Douglas Knight

When we come forward to receive Holy Communion at the Eucharist, we are not lining up as isolated individuals, couples, families or groups to be nourished and sustained for our Christian lives. We come forward together as the Body of Christ to receive the Body of Christ. We receive the Body of Christ so that we may be more truly together the Body of Christ in the world. As St Augustine of Hippo reminded us, at the Eucharist we receive what we are, and we become what we receive: â??You reply â??Amenâ?? to that which you are, and by your reply you consent. For you hear â??the Body of Christâ?? and you reply â??Amenâ??. Be a member of the Body of Christ so that your â??Amenâ?? may be true.â??

One Bread One Body

The Communion procession expresses the humble patience of the poor moving forward to be fed, the alert expectancy of Godâ??s people sharing the Paschal meal in readiness for their journey, the joyful confidence of Godâ??s people on the march toward the Promised Land. In England and Wales it is through this action of walking solemnly in procession that the faithful make their sign of reverence in preparation for receiving Communion.

Celebrating the Mass

The Communion Procession is not simply about getting up out of oneâ??s seat, walking to the minister, receiving communion and walking back to oneâ??s seat and sitting down again. The procession is

* ï? a procession accompanied by song which is to express unity in spirit by means unity in song and to show joy of heart

* ï? a communal action and not simply a private, individual action

* ï? not merely action but action as prayer, a visible sign of reverence

The Church makes quite some demands of this procession. They are not always going to be easy for particular communities of the Church to fulfil. One common reason for this in England and Wales is that many of our church buildings were designed before the renewal of the Liturgy over the past 100 years. A good number of them were designed before the encouragement to frequent communion by Saint Pope Pius X, and their design did not envisage the whole congregation coming forward to receive Holy Communion. Still more were designed before the more recent encouragement to the ministering of Holy Communion under both kinds, and the additional number of ministers and communion stations that this will usually require.

Yet if the Communion Procession, and our reception of Holy Communion itself is to be carried out in a worthy fashion we need to overcome these common difficulties. We need to achieve a sense of order and rhythm in the procession, so that it can signify reverence and a communitarian corporate quality in what we do.

The Communion Procession

Liturgy Office of the Catholic Church in England and Wales

Abortion is not simply about abortion, however; it is the foundation stone of the risk-free societyâ??from bedroom to boardroomâ??that these once-youthful liberals believe America owes them and the world.

The fact is, responsible people will be responsible, and the socially responsible thing is to allow the rest to take responsibility for their own messes. Adolescents were once trained in that way to become successful adults. As bright, liberal Boomers came of age in the seventies, however, they threw overboard all the habits by which they themselves became successful and, indeed, by which our forefathers passed on social capital to the next generation. Moving through the media, the law, and the courts, they institutionalized the practices of their youth, namely, â??do your own thing,â?? starting with abortion. Every single liberal program that has been instituted is predicated on a basic adolescent fantasy: You shouldnâ??t have to suffer, much less pay, for your mistakes. In the process, self-reliance, self-control, indeed responsibility, have been rechristened as repressive if not racist. As American society has become increasingly affluent, avoidance has infected a large portion of the population, Republicans included. It was hardly to be expected that they would lead us from the wilderness of fiscal irresponsibility and personal insolvency. In the meantime, abortion continues to be the ultimate safety net for avoiding responsibility while having fun, even, or especially, among the most educated, so that adolescence now extends to late middle age.

The Boomer generation inherited a thriving economic system created by the labor of our fathers, but it has grown to adulthood and beyond while overlooking the most basic obligation of adults: to train the next generation in the habits and standards that will renew the nationâ??s material and intellectual resources. Republicans have made their case badly, but the insouciance of liberals and Democrats concerning generational continuity is evident in the amount of energy they continue to devote to abortion, which is also the major reason why contemporary liberalism is doomed to extinction: Liberal Boomers and the Democrats among them are simply aging out and have not produced enough children to replicate their values.

Elizabeth Powers at First Things

The Notre Dame Center for Ethics and Culture is not a theology department, but it is a goldmine. Here is their mission statement:

The work of the Center is rooted in two basic principles. First, we believe that systematic and rational discussion of ethical problems must be grounded in traditions of thought and practice. Our work is inspired by the Catholic intellectual tradition and moral vision embodied in the Augustinian/Thomistic tradition, which itself has been forged through dialogue between the developing Christian community and other moral and political traditions. This dialogue has always been guided by a commitment to rational discourse seeking truth.

Second, we believe that this moral vision requires that we address particular ethical problems in the broader culture. New technologies and new forms of social organization in late modernity have increased the possibilities for human development, but have also created new threats to human dignity and human life. Pope John Paul II has suggested that the totality of these threats constitutes "a culture of death." The Catholic moral vision has ample resources for responding to these threats-especially in its commitments to the dignity and worth of each person, the absolute character of basic human rights, and the fundamental importance of love and concern for others in need.

These considerations put the Catholic moral vision increasingly at odds with what have become dominant trends in secular culture. It is unsurprising that many of those who are responsive to the Catholic moral vision, particularly young people, also find it difficult to resist the pressures of secularization as these are transmitted in and through contemporary institutions, including the university. Academic centers for ethical inquiry are among the institutions frequently inhospitable to this moral vision, despite their claims of tolerance and neutrality.

Our Vision

And see their magnificent Who inspires us

Bookmark them and return for a leisurely late-night browse

All the stars will be coming out at the

First International Conference on the

Orthodox Readings of Augustine at Fordham, NY 14-16 June 2007

Andrew Louth Lewis Ayres John Behr David Bradshaw Brian Daley, S.J. Elizabeth Fisher Carol Harrison David Hart Joseph Lienhard, S.J. Jean-Luc Marion John McGuckin John Milbank David Tracy

I most admire the work of Brian Daley and Andrew Louth. I am chauvinistically proud of the English at the top of their game, Andrew Louth again, John Behr and John Milbank of course. But why isn't conference organiser Aristotle Papanikolaou giving a paper?

I have added a link to Mirror of Justice - the development of Catholic legal theory blog, where Rob Vischer is talking about MacInytre and David Mills on 'engaging modernity'. He quotes Mills:

By "imagination," I mean the faculty that controls what we, and especially children, think the world is like. It give us the map by which we plot our course. It gives us our vision of the world about which our mind thinks and on which our will works. It tells us what feels normal, average, to be expected, what feelings should go with what actions.

To the extent a child has learned it in childhood, it changes his whole life, even when he thinks he has left his childhood behind. Even if he insists on losing his faith, it limits the sort of faith he will adopt instead. If he insists on sinning, it limits the sorts of sins he can commit with (so to speak) a clear conscience. It will determine how he rationalizes his sins.

. . . . Revulsion is a much better protection from the force of the passions than an intellectual understanding by itself. To feel "This is yucky" is not a final protection from sin, but it is better than thinking "This is wrong" but feeling "This is okay." Lust offers the paradigmatic case (examples come quickly to mind), but this is true of pride, gluttony, envy, and all the rest, even sloth.

[We have an obligation to] try and form [children's] imaginations, to give them an alternative to the worldly lessons even the sheltered child absorbs as if from the air, by immersing them in books that express the Christian understanding of the world. . . . A good story will not make him good, but it should help him understand goodness a little better and make doing good a little easier by making it feel more normal. It will teach him that the world is this kind of place and not that kind.

This is why traditions - as championed by MacIntyre and by David Mills - can be so threatening to modern liberalism's fixation on individual autonomy. Christianity is not reducible to a set of propositions to be introduced to a person at an age when they are capable of critical reflection. Charting a course between fundamentalism and secularism requires, at a minimum, a recognition that Christianity shapes our minds, but not just our minds, and that while Christianity stands in tension with modern culture, it is not closed off to it. In the words of Gaudium et spes, "nothing genuinely human does not raise an echo in [our] hearts."

I take heart from a remarkable 24-hour meeting last week when Anglican and Roman Catholic bishops from England and Wales came together to spend time in shared prayer, reflection, study and recreation. Our encounter, characterised by a warm sense of fraternity, was hugely beneficial not only to the bishops, but also to the development of a shared vision about the public space our Churches occupy nationally. We were united in resolving to defend that space, for the sake of the common good. Standing firmly on that ground, we seek to pursue dialogue with everyone of good will.

There is an urgent need for respectful dialogue and co-operation between all interested parties, whether Christians or members of other faiths, agnostics or secularists. The dialogue needs to be well-informed: the easiest but not the most honest way to dismiss an idea one does not agree with is to misrepresent it, as Professor Dawkins does.

Pope Benedict XVI, in his well-publicised address in Regensburg, spoke of the crucial link between faith, reason and culture. He was stating that the only honest basis for dialogue is reason rooted in goodness and love. This applies not only to dialogue with religious believers whose understanding and spiritual traditions are different from Christians, but also to secular Europe.

Shallow multiculturalism that fails to appreciate the basis of culture in faith, leads us away from social cohesion. In its deeper meaning, multiculturalism is about mutual respect and understanding for those of different beliefs. It is not about fulfilling the secularist dream of banishing faith from the public square, but about admitting new varieties of faith and inviting them to join the public conversation and valuing what they have to say.

I am becoming tired of the mockery of those who seem to regard faith communities, especially Christian ones, as intrusive and contrary to the common good. I label them Christophobic. They wish to close off every voice and contribution other than their own. Their inability to see the Christian seed in what is noble and good in Western culture chills the possibility of a true pluralism. Sometimes it spills over into the kind of anti-Christian bigotry that has appeared on some university campuses.

The great majority of people in our country do not want the erosion of a culture that is ultimately rooted in Christianity and its values. The presence in Britain of Muslims and other faith communities is leading to a renewed interest in Christian identity, boiled down if you like to the simple proposition that if a Muslim woman may wear a headscarf, a Christian woman should be able to wear a cross.

What is lacking in the new secular aggressiveness is the very Christian virtue of doubt. Only secularists such as Professor Dawkins seem to have no doubt when it comes to faith. We cannot build a truly human society on such narrow and rigid foundations.

Religion is not safe or easy. The new presence in Britain of an angry expression of Islam is a challenge; but the right response is not an angry dismissal of faith. We will not bring about a society at greater ease with itself by attempting to declare faith-free zones. British society is not a secular fortress needing to repel boarders, but a society permeated by belief as well as non-belief. The public space must be broad and permeable if it is to be truly public.

Cardinal Cormac Murphy-Connor, Archbishop of Westminster Time to stand up for our beliefs

* * *

It is high time we heard from the Roman Catholics in the UK. So this muted and belated roar is better than nothing. There was a much more convincing roar from Vincent Nichols, Archbishop of Birmingham, but I have found only quotes from it, the speech itself has not made it to the web.

Here are excerpts:

Archbishop Nichols declared that ministers were "engaged in an intense and at times aggressive reshaping of our moral framework…. those who are elected to fashion our laws are not elected to be our moral tutors. They have no mandate or competence to be so."

"The Government must realise that it is not possible to seek co-operation with us while at the same time trying to impose upon us conditions which contradict our moral values."

"It is simply unacceptable to suggest that the resources of faith communities, whether in schools, adoption agencies, welfare programmes, halls and shelters can work in co-operation with public authorities only if the faith communities accept not simply a legal framework but also the moral standards at present being touted by the Government."

Don't impose your morality

With the grace of God, Your Holiness, we have been blessed to enter the joy of the Kingdom, to "see the true light and receive the heavenly Spirit." Every celebration of the Divine Liturgy is a powerful and inspiring con-celebration of heaven and of history. Every Divine Liturgy is both an anamnesis of the past and an anticipation of the Kingdom. We are convinced that during this Divine Liturgy, we have once again been transferred spiritually in three directions: toward the kingdom of heaven where the angels celebrate; toward the celebration of the liturgy through the centuries; and toward the heavenly kingdom to come.

This overwhelming continuity with heaven as well as with history means that the Orthodox liturgy is the mystical experience and profound conviction that "Christ was, is, and ever shall be in our midst!" For in Christ, there is a deep connection between past, present, and future. In this way, the liturgy is more than merely the recollection of Christ's words and acts. It is the realization of the very presence of Christ Himself, who has promised to be wherever two or three are gathered in His name....

Thus our worship coincides with the same joyous worship in heaven and throughout history. Indeed, as St. John Chrysostom himself affirms: "Those in heaven and those on earth form a single festival, a shared thanksgiving, one choir" (PG 56.97). Heaven and earth offer one prayer, one feast, and one doxology. The Divine Liturgy is at once the heavenly kingdom and our home, "a new heaven and a new earth" (Rev. 21.1), the ground and center where all things find their true meaning. The Liturgy teaches us to broaden our horizon and vision, to speak the language of love and communion, but also to learn that we must be with one another in spite of our differences and even divisions. In its spacious embrace, it includes the whole world, the communion of saints, and all of God's creation. The entire universe becomes "a cosmic liturgy", to recall the teaching of St. Maximus the Confessor. This kind of Liturgy can never grow old or outdated.

The only appropriate response to this showering of divine benefits and compassionate mercy is gratitude (eucharistia). Indeed, thanksgiving and glory are the only fitting response of human beings to their Creator. For to Him belong all glory, honor, and worship: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; now and always, and to the ages of ages. Amen.

Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew Homily during the Divine Liturgy The Feast Day of St. Andrew at the Patriarchal Cathedral of St. George

On the Orthodox side, where theological differences are relatively small, the prospect of common witness is elusive. The two principal centers of Orthodoxy are Constantinople, by precedence, and Moscow, by numbers. In both cases the patriarchs are under intense pressure from their respective states, and their freedom to act on the global stage is circumscribed. The visit of the pope to the patriarch of Constantinople is, in part, an act of solidarity with a beleaguered brother under the thumb of the secularist Turkish state.

It is remarkable that the visit of the pope to Turkey would be considered a critical test of Christian-Muslim relations. Given that the patriarch of Constantinople lives in Turkey, it might be thought that there is no need to await the arrival of Rome for that interreligious encounter. Constantinople used to be Christendom’s second city; after all Bartholomew’s official title is Archbishop of Constantinople and New Rome. Yes, much has happened since 1453, but the fact that Turkey is no longer considered a place of Christian-Muslim encounter is evidence of how far Orthodoxy has been pushed to the margins.

Indeed, the last week has highlighted how it now falls to the pope to speak for global Christianity in a way that was not anticipated 40 years ago. While it was thought then that Rome would always have a certain primacy, the hope was that ecumenism would produce a stronger Christian voice, a joint voice of powerful evangelical witness. The contrary is happened; over the course of four decades Rome has declared itself irrevocably committed to the ecumenical path, and has found itself increasingly the only voice on the global stage. Who else can speak for Christianity? Call it the man in white’s burden, if you will.

Archbishop Williams confirmed the increasingly marginal role of Anglicanism in world Christianity on his October trip to China. He was permitted to visit China on the condition that he only met with people approved by the government. That the Chinese government, still a ferocious persecutor of religion, would consider Canterbury harmless enough for a visit speaks volumes. In their judgment, there was no danger of a troublesome Christian witness from Dr. Williams. He has a voice, but little to say. As for Patriarch Bartholomew, the Turkish government does not even recognize his international status as the primus inter pares of all Orthodoxy. He has something to say, but he is not permitted to have a voice.

The net result is that there are fewer Christian voices than there should be — the exact opposite of what the ecumenical project would have foreseen. This is a troublesome situation — to say the least —in a world where religious forces are growing more influential, and the challenge of religious violence is more pressing. Benedict’s trip to Turkey highlights one of the incongruities of the current situation; almost anyone can speak for Islam, but who speaks for Christians? It is usually put the other way around, observing that Islam has no central doctrinal authority. True enough, but on matters Islamic, it is customary for any Islamic head of government to speak for Islam in a way Christian heads of government do not. This reached absurd proportions in Turkey, where Benedict consented to meet with the president of the state religious-affairs bureaucracy, Ali Burdakoglu, in his own offices. No doubt a gracious olive branch after the unpleasantness of post-Regensburg, it was odd to see the pope of Rome speaking to Islam in the person of a state bureaucrat. That this was selected as the primary Christian-Muslim encounter of the trip only underscored the strangeness at which we have arrived: Only the pope is seen to speak for Christians, but anyone can speak for Islam.

This is not a good situation; the world needs more Christian voices in conversation with Islam, not fewer. But Benedict’s ecumenical week has demonstrated that those other voices are faint indeed.

Father Raymond J. de Souza The Man in White’s Burden: Who else but the pope can speak for Christianity?

For much more comment on Benedict and Bartholomew's meeting see the wonderful Amy Welborn

To understand the theological concept of sacrifice we need to learn the connections between all the various parts of the theology of the Old Testament. The election of this people, the covenant, and the whole life of this people in obedience, and disobedience to God, is the key to sacrifice. This is what I wanted to explain in The Eschatological Economy.

Christian theology must proclaim clearly that God calls and forms his people, bring them up as a parent brings up a child, and that God makes his people holy. But when the narrative of God nurturing and forming his people is lost the meaning of sacrifice was lost. When this narrative is lost, so is the point of what Israel did in the temple at Jerusalem. There God’s elect people, publicly, before the watching world showed (and of course said and sung in worship) that Israel’s holy God provides for his people, is creator of all the earth and that all the gentile nations are wrong to believe that they have to please and provide for their various divinities. The Israel's temple practices were publicly demythologising the violent cosmologies of the nations around. Israel is critic of the world of the pagans, and witness to the true God, who provides for and hears all who pray to him. Israel not only says this, but acts it out in the drama and ritual, that we call ‘sacrifice’ in the temple at Jerusalem.

You can find out more about The Eschatological Economy at Amazon.com or at Amazon.co.uk or at Eerdmans

This fraternal encounter which brings us together, Pope Benedict XVI of Rome and Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I, is Godâ??s work, and in a certain sense his gift. We give thanks to the Author of all that is good, who allows us once again, in prayer and in dialogue, to express the joy we feel as brothers and to renew our commitment to move towards full communion. This commitment comes from the Lordâ??s will and from our responsibility as Pastors in the Church of Christ. May our meeting be a sign and an encouragement to us to share the same sentiments and the same attitudes of fraternity, cooperation and communion in charity and truth. The Holy Spirit will help us to prepare the great day of the re-establishment of full unity, whenever and however God wills it. Then we shall truly be able to rejoice and be glad.

1. We have recalled with thankfulness the meetings of our venerable predecessors, blessed by the Lord, who showed the world the urgent need for unity and traced sure paths for attaining it, through dialogue, prayer and the daily life of the Church. Pope Paul VI and Patriarch Athenagoras I went as pilgrims to Jerusalem, to the very place where Jesus Christ died and rose again for the salvation of the world, and they also met again, here in the Phanar and in Rome. They left us a common declaration which retains all its value; it emphasizes that true dialogue in charity must sustain and inspire all relations between individuals and between Churches, that it â??must be rooted in a total fidelity to the one Lord Jesus Christ and in mutual respect for their own traditionsâ?? (Tomos Agapis, 195). Nor have we forgotten the reciprocal visits of His Holiness Pope John Paul II and His Holiness Dimitrios I. It was during the visit of Pope John Paul II, his first ecumenical visit, that the creation of the Mixed Commission for theological dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church was announced. This has brought together our Churches in the declared aim of re-establishing full communion.

As far as relations between the Church of Rome and the Church of Constantinople are concerned, we cannot fail to recall the solemn ecclesial act effacing the memory of the ancient anathemas which for centuries had a negative effect on our Churches. We have not yet drawn from this act all the positive consequences which can flow from it in our progress towards full unity, to which the mixed Commission is called to make an important contribution. We exhort our faithful to take an active part in this process, through prayer and through significant gestures.

Common Declaration by Pope Benedict XVI & Patriarch Bartholomew I

* * *

What these two Christians, Benedict and Bartholomew, are doing is what every Christian must do in order to receive Christ â?? go to the Christians you disagree with, make your differences clear to one another, confess and forgive what has to be confessed and forgiven, and together look forward to your reconciliation and unity. Let's do it.