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.

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.

Cardinal Newman on Transubstantiation

The Catholic doctrine is as follows. Our Lord is in loco in heaven, not in the same sense in the Sacrament. He is present in the Sacrament only in substance... and substance does not require or imply the occupation of place. But if place is excluded from the idea of the Sacramental Presence, therefore division or distance from heaven is excluded also, for distance implies a measurable interval, and such there cannot be except between places. Moreover, if the idea of distance is excluded, therefore is the idea of motion. Our Lord, then, neither descends from heaven upon our altars, nor moves when carried in procession. The visible species change their position, but He does not move. He is in the Holy Eucharist after the manner of a spirit. We do not know how; we have no parallel to the how in our experience. We can only say that He is present not according to the natural manner of bodies, but sacramentally. His presence is substantial, spirit-wise, sacramental, an absolute mystery, not against reason, however, but against imagination, and must be received by faith. (Via Media, 1877, II. 220).

Notice that both Newman and Manning, two former Anglicans (or did they ever cease to be Anglicans) speak of a general (i.e. not necessarily Aristotelian) Transubstantiation. Certainly in the sacramental dimension, the bread ceases to be bread and the wine wine regardless of whether we regard their physical properties, their natural criteria to be.

I find these two passages worth a deal of thought.

Cardinal Manning on Transubstantiation

The following is a quote from a letter of Cardinal Manning to Archdeacon Wilberforce on the matter of transubstantiation.

1. The Council of Trent says that our Lord's humanity, secundum naturalem existendi modum, i.e., in its proper dimensions, etc., is at the right hand of God only.
   



2. The Church therefore distinguishes natural presence from supernatural or sacramental presence. Of the modes of this sacramental presence it defines nothing. It is supernatural.
   



3. The presence, being supernatural, is not a subject of natural criteria or natural operations.
   



4. Within the sphere of natural phenomena and effects there is no change in the consecrated elements. But a change does take place in a sphere into which no natural criteria, such as sense, can penetrate. Of this we are assured by the words of Revelation, "Hoc est, etc." The Church is concerned only to affirm this supernatural fact, as Vasquez says, "ut sint vera Christi verba" Beyond this affirmation the Church affirms nothing.
   



5. It has no jurisdiction in science or philosophy. The office of the Church is Divine and unerring within the sphere of the original revelation. But ontology and metaphysics are no part of it. There are many philosophies about matter and substance etc., but none are authoritative. They are many because no one has been defined. . . .

How does this compare with your understanding of the Real Presence of Christ?

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?

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.

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 ins and outs of the Mass

The Church of England, being these days in it's majority, is a faddish church, and one of the biggest fads that has been part of management training and self-help seminars is the Myers-Briggs Type indicator which deals out to everyone four letters that describe their preferences of behaviour:

• defining the self via externals or internals;
• making perceptions using intuition or sensation;
• making judgements using thinking or feeling ;
• preferring making decisions to making perceptions.

The theory is quite powerful, and does allow the individual to begin a foray into that classical objective of "Know thyself". It is but only one theoretical way, and the big danger for anyone using MBTi is that they get their four letters and are told that this is their personality type with which they were born and is somehow immutable. The temptation is to assume that one cannot change preferences, although an introvert can "learn" to become extravert et c. The implication is that once an ENFP, always an ENFP at heart.

It is one thing to know oneself, and a good thing too, but this is one of the root causes of the malady that is afflicting the Church of England. In the past, people were content with coming to church and saying the Mass as it was constructed by the church. However, it is the result of this "Know Thyself" phenomenon that people are now saying that they "cannot" do Mass in the traditional way because the Mass is geared to introverts and not extraverts or some such like. People object to the traditional Mass because it doesn't fit them.

Laziness!

It's sheer laziness. Rather than work at finding away of relating with the Mass, which is after all an engagement of the human personality with that of the divine, these folk demand that the Church changes its liturgy, its prayers, its expressions to fit all people. And the Church of England, in its desire to upset noone but to facilitate the notion of "meeting the people where they are" change the traditions to suit. It's never engaged with society on this level before, why should it have suddenly done so inthe 20th Century. Philosophies of the self have existed long before Freud, Jung, and MBTi, why suddenly engage with the individual now and thus run the ship off course?

This "priesthood of all believers" oft quoted by liberals to supplant the Catholic notion of priesthood is that the layfolk go out into the world and live Christian lives through which the world might see the Light of Christ. Then, having worked long and hard at this coal-face, they find nourishment from the Mass that has been celebrated in the same way since time immemorial.

"Boring!" say the ENTPs (to stereotype a type(!)), " I want a Mass that suits me, that changes every week, that engages my extraverted ideas." If it suits you, O stereotyped ENTP, then how will the same Mass suit an ISFJ? "Oh, they can have their own Mass." So how is the Mass a sacrament of Unity if you won't attend the same Mass as your INFJ neighbour? "Well, it's the same God that we worship, the Mass is still the same." Well, no it isn't - you are not there, effectively, though not in jurisdiction, you are creating another congregation. The Masses will still be valid in the eyes of both ENTP and ISFJ, but there is still an excommunication this time along the fault-line of personality - more purification, more diluted ethnic cleansing.

No, ENTP and INFJ should go to the same Mass and work hard to engage their selves into the traditional liturgies, and the Church should not have indulged them. Back to the Traditional Mass we should go.

"Why? Isn't that just an expression of your personality? Isn't that your preference, O thou self-righteous INTJ?" My preference is immaterial. My desire to serve God is that which is universal to all Christians. If the Catholic Church instituted and used a Mass largely unchanged for centuries (indeed, totally unchanged in the Orthodox Tradition) then it was adequate for all types of person regardless of who, where and when they are. The Traditional Mass is a lingua franca across Time displaying the Sacrament of Unity across the Ages. No matter who you are or where you are in the world, you could walk into Mass and be assured that it is the same Sacrament.

"But you're using your preference of intuition when you say that."

No, I'm stating a fact voiced by St Vincent of Lerins that the Catholic Faith is quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum est. (that which is believed everywhere, always and by all). If there is no link with the theology of the past, then there is no Catholic Faith.

Now, O argumentative ENTP, go out into the world and minister to it as the Christian that you are using all your personality as God has given you. Pray to God in your own offices, in your own manner, but when you come to Mass, be prepared to celebrate it with all people in the Traditional way. Engage with it in your own way by all means, but don't force that way upon others. If you are bored, then that's your challenge, not a problem with the Liturgy.

How might I carry on this conversation with another personality type?

Kaluza-Klein theology

Okay, what I'm not going to put forward is an actual Kaluza-Klein theory. Kaluza-Klein theory properly done is an attempt to unify the forces occuring in nature by extending the gauge group of electromagnetism into a product of possibly non-commutative Lie groups. The necessity outcome of this is that we find ourselves finding more hidden symmetries of nature, and this points to the existence of higher dimensions.

Now higher dimensions ar rather interesting for me in several ways. Four dimensional space (and by space I mean an abstract space which requires four coordinates to describe it rather than the void between stars and planets) can be endowed with many interesting structures which are unavailable in higher dimensions.

It's when we consider Time as part of the fabric of the Universe that things become fascinating. If we step outside of Time, then we find ourselves investigating a static universe in which the common housefly has turned into a string which interweaves the universe. People turn into long ropes with human cross-section which grow and then shrink and then dissipate into frayed ends as our particles disperse to the dust. The Universe consists of Space and Time together mixed inseparably. It's like holding the reel of a movie. You can see each moment in space and time in one vantagepoint.

God has created the universe and we are powerless to see his existence. We cannot see Him act precisely because His creation involves Time. From His point of view, Creation is complete, He doesn't need to continually fiddle with it. It sits in His hand and from His indescribable Eternity, He gazes upon it. For those whose existence is contained within this Universe, the Maelstrom of complex forces and changes and chances of Time veil our perceptions.

Now this is not a "God of the gaps" argument for the existence of God, that God only acts where Science cannot see Him, but rather that He acts definitely where Science can see His actions, but attributes His acts to other causes because God gives it the freedom to do so. It's perfectly possible for the miracles of Christ to have a Scientific explanation. That doesn't stop them from being miraculous provided that we get away from the idea that a miracle is an occurrence which science cannot explain. The hand of God is still in the rising and setting of the Sun, because from our point of view the Universe is not yet fully created. This Creation is not yet perfected, but it will be! One needs to step out into the extra-temporal dimensions to look.

As a scientist I do look for explanations for why things happen. There are some wonderfully glorious sets of coincidences which people attribute to supernatural occurences. However, a miracle does not need that sense of dumbfounding science. A miracle is any occurrence that causes us to reflect on the presence of God, any event that has that numinous quality that touches our lives and brings us closer to Him.

The overreaching principle that God has had in creating Humanity is that Humanity should be free to choose, to have a will of its own. Only then can a gesture of true love be meant. Thus the atheistic scientist is free to interpret an occurrence in a rational way, and quite honestly, that occurrence is indeed rightly described rationally. It is the claim that a scientific explanation naturally rules out the direct influence of God that is questionable. Scientific explanation and Divine intervention are not mutually exclusive terms. Scientific theory is not absolutely correct but it does have a verisimilitude that makes its explanations compelling. Evidence is not proof, but it makes good sense. The Sun will rise tomorrow (barring Divine Intervention). However God, being bigger and existing outside the dimensions of the Universe, does not Himself create a Universe without order and sense. We can attribute every action to His Divine Intervention, but we cannot break down our observations into determining His Divine Will in any particular matter. A sparrow falls to the ground because it is tired and due to the force of gravity. This doesn't exclude the action of God in the matter.

At the Wedding in Cana, water was changed to wine. It caused people to reflect on the person of Christ, the God Who chose not to be remote but rather to make His presence known to mankind; the God Who chose to be seen to act and intervene but yet allows others the freedom to attribute His actions elsewhere. Whether the miracle was performed by a spectacular act of legerdemain, by a miscalculation and misdirection of the servants, or by the molecules of water suddenly finding themselves interspersed with molecules of fermented grapes isn't really the issue. It's the fact that Christians see in this act the first public act of a contraversial figure in history.

Of course the atheist question is then: how can we build a societal structure on the personal revelations to a few people of an unprovable God? Surely Society must be governed in such a way as reflects only that which can be observed and scientifically demonstrated.

Again, here I see the desire of God that mankind should be free to govern itself. At the moment the Church does not wield the power that it had in the past. Perhaps this is a good thing and prevents leaders of the church from becoming corrupt. (Well that's the theory!) Our society's moral and ethical code is, in the West, largely built up from the morals and ethics inherited from past theistic government. However, there is much evidence to show that the Church has, more often than not, been under the thumb of secular government.

As Christians, we do not (indeed cannot) coerce anyone into doing our bidding even if we believe that it is for their own good. Abortion will always remain despite the Church's protestations to the contrary. The Ten Commandments will be broken no matter who is in charge. The point is, that no matter which government runs the show, Christian ethics will remain and be kept by some and rejected by others.

Atheists believe that organised religion is dangerous because it causes people to separate and object to reason on the grounds of belief in an unprovable God. Religious symbols should be banned from public areas because they cause offence to too many.

What has this all got to do with the extra dimensions? Well, that's half the problem. Atheists cannot see that solutions are possible in a way that passes their understanding. They have a need to understand. Actually, I have a need to understand, but I accept while I struggle to understand that reality, morals, ethics and ultimately the questions of life and death have elements that point out perpendicular to the sense of the Universe. As an Anglo-Papalist, I live in a contradictory world full of confused jurisdiction and disjointed ecclesionlogy. However, I have the overriding promise of God that the Church is One, despite denomination. That gives me something to look for, pray for, live for and work for.

Contradictions exist in this Universe, the problem of evil, the reconciliation of an active God with a rational explanation, and their solutions may expressible in terms of this universe but I believe only partially so. It is only looking out in Hope beyond our understanding that I obtain the conviction to work at a solution within our understanding.

Excellence in worship

While I've been on Sabbatical, I've been visiting various churches of various denominations. It's interesting that in each parish, all I've found is an attitude of "well that'll do, won't it?" People will do enough to make the Mass work and/or a vaguely pleasant experience, but no more. I often wonder what's going through the head of the average congregant. What are they expecting to happen when they come to church? What are they expecting to do themselves?

Most of the time, the liturgy, the music, the sermon, and subsequently, the whole ethos is geared to accomodating the "comfy chair" syndrome that pervades most of society and panders to what the congregation wants rather than what forms an adequate expression of our love of God. It's interesting that these two concepts of "what the congregation wants" and "adequate expression of our love for God" are either totally discrepant or only common at the lowest level. I was most distressed to walk into a Roman Catholic Church and find the same vision of the Mass as entertainment (guitars, flutes, trendy songs with lowest common denominator lyrics) as exists in Anglicanism.

As a Church, we need to strive for excellence in worship. No, of course we are not going to end up with the perfect Mass. There will always be a flaw or imperfection in the way that we do things. However, spiritually, the West is rapidly reaching the point where God will say as He does in Amos (v.21-27):

I hate, I despise your feast days, and I will not smell in your solemn assemblies. Though ye offer me burnt offerings and your meat offerings, I will not accept them: neither will I regard the peace offerings of your fat beasts. Take thou away from me the noise of thy songs; for I will not hear the melody of thy viols. But let judgment run down as waters, and righteousness as a mighty stream. Have ye offered unto me sacrifices and offerings in the wilderness forty years, O house of Israel?

But ye have borne the tabernacle of your Moloch and Chiun your images, the star of your god, which ye made to yourselves. Therefore will I cause you to go into captivity beyond Damascus, saith the LORD, whose name is The God of hosts.

The quality of belief comes only from the quality in which we are prepared to invest in Worship of God, and this is a notion that each member of the congregation needs to be met with head on. We have to work to remove insincerity that affects even the best Mass.

To this end I'm making a start on trying to answer the question: What makes Excellent Worship? In view of the fact that all our worship is imperfect, we have a great scope for working for improvement in each act of worship that we do. We need:

1. Excellent Liturgy:
   I've written on this before. The purpose of the liturgy is to form a process from the temporal world to the Divine. It needs language that will strive to reflect on that transcendent nature and provide an adequate springboard for the soul to dive off into the Eternal Source. Excellent liturgy points the way univocally to God for the humblest soul, yet challenges the position of the most exalted. Excellent liturgy opens the way to the refreshment of the Soul, and needs to reflect on the pitiable state of humanity encouraging and drawing them into that Spring of Living Water.
   
   
2. Excellent Catechesis:
   I've also written about liturgy as having a didactic role, that it should not pander to the lowest common denominator in order to draw up the understanding of the Faithful. However, further than that, we now have entire generations who are unchurched and unlearned in the faith, the Church needs to focus its instruction on the Traditional faith. This can only come with an Excellent Catechesis. Excellent Catechesis has only one aim: - to pass on the beliefs of our Fathers to the next generation fully and faithfully. Each Parish must have a full educational programme of catechesis directed at the young. This is exceendingly difficult as it means that each Parish effectively needs to take on the role of School in educating infants, children and adolescents in the ways of Christ. A parish that does not invest in a full, planned, and thorough catechesis of the young, but rather a scrappy, hit-and-miss, vague and impromptu Sunday School will lose.
   
   For the Adults, this Catechesis needs to continue also. This is why house groups are vital. One should not remain a member of a Parish without being part of a housegroup which meets during the week to read Holy Scripture or to discuss Doctrine. The individual needs to be challenged by the sound teaching of the Church so that points where the individual disagrees with that Doctrine can be investigated and that the individual can truly grow.
   
   
3. Excellent Participation:
   In the CofE,traditional liturgy has been deemed "not inclusive enough" and leaves little scope for the Congregation to play a part. The consequence is that many of the Eucharistic prayers in Common Worship are interspersed with refrains like "To you be glory and praise forever" or "it is right to give thanks and praise". The sentiment is fine, but it's like scratching Michelangelo's David to insert precious jewels. The jewels are beautiful but their insertion into something else that's beautiful, but in a different way, is damaging to both. Likewise the process that draws the human being to the Incarnate Word present in the Host is interrupted with a repeated refrain. It's a fact that if you repeat a word or phrase frequently it loses meaning particularly in an environment in which one's attention is being drawn in several different directions. It is a good thing to pray the Jesus prayer repeatedly in time with one's breathing because it is an act of personal devotion and private prayer in which an individuals attention is locked on one purpose - namely an interior search for proximity with God. At Mass, however, the search is exterior and in communion with others, and with one's attention being diverted out to the consecration, it takes an effort beyond most of us simultaneously to give meaning to a repeated refrain.
   
   The result of this "inclusion" of the congregation into a CofE liturgy produces a confusion of roles and practices. What is the real purpose of the vicarious nature of the priest if the Congregation are expected to divert their attention away from the altar in order to make a response which is well-meaning but not necessary.
   
   Excellent Participation removes confusion. Each congregant knows why he is going to Mass and what his role is in that Mass. If he is "just" (there is never "just") a congregant, then he must realise that He is to give glory to God and to receive nourishment from Him in an organised way. There must be a submission of the individual to the liturgy so that Communion is full and God glorified by each person acting unity with the parish and the whole Church. This will mean the individual prays the Eucharistic prayer attentively and devotedly as an individual, but allowing the priest as alter Christus to be his voice. The participation need not be vocal, and it certainly should not intrude on the central voice of the priest. Excellent Participation must also remind the individual that his duty towards God is to live a Christian life daily, and to work hard at serving God in everything, so that the Mass becomes his observation of the sabbath in which he rests. It is only people who encounter Christ once a week who cry out for something more to do in the liturgy.
   
   Excellence in worship can only come about if the Church impresses upon the individual that he must participate in a Christian life daily, and strive to make the Kingdom of God real in the world around him. How is the Church making and equipping new disciples? If a parish has no plan to turn congregants into effective and participating disciples then how is it still a part of the Church?

These are only a few preliminary thoughts on how we can try to strive for excellence in our worship of God. They are ill-formed and have gaps in, and I intend to keep looking for ways in which I can make some of these ideas more precise, and realisable. The Church's main enemy is that voice within that cries "inclusivity". A person can only really be included into the Church if he is willing to be changed into a Christian. The Church can but only minister to one who wants his own way, and he can never enter it until he submits to the teachings of Christ that the Church has received from the beginning. A parish that tries to change to become "more inclusive" will only remain a Church if by "more inclusive" it means broadcasting the message of God so that more people feel called to be changed into Christians and submit to His kingdom.

...and down comes the gauntlet!

I would very much appreciate your prayers. I have been asked by the powers that be in my school to give an address (reasonably light-hearted and yet a little challenging) to the sixth-form as part of a series of three addresses on belief in (or otherwise) God. It has fallen to me to begin the series with the address on Theism and I will be followed by an Atheist and an Agnostic.

It's a big ask to present an apology in front of young adults and, of course, out of my own steam I cannot do this but seek help from my Creator. Having your prayers supporting me would be a great fillip.

Thanks.

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 trust in God as well as their belief.

The word trust is a translation of the Latin fiducia which has the sense of confidence, hope, security and assurance. We can find the word in several passages:

II Kings xviii.19
dixitque ad eos Rabsaces loquimini Ezechiae haec dicit rex magnus rex Assyriorum quae est ista fiducia qua niteris

And Rabshakeh said unto them, Speak ye now to Hezekiah, Thus saith the great king, the king of Assyria, What confidence is this wherein thou trustest?

Acts iv.29
et nunc Domine respice in minas eorum et da servis tuis cum omni fiducia loqui verbum tuum

And now, Lord, behold their threatenings: and grant unto thy servants, that with all boldness they may speak thy word,

II Corinthians iii.12
habentes igitur talem spem multa fiducia utimur

Seeing then that we have such hope, we use great plainness of speech: (AV)
Having therefore such hope, we use much confidence (Douay-Rheims)

I John v.14
et haec est fiducia quam habemus ad eum quia quodcumque petierimus secundum voluntatem eius audit nos

And this is the confidence that we have in him, that, if we ask any thing according to his will, he heareth us

I hope this gives an adequate sense of the the word trust. How is it different from faith and belief? If fiducia is equivalently translated by trust and confidence then we notice that confidence means literally "with-faith"-ness - it quantifies an action. We act in faith, work in faith, operate in faith. We can believe in God, but it is possible not to trust Him. Perhaps we can see this in Deist belief in which the believer believes in God's existence but does not expect Him to act in support. There is belief - fides - but not trust - fiducia.

Fiducia means that we work in hope that God will support our actions that are begun in Faith. We humans rely on His provision.

Now here is where the idea of fiducia influences the nature of our belief, and in particular our ecclesiology.

Let's take a typically contraversial issue that illustrates our differences of fiducia - Papal Infallibility.

This doctrine states:

(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:

1. in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians,
   
2. in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority,
   
3. 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.

So here it is, the issue that separates the Roman Catholic Church from the Eastern Orthodox, the Old Catholic Church and the Anglican Continuum, and it is all a matter of fiducia.

Catholics believe happily in the infallibility of the Church and in the inerrancy of Scripture. This means that they feel that they can rely that the teaching that they receive from the Church, and her interpretation of Holy Scripture. It means that they have this wonderful umbrella that allows them to walk the tightrope of life so that they have a good chance of getting from one end to the other safely.

But can we say the same thing about the Pope as teacher? Suppose that the Pope issues an infallible statement. Then the whole Roman Catholic Church is bound to receive that statement - there is no choice. There is no choice because in putting one's trust in the Pope's Infallibility means that we rely that the Pope's statement must be true regardless of what it is. It means that a good Roman Catholic is prepared to take a risk in the authority of the Pope in the same way that any other Christian is prepared to take a risk in believing in the existence of God.

A Roman Catholic cannot know that an Infallible statement is true, just as she cannot know that God exists, but rather that her accepting that God exists means (for her) that the Pope's Infallible statement is indeed true.

However for the other Catholics (Eastern, Old and Anglo-) there is no such confidence in the Pope. There is a lack of trust that the Holy Father has any unique supremacy over any other validly consecrated Apostolic Catholic Archbishop beyond a primus inter pares. Such trust in the Holy Father is not a dogmatic necessity for these Christians.

However, the lack of trust means a freedom to choose - the Holy Father's teaching or not. If we are true to one's Christian Faith, then we will need to weigh up the Pope's statement against the precepts of the Church, and, for an Anglican, this means Scripture, Tradition and Reason. Yet, if the Pope has issued a Infallible statement that he has personally weighed against these precepts then it is likely to be true in non-papal eyes.

For example, the only two statements that Roman Catholic theologians agree are examples of Infallibility are the doctrines of the Immaculate Conception (1854) and Assumption of Our Lady (1950). Many Anglicans accept these, though only on the level of pious opinion - they are not necessary dogma that need to be taught.

If not accepting Papal Infallibility means the acquisition of a choice of either agreeing or disagreeing with the Holy Father, does this consitute a private judgment? Suppose then that one chooses to accept as dogma whatever the Pope says Infallibly. How is this different from accepting the Pope as possessing Infallibility under the prescribed conditions? Is that still private judgment?

Looking at the Anglican Communion and the Anglican Continuum, we see the demise of fiducia. Anglicans are ceasing to trust that their bishops will teach the faith properly. In place of trust, we see suspicion between ECUSA and AMiA, members of the ACC cannot put their trust in the communion of FiF.

Yet trust is what holds the Church together. Each member of the Church needs to take a risk in trusting every other member to be a Christian and needs to take a risk that the doctrine that they receive is true. Contrariwise, it is necessary for every Christian to ensure that they are trustworthy and that means working to stay in a good and healthy relationship with God.
Private Judgment is not an option for Christians, at least not a good option, since it assumes that one's own understanding is best for discerning the Will of God in our lives, effectively setting the individual up to be one's own Pope. In every Christian, there has to be some trust in the Infallibility of the Church which is akin to committing oneself to her, that one may sink or swim with the Church in the Faith that she holds. If we are going to be suspicious of each other's belief then how does this bind Christians together? Trust means risk. It's the same risk that is involved in love, and love is what builds the Church up.

How reliable are you? How reliable is your Church?

What is the shape of the Church?

One of the great fashions which the C of E is following is the idea of a Mission-Shaped church. This is a push to try and present the Christian Church to the unchurched via various initiatives such as "Fresh Expressions" - seeing the Christian Faith anew.

According to the Rev'd Mr. Paul Bayes in Mission-shaped Parish: Traditional Church in a changing world, a missionary church is

• focussed on the Trinity
  Worship lies at the heart of a missionary church, and to love and know God as Father, Son and Spirit is the chief inspiration and primary purpose;
  
• incarnational
  It seeks to shape itself in relation to the culture in which it is located or to whom it is called;
  
• transformational
  It exists for the transformation of the community that it serves through the power of the Gospel and the Holy Spirit;
  
• a maker of disciples
  It is active in calling people to faith in Jesus Christ.
  It encourages the gifting and vocation of all the people of God, and invests in the development of leaders. It is concerned for the transformation of individuals, as well as for the transformation of communities;
  
• relational
  It is characterised by welcome and hospitality. Its ethos and style are open to change when new members join.

(Bayes and Sledge Mission-shaped Parish: Traditional Church in a changing world p6)

How valid are the points made here?

Well, look at the idea of mission in the Scripture. Who in the Scripture can be described as being "sent"? Just looking for the conjugations of the verb mitto, mittere, missus in the Vulgate will surely help us consider the true meaning of "mission" and we will be able to weigh up these points using this idea.

Judging by the majority of the verses there seem to be two main senses in which people are "sent" in Holy Scripture. They are either sent by God to proclaim His Will, the Good News, or they are sent to prison by men (in the Acts of the Apostles) or by God (in the Apocalypse in the sense of the Abyss).

In the first sense, God sends out messengers, angels of His word,. We read that Christ sends out his apostles (the Greek word apostello is translated mitto in Latin) to make disciples of all nations. But notice, that St Paul says in I Cor xii.29 "Are all Apostles?" This shows that there is something very particular in how mission is to take place and, because of its connection with the Apostles here, mission should be something inherently episcopal. It is not a calling for everyone in the sense that everyone is to be a version of SS Peter and Paul.

But is the sense too narrow? As the Body of Christ must we not emulate the sense in which Christ Himself was sent? The Lord Himself tells us through Isaiah and from His own lips in St Luke iv. 18-21:

18 πνεῦμα κυρίου ἐπ' ἐμέ οὗ εἵνεκεν ἔχρισέν με εὐαγγελίσασθαι πτωχοῖς ἀπέσταλκέν με κηρύξαι αἰχμαλώτοις ἄφεσιν καὶ τυφλοῖς ἀνάβλεψιν ἀποστεῖλαι τεθραυσμένους ἐν ἀφέσει 19 κηρύξαι ἐνιαυτὸν κυρίου δεκτόν
20 καὶ πτύξας τὸ βιβλίον ἀποδοὺς τῷ ὑπηρέτῃ ἐκάθισεν καὶ πάντων οἱ ὀφθαλμοὶ ἐν τῇ συναγωγῇ ἦσαν ἀτενίζοντες αὐτῷ
21 ἤρξατο δὲ λέγειν πρὸς αὐτοὺς ὅτι σήμερον πεπλήρωται ἡ γραφὴ αὕτη ἐν τοῖς ὠσὶν ὑμῶν

18 Spiritus Domini super me propter quod unxit me evangelizare pauperibus misit me
19 praedicare captivis remissionem et caecis visum dimittere confractos in remissionem praedicare annum Domini acceptum et diem retributionis
20 et cum plicuisset librum reddidit ministro et sedit et omnium in synagoga oculi erant intendentes in eum
21 coepit autem dicere ad illos quia hodie impleta est haec scriptura in auribus vestris

18 The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised,
19 To preach the acceptable year of the Lord.
20 And he closed the book, and he gave it again to the minister, and sat down. And the eyes of all them that were in the synagogue were fastened on him.
21 And he began to say unto them, This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears.

So this is why the Lord was sent, and expresses the nature of the mission of the Church.

So how does the apostolic mission differ from the ecclesiastical mission?

Well, the nature of apostolic mission is that it travels widely. Look at SS Peter and Paul, the apostles par excellence, who go out to tell the world about the Kingdom of God. The communities they establish are not as wide ranging with respect to the distance they travel, but their endurance at keeping the message alive in their surrounds despite persecutions and temptations is certainly the crux of their ministry. The letters of St Paul to the Churches point to matters of living in the community according to the rule of life that following the teaching of Christ establishes.

In the letter to the Colossians, St Paul talks at length about the nature of apostleship, and therein lies an interesting direction. Apostles come from Christian communities, just as the first 12 Apostles formed the original nucleus of a community around the Christ, they were sent out to form new communities which, like the seminal picture of an atomic chain reaction, demonstrate, increase in size and number sending out holy apostles to the world.

So here then is the pattern for the mission-shaped church. It must be an apostle-making machine - each parish edifying its members in the true Christian way so that every so often, some of them will be best prepared to hear the call of God and go out into the world with the message.

However, times have indeed changed, and now parishes are diverse in membership with each person going where they feel the worship best suits them. There is no discernable boundary between the Christian and no Christian community. Christians gather for Mass, and then, at the Ite, missa est they are back out into the world again outside the community.

This, perhaps, is where the truly mission-shape church resides - in the vocation of the laity. Christians go out into the secular world carrying within them the Christ. By living the Christian life visibly, they proclaim the message to the world and then they return to Mass bringing their life outside the church with them and present that world to God as part of the sacrifice of the Mass. It's interesting that the word parish comes from the Greek for that which is outside the church. This points again to the ministry of the laity.

Let's look at the marks of a mission shaped church again and see if we can make conclusions.

a missionary church is

• focussed on the Trinity
  Worship lies at the heart of a missionary church, and to love and know God as Father, Son and Spirit is the chief inspiration and primary purpose;

Well this makes sense, for the church to be building up the ministry of the laity, the laity need to to come to God bringing who they are to Him, but unified in their focus on Him so that they can present as one humanity the needs of humanity and receive from Him the Divine Assistance expressed primarily in the grace of the Sacraments and the blessings the engender.

• incarnational
  It seeks to shape itself in relation to the culture in which it is located or to whom it is called;

This is not a very clear statement. Certainly the local parish is made up of a certain demographic and there will be regional variations. However there must be some visible way in which the church in one parish is substantially the same as in another. Speaking in an aristotelian sense, we need to be sure what the accidents of the Church are. There needs to be a way in which a traveller can walk into any parish church and know that they are in the same place as the church back home.

This also goes for the traveller in time! Change for the sake of change (i.e. society is changing so the church must too) is not acceptable. If St Gregory of Nyssa were to walk into our church, it is clear that he wouldn't recognise the shape of the liturgy, but he should be able to understand the essence of it, where it has come from and that it is truly saying the same as when he was saying Mass in the 4th Century. If we are doing this then we can be sure that the children who come after us will be worshipping God in the same way and receive the same Sacraments fully as every other Christian in all of history.

Secondly, if the church finds itself in a particular culture which is not expressly Christian in its understanding - a gambling culture, a red-light district et c. then the church has to express the Christian values that do not change. This will mean coming up against the sin inherent in society, and visibly so. The Church must not be seen to capitulate to any behaviour or belief that contradicts the Eternal message, and will impede the journey of the sinful soul toward salvation. It will in this instant cease to be a proper church and embody the idea of ecclesial community with which the Holy See regards the Anglican Church.

• transformational
  It exists for the transformation of the community that it serves through the power of the Gospel and the Holy Spirit;
  
• a maker of disciples
  It is active in calling people to faith in Jesus Christ.
  It encourages the gifting and vocation of all the people of God, and invests in the development of leaders. It is concerned for the transformation of individuals, as well as for the transformation of communities;

These go together in the ministry of the laity. If church folk learn to worship and understand the orthodox doctrines of the church; if they know what sin is; if they know that they are the Temples of the Holy Ghost and understand this in themselves; if they trust in God's continued presence in their lives, his equipping with grace from the Sacraments; if they know their limitations and understand that they need to learn and to grow in prayer and worship and shape their lives around their prayer and worship, then, only then, will they transform their communities, and that transformation will be as unconscious as their own transformation, because they will be living a naturally Christian life.

• relational
  It is characterised by welcome and hospitality. Its ethos and style are open to change when new members join.

No. The church does not need to change ethos or style when new members join. It might need to change times of Masses or add new Offices during the week, but the whole point is that the new folk understand that they are to grow and become part of the Christian life and that means a deliberate act of submission to Him. This is why the presence of Christ is utterly necessary in every Christian community. The Benedictines do not change the Rule everytime a new novice signs up. To keep changing means being blown by the winds of fashion and that is why the C of E is in the trouble it's in. The process of welcome means insinuating people in, helping them to adapt to the Church and seeing its relevance in their lives. Like the Benedictine novice, new folk must see what they need to change in order to get closer to God, that way they can be assured of complete stability.

However the notion of welcome is vital. The Benedictines are always hospitable and kind and loving, it's part of the Rule! In fact it's necessarily part of every rule. We cannot be Christian if we are not prepared to be hospitable. We've just read the mission of the Church in St Luke iv.18-21, and it's precisely this mission of which the laity must play their part.

So what should the C of E be doing in order to promote the idea of mission?

Well, in my opinion, they should scrap the whole idea of doing things differently, of adding new and innovative services. They should stop pandering to what society wants from the church which too often is just a salve for the guilty conscience (such as Midnight Mass), or a nominal celebration (as most people see Holy Baptism).

Then they need to cement the Doctrine of the Anglican Church which at the moment is far too broad. (And you know where this little Anglo-Papalist would go for the cement!) The clergy need to be examined to ensure that they are compliant with the four marks of the Church and understand what they mean in the same way. Their interpretations need to be weighed against the Authority of the Church (Scripture, Tradition, Reason). Then, when the clergy are fully grounded in the faith. Then they should go back to making each Mass as excellent as it can be. That the people are catechised in an orthodox manner so that they emerge fully equipped to live Christin lives and fulful their vocation of the laity.

Impossible? Well, let's pray for it!