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.

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.

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

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.

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!

Homosexualism and Holiness

The debate rages within the Anglican Church about the acceptance of practising homosexual priests and my friends on the Continuum blog continue to elucidate the orthodox line about how the issues of the female "priesthood" and acceptance of homosexuality are in fact the same thing. They are both concerned with the corruption of the Natural Order.

The main trait of Anglicanism seems to be what the Young Fogey calls Tolerant Conservatism, and I wonder just how well that is being brought to bear in this argument which is turning out to be quite bitter. Archbishop Akinola seems to be the proponent of Conservatism, and Dr Jefferts-Schori claims to be "tolerant". It seems clear to me that Dr Jefferts-Schori is certainly not conservative (nor is she especially tolerant, but then what did you expect?), and Archbishop Akinola certainly not tolerant. Both, in my honest opinion, have attitudes which are quite repugnant to the word of God.

I cannot accept that it is any way loving for an Archbishop not to shake the hand of a homosexual just because he is a homosexual. Christ ate with sinners. He would eat with me, with Hitler, with Mother Theresa, Gene Robinson, Akinola and Mrs Jefferts-Schori preferring not one of us above the other, all this despite our vileness. Yet clearly we have to respond to His reaching out to us for the Grace to be efficacious, and this means complicity with the rule of His Kingdom that lies within us. The Kingdom within Robinson and Mrs Jefferts-Schori seems very much like the British idea of Constitutional Monarchy in which the Queen is the nominal head, but the realm run by bureaucrats and politicians geared more to pleasing the people rather than running a healthy country. That's true of all of us, but only the leaders of the extremes in this matter are exhibiting this most clearly.

For Akinola, he should look and see what would happen if the roles were reversed. What if the Natural Law was homosexual, and he remaining firmly heterosexual? What then?

Perhaps Akinola needs to walk a mile in Dr. Jeffrey John's shoes. He, if you remember, is the homosexual Dean of St Albans who maintains a celibate relationship with another man, and who had to withdraw from the race for Bishop of Reading. While the ramifications of Dr John's relationship are dangerous and contrary to Divine Ordinance, I believe that Akinola needs to look at the situation like a doctor examines a tumour and see where the malignancy lies, not shunt the patient straight to the hospice. We should be trusting our bishops to behave like spiritual physicians as St Benedict says with skill, firmness, love, patience and complete orthodoxy.

It must be desperately hard for homosexuals who are, after all, as human as every other sinner. The human being was created to be loved, and that is precisely what all of us crave, except everything is skewed by Original Sin, and thus do not recognise that at the heart of this yearning is that of wanting to be loved by God. Most of us feel that strange sensation that occurs when we see someone utterly desirable, but we can't pinpoint what it is about them that we desire. That desire can burn and burn unless it is acted upon, but the question remains - how?

This desire can be utterly selfish - a lust, a desire to make the object do what we want and be powerless to exercise any of their desires in the matter. The trouble is that this lust comes clothed in much more acceptable terms. The lust is augmented by a desire to please, to protect, to comfort the object. There is no desire to hurt or to harm, only desire for what is holy and good, but it still comes tainted with this lust which offsets the balance and threatens to take away the humanity of the other.

This is if the desire is unrequited, so imagine the joy when the object feels exactly the same way about us! It is therefore quite reasonable to think that it is meant to be, that there is some Divine approval for the end of this deep-seated lonliness.

But God, while blessing the love, does not approve when it becomes the excuse for sex outside of marriage.

Yes, it seems evilly unfair, and I myself struggle to believe that there is no way that homosexuals can in anyway express their love for each other in a physical sense. However, the Natural Law is quite clear, the Holy Scripture is quite clear, the Holy Tradition of the Church is quite clear, homosexuality is not physically expressible.

Why? I used the phrase in my previous post below: sexuality is the beginning of life for someone else. As Fr Robert Hart kindly pointed out to me, there is no way that there can exist a love that is both holy and erotic (in the proper sense of the word) without there being a sexual dimension, and a sexual dimension is necessarily geared to beginning a life. That's what it is there for. Thus there is no sexuality-free version of romantic love.

This doesn't address the passion within each one of those unable to express themselves physically. I believe that it is to these individuals that a great commission has been given, namely to find new expressions of love in holiness. Since so many people of this orientation are gifted with new visions, artistic skills, sensitivity and creativity, surely they have been invited to a great and wonderful calling to find ways of expressing love beyond the confines of human physicality and yet within the Divine Ordinance.


As for the Anglican Church, well, parts of her continue daily to leave the path of Tolerant Conservatism, i.e. keeping faithful to the Catholic Faith yet bearing in love the humanity of others. But there is a true and faithful remnant both in the C of E but mainly in the Continuum where the stance is made clear. Is that stance made lovingly? Perceptably so?

With thanks to Fr Robert Hart and Ed Pacht from the Continuum.

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?

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?

Ructions in the Lab.

It has been said that History is the Laboratory of Theology - and I'm ashamed to say I've forgotten who said it!

One of the questions that Sandra McColl asked on the Continuum was "has the Anglican Experiment failed?" which is why I think the above quote is relevant. So why should I, a non-historian and semi-reluctant member of the C of E, consider the question of failure of Anglicanism.

First of all, we must ascertain really what that phrase "Anglican Experiment" means in order to understand if and where it has failed. I think that its clear that this refers to answering the question of "is it possible to tread a middle way between Rome and Protestantism?" However does this question really mean anything?

It is painfully clear that Anglicanism is separate from Rome - it is an issue that has recently been shoved down Anglican throats, first by His Holiness' affirmation of the Catholic Church subsisting in the Roman Catholic Church, and more recently and personally by recent ex-Anglican Tiber-swimmers who reinforce their decision by attacking their erstwhile home.

As Fr. Hart says, the term "Protestant" is used in a meaningless way usually as a term to mean "not Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox". However, some would argue that to say that Anglicanism is Protestant is erroneous in that Anglicanism exists in the same manner as the Eastern Orthodox Church. If "Protestant" means the churches that broke away from Rome at the Reformation, well that again makes life unclear about Anglicanism which a) was not initially set up as a rival church to the Holy See b) was separated from Rome for political and not doctrinal reasons and c) has always had groups within it which have looked to Rome for guidance and influnce. That is significant.

Another aspect of Anglicanism was recently crystallised for me by Young Fogey, namely the idea of Tolerant Conservatism defined as "Charity and discretion about people’s failings while at the same time not making excuses for those vices either." This has served the Anglican Church well as a defining aspect of identity. Thus the hope of a tolerantly conservative Anglicanism is that Protestants might have a home under its wing but find that they have to respect the Traditional teaching of the Catholic Faith.

Th trouble is, was the Anglican Church deliberately set up to be the famous via media? The answer is no. Was the Anglican Church deliberately set up to espouse tolerant conservatism? Initially, no, but the idea must have arrived within the Church soon after with Elizabeth I's reluctance to "make windows into men's souls". That she had respect unto the Roman Catholics is evident in the way that she treated some of the composers of the time such as Tallis and Byrd who clung to their catholicism. Of course the tide of public affection was certainly anti-Catholic by the close of Elizabeth's reign, but, as Eamonn Duffy explains in the Stripping of the Altars the people were deeply reluctant to break from Rome.

Can we then really talk of Anglicanism as an experiment to tread the via media? I don't really believe we can - it was not set up to be so. It exists as a strange accident of history. If we have to talk of the Anglican experiment, then it is my opinion that it has failed for the simple reason that it is ideally a fully Catholic body that has a need for reunion with the Holy See and the Eastern Orthodox Churches- Rome first because it broke most recently from Rome. It has failed in reality since it has failed to stand up to the test of time in which the right to private judgment has torn it into rapidly divergent sections. As I say however, it is not clear that we can attribute this raison d'etre to the Anglican Church - if it were an experiment, then we should have set it up to be so more carefully.

As for tolerant conservatism, well, that is still there, even in the Continuum where many critics say that it has evaporated. In mainstream Anglicanism, tolerant conservatism has just been replaced with unequivocal acceptance. To tolerate means to put up with, not to accept as being consonant which seems is the modern ethos. Protestants and Roman Catholics are more than welcome into Anglican communities and should be made to feel part, however the Protestants should realise that the Anglican Church teaches the authority of Scripture, Tradition and subordinate Reason, and the Roman Catholics should realise that Anglicanism has an indefinable identity independent from the Vatican in the same way as Antioch, Alexandria and Jerusalem.

Again if we try to see Anglicanism as being an experiment in tolerant conservatism, then we should have set up the experiment better. As I said above, with tolerant conservatism being replaced with unequivocal acceptance, the Anglican Church falls to bits. However, it isn't over yet. Things are happening that may surprise us all. Let's not leave God out of the equation - after all isn't He the definition of perfect Tolerant Conservatism?

I'll end with the words to a song by William Byrd commenting on the Reformation. Do they say anything to us about the existence of the Anglican Church?

Ah silly Soul how are thy thoughts confounded

betwixt two loves, that far unlikely are?

Lust's love is blind, and by no reason bounded.

Heaven's love is clear, and fair beyond compare.

No wonder though this love light not thy mind,

whilst looking through false love thine eyes are blind.

Is Anglicanism fit for Catholic [sic] Communion?

I found this book review of A Tactful God. Gregory Dix: Priest, Monk and Scholar, by Simon Bailey. I've not read the book (Heavens, I have a backlog of at least half a book case!) but given the Papalism of Dom Gregory Dix, there is a question that needs to be asked - Is Anglicanism fit for communion with the Holy See (hence the [sic] in the title)?



I see four issues that are related with the central question.

• Desire: Does Anglicanism want to be in communion with the Holy See?


• Necessity: Why should Anglicanism be in communion with the Holy See?


• Change: What does Anglicanism need to do to be in communion with the Holy See?


• Reciprocation: Why should the Holy See want to be in communion with Anglicanism?

Now, of course, the big problem with me posting these questions here is that I'm really not learned enough to answer them properly. I can only offer my take as a common or garden uneducated member of the laity. I'll try and perhaps if a better educated reader will comment and correct, that will be all to the good.

At the heart of all these questions is the reality that Anglicanism is fragmented into factions. If you ask whether Anglicans hold to any specific doctrine the answer will always be that there will be some that do, and some that don't and some that will question whether what doctrine that means in the first place - even the basic Christian beliefs are open to variety. There are priests who do not believe in the Virgin Birth, the Bodily Resurrection of the Lord, even God as a sentient and intelligent being. There are priests in the Anglican Church who hold to doctrines as diverse as The Rapture and Transubstantiation - there may even be priests who hold to both! Young Fogey has some insights into the various churchmanships that exist in the Anglican Communion.

This makes the questions much harder to answer, because really we need first to ask the question: what is Anglicanism? Here's one answer citing Archbishop Haverland of the Anglican Catholic Church. I suppose the only real answer to this is that Anglicanism is the church in communion with or continuing the historical traditions of the Church of England. Even then I'm not happy with this because there are those who call themselves Anglican who really are not, and those who are refused to be recognised as Anglican even though they are. It's a pickle.

That's not to say that Anglicanism is peculiar in that it has members who claim to be Anglican and do not hold to the teaching of their church. After all, there are Roman Catholics who object to the teaching of the Holy See about contraception, those who refuse to leave Amnesty International on the grounds that AI is pro-abortion. And it is not just the Roman Catholics, but it is true all over the place that people are exercising private judgment, rather than follow the tenets of their religion.

What is peculiar is that Anglicanism has elected people of radically different theologies into positions of influence and teaching. Who else would have Bishops as diverse in thought as John Shelby Spong, Richard Chartres, David Silk, David Jenkins, George Carey? Could these Bishops sit down and agree on what constitutes the Christian Faith? Personally I have my doubts. Could this be done with the Sacred College of Cardinals? Well, in principal yes, at least Papal Infallibility means that there is a determinable point of unity, even if other members of the Church cannot agree to tht doctrine. In practice, well, it's more likely than in the Anglican Case.

However, if we accept that proper Anglicanism is actually contained within the Anglo-Catholic wing, then we have a better chance of some agreement of unity. Many would disagree with this on the grounds that they believe that Anglo-Catholics are not representative of the Anglican Communion. What marks proper Anglo-Catholicism out from Anglo-Protestantism and Anglo-Liberalism, is that Anglo-Catholicism has always sought out the Traditions of the Church and striven to be faithful to that Tradition, and that is Anglo-Catholicism's saving - it is more consistent to Christian doctrine than any other group in the Anglican Communion, and by rights has the true ownership of the label Anglicanism. Sit down Archbishop Haverland, Archbishop Hepworth, and the PEVs of the Church of England, to discuss the Christian Faith and there is likely to a greater concensus.

So I can only answer the questions in respect of the Anglo-Catholic Church, i.e. those who who hold to the Traditions of the Catholic Church. In this respect, I cannot describe "Affirming Catholics" as being Catholic since they have attempted to uphold erroneous teaching by moving the goalposts and redefined what "Catholic" means. The line has to be drawn somewhere, and I am sure that the true Anglican Church is actually much smaller than people think it to be.

Does Anglicanism want to be in Communion with the Holy See? I suspect that all Anglo-Catholics do want to be in Communion with Rome from the point of view of the Holy Mass, it is the circumstances of how that Communion is to be understood which are questionable. That the Holy See does not recognise Anglicanism as being a proper church is the first sticking point. Actually, who could really blame the Holy See? If His Holiness has looked in detail at the Anglican Communion then he's probably terribly confused as to what's going on. If he sees the AffCaths and their ridiculous warping of Catholicism, and the Evangelicals and their outright rejection of the Authority of the Church, then he's not going to regard seriously a little body of Traditional Anglicans, some inside and some outside the Anglican Communion claiming Catholicity in separation from Rome. That's if he has had the time. I don't relish the job of any Papal inquisitor into the state of Anglicanism.

However, Anglicanism has always seen itself as part of the Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church which is why many "Anglicans" can be ruled out as being properly Anglican because of their rejection and redefinition of what "Holy", "Catholic" and "Apostolic", and therefore there should be a need within Anglicans to seek Communion with the Holy See. The costs need to be reviewed and weighed - and that's the key.

What would Communion with the Holy See bring to Anglicanism? I can imagine that it would be like blood rushing into a severed arm and breathe a new lease of life into those tired churchgoers who are disheartened by a rapidly secularising world. I do think that it would afford us some safety and a great deal more hope as we see the Church come together. A nearly 500 year old Schism would be at an end.

But at what cost? Well, here the trouble starts. We have the issue of the Mass, which surely won't be too big a problem. Lots of ACs subscribe to Transubstantiation, and I believe I'm right in thinking that the sizeable majority believe in the Real and Worshipful Presence of Christ in the Mass. The big bind is that of authority and Papal Infallibility.

Now this is what separates the Anglo-Catholics from the Anglo-Papalists. Respectable Anglo-Catholics such as Frs Hart and Kirby from The Continuum would certainly not accept unity on the terms of scrapping the Anglican way of doing Church in favour of the Roman Method. Similarly the famous Anglican way of thinking would soon be curtailed by the Roman hierarchy. We can see that in the life of Newman, who although a brilliant thinker and writer was also flawed in some of his reasoning (so was St Augustine, so was St Thomas Aquinas), but was also leant on by the Holy See in view of his writings. This Anglican way of thinking is what we can bring to the Holy See, just as the Celtic view of confession was adopted by the Magisterium. For such Anglo-Catholics, reunion with the Holy See would be seen to be a good thing, but not absolutely necessary.

To an Anglo-Catholic, the separation is painful but bearable, and many would see, for example the rejection of Anglican Orders (despite developments since 1893) as being only problematic for the Holy See. To an Anglo-Papalist, the separation needs to be ended, but only by corporate reunion, not individual secession. For either group, the ball is really in the court of the Holy See, though only the Anglo-Papalists will be fretting about it!

Does this answer the question: is Anglicanism fit for Communion with the Holy See?

With certain provisos, yes. First the Anglo-Catholic Churches must come together as one and speak out as one using that three-fold gift of Scripture, Tradition and Reason. They must proclaim their doctrine of the Real Presence loudly, that although there may be differences in understanding how the Presence is made Real, the basic fact that Our Lord is present grants the same effect of the Eucharist to all who receive it be they Anglican, Orthodox or Roman. Second they must clearly demonstrate that they ar distant and separate from the Protestantism and Liberalism which reject Traditional interpretation, and embrace fallacy in preference to Truth. Third, there should be a cessation of bitterness and snipery that seems so prevalent among Anglo-Catholics - it's forgivable seeing how we've been treated by the Anglican Communion, but unnecessary when we're trying to build up the Church.

I don't see what more we can do. As I said, it is really down to the Holy See to make the next move. We Anglo-Papalists don't want to be separate, but perhaps we're in too much of a minority to have as great an effect. However, even if communion with the Pope is not achieved, I still think that a greater sense of unity in the Continuum and the faithful Remnant in the C of E would be worth struggling for.

Another Seriously Confused Anglo-Papalist.

Perhaps it's inevitable that Anglo-Papalists should be confused. Fr. Vervoorst, before he went to Rome was the definitively Seriously Confused Anglo-Papalist.

I've been considering my position in the C of E for a long time, and my intention was to make my final decision as to whether to stay or go when the first woman "bishop" was brought into a very dubious idea of being. My thoughts there were that I would be joining a host of others who would be leaving at the same time. So have I changed my mind?

Well, it's difficult to say because my own position is more murky than ever. In the space of a year or so I have become a part of the Continuum, yet without being part of the Continuum, i.e. remaining as a Reader in a Church of England Parish yet not really regarding myself as a full member of the Church of England. Now quite reasonably my friends in the Continuum are desirous that I shake the dust off of my feet at the Church of England. But I don't just have friends in the Continuum, I also have some very good friends in the Church of England.

So do I move to the Continuum just to appease one bunch of friends, or do I remain where I am to appease the others?

Well, clearly neither. I don't stay or go just to satisfy the concerns of friends but I stay or move according to the will of God and I stay or move to the places where the Truth is being taught and they know and appreciate that fact because they love me unconditionally, a fact that I cherish dearly. Personally I'm amazed at how long I've managed to stick out my present parish.

But you see I'm an Anglo-Papalist.

I'm not a Romanizer, though I do love the Tridentine way of doing things, but the Anglican Tradition, as it has always stood, is rich and deeply spiritual. For me Anglo-Papalism is a refusal to take the idea of the schism of the Church lying down. Yes, there is a schism between Canterbury and Rome, and the Catholicism of the Anglican Church is not complete without communion with the Holy See.

So I watch as the Anglican Church schisms again. The effects of this schism has seen the appearance of the Continuing Anglican Parishes which seek to continue the Anglican Tradition. However many of these are not in Communion with each other which seems to suggest the presence of some schismatic influence which may or may not be a feature of the history of these Parishes. Personally, I feel that if there are schismatic issues here in the Continuum, then they result from the way that the Anglican Communion has moved away from the Anglican Continuum.

As an Anglo-Papalist, schism worries me.

My main worry about the Continuum is a fear that I have that the reasons for the separation are an intellectualisation which covers the and underlying "do it my way or I sha'n't play" attitude. That's quite a horrid thing to say on my part, and I'm sure that it is not the case since there is much integrity within these parishes. However, by and large there is a marked convergence between what the larger of these Jurisdictions teach and believe. The fact that there seems to be little desire for the Continuing Jurisdictions to talk and seek ways of unification, or at least conversation, does seem to lend weight to the argument that my fear could be true.

For me, the attraction of the Continuum is a stability of doctrine. That doesn't mean an atrophy of doctrine, but rather I see in each of my Continuum friends a desire to seek the truth within the confines of a system of dogmas, something that I hold very dear. Unlike mathematics which is based on axioms, our faith is based on dogmas. Mathematics builds on axioms whose truth cannot be disputed and results in theorems. Our faith is built on dogmas whose truth can be disputed and the act of dispute has a hand in unpacking those dogmas and revealing deeper, more intricate and beautiful truths. Thus heresy has a vital role to play in Christianity provided that the heresy is a means of sharpening our picture of the Truth. I wrote recently about the ACC and its guarantees that her priests are priests and that her Sacraments valid. That is something that cannot be said about the C of E.

What I do appreciate about the Church of England has been its historical struggle to hold together opposing viewpoints in some coherent way. Where it has failed has been in revising the Prayerbook in such a way as to diversify Common Prayer to the extent that the different wings of the Church started to pray differently from the others and subsequently lost touch. I blame the issues of condoning abortion, the "priesthood" of women and all the other divergences in doctrine on this revision. But still, in this, the province of my upbringing, there are signs of Christian love and charity, there are still validly ordained clergy who do uphold the Christian Faith, and there are still folk who inspire in me a deep admiration and reverence. In my conscience, the light of the Catholic Faith still burns in the C of E.

I am an Anglo-Papalist.

This means that I have no option but to try to hold the Holy See, the Continuum and the Church of England together in my heart and offer them all my love and support. What do I foresee? The only thing that I can foresee is that I end up ripped to shreds. I think I would rather that happen than for me to accept a quick-fix solution and denying the possibility that there is Truth outside that solution. I will be accused of trying to serve two masters. I don't see how since my only master is Christ. I'm trying to be Catholic, and since Catholic means "according to the whole" I am trying to be just that. I don't see why I should have to choose between Catholic Christians. One day I may take my rear from the fence: it will not be without thought, regret and tears.

The shape of things to come?

Sometimes the Internet seems such an impersonal thing - indeed one could easily come to the conclusion that the people who email and comment on message boards are figments of the imagination and/or programmed responses given by the computer like a chinese box.

However, today I can refute this technological solipsism in the shape of Albion Land and the various members of the Anglican Catholic Church with whom I received communion with their gracious permission today. Albion, as you may know runs The Continuum blog and is striving to hear God's vocation for him realised as a priest in the ACC. Certainly my prayers go with him.

Today has been very special as I have witnessed my first ordination, and received the Sacrament with people who actually agree with me (more or less) with what is happening in the Eucharist. I also heard Fr Damien Mead's sermon based upon the sermon of a previous bishop (now at peace) written for ordinations. What struck me was that for once I was receiving a guarantee - a guaranteed Sacrament administered by a guaranteed bishop (The Rt Rev'd Rommie Starks) in a church which has orders guaranteed by the Grace of God. The Church of England cannot guarantee that her own priests be