Mapping the Truth

Let’s start with Pilate.

What is Truth?

As far as I can ascertain, Truth is the correspondence between what really is and what is held in thought. It’s not the only definition of Truth but it seems the best definition that fits my thought and experience of mapping reality as accurately as possible. We look at the world around us and try to replicate what we experience in our heads. Why? Why do we need to make the correspondence? To be honest, I don’t know but it seems utterly programmed into our brains to ask that question – “Why?” We have what appears to be a natural and universal need to make this correspondence between object and its idea in order to make sense of our lives.

In mathematical parlance, Truth has the aspect of a manifold – a mathematical space of manifold dimensions (perhaps even infinitely many) which can be described by a collection of maps, charts and maximal atlases. (Be grateful, my other mathematical encounters with God have involved modelling the Truth as an operad or a quiver. I might explain those later.)

Each human being seems to have a way of mapping out the Truth – there is only one Truth as there is only on Reality – and that mapping will be faithful but only up to a point, and some mappings are more faithful than others. Some mappings will lack the true dimensionality of what is. One cannot make a map of the earth by charting every line of longitude. We just get an uncountable collection of lines with no idea as to how they fit together. Clearly the Earth’s surface is bigger, and that is why our charts have to be 2-dimensional to include longitude and latitude. If we need to take into account of the three dimensional aspect of the earth, then we need to build three dimensional models (quite why we would try and construct an accurate replica of the Earth is another matter). We reserve charts to mean maps of the right dimensionality. Charts of the Earth’s surface.

We get an accurate picture of the Earth by a collection of charts – an atlas. Each chart has the fullness of the aspect of the Earth, however it still has limits, and in order to get a better picture of the Earth we have to turn the page and note that the charts overlap at the edges so as we know how the previous chart relates to the new.

The question is, do there exist charts for the Truth? Well yes, for me, the Atlas is Christianity, the charts the fragments into which the Religion has fallen. Some aspects of Christianity are not full enough and fail to be proper charts. Others have certain fullness, but are too small in their scope – all charts get distorted towards the edges. Notice that it is mathematically impossible to get the whole of the Earth’s surface onto one chart. The chart always breaks down into a singularity or cannot extend beyond a certain point. Likewise, the charts of the Truth fail to encompass the whole Truth – singularities arise, boundaries are thrown up. But the Truth exists as an object.

Even as a mathematician, I believe that Truth is God and I believe in His Son, Jesus Christ when He said “I am the Truth” and that the Holy Ghost completes the Triune Godhead.

Why?

Because.

It’s complicated. I have no rational reason to be a Christian – indeed as a rational man (allegedly) I have every reason not to be a Christian. But belief in God is not irrational, I accept that there are things that exist and are unempirical – love, hatred, beauty, truth. The existence of God is an assumption that I have made in order to make sense of my life. One rather weak argument is that because the Universe is more complicated than human thought, either Truth does not exist or there exists a mind big enough to hold the idea of the Universe as it really is. It’s a weak argument because it assumes that Truth cannot be partial. However, if the Truth is partial, then scientists have no hope ever of finding a theory of everything!

The only way that I can prove that God does not exist is to assume that He does exist in show that this leads to a logical contradiction. However, I have subjective reasons to believe that He does, and that is enough to convince me that He exists and that He wants me to exist as well. For me this is enough to convince me that I am loved by God.

In wanting me to exist, God wants me also to know that He exists and in order to do that, He must reveal Himself to me, but also to all people, since He has decided that He wants other people to exist too. What is the nature of His revelation? How does He tell us about Himself?

Well, He tells us about Himself by talking to us. However, there’s a problem in that we have been given some freedom. If God loves us by wanting us to be in the first place, then He could just be in absolute control over us. We human beings are witness to activity within our species that some human beings do not want other human beings to be. Has God wanted some people to be only for them to have their existence taken away again? Well, yes, that is possible, but it does not seem consistent to me, and if I am to believe in God, then I must also believe that He is consistent. If God wants all humans that are to be, and some humans do not want other humans to be, then it must be that human beings are free to choose whether to follow God, or not to follow God.

So we then have a choice, to hear God or not to hear God. However, we now have the ability and propensity to be deceived by others. Even in our own selves do we have conflicting voices in our heads, to the extent that, ab initio, we cannot tell the voice of God from the other voices in our world.

So human beings need a reliable revelation that comes from God – a revelation that does not err or change in Time because God does not change in Time. Where is this revelation? We have the Holy Scriptures, but these Scriptures have been written at a particular point in the past. Nowhere in the Bible will we find explicit reference to the internet, to women priests, to the Holy Trinity (amendments to I John v notwithstanding). Thus there is a need for the Scriptures to be interpreted reliably. Also the revelation of God in Christ existed before the Scriptures were written down, so it is not enough to assume that all the revelation of God is contained in Holy Writ.

So here we are. We’ve arrived at the notion of Infallibility – the need for the revelation of God, His Truth and His teaching about Himself to humanity to be taught reliably, without error and without the possibility of error. If God wants all human beings to be, and we have this strange mysterious phenomenon call Time whereby human beings appear and disappear from sight in the space of a century or less, then there has to be a reliable transmission of that teaching from the beginning to the end, there has to be Infallibility.

Is it possible for human beings to be infallible? Well, Holy Scripture was written by human beings. We know that St Paul was a sinner, yet he wrote the letters which have been incorporated into Holy Scripture. What St Paul wrote must have been Infallible. Likewise St Peter, who was wrong in what he practised when he refused to sit down and eat with Gentiles, nonetheless wrote letters and preached sermons which have been preserved into Holy Writ. Despite the fact that he acted in error, and spoke in error, the teaching that he broadcast in Scripture is infallible, and this infallibility existed before the Scriptures were written down.

It is clear then that the teaching of the Church is infallible; it has to be, otherwise there is no revelation of God from the beginning. It is also clear that our own understanding of the Truth has developed in Time. The Holy Trinity has always existed, but our interaction with that Holy Trinity has not because we have not always existed. How is it that the strange mountain god of the Israelites develops into the more convoluted and transcendent Being of the Three-in-One? Well, He doesn’t develop, we do! This development cannot stop because the Truth is infinite in extent. The Church possesses the fullness of Truth. What does this mean?

It means that, although we never have the entirety of the Truth accessible to us at any one moment in Time, the Church will continue to teach the Truth as it is revealed to us in Time until that Truth is completed as predicted in I Corinthians xiii. This teaching is necessarily infallible even though individual human teachers do err. However, as we have seen, there are conditions in which human beings accurately and infallibly communicate the Truth. The Church has decided which books of the Bible are infallible and which are not, which contain true teaching and which do not. That decision itself must have been made infallibly otherwise humanity has no hope of knowing what the Truth is about God and His love for us.

If human understanding about God develops, how can we be sure that our development is correct? We do have the Vincentian Canon – quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus – i.e. that we are to believe whatever has been believed everywhere, always and by everyone. The trouble with the Vincentian Canon is that we cannot say what is the Truth about the humanity and divinity of Christ, because some folk in the past have held the teaching Creed of Nicaea a priori, and other have wandered into what we now understand as the heresies of Arianism, Apollinarianism, Nestorianism and Patripassionism to name but a few. Isn’t it a bit convenient to say that those who are heretics do not contribute to the Vincentian Canon?

However, the Truth has always been held infallibly by the Church. Thus, in Time we can be assured that the Truth will be apparent in times of doctrinal disorder. That Arianism, et c. have failed to prosper is an application of the testimony of Gamaliel to the Church. Thus in following the teaching of the Church from the Creeds, we can be absolutely certain that we follow the Christian Verity.

In this time of plurality of Christian Doctrine, and without the benefit of hindsight how can we be sure that the teaching to we hold now is not heretical? Considering that there were large numbers of powerful bishops and priests and even Popes who were Arian in their belief, the weight of numbers, nor the office of individuals is not sufficient to determine orthodoxy.

Looking at the Creeds, it is clear that, although not all the credal statements appear specifically in Scripture, they have their seeds in Scripture, and they have a clear development in Tradition from those seeds. This is precisely why I believe that women cannot be priests – there is no scriptural seed, and no traditional development. The doctrine of female orders has no basis in history. It is not a singularity of the chart, it is a discontinuity from the chart of Truth, and a chart fails to be a chart if it is discontinuous.

But still the question remains, to whom do I listen over a point of more complicated debate? The Roman Catholics would say that it is from the infallible statements of the Holy Father. But does the Holy Father possess infallibility ex officio?

The seed, we are told is, Matthew xvi:18b-19: Thou art Peter and upon this rock will I build my Church. The implication is that the Lord’s metaphorical rock implies that the teaching of St Peter cannot err. However, are we told that is a property that will be transferred to all of St Peter’s successors in the See of Rome? Nonetheless, this is just a tiny seed, and lo and behold it has indeed developed into the Doctrine of Papal Infallibility that we see defined formally at the first Vatican Council in 1870. The seed exist, and the organic growth exists with all the glitches, snags and underhand machinations that dogged the development of the Nicene Creed. One might recall the parable of the mustard seed and apply it to this tiny little piece of scriptural evidence. However the problem is that not all the Church affirms the doctrine.

The Roman Catholic Church has the fullness of truth meaning that as humanity grows and extends its relationship with God, the chart of Truth grows in its extent with the correct dimensionality – it does not lose its scope. However, it is limited by Time. Within its chart is Papal Infallibility which is true, but appears not to be true in Orthodoxy nor Prayer-book Anglicanism because these do not have that in the overlap between the charts. You can’t turn the page of Truth’s atlas from the Roman Catholic Chart to the Prayer-book Anglican Chart and find Papal Infallibility on both pages. You would fing more overlap with the Anglican Papalist pages, but again the charts distort at their edges. That doesn’t mean that they cease to be true but rather they give a false impression – like the North Pole in a stereographic projection.

I believe Papal Infallibility to be true. I believe that the Pope is the Vicar of Christ, the Supreme Head of the Church on Earth. I hold Anglicanism to be a valid and fully coherent expression of Christianity, though I do not subscribe to the full XXXIX articles because I do not see that they follow the Vincentian Canon and some are downright false (if they aren’t, then why are there Roman Catholic in England thus violating XXXVII?), nor do I believe that they define Anglicanism as it existed before they were written. However, others do and with good reason which does fit in with the Vincentian Canon. The same is true for the Orthodox, the Old Catholics (who have remained true to Catholicism).

The key issue is Time, and sometimes we act as if we should have all the answers to our disagreements here and now. If we keep pushing at the boundaries of the extent of our charts, may be they’ll move, and maybe they won’t but the act of trying means that we encounter a better view of the Truth as an objective reality. This growth can only come with God’s grace and our humility. We have to accept the limitations of the Temporal Church’s understanding of the Truth but hold to Our Faith and Hope that the Church does have the full Truth. We just have to submit to her teaching in the Chart in which we have found ourselves born and brought up.

A choral analogy

As I struggle through trying to understand my Anglican Papalism (which my friends on the Diaspora help me to do one way or another) I am struck by some of the wonderful polychoral pieces by folk such as Striggio, Josquin, Gabrieli and Palestrina, and the master Tallis (and before anyone points out that Striggio's newly rediscovered mass in 60 parts trounces Tallis, I point out that the trounce is purely numerical and not qualitative) - how they all manage literally to sing from the same hymn sheet yet make such a wonderful noise - dissonances, resolutions, suspensions, arching melodies calling and answering.

And so I reflect on that with regard to our relationship with Rome and with the East (don't think that because I'm a Papalist I want to forget about the East - indeed it's through the East that I believe a better Anglican-Roman reunion may come) it seems to me that this is what we should be, three large choirs singing from the same hymn sheet, each with different mixtures of different types of voices.

The question is, what's the hymn sheet we should be using? Can we agree?

Questions for the fish and the fowl.

Of course, I'm neither(!) The members of the Holy See do not regard me as Catholic, and several members of the Anglican Church do not see me as Anglican.

However much I love and respect both aspects of my Christianity, I do have questions that need to be addressed.

To the Roman Catholic: You are of course committed to the unity of the Church in obedience to the Lord's desire for One Church, and I know that you wouldn't wish to place obstacles into that unity. What are you doing to address what are legitimate concerns that Anglicans have what they perceive as Roman Catholic innovations, namely Papal Supremacy and Infallibility, and the enforced subscription to dogma such as Transubstantiation? If you really want Anglicans to be convinced to return to full communion with you, then you will need to listen carefully about their concerns, and answer them fully and kindly with a view to that unity. What are you doing to counter wilful Anglicanophobia from within your Church in order to show the Love of God to your offspring?

To the Anglican: You are also, of course committed to the unity of the Church in obedience to the Lord's desire for One Church. What are you doing to address the legitimate concern that the constant fragmentation of Anglicanism into smaller and smaller units is nothing to do with the Protestant tendency to choose self-rule over submission to authority? How are you working to convince the Pope of the wonderful integrity that your heritage possesses so that he will use his keys to bind the churches together? Further, what are you doing to remove any Anti-Roman sentiments which place an obstacle in the way of a loving reconciliation with one of your parents?

I am looking for more questions to ask. I haven't as yet found either the words or the brainspace for them.

Is there a justification of Anglo-Papalism? (II)

The more I look at the position of Anglican Papalism as a movement, the less confused I feel that I am. Again, I know of critics on the Roman side who say that I am in sin, and there are critics on the Anglo-Catholic side who object to the claims of the Holy See.

Having published Fr. Spencer Jones' 28 observations below, I find myself very able to affirm my position of being "neither fish nor foul" in the eyes of almost everyone else.

Anglican Papalists have a mission, and a worthy mission at that. We are not out to "sell out" the fullness of Anglicanism to a foreign power, nor are we demanding capitulation of Roman Doctrine to accommodate Anglican demands. In the eyes of the Holy See, we are already part of the church albeit as a group of individuals rather than an episcopal body. As Anglicans, we already affirm ourselves to be part of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. Our mission is for the reunion of these two great edifices, both of whom are suffering the excessive demands of the age.

We accept the claims of Rome to be true, but acknowledge (and encourage deeply) that these claims need to be debated, discussed and examined carefully. This takes much time, patience and understanding but, according to Fr. Jones' articles, the solution is out there in the hearts of Christians and in the structures which exist right at this very moment in time. If we are afraid of Infallibility we must ascertain whether this fear is justifiable or whether it is a lack of faith in the promises God made to the Church. If we are afraid of universal jurisdiction then is this a disinclination to be ruled, or is this a genuine concern of the amount of power and authority one man can receive? We have to examine ourselves first before we examine the Church.

Despite the Innocentian decrees, we feel that individual secession is not the way forward - it does not help us solve the problem, and that is the raison d'etre of the Anglican Papalist. There is a problem that needs to be solved - Catholic Disunity. We have the means to solve it, though we need the patience, understanding, time and gumption to see it through, so individual secession is precisely that - an individual decision based on conscience.

We also accept that the claims of Rome and the existence of the Anglican Church are divergent. The position of the Pope as having universal jurisdiction and infallibility will always be a sticking point unless there is debate as to how there may be unity from this. If the Orthodox Churches can be reunited, then so can the Anglican Church, though we need Papal assistance to do so.

We also acknowledge that the Protestant parts of the Anglican Communion have made our position very difficult in their acceptance of divergent doctrine which has resulted in ARCIC being a nominal body at best. The fact that there is a continual polarisation of the Communion is a good thing, if I'm honest. We need clear lines along which to move. There are parts of Anglicanism which are better suited to reunion than others. The trouble is that they are diverse and scattered in the diaspora so as to give the Holy See little idea of the level of conformity. The Continuum needs to shake off the thoroughly undeserved, yet palpable, image of being a bunch of divisive malcontents who only want their own way and promote their clear, Catholic and Apostolic identity. Reunion can only come when the Holy See has a significant body with which to debate.

Certainly in the Church of England and especially in ECUSA, there is the greater problem of being identified with heterodox and heretical teaching being promulgated as "acceptable" - actually not just acceptable, the phrase used is "consonant with Anglican understanding". It makes no difference if an Archbishop, or synod or indeed an entire communion agrees it - heresy is not consonant with Anglican understanding, and the fact that there is much discontent within the Anglican Communion over the recent alterations to the faith demonstrates clearly that there is no consonance - this contrary to the Vincentian Canon.

This has resulted in many good and faithful Anglicans within the C of E and ECUSA as getting tarred with the same brush as the revisionists and relativists by the Continuum and by the Holy See. How can a faithful Anglican remain part of the Communion?

Again for me, two issues dominate. The first is the personal issue - there is nowhere else for me. The second is that, again, leaving the situation does not solve the problem. It might appear to be a hopeless cause, but surely the fact that it looks hopeless is no reason for us not to try to sort out these problems.
It would make a great deal of sense for there to be a clear split between Protestants and Catholics in the Anglican Church. Yes, I'm advocating a form of schism - the anathema of the Papalist ideal - but I think it is necessary for Protestants with their female "priests" and their "new takes" on the Gospel to walk apart for a while, while the Catholics seek to rebuild a damaged Church. In fact I think it would be better to have a form of Benedictine excommunication, remaining part of the community only clearly separated. Only when this has been achieved can we begin a good dialogue with the Protestants and find some common ground.

I maintain that Anglican Papalism is justified in its existence. The ideal is there, however hopeless the cause may be. We may face more knocks than most, but that's the price we get for trying to bridge a gap. However, the veracity and sincerity of our intentions will be judged by God alone. I certainly pray for His blessing on the endeavours of all who strive for the unity and love between Christians.

The 28 Articles of Anglican Papalism

In his book England and the Holy See, Fr. Spencer Jones outlines 28 observations that constitute the basic tenets of Anglican Papalism. I believe that these should set the tone for Anglican relationships with Rome.

1. That Christendom is divided against itself.
2. That a house divided against itself cannot stand,
3. That our Lord meant us to be one.
4. That it is our duty, therefore, to compose our
   quarrels.
5. That he has endued us with the power to do so.
6. That this power discovers itself in the work of the Holy Spirit on the part of God, and in prayer and labour on the part of man.
7. That it was to the Church regarded as one that our Lord vouchsafed the promise of His presence.
8. That the enterprise of Re-union is, therefore, genuine since its purpose is divine.
9. That a "divine ideal must be capable of fulfilment."
10. That as a matter of history no other form or principle of Government has been able to come near to the Holy See in its power to keep together in the bond of a living fellowship so many thousands of Christians.
11. That the Communion of Rome is conspicuous in the records of Scripture ("I thank God that your faith is spoken of throughout all the world") ; and appears at once unique and conspicuous in the subsequent records of the Church.
12. That the See of Rome is the Apostolic See and is destined to become the visible centre of Christendom.
13. That Rome is in fact the mother of English Christianity.
14. That Reunion, for the English Church, signifies Reunion with the Church of Rome.
15. That England cannot formally remain as she is except in so far as she is infallible.
16. That Rome cannot formally cease to be what she is since she claims to be infallible.
17. That two cannot continue to agree except they walk together.
18. That fellowship and communion are therefore necessary if faith is to continue one.
19. That two cannot walk together except they be agreed.
20. That it is therefore necessary to study the belief of other Communions before we oppose them or unite with them.
21. That a more extended recovery of contact is calculated to destroy prejudice and thereby to prepare the way for Communion.
22. That since "large changes and adaptations of belief are possible within the limits of the same unchanging formulae," explanation will be found in fact to remove misunderstandings and to reduce the distance between us;
23. That time, which is an "element in all growth," has already effected much.
24. That circumstances which alter cases do thereby, and so far determine duties.
25. That movements, therefore, which may be inexpedient at one point of time may come to be wise and proper at another.
26. That fair and free discussion as distinguished from the recommendation of practical steps will serve to prepare us for conjunctures.
27. That Reunion has come at length to be frankly recognised both as an idea and a necessity among all Communities of Christians ; and that the same freedom of discussion must be allowed in relation to Rome as is universally permitted in all other directions.
28. And that at all times and under all circumstances " love is the fulfilling of the law."

Articles 15 and 16 issue a rather interesting challenge to modernists and revisionists, don't you think?

New Message Board

Well, I've taken the bull by the horns and set up a new message board.

http://anglodiaspora.proboards85.com/

"Why?" you ask and well you might.

My reason is essentially to help bring together a community of like-minded folk who are scattered across the world and have little recourse to Anglo-Catholic or Anglican Papalist worship. These are the folk who have to make do with what they have got and is usually the best of a bad lot.

My intention is that this board be friendly, with an intellectual flavour, as is the Tractarian wont, but not taking itself too seriously. I hope that there will be a good heated debate on points of Anglican order, but with good humour, and a healthy respect for everyone. I certainly do not want to exclude people from ECUSA or the C of E, after all, there are many of us who, for a catalogue of reasons have nowhere else to, nor wish to.

I'm still experiencing teething troubles as I get used to the software, but please bear with me. I hope you'll consider joining up and striking up a conversation.

Calculating the Cost of Infallibility II: Fogey forces the fence.

Well, first a thank you to Young Fogey who has forced my hand on this issue. I do need to think about it because it is a central and difficult claim that is made by the Holy See. Am I an Anglican Papalist if I do not accept the Infallibility of the Pope?

I confess that I find it difficult. Infallibility means that when you ask for the Truth in a matter, the correct answer is always given, like the calculator I describe below. Thus Papal Infallibility means that when a question arises about the truth of doctrine, the Pope is capable of uttering that truth without error.

I don't see that as much of a problem. The Church is infallible, and there must be a way for that infallibility to be expressed definitively. It makes sense then that the definitive and united voice of that infallibility should be the head of the Church, the successor to St Peter. I accept it because I accept the Holy See as being the One True Church. I am therfore bound by the teachings of the Church. This does not mean that I do not have doubts and difficulties with what she teaches - I am only human, despite what my pupils may say!

So why am I vacillating as usual?

To be honest, the source of my indecision lies in my Anglican scepticism. Non-Papal Anglicanism and the Orthodox churches do not accept this doctrine of Infallibility, and Anglicanism is very much a part of me. As I intimate below, it is the conditions of Infallibility that perplex me. If Anglican Orders are null and void then clearly Papal Infallibility works because (as Young Fogey comments) members of the Anglican Church are still members of the One True Church but not as a corporation, rather as individuals, thus Rome does not have to consult Canterbury in order to establish whether a doctrine has been truly established by the Church and thus may be Infallibly pronounced. If Anglican Orders are not null and void then there is a problem. And quite where do the Orthodox Churches whose orders are recognised fit in?

On the real face of it, the practicality of Papal Infallibility is not problematic. There have only been two Infallible statements, both concerning the nature of Our Lady, namely the Immaculate Conception and her Assumption, neither of which cause major problems with in Roman and Easter relations, and I suspect that the majority of Anglican Catholics (or Catholic Anglicans) may only really disagree with them on the grounds that they were Infallibly pronounced. Another cause for me to doubt is the authentic faith and theological integrity of the Protestant Catholics like Fr. Hart, who ask difficult and challenging questions, and challenge the claims of Roman Dogma.

It is only the idea of Infallibility that is irksome, that one Bishop has a precedence over the rest. I would certainly be more comfortable if there were twelve Patriarchs each holding a See founded, like Rome, by one holding a direct succession to one of the original Twelve which held council and then Infallible statements uttered by their chief, the successor of St Peter. However, the Church doesn't exist to make me comfortable, but rather to ensure that I keep awake and thinking.

So critics of Anglican Papalism will say "Aha, you hold to Papal Infallibility. That means unless you secede immediately, you are in mortal sin." I have already confessed my need for Rome. I am repenting, meaning that I am turning around and making my way there, dragging behind me the entirety of my Anglican tradition which remains utterly valid in the faith, and possesses an integrity that Rome needs. It is heavy and my progress will be slow, and like an ant trying to make off with the Shroud of Turin singlehandedly, I'm going to have a tough time. But confess, repent, and be absolved, that is the Catholic formula for reconciliation which I believe I am following.

Calculating the cost of Infallibility

Situation A: Your calculator has a missing digit, the number 9. The number does come up on the display rather well, but you can't press 9 to bring it up because the button isn't there. You can make any calculation you like still, and the calculator will still give you the right answer. You might just have to store 8+1 in the memory or something like that. It works perfectly well. It tells the full truth, to all intents and purposes it is intact, but clearly there is something missing.

Question 1: is the 9 key necessary?
Question 2: is the calculator complete?

Situation B: Your calculator has all its keys intact, all the digits, all the operations including the mysterious button marked "!" (Perhaps you know what that's for.) However, the 9 key offends you in some way. Perhaps it's sticky or squeaks or calls you "big nose" every time you press it. Perhaps it offends you to the extent that you refuse to use it. The calculator is absolutely complete. Again, it will do any calculation you give it. Again, perhaps you've even stored 8+1 into its memory so that you do not have to press that disgusting 9 button. It is a working calculator and gives the true answer.

Question 1: is this calculator any different from a calculator without a 9 button?
Question 2: how infallible is a calculator when there is an objection as to which buttons can be pressed?

It's this last question which intrigues me here. A calculator is always reliable - it is the operator who is not. The calculator will only ever answer truthfully the question it is asked, but if you ask the wrong question, then the answer the calculator gives you will be of no use, and indeed misleading. If one then has an objection as to how that calculator is to be used then that will limit both the questions that can be asked and the interpretation of the result.

Now consider:

(From the First Vatican Council,)we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when:in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable.

There's an issue here that bugs me. Is there an equation of church and christianity here or not?

As an Orthodox Anglican, am I part of the Church? I know that the Holy See regards me as a Christian from paragraph 818 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. However, the same paragraph suggests that I am not regarded as a member of the Church, but a "brother in the Lord". It looks rather ambiguous to me. If the (Orthodox) Anglican Church is Christian and included within the Holy See then the Holy Father is indeed our teacher and shepherd and thus his infallible statements apply to us, but then are we excluded from Communion because there is no uniform acceptance of the Infallibility (not authority) of the Pope? That was not why the Schism happened, and Infallibility has only been expressed since Vatican I. So why are we excluded from Communion?

If we are excommunicate then we are not part of the Body of Christ, i.e. the Church. But then we cannot be Christians, because a Christian necessarily belongs to the Church. However, the Catechism calls us Christians, so are we in the Church?

If we are in the Church, then the Pope is not infallible because that is not what the Anglican Church or the Orthodox churches have accepted following the Vincentian Canon.

If we are not in the Church, but are Christians (though how that works escapes me) then the Pope cannot make Infallible statements which apply to all Christians because they only apply to the Church according to the statement of the first Vatican Council.

If we are not Christians, then Rome contradicts herself in her own Catechism.

The One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church is indeed infallible. It is only when we start to disregard parts of it because they offend us that the answers to our search become distorted and lose coherence, just like taking umbrage against the number 9 on the calculator. If the Pope is infallible (I certainly accept his authority, but I have yet to be convinced of infallibility) then he can only be so when he regards the (Orthodox) Anglican Church and the Orthodox Church as part of his consideration as and when he makes infallible pronouncements. There have been only two which I consider within my conscience to be very much the correct doctrine. That's not private judgement, Cardinal Newman spoke very highly of the importance of the individual conscience.

Infallibility of the Pope after consultation?

Possible.

Romancing the Catholics?

What is the difference between an Anglican Papalist and a Romaniser?

Fr. Brooke Lunn explains that a Romanizer is "a person esp. an Anglican, who favours or adopts the practices of the Roman Catholic church... Thus Anglican Papalism is not to be confused with Romanizers. The former belongs in the realm of ideas, the latter in the real of phenomena. The phenomena of Romanizers are relatively easy to perceive. The idea of Anglican Papalism requires much more application in order to begin to comprehend it."

He goes on to mention, "Anglican Papalists recognise both the Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church in England as rightfully claiming descent from the undivided Church in England before the sixteenth century schism." (emphasis mine)

I don't pretend to be learned enough to understand all the fine theological wranglings of the 16th Century - to be honest I don't have all that much time. I believe strongly that there are some very strong orthodox threads which connect pre-Reformation and post-Reformation Anglicanism. However, that doesn't justify the split that occurred, nor keeping the split going. As I say, Anglican Papalism shouldn't exist; we are merely a means to an end.

Below I post the Tridentine Creed. Tridentine Anglican Papalism sees this as the document containing the essentials that need to be discussed and debated over before doctrinal agreements are made. Modern Anglican Papalism would take the key text to be the Catechism of the Catholic Church. It's a text that I intend to study at length and I hope in the future to post one or two of my musings on the teachings therein.

The Tridentine Creed.

How far can you go with this?

Ego N. firma fide credo et profiteor omnia et singula, quae continentur in Symbolo, quo Sancta Romana ecclesia utitur, videlicet:

Credo in unum Deum, Patrem omnipotentem, factorem caeli et terrae, visibilium omnium et invisibilium. Et in unum Dominum Iesum Christum, Filium Dei unigenitum, et ex Patre natum ante omnia saecula. Deum de Deo, Lumen de Lumine, Deum verum de Deo vero, genitum non factum, consubstantialem Patri; per quem omnia facta sunt. Qui propter nos homines et propter nostram salutem descendit de caelis. Et incarnatus est de Spiritu Sancto ex Maria Virgine, et homo factus est. Crucifixus etiam pro nobis sub Pontio Pilato, passus et sepultus est, et resurrexit tertia die, secundum Scripturas, et ascendit in caelum, sedet ad dexteram Patris. Et iterum venturus est cum gloria, iudicare vivos et mortuos, cuius regni non erit finis. Et in Spiritum Sanctum, Dominum et vivificantem, qui ex Patre Filioque procedit. Qui cum Patre et Filio simul adoratur et conglorificatur: qui locutus est per prophetas. Et unam, sanctam, catholicam et apostolicam Ecclesiam. Confiteor unum baptisma in remissionem peccatorum. Et expecto resurrectionem mortuorum, et vitam venturi saeculi. Amen.

Apostolicas et ecclesiasticas traditiones reliquasque eiusdem ecclesiae observationes et consitutiones firmissime admitto et amplector.

Item sacram Scripturam iuxta sensum eum, quem tenuit et tenet sancta mater Ecclesia, cuius et iudicare de vero sensu et interpretatione sacrarum Scripturarum, admitto, nec eam umquam nisi iuxta unanimem consensum Patrum accipiam et interpretabor.

Profiteor quoque septem esse vere et proprie Sacramenta novae legis, a Iesu Christo Domino nostro instituta, atque ad salutem humani generis, licet non omnia singulis, necessaria: scilicet Baptismum, Confirmationem, Eucharistiam, Poenitentiam, Extremam Unctionem, Ordinem et Matrimonium, illaque gratiam conferre, et ex his Baptismum, Confirmationem et Ordinem sine sacrilegio reiterari non posse.

Receptos quoque et approbatos ecclesiae catholicae ritus in supradictorum omnium Sacramentorum solemni administratione recipio et admitto.

Omnia et singula, quae de peccato originali et de iustificatione in sacrosancta Tridentina Synodo definita et declarata fuerunt, amplector et recipio.

Profiteor pariter, in Missa oferri Deo verum, proprium et propitiatorium sacrificium pro vivis et defunctis, atque in sanctissimo Eucharistiae Sacramento esse vere, realiter et substantialiter Corpus et Sanguinem, una cum anima et divinitate Domini nostri Iesu Christi, fierique conversionem totius substantiae panis in Corpus at totius substantiae vini in Sanguinem, quam conversionem Ecclesia catholica transsubstantiationem appellat. Fateor etiam sub altera tantum specie totum atque integrum Christum verumque Sacramentum sumi.

Constanter teneo, purgatorium esse, animasque ibi detentas fidelium suffragiis iuvari. Similiter et Sanctos, una cum Christo regnantes, venerandos atque invocandos esse, eosque orationes Deo pro nobis offerre, atque eorum reliquias esse venerandas.

Firmissime assero, imagines Christi ac Deiparae semper Virginis, necnon aliorum Sanctorum habendas et retiendas esse, atque eis debitum honorem et venerationem impertiendum.

Indulgentiarum etiam potestatem a Christo in Ecclesia relictam fuisse, illarumque usu christiano populo maxime salutarem esse affirmo.

Sanctam catholicam et apostolicam Ecclesiam romanam omnium ecclesiarum matrem et magistram agnosco, Romanoque Pontifici, beati Petri, Apostolorum principis, successori, ac Iesu Christi Vicario, veram obedientiam spondeo ac iuro.

Cetera item omnia a sacris canonibus et oecumenicis Conciliis, ac praecipue a sacrosancta Tridentina Synodo, et ab oecumenico Concilio Vaticano tradita, definita et declarata, praesertim de Romani Pontificis primatu et infallibili magesterio indubitanter recipio ac profiteor; simulaque contraria omnia, atque haereses quascumque ab Ecclesia damnatas et reiectas et anathematizatas ego pariter damno, reicio, et anathematizo.

Hanc veram catholicam fidem, extra quam nemo salvus esse potest, quam in praesenti sponte profiteor et veraciter teneo, eamdem integram, et inviolatam usque ad extremum vitae spiritum, constantissime, Deo adiuvante, retinere et confiteri, atque a meis subditis, vel illis, quorum cura ad me in munere meo spectabit, teneri, doceri et praedicari, quantum in me erit, curaturum, ego idem N. spondeo, voveo ac iuro. Sic me Deus adiuvet et haec sancta Dei Evangelia.

I, N, with a firm faith believe and profess each and everything which is contained in the Creed which the Holy Roman Church maketh use of. To wit:

I believe in one God, The Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the Only-begotten Son of God. Born of the Father before all ages. God of God, Light of Light, true God of true God. Begotten, not made, of one substance with the Father. By whom all things were made. Who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven. And became incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the Virgin Mary: and was made man. He was also crucified for us, suffered under Pontius Pilate, and was buried. And on the third day He rose again according to the Scriptures. He ascended into heaven and sits at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead and His kingdom will have no end. And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of life, Who proceeds from the Father and the Son. Who together with the Father and the Son is adored and glorified, and who spoke through the prophets. And one holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. I confess one baptism for the forgiveness of sins and I await the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come. Amen.

I most steadfastly admit and embrace Apostolical and ecclesiastical traditions, and all other observances and constitutions of the Church.

I also admit the Holy Scripture according to that sense which our holy mother the Church hath held, and doth hold, to whom it belongeth to judge of the true sense and interpretations of the Scriptures. Neither will I ever take and interpret them otherwise than according to the unanimous consent of the Fathers.

I also profess that there are truly and properly Seven Sacraments of the New Law, instituted by Jesus Christ our Lord, and necessary for the salvation of mankind, though not all for every one; to wit, Baptism, Confirmation, Eucharist, Penance, Extreme Unction, Holy Orders, and Matrimony; and that they confer grace; and that of these, Baptism, Confirmation, and Holy Orders cannot be reiterated without sacrilege.

I also receive and admit the received and approved ceremonies of the Catholic Church in the solemn administration of the aforesaid sacraments.

I embrace and receive all and every one of the things which have been defined and declared in the holy Council of Trent concerning original sin and justification.

I profess, likewise, that in the Mass there is offered to God a true, proper, and propitiatory sacrifice for the living and the dead; and that in the most holy sacrament of the Eucharist there is truly, really, and substantially, the Body and Blood, together with the soul and divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ; and that there is made a conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the Body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the Blood, which conversion the Catholic Church calls Transubstantiation. I also confess that under either kind alone Christ is received whole and entire, and a true sacrament.

I constantly hold that there is a Purgatory, and that the souls therein detained are helped by the suffrages of the faithful. Likewise, that the saints, reigning together with Christ, are to be honored and invoked, and that they offer prayers to God for us, and that their relics are to be venerated.

I most firmly assert that the images of Christ, of the Mother of God, ever virgin, and also of other Saints, ought to be had and retained, and that due honor and veneration is to be given them.

I also affirm that the power of indulgences was left by Christ in the Church, and that the use of them is most wholesome to Christian people.

I acknowledge the Holy Catholic Apostolic Roman Church as the mother and mistress of all churches; and I promise true obedience to the Bishop of Rome, successor to St. Peter, Prince of the Apostles, and Vicar of Jesus Christ.

I likewise undoubtedly receive and profess all other things delivered, defined, and declared by the sacred Canons, and general Councils, and particularly by the holy Council of Trent, and by the ecumenical Council of the Vatican, particularly concerning the primacy of the Roman Pontiff and his infallible teaching. I condemn, reject, and anathematize all things contrary thereto, and all heresies which the Church hath condemned, rejected, and anathematized.

This true Catholic faith, outside of which no one can be saved, which I now freely profess and to which I truly adhere, inviolate and with firm constancy until the last breath of life, I do so profess and swear to maintain with the help of God. And I shall strive, as far as possible, that this same faith shall be held, taught, and professed by all those over whom I have charge. I N. do so pledge, promise, and swear, so help me God and these Holy Gospels.

The mark of Anglican-Papalism

It's the Anglican Papalists' week of the year! Yes, this is where we made our mark on the Liturgical Kalendar. Hooray for Frs. Coutourier, Jones and Wattson!

As an Anglo-Papalist, I do feel that the past year has proved very taxing, after all a) there aren't many of us left, b) our theology could stand some tidying up and c) we do not seem to be particularly well thought of either by Rome or by Anglo-Catholics who would rather we got off the fence and actually chose our jurisdiction. Personally, I'm not even sure the fence exists.

Against Anglo-Papalists, the main comment runs along the lines of:

"If you believe that the Roman Catholic Church possess the fullness, then according to their teaching you are in a state of mortal sin by delaying your Tiberian plunge yet another minute."

It's a good point, however to my unlearned mind, sin of any kind requires repentance - a turning back of the soul to the right path. One confesses and repents and is absolved. I have argued that Anglican Papalism is less a Community and more of a Movement in both its literal and communal terms. Thus the repentance that Anglican Papalism offers is that of the active striving to move the Anglican Church closer to Rome. Our absolution may not be immediate, but surely it will come when the Barque of St Peter is finally lashed to the dinghy of the C of E (what's left of it) and the chipper little coracles of the Continuum.

Fr. Spencer Jones argues that it was the objective of the Oxford Movement, especially its leaders - Froude, Keble, Pusey and Newman - to show that the Anglican Church needs reunion with the Holy See. I am also of the opinion that, although she may not say it, the Holy See needs the Anglicans, especially at the moment where the Pope is avowedly traditional and the bishops of America and the U.K avowedly liberal. They need a bit of English tolerant conservatism to help them put their house in order! ;-)

However, all disunity is a sin. I feel that most in my parish in which I seem to be the sole element of disunity because of my stand against the dumbing-down of the Mass. Nonetheless, whatever barriers have been thrown up, or whatever barriers the truth appears to throw up, the only way we can move forward is not by an opening of the mind, but of the heart because it is within the heart that the ways of making the barriers vanish (if they ever existed) can be found. Academic Theology will only provide ammunition to tell our opponents how wrong they are. Conviction will only occur in the heart.

I do believe that the Holy See possesses the fullness of Truth. However, the fullness of Truth is infinite in extent, and no man can fully know the Truth if he can know anything at all apart from shadows. The point is that the Holy See is bigger than she knows herself to be. The only being that truly knows itself is God, as St Thomas Aquinas said. Thus there is more to the Church than she can understand. It's as we gather these filaments and fibres that Rome and England get pulled together. Arguing theologically is fine, but if we are in addition seeking that Truth in our hearts as well, then we can find it together, as long at it is the Truth and not a truth that we want to find because it suits us.

If we seek the Truth then we will come up against contradictions and controversies. As a professional mathematician, like my colleagues, friends and betters, I spent the majority of my time stuck on a problem - no movement, no thoughts, no ideas, yet I often knew that the solution existed. Anglican Papalism is a contradiction in some ways, but that is only a testament to the fact that human beings have come to their limits of their understanding of what the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church is. I know that the solution exists because its existence is testified in the Holy Scriptures; finding it is a job for all of us together.

In this week of Christian Unity I offer my prayers for all Christians, and pray that they may all come together and live in the Truth of God.

A splitting headache

San Joaquin has withdrawn from the Episcopal Church of the United States. Of course the media proclaims a split in the Anglican Church. On the other hand we have the Traditional Anglican Church seeking reunion with the Holy See and an end to nearly 500 years of separation. We seem to be reaching a time in history of a reshaping and remoulding of the Church, or a further fragmentation, and it is Anglicanism that is bearing the visible brunt of this.


Only within the Canterbury Communion can we find a church with a Catholic heritage and yet which deems heresies as being consonant with the faith. What can one reasonably do when the institution on which you have relied makes the wrong move? There seems to be only two things that can be done: stay or go.

Who stays?

1. Those complicit in the heresy;


2. Those who are elderly or infirm;
   
3. Those who are too frightened or tired to undergo such upheaval;


4. Those who intend to fight from within;


5. Those who intend to honour a commitment despite the heresy.

Who goes?

1. Those who want to send a clear signal that heresy is wrong;


2. Those who feel that the integrity of the church has been irrevocably compromised;
   
3. Those who wish to preserve the purity of the church;


4. Those who cannot associate with heretics;
   
5. Those who believe that the grass is greener on the other side.

These lists are neither exhaustive or exclusive, but merely representative of the feelings and thoughts of those whom I have met. There are deep passions blazing within the chest of the Anglo-Catholic and the Anglo-Papalist which only manifest themselves after too great an imbibing of port or the sight of a woman who appears to be wearing a dog collar, but maybe it's just a roll-necked jumper.

The main trouble is that the Bishops are constantly presenting us with choices, notably the preference of Schism over Heresy. When one side cries "schism", the other invariably cries "heresy" and the two sides get further apart.

What is clear from the Lord's teaching is that He will send his angels to separate wheat from tares. What is not so clear is how this separation wil take place and how the agents of this separation will be. From the Apocalypse we are aware that each Church has its angel, and it may possibly be that it is these guiding angels who will draw away the righteous from the payers of lip-service. However, we still do not know!

For me, it is important that members of the Anglican Continuum and Communion at least engage in some prayer together in an attempt to heal the rifts. I see in myself too great a desire to withdraw from those with whom I disagree. The temptation is always there to demonise and to allow the memories of others to become bitter in the soul. While Mrs Jefferts-Schori, Gene Robinson, Bishop Spong, and others may hold heretical beliefs - which they do when measured up to the Catholic Faith however much they try to justify their learning - they are still deserving of kind words, loving gestures, gentle discussions and holy prayers, not because of themselves but because of the God who desires to sit and eat with us.

The Benedictine Rule advocates the idea of excommunication - the setting apart of folk who have erred from the way.

Capit. XXVI

Si quis frater praesumpserit sine iussione abbatis fratri excommunicato quolibet modo se iungere aut loqui cum eo vel mandatum ei dirigere, similem sortiatur excommunicationis vindictam.

If any brother presumes without instruction from the Abbot in any way to associate with an excommunicated brother or to speak with him or direct a command to him, let him be issued with the same punishment of excommunication. [My translation]

In this, we see that there is a definite need for the separation to be distinct. The abbot must make sure that the offender is kept apart from the community, and that the community is protected from the damage caused by recalcitrants. However St Benedict makes it quite clear that the Abbot is still responsible for the excommunicated, and indeed that the excommunicated is still part of the community.

Capit. XVII

Omni sollicitudine curam gerat abbas circa delinquentes fratres, quia non est opus sanis medicus sed male habentibus (Matthew ix.12). Et ideo uti debet omni modo ut sapiens medicus, immittere senpectas, id est seniores sapientes fratres, qui quasi secrete consolentur fratrem fluctuantem et provocent ad humilitatis satisfactionem et consolentur eum ne abundantiori tristitia absorbeatur (II Corinthians ii.7), sed, sicut ait item apostolus, confirmetur in eo caritas (II Corinthians ii.8) et oretur pro eo ab omnibus...

With every solicitude, the Abbot must show concern about offending brothers, because they that be whole need not a physician, but they that are sick. In in this way, as a wise physician, he must use all skill to send senpectae, that is, older and wiser brothers, who console the erring brother as if in secret, and guide him to a satisfation of humility and to console him lest perhaps such a one should be swallowed up with overmuch sorrow but as the Apostle also says that ye would confirm your love toward him and that all might pray for him ... [My translation interspersed with the bible references from the AV]

Dialogue must therefore continue across a schism, but only between the wiser and more senior. This need not be the best educated - indeed it may be preferable that this not be the case particularly with those filled with intellectual pride! It should include those whom the whole church would regard as living a holy and spiritual life.

Indeed it is the person of the Abbot who has the authority to inspect and adjust an issue of excommunication. It is therefore important that the Abbot himself should closely follow Benedictine principles as laid down in the Rule. In practice however, there has been many an Abbot go off the rails. Likewise, in this day and age, we see Bishops - sources of Unity - rely on the integrity of their own belief rather than the Faith of the Church and use their roles of unification to damage and rend the Church.

This is in part why I have developed into an Anglo-Papalist. In viewing the Pope as the Vicar of Christ following in the succession of St Peter, he is an object of unity in obedience to the Catholic Faith. He is also, I believe, the one who could heal the rift of the Reformation quite easily. As successor of Peter and keeper of the Keys, he is able to bind to himself branches which have become severed. As the Vicar of Christ, he can graft together that which has been torn apart for whatever reason. Apostolae Curae (whoever this is more problematic for) can easily be circumvented through such a binding - a Papal declaration of regularity conditional on communion with the Holy See. Whether it has been broken off at the Reformation or not, there is a temporal branch of ordination which links every Anglican Bishop, Priest and Deacon and which can be made to be valid in the eyes of Rome by binding that branch to the living branch of the Holy See, just as the Lord himself spoke about grafting branches onto Himself as the true vine.

I'm an idealist. I apologise. Indeed there are still many obstacles of doctrine and jurisdiction. It is not enough to say "Why can't we just all try to get along?" particularly if there is a wave of heretics muddying the waters. There must be a greater level of trust built up between the Holy See and the Anglican Continuum - both sides must realise in full the others' concerns and work at addressing those barriers together in love and prayer.

I'm afraid the Anglican Communion will never be able to enjoy such a relationship on her present course because she does not perceive that what she is raising are indeed almost insurmountable hurdles to reconciliation. But nonetheless, the Continuum must act, sending senpectae to this ailing body. The distance of excommunication must remain until the recalcitrants are brought back, but there must be this level of ongoing dialogue!

Excuse me while I wallow in my idealism!

An orthodox apology.

I have to make an apology to Alana Asby Roberts who very kindly commented on my post about excellence in worship and who asked me a few questions about my experience of the Eastern Orthodox Tradition. Now that life is leaving me alone for five minutes, I shall answer her here in the main blog in the hope that she is able to read it without hunting for it among the comments.

I have to honestly answer that my experience with the Eastern Orthodox is limited to the musical and the theological. While there are Orthodox Churches in Blighty, they don't appear to have any parishes near me, but then I'm not a driver so that has limited my vision. Of course what marks me out among Anglicans is my view of the Holy Father in Rome as the Successor of St Peter and the Vicar of Christ.

I have a great love of the Orthodox Tradition and applaud the fact that they do have the excellence in worship that is being torn out from Faddish-Anglicanism. One only has to just read through the Liturgy of St James with that call of "Sigesato pasa sarx..." by the Deacon to know that the whole Mass is devoted to the heavenly comes into contact with the earthly. I believe that the old Anglo-Papalists contemporary with Fr. Patten were able to bring that same electricity into our humdrum existence. Both Orthodoxy and Anglicanism have unique musical schemes centred around their liturgy, something which the Roman Catholics have sorely lacked even in recent years.

From the point of view of Christian Unity: if it is possible for the Eastern Orthodox Churches to regain communion with the Holy See and keep their unique identity then it is, in theory at least, possible with the Anglicans who have remained true to Holy Tradition. I do agree that the unity which Anglo-Papalists have been praying for may only be possible because of the Orthodox Church. There would be nothing to lose and all to gain there! I pray that Orthodox Catholicism would become complete once again, and may it start by mutual oecumenism of the dynamic sort.

St Jude - patron saint of Anglo-Papalism?

Today is the feast of SS Simon and Jude, apostles of Christ, transferred from yesterday.

I often feel sorry for St Jude since he has been tarred with possessing the same name as Judas (surnamed Iscariot). Of course I also have a sympathy for the Iscariot as well. If ever there was one who made the wrong decision, it was he. However in the citation of Judas Iscariot as an example of perfidy and treachery, St Jude Thaddeus, the rather subtle and more background apostle, only is asked to pray as a last resort, hence his patronage of lost causes.

Might St Jude be the saint who ought to be praying for Anglicanism in the West?

It's interesting that in his epistle, St Jude says:

3 ἀγαπητοί πᾶσαν σπουδὴν ποιούμενος γράφειν ὑμῖν περὶ τῆς κοινῆς ἡμῶν σωτηρίας ἀνάγκην ἔσχον γράψαι ὑμῖν παρακαλῶν ἐπαγωνίζεσθαι τῇ ἅπαξ παραδοθείσῃ τοῖς ἁγίοις πίστει

4 παρεισέδυσαν γάρ τινες ἄνθρωποι οἱ πάλαι προγεγραμμένοι εἰς τοῦτο τὸ κρίμα ἀσεβεῖς τὴν τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν χάριτα μετατιθέντες εἰς ἀσέλγειαν καὶ τὸν μόνον δεσπότην καὶ κύριον ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν ἀρνούμενοι

5 ὑπομνῆσαι δὲ ὑμᾶς βούλομαι εἰδότας ὑμᾶς πάντα ὅτι ὁ κύριος ἅπαξ λαὸν ἐκ γῆς Αἰγύπτου σώσας τὸ δεύτερον τοὺς μὴ πιστεύσαντας ἀπώλεσεν

6 ἀγγέλους τε τοὺς μὴ τηρήσαντας τὴν ἑαυτῶν ἀρχὴν ἀλλὰ ἀπολιπόντας τὸ ἴδιον οἰκητήριον εἰς κρίσιν μεγάλης ἡμέρας δεσμοῖς ἀϊδίοις ὑπὸ ζόφον τετήρηκεν

7 ὡς Σόδομα καὶ Γόμορρα καὶ αἱ περὶ αὐτὰς πόλεις τὸν ὅμοιον τρόπον τούτοις ἐκπορνεύσασαι καὶ ἀπελθοῦσαι ὀπίσω σαρκὸς ἑτέρας πρόκεινται δεῖγμα πυρὸς αἰωνίου δίκην ὑπέχουσαι

8 ὁμοίως μέντοι καὶ οὗτοι ἐνυπνιαζόμενοι σάρκα μὲν μιαίνουσιν κυριότητα δὲ ἀθετοῦσιν δόξας δὲ βλασφημοῦσιν

3 Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints. 4 For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ. 5 I will therefore put you in remembrance, though ye once knew this, how that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not. 6 And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day. 7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

8 Likewise also these filthy dreamers defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities. (Epistle of St Jude vv3-8)

Personally, I just don't see how the Liberals in the United States can come to any conclusion other than that their blessing of same sex marriages can be anything other than futile at the least and corrupting at the most. There are plenty of other of scriptural references which say the same thing. Yet I cannot possibly be right because I am not a U.S Bishop who are obviously so much more learned than I and who can show me that "going after strange flesh" doesn't really mean homosexual practice between a committed couple.

Conservative members would I'm sure be forgiven for thinking that ECUSA is a hopeless cause, and around the Catholic members, there must be several prayers aimed in the direction of St Jude. You see, like St Jude, faithful Episcopalians ar being tarred with the same brush as those who seek to reinterpret Holy Scripture to their own devices. While some strive to get out, for others it is not so easy, and yet they still remain faithful.

The same is true of the Church Of England as it languishes in its "re-invention" as a trendy and "relevant" church. There are Traditional parishes but far and few between. Similarly, this is true of parishes of the Roman Catholic Church in its swapping of dignified hymn singing for the twang of guitars and trendification of the Mass.

The future for Anglicanism looks bleak, as does Traditional Catholicism. I still maintain my Anglo-Papalist course remembering that the movement is very much temporary in its nature. So what does St Jude say to those who are trying to overcome vast obstacles?

20 ὑμεῖς δέ ἀγαπητοί ἐποικοδομοῦντες ἑαυτοὺς τῇ ἁγιωτάτῃ ὑμῶν πίστει ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ προσευχόμενοι

21 ἑαυτοὺς ἐν ἀγάπῃ θεοῦ τηρήσατε προσδεχόμενοι τὸ ἔλεος τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ εἰς ζωὴν αἰώνιον

22 καὶ οὓς μὲν ἐλεᾶτε διακρινομένους

23 οὓς δὲ σῴζετε ἐκ πυρὸς ἁρπάζοντες οὓς δὲ ἐλεᾶτε ἐν φόβῳ μισοῦντες καὶ τὸν ἀπὸ τῆς σαρκὸς ἐσπιλωμένον χιτῶνα

24 τῷ δὲ δυναμένῳ φυλάξαι ὑμᾶς ἀπταίστους καὶ στῆσαι κατενώπιον τῆς δόξης αὐτοῦ ἀμώμους ἐν ἀγαλλιάσει

25 μόνῳ θεῷ σωτῆρι ἡμῶν διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν δόξα μεγαλωσύνη κράτος καὶ ἐξουσία πρὸ παντὸς τοῦ αἰῶνος καὶ νῦν καὶ εἰς πάντας τοὺς αἰῶνας ἀμήν

20 But ye, beloved, building up yourselves on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Ghost, 21 Keep yourselves in the love of God, looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life. 22 And of some have compassion, making a difference: 23 And others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire; hating even the garment spotted by the flesh. 24 Now unto him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy, 25 To the only wise God our Saviour, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and ever. Amen.

So there's the message for Anglo-Catholics and Anglo-Papalists alike. Just keep at it. Just keep holding to the Catholic Faith. There are so many in both the Holy See and in the Anglican Church who are just trying too hard to include what cannot be included and who say that Anglo-Catholicism is just clinging to the past, and that the Anglo-Papalists are confusedly clinging to the past. There is much that both aspects of the via media have to be hopeful for. For the Anglo-Papalists, we have a Pope who seeks to reinstate the Traditional Mass and remove the insipidity of modern song-writing. For the Anglo-Catholics, there is a fresh and strengthening recourse in the Anglican Catholic and Traditional Anglican Churches.

Still much to pray for. Are the Prayers of St Jude still welcome?

Is there a justification of Anglo-Papalism?

I seem to be dwelling on some of the sticking points between Roman and Anglo-Catholicism, mainly because of blogs like the Continuum and All Too Common, there have been recent criticisms of Papal Anglicanism largely through criticising Cardinal Newman especially in is Development of Christian Doctrine. I want to be able to address these issues because they make valid points! Again, the trouble is my lack of education. You may have noticed that I can only really tackle issues from the perspective of a rational philosopher or Biblical text.

To begin with Andrew Bartus (erstwhile of All Too Common) asks every Anglo-Papalist the following questions:

• Who is the final authority in Rome? The Magisterium?
• Well who interprets what is and is not infallible? The theologians whose opinions change with the breeze? The Apostolicae Curae example is the most obvious.
• If you reject these two and still are an Anglo-Papalist, then how can you stay out of communion with the Holy Father, considering Unam Sanctam?

For those unfamiliar (like me!) with Unum Sanctam (a papal Bull issued in 1302 by Pope Boniface VIII), the central tenets are:

1. There is but one true Church, outside of which there is no salvation; but one body of Christ with one head and not two.
   
2. That head is Christ and His representative, the Roman pope; whoever refuses the pastoral care of Peter belongs not to the flock of Christ.
   
3. There are two swords (i.e., powers), the spiritual and the temporal; the first borne by the Church, the second for the Church; the first by the hand of the priest, the second by that of the king, but under the direction of the priest (ad nutum et patientiam sacerdotis).
   
4. Since there must be a co- ordination of members from the lowest to the highest, it follows that the spiritual power is above the temporal and has the right to instruct (or establish--instituere) the latter regarding its highest end and to judge it when it does evil; whoever resists the highest power ordained of God resists God Himself.
   
5. It is necessary for salvation that all men should be subject to the Roman Pontiff--"Porro subesse Romano Pontifici omni humanæ creaturæ declaramus, dicimus, definimus et pronunciamus omnino esse de necessitate salutis".

So what are the answers to Andrew's questions?

Well, first, what is the identity of Anglo-Papalism? Anglo-Papalism exists in order that it should not exist which is rather unique when it comes to ecclesiology. It sees itself first and foremost as a transitional body seeking to bind Catholicism from its inherent schisms. That in itself is its problem theologically and ecclesiologically. Anglo-Papalism exists because Schism exists and without Schism there is no Anglo-Papalism. Thus Anglo-Papalism exists where there is contradiction over the differences which keep the Schism alive. Anglo-Papalists accept Unum Sanctam but they are not out of communion with the Holy Father, rather the Holy Father is out of communion with us. That sounds petty, but what this means is that the Pope once chose to excommunicate the antecedents of the Anglo-Papalists and, in the Anglican melee, he does not see the movement as being sufficiently indicative of the desire of all Anglo-Catholics to resume those that communion.

The Anglo-Papalist subjection to the Roman Pontiff is manifested in its drive to steer Anglicanism back to Rome, not to be absorbed by Rome but to bring with it that same Anglican character which pioneered the view of Confession that the Roman Church has today. As Fr. Brooke Lunn says, there is no disloyalty of Anglo-Papalists to Anglo-Catholicism, but rather the opposite. We're not advocating "wholesale surrender to Rome" but rather seeking to first bridge and then close the Schism preserving both of these Catholic identities.

As I intimated below, Anglo-Papalists accept all the Infallible statements of the Pope. There have only been two - the Immaculate Conception and Assumption of Our Lady. The Pope has not yet said infallibly that the Anglo-Papalist position is untenable If he does, then clearly we must secede. However, I don't believe that he is able to make that pronouncement infallibly!

I do agree with Andrew Bartus, the whole of Anglo-Papalism has a confused ecclesiology and that is because it has the ecclesiology of contraditions. However, these contradictions may turn out to be (in the ideas of Bernard Riemann) removable singularities, on the other hand they may not. However it is our hatred of Schism within the Catholic Church that makes Anglo-Papalism exist and we must exist. So here's praying for our non-existence!

Trust and the Trussed

Look at the following passages from these Baptismal rites

Minister.
DOST thou believe in God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth? And in Jesus Christ his only-begotten Son our Lord? And that he was conceived by the Holy Ghost; born of the Virgin Mary; that he suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried; that he went down into hell, and also did rise again the third day; that he ascended into heaven, and sitteth at the right hand of God the Father Almighty; and from thence shall come again at the end of the world, to judge the quick and the dead?
And dost thou believe in the Holy Ghost; the holy Catholick Church; the Communion of Saints; the Remission of sins; the Resurrection of the flesh; and everlasting life after death?
Answer. All this I stedfastly believe.

(Book of Common Prayer 1662)

Priest. Dost thou believe in God the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth?
Sponsors. I do.
Priest. Dost thou believe in Jesus Christ, his only-begotten Son our Lord, who was born and hath suffered for us?
Sponsors. I do.
Priest. Dost thou believe in the Holy Ghost, the Holy Catholic church, the Communion of Saints, the Forgiveness of sins, the Resurrection of the flesh, and life everlasting?
Sponsors. I do.

(From the English Ritual)

Do you believe and trust in God the Father, source of all being and life, the one for whom we exist?
All I believe and trust in him.

Do you believe and trust in God the Son, who took our human nature, died for us and rose again?
All I believe and trust in him.

Do you believe and trust in God the Holy Spirit, who gives life to the people of God and makes Christ known in the world?
All I believe and trust in him.

This is the faith of the Church.
All This is our faith. We believe and trust in one God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

(Common Worship Alternative Profession of Faith to be used when there are "strong pastoral reasons")

In case you were wondering, the usual profession of Faith in Common Worship is the Apostles' Creed in full, very similar to the English Ritual. However, this alternative version was the only version presented in the Alternative Service Book which was replaced by Common Worship.

Notice that in the Alternative provision the nature of the Baptismal question is different from the standard texts. It introduces this notion of trust. Between the BCP and Common Worship, all catechumens were required to declare their tr