Questions for the fish and the fowl.

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

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

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

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

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

Cardinal Newman on Transubstantiation

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

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

I find these two passages worth a deal of thought.

Cardinal Manning on Transubstantiation

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

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



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



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



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



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

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

How shall I sing that Majesty?

My sabbatical ends this Sunday, and I will no doubt be asked to provide magazine articles once more. Here's one that I've prepared for some of my critics. Thanks to Ed Pacht for his thoughts on the matter.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Those of you who see me in Church will notice that I do not sing when the hymns are from the Mission Praise song book. It's quite reasonable that I should be questioned as to why I don't join in with these congregational songs and I do owe an explanation why.


I do take my hymn singing very seriously, after all singing praise to Our God is fully Biblical. Indeed the Bible is riddled with poems and songs and references to singing hymns en masse. So clearly congregational singing is part of our heritage and everyone in the congregation ought to sing as best as they can in order to offer praise to God as one body of Christ.


If I'm saying that everyone must sing congregational hymns, then why am I behaving like the hypocrite by not doing so? If our taste in music is not important and we should sing regardless of whether we "like" the music or not, then surely I am in the wrong by closing my mouth whilst everyone else's is open.


You see, I don't refuse to sing on the grounds of taste, but on the grounds of theology. As I say, I take my hymn singing very seriously, and the first consideration that needs to be made is answering the question "what is this hymn saying to God, to the people around and to me?"


Take this little song

I'm accepted, I’m forgiven,
I am fathered by the true and living God.
I’m accepted, no condemnation,
I am loved by the true and living God.

There’s no guilt or fear as I draw near
To the Saviour and Creator of the world.
There is joy and peace
As I release my worship to You, O Lord.

321 in Mission Praise.

It seems quite simple and harmless, but it's just wrong in its understanding of God. It contains bad theology that is contrary to our Anglican beliefs.


Let's take it apart.


I'm accepted, I'm forgiven: This first line suffers from a significant lack of detail about how we are accepted and forgiven by God. I am only accepted in the eyes of God if I have fully confessed my sins, fully repented and I am fully prepared to follow Christ in my life and in proper regard with the Sacraments. Taken as it is written, that first line could be guilty of the sin of presumption. It says nothing about the sorrow for our sins that we need to have and perhaps it also encourages us not to worry about our guilt.


I am fathered by the true and living God: This line could be sung by so many folk who claim to be Christians but are not, such as the Mormons and the Jehovah's Witnesses.


I'm accepted, no condemnation: Repetition does not make any statement more true.


I am loved by the true and living God: Everyone is loved by God, including those who are not Christian, including those who do not believe in God, and also including those who are on the pathway to Hell because of their lack of repentance.


There’s no guilt or fear as I draw near To the Saviour and Creator of the world:

Who is worthy of approaching God? As C.S. Lewis remarks in The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe:

"Is he safe?" "Safe?" said Mr. Beaver... "Who said anything about safe? 'Course he isn't safe. But he's good. He's the King, I tell you."

If we have no fear of God, then clearly we have not understood, nor wanted to understand, Who He is. The fact that we are permitted to approach is testament to Christ's humanity. To say that we can approach Christ with any less fear is Arian, meaning that we do not appreciate His power as God.


There is joy and peace As I release my worship to You, O Lord: An interesting phrase, but does it actually mean anything? How is my worship of God constrained, and how my I release it? Am I keeping it a prisoner? If I do not praise God willingly then my body praises him regardless. Compare this with St Luke 19:37-40.

Finally, what is the most common word used in this song? The answer is "I" - I'm accepted, I'm forgiven, I'm fathered, I am loved." Rather egotistical this song, isn't it? Can this be a song to praise the same God who said, "if any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily , and follow me"? At Mass, we come together to praise God as a body forgetting ourselves ("though we are many, we are one body because we all share in one bread"). The only thing that we must do as individuals is confess our own sins - "I confess that I have sinned" - and confess our faith - "I believe in one God." Isn't it God Whom we are to praise? How does a song which focuses on "me" praise God?

This song is more concerned with soothing our consciences than praising and learning about God.

We really do need to think about what we're singing and saying in Church otherwise we can really make some terrible mistakes.


But this isn't the only thing that Mission Praise does. It changes the words of hymns to make them more "understandable" to people singing. In doing so, it changes their meaning, and changes our ability to find the truth of God within their words. This is true to some extent with all hymn books, but Mission Praise likes to chop and change for convenience such as the last verse of Crown Him with many Crowns (MP 109, AMNS 147) in which two verses have been cut and wedged together. Also the last verse of Christ is made the sure foundation (MP 73, AMNS 332 part 2) has been altered to make it easier to understand but in doing so omits crucial Anglican understanding of the Holy Trinity (consubstantial is not the same as "one in power" co-eternal is not the same as "one in glory").

In short, I do not trust Mission Praise to preserve traditional Anglican teaching, and because it is necessary for every Christian to follow the traditional teaching of the Church and because I don't have time to check the theology of every hymn and song at Mass, I cannot bring myself to sing from this book. It isn't because it's not to my taste, it's because it's not what any thinking Christian believes. I hope this answers the questions of my practices.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The 28 Articles of Anglican Papalism

In his book England and the Holy See, Fr. Spencer Jones outlines 28 observations that constitute the basic tenets of Anglican Papalism. I believe that these should set the tone for Anglican relationships with Rome.

1. That Christendom is divided against itself.
2. That a house divided against itself cannot stand,
3. That our Lord meant us to be one.
4. That it is our duty, therefore, to compose our
   quarrels.
5. That he has endued us with the power to do so.
6. That this power discovers itself in the work of the Holy Spirit on the part of God, and in prayer and labour on the part of man.
7. That it was to the Church regarded as one that our Lord vouchsafed the promise of His presence.
8. That the enterprise of Re-union is, therefore, genuine since its purpose is divine.
9. That a "divine ideal must be capable of fulfilment."
10. That as a matter of history no other form or principle of Government has been able to come near to the Holy See in its power to keep together in the bond of a living fellowship so many thousands of Christians.
11. That the Communion of Rome is conspicuous in the records of Scripture ("I thank God that your faith is spoken of throughout all the world") ; and appears at once unique and conspicuous in the subsequent records of the Church.
12. That the See of Rome is the Apostolic See and is destined to become the visible centre of Christendom.
13. That Rome is in fact the mother of English Christianity.
14. That Reunion, for the English Church, signifies Reunion with the Church of Rome.
15. That England cannot formally remain as she is except in so far as she is infallible.
16. That Rome cannot formally cease to be what she is since she claims to be infallible.
17. That two cannot continue to agree except they walk together.
18. That fellowship and communion are therefore necessary if faith is to continue one.
19. That two cannot walk together except they be agreed.
20. That it is therefore necessary to study the belief of other Communions before we oppose them or unite with them.
21. That a more extended recovery of contact is calculated to destroy prejudice and thereby to prepare the way for Communion.
22. That since "large changes and adaptations of belief are possible within the limits of the same unchanging formulae," explanation will be found in fact to remove misunderstandings and to reduce the distance between us;
23. That time, which is an "element in all growth," has already effected much.
24. That circumstances which alter cases do thereby, and so far determine duties.
25. That movements, therefore, which may be inexpedient at one point of time may come to be wise and proper at another.
26. That fair and free discussion as distinguished from the recommendation of practical steps will serve to prepare us for conjunctures.
27. That Reunion has come at length to be frankly recognised both as an idea and a necessity among all Communities of Christians ; and that the same freedom of discussion must be allowed in relation to Rome as is universally permitted in all other directions.
28. And that at all times and under all circumstances " love is the fulfilling of the law."

Articles 15 and 16 issue a rather interesting challenge to modernists and revisionists, don't you think?

New Message Board

Well, I've taken the bull by the horns and set up a new message board.

http://anglodiaspora.proboards85.com/

"Why?" you ask and well you might.

My reason is essentially to help bring together a community of like-minded folk who are scattered across the world and have little recourse to Anglo-Catholic or Anglican Papalist worship. These are the folk who have to make do with what they have got and is usually the best of a bad lot.

My intention is that this board be friendly, with an intellectual flavour, as is the Tractarian wont, but not taking itself too seriously. I hope that there will be a good heated debate on points of Anglican order, but with good humour, and a healthy respect for everyone. I certainly do not want to exclude people from ECUSA or the C of E, after all, there are many of us who, for a catalogue of reasons have nowhere else to, nor wish to.

I'm still experiencing teething troubles as I get used to the software, but please bear with me. I hope you'll consider joining up and striking up a conversation.

Easter Day 2008

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

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

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

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

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

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

Good Friday 2008

What are you doing at the foot of the cross?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Some pain is just worth suffering in its full intensity.

It proves that we have truly lived.

More Pick'n'mix?

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


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



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


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


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


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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What can be done?

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

Any other ideas?

Putting the pieces together

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

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

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

Identify yourself!

Homily preached at Eltham College on 26th February 2008.

What’s the difference
between a geek and a nerd?

It would be really interesting
to see the job-descriptions
that separate these two subcultures.

Is a nerd
a geek that specialises in computers,
or is a geek
a nerd which has a greater sphere
of expertise over and above
information technology?

And where does the boffin fit into all this?


It’s an important problem
– we teachers have to get
the terminology right.

After all we don’t want to call you
a dweeb, dork or galoot
if the cap really doesn’t fit.


What about Emos and Goths?

What’s the difference between them?

You can understand
the elderly teacher’s concern.

He thinks that an Emo
is an overexcited glove puppet
that molests people.

What separates a Goth from being an Emo?

[PAUSE]

The Goth image is reasonably distinctive.

There’s the dyed black hair,
white make-up and eyeliner,
the black clothes
together with a penchant
for Marilyn Manson,
Black Ice or the Cure!

It’s interesting that you can see
a horde of Goths wandering down the street,
all looking identical,
like a bunch of clinically depressed penguins
all speaking in the same monotone
– “I am an individual.”


How can you fit so closely
in a crowd and expect
to be called an individual?


Surely an individual
is one who stands out from a crowd,
like a Goth with
flowing blond curls,
rosy cheeks
and a toothpaste smile
like a reject from
“Any dream will do.”


“But,” you cry,
“Goths don’t have blond hair and smiles.

You might just as well
have a triangle with four vertices.

It’s impossible!”


So just how does a Goth
express his individuality?

[PAUSE]

To those of us who are not Goths,
it may come as a complete surprise
to know that every Goth matters.

They are individuals,
just as you are individuals.

They still have unique thoughts,
ideas, plans, joys and sorrows.

We cannot accuse Goths of being the same
any more than
we can describe Westlife songs
from being the same
despite the fact that they are all
instantly forgettable
so that they register
the impression that
they are all identical.


What makes Goths appear the same
is that they strive for a common identity.

Do you do the same?

[PAUSE]

It’s fair to say that it’s something we all do.

We seek out people
of like minds and similar dispositions.

Why? – because we are social animals.

We are designed to forge relationships,
to share common experiences
and ultimately to find company
in which we can feel at home.

Even if we’re not especially social,
we nonetheless have a need
for a close-knit group of friends
around us whom we can trust.

“No man is an island, entire of itself.”


It is said that our social groups define us,
but to what extent is it true?

Are you defined by your social group?

[PAUSE]

What does that really mean?

Well, you might be black.

But does that word “black” sum you up?

Of course it doesn’t!

Indeed, the word “black”
only becomes racist
if it’s used to somehow sum people up
-to deny them an identity.

That’s how insults work.

“Jamaican” might narrow the field a little further,
but “Jamaican” still doesn’t
sum you up
any more than English
Ghanean,
Burkinabe,
Zambian,
Or Ethiopian.

You’re more than that.

Can you,
with all your human complexity
be summed up
by a collection of adjectives?

Can even your name pick you out of a crowd?
Doubtful, especially if your name is John Smith.


The Queen certainly stands out from a crowd.

Why?

How can a little old lady stand out so far?

It’s because of the identity that we give her.

As monarch
she stands for Great Britain,
she gives a focus
to our national identity.

She’s not German as some people think.

She,
like her father
and grandfather
and great-grandfather,
was born in this country.


The whole British constitution
is inveigled with her standing
for the whole British Nation.
Her identity as monarch only exists
because we, as her subjects,
choose to recognise that identity.

In recognising her identity as Queen
do we recognise our identity of being British.

For Catholics,
there is the person of the Pope,
who is called the Vicar of Christ.

The word “vicar” literally means “stand-in.”

Catholics hold the Pope
to embody the identity
of Our Lord Himself
through a long line of successors
to the first Pope, St Peter.

Again, the idea that a man
has this identity hinges
on whether others accept this identity.


What about us?

We are not Royal Blood.


Nor are we clad, at the moment,
in the robes of cardinals
so we do not have these identities.

How, then, is who we are
truly defined?

[PAUSE]

Our identities as human beings
are largely defined by our interactions
with other people.

We learn more about our own identity
by being social animals.

If we want to be
decent,
kind,
generous and likeable people
then we have to work at being
decent,
kind,
generous and likeable people
through clear and visible acts
of decency,
kindness and generosity.


It is only through
loving our neighbours
that we can truly learn to love ourselves,
and you don’t have to be a Christian
to see that this is true.

[PAUSE]

To sum up a human being with
a mere collection of adjectives
is a true insult
and dehumanising.

There is always an extent
to which each human being has an identity
which is unknowable to everyone.


Christians would say
that is the identity with which God created us,
and the same identity
which Our Lord took paints
to identify Himself with us.

Who are you?

How will you come to know your
true identity better?

Another new blog

Here is a new blog by one of my newer friends from Anglo-Catholic Central,
Father Deacon David Straw.

He makes some insightful thoughts and reflections which I do recommend.

Commenting Cuniculi

It occurs to me that I'm discriminating against non-bloggers by disallowing anonymous postings.

I have now enabled "anonymous" postings but I feel rather uncomfortable that someone can just leave a message and not claim ownership of that message. I will therefore only publish a comment if

a) the comment is reasonable, respectable and polite;
b) you leave a name or ID to which subsequent comments can refer.

I will not publish comments otherwise.

Mean, ain't I?

Does Christianity disprove the MBTI?

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

What is the Lord's personality type?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So why am I vacillating as usual?

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

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

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

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

Calculating the cost of Infallibility

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

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

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

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

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

Now consider:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Infallibility of the Pope after consultation?

Possible.

With respect to respect.

I'm missing preparing sermons. I'm on Sabbatical, and truth be told, it will be sometime before I'm preaching in church again. Preparing a sermon is important for me as I find another way of getting close to God. So, here's one yet unpreached.

Sermon based on St Mark xi.27-xii.12


Which is the most respectable profession?


Indeed, do we have respectable professions anymore?


A stomach complaint.


A trip to a large Victorian house,
spending half-an-hour sitting
in a bleak waiting room with ancient posters
extolling "Digging for victory"
or "Keep Mum, she's not so dumb."


A nod from the receptionist.


An invitation into a large wood-panelled room
smelling vaguely of carbolic soap.

In the chair behind the desk sits the doctor
- a formidable gentleman dressed in
three piece suit,
fob watch,
half-moon spectacles.

"What seems to be the problem?"

A lolly-stick down the throat and an "aahh" later,
you are sent out with a piece of paper
bearing indecipherable hieroglyphics which
would tax the most ardent of Egyptologists
to the chemist,
who obviously has a skill for translation
far surpassing
the most ardent of Egyptologists!

There is no quibble with the diagnosis.

There is no "can I have a second opinion?"

There is no threat of a lawsuit because the
medicine tastes like bluebottles in meths.

A doctor used to have respect.

Gone also are the unquestionable judgements
of the teacher clad in mortarboard and gown.

Gone is the pious parish parson
whose life has now been turned upside down
by the demands of petulant parishioners
for this that and the other.


Why has respect for these folk evaporated?


[PAUSE]

"More disrespect!

Won't they ever understand?"

Kesil helps Rachab back to his feet,
trying to wipe the blood from his nose
and see just how badly his friend is hurt.

"They just keep coming," says Rachab
dazed and distressed by the whole experience,
"there was nothing I could do to stop them.
They won't listen to me!"

"There's no reasoning with such people, Rachab,"
says Kesil sitting his badly beaten friend
on a convenient rock
while binding
a large cut on his arm with a strip of cloth
torn from his robe.

"They work to a different agenda.

They just do not see the truth of the matter.

If they would just let us do what we have to do,
the vineyard would be so much better
for everyone.

They have no respect for our authority."

"I don't know why.

It's not as if we're being unreasonable.

We’re just doing our job.

We’re good at our job, aren’t we?

Indeed, this is how the master wants it to be.

You saw the letter,
you read his words didn't you?"

Rachab nods,
"Most of it is as clear as day,
though some bits are a bit vague on the details,
but we managed to work it out.

It said that we had
the master’s full authority in the matter.

We’re in the right, so don’t doubt it, Kesil.

However, that's seven servants who have
been shown the door in unpleasant ways.

Don’t worry my friend,
they’ll get what’s coming to them
for their disrespect.”

“Indeed,” says Kesil, “only next time,
don’t try and throw them out
of the vineyard single-handedly.

Wait for the rest of us to get there
so that we can give them the hiding that they deserve.

When will they understand that
we know what’s best for the vineyard?

We run the show and
we do not need anyone else to
tell us how to raise our good crop
or interfere with it in anyway.

The master is abroad and he has left us in charge.
That’s what the letter says…
our way or the highway.”

“Oh, look. Here comes another one!

Isn't that the master's son?”

[PAUSE]

Does this help us understand
why professions which once had respect do so no longer?

Where was their authority
and where is it now?

There are those who demand respect,
and those who deserve respect.

And in this situation, the Lord Himself says
"Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's,
and unto God that which is God's."

Give respect to those who demand it,
but at the end of the game all the pieces
go back in the box
and what do they have left?

Give respect to God,
and that will be eternally
recognised.

Where is God's authority in our society?

Is it evident in your parish?

Romancing the Catholics?

What is the difference between an Anglican Papalist and a Romaniser?

Fr. Brooke Lunn explains that a Romanizer is "a person esp. an Anglican, who favours or adopts the practices of the Roman Catholic church... Thus Anglican Papalism is not to be confused with Romanizers. The former belongs in the realm of ideas, the latter in the real of phenomena. The phenomena of Romanizers are relatively easy to perceive. The idea of Anglican Papalism requires much more application in order to begin to comprehend it."

He goes on to mention, "Anglican Papalists recognise both the Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church in England as rightfully claiming descent from the undivided Church in England before the sixteenth century schism." (emphasis mine)

I don't pretend to be learned enough to understand all the fine theological wranglings of the 16th Century - to be honest I don't have all that much time. I believe strongly that there are some very strong orthodox threads which connect pre-Reformation and post-Reformation Anglicanism. However, that doesn't justify the split that occurred, nor keeping the split going. As I say, Anglican Papalism shouldn't exist; we are merely a means to an end.

Below I post the Tridentine Creed. Tridentine Anglican Papalism sees this as the document containing the essentials that need to be discussed and debated over before doctrinal agreements are made. Modern Anglican Papalism would take the key text to be the Catechism of the Catholic Church. It's a text that I intend to study at length and I hope in the future to post one or two of my musings on the teachings therein.

The Tridentine Creed.

How far can you go with this?

Ego N. firma fide credo et profiteor omnia et singula, quae continentur in Symbolo, quo Sancta Romana ecclesia utitur, videlicet:

Credo in unum Deum, Patrem omnipotentem, factorem caeli et terrae, visibilium omnium et invisibilium. Et in unum Dominum Iesum Christum, Filium Dei unigenitum, et ex Patre natum ante omnia saecula. Deum de Deo, Lumen de Lumine, Deum verum de Deo vero, genitum non factum, consubstantialem Patri; per quem omnia facta sunt. Qui propter nos homines et propter nostram salutem descendit de caelis. Et incarnatus est de Spiritu Sancto ex Maria Virgine, et homo factus est. Crucifixus etiam pro nobis sub Pontio Pilato, passus et sepultus est, et resurrexit tertia die, secundum Scripturas, et ascendit in caelum, sedet ad dexteram Patris. Et iterum venturus est cum gloria, iudicare vivos et mortuos, cuius regni non erit finis. Et in Spiritum Sanctum, Dominum et vivificantem, qui ex Patre Filioque procedit. Qui cum Patre et Filio simul adoratur et conglorificatur: qui locutus est per prophetas. Et unam, sanctam, catholicam et apostolicam Ecclesiam. Confiteor unum baptisma in remissionem peccatorum. Et expecto resurrectionem mortuorum, et vitam venturi saeculi. Amen.

Apostolicas et ecclesiasticas traditiones reliquasque eiusdem ecclesiae observationes et consitutiones firmissime admitto et amplector.

Item sacram Scripturam iuxta sensum eum, quem tenuit et tenet sancta mater Ecclesia, cuius et iudicare de vero sensu et interpretatione sacrarum Scripturarum, admitto, nec eam umquam nisi iuxta unanimem consensum Patrum accipiam et interpretabor.

Profiteor quoque septem esse vere et proprie Sacramenta novae legis, a Iesu Christo Domino nostro instituta, atque ad salutem humani generis, licet non omnia singulis, necessaria: scilicet Baptismum, Confirmationem, Eucharistiam, Poenitentiam, Extremam Unctionem, Ordinem et Matrimonium, illaque gratiam conferre, et ex his Baptismum, Confirmationem et Ordinem sine sacrilegio reiterari non posse.

Receptos quoque et approbatos ecclesiae catholicae ritus in supradictorum omnium Sacramentorum solemni administratione recipio et admitto.

Omnia et singula, quae de peccato originali et de iustificatione in sacrosancta Tridentina Synodo definita et declarata fuerunt, amplector et recipio.

Profiteor pariter, in Missa oferri Deo verum, proprium et propitiatorium sacrificium pro vivis et defunctis, atque in sanctissimo Eucharistiae Sacramento esse vere, realiter et substantialiter Corpus et Sanguinem, una cum anima et divinitate Domini nostri Iesu Christi, fierique conversionem totius substantiae panis in Corpus at totius substantiae vini in Sanguinem, quam conversionem Ecclesia catholica transsubstantiationem appellat. Fateor etiam sub altera tantum specie totum atque integrum Christum verumque Sacramentum sumi.

Constanter teneo, purgatorium esse, animasque ibi detentas fidelium suffragiis iuvari. Similiter et Sanctos, una cum Christo regnantes, venerandos atque invocandos esse, eosque orationes Deo pro nobis offerre, atque eorum reliquias esse venerandas.

Firmissime assero, imagines Christi ac Deiparae semper Virginis, necnon aliorum Sanctorum habendas et retiendas esse, atque eis debitum honorem et venerationem impertiendum.

Indulgentiarum etiam potestatem a Christo in Ecclesia relictam fuisse, illarumque usu christiano populo maxime salutarem esse affirmo.

Sanctam catholicam et apostolicam Ecclesiam romanam omnium ecclesiarum matrem et magistram agnosco, Romanoque Pontifici, beati Petri, Apostolorum principis, successori, ac Iesu Christi Vicario, veram obedientiam spondeo ac iuro.

Cetera item omnia a sacris canonibus et oecumenicis Conciliis, ac praecipue a sacrosancta Tridentina Synodo, et ab oecumenico Concilio Vaticano tradita, definita et declarata, praesertim de Romani Pontificis primatu et infallibili magesterio indubitanter recipio ac profiteor; simulaque contraria omnia, atque haereses quascumque ab Ecclesia damnatas et reiectas et anathematizatas ego pariter damno, reicio, et anathematizo.

Hanc veram catholicam fidem, extra quam nemo salvus esse potest, quam in praesenti sponte profiteor et veraciter teneo, eamdem integram, et inviolatam usque ad extremum vitae spiritum, constantissime, Deo adiuvante, retinere et confiteri, atque a meis subditis, vel illis, quorum cura ad me in munere meo spectabit, teneri, doceri et praedicari, quantum in me erit, curaturum, ego idem N. spondeo, voveo ac iuro. Sic me Deus adiuvet et haec sancta Dei Evangelia.

I, N, with a firm faith believe and profess each and everything which is contained in the Creed which the Holy Roman Church maketh use of. To wit:

I believe in one God, The Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the Only-begotten Son of God. Born of the Father before all ages. God of God, Light of Light, true God of true God. Begotten, not made, of one substance with the Father. By whom all things were made. Who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven. And became incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the Virgin Mary: and was made man. He was also crucified for us, suffered under Pontius Pilate, and was buried. And on the third day He rose again according to the Scriptures. He ascended into heaven and sits at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead and His kingdom will have no end. And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of life, Who proceeds from the Father and the Son. Who together with the Father and the Son is adored and glorified, and who spoke through the prophets. And one holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. I confess one baptism for the forgiveness of sins and I await the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come. Amen.

I most steadfastly admit and embrace Apostolical and ecclesiastical traditions, and all other observances and constitutions of the Church.

I also admit the Holy Scripture according to that sense which our holy mother the Church hath held, and doth hold, to whom it belongeth to judge of the true sense and interpretations of the Scriptures. Neither will I ever take and interpret them otherwise than according to the unanimous consent of the Fathers.

I also profess that there are truly and properly Seven Sacraments of the New Law, instituted by Jesus Christ our Lord, and necessary for the salvation of mankind, though not all for every one; to wit, Baptism, Confirmation, Eucharist, Penance, Extreme Unction, Holy Orders, and Matrimony; and that they confer grace; and that of these, Baptism, Confirmation, and Holy Orders cannot be reiterated without sacrilege.

I also receive and admit the received and approved ceremonies of the Catholic Church in the solemn administration of the aforesaid sacraments.

I embrace and receive all and every one of the things which have been defined and declared in the holy Council of Trent concerning original sin and justification.

I profess, likewise, that in the Mass there is offered to God a true, proper, and propitiatory sacrifice for the living and the dead; and that in the most holy sacrament of the Eucharist there is truly, really, and substantially, the Body and Blood, together with the soul and divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ; and that there is made a conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the Body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the Blood, which conversion the Catholic Church calls Transubstantiation. I also confess that under either kind alone Christ is received whole and entire, and a true sacrament.

I constantly hold that there is a Purgatory, and that the souls therein detained are helped by the suffrages of the faithful. Likewise, that the saints, reigning together with Christ, are to be honored and invoked, and that they offer prayers to God for us, and that their relics are to be venerated.

I most firmly assert that the images of Christ, of the Mother of God, ever virgin, and also of other Saints, ought to be had and retained, and that due honor and veneration is to be given them.

I also affirm that the power of indulgences was left by Christ in the Church, and that the use of them is most wholesome to Christian people.

I acknowledge the Holy Catholic Apostolic Roman Church as the mother and mistress of all churches; and I promise true obedience to the Bishop of Rome, successor to St. Peter, Prince of the Apostles, and Vicar of Jesus Christ.

I likewise undoubtedly receive and profess all other things delivered, defined, and declared by the sacred Canons, and general Councils, and particularly by the holy Council of Trent, and by the ecumenical Council of the Vatican, particularly concerning the primacy of the Roman Pontiff and his infallible teaching. I condemn, reject, and anathematize all things contrary thereto, and all heresies which the Church hath condemned, rejected, and anathematized.

This true Catholic faith, outside of which no one can be saved, which I now freely profess and to which I truly adhere, inviolate and with firm constancy until the last breath of life, I do so profess and swear to maintain with the help of God. And I shall strive, as far as possible, that this same faith shall be held, taught, and professed by all those over whom I have charge. I N. do so pledge, promise, and swear, so help me God and these Holy Gospels.