"[George] did not know that Christ was keeping him as a pure virginal bridegroom for himself".
[E.W. Budge: "The Martyrdom and Miracles of St. George of Cappodocia": The Coptic Texts, (London: D. Nutt, 1888) page 282]

"And the Lord said to the blessed George, Hail, My George! Hail beloved of myself and of My Angels …. I swear by My right hand, Oh my beloved one that I will establish a covenant with thee that when thou shalt bow thyself upon thy spiritual face in heaven and shall come with all they congregation to worship the holy Trinity, all the saints know thee by reason of the honour which I will show thee, O My beloved… "
[E.W. Budge: "The Martyrdom and Miracles of St. George of Cappodocia": The Coptic Texts, (London: D. Nutt, 1888) 320-21]

How Low Can You Go?

Sunday

Never mind! As modern liturgies go it was "all-right" - in the sense that (by modern norms) there were no obvious "abuses" - not that I tried to check for any! I was trying very hard to pay as little attention as possible to what Mgr Harvey was getting up to, so as to mind my blood pressure. Oh, sorry, I'm wrong. I'd forgotten that changing texts from the published norm still counts as an abuse. I can't be certain (because I wasn't following what Mgr Harvey was saying in a missal) but I'm pretty sure that he deviated significantly [in favour of "political correctness"] from the official text of the eucharistic preface. Of course, there was nothing "any good" about the liturgy either. It was conducted in an off-hand, slovenly and casual manner. Every attempt was made to emphasize aspects - such as the offertory and peace - that are (at best) of secondary importance and to de-emphasize the central act of Eucharistic Offering.

Enough! My business today is not to critique Mgr Harvey's liturgical ineptitude, but to discuss Catholic catechesis. Hence, on to his sermon.

• It was suggested that we should "pray with Jesus" - not "to Jesus", but "with Jesus".
• Now, this is not an absolutely wrong idea; but in the way it was put across it definitely gave the impression that:
• "Jesus is a human being just like us" and
• "Jesus has a relationship with God just like ours".
• These two propositions are - of course - heretical.
• I am not aware of anywhere in the New Testament where it is suggested that Christians do did or should "pray with Jesus".
• When He gave us his model prayer, He said "when you pray" not "when we pray".
• In the Garden of Gethsemane He said "Sit here, while I go yonder and pray."
• The "consecrated elements" were referred to as the "bread and wine of life".
• No where in scripture (still less, Catholic/Orthodox Tradition) are the contents of the consecrated chalice referred to as "the wine of life".
• The consecrated bread is only so referred to because Jesus called Himself [not the eucharistic bread after consecration] "The Bread of Life".
• It was stated that in our Eucharistic practice we discover God in each other, just like we discover God in our secular dealings.
• No clear distinction was made between Christian fellowship and worldly society.
• No mention was made of either the Sacramental or the Sacrificial nature of the Eucharist.
• No mention was made of the fact that in the Eucharist we meet God objectively and transcendentally; in a way that is of an entirely different order than we encounter God in our day-to-day affairs.
• What was said could best be understood in terms of "the sign of peace" being the essential part and focus and summit of the Mass.
• It was stated that in our practice of the Eucharist we should not reflect on God's glory or on the gift that is received or anything of this kind, but rather - as soon as communion has been received - we should hurry out of the church to get involved, once more, in the troubles of the world; just as the two disciples hurried from Emmaus back to Jerusalem.
• It was suggested that the fact the the Mass does not terminate with the communion of the laity - and with them exiting the church immediately after receiving communion was a bad thing and a defect in the present celebration of the Mass.
• Now - rightly or wrongly, I believe that in point of fact, the ancient practice was to terminate the Eucharist with the communion of the faithful, with no concluding blessing or prayers of any kind; but this does not mean that the laity scarpered as soon as they had received communion!
• Apart from anything else, it is highly plausible that they spent a good deal of time in conversation and general friendly interaction!

It is precisely because of this kind of uncatholic catechesis and eucharistic praxis that I systematically absent myself from my own parish. As far as I can perceive reality, what goes on there is an entirely different religion - in spirit and in practice - from that which I profess and which is presented and practised at Farnborough Abbey.

Monday

I should first tell you a bit about G and his older brother, P, who is my godson. Both of them are/were students at St John Fisher School, Surrey; one of the best non-fee-paying Catholic schools in the country; where the conservative "Faith Movement" started and has a continuing influence. Both P and G attended many meetings of the "Faith Movement", have been to many years of "Religious Education" classes, and have attended Church in a "vibrant" Roman Catholic parish: "St William of York" where they must have heard about 300-800 sermons.

P is a deeply spiritual young man. He is pretty committed to God and Jesus and the Catholic Religion. However, when I started to get to know him properly - about a year ago - it rapidly became clear that he knew almost nothing about Catholicism, or the Church or about being a Catholic - except in the most superficial terms. He was sure that he wanted to be a Catholic, but he had very little idea as to what he was supposed to believe about anything or how he was supposed to live his life - apart from generally "being nice". The only adequate phrase to describe his state of theological, spiritual and ethical formation (and this is no reflection on P as a person, who I have come to love and respect!) was "Pig Ignorance".

It is apparent that contemporary Catholic catechesis has entirely failed him. This is in spite of the fact that he is keen to understand and finds no difficulty in following my explanations of Catholic belief and practice, based on systematic philosophy, orthodox theology and reference to scripture. Under my occasional and irregular mentoring, he has come on leaps and bounds in his understanding of the Faith; but he still has a very long way to go - as do we all, of course!

This is a terrible indictment of contemporary Catholic catechesis. If it was going to "succeed" with any-one, it should have done so with P, but it hasn't. It hasn't even succeeded in making him the kind of "Catholic" that - I expect - the people delivering the catechesis would have liked him to become. P has a spiritual affinity for traditional worship, even though - until I could expose him to it - he had never known anything other than trendy, progressivist, happy-clappy, "Catholicism".

G is a very private person. He is a deep, clear and incisive thinker. He is - rightly - suspicious of any and all people that he perceives to be trying to influence him. It takes a good deal of effort - backed by a degree of integrity - to win his trust and friendship. He is, in my view, even more intelligent than P; having a command of English far beyond the norm for his age. When I first started to get to know him properly - about six months ago - he had just decided to give up on Catholicism. When I asked him why, he produced the following deeply troubling syllogism:

• Major Premise: The true religion [if there was such a thing] would make people happy.
• Minor Premise: Catholicism doesn't make people happy.
• Conclusion: Hence Catholicism is a false religion.

Over the next few months I sought to win G's trust and friendship in various ways, without the help of his parents, and eventually did so. This process resulted in yesterday's meeting.

I asked him about his experience of "Religious Education" at his "good Catholic school". He replied that it was simply "worthless".

This did not surprise me, given the many long conversations I had had with his elder - and more "spiritual" - brother.

When I probed further, he explained that it was all about "What the adherents of various religions typically believed regarding 'issues'" and was focussed on "facts" rather than understanding. He explained that there was an opportunity for the students to say what they each "believed" too - but there was never any presentation of why some belief might be thought to be true, nor any systematic explanation or defence of the Catholic Faith.

When asked to name the sacraments, he listed the seven specified by Trent - but under their modern names. When asked to give an account of what he's been taught [not what he himself believed] about:

• "The Trinity", he produced a clear and unambiguous classical Sabellian account of the matter. This certainly did not surprise me, as I've heard the same thing from a number of Catholic and Protestant pulpits over the last few years.
• "The Incarnation", he disclaimed any ability to do so whatsoever.
• "The Eucharist", he gave a Zwinglian account in terms of a communal meal at which people receive some "blessed bread and wine" and think about and remember Jesus.
• "Purgatory", he gave a pretty good - but naive - account, missing out any notion of "punishment".
• "Infallibility", he said that he'd never even heard of it!

I then spent a good deal of time explaining the first things about the Gospel and about Jesus' promise of "Eternal Life" and the "Resurrection" - all of which was pretty new to him. I tried to convince him that his syllogism failed because:

• He had no real idea of what the Catholic Faith is, even though he'd supposedly been subject to systematic "indoctrination" for ten years or more!
• The same went for most people who were supposed to be "Catholics" - including many of the Church's leaders.
• Hence, the fact that what "passes for Catholicism" regularly doesn't make people happy doesn't mean that "real Catholicism" is a false religion.
• It only means that the sociological entity "the contemporary Roman Catholic Church" is a very, very poor implementation of "the Ideal Holy, Orthodox, Apostolic and Evangelical Catholic Church of Christ".

It makes me angry

It makes me angry

It makes me angry

It makes me angry

Lamenting that same-sex couples have become more prevalent and that the mentality of many is that these unions and traditional marriage “are the same,” Bishop Frassia responded that “in no way are they the same, because they do not conform to natural law,” which “is not dependent upon the whims of the moment and of life.”

“What do you want me to say? I really don’t understand it, I don’t understand. I can see why but I can’t justify it. And they want to put it on the same level, they want to make it equal,” the bishop said during a recent radio program.