Cherry Picking

There is a cherry tree in our yard, which we thought was dead. All the fruit didn't have a chance last year because of a late, heavy frost. This year all the fruit trees promise much. We went out last weekend to find the cherry tree absolutely laden.

I've spent hours this afternoon and evening picking cherries, pitting them and putting them in the freezer. Not much to blog about that, but this sort of reflective work usually starts a poem cooking, so maybe there will be literary output as well as cherry pies in November.

Archbishop Speaks

Cardinal Cormac Murphy O'Connor expresses his views on the recent British abortion vote.

Politics, Sentimentality and Utilitarianism

One of the problems with the pro-life debacle this week in Britain is that the pro-life cause relied too much on political, sentimental and utilitarian arguments.

The political argument is, "This is a matter of women's rights." or "This is a matter of the unborn human person's right to life." When you argue something in terms of human rights, nobody really cares about human rights. They care about who is stronger or richer or more powerful. In this case, the woman is stronger than her infant. So her rights prevail. The feminist is stronger than the fetus, so her rights prevail. Political human rights arguments (which used to be about defending the rights of the weak and vulnerable) are now arguments about the defense of my own 'rights' which is code for my own wealth, my own power, my own autonomy. Any argument based on political rights will be won by the strong.

A sentimental argument is one that appeals primarily to the emotions. The main sentimental argument in this case is the appeal on fetal pain. "The fetus feels pain so we must not allow abortions." The difficulty with this is that the baby killers will simply say, "Oh, does it feel pain? I guess we should anesthetize the fetus first, then kill it." or they say, "All the more reason to make later term abortions a rarity. Let's abolish all restraints on early abortions and make them available to everyone everywhere."

The Utilitarian anti abortion argument uses recent medical advances to argue for a lower limit. "We can keep premature babies alive now who are born at twenty three weeks. So we need a lower abortion limit." They don't get it. The baby killers don't think that way at all. They think the pregnancy should be ended whenever the mother wants it to be ended. Whether the 'baby' an survive or not is immaterial. As long as it is still in the womb it is the mother's decision.'

Sentimental and utilitarian arguments are fine as part of the arsenal, but the only way abortion will really stop is when people decide that it is gravely immoral. They will only decide that it is gravely immoral when they decide that killing an innocent person is gravely immoral, and they will only decide that when they really understand what a human person is, and they will only understand that when they come to believe that each person is an immortal soul created in God's image, and they will only come to believe that when they start believing in God.

Every argument is a theological argument.

Silence is deafening

After the disastrous defeat of the pro-life cause in Britain this week, why have we not heard from the Catholic bishops?

Does it really take so long to stand up, call a press conference and denounce Parliament's decision? I understand the complexities and subtleties of public relations and diplomacy, but sometimes we need to hear a prophetic voice. 

British Baby Killers

The UKs Daily Telegraph reports a disastrous vote in parliament. This week the British have voted in favor of human/animal embryonic hybrids being created, voted to allow children to have two biological mothers and no father (through artificial insemination and genetic engineering for lesbian couples) and they also voted not to reduce the time limit for abortions from the appallingly late stage of 24 weeks gestation.

The photograph above shows an unborn child that British people think it is okay to poison in its mother's womb before dismembering it, crushing its skull, pulling it out of the womb and throwing it away.

Do you wonder why Britain is drifting into moral despair and nihilism? The once proud nation has become a world leader in the culture of death. 

The Owl of the Remove has posted on the future of Britain recently. He prophesies increasing anarchy and lawlessness combined with even higher rates of alcoholism, teen pregnancy, unemployment and street violence. This will lead to an increase in police surveillance, state control and a police state in the name of 'security.' One aspect of the new British police state will be the persecution of any who resist the homosexualist, anti-family, pro abortion agenda. This persecution will be quiet to start with, but once the state realizes that there is no opposition, and in fact, the majority of the British support such persecution of religious people, it will become open.

Images of Christ

There was some discussion in the comboxes about the preferred  images of Our Lord. Some people favor a resurrected Lord, others the crucifix, still others the empty cross which carries both meanings.

One person said that images of the resurrected Lord were more predominant in the early church than crucifixes. If they mean an image like the one above, this is incorrect.

Neither the crucifix, nor images of the resurrected Lord like the one pictured here were known in the early church.  This article  is very informative, and reminds us that the earliest Christian images were the ICTHUS fish and the ChiRho symbol, while the earliest images of Jesus portrayed him as the Good Shepherd, or the Lamb of God. This eventually was overtaken by images of Christ Pantocrator. The glorified, King of Glory is certainly older than representations of the crucified Lord.

Remember, for the first few hundred years, the image of a crucified Lord would have been abhorrent. This was still the common method of brutal capital punishment. Using it as a symbol of worship (even though the early Christians honored the cross) would have been unthinkable.

This article tells us that the first crucifix as an image for worship dates from the fifth century. It gives a very good summary outline of the historical development of the crucifix as a Christian religious image, and how its development reflects theological understandings.

The image of the resurrected Lord on the cross shown above however, is a very modern innovation, and the empty cross on its own as a Christian symbol was unheard of before the Protestant Reformation.

Will the last one out turn off the lights?

The Daily Telegraph reports the highest number of Britons leaving the UK for a century.

We're among the number. What did we have in the UK?

I could write reams about our horror stories of local petty crime, drunkenness in the streets, appalling behavior in schools, sky rocketing prices for all things, astronomical taxes, total moral anarchy and widespread vandalism, boorishness, decadence and decay.

And what of the Church? Don't get me started on the idiocy of the Catholic hierarchy, stupidity and lack of initiative amongst fellow Catholics, corruption, ignorance and complacency amongst ordinary Catholics. There were a few hot spots in the English Catholic Church--but the emphasis is on the 'few', and the ones that were alive were consistently ignored, marginalized and excluded by the Catholic powers that be.

Combine that with the class system--boorish snobs on the top and boorish yobs on the bottom--and it doesn't make a pretty picture.

Underneath it all is the nihilism, despair and pessimism that comes with practical atheism.

There is much that I love in Britain, and I have chronicled it elsewhere. There is much I dislike about USA, but on the whole, I'm glad I lived for 25 years in England. It is a wonderful country, but I'm even more glad to be out.

Protestants and Primitivism

One of the underlying foundations of the Protestant movement in the church has been Primitivism and Restorationism. Primitivism is the assumption that the early church was purer and closer to the essential gospel than that which accumulated over the centuries. Restorationism is the belief that Christians should attempt to restore the church to its original, primitive purity and power.

This is a very attractive ideal. When faced with the complex and often corrupt  church--a church that was certainly in need of reform in many ways--the desire to dash it all and return to a simple, primitive and basic form of Christianity was understandable. The Protestant sects who did effect such reforms accomplished much that is admirable. They sought to bring a simple, heartfelt religion to the ordinary people. They attempted to simplify the complex theological and hierarchical structures of the Catholic Church.

Primitivism and Restorationism are actually noble ideals, and ones which drove all the reforming orders within the Catholic Church. The early monastic movement, the first Benedictines, the Franciscans and Dominicans, then the Jesuits--all of these had an element of the Primitive and Restorationist ideal driving their great endeavors.

Primitivism and Restorationism are therefore not wrong ideals in themselves. The problem (as in all heresy) is when a principle which is right in itself becomes the sole guiding principle, and excludes all others and eventually destroys everything that does not fit with its particular ideology. 

When Primitivism and Restorationism become the sole guiding forces of a movement, then the movement cannot help but become sectarian and exclusive. Those who feel drawn to the Primitivist/Restorationist  position need to stop and ask themselves some very probing questions:

First, if we are returning to a primitive Church, where will we discover just how that primitive church worshipped, what they believed and how they lived? We turn to the Book of Acts and the rest of the New Testament. But even within the pages of the New Testament we find differences of opinion and practice between the early churches. The Church in Corinth, for example, had problems with sin and speaking in tongues that the churches of Ephesus and Phillipi don't seem troubled with. Furthermore, the church in the New Testament is already growing and developing in its understanding of the Church and the gospel.

Secondly, can the New Testament be the sole guide to what is primitive? If so, why do all the different Protestant sects come up with a different version of what is primitive? The Seventh Day Adventists say it is primitive to worship on Saturday. The other Protestants groups disagree. The Baptists say baptism by immersion is primitive and mandatory. Lutherans, Presbyterians and Methodists disagree. Some Mennonites and Amish demand communitarianism, others disagree. Pentecostals say speaking in tongues, signs, wonders and healings are a mandatory part of the package. Others say not. Who is to say just what is primitive and what is not?

Thirdly, where do we make the cut off point for what is Primitive and what is not? Do we stick only to the New Testament, or do we allow the witness of those Christians who wrote in the next generation after the Apostles? Is the church of the late first century the only primitive church we may emulate, or may we look to the church of the second, third or fourth centuries as well? If so, who makes such a decision and why?

If we allow Christianity of the fourth century to be primitive, shall we allow the fifth, the sixth and the seventh? Any attempt to devise a cut off date as to what is primitive and what is not is artificial and arbitrary. Furthermore, those Christians who wish to go furthest back and not, let's say, allow anything from the fourth century cannot do so, for they rely on the Christians of the fourth century for their definition of orthodox Christian belief, the canon of Scripture and the proper understanding of the incarnation.

The fourth major problem with Protestant Primitivism/Restorationism is that too many of them are either ignorant of, or willfully ignore the witness of the early church that we do have. In addition to the New Testament, we have historical records of what early Christians believed, how they worshipped and how they behaved. The writings of the Apostolic Fathers, the description of Christian belief and practice from the Didache and Justin Martyr all signal a type of Christianity that is far more congruent with Roman Catholicism (and Eastern Orthodoxy) as it has always been lived and practiced, than the worship and lifestyle of modern day Protestantism. If our friends are really interested in restoring the Primitive Church why don't they study the evidence that shows what that primitive Church was really like? If they did, perhaps they would not like what they find.

Fifth, assuming that we could have a full picture of the primitive church in, say, the early second century, why would it necessarily be desirable to replicate it? Why should the worship, life and beliefs of Christians in second century Roman empire be applicable to Christians in America in the 21st century? If it is applicable, to what degree is it? Shall we replicate the early Christians' sincerity of preaching and zeal for evangelism, but ignore that they had bishops and priests, prohibited masses unauthorized by the bishop, and celebrated the Mass every Sunday? Shall we endorse their speaking in tongues and healing people, but ignore the fact that they prayed for the dead, venerated the Mother of God and kept relics of their saints for veneration? Once we discover what they did, how shall we choose which bits to keep and which to reject?

In fact, every Primitive/Restorationist movement has really only re-created a Christian Church according to their own tastes. They have seen what they liked and either imagined that it was part of the Primitive Church, or chose that strand of the primitive church that suited them, and focused on it to the exclusion of all else.

The Catholic position is that Primitivism and Restorationism (other than part of an authentic reform movement) is a false endeavor. Instead of trying to re-create the past, the Holy Spirit always guides the Church into the future. The present Pope's 'hermeneutic of continuity' instructs us that the past informs the present and directs us into the future. True Catholics lament all in the past which was counter to the gospel, and value all in the past that was true to the gospel in every age. We do not try to go back to some fondly imagined golden age, but move forward into the future God has for us, instructed and guided by the wisdom of 2000 years of living the gospel.

Any group that claims to be 'living the life of the Holy Spirit just like the early church' may be sincere, but they are sincerely misguided.

The Cosmic Liturgy

Shawn Tribe has an excerpt here of the Pope's Wednesday catechesis on St Dionysius the Areopagite. Bewdiful.

Suffering and Salvation

There are some Evangelical sects out there who shoot at the Catholic Church for teaching that suffering is useful in the process of salvation. We're blamed for 'not believing in healing'.

It's worth taking a moment to clarify the Catholic position. First of all, the Catholic Church has always believed in the healing ministry. That ministry is exercised in a multitude of different ways, through the medical profession, through counseling, through the ministry of the sacraments. There is a vast literature on the Catholic approach to healing and the whole range of healing from healing of the memories and inner healing to the forgiveness of sins and the interaction of the mind, body and spirit in healing. One aspect of this is what some recognize as 'the healing ministry' within the renewal or charismatic wing of the church. Catholics endorse this kind of healing too, but recognize that it is but one of a whole range of healing ministries that the Church is called to by Christ the Lord, and just like some people are called to be nurses and doctors, so some are called to exercise a healing gift in other ways. One of these may be through 'faith healing'.

Part of a full and coherent healing ministry is to have an answer and a theology for those who are not healed through prayer. Happily, the New Testament has a lot to say about the suffering of Christians. In fact, suffering seems to be written into the plotline from the very beginning. In all three synoptic gospels Jesus says several times that if we would be his disciple we must take up our cross and follow him. In other other words, to be like Christ, we must share in his sufferings.

Now this is not just a theme in a few verses in the gospels. Indeed, it is laced through the entire New Testament. So St Paul says, "We rejoice in our sufferings for we know they produce perseverence" "We are co-heirs with Christ if we share in his sufferings." "I want to know the resurrection of Christ and have a share in his sufferings." "I rejoice that you share in the sufferings of Christ so that you may also share in his glory."

It gets deeper and stranger. At one point St Paul says, "I rejoice in your sufferings for I have filled up in my flesh what is lacking in the cross of Christ." So suffering is not only redemptive for us, but through it we may share in Christ's own redemptive work in the world. It sounds an awful lot like the old Catholic word of encouragement to those suffering, "Well, offer it up."

It seems that St Paul was even ascetic in his practices for he said, "I beat my body to make it my slave that I might not lose the prize." Furthermore, it is possible that he was the first stigmatic like St Francis and Padre Pio after him for he said, "I bear in my body the marks of Christ." 

Catholics do believe in healing, but we also have a Biblical answer for those who suffer in Christ. According to the Bible, the suffering we endure is our way to 'take up our cross and be Christ's disciple.' The suffering produces perseverance. Suffering also helps us to mysteriously identify with the passion of Christ, and according to the New Testament, this is necessary if we expect to share in the resurrection and glory of Christ.

What I don't understand is that Pentecostal Evangelicals (who are otherwise such admirably Bible-based Christians) miss this one, but the Catholics (who are supposed to be ignorant of the Bible) seem pretty much on target.

Tolkien's 'No' to Narnia

Read my latest article for InsideCatholic here. On the eve of the cinematic release of Prince Caspian, the article analyzes the different approaches of Tolkien and Lewis to Christian fantasy fiction.

Apologetics Tale

Patrick Madrid tells the story of being invited to publicly debate a very anti-Catholic Protestant on the subject of images in worship.

Patrick won the flip and was first up to bat. He began by saying, "My opponent will try to tell you that the Catholic use of images in worship is at worst, idolatry, and at least, meaningless." He then pulled a large, beautiful crucifix from beneath the podium. "This is a crucifix. Through this image we Catholics follow the example of St Paul and preach Christ crucified. Furthermore, we believe that some images, through long focus of prayer and veneration, soak up some of that holiness, and we revere them more than others. We love these reminders of Our Lord's death and we venerate these physical things, not for themselves, but because they are vehicles of God's love and grace in our lives."

He then put the image on the floor and said, "However, if this image really is an idol, or at least just a worthless carving, I would like to invite my opponent to come forward and act on what he believes. If it is a terrible graven image--if it is an idol, then I invite him to spit on this image and trample it under his feet. If it is an idol, then this is the right thing to do. If it is no more than a meaningless image, then it won't matter if he does spit on it and trample it under his feet. Sir, will you be the first? Then I will invite everyone in the audience to do the same."

No one came forward.

The Two Ditches

Fr Z. has a great post with two show stopping videos. It's all about the extremes you can fall into when you disembark from the Barque of Peter. One is a video that has been making the rounds of an extreme left wing Catholic group celebrating Mass with oversized puppets and old ladies doing liturgical dance. The other is of an anti-pope in Spain experiencing a vision of Jesus. He (and his minions) are dressed in the most over the top traditionalist gear, and are in what looks like a beautiful old Catholic Church.

What tickles me about these videos is that the extremists shown are only extreme in the outward expression of their independent religious views. The people in the videos have obviously gone off the deep end--following what is right in their own eyes.

However, philosophically they are no different from any individual or group who have intentionally departed from full communion with the Holy Father to do their own thing. The other schismatics and heretics might seem more sane and spiritual and sweet and nice, but that too is merely the outward appearance.

Incorruptible - So What?

There is some low level fuss about the incorruptible (or not) state of the remains of Pope John XXIII and St Padre Pio. Roving Medievalist links to the undertaker who was called in to preserve the remains of both Bl. John XXII and St.Pio--pointing out that both of them are now embalmed, so the question of their remains being incorruptible is moot.

Those looking for a miracle will claim that the remains of Bl. John XXII were 'remarkably preserved' when the coffin was opened, and after forty years Padre Pio's body was also very well preserved despite the coffin being in damp ground and full of water. Skeptics point out that John XXIII's body was inside three coffins, and had been treated with a low level preservation technique to enable the body to lie in state at his death. They also point out that Padre Pio's face and head were not in very good condition. If he was going to be incorruptible, why wasn't he perfectly preserved?

The whole question of incorruptiblility is fascinating. I have written on it twice: once for Fortean Times magazine. You can find the link here, and once for Catholic Answers magazine. The definitive work is the classic The Incorruptibles by Joan Caroll Cruz.

There are a couple of observations I'd like to make on the matter. First of all, incorruptiblity of saints' bodies is a known and recorded phenomenon. In fact, amongst paranormal phenomenon, it is one of the most well documented and objectively studied. It is true that a good number of the 'incorruptibles' can be shown to be the result of natural mummification or embalming. However, the most remarkable cases have no natural explanation. The modern examples of the Maronite monk, St Charbel Mahklouf, and St Bernadette are the most striking.

This miracle does happen. However, it is also true (as with all miracles) that there is an element of unpredictability and (according to human reasoning) illogicality to it. So Charbel Mahklouf is incorrupt for many years and his relics exude healing oil, then after thirty or forty years he decays anyway. Or, why is St Bernadette incorrupt, but St Therese of Lisieux is not?

Also, there seem to be similar examples of incorruptibility from non-Christian religions, and some cases where the person in question did not obviously display the recognized signs of heroic sanctity. Therefore, the church does not really put much store in incorruptibility. It is not a guarantee of sanctity; neither is the lack of incorruptibility a sign of a person's sinfulness. Criteria for sainthood do not include this kind of miracle.

The Catholic Church takes a guarded and sensible view on all supernatural phenomena--from incorruptible saints to images of Mother Teresa in bagels to charismatic 'healings' and claims that pentecostal preachers raise people from the dead. The Catholic view never denies that miracles can happen. On the other hand, Catholics are right to be suitably skeptical--looking for natural explanations first.

We apply this common sense mix of skepticism and belief in the face of all miraculous phenomenon. When we are confronted with an allegedly incorruptible body of a saint we say, "Interesting. Could be, but I doubt it. Let's look a bit closer." Likewise, when a Pentecostal preacher says, "We've been to Africa and we've cured people of AIDS, raised the dead, made the lame walk and the blind to see" we say, "Could be, but I doubt it. Let's look a bit closer." If there's a natural explanation we accept that first. If there is an inexplicable phenomenon we say, "That's inexplicable." Did God do it? Maybe, but there also be some other psychic, spiritual or psychological explanation. However, if definite fruits of sanctity, repentance and genuine conversion of Christ are evident we thank God for that, and give God the glory.

Finally, what are we to make of the fact that Padre Pio's relics have been embalmed, a wax mask put over his face and the relics put on display for the veneration of the faithful? Well, let's cut through a few of the false ideas being suggested: this has not been done as some sort of Catholic fraud. Nobody is saying Padre Pio is an incorruptible. The veneration of relics goes back to the most ancient era of the church.

This is something Catholics do and always have done. Those in charge are simply making Padre Pio's relics as presentable as possible for the veneration of the faithful. Sometimes they do this by putting the relics in a reliquary--a carving that looks like the saint. Sometimes they put the relics in an ornate reliquary or urn. Sometimes they display the skeleton all dressed up. Sometimes they put the mummified remains in clothing and put it on display. In this case, they've chosen to present his relics as a mix between a mummified corpse and a figure from a wax museum.

The particulars of how relics are displayed don't really matter any more than the frame you choose for a picture. What matters is that Catholics believe in the incarnation. We believe that by virtue of the incarnation, the body and soul are linked, and that the salvation won by Christ actually affects our physical bodies as well as our eternal souls. To put it simply, our bodies are redeemed too, and they will be transformed too. Relics of saints are a visible witness to this belief. The mortal remains of a saint are touched by the transformative grace of Christ, and their mortal remains carry a little whiff of that sanctity, and remain a connecting point with heaven. Their relics are little bits of their holiness left behind in this physical realm.

Atheists, Protestants and liberal Catholics may turn up their nose in distaste. They may sneer at Catholic superstition and dismiss our 'crude, peasant spirituality'. They may make lofty theological arguments if they wish. They may mock and laugh, but they are like the boor who goes to the opera and makes fun of the fat lady singing.

If you listen carefully you will hear the squelching sound of pearls being trampled into the mud.

New Poem

A Student’s Plea

No, no, Father, please don’t toss the mike
like a DJ when you preach. Please don’t be cool.
Please don’t ride a Harley motorbike
when you come to school.

Don’t wear red cowboy boots for Pentecost,
and tell dumb jokes to be our pal. Please don’t ‘high five’,
say, “Sweet!” “Awwsome!” “You suck!” “You’re toast!”
or teach us how to jive.

Don’t sing along to the latest pop band;
you don’t need to be hip and up to date,
or come to our parties with a drink in your hand,
trying to relate.

Play it straight. Say the black and do the red.
Refrain from politics and rainbow pins.
Pray for all of us, the living and the dead,
and listen to our sins.

We want you to keep the faith, you see,
but keep it as it was. We want it old.
We want it to be waiting there when we
come in from the cold.

We want you to be our Father, not our mate.
We want a solid rock; so when we roam,
we know you'll be there, waiting at the gate,
to welcome us home.

Country Preacher

I have a confession: while driving around Greenville, South Carolina, I enjoy listening to our local gospel station. Now this is not your up to date, synthesized, plastic gospel music. I'm talking about the good ole fashioned gospel quartets, with a bass who growls like an old dog and a screaming high tenor. I'm talking about the sweet a capella gospel singers who wail and whine and have a passion for Jeezus.

And the preachers! They all have a voice gone gravelly from years of yellin' and preachin' the gospel and hootin' and hollerin' and callin' poor sinners to turn to the Lord while there is still time. There's a tenderness and simplicity and heart felt authenticity in the best of them that tickles me and touches me and fills me with admiration.

Of course I don't agree with them theologically, and I'm sometimes amazed and aghast at both their ignorance and the things they say which contradict the Bible they claim to love and revere so much. One preacher was saying the other day, "Ya'll need to confess your sin when you offend the Lord. Now you can come and talk to the preacher about it if you want to, but he can't forgive your sins. Only Jesus can. No sense going to talk to some priest either. He can't forgive your sins. Only Jesus can." Whoops.  that's not what the gospel says. Jesus' commission to his apostles to forgive sins in his name is one of the clearest and most Biblical aspects of the apostolic ministry in the Catholic Church.

But enough of that. One of the preachers made me laugh out loud. He was getting down on the big mega churches and said, "Now I know ya'll are tempted to go running off to the big community church. 'Oooh pastor!' you say, 'It's a growin' church. It's movin'!' Well, I'll tell you something. A dead dog on the side of the road is growing and moving too. It's swelling up in the sun and its crawling and moving with maggots, but it's still daid as can be. Same with that community church."

Aiken South Carolina

On Saturday I had the luck to visit Aiken, South Carolina to lead a day seminar on the foundations of liturgy for the people and servers of the parish of Our Lady. One of our new priests, Fr Jeff Kirby is the parochial vicar there, assisting Fr LeBlanc. It was great to be given such a warm welcome by two of our best priests in the diocese.

There was an excellent turnout. My first talk was a Bible study on the Mystery of Sacrifice. This takes us through the Old Testament--explaining the ancient reasons for a sacrificial system of worship, and showing how it evolved and developed within the Jewish history of redemption. The Lamb of God becoming the primary image of sacrifice. The talk then goes through the New Testament images of sacrifice in Christian worship, and concludes with a reminder for sacrifice to continue to be the primary image for the celebration of Mass.

The second talk is a New Testament Bible study on the word 'mystery'. We go into the background of the mystery religions of the ancient world, and how St Paul picks up this image and uses it to discuss the incarnation. The lecture then explores how the 'mystery' is administered by the apostolic Church according to St Paul's teaching in Romans and Ephesians. It then goes into the comparison of 'mystery' and 'sacrament' and shows how our worship is meant to reveal and conceal the mystery of the incarnation.

Both of these principles of worship are far more emphasized within the Biblical account and the worship history of the Hebrew people and the Christian Church than the idea that worship is 'the people of God gathered around the table of God for a fellowship meal.' While this idea is not incorrect, and not alien to the New Testament, or the Hebrew tradition, it is always subsidiary and complementary to the much larger and more important themes of sacrifice and mystery.

However, the 'family meal' image of Christian worship has somehow predominated in recent Catholic liturgical thought. This has affected everything. It affects how we celebrate Mass, how we build our churches, how we dress, who are the servers, what we choose for music, etc etc etc.

Moving forward to a fuller understanding of the roots of Catholic worship within the concepts of sacrifice and mystery will help all our people to move forward with the reform of the reform, and doing so with a good solid Bible study from a former fundamentalist should give some Catholics some good old fashioned surprise.

A DVD of these talks will soon be available on my updated website. If you would like me to visit your parish to conduct one of these seminars, drop me a line.