Noticing the Community Trust

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Science, Sorites and Society.

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

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

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

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

But it is just a theory.

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

And that's the point.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Horror and Holiness

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Opinion again? Perhaps.

Assumpta est Maria in Caelum

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

St Benedict's Priory Salisbury 2011

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Subdeacons and Readers: Lay or Nay?

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

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

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

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

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

But then, neither is the Reader a scriptural beast.

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

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

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

Readers may:

• Preach



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



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



• Lead intercessions



• Receive and present the offerings of the people



• Distribute the consecrated bread and wine to the people



• Take Communion to the sick and housebound



• Publish banns of marriage in the absence of a priest



• Undertake pastoral and educational work



• Assist any minister as the bishop may direct

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

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

With permission from the Bishop, Readers may:

• Officiate at Communion by Extension services



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



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

Readers may NOT:

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



• Officiate at a marriage service



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Of course, I could be wrong.

Comments and corrections are always appreciated.

Circuits in the Swimming Pool

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Faces, Facets, Factions and Fractions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What really lies beneath? Do you want to see?

Post-Ordinariate Anglican Papalism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rave or Rosary? Pub or Prayer?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Law and Religion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nearly forgot

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

Love and Remembrance

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wisdom of Jesus, son of Sirach xliv.9

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

Whitsunday: Are you receiving me?

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

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

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

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

The fact remains: God is a dangerous God.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How dangerous is your Church?

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

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

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

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

1. The 'true Church' does not ordain women;



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



3. The Anglican Church should not ordain women.

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

He makes the claim that

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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