The Authenticity of the Sacred Heart

I have always had a bit of uneasiness about the Solemnity of the Sacred Heart. It stems back to the days when I was perhaps more devoted to the Prayerbook than I am now. I used to wander around Catholic shops and see the most hideous statues and paintings, the type of things modern Anglo-Catholics would call “tat”. Frequently, these paintings and statues were of the Sacred Heart of Our Lord and, I must say, it rather put me off Roman Catholicism.

Why?

The statues and paintings were cheap: badly done, or factory produced with the colours slightly off. The face of Our Lord often appeared to have big “puppy-dog” eyes and seemed to be demanding the same affection desired by a puppy rather than the uncompromising devotion that is required in order to be a follower of Our Lord. For me, the Solemnity seemed not to be authentic and it was the imagery that put me off. I felt, and still feel in many cases, that these factory-line images are being sold just to make money and not for the edification of the Christian.

I still loathe this sort of image, but I love religious iconography from both the East and West. The art of Michelangelo, Rublev, and the like is wonderful. One can see why. The creators of good religious iconography take pains. They take pains to perfect their art; they take pains to prepare their materials; they take pains to plan their work; they take pains to prepare themselves. The art of the Ikon writer has a whole regime of prayer and fasting, purifying the heart so that they might see God.

The Solemnity of the Sacred Heart focuses on one event in the ministry of Our Lord Jesus, namely the moment when the soldier took a spear and plunged it into His side, piercing the no-longer-beating heart. Immediately, we go back to Psalm LXIX:

Thy rebuke hath broken my heart; I am full of heaviness: I looked for some to have pity on me, but there was no man, neither found I any to comfort me. They gave me gall to eat: and when I was thirsty they gave me vinegar to drink.

Then we begin to see the authenticity of the Solemnity of the Sacred Heart. We look upon the One Whom we have pierced, and we see what we have done to the son of God through sin and behaviour to those around us who share our humanity. We see the fountains of mercy that pour out from that heart in the form of blood and water. We receive the two liquids necessary for our salvation: the waters of baptism cleansing us from sin and bringing us to new birth, and the blood of Christ shed for the remission of sins which we receive in the Miracle at the Altar. These cannot have come without the agony of the Lord, and our depictions of the Sacred Heart should convey this.

Not an easy task, I know, yet Rublev managed to produce that inspirational picture of the Holy Trinity where the meditating mind just begins to engage in the perichoresis, the dancing between the Persons and the Essence of God.

Caravaggio manages to produce the sense of rent flesh in his painting of St Thomas having his finger forcibly thrust into that pierced side by the hand of Our Lord.

All too often, our efforts do not convey the authenticity of what we are trying to do. Instead of producing a picture of Our Lord’s mercy, we end up like the famous picture of Our Lord lovingly, yet horrendously restored, by an old lady.

Too often, we settle for this in our lives. The Jesus Christ we are painting in our lives will never be perfect, yet it is for perfection that we must strive. The Sacred Heart shows us the extent to which mercy can be shown for anyone and everyone. We mar the image of Christ in us, but that very image continues to burst through should we take advantage of the regeneration that the Lord offers us.

The horribly twee statues and paintings of the Sacred Heart then do have a value – a great value. First, they remind us of the fact that we can always do better, and we can always strive to live more authentically Christian lives. Second, they remind us that the images that we produce are shockingly distorted and barely recognisable. Third, they remind us of what we are supposed to see, and that we have indeed fallen short. Fourth, they remind us of what we’re really supposed to see, that the love and mercy of God are limitless for all who are hungry and thirsty. Fifth, they remind us of what came first!

We must be careful though, especially if the image of Christ’s love and mercy we bear actually puts people off Christianity. The Church has not always done well at this, but it has done better than many people would give it credit. Somewhere, in the Church, the face of the Lord is visible – it is not necessarily where you would expect to see it, nor will it appear as beautiful as you would expect to see it. However it appears, it will always be accompanied by the blood and water flowing from the Sacred Heart.

The Rocky Horror Prophecy

I’ve seen many horror films in my time. I find they give me opportunity to reflect on both the good and evil aspects of our being, as well as the good and evil that is contained in the mind of those who pen such screenplays.

However, one film seems to be standing out for me as a true horror film, and that is the Rocky Horror Picture Show. For many people, it would seem just a “campy romp”, a “bit of outrageous fun”. Others would say that it is not particularly horrific, but that it acts as an expression of the changing times.

I would say that it is a true horror film given that it shows the reality and destiny of a humanity unchecked by morality and respect for others and oneself.

Essentially, the film depicts two socially conservative fiancés who fall under the spell of a sexually-promiscuous transvestite whose concern is to convince everyone to give themselves over to “absolute pleasure” while building a human being for his own gratification. Even the voice of reason is overcome despite a fight not to live life “for the thrills”. In this vision, the “insects called the human race” find themselves “lost in time, lost in space and meaning” before the light is finally switched off leaving only darkness.

In my prayer life at the moment, I have been finding myself confronted with the whole issue of means and ends. I might not find myself in complete agreement with the philosophy of Immanuel Kant, but I do agree with his statement that no human being is a means to an end, that we are all ends in ourselves. God is the reason for our existence, giving us life, time, space and meaning. If all we are is to reproduce, then what actually is the point? If we are to follow Frank N. Furter’s idea of giving ourselves up to absolute pleasure, then what happens if we find we have given ourselves up to nothing?

What is “absolute pleasure” anyway?

Clearly, this is a pleasure that everyone must agree is a pleasure. It has to be a pleasure in every frame of reference. For Frank N. Furter, giving oneself over to “sins of the flesh” is the ideal. Yet, if one recognises sins of the flesh to be sins for someone else, then the pleasure cannot be absolute for sin is a transgression of a moral law and to recognise a sin is to recognise the existence of a moral law. Furter’s absolute pleasure is based solely on the idea that his will is absolute in the first place. He is a solipsist who even believes at his comeuppance that he will go home to a better place.

Furter’s idea is for everyone to shrug off the repressive morals which prevent us from having true pleasure, which hold us back from having thrills and ecstasies which moral authorities disapprove of. Here lies the unanswered question:  why should the greatest thrills and ecstasies be repressed in the first place? What reason might the Church have for preventing people’s happiness? Cynics would say that it seeks to gain control over people. Yet this does not answer the question, why? There may indeed have been power-hungry ecclesiarchs over the years, but what power did St Francis of Assisi seek? What of St Therese of Lisieux?

Human beings seek to be free, truly free, but free from what? Free from the control of others? Free to exercise their wills without constraint? This all depends on what you mean by “control”. If one objects to a monarch who has some right to say “do this, do that” that will be all well and good, but this must also mean rejecting becoming a monarch also. One cannot object to the idea of a king and be glad at becoming king. We have laws in society that in theory enable us all to flourish together without one oppressing another. Yet there always seems to be in any system of government a ruling class which gets to call all the shots and an underclass which has to do all the shooting.

The Occultist Aleister Crowley exhorted his followers to live by the one law “do what thou wilt”. Furter is the same. One can readily see the Hell that this leads to, as the stronger will devours the weaker and yet, as that will weakens in time, it finds itself devoured by competing wills. This is Furter’s ultimate fate, leaving behind scorched earth and beings regretting their brush with depravity.
God’s laws are simple to state: recognise God for Who He is and recognise that each human being is an end in themselves. Such recognition is love itself, for when we recognise God for Who He is, then we cannot but fall down in worship and adoration. Of course, we spend our lives doing this and, at times, it seems fruitless, but if we really are bowing down to the Creator, then we can expect our being to find perfection in Him and this perfection in itself will bring absolute pleasure. Likewise, to recognise that each one of us has been willed to exist, that God has wanted to create us from realms beyond Time, and Space, and Comprehension, then to recognise that will be to have nothing but the greatest love and concern for the welfare of others, a sympathy and compassion for their weakness and fallenness, and an absolute loathing of all things that would seek to take away that very humanity from them.

In many ways, Frank N Furter represents the Devil Incarnate, seeking only to break down all obstacles to his will and to corrupt that which seeks to conform to morality, decency and charity. We need to pray for the perception to see this corrupting influence around us, and the strength to oppose it even to our cost. One does not have to be a Christian to be moral, indeed there are some truly moral atheists out there, but the existence of objective morals and duties does provide evidence for the existence, not only of a god, but of God Who cares enough to instil them with an appreciation of the existence of others as equivalent and worthy beings. Human beings are worth dying for, God has shown that. We need to have the same resolve to fight for morality. We may stumble and fall, but this can never prevent God as seeing us more than insects lost in Time, Space, and Meaning.

The End of Dives and Lazarus

Sermon for the First Sunday after Trinity

Usually, I concentrate my sermon on the Commemoration of the Sunday in the Octave of Corpus Christi. However, this does mean that I seldom get to preach on one of Our Lord’s most famous, and disturbing parables.

The sad fact of the matter is that a number of the beggars on our streets today simply aren’t beggars. There seems to be a group of people who have realised that just by dressing shabbily and making oneself dirty and dishevelled, they can make £500 a day literally by asking people for money. The generous soul seeing the apparently starving creature will naturally open her purse and ensure that she gives enough, not just for a cup of tea, but also perhaps for a sandwich as well. At the end of the day, this “beggar” will wash his face, get into a car and speed off to a nice flat.

This poses us with a bit of a dilemma.

Our Lord bids us to give to whoever asks of us. Yet, most of us would recoil at funding another person’s life of luxury. What should we do? Should we give, or should we ignore the beggar at the gate?

[PAUSE]

The parable of Dives and Lazarus is unsettling as it appears that if we live comfortably now, we shall be tormented for eternity in Hell. Is this correct, is comfortable living something to be rejected in order to save our souls? We do have to be careful here, or we will fall into Pelagianism. We enter into Eternal Life by responding to God’s grace which He offers us first and freely, depending on His goodness and not by any effort on our own part. We cannot earn our way into Heaven just by being nice to beggars.

Remember that St Paul says that we can give up everything we own but if we have not Charity, this will do us nothing.

This parable is not about what we do, but rather about the attitudes that we have with regard to people and things. Look at the Rich Man whom Tradition has named Dives. What does he really value? Clearly, he values his things over the life of a poor beggar sitting in agonised penury on his doorstep. Even in his state in Hell, he refuses to see this poor man as anything other than a means to an end. This is the typical inhabitant of Hell, one who sees true humanity only in themselves and who exists as emperor over a tiny land of things that pass away.

Humanity is destined never to pass away but has an Eternal future: Eternal life with Christ in God, or Eternal Death separated from anything that expresses true love. Every single human being is an end in themselves. God is the only true End. He is in the beginning, Father, Son and Holy Ghost, He is now and ever shall be.

In this life, each one of us is a beggar, seeking for what will make us truly alive, truly ourselves, and truly happy. It is when we recognise the deficiency of things, of “fine” living, riches and slothful luxury, that we know that we are in need of the One to rescue us from this Hell of things that rot, fall to pieces and cloy. In order to find Heaven, we must become poor by realising that the riches of this world are only worth anything if they actually bring someone closer to God. Even then these riches will rust, or get stolen.

[PAUSE]

Should we then give to beggars?

If we truly seek the humanity that is within a beggar, then we will always look for that which will express the true charity that comes from God. It is better, then, to do something that will allow each individual to be raised up out of the gutter as people in their own right, to get them back on their feet rather than seek contentment in their condition. It is better to give to charities that support the homeless or, better yet, find ways of being part of charities that support the homeless. That way, those in true need will find the true hand of friendship offered to them, and those who seek to exploit the condition of the homeless deprived of that which will only make them fall further.

Yet further, we must also find a way to help bring the false beggar to salvation, for it is such a one as he who, despite his apparent poverty, is as much Hell-bound as Dives because he cannot see that he is treating others as a means to an end rather than as children of God. How can we bring Christ’s salvation to one as truly poor as Dives?

Dividing by Infinity

Sermon preached at Our Lady of Walsingham and St Francis on the Sunday in the Octave of Corpus Christi

As Anglican Catholics, we are bound to believe that what we receive in the Mass really is the true Body and Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ. So when you come forward to receive the sacrament today, which bit of the Body of Christ will you get?

Since the Body of Christ has been broken for us, which bit do we get?  Surely it must be absolutely tiny, or was Our Lord the size of a planet for His body to be broken into enough pieces for all Christians in history to receive Him?

Ah, but you already know how to answer this objection, don't you?

[PAUSE]

In your heads right now is the Lord's miracle of the loaves and fishes. You know full well that the Lord can feed multitudes with apparently meagre resources and have much left over. This miracle is repeated in the Mass as it always has been. We receive the Body of Christ which is utterly inexhaustible.

But do we know which bit of the Body we get?

When we divide things, they tend to get smaller as we break them into bits. As we have seen, this doesn't happen in the miracle we receive. It must be that each of us receives the WHOLE Body of Christ. And that just seems ridiculous. If there is only One Lord Jesus Christ, how can we each receive Him?

[PAUSE]

Recall that the Lord's Resurrection Body defies physics. It walks through walls, appears in crowded rooms, disappears in front of people. Yet, He is always recognisable. You cannot mistake Him, just as those on the road to Emmaus recognised Him in the breaking of bread.

Mathematically, it is perfectly possible to divide an object up to make two copies which are the same size as the original. Yet Our Lord goes beyond this. We are not even given copies of His Body. We are given His body - His one body, in one perfect sacrifice. It defies our understanding and common sense, yet our faith tells us it is so. Our minds tell us only that it is reasonable.

Yet further, this one Body of Christ that each of us receives actively unites us in Him. Although the Church may be divided, yet in this Holy Mass, we are all united with each and every single Catholic. It is not Our Lord Who divides Himself, He unites us and brings us together as one human being in a multiplicity of persons. It is not God who is changed: it's us! God transforms us that we might be one in Him.

Our Lord still does work glorious, transforming miracles for His church, and that means He works glorious, transforming miracles on us too, if we let Him. It is a work in progress but will ultimately lead us to the banquet in Heaven - the same banquet as we receive now here on Earth.

Augustine, Anglicanism and the Body of Christ

This year the Feast of St Augustine gives way to the Feast of Corpus Christi as is proper. Any Saint willingly gives place to the Lord, decreasing so He may increase. Yet it is still difficult for us English folk to put St Augustine away just like that. We have here a monk, nay an abbot, who, at the orders of Pope Gregory, is assigned the task of converting the Anglo-Saxons to Christianity.

The fact that many people miss is that Christianity has been in Great Britain since the Roman occupation under Claudius. There were British Bishops at the Council of Arles; the heretic Pelagius was a British priest with a wrong view about our part in our own salvation; St Alban was the first British Christian martyr: all pre-date St Augustine’s arrival in the sixth century by two to three hundred years.

Under St Augustine, influential British kings become Christian, and dialogue begins between the Celtic Christians, who have largely been abandoned by the Roman Empire, and the Patriarchy of the Pope. It is at the Synod of Whitby some fifty years after St Augustine that the Western dating of Easter is accepted by the English Church and that monasticism is given greater consistency. Not until the Norman Conquest do the British Isles become truly Roman Catholic.

St Augustine is the first Archbishop of Canterbury, and he can rightly be thought of as an Anglican Catholic, sent to ensure that the Angles and the Celts are put in harmony. He does not seek to put down the one at the expense of the other. The Pope has primacy, but not supremacy. St Augustine himself is consecrated Archbishop by Aetherius of Arles, according to St Bede.

It is in his conversations with Pope Gregory that the seeds of Anglican practice are sown. Clerks can marry. With regard to Liturgy, Bede reports the following interchange:

St Augustine asks: Whereas the faith is one and the same, why are there different customs in different churches? and why is one custom of masses observed in the holy Roman church, and another in the Gailican church?

Pope St Gregory answers: You know, my brother, the custom of the Roman church in which you remember you were bred up. But it pleases me, that if you have found anything, either in the Roman, or the Gallican, or any other church, which may be more acceptable to Almighty God, you carefully make choice of the same, and sedulously teach the church of the English, which as yet is new ln the faith, whatsoever you can gather from the several churches. For things are not to be loved for the sake of places, but places for the sake of good things. Choose, therefore, from every church those things that are pious, religious, and upright, and when you have, as it were, made them up into one body, let the minds of the English be accustomed thereto.

With regard to Bishops, we have:

St Augustine asks- may a bishop be ordained without other bishops being present, in case there be so great a distance between them, that they cannot easily come together?

Pope St Gregory answers. - As for the church of England, in which you are as yet the only bishop, you can no otherwise ordain a bishop than in the absence of other bishops; unless some bishops should come over from Gaul, that they may be present as witnesses to you in ordaining a bishop. But we would have you, my brother, to ordain bishops in such a manner, that the said bishops may not be far asunder, that when a new bishop is to he ordained, there be no difficulty, but that other bishops, and pastors also, whose presence is necessary, may easily come together. Thus, when, by the help of God, bishops shall be so constituted in places everywhere near to one another, no ordination of a bishop is to be performed without assembling three or four bishops. For, even in spiritual affairs, we may take example by the temporal, that they may he wisely and discreetly conducted. It is certain, that when marriages are celebrated in the world, some married persons are assembled, that those who went before in the way of matrimony, may also partake in the joy of the succeeding couple. Why, then, at this spiritual ordination, wherein, by means of the sacred ministry, man is joined to God, should not such persons be assembled, as may either rejoice in the advancement of the new bishop, or jointly pour forth their prayers to Almighty God for his preservation?

We see here the teaching that only one bishop is needed for the consecration of another to be valid, the others serve as witnesses to the fact and represent the consent of the Catholic Church. Pope Gregory is clear in setting out that in grave cases of absences of Catholic Bishops, a bishop consecrated by fewer than three bishops is truly a Catholic bishop.

What we are witnessing here is the integration of the Body of Christ. That there is an order and a principle and a desire for harmony of Englishness and Catholicism. In St Augustine, Anglican Catholicism takes fruit and grows within Christ Himself.

Until the last few decades, the U.K. has been regarded as a pious nation, fearing God, and recognising that being Christian is inherently British. The Established Church, when it was Catholic, showed how a Catholic Mass could be said in English. It held to a Benedictine rule of life remnants of which can still be seen in the old school system, universities, and hospitals. This Rule was brought by St Augustine himself and can still be seen in the Book of Common Prayer.

At the centre of it all is this principle that English Spirituality is brought into unity with other local Christian spirituality in the Body of Christ. All the established rites whether they be Roman, Gallican, Glagolitic, Slavonic, or English, are properly Catholic and Christ is manifested in them. In them is the same sacrament, the same Real Presence in the host, the same Holy Trinity to be worshipped and adored.

This is where the Anglican Catholic Church comes from. It is a branch, and I, like Fr Nalls, believe in the Branch Theory insofar as our Church exists as a properly Catholic expression of the Historical Christian Faith as once delivered to the saints. There are those who would question our orders, yet we apply the same principles as St Augustine of Canterbury is given by Pope St Gregory. We are no less an expression of the Catholic Church than any other.

We may be tiny, but so was St Augustine’s mission in a land of Arians and Pelagians. If we are to grow, then we must ourselves be devoted to the Body of Christ, deepening our personal spirituality under the discipline of the Catholic Faith. We must be principled, and our principles must begin with love for God and then with neighbour. We must seek consistency, even as St Augustine sought consistency with the indigenous Church that he found when he set foot on English Soil. We must be persistent, knowing that we have many precedents as to how the humble heart and fervent soul can influence nations. And we must continue receiving the grace of God in the sacraments knowing that this very grace draws all things into Heaven itself.

What God is this?

Sermon preached at Our Lady of Walsingham and St Francis on Trinity Sunday.

You may remember that, as Catholics, we subscribe to three creeds. We're used to the Nicene Creed and, when we got to Mattins or Evensong, we often say the Apostles' Creed. Today though, and on other special days, we say the Quicunque Vult -  the Athanasian Creed. It's attributed to St Athanasius who fought against heresy in the 4th Century, though it may be better ascribed to St Ambrose. St Athanasius is quite a severe and aggressive saint, particularly when it comes to heresy. However, he's not the only one. St Nicholas of Myra, yes Santa Claus, is reputed to have punched the heretic Arius in the face because he believed that Jesus was created.

Surely it's not right to come to blows over something and complicated and hard to understand as the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, is it? Is the doctrine of the Holy Trinity really worth condemning people as heretics?

[PAUSE]

The Doctrine of the Holy Trinity is vitally important. Remember the first of the ten commandments. "Thou shalt have none other gods but me." We need to worship God first and foremost if we are ever to be reunited with Him, but we need to be clear on who He is. This isn't easy because we can't know God - He's always beyond Human thinking. This is why He reveals Himself to us in the Holy Scriptures. It's to make sure that we are truly worshipping the correct God. 

Lots of people believe in gods who created the world, but none of them are like the God Who really did. How do we know which God created the world, and how do we know that He isn't Odin or Chronos, or Vishnu? The fact of the matter is that Christianity is unique in that we have a historical record of Our Lord Jesus Christ, His birth, His life, His death, and His resurrection. We have the record of His claims to be the Son of God. We have the record of His miracles which accompany His preaching and teaching. We have the testimony of 400 people who see Him alive after His crucifixion. And we have His promise of the Holy Ghost. 

This is the truth about God. There can only be one God, yet He is God in three persons. This is difficult to understand, yet it is true. Anyone who denies the truth of the Holy Trinity is a heretic. This is a strong word but the word heretic means one who has made a choice. This is the key thing. The god of a heretic is a god that has been chosen by a human being. But there is only one God, and if we do not worship Him, then we worship a false god and so we commit idolatry. The heretic makes an idol of his own choices. 

[PAUSE]

St Nicholas strikes Arius because he believes he needs to stop Arius' heresy. But Arius' heresy never really goes away. Too many people believe that Jesus was just a good man. If this were true then,miracles aside, this good man would also have been a raving lunatic babbling about being the bread of life, about being the true vine, about being the son of God. Arianism is responsible for many people falling away from the faith and endangering their salvation. St Nicholas reacts violently to that.

Should we do the same?

Perhaps we should not be so violent. We do need to remember that we do not see into the hearts of men. We cannot suspend the second commandment of loving our neighbour as ourselves just to defend a truth. To hate a person because they do not believe rightly about the Holy Trinity is also a heresy. The Doctrine of the Holy Trinity is about incomprehensible relationships which are expressed through Love. 

We do need to stand up and declare our faith well and passionately. In this age when Churches are falling apart because of heresy, it is more and more important for us to keep hold of the Catholic Faith. This is not an intellectual faith, but a faith in which we live out our doctrine. We believe in God Incomprehensible, this means we need to be patient with those who get it wrong because we can't have it right either otherwise we comprehend God. Nor should we label persons as heretics as this will only lead us on the path to demonising them. We should pray hard for a change in their minds, but we must also pray for our transformation too so that we approach the Truth more closely from our own fallible and incomplete understanding. Above all we should pray for greater love in our hearts for all human beings, irrespective of whether they believe rightly or not.

Our God is real and above all earthly thought. The Doctrine of the Trinity is the route to Him and the means of our salvation. It is not to be understood, it is to be lived and loved. 

Playing the blame game

It’s interesting that, when something goes wrong, we look for something or someone to blame. Who put an empty milk bottle back in the fridge? Whose fault is it that there is a hole in the road? Why have I not been paid yet? Whose fault is it that I’ve lost my job? Who is responsible for this terrorist attack?

What’s the real purpose of blame?

Ideally, the original purpose of blame is to prevent mistakes from recurring. If you find out that Tom put the empty milk bottle back in the fridge, then you can find a way to ask him not to do that in future. Do that the right way, and Tom remembers and is happy to oblige. Or, knowing that Tom is a bit forgetful, the fact that empty milk bottles appear in the fridge becomes an acceptable happening – something forgivable, perhaps even loveable because it’s just the way that Tom is.

The trouble is that human beings take blame a little further. Blame becomes an excuse to regard another with suspicion, disdain, or even hatred. Taxes have gone up again – blame the government! The doctors are on strike – blame Jeremy Hunt! If we live lives too simplistically, we fail to see that there are valid economic reasons for raising taxes, or that there may be good reasons for the new Junior Doctors’ contract. We may fundamentally oppose those reasons but, if we’ve considered them carefully, then we can at least appreciate that they have come from the reasoning of other human beings. If the Law is wrong, we should oppose it. An incompetent Lawmaker should be removed from office, but not hated for what they have done.

This is the problem. We can turn blame into hate so easily because we identify what we perceive to be error with the person who committed it. This is such a subtly automatic thing in society that we miss that we are doing it. At the present time, our actions become part of who we are. We’re told, “hate the sin but not the sinner,” but we this is getting far too difficult to do because somehow we have become very adept at trying to read another’s intentions after the deed has been committed.

Often too, we try to justify our mistakes after the fact even if this justification doesn’t match up with the intention we had when we made the mistake. Tom may have put the empty milk bottle back in the fridge simply by absentmindedness yet, when confronted, he might say that he deliberately put the milk bottle back into the fridge because there was nowhere else to put it. A lame excuse perhaps, but it does tempt us to question Tom’s intentions and thus his character.

Can we really separate our actions from our very selves? St Paul says that we can. “For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do.” The flaw is in our own selves which we have by virtue of being human and having free-will. God has limited Himself so that we can have space to be ourselves. Thus there is room for error and sin. With Our Lord Jesus Christ being the way to union with God, we can choose to repent and thereby disassociate ourselves with our sin.

If we try to justify our sin, then we go against God. We take up our own definition of right and wrong over and against the One Who defines right and wrong just by existing. If we accept that we have erred and strayed, then we disassociate ourselves from sin, and thus due to God’s love first and foremost of all, we do not allow our actions to dictate who we really are. We are given the grace of God with which to wash ourselves and clothe ourselves in the wedding garment that we all must wear at the wedding feast of the lamb.

This is how we begin to forgive others. Blame tempts us to identify the actions of others with that person. Forgiveness begins with the intention to separate the act from the agent. We separate Tom from his milk-bottle, we separate Jeremy from Junior Doctors’ contracts, we separate Hilary from Benghazi, we separate Hitler from the Holocaust.

Yes. That’s the scandal. That’s why forgiveness is tough, even offensive in the extreme. Notice that forgiveness does not actually deny the act happened. That would be just plain silly. Actions have consequences: the worse the act, the more difficult it is to see the human who committed the error and who needs to own that error. Forgiveness does not rule out due punishment nor correction. It does however rule out the degradation of the individual as a human being.

Human beings have no right to degrade another, for to do so is to claim an authority that we do not possess, namely that another person can cease to be a human being. That right belongs only to the Creator Who has every right to use us as He will and yet chooses to allow us some stewardship and pleasure in what He has created. Just as a man can call himself a woman, so we can call a foot-ball hooligan an animal, but neither are true.

We do have the right to correct and punish those who do wrong, but true forgiveness prevents “wrong-do-ers” from becoming “wrong-be-ers”. In our justice, there must always, always, always be room for mercy because that’s how God works and wants us to work. Mercy prevents Justice from becoming smug and self-satisfied. God may laugh to scorn the heathen who take counsel against the Lord and His anointed, but the laughter is at the sheer folly of their actions. He will still desire that they turn from their wickedness and live. His great forgiveness separates them from their actions. Until they do the same and recognise His authority, they only continue to identify themselves with sin and thus continue in their separation from God.

Blame needs to be used correctly and gently if it is to fulfil its objective of preventing the recurrence of error and the proliferation of sin. If we honestly cannot live with Tom’s empty milk bottle in the fridge, then we need to find a way of encouraging him to stop.

Or perhaps, we might realise that our insistence that the fridge should be free from empty milk-bottles is not the big deal that we make it. Let us pray for the grace to separate sin from sinner, no matter how great the sin may be and the strength to bear the consequences, trusting in the infinite capacity of God to sort out all the mess.

Oh no! Not another comforter!

Sermon preached at Our Lady of Walsingham and St Francis on the Feast of Whitsunday

Are you out of your comfort zone? These days we are told that it is good to come out from our comfort zone occasionally in order to experience new things in life. By this we usually mean the way we usually live our lives without too much worry or stress.

Our Lord promises to each of His disciples a cross. That's about as far from comfortable as we can get. Has God got a vendetta against comfy sofas?

The word "comfort" literally means to come with strength. An army captain was once said to "comfort his men" by running after them with a large spear! That doesn't sound much of we understand by comfort. What possible connection can there be between the comfy sofa and the maniac captain?

[PAUSE ]

In order to feel comfortable, we need to be secure, confident that we can handle the situation. We are prepared, and can foresee no surprises. With an army captain bringing up the rear, he is expressing confidence in his men. His actions are a shout of "we can win this battle!" He's not attacking his men; he is reminding them that they can fight, that they can be strong, that they can win!

Our Lord has acted as comforter to His disciples. He has taught them that their sins can be forgiven, that they can be with God, that they can be saved. Then, like the captain, He shows them by completing the covenant between God and Man.

Now He ascends so that He can draw men to heaven. The trouble is that we lose heart. We get distracted. We forget what Jesus looks like.

We forget our own salvation!

What do we do?

[PAUSE ]

We come out of our comfort zone.

Our Lord says that He sends  the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.

Many people are too comfortable in the world that they forget God. They settle for what they see and then wonder why they can find no peace. The Christian cannot find peace in this world and needs another comforter in order to find the true peace of mind. This is the Holy Spirit Who proceeds from the Father through the Son.

If we forget God, if we forget His Commandments, if we prefer the World to Him, then we cannot love Him, and we cannot receive the Holy Ghost. It is the Holy Ghost who brings true strength, confidence, and comfort.

Our Lord says:
The Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

The Holy Ghost will remind us of God, will teach us of God, will tell us again of God's live for us.

In order for Him to do that, we must love God first and foremost. We must not make the world our comfort zone, but take heart that our Comforter is always with us. We must look through this world to God beyond, and see Him in others.

Let us pray anew for the Holy Ghost to transform our lives and our vision so that we may work the will of God in this world so that we may indeed see the joy to come and find our peace in that.

ACCidents of history

I still regard myself as an Anglican Papalist. This largely reflects my set of pious opinions in addition to the doctrine of the Early Church. In my days within the Established Church, I took up the Anglican Papalist cause for the simple reason that Anglican Papalism exists precisely because it shouldn’t. The schism of the Reformation has wounded both the Roman and Anglican Churches to the extent that both have spun wildly out of control, both claiming authority that neither possess. Of course, this isn’t the first schism, and the Schism between East and West has hurt the Church, the Eastern Church suffering more precisely because of her lack of political power. The Eastern Church has suffered much at the hands of Islamic warriors and even at the hands of Western Christians who were supposed to be defending Christianity. Perhaps this dreadful history has at least prevented them from the politics to the extent that Western Christianity has become inveigled. Schism always seems to go hand in hand with bloodshed. It is my firm belief that there must be a reunification of all Orthodox Catholics who share and who wholeheartedly believe fully the doctrine of the Church before the 11th Century and who are willing to recognise the Patriarch of the West, i.e. the Venerable Bishop of Rome, as the primus inter pares of the Church, yet not as “Bishop of Bishops” which is a title and office reserved only for the Divine Christ Himself and cannot be assumed by any of His vicars.
That is, I hope, as comprehensive a statement that I can make about how I perceive the issue Church Unity at the moment, though I hope I may be able to flesh it out more as I learn about the Church.

One of the big obstacles that faces the Anglican Catholic Church in the United Kingdom is the fact that it is not recognised as a Church. Much of that is historical accident, of which little is our fault. Since the Norman Conquest, our history has been identified with the Roman Catholic, thus the Orthodox Churches of the East do not regard us as being properly orthodox. Since the Reformation, our history has been identified with the Established Anglican Church, thus the Roman Catholic Church refuses to recognise us as properly Catholic and denies our orders. These refusals of recognition are not the fault of the ACC, but rather just the way history has unfolded. The refusal of recognition that one may argue is our fault is the refusal of the Anglican Communion to recognise us as authentically Anglican. As I’ve argued before , any accusation from Canterbury that Continuing Anglicans are schismatic is actually an indictment of Canterbury’s own schism via heresy. Let’s be clear here. Continuing Anglicans walked away from the jurisdiction of the Lambeth Communion because the Lambeth Communion had already walked away from the Catholic Faith. We had no other option. The resulting fragmentation was a terrible indictment of how much confusion there was within ECUSA at the time and how influential personalities caused more splits and jurisdiction when there needed to be clarity. However, given that under the Anglican umbrella there were Anglo-Catholics, Anglo-Protestants, Anglo-Calvinists, Anglo-Articulists (sorry, a little neologism of mine. I mean one who holds to the XXXIX Articles having a confessional status), Anglo-Antarticulists (i.e. ones that don’t), Anglo-Latitudinarians, Anglo-Baptists, et c. fragmentation was very much on the cards.

For us Anglican Catholics, the only way was to stick to our understanding of what “Anglican” means. By the term, we mean Anglo-Catholic, i.e. there is a continuity of the Anglican Church before the Reformation with that Church after the Reformation, that “Anglican” means “English” and that our Orthodox standing is as a Western Rite Orthodoxy. Perhaps our way forward is to flesh this out, to develop an understanding of this as a full integrity that the 40 years of our existence as a body separate from the Lambeth Communion has not yet allowed us to do. The 1970s was a new reformation for us, and the dust hasn’t really settled yet.

Canterbury has Resolution IV.11 in its 1998 Lambeth Conference with regard to Continuing Anglicanism that dialogue should be set up between us. Clearly, there can be no return to communio in sacris until the Lambeth Communion returns to orthodoxy, so what the formal dialogue could achieve would really be little more than an agreement not to get in each other’s way. At the local level, friendships between ministers and priests would be the means in which we can work together. Christian Charity can never be sacrificed being, as it is, the heart of any form of Orthodoxy. Our Lord preferred sinners to Pharisees after all. It’s better to recognise ourselves as sinners rather than infallible.

Nonetheless, in our tiny state, the fact that we have no recognition from Orthodox or Roman Catholic circles does hurt for the simple reason that we have some affinity with them that we simply don’t with the Lambeth Communion. Since we do honestly believe we’re right, should we simply put our heads down and say “we’re right, we’re right, we’re right” into the long night? Perhaps we’re just unfortunate with the fact we are so small.  It’s all very well to say “It’s their loss” and carry on regardless, but our size does not help us in this respect. There are talks between Lambeth and the Vatican with regard to ordination. The fact that we are a tiny Church means that we will be excluded from these talks despite the fact that we can legitimately claim to have preserved Anglican Orders more authentically than the Established Church. Of course, we do trust in God to increase us, but perhaps we do need to play our part. That’s how covenants work.
Thankfully, in America, we do have the recent developments between the ACC, the APA, and the ACA meaning that the accidents of the history of the 1970s and 80s are starting to heal. That relationships are becoming better between the TAC and the ACC is also of comfort. In this country, we have very congenial terms with the Old Roman Catholic Church as well. The hand of friendship is being seen and I hope we have seen the last of the ACC being an angry Church.

Every day, we have the opportunity to create more accidents in history. The way to make those accidents happy is to ensure that we look iconographically at our opponents, to see God in them and His work. This is so hard, but perhaps we need more practice, beginning as we should with those immediately around us. We’re living at an age in which it is very easy to dehumanise people who do wrong. Indeed, stripping people of their humanity is precisely how ISIS can commit their crimes. Yet these militants are someone’s children, and will at some point have demonstrated that innate lovability. They want us to forget that so that we, too, will hate them with the same passion. That’s a truly satanic trick. We need to stop that temptation dead otherwise the accidents will continue, the schisms will continue and the fragmentation will continue.

As I used to pray that Anglican Papalism would cease to exist, I now pray that the Anglican Catholic Church will cease to exist for, when it does, the Church will be united once more and to be Anglican Catholic will be the same as being Roman Catholic and the same as Orthodox. Here’s to non-existence!

The Ascension of Jesus the inconvenient Truth

For many Christians, the Feast of the Ascension is celebrated on Sunday. This is so that as many people as possible can meet their obligation for this important Feast. Is this just a little too convenient? Or perhaps it’s inconvenient for Our Lord not to have ascended on a Sunday?

Before we start getting bogged down in discussing whether we ought to be focussing on fitting our lives around God’s timing rather than fitting Him into our lives, it’s worth remembering that often what is inconvenient for us is actually the way forward.

The Ascension of the Lord, as we always seem to reflect at this time, is more than an inconvenience as we apparently lose clear, direct guidance on all kinds of issues which we might have received had He stayed. We would know for sure the answers to what is truly right and wrong, how the Church should react to the World, and how the World would be best ministered. Yet, is this really how He would want to be present with us? If He had wanted to remain as the arbiter of Right and Wrong in perpetuity, He would have done so. Clearly, infallible arbitration between Right and Wrong is not the mission of the Church. Clearly, God wants us to think for ourselves and not lose our humanity to becoming little more than passive attendants to a totalitarian king, as He would inevitably and unwillingly become.

We should therefore apply the principle that the inconvenience is the way forward. In ascending, what has Our Lord done for us that is better than just staying with us? Surely He could have sent the Holy Ghost AND stayed?

The Resurrection is necessary so that everyone might know that Death is not the end, that it is possible for us not to die in our sins, but Death is become rather the gateway to what is better. If Death is the gateway, then what is the Ascension?

In Handel’s Messiah, the alto sings, “thou art gone up on high, thou hast led captivity captive.” In harrowing Hell, the Lord leads the souls of those who predeceased Him to the throne of God. In ascending, Our Lord takes something with Him into Heaven. Something vital. In ascending, human beings witness the union of things Earthly with things Heavenly. Our Lord bursts through the veil yet again with the intention of drawing our reality through into God’s Eternity. Our Lord becomes the needle weaving together humanity and divinity even as He Himself is both human and divine. Just as His death pulls our sins down to Hell where they belong, so His ascension pulls our humanity into the realms where no human being can really comprehend.

Who among us can fully understand the timelessness of Eternity? Yet, the Ascension tells us that this is where we are bound. Who among us can understand how the physical body of Our Lord is no longer apparent in our physics? Yet the Ascension assures us not only that Our Lord is present in the elements of the Mass, but that we, too, will have that strange physics.

The Ascension provides us with this strange fusion. It clears the dark glass for us so that we can glimpse better the hidden realities of God.

The inconvenience of the Ascension reminds us that the pure in heart will see God. How might we cleanse our way? Even by ruling ourselves after His Word. We need to follow this inconvenience through what is difficult to know, understand, and experience and allow ourselves to be drawn where our efforts necessarily fail us. We can only see so far before the Lord disappears from view. It is He who will ensure that we find the rest of the way. In the meantime, we are to rejoice in our humanity that He loves and to tend it with the dignity and devotion that He would want it to receive. That way, we the Church, can draw the World after Him.

Evidence of Atheists, Humanists, and Creationists

Put simply, we just all have to find a way of getting on and it isn’t getting easier. This is largely because there is much in what is perceived to be the “religious” sphere that is causing concern at the moment. The main problem is that it really isn’t possible to have an umbrella term for Religion. This is because religions vary wildly in their definitions so that even Atheism becomes a religious belief using some version of “Science” as its holy scripture.

I read that one atheist believes that atheism is as much of a religion as not-playing-tennis is a sport. The trouble is that, once you respond to the question “do you believe in God?”, you’re playing the game regardless of your answer. Is there evidence for the existence of God? Of course there is! Is it “scientific”? Well, yes. There are lots of arguments that appeal to evidence from the Scientific Community – the Big Bang, the process of Evolution, the fact that things continue to exist rather than just winking out of existence. The Kalam Cosmological Argument is convincing in its simplicity.

1)      Things that begin to exist have a cause.
2)      The Universe began to exist.
3)      Therefore the Universe has a cause.

From there, apologists such as Alvin Plantinga and William Lane Craig build up a philosophical integrity for belief in God.

However, the question of whether the Universe began to exist is itself a belief in the power of the scientific observation and scientific explanation. Science itself is not immune from changes and challenges.

Consider the old argument from Aristotle:
The heart beats faster when we’re in love, or angry, or upset. Therefore the heart must be responsible for our passionate emotions.

Now compare it with:
This part of the brain becomes active when we’re in love, or angry, or upset. Therefore these areas of the brain must be responsible for our passionate emotions.

It’s established science that the emotions affect the heart and not vice versa. Yet, it’s established Neuroscience that the brain is responsible for our consciousness. Personally, it can only really be a belief that this is cause rather than correlation. It is my belief that the mind is neither a material thing, nor a Ghost from the Machine, but a causal entity in its own right. The only evidence that I have for this belief is me and my experience of being me. This is not sufficiently empirical for Science to work.

This is the problem. Science tends to rule as inadmissible evidence that doesn’t fit. Just as many people reject the existence of Jesus of Nazareth because there is scant evidence for Him outside of Holy Scripture, Science cannot accept the existence of the supernatural on the grounds that “there is a scientific explanation for everything”. The fact that the New Testament consists precisely of the historical record of Jesus of Nazareth and attests to His life, death AND resurrection in an historical manner makes it difficult to see why it’s disregarded on the grounds that it’s a “religious text”. Again, Bart Ehrmann and his whole idea that the New Testament is embroidered with mythology presupposes that the scientific worldview is correct.

But there is a flip-side to this. The British Humanist Association have been rejoicing that another private school has been forced to teach Evolution as scientific fact over Creationism. I’m actually in agreement here largely because the early chapters of Genesis are neither scientific, nor historical. The only evidence for Creationism are those early chapters of Genesis, yet the Universe displays evidence of thousands of millions of years of history.

This in itself doesn’t rule out the possibility that the record in Genesis is correct. It is entirely mathematically possible for a system to begin at an arbitrary point in time and yet have a history that can be projected back before that point. We’ve no idea whether that’s likely or unlikely, but it’s possible. But it cannot ever be verified scientifically. In my eyes, Young Earth Creationism also goes against Psalm 19 (The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.) and St Paul (For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Roman i.18-20)

The fact is that the scientific method works insofar as its remit allows. Like mathematics, Science builds up a picture of all the reality that it can, but there are questions that it simply does not have the machinery to answer. One solution is to declare that “all things have a scientific explanation” and thus rule out anything that doesn’t present evidence in concordance with these principles. Another solution is to make sure that the people who ask such questions or who follow a slightly off-beat path do not receive the funding or opportunities to carry on their work.

While suppression of Creationism may preserve the Scientific standing in Society, that suppression does not allow for what may be legitimate challenges to that standing. It now appears that Modern Science is as much as an established religion as the Church of England.

For me, the fact that I exist when once I didn’t points quite clearly to God. Yet there is something more in my existence, and indeed in ALL existence, that seems to be utterly ungraspable, utterly nameless, utterly beyond form, function, essence, and the void. Something stalks being at its very heart and I have no other way of describing It other than using three letters – GOD.

I still have no idea how Atheism can cohabit with Theism. That is often the topic of some of my conversations with God.

Long live the Laity!

Back in July last year, I ruminated on the role of the Laity in the Church. (  ) My thesis then was to remind all churchmembers that their presence in the Church needs to be active and that they should rejoice in their activity as layfolk.

I want to take this further mainly because I want to convince the laity of the Church that they have everything to be proud of, and need to rid themselves of what appears to be an inferiority complex.

It is true that layfolk have been belittled in the past, and some still are to this day. I am a conservative in my religion but there are changes that I rejoice in, chiefly the end of feudalism. We now have managed to go to "your vote counts" from "your count votes" politically. In the UK, we still have a Constitutional Monarchy, but its role is limited and its appeal seems only to preserve the quaint and roman tically archaic rather than to curb the excesses of politicians who, it seems, prefer to make a career out of soundbites, jargon, and not really listening to the public.

There is a profound difference between being a member of the public and being a member of the Laity. The Laity are nothing less than the Kingdom of God itself. These are the folk who accept the rule of God as being insurmountably important, overriding the Crown, the Law, and the "Church", i.e. the political body that seeks to be the custodian of the social mores. The Laity are those who have accepted the Fatherhood of God, who believe in His Son, Jesus Christ and know the power and grace given by the Holy Ghost.

With the end of feudalism comes the end of clericalism, of an over-veneration of the priest as a political leader.

There is an old riddle which was told to me by an old friend on retreat. If, on your travels, you should happen upon a priest and an angel, to whom would you confess your sins? The answer, of course, is to the priest. The priest has been given authority by God to pronounce absolution, the angel has not. You might think that this is dreadfully pompous, a riddle created to build up the priesthood as some hierarchy with the power over souls, to be obeyed and fawned over, like tin gods. Yet, it isn't. It really isn't.

Why should you want to confess? Because you hate your sins.
Why do you hate your sins? Because they hurt you, degrade you and kill you?
Why do you confess to a priest? Because God has promised to absolve your sins through the priest?
Why do you want God's involvement? Because He can make you better?
Why should He care? Because He created you. He loves you. He does not want your hurt, degradation, or death.
How do I know that? Because God sent not His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved.
Now look at the crucifix and say that you're not loved.

The priest is merely the conduit of God's grace. You, yes you!, are the reason for the existence of the priesthood. These priests exist for you. Tin-pot priests filled up with illusions of their own power of Sacrament and Excommunication are indeed effective distributors of God's grace, but their manner is an obstacle to any cherished layperson. They will receive the punishment of the money-changers who clogged up the temple of God so that those perceived as "unclean" might be kept out. The point is that each and every priest and bishop have in their possession direct channels of the grace of God through the Holy Sacraments for you.

It's easy to look at bishops in their fine robes and strange hats and think that they are commanding earthly power. They are not. They once thought they were, and this is why the Church is no longer the political power it once was. Either it has embrace the zeitgeist rather than the Helige Geist in order to keep its political role, or it has clung on to the traditions it has received and sought smallness in fidelity to the Unchanging Gospel.

And it's all for you. The Laity are the means by which this dark world is sanctified. The Laity possesses a priesthood of its own to bring to the foot of the Cross the horrors of this world. It is the Laity living out their faith day by day, hour by hour, that will bring about the glorious reality of the Kingdom of God on Earth.

The Laity are nothing less than the people of God, the inheritors of Light and the stars shining in Eternity. Often, the Laity think that they are just to sit in the pew while the priest and servers up the front do all the work. That's not true. Work needs to be done - that's why we have liturgy, the work of the laity. It is the laypersons duty to pray the words of the Mass with the priest. However, Mass is not all work, work, work, because by doing the work, rather than getting tired and worn out as you do doing your day job, you are restored for, if you’ve done your work well, you are met with Christ Himself offering you nourishment and rest in Him.

It takes a lifetime to learn the practice of how to be a good layperson. It can only come through prayer, bible-reading, the sacraments and putting into practice what we learn from them. Your priest should help guide you in that. If he doesn't, don't think it doesn't matter! Go out and find a good spiritual director. God will enrich your life abundantly if you do.

Yet, it must be remembered that the clergy are laymen too. They may be set apart by God for your service, but they too do the work of the laity too. The Church is all in this together. The whole concepts of importance, equality, diversity, discrimination, and law are ultimately meaningless for the Laity, because they are meaningless in Heaven with God. Each person is God’s person as He wants them to be, and our lives are lived trying to be that person finding that perfection in Him, through Him and with Him.

If we view the Church politically, then we are tempted to ascribe political terminology to it. We can accuse it of sexism, discrimination and homophobia because it appears to subscribe to political ideas. However, they can’t apply if the Church is honestly following the doctrine set by God Himself. Churchfolk fail at this, but the Church Herself doesn’t, but rather seeks to help all Churchfolk find their perfection in God by being members of the Church.

The Layperson will, of course, be alarmed by any accusations of unfairness or political incorrectness. That is understandable in someone whose mandate is to love God and then Neighbour. Yet, in following that doctrine, there is pain and suffering at the hands of the political agent seeking to reinforce that political power in place of God. Politics, too, shall pass. The end of the Layperson is in the hands of God who will mete out justice and mercy infinitely appropriately. The work of the Layperson will be tried by God’s fire and will be used for Good for all that love God. Concentrate on doing God's word; listen to the accusations critically and bring them to God so that, if true, you will know how to repent or, if false, you can carry on faithfully.

There is an infinite dignity in sitting in the pews at Mass. If you are a layperson, do not look down on your state just because you’re not robed or, “doing something useful”. You’re being something beyond useful, namely a child of God. Don’t let the temptation to do Church at home, or elsewhere on a Sunday. Come to Church and do your work and get paid. Then go out into the world to do God's work and get paid? Remember Who pays your wages, and how generous He is! Why? Because you, yes you!, are of infinite worth to Him forever.

Quo Vadimus?

Sermon preached at Our Lady of Walsingham and St Francis on the fourth Sunday after Easter. 

Wouldn't it be nice to know where you're going? So many of us now are saying things like, "I just don't know what to do in life" or "I've haven't got a clue where this is taking me." More and more schoolchildren are having difficulty in answering the question, "what do you want to do when you leave school?" Do you know where life is taking you?

Why does this disturb us? Can't we just go with the flow?

[PAUSE]

In this day and age, we find ourselves worrying about the future. What we'd really like to do is to take a sneaky peak at the end of the book and see that everything ends up all right. We just want to be reassured that we couldn't have done better than the life we're living now, that we're in the right job, with the right people, doing the right thing.

As Christians, we might be tempted to think that God has our lives all mapped out for us, and that we don't have to worry about things. Does that mean that we don't have to take any responsibility for our lives? The problem is sin. Any plan that God has for us cannot involve any sin whatsoever. God's desire is for us to be reconciled to Him completely and any sin separates. While it is true that God knows us better than we know ourselves, it is our decision whether or not to take the opportunities that God offers us. Our Lord offers both Judas and Peter the opportunity to become His disciples and friends. Both of them fall away: Judas betrays Jesus; Peter denies Jesus. Yet Judas, rather than repenting, seeking the way back to God takes matters into his own hands and loses everything. Peter takes up that opportunity to face what he has done, repents and is given a further opportunity to feed the Lord's sheep.

The life of Our Lord has followed a particular direction, from birth to death, He set out to accomplish something remarkable, namely the redemption and salvation of all mankind. Some people, like Moses, Aaron, Samuel, Peter, James, John, et c are called in order to do something specific for God. Yet, if one looks at their lives, one sees that Moses doesn't reach the Promised Land,  nor does Aaron, Samuel dies in regret over Saul, Peter and James both die horrible deaths. John is exiled.

One might say that theirs is a life of failure, but we Christians would regard this as a success. Easter shows us why. We don't just have this life to live. We have a whole life beyond with God in Eternity where our sinfulness can't touch us. Our Lord's death on the cross means precisely that we are dead to sin.

Practically, this just means that we do not need to worry about tomorrow. We can be reassured that our ending in the back of the book is wonderful without taking a sneaky peek.  Our Lord has already taken that sneaky peak for us. As Our Lord tells us, we only need to worry about getting through today. Of course we still have to look and plan ahead, but we must live our lives looking  for God. If our plans go awry, that's not always the easiest thing, but we can be sure that God is there. We cannot insist on our own way in life, but we can learn to see God in today, and live and plan our lives accordingly.

The fact that the Lord knows where He is going means that He can send us the Holy Ghost so that we can live knowing where we're going, but not necessarily knowing how we're going to get there. Perhaps God is telling us that that is half the fun!

Reasons for believing: A matter of opinion?

Again I post one of my earlier essays lurking about my computer. This in answer to the question whether Reason is an acceptable way of discerning Christian truth.

“… your masters at Oxford have taught you to idolise reason, drying up the prophetic capacities of your heart.” Ubertino to William of Baskerville in Umberto Eco’s The Name of the Rose

Consider the following unlikely questions.

1)      Mankind makes first contact with aliens. Should we proclaim the gospel to them?
2)      Paul’s third letter to the Corinthians is discovered. It’s as authentic as the other epistles. Does that make it part of the bible?
3)      Did God create dinosaurs?

Chances are that these made you think a bit. They seem to be silly or irrelevant questions, but they make a very genuine and important point. The internet has only existed in the last 30 years and television is nearly only a century old. In the 1950s, it was quite reasonable to ask the question, “is it possible to consecrate a wafer in a live broadcast of the Mass?”  We don’t know what the future holds technologically speaking, socially speaking, or even morally speaking. However, we can be sure that we will face questions about our faith that need a legitimate answer.

We Anglican Catholics can only begin to answer these questions by going back to what we believe and that is the Catholic Faith of the Undivided Church. What does this mean?

Any question involves accepting a method for deciding what we know. We Anglican Catholics accept three forms of determining whether something is true or false, Scripture, Tradition and Reason. That might worry us a bit. After all, humans can find reasons which lead to some truly terrible conclusions. The persecution of the Jews, the witch-trials and the Communist purges all arose out of seemingly rational principles, but with clearly Hellish consequences.

In claiming to be Anglican Catholic, we have to believe that Holy Scripture is a true and sufficient record of our salvation which is interpreted through the Tradition of the Church Fathers and communicated via Reason as Archbishop Haverland testifies in his book, “Anglican Catholic Faith and Practice”. Human beings can only communicate what they mean through reasonable statements. Our Lord in His ministry on Earth communicated using reason. Look at St Matthew vii.11:

“If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him?”

Here, Our Lord is reasoning by analogy. A father gives good gifts to his child; God is our Father, so God gives good gifts to us. Our Lord shows us that Human Reason is capable of great good and communicating so much good news. However, it must be governed by the Holy Spirit through a life of work, prayer and study because the human will has a very sad tendency to sin.

However, we can see from Paul’s letters that he is reasoning from his experience of Our Lord in communion with the Church. The letter to the Romans is a wonderfully reasonable account of why Gentiles can be Christian. Our God wants us to know the truth because He is the Way, the Truth and the Life in the person of Our Lord Jesus Christ. Of course, reason then tells us that we cannot know God fully.

1)      God’s knowledge is beyond Time;
2)      Man’s knowledge grows within Time;
3)      Any knowledge within Time cannot reach beyond Time without God’s help;
Conclusion) Man’s knowledge cannot reach God’s knowledge without God’s help.

We know that we cannot know anything about God except that which He chooses to reveal to us. We only have two sources of revelation, namely Scripture and Tradition. From these, it has pleased God to bless our reason to discover the Doctrines of the Incarnation, the Trinity and of the seven Sacraments.

For example, the Seventh Oecumenical Council says that Holy Images may be venerated. In the Eighth Century, holy pictures and statues were being destroyed by the Iconoclasts, the “picture breakers”, who were applying the Second Commandment very strictly. They held that venerating a statue of Our Lord Jesus was the same as idolatry because God commanded us not to worship graven images.

However, the Iconodules, those who did venerate icons, reasoned at the Council that an image of Our Lord brought Him to mind, and since Our Lord is to be worshipped, venerating that image is an appropriate response. The veneration is not applied to the created statue or picture, but to the person whom that statue or picture depicts. This is not idolatry in which the object itself is worshipped.

The scriptural image used here is the Biblical narrative about the Brasen Serpent fashioned by Moses (Numbers xxi.8-9) in order to save the Israelites from a plague of serpents and broken by King Josiah (II Kings xviii.4) because people were worshipping the snake and not God. They did not discern the Lord God within the serpent.

However, what happens when Scripture and Tradition is silent or ambiguous?

There is no record of the death of Our Lady within Holy Scripture, so when did she die? Some Christians (especially Roman Catholics) say that, like Enoch and Elijah, she was assumed into Heaven and they will use Revelation xii as Scriptural evidence. However, looking at this with the eye of reason, we see that this is ambiguous in meaning. The Woman Clothed with the Sun could very well be a figure for Israel herself. More to the point, the Revelation of St John is not a history or a biography – it is a prophecy of God’s fidelity. Looking in Church Tradition, there is nothing recorded until about the third Century and St Epiphanius writing in 377 said that no-one knew whether Mary had died or not! However, unlike St Peter and St Paul and many other saints, there are no bodily relics of Our Lady.

What then should we believe?

In 1950, Pope Pius XII used Papal infallibility to declare that the Doctrine of the Assumption of Our Lady MUST be believed by all Christians. Of course, we Anglican Catholics cannot recognise that declaration as being valid whether or not Our Lady was assumed into Heaven. A Pope is not a Council, even if he is advised by one.

Because the Church split into East and West in the 11th Century, no new Oecumenical Councils can take place until that split is resolved. Therefore there can be no new teaching which can be as definitive as a Council or a Creed. The question must remain open. This allows for differences of opinion until the matter can be settled definitively.

Neither Scripture nor Tradition conclusively mention UFOs, dinosaurs nor motor cars, though there are vague pictures such as Elijah’s chariot to Heaven, Behemoth and Leviathan, and the peculiar chariot/throne in Ezekiel. We can choose to believe that UFOS exist, that dinosaurs existed and that motor cars are morally good. We can also choose to believe that UFOs don’t exist, dinosaurs didn’t exist and that motor cars are morally evil. However, we must surely be prepared to justify our choices with reasons if we hope to communicate with others.

St Peter says quite clearly, ”But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear” (I Peter iii.15) We have to justify ourselves and make sure that we do not depart from the Catholic Faith. However, where something does not appear in Scripture or Tradition or in any Council, Canon or Creed, we are not bound to believe it and we are not bound not to believe it also.

We must be careful though. Scripture contains all things necessary for our Salvation as interpreted by Tradition. If something cannot be proved by Scripture, then we cannot be forced to believe it. We can hold to the Assumption of Our Lady as a pious opinion but it is not a dogma: the authority of the Pope is not sufficient to require us to believe it. However, if we do choose to believe it, then we must live our lives with the consequences of that opinion. If those consequences contradict the Catholic Faith, then we have the wrong opinion and must give it up.

We may hold different pious opinions. In that case, St Paul reminds us:

“Who art thou that judgest another man's servant?  to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up : for God is able to make him stand . One man esteemeth one day above another : another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks ; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks . For none of us liveth to himself, and no man dieth to himself. For whether we live , we live unto the Lord; and whether we die , we die unto the Lord: whether we live therefore, or die , we are the Lord's. For to this end Christ both died , and rose, and revived , that he might be Lord both of the dead and living.” (Romans xiv.4-9)

Whatever we believe, we must first believe that we have to love, starting with God and then our fellow men. If we cannot even do that, then perhaps what we believe isn’t really Christian at all.

That’s reasonable, isn’t it?

Validly invalid

I am never going to hide the fact that the Anglican Catholic Church in this country is tiny. We're not particularly big world-wide, but to say that we're a significant size is sheer dishonesty. One day we may be enormous, perhaps. Maybe we shall just fizzle out as our members die out. This is all in the hands of Almighty God and none of us can presume to know the future.

We are, of course, working for growth. There are many obstacles that we face and one of them is the question: you're not real priests, are you? My brother priest, Fr Chadwick has blogged on this point too  . Am I, or am I not a real priest?

The Roman Catholic will say no. The Eastern Orthodox will say that my orders will become valid the moment that my church converts to Eastern Orthodoxy. The Church of England would, typically, hem and haw. However, we can show categorically that Anglican Catholic Priests have valid Anglican Orders and believe that they are as valid as any other Orthodox Catholic priest. For those interested, please see the ACC webpage here, and note that our Archbishop John-Charles Vockler was a bishop in the Anglican Communion before joining us. He is a "grand-daddy" consecrator of Bishop Damien.

There is, of course, another issue here. Lots of "Continuing" jurisdictions whether they be continuing Roman, Anglican, or Orthodox orders flout their lineage to convince people of the truth. This is largely due to defending oneself against accusations of invalidity from "mainstream" churches. The fact that there have been some unscrupulous rogue catholic bishops consecrating all and sundry does indeed make a mockery of the the Apostolic Succession.

Fr Chadwick says, "the proof of the pudding is in the eating."

How right he is: he is paraphrasing Our Lord's words, "by their fruits shall ye know them." I notice that so many of these rogue bishops suddenly acquire doctorates in divinity, in laws and letters. They rejoice in titles such as "His Excellency, the Most Reverend Lord....".

I am, apparently, a "Reverend Doctor", but then anyone popping into the University of Warwick Mathematics Library will find my doctoral thesis on Instanton Moduli Spaces. I am a priest and that gives me the burdensome "Reverend".. Most of the time, I'm just plain "Father" and that's how I'd like it to stay. I've said how meaningless titles are below. There is no point collecting them as they carry such little value. Indeed, a collection of grandiose titles is quite simply laughable.

As a Benedictine Oblate, I prefer "Father" because it reminds me of a burden I have to bear. I am an "abbot" to a little parish. They respect me, and I respect them.

But am I valid? To the ACC, yes unquestionably, since Bishop Damien's orders are unquestionable as well. Yet, I can only be a truly valid priest if I embody Christ daily, hourly, minutely, secondly. I have to  bear His image in a way that the laity don't and I'm glad they don't have to. It's terrifying sometimes and I do find myself worrying about the little I do do. I worry about my temper, my cowardice, my fears and how I constantly let God down. In order for me to be a truly valid priest, I have to do something that shines His light on people.

I see so much good being done by Christians of all kinds of stripes. I hear of ministers on the streets of Birmingham picking up drunken students and such-like and putting them in cabs home. I hear of unofficial foodbanks just opening up for the poor and deprived. I know an Archbishop who rolls up his sleeves not only in a restaurant, but also in a soup kitchen that his monastic order run for the homeless of Brighton. There is good being done out there and God be praised for it and bless those who work such good in this darksome world!

These rogue bishops revel in advertising their presence and will cite that they are doing the Lord's work by providing the people of God with Sacraments. That's all well and good, but while the starving man benefits much from receiving the Mass, he would also benefit more immediately from a good meal so that he could enjoy the benefits of the Mass. Advertising is not Evangelism. Advertising does not preach the Good News in deed or in living. Advertising is a facade because it is cheap and easy to do, especially on the internet. The Lord's work is the washing of feet as well as the giving of Spiritual Grace. It is the fourteen works of Mercy which include the Seven Corporal Works of Mercy. A priesthood that consists only of "instructing" the ignorant, and "admonishing" "sinners" is likely to come from one's own personal ideology rather than the love of God.

All Christians must bear the image of God, and that image comes with a cross. Holy Orders exist precisely for the service of these Christians. That service has to be active and respect the efforts that these Christians are making to bring the light of Christ into the world. The Clergy bear the image of Christ indelibly etched into their character. There are many Bishops, Priests, and Deacons out there who claim to be valid. They may be valid on paper, but are they truly valid in bearing the image of the Lord? I pray to God that I do better than I am doing now.

The Lie of Human Judgement

I must confess that I never "liked the look" of Jimmy Saville. Something about him was wrong, and it is only in later years that my feelings were ratified. However, was I right to think like this? What if I'd been wrong?

There will always be someone we don't like the look of. There will always be that person on the bus who doesn't look right, or doesn't behave themselves in a manner in which we would expect in society. They might "dress like a thug" or sniff loudly or put their feet up on the seat opposite. Of course, body-language experts might be able to reveal an awful lot about someone by the way that they look, but we are not all body language experts.

If a man comes to a job interview with scruffy shoes, it used to be said that his chances of getting the job would plummet. This may or may not be true in this day and age, but the reasoning is there:

1) Anyone who wants the job will dress well.
2) This man is not dressed well.
Therefore:
3) He doesn't want the job.

The first premise is clearly the one to challenge. Do we know that anyone who wants the job will dress well? Yet, the second premise is also in doubt. The man might be dressed as well as he can be. Accidents happen and shoes can get scuffed. The fact that he has turned up to the interview would suggest that the man does want the job, though this can be doubted.

And there we see the point. Everything thing we see about a person may suggest something about them, but there is always doubt; there always must be doubt. We simply do not know what it is like to be the other person. There is no philosophical proof that would even make the existence of other minds irrefutable. It is reasonable to assume that everyone has their own mind, but in doing so, we are forced to say that if other people have minds, then we cannot ever know them.

Appearances merely suggest. They produce possibilities. Whether these possibilities generate probabilities is another matter, and one that can be argued either way.

The Prophet Jonah refuses to go to Nineveh on the grounds that God might forgive the Ninevites their misdeeds. Jonah wants justice. God wants mercy. Only in God can the two be reconciled, but for Jonah there should be no mercy. They have behaved abominably and Jonah wants their blood. In the end God's mercy prevails. The Ninevites repent and are saved, and Jonah is presented with the dreadful fact that God loves his enemies.

And then the Lord Jesus comes along and shows us that God loves His enemies.

And that stings! It scandalises and seems to go against anything that we might ascribe as justice.

For it means that God loves Jimmy Saville despite his abusing women and children under the cover of his charity work. It means that God loves serial killers like Ted Bundy, and Geoffrey Dahmer. It means that God loves the perpetrators of the murders of millions like Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, and even members of ISIS. Further than that, it also means that if any one of these folk actually, really, truly, and honestly repent, they would be forgiven. And that's the scandal! There is a possibility that we might meet each one of them in the New Jerusalem with God for all Eternity.

The Lie is that our judgement is correct: they are definitely, 100% truly will be in Hell.

We can'r say that, because we haven't got the right to make the decision to send people to Hell. Yet, if God doesn't send them to Hell, what does this say about all the suffering that these people have caused? Doesn't God care that people are scarred, hurt, humiliated, tortured, and killed at the hands of these monsters? Doesn't that matter?

Of course it matters to God. In the 99th Psalm we read:

Moses and Aaron among his priests, and Samuel among such as call upon his Name: these called upon the Lord, and he heard them. He spake unto them out of the cloudy pillar: for they kept his testimonies, and the law that he gave them.Thou heardest them, O Lord our God: thou forgavest them, O God and punishedst their own inventions.

If the righteous Moses, Aaron, and Samuel were forgiven AND punished, then how much more everyone else?

It is clear that forgiveness does not mean that we get away scot-free from sin. Justice must be served. But Justice in the old sense of the word really means Righteousness: they are synonyms. Justice means obliteration of wrong. Where God is, there can be no sin, because God is what it means to be Good. Any sin whatsoever separates us from God. For Christians, we have the atoning sacrifice of Our Lord Jesus Christ, but participation in that sacrifice requires tears and sorrow for our sins: we really do have to be truly sorry.

This is the reason why I believe in Purgatory. I see Purgatory as a mercy of God to help those who have died in sin find God again. It cannot be pleasant: it is the transformation of the self that should have taken place. Herein is the punishment due, where time is served, and the hearts willingly broken and made contrite. Even if my pious opinion is wrong, we can be sure that somehow God will offer forgiveness and mete out due punishment.

Yet, what business is it of ours that Hitler, Dahmer and Saville receive punishment? Largely our response is an expression of outrage at what they have done, how they have destroyed lives and how they have made the world a worse place to live. While that evil goes unchallenged, it remains and we loathe it.

Why do we loathe it? The answer is very simple. We are human beings. We bear the image of God - each one of us. Each one of us is an ikon of our Creator, though we mar and deface that image. That image remains no matter what we do. And it is that image that gives us a visceral loathing for the evil that gets inflicted on the innocent. The trouble is that the perpetrators of this evil also bear the image of God. We somehow have to see that image in these people. We try not to: we dehumanise them, call them monsters, shut them in prison so we cannot look at them, all because they bear the same humanity that we do and, worse still, they bear the image of the same loving, merciful and Holy God.

This is why we need to exercise reason when we execute our human justice. We cannot take away another's humanity for whatever reason, but we must address their crimes and seek some recompense for the victims. It is not an easy task and involves careful thought and prayer.

In our everyday lives and judgements, it means we have to wrestle and strive to see the image of God in each and every person we encounter, regardless of any single aspect or appearance that they exhibit. There are no exceptions: it is something Christ commands us to do.

When faced with even the most appalling injustice, we must remember that we do have a God who can wipe away every tear from our eyes, who can heal, restore, re-create, and renew ANYTHING that has been broken or destroyed, who will forgive us AND punish us, all so that we can be with Him forever. If we are with Him forever, then there will be no sin, nor evil, nor hatred, nor injustice: that we can be sure of if we believe in Him.

Worship or wash-up?

There is one biblical passage which, for me, sums up mankind's relationship with God. In Exodus xxxii.1-14, we hear of Aaron's commissioning of the Golden Calf at the behest of the people. Where's Moses? He's up the mountain, receiving the commandments from God Himself. The people have already given up on him and are seeking to worship the god(s) who brought them up out of Egypt. In many ways, there is a certain amount of sympathy that we ought to have for the people of Israel. They want to worship God. They want to thank and praise the God who has brought them out of Egypt and bringing them into the Promised Land. Their intentions are not wholly bad; they are not wholly corrupt. Yet, it is the way they go about it that brings the wrath of God on them and means that they have to spend time in the wilderness for those wrong ideas and heresies to die out. So what did they do wrong?

For the Church after the Seventh Oecumenical Council, holy images are very much to be encouraged along with their veneration:

"The more frequently they are seen in representational art, the more are those who see them drawn to remember and long for those who serve as models, and to pay these images the tribute of salutation and respectful veneration. Certainly this is not the full adoration {latria} in accordance with our faith, which is properly paid only to the divine nature, but it resembles that given to the figure of the honoured and life-giving cross, and also to the holy books of the gospels and to other sacred cult objects. Further, people are drawn to honour these images with the offering of incense and lights, as was piously established by ancient custom. Indeed, the honour paid to an image traverses it, reaching the model, and he who venerates the image, venerates the person represented in that image."

What is the difference between the Golden Calf and Rublev's ikon of the Trinity?

Let's start with the obvious. At no point has God ever been seen as a calf. He has made Himself manifest as a man in the second person of the Trinity. One may indeed argue that the three men who visited Abraham and told him to expect Isaac was a manifestation of the Trinity, though the text does not explicitly say this.

Second, the Israelites have come out of Egypt, a culture which worshipped many gods and worshipped them in the animals around them - Horus the kestrel, Anubis the Egyptian golden wolf, Thoth the ibis. However, God had shown Himself to be the True God above and beyond these false gods.

These false gods are clearly limited and cannot represent God in His Divine Simplicity and Wholeness. We learn that, just as we cannot limit God, we cannot take Him to bits and worship Him in pieces.

The essence of worship is worth, and it is precisely the values we ascribe to God or to things that determine what we truly worship. Our Lord Himself reminds us that where our treasure is, our hearts will be also. Our values, the things we give our best worth to, transform us into their likeness. But the thief breaks in, the moth and mould corrupt, the world destroys. The worth of our idols destroys us along with our idols.

Likewise the worship of God transforms us. The soul liberated from idols is free to be transformed into the likeness of God. This is possible because and only because God took flesh and dwelt among us. We therefore have His image to see and to know God by. Unlike idols which can only ever point to things of the earth, ikons point to things beyond, like little holes in the veil clouding the eyes of our souls after the Fall.

If we are not open to transformation into a being of light, then our worship of God is not able to be perfected. If we are not willing to be made perfect, then there is something in our lives which is of greater value to us than God. To an extent we are all idolaters, yet it is our desire to cast away our idols and seek the true and living God that prevents us from commissioning golden calves.

We should indeed surround ourselves with ikons and use them to peer into Heaven. Anything can be an ikon to the soul aspiring perfection in God, for everything bears His fingerprint. The art then becomes trying to resemble the Artist from His fingerprints. Further, we should strive to see everyone as an ikon of Christ, but I think I'll leave that for another blog post. However, veneration of ikons is this process of seeing things of Heaven in earthly depiction. Veneration does not transform us, it is in itself an ikon of God transforming us Himself. Veneration can never become worship if we're doing it correctly.

Anglican Catholics hold to the Doctrine of the Seventh Oecumenical Council. We thus hope and pray fervently that we, too, become a better ikon of the Church Triumphant.