On Catholicism

The Nineteenth Sunday after Trinity

O GOD, forasmuch as without thee we are not able to please thee: Mercifully grant, that thy Holy Spirit may in all things direct and rule our hearts; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

Feast of Dedication

O MOST blessed Saviour, who didst vouchsafe thy gracious presence at the Feast of Dedication: Be present with us at this time by thy Holy Spirit, and so possess our souls by thy grace, that we may be living temples, holy and acceptable unto thee; who livest and reignest with the Father and the Holy Spirit, one God, world without end. Amen.

Every Sunday, when we read the words of the Nicene Creed we proclaim, “And I believe One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.” What exactly does the term Catholic mean there? It’s used in other contexts; does it always mean the same thing? In what sense is the Anglican Church Catholic? There are many meanings to the term, and it’s used differently by different fellowships and denominations of Christians in different contexts.

In modern times, you will often find the term ‘catholic’ used in the creed instead of ‘Catholic,’ and sometimes you’ll even see substituted for it the word universal, or the word universal added in parentheses afterwards. The meaning behind this is simple: catholic means the universal fellowship of all those who hold an orthodox profession of faith in Christ. All that is required is to believe that Christ is the only begotten son of God, that he was incarnate and died for our sins on the cross, and that through faith in Him, we can be saved. There is a truth to this use of the term, but at the same time it does not capture the fullness of the term Catholic. Catholic is more discrete than catholic. What’s more, the rise of the use of the term universal is in large part a result of the rise in the term Catholic in its second context.

One of the most common uses of the term Catholic is when it is used interchangeably with the term Roman Catholic. The term refers to one specific fellowship and tradition, that of the Roman Catholic Church, which has and continues to claim to be the Catholic Church. The problem is that the Eastern Orthodox Church also claims to be the Catholic Church exclusively, and the Anglican Communion and others claim to be a part of the Catholic Church. Because of the predominance of the Roman Catholic Church worldwide and its cultural influence, particularly in the Anglosphere when we’re discussing the context of the English language term ‘Catholic’ there is often an assumption, particularly by Protestants who may otherwise not be familiar with the terminology, that any reference to Catholic is a reference to the Roman Catholic. That is not the case, however.

The connection between Catholic, meaning Roman Catholic, and catholic is in an effort to reassure congregants that when they are professing belief in the catholic (universal) Church, they are not claiming to be a part of the Roman Catholic Church. Among Anglicans, this concern tends to stem from the historic antipathy between Anglicans and Roman Catholics in England during and subsequent to the English Reformation. While in modern times, most of this antipathy has disappeared, some historical mistrust remains, and for different reasons similar antipathy exists in different places between Roman Catholics and Protestants of different denominations. Setting aside the motivations behind a desire not to be confused with being Roman Catholic, the more important failure of this practice is to again conflate the terms Catholic and Roman Catholic, which do have separate meanings.

Related to the term Catholic being used to mean Roman Catholic, there is another somewhat decidedly Anglican use of the term. Some High Churchman and ritualists will refer to themselves as Catholic, in some manner or another, meaning it to refer to their preference towards Roman Catholic style ritualism, without reference to theology. In this, there might be Anglicans who refer to themselves as Anglo-Catholics or Anglican Catholics, or Catholic Anglicans, but who do not support the theology of the Oxford Movement, which is the more defining characteristic of Anglo-Catholicism. Another variation might be the term Liberal Catholics, who again primarily consist of Liberal Christians who term themselves Catholic due to their use of Roman Catholic rituals in their High Churchmanship. While this form of labelling, in reference to practice over theology, can be valid due to its long-term understanding, it still does not appreciate the fullness of the term. You can have a Liberal Catholic Anglican, but that is a representation of a person’s theology and Churchmanship, and doesn’t speak to the Catholic Church at all.

So what is the Catholic Church?

In its fullest sense, when the Nicene Creed says Catholic Church, it is in reference to the once undivided Catholic Church of the first Christian millennium, which encompassed all orthodox Christians from the Apostolic Age up to roughly the Great Schism of 1054. During this period, there were many controversies and in certain senses, the Church was never truly undivided, but what is referenced here is the unity that was found throughout the Christian world. You could enter into any Christian church or house of worship certain that you would be both welcome and it would be familiar to you in terms of the sacramental life, the faith and practice, and its reverence for Holy Scripture. This is the Catholic Church directly referenced by the Nicene Creed.

In modern times, there are successors to the Catholic Church that remain a part of it. No communion precisely holds to the exact same principles and practices of the early Catholic Church, but so long as they hold true to the four principles of unity, they maintain a claim to Catholicity. As the Ven. Fr. Michael McKinnon puts it:

Those communions or fellowships of the once undivided Catholic church who have maintained the one canon of Scripture, the one faith, articulated in the creeds and councils of the Church, the one Sacramental life, emphasizing the sacraments of Baptism, and being born to new life, and the Supper of the Lord, and being nourished in new life, and the one apostolic ministry, with the threefold order of bishops, priests and deacons, and which taken together comprise the once undivided Catholic Church.

Now, while there are some Anglicans who use the term Catholic in reference to Roman Catholic practice, there are many more who, when they claim to be some form of Catholic Anglican or Anglo-Catholic, mean as much in reference to this understanding of Anglicans as a fellowship in succession to the Catholic Church, and which continues to uphold the four principles which defined the Catholic Church.

During the English Reformation, many viewed the separation from Roman jurisdiction in the 1530s as an opportunity to split doctrinally with Rome not in favour of the continental Reformation, but in an effort to restore the purity of Christianity through the faith of the Catholic Church by removing certain Roman superstitious additions to the faith, introduced during the medieval period. Lancelot Andrewes, a Bishop of the Church of England in the early 17th century and considered one of the brightest Anglican scholars of his day famously wrote that, “One canon reduced to writing by God himself, two testaments, three creeds, four general councils, five centuries, and the series of Fathers in that period – the centuries that is, before Constantine, and two after, determine the boundary of our faith.”

More recently, Archbishop Jeffrey Fisher, Archbishop of Canterbury from 1945 to 1961, said, “The Anglican Communion has no peculiar thought, practice, creed or confession of its own. It has only the Catholic faith of the ancient Catholic Church, as preserved in the Catholic creeds and maintained in the Catholic and Apostolic constitution of Christ's Church from the beginning.” Article XIX, when unpacked, further affirms this view of the Catholicity of the Anglican Communion, speaking of faithful preaching of Scripture, the faith of which is articulated in the creeds, and administration of the sacraments, through the historic episcopate. All sources confirm a view of the Anglican Communion as being Catholic.

When the reciting the Nicene Creed, Anglicans do not profess merely to be part of the body of all Christian believers, nor does it speak of some kind of Roman Catholic heritage; in professing Catholicity, we hold to the Christian faith practiced by the early Catholic Church.

On Modesty

The Eighteenth Sunday after Trinity

LORD, we beseech thee, grant thy people grace to withstand the temptations of the world, the flesh, and the devil, and with pure hearts and minds to follow thee the only God; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

When you invite a guest to come to Church with you, either because you’re hoping to encourage them to come to Christ or because you've invited them to a special occasion such as a Baptism or other event, the response might often look something like, “Sure, I’ll come. What should I wear?”

Outside of controversies surrounding doctrine, there have probably been more words written on the subject of what men and women should wear to church than on any other issue that could be characterised, under last week’s post, as a non-essential. Indeed, it is so important that it was covered in the Book of Homilies in a homily entitled Against Excess of Apparel.

In modern society, what we wear seems to be held as important. It makes a statement about us, to the point where studies have shown that it can have a significant impact on our lives, with workers of equal competency who dress less fashionably being less likely to receive a promotion than their more fashionable, but no more qualified, colleagues.

This reality proclaims the fact that what we wear is a statement, whether or not we intend to make one, and it’s a statement both at work and at church. With respect to what we wear at church, there seems to be a two-fold modern narrative. The first narrative is that we ought to be comfortable, and second is that we, and particularly women, ought to be modest.

Church is not a stuffy, formal place, but rather a place where we meet Christ in person! He’s our pal, so dress comfortably and sit back and relax in the presence of “bro Jesus.” A casual t-shirt or perhaps an untucked button-down shirt paired with jeans or shorts, depending on the weather, are the order of the day. Expectations are much the same for women with the addition of skirts and dresses as well. This seems to be something borne out of the sixties and seventies when Church began to try and address declining attendance by attempting to adapt to popular culture. No need to wear a shirt and tie, come and listen to our top 40 Christian Folk music! No need for your Sunday best, come just as you are and don’t be put out.

The idea of dressing comfortably, then, is one which reflects a desire to not inconvenience someone from attending by the implication that meeting Jesus may move them away from their personal comfort zone or in some way involves transformation in their lives. It doesn't really speak at all to the question of what we say when this becomes the rule of dress for church.

The second aspect of the modern narrative is one of modesty, particularly when applied to women and girls, as opposed to men. Looking back, this would have been made explicit through definition of collars not lower than two inches below the neckline, and skirts that extend below the knee, to take the example from the Roman Catholic Church’s guidelines in the 1950s. In modern times, there is an interesting tension between the idea that people should be comfortable and yet should still display modesty, even though the term is no longer defined in such stringent and observable terms.

There is, it must be said, some merit to the push for modesty, but generally speaking its merit is not in any way related to the reasons modesty has become a part of our modern narrative on dress in church. Usually modesty is promoted because of claims that immodest dress on the part of girls and women is a form of sexual temptation for men and boys who, it is assumed, cannot control themselves.

There are two problems with this. First off, it suggests that, even with the grace and support of God, a Christian man cannot conquer temptation. This is, to use a technical Greek term, hogwash. St Paul tells us in Rom 6. 14 that , “sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace.” By blaming the dress of others, we are in fact ignoring our own unrighteousness and trying to call out the possible sins of others to distract ourselves from our own falling short. This leads to the second problem. Earlier in his letter to the Romans, St Paul had just warned them against such hypocrisy, to the point where he asked in Rom 2. 3, “Do you suppose, O man—you who judge those who practice such things and yet do them yourself—that you will escape the judgement of God?” This is a dangerous form of hypocrisy because it seeks to ignore our own sin by highlighting the perceived sins of others through judgement of them. We have no right to judge, nor does our judging them in any way affect our own sins.

All of this ties up with the false narrative of dress codes in church. The question that should be asked is not whether or not we need to be comfortable to come or whether or not our wardrobe will tempt others to sin. If our clothes say something, then surely what it says should be a message directed to the one we gather to worship when we go to church?

As Anglicans, we affirm the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. If Christ is truly present in the Eucharist, then our manner of dress speaks directly to him, and we must ask ourselves what we say through that.

How would you dress to come before the Prime Minister of Canada or the Queen? A few years ago there was an uproar when Mr Justin Bieber was photographed with the Prime Minister while wearing overalls and a t-shirt. His manner of dress was identified as failing to show due respect for the person he was meeting. How much more should we recognize the need to send a clear message of reverence and respect when we come before Christ?

Does this mean going back to Sunday Best? Does it mean chastising those who don’t meet these standards? Absolutely not. The problem with encouraging people to wear comfortable clothes wasn't so much the informality of the dress, but the fact that the message we’re sending is that you don’t need to have your heart focused on Christ when you choose what you’re going to wear. 1 Sm 16. 7 says, “man looks on the outward appearance, but the Lord looks on the heart.”

While the general rule ought to look to some level of formality in dress, because that is how as a society we show respect, what matters is not the judgement of peers or the message we send to them, but the message on our heart we send to God. Someone who is simply used to wearing a suit or who does so out of an improper sense of understanding without doing so with the express intention of honouring God would not be as pleasing to God as the person who dresses quite casually, but for whom those clothes are the best they own and selected in a desire to honour God. For the same reason, modesty does have a place in how we dress for Church simply because of the message it sends to God. The concern, however, should not be about inciting sin in others.

In St Matthew’s Gospel, Christ is recorded as saying, “Therefore I tell you, do not be anxious about your life, what you will eat or what you will drink, nor about your body, what you will put on,” (6. 25). This seems to contradict the importance of dress, and indeed may well have been used to support the dress code revolution of the sixties and seventies that told us it didn't matter what we wore. At the same time, it should be remembered that just a few verses before in Chapter 5, Christ discussed how it was not the letter of the law that mattered, but the spirit. It is not enough to simply refrain from murder, but that we must avoid anger as well as both are subject to judgement (Mt 5. 22). This mirrors the interpretation of 1 Sm 16. 7 and what is truly being said is, what matters is not what you are wearing, but why you are wearing it.

On the Essentials

The Seventeenth Sunday after Trinity

LORD we pray thee that thy grace may always prevent and follow us, and make us continually to be given to all good works; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

Harvest Thanksgiving

O ALMIGHTY and everlasting God, who crownest the year with thy goodness, and hast given unto us the fruits of the earth in their season: Give us grateful hearts, that we may unfeignedly thank thee for all thy loving-kindness, and worthily magnify thy holy Name; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

There is a maxim, often mis-attributed to St Augustine of Hippo, which reads in its original Latin in necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas. It is usually rendered into English along these lines of, “in the essentials, unity; in the non-essentials, diversity; in all things, charity.” The question, then, becomes what is essential?

For Anglicans, it might be confusing. We have the Book of Common Prayer, ordinal and 39 Articles as our formularies. They define the practice of Anglican tradition, but are they essential to the Christian faith itself? Clearly not. The Lambeth Quadrilateral is in fact the document which defines the essentials for Anglicans, but in reference not merely to the Anglican tradition, but the Christian tradition as a whole.

The Lambeth Quadrilateral was a resolution of the 1888 Lambeth Conference, an international gathering of Bishops from throughout the Anglican Communion, made in response to the 1886 declaration of the House of Bishops of the Episcopal Church of the United States of America which included the following in its preamble:

we do hereby affirm that the Christian unity...can be restored only by the return of all Christian communions to the principles of unity exemplified by the undivided Catholic Church during the first ages of its existence; which principles we believe to be the substantial deposit of Christian Faith and Order committed by Christ and his Apostles to the Church unto the end of the world, and therefore incapable of compromise or surrender by those who have been ordained to be its stewards and trustees for the common and equal benefit of all men.

The full declaration of the American bishops was not adopted at the Lambeth Conference, however the four key points were adopted, declaring that the Anglican Communion would continue to affirm the historic faith of the undivided Catholic Church, and in doing so identified four specific areas.

First and foremost, the Lambeth Quadrilateral affirms the one canon of Holy Scripture as the ultimate standard of faith, and to quote Article VI of the Articles of Religion, the Quadrilateral affirms that Holy Scripture contains all things necessary to salvation. While the canon of Scripture was not fixed in the Apostolic Age, primarily because most of what would become the New Testament was not committed to writing until near the end of the Apostolic Age, yet still Scripture was recognized as containing the revealed Truth of God, and the New Testament faithfully reproduced the faith of the Apostles and the Truth revealed by Christ during his ministry. The placement of the Scripture in the Quadrilateral again itself affirms Prima Scriptura which demands that Holy Scripture be held as the standard by which the faith, order and practice of the Church is measured.

Next, the Lambeth Quadrilateral affirmed the Catholic creeds, specifically the Apostle's Creed and the Nicene Creed as faithfully articulating the doctrines of the Catholic Church, and to quote the Quadrilateral itself, "as the sufficient statement of the Christian faith." A key characteristic of the Catholic Church was that it held one faith, articulated in the Creeds and councils accepted both east and west. The Apostle's creed as the symbol of baptism, and the Nicene creed as a necessary articulation of orthodoxy in relation to the Christological controversies of the early Church. These creeds form the definition of orthodox Christianity precisely because they were accepted by the Catholic Church during the age of the fathers.

Third, the Quadrilateral affirms the two Sacraments of the Gospel. The sacramental life of the Catholic Church was universally held. One baptism, in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, and being born to new life, followed by the Supper of the Lord ministered, in the words of the Quadrilateral, with, "unfailing use of Christ's words of Institution," used to nourish Christians in their new lives in Christ. The Quadrilateral in no way rejects the Sacraments of the Church, but again merely reflects that the two Sacraments of the Gospel were the only two Sacraments universally received by the east and west, while other Sacraments of the Church have been received only in certain places and at certain times.

Finally, the Quadrilateral ends by affirming the importance of the Historic Episcopate and the three-fold order of ministry through bishops, priests and deacons. Implicit in this is the importance of Apostolic Succession, the idea that the authority of ordained ministers is derived from their following in the Apostolic commission. It is a further reminder that the Anglican Churches do not claim their own ministry. There is no such thing as an Anglican Priest, but rather a priest in the Catholic Church who ministers in the Anglican tradition.

Taken together, these are an affirmation of the faith, order and practice of the Catholic Church by which Christian unity may be affirmed. When any controversy arises in a given tradition, it must be reviewed in the context of these universal standards.

For instance, throughout history there have been controversies over issues such as how many altar candles may be present on the altar during Holy Communion. In order to determine if the issue is essential, the question asked is, first and foremost, is it addressed in Scripture? Then, is it addressed in the Creeds? Third, does it affect the administration of the Sacraments of the Gospel? Finally, does it affect the understanding of Apostolic Succession and the Apostolic ministry? If not, it is not an essential matter and there is room for diversity. In the case of altar candles, it is not a matter addressed in Scripture or the creeds. It doesn’t impact the Sacraments of the Gospel and neither does it impact the Apostolic ministry. Whether it be none, two or six, there is room for diversity on the number of altar candles as they are not essential to the faith.

This example may seem somewhat flippant, however it would equally apply to many of the controversies that cause major schisms these days, namely the ordination of women and proposed changes to the sacrament of Holy Matrimony to allow for the blessing of same-sex marriages.

The former Archbishop of Canterbury Michael Ramsay was a strong proponent of Quadrilateral as a model for ecumenical reunion, particularly with the Eastern Orthodox Church. He had made significant progress in developing understanding on the basis of the Quadrilateral and the idea of the Anglican Communion as maintaining the Catholic faith, order and practice of the patristic Church. He had made significant progress in clearing the way on major issues; however, as is recorded in his personal journal, he was woken up in the middle of the night in 1976 and informed that the General Convention of the Episcopal Church of the United States had authorized the ordination of women as priests. He immediately began to weep, recognizing that the Anglican Communion had surrendered its claim to Catholicity over the issue, and had ended the immediate prospects for ecumenical reunion with the Eastern Orthodox Church.

The official status of the Lambeth Quadrilateral has come into question in some national Provinces in the Anglican Communion, however in the traditional view of Anglicanism, the Lambeth Quadrilateral remains an important document which records a defining characteristic of Anglicanism, which is to say that it seeks a return to the faith, order and traditions of the patristic Catholic Church, and its authority to determine doctrine is derived from that formula.

On Organs

The Sixteenth Sunday after Trinity

O LORD, we beseech thee, let thy continual pity cleanse and defend thy Church; and, because it cannot continue in safety without thy succour, preserve it evermore by thy help and goodness; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

Last Sunday identified two primary problems that have a tendency to arise when using contemporary Christian music in a worship service, for which the use of the Book of Common Praise was presented as a potential solution. The two problems were first and foremost that the prayers offered through some of that music are shallow, while the second was that there may be a tendency to shift God as the object of worship through the tool or medium of music, to worship of either self or the music itself.

What is the Book of Common Praise and how does it potentially resolve these issues? The Book of Common Praise is the officially authorized hymn book of the Anglican Church of Canada, though it is not a mandatory book nor does it hold the canonical status of the Book of Common Prayer. There have been four authorized versions in the 20th century, the 1908 Book of Common Praise, the 1938 Book of Common Praise, the 1971 ecumenical Book of Common Praise developed in conjunction with the United Church of Canada and finally Common Praise which was authorized in 1998. The 1938 Book of Common Praise, which was reprinted most recently in 1963, is by far the preferred hymnal for traditional Anglicans in Canada, given the significant theological changes and problematic doctrinal innovations introduced in Common Praise.

St Justin Martyr in his Apology in Defence of Christians wrote that, “no one can give a name to God, who is too great for words; if anyone dares to say it is possible to do so, he must be suffering from an incurable madness.” Had he lived to see the publication of Common Praise, he might have made a similar comment on the revisionist slant of the committee that created it, which decided to re-write some hymns in order to, for example, affirm God as Mother in the revised text of Hymn to Joy. This type of revisionist agenda reminds us that the importance of hymnody is not simply in ancient tunes, traditional instruments such as a pipe organ or choirs, but rather in the orthodoxy of the words being sung. St Augustine of Hippo spoke to the nature of hymns saying this:

It is a song with praise of God. If thou praisest God and singest not, thou utterest no hymn: if thou singest and praisest not God, thou utterest no hymn: if thou praisest aught else, which pertaineth not to the praise of God, although thou singest and praisest, thou utterest no hymn. An hymn then containeth these three things, song, and praise, and that of God. Praise then of God in song is called an hymn.

Hymns are prayers, sung in praise of God. The traditional hymnody of the Anglican Church of Canada reflects St Augustine’s three-fold requirements. More than that, the hymns were written long-enough ago that they all reflect a traditional theology and avoid a shallower approach.

Like good prayer, a good Christian song ought to thank God for something He has done or something He is. In doing so, it ought to speak to what He has done, or who He is. Poor Christian music fails to expound on God’s nature, and instead simply uses ‘Christianese’ and Biblical sounding words to create a catchy lyric, something which often times will shift the focus away from God and back towards either the music itself or the person who is singing it. In other words, for good Christian music the message is God, while for bad Christian music the message is the medium.

While not at all seasonal, Easter provides an interesting comparison of a traditional hymn versus popular contemporary Christian praise music. Perhaps one of the most commonly sung hymns on Easter Sunday is, appropriately enough, Easter Hymn, known more commonly by its first line, "Jesus Christ is risen today, Alleluia!" The second is called This is Amazing Grace by Bethel Music, and was the most popular Easter praise song in the United States in 2014.

Jesus Christ is risen today, Alleluia! our triumphant holy day, Alleluia! who did once upon the cross, Alleluia! suffer to redeem our loss. Alleluia! Hymns of praise then let us sing, Alleluia! unto Christ, our heavenly King, Alleluia! who endured the cross and grave, Alleluia! sinners to redeem and save. Alleluia! But the pains which he endured, Alleluia! our salvation have procured, Alleluia! now above the sky he's King, Alleluia! where the angels ever sing. Alleluia!

Who breaks the power of sin and darkness Whose love is mighty and so much stronger The King of Glory, the King above all kings Who shakes the whole earth with holy thunder And leaves us breathless in awe and wonder The King of Glory, the King above all kings Chorus: This is amazing grace This is unfailing love That You would take my place That You would bear my cross You lay down Your life That I would be set free Oh, Jesus, I sing for All that You've done for me Who brings our chaos back into order Who makes the orphan a son and daughter The King of Glory, the King of Glory Who rules the nations with truth and justice Shines like the sun in all of its brilliance The King of Glory, the King above all kings [Chorus] [Bridge:] Worthy is the Lamb who was slain Worthy is the King who conquered the grave Worthy is the Lamb who was slain Worthy is the King who conquered the grave Worthy is the Lamb who was slain Worthy is the King who conquered the grave Worthy is the Lamb who was slain Worthy, worthy, worthy Oh

While both songs do speak to truths about God, Easter Hymn more clearly speaks to God in each and every line and more clearly each and every line’s purpose is to praise God for who He is and what He has done. In This is Amazing Grace, by contrast, the first six lines speaks only to one implied truth that God has broken the power of sin. If St Augustine were to evaluate the song, it seems doubtful he would find it fits his criteria of a hymn.

As JB Philips warns in his book Your God is Too Small:

It is natural and right, of course, that the worship we offer to God in public should be of the highest possible quality. But that must not lead us to conceive of a musically "Third-Programme" god who prefers the exquisite rendering of a cynical professional choir to the ragged bawling of sincere but untutored hearts.

Regardless of the medium, it is possible to warp the purpose and to substitute our own preferences towards the music. The intention of using music as a tool of worship must always be to praise God, and our concern must be for the words being said and their intended audience, not the degree of musical excellence.

The use of a hymnal encourages that focus, providing other benefits beyond simply assurance of orthodox theology in the words being sung. With limited musical accompaniment, it is the voice of the people which is the primary tool of worship, while the organ merely maintains the meter of singing. A hymnal containing the tune to a song can also allow a parishioner unfamiliar with a given tune the opportunity to sing.

This is not to say that there is no merit to listening to more contemporary Christian music, regardless of what St Augustine would have made of it as a tool for worship. The question is the degree to which it is appropriate as a tool of worship for the mass. A Christian song which may not be appropriate for the mass due to its lack of theological depth or even its ability to truly praise God may still be appropriate to listen to outside of the mass as a wholesome form of musical entertainment. A song which lacks any form of thanks to God for who He is and what He has done can still at the least encourage us to think about God.

Worship is not about musical preferences or traditional versus contemporary. We must always recall the importance not of the music or the form or instruments, but rather of the intent: does this music honour God?

The Wisdom of Saints: St Francis of Assisi

The Feast of Francis of Assisi, 1226

O ALMIGHTY God, who willest to be glorified in thy Saints, and didst raise up thy servant Francis to shine as a light in the world: Shine, we pray thee, in our hearts, that we also in our generation may show forth thy praises, who hast called us out of darkness into thy marvellous light; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

St Francis of Assisi was born around 1181 in Assisi, Italy. His father was a wealthy merchant who had significant ties to France and a love for that country. He hoped to have Francis follow in both his business and his love of France, something he was gratified to see fulfilled during St Francis’s early days.

In his youth, St Francis lived a life of ease due to his father’s wealth. He received some religious education, but was far more enamoured of French troubadour singers than his monastic teachers. He lived a somewhat wild lifestyle and gained a strong following owing to his charming, gallant and courteous manner.

During this time, St Francis also began to cultivate a desire for the kind of fame and glory that could only, in those days, be achieved through knighthood and battle. In 1205 he responded to the call of the fourth crusade. His biographer Thomas of Celano records that on the night he was to leave he had a dream in which he saw a hall filled with armour, all marked with the Cross. A voice proclaimed to him, “these are for you and your soldiers.” He left the next morning, but then had a second dream which convinced him that in fact God did not want him to fight in the crusades, and which caused him to return to Assisi in shame, having not managed to fight. He was taunted as a coward and an idiot for having wasted a significant amount of money on commissioning opulent armour which was never used.

While he still on occasion engaged in the type of revelry he had been famous for during his teens, by the age of 25 he had seemingly lost much of his taste for the vices of his youth. He began to withdraw and spent greater time in prayer, giving up on his life of opulence. One day, while out riding, he came upon a leper. Overcoming his distaste for the man—his youth had been characterised by his attraction to beauty and repulsion from all this ugly or disfigured—he embraced him with the kiss of peace and gave the man all the money he had on him. This was one of the first steps in his conversion of views from striving for the glory of man in wealth to striving for the glory of God in poverty.

Shortly after this revelation, he was praying at a dilapidated chapel of St Damien’s near Assisi, when he heard the voice of Christ proclaim to him, “Francis, go and repair My Church, which you see is falling into ruin.” St Francis initially understood this to mean he was to repair St Damien’s and began working personally to restore the building. He sold some of his father’s goods to fund the restoration project, and angered his father who took him before the local Bishop’s court to be punished. St Francis, in a show of humility and freedom from material concerns, chose to appear before the Bishop naked. The show of humility touched the Bishop who is said to have clothed St Francis in his own cloak, endorsing St Francis’s mission.

After this incident he expanded his ministry to the poor and continued to restore a number of local church buildings which had fallen into disrepair. He continued to eschew worldly goods and lived a life of poverty while he ministered. A number of companions began to join him; eventually becoming so numerous that St Francis submitted a rule to Pope Innocent III to organize their ministry. Earning the Pope’s approval Francis and his companions became known as the Friars Minor. His order proved very popular. In 1212 they opened the first women’s cloistered convent under the leadership of St Clare of Assisi, and the number of men and women joining the order continued to grow.

After the first rule of 1209, there were two subsequent rules in 1221 and the final in 1223. The Rule of 1223, often simply referred to as the Rule of St Francis of Assisi, is still used to this day in the Franciscan Order. It is noted for its simplicity and devotion.

The Rule of St Francis is generally summarized in its introduction where it says, “The rule and life of the lesser brothers is this: To observe the holy gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ, living in obedience without anything of our own, and in chastity.” In other words, the life of a Franciscan is made of vows of obedience, poverty and chastity.

St Francis did not leave behind a great body of primary works, being known instead mostly for his deeds as a lover of all God’s creatures, as well as particularly for his strict devotion to the Gospel’s instructions to give up wealth for the sake of proclaiming Christ. This made him rather popular, particularly with the poor, who saw St Francis and his brothers rejoicing and proclaiming their love of God in the midst of their poverty. To St Francis, money was a barrier to love of God and he viewed poverty as a necessary tool of living out the Gospel of Christ.

While St Francis himself has few direct writings available, because of his popularity, many secondary sources about him exist. One of the most popular is the Little Flowers of St Francis, a collection of brief stories that cover life and works of St Francis.

Many of the stories are perhaps more loosely based on the reality of St Francis’ life, but the mere fact that they exist are a testament to his popularity and his holiness. In perhaps one of the most famous parts, Part I, Chapter VIII, St Francis explains to his companion Brother Leo the meaning of perfect joy. “Brother Leo, if it were to please God that the Friars Minor should give, in all lands, a great example of holiness and edification, write down, and note carefully, that this would not be perfect joy.” He goes on to cite several more examples of prayer and holiness fulfilled which are not perfect joy, before describing being refused entry to a monastery by the porter on a cold and stormy night:

Exposed to the snow and rain, suffering from cold and hunger till nightfall - then, if we accept such injustice, such cruelty and such contempt with patience, without being ruffled and without murmuring, believing with humility and charity that the porter really knows us, and that it is God who maketh him to speak thus against us, write down, O Brother Leo, that this is perfect joy.

To St Francis, perfect joy was in obedience to living out the Gospel, as it says in 1 Thes 5. 18, “give thanks in all circumstances; for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus for you.” It is not difficult to see how St Francis, living in the times he did, was beloved by the poor, and to this day the strength of his love for the Gospel has ensured a continued following of his teachings and example.