In to my experience it is certainly the case that a lot of educationalists in this country become genuinely bewildered, distressed, shocked and even angry when they hear it suggested that we should take the scriptures and not the catechism as the source of our religious instruction. some people are willing to admit that some change in our catechism might not be a bad thing, but very few are prepared to listen to the argument that what we need is a new conception of the function of the catechism rather than a new catechism. Everybody seems to be assumging that those in favour of our present methods are loyally upholding such immunities as the Church's attitude, authority or tradition, and that those who suggest a change are propounding strange, dangerous theories culled from disreputable sources and dubious disciplines.

Throughout the course of the growing development of the kingdom of God, the death of a Christian has taken a well-defined and importan place. The ending of the earthly life of a Christian man is an essential phase in the coming of the kingdom of God. What I propose to do in these articles is to analyse the meaning of this phase placed in the whole of Christian eschatology or expectation of the future. I shall first examine death as an objective occurrence in Christian saving history, and then in a subsequent article show how we Christians should personally experience the event of death in an eschatological attitude of mind: in other words what the answer of our life to death will be.

In the Dominican rite of interment, we sing ‘let us be glad and rejoice on this wonderful day God has made, on which he has called one of our loved ones to himself'.

At the annual general meeting of the Vernacular Society of Great Britain in April this year, it was decided that a memorandum of evidence, concerning the use of English and Latin in the liturgy, should be prepared by the executive committee and submitted to the preparatory commission for the sacred liturgy of the Second General Council of the Vatican. The recommendations put forward in this memorandum have provoked no small measure of interest among Catholics and non Catholics alike, having been reported widely in the press at home and abroad, notably here in The Times, Guardian, and Daily Telegraph. They were welcomed in the religious press from the Universe to the British Weekly. I have a two-fold purpose in discussing them now: to explain something of the principles by which the committee were guided in formulating their recommendations, and to place the much discussed problem of liturgical language in the new perspective created by the approach of a general council of the Church.

Fontevrault is not one of the compelling architectural landmarks of the Val de Loire, Saint-Benoît or Cunault. It is just apeaceful, rambling old place that one visits because its splendid name and all its connotations have a fascination of their own. The English remember that Henry II and Richard, Queen Eleanor and King John's wife were buried There, whil the French will remind you that Bertrade de Montfort, the mistress of Philip I, took the veil there and died of her austerities. But beside its well known connections with royal families, there is the attractive contradiction of Fontevrault having housed women of quite another StamP—lepers, prostitutes, and social outcasts of various kinds. That contradiction is sufficient to convince us that a really original and Christ-like mind must have been at work in this place.

Within the abbey, a first impression is of size and splendour and fine Materials. The elaborate kitchen gives an idea of the numbers involved In the institution.

Many of the simplest phrases in St John's gospel have an arresting character and may powerfully urge us to turn them over and over in mind. ‘The disciple whom Jesus loved’ (Jn 21. 20) is one such which calls for further thought, and which may well help us to pray. This disciple is first explicitly referred to at the last supper