Holy Herpetology and Loving the Lizard

It must be quite a shock to realise that each one of us has a lizard to look after. It's a large, scaly and quite ugly brute, but there is something inherently lovable about it. The main problem with it is that it is a danger to itself and others since it scuttles about uncontrollably, smashing into things, getting stuck in things, wedged in gaps and generally damaged by the harsh environment. For something so large, for its own good it needs to be confined carefully, and looked after well.

It needs somewhere with a good strong walls that it can't climb over or dig under; it needs regular meals and water. Every now and then it needs to be taken out of its cage and looked over carefully, noting its needs so that it can live and grow as God's creature should. Of course, when it's out of the cage, it does need to be kept under control.

You might think that it would be better for you to get rid of the lizard. After all, it's too much to handle, too cumbersome, too uncontrollable, too ugly. Why not find a good herpetologist to pass it onto? They'll look after it and keep it well. Alternatively, you might just let it run loose in the world. But then it damages everything and everyone around it. It's irresponsible to let the thing run wild, like those dreadful dog owners who let teir animals run loose and refuse to clear up after them and so pollute the common for everyone.

No. You have to look after your own lizard, and look after it well. It is, after all, a big part of you, a part that you cannot yet get rid of. If you mistreat, it then you are mistreating yourself. If you hate it, beat it, abuse the poor thing, or even try to kill it, then it is your very self that you hate, beat, abuse and seek to destroy.

St Paul tells us that we have to acknowledge the existence of the lizard but that we should not let the thing run riot. We are, after all, in the world, not of it. If we let our lizard loose, then we become of the world - creatures of stimulus-response, sensation-reaction, itch-scratch. However, we are created to be much more than that, that it is sometimes better for a delay between the stimulus and the response in order to ensure that another's life is taken into account and for love to grow. The lizard isn't capable of love, that's why it needs us. Yet its existence is a gift from God to us, because it is through the lizard that we encounter the physical reality of the world as a biological organism.

If we look very carefully at the lizard, then we really do become aware that we cannot be sure where it stops and we start: it is that much a part of us.

Why don't you take a look at your lizard now. It may not be pretty; you may regret that you have it; it may make living very difficult, but the poor brute does have your face, and it has been created to be loved.

A choral analogy

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

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

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

Questions for the fish and the fowl.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Easter Day 2008

Now when these soldiers saw that, they woke up the centurion and the elders (for they also were there keeping watch). While they were yet telling them the things which they had seen, they saw three men come out of the tomb, two of them sustaining the other one, and a cross following after them. The heads of the two they saw had heads that reached up to heaven, but the head of him that was led by them went beyond heaven. And they heard a voice out of the heavens saying, "Have you preached unto them that sleep?" The answer that was heard from the cross was, "Yes!"

This is an extract from the Apochryphal Gospel of St Peter, and perhaps it goes some way to demonstrating why it is apochryphal. It does however paint a picture of the outlandishness and indeed scandelous nature of the resurrection. It is sheer lunacy to think that the laws of nature which seem so familiar to us are so malleable in the hands of the expert that fashioned them.

We've seen resurrections before at the hands of Elisha and Elijah, in the vision of Ezekiel, and in that Hammer Horror moment when, with rustling and shambling the enshrouded figure of Lazarus appears at the entrance of the tomb at the hands of the Lord.

In the Canon of Holy Scripture, we are not permitted to see the Resurrection of Christ itself. It is a moment as intimate as His birth, a moment between Father and Son, and one in which we are not permitted to pry. But this intimacy points to a hope that lies beyond our understanding. We too shall be raised, and, if Jesus truly does set the pattern, we too shall share a fantastically intimate moment with God in the secret of our being. Whether we believe in Him or not, we will all be raised from the dead, bodily. We will all receive this intimate moment, and for some this may be the last intimate moment that they share with their creator if their life has been spent systematically rejecting Him.

For those who have longed for this moment, how wonderful it will be, to be touched with new life, renewed and refreshed by the tender touch of the One Who Loves.

I laid me down and slept; I awaked; for the LORD sustained me.
Psalm iii.5

Good Friday 2008

What are you doing at the foot of the cross?

As you stand there, looking up at the beaten and bloodied figure stapled to the tree by nails beaten in without any human emotion, what is going through your mind?

Can you make sense of the emotions around this event? Perhaps you want to pull Him down from the cross, bandage His hands and His feet, anoint His wounds, stop the pain. Perhaps you want to bring to justice those who have systematically deconstructed the life of a man whose only desire was to bring life and love to a world that has preferred to walk in the artificial neon light of its darkness.

Or perhaps you realise that there is nothing that you can do, save watch Him writhing in agony trying to breathe, knowing in the great illumination of hindsight that in this agony there is hope and redemption and love. Yet how can we watch this ghastly spectacle unfold without wanting to do something to put an end to this?

In our modern society, we reach for all kinds of medicament to ease our pain and distress - paracetamol, aspirin, peptobismol. We have morphine to numb the worst pains, but primarily we seek to obliterate the awfulness of the degradation of our human condition. Thus we gaze uncomfortably at our dying Saviour, wishing an end to this because, frankly, we can't stand it.

However, the Lord shows us another way. We look at Him on the cross in accomplishment. We hear that cry of "τετέλεσται" almost untranslatable into English but nonetheless a cry of triumph, not defeat. All this pain and suffering and misery in this moment makes sense for the Lord, and here in His final moments does He realise what was going on. He accepted the pain with obedience, not wanting to suffer, but doing so anyway to serve God.

So we stand at the foot of the cross watching someone die the most painful, ignominious and miserable death, and we feel and reach out because of our negative view of such pain. But we walk with the benefit of hindsight and see that it makes sense and know that if it actually pleased Him to suffer then we must be pleased to accept His suffering, and be pleased to suffer with Him. We have to look beyond the pain, treating it as a means to an end, rather than trying to numb ourselves to it, or try to alleviate that pain at a greater cost.

Some pain is just worth suffering in its full intensity.

It proves that we have truly lived.

More Pick'n'mix?

Things have got a little heated again at Anglo-Catholic Central over obedience to Bishops, especially heretical ones. If your bishop preaches against the existence of the Holy Ghost, then clearly he has rejected the Christian belief. To be a Christian, you have to hold to the existence of the Holy Ghost. And yet there will be some folk out there who call themselves Christian who don't.


I preached on Tuesday about identity, and was followed the next day by a homily on individuality within a corporate identity.



It's easy to know whether you belong to a Company; your name is on the payroll, and on a contract of employment, and if you break the terms of that contract, you cease to be a member of that company. We are free to walk where we choose and to belong to any social grouping we choose, but our choice to belong to our social group restricts where we are allowed to walk. As soon as we step outside the bounds then we are giving ourselves an identity beyond that of our social grouping.


I've already written on Pick'n'mix religion before, in which people claim to pick the best bits out of all religions, wandering around a succession of disjoint practices in search of some enlightenment which is largely superficial, and makes no sense in any rational thought.


The Lord tells us that, to follow him, we must deny ourselves, take up our cross and follow Him. It is a clear statement that our freedom to walk where we choose is to be restricted if we are to be saved. To accept Christ is to be nailed in Him to the Cross. In doing so, we restrict our choices of what we can believe, what we can do and say before it becomes sin.


The modern debate seems to be focused on the flexibilities of the boundary between true Christianity and non-Christianity. The boundary is vague because only God is able to resolve this weird shade of grey into components of black and white. The ultimate decision as to who is really a Christian lies with God Himself. The Church has power to loose and to bind eternally, she has the keys to the front door and outside of her there is no salvation. But the Church consists of those who belong to God. He gets to say who's in her and who isn't.


Lest people feel comfortable with their position, we are reminded that there are those who cry "Lord, Lord" whom the Lord does not recognise. To be a member of the Church requires active obedience to God, and those to whom God gives authority. To claim an identity within that Church requires the awareness that whatever process we use to make judgments on the lives of others, that same process will be turned, like a mirror, onto ourselves.


Does this mean then that Benedictines will be measured against the Rule? Will Fundamentalists be measured up against each tittle and daghesh forte of the Bible? What about the Pick'n'mix Christian? What about the Catholic?

μὴ κρίνετε ἵνα μὴ κριθῆτε ἐν ᾧ γὰρ κρίματι κρίνετε κριθήσεσθε καὶ ἐν ᾧ μέτρῳ μετρεῖτε μετρηθήσεται ὑμῖν

Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge , ye shall be judged : and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
(St Matthew vii.1-2)

The word for "judge" is krino which also means to govern, separate or decide. It gives us the words critic and criteria, and the Lord challenges us with regard to our criteria.

If we we make choices and judgments inconsistently with the Christian Faith, then how can we expect God to judge us with any less inconsistency. If, in our lives, we make judgments by our own authority, by our own criteria, then God's awful mirror will be turned back on ourselves, and we will find our own methods of decision and reasons for separation turned against us.

We all have to make our own choices and use our private judgment in religion at some point. That is inescapable, and rightly so, because God wants us to choose Him freely. Once we have chosen Him, it is then that we are nailed to Christ, and bound by the Christian code. This means a rejection of our own authority in making judgments in favour of the doctrine given to the Church. It doesn't say that the Church makes all our judgments for us, but rather where the Church is specific then are we bound to follow.

So what about the selection of bishops and parish? Well this is where we start getting into difficult waters. Ideally, a bishop should be the arbiter and mouthpiece of the authority of the Church. He should be bound by the teaching of the Church and utterly devoted to the suppression of his own private judgment in favour of fidelity to the Church.

Historically, there have been so many instances when this has not been the case. All of the major heresies have had episcopal adherents; that is why they have been so high-profile! There have been heretical popes opposed by orthodox priests and bishops. The modern controversies are nothing new. They still involve bishops making the wrong decisions and imposing those wrong decisions on Christ's Church.

If the layman believes that a bishop has gone wrong, then what can he do? First he must go to his priest and ask whether this is right. The priest is the bishop's vicar in the parish, so if he agrees with the bishop, then the layman must be very sure that his reasons for doubting the bishop are grounded. If the priest disagrees with the bishop, then clearly there is the beginning of a schism here, since the priest no longer represents the bishop in view of his teaching capacity.

What can he do? He must look at the situation as impartially as possible and make sure that he understands that he must select the criteria according to the teaching of the Church. This is so dangerous because it is so easy to fall into the trap of private judgment. It behoves the layman to find some episcopal authority that match his belief. However, in selecting a bishop, he makes a decision, and by that decision he will be judged.

This is an intolerable position for the layman. With his bishop at odds with the doctrine of the Church, with his priest put in an invidious position, he is forced to make decisions himself which do not have the assurance of Christ's authority. He can only act on what he believes Christ to have ordained. The trouble is, is this not now the beginning of congregationalism within a Catholic Church, which undoes its catholicism?

What can be done?

Make a decision and stick to it until it becomes untenable?

Any other ideas?

Putting the pieces together

Tim has his favourite jigsaw on the floor in front of him. He begins putting the pieces together, and shortly the pattern starts to form. But Tim has put this jigsaw together so many times, and he begins to wonder if he can put the pieces together in a different order, to make a new and different and exciting pattern.

He does managed to force some of the pieces together in the pattern he has already started, and it seems quite decent. He picks up a new piece. Tim would like it to go into that space there, but the piece has a protruberance where the space hasn't. Of course the piece objects to Tim's treatment. "I can't go in there, Tim. I'm not meant to fit in there and surely you can see that." "Ah," says Tim, "but I want you in there. I'm going to give you a choice, either you let me cut off that protruberance, or I shall throw you away."

What does the jigsaw piece do? What would you agree to?

Does Christianity disprove the MBTI?

I've been thinking about this MBTI and its tendencies to pigeonhole people. It might work heuristically, but from a Christian point of view it is an issue of concern, particularly with the ways that people (especially corporations) use it. Consider the following question:

What is the Lord's personality type?

After all, He is fully human. If He is fully human then He must have a personality type. If He has a personality type then there must be one personailty type that is better than others, that has a pre-eminence amongst personality types, that is the one that must be adhered to if we are to follow Him. Can we believe that (roughly) one sixteenth of the world's population has a head start in being closer to God because they all share the same personality attributes?

Okay, this may seem a little petty. Christ was male; one half of the world's population is male; does that make men preferable to women? Well, I might believe, being a member of the Catholic Church, that women cannot be ordained but that doesn't mean that I hold the idea that women are in anyway inferior in their humanity to men.

Christ was Jewish, but that doesn't mean that the Jewish people are in any way superior (or inferior for that matter) to others. Christ probably had a beard (unless the earliest Icons of a beardless Christ are accurate), so does that mean that the hirsute are preferred?

We are not saved by anything other than the love of God which is utterly disinterested in who we are. However, the question is interesting because we are to respond to God's love in order to open ourselves to become more like God. If Christ has a personality type according to Jung, then this shows monothelitism cannot be correct, since this would mean that God Himself has a specific personality type which is describable in Human terms.

So the MBTI, if correct, has its uses in refuting 7th century heresies. However, it still rankles with me that there should be a personality type more capable of perfection than another. Describing a personality is more defining of an individual than a specifying race/sex/hairiness. This begs the question, are we human beings defined as individuals by our personalities?

If we are then MBTI shows that there is a better personality to have because it is empirically capable of producing a perfect human personality. If there is no best MBTI, then we would need sixteen perfect humans to demonstrate to a recalcitrant humanity how each of us is to live.

MBTI exists by comparing one human being with another and measuring just a few aspects of how their personality interacts with the world around. However, Christ tells us to deny self, to deny the pursuit of self-discovery as a means to realise one's being in a transient and faddish world, but rather to seek our true being and self-knowledge in the service of God.

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

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

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

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

So why am I vacillating as usual?

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

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

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

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

Calculating the cost of Infallibility

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

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

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

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

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

Now consider:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Infallibility of the Pope after consultation?

Possible.

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?

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!

The Feast of the Nativity 2007

I often wonder how the Christ-child would have appeared in this day and age. Forgetting the details of our lives (something I'm good at) that would be different, can you imagine the Angel Gabriel declaring the message of the Annunciation to a teenage girl in an industrial estate in Birkenhead? A teenage pregnancy there would not be unusual, so the example would not exactly be of any great effect or produce great wonder. Imagine:

And there were security guards abiding in the malls, keeping watch over their flat-screen tellys by night, and the Angel of the Lord appeared to them and said, "@*£# off to the Sondheim Estate and there you'll find a kid in the dog's basket who has come to cheer you up, you miserable #*&$£5s!"

It's just so commonplace! So ordinary! The birth of a baby is important to families and friends but you don't cross town just to see the child born to a teenage mother who's probably given been put in that state following a binge in Bermondsey, however cute the baby, unless you're in social services.

What made those shepherds and those magi, travel to stop and stare at the simple sight of a young lady and a tiny baby in the oxen's trough in a stable?

Well, if you believe modern church thinkers (and it's often wise not to), it probably didn't happen. All this Nativity business is sheer literary window dressing on the part of the writers of Matthew's and Luke's Gospels, just to enhance the Lord's reputation.

Why the need to enhance the Lord's reputation? Surely the accounts of His years of ministry, his miracles, His death and resurrection, His teaching, His "wild claims" of being the Son of God, surely that spells it out quite adequately without needing a fabrication of the Nativity. Mark doesn't need the Nativity for his Gospel, and neither does John, the life of the Lord stands well enough without the stories of the baby in the manger. So why did Matthew and Luke feel the need to include these passages? Why did the Church feel that these parts of the Gospels were necessary? Why were they not edited out, as some modern folk think the Early Church was very good at?

I suppose the message of the Nativity means for me that people can react very differently to the very ordinary. Professor Dawkins would have seen the child in the manger, probably paid compliments to the mother and charitably handed over a five pound note to help the baby (he is, after all, a decent human being), but he would have seen nothing other than a rather pitiable state of humanity. He does not attribute any further significance because there is no scientific test for metaphysical significance. However, some see the significance in their science, others are told about the significance from strange agencies. The meaning is deeper than mere physicality: the ordinaryness of a mother and a new born baby forced to take shelter in a stable is just so human.

Yet we can easily see the Lord's humanity without the Nativity, so His ordinaryness is not dependent upon the circumstances of His birth. The Nativity tells us to look, and to keep looking for the Christ-child in our day and age, to see the significance of our humdrum and monotonous existence without the need for a man to point it out to us using miracles and teachings. We can find God in our lives if we look for Him, even if it gets difficult, confusing and a bit depressing. It's a bit like looking for one particular baby in a Middle Eastern town.

"Seek ye first the Kingdom of God..."

May you find the Christ-child this Christmas, and know His joy and peace.

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.

An orthodox apology.

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

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

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

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

The oldest thirty-something in town.

As I watch my hairline sweep backwards across my head as if it were mortally afraid of my nose, and see my students ask that dreaded question "Who?" when I mention Wilson, Keppel and Betty, I begin to see something of the love affair that the world has with the young.

The epithet beauty is almost exclusive to the young, and there is a good reason. We watch their vitality, freshness, newness, and see our old ideas beget new thoughts in their heads. In each young man and woman there is a power and a potentiality that we find frightening.

It's easy for us to be filled with twinges of regret and envious loathing as they remind us of the southward drift of the stomach and the stiffening of the joints that result in pistol shots emanating from under the cassock every time we genuflect.

The love affair with the young is vicarious in nature, we can live our hopes and dreams through our sons and daughters and yet we can forget that they are people in themselves. None more so is this evident with the sexualising of the young by a desperate society trying to stave off the ravages of time with more and more impossibly handsome young men and women. Society has forgotten that sexuality is the beginning of life for someone else: it is not something for the individual to possess, not a pleasure to indulge in, not for ourselves as a pastime.

This attraction that exists is a desire to possess and to live one's life over again, trying to mend all those faults that we have incurred, trying to find pleasures that we have now lost. I see so many children cleverer than I am/was, and it's a shocker to see that the intellect that I was once proud to possess eclipsed by my students. Do I regret it?

No. Not one bit. It is sobering, but "at the end of the game, all the pieces have to go back in the box" as John Ortberg says. So it is pointless to dwell on past glories. We have to be prepared for this, and allow these youngsters to play their game - use their time and chance to make this world better. To steal time from them is vanity and a form of violation. Nonetheless, we do have a duty to help them avoid the pitfalls that caught us, to help them exercise and train their skills and encourage them into thinking new thoughts built upon the foundations of the old.

My only hope is that they are shown that true life is not something that can be taken apart and analysed, but rather a God-given gift given to each one of us to do with what we will, and that also comes with responsibilities and duties, for they too will reach this stage with half a life lived and wonder, as I do, "where has it all gone?"

What about for us whose life is half lived?

Well, there is still the other half to go...

Visions of the Future?

Lazar stands on the edge of the cliff looking over the metropolis watching the distant computer-organised vehicles weaving impossibly around each other from a thousand possible directions, each conveying a single occupant a hundred miles in a matter of a few minutes.



He looks up at the star shining redly over the landscape. Soon, in the next hundred thousand years, the metropolis will be uprooted to the next solar system. Lazar himself has had to endure that five or six times now. Each time, he has been responsible for ensuring that the servile classes in his area obey the directives that involve the regulations for packing away. The serviles just don't have the intellect required to follow the complicated sequences of digits formed by high modulus values of polylogarithms encoding population distribution data. Lazar can manipulate these in sequences in his 30 second sleep period. This reminds him that next week he is having genetic modification in order to reduce his necessary sleep to 15 seconds.

As Lazar looks into the distance, his eyes firmly focussed on a winged creature preening itself with one of its three appendages a kilometre away. he tries to find one good reason why he shouldn't take that one more step forward off into oblivion. His genetically perfected eyesight scans the figures in the citadels of the metropolis, each one moving aimlessly at their work - making sure that the computers self-regulation systems are still self regulating. What else is there for them to do?

They've dreamed their dreams. They fly among the stars visiting new planets, but when you've see 5,000,000 new planets, you've seen them all. Alien species have they met, but since most of them don't really resemble the life that human beings can really converse with (like the gas vortices living in the surface of the star above them) there is not much more mystery left in meeting them. Indeed alien life doesn't seem to recognise human beings as being living things.

Lazar realises that it has been 50,000 years since he last looked into a mirror. His enhanced memory remembers it well. However, since Lazar hasn't changed in 50,000 years, he hasn't needed to check his appearance. Nothing changes about him. his life goes on. His pleasures have been fulfilled a thousand thousand times over. He has had sex a myriad times with a myriad people of several genetically enhanced genders, and has fulfilled his quota of 3 children per planet that he has visited. He remembers his 5,000,000th educational stage that he reached last month with top marks. What pleasure does education have for him now? He remembers every word that he has ever read in his life, plus there is all the information that he has downloaded directly into his brain via the computer interface.

What else is there for Lazar to accomplish? So he shrugs and takes the final step off of the cliff into the lava flow below. Bessed oblivion?

The central computer of the metropolis recognises that Lazar has ceased to function. It then sends a signal to the biological reproduction centre which authorises a clone to be generated from Lazar's DNA. The clone is prepared in seconds. The computer interface is inserted into its neck and all of Lazar's memories are downloaded into it.

On the table, for the 4,000th time, Lazar awakes. Looking up at the ceiling above him he reads the words: "Science: mastery of the universe."

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 Commun