Pages

Thursday, December 28, 2006

One year on...

Well, as of 29th December 2006, this little bloglet is a year old. Thanks to the folk who do click in regularly, I hope you've found this first year interesting and thank you for the comments.

I've learned a lot this year about myself and about the state of the Church.

This is how I began:

Where do I start? I am a Catholic, not a Roman one, mind you, though I'd dearly
love to be in Communion with His Holiness for whom I have a profound respect.
No, I'm an Anglo-Catholic in the Church of England, though if the decision goes
through to "ordain" women as bishops then I'm dropping the Anglo bit. I remain
in the Church of England since I was born into it, and I don't really wish to
leave it.I'm a schoolteacher, but I confess that I don't like it very much for
various reasons both political and personal. I am exploring a vocation into
Benedictine Orders. So becoming an OSB may fulfil my love of academic study and
my Catholic affectations. The trouble is that Anglican Religious orders seem to
be on the wane. This would be a disaster if this actually happens.I have a lot
of friends in the Continuum, i.e. those Anglo-Catholics standing outside the
Anglican communion. My dearest wish is that somehow all those various Catholic
denominations should strive for a unity which will fight the growing menaces of
Liberalism, Relativism and Individualism that are infecting the Church as well
as society. Such a wish can only come through prayer, but we need the prayer
centres too. Pass me my hassock, please.

Well, I don't call myself an Anglo-Catholic these days except only as a rough guide to where my churchmanship lies since few people have heard of the Anglo-Papalists. Indeed, if I'm asked, I always say that I am Catholic. If anyone is astute to notice my Church of England Readers' badge then I have some explaining to do. I've certainly learned more about my Papistical leanings and the fact that Anglicanism does need the Church of Rome for guidance in its doctrine. This position has been ratified for me by the rati-zinger himself , His Holiness Pope Benedict, who demonstrates the importance for the Church to be faithful to its Tradition.

Following the C of E's declaration that women in the Episcopate is consonant with Anglican Understanding, I am at present waiting to see what the "brief from Hell" is going to propose before I make my decision whether I need to swim or not. I am constantly reviewing this situation which is far from ideal. I certainly do not consider myself to be an Anglican if Anglicanism is consonant with women "bishops".

As for my Benedictinism, well, that's on hold for a little while as I get used to my new job. I continue to develop my relations with Elmore Abbey in the hope that some more formal affiliation may result. I have found St Benedict very useful for balancing my life out.

So one year on sees some growth and some change but still the same problems and irritations. We are stuck with the -isms, including the Neo-Arianism that Dan Brown seems to be selling as well as Gnosticism. These can only be fought by working on our beliefs as set down in Scripture and communicated through the Church. History does not fight the Church, it is modern historians who are trying to make it look as if the Catholic Church is responsible for cover-ups and conspiracies. I cannot see what it would gain from doing so.

This year I do need to do more study, my Latin is horrible, my Greek worse and my Hebrew appalling. As I settle in my new job then hopefully I shall find the time to work on some things that I've laid aside for a while such as the proper ministry of Women and the "Natural Sacraments" that I proposed last year. No - I hadn't forgotten. Perhaps you wish I had!

Well here's to another twelve months.

7 comments:

  1. Happy Blogday!! (I just made that up - LIKE IT??)

    Keep praying, learning, thinking, BLOGGING! God will guide those who are faithful! Those who listen and OBEY!

    Long live BXVI!!!

    M.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Blogday - yes I do like it, Fr Vervoorst. Thank you for your kind words.

    Indeed, long live BXVI!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Hi,
    I found your blog through a Google alert on "relativism", my own particular pet project. I thought to write you about the following: I want to start a petition to get God and our Judeo-Christian heritage back into the preamble of the EU Constitution. This project was declared dead after Holland and France voted it down. But now it seems the Germans (chair first half 2007) are making a point of reviving it. Time thus, to bring life to this subject as well.
    The text of the petition needs very careful drafting. Do you think you can help/assist me with this?
    God bless,
    Aleka "Cassandra" Strieker,
    weblog http://millennium-notes.blogspot.com/,
    email: alekastrieker@yahoo.co.uk (-P.S. But I'm not in the UK, I'm in Greece).

    ReplyDelete
  4. Thanks for the posting. I'll second the happy blogday wish.

    You said, "History does not fight the Church, it is modern historians who are trying to make it look as if the Catholic Church is responsible for cover-ups and conspiracies."

    I've read a substantial portion of Mosheim's history of the Church. The translation I had was heavily footnoted with bibliographic references. Mosheim was a Luthern who shed a considerable amount of light on the secular aspect of the Church. To ignore the cover-ups and conspiracies is to ignore the essential nature of the Church.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Sophia,

    thanks for the comment. Perhaps I should have been clearer as to what conspiracies and cover-up I mean.

    That there have been such suppressions and scandals in the Church is well-documented, and that the Council of Nicaea wasn't without much strife and conflict is also absolutely true.

    However, I am railing in particular against those who deny the substance of the Creeds which have, after a great deal of argument become the Catholic Faith (see the Quicunque Vult). These Creeds state what it means to be a Christian, and I hold to their teaching as the Church presents it.

    There seems to be a modern tendency to reduce the person of Our Lord to that of a man with a single, human, nature contrary to what Christians believe. It is the accusations that the Church has deliberately changed the Faith and its historical revelation in order to gain supremacy to which I object.

    Indeed one of the last television programmes I saw talking about the Mary Magdalene "cover-up" was deliberately using sensationalist language and selective translations of texts in order to convince the viewer of something that was not true.

    Of course History can never be read utterly disinterestedly, but I continue to trust in the Faith held by the Church rather than the findings of historians who set out with an agenda for discrediting the Church.

    However, what is useful about these modern controversies is that they do give an opportunity for the Church to revisit the old arguments again, a refreshment of her teaching, if you like. Far from ignoring the accusations of conspiracy, I do feel that they represent the renewing of the Faith that I talked about in an earlier post, but they need to be addressed clearly using the revelation that the church has always received.

    ReplyDelete
  6. One constantly finds two distinct questions being mixed together, such that an affirmative to one is seen to require an affirmative to the other. This is false reasoning.

    1. Are evil things, abuses, and coverups to be found on the Church? Of course there are. The Church is made up of sinful human beings, and sin is what sinners do. No institution made up of humans can be perfect, and this certainly is true of ‘the church militant here in earth’.

    2. Has the Church covered up and replaced the original message? Of course not. If this were so, there would be no church and there would be no saving message. Jesus promised that the gates of hell would not prevail against His church, and they haven’t. By divine appointment the Church is custodian and teacher of the truth of salvation, of the Scriptures, and of the interpretation of the Scriptures, as well as of the Sacraments. If this were not so, there would be no Christianity, and no hope.

    If the various revisionists be not utterly rejected, it is absolutely pointless to claim to be Christians.

    ed

    ReplyDelete
  7. Habby Blogday, Jonathan.

    I don't remember you mentioning Elmore before. I have been an oblate novice for nearly nine years now, but sadly have not visited since we left England in 1999.

    Give my best to Dom Kenneth. I'm not sure who else is still there.

    ReplyDelete