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.
Sunday, June 26, 2011
Tuesday, June 21, 2011
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.
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.
Monday, June 20, 2011
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.
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.
Sunday, June 19, 2011
Saturday, June 18, 2011
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.
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.
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.
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.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
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.
Sunday, June 12, 2011
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?
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?
Wednesday, June 01, 2011
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:
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.
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:
- The 'true Church' does not ordain women;
- The Anglican Church is part of the 'true Church';
- 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:
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."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, 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.
Monday, May 30, 2011
Kath holicism and Reduction
Diarmaid McCulloch describes himself as a "candid friend of Christianity". He can't describe himself as a Christian because, according to his History of Christianity, he doesn't see how The Bible is any different from any other book, and that, when subjected to the same scholarly scrutiny as any other book, it doesn't really possess any obvious power over humanity.
His television programme was certainly a fascinating hurtle through the complicated life of the Church. The final programme, as is natural, asked about the future of Christianity in the face of all that attacks it: the ruling authority of the Church is attacked by the revolutionaries; the moral authority of the Church is attacked by the ethicists like Voltaire; the veracity of The Bible is attacked by Science and the rational approach made by Spinoza, Strauss and the German schools of theology and philosophy in the 19th Century. These attacks continue.
It is true that the Church seems to be rather beleaguered at the moment with loud scientific skeptics, and the media who are out to make a cheap story. Every time Pasch or Christmass come round, there's always a programme about "the Truth behind the Myth" or "one woman's fib that got a bit out of control". Most of this is opinion based on speculation - the Christian needs to arm himself with the facts.
The Church has to be concerned with the Truth. Sometimes, Truth be told, it has not presented that Truth very clearly. One can certainly see that in the Crusades or in the Inquisitions and in the way it has allowed its condemnation of sin spill over into condemning people. Though it has to be remembered that these were the products of their time, that doesn't justify these actions. There is no particular time in the History of Mankind, past, present or future in which Jesus Christ would ever approve of the murder of innocents in His Name, nor would He ever allow the abuse of children to be covered up as it has in recent years.
The fact of the matter is that people seem to misunderstand what the Church really is. Indeed many people's rejection of God is because they believe that the Church is so corrupt. That's a bit like not believing in the existence of Mr and Mrs Hitler senior because of the antics of their son Adolph.
The Church is made up of sinners. I cannot personally comment on the state of my fellow human beings, but I know that I am a sinner. I am also sure that there are other sinners within the Church because there is a prayer of Confession asking for God's forgiveness for misdeeds and bad intentions. That this prayer is said at all Masses even by bishops, archbishops and the Pope himself indicates that there is sin within the Church and that it is widespread irrespective of position. We can therefore conclude that the Church is comprised of sinful human beings. Thus Church members cannot honestly be better than anyone else. However, our sinfulness does not negate the message of the Gospel, that Christ is the way to salvation. This makes the Incarnation of Christ even more meaningful in that here we have God who is willing to be made man in order to be with human beings.
The Church is the sum of many parts. Its authority to be seeking the Truth comes from Divine Revelation through Scripture, Tradition and Reason, not three separate entities but all inextricably bound together. While it is possible to attack each of these sources individually, the fact that the Church still remains despite major attacks on its existence is evidence that it is greater that the sum of its parts. It is a Catholic Church - a Church that is a whole unit. In the reductionism of modern society - the statement and restatement of "...is nothing but..." - the idea of a holistic view of a body such as the Church is alien. This is a Church that seeks to be united with itself, uniting itself past, present and future along the lines of the Eternal Truth of God.
The Church believes itself to exist in three places at once - here, "Purgatory " and Eternity. I have placed the word "Purgatory" in inverted commas on the grounds that the Bible supports the existence of an intermediate space between this world and Heaven, and that it is a space of purification. The nature of this space is contested. Again, we have a problem with the Catholicism of the Church - it is in these three states simultaneously. The word "is" becomes a problem because it has a tense (namely present) and Eternity exists without Time. To say the Church contains all Truth is a belief in the infallibility of the Church. In asserting this belief, the believer is saying that from the Eternal viewpoint, there is not a point in Time where the Church has taught any other doctrine than the Truth of God and Jesus Christ. Any statements of Infallibility can only be made from an Eternal viewpoint since no one living knows the future. If the Church believes itself to possess all Truth then it must be clear that it is speaking Eternally and not at any specific point in Time. Believers have Faith in what the Church teaches with regard to its Salvation.
This belief in the Eternity of the Church binds believers, thus making Christianity a religion in the proper sense of the word. The Truth does not change because it is eternal. While many facets can be revealed through the ages, this doesn't mean that Truth changes. The Church may only hold the entire Truth in its Kath-holicism, not at a particular instant of Time because this is another instance of reduction.
Likewise the sacraments too can either be considered in their Kath-holist sense or reduced to their component parts. This latter produces precisely the tensions between believers in the Real Presence depending on the way that they view the transformation of Bread and Wine into Body and Blood. What matters most is that Bread and Wine ar brought forward at the Offertory and following the Eucharistic Prayer, the recipient says "Amen" affirming that he receives the Body and Blood of Christ.
If the Church wishes to move forward into the future then it must hold to its past and Tradition with tenacity but with humility, acknowledging its failures; affirm its present as a body of fallen human beings with the possibility of salvation in corporate union yet not presuming to have all the answers to all questions; and look to the future in hope knowing that God does not contradict Himself and that the Church will continue to exist in order to bring the love of God into the World.
His television programme was certainly a fascinating hurtle through the complicated life of the Church. The final programme, as is natural, asked about the future of Christianity in the face of all that attacks it: the ruling authority of the Church is attacked by the revolutionaries; the moral authority of the Church is attacked by the ethicists like Voltaire; the veracity of The Bible is attacked by Science and the rational approach made by Spinoza, Strauss and the German schools of theology and philosophy in the 19th Century. These attacks continue.
It is true that the Church seems to be rather beleaguered at the moment with loud scientific skeptics, and the media who are out to make a cheap story. Every time Pasch or Christmass come round, there's always a programme about "the Truth behind the Myth" or "one woman's fib that got a bit out of control". Most of this is opinion based on speculation - the Christian needs to arm himself with the facts.
The Church has to be concerned with the Truth. Sometimes, Truth be told, it has not presented that Truth very clearly. One can certainly see that in the Crusades or in the Inquisitions and in the way it has allowed its condemnation of sin spill over into condemning people. Though it has to be remembered that these were the products of their time, that doesn't justify these actions. There is no particular time in the History of Mankind, past, present or future in which Jesus Christ would ever approve of the murder of innocents in His Name, nor would He ever allow the abuse of children to be covered up as it has in recent years.
The fact of the matter is that people seem to misunderstand what the Church really is. Indeed many people's rejection of God is because they believe that the Church is so corrupt. That's a bit like not believing in the existence of Mr and Mrs Hitler senior because of the antics of their son Adolph.
The Church is made up of sinners. I cannot personally comment on the state of my fellow human beings, but I know that I am a sinner. I am also sure that there are other sinners within the Church because there is a prayer of Confession asking for God's forgiveness for misdeeds and bad intentions. That this prayer is said at all Masses even by bishops, archbishops and the Pope himself indicates that there is sin within the Church and that it is widespread irrespective of position. We can therefore conclude that the Church is comprised of sinful human beings. Thus Church members cannot honestly be better than anyone else. However, our sinfulness does not negate the message of the Gospel, that Christ is the way to salvation. This makes the Incarnation of Christ even more meaningful in that here we have God who is willing to be made man in order to be with human beings.
The Church is the sum of many parts. Its authority to be seeking the Truth comes from Divine Revelation through Scripture, Tradition and Reason, not three separate entities but all inextricably bound together. While it is possible to attack each of these sources individually, the fact that the Church still remains despite major attacks on its existence is evidence that it is greater that the sum of its parts. It is a Catholic Church - a Church that is a whole unit. In the reductionism of modern society - the statement and restatement of "...is nothing but..." - the idea of a holistic view of a body such as the Church is alien. This is a Church that seeks to be united with itself, uniting itself past, present and future along the lines of the Eternal Truth of God.
The Church believes itself to exist in three places at once - here, "Purgatory " and Eternity. I have placed the word "Purgatory" in inverted commas on the grounds that the Bible supports the existence of an intermediate space between this world and Heaven, and that it is a space of purification. The nature of this space is contested. Again, we have a problem with the Catholicism of the Church - it is in these three states simultaneously. The word "is" becomes a problem because it has a tense (namely present) and Eternity exists without Time. To say the Church contains all Truth is a belief in the infallibility of the Church. In asserting this belief, the believer is saying that from the Eternal viewpoint, there is not a point in Time where the Church has taught any other doctrine than the Truth of God and Jesus Christ. Any statements of Infallibility can only be made from an Eternal viewpoint since no one living knows the future. If the Church believes itself to possess all Truth then it must be clear that it is speaking Eternally and not at any specific point in Time. Believers have Faith in what the Church teaches with regard to its Salvation.
This belief in the Eternity of the Church binds believers, thus making Christianity a religion in the proper sense of the word. The Truth does not change because it is eternal. While many facets can be revealed through the ages, this doesn't mean that Truth changes. The Church may only hold the entire Truth in its Kath-holicism, not at a particular instant of Time because this is another instance of reduction.
Likewise the sacraments too can either be considered in their Kath-holist sense or reduced to their component parts. This latter produces precisely the tensions between believers in the Real Presence depending on the way that they view the transformation of Bread and Wine into Body and Blood. What matters most is that Bread and Wine ar brought forward at the Offertory and following the Eucharistic Prayer, the recipient says "Amen" affirming that he receives the Body and Blood of Christ.
If the Church wishes to move forward into the future then it must hold to its past and Tradition with tenacity but with humility, acknowledging its failures; affirm its present as a body of fallen human beings with the possibility of salvation in corporate union yet not presuming to have all the answers to all questions; and look to the future in hope knowing that God does not contradict Himself and that the Church will continue to exist in order to bring the love of God into the World.
Saturday, May 14, 2011
Extraterrestrial Extraordinariates
I've tried to be very quiet about the Ordinariate, largely because I've never really been part of a parish that was sufficiently Roman to worry about this sort of thing. Lately, it seems to me that there is a lot of misdirection between parties which are very for the Ordinariate and those which are very against the Ordinariate. Some say that the Ordinariates have been "indefinitely put on hold" in America and Canada, others say that talks are still going on and any hiatus, if it exists, is merely temporary. The fact of the matter is that I do not know the full truth and I am beginning to find much of what is reported thoroughly unreliable. I prefer to listen to the judgement of friends who are involved in the processes and aware of what goes on.
In some sense, what is going on in the large will always remain a mystery. Of course we must look for the big picture in order to get a balanced view but in this situation what appears to be the bigger picture is complicated with politics and negotiations and extenuating circumstances and instances of sine qua non and non plus ultra.
The trouble is that this bigger picture is just not big enough. I'm always minded of some of those wonderful tracking shots which ascend rapidly upwards looking back on the Earth. People become houses become streets become towns become regions become counties become countries become continents until that familiar cloud suffused blue sphere of our planet becomes the focus. Sometimes the tracking shot goes further: the moon hoves into view, as do Venus, Mercury, the Sun. Still further the shot tracks, as our planet becomes insignificant against the light of the Sun and the orange-brown bulk of Jupiter, the rings of Saturn and the darker, colder gas giants of Uranus and Neptune, then Pluto. Further and further still into the mysterious Oort Cloud and it prospective comets, long forgotten by mankind. And still we can go on, our Sun becomes part of a group, a cluster, an insignificant yellow dot of not much worth. The spiral arm of the Galaxy appears, then the Galaxy itself as our tracking shot, now travelling at many millions of times the speed of light steps back further and further until the galaxy becomes part if a supercluster of galaxies speeding around into the blackness of the Universe. All becomes simplicity in the eyes of the Divine.
At each change of scale, we see the same picture, something seems chaotic until the reason for the chaos becomes clear. Then as the scale keeps peeling back, more chaos ensues.
As a prime example, at the scale of an Earth dweller, the planets seem to rove erratically across the sky, back and forward, looping the loop. They appear to be true wanderers, their motion not entirely predictable. Once we step back at the Solar System itself, we see that these loop-the-loops are a necessary consequence of the simple behaviour of planets orbiting the Sun.
However, if we step back further, we see that the behaviour of the planets is not clockwork. The equation of motion may be quite easy to state in a Newtonian principle of conservation of energy, but the effects of planets one on another add up. It is possible that we may lose Venus or Mercury in the future due to gravitational tidal effects. We have moved from chaos to simplicity back to chaos again, largely because of our change of viewpoint.
So what does this have to do with the Ordinariate?
I believe that there is a very simple rule behind this and all the other Anglican Difficulties: it is nothing less than Man's search for Authentic Communion with Christ. Catholics believe in the sacrosanctity of the Holy Mass where the Communicant comes into full and intimate contact with the One Who willed that very Communicant's creation. Once one realises what one is saying "Amen" to when receiving the Body of Christ, the more important it becomes that the experience be authentic, that we are in reality participating with every other Christian soul and the Holy Saints with the same Eternal (i.e. timeless) Christ. This is the content of Catholic Tradition. If anything breaks that Tradition, the authenticity is impaired.
As soon as impairment arises, it is here that chaos begins to reign, the turbulence of the sea that the Jews feared most. The Christ-seeking Catholic has no option but to move apart from the impediment and to move faster and further the greater he perceives that impediment to be.
This is what has happened to Anglicanism: it is going supernova over the impediments that are being built into its mainstream. The Catholics are propelled away from this out into a desperate search for the Authentic Christ apart from all modern notions of experience, equality, and "go with the flow".
It isn't where a Catholic is heading that should be the cause for judgement or suspicion, but rather whether that Catholic has taken steps to seek the Authentic Christ beyond the impairments that are being flung into his way and even then this can only be done by One Who truly sees the heart and motives of the individual - the One Who Knows on all scales. I doubt very much that the Catholic knows where he is headed any way, but by holding onto his simple rule can he find some reassurance through his fervent prayers and obedience to the faith that has been handed onto him that he will find his Beloved.
So then, what do I think of the Ordinariate? I cannot speak highly enough of those who have heard God's call to make the leap, to become the pioneers of something entirely new to reconnect with that which is entirely old. They will have my support, prayers, admiration and love that what they are trying to do may indeed work, provide a comfortable home for lost souls and bring all to Christ.
However, I'm afraid I cannot accept the conditions for the Ordinariate. The time is not right for me, even though I am between jurisdictions. I still would say that I am an Anglican Papalist, though I am much more wary of labels than I used to be. Perhaps I am not an Anglican Papalist - I don't know - things change. I still regard the Holy Father as the Head of the Church, the Successor of St Peter and especially, though he might deny it himself, the Patriarch of the West and have every desire to be in communion with him. However, I still regard Apostolicae Curae as being not just wrong but irrelevant. I have good personal reasons for believing in the integrity of Anglican Orders because of what happened to me at my Confirmation. It is this belief that makes me an Anglican Papalist and yet separates me from being in communion with the Holy Father.
But things change. I cannot see the bigger picture and if I could, it would only confuse me. I cannot shoot out faster than the speed of light to see the Divine simplicity. I trust that it's there though. What I do not trust are disjointed and confusing reports that come out of those for whom the Ordinariate is a be-all-and-end-all either as a hobby-horse of hatred as some blogs love to disparage with their "more-knowledgeable than thou" attitude or those who would seek to force everyone to abandon what Catholic aspect of Anglicanism they hold dear in order to get everyone to toe the line.
Ultimately, all Christians have only one direction in which to travel. The Authentic Christ exists and His gravity will draw to His embrace all those who seek Him.
In some sense, what is going on in the large will always remain a mystery. Of course we must look for the big picture in order to get a balanced view but in this situation what appears to be the bigger picture is complicated with politics and negotiations and extenuating circumstances and instances of sine qua non and non plus ultra.
The trouble is that this bigger picture is just not big enough. I'm always minded of some of those wonderful tracking shots which ascend rapidly upwards looking back on the Earth. People become houses become streets become towns become regions become counties become countries become continents until that familiar cloud suffused blue sphere of our planet becomes the focus. Sometimes the tracking shot goes further: the moon hoves into view, as do Venus, Mercury, the Sun. Still further the shot tracks, as our planet becomes insignificant against the light of the Sun and the orange-brown bulk of Jupiter, the rings of Saturn and the darker, colder gas giants of Uranus and Neptune, then Pluto. Further and further still into the mysterious Oort Cloud and it prospective comets, long forgotten by mankind. And still we can go on, our Sun becomes part of a group, a cluster, an insignificant yellow dot of not much worth. The spiral arm of the Galaxy appears, then the Galaxy itself as our tracking shot, now travelling at many millions of times the speed of light steps back further and further until the galaxy becomes part if a supercluster of galaxies speeding around into the blackness of the Universe. All becomes simplicity in the eyes of the Divine.
At each change of scale, we see the same picture, something seems chaotic until the reason for the chaos becomes clear. Then as the scale keeps peeling back, more chaos ensues.
As a prime example, at the scale of an Earth dweller, the planets seem to rove erratically across the sky, back and forward, looping the loop. They appear to be true wanderers, their motion not entirely predictable. Once we step back at the Solar System itself, we see that these loop-the-loops are a necessary consequence of the simple behaviour of planets orbiting the Sun.
However, if we step back further, we see that the behaviour of the planets is not clockwork. The equation of motion may be quite easy to state in a Newtonian principle of conservation of energy, but the effects of planets one on another add up. It is possible that we may lose Venus or Mercury in the future due to gravitational tidal effects. We have moved from chaos to simplicity back to chaos again, largely because of our change of viewpoint.
So what does this have to do with the Ordinariate?
I believe that there is a very simple rule behind this and all the other Anglican Difficulties: it is nothing less than Man's search for Authentic Communion with Christ. Catholics believe in the sacrosanctity of the Holy Mass where the Communicant comes into full and intimate contact with the One Who willed that very Communicant's creation. Once one realises what one is saying "Amen" to when receiving the Body of Christ, the more important it becomes that the experience be authentic, that we are in reality participating with every other Christian soul and the Holy Saints with the same Eternal (i.e. timeless) Christ. This is the content of Catholic Tradition. If anything breaks that Tradition, the authenticity is impaired.
As soon as impairment arises, it is here that chaos begins to reign, the turbulence of the sea that the Jews feared most. The Christ-seeking Catholic has no option but to move apart from the impediment and to move faster and further the greater he perceives that impediment to be.
This is what has happened to Anglicanism: it is going supernova over the impediments that are being built into its mainstream. The Catholics are propelled away from this out into a desperate search for the Authentic Christ apart from all modern notions of experience, equality, and "go with the flow".
It isn't where a Catholic is heading that should be the cause for judgement or suspicion, but rather whether that Catholic has taken steps to seek the Authentic Christ beyond the impairments that are being flung into his way and even then this can only be done by One Who truly sees the heart and motives of the individual - the One Who Knows on all scales. I doubt very much that the Catholic knows where he is headed any way, but by holding onto his simple rule can he find some reassurance through his fervent prayers and obedience to the faith that has been handed onto him that he will find his Beloved.
So then, what do I think of the Ordinariate? I cannot speak highly enough of those who have heard God's call to make the leap, to become the pioneers of something entirely new to reconnect with that which is entirely old. They will have my support, prayers, admiration and love that what they are trying to do may indeed work, provide a comfortable home for lost souls and bring all to Christ.
However, I'm afraid I cannot accept the conditions for the Ordinariate. The time is not right for me, even though I am between jurisdictions. I still would say that I am an Anglican Papalist, though I am much more wary of labels than I used to be. Perhaps I am not an Anglican Papalist - I don't know - things change. I still regard the Holy Father as the Head of the Church, the Successor of St Peter and especially, though he might deny it himself, the Patriarch of the West and have every desire to be in communion with him. However, I still regard Apostolicae Curae as being not just wrong but irrelevant. I have good personal reasons for believing in the integrity of Anglican Orders because of what happened to me at my Confirmation. It is this belief that makes me an Anglican Papalist and yet separates me from being in communion with the Holy Father.
But things change. I cannot see the bigger picture and if I could, it would only confuse me. I cannot shoot out faster than the speed of light to see the Divine simplicity. I trust that it's there though. What I do not trust are disjointed and confusing reports that come out of those for whom the Ordinariate is a be-all-and-end-all either as a hobby-horse of hatred as some blogs love to disparage with their "more-knowledgeable than thou" attitude or those who would seek to force everyone to abandon what Catholic aspect of Anglicanism they hold dear in order to get everyone to toe the line.
Ultimately, all Christians have only one direction in which to travel. The Authentic Christ exists and His gravity will draw to His embrace all those who seek Him.
Tuesday, May 10, 2011
Same old same old
I can't tell you how glad I was to be able to start preaching again after so long a drought. I may not be licensed. I may not even regard myself as within the jurisdiction of the Church of England, but I am still a Reader. This is my first since leaving the C of E, directed, as usual, to the students.
Homily preached at Eltham College on 9th and 10th May 2011, based on Ecclesiastes i.1-11
Are you looking forward
to a nice new school day?
Are you ready and energised
for a fun seven or eight hours of learning?
Are you all excited
at the prospect of double maths
and all those exercises and problems
you’re going to be set?
Are you looking forward
to learning all the tenses,
moods and participles
of the word agere in Latin?
What about all that homework tonight?
Looking forward to it?
Why not?
Perhaps there’s something better for you
to be doing with your time?
Let’s think...
A World of Warcraft tournament,
perhaps, for the whole school?
That would be fun, wouldn’t it?
Watching your history master
and your geography master
battling Deathwing the Destroyer
in an instance on Mount Hyjal,
before crushing them
both yourself with a horde of Night-Elves.
We could start immediately after chapel
and go through til midnight?
Yes?
That would be fun!
And you wouldn’t get bored with that, now,
would you?
That might be fun for today,
but what about tomorrow?
A whole school Talent Contest, like the X-factor?
Not the fiddly little one
we had a while ago,
which was obviously rigged
when the head boy won,
This time, everyone takes part.
Just think how brilliant it would be
with the Deputy Head
doing Tiny Tempur’s Pass Out
and the English masters
wailing their ways through
the collected works of Lady Gaga,
dressed appropriately with a wardrobe
provided by Ginsters.
Yes, all 800 or so of us
would have to take part
and it would take about 2 days
to get through them all without a break,
but it would be fun.
It wouldn’t get boring, would it?
And instead of the usual meals in the Refectory,
we could have pizza every day
for all the years that you’re here.
Cola on tap, et c. That wouldn’t get boring would it?
[PAUSE]
You’re obviously very aware
how easily the novelty wears off.
When you started at here,
you were no doubt excited
and a little bit frightened as
to what would happen next.
All these new sensations,
all these new sights, sounds and,
if you’re walking through the Chemistry department,
smells were part
of this new wonderful school.
But how do you feel about it now?
Do you find it boring?
[PAUSE]
The feeling of boredom
is quite unmistakable,
and you probably have
your own experiences to describe it.
It’s that sensation of really not wanting
to be where you are now,
wanting to do anything else
other than be forced to sit there
in some task which you perceive
as being quite meaningless
or difficult or annoying.
You feel trapped and restless
and your attention hurtles about
like a Justin Bieber fan after 10 cups of coffee,
searching desperately
for something better to latch onto.
Finally, your eyes settle onto the clock:
10:09 and 30 seconds,
10:09 and 31 seconds… 32,…. 33…
32… 31… 30…
31,... 32… 35… 36… 37…
24… 23…
Curse you, Second Hand!
Ah! Zeno has got nothing
on a bored schoolboy waiting for Break.
Have you ever stopped to ask yourself
why you get bored in the first place?
[PAUSE]
Surprisingly, that’s not an easy question to answer.
You really have to think hard
about why you’re finding something
boring in the first place.
Let’s say you find maths boring.
Patently ridiculous, but let’s pretend.
Why might this be?
The most common reason
is that you are stuck
and don’t know what to do now.
Your boredom is then a symptom of frustration.
The second most common reason
is that you’ve managed
to understand what to do
quickly and easily after the first 3 questions,
your boredom then is a result of an intelligent mind
seeking some stimulation.
The first point is easy to deal with,
with a raising of the hand
and a polite request to your teacher.
The second is much more subtle.
[PAUSE]
Without exception,
you are all intelligent beings,
and intelligence requires something to nourish it
– sights, sounds, ideas, challenges,
arguments and mysteries
– for it to thrive.
Just like our bodies,
our minds require a balanced diet
in order to function properly.
If we fill our minds with junk,
then junk is all they’ll crave
and junk is all that’ll come out of them.
A daily diet of four hours
of World of Warcraft
is equivalent to a daily intake
of Big Macs, Hot Wings, and Stuffed Crusts
all washed down with a gallon of Galaxy Crushem.
If the desire for entertainment
is causing us to question the benefits
of interacting in a classroom,
absorbing information
and practising our intellectual skills,
then it is clear that our minds are not
as healthy as they could be.
[PAUSE]
Boredom is a part of everybody’s life.
It’s even mentioned in the Bible,
especially in the book of Ecclesiastes.
For the Christian,
boredom is a sign to reflect on who we are
and to contrast that with God who,
while never-changing can always present Himself
in ever new ways through
the same prayers,
the same readings
and the same silences.
Whether Christian or not,
to face up to boredom is to face up to
the possibility of the transformation of our lives,
to become someone even better.
Indeed, boredom can teach us
a great deal about ourselves,
about who we are
and contrast that with the people
that we are meant to be.
Facing up to tedious chores
can make us better people
if we learn to control our desire to give up
and find something more interesting.
[PAUSE}
Just look at the day ahead of you.
What do you think is going to be boring?
How is that going to change your life for the better?
Homily preached at Eltham College on 9th and 10th May 2011, based on Ecclesiastes i.1-11
Are you looking forward
to a nice new school day?
Are you ready and energised
for a fun seven or eight hours of learning?
Are you all excited
at the prospect of double maths
and all those exercises and problems
you’re going to be set?
Are you looking forward
to learning all the tenses,
moods and participles
of the word agere in Latin?
What about all that homework tonight?
Looking forward to it?
Why not?
Perhaps there’s something better for you
to be doing with your time?
Let’s think...
A World of Warcraft tournament,
perhaps, for the whole school?
That would be fun, wouldn’t it?
Watching your history master
and your geography master
battling Deathwing the Destroyer
in an instance on Mount Hyjal,
before crushing them
both yourself with a horde of Night-Elves.
We could start immediately after chapel
and go through til midnight?
Yes?
That would be fun!
And you wouldn’t get bored with that, now,
would you?
That might be fun for today,
but what about tomorrow?
A whole school Talent Contest, like the X-factor?
Not the fiddly little one
we had a while ago,
which was obviously rigged
when the head boy won,
This time, everyone takes part.
Just think how brilliant it would be
with the Deputy Head
doing Tiny Tempur’s Pass Out
and the English masters
wailing their ways through
the collected works of Lady Gaga,
dressed appropriately with a wardrobe
provided by Ginsters.
Yes, all 800 or so of us
would have to take part
and it would take about 2 days
to get through them all without a break,
but it would be fun.
It wouldn’t get boring, would it?
And instead of the usual meals in the Refectory,
we could have pizza every day
for all the years that you’re here.
Cola on tap, et c. That wouldn’t get boring would it?
[PAUSE]
You’re obviously very aware
how easily the novelty wears off.
When you started at here,
you were no doubt excited
and a little bit frightened as
to what would happen next.
All these new sensations,
all these new sights, sounds and,
if you’re walking through the Chemistry department,
smells were part
of this new wonderful school.
But how do you feel about it now?
Do you find it boring?
[PAUSE]
The feeling of boredom
is quite unmistakable,
and you probably have
your own experiences to describe it.
It’s that sensation of really not wanting
to be where you are now,
wanting to do anything else
other than be forced to sit there
in some task which you perceive
as being quite meaningless
or difficult or annoying.
You feel trapped and restless
and your attention hurtles about
like a Justin Bieber fan after 10 cups of coffee,
searching desperately
for something better to latch onto.
Finally, your eyes settle onto the clock:
10:09 and 30 seconds,
10:09 and 31 seconds… 32,…. 33…
32… 31… 30…
31,... 32… 35… 36… 37…
24… 23…
Curse you, Second Hand!
Ah! Zeno has got nothing
on a bored schoolboy waiting for Break.
Have you ever stopped to ask yourself
why you get bored in the first place?
[PAUSE]
Surprisingly, that’s not an easy question to answer.
You really have to think hard
about why you’re finding something
boring in the first place.
Let’s say you find maths boring.
Patently ridiculous, but let’s pretend.
Why might this be?
The most common reason
is that you are stuck
and don’t know what to do now.
Your boredom is then a symptom of frustration.
The second most common reason
is that you’ve managed
to understand what to do
quickly and easily after the first 3 questions,
your boredom then is a result of an intelligent mind
seeking some stimulation.
The first point is easy to deal with,
with a raising of the hand
and a polite request to your teacher.
The second is much more subtle.
[PAUSE]
Without exception,
you are all intelligent beings,
and intelligence requires something to nourish it
– sights, sounds, ideas, challenges,
arguments and mysteries
– for it to thrive.
Just like our bodies,
our minds require a balanced diet
in order to function properly.
If we fill our minds with junk,
then junk is all they’ll crave
and junk is all that’ll come out of them.
A daily diet of four hours
of World of Warcraft
is equivalent to a daily intake
of Big Macs, Hot Wings, and Stuffed Crusts
all washed down with a gallon of Galaxy Crushem.
If the desire for entertainment
is causing us to question the benefits
of interacting in a classroom,
absorbing information
and practising our intellectual skills,
then it is clear that our minds are not
as healthy as they could be.
[PAUSE]
Boredom is a part of everybody’s life.
It’s even mentioned in the Bible,
especially in the book of Ecclesiastes.
For the Christian,
boredom is a sign to reflect on who we are
and to contrast that with God who,
while never-changing can always present Himself
in ever new ways through
the same prayers,
the same readings
and the same silences.
Whether Christian or not,
to face up to boredom is to face up to
the possibility of the transformation of our lives,
to become someone even better.
Indeed, boredom can teach us
a great deal about ourselves,
about who we are
and contrast that with the people
that we are meant to be.
Facing up to tedious chores
can make us better people
if we learn to control our desire to give up
and find something more interesting.
[PAUSE}
Just look at the day ahead of you.
What do you think is going to be boring?
How is that going to change your life for the better?
Saturday, April 30, 2011
The Character of Eternity
Well, my heartiest congratulations to the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge on the occasion of their marriage. May they have many, many long and happy years together.
As it happened, I was singing Evensong at Westminster Abbey with the College Chamber Choir at the beginning of April. I think the Dean and Chapter were just beginning to plant the conkers that bloomed into those trees which many of us saw in the Nave during yesterday's ceremony.
Of course I saw the Royal Wedding as an outsider. Being outside the Church of England has several consequences, one of which is that I am now removed from the Established Church. It does afford me the opportunity to ask two questions (two questions that I got moaned at for asking - rather unfairly in my opinion).
1) If Common Worship is supposed to be Normative, Approved, and Appropriate in the Church of England, why were the Duke and Duchess still married using (mostly) the 1662 BCP? Why not use the modern vernacular?
2) If this is the Anniversary year of the Authorised Version, why wasn't that used for the Scripture reading yesterday?
These little observations (and, I suppose, in the grand scheme of things they are little) seem to suggest that the Established Church is now very subtly contradicting itself.
If we use BCP language for the wedding of two highly important members of the Royal family on the grounds that it is the English Language at its most regal, then why are we not using the same language for our Mass when the King of Kings is present? Again we have the old argument of "Jesus meets us where we are. He doesn't mind how we approach him." However, if Jesus really is our King (i.e. we submit to His Rule) then shouldn't we be treating Him like a King and scrubbing ourselves up appropriately? We may stand boldly before the throne of Grace, but surely we don't stand shabbily or nonchalantly or still reading the Beano before Him.
If we are using BCP language because it is our National Heritage, then what does it say about the language of the Modern Vernacular. Of course, we don't use expletives or slang during our worship (unless the Priest is having a very bad day in the pulpit) but it seems that our desire to use BCP language in important occasions is because it possesses something that our Modern Language does not.
It seems that the Old Language has the Character of Eternity - it possesses a deeper sense and meaning that stretches across the centuries to reach even people of today. All Christian worship has to have that character because we have to be looking backwards to the Revelation of Christ just as those who lived before Him had to look forward to His coming.
From what I understand, the language chosen to translate the old Latin prayers and the Greek and Hebrew Scriptures was deliberately arranged so that it was as close as possible in meaning in translation. The word "prevent" is a case in point. We understand that word differently now, meaning "to stop" or "prohibit", but it takes just a moment's thought to see that "pre-" means before. If this is the case, one is naturally drawn to ask what the "-vent" means, with the words "convent" or "Advent" in mind perhaps. If you know what Advent means (i.e. arrival) then you realise that "-vent" has something to do with coming or going, and thus "prevent" originally meant "to go before". Of course "prevent" translates praevenire and you can see how scholars worked.
Of course, they didn't always get it right There are one or two glorious typos, but the idea of preserving the language was not always about preserving heritage, but rather preserving the meaning, keeping the Character of Eternity alive for those in later centuries to understand.
Of course it takes work to understand a language that is 500 years old. The wonderful thing is that one can still understand most of it. If we take the trouble to address the bits we don't understand, then we not only find the answer but the whole thing opens up into a greater understanding and appreciation of what's being said.
Can we honestly say this of the language of the Modern Vernacular which isn't really conducive to careful study?
As it happened, I was singing Evensong at Westminster Abbey with the College Chamber Choir at the beginning of April. I think the Dean and Chapter were just beginning to plant the conkers that bloomed into those trees which many of us saw in the Nave during yesterday's ceremony.
Of course I saw the Royal Wedding as an outsider. Being outside the Church of England has several consequences, one of which is that I am now removed from the Established Church. It does afford me the opportunity to ask two questions (two questions that I got moaned at for asking - rather unfairly in my opinion).
1) If Common Worship is supposed to be Normative, Approved, and Appropriate in the Church of England, why were the Duke and Duchess still married using (mostly) the 1662 BCP? Why not use the modern vernacular?
2) If this is the Anniversary year of the Authorised Version, why wasn't that used for the Scripture reading yesterday?
These little observations (and, I suppose, in the grand scheme of things they are little) seem to suggest that the Established Church is now very subtly contradicting itself.
If we use BCP language for the wedding of two highly important members of the Royal family on the grounds that it is the English Language at its most regal, then why are we not using the same language for our Mass when the King of Kings is present? Again we have the old argument of "Jesus meets us where we are. He doesn't mind how we approach him." However, if Jesus really is our King (i.e. we submit to His Rule) then shouldn't we be treating Him like a King and scrubbing ourselves up appropriately? We may stand boldly before the throne of Grace, but surely we don't stand shabbily or nonchalantly or still reading the Beano before Him.
If we are using BCP language because it is our National Heritage, then what does it say about the language of the Modern Vernacular. Of course, we don't use expletives or slang during our worship (unless the Priest is having a very bad day in the pulpit) but it seems that our desire to use BCP language in important occasions is because it possesses something that our Modern Language does not.
It seems that the Old Language has the Character of Eternity - it possesses a deeper sense and meaning that stretches across the centuries to reach even people of today. All Christian worship has to have that character because we have to be looking backwards to the Revelation of Christ just as those who lived before Him had to look forward to His coming.
From what I understand, the language chosen to translate the old Latin prayers and the Greek and Hebrew Scriptures was deliberately arranged so that it was as close as possible in meaning in translation. The word "prevent" is a case in point. We understand that word differently now, meaning "to stop" or "prohibit", but it takes just a moment's thought to see that "pre-" means before. If this is the case, one is naturally drawn to ask what the "-vent" means, with the words "convent" or "Advent" in mind perhaps. If you know what Advent means (i.e. arrival) then you realise that "-vent" has something to do with coming or going, and thus "prevent" originally meant "to go before". Of course "prevent" translates praevenire and you can see how scholars worked.
Of course, they didn't always get it right There are one or two glorious typos, but the idea of preserving the language was not always about preserving heritage, but rather preserving the meaning, keeping the Character of Eternity alive for those in later centuries to understand.
Of course it takes work to understand a language that is 500 years old. The wonderful thing is that one can still understand most of it. If we take the trouble to address the bits we don't understand, then we not only find the answer but the whole thing opens up into a greater understanding and appreciation of what's being said.
Can we honestly say this of the language of the Modern Vernacular which isn't really conducive to careful study?
Sunday, April 24, 2011
The Feast of the Resurrection 2011
At Paschaltide, we find ourselves faced with one of the apparent paradoxes of our Christian Faith. It isn't really a paradox, but the details take some working out in our little mortal heads and this is often too much for them - we are forced to sit in confused silence until there is some resolution. That resolution may not actually answer the question but we will know God in our stillness. The task is to be still, to put aside the little we know or think we know -perhaps just for a moment or perhaps for ever - and allow ourselves to be touched by the Divine Truth. Christ's resurrection can be for us an opportunity for transformation.
Nonetheless, we still experience paradox and this impacts greatly on the way we live our lives. We have to cope and learn to cope. We are faced with the Immortal God who dies, the transcendent God who walks among us, the unapprochable Creator who bids us not only approach but share an incredible (almost) intimacy with Him.
Perhaps this weird and painful little life that we live is precisely the resolution of the paradox of God in order for us to share a proper relationship with Him. Our present existence acts as a buffer between what we perceive to be contradictory positions. We have so many difficult concepts to grasp, of predestination, election and free-will, of God Transcendent and Immanent, of Christ both human and divine. All of these occur precisely because of our feebleness in this mode of existence.
In order to be truly free, we have to know the consequences of our freedom. In order to know God, we also have to know not-God. In order to know joy, we need to know pain. In order to know Eternity we have to know death. It is up to our own God who does not wish our destruction in any way to show us these things by His example of the alternatives. God does it so that we don't have to. And then He rises from the Dead in the greatest challenge to our thinking.
Of course, many may scoff at this - Jesus said they would. We, on the other hand as St Benedict says, should never despair of God's mercy. Our Christian Faith allows us to live certainly in the midst of paradox, crisis, horror and misery and still know that we are loved as far as our existence extends in Reality. We may seek understanding, but true and complete understanding will only come at the end.
For his anger endureth but a moment; in his favour is life: weeping may endure for a night, but joy cometh in the morning.
Wishing you all the very best this Paschaltide.
Nonetheless, we still experience paradox and this impacts greatly on the way we live our lives. We have to cope and learn to cope. We are faced with the Immortal God who dies, the transcendent God who walks among us, the unapprochable Creator who bids us not only approach but share an incredible (almost) intimacy with Him.
Perhaps this weird and painful little life that we live is precisely the resolution of the paradox of God in order for us to share a proper relationship with Him. Our present existence acts as a buffer between what we perceive to be contradictory positions. We have so many difficult concepts to grasp, of predestination, election and free-will, of God Transcendent and Immanent, of Christ both human and divine. All of these occur precisely because of our feebleness in this mode of existence.
In order to be truly free, we have to know the consequences of our freedom. In order to know God, we also have to know not-God. In order to know joy, we need to know pain. In order to know Eternity we have to know death. It is up to our own God who does not wish our destruction in any way to show us these things by His example of the alternatives. God does it so that we don't have to. And then He rises from the Dead in the greatest challenge to our thinking.
Of course, many may scoff at this - Jesus said they would. We, on the other hand as St Benedict says, should never despair of God's mercy. Our Christian Faith allows us to live certainly in the midst of paradox, crisis, horror and misery and still know that we are loved as far as our existence extends in Reality. We may seek understanding, but true and complete understanding will only come at the end.
For his anger endureth but a moment; in his favour is life: weeping may endure for a night, but joy cometh in the morning.
Wishing you all the very best this Paschaltide.
Sunday, April 17, 2011
Labels and Tables
"Yea, the darkness is no darkness with thee, but the night is as clear as the day : the darkness and light to thee are both alike."
Perhaps I've been looking at things in the wrong way. When you leave a room, just before you close the door, you put the light out. There is a moment of darkness as the door clicks shut.
In the past week, I have been privileged to spend some time with the Anglican Catholics in Canterbury and in Dartford. I have, for the first time since February, received the Sacrament and had good fellowship with some interesting, kind and three-dimensional Christians.
What struck me most is that there is no naivety with them. They are operating with their eyes wide open. Their numbers are small. The Mission in Dartford is held in an upstairs room with a table as an altar pressed ad orientem against a wall. They know about their reputation which is often called into question by people who do not understand, or being damaged by the ravings of the over-educated and unauthorised few. They know how they are being labelled by those on the outside. Perhaps I too, in my own way, have not done them as much justice as I should when I have mentioned them before. Yet they still press on.
It's amazing that when a Mass is celebrated with sincerity and with care and consideration to the old, old words and what the old, old words mean, that an upstairs room bears a resemblence to Pugin's work and a former nonconformist chapel suddenly gains the dimensions of the grandest cathedrals.
If the Anglican Catholics could be summed up with a label (and they most assuredly cannot!!!) it would have to be Cuprinol. They do exactly what they say on the tin. What does this mean for me? I am still listening for God's call. I also have some very good friends who are all distant from me in Brighton, France, and across the Pond, and I have never felt closer to them. Indeed, I have been closer in koinonia to them than the members of the jurisdiction I have just left. If I am privileged enough to be walking with God, then it isn't surprising that the darkness is not all that dark.
Wednesday, April 13, 2011
Purity in Passiontide
1Then Jesus six days before the passover came to Bethany, where Lazarus was which had been dead , whom he raised from the dead. 2 There they made him a supper; and Martha served : but Lazarus was one of them that sat at the table with him. 3 Then took Mary a pound of ointment of spikenard , very costly, and anointed the feet of Jesus, and wiped his feet with her hair: and the house was filled with the odour of the ointment. 4 Then saith one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot, Simon's son, which should betray him, 5 Why was not this ointment sold for three hundred pence, and given to the poor? 6 This he said , not that he cared for the poor; but because he was a thief, and had the bag, and bare what was put therein . 7 Then said Jesus, Let her alone : against the day of my burying hath she kept this. 8 For the poor always ye have with you; but me ye have not always. 9 Much people of the Jews therefore knew that he was there: and they came not for Jesus' sake only, but that they might see Lazarus also, whom he had raised from the dead. 10 But the chief priests consulted that they might put Lazarus also to death ; 11 Because that by reason of him many of the Jews went away , and believed on Jesus.
St John xii.1-11
The Life of Brian paints the Jewish people as being a fickle lot, listening to the ravings of lunatics, fanatics and weirdos as their latest whims took them. This is a little unfair. Certainly there are many itinerant preachers such as Honi the Circle Drawer prattling about the countryside and various sightings of the Messiah hither and yon, yet in a time of Roman occupation, the Jews are probably better at holding onto their heritage than at the times when they were in the ascendant.
Look at the way they held onto their faith during their captivity under the Babylonians, Assyrians and Greeks. Their Jewish heritage becomes something to cling onto when the world appears to lose its head. So why is it then that, in this time of crisis, the Jews suddenly start going away to follow Jesus? Are they so jaded and scornful of their heritage that they are easily swayed by an itinerant preacher, one who, despite claiming to be the Messiah, is not acting in the militaristic manner as they had expected?
Of course, the Pharisees see in Jesus nothing but a threat. However, do they see him as a blaspheming charlatan, or do they actually recognise some aspect of His Divinity and shudder at the prospect?
The point that they fail to see is that Jesus is not pulling people away from their heritage but drawing them further in. He is stabilising them, grounding them further in their heritage as the family of God. He tells them no lies and, were it not for the fact that He follows His claims up with signs and wonders, His claims would legitimately be seen to be the ravings of a lunatic. Lunatics, however, are not in the habit of raising people from the dead. He tells them straight: He is the Son of God. God in Passiontide makes Himself transparent to us little human beings. He does not hide his reality from us, though we cannot comprehend Him fully. There is no deceit here, for God is Truth.
And so Christ calls us to be pure. We are already transparent to Him as God for our lives lie completely open to Him, and we cannot do anything about that. However, in living our lives in purity we become transparent to our fellowmen. Christ calls us not to hide the Truth, or cross our fingers behind our back, or prevaricate with fancy words, but to let our "Yes" be a yes and our "No" be a no.
To reflect the Truth of Christ in our lives means that we have to cultivate purity. Think of how wonderful the light glistens through a glass of pure water or through a pure diamond crystal. The beauty of water and diamond arises because of its purity and how the light reacts to it.
Because Mary (Martha's sister, remember) sees Jesus' transparency to her in the way that He shares her grief at the death of Lazarus, hears her protests about why He wasn't there to heal him before he died, and then goes on to raise Lazarus from the dead, she knows that He is Who He has always claimed to be. The purity of His human nature allows the Truth of His divine nature to shine through into our understanding. So Mary treats Him as she now believes in the purity and simplicity of her heart.
The hearts of the Pharisees, however, are tainted with the concerns of this world - their social standing, the number of bums on seats in their synagogues, and their way of doing things. It is they who object to Jesus' regard for the integrity of the Jewish Heritage, not knowing that it is they who have changed it to suit their methods and promote their causes, and who are prepared to dissemble, cover up and spin in order to do so. Jesus has exposed this practice for what it is, and that's why they want to kill Him. It is the impurity of their hearts and of their motives that drives them to opposing God Himself.
The purer we become in our motives and in our worship of God, the more shall this world become transparent to us so that we see God Himself at the centre of all things. Also, in purity of living, we become transparent to this world and the more will the light of Christ shine through us before others who may, if we are indeed pure, see through us to that same Christ - and what a privilege would that be for us all!
Saturday, April 02, 2011
The Scandal of the Glorious Mysteries
There is, in some sense, an inherent dualism in Christianity and one that has been exploited too much by extremes. Too far in one direction and we find ourselves in the black and white world of the absolutist to far in the other direction and there is a denial that any distinctions are all relative and of no consequence. It occurred to me, as I was praying the Glorious Mysteries of the Rosary, just how scandalous these Mysteries are and how they set up a dichotomy whose dynamics can be exploited by our common enemy, but also, if we are prudent and seek Divine assistance, by ourselves.
- The First Glorious Mystery: the Resurrection of Our Lord Jesus Christ from the Dead - the Dichotomy of Reason We are presented with a stumbling block for the non-Christian. The Resurrection pits our empiricism and desire for scientific understanding of the world against our faith in a loving God who not only dies in order to save us, but also to rise again to give us hope. Without the presence of science and the empirical evidence of our own eyes that "people do not simply rise from the dead" we lose the impact of the Resurrection, its significance for the future, and indeed any wonder in a God who can leap between possibilities to make something a reality. Without the scepticism of science, we would actually lose faith in God. Yet, without the presence of Faith, then there is no Christianity and empiricism merely traps us in a world of stories which we cannot believe to be true. Life loses meaning and we find ourselves purposelessly following a morality which now means nothing. Everything becomes permissible, even the grossest violations, because ultimately they shall pass, there is no Eternity for them to be remembered. Without Faith, the Resurrection saves no-one.
- The Second Glorious Mystery: The Ascension of Our Lord into Heaven - the Dichotomy of Purity This is the stumbling block to the extreme purist. We are faced with the dichotomy of purity and involvement which reflects the dichotomy of immanence and transcendence. While the Lord walks with us, we have a focus - someone physical who can answer our questions and whose voice we can hear. With an objective physical focus we can strive to live as He wishes, for our focus drives our purity, our single mindedness on Him. The Ascension means that, in order for others to be focused, we must lose the focus. We face the challenge of living and preserving the Faith in a World that is constantly changing. God remains constant; His Word remains constant, but its surroundings do not. We can fight to keep our lives pure, withdraw them, lock them away, prevent the World from ravaging them. However, this betrays a lack of faith in God who will preserve the Faith around us. Without involving ourselves with the world, our own personal purity causes us to wither and die. On the other hand, too much involvement in the world wrests our focus away and we succumb to worldly ideas and philosophies which lead us inexorably away from the Truth by colouring it with relativistic visions and nuances. The new meanings take over and we lose what we once had because we become unaware that our focus is no longer the right focus. The waters have become muddied, our single mindedness has gone and we have been made impure and confused.
- The Third Glorious Mystery: The Descent of the Holy Ghost - The Dichotomy of Authority This is the stumbling block to the relativist and anarchist. We are presented with the empowering of the individual with the power of God. This is the reverse of Babel and yet it is in someway another Babel because it scatters as well as unites. The Church becomes a group of unique individuals each with different gifts, and each with different ideas. We are thus presented with the dichotomy of the authority of individual conscience and that of the institution of the Church - differentiation versus integration. Too much individualism and there can be no leadership. It becomes less possible for the individual to trust a spiritual leader in favour of his own individual faith in the Holy Spirit whom he claims to have received. He finds that his "Holy Spirit" suddenly leads him into darksome realms. Too much institution and the Church becomes an impassive monolith intent on insuring absolute uniformity of belief and the eradication of all that is heretical, yet crushing the delicate petals of the revelation of God through the blessed individuals whom He calls to challenge the humanity of the Church and stir it up into continual conversatio morum.
- The Fourth Glorious Mystery: The Assumption of Our Lady into Heaven - The Dichotomy of Reliability This is the stubling block for the Sceptic. With this being one of the few dogmata made using Papal Infallibility, we are presented with the dichotomy of fallible and infallible. While this is a variation on the above notion of authority, it points us to the problems of just how certain we can be about our faith, upon whom or what to we place our reliance? Upon God, of course, but how does he reveal Himself? Is hearing the pronunciation of a dogma from the lips of God's representative on Earth sufficient? Does it need to be "proved" from the Bible? What does "proving from the Bible" really mean? We are faced with the challenge of the reliability of Heavenly Truths being promulgated by Earthly beings, and Pope, Bible, Catechism and Creed are temporary in their very nature. If there is no reliability, how can our Faith grow? Yet, there seem to be many interpretations of the same sources, and which is reliable?
- The Fifth Glorious Mystery: The Coronation of Our Lady in Heaven -the Dichotomy of Humanity. Finally, we have the stumbling block for the communist. A Pentecostal friend of mine nearly decorated the wall opposite with a mouthful of tea when I spoke of the Blessed Virgin Mary as Queen of Heaven. The problem here is the scandal of Theosis - the notion of God making Humans divine. Αὐτὸς γὰρ ἐνηνθρώπισεν, ἵνα ἡμεῖς θεοποιηθῶμεν God became Man so that Man could become God. (St Athanasius, On the Incarnation of the Word liv.) We are faced with a grave dichotomy, we either see ourselves too much as gods and thus demand worship from others, or we see no-one as gods and begin to despise any man who would dare reach out and touch the Creator or who would set himself apart from his fellow men. One smacks of Fascism, the other of Communism, especially a Communism which would rather see God abolished rather than have any man dare to try and separate himself from his humanity. We are tempted to despise our flesh in favour of our souls, or to despise our souls in favour of our flesh, and thus we divide up our very selves into a duelling dualism.
Of course, the fact is that many of these dichotomies are false or immaterial. Our existence is held in this elastic tension so that our lives can be catapulted into the arms of God. There is no dichotomy between Science and Religion. Human beings are both flesh and spirit. God is Three persons and yet only One being. The Church is both Temporal and Eternal. The Bible is indeed the inspired word of God written by human beings.
The challenge of the Rosary is to confront these dichotomies within our very selves, to address where we ourselves are inwardly biased and to appreciate that there are others who share different biases. That doesn't mean that we relinquish the notion of objective Truth and the Tradition of the Church in order to be "ecumenical" but it does mean that we try to love others of different views as much as we can.
Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death. Amen.
Sunday, March 27, 2011
Leaping into the Dark II: Bethel
Well, here I am in an ecclesiastical limbo. There are two things that are very important for me.
First, I must not emulate Lot's wife. I do not regret my decision to resign my licence, indeed perhaps this is something I should have done ages ago. I must not look back, either in regret or bitterness. There is much I could be bitter about, but it does me no good to ruminate over things that are now dead and gone, nor to demonise the agents of my departure, nor to allow these thoughts to ruin what for me is an opportunity to start afresh.
Second, I have to keep up my discipline, and not let things go. I may not have a licence anymore but I still have the training of a Reader which I've been exercising. I also have the Rule of my oblation which does give me some structure. The temptation is that, while I am not an obvious part of any worshipping community, that I am no longer bound by commitments to prayer and working the Will of God. So it is important that, while I'm on my own I should keep up the activities that I established while I was licenced and apply them in suitable situations - such as blogging. It makes sense then to keep this little blogling going while I can.
I alluded last time to the word theos having the underlying notion of "to leap" and was called up on it by a couple of friends. The information I found was from Olivier Clement's book The Roots of Christian Mysticism in which he mentions that theos comes from theirai meaning "to found" and theein "to leap" and he quotes this in context of St Theophilus of Antioch. Whether or not it is true that the word theos has this derivation, I feel certain that the idea of God the founder and foundation of the universe leaping beyond every bound, gives us a certain colour to what little we truly understand of Him. It is true that God does leap between Heaven and Earth and this immediately makes me think of the passage about Jacob's ladder:
And Jacob went out from Beersheba, and went toward Haran. And he lighted upon a certain place, and tarried there all night, because the sun was set ; and he took of the stones of that place, and put them for his pillows, and lay down in that place to sleep. And he dreamed, and behold a ladder set up on the earth, and the top of it reached to heaven: and behold the angels of God ascending and descending on it. And, behold, the LORD stood above it, and said, I am the LORD God of Abraham thy father, and the God of Isaac: the land whereon thou liest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed; And thy seed shall be as the dust of the earth, and thou shalt spread abroad to the west, and to the east, and to the north, and to the south: and in thee and in thy seed shall all the families of the earth be blessed. And, behold, I am with thee, and will keep thee in all places whither thou goest , and will bring thee again into this land; for I will not leave thee, until I have done that which I have spoken to thee of. And Jacob awaked out of his sleep, and he said, Surely the LORD is in this place; and I knew it not. And he was afraid, and said, How dreadful is this place! this is none other but the house of God, and this is the gate of heaven. And Jacob rose up early in the morning, and took the stone that he had put for his pillows, and set it up for a pillar, and poured oil upon the top of it. And he called the name of that place Bethel...
Genesis xxviii.10-19(first part)
Whine night falls upon a child of God and he can see no further forward into his journey, the it seems he must be still and rest so that he might know God better. He must set his head to rest upon the Rock of his Faith and surrender his body to the darkness, trusting in his Heavenly Father to deliver him through all perils and dangers of the night. It is in the night-time that he will learn of his proximity to Heaven, for the ladder which bridges Heaven and Earth, upon which the Angels climb to perform their ministrations, is nothing less than the Cross of Christ. God stands with us, through his Eternal presence, through the person of His Son Who walked with us, and still walks with us now, and through the Holy Paraclete who allows us to perceive Heavenly realities. The Father's presence with us has the intimacy and interior nature of a dream, but a dream that points to hidden reality and uncovers obvious truth. If the sun sets upon our journey, we should not fear because God is in this place - the darkness and the light to Him are both alike.
Sunday, March 13, 2011
Leaping into the dark.
It's interesting that the Greek word theos has roots in the idea of leaping between positions. God is One Who leaps into being (somehow), leaps into our lives and, if we let Him, into our hearts. There are some beautiful ikons of the Theotokos in which the infant God is caught in the act of leaping into his mother's face, pressing his tiny cheek into hers seeking to know her fully. She of course lets Him, and that is what singles Our Lady out from us, not that we aren't loved fully by God.
This sort of brings me to my point. I have, perhaps for the first time in my life, made a decision. I have finally left my Parish. Having tried for so long to accommodate two rapidly diverging integrities, I have just resigned my license as Reader and will be looking for a new spiritual home. I still want to retain my membership of FiF and the Benedictines, so the withdrawal from the CofE is not fully complete, but I cannot honestly see me receiving the Sacrament in the CofE for some time.
Interestingly, the straw that broke the Camel's back was my celebration of the Angelus in which I tried to call my Parish to mind of the mystery of the Incarnation. It is not in the BCP so I was told I should either drop it or go. I chose the latter after wrestling with my conscience and all kinds of tortuous roots to try and include some devotion to Our Lady in a parish which has exterminated it, as well as any Catholicism.
So I have decided to leap into the dark and pray that I am caught in the loving arms of my Creator. I seek to trust Him fully and in the light of that trust, I shall not be disappointed. I have already made my promise of Oblation: Suscipe me, Domine, secundum eloquium tuum et vivam; et non confundas me ab expectatione mea.
As one door closes...
This sort of brings me to my point. I have, perhaps for the first time in my life, made a decision. I have finally left my Parish. Having tried for so long to accommodate two rapidly diverging integrities, I have just resigned my license as Reader and will be looking for a new spiritual home. I still want to retain my membership of FiF and the Benedictines, so the withdrawal from the CofE is not fully complete, but I cannot honestly see me receiving the Sacrament in the CofE for some time.
Interestingly, the straw that broke the Camel's back was my celebration of the Angelus in which I tried to call my Parish to mind of the mystery of the Incarnation. It is not in the BCP so I was told I should either drop it or go. I chose the latter after wrestling with my conscience and all kinds of tortuous roots to try and include some devotion to Our Lady in a parish which has exterminated it, as well as any Catholicism.
So I have decided to leap into the dark and pray that I am caught in the loving arms of my Creator. I seek to trust Him fully and in the light of that trust, I shall not be disappointed. I have already made my promise of Oblation: Suscipe me, Domine, secundum eloquium tuum et vivam; et non confundas me ab expectatione mea.
As one door closes...
Monday, February 21, 2011
Faith, fear and fury
The Internet is a remarkable thing because it can actually hide people from people under a welter of words. Writing on the Internet, or even via email, puts up this rather protective screen which allows us to in some way be separated from its intended recipient. There's a big danger to this. Just today I read this on Facebook:
Well, isn't this a happy little statement? The worst thing is that this statement was not - repeat not - spoken in jest, but came from the lips of what appears to be a Benedictine brother of what appears to be a very Traditional Catholic persuasion. Indeed the thread whence I have plucked this edifying soundbite contains some rather remarkable damnations from this over-excited Religious person. I wonder what St Benedict would have made of his rantings. Of course, I could not enter this fray with any words, nor really should I. What makes me mildly amused is St James' teaching on the tongue being demonstrated with curses and blessings in almost the same breath.
First, anything I would say would automatically be disregarded as the ravings of a Protestant Heretic who makes a mockery of the Catholic Church by feigning allegiance to the Pope, yet has not had the guts to Convert to the One True Faith. Second, there is nothing I would want to say because such individuals have made up their minds.
Also today, a good friend of mine gently chided me by wondering whether I regarded "liberal" as being synonymous with "bad and wrong". Of course, I replied that I didn't regard "liberal" as being synonymous with "bad and wrong" since there are "bad and wrong" things which aren't liberal. I wasn't being entirely serious, of course.
The issue in hand is Mankind's search for certainty. We need to be certain of something in our apparently brief sojourn through this weird little experience called Reality. The more everything warps and changes around us, the more we long for finding some stability, and the more we cling to the little pockets of comfort that float by us as we take our short-lived spin in this temporal Maelstrom. The more we think about our situation, the more we realise that all the things we hold onto are uncertain. This results in crises of faith and belief. There isn't a Christian out there who hasn't felt the sudden panic about the possibility that God might not actually exist. If there is, then I doubt that he has thought sufficiently about what he believes.
St Thomas Aquinas maintains that the existence of God is not self-evident, and I am inclined to believe him.
Whatever God is, His existence is unique. Analogies must fail, logic must break down, pictures, patterns, proofs, parables and propositions must be inadequate to describe how God can possibly exist. It is a question of faith, a faith that requires positive action in order to open one up to the indescribable existence of God.
When our faith is tested then it's very easy to give in to fear. I speak from experience here. We can and should cling to what we hold to be true. The entirety of the Christian Faith is a search for the Truth, a Truth that promises to be found by whoever seeks it, but not necessarily in the way the seeker expects. Yes, when we are afraid then we should cling onto our Faith. GOD is our hope and strength, a very present help in trouble. If, amid the storm, we can cling onto nothing else but the flimsiest thread, this is usually sufficient to bring us through. Even so, some of us lose that thread. This is a tragedy, but I am convinced that this is not the end of the story.
However, if we cast a eye over our charitable Benedictine brother above, we see something very different from taking refuge in God. Here we see a man whose understanding of Holy Church has been challenged and he seeks to defend it with all his might as a good Christian should. However, when he is out-gunned and out-manoeuvred, as we all at some point in intellectual debate, he resorts to making his understanding absolute and demonises his opponent for speaking heresy and vile blasphemy when there has been nothing of the sort. A pharisaic device, wouldn't you say?
In his first letter to the Church in Corinth (v.5), St Paul does issue the instruction "To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus". The "one" in this case is a man who has committed fornication with his own step-mother. Elsewhere, St Paul does mention to St Timothy handing Hymnaeus and Alexander over to Satan to learn that blasphemy is wrong. I get the sense that St Paul is letting these folks lie in the beds of their own making apart from the Christian brotherhood in order that they may learn the way back. This is surely the basis of Benedictine excommunication. Whatever one's interpretation of these verses from St Paul, we can be certain of what they are not. They are not condemnations to Hell.
Christians should be very wary of those who condemn others to Hell. As far as I am aware of Christian doctrine, Holy Church has no power to condemn anyone to Hell, nor does she have the power to raise anyone up to Heaven. Saints are declared to be so: the Church is able to make an official recognition through God's revelation that a person has attained the heights of Heaven. This is not the same as the Church creating her own saints, nor does she create her own sinners.
I will willingly confess to the reader that I am a sinner and have frequently, if not daily, fallen short of God's glory, but, unless you tell me, I cannot possibly say that you are a sinner. I may see you commit an act which the Church recognises to be sinful, but without knowing your mind, I have no business to say that you are a sinner. This is something that exists between yourself and God. Holy Church cannot declare someone to be a sinner.
However, there is something quite wonderful here: the Church has been given authority to forgive sins and to proclaim God's forgiveness. So here we have a God who would rather his Church proclaimed Forgiveness rather than Judgment. That's the reality of it, and it makes more sense than trying to second-guess the mind of an utterly unique being. We Christians are often chided by atheists for believing in a God who is arbitrary in His condemnation. They fail to see that this "wrathful and vengeful God" is trying very hard to convince a group of people to whom He has bestowed the capacity for free choice to choose Him freely. We will have to take the consequences of our sins, but we are being given the opportunity not to take them with us when we die. They also fail to see a God who knows that the situation is minutely complicated by the actions of myriads of myriads of free wills all possessing a fallen nature. The trouble is that it isn't just the atheists who fail to see this - sometimes it's us Christians.
But then, what do I know? I'm only a Protestant Heretic who makes a mockery of the Catholic Church by feigning allegiance to the Pope, yet has not had the guts to Convert to the One True Faith.
"Your brain is a field of demonic weeds, and your words are like poison. God bless you."
Well, isn't this a happy little statement? The worst thing is that this statement was not - repeat not - spoken in jest, but came from the lips of what appears to be a Benedictine brother of what appears to be a very Traditional Catholic persuasion. Indeed the thread whence I have plucked this edifying soundbite contains some rather remarkable damnations from this over-excited Religious person. I wonder what St Benedict would have made of his rantings. Of course, I could not enter this fray with any words, nor really should I. What makes me mildly amused is St James' teaching on the tongue being demonstrated with curses and blessings in almost the same breath.
First, anything I would say would automatically be disregarded as the ravings of a Protestant Heretic who makes a mockery of the Catholic Church by feigning allegiance to the Pope, yet has not had the guts to Convert to the One True Faith. Second, there is nothing I would want to say because such individuals have made up their minds.
Also today, a good friend of mine gently chided me by wondering whether I regarded "liberal" as being synonymous with "bad and wrong". Of course, I replied that I didn't regard "liberal" as being synonymous with "bad and wrong" since there are "bad and wrong" things which aren't liberal. I wasn't being entirely serious, of course.
The issue in hand is Mankind's search for certainty. We need to be certain of something in our apparently brief sojourn through this weird little experience called Reality. The more everything warps and changes around us, the more we long for finding some stability, and the more we cling to the little pockets of comfort that float by us as we take our short-lived spin in this temporal Maelstrom. The more we think about our situation, the more we realise that all the things we hold onto are uncertain. This results in crises of faith and belief. There isn't a Christian out there who hasn't felt the sudden panic about the possibility that God might not actually exist. If there is, then I doubt that he has thought sufficiently about what he believes.
St Thomas Aquinas maintains that the existence of God is not self-evident, and I am inclined to believe him.
No one can mentally admit the opposite of what is self-evident; as the
Philosopher (Metaph. iv, lect. vi) states concerning the first principles of demonstration. But the opposite of the proposition "God is" can be mentally admitted: "The fool said in his heart, There is no God" (Ps. 52:1). Therefore, that God exists is not self-evident. (Book 1, Question 1, Article 1)
Whatever God is, His existence is unique. Analogies must fail, logic must break down, pictures, patterns, proofs, parables and propositions must be inadequate to describe how God can possibly exist. It is a question of faith, a faith that requires positive action in order to open one up to the indescribable existence of God.
When our faith is tested then it's very easy to give in to fear. I speak from experience here. We can and should cling to what we hold to be true. The entirety of the Christian Faith is a search for the Truth, a Truth that promises to be found by whoever seeks it, but not necessarily in the way the seeker expects. Yes, when we are afraid then we should cling onto our Faith. GOD is our hope and strength, a very present help in trouble. If, amid the storm, we can cling onto nothing else but the flimsiest thread, this is usually sufficient to bring us through. Even so, some of us lose that thread. This is a tragedy, but I am convinced that this is not the end of the story.
However, if we cast a eye over our charitable Benedictine brother above, we see something very different from taking refuge in God. Here we see a man whose understanding of Holy Church has been challenged and he seeks to defend it with all his might as a good Christian should. However, when he is out-gunned and out-manoeuvred, as we all at some point in intellectual debate, he resorts to making his understanding absolute and demonises his opponent for speaking heresy and vile blasphemy when there has been nothing of the sort. A pharisaic device, wouldn't you say?
In his first letter to the Church in Corinth (v.5), St Paul does issue the instruction "To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus". The "one" in this case is a man who has committed fornication with his own step-mother. Elsewhere, St Paul does mention to St Timothy handing Hymnaeus and Alexander over to Satan to learn that blasphemy is wrong. I get the sense that St Paul is letting these folks lie in the beds of their own making apart from the Christian brotherhood in order that they may learn the way back. This is surely the basis of Benedictine excommunication. Whatever one's interpretation of these verses from St Paul, we can be certain of what they are not. They are not condemnations to Hell.
Christians should be very wary of those who condemn others to Hell. As far as I am aware of Christian doctrine, Holy Church has no power to condemn anyone to Hell, nor does she have the power to raise anyone up to Heaven. Saints are declared to be so: the Church is able to make an official recognition through God's revelation that a person has attained the heights of Heaven. This is not the same as the Church creating her own saints, nor does she create her own sinners.
I will willingly confess to the reader that I am a sinner and have frequently, if not daily, fallen short of God's glory, but, unless you tell me, I cannot possibly say that you are a sinner. I may see you commit an act which the Church recognises to be sinful, but without knowing your mind, I have no business to say that you are a sinner. This is something that exists between yourself and God. Holy Church cannot declare someone to be a sinner.
However, there is something quite wonderful here: the Church has been given authority to forgive sins and to proclaim God's forgiveness. So here we have a God who would rather his Church proclaimed Forgiveness rather than Judgment. That's the reality of it, and it makes more sense than trying to second-guess the mind of an utterly unique being. We Christians are often chided by atheists for believing in a God who is arbitrary in His condemnation. They fail to see that this "wrathful and vengeful God" is trying very hard to convince a group of people to whom He has bestowed the capacity for free choice to choose Him freely. We will have to take the consequences of our sins, but we are being given the opportunity not to take them with us when we die. They also fail to see a God who knows that the situation is minutely complicated by the actions of myriads of myriads of free wills all possessing a fallen nature. The trouble is that it isn't just the atheists who fail to see this - sometimes it's us Christians.
But then, what do I know? I'm only a Protestant Heretic who makes a mockery of the Catholic Church by feigning allegiance to the Pope, yet has not had the guts to Convert to the One True Faith.
Wednesday, February 09, 2011
The Diaspora and Catholic Tortoise Disease
For some time, the readers of this blog will note that I bewail the solitude of my condition. I am not aware of any Forward-in-Faith Anglo-Catholics within 10-15 miles of my front door. It's thus not particularly easy for me to hear Mass with like-minded folk unless I hop on two buses, hope the trains are working and that my legs haven't parted company during the week's labour. One might argue that my legs are used to parting company due to all my sitting on the fence.
I mention my plight not for everyone to go "Ah poor soul" and emit waves of sympathy, but to waken good Catholics in the CofE to something that may well befall them in the near future.
You see, the problem is that Liberalism is the easy option. It doesn't matter who you are, the parish will change its form and liturgy to entice you through the door so that you can join a little gang of people with whom you can sit down, have a nice cup of coffee, pat each other on the back, say "Oh that's nice" and "Oh what a shame!" a lot without transforming your life in any substantial way whatsoever. It isn't terribly wrong to be a nice person, but if there's no depth to one's belief, how can one be sure that one is really a Christian and not just a terribly nice Pantheist. Of course, to some Liberals, that doesn't really matter at all, but didn't Christ say that He would be ashamed of anyone who would be ashamed of Him?
I really do wonder what makes Liberal parishes any different from a Rotary club with ritual. However, the point that I'm trying to make is that Liberalism is the easy option because it does not require transformation and sacrifice which are at the heart of the Saviour's ministry. What's the point of "Back to Church" Sunday if we invite everyone to church to see how nice we all are only for them to say how nice the church is and never darken the doorstep until the next "Back to Church" Sunday?
This means that the Catholic parish is likely to be the only parish in a deanery, separated from the next by a dozen Liberal parishes. Thus the isolation of the Catholic begins - the Anglican Diaspora!
The Catholic parish is in a bit of a quandary. Suppose the vicar were to leave. God does call vicars away, so we can't blame them for going. If you've got Resolutions A, B and C in place you're basically saying that you hold some firm belief about the nature of the Church. Many priests will think, "looks like hard work" or "Hmmm. They're all misogynists so they aren't nice" and will not give the parish a second thought. Then the Rural/Area Dean/ Archdeacon/ other church official (delete whichever is inapplicable) will come along and say, "if you've got the resolutions in place then you're ruling out the possibility of getting a good priest who might not agree with you." It doesn't matter that the priests who won't touch a resolution ABC parish are clearly unsuitable for upholding the belief of the Church, the need for parish leadership and sacramental provision of any form are made to look more pressing. Lo and behold, pressure is being put on you to relinquish those resolutions in order to get a priest who in fact will want to make you all nice. This is what is happening in Deaneries all around the country. The Resolution parishes are parochiae non gratae.
Your parish might capitulate. Where does that leave you? Either with Mrs. "priest" or with a priest who is going to work to make you a nice, welcoming "inclusive" parish because you are obviously so unfriendly for believing what you do. Slowly but surely, the parish Catholics will age and die off or move away, leaving you with a rapidly shrinking group. You may even end up on your own - the last Catholic in the parish.
What do you do then?
Just as there is a temptation to lapse into Liberalism because its the easy option, there's another temptation - to wall oneself in away from others amid an appeal to forms of the Doctrine of Taint. This, I believe, is a form of acedia, a monastic vice which takes the form of dissatisfaction and withdrawal and leads to depression, sadness and spiritual lethargy - at least that's what has happened to me. This is Catholic Tortoise Disease (CTD), and I bet Fr. Hunwicke would come up with a splendid graeco-latin classification for that.
For many, this is no fault of their own but a state of existence to which they have been driven. How many isolated Catholics are there in the Church of England, trying to find a Mass on a Sunday Morning where they can be certain that the Eucharistic Mystery is celebrated according to the ancient formula without cheers, applause, hugs'n'kisses in the Peace and 52 verses of "Clap hands, here comes Jesus" and other genuinely offensive facile, banal, insubstantial bunkum. Another dangerous symptom of CTD is the level of distrust of any church official. In many cases, this is well deserved owing to the proliferation of people who say, "believe what you like" or the politically ambitious who say "believe what I believe" and then depart from the Catholic Faith. However, this suspicion and growing cynicism has the danger of further separating the individual from a worshipping congregation. They get so used to being on their own, that another person can cause difficulties. The danger is that isolated Catholics become sufferers of CTD and, with the disease (in its literal meaning: dis-ease) becoming progressively worse, disappear forever.
It is important, then, for Catholics to keep in touch with others as far as possible. If anyone does find a solitary individual, then it's going to be a major lift if they tell them that they are not alone and can put them in touch with others. The Internet is good for this. I set up the Anglican Diaspora web-forum for the very purpose of bringing Anglo-Catholics together. While there are spats and arguments, there is some confraternity there and people do get put in touch with others who can help them. You may see this as shameless self-publicising. It isn't. Catholics of any Anglican sort should be together, talking and praying and, when possible, celebrating the Mass together. I am thankful that I have been put onto some very good friends (albeit thousands of miles away), inspirational people (like Bishop Robert Mercer), holy places (like St Agatha's Landport) and magnificently supportive organisations (like the College of Readers).
The College has already provided me with much support as I wrangle with the implications of being a FiF Reader in an interregnum under a female "Rural Dean".
Truth be told, I am still lonely. Being very poor sighted makes it difficult to travel anywhere. However, I do hope to get out and about to some of the functions and meet new people. I like to think that there are actually many good Catholics still left in the CofE. Some will go to the Ordinariate. Well, they go with my applause and prayers. I can't take that step yet, perhaps I never will, but they have shown the willingness to be transformed and sacrifice what they hold dear for the sake of the Faith. CTD prevents transformation, and we have to battle it together.
But how do we find the solitary Catholic and the CTD sufferer? Over to you!
I mention my plight not for everyone to go "Ah poor soul" and emit waves of sympathy, but to waken good Catholics in the CofE to something that may well befall them in the near future.
You see, the problem is that Liberalism is the easy option. It doesn't matter who you are, the parish will change its form and liturgy to entice you through the door so that you can join a little gang of people with whom you can sit down, have a nice cup of coffee, pat each other on the back, say "Oh that's nice" and "Oh what a shame!" a lot without transforming your life in any substantial way whatsoever. It isn't terribly wrong to be a nice person, but if there's no depth to one's belief, how can one be sure that one is really a Christian and not just a terribly nice Pantheist. Of course, to some Liberals, that doesn't really matter at all, but didn't Christ say that He would be ashamed of anyone who would be ashamed of Him?
I really do wonder what makes Liberal parishes any different from a Rotary club with ritual. However, the point that I'm trying to make is that Liberalism is the easy option because it does not require transformation and sacrifice which are at the heart of the Saviour's ministry. What's the point of "Back to Church" Sunday if we invite everyone to church to see how nice we all are only for them to say how nice the church is and never darken the doorstep until the next "Back to Church" Sunday?
This means that the Catholic parish is likely to be the only parish in a deanery, separated from the next by a dozen Liberal parishes. Thus the isolation of the Catholic begins - the Anglican Diaspora!
The Catholic parish is in a bit of a quandary. Suppose the vicar were to leave. God does call vicars away, so we can't blame them for going. If you've got Resolutions A, B and C in place you're basically saying that you hold some firm belief about the nature of the Church. Many priests will think, "looks like hard work" or "Hmmm. They're all misogynists so they aren't nice" and will not give the parish a second thought. Then the Rural/Area Dean/ Archdeacon/ other church official (delete whichever is inapplicable) will come along and say, "if you've got the resolutions in place then you're ruling out the possibility of getting a good priest who might not agree with you." It doesn't matter that the priests who won't touch a resolution ABC parish are clearly unsuitable for upholding the belief of the Church, the need for parish leadership and sacramental provision of any form are made to look more pressing. Lo and behold, pressure is being put on you to relinquish those resolutions in order to get a priest who in fact will want to make you all nice. This is what is happening in Deaneries all around the country. The Resolution parishes are parochiae non gratae.
Your parish might capitulate. Where does that leave you? Either with Mrs. "priest" or with a priest who is going to work to make you a nice, welcoming "inclusive" parish because you are obviously so unfriendly for believing what you do. Slowly but surely, the parish Catholics will age and die off or move away, leaving you with a rapidly shrinking group. You may even end up on your own - the last Catholic in the parish.
What do you do then?
Just as there is a temptation to lapse into Liberalism because its the easy option, there's another temptation - to wall oneself in away from others amid an appeal to forms of the Doctrine of Taint. This, I believe, is a form of acedia, a monastic vice which takes the form of dissatisfaction and withdrawal and leads to depression, sadness and spiritual lethargy - at least that's what has happened to me. This is Catholic Tortoise Disease (CTD), and I bet Fr. Hunwicke would come up with a splendid graeco-latin classification for that.
For many, this is no fault of their own but a state of existence to which they have been driven. How many isolated Catholics are there in the Church of England, trying to find a Mass on a Sunday Morning where they can be certain that the Eucharistic Mystery is celebrated according to the ancient formula without cheers, applause, hugs'n'kisses in the Peace and 52 verses of "Clap hands, here comes Jesus" and other genuinely offensive facile, banal, insubstantial bunkum. Another dangerous symptom of CTD is the level of distrust of any church official. In many cases, this is well deserved owing to the proliferation of people who say, "believe what you like" or the politically ambitious who say "believe what I believe" and then depart from the Catholic Faith. However, this suspicion and growing cynicism has the danger of further separating the individual from a worshipping congregation. They get so used to being on their own, that another person can cause difficulties. The danger is that isolated Catholics become sufferers of CTD and, with the disease (in its literal meaning: dis-ease) becoming progressively worse, disappear forever.
It is important, then, for Catholics to keep in touch with others as far as possible. If anyone does find a solitary individual, then it's going to be a major lift if they tell them that they are not alone and can put them in touch with others. The Internet is good for this. I set up the Anglican Diaspora web-forum for the very purpose of bringing Anglo-Catholics together. While there are spats and arguments, there is some confraternity there and people do get put in touch with others who can help them. You may see this as shameless self-publicising. It isn't. Catholics of any Anglican sort should be together, talking and praying and, when possible, celebrating the Mass together. I am thankful that I have been put onto some very good friends (albeit thousands of miles away), inspirational people (like Bishop Robert Mercer), holy places (like St Agatha's Landport) and magnificently supportive organisations (like the College of Readers).
The College has already provided me with much support as I wrangle with the implications of being a FiF Reader in an interregnum under a female "Rural Dean".
Truth be told, I am still lonely. Being very poor sighted makes it difficult to travel anywhere. However, I do hope to get out and about to some of the functions and meet new people. I like to think that there are actually many good Catholics still left in the CofE. Some will go to the Ordinariate. Well, they go with my applause and prayers. I can't take that step yet, perhaps I never will, but they have shown the willingness to be transformed and sacrifice what they hold dear for the sake of the Faith. CTD prevents transformation, and we have to battle it together.
But how do we find the solitary Catholic and the CTD sufferer? Over to you!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
