Bach Cantate during Divine Service at St John’s Southgate this Sunday

There are not many places in the world where you can hear a Bach Cantata sung in the context for which they were originally intended, namely in connection with the Service of the Word in the Lutheran Sunday liturgy, but St John’s Lutheran Church in Southgate (Melbourne) is one of them.

And this Sunday, 22 November at 9am, in addition, you will hear it done in the context of a Bach Mass! And all for free!

Details:

1) BWV 235 Mass in G minor (one of the 4 Lutheran Masses)
2) BWV 26 Ach wie flüchtig, ach wie nichtig (“Ah! how weary, ah! how fleeting”)
3) …and as a bonus, the Sanctus from BWV 325

St Johns Lutheran Church, Southgate
Nov 22 9am

Maddy’s godfather, David Goedecke, a long time friend of mine, is singing in the choir. We wish them all the best.

“Yahweh’s wife”: a different way of looking at it

Speaking of Catholica, there is an essay there currently by Dr Ian Elmer, lecturer in Biblical Studies at St Paul’s Theological College (ACU). He quite rightly points to the fact that there is abundant evidence that in early Canaanitic folk religion (as in all Ancient Near Eastern religions), the High God (El or Yahweh) had a consort. It is also true that as the religion of Israel developed toward exclusive monotheism, this consort was vehemently and decisively excluded from Jewish cult and theology.

As he interprets this, it is because:

The “Book religion” was monotheistic, elitist, priestly, literary and male. It conferred prestige and power upon those who served it, the priests and the patriarchy of the exilic community. This process became even more firmly entrenched with the Restoration and, as Dever asserts, the emerging Scriptures became the excusive preserve of a tiny, but increasingly powerful, Jerusalem-based, male literary and theological elite.

Well, that’s one way of looking at it. There is another way. He forgets to tell you that the main impulse for “killing off” El’s consort goddess came not from the priests in Jerusalem, but the prophetic movement, especially starting with Elijah, but continued with Isaiah and drastically rewritten by Hosea and others.

In particular, as the early chapters of Hosea show, by removing the goddess from the scene, a new theology was able to emerge which in fact reintroduced a consort for Yahweh: namely, Israel herself.

Consider this: if God has a divine wife, his love and attention is directed to her alone. God without a divine wife still seeks a bride, but now, not in the regions of heaven – where he alone is divine – but among human beings. And so Israel’s God enters into a divine marriage not with another “divine being”, but with his people. God’s love is directed to his human creatures, rather than bottled up and selfishly retained in heaven.

Of course, it is from this that the whole theology of Christ as bridegroom and the Church as Bride extends.

If, out of some misguided feministic concern, we try to restore the ancient pagan view of God and His Consort, we inadvertantly cut off ourselves from the love of God expressed in the Paschal Mystery (so often interpreted as a recreation story in line with Genesis 2:21-25) by which heaven is wedded to earth, and the Bride comes forth from the wounded side of Christ.

This is why Pope Benedict always reminds us of the necessity of interpreting the Scriptures within the faith of the Church. The high priests of “a tiny, but increasingly powerful, academe-based, male literary and theological elite”, such as “biblical scholars” like Dr Elmer, are not free to make up their own account.

Why Schütz has a link to “Catholica”

At Cooee’s from the Cloister, Hardman Window asks the question:

“And how can Mr Schutz live with himself, having a link on aCatholica to his nice thoughtful intelligent Catholic blog “Sentire Cum Ecclesia”?

He speaks of the well known and oft-read website (to which I also have a link on this page) “Catholica”. I have a link to them, and they have a link to me because Brian Coyne and I have agreed to be friendly to one another, even if we are both utterly convinced that the other is entirely mistaken in his point of view. This, you see, is dialogue.

You can have a respectful dialogue without sacrificing your own convictions AND without any disrespect to the other as a “thoughtful and intelligent” human being (even though sometimes you might express the view that he could give a little more evidence of that thoughtfulness and intelligence).

Thus it is with me and the folks at Catholica. I respect them above all as my fellow Catholics. They and I are all embraced in catholic communion with the Bishop of Rome. I like to remind them of this every now and again.

And, of course, there is that well known saying in the dialogue business: “Know your enemy.”

The Curious Case of Tegan Lane

The Age this morning reports a curious case of a mother charged with the murder of her newborn baby – even though the baby’s body has never been found. The following is from the print edition of the story “Water polo player charged with daughter murder”:

Keli Lane was a 21-year-old water polo star when, having concealed her pregnancy from loved ones and teammates, she gave birth to Tegan at Auburn Hospital on September 12, 1996.

Two days later, she left the hospital in a taxi at 2pm. Tegan has not been seen since. By 4pm that day, Keli Lane was at a friend’s wedding in Manly. By all accounts, nobody at the wedding – not even her mother – suspected.

It is a sad story of a young woman who wanted a successful sporting career more than a family. The curious thing about the case is that (at least in Victoria) she could have had the child aborted right up until the birth itself, and the doctor and the nursing staff of the Auburn Hospital would have helped her dispose of the body, would have kept the whole thing a secret, and there would never have been an inquest, let alone a murder trial. And yet the final outcome would have been exactly the same: dead baby.

We live in a topsy-turvy world…

Demand Your Rights!

This is a terrific quotation from Joseph Ratzinger:

In the Church, the debate (about freedom) concerns liberty in its deepest sense, as openness to the divine Being in order to become a sharer in its life…The fundamental right of Christians is the right to the whole faith…All other liberties in the Church are ordered to this foundational right. Under this common denominator of faith we must leave a wide space for differing projects and forms of spiritual life, and, analogously, to differing forms of thought, so that each with its own richness may contribute to the faith of the Church…What is in question is, on the one hand, the basic right of the faithful to a faith which is pure, and, on the other, the right to express that faith in the thought and language of their own time.

Ref: Joseph Ratzinger as cited by Aidan Nichols, in ‘Walter Kasper and his theological programme’, New Blackfriars Vol. 67 (787) January (1986): 16-24 at 22.  (HT to Prof. Tracey Rowland)

“Back to the Future?” or “Towards 1968?”

Last Friday, Cathnews carried two American opinion pieces side by side, which perfectly demonstrate the chasm between the right and left hemispheres of the sensus fidelium in the US.

In A ‘Different Benedict is Here’: Benedict XVI and the New Missionary Age, Deacon Keith Fournier writes on Catholic Online:

Pope Benedict XVI participated in the Second Vatican Council. He not only understands the authentic teaching of that Council but has led the way in its proper implementation in many areas of life, both within the Church and in her mission to the contemporary age. He also understands the way that the Council was hijacked in some circles, disregarded in others and misinterpreted in still others. However, his is a voice calling for a dynamically orthodox and faithful Catholic Christian faith, practice, worship and life that does not want to move us back but forward and toward….

Some attempted to misuse this prophetic insight to paint him as rejecting the modern world and somehow seeking to “turn the clock back”. That was nonsense. What he rejects is the emptiness of what is called “modernity” and “post modernity”. What he proposes is a path to authentic progress; a road leading not to the past, but to a future of hope. Authentic liberation can only be brought about through a new missionary age and a Rebirth of the Church. The Gospel – as taught by and lived in its fullness within the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church – is the only saving truth that redeems and brings about human flourishing, true freedom and authentic cultural recovery.

Contrast that with the rant (I am sorry if that seems pejorative, but read it for yourself and tell me if that is not the right word for the tone of the piece) of the other piece, an editorial from the National Catholic Reporter, Nostalgia is not a path to the future:

It has been an open secret that powerful forces in the church’s leadership have strongly opposed the reforms set in motion by the Second Vatican Council and have worked quietly yet assiduously during the past 40 years to roll back what has been accomplished. … Then along came Cardinal Franc Rodé, head of the Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life, who has vaulted to notoriety as the person overseeing the investigation of U.S. women religious. He is quoted in this issue, from a talk he gave in September 2008, as blaming the problems of Vatican II on a misguided “hermeneutic” or interpretation, which he calls “a hermeneutic of rupture and discontinuity.”…

What would he have us return to? Would he want to go back to the days when the church condemned separation of church and state? Would he want us to return to a condemnation of religious liberty? Maybe his objection is to Nostra Aetate, the document on church relations with non-Christian religions. Perhaps he would want us to return to the days of open hostility toward Jews in our prayers and sermons. Or does he feel that modernity and ecumenism have so infected the church that we should return to those days when Catholics were prohibited from attending the funerals of friends if held in a Protestant church, or when we were barred from attending a non-Catholic college without the permission of the local bishop? Does he want a return to the 19th-century papal condemnation of freedom of conscience?

Or is he upset that most do not prefer, as he does, dressing up in the trappings of royalty, the yards of silk in the cappa magna, the canopies and throne chairs and all the rest — being attended by his minions, younger priests in lacy surplices, birettas and old-fashioned vestments encrusted with gold thread and jewels — all the while speaking in a dead language, facing a wall, his back to the people?

All of this was the preconciliar church. Which elements does he want restored?

Or possibly he regrets the fact that laypeople have wide access these days not only to the scriptures but also to the documents of Vatican II, and thus can say with authority that his version of church, dependent on a thin culture of nostalgia, holds no promise of the future.

Against that culture, the people of God can say convincingly that our worldwide church, in elaborate deliberation, has decided to go forward, not backward, and that the authors of that change wrote compellingly of the need for new and more inclusive ways of conducting ourselves as 21st-century Catholics.

It is obvious that some Catholics’ idea of “moving forward” is diametrically opposite to some others.

But I also find it completely astounding that these two documents about exactly the same thing (how the Church is “moving forward”) could be about such two different things.

Deacon Fournier says that Benedict’s great push forward is an undertaking of “an extraordinary mission of Church Unity”. He points to Benedict’s actions aimed at restoring unity with the SSPX, the Anglican dissdents and, above all, the Orthodox. (He could have pointed to Benedict’s track record with the Protestants too – he single handedly saved the Joint Declaration from the dustbins of history 10 years ago).

He also points to Benedict’s conviction that the Church has a mission to rescue the West from cultural devastation, saying that for him, there is “no Plan B”, the Church is “the only hope for the whole world because she continues the redemptive mission of her head, Jesus Christ.”. “Authentic liberation can only be brought about through a new missionary age and a Rebirth of the Church.”

Contrast that with the NCR editor’s rant against Cardinal Rode (his straw man for this exercise – he could have picked on a bigger target, namely the bloke who originally gave us the phrase “a hermeneutic of rupture and discontinuity”) accusing him of opposing the separation of church and state, ecumenism, religious liberty, interreligious dialogue and freedom of conscience. But as if to demonstrate and prove how infantile and calumnious these claims are, the editor concludes with the claim that whole reason the members of the Benedictine Curia wish to “turn the clock back” is so that they can “dress up in the trappings of royalty…being attended by…minions…in lacy surplices…speaking a dead language facing a wall,…back to the people.”

These two op ed pieces, representing two completely opposed points of view competing in the Western Church today, are in mortal combat for the claim to be the authentic “sensus fidelium”. I personally believe that the only point of view that has a right to such a claim is that which boldly embraces the mission of the Church to move forward in the unity of faith, authentically proclaiming the name of Jesus Christ to the world.

Put this one in the “weird” basket…

…or, on the other hand, there seems to be something definitely educational in it.

I am referring to this entry on Father Hollywood’ blog, Girls Gone Wild, WELS Edition. A regular visitor to this blog, Dr William Tighe, put me (and, it would seem, Father Hollywood himself) onto this.

In short summary, the post is about the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod in the States. That particular group of Lutherans in the State has reached a position on the public ministry of the Church somewhat akin to the Sydney Anglicans here in Australia. Being “bible-based”, they have determined that the Bible does not establish an “office of the ministry”. (Technically, I have no problem with that position – after all, Jesus, not the bible, established the ordained apostolic ministry). They are convinced beyond all doubt that the Bible does, however, teach that women should not have authority over men. Making this the cardinal and only law of ministry, and taking a completely functionalist view of the ministry of word and sacrament, they therefore conclude that:

A woman can celebrate the eucharist as long as she only communes women.

Father Hollywood – a Lutheran Church Missouri Synod pastor expounds the whole business, but concludes with this:

Just as female ordination inevitably leads to the blessing of same-sex marriages, I also believe that a functional view of the ministry inexorably leads to women functioning (if not outright claiming to be) pastors. Until we in the LCMS come to grips with the idea of ontology (both of ministers and of the sexes), we will continue to follow in the train of our conservative brethren, even though the tracks have taken a radical turn to the left.

It is true that Lutheranism has always held together both a “high” and a “low” view of the ordained ministry, where the “high” view regards the “office of the ministry” as being ontologically tied to the person who fills the office and the “low” view regards the “office of the ministry” as a set of functions (specifically preaching the word and administering the sacraments) which does not. They have never entirely sorted this one out, and generally (even in the Lutheran Church of Australia) continue to walk the tight-rope without looking at the rope itself (something which in fact is necessary if you are trying to balance on a thin line of any kind).

This explains why in the LCA there are continuing debates about women’s ordination, almost completely balanced in terms of numbers of supporters and opponents. But in all these debates, only a few brave souls have come out and definitely declared themselves for the “high” or “low” view as such. Of course, the “high” view, if followed logically, must finally lead the one who holds it to question what happens in the rite of ordination itself, and that (if followed through ontologically) leads to questioning the whole business of the incarnate transmission of the Office of the Ministry, and (take it from me folks) it is all down hill from there to a full-blown acceptance of the Catholic doctrine of Holy Orders.

Which, of course, the bible does not itself “establish”.

Dawkins in the Dock

Have you every day dreamed of what it would be like to see über-neo-atheist Richard Dawkins in the dock having his published writings put up to legal questioning of “the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth” kind?

Dream no more! Just click this link to a transcript of an episode of the Hugh Hewitt Show (US), where the legally trained host cross-examines the Oxford Don and exposes some of his weak points. The result is very pleasing in a “shadenfreude” kinda way.

Here’s a taste:

HH: On the person of Jesus Christ, did He exist?

RD: I suspect He probably did. I suspect there are lots of itinerant preachers, and one of them was probably called Yehoshua, or various other versions of Jesus’ name, but I don’t think that a miracle worker existed.

HH: How do you rate the evidence for Christ’s existence, manuscript evidence, eyewitness evidence, things like that?

RD: As I said, it wouldn’t be at all surprising if a man called Jesus or Yehoshua existed. I would say the evidence that He worked miracles, He rose from the dead, He was born of a virgin, is zero.

HH: Well, you repeatedly use the analogy of a detective at a crime scene throughout The Greatest Show On Earth. But detectives simply can’t dismiss evidence they don’t want to see. There’s a lot of evidence for the miracles, in terms of eyewitness…

RD: No, there isn’t. What there is, is written stories which were written decades after the alleged events were supposed to happen. No historian would take that seriously.

HH: Well, that’s why I’m conflicted, because in your book, you talk about the Latin teacher who is stymied at every turn, and yet Latin teachers routinely rely on things like Tacitus and Pliny, and histories that were written centuries after the events in which they are recording occur.

RD: There’s massive archaeological evidence, there’s massive evidence of all kinds. It’s just not comparable. No…if you talk to any ancient historian of the period, they will agree that it is not good historical evidence.

HH: Oh, that’s simply not true. Dr. Mark Roberts, double PhD in undergraduate at Harvard has written a very persuasive book upon this. I mean, that’s an astounding statement. Are you unfamiliar with him?

RD: All right, then there may be some, but a very large number of ancient historians would say…

HH: Well, you just said there were none. So there are some that you are choosing not to confront.

RD: You sound like a lawyer.

HH: I am a lawyer.

RD: Oh, for God’s sake. Are you? Okay. I didn’t know that. All right. I will accept that there are some ancient historians who take the Gospels seriously. But they were written decades after the events that happened, and they were written by people with an axe to grind, written by disciples. There are no eyewitness written accounts. The earliest New Testament…

HH: I understand you believe that, Professor. I do. But what I don’t understand is how you can use the analogy of the Latin teacher or the detective, when it breaks down given your dismissal of evidence you don’t see fit to deal with squarely?… It’s actually a very persuasive…in fact, the arguments for the manuscript evidence of Christ and His doings is much stronger than anything, for example, Tacitus or Pliny wrote. It’s just much stronger. Now you might counter with Cesar’s Gallic war commentaries, and you do mention those, and those are contemporary accounts by an eyewitness, but so are the Gospel evidences, say, of Luke accompanying Paul about. And yet you’re dismissive of the miracles that occurred in there. So I’m just wondering…

RD: They may be. The accounts of Luke accompanying Paul may be real, but Luke never met Jesus.

HH: But again, I’m not arguing that point with you. It’s just that you dismiss that all without dealing with it serially, which would not be, I think, consistent with your detective argument, or your Latin teacher argument, because…

RD: I cannot believe that you’re doing more than just trying to score points. You cannot seriously be saying that the case for the existence of the Roman Empire is as weak as for Jesus.

HH: That’s not what I’m saying at all. I didn’t say that. I said that your argument, by analogy, to a Latin teacher being harried by people who deny certain things, but especially your idea of a detective using evidence at a crime scene, that it doesn’t comport with your dismissal of the evidence for Christianity and the historical Jesus.

RD: Okay, do you believe Jesus turned water into wine?

HH: Yes.

RD: You seriously do?

HH: Yes.

RD: You actually think that Jesus got water, and made all those molecules turn into wine?

HH: Yes.

RD: My God.

HH: Yes. My God, actually, not yours. But let me…

RD: I’ve realized the kind of person I’m dealing with now.

HH: But what would that person be? The Stephen J. Gould student that you’re dealing with now?

RD: Okay. You think that…

HH: Wait, we’ve got to go to a break, Professor.

Read it all here.

“Let’s Facebook!”

(c) Wiley Ink, Inc.

Recently at the St Paul’s Annual Camp, Peter, the editor of the world’s best Parish Magazine, Inside Story, was cutting crook about people using “gift” as a verb. Pastor Andrew pleaded guilty as charged, and promised not to do it in the future. We hope not. We wouldn’t want him to go the way of the laptop in the Non Sequitur cartoon published in today’s edition of The Age (as pictured above).

P.S. Yes, I have a facebook page, and I do accept friend requests and suggestions, but don’t expect any activitiy other than that from me. It takes all my time to maintain this blog. If you want to talk to me, you know where to find me!

“Anglicanorum Coetibus”

Three documents have been released by the Holy See today in fulfillment of expectations regarding the application of estranged traditional Anglican Churches for full communion with the Holy See.

They are:

1) The Apostolic Constitution of Benedict XVI “Anglicanorum Coetibus”
2) Complementary Norms for the Apostolic Constitution Anglicanorum coetibus
3) Official Vatican commentary on the significance of the apostolic constitution “Anglicanorum Coetibus.”