O cuniculi! Ubi lexicon Latinum posui?

A New Blog on the Sarum Rite

2012-01-18T16:55:00.002Z

I'd like to take the opportunity to advertise Fr Chadwick's New Blog on the Use of the Sarum Rite and "Northern Catholicism".

As the Sun in its orb

I urge my readers to check it out.

the Second Sunday after the Epiphany: Private Miracles or Public Signs?

2012-01-15T16:18:00.005Z

And the third day there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee; and the mother of Jesus was there: And both Jesus was called, and his disciples, to the marriage. And when they wanted wine, the mother of Jesus saith unto him, They have no wine. Jesus saith unto her, Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come. His mother saith unto the servants, Whatsoever he saith unto you, do it.

And there were set there six waterpots of stone, after the manner of the purifying of the Jews, containing two or three firkins apiece. Jesus saith unto them, Fill the waterpots with water. And they filled them up to the brim. And he saith unto them, Draw out now, and bear unto the governor of the feast. And they bare it.

When the ruler of the feast had tasted the water that was made wine, and knew not whence it was: (but the servants which drew the water knew;) the governor of the feast called the bridegroom, And saith unto him, Every man at the beginning doth set forth good wine; and when men have well drunk, then that which is worse: but thou hast kept the good wine until now.

This beginning of miracles did Jesus in Cana of Galilee, and manifested forth his glory; and his disciples believed on him.
St John ii.1 et c.

It;s interesting to examine apparent differences between the Gospels especially when each has its distinctive take on the life of the Lord. Here we see the first miracle in St John's Gospel the transformation of the water into wine at the wedding feast. Compare that with the first miracle in the Gospel of St Mark - the casting out of the demon of a man in Capernaum. The way that miracles are treated in the Synoptic Gospels is different from that of St John. In the Synoptic Gospels, one is given a sense of Christ giving assistance to those in need spontaneously as that need presents itself. In St John, we have Christ speaking and then ramifying his speaking with a miracle or, as St John prefers, a sign.

Of course, the Gospels don't exist in isolation, their position in Holy Scripture is to bring us in to the life of Christ. While conflation may indeed confuse the distinctive voices of the Gospel writers, it is better to look at the corroboration of what they say. The question with which we are presented is: Are the Miracles intended to prove the identity of Christ?

In St John's Gospel, they are: "I am the Bread of Life" is followed by the feeding of the multitude; "I am the Resurrection and the Life" is followed by the raising of Lazarus. It would appear that Jesus is using the suffering of others to His own agenda of proving His identity. However, contrast that with the Christ in the Gospel of Mark who constantly tells the people whom he has healed not to tell anyone about it. So here is an apparent contradiction and a rather negative view of a mercenary Jesus using the sufferings of others for His own Glory. except it isn't like that at all.

The key factor to resolve this contradiction is the very person of Christ - God made Man. In casting off the trappings of Godhead to be like us, He has limited Himself to our mortal frame. This means a limit to His time and to His energy. He has a Gospel to proclaim and a Death to die and He also has love and compassion for all who come to Him in humility. Those who demand signs from Him so that they can satisfy their intellectual pride are frustrated. Christ comes to share yet another suffering with humanity, the suffering that we can't do it all in the time that we have.

St Mark almost has Jesus frazzled and worn out by ministering to the people. Every time He goes to pray by Himself another crowd pops up with genuine concerns which He meets. This may just be a feature of the breakneck speed of St Mark, but it does show us something about our own lives. We too are often busy with genuine concerns which interrupt our quiet time with God. There are times when we have to say "no" and make that time due to our human weakness.

The Jesus in St John's Gospel comments on His life with His disciples including St John. St John seems to be speaking of a more intimate Jesus comfortable with His friends around Him, explaining the happenings and their relevance to His life so that they might believe and spread the Gospel. This is not a mercenary Jesus, because, with St Mark, in St John's Gospel we still see the Messiah crucified for the whole world regardless of person or position.

In putting the Gospels together more carefully we have a better inkling of how it is that God became flesh and dwelt among us and still does if we are willing to accept it. The limitations to the ministry of Jesus are only limitations if we let Him do all the work. The point is that He established the Church in order that His ministry might be continued for everyone, that the hungry might be fed, the thirsty given something to drink, the naked clothed, the slave freed, the prisoner visited and comforted, the orphans and widows provided for and in these acts of Charity, the Gospel might be preached more effectively and really than by words, syllogism and argument.

We can turn water into wine, but not necessarily in the way we would expect.

Archepiscopal Advents

2012-01-09T18:41:00.003Z

Occasionally, I like to use this little blogling for advertising important blogs/events/websites even though this is only the blogling of an individual. However, I do have something worth advertising.

This April, we in the ACC welcome most heartily our Archbishop, the Most Rev Dr Mark Haverland. Having been our episcopal visitor some time ago, it's very good to welcome him back into the country. For many of us, it will be the first time that we meet our hard-working and committed Primate and it would be really very good for him to see as many of the Diocese as possible and hopefully send him back to Georgia with some happy memories and encouraging news as well as the blessing of DUK.

It would also be an opportunity for those who are interested in the ACC to see what we are about.
All the details will be published on the ACC Website so please check there for further updates.

If you are unable to come by reason of geography, please offer your prayers for this visit and for Archbishop Mark's safe sojourn.

What are Christians for?

2012-01-02T19:45:00.005Z

Yasmin Alibai-Brown is quite right: Christianity truly does deserve better worshippers. I'm sure that the late Christopher Hitchens would disagree with this statement. He would see Christianity as being the problem and not the solution. In his eyes, God is not great because of the wicked things his disciples do. Perhaps this doesn't do justice to Hitchens' rather colourful objections to religion. Certainly the whole problem of evil is something that humanity in its entirety has been struggling with since the time it was able to decide between Good and Evil. There are no answers to the problem of Evil. The Bible certainly doesn't offer anything to answer why Evil should exist -the book of Job asks more questions than it actually answers.

However, that's the point of the book of Job! It gives this wonderful language which allows humanity to discuss the problem. We have here the framework of at least discussing the problem meaningfully. That much of the book is poetry helps us to explore meaning with the four ways of interpreting Holy Scripture : literal, allegorical, moral and anagogical. I suspect that some people think that poetry is just pretty words put together to wrench feelings from the beleaguered heart! I know that my poet friend Ed Pacht would disagree with that outlook! Poetry tells the truth not just by the words by the structure of how the words are put together.

Theodicy demands a turning away from the glib. Eliphaz, Bildad and Zophar do present standard but intellectually glib answers for why Job is suffering. This is why they are heavily criticised at the end of the book. While the existence of an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving God and the existence of evil are not mutually contradictory, there are still questions to be answered, indeed there are still questions that need to be asked. Further, the language for these questions needs to be found and used.

It seems to me to be part of the high esteem that God has for His Children that He stands back n order for us to become what He intended us to be. But this way? Why? I've got ideas but they are far from incomplete. What will help me to complete them? Well I suspect that this is why God permits atheism and agnosticism, because it is in entering into this dialogue that the questions get hammered out. Neither side will let the other off the hook - this is a good thing! One ought, however, to be very careful.

The trouble with this is that, if this dialogue is done aggressively with harsh ridicule, straw men and ad hominem attacks, then the defensive reflex is engaged. Intellectual pride and triumphalism infect the dialogue badly and cause ill-feeling on both sides. Yes we can be "absolutely right", but if our manner of being "absolutely right" belittles those who are "absolutely wrong" then any perceived "victory" is Pyrrhic. Disagreements between Christians are inevitable, but it is how those disagreements are handled that can either reveal the Christian nature or for the fallen-ness of its practitioners. What begins with different viewpoints becomes a brawl.

There are two senses of the question "What are Christians for?" I had intended to ask the question in the sense of "what are Christians for?" as opposed to "what are Christians against?" I seem to have strayed into the teleological question for the existence of Christians - what purpose do Christians serve?

The two senses are not unrelated. All Christians are for humanity and for God, and they are called to mediate and communicate these sympathies. It's how we present our sympathy for each other and for God that makes the difference to our raison d'être. Our fallen nature makes this difficult. Hitchens loathed Blessed Theresa of Calcutta on the grounds that he believed her to be a fanatic a fundamentalist and a fraud, more keen on opening convents than caring for the sick. There may well be some truth in this and Mother Theresa will have to answer for any inadequacies before God, but this also raises the question whether less religious organisations are any different from this.

It seems that there is a competitive nature to dialogue and that this nature is escalating into a desire to obliterate the opposition. All humanity works for the eradication of Evil. This is a vain enterprise since each of us possesses some fallibility. The eradication can only come with the Kingdom of God - as I believe as a Christian. I don't understand how the atheist or agnostic see the end of evil, principally because I do not yet understand how an atheist or agnostic views morality beyond what amounts to subjective decisions. If it is Religion that gives humanity the language for what Evil is and to find the questions that address the suffering of innocent human beings, then its eradication is not a good thing. History shows that the Western society is based on Abrahamic morality. One may question where the Decalogue came from and how its articles evolved socially, but that Decalogue was expressed in a religious framework first and foremost, not in a manner intrinsic to human thought.

With Christianity subdivided into Catholic and non-Catholic, "Catholic" and "Protestant", et c, it seems that these divisions take us out of the realm of dialogue and into competition for souls. This is natural: if we believe that we are right, then we publish our findings even as good scientists do. If we convince people of our rectitude then all well and good, but if we start coercing people to believe, then we have lost the nature of God which allows dissent. In the U.K. proselyting does not work and seeks only to drive people further away. The more that it becomes apparent that this battle is taking place within Christianity then all the more that those outside will remember the words of the Lord which have permeated even their understanding - "a house divided against itself cannot stand".

Each individual needs to examine his walk with other Christians. There is often a great deal more of what we are for than what we are against. While there is a necessity for a walking apart, that doesn't mean that we should exempt ourselves from opportunities to spend some time walking together, nor to exclude others from opportunities for which we are responsible. A "Churches Together" initiative is always worth supporting even if it puts us into the same arena as those whose expressions of Christianity are markedly different from what we know. One can take the attitude that we are in dialogue with "heretics". The word may be apposite and completely appropriate, but it is often used without just cause and too frequently in a pejorative sense whether or not it is justified. Again, we need to see what we are both for, rather than spend all our time on our conflicts.

What to do? We may have a clear idea of our identity in Christ, but that identity is only ever crystallised in the lens of what others make for us. As St Thomas Aquinas would see it, all our desires have their end in God and all matter has goodness in its very substance. We therefore have a duty to be grateful for the interaction that we have with our detractors, dissenters and our "heretics" - this will not destroy who we are provided that we hold tight to the Faith of Christ - such interaction provides us with a framework for conversation with God. If we are strong enough, we could take St Thomas' view of theodicy and see even our sufferings as drawing us nearer to God and be thankful for them. This may also be just as glib as Job's comforters, but how else are we going to find the language to ask God that question?

Re-ordering unity

2011-12-31T14:22:00.005Z

Good grief! My 400th post!

I am grateful to Jakian Thomist for providing me with information as to how Anglicans can accept re-ordination in order to enter the Roman Catholic Church. I do take his point that

"there is a sense of 'talking-past' one another on this topic, RC's 'reducing' its significance while Anglican contributors feeling as if 'THE' point has been completely missed."

Well, perhaps we need to find some way of finding the actual issue here an insuring that we get it right.

There are essentially two issues which appear to be in conflict:

1) Reunion of Anglicans into Communion with the Holy See;
2) The Invalidity of Anglican Orders via Apostolicae Curae.

From Apostolicae Curae, we see that, at the very least, Rome believes that Anglican orders are not the same as Roman orders and that an Anglican priest is not the same as a Roman Catholic priest. Are the two notions really different?
Well, here, I think, is where the idea of Absolute Ordination and Relative Ordination come in - it is a question of doubt and thence a question of trust. If one accepts that Anglican priesthood can only be truly completed by ordination as a Roman Catholic priest, then one can in good conscience submit to the process of re-ordination as a priest in order to have one's orders completed.

The problem with this attitude is that it then describes Anglicanism as being incomplete in a manner in which most Anglicans cannot accept. In a very good sense our incompleteness is true, since all "Churches" are incomplete without the others and mutual excommunication is a scandal. Anglicanism does very much need to be in Communion with Rome for the health of both Anglicanism and Rome. However, the view is that Anglicanism is incomplete in the Catholic Sense. We are then left with the question just how is Anglicanism incomplete?

Anglicanism, Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy all stem from the Undivided Church of the seven Oecumenical councils and all claim to be following the same Apostolic Succession and the same idea of Sacrament which has been drawn from following Christ Himself. Many scholars will try to deny that, but the history of the earliest Anglicanism as independent from Rome is well attested to. Since the various Schisms have torn us apart, we now have been saddled with doubt to the intentions of the other bodies with which we formerly enjoyed full communion.

As far as I understand, the Eastern Orthodox position (and I'm honestly not quite sure that I do since there seems to be more than one Eastern Orthodox Church!) with the return to Communion will also come the return of the recognition of Anglican sacraments as Orthodox.

With Rome, the Reformation has cast a sufficient doubt on the underlying integrity of the Anglican system that there is insufficient confidence in what we do is truly what we say we do. Given the turbulence of the 16th and 17th Centuries, that's not a completely unfair position to take, provided that it were seen clearly that Apostolic Succession and the ministering of the Sacraments really has changed from the Undivided Church. As Saepius Officio shows, there is at the very least no clear evidence that Anglicanism has fallen away from the Catholic Principles of the Undivided Church.

The underlying issue is then not really of the issue of orders, though this is how it manifests itself, but rather an issue of trust.

Admittedly, churches that profess Anglicanism have done themselves no favours. If a church departs from the teaching of the Undivided Church, how on Earth can it be trusted to be following the Catholicism what is at the very heart of the existence of that Undivided Church? Corporately, the CofE and ECUSA have managed to rid themselves of Catholicism in order to appeal to a Zeitgeist. This cannot be said absolutely as many individual parishes and organisations within these bodies are striving to be Catholic. How successful they are is doubtful, but their struggles to uphold their Catholicism need support from all Catholics.

What has been more successful at completing the Oxford Movement has been the profession of the Continuing Churches, especially in the fact that they keep to the same integrity of Anglicanism prior to any change to the Catholic Faith. This has been hard, especially since Catholicism is not a popular movement in Western Society. Continuing Anglicanism has been accused of "divide, degenerate, debate, divide, degenerate, debate (ad nauseam)". This seems to be rather an out-of-date view of the way that the Continuum is travelling given the substantial commitment to unity shown by the ACC, the APCK, the APA and UECNA. There will always be some floating bodies but the the commonality, indeed Catholicity of Anglicanism makes any boundaries more fluid - just like the Orthodox jurisdictions which are just as prone to "divide, degenerate, debate, divide, degenerate, debate (ad nauseam)" and just as able to reunite and reconfigure.

All of the Anglican bodies are still recognisably Anglican because they have kept a commitment to the Undivided Church and though it be indefinable, save in a Wittgensteinian sense, there is an Anglican Integrity - a trustworthiness that we follow Our Lord Jesus Christ in the same manner as his disciples in our different time, position, culture and milieu. Those who abandon the principles of the Undivided Church abandon that trustworthiness and thus separate themselves from that integrity.

Humility is about recognising the truth about oneself and one's condition and, given that the Continuing Churches look to regulate themselves in the light of what the Church has always been, there is humility. To be united in Christ is a goal well worth struggling for, but one must be careful in the way that one accepts that unity. If one finds an impediment in conscience because of a development subsequent to the schisms, then the offered unity cannot honestly be acceptable - to deny it is not humility because it is not true belief, particularly if it comes from the conscience. One cannot enter into unity with one's fingers crossed. Such an action is insincere and an insult to both sides.

Surely the parties to be united must look to themselves with regard to these impediments and trust the other that if the impediment exists then it needs to be examined very carefully from both sides. If there is no way around them, then the question must be about the quality of unity. Is this a suzerain-vassal covenant, or a recognition of mutual integrity?

So, what the issue boils down to is not of having the humility to submit to re-ordination for the sake of unity, but rather the trust that, when only God can be convinced of Absolutes, the other party has truly been seeking the same Catholicism that existed before Schisms occurred. If re-ordination were necessary then it needs to be at the very least sub conditione not sine conditione because the latter has the monopoly on the Absolute and this cannot be demonstrated as a fact because it is an Absolute. There is only one Catholicism: this is indeed an Absolute because there is is One Lord Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.

We have to appreciate that there is much that we can trust. If we follow the Covenant, then we do forge a good relationship with God and we can be as sure of that as the strength of our faith. If we have faith in our Church Leaders to uphold the principles of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, then we can be sure of the validity of the sacraments that they minister to us, and with that validity the Truth of God Himself whose Incarnation we celebrate at this wonderful time of year!

I hate to end on matters of contention. My prayer is for a corporate unity that comes from both sides - a recognition of the fidelity to the Catholic Faith and a statement in the truth of the orders of orthodox Anglicans.

May I wish you all a most happy, joyful, peaceful, fulfilling and fun 2012! God bless you all.

Blogday 2011: Anglican Papalism and Me

2011-12-29T15:17:00.005Z

Wow! Another year and this one has been quite momentous for me. Eagle-eyed readers of this blogling will notice that I've removed my page linking to Fr Brooke Lunn's description of Anglican Papalism. Does this mean that I cease to be an Anglican Papalist?

Well, yes and no - a typical Anglican answer! I hope you will understand my equivocation. I have had to re-evaluate myself this year and what I really believe, and perhaps now is the time to start nailing my colours to the mast. While I was in the CofE, I was as much a slave to the inherent confusion as anything else. I would leave even my own services with a headache, let alone from Mass and this was in no small part due to my trying to reconcile the irreconcilable. I have now had time to think more clearly. I have sailed that sea and, though with my sails tattered and my mast broken, find myself on a more comfortable shore.

The main principles of Anglican Papalism are:

Anglicanism has made authentic and honourable contributions to the development of Catholic Christian practice (e.g., Week of Prayer for Christian Unity).

Petrine Succession and Primacy are authentic and honourable developments of Catholic Christian theology.

There is a legitimate place within Catholic Christianity for Christians seeking full Communion with the Apostolic See of Rome yet retaining Anglican practices deemed salutary by the Church's Magisterium.

I am not an Anglican Papalist if this means that I wish to take advantage of the Ordinariate. I cannot agree that the system that is in place preserves Anglicanism if it means that Anglican priests have to go through the unnecessary sacrilege of re-ordination. This is a blatant denial of the Catholic validity that Anglicanism has and which Pusey and the other members of the Oxford Movement saw when they rediscovered the orthodoxy embedded in Traditional Anglicanism. That Blessed John Henry Cardinal Newman departed for Rome was not a problem for him because he doubted the validity of his own orders and ceased from practicing when he realised this. That he was also under much emotional pressure at the time is surely understandable. Likewise, I cannot condemn anyone entering the Ordinariate and I will explain why this is a good thing.

I am not Anglican Papalist if I have to hold to the Pope being anything more than a Patriarch and a Bishop with privileged see. Over the past few years, I have drifted further and further from the doctrines of Papal Infallibility and Supremacy as they stand defined in the First Vatican Council, on the grounds that (a) it is not a truly Oecumenical Council and (b) the doctrines doesn't make sense without it being a truly Oecumenical Council. The Infallibility comes from the Church and were the Church to hold a truly Oecumenical Council and for the bishops all to agree on a matter of faith and doctrine, then the Infallible position would then be ratified by the Pope. He would bang the gavel on the matter, as it were.

I do not hold to the idea that the Holy Father is a monarch of Christians, especially since, in the eyes of the Old Testament, the Covenant points to the Monarchy of God. I will willing hold to the Holy Father's primacy but not his universal jurisdiction, because it is not true. Either the Orthodox Churches who do not subscribe to Papal universal jurisdiction are not Catholic Christians (which Rome believes) or the Pope has universal jurisdiction (which the Orthodox Churches do not believe).

However, I am still an Anglican Papalist if I believe St Paul when he tells us that, in the Body of Christ, one part cannot reject another part and that I am still committed to the unity of the Undivided Church. I still hold to the Holy Father as my Patriarch, even if he himself denies it and goes so far to suppress that title. There is good evidence in the Early Church of the Primacy of the Pope, and that Anglicans do share very much doctrine with the Roman Catholic Church. I long for the Unity with the Holy See but I fear that Vatican II has ruined her more than Vatican I. Vatican I cut the Holy See off further from Anglicans, Orthodox and even her own ilk in the Old Catholic Church. Vatican II cut her off from her own past in an attempt to blow away the cobwebs. Moral: never open your windows to air your room when there's a Gale Force 9 Hurricane raging outside.

For unity to occur, there needs to be movement on both sides. The ACC did her bit in the 1970s when she came away from the heresies of ECUSA and again in the 1990s in the U.K. If Rome is serious about Church Unity, then she needs to look at herself to ensure that she is fit for unity rather than just assume that she is.

I am still an Anglican Papalist if that means I still defend the Roman Catholic Church where possible since, as I said above, Anglican Catholicism shares a very great deal of true doctrine with her. This isn't always possible when the hierarchy of the Holy See says some very silly things, usually from ignorance, but I certainly have her interests at heart. I have a great love and affection for her and the Holy Father and I certainly support the Ordinariate in that if Anglicans can subscribe to the extra conditions that Roman Catholicism imposes then they should take them up. It means that homeless Anglicans do find a sound spiritual home, though not without cost. It will also help the Roman Church see the value of Anglicanism and perhaps help her to play a better role in the unity of the Undivided Church. There are some very good and devout former Anglicans entering the Ordinariate, this can only be a good thing for all parties and I pray for its success and growth.

I am still an Anglican Papalist if that means that I recognise the contribution to Anglicanism that the five-hundred year walk with the Roman Catholic Church has forged with all its riches and colour as well as the inherent truth that Anglican and Roman Catholicism share. Although I recognise the need for its occurrence, I still find the Reformation one of the saddest and most abject periods in Church History and wish that it had never happened in the way that it did. I still hold to the pious opinions of the Immaculate Conception and Assumption of Our Lady and to the doctrine of Purgatory, though not as a place of punishment, but rather a painful "place" of personal reconstruction but filled with the light and love of God.

Looking back at some of my earlier posts I notice that I have changed much, but then who doesn't? I am not ashamed of myself for the times that I have been a bit more ultramontane than I am now. I believe it is the sign of spiritual growth in me and I praise God for it. However, I'm not convinced that I've changed all that much, just a dotting of the Is and crossing of the Ts with the loss of hair and increase of girth. There's still much more growing that I have to do, but I am happy to be in a place which allows that growth to occur in a nurturing and supportive environment.

Feast of the Nativity 2011

2011-12-25T00:01:00.000Z

God is with us. Alleluia.

Another year and certainly not without upheaval, both personally and ecclesiastically! Yet Christmass still provides us, however busy our lives as Churchmen, lay and ordained, might be at this time of year, with a still centre as we say the old words and sing our old carols and love them still as if they were new. Each year we say them differently with a new breath. St Hildegard of Bingen famously said, "My new song must float like a feather on the breath of God."

If you have been following St Mark's Gospel at Morning Prayer throughout Advent, perhaps you will have found yourself out of breath with the pace at which the narrative moves. Everything seems to happen in rapid succession as the Evangelist draws us further and further into the life of Christ. Even the Lord Himself seems blown along by events judging from the times that he wants to be alone yet finds himself blown hither and yon to mountain, valley and sea throughout His walk with us. He Himself becomes a feather on the breath of God.

We remember that the Lord Himself also had a first breath as all tiny babies have and which is soon followed by that first distinctive cry. That sound is one of pain, confusion and great discomfort upon being born; it is instinctive and automatic, though it is true that many babies have to be encouraged to breath with a slap! Those of us who are fathers will remember the first cry of our children with joy because it is the sound of life, and the distress does not last long for soon the baby is clean, dry and warm in the arms of Mum.

It has been a tough year for many of us. Some have struggled with their faith and gasp for Divine Breath. Others have sadly breathed their last and we pray that they receive the new air of Heaven. Others of us have suffered much with our health (indeed, a good friend has found even breathing a struggle) and we pray for their revivification and restoration. Others of us have suffered spiritually with much angst, confusion and doubt as we battle in the acrid smoke of Infernal forces, and we pray for their relief and victory over that which ails them.

We also pray for cleaner air for all humanity to breathe. There is much spiritual pollution in the world as the Spirit of the Age vies in vain with the Holy Spirit of God. Yet still we feel the effects: Christmass itself gets obscured with an impure air of Mammon and Gluttony. We are fortunate enough to see through this smokescreen but we struggle to help others to see and to breathe deeply the clean, crisp air of Christmass.

A Joyful Chrisrmass, one and all!

O Emmánuel

2011-12-23T15:19:00.001Z

O Emmánuel, Rex et légifer noster, exspectátio Géntium, et Salvátor eárum : veni ad salvándum nos, Dómine, Deus noster.

O Emmanuel, King and our bearer of the Law, Hope of the people and their Saviour: Come for to save us, Lord, Our God!

There's Christmass and there's Christmas. The latter is a pagan festival of acquisition, fashion, whim and overindulgence which nods at half-remembered stories of mangers and magi among mince-pies, mulled wine and Morecambe and Wise on the telly.

The former is a celebration of One Whose unstinting generosity brought about a life worth living for each of us, the potential for joy, for looking beyond our failings and fallacies into a future filled with hope and eternal love.

Why do we give presents only once a year? Why aren't we generous enough to find something of ourselves to give daily?

Communion and Impairment, Covenant and Contract

2011-12-23T13:07:00.008Z

I am delighted to hear that Archdeacon Thompson's tract on what constitutes a proper church is to be published in the official ACC resources. I'll post a link to it when finally it appears.

The ACC comes under some unjust fire in the U.K. It seems that there are many who not only misunderstand our position, but also misrepresent it. When we offer, on quite friendly terms, just to sit and talk about it, we are told that we are dangerous heretics and not to be talked to. I'm afraid that this attitude comes to us from some quarters of the CofE. We might be firm in our beliefs, but we do try to be as open and as accommodating as we can. If we are perceived as "nasty" and "bitter", then perhaps we need to know in what way we have been so "nasty" and "bitter" and correct it. Likewise, if you believe we are "dangerous" and "heretical", please tell us why you think that.

However, we are a proper church as our Venerable Archdeacon states. How so? What do we mean by "proper"?

Archdeacon Thompson states that it is because we hold fast to what the Church has always done. We have bishops, priests and deacons, say the traditional Masses, use the Books of Common Prayer as the CofE used to use. If they point to Eternal Truth, how can they go out-of-date? What I also see in his writing is that we can actually go a bit further and point to the whole notion of covenant which runs throughout all human relationship with God.

One of the reasons that we modern Christians find the Old Testament (the Jewish Bible) so difficult to engage with is because our "Christian" society has lost what it means to be bene berit "people of the covenant". The Hebrew term for covenant - berit - has the basic notion of promise or pledge, and for us Catholics, this is entirely bound up with the word Sacrament, which from the military Latin term sacramentum reinforces the idea of oath involved in our Christian worship.

There is a great distinction between law and covenant, and St Paul really does hammer this home in his epistle to the Romans. A law is enforced by the prevailing political system and is there to regulate the actions of the people. One does not choose whether or not to obey the law, it forms an obligation with the threat of sanction and punishment. If we live by law, then we are judged by the law.

If, however, we choose to enter into a relationship then we agree terms by which that relationship is defined and agree by all parties concerned. By allying ourselves to God, we enjoy His alliance with us. God is covenantal, He chooses to bind Himself within the terms of the covenant He has drawn up with us. We are free to reject that covenant, but in so doing we reject the benefits that we might receive from keeping it. If we live apart from the law, then we will be judged apart from the law.

Of course, we do individually fail to abide by the Contract which we have made with God. However, there is a clause in this "contract" which enables us to remain people of the covenant. This clause is that of the Cross. The Covenant was written on the altar of the Body of Christ and signed in His Blood. It is through this advocacy of Christ that our sins and trespass - our transgressions of the Covenant - do not void the terms, as long as we recognise and keep the terms of the Body and Blood of Christ.

This brings us to the very idea of what it means to be in "impaired" Communion.

I do speak personally here because I have used this idea of impairment to remain past my time in the CofE, though I believe was kept in the CofE long enough to say my final goodbyes to a dear old friend.

My argument went something like:

1) I am a Catholic and therefore a member of the Catholic Church;
2) My parish has a female deacon;
3) The Mass in the next parish conforms to Catholic principles and the priest is validly ordained;
4) I receive Communion with the next parish, but not my own;
5) I can still serve as Reader in my own parish because I am still in Communion with the Church even though I do not receive Communion in my own parish;
6) This is precisely impaired Communion.

Is this any different from the Forward in Faith idea of impairment, that there is a "cherry-picking" of from whom we receive the sacraments and from whom we can't?

One might accuse Archdeacon Thompson of false dichotomy when it comes to being in communion and cite the idea of being in bed or not being in bed as the exemplar of that. That would be unfair. While there are many issues in Christianity which cannot be described in terms of black and white, there are many issues that are. If I hate someone and wilfully stab them with a knife and they die, then I am guilty of murder. Not only am I culpable in the law and therefore deserving of punishment in the secular courts, but I am also in severe mortal sin and my soul is in danger of Hell.

The issue of Communion is also a black and white issue, though we can't pretend for one moment that we have the ability to resolve every case in a black and white way. We mere humans are woefully incapable of grasping absolutes, but we can ensure that we keep ourselves sufficiently in the terms of the Covenant so that we can receive assurance from God that we are still in the relationship with Him. This is the whole point of the Church, because it is through our membership and activity within the Church that we receive that very assurance of God's love for us expressed sacramentally.

If we violate the covenant as a body, then the assurance is lost. What may look like a well-done Mass will not have the assurance of the Body and Blood of Christ if the terms of the Covenant written on that very Body in that very Blood are not adhered to. Everyone who is in Communion with Christ is in Communion with each other, this is true. Thus we cannot fail to be in Communion with anyone, no matter who they are or what they do or believe, who is in Communion with Christ. However Communion with Christ requires that the terms of the Covenant be met. These terms are written in the Catholic Faith of the Undivided Church and prefigured in the faith of our beloved Jewish brethren whose faith is perfected in the person of Christ. Alteration to those terms violates the Covenant. Thus my erstwhile argument falls in (3): Catholic principles are more than aesthetic but underlie all that the Church does, otherwise they cease to be Catholic! (Well, Duh!)

So what of those who do violate the Covenant? I don't know. I'm not the judge and I don't want to be. God is both just and merciful with all His Children, and faithful too. I'll still happily sit down and eat with them, discuss social issues with them and think about how we can work together, despite not being in Communion with them. They must understand that we can only go so far, and we must respect their choice.

O Rex Géntium

2011-12-22T15:18:00.001Z

O Rex Géntium, et desiderátus eárum, lapísque anguláris, qui facis útraque unum : veni, et salva hóminem, quem de limo formásti.

O King of the peoples for whom they yearn, and stone of the Corner who makest both one: Come and save Man whom thou formedst of clay.

With the cult of celebrity comes the business of yearning for the perfect body. Cosmetics and deodorants and shampoos and gym sessions and personal grooming and exfoliations and waxing and anti-wrinkle creams, all are seen as the means to be desirable. A six-pack or breast enhancement (sometimes both!) are seen as the only way to be loved and to be adored. Sex itself is raised as an idol - in order to be loved, you have to be available to as many consenting partners as possible. The old, and saggy, and ugly, and those with a party of seven instead of a six pack are unlovable on account of their un-sexy-ness.

Yet we are all made out of clay, and a relationship built on lust will only survive until the clay droops or cracks, or bits get knocked off. Love lasts longer (eternally so) and yet involves more work than personal grooming. It involves hard grafting and self-sacrifice. The martyrs of old suffered many a disfigurement at the hands of those who would force them away from God. Yet they were not dealing with people who lusted after an empty deity, but rather loved a living God with all their heart. These are the ones whose clay beauty is fired into an eternal beauty.

O Oriens

2011-12-21T15:17:00.002Z

O Oriens, splendor lucis ætérnæ, et sol justítiæ : veni, et illúmina sedéntes in ténebris, et umbra mortis.

O Morning Star, splendour of Eternal light and Sun of Righteousness: come and illumine those sitting in darkness and the shadow of Death.

Of all the frailties of humanity, none is more wretched that those who grudge the good things of this world. They see others bathed in light and they would rather that they should be in darkness like them. At least one can enjoy gluttony or lust or avarice even though they eventually rot the soul. What enjoyment can one get from grudging the good things of another. Such folk are unkind even to themselves. Theirs is a gross lack of any awareness of their worth ans consequently the worth of others.

Allowing the Sun of Righteousness to shine on them to see the filthy black tar of envy and self-pity is more than they can often bear. Yet while we might recognise this in others, do we recognise it in ourselves? We are allowed to be kind to ourselves, not by going too far the other way into overindulgence, but to enjoy the light of God with others. The pale and pasty of us may envy those who can lie on the beach tanning nicely whereas we either sizzle and scorch like a lobster or turn to dust the moment we undo our top-button. That doesn't stop us from enjoying a lovely sunny day!

We may, in the depths of winter be longing for that sunny day, but winter too has its joys which the Traditional Christmass points to. We need to lift our chins from our collars and look and see the beauty of God's Creation and then share it with others, rejoicing in what they have to show us too.

O clavis David

2011-12-20T15:16:00.004Z

O clavis David, et sceptrum domus Israël ; qui áperis, et nemo claudit ; claudis, et nemo áperit : veni, et educ vinctum de domo cárceris, sedéntem in ténebris, et umbra mortis.

O Key of David, and sceptre of the house of Israel; who openest, and none closeth; who closest and none openeth: Come and draw out the convict from the prison-house who sitteth in darkness and the shadow of Death.

The proverb says that some people are so lazy that they can't even put food into their own mouth, i.e. they won't even take steps to help themselves when the solution is right in front of them.

We cannot escape the fact that we are sinners. The Lord Jesus shows us very clearly that our love for Him is finite. There are always conditions on our love for Him. We often say with Meatloaf, "I'll do anything for Love, but I won't do that".

However in four days time, we are presented with a baby who will open the door for us to Heaven some thirty years later in His life with us. We have three choices. We can sit on our backsides in blissful ignorance of or blissful antipathy toward our need for God and then be surprised when He tells us He doesn't know us; we can recognise His love for us and sit on our backsides saying, "oh He'll sort it all out" and then wonder why our lamp goes out; or we can get up, walk towards Him, fall over, scuff our knees, pick ourselves up and walk towards Him again and thus make progress to Him from our darkness as he stands at the open door in a blaze of Heavenly light.

O radix Jesse

2011-12-19T14:52:00.003Z

O radix Jesse, qui stas in signum populórum, super quem continébunt reges os suum, quem Gentes deprecabúntur : veni ad liberándum nos, jam noli tardáre.

O Root of Jesse, Who standest as a sign of the people, towards Whom the kings hold their tongues, Whom the Gentiles shall implore : Come for to deliver us, now do not delay!

There are people who believe that others should hang on their every word. This is a particular vice of teachers (mea culpa) and professors. If they have the authority to speak, then all well and good; their words can be understood and received confidently with that authority. However, there are some who speak on matter on which they are not qualified and make pronouncements that destroy rather than build up. There are those who seek to undermine peoples' faith with their own "discoveries" and "interpretations".

The Root of Jesse will always stand as a signpost to the Truth and against delusion, particularly self-delusion. If one argues against that Root, the Root is withdrawn from them and they have no basis on which to build their conclusion. It is far better to have the humility to say "actually, I don't know" and submit oneself to the diligent and careful unearthing of the Root rather than to make a noise like sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.

O Adonái

2011-12-18T14:39:00.004Z

O Adonái, et Dux domus Israël, qui Móysi in igne flammæ rubi apparuísti, et ei in Sina legem dedísti : veni ad rediméndum nos in bráchio exténto.

O Adonai, and Guide of the house of Israel, who appearedst to Moses in the flame of the Burning Bush, and to him on Sinai gave the Law: Come for to release us with arm outstretched.

Why were there riots in the U.K. this year? Why are there riots in Russia? What about the instability in the Middle East? Are all these the same? It might seem that there has been an outbreak of lawlessness in the world as people eschew the law in order to obtain justice. Sometimes this is completely justified; at other times the outcome undermines any nobility of the cause. One can see that in the looting that followed the riots in London. The wrath of some people completely overspilled so that the decided to take what they believed belonged to them.

Sometimes revolutions need to happen, but they often yield chaos as the new regime struggles to be born from the old.

We see Moses leading an oppressed people out from a land of slavery and into a desert - hardly a Promised Land! The wrath of the people needed to cool so that a reasonable reformation and call to covenant could be answered peaceably. However rashness and indignity take over and delay the shaping of this covenant. Far better to be patient rather than to force things to happen before their time. Thus our release from the yoke of this world can only come with the patience to learn from Christ how to take up his easy yoke and light burthen.

Advent IV: Insolent Ikons

2011-12-18T13:44:00.005Z

The Epistle:

The Gospel:

It's painful for an ex-chorister as myself not to join in verses of Scripture which one has sung many times and the words of which have inspired great composers such as Orlando Gibbons and Henry Purcell to write iconic music.

That's just it. The music is ikonic, if I may be allowed to use more Hellenistic spelling.The purpose of any ikon is to point the way to Christ. The Roman Martyrology talks about various saints being persecuted for "the worship of sacred images" - a clumsy phrase considering that this is the translation of dulia - a profound veneration and not latria which is reserved only for God Himself and no other being. Sometimes, just sometimes, English doesn't communicate finely enough what is really meant. The act of dulia is the following of an arrow, the acceptance of the direction of a signpost or the attempt to be obedient to the directions of a yokel who tells you that you should have turned off near the windmill.

The two Ikons in the Epistle and the Gospel are those of St Paul and St John the Baptist, both of whom have a reputation for being rather on the stern side. You don't want to get on the wrong side of St Paul. How the Galatians ears must have rung with the shout "ω ἀνόητοι Γαλάται!" "O Foolish Galatians!" Likewise, you'd want to steer clear of startling figures such as St John the Baptist in his ragged appearance calling you a brood of vipers!

These saintly gentlemen will not pull their punches. If were on the wrong road, they will point it out to us. They will not spare our blushes because they certainly put the cost of our salvation ahead of our pride and dignity. And yet isn't this why we should venerate them? They actually bother and take pains to bother. They actually care about us, about our fate, about our relationship with the One Whom they know very well. Their music may sound rough to our ears - I doubt that St John the Baptist was a Kings College Alto - but it is beautiful music when it is put into the context of God and choirs of angels.

And their message is not one of stern crossness, of frowns and hard stares; theirs is a message of hope and joy. "Make straight the way of the Lord!" "Rejoice in the Lord alway and again, I say rejoice" Both are pointing definitely in their ikonic poses to the Coming Christ who will wipe away all material dependence, all riches, all misplaced ease when He does come again, and give us something even more permanent upon which we can rest. Maranatha!

O Sapientia

2011-12-17T14:20:00.001Z

O Sapiéntia, quæ ex ore Altíssimi prodiísti, attíngens a fine usque ad finem, fórtiter suavitérque dispónens ómnia : veni ad docéndum nos viam prudéntiæ.

O Wisdom, who from the mouth of the Most High proceedest, spanning from one end as far as the other, firmly and sweetly setting forth all things: come for to teach us the way of prudence.

Holy Wisdom yields prudence which calls us to discern the intemperate and gluttonous way we live our lives. As we come to the end of our Advent season we should be recognising within ourselves how gluttonous we are and exercise the restraint of temperance with Wisdom's gift of prudence. We recall that C.S. Lewis describes the old lady 'turning from what has been offered her to say with a demure little sign and a smile "Oh please, please...all I want is a cup of tea, weak but not too weak, and the teeniest weeniest bit of really crisp toast".'

The prudent merely receives what is offered with a smile, controlling and restraining the passion to get what one really wants so that another can share something of themselves in honesty. By restraining our demands for delicacies, we are able to hear the prudence that wisdom teaches and find the peace which comes with it.

Happy New Year!: Advent 2011

2011-11-27T13:28:00.005Z

St Matthew xxi.1

It's the beginning of a new year! Can we honestly say, in our heart of hearts, that we really feel that today is New Year's Day? Most of us would say not, preferring to wait for 1st January before we break out the champagne and blowing those buzzy things that make look like chameleons with a nasty case of glossitis. Advent Sunday seems a rather arbitrary time to start a new year anyway.

If we follow that line of reasoning then, the first day of the New Year would be the Circumcision of Our Lord which, while no less a Holy Feast and cause for pious observation, doesn't have the obvious sense of beginning and seems no less arbitrary. January 1st is just arbitrary a day to begin a year as Advent Sunday.

If we must rid ourselves of arbitrary beginnings, we must look to the Cosmic influences of our Kalendar. One of the glories of the Liturgical year is how the interplay between Sun and Moon colours how we worship the God Who made them. God put them in the sky "for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years". It's fascinating how these celestial resonances make fixed liturgies dance and play with nuances different from a simple prescribed programme of following a single calendar. A fixed day of Easter would destroy much that makes the Work of God beautiful. There would be no interaction of the Saints' and other Holy Days which are largely fixed by the Solar Year, and the Grand Moveable Feasts which follow the Lunar Year.

These great markers of the Sun and Moon which pan out our year provide non-arbitrary beginnings of years. The Ancients regarded the beginning of the year at the Vernal Equinox when the Sun crossed the plane of the Equator and new life began to spring forth. Harvest happened halfway through the year at the Autumnal Equinox. The Solstices where the Sun reaches its Zenith in the Summer and Nadir in the Winter also important days in which some cultures began and ended their years. In the Solar year, these days are not arbitrary.

The Winter Solstice is not far from the date on which we celebrate the feast of the Nativity of the Lord, though it is not dead-on. Of course, we all know that Christmass is moved to the 25th December so that we can celebrate Our Lord's birth while all around us, the pagans are celebrating Saturnalia. Our Lord's birthday is fixed by the Solar Year. Likewise, the interplay of Equinox and Full Moon determine the date of the Feast of the Resurrection but Pasch does not always fall on the Full Moon, or the Equinox. God is not bound by the motion of Sun and Moon.

If we accept Christmass as being 25th December, why don't we begin our Liturgical Year then? Well, the reason for this can be seen when we consider the Gospel for today, the apparently anachronism of the Triumphal entry.

Jesus, who in obedience to the feast prescribed by Jewish lore and law rides "in lowly pomp" into Jerusalem ready to take his place in the Temple. What He discovers there is a complete lack of preparation for the sacred - a confused mess of animals, money changers, and people being distracted from doing what they came to do by things which, in the Cosmic Scheme, have only a fleeting relevance.

Is it any wonder that He is angry? The sacrifices of bullocks, kids, and birds is about to be abolished with the One Perfect Sacrifice that will take place within seven days outside the city in complete and abject disgrace, and then followed by another Cosmic event which transcends the rhythm of the planets and thrusts humanity to its destiny of Eternity. What stands between human beings and God is a clutter of irrelevances.

What happens next is an act of some force - Jesus throws (ἐξέβαλεν) this irrelevance out of the Temple. It is an act of physical activity and cannot have been achieved simply vocally. Does this shock us about Jesus? What do we make of a man of peace succumbing to anger and to such passion?

This will only shock us if we regard Jesus as being "meek and mild" a passive figure who tolerates all our naughty behaviour because He loves us. This is not the love that God shows us. The love of God is hot and active and intolerant of all evil. This is not a God who stands on the side wringing his hands impotently at our misdemeanours. This is a God who does not tolerate anything coming between us and Him. He demands his Temple to be cleared out, the seasons to be purged, He demands space.

Space for what? Breathing space.

We get caught up in our own rhythm, our own season, our own timings. We want things our own way. We see Christmas around the corner and that means going out and getting presents and getting trees and getting decorations and getting drunk. That is how our year goes. The Baby of Christmass was crowded out of the Inn and had to make do with the manger. Likewise, the baby in the Nativity display is being crowded out by the latest Xbox 360, inflatable caricatures of a long dead saint and rather odiously twee snowmen. The sound of God is being drowned out by jingle bells and the simpering affections of people trying to be "nice" once a year yet ignoring that directive on the other 364 days.

Our Lord Jesus Christ demands nothing less than intolerance for anything that stands between Him and us, and all that crowds Him out of our hearts. How then are we to respond? Well, the Church does help us, because it builds that preparation into her year in the season called Advent. In beginning the year with Advent, we than have a choice to make the appropriate preparations. This is the time to sit and examine our consciences, to make space for Christ -breathing space.

Yet, it is not for us to breathe first. The first person to breathe is God, and his breath is the Holy Ghost. In clearing space to breathe, we can breathe in Air that is truly good for us, not polluted by "the smoke of Satan" as Pope Paul VI put it. Christ wants us to breathe in His Spirit so that we can live. Thus Advent affords us the opportunity to see the Baby born in a Manger, not through a haze of materialistic detritus, but through clear air.

Before we begin the song of our year, we must take a breath and note the timing. This is why the year begins with Advent so that we can join our voices in a Cosmic hymn of praise to our Creator, accompanying the rolling spheres, and free from that which would encumber us.

How are you beginning your song this year?

Wittgenstein, Anglicanism and Patrimony

2011-11-24T17:17:00.009Z

A few years ago, I started to wonder about what it means to be an Anglican somewhat prior to the events of what happened a year later. As I've grown older and read more and tried to be a better thinker, it struck me that there are more ways of defining something than giving an axiomatic definition. Wittgenstein's approach of family resemblances gives quite a fresh take on the situation.

The idea is that in a large family, it is clear that now two members of that family are identical. In a mathematical/axiomatic framework, a definition would require that two things would have the same defining category if and only if they satisfied all the requirements. This doesn't work for Art, Poetry, or Religion. Not all Religions have gods, not all Art is beautiful, not all Poetry rhymes.

Wittgenstein notices that one recognises people from the same family by resemblances that, while not common to all members of the family are common to some. Think of the old lady at the bus stop who makes the Wittgensteinian definition of the new baby with the words, "aww, he's got his father's eyes!"

Art, for example might be defined by something which possesses features such as manufactured, designed to stir the emotions, to depict what's truly real, a painting, or a sculpture, or a manipulation of a medium, et c. The more of these features an object has in common with what we would recognise as being a Work of Art, the more easily it can indeed be identified as a work of art. Of course, we have to agree with what the resemblances of "Works of Art" are in the first place. I think it might be quite difficult to find anyone who would say that the Mona Lisa is not Art, so perhaps there is a general Wittgensteinian definition that would fit, at least in a sizable majority.

The same may well be true for this thing called Anglicanism.

In 2009, at the above link, I suggested that:

Listening to the people around me, I hear that one is Anglican

1) by continuing in the Apostolic Succession with Anglican Bishops;

2) by the continued use of Scripture, Tradition and Right Reason in
continuity with the great Anglican Divines – Hooker, Andrewes et al;

3) by agreeing with the principles ["of church polity" I should have added - a bit late now!] laid down at the Reformation;

4) by worshipping in the same places, in the same buildings as
antiquity;

5) by being in communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury;

6) by being a Christian subject of Queen Elizabeth II and her
successors

7) by adhering to traditional Anglican liturgies;

I might also be tempted to add:

8) by seeking some via media between Roman Catholicism and Protestantism;

9) by taking the XXXIX articles as the basis of one's dogmatic system;

10) by rejecting Apostolicae Curae;

11) by holding to the three Creeds and first seven Ecumenical Councils;

12) by recognising the Anglican Church is part of the One True Church and is only part.

I am sure that there are other criteria that one could meet. I would say of course that there is a necessary condition

0) by being a practising Christian.

Criterion (0) is certainly a sine qua non though there are some who would reject even this.

The more resemblances one shares with that which is Anglican, the more one can be recognised as Anglican and vice versa. Of course this rules out absolute certainty as to who is or isn't Anglican and then perhaps we can see how, unlike a mathematical definition, there is room in a Wittgensteinian definition for the principle of Charity and the need for listening to others. Does this lend us to a 13th criterion?

13) by attributing the only certainties that exist are fathomable by a Transcendent and Immanent God.

Did I leave anything out?

Armistice and Armour

2011-11-13T12:42:00.007Z

Epistle for Trinity XXI: Ephesians vi.10

In the view of many people, we are in dark times, another depression caused by so many factors, economic, ecological and spiritual. It is true that it is only by the grace of God Himself that there is any happiness in the world. All that human beings seem to do is struggle. As biologists have noted, all life is struggle: we struggle to be born and we have to fight to stay alive. There is no escaping it. But what about for us humans? What reason have we to fight to stay alive? Why do we have to struggle, labour and toil, agonise and shout. We clearly do, but for what reason? Isn't it time that we stopped fighting and just went with the flow? Isn't it easier than just working ourselves to death for no better reason than pass on our genes and die? Eat, drink and be merry...

St Paul reminds us that humanity is constantly at war, but often forgets who the real enemy is.In most cases we wrongly identify the enemy, eliminate him and then think that our job is done. Surely the world will be a better place now that Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Saddam Hussein, Osama Bin Laden and Colonel Gaddafi have gone? Well, do we know who the monster of tomorrow will be? We can be sure that there will be another!

What we fail to see is that, in identifying evil with an organisation or a person, we're missing the fact that evil is a lot less material than we might like. Evil is non-material. It exists in principalities, powers, rulers of darkness and spiritually infests the high places of humanity.

While we can be sure that someone will make a choice to live life in such a way as to recruit followers who then spread evil in the cause of some "liberation" and thus become a figure of hate, we can fail to see this evil at work in our own society and crucially within our very selves. Can it be that the Western milieu is being unfairly forced on people who are no less human but have rather different views on how society works? Is it possible? Surely we need to look at ourselves closely to see what rule we impose upon others.

If evil exists, then it is the Christian's duty to oppose it in all its forms. We therefore will see battle both physical and spiritual. We will see things that will disgust us and haunt us all the days of our lives. We will be attacked and injured, sometimes physically. Indeed, some of us will fight and will lose our lives: our martyrologies are filled with such as these.

For what do our soldiers fight these days? What makes their cause any more just than their opponents? If we look at the First World War then the answer is not so clear. It seems more like a campaign of Imperial Honour spun wildly out of control. Yet, for the Second World War, there is much more of an objective. Surely, there is no moral society on Earth which could believe that the Concentration Camps were anything other than the foulest recesses of human evil? Can we honestly say that humanity is unanimous in this judgment? Why not?

The Evil we fight is not material. It does not possess an identifiable face, but yet it influences men who are prepared to go along with its flow rather than take a stand against it, actively searching for what is right and making their protests heard against what is wrong. It is the duty of the Christian to fight this non-material Evil and to rescue his brother from its clutches. However, if we are exposed to evil and its lure from the moment of our conception and find that we ourselves aren't just capable of doing evil, but do in fact do evil, what hope have we as soldiers?

St Paul reminds us that we have been given protection by God with which to arm ourselves. First he give us the Truth with which we examine ourselves, identify those vulnerable and weak areas which we then can protect with that same Truth. Our hearts are to be covered in God's Righteousness. How? By taking into ourselves the practice of righteousness through the works of mercy and charity. In that way we fill our hearts unequivocally with righteous living and make them more like the Sacred Heart.

Our feet are given protection by the Gospel which directs their way and carries us forward in our lives to God Himself. These same feet are made beautiful by transmitting that same Gospel and thus there is great strength being passed on to others who need it. We are responsible for helping others be clothed with the armour of Christ.

The enemy can fire at us from any quarter and thus we need a shield that is strong and tough enough, unyielding enough to prevent these wicked darts from hurting us. This shield is the Christian Faith which is indeed rigid so that we might be better protected. However, although the Faith be rigid and unyielding, we must use it with flexibility and wisdom. We need to be trained to use our shield effectively so that whole we may protect ourselves from evil darts, they may not be allowed to ricochet and hit others who are more vulnerable. Faith must be wielded with Charity. We cannot forget that in Christ there is much joy and thus by participating in the Faith of Christ, we make that joy available to others.

Finally, we are given an instrument to repel evil, the same double-edged sword that proceeds from the mouth of the son of Man as St John witnessed in his Apocalypse. This sword is the word of God and with lifelong training we can repel evil, not as single mercenaries fighting guerrilla tactics, but as an army coordinated by God Himself, not against any man, but against evil.

This is why we must give thanks for our armed forces and remember those who have given their lives so that we might continue in our own struggle against evil free from oppression and cruelty in the manner in which God intended. Their sacrifice has meant the relief of countless innocent people, many yet unborn, and this cannot be forgotten. However, is laying a wreath of poppies at the Cenotaph enough? For their sacrifice to be remembered appropriately, shouldn't we be seeking to cultivate in our society more of what they fought for? What did they fight for in the first place?

Communio in sacris and the Contrapositive

2011-11-06T13:45:00.009Z

Consider the following problem.

You are trying to be a good Christian, obeying your conscience, the Catholic Faith and your bishop as the centre of the local Church. Suppose further that your bishop holds to a doctrine which, though in the majority viewpoint in the diocese and certainly in your parish, is nonetheless contrary to the Catholic Faith. Yet further, suppose that your bishop now tells you that because you belong to a parish which accepts the controversial teaching, you have no grounds to object to it. What do you do?

Well, look at the statement logically.

If you belong to a parish and that parish accepts the heterodox then you have no grounds to object to that doctrine.

This has form:

If A & B then C.

This is logically equivalent to the contrapositive:

If not C then either not A or not B.

so our original statement becomes in contrapositive:

If you have grounds to object then either your parish does not accept the heterodox or you do not belong to the parish.

Well, your parish does accept the non-Catholic doctrine, so for the bishop's statement to be true, you cannot be a member of the parish and have grounds to object. But since the doctrine is clearly contrary to the Catholic Faith, grounds to object exist regardless of your or the bishop's views.

Thus for the bishop's statement to be true you must either accept that which is not taught by the Church or you cannot be a member of the parish. What options do you have?

You are obedient to your bishop according to the teaching of St Ignatius, so you accept that the statement must be true. You are obedient to the Catholic Faith so therefore you cannot be a member of the parish.

You are disobedient to the bishop, then you can reject his statement as false. Disagreement with one's bishop is often not a problem provided that one is aware and respectful of the authority invested in him by virtue of the Catholic Church and acts with due humility, but wilful disobedience to your bishop on matters of faith disunites you from the Church through the contradiction of St Ignatius' criterion for Church membership, therefore you cannot be a faithful member of the parish.

You accept the non-Catholic doctrine, but this is an effective denial of what you believe and to do so changes the faith which you have received which puts you outside what the Church has always believed. This endangers one's relationship with God - membership of a parish is irrelevant if one is not in harmony with the Divine!

In all three cases, you are sacrificing either your spiritual health or your membership of your parish and thus your spiritual health. Either way, your growth as a Christian is going to be profoundly affected by prolonged to exposure to doubt, a conscience deliberately uninformed (nay misinformed) by trying to sweep the matter under the carpet, and/or the loss of a worshipping community. We all have doubts and these doubts teach us to be faithful, but a prolonged doubt can quickly become wilful and turn into radical skepticism.

In accepting that which is contrary to the Faith, a bishop has endangered the spiritual health of his entire diocese irrespective of whether they agree with him or not. This includes the priests in his diocese who, while still remaining orthodox, nonetheless despite the validity of their sacraments are still in some danger because of the nature of their relations with the bishop.

For a recovery of one's health, there is only one course of action open to you - you have to find an orthodox bishop in order to guarantee one's membership of the Church.We have now seen that a bishop who equates membership of the church with a particular doctrine practically excommunicates all those who refuse that doctrine.

This is why the office of a bishop is very onerous and it behoves us to be loyal and support him in order that he may continue to guide us into a lively faith. A bishop is not a diocesan CEO: his investment into the diocese is vastly greater than just monetary. The fate of his soul depends on how he leads his flock.

So where am I going with this?

Well, I read more and more about the latest Diocesan results about the Women Bishops measure. The vast majority of Dioceses seem to have voted in favour, but they have also voted against any measure to protect those who in conscience cannot accept the ministry of a female bishop. They believe that a Code of Practice will do.

It should be now quite clear to dissenting bishops, priests and laity that there will soon be a pronouncement:

If you are in the Church of England then you have no grounds to object to women in the episcopate.

It is there in the Canons:

A 4 Of the Form and Manner of Making, Ordaining,
and Consecrating of Bishops, Priests, and Deacons

The Form and Manner of Making, Ordaining, and Consecrating of Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, annexed to The Book of Common Prayer and commonly known as the Ordinal, is not repugnant to the Word of God; and those who are so made, ordained, or consecrated bishops, priests, or deacons, according to the said Ordinal, are lawfully made, ordained, or consecrated, and ought to be accounted, both by themselves and others, to be truly bishops, priests, or deacons.

(emphases mine)

Thus, at the level of Canon, in being a member of the Church of England, one has no canonical nor legal grounds to object to a female Priest and soon it will be the same for bishops when the resolutions for dissenters will be removed. This will lead to great problems.

A 8 Of schisms
Forasmuch as the Church of Christ has for a long time past been distressed by separations and schisms among Christian men, so that the unity for which our Lord prayed is impaired and the witness to his gospel is grievously hindered, it is the duty of clergy and people to do their utmost not only to avoid occasions of strife but also to seek in penitence and brotherly charity to heal such divisions.

What can be done if there can only be a schism if one genuinely dissents as we have demonstrated above? There can be only a Canonical paradox if one looks logically. If there must not be a schism then everyone must unanimously accept women in the Episcopate - a two-thirds majority cannot cut it!

This can only mean that (if they are not suffering already) Anglo-Catholics will simply not be able to exist in the CofE without severe spiritual damage which will come from a gradual erosion. It would be much better for an amicable departure to be arranged so that both sides can follow their own chosen paths to whatever ends there may be without interference and restraint from dissension.

This is a tall order for the poor priests whose living depends upon the CofE's Established nature. For them to make any move away from the Established Church will take much courage and a leap into physical uncertainty. However there is spiritual assurance outside the CofE that remains Anglican. They will find a very warm welcome in the Continuum, they can be very certain of that. They certainly have our prayers and humble petitions for their health and well-being and for their spiritual fulfilment.

Original Sin and Post-Atlantan Pelagianism

2011-10-31T10:35:00.007Z

I've posted on the results of the Diocese of Atlanta seeking to rehabilitate Pelagius. It's only really fair that I try to understand and examine why, though my theology isn't as good as perhaps it ought to be. I think I'm able to give a few thoughts but I am sure that I shall require the comments of those better in the know.

First, let me re-post the text of Article IX:

Of Original or Birth Sin
Original sin standeth not in the following of Adam (as the Pelagians do vainly talk), but it is the fault and corruption of the nature of every man that naturally is engendered of the offspring of Adam, whereby man is very far gone from original righteousness, and is of his own nature inclined to evil, so that the flesh lusteth always contrary to the spirit; and therefore in every person born into this world, it deserveth God's wrath and damnation. And this infection of nature doth remain, yea, in them that are regenerated, whereby the lust of the flesh, called in Greek phronema sarkos (which some do expound the wisdom, some sensuality, some the affection, some the desire of the flesh), is not subject to the law of God. And although there is no condemnation for them that believe and are baptized, yet the Apostle doth confess that concupiscence and lust hath itself the nature of sin.

De Peccato Originali
Peccatum originis non est (ut fabulantur Pelagiani) in imitatione Adami situm, sed est vitium et depravatio naturae eiuslibet hominis ex Adamo naturaliter propagati, qua fit ut ab originali iustitia quam longissime distet, ad malum sua natura propendeat, et caro semper adversus spiritum concupiscat; unde in unoquoque nascentium iram Dei atque damnationem meretur. Manet etiam in renatis haec naturae depravatio, qua fit ut affectus carnis, Graece phronema sarcos (quod alii sapientiam, alii sensum, alii affectum, alii studium carnis interpretantur), legi Dei non subiiciatur. Et quanquam renatis et credentibus, nulla propter Christum est condemnatio, peccati tamen in sese rationem habere concupiscentiam fatetur Apostolus.

From this article, we can see why people object to what Original Sin states. Imagine holding your new first-born child in your arms, the first time you gaze upon a new life, frail, tender, a little bundle of reflexes and then thinking that this new baby "deserveth God's wrath and damnation" by virtue of its original sin. Can we honestly hold it to be true that the natural destiny of humanity is the fiery furnace of Hell?

We do need to be careful on many fronts here. First of all, this is an emotive issue and we can allow our emotions to wander in areas where a clearer head is needed. We must also be clear that there is a place for our emotion and that our sense of outrage at such a statement has a justifiable cause and needs an appropriate outlet.

Let us first be very careful and establish precisely what, according to the article, "deserveth God's wrath and damnation". If we just check the Latin carefully (thought the Cranmerian English is just as ample) "unde in unoquoque nascentium iram Dei atque damnationem meretur" we ask ourselves, what is the object of the passive meretur? Whatever it is, it is in every human being born. It seems to me to be quite clear that it is the Original Sin itself which is deserving the condemnation of God and from this we can infer that it is the cause of this Original Sin who will bear the brunt of God's wrath.

Nonetheless, the Doctrine of Original Sin is scriptural - St Paul's letter to the Romans (v.19) for instance. "As in Adam, all die..." or 1 Cor xv.21. These make it clear to me that the natural end of humanity is not Hell, we are meant (predestined, if you will) for Heaven and for Eternal Life - that is what God wants for us. Hell is the unnatural destiny of Man.

So what happens when we look at our little infant snuggled, sleeping soundly in our arms? Can we call that baby a sinner, by virtue of that original sin? To do so, again, misses a point - can we call anyone a sinner by virtue of original sin? I've mentioned this before - the Church only has the keys to heaven. According to the Apocalypse, it is some great archangel who possesses the key to Hell and he works only at the direct command of God, not of the Church. While we are in this life, we do not possess the wherewithal to judge sinners (motes and beams and what have you). In fact it is a consequence of Original Sin that we do not possess the wherewithal to judge sinners. Our own personal choice within us to Heaven or to Hell lies between ourselves and God.

Well, then? Is it possible for a tiny infant to be a sinner, to be stained with Original Sin? Clearly, the baby is innocent of actual sin i.e. sins which are committed by conscious act. However, as a consequence of a Pro-Life stance, the Catholic Faith teaches that human life begins at conception. If that child is fully human from that point, then it is capable of free choice at that point (a defining aspect of humanity). If so, then it is free to choose between right and wrong and is thus capable of sin even from the word "go".

However, capable does not mean that sin has taken place. We need then to look at Original Sin and how it is transmitted. How can the sin of one man infect all of his descendents? Well, the Story of the Fall makes it clear, the presence of the Serpent from the outset infects humanity by temptation, by lies and by the leading away from God. Even if an infant does not actually sin, it is still subject to being drawn into the darkness. Even Hitler was a newborn baby once.

This, then, reveals the need for the Baptism for infants. The Baptism rite contains an exorcism which is there to free the child from the clutches of the Devil. Of course, the child may still sin after Baptism, but that Baptism puts the child back into the track of its natural destiny, i.e. to God and to Heaven. Faith may be shipwrecked and the child may still fall away from God, but, with that Baptism into the Death of Christ there will always be that chance to take advantage of the Grace given to us in that Baptism to pull us back into the Light.

For children who die before Baptism, I cannot possibly comment on their destiny. I do not believe in a blanket condemnation to Limbo, and neither does the RCC now. The decision lies between God and the individual soul.

I did say that this is an emotional issue, and it is. Sin is a serious, serious, problem and one that does indeed affect (and infect) every child that comes into the world, transmitted by those already present. The least we can do is to ensure that all children get led into the Light and have the opportunity to be drawn by God. This cannot be any more important than for the unborn and is another reason why we need to stop abortion for the good of these little souls.

Episcopalian Erosions

2011-10-28T14:07:00.005Z

The Episcopalian Diocese of Atlanta has just passed this Resolution:

R11-7 Contributions of Pelagius

Whereas the historical record of Pelagius’s [sic] contribution to our theological tradition is shrouded in the political ambition of his theological antagonists who sought to discredit what they felt was a threat to the empire, and their ecclesiastical dominance, and whereas an understanding of his life and writings might bring more to bear on his good standing in our tradition, and whereas his restitution as a viable theological voice within our tradition might encourage a deeper understanding of sin, race, free will, and the goodness of God’s creation, and whereas in as much as the history of Pelagius represents to some the struggle for theological exploration that is our birthright as Anglicans, Be it resolved, that this 105th Annual Council of the Diocese of Atlanta appoint a committee of discernment overseen by our Bishop, to consider these matters as a means to honor the contributions of Pelagius and reclaim his voice in our tradition And be it further resolved that this committee will report their conclusions at the next Annual Council.

That's the resolution. Now let's be clear on the issues. We should not allow ourselves to be sidetracked into rehashing the arguments of Pelagianism as this is rather of secondary importance to what I perceive to be the main issues.

1) Is this an attempt to try and sift the orthodox writings of Pelagius from his heretical works?

2) On what authority is the diocese of Atlanta making this resolution?

On the first issue, we ought to look for the principle of charity. After all, even the greatest theologians have expressed thoughts which the Church has regarded to be heretical. For example, St Thomas Aquinas did not believe that Our Lady was immaculate yet the Roman Catholic Church which bases much of its theology on his teachings has decreed otherwise. In that sense, St Thomas would be speaking heretically. Of course we then have the question as to whether one can be a heretic posthumously or even post-canonisation! We do know that St Peter himself acted heretically when he refused to eat with Gentiles despite the Church teaching otherwise. Of course, St Peter recognised his error and capitulated.

Of Pelagius, little is really known . There is not much in the way of his teaching that survives and what does survive is difficult to be seen separately from his followers who pressed the Pelagian Heresy more forcefully. However, the Oecumenical Councils of Carthage (in 418AD) and Ephesus (431AD) made it clear that Pelagianism, whether or not it originated with Pelagius, is indeed heterodox and thus deviant from the Catholic Faith.

It is true that what the Pelagians leave behind is indeed some very interesting theology on the nature of Free Will and Predestination and Election, but why is the verdict of the Council being challenged on the grounds of an inclement political climate? Surely then, Arianism must also be reappraised since this was the more politically dangerous of the classical heresies. Even the Pope was Arian at one point. Why stop there? What about the Apollinarian heresies? Ebionism, Origenism? Nestorianism? Gnosticism? One might accuse me of a "thin end of the wedge" argument, but the idea remains: if there is the possibility of reclaiming one heretical doctrine into orthodoxy owing to the prevailing culture, why not all heretical doctrines? What makes Pelagianism more palatable?

The second issue is one that concerns me more. On what authority does a single diocese make the decision to re-appraise hitherto heretical teaching? Not all Anglicans subscribe to the XXXIX articles - I myself do not believe them to be the defining element of what it is to be an Anglican preferring a more Wittgensteinian approach of "family resemblance" (more on that later methinks). However, looking at the articles gives:

IX. Of Original or Birth Sin.

ORIGINAL sin standeth not in the following of Adam (as the Pelagians do vainly talk), but it is the fault and corruption of the nature of every man that naturally is engendered of the offspring of Adam, whereby man is very far gone from original righteousness, and is of his own nature inclined to evil, so that the flesh lusteth always contrary to the spirit; and therefore in every person born into this world, it deserveth God's wrath and damnation. And this infection of nature doth remain, yea, in them that are regenerated, whereby the lust of the flesh, called in Greek Phonema sarkos (which some do expound the wisdom, some sensuality, some the affection, some the desire of the flesh), is not subject to the law of God. And although there is no condemnation for them that believe and are baptized, yet the Apostle doth confess that concupiscence and lust hath itself the nature of sin.

Here is a perfectly Anglican viewpoint which sets the bar. Of course the Diocese of Atlanta can reject the authority of the Articles in general as defining Anglicanism and still remain Anglican. Can it just reject the subject matter at all? The article, unchanged from 1553, was drafted to reject the Pelagian heresy of the Anabaptists and to continue the Catholic line on the matter. Its content follows the conclusion of the Oecumenical Council of Ephesus, consent to which is necessary for membership of the Catholic Church. So to accept Pelagianism is a denial of Catholicism.

Further, that the Diocese has taken it upon itself to examine the issue apparently independently, this means that it cannot be acting Oecumenically. To reconsider the verdict of an Oecumenical Council requires an Oecumenical Council which cannot be called until there is full Catholic Oecumenical Reconciliation. This is another example of the "go it alone" mentality of member diocese in ECUSA. Its Catholicism went long ago, squashed between the mitre and Pantene Hairspray, and this merely points to the untenability of the same attitude. A kingdom divided cannot stand and the liberal churches are again taking too much authority on their own heads with the result that their own house dissipates into the prevailing culture.

If there are grounds to review Pelagius then that review has to happen oecumenically with all Christians. It is clear that Atlanta sees itself as a higher power in deciding doctrine.

For the sake of argument...

2011-10-26T13:27:00.005Z

It seems that the Philosophy of Religion has become very fashionable lately with all kinds of people stepping into the ring to declare their belief in the existence or non-existence of God with arguments that they believe to be incontrovertible and completely watertight. It is inevitable that someone will find the chink in the argument and then exploit it to demolish the house of cards on which argument rests.

The question is: do we allow our faith to be built on philosophical arguments?

There are three classical arguments for the existence of God: the ontological, the cosmological and the teleological. All three have inherent philosophical problems in drawing the conclusion that a being exists in a wholly other way to the physical universe who is deserving of the worship of all living beings. Yet Organised Religion has not collapsed under the weight of these oft-used reasons for worshipping God.

Some might say that this is because religious believers are inherently stupid and if they only thought harder, they would see that there is no God. One must be careful here: to say that the argument for the existence of God fails is not an argument for the non-existence of God (and vice versa). Others might cite the argument that people want God to exist as an emotional crutch only to have the point made that every human need has a real object, et c.

The main assumption is that it is foolish to believe in God or to have religious beliefs. The valid corollary of the Ontological argument is that if God doesn't exist then there's no point in worshipping Him - that's eminently reasonable. If there is no proof for or against, how then can they define "foolish"?

My problem with the classical philosophical arguments is that they don't begin at the right spot. I do not believe we can reason God into existence like folk have misread St Anselm. I'm much more of a radical skeptic when it comes to proofs or disproofs for the existence of God. I maintain that we know reality so insufficiently that the existence of God cannot be proved or disproved by human thought and reason. In the very technical sense of the word, that makes me agnostic - I do not know how to prove beyond all doubt that God exists and I don't believe there is such a way.

So why do I believe in God?

I speak personally and apologetically. I appeal to authority, namely to the person of Jesus Christ Whom I regard as Lord and Master. I believe that what He claims is true.

Of course, what I know of Him comes from Scripture and Tradition, i.e. from the Church. The first records of Him were written down within 30 years of His death (contrast that with centuries for Alexander the Great and other prominent historical figures) and taken from first hand sources. One may say that the Church was selective in the records that it chose for His life. I would have to agree very much that the Church was indeed very selective in what it deemed sufficiently authoritative. The texts it rejected were not contemporaneous with Christ and most extra-canonical Gospels were written long after the fact. All of the texts of the New Testament were written in the first century AD.

It seems to me that the Biblical texts satisfy the CRAVEN tests.

Corroboration: The Gospels (while like most pieces of evidence disagree on details) do indeed corroborate what Jesus taught, the miracles he did and that He rose from the dead.

Reputation: The writers of the Gospels are clearly Christian and very little seems to be known about them to assess their reputability. However, the Gospel of St John shows a knowledge of classical as well as colloquial Greek, St Luke demonstrates a scientific approach in his writing. St Paul himself as another corroborator of the Gospels certainly writes with erudition and tells the story of his own conversion.

Ability to See: if these writers are (as St Luke claims to be doing) writing down interviews with those who knew Jesus first hand within thirty years of the death of Jesus then they do have ability to make a critical judgment to what they saw.

Vested Interest: Considering that most of the people who proclaimed faith in Jesus were destined for painful and humiliating deaths, either they were deluded or felt that the truth was more important.

Expertise: the writers were adult, sufficiently proficient in Greek and privy to the early Christian communities.

Neutrality: What would this mean here? If one is setting out to record the truth, one must believe that truth which one is trying to document. So it is not viable to denounce the Gospel writers as not being neutral because of their Christianity. Again, if they did not believe it to be true, why go to execution for the sake of a lie? Is there a neutral position to take here?

This helps me to regard the evidence of Scripture as reliable.

I dare say that someone will come along and try to demolish my faith in the writers of Scripture and what the Church tells me. They may even succeed at knocking down my CRAVEN analysis, but then I've not been too intent in producing coherent arguments. All I have done is to show some justification in my belief and I do not offer it to convince anyone that I am right, though if it does so then that is a wonderful by-product of my intention. It does, however, put me very close to the basic criteria for knowledge - justified, true belief. I belief that Jesus is Who he says He is. I am justified in my belief given the evidence of Holy Scripture. Is that belief true? If the evidence is true, then yes.

However, it now needs to be demonstrated that the evidence is indeed true. That is now almost impossible to know as this happened in the past. There can be no scientific examination which will confirm the evidence either way. The historians themselves can only speak of likelihood and possibility, so there can be no definite statement from them. Probability and likelihood come with a background arena of reference which is largely but not exclusively subjective and opinionated.

So what have I actually done? I haven't produced an infallible argument for the existence of God save only to say that "God exists because Jesus tells me so". That sounds rather feeble, like passing the buck. It may even make me sound like some kind of simple-minded Evangelical (by which I mean an Evangelical who happens to be simple-minded, not that all Evangelicals are simple-minded) but it makes sense. My Christian Faith stands or falls with the person of the Lord Jesus Christ. Surely this is where the Christian Faith has to start.

What it does do is free me from the vicissitudes of Philosophical argument. It also frees me from worrying about whether my belief in Evolution is in contradiction with belief in God. It frees me to criticise and accept Science and hopefully to engage sensibly and reasonably with people of all kinds of beliefs. While it does not make me immune from criticism nor from rigorous defence, it does lift much of the weight from my shoulders rather than paralyse me in enormous and complicated arguments of self-justification. "His yoke is easy and His burthen is light" just as He promised.

The Church in the small.

2011-10-16T09:05:00.009Z

I've been studying this essay on Church Growth by Canon Stephen Scarlett. Before I go any further, I think it best that I reiterate my disclaimer above. What follows are my own personal thoughts. I do not speak authoritatively in any way but merely base my thoughts on what I, personally, have observed. I do not speak for the ACC, of which I am a proud and happy member, nor any other organisation that I name here.

Last week, I acted as crucifer for the 950th Anniversary celebrations of Our Lady of Walsingham in the ACC. For various (and mainly) political reasons the ACC is not allowed to say Mass at the shrine. While this is unfortunate, we carried on regardless and made our celebrations with much joy and ceremony. The little church was packed and we were merely just a subdeacon short of a full High Mass (which is, incidentally, how some people describe me).

We processed outside, not far, just once around the surrounds, and back in the church, for, while the church was packed, it is a small building and there weren't all that many of us.

In this country, it seems very difficult for churches to grow. In the CofE there were many initiatives to try and get people into church, the Alpha Course and Back to Church Sunday. The latter followed the ideas which the good Canon Scarlett outlines - inviting people into church. I often criticised the CofE for Back to Church Sunday on the grounds that it was better to get its house tidy before inviting in guests.

Should I be saying the same to the Continuing Church? It does, after all, have a sad history of division and bitterness between Anglicans and these are hardly attractive qualities for guests. However, the issue is not about the whole Anglican situation, but rather about the parish in which we invite people. Now that's a different situation to what is happening on a global scale.

I would chide the CofE because it was quite feasible for one parish to be believing one thing and the next one down the road to be believing another. From my experiences in the ACC so far (I may be wrong, though I doubt it) there is no such division of belief. I am in regular contact with two priests one who is of a High Anglican nature and the other who describes himself as lower. However, when I go to their Masses, while the flavour might be different (one kataphatic tinged with incense and a modicum of Latin, the other apophatic simple and Benedictine) there is a great unity of spirit and it is the same Church. The words "THIS IS MY BODY" are said with the same intensity of belief in both parishes; the words of the Liturgy are taken with the utmost seriousness; the sermons, though very different in construct fully representing the character of the priest, proclaiming identical messages. This was never the case in the Established Church.

It is here, in the smallness of the parish, that we should be inviting people. Of course, we can't ignore the underlying political currents but these must be left to those in authority. If we trust our bishops, and in the ACC we do as I have seen in evidence long before I joined the ACC, then we know that they will be working towards healing the rifts. It is the job of the laity to ensure that we tend the Church in its greenhouse by supporting our priests and, more importantly, living the Christian life with an increasing degree of devotion but in the smallness of our lives.

One of the biggest lessons a Christian has to learn is humility. It's a big idea in the Benedictine Rule and a major theme of Our Lord's teaching. Readers of this blogling will be very clear that humility is not something that I have a great deal of. "Who does he think he is?" was often whispered around my last parish behind my back.

It is in humility that we can find ways of implementing Canon Scarlett's ideas. There are several realisations we have to make.

In the U.K., proselyting does not work. In my experience, the mention of Religion makes people move away from you or make bitter comments. British folk do not like having their reserve challenged and it does seem that just mentioning the Holy Name pushes people further away. It is clear that we need to find a way of engaging with people which is respectful of people's nervousness and aware of their discomfort.

One idea seems to prevail across worldviews:

In the worldview X, there are people who do not follow the worldview properly, therefore the authority of worldview X is suspect.

I know, because I have succumbed to this myself in discussing the relationship of Science and Religion, and perhaps you can see this in some of my earlier writings. It is logically invalid but is very persuasive because it has an emotional content. Canon Scarlett is very correct: in the main, people are not going to be persuaded by arguments but rather by a personal engagement. It is clear that we have to be thoughtful about our Faith and able to communicate intellectual integrity at the emotional level.

The Continuum is tiny and confused in the U.K. The ACC is actually very stable at present largely because we're not trying to "make history" - but is that a good thing? On the other hand the TAC has tried to do something worthwhile and positive for church unity but is paying the price for it because it was not engaged wholeheartedly. The TAC in the UK looks as if it will have its home in the Ordinariate largely because of the Papal flavour English Anglicanism (not quite the tautology you might think) possesses. However, there is an inconsistency of doctrine: are Anglican priests really priests? In the ACC the answer is a big yes, in the TAC it's rather equivocal. The confusion of the TAC is the ACCs problem by virtue of their common origins and common doctrine (modulo the issue of validity of orders). It is clear we need to recognise that there is confusion within our institution and to make sure that, while there may be this confusion, our Gospel message is clear.

The Continuum is tiny in the U.K. There are the ecclesiastical giants of the CofE and the RCC, there is also the non-ecclesiastical giant of the nice, warm bed on a Sunday morning. The ACC is very clear on what it is and what it offers: Catholic Faith, Orthodox Worship, Apostolic Order. However, what does this mean for the people that we're trying to reach? Are we trying to reach members of the CofE? This is largely impossible for most members are not aware of nor care that their orders are slowly becoming unApostolic and that their faith is not Catholic. The RCC, is of course, rather more strong in its structure, though there is erosion of its own Catholic Faith. If we're reaching out to people who have been displaced by both of these great institutions, where do we find them? Where do we find them with the few resources that we have? Where do we find them with the few resources that we have, given that we are getting older?

We have to be humble about this. The task is very definitely beyond us members of the Anglican Diaspora scattered over the country and the world. All we can do is continue. Hang on! That's what we are doing if we're Continuing Anglicans. We need to be whole-hearted and devout in our faith, each little member of us. Church-wide, each individual needs to be following a life which contains prayer, penitence, study, devotion, meditation and evangelism.

Each of us needs to be praying daily for the growth of the Church and for the power to do what is impossible for men. If we're meeting in upper rooms for Mass, doesn't this put us very close to what was happening in the very beginning of Christianity?

Each of us needs to be examining our conscience daily. It's a good Benedictine practice, but one that ought to be adopted by all Christians. It is our sin that has got us into a mess, but we have been given a way out in Christ. Our sins block what God can do in us and what He can do in us in the world. It's horrid but it needs to be done.

Each of us needs to study not just our Bibles and Catechisms, but the world around us. We need to hear what the world is saying so that we can hear its needs and recognise the Diabolical deceits with which the Devil is trying to meet those needs with falsehoods and analgesics. We need to be able to think clearly - this is a particularly Anglican trait with our application of Reason to our Scripture and Tradition.

We need to devote our lives, genuinely to Christ. The first commandment is that we should have no other gods, but how seriously is this ingrained in us? Participation in the Mass is mandatory for our own good and most, if not all of us, do that and do it well precisely because we are in the Continuum because of the sanctity of the Mass. But what more? What about in our daily lives?

We need to meditate - to find silence with God. This is terribly hard in a noisy world, but it is possible. It is clear that the ACC has so much to offer the world. It is a conduit for Holiness and Grace, so the more we listen out for God's voice and pray that this voice may be heard in the Church, the better we can be at doing the impossible with His power.

We need to evangelise. We still have the problems I mention above, but we can remember that it is our lives that can convince people of the truth. Miracles can and do happen though, largely, we have lost the gift of seeing them and the faith for doing them. St Francis of Assisi says that we should preach the Gospel continuously, using words as a last resort. It may sound dreadfully Pentecostal, but I think it is very true, if people see the Grace of God in us, then they will want it. If people see in us the pearl of great price, then they will begin to sell what they don't need in order to get it. The appeal of Christianity will be in the good lives and examples of Christians. We may not convert people, but we can put a stone in their shoe to help them stop and think.

Above all, we need to be cultivating within ourselves a sense of humility so that God can work in us because we can so easily block out that message. As Bishop Mead put it at the celebration of Our Lady of Walsingham, we cannot afford to keep washing our hands of the Gospel like Pontius Pilate whose life was full of the excuses of the proud not to hear God, and rather to emulate Our Lady and Richeldis who, in humility, threw aside what prevented them from saying "yes" to God yet still being aware of their smallness and limitation.

In the Continuum, we may be small and limited. I believe, however, that somehow God can do something quite brilliant if we are humble enough, in our smallness, to let Him.

The Story of Science

2011-10-08T21:51:00.004Z

I've been hammering Science quite a lot lately. It's very easy to get into a defensive frame of mind, especially when the popular view presents a false dichotomy of Faith and Science. However, it does seem clear to me that the materialist's claim to be the sole possessor of true Science is tenuous and as much a matter of faith as any other religious/philosophical belief. It is the latter thesis that I have tried to put forward. I suspect that I may have overstated my case on a few occasions.

It is vitally important that we learn Science, for it is here that we do indeed learn about the physical world, after all it seems very reasonable that the world does indeed possess a material nature. We observe, and though we can doubt the veracity of what we observe, we can still make observations and describe those observations in a methodical and formal way so as to communicate, predict and utilise the matter and energy around us.

The recent discovery of faster-than-light neutrinos has certainly sparked some speculations in the Scientific community. According to Einstein's theory of relativity, an important foundation of modern science, nothing can travel faster than light, and so to observe something do just that makes a physicist sit up and take notice, because if what he has seen is true, he will have to revise his entire understanding of the universe. However, it may be a mistake or fault, or even ratification of a theory of parallel universes or wormholes in the fabric of spacetime. There is bound to be some explanation for this occurrence.

Thus buzzing around the Scientific journals now are all kinds of theories and explanations - all forms of mathematical narrative to try and give some rational explanation as to how Einstein's story of the universe is the right one, or to tell a new story with a fresh new narrative.

It is possible that some scientists will object to my use of scientific explanation of the structure of the universe as a story. I'm not entirely sure why, if I'm honest,because much of our communication with other human beings is some form of narrative designed to tell an important truth about some aspect of our lives, from communicating the frustration that the gas-man wouldn't come out to mend the boiler to the ecstatic vision of a new nebula discovered by the Hubble Space telescope.

For many Scientists, the idea of "story"has a fictional element to it. Dawkins rejects the Old Testament as a bundle of stories about what he perceives to be an unpleasant deity. Yet, he will nonetheless use narrative to tell the story of Evolution. Narrative is natural to human beings and so the story becomes a perfectly decent way of communicating even scientific truth. There used to be a set of continental cartoons about personified blood-cells and germs which definitely did the job of informing, in a rough and ready way, how the body worked.

Science still relies on some stories to fuel the scientific imagination. It doesn't mean that the stories are fiction; it doesn't mean that they are fact either. It does mean that there is something in the telling of the story that engages human curiosity about the world around us. It does communicate that the universe has indeed a meaning which is worth discovering, a mystery that it is worth engaging with and finding a deeper narrative with which to create some great joy in the mind of Man.

However, Science cannot dismiss Biblical texts as fairy-stories with the implication that they are wholly fictitious. First, the stories being told are very different but still have points of engagement, such as Noah's Flood. Second, the Biblical stories do have great historical credibility particularly in the New Testament many parts of which were written within a remarkably short space of time after the Life, Death and Resurrection of Jesus. Compare that with the biographies of important historical figures (such as Alexander the Great) which were written a few centuries after their subject died. There are several discrepancies between the narratives of Scripture and the archaeological evidence. This may be due to a difference in what the narrative is trying to communicate or it may be due to a difference in how historical evidence may be interpreted.

Of course, Science is practically redundant in historical investigation. One cannot re-stage the Battle of Waterloo under scientific conditions. Nor can Science prove that the explanations that might be had for the Plagues of Egypt, the Feeding of the Five Thousand or the stigmata of St Francis of Assisi are exactly true and factual. It can only speculate and possibly discuss likelihoods under present conditions. Nor can Science even talk about the probability or otherwise of the existence of God, for to talk about probabilities involves some background in which to calculate the probabilities. One cannot find the proportion of universes in which God exists from the total number of universes.

Yet, the stories that Science tells are indeed compelling and are worthy of much reflection. Religious folk can gain much knowledge of God by reflecting on what He has created, especially if they do it honestly by considering the implications of different theories such as the Big Bang or the Creationist theory of a young universe and any other theory that should present itself. Science is not capable of destroying religious faith and so the Religious community has nothing to fear from studying all these wonderful stories and narratives that Science gives us in order to understand the physical make up of what God has created. However, it is worth remembering, that if a Creator God does exist, then we are characters in his story as well as History.

Who's in a name?

2011-10-05T00:00:00.000Z

Homily preached at Eltham College on 3rd and 4th October based on the second chapter of St Paul’s letter to the Church in Philippi verses 5 to 11.

During your summer holiday,
you meet,
staying in the room next to you,
a woman and her three new triplets.

Of course,
you go all gooey over small babies
so you wander over and say hello.

After the appropriate amount of baby-talk,
the mother introduces her brood by name:
the largest LaFayette,
the middle LaToyah
and the youngest LaTrine.

Latrine?

You can’t quite believe your ears,
have you heard that name correctly?

Latrine?
Isn’t that another word for outside toilet?

Being the polite person that you are,
you ask why that particular name.

The reply?

It sounds nice.

[PAUSE]

How do you feel about your name?

After all, you didn’t choose it for yourself.

It was foisted upon you by your parents.

You may loathe it but,
looking down the school roll,
there isn’t any name that appears
particularly ridiculous.

There are no
Moon Unit Zappas
or Peaches Geldofs,
no Fifi-Trixabelles
or Harper Sevens on the School Roll.

You can always count on the fact
that some parent in the world
is going to inflict
their warped sense of humour
onto the tiny infant
that has just been born to them.

How many boys have received
eleven Christian names
all after the players
for Doncaster Rovers in 1978?

Worse still,
Mr Dover is always going to be tempted
to name his daughter Eileen
– thank about it, Eileen Dover –
or, what about his son Ben?

There’s always the temptation
for Michael Foot to name his daughter Sonya,
and in America,
there is a girl called Deebra Strapp.

Is her son called Jock, one wonders?

If parents can be so rubbish at choosing names should they not hold off until you can choose your own?

[PAUSE]

Well, this would result in you being called “Thingy” or “Doo-dah” or “Wosname” for the first eleven years of your life.

If you are younger than eleven
and you choose your own name,
the result could be just as silly:
Ben 10 Smith,
Pikachu Palmer-Patten
or Kinder Surprise Jones,
for example.

However, if you don’t have a name
until you’re eleven,
you would lack some significant
personal sense of identity.

You may not realise that a name
is a terribly powerful thing.

In Egyptian mythology,
the Goddess Isis gains power
over the Sun-God, Ra,
by discovering his secret name.

In Greek, the word for “name” is onoma,
which itself is derived from
the word nomos meaning “law”,
“principle”, even “authority”.

Your name represents
not just a handy way of referring to you
other than “Oi! Fishface”
but marks you out as a being
in your own right
with a will,
a purpose
and an ability to express
that will and purpose.

Names have an intrinsic meaning.

Jonathan comes from the Hebrew
“Jeho Nathan”
meaning “God has given.”

In Latin that’s Deusdedit
– an early Archbishop of Canterbury,
or in Greek, Theodore.

“William” means a determined protector.

“Robert” means “famed” or “bright”,
the female equivalent is “Clare”.

“Raj” means “King”
as does “Roy” or “Rex”.

Most interesting is the name Joshua.

Joshua is the Hebrew word
meaning “God saves”.

It seems clear that the chap
in the Old Testament
who has a whole book named after him,
is instrumental in saving Israel.

One might say that he is well named.

However,
Joshua was
and still is
a very common name.

If we now translate that name
into Greek we get some inkling
of how powerful a name can be.

So, if Joshua means “God saves”,
what’s the Greek version of Joshua?

[PAUSE]

The answer is, of course, Jesus.

Now think of the impact
of that name on humanity,
whether or not you happen to believe
in who Jesus claims to be.

For many people,
it’s a name so Holy that it needs
to be treated with the profoundest respect
for what they believe Jesus has done
and is doing for them.

For others it’s an expletive
- a word to use when your Xbox bursts into flames.

But, then why should any person’s name
become a swear word?

Would we like our name
to be used as a way of expressing
deep negative emotion?

Doesn’t that cheapen who we are?

Wouldn’t using that name in such a way
count as profound disrespect for that person?

[PAUSE]

This brings us back to the power of names.

We can ruin our good name,
just as Adolph Hitler
and Osama Bin Laden have done.

These names will always be associated with evil,
even if the owners of those names
were nonetheless highly flawed
and vulnerable human beings.

That was their fault,
a result of their choices.

Their acts changed the meanings of their names.

And Christians believe
that Jesus fulfilled the meaning of His name.

What then does this say
about the parent who calls their child
Daisy Boo, or Buddy Bear?

Have these children
been given a name
with which they can be respected?

Have these children been given a name
which they can make great
with works of kindness and hard work?

Surely this demonstrates
that some parents see their children
as fashion accessories
rather than people
with the potential to become great?

It’s going to be hard for
Daisy Boo Oliver to be taken seriously
with a name like that.

Perhaps she has the ability to do just that.

[PAUSE]

Whether or not you love or hate your name,
you still have the potential to make that name good.

You have the ability
to live your lives in such a way
that the mention of your name brings joy or relief
to whoever hears it.

You have the ability
to make the school proud
to have your name on its roll.

You have the ability
to pass on what your name means
not just to your children,
but to all who look up to you for inspiration.

Tough job.

How are you going to do that?

The Hypocrite and the Extremist: Poles apart?

2011-10-01T13:29:00.007Z

I'm sure that I have made my friends, colleagues and readers cringe with some of the things that I say and write. I'm certainly not the most socially intelligent and perhaps it can be rightly said that there is a little of the Sheldon Cooper in me.

In England, Religion is not really something that should be discussed in polite company. There is an understanding that in England it is better not to rock the boat, so perhaps my somewhat forthright views have an American origin via my conversations with my friends. Certainly, my new Church (the Anglican Catholic Church) has inherited an American flavour. According to the Affirmation of St Louis, the normative BCP is the American BCP of 1928. I'm not going to quibble with that, save to remark that there are some odd changes in phraseology (particularly in the Venite) which I'm going to have to get used to.

I do have to admit to a certain "evangelical" bent and I'm not entirely sure where that came from unless it is something that wormed its way into me during my declining years in the CofE. By this, I mean that I think that a few friends wish they'd never mentioned to me any topic on the lines of, the Rapture, W"O", the "corruption" of the Church, et c.

One comment seems to run constant, "things are always black and white to you." To be honest, I've never understood why save possibly the force with which I say no to certain alterations to Christian Doctrine made by liberals. For holding a definite position, I get labelled as an extremist.

This rather does bring up the rather thorny issue of Extremism. If you think about it, every dichotomy (or trichotomy, or n-chotomy for a given value of n) has an extreme position, whether it be political, social, religious or even which end of the egg one cracks. The question is, is Extremism wrong?

We have to be very careful here, because the idea of Extremism has very negative connotations. The deaths of 11th September were attributed to "Islamic Extremists" whatever that means. It was a religious/political extremist (whose sanity is in doubt) who caused the deaths of about 80 people in Norway recently. Maybe you can think of many other examples of this sort of Extremism.

I've heard it said that the present Pope is a Catholic Extremist, but I wonder what this means. I suspect that those who call him thus have an objection to something that he has spoken out against:- Abortion, Islam, Relativism, Contraception.

While the Regensburg lecture and its controversial indictment of Islam was largely the result of too complicated a train of thought, nonetheless, in holding to Christian precepts the Pope is making a very definite statement that Islam is not the right path to God. Likewise, any Islamic leader, just by being Islamic, is making a very definite statement that Christianity is wrong. Just by accepting the doctrines of one's Faith immediately presents certain definite views which are potentially (and often necessarily) incompatible with another's. There is an extent to which there can be no middle ground - one cannot be both a Christian and a Moslem. Likewise it is very unlikely (and some might say logically impossible) that both Islam and Christianity cannot be true.

In being a Christian, I am putting myself into an extreme position that Islam is not the path to the Truth. The same is true for my Islamic friend in his proclamation that I am wrong. We're both extremist in the relativistic sense that there is no way we can worship God together, but does that mean I have to renounce him as a person?

The same is true of the Abortion and Contraception issues. The Commandment of God is that murder is wrong - murder of course being an unjust killing. If there is doubt that a few cells in the human body are growing in order to form another human body, then there is sufficient doubt, not only to question whether that bundle of cells is already a human being in the same way as we are, but also whether the deliberate impedance of a human being being born is morally objectionable. If Abortion and Contraception cause such a moral uproar, suddenly things become much simpler when bedroom activity is left to happily married couples who can control themselves!

Again, these ideas are quite logical consequences from believing in God. If God commands that X shouldn't be done, then the greatest care should be taken that X isn't done and this means that situations require great examination to ensure that X isn't done even when it isn't completely obvious. If one doesn't hold to the idea that God exists, then some of the believer's injunctions against X will appear arbitrary and oppressive. However, again, it is the initial belief that produces the polarisation, and polarisation in the eyes of some relativists is the same thing as extremism. How can one side convince the other of the truth if there can be no common ground between them?

One could try to be a Relativist and try to make common ground where there is none, but that only brings up another set of extremes and destroys common ground with the Absolutist such as the Pope.

Of course, the believer, particularly the Extremist, in both Absolutist and Relaticistic senses, is entirely open to hypocrisy, i.e. failing to practice the same principles that he preaches, and this will be utterly obvious. Too often Christians will focus on keeping one particular commandment (such as not murdering) and fail to keep another commandment (such as "Love thy neighbour") or even fail to keep the commandment in its principle (such as torching an abortion clinic). Does this negate the truth of the commandment that he holds so dear?

It's quite interesting that of all the things English society loathes, it's the hypocrite. Perhaps this is a vestige of the time when England was a Christian country and the KJV roared out the Lord Christ's woes against the hypocrites. It's true that the behaviour of the hypocrite (particularly the Extremist hypocrite) renders his doctrine questionable, but the fact is that it doesn't make his doctrine false.

The Lord Jesus, when speaking against the Pharisaic hypocrisy tells His disciples, "what they say, do, but what they do, do not." The teaching of God is not rendered invalid by the behaviour of the hypocrite and the extremist. It still requires acting upon. Of course, if one is serious about keeping the Christian Faith, then it is important to recognise that every sin that we commit is an act of hypocrisy too on top of the act of sinning per se. Perhaps, then, one argument on the side of miracles is for the continued existence of Christianity in the hands of hypocrites and sinners!

It is however very interesting that of all the commandments to be extremist about, it is never the doctrines of forgiveness or of unconditional love. Perhaps this failure to be extreme about these marks out the nature of the Extremist from the necessary extreme positions that our belief naturally gives us. The saints are all Extremists: they held nothing dearer than the will of God even to death - always theirs. St Therese of Lisieux is certainly an Extremist of the more wonderful kind in that she aimed at nothing but perfection in all of her little daily chores, yet one cannot put her into the same bracket as the nominal Christians who will blow up other nominal Christians as does happen in various parts of the world. However, no saint scrimped on the doctrines of forgiveness and love because they saw themselves in need of both as well as other people.

There is much good in reflecting on the consequences of one's belief system and examining whether we are entirely committed to what we hold to be true. If we have an extreme faith which is cognisant of the fact that there is no middle ground, how can we nonetheless give true respect to those on the other side of the gulf? Perhaps it's time to stop speaking and to start doing.

Michaelmas: Angels and Demons

2011-09-29T00:00:00.002Z

Written for the Magazine of St Peter and St Paul's Church, Swanscombe at the request of a friend.

Do you get the feeling that Dan Brown has it in for the Church? First there was the Da Vinci Code with a lot of untruths about Jesus having a family and the Holy Grail being his descendants. Then came the story Angels and Demons with a group of Scientists trying to blow up the Vatican!

It does seem that there are many people in the world who have it in for the Church as a whole. There are a whole host of reasons. Professor Richard Dawkins believes that the God of the Bible is cruel, jealous and arbitrary. Christopher Hitchens believes that God doesn’t exist because Christians are so bad. Karl Marx sees religious belief as something that drugs people from seeing the truth about their own poverty. What do you think about this? What arguments have you heard that God doesn’t exist? Is the Church living a lie?

It’s very easy not to care with our comfortable lives or our economic worries and it isn’t surprising that people fall away from the Faith because it fails to address their concerns. But then didn’t Jesus say something about the word of God falling among nettles and thorns? Our modern society believes that the only things that exists are the things we can lay our hands on or measure in some way. Our society doesn’t believe in God for the simple reason that He cannot be observed in action, put into a test-tube or seen through a telescope. If God doesn’t exist, then neither does life after death, so eat drink and be merry et c. How can anyone answer back at this?

It’s understandable that we feel daunted at going against this Materialism in our society, especially when it means that we come up against our friends and even family, or even ourselves! How tempting it is to put down our daily Bible reading in favour of watching Emmerdalenders or Coronation Farm! In the light of so much against us, it’s easy for us to feel weak and helpless.

And what would the Lord say? Easy: “Be not afraid!” Listen to the two Patron Saints of the Church in Swanscombe. St Peter says, “be sober, be vigilant, for your adversary the devil as a roaring lion walketh about seeking whom he may devour, whom resist strong in the faith.” [1 Peter 5.8]. St Paul bids us be strong and disciplined and “put on the whole armour of God. that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil.” [Ephesians 6.11] What are these Patron Saints saying?

First, as sure as God exists, so does the Devil. It’s very tempting to write off both Angels and Demons as fairy stories and not really existing – that’s actually something that the Devil wants so he can hide from us. If, however, we believe in God and in His Son Jesus Christ, then we don’t really have a choice about believing in Angels or Demons, because the Lord Jesus himself casts out devils and talks about Satan and Beelzebub and the like. The Lord Himself tells us that we will one day judge the Angels, and remember the angels present at His birth! If Jesus says that Angels and Demons exist, and we believe Him, then Angels and Demons exist.

Second, St Peter and St Paul tell us what demons are. If you think about it, you already know the answer. Who is it who tempts you into losing your temper, or avoiding the train fare, or filling in the wrong numbers on a tax return? Who is it that puts the ideas in people’s heads to riot? Remember that poor girl who had just graduated and was trying to become a lawyer, and yet still looted a television during the riots despite the fact she knew it was wrong. We are all susceptible to temptation, but just as we are led to God by angels, so are we led away by demons. They may not have pitchforks, horns and pointy tales, but they’re there! They are those powers which tempt perfectly sane and moral people to act insanely and immorally. That includes me, and that includes you.

Third, St Peter and St Paul tell us what to do - be Faithful. We may not be able to answer back to those who shout that God does not exist, but we can refuse to allow their words to rattle us. The first way of showing faith is prayer. To pray to God shows already that you believe He exists. Pray for strength. Second, receive the Holy Sacrament every Sunday, because you are receiving Our Lord. Third, keep up the Bible reading, because then you can hear God speak. Fourth, don’t be afraid. It is written He shall give his angels charge over thee, to keep thee in all thy ways. (Psalm 91)

On September 29th we remember St Michael, the warrior angel who defeats Satan. We also remember all angels who are sent by God to help us. If we play our part and open ourselves to God then we find some assistance in the angels. We also must remember that the Devil is only an angel, he is not equal to God. If we are faithful, then we can resist him. It takes a lot of work and prayer, but there are more on our side than we think there are!

Noticing the Community Trust

2011-09-18T14:09:00.008Z

While on your morning constitutional, you notice in a shop window a home-made sign which suggests that if you ring the number (apparently that of a mobile phone), you will be given assistance with all your computing troubles. You know that your laptop has been a bit slow lately, and defragging doesn't seem to do the trick. The question is: do you ring the number and get the assistance?

Chances are you would not; you would feel uncomfortable about contacting someone whom you had never met, whose credentials you had never seen, to fiddle around with your laptop when you don't quite know what you are doing? How do you know he won't put on some malware that will give him access to your sensitive information? Would you have had a different opinion if the sign had possessed a professional letterhead, or had was representative of a recognised computer repairs chain?

How would you react if the sign had been handwritten and said, "Carefull, door brocken!"

Faith and trust do not seem to be in great supply these days. There seem to be many people who do not trust the Governments scheme of cutting spending. Certain conspiracies such as the unusual circumstances of the death of Dr David Kelly have some very serious adherents. There seems to be no faith in the Roman Catholic Church leadership in Ireland following the Abuse scandal. Trusting what scientists say is also not gaining any ground. There are people who doubt that science can tell them how to live.

Actually, there are very good reasons for these cases of mistrust, people have good grounds for believing all of these institutions to be untrustworthy. With regard to the cuts in public spending, does anyone trust a minister who says, "We're all in this together and you must sacrifice a third of your pension to contribute to our plan of putting this right"? One might be more sympathetic to this view if the loss of a third of a pension were truly unilateral and that the minister himself was going sustain a comparable cut in pension.

With regard to Dr Kelly, given that the then Government was using much underhand propaganda and spin to convince Parliament and the country of the necessity of the invasion of Iraq and that Dr Kelly stood against this, one might be forgiven for doubting that his death was indeed the suicide as proclaimed in the media.

When bishops and archbishops do indeed try to hide the details of abuse by clergy and move the offending clergy on to places where they abuse again, then it is not surprising that this damages not only the trust in the parish priest, but also in the bishops that support them. It all looks like an inside job.

Who can trust Science to tell you how to live when one week eggs are bad for you and the next they're not only good for you but essential. The recent "discovery" that drinking lots of water can in fact be bad for you does seem to indicate that Science doesn't know what it's talking about sometimes. What is not often apparent is that Science is deeply divided about the nature of the origins of the Universe. While that might make for some exciting research, it doesn't exactly fill one with faith when discoveries made one week are shown to be false or out-of-date the next.

All in all, the levels of trust in society are falling. I've hear several people say, "I don't trust anybody now. Just myself." One can see that people are no longer in respect of their superiors to make good judgments on the basis that they believe previous judgments to be flawed. Marriage is no longer the uncompromising commitment that it used to be. Pre-nuptial agreements are now common fare in case of divorce.

For me, this represents the breakdown of community. People are becoming increasingly wary of commitment in case it all falls through and causes much in the way of pain. In order to be convinced that a commitment is worthwhile, credentials have to be presented and, in some cases, the credentials of those who give the credentials are being checked too. When does one become satisfied in trusting another?

It seems to me that the lack of trust in people is because of a growing materialism and relativism. For the Moral Relativist, there can be no real trust, no faith in people, because their moral standards are necessarily different. We cannot trust David Beckham to score a goal if the goalie picks up the goal post and moves it out of the way. Yet this would be perfectly consistent with the relativist's rules. Materialism demands evidence of reliability - credentials, certificates, references, bibliographies. This evidence is, however, necessarily inductive, i.e. based on a posteriori likelihood rather than a priori proof. We all do that, but are we coming to a point where this is not even enough?

I find materialism completely untrustworthy because it begs its own question. Where is the evidence that materialism is true? What is the scientific evidence to suggest that scientific evidence is enough to describe reality accurately? Herein lies the death of verificationalism.

In an episode of last year's Doctor Who, there was a rather fascinating conversation between the Doctor and Amy Pond:

The Doctor: Amy. You need to start trusting me. It's never been more important.
Amy: But you don't always tell me the truth.
The Doctor: If I always told you the truth I wouldn't need you to trust me.

I find this rather telling. Despite the fact that the Doctor doesn't always tell Amy the truth, he still asks her to trust him and it turns she does. Of course, this trust is due mainly because she has become increasingly familiar of the Doctor. Of course, this may well be part of the Time Lord charm which we humans lack, But it does raise the question, what does it take for a person to become trustworthy in our eyes? Do we have a personal criterion for deeming a person trustworthy? If we do, can we speak it?

If we're going to learn to trust again, then we are going to have to recognise our communities again. This needs to start locally. Of course, there are people that we know we cannot trust, but there needs to come a point where we set forward some way of trusting them again. I believe that this comes through cultivating our faith in God.

I trust God when He says that He exists and from that I trust Him when He says that He is truly good, almighty and all-knowing, though I cannot pretend to fathom what He means. One might call me a fool. Perhaps I am, but I have here the foundation on which I can live and learn to trust people and to give them a way of earning my greater trust. I recognise that human beings fail and fail badly, me included, but I have faith that God will not let me down. This comes from my belief that God is good. That sounds as if I believe that God exists in order that I can live. I assure you that my reasons for believing in God are more substantial that that, but you'll have to trust me on that!

Faith in God means that we have a binding influence, an inherent commonality with our neighbour whoever they are. This means that because I am commanded to love my neighbour, then I have to have an initial respect for them, a basis on which my trust can build. If someone else professes belief in the same God, then that trust can feedback into the system. Thus the Church, when done properly, can present a community of trusting, yet fallible, individuals. By trusting God, we are presented with the necessity of trusting our superiors to guide the way. Yes, of course, breaches of trust - even gross breaches of trust - will probably still happen, but if we are following the Commandments of God and not changing their sense through relativistic capitulations to a materialistic society, then we can begin to help that materialistic society to grow and heal, and maybe even see the God in Whom we have faith. That might be a better advert than a tatty home-made one in the shop window.

Science, Sorites and Society.

2011-09-03T12:06:00.006Z

Just so that you know, I'm a mathematician (not a proper one, though) and not a scientist. I'm not really a philosopher either but I certainly know I'm doing myself a disservice by trying to label myself as this thing called "mathematician". That's a very typical practice of society - everything has to be packaged in nice little boxes in order for things to make sense.

I do actually love Science very much: I wish I were better at physics not least because it inspires some truly fascinating mathematics which in turn inspires some rather fascinating experiments. The Hadron Collider experiments and the attempts to find the elusive Higgs Boson are true nail-biters. The energy window for finding the Boson is shrinking fast. Can we find it, or is our understanding of physics flawed?

If we do find it, then this bodes very well for the theory which we have, if not it means some exciting new challenges upon which will stretch our understanding of the facts that we have.

Likewise, I find the idea of Evolution not only fascinating but indeed compelling. I've studied many an evolution equation, both discrete and continuous. Langton's ant is also a fascinating example of how a simple rule can bring about both unpredictable and predictable behaviour. Conway's game of life certainly does point to some deeper ideas as to how Evolution can bring up the creatures we see around us today. I've always thought that if God had wanted to create something then I couldn't think of a better way for Him to do it than have us evolve as we have done. It is absolutely fascinating.

But it is just a theory.

Now, we reach a rather important problem with the way that Science is being done these days, and the status which it is given (or perhaps rather that the Scientists believe that it has). If one, for example, doubts that Evolution is true, then one is pilloried by the established scientists. Some scientists can become very much like their own caricature of the Church in opposing freedom of thought. This is despite the fact that, if a deterministic theory of the universe is correct, then given the same laws and the knowledge of the states of every particle in the universe, there is no way of knowing whether the Universe actually began with the beginning of this blog entry. It's actually a very simple extension of the theory of ordinary differential equations. Is it true? I don't know. I can't know. I can try to find out, but how?

And that's the point.

Science, these days, has fallen into a fashion of reductionism, the idea of reducing things to component parts so that we can study the component parts and make inferences as to how they fit together to make up the whole. This reminds me somewhat of Sorites Paradox: if we remove the grains of sand one by one from a sand heap, at which point does it cease to be a heap? However, it's not quite fair to accuse Science of blindly reiterating this paradox. Scientists will try to deduce properties of the heap from the grains of sand. One then has to answer for oneself how one can deduce the "heapiness" of the heap from the grains of sand.

What about a beach? Can one deduce global properties of a beach from all the grains of sand?

Further, if the law of Gravity as we understand in this little locale of the Universe is indeed a universal law (and how do we know this?) then every individual particle must influence the motion of every other individual particle. Given that there are (from what I remember of the most recent physical theories) 10^79 (i.e. 1 followed by 79 zeroes) protons (I may be wrong) in the universe, that surely makes it a bit tricky to get a theory of everything.

In mathematical mechanics, we make assumptions and simplifications - A uniform ladder of mass m kg is resting on rough ground against a smooth wall...etc - these words "uniform" "smooth" "rough" are all simplifications which one makes in order to make some, often beautifully, accurate predictions. We certainly got to the Moon and back using effectively Newtonian Mechanics. However, these assumptions break down. One could use statistical mechanics, but then one gets into likelihoods and probabilities. Scientific Certainty comes with a given margin of error. If it doesn't, something's wrong.

But such is life. We seem often to look for the truth by breaking things to bits. Further to what I said in Horror and Holiness, we have not only stripped the clothes off of the nubile virgin, but also her skin and her flesh to see what makes her tick, and in so doing we destroy not only her dignity, then her beauty, but her humanity as well. This is not to say that we shouldn't be curious about our beautiful universe, but rather that we should not expect Science, or even Philosophy to have definite answers. There's a definite and horrible tragedy there that doesn't seem in any way romantic.

Being religious, I get accused of obfuscating the truth with mystery and meaningless ritual. I find that unfair. One can attempt to probe mystery and then uncover the answer that one was searching for. A materialist will carefully dissect a consecrated wafer to find God, but will only find bits of consecrated wafer or atoms of consecrated wafer or (if he is really lucky) a Higgs Boson within the consecrated wafer, in which case the papers will have a field-day ("God particle found in Wafer"). But a materialist will only find material because material will be all that they will look for. A scientist who happens to be a Christian may also tackle the same experiment, though I doubt that she would be very happy to do so, but she will find exactly the same as a materialist.

However, the ordinary Christian at Mass will receive a wafer and in so doing will find God, and that Christian will need no specialist knowledge in order to do so except their faith. Of course, the argument goes up. "We can't argue with you religious types. Everything comes back down to Faith with you." That's true of materialists too and their faith that everything that is is material.

This reductionism and Sorites principle is also endemic in Religion. I see it very much evidenced in Anglicanism where things seem to split and split and split ever more finely. It's anti-catholic in its scope and its a scandal, particularly in the Continuum, that there should exist shibboleths to categorise one Anglican from another. Those who have become "former Anglicans" have now rent the Traditional Anglican Communion. This may or may not have been necessary, but it has rocked the identity of the TAC in this deconstruction.

I find myself becoming very doubtful these days with what I'm being presented as certainties. The certainties of my Faith are contingent on the fact that I have Faith, and even then I believe in a God who will surprise me, maybe even scandalise me. That's not to say that I believe that He will contradict Himself - I believe Him to be faithful to me even if I am far from faithful to Him.

I recently learned that a priest before Mass lays out his maniple, stole and cincture in an IHS and I saw in this how a priest takes great care in ensuring that he suffuses himself in Christ. All this is contingent on his faith and the faith that he wants to communicate to his parishioners. I find sacred action and holy ritual to be affirming, though I cannot always find an adequate reason why I should find these things affirming. I suspect it is because it helps me to become suffused in a God whose existence is utterly inexpressible. The theory is beautiful but inadequate, the search meaningful but incomplete, the logic infallible but infinitely far from exhaustive in its search for Truth, the ideas worthy to be expressed but too restrictive.

Catholicism is only truly evidenced in Christ who can be the only uniting principle in opposition to the reductionism that Christianity has contracted from an apparently materialist society. Catholic, Protestant and Anglican are united in their belief in Him and, as they search for Him, honestly and in the greatest childlike humility. This is surely the only way to guard against some truly demonic attacks against the integrity of the Church.

For the Christian, life must be suffused with Christ so that our lives do not fall to bits, into component parts where the meaning of life is lost. I saw something of that while I was studying for my doctorate in four-dimensional geometry. As a result, I had no option to preface my thesis with this (especially with the reference to four dimensions).

That Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith; that ye, being rooted and grounded in love, May be able to comprehend with all saints what is the breadth, and length, and depth, and height; And to know the love of Christ, which passeth knowledge, that ye might be filled with all the fulness of God. Now unto him that is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think, according to the power that worketh in us, Unto him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world without end. Amen. (Ephesians iii.20)

The Big Gay One

2011-08-23T09:22:00.020Z

I think I've touched on this subject before, but perhaps I haven't made myself as clear in my writings or even in my own head about this subject. For once, I am quite nervous mainly because I have some good friends who would call themselves gay and I sincerely do not with to lose them. However, most of these friends know my position and I can trust them to read my words with tolerance and intelligent consideration. I am happy for them to discuss with me any issues that I raise, and if they can open my eyes to where I am wrong, I would be most grateful.

I'm often asked, "where do you stand on homosexuality?" I reply that I have no alternative but to obey Church teaching at which point I get called a bigot or worse by some people who become incensed at my "intolerance". I often wonder what these folk perceive "Church teaching" to be. I fear that they read Scripture and Tradition with an view to being upset rather than hear the message behind it.

Let me try and put across what I believe the Church teaches. If I am wrong, I know that I will be corrected by folk who have studied Church teaching better than I have.

I want to start with St Matthew vii

Μὴ κρίνετε, ἵνα μὴ κριθῆτε: ἐν ᾧ γὰρ κρίματι κρίνετε κριθήσεσθε, καὶ ἐν ᾧ μέτρῳ μετρεῖτε μετρηθήσεται ὑμῖν. τί δὲ βλέπεις τὸ κάρφος τὸ ἐν τῷ ὀφθαλμῷ τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ σου, τὴν δὲ ἐν τῷ σῷ ὀφθαλμῷ δοκὸν οὐ κατανοεῖς; ἢ πῶς ἐρεῖς τῷ ἀδελφῷ σου, Ἄφες ἐκβάλω τὸ κάρφος ἐκ τοῦ ὀφθαλμοῦ σου, καὶ ἰδοὺ ἡ δοκὸς ἐν τῷ ὀφθαλμῷ σοῦ; ὑποκριτά, ἔκβαλε πρῶτον ἐκ τοῦ ὀφθαλμοῦ σοῦ τὴν δοκόν, καὶ τότε διαβλέψεις ἐκβαλεῖν τὸ κάρφος ἐκ τοῦ ὀφθαλμοῦ τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ σου. Μὴ δῶτε τὸ ἅγιον τοῖς κυσίν, μηδὲ βάλητε τοὺς μαργαρίτας ὑμῶν ἔμπροσθεν τῶν χοίρων, μήποτε καταπατήσουσιν αὐτοὺς ἐν τοῖς ποσὶν αὐτῶν καὶ στραφέντες ῥήξωσιν ὑμᾶς.

Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged : and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye. Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.

This is such an important place to start because it sets my limitations. On what can I legitimately pass judgement? Well, the Lord tells me in this passage that my vision is distorted because of my own sins, and that my judgement is impaired. Clearly though, if my brother is about to walk into a pit, I can still see that and warn him - what I can't do is tell if he sees that pit as dangerously as I perceive it to be. The warning may be enough to save him.

As a matter of fact, I do suffer from very bad eyesight, but I can still make judgements on what I see within a certain tolerance. If I remove my glasses then that tolerance becomes much wider and less precise because my vision becomes much less reliable. Even without my glasses, I can still make out people, though not necessarily who they are. I certainly can't read any opticians charts - even the first letter! I can still make reliable judgements, though.

So, then, on what can I pass judgement? Well, surely I can only pass judgement on actions and NOT pass judgements on the human heart. I do not have the vision to enter into the human soul and pick out all the naughty bits. Only God can do that, it is not my remit. If I see someone killed, I know that the action of killing is wrong - it shouldn't happen - but unless I know the underlying reasons, the only facts on which I can bear witness to in court are the facts that someone has been killed. I must let the judge judge and convict of murder, manslaughter or unlawful killing, or acquit on the grounds of diminished responsibility, insanity, or for honest defence of others' lives .

So what are the facts of homosexuality? The Bible is pretty clear that men should not lie with men as they would with women. This is true in the Old Testament and St Paul confirms it in the New. The Lord Himself certainly does not change this teaching. In short, the practice of homosexuality is wrong. I know that many modern scholars are desperately trying to change the words and meaning of these texts to suit "modern views" but it's clear that Tradition has interpreted these texts in the negative view of homosexuality. A good Catholic listens to Tradition first rather than Joe PhD with his radical ideas which he is only exploring in order to get his name into history. Those ideas will be tested by Time and ultimately God. If there is any truth in them, that truth will become apparent over time, the rubbish will die out.

Now this is where I begin to hear many double standards from those who truly hate homosexuals.

First, there is the obvious: you cannot suspend "Love thy neighbour as thyself" in favour of condemning homosexual practice. This commandment of our Lord trumps any other. All other commandments in the Bible have to be processed through the lens formed by the two Great Commandments given to us by our Lord Jesus Christ. That means that God's wishes must be obeyed, but that hatred of another human being is never an option. Anyone who claims that they are Christian and then proclaims "God hates fags" is no Christian but a liar and a fool. God hates SIN, yes, but look at the lengths He went to to save us from it. Look into the eyes of Christ on the cross and then say "God hates fags"!

Second, it is true that St Paul lumps homosexuality together with sexual immorality. He sees it as the same as fornication, i.e. sexual activity outside marriage. To hate one with a homosexual life-partner and then engage in a one-night stand with a girl you just picked up in a bar is hypocrisy. It's the same wrong thing to do, but whose sin is greater? The men committed in a loving same-sex partnership or the Lothario with a string of women on the go, yet neither committing to nor even in the least respecting any of them? According to the Bible, both are in danger of falling into a ditch, but it seems reasonable to see that for one the ditch is likely to be wider!

Third, Romans viii.28 says:

οἴδαμεν δὲ ὅτι τοῖς ἀγαπῶσιν τὸν θεὸν πάντα συνεργεῖ εἰς ἀγαθόν, τοῖς κατὰ πρόθεσιν κλητοῖς οὖσιν.

And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.

(emphasis mine)

Clearly, we cannot presume that God will not bring some great good out of a homosexual relationship. If we cannot pass judgement on the human heart, then we must accept that God can and will do marvellous things in all situations. We can also believe that God has the capacity to purify the relationship betweem two men as long as they are actively seeking Him by His means.

I hope, then, that I have made my first point clear. I refuse to condemn those who call themselves homosexuals. I regard the practice as being wrong and potentially, if not actually, sinful, but seeing as I certainly don't have the keys to Heaven and that the Church certainly doesn't have the keys to Hell, the matter of sin lies between the individual and God. I can only point out potential pitfalls and would rather, for their safety, that they would seek heterosexual relationships.

My second point is that I do regard homosexuality as a grave disorder. This sounds harsh but I hope you will appreciate my reasoning.

All of my homosexual friends are deeply special. Well, all of my friends, nay every member of the human race is special, but I don't know all of the human race - perhaps that's something I should be ashamed of. But, looking at my homosexual friends, I see people who are clever, witty, creative, in touch with dimensions that I cannot fathom. That's not to say that my straight friends don't possess these qualities, but the "gays" possess a different perspective - theirs is a slant on life peculiar to them. This is good.

So how are they to pass that perspective on?

This to me is the tragedy of labelling oneself as homosexual, "coming out" as it were. While it is by no means impossible, these folk generally do not pass on their genes nor raise children. All that creative energy, that personality, that vision, that insight isn't replicated for the next generation. Children are more than the sum of their nature and nurture, but both are necessary to foster brand new people. While I do not deny that the childless still manage to positively affect society even after they are gone (the prime example being Our Lord Himself), the genetic continuation of a person is sacrificed perhaps unnecessarily for the feelings that they may have for the same sex. That is a dis-order.

With regards to homosexual marriage, it is clear that only such a thing can exist legally and not in the sacramental sense. A Civil wedding of homosexuals in a registry office makes some kind of sense as a public declaration of loving commitment, a Church wedding does not make sense because it is a Divinely instituted sacrament far exceeding human legalities and promises. A homosexual partnership is sterile. Yes, one can say that so was the marriage of Abraham and Sarah until late in their lives. One can point to monks, nuns and Roman priests (more on them later). However, while God can work any miracle He likes, for a homosexual couple to have a baby would result in one of them changing sex and while I do not doubt that this could be done, I do doubt that He would want to do it for this very reason. As I've written earlier, change a person's sex and you change that person at one of the most fundamental levels. Marriage is an open possibility for the family, a homosexual partnership is never open to that possibility. I cannot possibly comment on whether homosexual couples should adopt - that can only be on a case by case basis. My vision is distorted and unreliable here.

I do not doubt that two men can fall in love with each other. I have recently seen a dear friend lose his life partner, and the only way I can interpret the facts of his reaction is that he truly, truly loved his partner. So there was some aspect of the Divine in that relationship and I find it very hard to believe that, beyond this life, the best aspects of that relationship would not be continued. I do not even doubt that out of what the Church describes as a disorder can come order. Mathematically speaking chaotic systems produce fascinating order. Again we return to Romans viii.28.

My third point is a concern that I have about how "homosexuals" perceive themselves.

I have tried very hard in the above not to call these people "homosexuals" or "gays" not for fear of offence but for the simple reason that I don't want to identify the people with the property of homosexuality. I'm not convinced that "homosexuality" even properly exists as a definable concept.

If a friend were to come out and say "I'm gay" what would I say? First, I would recognise the courage that he has taken to admit that. It's clearly something with which he has been wrestling for some time and this struggle needs to be appreciated.

Second, I would wonder what he means. I suspect he would say, "I'm sexually attracted to men." What he means, I suspect, is, "every person to whom I have been sexually attracted so far in my life has been male." However, there is a dangerous and restrictive assumption that every person that this chap will ever be sexually attracted to is male. Whilst homosexuality may be observable in animals and in humans and the tendency to be attracted to the same sex may be written in some way in our biological machinery, human beings are more than biological machines and are capable of considering their drives, passions and attractions carefully.

It's fair to say that everyone has been attracted to someone of the same sex at some point in their lives. Does that mean that everyone is homosexual? Well, there we go! We are back to this identification of the self as homosexual. We run the risk of seeing everything we do as the result of being homosexual. Homosexuality suddenly becomes the entirety of our final cause, "namely we are who we are because we are homosexual."

Does homosexuality exist as a cause be it material, formal, efficient or final? That's the danger. Call no man happy until he is dead? Then call no man homosexual until he is dead and you can examine all the attractions that he has ever had and judge that more than 50% of them have been for the same sex.

It's easy to understand why this is the case. If mainstream society vilifies homosexuality, anyone with attractions to people of the same sex, finds themselves cast out. Outcasts form their own community and their badge of identity becomes the very thing that has caused them to be cast out. Thus, people with same-sex attraction see themselves as being homosexual as being a fundamental part of their being in order to find some social place.

However, people who call themselves homosexuals in a rather aggressive way often are committing the same "sin" of "closed mindedness" when they accuse "heterosexuals" (does that exist as a definable quantity?) of not being able to see the other side's point of view. If neither side is prepared to examine their own hearts and recognise that therein lie both homo- and heterosexual attractions, then there can be no commonality of vision.

What then of monks, nuns and Roman priests for whom celibacy is the requirement? Is this a disorder because it is genetically fruitless to be a monk or a nun or a Roman priest? That's a good point, but one that, I believe, is answered by the idea vocation. Sometimes, good things have to be given up so that a greater good can happen.

God calls in order for us to serve in some way. I find it difficult to believe that a homosexual relationship is a vocation from God in the light of what we are told about such relationships in the Bible and Tradition. The religious life, the priesthood and the married life are ways in which God can call us to serve. The commitment to a married life may have to be transferred to a community. I would suggest for this reason that a celibate priesthood is preferable to a married one, though I see no reason to impose celibacy on priests given some of the sterling work that I've seen vicars' wives do on account of them being vicars' wives.

It does have to be said that it is more important for the clergy and the religious to set the examples for the world in following the teaching of God. If they are to answer their vocation then they must answer it to the full. Bishops like Gene Robinson who leave their wives and family in order to persue a homosexual relationship and then seek to change what they perceive as the Church's rules rather than God's are morally reprehensible on many counts. Again, I cannot condemn, but I am very far from condoning such behaviour especially since many lives were ruined as a consequence of Gene Robinson's desire to be true to himself at the expense of being true to his family and to God.

Lastly, what do I say to the man who is lonely because he is encumbered with the belief that he is a homosexual? There's little that I can say, though I identify very much with how lonely and stark life can be. Again, the argument of motes and beams comes back. I cannot know what is in a brother's head, so I can only advise him to go out and love others appropriately within the parameters of the Love of God, to make good friends and to know that he is loved by God more passionately, more fully and more appropriately than any human being could. Is this enough? What more can I do? Answers in the com box please.

Horror and Holiness

2011-08-21T14:54:00.008Z

Perhaps it's wrong of me: I do enjoy a good horror film. I'm not quite sure what it is about the Horror genre that sets me off. I guess it's the allusion to the fact that there is more in Heaven and Earth (and indeed under the Earth) than is dreamt of in my Philosophy. Perhaps the Anglo-Catholic mind is especially susceptible to the sense of the Gothic, the cold stone and gargoyle of old church buildings coupled with the Medieval monstrosities of Hell so graphically depicted in old Dooms and inhabiting the eldrich recesses of the mind of Hieronymous Bosch.

For me, it is the stories of Montague Rhodes James that have delighted me most. These are tales of ancient evil, of revenants and guardians of forbidden knowledge and secret treasure. Very few of them have really made it into the realm of the movie. There have been some pretty good adaptations made for television. There have been two versions of Oh Whistle and I'll come to you, My Lad the better version being played with Sir Michael Horden, detailing the tribulations of a pernickety Cantabrigensian Professor with no fear of the "supernatural" whose life comes a-cropper when he happens upon a whistle near a barrow on the Suffolk coast. A later version with John Hurt worked very well until they spoiled the story.

The only film that I know of M. R. James' work is Night of the Demon based on the short story Casting the Runes again with a skeptical protagonist being faced with something beyond his understanding. It may be black and white but it is a very good film.

I like a good horror film. It's a shame that very few are being made at the moment! There has been a big shift in the way that horror is being done now. As Roddy MacDowell's character (Peter Vincent) says in the original version of Fright Night, "All they want to see slashers running around in ski masks, hacking up young virgins." He's right. (Interestingly, I believe that this film is being remade with Doctor Who Actor David Tennant as Peter Vincent).

It seems that most horror films today are obsessed with showing off most of the outside of nubile young ladies and then finding some awful way of showing off their insides thanks to digital special effects. We have reached the era of Torture Porn which seems to be more concerned at killing someone off in the most elaborate and gory fashion and observing their suffering (from behind the sofa) until their life is finally snuffed out by the coup de grace. And that's it. There seems to be very little to point to the beyond, these days. Final Destination may be about Death and Fate, but that's as far as it points: the centre piece is the manner of death and avoidance of it, and the Saw films point to nothing other than man's depraved ingenuity of finding out ways of taking someone to bits. To my mind, this is not horror, this is disgusting, a cheap way of getting a reaction from an audience not from the head or the heart but through the stomach - sometimes literally. Gone are any references to Good and Evil. Only Nasty Things happen and have no moral identity.

That says much for a materialist culture where Death is the enemy to be overcome, despite the fact that it is inevitable for us all. Yet one contrast this with the sublime Pan's Labyrinth which juxtaposes the trials of the fairytale with the brutal realities of the Spanish Civil War. The sight of the zombies wandering through the shopping mall was a definite comment on the culture of today. Bluewater Park is filled with the mindless searching for a life!

Harsh? Maybe a tad. Much of what I've said above is opinion, but there is something which I feel is an important statement about our society.

On Wednesday 24th, the Church celebrates the life of St Bartholomew. Tradition has it that St Bartholomew was skinned alive and then beheaded. Of course, the horror movie makers would deeply relish this idea, and I'm sure that they would want to work this into the next installment of Saw. But how they would miss the point!

If one reads the daily instalments of the Martyrology, one again is faced with some hideous deaths. Admittedly, I think some of them have been dressed up to heighten the drama. Tradition has St Laurence roasted alive, scholarship has him simply beheaded. I know which one Wes Craven would depict in a film! However, one reads the Martyrology not to act as some rubberneck at a car crash searching for the most nasty way of dispatching a saint, but to connect with real, genuine human beings whose faith points beyond the material world. The more tortured the saint, the more we marvel at the tenacity that this person had for the love of Christ, and the more we question the depth of love that we have for the Lord. Saying "yes" to God could see us roasted on a grid iron. it's true.

Should we feel inadequate that we could not undergo torment for Christ? No. That way lies some unhealthy attitudes to suffering. We are bound to suffer for our faith - The Faith - and there is no getting away from that, but we remember God's faithful words to us in that He will not allow us to be tempted beyond our means, and any suffering we undergo has a purpose, a question for us to answer posed by God Himself. One can read that in Job. The fact that some martyrs suffered horribly is a testament to their belief, and it is reasonable for us to venerate them and praise them for their steadfastness.

A good horror film says something about the life beyond the material. It may be just a story but that's what stories are for, making statements about Life above television sets, toasters and turntables. Contrast this with the real lives of the saints, martyrs and all those who have in any way suffered dreadfully at the hands of men. The modern stalk-and-slash, torture porn films really do trivialise the latter at the expense of entertainment.

Opinion again? Perhaps.

Assumpta est Maria in Caelum

2011-08-15T18:42:00.011Z

1 alleluia laudate pueri Dominum laudate nomen Domini
2 sit nomen Domini benedictum ex hoc nunc et usque in saeculum
3 a solis ortu usque ad occasum laudabile nomen Domini
4 excelsus super omnes gentes Dominus super caelos gloria eius
5 quis sicut Dominus Deus noster qui in altis habitat
6 et humilia respicit in caelo et in terra
7 suscitans a terra inopem et de stercore erigens pauperem
8 ut collocet eum cum principibus cum principibus populi sui
9 qui habitare facit sterilem in domo matrem filiorum laetantem

PRAISE the Lord, ye servants : O praise the Name of the Lord.
2. Blessed be the Name of the Lord : from this time forth for evermore.
3. The Lord's Name is praised : from the rising up of the sun unto the going down of the same.
4. The Lord is high above all heathen and his glory above the heavens.
5. Who is like unto the Lord our God, that hath his dwelling so high : and yet humbleth himself to behold the things that are in heaven and earth?
6. He taketh up the simple out of the dust : and lifteth the poor out of the mire;
7. That he may set him with the princes : even with the princes of his people.
8. He maketh the barren woman to keep house : and to be a joyful mother of children.

Actually, I listened to Monteverdi's glorious setting of Vespers last night before I recited First Vespers. It was this psalm, psalm cxii(i) that spoke to me most. In the above video, the psalm follows the Antiphon Nigra sum alluding to the Song of Solomon in which the maiden, though dark skinned from being of common stock is still regarded as beautiful in the eyes of the king.

The psalm proper starts at about 03:50 and it's this psalm which, to my mind, sums up what the Assumption of Our Lady is about. Monteverdi does a splendid job of emphasising this musically. Listen to how he sets verse 7 in the Latin. It's dynamic, hurried, alive as Monteverdi sees a God active in His intention to lift the poor man from the dung heap (stercore). And why? Suddenly, the music slows into a stately pace and is filled with sumptuous suspensions which is repeated! The words are ut collocet eum cum principibus - that He may set him (the poor man) among princes - and lays bare the intention of God to bring His Church - rich man and poor man, the mighty and the humble - together to Him.

Our Lady is a synecdoche, a representative of the Church as a whole, and her fate is to be the fate of the faithful. Of course, there are disagreements between Christians about the Role of Our Lady in the Cosmic Drama of Creation, Redemption and Salvation, but at the very least we should be able to make some identification with her as the human being who possesses the most intimate relationship with the Saviour.

If Christians are ever to be united then it is through the deepening of the relationship that we have with Christ - Christ has to be the uniting influence if we stand a chance of being regarded as One Body. For Catholics, this means the development of our interaction with Christ sacramentally and ensuring that they are ever more aware of Christ's reality in that sacrament. For Protestants, this means an ever deepening of that "personal relationship with Jesus" so that the words of Scripture aren't just read, aren't just acted upon, but realised in the life and heart of the believer. If the Catholic and the Protestant are both honest and earnest in their attempts, then they will be united in the same Jesus Christ - there's only one of Him after all.

Wherever Our Lord is, Our Lady is not far behind. How can a mother ever be far from her beloved child? Catholics know that she is not an object of worship but an object of reverence and veneration. To look to her is to be directed to Christ and one can see Him through her. To ask for her prayers is to find a companion kneeling beside us, showing us how she prays and making our prayers her own. Her assumption is the assumption of the Church; her end is our end. This is God's promise to us and He fulfils that in Our Lady to show that He fulfils His promise.

If we Christians are to have any effect in demonstrating that God is faithful and loving, thus shedding the light of Christ within us upon a dark and rapidly declining Earth, then we are going to have to start saying "yes" to God a great deal more and start wanting to become saints rather than being passive in our sacraments and scripture. If one woman from common stock can change the world just by saying "yes" to God, then what can we do in addition? We have to want to become saints; we have to want to get ourselves into the state where we too may be assumed.

While we may be only saints in training now, why don't we start trying to be saints properly now? That may mean a lifetime of repentance (though a Benedictine would call that conversatio mores) but it doesn't matter who we are, rich man or poor. By being saints, we open ourselves to the possibility of being gathered cum principibus populi sui and into the courts of Heaven.

St Benedict's Priory Salisbury 2011

2011-08-12T13:37:00.006Z

You can't keep a good Monastery down! The little Benedictine community formerly at Elmore has relocated to a converted vicarage near Salisbury Cathedral.

It's not the most monastic looking building, and it's not exactly in the usual remote setting that Benedictines usually favour for the necessity of contemplation and peace. The Oratory is half of a converted sitting room and there is nowhere where the monks can really separate themselves from visitors.

This might be rather negative sounding, but it has to be realised that the monks are much happier now that they've been allowed to settle. Any skepticism from the neighbours appears to have been resolved: these monks are not going to wake you at 05:30 with their chanting the Venite!

What has been rather ingenious is how the Monks have managed to integrate their Officium Divinum into their new environment. They now incorporate Lauds and Vespers with worship at the Cathedral and celebrate Sext (or rather "Midday Prayer" in the modernist vernacular) with Sarum College. Whatever views one can take on this, and I suppose one can be very "What would St Benedict say?" if one wanted to be, the fact of the matter is that the monks are engaging with their Christian community at large. Consequently, they are, after just 11 months, very popular within the cathedral precincts.

The whole set-up reminds me, and perhaps it should remind Anglicans in particular, that there are different facets of the Church and that sometimes these facets need to coexist.

The Catholic Church is essentially divisible into Parochial, Religious, Theological and Hierarchical quarters comprising of the parishes, monasteries, seminaries/universities and the cathedrals. Each adds a distinctive colour, a vital nuance to the life of the Church. Most people will only ever really meet Parish ministry and that's all they think the Church is. However, the body of Christ has organs - not all absolutely defined and definitive - but quite clear in their function.

The Parishes form the coal-face ministry with the secular world; the Religious, like lungs, seek the spiritual health of the Church; the seminaries and universities engage with the intellectual and theological aspects, training people for coal-face ministry, while the Cathedrals espouse the leadership and the figurehead of the Church.

If the Church is to survive, then it must make sure that all four of these organs are functioning at full capacity and fully integrated. The focus of attention should not just be on the whims of the Parishes, or the directives from the Cathedrals.

Let us pray for our Religious folk and our intellectuals that they may flourish in good, orthodox, catholic faith.

Subdeacons and Readers: Lay or Nay?

2011-07-30T13:05:00.008Z

Vocation is a strange beast. Why? For the simple reasons that first, ALL Christians have a vocation by God, and second, ALL human beings are different. There are, therefore, as many vocations as there are human beings, though of course, not all people respond to that call.

Of course, mention the word "vocation" in Christian circles, and the first thought is the white collar around the neck. It seems that the only people who are perceived to have vocations are Bishops, Priests and Deacons.

It has to be remembered that there were roles for the laity: Porters, Lectors, Exorcists and Acolytes - the so called minor orders. On the cusp, sort of sandwiched between the two groups, is the Subdeacon. The Subdiaconate essentially developed from the role of the Acolyte but because of his important role at Mass, the Subdeacon's orders were more and more regarded and reserved for the ordained ministry.

In the CofE, the last ordination of a subdeacon took place, I believe, in the 1940s. As the Anglican and Roman Catholics have both moved away from the traditional High Mass ritual requiring three sacred ministers, the role of Subdeacon has become redundant. This is certainly a sign of a change in the attitude towards the Mass: it was the duty of the Subdeacon to carry the chalice, assist in the preparation of the Altar and to read the Epistle. The fact that it is apparently no longer necessary for someone to require theological and spiritual training in order to fulfil this role shows how regard for the Mass has changed. As the office of the Subdeacon decreased, so did the office of Reader increased.

Now, this may well be to the good. The Subdeacon does not seem to have anything in the way of Biblical support. Acolytes, Lectors, Porters and Exorcists have the roots of their ministry in the Jewish temple. Our Lord Himself acted as Lector when he read that famous passage "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me" from Isiaiah and then scandalised the temple when he then declared that it was He Who fulfilled that scripture. We see St Andrew and St Philip acting as Porters when they opens the door for the Greeks to visit Jesus in St John's Gospel (cap. xii), we also see the disciples as exorcists, driving out demons in the Name of Christ. The Acolytes served in the temple. We have the complicated references in the Pauline Epistles to the ministry of Deacons, Presbyters and Overseers (with some interchangeability between the latter two) which develop in character to the ministry of Deacons, Priests and Bishops. The Subdeacon, however, is nowhere to be found and it may be a mark of the Reformation to excise the Subdiaconate in deference to Holy Scripture.

But then, neither is the Reader a scriptural beast.

By "Reader", I mean the office within the Anglican Church. The first Elizabethan Reader was ordained in 7 January 1559 in Bow Church. The CofE describes Readers as:

lay men and women, from a wide diversity of occupations and backgrounds, who recognize a call to serve God and his world through the Church of England. They work in a variety of roles and situations across the Church, being authorised by the Church of England to preach and teach, to conduct or assist in conducting worship, and to assist in the pastoral, evangelistic and liturgical work of the Church in the parish or area where they are licensed.

As well as their formal roles Readers have many informal ways of
ministering by their presence, witness and listening at their places of work, at home, among the neighbours and in their local communities. They are informed lay people living out their faith in their different walks of life.

Readers may:

Preach

Lead worship, except those services and parts of services specifically excluded by Canon

Read the Old or New Testament readings, Epistle or Gospel at any service

Lead intercessions

Receive and present the offerings of the people

Distribute the consecrated bread and wine to the people

Take Communion to the sick and housebound

Publish banns of marriage in the absence of a priest

Undertake pastoral and educational work

Assist any minister as the bishop may direct

With permission from the incumbent of the parish, Readers may:

Accept occasional invitations to take part in services in a church of another denomination

With permission from the Bishop, Readers may:

Officiate at Communion by Extension services

Officiate at Funeral services (with the good will of the persons responsible)

Accept regular invitations to take part in services in a church of another denomination, with the approval also of the PCC of the parish where the service is to take place.

Readers may NOT:

Officiate at the sacrament of baptism, except in an emergency situation when it is lawful for
any lay person to baptise

Officiate at a marriage service

Pronounce the Absolution or give a Blessing but should use an authorised alternative form of
words.

Now, perhaps we begin to see here some confusion of roles. Much of what is written here is applicable for the Deacon. Unlike the Subdeacon, the Deacon has a Role that exists outside the Chancel. Again, that perhaps represents a shift in the way we think about the centrality of the Mass to a community. What I mean is that it is the duty of Bishop, Priest and Deacon to extend what happens in the Chancel beyond that Chancel and to bring into the Chancel the concerns of the world without. It is this ability and duty - indeed, this spirit and character (et cum spiritu tuo) - that separates ordained ministry from lay ministry.

All ordained ministers are reminded before ordination that they are laymen before they are clergymen, that they have a lay ministry - a ministry at the coalface between sacred and secular - before an ordained ministry in presenting the people to God and God to the people.

Is then a Reader merely a Deacon with the sacrament lopped off? If so, then why is a Reader permitted to preach which is a sacramental duty within the Mass of the Catechumens? Why also, in some quarters, are Readers referred to as Lay Readers when the very fact that they are Readers mean that that they are members of the Laity and not ordained? After all, one doesn't refer to Lay Deaconesses or Lay Pastoral Assistants or Lay Organists or Lay Acolytes.

In answer to the question of preaching, we must look at Churchmanship. This exercise of the Reader is largely Evangelical in its origins. In CofE Parishes where the Word supersedes the sacrament and Mattins replaces the Mass, the Reader has a unique character of leadership of its own. For the Catholic Parish where the Mass retains its centrality and importance, the preaching is done by one with the charism of Ordination since the Word is inextricably bound with the Holy Sacrament. In the Catholic Tradition, we are taught truly to eat our Words!

The use of the adjective "Lay" has more of a Catholic nuance to it. In the Catholic tradition, Lay Readers do not preach for the reasons outlined above, though they can read the Epistle. Archbishop Parker's Elizabethan injunction required Readers to declare "I shall not preache or interprete, but only read that which is appointed by public authoritie." This meant the Offices of Mattins and Evensong, though the Catholic Parish would have problems with Evensong owing to the blessing of the incense.

These days, most people can read the Offices themselves and so for public recitation in the absence of an Ordained Minister, the Reader acts as a "first" layman which begs the question why there is intensive theological training for someone to learn to read Offices, especially Offices which are on the decline within the CofE. In the Catholic tradition, Readers work outside the Chancel unless they are operating as acolytes.

So here we are. We have two orders of ministry. The Subdeacon, theologically trained, preparing for ordained ministry whose role only exists within the Chancel, and the Lay Reader, theologically trained, able to preach and teach but not necessarily bound for the Altar and whose ministry exists outside the Chancel. In these days, might there be some rediscovery in the Catholic Parish of a Subdiaconate which has its traditional form within the chancel and as Lay Reader outside? This would also resurrect the office of Deaconess too with regard to Reader Training for women which can then be nuanced to tailor to the unique ministry that the Deaconess offers and which is being lost in a relativistic society.

Of course, I could be wrong.

Comments and corrections are always appreciated.

Circuits in the Swimming Pool

2011-07-19T13:31:00.017Z

I received this a comment to a previous post. I didn't publish it there on the grounds that it didn't fit the post to which it was appended. The poster remained anonymous, which is a shame.

The big national Pilgrimage to Walsingham organised by the Ordinariate of our Lady of Walsingham took place today in the wooden barn-like structure that serves the Latin Rite Catholics as a church. As a rather disillusioned ex-Anglo-Catholic [now a traditionalist Catholic] I was looking forward to it and particuarly to see what elements of Anglican Patrimony and customs might be
incorporated into the Mass and procession. I was greatly isappointed. It was concelebrated in modern Roman style in nylon matching chasubles, the rite of Mass was the current New Rite of Paul VI with the proper sung to Missa de Angelis, full throatedly (so not very R.C.). There was one Anglican hymn Immortal Invisible and at the Offertory a rather slushly worship-song: Gifts of Bread and Wine. In all, a typical reasonably High Church Modern Roman Catholic service. The brochure was covered and filled with pictures of John Paul II and Benedict XVI, a number of references to Don Gobbi's Visions, and a Day of Divine Mercy. In the afternoon there was a weather-damaged procession to the Anglican shrine and a Sprinkling with Holy Well water took place. Alas, during this we were treated to a young lady singing a modern Roman Catholic worship song with a guitar. I left greatly disappointed wondering what elements of Anglican heritage, the "Patrimony" were going to be brought by these ex-Anglicans to Holy Church. They all seemed to be good, decent, dutiful modern Roman Catholic priests. What is the point of the Ordinariate ? Can someone explain ?

So why have I published this post? Largely because it is a cry from the heart. Perhaps, then, I am getting sentimental in my old age? Well, simply put, I know what it's like to be ignored and this is a cry from one who has become accustomed to being ignored by those rolling merrily on a bandwagon. That's not to say that I agree with the findings of my anonymous commentator. I was not on this Walsingham Pilgrimage and therefore cannot comment on the details mentioned here. If anyone can, then please use the ComBox provided.

One of the reasons I chose the Continuum over the Roman Catholic Church is because the Roman Catholic Parishes in my area were very much like the Parish that I spent 4 years trying to leave. Why swim the Tiber if the experience is no different from doing circuits of the Anglican Communion Municipal Swimming Pool?

This is one of the major factors in why I chose the Continuum over going to Rome either in the Ordinariate or through personal conversion. I saw no point in exchanging one Parish for another which was identical except for claims to following the Pope. What the Continuum offered me was different.

Well, I say different; I mean that the Continuum offered me nothing new whatsoever. In fact what it did offer me was the opportunity to rediscover what I had lost in the CofE - reverence and dignity, the Pax which was truly pacific rather than the Peace in which peace was destroyed in the ensuing melée. The Continuum offered me doctrinal stability and a greater degree of transparency than I found in either the CofE or the Roman Catholic Church. The latter two were adept at saying what the party line was and yet crossing their fingers when it came to toeing the party line. Those in the Roman Catholic Church were just as ready to cross their fingers when they declare their belief in Papal Infallibility and Transubstantiation as the CofE were in declaring their assent to the XXXIX articles and the Catholic creeds (especially the four marks of the Church!).

Of course, one might say that the Continuum is being as dishonest when it comes to its existence as a viable expression of the Church and will cite the many splits and separations as well as the veritable Alphabet Soup of Continuing Anglican Jurisdictions. Actually, I find that all the Continuing Anglicans that I’ve spoken with admit the situation quite readily and know that it is far from ideal. One can see that steps are being taken to remedy the situation: the APA (Anglican Province in America) has announced its acceptance of intercommunion with the ACA (Anglican Church in America). This was relayed via the Rt Rev Brian Marsh, president of the House of Bishops of the ACA. There are other such initiatives with UECNA and other bodies. This is not what I call dishonesty.

However, the fact of the matter is that, politically speaking, the Continuum is very new, not really more than 40 years old. That sort of puts the political situation in some degree of similitude to the 1560s and 1570s after the Anglo-Roman Schism. Our history books tell us how volatile the situation was in that period and it took some time to settle down, indeed perhaps it has never done really so.

Whilst the Anglican Continuum is doctrinally old and politically new, the CofE is politically old and doctrinally new and this is perhaps why it can do little from the fragmentation and haemorrhage of members that have produced the gloomy figures mentioned in General Synod. The Roman Catholic Church is itself finding problems in that there is a discrepancy between what the Western grass roots believe and want to believe and what the Magisterium pronounces as right belief.

This is where I do offer what little advice that I have to my anonymous commentator. Have patience!

If the Continuum is new at forty years old and is still in the process of formation, then the same is more than true of the Ordinariate. It is going to take some good time perhaps several decades for the expression of Anglican Patrimony to become apparent. However, the Anonymous Commentator has a point, and it’s a point I’ve touched upon earlier. What the Anonymous Commentator has just described is my objection to the phrase “former Anglican”. If the Ordinariate is populated by “former Anglicans” then what makes it different from being Roman Catholic? Another commentator, Jakian Thomist, whose comments are most assiduous and welcome, made the point that if by “Anglican” we mean some religious institution that accepts lay presidency, women clergy, practising homosexual clergy, atheist clergy, stout and pizza for the offertory, Ibiza-style rave Masses and communion for dogs, then the phrase “former Anglican” is reasonable though technically inaccurate. For that would mean that I, and many others, never were Anglican in the first place!

It is going to take time for what Anglican Patrimony there is in the Ordinariate to become apparent, and that’s the big challenge that faces the new Monsignors and the Anglicanorum Cœtibus hierarchy. They will have to convince Anglo-Catholics who will potentially form the second and future waves into the Ordinariate of just how they are preserving that Patrimony. While some may be happy to become Roman Catholics, others will be looking for that distinction. Others will not want to find themselves doing circuits in an episcopal piscine! The Anonymous Commentator is certainly justified in his/her comments that surely there should be something of the Anglican Patrimony apparent. One would hope that sixties folk-singer types have not found their way into a valid expression of the famous Anglican Choral Tradition!

The Ordinariate will have to show what it is that gives it a different parochial flavour from Roman Catholicism and what benefits there are from accepting the fullness of the Roman Doctrine as supplying what Anglicanism lacks.

Likewise, the Continuum has a lot of work to do if it wants to convince Anglo-Catholics in the CofE that it has what is necessary to preserve Anglican Doctrine and to sustain a stable environment in which parishes and communities can thrive. At present, the Continuum is small, but it is growing.

However, neither of these options may be sufficiently convincing at present, though it is difficult to see how remaining in the CofE is going to be tenable for folk who follow the doctrine that the Anglican Church has always until recently followed, namely the Catholic Faith. The grass is still the same green colour on all sides, though in some quarters the grass is brown and withering. It is going to take some time for the differences to become manifest. I therefore urge my Anonymous Commentator not to lose heart but to ensure that their views are heard, provided that they are couched in such a way as will build up the Ordinariate and offer support to its realisation of Anglicanism within the Holy See.

As for those of us in the Continuum, we must not lose heart either but bring plenty of ropes with which we can tie together catamarans, coracles, barges and barques and be careful with our steering so that, in these times of turbulence we can draw upon each other on a real river, rather than a swimming pool.

...as it were a span long...

2011-07-16T17:39:00.005Z

This is the wonderful setting by Orlando Gibbons of words from Psalm xxxviii (xxxix):

Behold, thou hast made my days as it were a span long : and mine age is even as nothing in respect of thee; and verily every man living is altogether vanity.
For man walketh in a vain shadow, and disquieteth himself in vain : he heapeth up riches, and cannot tell who shall gather them.
And now, Lord, what is my hope : truly my hope is even in thee.

This version is sung about a fourth lower than I'm used to and in Tudor dialect, so has a certain quaintness about it, but nonetheless has that same word-power that much of Gibbons' works possess.

In the past, my low spirits have been lifted by the kind considerations of Fr Chadwick. This goodly priest is very much a Desert Father as he leads what amounts to an eremitical existence in a country that is proud of the secular nature of its government, its education and its everyday life - at least this is how I perceive the religious state of France to be. Having observed some very sad events within the Church in France (to wit, Thiberville) I find myself unable to shake off my interpretations above.

Lately, I've noticed the same sadness within the writings ( here and here ) of my Father in Christ and friend with which I myself have often wrestled. The questions he asks are very much the questions of the Psalmist in this Psalm.

Lord, let me know mine end, and the number of my days : that I may be certified how long I have to live.

Perhaps I should have linked to Greene's version or to Tomkins which begin with this verse rather than Gibbons who starts a verse later. My reasons will become apparent.

The whole psalm is pregnant with emotion, and it is a very complex emotion indeed. There are at least a couple of ways in which one can read it. Is it to be read in the fearfulness of one realising his mortality, or is it the cry of the world-weary. Again, in my interpretation it's "both-and" and not "either-or". One can imagine the psalmist beaten up by life, worrying about what's going to happen next, missing the past, sick of the present and fearing the future, wondering just how long his suffering is going to take.

At General Synod, the CofE has had some sober realisations thrust upon it making for gloomy reading: at the present rate of decline it will be defunct in 20 years and nothing seems to be abating this decline.

Truly, I am not smug about this for this represents a statement about society as a whole and what is faced by the established church is also faced by the Roman Catholics. It is also something for the Continuing Churches - the little coracles as I've called them in the past - to worry about. They may be small enough to Continue in name and function, they may also be small enough to be swamped by the tide of anti-religion and indifference.

Those of us who have found ourselves cut adrift by the movement of the mainstream have lost a great deal: the comfort of aesthetics of building and music. the comfort of a short walk to the nearest Parish Church, the comfort of being able to trust the words of visible "authorities" and "spokespersons" who claim to speak on behalf of all Christians, but who do not. There is much discomfort out there and, let's be honest, very little hope in what can be done. It is likely to get worse before it gets better.

Already I have seen a congregation more than decimated by the crippling illness suffered by one of my brothers. Ours is a small church, and, let's be frank, it teeters. Do I still have hope?

Fr Chadwick is perfectly right to be sober here. We cannot allow ourselves to be falsely optimistic - we can waste our time sitting with a false hope in our hearts.
However, my friend raises a very important point. Let's just look at the things that will remain forever: Faith, Hope and Love.

St James reminds us that Faith cannot exist unless it is in some way practiced. Without some manifestation of our Faith in what we do, what proof is there that it actually exists? Likewise, it is in the very words and actions of our Saviour, Jesus Christ, that Love itself has to be worked on and, if we claim to have love for another, we had better demonstrate this actively if we are to convince others, and especially the Creator, that we have Love for Him and for our Neighbour.

It stands to reason (namely by induction albeit on the example of two quantities) that Hope itself is not a vague emotion which has no substance but is born out of the crucible of one's wrestle with God and with one's very self. Blind optimism is simply not hope. I seem to remember a French aphorism:

L'Espérance est une petite fille de rien du tout.
Hope is a little girl of no importance.

I'd love to know where this comes from, as I've forgotten! As I see in my beloved nieces, little girls tend to grow up very quickly if they are allowed to grow up well. As for importance? In whose eyes?

If the Church is going to recover in this new age of "no importance", then it must work at its Hope.

And now, Lord, what is my hope : truly my hope is even in thee

First, in order to combat the danger of institutional acedia, the Church must continue as best it can. This may mean just going through the motions when the depression is black, but the fact that the act is taking place regardless forms a basis for the continuing presence of Holiness in dark lands.

Second, quietly and surreptitiously, it must continue to provoke, and cajole and put stones in the shoes who would just walk by regarding the Church as nothing, like they did Her (and their) Saviour. It doesn't have to be much, a bow of the head when someone utters the Holy Name even, nay especially, when it's uttered as an expletive, a crossing of oneself before eating in the refectory at work, a badge on the lapel declaring membership of one's jurisdiction.

We can and must do anything at all to prevent ourselves from just passing into oblivion. Little actions of ritual will remind us of Whom we worship and raise the odd eyebrow.

Third, it is best not to fix ourselves on what we perceive to be God's method of lightening our darkness. Humanity has a very consistent record when it comes to predict the way God will act in the future - namely poor! As a Benedictine, my Holy Founder reminds us never to despair of the mercy of God.

And now, Lord, what is my hope : truly my hope is even in thee

The only source of our hope can be in Christ who is no tame God! As Horatius Bonar writes:

I heard the voice of Jesus say,
"I am this dark world's light;
look unto me, thy morn shall rise,
and all thy day be bright."
I looked to Jesus, and I found
in him my Star, my Sun;
and in that light of life I'll walk
till traveling days are done.

Notice how that Hope is contingent on doing something, some activity to raise a head heavy and bowed with the cares of living. To look to Jesus is not easy, and if anyone says that it is then they are probably at that wonderful first flush of Faith and not yet experienced in the Long, Dark Night of the Soul! We also know that walking in the light of life without wandering off is horrendously difficult.

If I am honest, I am filled with hope for my new diocese. I don't want to seem glib here, as there are some enormous obstacles for us to face. However, there is much potential for our growth. It is true that our priests are on the elderly side and, sad to relate, one of them has but a short time left with us. It is also true that the diocese is small, but I see younger folk, I see men offering themselves for the priesthood and I see congregations committed to doing what they can to present "business as usual". The potential is there, and the hope is there and one should never despair of the Mercy of God.

So, why the version of Gibbons? Well, listen again at the last verse.

And now, Lord, what is my hope : truly my hope is even in thee

Faces, Facets, Factions and Fractions

2011-07-10T13:38:00.007Z

Think on this. At your next birthday, invite all of your friends and family to one big party and allow them to mingle - I dare you! Some of you may already have suffered something similar in an occasion called Your Wedding.

Is that something that makes you comfortable? You might see the prospect of having all your work colleagues, your family, your in-laws, your old school friends, your neighbours, et c, really enjoyable. You'd be happy to let them mingle and discuss how they know you, sharing stories about you and listening to how others perceive you.

For some of us, this would be a very difficult thing to allow to happen. It would be a more intense sensation of that nervousness and trepidation that one has in meeting the prospective mother and father in law for the first time. Meeting the possible in-laws raises questions of "will I be accepted?", "will they approve?", and "what if I say the wrong thing?" However, to have everyone who knows you find out about just how others know you will certainly raise these questions again along with "will anyone still like me after they find out who I really am?"

What will happen if Great Auntie Ethel who has always had you down as a "nice sober child" suddenly finds out about the incident which ended up with your underwear being displayed from a flagpole on the Dover-Ostend ferry? What recriminations will result when your work colleagues find out that you've watched Watership Down 145 times and cried every time that the Black Rabbit comes to take Hazel into the Afterlife, and that you still sniffle when you hear Bright Eyes sung?

Now, the remedy might sound simple - ALWAYS be yourself, however this raises the question of "who are you?" and this is a question to which one is always turning all of one's life. I've said before that we can only learn who we truly are from theose around us. It is your friends and enemies, your family and strangers who can paint a picture of who you are from without. We cannot truly say who we are because we only have experience of ourselves within. Likewise, those around us cannot say who we truly are because they only have experience of us without.

It is quite natural for us to behave differently around different groups of people. At tea with the Archbishop, one will endeavour to eat one's cucumber sandwich noiselessly with decorum and bearing an expression of impassive tranquillity. At the pub with your chums, it is necessary to down a pint whenever Arsenal actually win a game. However, what if the Archbishop is your chum? What if you are the Archbishop? What if the Archbishop supports Arsenal? What if the Archbishop supports West Ham?!

But think: does the Archbishop ever get to see people beyond his close family and friends act naturally rather than just as stiff consumers of cucumber sandwiches and stilted conversations about the weather and that awfully sad business about the church roof?

Of course, the circumstances in which we meet people are different. The workplace has different rules different stresses, different tensions and different rituals then the Church pew, and both are markedly different from the pub table. It is only natural, then, that we are different in these situations, because the expectations and rules that are imposed upon us are different and we react accordingly. At home, we live by our own rules and it is in this our sacrosanctum that we reinforce to ourselves the illusion of whom we believe ourselves to be.

As we react to these diffrently nuanced societies, we can tend to harden into masks, spiritual and psychological carapaces which protect our vulnerabilities peculiar to the situation in which we find ourselves. This raises the question of whether the protection that the mask affords is true protection or more of a constraint to our existence and development as human beings. If we surround ourselves with people wearing the same mask then it is likely that the atrophy of our face will occur more rapidly as we begin to fear being anything different from the crowd in which we find ourselves.

It seems to me that the more rigid masks we have, the more that we let them calcify on our faces, the more we can fragment ourselves and set up self-conflict as the rules that govern one part of our life impinge upon another, or upon the soft, central figure hidden away in the sacrosanctum. Our faces become less facets of our personality and more contributors to the fraction of our personality whereupon we lapse into self-contradiction. How many times have we seen that with leaders in society and the well respected? How much hypocrisy have we seen?

Of course, a hypocrite was originally a Greek actor who merely acted out the character his mask portayed. Likewise, prominent figures have the same problem in society. Many such folk have fallen badly, and it isn't always their fault. Sometimes, simple human frailty cannot take the demands of the assumed persona which society demands. They try to become the mask, but like Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde, the existence of what lies behind the mask engenders fragmentation of the personality.

At some point, we are all going to come into contact with One who sees beyond all our masks. God can see through every layer of our being and make an accurate judgment on who we are, because when we see Him as we is, we shall be like Him if we have loved Him. There is no mask to hide behind and we shall stand before Him utterly naked with nothing to cover up who we really are.

But then we are dealing with a God who Himself was stripped utterly naked before He was crucified. It's not as if He doesn't understand human vulnerability. It's not as if He wills the destruction of hypocrites, otherwise none of us would stand a chance. This is a God Who has told us that if we love other people genuinely, then no matter what mask we wear, our true selves will shine through because we shall be like Him for we shall see Him as He really is.

We will continue to create and wear our masks and they will largely protect us from our surroundings - this is only natural. If we can, however, ensure that our Christian Faith is genuine and shines through each of our masks, and appreciate that there is more to the person opposite than the mask that they present, then we are in less danger of personal fragmentation because we are held together by the person of Christ. If we forgive hypocrisy, then we will be forgiven hypocrisy - it stands to reason. Ultimately, we have to prepare ourselves for the day when our masks will be gone.

What really lies beneath? Do you want to see?

Post-Ordinariate Anglican Papalism

2011-06-26T12:11:00.004Z

It is quite clear that Anglicanism is going through a great upheaval at the moment. By "moment", I really perhaps mean over the last 30-40 years as the Church tries to get to grips with its place in the present philosophical climate.

The major development over the past few years has, of course, been the generous offer of reunion between Anglicans and Roman Catholics via the Ordinariate. It has taken remarkable courage on the part of the Anglican Clergy and Laity to have been the pioneers of this movement and to give up livelihoods, much loved buildings and even relationships in favour of returning to Communion with the Holy Father. Surely this is the Anglican Papalist's dream come true?

I'm afraid I don't believe that it is. I don't want to detract from the respect that I have for all those who have taken the step to set up ordinariate communities, but the fact of the matter is that there are headlines talking about "ex-Anglicans" joining the Ordinariate. It's this epithet "ex-Anglican" that causes me to doubt the idea of "unity but not absorption" that has been the cry of joy uttered by the Ordinariate-bound. If "ex-Anglican" is how these folk are extrinsically regarded from quarters both within and without the Roman Catholic Church, then they have as yet failed to demonstrate unequivocally how they remain Anglican. Surely Anglican Papalism seeks corporate unity with the Roman Catholic Church whilst remaining distinctively Anglican?

I have always said that the existence of Anglican Papalism is intrinsically bound up with the schism in the Church: when the Schism goes away, then so does Anglican Papalism. Has the Schism gone away? That depends on whether there are still Anglicans who regard the Pope as the head of the Church on Earth. I'm not necessarily talking about the supremacy of the Pope, but rather his primacy. To regard the Bishop of Rome as being the Foremost in the Church is Papalism, though of course this comes with some very interesting flavours. There are still many Anglicans who accept this, but not some of the other statements about the nature of the Papacy such as possessing Universal Jurisdiction (which I understand as Papal Supremacy) or Infallibility. They will, nonetheless support the Pope, and pray for the furtherance of his work. That is still Papalism. So Anglican Papalists can still exist without necessarily taking advantage of the Anglican-Roman Ordinariate.

It is also interesting that there are Roman Catholics who do not accept Supremacy or Infallibility themselves, struggle to understand their implications and/or at least cross their fingers when they declare their "acceptance" these doctrines. Perhaps these are Anglican Papalists too, only wishing to reunite the Roman Church with the non-Catholic Anglicanism (if such a beast exists) of the mainstream CofE. Are these members of the Roman "Church of England"?

However, that leads to the question of how unity can be achieved. Now it is interesting that the Ordinariate has fared best in the UK but unsurprising. The Church of England has caused an insurmountable hurdle to be put in place which renders corporate union with the Holy See impossible, but then, it was certainly impossible for the CofE to reunite with Rome considering that there are movements within the CofE which would not reunite with Rome for all the Bibles in Texas. Reunion is only the hope of the Anglo-Catholics - the successors of the Tractarians and the Nonjurors whose fundamental belief in that Anglicanism retains in itself the structures which are inherent in the Catholic and Undivided Church.

However, Anglican Papalists cannot deny that the Schism never happened. That Schism has done much to both the Anglican and Roman Churches who have developed their own character in their long walk apart. The Christian language has developed distinct dialects and it is these dialects that perhaps cause the greatest problems.

I said below that it is the breakdown in language and common sense that has resulted in greater legalism between government and citizen. One can look at the recent Milly Dowler case in which, in order to defend the accused (subsequently found guilty), the defence launched lines of enquiry which grossly invaded the privacy of a family still grieving over the loss of teenage Milly. Common sense surely says something here. Does it really need legislation or have we lost unspoken bonds between human beings.

Likewise with the Church, the unspoken bonds that bound the Church have been disrupted and of course we are unsure about how they are ever to be restored. That must come from the invisible grace of God. What does not help the Anglican Church is the lack of any cohesive body which can offer any rapprochement to Rome, or to the Orthodox Church. Anglicans are apparently split into finer and finer denominations, but the Continuum exists and can be made visible if work is put into it.

If the Affirmation of St Louis can be demonstrated to be a fully Catholic understanding of Christianity, then there is an Anglicanism that can demonstrate its credentials to Rome. There will be many groups of Anglicans who have demonstrated that they do not wish to be included by the innovations which have rendered their idea of Catholicism invalid. A united Anglicanism (proper Anglo-Catholicism) that can demonstrate itself to be sincere in its membership of the Catholic Church would be a jewel in the crown of Christianity and a body with which the other parts of the Catholic Church could feel that they understand their position.

Of course, this presupposes that the Roman Catholic Church wants to reunite in this manner, affirming the continuing Anglicanism of those who would seek the reunion. At the present it is clear that she doesn't as she certainly has done nothing to suppress that epithet of "ex-Anglican". Yet, in setting up the Ordinariate she has shown that she is beginning to understand the position of Anglicans who show themselves to follow the Catholic faith. A clear body of Anglicans whom she can see follow Christ in His Rule would certainly calm any worries that she might have.

The Ordinariate has taken its toll on expressions of Anglicanism that have already had a clear idea of Anglican Catholicity. The TAC seems to be in some turmoil because, largely, they already could see there was a discrepancy between being a member of the Ordinariate and remaining obviously Anglican. There are many fragments of the TAC struggling to understand what to do. They need some clear body to which to align in order to stabilise their situation, and Anglican bodies must reach out to help and offer a hand of Love.

Anglican Papalism is still alive after the Ordinariate, though not really in the form it once was. Any Anglican who longs to be in Communion withe the Pope regarding his primacy will certainly have a claim to being a Papal Anglican, but it will only be those who work to reunite Anglo-Catholics and Roman Catholics whilst respecting their identities who embody what the first Anglican Papalists were trying to do.

John Henry Cardinal Newman and Fr. Edward Bouverie Pusey, pray for us.

Rave or Rosary? Pub or Prayer?

2011-06-21T16:48:00.006Z

If there is one thing that continually amazes me about my students is their capacity for joy. By the time that they've reached the sixth-form they've reached the age where they are able to arrange their own entertainment and their own celebrations.

Of course, the latter teenage years have a reputation for excess - and excess of alcohol, excess of food, an excess of video games and an excess of a certain procreative activity. Sometimes our youngsters learn the hard way that the excess of pleasure leads to much in the way of sadness as they become bored with their experiences and seek greater and greater thrills in more and more dangerous tendencies to self destruction.

One may see the effects of this in the life and death of Ryan Dunn, a daredevil and personality in Jackass. It's one thing to risk one's life for the furtherance of human endeavour, but is it right to endanger one's life just for a thrill? In the former category, we have the achievements of the American and Russian astronauts and cosmonauts who have risked their lives to help us understand our human position in space. On the other, we have those who play chicken on a busy motorway. Both claim to be celebrations of living, of this wonderful feeling of being alive, being human, being brilliant. However, one risks the lives and happiness of others unnecessarily.

I suppose I'm a bit of a curmudgeon now. Certainly in my profession, it is easy to see the worst in an activity, to be conscious of dangers and possible outcomes. Schoolmasters have a reputation for being killjoys.

This does point to another side of humanity. There are people who are almost afraid to have fun. One can think of the Venerable Jorge in Umberto Eco's The Name of the Rose who fears laughter in the monastery because it threatens a lack of control, a level of lawlessness and irreverence. His thesis is that Christ never laughed thus neither should anyone who follows Christ. These days, the time-ravaged old monk would find himself in charge of Elf and Safety.

One thing the Venerable Jorge is right about is that, for the Christian, the point of life is not the pursuit of happiness but the search for God within our lives and within the world around us. Our true happiness is contingent on finding God.

Is it possible that the Venerable Jorge is not so different from Ryan Dunn? Could Jorge be a spiritual daredevil performing dangerous stunts with his own asceticism in what he can deny himself just for the thrill of knowing that he can control himself physically only to kill off part of his own humanity in doing so? Jorge would see this as becoming more like Christ. However it is also true that some Christians of a more epicurean bent believe themselves to becoming more like Christ by enjoying an exuberant atmosphere.

The Benedictine way is always to strike the middle ground. There are feasts and fasts within the Church year and deliberately so. There are times to be silent and times to be noisy. Provided that one observes both seasons fully there is no real problem.

However, it seems that we have forgotten the art of celebrating well. The tendency is to try and prolong that euphoria, that high, for much longer than its natural length. Many of my older students see the aim of drinking as being drunk because it's fun. It's a loss of inhibition - they find inhibition oppressive and drunkenness is seen as a liberation from always having to be in control. I wonder whether anyone can blame them in a world which doesn't always come across as being a cheerful place to live.

I wonder, though, whether they are trying to run away from themselves a little, that they are dissatisfied with being who they are and with their own humdrum existence so they try and blot it out. I think they do themselves a great disservice by doing so as they have so much to offer society as they are. Learning to become oneself as one is meant to be is more liberating than any amount of vodka.

Our society just doesn't celebrate well and veers from one extreme to the other. We either do it to excess with little regard for those around us, or we do it too little and thus lose a capacity for joi de vivre. Lately, I feel rather in the second category. "You will always find me in the kitchen at parties", as the song goes. Am I the only one who finds themselves most alone at some shindig or other surrounded by many people and lots of noise?

It is important to instruct our children in the ways of enjoying life properly. If that means a split lip, grazed knee and muddy T-shirts because of an accident on a bike, then so be it. They need to learn to appreciate that wonderful aphorism "after ecstasy, the laundry." The routine of everyday life must inevitably be resumed after a celebration, but one can carry the memories of that happiness into the days ahead. Celebration is both an art and a skill that need to be learned and some of us need to re-learn this in order to have our capacity for joy.

The Christian's joy is in God and, unlike Jorge, I believe that this joy can be found in this life as well as the next. It just needs to be measured against the two commandments of God to love Him with all facets of our existence and to love our neighbours as ourselves. Strangely, if you think about these, you begin to realise that God's commandments do actually bring forth a capacity for joy in living.

Law and Religion

2011-06-20T17:36:00.003Z

In my head, I seem to have a quote from someone famous, but I cannot pin it down either to its author or to the exact wording. Essentially, it states that the more legislation the civilisation has, the closer it is to collapse. If anyone can furnish me with the exact quote and its author, I'd be grateful.

It does make perfect sense, though. The more we have to legislate, the more we are saying that we lack a common understanding of what is right and have to rely on our government to supply that common understanding which we may not actually agree with - indeed we may see it as fundamentally wrong and protest and complain to the extent that the government might actually try to limit our ability to complain.

We have evolved into beings which are intrinsically designed to seek community for good reasons. God tells us that it is not good for a man to be alone and He's right as the animal kingdom itself demonstrates. In order to function in society, there must be some restriction on what we can or cannot do so that the interests of all are addressed and respected. This involves a binding of the will.

So what binds our will? Extrinsically, we have laws which are duty bound to keep on pain of punishment. They are determined and agreed upon by the society itself and infringements are met with sanctions to restore order. The more laws that are passed and it is clear that the more that members of that society are not considering the needs of others in the execution of their will. So law forces a binding on us whether or not we agree with it.

We could choose to limit our will ourselves by looking at the society around us and seeing our own part in that society as a duty. The trouble is that the rules we use to regulate that duty may not actually be compatible and thus of course we look for like minds. A common morality produces a common law which people abide by because they know it is right to abide by it. As soon as one begins to question whether one believes that the common law is right then the chaos begins. An intrinsic self-binding - a religion - brings law into being. As soon as that religion is lost, then the law loses its meaning. It is questioned, more laws are brought in to reinforce it which only serve to complicate the issue creating more unrest within the society.

We can see this all over the shop: Abortion, same-sex relationships, assisted suicide, the Equality Bill, spending-cuts, the right to strike. Where in each of these issues is the focus? Is it the good of the community?

More and more I look at society and I see so much disintegration of community. I wonder whether we are at the brink of another change in human existence. Of course, my prayers are for the rejuvenation in personal commitment to a local community if we cannot manage the revival of solid Christianity. I am tempted, though, t0 think the worst and that we are about to enter a time of social and political upheaval to match the moral upheaval through which we pass. Turmoil is natural at the end of an era. I pray that it doesn't go on for longer than is necessary.

Nearly forgot

2011-06-19T23:49:00.001Z

If I'm now a member, I'd better link to the Anglican Catholic Church!

Love and Remembrance

2011-06-18T10:05:00.003Z

It has been a bad year for some of my friends who have lost wives, partners and mothers.

It has to be remembered that the cause of their pain is love. Yet Love is one of the three things that remain always if we believe St Paul's first letter to the Church in Corinth. I know that my friends will always carry the love for those whom they have lost beyond the veil of this life, and they will carry this love to their own passing. But what then? Will that love die with them? And what of others' love for them? Will that pass too. It seems that the love of man is as fleeing in contrast to the love of God Who is eternal.

Sadly, many people believe that all that humans are will pass away into nothing. Even the Bible has the rather final image of "dust thou art and unto dust shalt thou return". We are reminded of that every Ash Wednesday. The Bible, of course, puts that verse into perspective, demonstrating that our human endeavours are fleeting and though they may remain for a short time, giving pleasure to folk around, they will pass. The Mona Lisa will eventually disintegrate; St Peter's Square will crumble to dust; even the many copies of the Bible will be torn and scattered away. This too must pass.

Is the love between human beings doomed to similar extinction? One can look at a patient with Alzheimer's disease and wonder how on earth they can love their spouse of many years when they can't remember who on earth they are. Does love exist when memory fails completely?

If love has its origins in us, then the answer is no. In the eyes of humanity, the lives of countless human beings are forgotten.

And some there be, which have no memorial; who are perished, as though they had never been; and are become as though they had never been born; and their children after them.

Wisdom of Jesus, son of Sirach xliv.9

With the death of the last First World War veterans, the world has lost the first hand experience of that awful conflict and the stories of bravery and generosity that came out of the depravity of human pride and anger. Our future is influenced by that past, but never again will it be seen as part of our direct experience. The Second World War will go the same way. So will September 11th 2001.

The emotional content of these events will be preserved by poetry, film archives, and Internet footage, but while they may elicit an emotional response of perhaps great intensity, will they elicit anything more than that? However, neither the emotional response, nor the media which inspire that response will endure.

Love that comes from humanity will not endure because it has no medium to sustain it beyond the confines of a human life.

If one believes that all true love has its source in God, then we have a different situation, for it is this aspect of Divine Love cultivated in human beings which carries the human soul into an existence of a nature that transcends what can be known. Too often, what some perceive as Love is nothing more than a desire to extract from the lover whatever pleases us, or to possess the qualities of the beloved that we lack in ourselves. Divine Love creates us by giving us our very selves and a freedom to be who we really are rather than that which is demanded of us by our peers or even by ourselves - this is a freedom that we can and do reject for ourselves by rejecting God.

In giving of our love to others, we pass on that which is truly Eternal and transmit that which preserves an aspect of ourselves whether or not the other is aware, or even whether we are ourselves aware. We exist because we are loved and we will continue to exist because that Love continues to exist. This is how our loved ones never die for us in this world because they continue to exist as currents stirring within the blood of the Sacred Heart and passions within Christ. When we see Him, we shall be like Him for we shall see Him as He is.

I deeply commiserate with my friends, but I do so with a sure and certain hope of the bodily resurrection from the dead.

[T]hese were merciful men, whose righteousness hath not been forgotten. With their seed shall continually remain a good inheritance, and their children are within the covenant. Their seed standeth fast, and their children for their sakes. Their seed shall remain for ever, and their glory shall not be blotted out. Their bodies are buried in peace; but their name liveth for evermore.

Wisdom of Jesus, son of Sirach xliv.10-14

While members of the Church may eventually be forgotten in Time's relentless and sinuous bore through Existence, they are indelibly engraved in the heart of the Divine and God's Church (a tautology!) will rest in peace and rise in glory.

Whitsunday: Are you receiving me?

2011-06-12T17:57:00.009Z

Clearly, the answer is yes. I was received this Whitsun Morning into the Anglican Catholic Church. First and foremost, I would draw your attention to my disclaimer. I do not speak on behalf of any church or organisation of which I am a member. For official positions, you must go to the authorities I cite. For my part, I will endeavour to be as factually accurate as I can.

So now I am an Anglican Catholic. There were no tongues of flame above my head. There were no ecstatic tongues, no prophetic utterances, no wild and exuberant behaviour. I was glad, and I expect the bishop and the congregation were glad that I didn't launch into some diatribe in Xhosa at the beginning of Mass.

That's not to say that it couldn't happen.

God is not a tame God and only He knows what He could have got me to do under His influence. Stand in the nave arcing electricity from my fingers like Davros? I suppose it could be argued that perhaps I haven't enough faith for such a remarkable manifestation to occur, or for miracles to be performed. If God wanted that to have happened, then that's what would have happened. Personally, I am thankful that it didn't and that Mass was as edifying and as exquisite as it should be.

The fact remains: God is a dangerous God.

And the Anglican Catholic Church is a dangerous Church, apparently.

Well, that's quite cheering, really. What danger does the Church and Her Groom pose?

It's a very simple answer: Christ is dangerous to the way of life that we would lead without Him. It is this wonderful figure of the itinerant preacher who turns the complacent lives of the world upside down. The lives of unbelievers and believers alike have been affected by His continual and continuous involvement in the affairs of mankind.

To paraphrase Bishop Mead this morning: our lives are dangerous to God. If we choose to live the way we want to live, then we can only go so far as to killing God. Nietzsche demonstrates that so obviously. Divinity and Humanity seem to be so utterly opposed to each other that the one will cause the death of the other.

Except God is not opposed to Humanity, though it cannot be generally said vice versa. God's love for human beings forces Him to take the danger head on. He loses His life but such is the speed of His passing that He crashes through Death out the other side into life. God is not just dangerous to Human Beings, He is dangerous to Death too.

It is no wonder then that we should fear a God Who can risk His life, indeed lose His life, for His Creation for this is a God Who respects no boundaries: Life - Death, Light - Dark, Heaven - Hell, Without - Within. Receiving Him into our lives thus runs so great a risk as to pull us into places which we wouldn't ever have dreamed of going and, further, to turn us into the people we wouldn't ever have dreamed of becoming. He is a threat to the very self that we perceive ourselves to be. But then, is the self that we perceive ourselves to be the person that we would want to be? Can you really honestly answer "yes" to that?

So then, a safe church does not possess the God who threatens to transform us into loving beings. Why then did I feel no different in being received into the Anglican Catholic Church? Perhaps it isn't a dangerous church after all!

All I have to do is to look back at the turmoil of the last few months and realise that this is exactly where I am supposed to be. He is a loving God and while He will always surprise and even shock me, He won't contradict Himself, nor will He allow me to be destroyed. My transformation has happened, is happening and will happen at His pace, and I pray that I may always will it so and that I may have the purity of heart to work with that Divine Will.

How dangerous is your Church?

Women "Bishops" and Catholicity: Another Response to Fr Clatworthy

2011-06-01T18:43:00.002Z

It's been a little while that I've been meaning to respond to Fr Jonathan Clatworthy's paper on "Catholicity". You may remember I tackled one of his papers once before. I haven't really had much time or inclination to tackle this second paper in the past year. As I've left the Church of England to its own devices, much of the need for me to respond to this paper has been eliminated. However, from the point of view of the Continuing Anglicans, there is an interest at making a response to the paper.

Again, I've yet to see better theologians than myself tackle it, so I'll have another go. I think that this will be the last time that I will mention this subject because there is literally no longer a case for me to answer. I am now free of the need to defend the beliefs of the Catholic Church from within the CofE.

Fr. Clatworthy sums up the argument of Anglo-Catholics to the Ordination as:

The 'true Church' does not ordain women;

The Anglican Church is part of the 'true Church';

The Anglican Church should not ordain women.

He then goes on to dismantle the premise 1 by attempting to that a 'true Church' is not well-defined nor visible nor evidently established by God.

He makes the claim that

"Our suspicions are accentuated by the fact that New Testament scholars, far from supporting Gore's claims, find precious little evidence that Christ showed an interest in founding a church at all, and insufficient evidence that there is a continuous line of succession from the Apostles to the bishops of today."

This is interesting, as earlier in his paper he says:

"Some of the New Testament epistles express a late first century movement which scholars describe as 'early Catholicism'. The Greek term for 'universal' is 'kath holos', and our word 'catholic' is derived from it.

Now this does suggest a slight inconsistency here. If the Lord shows little interest in founding a Church, why is there a Church? Why does He talk about building His Church on rock? Why does He talk about being a good shepherd having a flock and then go and tel St Peter to tend and feed His sheep. Of course, modern New Testament Scholars are very good at presenting their opinions. We should really let the facts speak for themselves.

Now, it seems to me that Fr. Clatworthy is very good at missing things that he has already mentioned. Let's take the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, with or without the controversial filioque. It is interesting that apart from this one word, Orthodox, Roman and Anglican Catholics affirm this very creed at the heart of their teaching. We may disagree over the filioque (though there seems to have been quite a convergence in philosophy over that in recent years) but still we see, absolutely inherent in that creed "I believe in One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church". He might also like to take into account the lists of successions of bishops, and the fact that there are bishops is testament to that succession.

Far from making the sole definition of 'true Church' based just on Apostolic Succession, Anglo-Catholics have used the entirety of the Creed. This idea of the necessity of Apostolic Succession is ingrained in all Churches which hold to this Creed. Fr. Clatworthy can certainly look at the differences between Orthodox, Roman and Anglican Catholic Churches but he misses their obvious similarities of doctrine and their desire for unity. The Orthodox Church recognises Anglican Orders; Roman Catholics have sought dialogue with the Anglicans with a view to unity - what might have happened if ECUSA hadn't ordained women in the 1970s - and this has continued in ARCIC.

Of all the three Churches, it is the Anglican Church that is the most split because it falls into the categories of those who believe in Apostolic Succession like the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches do (see, for example, The Catechism of the Catholic Church paragraphs 857-870) and those who don't. There are those who believe in the authority of bishops and those who don't, yet still there are bishops in the CofE. If "very few - and that even included such figures as William Laud - were willing to see bishops as necessary for the constitution of the church" why were bishops re-introduced at the Restoration of the Monarchy? It is the division between Anglicans where the bone of contention lies and Fr. Clatworthy tries to deflect that attention onto the divisions between the catholic Churches. The divisions are nor the same. Anglo-Catholics are part of the Catholic Church; those who ordain women as priests are not.

If a church refuses to accept the Nicene Creed as it was received by the Church, then surely whether they choose to "ordain" women or not is immaterial - they do not do so as part of the Catholic Church. The Orthodox, Roman and Anglican Catholic Churches have always said that the Church has no authority to ordain women. In alluding to the validity of the fictional female priest from Toxteth, Fr. Clatworthy has assumed that which he wants to prove i.e. women can be ordained validly by the Church. If his assumption is wrong, then he might as well be replicating Bertrand Russell's proof that if 1=2 then he is the Pope.

It is quite clear that Fr. Clatworthy does not have the same understanding of sacramental validity as Catholics. The question has only really arisen in the Anglican Church because the Catholicism of the Anglican church has been compromised with women. It is not the Church who determines the conditions of validity - it is God. It is true that because God determines validity or not, there is no need for Anglo-Catholics to appeal to the 'true Church'. However, Christians look to each other to affirm what they believe to have received from God. This is how the Ecumenical Councils worked. This is how the Church repulsed Arianism and the other heresies. The Church defined the doctrine based upon what they received from God according to Scripture, Tradition and Reason. Perhaps Fr. Clatworthy does not believe in the infallibility of the Church. How then does he know that he, as a Christian is right or is this a case of "it may be true for you, but it isn't for me"?

As I said earlier, I am trying to close this chapter now as there is no reason for me to argue with anyone. I have found myself a place where this whole question will not come up and, although I hope to remain in dialogue with many Christian friends, I hope they will understand that our differences come from completely different integrities. Often we seem to be talking past one another. If so, let's stop talking and start praying together instead.

Kath holicism and Reduction

2011-05-30T10:50:00.007Z

Diarmaid McCulloch describes himself as a "candid friend of Christianity". He can't describe himself as a Christian because, according to his History of Christianity, he doesn't see how The Bible is any different from any other book, and that, when subjected to the same scholarly scrutiny as any other book, it doesn't really possess any obvious power over humanity.

His television programme was certainly a fascinating hurtle through the complicated life of the Church. The final programme, as is natural, asked about the future of Christianity in the face of all that attacks it: the ruling authority of the Church is attacked by the revolutionaries; the moral authority of the Church is attacked by the ethicists like Voltaire; the veracity of The Bible is attacked by Science and the rational approach made by Spinoza, Strauss and the German schools of theology and philosophy in the 19th Century. These attacks continue.

It is true that the Church seems to be rather beleaguered at the moment with loud scientific skeptics, and the media who are out to make a cheap story. Every time Pasch or Christmass come round, there's always a programme about "the Truth behind the Myth" or "one woman's fib that got a bit out of control". Most of this is opinion based on speculation - the Christian needs to arm himself with the facts.

The Church has to be concerned with the Truth. Sometimes, Truth be told, it has not presented that Truth very clearly. One can certainly see that in the Crusades or in the Inquisitions and in the way it has allowed its condemnation of sin spill over into condemning people. Though it has to be remembered that these were the products of their time, that doesn't justify these actions. There is no particular time in the History of Mankind, past, present or future in which Jesus Christ would ever approve of the murder of innocents in His Name, nor would He ever allow the abuse of children to be covered up as it has in recent years.

The fact of the matter is that people seem to misunderstand what the Church really is. Indeed many people's rejection of God is because they believe that the Church is so corrupt. That's a bit like not believing in the existence of Mr and Mrs Hitler senior because of the antics of their son Adolph.

The Church is made up of sinners. I cannot personally comment on the state of my fellow human beings, but I know that I am a sinner. I am also sure that there are other sinners within the Church because there is a prayer of Confession asking for God's forgiveness for misdeeds and bad intentions. That this prayer is said at all Masses even by bishops, archbishops and the Pope himself indicates that there is sin within the Church and that it is widespread irrespective of position. We can therefore conclude that the Church is comprised of sinful human beings. Thus Church members cannot honestly be better than anyone else. However, our sinfulness does not negate the message of the Gospel, that Christ is the way to salvation. This makes the Incarnation of Christ even more meaningful in that here we have God who is willing to be made man in order to be with human beings.

The Church is the sum of many parts. Its authority to be seeking the Truth comes from Divine Revelation through Scripture, Tradition and Reason, not three separate entities but all inextricably bound together. While it is possible to attack each of these sources individually, the fact that the Church still remains despite major attacks on its existence is evidence that it is greater that the sum of its parts. It is a Catholic Church - a Church that is a whole unit. In the reductionism of modern society - the statement and restatement of "...is nothing but..." - the idea of a holistic view of a body such as the Church is alien. This is a Church that seeks to be united with itself, uniting itself past, present and future along the lines of the Eternal Truth of God.

The Church believes itself to exist in three places at once - here, "Purgatory " and Eternity. I have placed the word "Purgatory" in inverted commas on the grounds that the Bible supports the existence of an intermediate space between this world and Heaven, and that it is a space of purification. The nature of this space is contested. Again, we have a problem with the Catholicism of the Church - it is in these three states simultaneously. The word "is" becomes a problem because it has a tense (namely present) and Eternity exists without Time. To say the Church contains all Truth is a belief in the infallibility of the Church. In asserting this belief, the believer is saying that from the Eternal viewpoint, there is not a point in Time where the Church has taught any other doctrine than the Truth of God and Jesus Christ. Any statements of Infallibility can only be made from an Eternal viewpoint since no one living knows the future. If the Church believes itself to possess all Truth then it must be clear that it is speaking Eternally and not at any specific point in Time. Believers have Faith in what the Church teaches with regard to its Salvation.

This belief in the Eternity of the Church binds believers, thus making Christianity a religion in the proper sense of the word. The Truth does not change because it is eternal. While many facets can be revealed through the ages, this doesn't mean that Truth changes. The Church may only hold the entire Truth in its Kath-holicism, not at a particular instant of Time because this is another instance of reduction.

Likewise the sacraments too can either be considered in their Kath-holist sense or reduced to their component parts. This latter produces precisely the tensions between believers in the Real Presence depending on the way that they view the transformation of Bread and Wine into Body and Blood. What matters most is that Bread and Wine ar brought forward at the Offertory and following the Eucharistic Prayer, the recipient says "Amen" affirming that he receives the Body and Blood of Christ.

If the Church wishes to move forward into the future then it must hold to its past and Tradition with tenacity but with humility, acknowledging its failures; affirm its present as a body of fallen human beings with the possibility of salvation in corporate union yet not presuming to have all the answers to all questions; and look to the future in hope knowing that God does not contradict Himself and that the Church will continue to exist in order to bring the love of God into the World.

Extraterrestrial Extraordinariates

2011-05-14T13:05:00.006Z

I've tried to be very quiet about the Ordinariate, largely because I've never really been part of a parish that was sufficiently Roman to worry about this sort of thing. Lately, it seems to me that there is a lot of misdirection between parties which are very for the Ordinariate and those which are very against the Ordinariate. Some say that the Ordinariates have been "indefinitely put on hold" in America and Canada, others say that talks are still going on and any hiatus, if it exists, is merely temporary. The fact of the matter is that I do not know the full truth and I am beginning to find much of what is reported thoroughly unreliable. I prefer to listen to the judgement of friends who are involved in the processes and aware of what goes on.

In some sense, what is going on in the large will always remain a mystery. Of course we must look for the big picture in order to get a balanced view but in this situation what appears to be the bigger picture is complicated with politics and negotiations and extenuating circumstances and instances of sine qua non and non plus ultra.

The trouble is that this bigger picture is just not big enough. I'm always minded of some of those wonderful tracking shots which ascend rapidly upwards looking back on the Earth. People become houses become streets become towns become regions become counties become countries become continents until that familiar cloud suffused blue sphere of our planet becomes the focus. Sometimes the tracking shot goes further: the moon hoves into view, as do Venus, Mercury, the Sun. Still further the shot tracks, as our planet becomes insignificant against the light of the Sun and the orange-brown bulk of Jupiter, the rings of Saturn and the darker, colder gas giants of Uranus and Neptune, then Pluto. Further and further still into the mysterious Oort Cloud and it prospective comets, long forgotten by mankind. And still we can go on, our Sun becomes part of a group, a cluster, an insignificant yellow dot of not much worth. The spiral arm of the Galaxy appears, then the Galaxy itself as our tracking shot, now travelling at many millions of times the speed of light steps back further and further until the galaxy becomes part if a supercluster of galaxies speeding around into the blackness of the Universe. All becomes simplicity in the eyes of the Divine.

At each change of scale, we see the same picture, something seems chaotic until the reason for the chaos becomes clear. Then as the scale keeps peeling back, more chaos ensues.

As a prime example, at the scale of an Earth dweller, the planets seem to rove erratically across the sky, back and forward, looping the loop. They appear to be true wanderers, their motion not entirely predictable. Once we step back at the Solar System itself, we see that these loop-the-loops are a necessary consequence of the simple behaviour of planets orbiting the Sun.

However, if we step back further, we see that the behaviour of the planets is not clockwork. The equation of motion may be quite easy to state in a Newtonian principle of conservation of energy, but the effects of planets one on another add up. It is possible that we may lose Venus or Mercury in the future due to gravitational tidal effects. We have moved from chaos to simplicity back to chaos again, largely because of our change of viewpoint.

So what does this have to do with the Ordinariate?

I believe that there is a very simple rule behind this and all the other Anglican Difficulties: it is nothing less than Man's search for Authentic Communion with Christ. Catholics believe in the sacrosanctity of the Holy Mass where the Communicant comes into full and intimate contact with the One Who willed that very Communicant's creation. Once one realises what one is saying "Amen" to when receiving the Body of Christ, the more important it becomes that the experience be authentic, that we are in reality participating with every other Christian soul and the Holy Saints with the same Eternal (i.e. timeless) Christ. This is the content of Catholic Tradition. If anything breaks that Tradition, the authenticity is impaired.

As soon as impairment arises, it is here that chaos begins to reign, the turbulence of the sea that the Jews feared most. The Christ-seeking Catholic has no option but to move apart from the impediment and to move faster and further the greater he perceives that impediment to be.

This is what has happened to Anglicanism: it is going supernova over the impediments that are being built into its mainstream. The Catholics are propelled away from this out into a desperate search for the Authentic Christ apart from all modern notions of experience, equality, and "go with the flow".

It isn't where a Catholic is heading that should be the cause for judgement or suspicion, but rather whether that Catholic has taken steps to seek the Authentic Christ beyond the impairments that are being flung into his way and even then this can only be done by One Who truly sees the heart and motives of the individual - the One Who Knows on all scales. I doubt very much that the Catholic knows where he is headed any way, but by holding onto his simple rule can he find some reassurance through his fervent prayers and obedience to the faith that has been handed onto him that he will find his Beloved.

So then, what do I think of the Ordinariate? I cannot speak highly enough of those who have heard God's call to make the leap, to become the pioneers of something entirely new to reconnect with that which is entirely old. They will have my support, prayers, admiration and love that what they are trying to do may indeed work, provide a comfortable home for lost souls and bring all to Christ.

However, I'm afraid I cannot accept the conditions for the Ordinariate. The time is not right for me, even though I am between jurisdictions. I still would say that I am an Anglican Papalist, though I am much more wary of labels than I used to be. Perhaps I am not an Anglican Papalist - I don't know - things change. I still regard the Holy Father as the Head of the Church, the Successor of St Peter and especially, though he might deny it himself, the Patriarch of the West and have every desire to be in communion with him. However, I still regard Apostolicae Curae as being not just wrong but irrelevant. I have good personal reasons for believing in the integrity of Anglican Orders because of what happened to me at my Confirmation. It is this belief that makes me an Anglican Papalist and yet separates me from being in communion with the Holy Father.

But things change. I cannot see the bigger picture and if I could, it would only confuse me. I cannot shoot out faster than the speed of light to see the Divine simplicity. I trust that it's there though. What I do not trust are disjointed and confusing reports that come out of those for whom the Ordinariate is a be-all-and-end-all either as a hobby-horse of hatred as some blogs love to disparage with their "more-knowledgeable than thou" attitude or those who would seek to force everyone to abandon what Catholic aspect of Anglicanism they hold dear in order to get everyone to toe the line.

Ultimately, all Christians have only one direction in which to travel. The Authentic Christ exists and His gravity will draw to His embrace all those who seek Him.

Same old same old

2011-05-10T16:55:00.002Z

I can't tell you how glad I was to be able to start preaching again after so long a drought. I may not be licensed. I may not even regard myself as within the jurisdiction of the Church of England, but I am still a Reader. This is my first since leaving the C of E, directed, as usual, to the students.

Homily preached at Eltham College on 9th and 10th May 2011, based on Ecclesiastes i.1-11

Are you looking forward
to a nice new school day?

Are you ready and energised
for a fun seven or eight hours of learning?

Are you all excited
at the prospect of double maths
and all those exercises and problems
you’re going to be set?

Are you looking forward
to learning all the tenses,
moods and participles
of the word agere in Latin?

What about all that homework tonight?

Looking forward to it?

Why not?

Perhaps there’s something better for you
to be doing with your time?

Let’s think...

A World of Warcraft tournament,
perhaps, for the whole school?

That would be fun, wouldn’t it?

Watching your history master
and your geography master
battling Deathwing the Destroyer
in an instance on Mount Hyjal,
before crushing them
both yourself with a horde of Night-Elves.

We could start immediately after chapel
and go through til midnight?

Yes?

That would be fun!

And you wouldn’t get bored with that, now,
would you?

That might be fun for today,
but what about tomorrow?

A whole school Talent Contest, like the X-factor?

Not the fiddly little one
we had a while ago,
which was obviously rigged
when the head boy won,
This time, everyone takes part.

Just think how brilliant it would be
with the Deputy Head
doing Tiny Tempur’s Pass Out
and the English masters
wailing their ways through
the collected works of Lady Gaga,
dressed appropriately with a wardrobe
provided by Ginsters.

Yes, all 800 or so of us
would have to take part
and it would take about 2 days
to get through them all without a break,
but it would be fun.

It wouldn’t get boring, would it?

And instead of the usual meals in the Refectory,
we could have pizza every day
for all the years that you’re here.

Cola on tap, et c. That wouldn’t get boring would it?

[PAUSE]

You’re obviously very aware
how easily the novelty wears off.

When you started at here,
you were no doubt excited
and a little bit frightened as
to what would happen next.

All these new sensations,
all these new sights, sounds and,
if you’re walking through the Chemistry department,
smells were part
of this new wonderful school.

But how do you feel about it now?

Do you find it boring?

[PAUSE]

The feeling of boredom
is quite unmistakable,
and you probably have
your own experiences to describe it.

It’s that sensation of really not wanting
to be where you are now,
wanting to do anything else
other than be forced to sit there
in some task which you perceive
as being quite meaningless
or difficult or annoying.

You feel trapped and restless
and your attention hurtles about
like a Justin Bieber fan after 10 cups of coffee,
searching desperately
for something better to latch onto.

Finally, your eyes settle onto the clock:

10:09 and 30 seconds,
10:09 and 31 seconds… 32,…. 33…
32… 31… 30…
31,... 32… 35… 36… 37…
24… 23…

Curse you, Second Hand!

Ah! Zeno has got nothing
on a bored schoolboy waiting for Break.

Have you ever stopped to ask yourself
why you get bored in the first place?

[PAUSE]

Surprisingly, that’s not an easy question to answer.

You really have to think hard
about why you’re finding something
boring in the first place.

Let’s say you find maths boring.

Patently ridiculous, but let’s pretend.

Why might this be?

The most common reason
is that you are stuck
and don’t know what to do now.

Your boredom is then a symptom of frustration.

The second most common reason
is that you’ve managed
to understand what to do
quickly and easily after the first 3 questions,
your boredom then is a result of an intelligent mind
seeking some stimulation.

The first point is easy to deal with,
with a raising of the hand
and a polite request to your teacher.

The second is much more subtle.

[PAUSE]

Without exception,
you are all intelligent beings,
and intelligence requires something to nourish it
– sights, sounds, ideas, challenges,
arguments and mysteries
– for it to thrive.

Just like our bodies,
our minds require a balanced diet
in order to function properly.

If we fill our minds with junk,
then junk is all they’ll crave
and junk is all that’ll come out of them.

A daily diet of four hours
of World of Warcraft
is equivalent to a daily intake
of Big Macs, Hot Wings, and Stuffed Crusts
all washed down with a gallon of Galaxy Crushem.

If the desire for entertainment
is causing us to question the benefits
of interacting in a classroom,
absorbing information
and practising our intellectual skills,
then it is clear that our minds are not
as healthy as they could be.

[PAUSE]

Boredom is a part of everybody’s life.

It’s even mentioned in the Bible,
especially in the book of Ecclesiastes.

For the Christian,
boredom is a sign to reflect on who we are
and to contrast that with God who,
while never-changing can always present Himself
in ever new ways through
the same prayers,
the same readings
and the same silences.

Whether Christian or not,
to face up to boredom is to face up to
the possibility of the transformation of our lives,
to become someone even better.

Indeed, boredom can teach us
a great deal about ourselves,
about who we are
and contrast that with the people
that we are meant to be.

Facing up to tedious chores
can make us better people
if we learn to control our desire to give up
and find something more interesting.

[PAUSE}

Just look at the day ahead of you.

What do you think is going to be boring?

How is that going to change your life for the better?

The Character of Eternity

2011-04-30T08:29:00.005Z

Well, my heartiest congratulations to the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge on the occasion of their marriage. May they have many, many long and happy years together.

As it happened, I was singing Evensong at Westminster Abbey with the College Chamber Choir at the beginning of April. I think the Dean and Chapter were just beginning to plant the conkers that bloomed into those trees which many of us saw in the Nave during yesterday's ceremony.

Of course I saw the Royal Wedding as an outsider. Being outside the Church of England has several consequences, one of which is that I am now removed from the Established Church. It does afford me the opportunity to ask two questions (two questions that I got moaned at for asking - rather unfairly in my opinion).

1) If Common Worship is supposed to be Normative, Approved, and Appropriate in the Church of England, why were the Duke and Duchess still married using (mostly) the 1662 BCP? Why not use the modern vernacular?

2) If this is the Anniversary year of the Authorised Version, why wasn't that used for the Scripture reading yesterday?

These little observations (and, I suppose, in the grand scheme of things they are little) seem to suggest that the Established Church is now very subtly contradicting itself.

If we use BCP language for the wedding of two highly important members of the Royal family on the grounds that it is the English Language at its most regal, then why are we not using the same language for our Mass when the King of Kings is present? Again we have the old argument of "Jesus meets us where we are. He doesn't mind how we approach him." However, if Jesus really is our King (i.e. we submit to His Rule) then shouldn't we be treating Him like a King and scrubbing ourselves up appropriately? We may stand boldly before the throne of Grace, but surely we don't stand shabbily or nonchalantly or still reading the Beano before Him.

If we are using BCP language because it is our National Heritage, then what does it say about the language of the Modern Vernacular. Of course, we don't use expletives or slang during our worship (unless the Priest is having a very bad day in the pulpit) but it seems that our desire to use BCP language in important occasions is because it possesses something that our Modern Language does not.

It seems that the Old Language has the Character of Eternity - it possesses a deeper sense and meaning that stretches across the centuries to reach even people of today. All Christian worship has to have that character because we have to be looking backwards to the Revelation of Christ just as those who lived before Him had to look forward to His coming.

From what I understand, the language chosen to translate the old Latin prayers and the Greek and Hebrew Scriptures was deliberately arranged so that it was as close as possible in meaning in translation. The word "prevent" is a case in point. We understand that word differently now, meaning "to stop" or "prohibit", but it takes just a moment's thought to see that "pre-" means before. If this is the case, one is naturally drawn to ask what the "-vent" means, with the words "convent" or "Advent" in mind perhaps. If you know what Advent means (i.e. arrival) then you realise that "-vent" has something to do with coming or going, and thus "prevent" originally meant "to go before". Of course "prevent" translates praevenire and you can see how scholars worked.

Of course, they didn't always get it right There are one or two glorious typos, but the idea of preserving the language was not always about preserving heritage, but rather preserving the meaning, keeping the Character of Eternity alive for those in later centuries to understand.

Of course it takes work to understand a language that is 500 years old. The wonderful thing is that one can still understand most of it. If we take the trouble to address the bits we don't understand, then we not only find the answer but the whole thing opens up into a greater understanding and appreciation of what's being said.

Can we honestly say this of the language of the Modern Vernacular which isn't really conducive to careful study?

The Feast of the Resurrection 2011

2011-04-24T00:00:00.001Z

At Paschaltide, we find ourselves faced with one of the apparent paradoxes of our Christian Faith. It isn't really a paradox, but the details take some working out in our little mortal heads and this is often too much for them - we are forced to sit in confused silence until there is some resolution. That resolution may not actually answer the question but we will know God in our stillness. The task is to be still, to put aside the little we know or think we know -perhaps just for a moment or perhaps for ever - and allow ourselves to be touched by the Divine Truth. Christ's resurrection can be for us an opportunity for transformation.

Nonetheless, we still experience paradox and this impacts greatly on the way we live our lives. We have to cope and learn to cope. We are faced with the Immortal God who dies, the transcendent God who walks among us, the unapprochable Creator who bids us not only approach but share an incredible (almost) intimacy with Him.

Perhaps this weird and painful little life that we live is precisely the resolution of the paradox of God in order for us to share a proper relationship with Him. Our present existence acts as a buffer between what we perceive to be contradictory positions. We have so many difficult concepts to grasp, of predestination, election and free-will, of God Transcendent and Immanent, of Christ both human and divine. All of these occur precisely because of our feebleness in this mode of existence.

In order to be truly free, we have to know the consequences of our freedom. In order to know God, we also have to know not-God. In order to know joy, we need to know pain. In order to know Eternity we have to know death. It is up to our own God who does not wish our destruction in any way to show us these things by His example of the alternatives. God does it so that we don't have to. And then He rises from the Dead in the greatest challenge to our thinking.

Of course, many may scoff at this - Jesus said they would. We, on the other hand as St Benedict says, should never despair of God's mercy. Our Christian Faith allows us to live certainly in the midst of paradox, crisis, horror and misery and still know that we are loved as far as our existence extends in Reality. We may seek understanding, but true and complete understanding will only come at the end.

For his anger endureth but a moment; in his favour is life: weeping may endure for a night, but joy cometh in the morning.

Wishing you all the very best this Paschaltide.

The Fourteenth Station: Jesus is laid in the Sepulchre.

2011-04-23T16:07:00.001Z

The Sabbath is a day of rest, because God rested on the Sabbath day. This is just one of many ways in which the events of the past few days fold Time and Space in on themselves. Is this what the writer of Genesis meant when he spoke of the seventh day upon which God rested?

And while God rests, the world just carries on as normal.

"There is no God."

"We don't need God in order to be moral people."

"God is a despicable being, a hateful, jealous, petty, abusive monster."

"Where was God when...?"

Has the world actually been paying attention?

God has nothing to prove.

We have nothing to prove.

Let's just wait for tomorrow.

Tomorrow is a whole new day.

The Thirteenth Station: Jesus is taken down from the Cross

2011-04-23T10:00:00.001Z

These hands lovingly fashioned the Universe in ways that we don't really comprehend save that we can make scientific measurements of His effects. Now they are torn with nails and lie limp and lifeless in the lap of His mother. The heart whose beat quickened at the sufferings of His children, when He cast out those blocking the way to God, when He wept at the tomb of Lazarus is still and broken by the point of a spear. There is no blood left to bleed. There is no breath left to breathe. There are no more tears, either of sadness or laughter. All is still. And cold.

The Twelfth Station: Jesus dies upon the Cross

2011-04-22T15:00:00.000Z

Nullum dicere possum.

The Eleventh Station: Jesus is Nailed to the Cross

2011-04-22T08:30:00.001Z

So why couldn't you just tie Him to the cross?

Simple pragmatics. He could be untied and escape. This way he can't escape so easily.

And He's in a position to escape?

He's got followers.

And the fact that He's exhausted before you even nail Him to the cross doesn't affect your decision?

No. It's standard practice.

Hasn't He suffered enough?

More than my job's worth not to do it. Just following orders, y'know.

The Tenth Station: Jesus is stripped of his garments

2011-04-21T08:38:00.001Z

Any dignity that Jesus has maintained is removed as the clothes are pulled from his bleeding body. Of course, we may try to preserve some of His dignity by portraying Him in a loincloth, but the fact is that He was stripped naked, His body completely exposed to the gaze of everyone, to the beating of the hot sun and the scavenging birds that would seek to peck at His corpse when the crowd has gone as they would do to all the crucified. Here is God, naked, vulnerable, exposed, shamed. How ridiculous Christians are! Is this their God, this naked bleeding little man? "Oh yes," we reply, "there is nothing more glorious, more splendid, more majestic and more generous than that."

The Ninth Station: Jesus falls the third time.

2011-04-21T08:30:00.001Z

Jesus has not really recovered from His previous fall - how could things get better? He has been given no real respite. He is not being pulled along in a tumbrell or drawn behind a horse like those in later Centuries, though the reason for these modes of transport were largely to preserve the condemned for their revolting executions. His body gives out again, and He is powerless to stop it. But then we fall frequently. Are we so powerless to stop it? If we aren't, then what's the point of the sufferings of Christ?

The Eighth Station: Jesus meets the Women of Jerusalem

2011-04-20T08:46:00.001Z

Not everyone is laughing and mocking Jesus. There is an undercurrent of weeping and wailing beneath the catcalls and hilarity. The Pharisees have not won over the people of Jerusalem entirely; there are some who refuse to be deceived based on the signs and wonders that Jesus performed but a few days before. These women make their protests and pleas more vocal; they dare to mourn the passing of Jesus openly. It is their weeping that will pass judgement on those perfidious folk who have instigated this whole travesty of justice. Just as thirty or so years previously the women of Bethlehem bewailed the loss of their children in the injustice of Herod, so these women weep for Christ, but are told to weep for themselves and their own Children. Jerusalem will fall as Jesus predicted. The mockery that rings around Him will be silenced and justice shall be delivered.

The Seventh Station: Jesus falls the second time

2011-04-20T08:30:00.000Z

You could have seen it coming. A second fall was inevitable. The human body can only take so much and, despite the aid of St Simon of Cyrene, despite the aid of St Veronica, the crushing hatred of the crowd overwhelms Jesus and his dehydration and loss of blood force Him to the floor a second time. Here is evidence that the deeds of light can easily be overshadowed by darksome things. Hatred seems more powerful than love; Violence solves the problem quicker than peaceful dialogue; instant gratification eases the itch better than putting up with the irritation. However, these are fleeting. Things sometimes have to get darker before they get lighter.

The Sixth Station: St Veronica wipes the face of Jesus

2011-04-19T08:55:00.003Z

Jesus' condition worsens and it is apparent to all that He cannot physically cope with the demands being placed upon Him. Sweat and blood pour down his face just as the previous night in the garden, during His Agony, His sweat had become so profuse as to fall like drops of blood from his forehead. Unlike last night, though, here is a moment of kindness, all too brief. St Veronica simply wipes the blood and sweat away so that they might not sting His eyes. The crowd may be shouting obscenities at Jesus, but there are people in the city who cannot remain unmoved by the Via Crucis. There are always compassionate people in the world. For their compassion to be of any more worth than superficial, they must dare to step out from the crowd at some point.

The Fifth Station: Simon of Cyrene carries the Cross

2011-04-19T08:43:00.000Z

At last, a moment of respite! It is obvious that Jesus is beginning to flag; His strength is leaving Him rapidly. The Authorities are concerned that, with the Sabbath coming, with the Passover still in full swing, and whether they can continue to control a crowd who initially welcomed Jesus into the city as He rode on a colt, this crucifixion must take place forthwith. It is not out of compassion for Jesus that they force Simon of Cyrene to carry the cross, but rather for expediency and their own convenience, lest their own dark motives be made manifest. For the innocent St Simon, he plays a part in the Salvation of Mankind. We all get to play a part in the Salvation of Mankind if we are willing to shoulder the burden.

The Fourth Station: Jesus meets His Blessed Mother

2011-04-19T08:30:00.000Z

On His way out of Jerusalem, burdened by His cross, Jesus sees His mother, the Blessed Virgin. What can this woman do but watch her son stagger bleeding and weakened while the crowd laugh and point? What emotions pierce her heart? She feels no shame but her maternal instincts to protect and tend to her wounded son are thwarted. She can only watch helplessly as the ghastly procession passes by. And Jesus too, unable to reach out for His mother's hand, is denied the comfort of one who loves Him. He is not allowed to be loved now, only to be hated.

The Third Station: Jesus falls the first time

2011-04-18T08:24:00.004Z

Having just received His cross, Jesus exhibits the cost of His treatment. Initially, He simply cannot stand under the weight of the wood. This is a Jesus who is not yet perfect: this path is the route of His perfection. Yet, despite this, His captors still insist that He carry the cross. His weakness is no excuse for Him to deprive the people of their warped pleasure to watch and jeer at Him on the way out of Jerusalem to Golgotha. You can't deprive the people of their entertainment - the show must go on!

The Second Station: Jesus receives the Cross

2011-04-18T08:16:00.003Z

Jesus is already weakened by an ordeal that has seen him flogged, crowned with thorns and mocked. His back is bleeding from the scourge; His face is black and blue from the hands of the pharisees; His forehead is scratched and bleeding. Now, He receives this dead weight of wood to carry - He does not run away from it but accepts all the suffering imposed upon Him with meekness, trusting in His heavenly Father throughout the very tribulation that He prayed He would not receive in the Garden of Gethsemane a few hours ago. He accepts His Father's will.

The First Station: Jesus is condemned to death

2011-04-18T07:47:00.003Z

Before the Via Crucis really begins, Jesus has already been deprived of His friends who have all deserted him; He has already been beaten up by the Scribes and Pharisees. Now he stands before a governor who despite boasting the pomp and glory of Rome is powerless to do anything other than capitulate to the demands of the leaders of the people who are baying for Jesus' blood. An irony that the most powerful is incapable of administering justice. The Law can only convict, it has no power to save.

Labels and Tables

2011-04-17T23:56:00.004Z

"Yea, the darkness is no darkness with thee, but the night is as clear as the day : the darkness and light to thee are both alike."

Perhaps I've been looking at things in the wrong way. When you leave a room, just before you close the door, you put the light out. There is a moment of darkness as the door clicks shut.

In the past week, I have been privileged to spend some time with the Anglican Catholics in Canterbury and in Dartford. I have, for the first time since February, received the Sacrament and had good fellowship with some interesting, kind and three-dimensional Christians.

What struck me most is that there is no naivety with them. They are operating with their eyes wide open. Their numbers are small. The Mission in Dartford is held in an upstairs room with a table as an altar pressed ad orientem against a wall. They know about their reputation which is often called into question by people who do not understand, or being damaged by the ravings of the over-educated and unauthorised few. They know how they are being labelled by those on the outside. Perhaps I too, in my own way, have not done them as much justice as I should when I have mentioned them before. Yet they still press on.

It's amazing that when a Mass is celebrated with sincerity and with care and consideration to the old, old words and what the old, old words mean, that an upstairs room bears a resemblence to Pugin's work and a former nonconformist chapel suddenly gains the dimensions of the grandest cathedrals.

If the Anglican Catholics could be summed up with a label (and they most assuredly cannot!!!) it would have to be Cuprinol. They do exactly what they say on the tin. What does this mean for me? I am still listening for God's call. I also have some very good friends who are all distant from me in Brighton, France, and across the Pond, and I have never felt closer to them. Indeed, I have been closer in koinonia to them than the members of the jurisdiction I have just left. If I am privileged enough to be walking with God, then it isn't surprising that the darkness is not all that dark.

Purity in Passiontide

2011-04-13T18:16:00.005Z

1Then Jesus six days before the passover came to Bethany, where Lazarus was which had been dead , whom he raised from the dead. 2 There they made him a supper; and Martha served : but Lazarus was one of them that sat at the table with him. 3 Then took Mary a pound of ointment of spikenard , very costly, and anointed the feet of Jesus, and wiped his feet with her hair: and the house was filled with the odour of the ointment. 4 Then saith one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot, Simon's son, which should betray him, 5 Why was not this ointment sold for three hundred pence, and given to the poor? 6 This he said , not that he cared for the poor; but because he was a thief, and had the bag, and bare what was put therein . 7 Then said Jesus, Let her alone : against the day of my burying hath she kept this. 8 For the poor always ye have with you; but me ye have not always. 9 Much people of the Jews therefore knew that he was there: and they came not for Jesus' sake only, but that they might see Lazarus also, whom he had raised from the dead. 10 But the chief priests consulted that they might put Lazarus also to death ; 11 Because that by reason of him many of the Jews went away , and believed on Jesus.

St John xii.1-11

The Life of Brian paints the Jewish people as being a fickle lot, listening to the ravings of lunatics, fanatics and weirdos as their latest whims took them. This is a little unfair. Certainly there are many itinerant preachers such as Honi the Circle Drawer prattling about the countryside and various sightings of the Messiah hither and yon, yet in a time of Roman occupation, the Jews are probably better at holding onto their heritage than at the times when they were in the ascendant.

Look at the way they held onto their faith during their captivity under the Babylonians, Assyrians and Greeks. Their Jewish heritage becomes something to cling onto when the world appears to lose its head. So why is it then that, in this time of crisis, the Jews suddenly start going away to follow Jesus? Are they so jaded and scornful of their heritage that they are easily swayed by an itinerant preacher, one who, despite claiming to be the Messiah, is not acting in the militaristic manner as they had expected?

Of course, the Pharisees see in Jesus nothing but a threat. However, do they see him as a blaspheming charlatan, or do they actually recognise some aspect of His Divinity and shudder at the prospect?

The point that they fail to see is that Jesus is not pulling people away from their heritage but drawing them further in. He is stabilising them, grounding them further in their heritage as the family of God. He tells them no lies and, were it not for the fact that He follows His claims up with signs and wonders, His claims would legitimately be seen to be the ravings of a lunatic. Lunatics, however, are not in the habit of raising people from the dead. He tells them straight: He is the Son of God. God in Passiontide makes Himself transparent to us little human beings. He does not hide his reality from us, though we cannot comprehend Him fully. There is no deceit here, for God is Truth.

And so Christ calls us to be pure. We are already transparent to Him as God for our lives lie completely open to Him, and we cannot do anything about that. However, in living our lives in purity we become transparent to our fellowmen. Christ calls us not to hide the Truth, or cross our fingers behind our back, or prevaricate with fancy words, but to let our "Yes" be a yes and our "No" be a no.

To reflect the Truth of Christ in our lives means that we have to cultivate purity. Think of how wonderful the light glistens through a glass of pure water or through a pure diamond crystal. The beauty of water and diamond arises because of its purity and how the light reacts to it.

Because Mary (Martha's sister, remember) sees Jesus' transparency to her in the way that He shares her grief at the death of Lazarus, hears her protests about why He wasn't there to heal him before he died, and then goes on to raise Lazarus from the dead, she knows that He is Who He has always claimed to be. The purity of His human nature allows the Truth of His divine nature to shine through into our understanding. So Mary treats Him as she now believes in the purity and simplicity of her heart.

The hearts of the Pharisees, however, are tainted with the concerns of this world - their social standing, the number of bums on seats in their synagogues, and their way of doing things. It is they who object to Jesus' regard for the integrity of the Jewish Heritage, not knowing that it is they who have changed it to suit their methods and promote their causes, and who are prepared to dissemble, cover up and spin in order to do so. Jesus has exposed this practice for what it is, and that's why they want to kill Him. It is the impurity of their hearts and of their motives that drives them to opposing God Himself.

The purer we become in our motives and in our worship of God, the more shall this world become transparent to us so that we see God Himself at the centre of all things. Also, in purity of living, we become transparent to this world and the more will the light of Christ shine through us before others who may, if we are indeed pure, see through us to that same Christ - and what a privilege would that be for us all!

The Scandal of the Glorious Mysteries

2011-04-02T12:44:00.008Z

There is, in some sense, an inherent dualism in Christianity and one that has been exploited too much by extremes. Too far in one direction and we find ourselves in the black and white world of the absolutist to far in the other direction and there is a denial that any distinctions are all relative and of no consequence. It occurred to me, as I was praying the Glorious Mysteries of the Rosary, just how scandalous these Mysteries are and how they set up a dichotomy whose dynamics can be exploited by our common enemy, but also, if we are prudent and seek Divine assistance, by ourselves.

The First Glorious Mystery: the Resurrection of Our Lord Jesus Christ from the Dead - the Dichotomy of Reason We are presented with a stumbling block for the non-Christian. The Resurrection pits our empiricism and desire for scientific understanding of the world against our faith in a loving God who not only dies in order to save us, but also to rise again to give us hope. Without the presence of science and the empirical evidence of our own eyes that "people do not simply rise from the dead" we lose the impact of the Resurrection, its significance for the future, and indeed any wonder in a God who can leap between possibilities to make something a reality. Without the scepticism of science, we would actually lose faith in God. Yet, without the presence of Faith, then there is no Christianity and empiricism merely traps us in a world of stories which we cannot believe to be true. Life loses meaning and we find ourselves purposelessly following a morality which now means nothing. Everything becomes permissible, even the grossest violations, because ultimately they shall pass, there is no Eternity for them to be remembered. Without Faith, the Resurrection saves no-one.

The Second Glorious Mystery: The Ascension of Our Lord into Heaven - the Dichotomy of Purity This is the stumbling block to the extreme purist. We are faced with the dichotomy of purity and involvement which reflects the dichotomy of immanence and transcendence. While the Lord walks with us, we have a focus - someone physical who can answer our questions and whose voice we can hear. With an objective physical focus we can strive to live as He wishes, for our focus drives our purity, our single mindedness on Him. The Ascension means that, in order for others to be focused, we must lose the focus. We face the challenge of living and preserving the Faith in a World that is constantly changing. God remains constant; His Word remains constant, but its surroundings do not. We can fight to keep our lives pure, withdraw them, lock them away, prevent the World from ravaging them. However, this betrays a lack of faith in God who will preserve the Faith around us. Without involving ourselves with the world, our own personal purity causes us to wither and die. On the other hand, too much involvement in the world wrests our focus away and we succumb to worldly ideas and philosophies which lead us inexorably away from the Truth by colouring it with relativistic visions and nuances. The new meanings take over and we lose what we once had because we become unaware that our focus is no longer the right focus. The waters have become muddied, our single mindedness has gone and we have been made impure and confused.

The Third Glorious Mystery: The Descent of the Holy Ghost - The Dichotomy of Authority This is the stumbling block to the relativist and anarchist. We are presented with the empowering of the individual with the power of God. This is the reverse of Babel and yet it is in someway another Babel because it scatters as well as unites. The Church becomes a group of unique individuals each with different gifts, and each with different ideas. We are thus presented with the dichotomy of the authority of individual conscience and that of the institution of the Church - differentiation versus integration. Too much individualism and there can be no leadership. It becomes less possible for the individual to trust a spiritual leader in favour of his own individual faith in the Holy Spirit whom he claims to have received. He finds that his "Holy Spirit" suddenly leads him into darksome realms. Too much institution and the Church becomes an impassive monolith intent on insuring absolute uniformity of belief and the eradication of all that is heretical, yet crushing the delicate petals of the revelation of God through the blessed individuals whom He calls to challenge the humanity of the Church and stir it up into continual conversatio morum.

The Fourth Glorious Mystery: The Assumption of Our Lady into Heaven - The Dichotomy of Reliability This is the stubling block for the Sceptic. With this being one of the few dogmata made using Papal Infallibility, we are presented with the dichotomy of fallible and infallible. While this is a variation on the above notion of authority, it points us to the problems of just how certain we can be about our faith, upon whom or what to we place our reliance? Upon God, of course, but how does he reveal Himself? Is hearing the pronunciation of a dogma from the lips of God's representative on Earth sufficient? Does it need to be "proved" from the Bible? What does "proving from the Bible" really mean? We are faced with the challenge of the reliability of Heavenly Truths being promulgated by Earthly beings, and Pope, Bible, Catechism and Creed are temporary in their very nature. If there is no reliability, how can our Faith grow? Yet, there seem to be many interpretations of the same sources, and which is reliable?

The Fifth Glorious Mystery: The Coronation of Our Lady in Heaven -the Dichotomy of Humanity. Finally, we have the stumbling block for the communist. A Pentecostal friend of mine nearly decorated the wall opposite with a mouthful of tea when I spoke of the Blessed Virgin Mary as Queen of Heaven. The problem here is the scandal of Theosis - the notion of God making Humans divine. Αὐτὸς γὰρ ἐνηνθρώπισεν, ἵνα ἡμεῖς θεοποιηθῶμεν God became Man so that Man could become God. (St Athanasius, On the Incarnation of the Word liv.) We are faced with a grave dichotomy, we either see ourselves too much as gods and thus demand worship from others, or we see no-one as gods and begin to despise any man who would dare reach out and touch the Creator or who would set himself apart from his fellow men. One smacks of Fascism, the other of Communism, especially a Communism which would rather see God abolished rather than have any man dare to try and separate himself from his humanity. We are tempted to despise our flesh in favour of our souls, or to despise our souls in favour of our flesh, and thus we divide up our very selves into a duelling dualism.

Of course, the fact is that many of these dichotomies are false or immaterial. Our existence is held in this elastic tension so that our lives can be catapulted into the arms of God. There is no dichotomy between Science and Religion. Human beings are both flesh and spirit. God is Three persons and yet only One being. The Church is both Temporal and Eternal. The Bible is indeed the inspired word of God written by human beings.

The challenge of the Rosary is to confront these dichotomies within our very selves, to address where we ourselves are inwardly biased and to appreciate that there are others who share different biases. That doesn't mean that we relinquish the notion of objective Truth and the Tradition of the Church in order to be "ecumenical" but it does mean that we try to love others of different views as much as we can.

Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death. Amen.

Leaping into the Dark II: Bethel

2011-03-27T11:18:00.006Z

Well, here I am in an ecclesiastical limbo. There are two things that are very important for me.

First, I must not emulate Lot's wife. I do not regret my decision to resign my licence, indeed perhaps this is something I should have done ages ago. I must not look back, either in regret or bitterness. There is much I could be bitter about, but it does me no good to ruminate over things that are now dead and gone, nor to demonise the agents of my departure, nor to allow these thoughts to ruin what for me is an opportunity to start afresh.

Second, I have to keep up my discipline, and not let things go. I may not have a licence anymore but I still have the training of a Reader which I've been exercising. I also have the Rule of my oblation which does give me some structure. The temptation is that, while I am not an obvious part of any worshipping community, that I am no longer bound by commitments to prayer and working the Will of God. So it is important that, while I'm on my own I should keep up the activities that I established while I was licenced and apply them in suitable situations - such as blogging. It makes sense then to keep this little blogling going while I can.

I alluded last time to the word theos having the underlying notion of "to leap" and was called up on it by a couple of friends. The information I found was from Olivier Clement's book The Roots of Christian Mysticism in which he mentions that theos comes from theirai meaning "to found" and theein "to leap" and he quotes this in context of St Theophilus of Antioch. Whether or not it is true that the word theos has this derivation, I feel certain that the idea of God the founder and foundation of the universe leaping beyond every bound, gives us a certain colour to what little we truly understand of Him. It is true that God does leap between Heaven and Earth and this immediately makes me think of the passage about Jacob's ladder:

And Jacob went out from Beersheba, and went toward Haran. And he lighted upon a certain place, and tarried there all night, because the sun was set ; and he took of the stones of that place, and put them for his pillows, and lay down in that place to sleep. And he dreamed, and behold a ladder set up on the earth, and the top of it reached to heaven: and behold the angels of God ascending and descending on it. And, behold, the LORD stood above it, and said, I am the LORD God of Abraham thy father, and the God of Isaac: the land whereon thou liest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed; And thy seed shall be as the dust of the earth, and thou shalt spread abroad to the west, and to the east, and to the north, and to the south: and in thee and in thy seed shall all the families of the earth be blessed. And, behold, I am with thee, and will keep thee in all places whither thou goest , and will bring thee again into this land; for I will not leave thee, until I have done that which I have spoken to thee of. And Jacob awaked out of his sleep, and he said, Surely the LORD is in this place; and I knew it not. And he was afraid, and said, How dreadful is this place! this is none other but the house of God, and this is the gate of heaven. And Jacob rose up early in the morning, and took the stone that he had put for his pillows, and set it up for a pillar, and poured oil upon the top of it. And he called the name of that place Bethel...

Genesis xxviii.10-19(first part)

Whine night falls upon a child of God and he can see no further forward into his journey, the it seems he must be still and rest so that he might know God better. He must set his head to rest upon the Rock of his Faith and surrender his body to the darkness, trusting in his Heavenly Father to deliver him through all perils and dangers of the night.

It is in the night-time that he will learn of his proximity to Heaven, for the ladder which bridges Heaven and Earth, upon which the Angels climb to perform their ministrations, is nothing less than the Cross of Christ. God stands with us, through his Eternal presence, through the person of His Son Who walked with us, and still walks with us now, and through the Holy Paraclete who allows us to perceive Heavenly realities. The Father's presence with us has the intimacy and interior nature of a dream, but a dream that points to hidden reality and uncovers obvious truth. If the sun sets upon our journey, we should not fear because God is in this place - the darkness and the light to Him are both alike.

Leaping into the dark.

2011-03-13T20:48:00.003Z

It's interesting that the Greek word theos has roots in the idea of leaping between positions. God is One Who leaps into being (somehow), leaps into our lives and, if we let Him, into our hearts. There are some beautiful ikons of the Theotokos in which the infant God is caught in the act of leaping into his mother's face, pressing his tiny cheek into hers seeking to know her fully. She of course lets Him, and that is what singles Our Lady out from us, not that we aren't loved fully by God.

This sort of brings me to my point. I have, perhaps for the first time in my life, made a decision. I have finally left my Parish. Having tried for so long to accommodate two rapidly diverging integrities, I have just resigned my license as Reader and will be looking for a new spiritual home. I still want to retain my membership of FiF and the Benedictines, so the withdrawal from the CofE is not fully complete, but I cannot honestly see me receiving the Sacrament in the CofE for some time.

Interestingly, the straw that broke the Camel's back was my celebration of the Angelus in which I tried to call my Parish to mind of the mystery of the Incarnation. It is not in the BCP so I was told I should either drop it or go. I chose the latter after wrestling with my conscience and all kinds of tortuous roots to try and include some devotion to Our Lady in a parish which has exterminated it, as well as any Catholicism.

So I have decided to leap into the dark and pray that I am caught in the loving arms of my Creator. I seek to trust Him fully and in the light of that trust, I shall not be disappointed. I have already made my promise of Oblation: Suscipe me, Domine, secundum eloquium tuum et vivam; et non confundas me ab expectatione mea.

As one door closes...

Faith, fear and fury

2011-02-21T13:28:00.008Z

The Internet is a remarkable thing because it can actually hide people from people under a welter of words. Writing on the Internet, or even via email, puts up this rather protective screen which allows us to in some way be separated from its intended recipient. There's a big danger to this. Just today I read this on Facebook:

"Your brain is a field of demonic weeds, and your words are like poison. God bless you."

Well, isn't this a happy little statement? The worst thing is that this statement was not - repeat not - spoken in jest, but came from the lips of what appears to be a Benedictine brother of what appears to be a very Traditional Catholic persuasion. Indeed the thread whence I have plucked this edifying soundbite contains some rather remarkable damnations from this over-excited Religious person. I wonder what St Benedict would have made of his rantings. Of course, I could not enter this fray with any words, nor really should I. What makes me mildly amused is St James' teaching on the tongue being demonstrated with curses and blessings in almost the same breath.

First, anything I would say would automatically be disregarded as the ravings of a Protestant Heretic who makes a mockery of the Catholic Church by feigning allegiance to the Pope, yet has not had the guts to Convert to the One True Faith. Second, there is nothing I would want to say because such individuals have made up their minds.

Also today, a good friend of mine gently chided me by wondering whether I regarded "liberal" as being synonymous with "bad and wrong". Of course, I replied that I didn't regard "liberal" as being synonymous with "bad and wrong" since there are "bad and wrong" things which aren't liberal. I wasn't being entirely serious, of course.

The issue in hand is Mankind's search for certainty. We need to be certain of something in our apparently brief sojourn through this weird little experience called Reality. The more everything warps and changes around us, the more we long for finding some stability, and the more we cling to the little pockets of comfort that float by us as we take our short-lived spin in this temporal Maelstrom. The more we think about our situation, the more we realise that all the things we hold onto are uncertain. This results in crises of faith and belief. There isn't a Christian out there who hasn't felt the sudden panic about the possibility that God might not actually exist. If there is, then I doubt that he has thought sufficiently about what he believes.

St Thomas Aquinas maintains that the existence of God is not self-evident, and I am inclined to believe him.

No one can mentally admit the opposite of what is self-evident; as the
Philosopher (Metaph. iv, lect. vi) states concerning the first principles of demonstration. But the opposite of the proposition "God is" can be mentally admitted: "The fool said in his heart, There is no God" (Ps. 52:1). Therefore, that God exists is not self-evident. (Book 1, Question 1, Article 1)

Whatever God is, His existence is unique. Analogies must fail, logic must break down, pictures, patterns, proofs, parables and propositions must be inadequate to describe how God can possibly exist. It is a question of faith, a faith that requires positive action in order to open one up to the indescribable existence of God.

When our faith is tested then it's very easy to give in to fear. I speak from experience here. We can and should cling to what we hold to be true. The entirety of the Christian Faith is a search for the Truth, a Truth that promises to be found by whoever seeks it, but not necessarily in the way the seeker expects. Yes, when we are afraid then we should cling onto our Faith. GOD is our hope and strength, a very present help in trouble. If, amid the storm, we can cling onto nothing else but the flimsiest thread, this is usually sufficient to bring us through. Even so, some of us lose that thread. This is a tragedy, but I am convinced that this is not the end of the story.

However, if we cast a eye over our charitable Benedictine brother above, we see something very different from taking refuge in God. Here we see a man whose understanding of Holy Church has been challenged and he seeks to defend it with all his might as a good Christian should. However, when he is out-gunned and out-manoeuvred, as we all at some point in intellectual debate, he resorts to making his understanding absolute and demonises his opponent for speaking heresy and vile blasphemy when there has been nothing of the sort. A pharisaic device, wouldn't you say?

In his first letter to the Church in Corinth (v.5), St Paul does issue the instruction "To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus". The "one" in this case is a man who has committed fornication with his own step-mother. Elsewhere, St Paul does mention to St Timothy handing Hymnaeus and Alexander over to Satan to learn that blasphemy is wrong. I get the sense that St Paul is letting these folks lie in the beds of their own making apart from the Christian brotherhood in order that they may learn the way back. This is surely the basis of Benedictine excommunication. Whatever one's interpretation of these verses from St Paul, we can be certain of what they are not. They are not condemnations to Hell.

Christians should be very wary of those who condemn others to Hell. As far as I am aware of Christian doctrine, Holy Church has no power to condemn anyone to Hell, nor does she have the power to raise anyone up to Heaven. Saints are declared to be so: the Church is able to make an official recognition through God's revelation that a person has attained the heights of Heaven. This is not the same as the Church creating her own saints, nor does she create her own sinners.

I will willingly confess to the reader that I am a sinner and have frequently, if not daily, fallen short of God's glory, but, unless you tell me, I cannot possibly say that you are a sinner. I may see you commit an act which the Church recognises to be sinful, but without knowing your mind, I have no business to say that you are a sinner. This is something that exists between yourself and God. Holy Church cannot declare someone to be a sinner.

However, there is something quite wonderful here: the Church has been given authority to forgive sins and to proclaim God's forgiveness. So here we have a God who would rather his Church proclaimed Forgiveness rather than Judgment. That's the reality of it, and it makes more sense than trying to second-guess the mind of an utterly unique being. We Christians are often chided by atheists for believing in a God who is arbitrary in His condemnation. They fail to see that this "wrathful and vengeful God" is trying very hard to convince a group of people to whom He has bestowed the capacity for free choice to choose Him freely. We will have to take the consequences of our sins, but we are being given the opportunity not to take them with us when we die. They also fail to see a God who knows that the situation is minutely complicated by the actions of myriads of myriads of free wills all possessing a fallen nature. The trouble is that it isn't just the atheists who fail to see this - sometimes it's us Christians.

But then, what do I know? I'm only a Protestant Heretic who makes a mockery of the Catholic Church by feigning allegiance to the Pope, yet has not had the guts to Convert to the One True Faith.

The Diaspora and Catholic Tortoise Disease

2011-02-09T19:07:00.004Z

For some time, the readers of this blog will note that I bewail the solitude of my condition. I am not aware of any Forward-in-Faith Anglo-Catholics within 10-15 miles of my front door. It's thus not particularly easy for me to hear Mass with like-minded folk unless I hop on two buses, hope the trains are working and that my legs haven't parted company during the week's labour. One might argue that my legs are used to parting company due to all my sitting on the fence.

I mention my plight not for everyone to go "Ah poor soul" and emit waves of sympathy, but to waken good Catholics in the CofE to something that may well befall them in the near future.

You see, the problem is that Liberalism is the easy option. It doesn't matter who you are, the parish will change its form and liturgy to entice you through the door so that you can join a little gang of people with whom you can sit down, have a nice cup of coffee, pat each other on the back, say "Oh that's nice" and "Oh what a shame!" a lot without transforming your life in any substantial way whatsoever. It isn't terribly wrong to be a nice person, but if there's no depth to one's belief, how can one be sure that one is really a Christian and not just a terribly nice Pantheist. Of course, to some Liberals, that doesn't really matter at all, but didn't Christ say that He would be ashamed of anyone who would be ashamed of Him?

I really do wonder what makes Liberal parishes any different from a Rotary club with ritual. However, the point that I'm trying to make is that Liberalism is the easy option because it does not require transformation and sacrifice which are at the heart of the Saviour's ministry. What's the point of "Back to Church" Sunday if we invite everyone to church to see how nice we all are only for them to say how nice the church is and never darken the doorstep until the next "Back to Church" Sunday?

This means that the Catholic parish is likely to be the only parish in a deanery, separated from the next by a dozen Liberal parishes. Thus the isolation of the Catholic begins - the Anglican Diaspora!

The Catholic parish is in a bit of a quandary. Suppose the vicar were to leave. God does call vicars away, so we can't blame them for going. If you've got Resolutions A, B and C in place you're basically saying that you hold some firm belief about the nature of the Church. Many priests will think, "looks like hard work" or "Hmmm. They're all misogynists so they aren't nice" and will not give the parish a second thought. Then the Rural/Area Dean/ Archdeacon/ other church official (delete whichever is inapplicable) will come along and say, "if you've got the resolutions in place then you're ruling out the possibility of getting a good priest who might not agree with you." It doesn't matter that the priests who won't touch a resolution ABC parish are clearly unsuitable for upholding the belief of the Church, the need for parish leadership and sacramental provision of any form are made to look more pressing. Lo and behold, pressure is being put on you to relinquish those resolutions in order to get a priest who in fact will want to make you all nice. This is what is happening in Deaneries all around the country. The Resolution parishes are parochiae non gratae.

Your parish might capitulate. Where does that leave you? Either with Mrs. "priest" or with a priest who is going to work to make you a nice, welcoming "inclusive" parish because you are obviously so unfriendly for believing what you do. Slowly but surely, the parish Catholics will age and die off or move away, leaving you with a rapidly shrinking group. You may even end up on your own - the last Catholic in the parish.

What do you do then?

Just as there is a temptation to lapse into Liberalism because its the easy option, there's another temptation - to wall oneself in away from others amid an appeal to forms of the Doctrine of Taint. This, I believe, is a form of acedia, a monastic vice which takes the form of dissatisfaction and withdrawal and leads to depression, sadness and spiritual lethargy - at least that's what has happened to me. This is Catholic Tortoise Disease (CTD), and I bet Fr. Hunwicke would come up with a splendid graeco-latin classification for that.

For many, this is no fault of their own but a state of existence to which they have been driven. How many isolated Catholics are there in the Church of England, trying to find a Mass on a Sunday Morning where they can be certain that the Eucharistic Mystery is celebrated according to the ancient formula without cheers, applause, hugs'n'kisses in the Peace and 52 verses of "Clap hands, here comes Jesus" and other genuinely offensive facile, banal, insubstantial bunkum. Another dangerous symptom of CTD is the level of distrust of any church official. In many cases, this is well deserved owing to the proliferation of people who say, "believe what you like" or the politically ambitious who say "believe what I believe" and then depart from the Catholic Faith. However, this suspicion and growing cynicism has the danger of further separating the individual from a worshipping congregation. They get so used to being on their own, that another person can cause difficulties. The danger is that isolated Catholics become sufferers of CTD and, with the disease (in its literal meaning: dis-ease) becoming progressively worse, disappear forever.

It is important, then, for Catholics to keep in touch with others as far as possible. If anyone does find a solitary individual, then it's going to be a major lift if they tell them that they are not alone and can put them in touch with others. The Internet is good for this. I set up the Anglican Diaspora web-forum for the very purpose of bringing Anglo-Catholics together. While there are spats and arguments, there is some confraternity there and people do get put in touch with others who can help them. You may see this as shameless self-publicising. It isn't. Catholics of any Anglican sort should be together, talking and praying and, when possible, celebrating the Mass together. I am thankful that I have been put onto some very good friends (albeit thousands of miles away), inspirational people (like Bishop Robert Mercer), holy places (like St Agatha's Landport) and magnificently supportive organisations (like the College of Readers).

The College has already provided me with much support as I wrangle with the implications of being a FiF Reader in an interregnum under a female "Rural Dean".

Truth be told, I am still lonely. Being very poor sighted makes it difficult to travel anywhere. However, I do hope to get out and about to some of the functions and meet new people. I like to think that there are actually many good Catholics still left in the CofE. Some will go to the Ordinariate. Well, they go with my applause and prayers. I can't take that step yet, perhaps I never will, but they have shown the willingness to be transformed and sacrifice what they hold dear for the sake of the Faith. CTD prevents transformation, and we have to battle it together.

But how do we find the solitary Catholic and the CTD sufferer? Over to you!