At the most recent National Assembly the eyes of Forward in Faith seemed to be moving in slightly different directions! And it is likely that this cross eyed reality will continue. At first this might sound alarming- surely we should be seeking the same things? I am not so sure about that! It is perfectly possible, maybe even desirable, that we are called to different places and different realities. So what are the different directions our eyes are looking in? One eye belongs to those who look to General Synod for hope. This loyal bunch have served us well over the years, ensuring we are represented at all levels of debate and discussion. This group so often ‘win the argument only to lose the vote’ but their presence remains vital. They are principled, erudite and essential to our future. For we go nowhere, and do little, without those who can fight from within. And because ultimately some of our constituency will remain within the C of E come what may- this group is going to remain essential. All of us must unite with them and fight for as honourable a place as possible for those who stay, even if a Code of Practice is the best they can hope for.
The other eye belongs to those believing that time spent in Synodical discussion, from this point on, is futile. This group believes the game is up and that, because authentic Catholicism and Anglicanism are no longer mutually compatible, we must now seek an ecclesial life elsewhere. This may raise more questions that it answers, but the reality remains nonetheless- if the National church continues to move down a liberal and protestant path-it leaves us Catholics homeless! Should women Bishops arrive- without proper structural provision in place- it will be time, individually or corporately, to leave the Church of England forever.
So ultimately some will stay and some will go; and both groups will do so with integrity and the support of the other. Currently many are wavering, myself included, uncertain which path God will call them to follow. Hence we live in a time of great uncertainty, our desperation for answers is not to be satisfied yet. It is a scary thing, not least for those with families, but in all this fear - we must return to the point of this post. We must fix our eyes on Jesus.
I am certain our faith will die, and our hearts will shatter, if we look to either Rome or Synod alone! We must fix our eyes on Jesus- only Jesus- and seek his will alone. For if we are faithful to him- he will be faithful to us. If we are rooted in him- he will provide. So do not let all the uncertainty, unpleasantness, fear and danger dismay you. Since Christ came to earth his path has ever proved tricky, but utterly worthwhile! So fix your eyes on Christ, get on with being faithful, and pray for an opening of spiritual eyes and ears, lest the moment for action arrives. I have no idea what the future holds…but I do know that it will be little different from now. Mass, prayer, scripture, confession etc… these will continue to sustain us and give us life. The only question is: in the C of E or without! Who cares? God is much bigger than that!
13 comments:
'I am certain our faith will die, and our hearts will shatter, if we look to either Rome or Synod alone!'
Rather a good sentiment. Food for thought for Fathers Jeff and Hunwicke and others of their persuasion.
Of course it's a good sentiment, which is why I posted it!! What's so silly is that you waste the time to post something like this here, which just shows your utter dislike for our orthodox theology. Liberals are so entertaining.
I don't dislike your orthodox theology.
I do dislike it when 'the orthodox' impute unworthy motives to liberals.
I do also dislike it when it is assumed that orthodoxy and Rome are synonymous.
I am glad Father Ed avoids this erroneous assumption.
I therefore hail it as a 'good' - and, as from you lot, rather a refreshing - sentiment.
QED.
You are so patronising and that's what I dislike about liberal attitudes so much especially when the presuppositions you lot have are shaped by a hermeneutic of suspicion and doubt.
Rome is orthodox because all Truth is orthodox. Those who deny truth's absolute claims have no real possibility of living in real hope and as a result joy.
I do not think the author of the post doubts Rome's truth he simply reminds the readers that the Truth is in Jesus. Something the present Holy Father does all the time; and how refreshing and wonderful it is for the present successor of Peter to be on the throne who gives people around the world a hope with substance! In a world of disbelief and pain that is exactly what we need. May he have a very long life!
By the way John, I think we have to highlight our agreement on Fr. Ed's sentiments. Perhaps you can write your comments around the internet without always using me and Fr. Hunwicke as your whipping sticks. I see you like to do that over at TA and now at Fr. Ed's site. Almost every time you write you take away what you claim to desire you want provided for orthodox Anglo-Catholics. But, I understand my getting up your nose is not really me that you are upset with; it is the Roman Catholic Church, the Holy Father and the uncompromising belief in absolute truth. Perhaps it's the claims of Jesus himself as the way, the truth and the life?
Jeff,
I think you should examine the charge of being 'patronising'. I think the style in which you make your claims and in which you critique so-called liberal positions (actually covering a vast range) is generally offensive and almost always intellectually lazy.
Thank you for your opinion John.
'it is the Roman Catholic Church, the Holy Father and the uncompromising belief in absolute truth. Perhaps it's the claims of Jesus himself as the way, the truth and the life?'
Well, I certainly don't like this particular Pope - nor, indeed, do many RCs, at least in the West.
As you cannot have failed to observe, I do dislike it when certain Anglicans keep celebrating/following the present Pope. If he's your answer, the door is open. Entirely up to you.
I repeat: I don't dislike orthodoxy. 'Many of my best friends are orthodox.' As far as I'm aware, they don't generally dislike me.
Of course, I do dislike it when the orthodox try to impose their orthodoxy on others. Funnily enough, not many orthodox actually do this. They've learned sense. They've learned that the C of E - like any church, like FiF itself - is a coalition of different views and practices.
'Almost every time you write you take away what you claim to desire you want provided for orthodox Anglo-Catholics.'
As you very well know, broad-mindedness/broad church, etc. etc. are only possible if there is reciprocity: that reciprocity which says I think you are wrong, just as you think I am wrong but we cooperate. If pro-WO Anglicans are continually lambasted for secularism, warring against the Holy Spirit (vid. your famous sermon), etc., they won't concede a separate province (whatever), nor, if you really think they are so depraved, should you be asking them to.
"Of course, I do dislike it when the orthodox try to impose their orthodoxy on others."
We should not ask forgiveness for following Matt. 28:19(a). Orthodoxy, by definition, is a refutation and repulsion of heresy.
"If pro-WO Anglicans are continually lambasted for secularism, warring against the Holy Spirit (vid. your famous sermon), etc., they won't concede a separate province (whatever), nor, if you really think they are so depraved, should you be asking them to."
Quite cogent. I agree.
Andy B.
John,
I think we all realise how much you dislike this pope but I am not certain you can say the majority of the West have little care for him either.
I think what is best is that you and I agree to disagree. I know you to be a rather kind person when meeting face-to-face but your writing, like all of ours at times, is a bit OTT. That being said, I do find your views very far removed from my own and those of the Church's. The bottom line issue is authority.
I agree with you that there are some sincere Christians who believe that WO is a good thing. How it came into place is by a secularist agenda and argument. There are more unanswered questions regarding a theology of creation and redemption that has largely been ignored by our more liberal friends in dealing with this issue. There is so much that one cannot place it all in a comment box.
What I kindly ask is that you not speak so abruptly about those you disagree and accuse people of not THINKING because they don't agree with you or come to your conclusions. I find some of the posturing you put in your comments to be not worth time fighting over so I choose to not respond because I question the usefulness of the time arguing rather than spending the time praying, studying and doing my job as a priest. One look around outside the academy into the real world ought to tell you something about the lack of substance and true love that drives the post-modern secularist agenda. If you cannot see it, there is nothing I can do but only God can reveal to us the truth. And when we seek it in love of Him and for our neighbour he will not leave us walking in circles in darkness.
I agree to humbly and graciously disagree with your views and agenda. I pray that the Church in the West can be reunited to the rock from which we were hewn followed by a reunion with the East. Then we can begin speaking with our Protestant friends but first Catholics need to be one.
Well, Jeff, I disagree with almost everything you say here from almost all points of view, not only theological/intellectual.
To this, however, I do willingly subscribe: 'your writing, like all of ours at times, is a bit OTT'.
John.
I am happy to entertain your opinions John. I am not surprised you disagree. I am really ok with that as well. My conscience does not allow me to stray from the Church's teaching on these matters. So, we agree to disagree.
OK, Jeff.
Best to you and yours.
Post a Comment