation] also proves equally necessary for innumerable people who have been baptized but who live quite outside Christian life, for simple people who have a certain faith but an imperfect knowledge of the foundations of that faith, for intellectuals who feel the need to know Jesus Christ in a light different from the instruction they received as children, and for many others” (Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Nuntiandi, n. 52)

For those in peril in the Ark

"It is important to recognize dissent for what it is, and not to mistake it for a mature contribution to a balanced and wide-ranging debate. It is the truth revealed through Scripture and Tradition and articulated by the Church’s Magisterium that sets us free.”

— Pope Benedict XVI’s address to the Bishops of England and Wales
Visit “ad limina apostolorum,” January, 2010

I've had a huge leap in hits on this blog - nearly 1000 in the last 24 hours! Not a flurry of interest in the Archdiocesan plans to change the order of the Sacraments (of which more in my next post) but the result of a mention on Fr Ray Blake's blog (thank you Fr Ray).

I wanted to make some answer to the comments on the last post of those experiencing flagrant abuses in the liturgy in their parishes and not knowing what to do about it.

It's a difficult one, as I know even as a priest. I get criticised for doing what's asked of me in black and white (or red) while all around flagrant abuses are praised to the skies. It depends on your priest or pastor. Is he open enough for you to feel able to ask him gently to help you understand why he's doing some of the the things he's doing? In the case of Mass on the coffee table and the Blessed Sacrament being passed around in clay bowls, I think you can only get up and leave and write a polite letter to the bishop. The pattern that lay people are encouraged to follow is: if the priest can't answer your (politely put) inquiries then you should write and ask the bishop and if he can't or won't respond stisfactorily, then you should write to the most suitable Congregation in Rome. But all that is indeed daunting. Finding what ways you can of recalling the teaching of the Church to the forefront with priests and laity, all charity, is perhaps the best you can do but also, offering up your sufferings in prayer for the priest in question and for the Church would mean that some spiritual benefit is squeezed out of these unfortunate circumstances and might bring God's grace to fruition where words and letters have failed.

But it is sad that in so many areas - moral, liturgical and sacramental - that there is so much unchallenged public dissent from the Church's teaching at every level. A house divided against itself and all that...

Implementing all that comes from Rome

Today will see all the priests of the Archdiocese called together to discuss the possibility of re-arranging the order of the sacraments of initiation. I say "discuss" but when the question is asked, "Is this a consultation or has the decision already been made to change the order of the sacraments?" the answer "Yes, it is consultation" is said with hesitation and some qualification. The Council of Priests, we are told, has already decided in the positive. Now we all know that those eager to sit on committees and go to meetings are generally those who like to attend such things and make decisions in the name of everyone. To some extent, the fault lies with the vast majority of those of us who don't attend but who wants to sit through another talking shop?

Anyway, another reason pointed to is that apparently "Rome" has been encouraging this change in the order that the sacraments are given. Of course, "Rome" asks for many things but it seems to me that only a select few get taken up. One directive that has unambiguously come from "Rome" is the Instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum. This document says of itself that:

" the Supreme Pontiff has mandated that this Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, in collaboration with the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, should prepare this Instruction."

Couldn't be any clearer as coming from "Rome". It is:

"set forth for Bishops, as well as for Priests, Deacons and all the lay Christian faithful".

Couldn't be any clearer that it applies to everyone.

It says that the Instruction has been prepared because:

"In some places the perpetration of liturgical abuses has become almost habitual, a fact which obviously cannot be allowed and must cease. The observance of the norms published by the authority of the Church requires conformity of thought and of word, of external action and of the application of the heart."

So everyone is to get on with doing what it says. Here is some of what it does say but strangely enough I can't recall any great emphasis being put on it in any place in this country that I've heard of. Here are some examples:

It is not to be tolerated that some Priests take upon themselves the right to change the same texts approved by the Church.

The reprobated practice by which Priests, Deacons or the faithful here and there alter or vary at will the texts of the Sacred Liturgy that they are charged to pronounce, must cease.

It is also illicit to omit or to substitute the prescribed biblical readings on one’s own initiative, and especially “to substitute other, non-biblical texts for the readings and responsorial Psalm, which contain the word of God”

it is not permitted for a layperson, even a religious, to proclaim the Gospel reading in the celebration of Holy Mass

The homily, “should ordinarily be given by the Priest celebrant himself. He may entrust it to a concelebrating Priest or occasionally, according to circumstances, to a Deacon, but never to a layperson. The prohibition of the admission of laypersons to preach within the Mass applies also to seminarians, students of theological disciplines, and those who have assumed the function of those known as “pastoral assistants”; nor is there to be any exception for any other kind of layperson, or group, or community, or association.

The offerings that Christ’s faithful are accustomed to present for the Liturgy of the Eucharist in Holy Mass are not necessarily limited to bread and wine for the eucharistic celebration, but may also include gifts given by the faithful in the form of money or other things for the sake of charity toward the poor. Money, therefore, just as other contributions for the poor, should be placed in an appropriate place which should be away from the Eucharistic table. Except for money and occasionally a minimal symbolic portion of other gifts, it is preferable that such offerings be made outside the celebration of Mass

The Priest may give the sign of peace to the ministers but always remains within the sanctuary, so as not to disturb the celebration.

Mass is not to be celebrated without grave necessity on a dinner table nor in a dining room or banquet hall, nor in a room where food is present, nor in a place where the participants during the celebration itself are seated at tables.

anyone who is conscious of grave sin should not celebrate or receive the Body of the Lord without prior sacramental confession.

it sometimes happens that Christ’s faithful approach the altar as a group indiscriminately. It pertains to the Pastors prudently and firmly to correct such an abuse.

The First Communion of children must always be preceded by sacramental confession and absolution. Moreover First Communion should always be administered by a Priest

It is the Priest celebrant’s responsibility to minister Communion, perhaps assisted by other Priests or Deacons; and he should not resume the Mass until after the Communion of the faithful is concluded. Only when there is a necessity may extraordinary ministers assist the Priest celebrant in accordance with the norm of law.

“The faithful should receive Communion kneeling or standing, However, if they receive Communion standing, it is recommended that they give due reverence before the reception of the Sacrament, as set forth in the same norms”.

each of the faithful always has the right to receive Holy Communion on the tongue

The Communion-plate for the Communion of the faithful is to be retained, so as to avoid the danger of the sacred host or some fragment of it falling

It is not licit for the faithful “to take . . . by themselves . . . and, still less, to hand . . . from one to another” the sacred host or the sacred chalice.

The chalice should not be ministered to lay members of Christ’s faithful where a notable part of the people continues to prefer not to approach the chalice for various reasons, so that the sign of unity would in some sense be negated.

The communicant must not be permitted to intinct the host himself in the chalice

The celebration of the Eucharist is to be carried out in a sacred place

Priests are always and everywhere permitted to celebrate Mass in Latin.

Reprobated, therefore, is any practice of using for the celebration of Mass vessels made from glass, earthenware, clay, or other materials that break easily.

Before the alb is put on, if it does not completely cover the ordinary clothing at the neck, an amice should be put on”

The proper vestment of the Deacon is the dalmatic, to be worn over an alb and stole. In order that the beautiful tradition of the Church may be preserved, it is praiseworthy to refrain from exercising the option of omitting the dalmatic.

Only out of true necessity is there to be recourse to the assistance of extraordinary ministers in the celebration of the Liturgy. Such recourse is not intended for the sake of a fuller participation of the laity but rather, by its very nature, is supplementary and provisional. Furthermore, when recourse is had out of necessity to the functions of extraordinary ministers, special urgent prayers of intercession should be multiplied that the Lord may soon send a Priest for the service of the community and raise up an abundance of vocations to sacred Orders.

This function [of lay people assisting at communion] is to be understood strictly according to the name by which it is known, that is to say, that of extraordinary minister of Holy Communion, and not “special minister of Holy Communion” nor “extraordinary minister of the Eucharist” nor “special minister of the Eucharist”, by which names the meaning of this function is unnecessarily and improperly broadened.

If there is usually present a sufficient number of sacred ministers for the distribution of Holy Communion, extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion may not be appointed. Indeed, in such circumstances, those who may have already been appointed to this ministry should not exercise it. The practice of those Priests is reprobated who, even though present at the celebration, abstain from distributing Communion and hand this function over to laypersons.

Indeed, the extraordinary minister of Holy Communion may administer Communion only when the Priest and Deacon are lacking, when the Priest is prevented by weakness or advanced age or some other genuine reason, or when the number of faithful coming to Communion is so great that the very celebration of Mass would be unduly prolonged. This, however, is to be understood in such a way that a brief prolongation, considering the circumstances and culture of the place, is not at all a sufficient reason.

I went through the Instruction and only included abuses that I know regularly go on. It was published in 2004 but I'm still awaiting to hear of any initiatives to make its contents known in our English dioceses.

I actually have no personal animus against changing the order of the sacraments but, as the comment by Gregory on my previous post points out, the ways suggested of doing this appear to be laden with agendas that I definitely do not share.

What about asking the Parents?

St Anne teaching the Scriptures to Mary

It took a lay perspective to ask one of the most fundamental questions about the plan in our Archdiocese to re-arrange the order of the Sacraments of Initiation. Alan Houghton (http://www.torchofthefaith.com/news.php) in the comments of my last blog says:

Some parents are very concerned because they would prefer their children to be Confirmed as young adults and think that - as primary educators - they should at least have some say in the matter.

Indeed, the "plan" makes a great deal of stressing parents as the primary educators but HAS ANYONE ASKED THEM HOW THEY FEEL ABOUT THESE PROPOSED CHANGES? I've seen no evidence of it. As usual, the "periti" tell us what everyone else really wants if only they were clever enough to realise it. This is, after all, the age of canvasing everyone's opinion. When I first arrived at St Catherine's it was very strongly suggested that I needed to consult with the laity about such dramatic innovations as placing a crucifix on the altar, as some of them didn't like it!

I have heard it said by many that it would be a good idea to make a survey of the success or otherwise of this innovation where it has already been tried - in the neighbouring diocese of Salford, for example. There is no such survey but a Priest of the Archdiocese asked as many Salford Priests as he could find and sent me the following from what they said to him:

Reflections on comments gathered from the diocese of Salford

Unfortunately there been no clear study published of the benefits/disadvantages of the Restored Order of Sacraments in the Manchester area after 24 years. This is the area geographically and socially most similar to the Liverpool Archdiocese. Comparisons with dioceses in the very different socio-political world of the USA are not always applicable.

In the absence of a published and publicly available scientific study, we have no choice but to rely upon personal contacts with priests, teachers and catechists who work or have worked in Salford.

The priests are still divided, roughly 50:50, in favour of or against the scheme.

Salford originally had an eighteen month scheme of First Confession, Confirmation, Holy Communion. Therefore a parish needed not just one, but two catechetical teams; or even three, to give the catechists a rest year every third year. It requires a massive input of time, energy and commitment from priests and catechists, if they can be recruited and properly trained.

It came in with a great deal of energy c.1985, and it did have positive benefits in the first couple of years, in bringing parents back to the faith. After five years the impact had diminished and things had become routine, back to normal. Such is life.

The Reconciliation Service, with in-depth preparation of both parents and children, was for some the highlight and the greatest benefit of the scheme. Reconciliation is hardly mentioned in the Liverpool variant.

Often parents had underlying issues of hurt, family break up, second unions etc. – a pastoral can of worms was uncovered. But becoming aware of and bringing healing to such situations, as far as possible, was a major benefit of the scheme.

The eighteen-month arrangement was found to be too onerous and it has now been shortened to the reception of all three Sacraments in 12 months. However, three Sacraments in one school year is too much for the lower ability children to take in. They get Confirmation and First Communion all mixed up. “Is this the one with the bread, Sir?”

Some schools tended to opt out of teaching about the Sacraments, feeling that they had been excluded from the Sacramental preparation process. Teachers felt that however well-intentioned catechists are, they are seldom professionals to the same degree at communicating with a range of children, and they were worried about the quality of input the children would receive.

Often by year 4, certainly by Year 6, the majority of children remember nothing of their Confirmation. The same workbooks were still being used ten years after introduction. They did not seem to have been properly evaluated, improved or updated. It is unlikely that they were perfect first time round.

Bishop Brain has begun administering Confirmations again, reportedly in about one-third of the parishes in each deanery each year. Several reports suggest that Rome has brought pressure upon him to do this, because Rome does not like the eclipse of the bishop as the ordinary minister of Confirmation. Canon Law (884) allows delegation to “one or more (several) priests” only “in case of necessity.”

The scheme leads to the disappearance of the idea of the bishop in many children’s minds. Literally, he never actually touches their lives, he becomes remote and irrelevant. In this way the understanding of the role of the bishop and the unity of the diocese is weakened.

One parent complained recently when it was announced that Bishop Brain was coming to do Confirmations: “Why do we have to have the bishop to confirm our children? Why can’t our parish priest do it as normal?”

It can be very difficult to catechise different ethnic groups of parents together, for example, devout Indians, who intend to save the First Communion celebration for a trip back home to India – and some of English or Irish extraction who are only interested in the party afterwards.

Some priests give Confirmation and First Holy Communion in the same Mass. The emphasis on Pentecost as the day for Confirmations has been gradually diluted.

The Salford scheme was ad experimentum and it required permission from Rome, especially in regard to the mass delegation of Confirmations to priests as extraordinary ministers of the Sacrament.

The picture is obviously very mixed. When some of the highest ranking and longest serving priests of Salford diocese can say simply: “It doesn’t work,” are we in Liverpool being rushed into a decision when many of the facts are not being made available to us? A full study of Salford should first be published, so that the advantages and disadvantages can be honestly compared, and pitfalls avoided.