Why Father Hunwicke is so much fun!

The post will make the point.

EVERVIRGIN has been a title of our Lady from the earliest days; it appears, albeit obiter, in the documents of councils from Chalcedon onwards. It still appears (confiteor) in the Novus Ordo Mass; was rather more frequent in the Classical Roman Rite; and comes very often in the Byzantine Rite. It is part of the Church's Marian dogma, and was treated respectfully, if rather evasively, by the ARCIC document on Mary. Non-Catholics sneer at it. The great Tom Wright is dismissive.

The Gospels make it quite clear that Jesus had brothers. They don't. Adelphoi can mean kinsmen. It doesn't have to mean uterine (that is, born of the same womb) brothers.
So you say. But that's the obvious meaning if anyone talks about "Jesus' brothers" in any language, isn't it? Not at all. Mark's and Matthew's Gospels, in their accounts of the Crucifixion, both talk about "Mary the mother of James and Joses [or Joseph]". If this Mary had been the same as Christ's own mother, it would have been very odd for them not to refer to her as the Mother of Jesus.
So what? Well, in Mark 6:3 and Matthew 13:55, the places where those "brothers of Jesus" are mentioned, the full text reads: " Jesus the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses [or Joseph] and Judas and Simon". We've just seen that James and Joses are apparently the sons of some Mary who was clearly not the same as Mary the Mother of Jesus. And they're the first two on the list here. The list is thus clearly not itemising individuals who were uterine brothers of Jesus.
Well, I still think it's obvious that ... If it's so "obvious", you've got some explaining to do. Throughout the second century the Gospels were increasingly regarded as 'canonical' and authoritative. If it is so "obvious" that James and the rest of those listed in the Gospels were uterine brothers of Jesus, then the tradition that Jesus was Mary's only child must have arisen well before those Gospels came to be regarded as authorities. Otherwise, when somebody started saying "she never had any more children", somebody who had read the Gospels would have said "Aha, you're wrong: here's a list of his brothers". So, if you're right about it being so "obvious", you're going to have to admit that Mary's perpetual virginity is so early as to predate the acquisition of authority by the Gospels; which modern scholarship dates to the beginning of the second century at the latest. I've got you either way.
That's all gobbledegook. It's obvious ...That's the problem with you Prods and you Liberals. You're impervious to reason.
Of course we are. Reason is the Devil's Whore. Martin Luther said so. It's obvious.

TAC: Nothing Has Been Decided

I have no comment on this issue as it really doesn't immediately concern me other than ecumenical interest. Therefore, I will only post the report. But the denial of a decision is not a no answer so again, the best advice that I have received is wait and when Rome decides the world will know.

Biretta tip David Virtue

VATICAN: Anglican Rumors Denied

by Tom McFeely
January 29, 2009

A Vatican source has denied rumors that Rome has decided to create a personal prelature for members of the Traditional Anglican Communion.

Leaders of the Traditional Anglican Communion, an international group of disaffected Anglicans that claims to have more than 400,000 members, have been in discussions with Rome since late 2007 about entering the Church as a corporate body.

The group broke with the Anglican hierarchy in 1990 because of objections to the ordination of women and other heterodox actions undertaken by some of the churches that belong to the Anglican Communion.

According to the reports circulating on the Internet, the Traditional Anglican Communion would be allowed to form a personal prelature modeled on the structure utilized by Opus Dei, to accommodate the clergy and lay members of the group.

A personal prelature is a canonical structure that was proposed by the Second Vatican Council decree Presbyterorum Ordinis. The document states that "special personal dioceses or prelatures" should be establi shed when necessary outside of the Church's existing structures to deal with "particular pastoral works as are necessary in any region or nation anywhere on earth" (no. 10).

Pope John Paul II created the first personal prelature for Opus Dei in 1982.

But Rome has not reached a decision to create a similar personal prelature for the Traditional Anglican Communion, according to an official at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith who spoke today with Register correspondent Edward Pentin.

Said the official, "It's something that has appeared on the blogosphere and then been reiterated, but the truth is nothing's been decided."

SSPX Bishop Williamson Apologises to the Holy Father

I am not here to comment or judge this man's heart other than to say that this is a good start to healing and reconciliation. I leave it to his conscience about further apologies and simply post what was sent to the Holy Father. It is not ours to judge this man's heart but it is our responsibility to forgive. Humility and open transparency when we have publicly wronged others demands such responses. May this be a step in the healing process for all who have been hurt by the erroneous and imprudent remarks. Found here. Biretta tip WDTPRS.

Following in the steps of Our Lord (Jn. XVIII, 23) and St. Paul (Acts, XXIII, 5), Archbishop Lefebvre gave his Society the example of never so cleaving to God's Truth as to abandon respect for the men holding God's Authority. In the midst of last week's media uproar, surely aimed rather at the Holy Father than at a relatively insignificant bishop, here is a letter written to Cardinal Castrillón Hoyos on January 28 by that bishop:

To His Eminence Cardinal Castrillón Hoyos

Your Eminence

Amidst this tremendous media storm stirred up by imprudent remarks of mine on Swedish television, I beg of you to accept, only as is properly respectful, my sincere regrets for having caused to yourself and to the Holy Father so much unnecessary distress and problems.

For me, all that matters is the Truth Incarnate, and the interests of His one true Church, through which alone we can save our souls and give eternal glory, in our little way, to Almighty God. So I have only one comment, from the prophet Jonas, I, 12:

"Take me up and throw me into the sea; then the sea will quiet down for you; for I know it is because of me that this great tempest has come upon you."

Please also accept, and convey to the Holy Father, my sincere personal thanks for the document signed last Wednesday and made public on Saturday. Most humbly I will offer a Mass for both of you.

Sincerely yours in Christ

+Richard Williamson

Damian Thompson relays a story that the bishop is dying of cancer.

Father Hunwicke SSC: Bridging the Tiber?

The news is exciting: Benedict XVI, the Pope of Unity. Four cheers for what he is doing for those sundered fragments of Latin Christendom, SSPX and the TAC.

In England, we have a problem which neither of those organisations has: the problem of Extricability; of getting, corporately, out of structures we are enmeshed in. Anglican Catholic clergy can enter individually into full communion; but they will be submerged like every other wave of 'converts' that has done the same. Our elephant-in-the-room is the attachment of our laity to ancient buildings and historic structures and identities. Unless the C of E is prepared let property depart, we have a difficulty. And is there any chance of this? Remember (1) the visceral hatred of 'Rome' which lurks in the most liberal hearts; and (2) the possibility that the financial value of property might, in an economic depression, be rather handy for the Establishment to have.

Rome cannot solve the problem of Extricability. Only we can. But how?

What do the readers think about his question?

Prelature for Anglicans: An Open Discussion

Father Pinnock over at onetimothyfour has some interesting points in his blog entry. What I would like to do is to invite all to have a discussion here on number of points.

1. There is great diversity of opinion in the C of E for instance on this topic. How important is it for an identifiable group to be established and soon?

2. What would this look like in an English context as opposed to somewhere else in the world where there are mostly gathered communities and no state church?

3. If you are sceptical about this; why so?

4. Married Clergy would cease with those entering and would not be a continued practise. There would not be a rite with married and celibate clergy. Any who were raised up from the communities of these groups involved in the prelature would indeed have to comply with the celibacy requirement for priesthood. This presently happens in the Anglican Use parishes in the US.

In charity, let's have an intelligent discussion on this topic assuming that it 'could be true.'

Over at The New Liturgical Movement there are a number of comments that allow one to get the 'feel' of the atmosphere surrounding such a move by the CDF and Holy Father. First of all, allow me to say that from my point of view when there is talk of unity and getting back together under one Catholic umbrella that makes me thrilled to bits. What I do pray for is charity and the spirit of Jesus' prayer from John 17. Of course reunions are messy and the details are not sorted as rapidly as one might hope.

But, IF this story is true (I'm not sceptical about it due to the generosity and ecumenical drive of this current Pope) and this indeed is what is going to be taking place, I welcome it for all involved and look forward to seeing this developed in the life of the Catholic Church. At the end of the day, we need one another. Just take a quick look around England and all churches, both Anglican and Catholic, and tell me that we do not need one another for mission and evangelisation! Our culture of disbelief demands that we be one that the world may believe in the Lord Jesus. This very well might be the beginning of the reunion of Christendom and I am hopeful and excited about what the Holy Spirit does to the hearts of men and women and I pray something as historical as this would be takes place. Of course we do not make demands on the Church and of course being Catholic means coming under submission of the Magisterium and Vatican II and other declarations from the Church.

Personal Prelature To Anglicans From Pope

Damian Thompson

The Pope is preparing to offer the Traditonal Anglican Communion, a group of half a million dissident Anglicans, its own personal prelature by Rome, according to reports this morning.

"History may be in the making", reports The Record. "It appears Rome is on the brink of welcoming close to half a million members of the Traditional Anglican Communion into membership of the Roman Catholic Church. Such a move would be the most historic development in Anglican-Catholic relations in the last 500 years. But it may also be a prelude to a much greater influx of Anglicans waiting on the sidelines, pushed too far by the controversy surrounding the consecration of practising homosexual bishops, women clergy and a host of other issues."

Here is Anthony Barich's report in full. My guess is that, if this happens, Anglo-Catholics in the C of E will move to Rome in unprecedented numbers under a similar arrangement. More on this later. Also, see American Catholic, which broke the story on the web.

The Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has decided to recommend the Traditional Anglican Communion be accorded a personal prelature akin to Opus Dei, if talks between the TAC and the Vatican aimed at unity succeed, it is understood.

The TAC is a growing global community of approximately 400,000 members that took the historic step in 2007 of seeking full corporate and sacramental communion with the Catholic Church - a move that, if fulfilled, will be the biggest development in Catholic-Anglican relations since the English Reformation under King Henry VIII.

TAC members split from the Canterbury-based Anglican Communion headed by Archbishop Rowan Williams over issues such as its ordination of women priests and episcopal consecrations of women and practising homosexuals.

The TAC's case appeared to take a significant step forwards in October 2008 when it is understood that the CDF decided not to recommend the creation of a distinct Anglican rite within the Roman Catholic Church - as is the case with the Eastern Catholic Churches - but a personal prelature, a semi-autonomous group with its own clergy and laity.Opus Dei was the first organisation in the Catholic Church to be recognised as a personal prelature, a new juridical form in the life of the Church. A personal prelature is something like a global diocese without boundaries, headed by its own bishop and with its own membership and clergy.

Because no such juridical form of life in the Church had existed before, the development and recognition of a personal prelature took Opus Dei and Church officials decades to achieve.

An announcement could be made soon after Easter this year. It is understood that Pope Benedict XVI, who has taken a personal interest in the matter, has linked the issue to the year of St Paul, the greatest missionary in the history of the Church.

The Basilica of St Paul outside the Walls could feature prominently in such an announcement for its traditional and historical links to Anglicanism. Prior to the English Reformation it was the official Church of the Knights of the Garter.

The TAC's Primate, Adelaide-based Archbishop John Hepworth, told The Record he has also informed the Holy See he wants to bring all the TAC's bishops to Rome for the beatification of Cardinal Henry Newman, also an Anglican convert to the Catholic Church, as a celebration of Anglican-Catholic unity.

Although Cardinal Newman's beatification is considered to be likely by many, the Church has made no announcement that Cardinal Newman will be beatified.

Archbishop Hepworth personally wrote to Pope Benedict in April 2007 indicating that the TAC planned a meeting of its world bishops, where it was anticipated they would unanimously agree to sign the Catechism of the Catholic Church and to seek full union with the Catholic Church. This took place at a meeting of the TAC in the United Kingdom. TAC bishops placed the signed Catechism on the altar of the most historical Anglican and Catholic Marian shrine in the UK, the National Shrine of Our Lady of Walsingham in Norfolk, before posting it up in the main street in an effort to gather public support.

Archbishop Hepworth, together with TAC bishops Robert Mercer and Peter Wilkinson, presented the signed items personally to Fr Augustine Di Noia OP, the CDF's senior ecumenical theologian, on October 11, 2007, in a meeting organised by CDF secretary Archbishop Angelo Amato.

Bishop Mercer, a monk who is now retired and living in England, is the former Anglican Bishop of Matabeleland, Zimbabwe. Bishop Wilkinson is the TAC's diocesan bishop in Canada.

TAC's Canadian Bishop Peter Wilkinson has close ties to the Catholic hierarchy in British Columbia, which has also met the CDF on the issue. He has already briefed Vancouver archdiocesan priests.

One potential problem for the Holy See would be the TAC's bishops, most of whom are married. Neither the Roman Catholic nor Eastern Catholic churches permit married bishops.

Before he became Pope, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger discussed the issue of married bishops in the 1990s during meetings of the Anglican Roman Catholic International Commission exploring unity, before the Anglican Church's ordination of women priests derailed it.

One former Anglican priest who became a Catholic priest told The Record that the ideal end for the TAC would be to become the 28th Rite within the Catholic Church, along with the Eastern Churches, which have the same sacraments and are recognised by Rome.

The TAC's request is the closest any section of the Anglican Church has ever come to full communion with Rome because the TAC has set no preconditions. Instead it has explicitly submitted itself entirely to the Holy See's decisions.

Six days prior to the October 11 meeting between TAC bishops and the Holy See - on October 5 - the TAC's bishops, vicars-general of dioceses without bishops, and theological advisers who assisted in a plenary meeting signed a declaration of belief in the truth of the whole Catechism of the Catholic Church.

The declaration said, in part: "We accept that the most complete and authentic expression and application of the Catholic faith in this moment of time is found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church and its Compendium, which we have signed, together with this letter as attesting to the faith we aspire to teach and hold."

Statements about the seriousness of the division between the Anglican Communion and the Catholic Church caused by issues such as the ordination of women priests were emphasised at the wordwide Lambeth Conference held in the UK in 2008.

At the conference, three Catholic cardinals - Walter Kasper, president of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, the Archbishop of Westminster Cormac Murphy-O'Connor and the Prefect for the Vatican's Congregation for the Evangelisation of Peoples, Ivan Dias, the Pope's personal envoy, all addressed the issue.

Cardinal Dias, who favours welcoming traditionalist Anglicans into the Catholic Church, bluntly told the Anglican Communion's 650 bishops that they are heading towards "spiritual Alzheimer's" and "ecclesial Parkinson's".

"By analogy, (Alzheimer's and Parkinson's) symptoms can, at times, be found even in our own Christian communities. For example, when we live myopically in the fleeting present, oblivious of our past heritage and apostolic traditions, we could well be suffering from spiritual Alzheimer's. And when we behave in a disorderly manner, going whimsically our own way without any co-ordination with the head or the other members of our community, it could be ecclesial Parkinson's."

Cardinal Kasper warned Anglican bishops that Rome would turn to smaller ecumenical communities if the Anglican Communion at large proved unapproachable ecumenically.

This is bad news for the Anglican Communion, but good news for the TAC.

Newman: Branch Theory and the Demarcation of a National Church

Here then, when you are investigating whither you shall go for your new succession and your new priesthood, I am going to offer you a suggestion which, if it approves itself to you, will do away with the opportunity, or the possibility, of choice altogether. It will reduce the claimants to one. Before entering, then, upon the inquiry, whither you shall betake yourselves, and what you shall be, bear with me while I give you one piece of advice; it is this—While you are looking about for a new Communion, have nothing to do with a "Branch Church." You have had enough experience of branch churches already, and you know very well what they are. Depend upon it, such as is one, such is another. They may differ in accidents certainly; but, after all, a branch is a branch, and no branch is a tree. Depend on it, my brethren, it is not worth while leaving one branch for another. While you are doing so great a work, do it thoroughly; do it once for all; change for the better. Rather than go to another branch, remain where you are; do not put yourselves to trouble for nothing; do not sacrifice this world without gaining the next. Now let us consider this point attentively. {170}

3.

By a Branch Church is meant, I suppose, if we interpret the metaphor, a Church which is separate from its stem; and if we ask what is meant by the stem, I suppose it means the "Universal Church," as you are accustomed to call it. The Catholic Church, indeed, as understood by Catholics, is one kingdom or society, divisible into parts, each of which is in inter-communion with each other and with the whole, as the members of a human body. This Catholic Church, as I suppose you would maintain, has ceased to exist, or at least is in deliquium, for you will not give the name to us, nor do you take it yourselves, and scarcely ever use the phrase at all, except in the Creed; but a "Universal Church" you think there really is, and you mean by it the whole body of professing Christians all over the world, whatever their faith, origin, and traditions, provided they lay claim to an Apostolical Succession, and this whole is divisible into portions or branches, each of them independent of the whole, discordant one with another in doctrine and in ritual, destitute of mutual intercommunion, and more frequently in actual warfare, portion with portion, than in a state of neutrality. Such is pretty nearly what you mean by a Branch, allowing for differences of opinion on the subject; such, for instance, is the Russian Branch, which denounces the Pope as a usurper; such the Papal, which anathematises the Protestantism of the Anglican; {171} such the Anglican, which reprobates the devotions and scorns the rites of the Russian; such the Scotch, which has changed the Eucharistic service of the Anglican; such the American, which has put aside its Athanasian Creed.

Such, I say, is a Branch Church, and, as you will see at once, it is virtually synonymous with a National; for though it may be in fact and at present but one out of many communions in a nation, it is intended, by its very mission, as preacher and evangelist, to spread through the nation; nor has it done its duty till it has so spread, for it must be supposed to have the promise of success as well as the mission. On the other hand, it cannot extravagate beyond the nation, for the very principle of demarcation between Branch and Branch is the distinction of Nation or State; to the Nation, then, or State it is limited, and beyond the Nation's boundaries it cannot properly pass. Thus it is the normal condition of a Branch Church to be a National Church; it tends to nationality as its perfect idea; till it is national it is defective, and when it is national it is all it can be, or was meant to be. Since, then, to understand what any being is, we must contemplate it, not in its rudiments or commencements, any more than in its decline, but in its maturity and its perfection, it follows that, if we would know what a Branch Church is, we must view it as a National Church, and we shall form but an erroneous estimate of its nature and {172} its characteristics, unless we investigate its national form.

Recollect, then, that a Branch Church is a National Church, and the reason why I warn you against getting your orders from such a Church, or joining such a Church, as, for instance, the Greek, the Russian, or some Monophysite Church, is that you are in a National Church already, and that a National Church ever will be and must be what you have found your own to be,—an Erastian body. You are going to start afresh. Well, then, I assert, that if you do not get beyond the idea of Nationalism in this your new beginning, you are just where you were. Erastianism, the fruitful mother of all heresies, will be your first and your last. You will have left Erastianism to take Erastianism up again,—that heresy which is the very badge of Anglicanism, and the abomination of that theological movement from which you spring.

I here assert, then, that a Branch or National Church is necessarily Erastian, and cannot be otherwise, till the nature of man is other than it is; and I shall prove this from the state of the case, and from the course of history, and from the confession, or rather avowal, of its defenders. The English Establishment is nothing extraordinary in this respect; the Russian Church is Erastian, so is the Greek; such was the Nestorian; such would be the Scotch Episcopal, such the Anglo-American, if ever they became commensurate {173} with the nation. And now for my reasons for saying so.

The Sacrifice of the Mass: New and Not New

One of the books that I have really come to appreciate is Father Robert Sokolowski's book Eucharistic Presence. His explanation of the Eucharistic presence and sacrifice in a theology of disclosure really helps one to understand and come to grips with the reality of the Eucharistic sign. Sign has come to be such an empty meaning in many theological circles; particularly within a reformed and anti-sacramentarian understanding of the Eucharist. What I mean is that we must come to see that sign and reality are one and the same in sacramental worship and hence this is why we genuflect and say, 'My Lord and My God' after the consecration!

How can the Eucharist really be a sacrifice? Sokolowski explains,

The fact of being a sign takes on particular importance in the Eucharist, because the Mass can be considered a true and proper sacrifice each time it is offered only if the sacramental appearance brings an increase in identity and being. If the new appearance did not have something entitative about itself--in the way in which manifestation in all its forms is a dimension of being--the present celebration would fail to distinguish itself appropriately from the event that occurred only once. The necessary range of differences would not be available to allow the sacramental reenactment of the original action.

Thus,, it is in the area of presentation that the new element of the liturgical celebration takes place; it is there that we can find the differences within which the identity of the redemptive action of Christ can be sacramentally disclosed. James T. O'Connor observes that the Council of Trent left many issues concerning the issues concerning the Eucharist open for further theological discussion, and among them 'it left unexplained in the novem (the new element) present in each Mass.' It is not that more is offered in the Mass than in the original sacrifice or that something else is offered, but the mode of presentation is changed, along with the new datives for this presentation, who are then drawn into the offering. The sacramental sacrifice both is and is not 'new,' in the way--analogously--that a picture both is and is not other to what it depicts, and a quotation both is and is not a new statement.

The Mass is different from such worldly analogues, however, because at its core it is a presentation not just before us but before the eternal Father. The Eucharist is a reenactment in time of the action of the incarnate Son before the Father; what is it to quote, image, recall, and proclaim this act before God the Father? The original sacrifice is not 'past' for the eternal Father in the way it is past for us; hence quotation and representation before the Father are not like quotations and representations exercised simply among men. The Eucharist transcends time for us because it presents itself before the transcendence of God. In these and many other respects, the way in which the Eucharist is a sign is an issue for the theology of disclosure.

I find this explanation by Sokolowski to be quite helpful to the discussion of how we understand the Eucharist to be an offering to the Father. I believe that something very close along these lines could be argued from the works of Lancelot Andrewes where he would join Sokolowski in maintaining the uniqueness of the one offering but continuing to see the new and not-so-new offering of Christ in the Mass. I would be interested in any thoughts on the presentation of this theological point by Sokolowski. Does it help to further one's understanding about the mystery of our re-presentation of Jesus before the Father in the Mass?

Reflecting on the Imperfect

Not too long ago, a very good friend sent me B.C. Butler's book The Church and Unity. I have been looking over it during the week of prayer for Church unity and the conclusion of the book leaves interesting issues in which I am personally pondering as are many in our day. To think that anywhere in the present state of things there is perfection in the Church is to be confused about the human imperfection that is chronic in the Church around the world. Simply, it will always exist not being mature enough and not being perfect enough until Christ's glorious return. But, what sorts of questions does a realist understanding of the imperfections bring about? I think about this in light of the SSPX's excommunications being lifted as we await their response. I think about this in light of the deep divisions facing many in the C of E over holy orders and the crux of the issue concerning authority and truth in an ecclesial framework. Therefore, I place the final reflection by Butler for all the readers to ponder.

The upshot of these reflections is that the Catholic Church in its existential actuality is an imperfect representation of what it is called and chosen by God to be. This imperfection is chronic. It is not something that began to be only after some heroic age of a hardly discernible past. It is an ineluctable consequence of the fact that the Church is a communion of human beings in various stages of development from lesser to greater maturity, and of human beings who are fallible and, despite their baptism, liable to sin. The Church's imperfection may take different shapes at different epochs and in reaction to different circumstances. But we have no grounds for supposing that the Church on earth will ever be a perfect expression of its own ideal.

The Second Vatican Council's words can be applied here: While Christ, 'the holy, innocent, undefiled' knew nothing of sin, but came to expiate only the sins of the people, the Church, embracing sinners in her bosom, is at the same time holy and always in need of being purified, and incessantly pursues the path of penance and renewal.

To admit as much is, it might be thought, dangerous. Is it not to invite those who are not yet within the koinonia, whether as individuals or as Christian churches and groups, to postpone their reconciliation with the Church?

The contrary is the case. Had we any reason to hope that the Church might at length, or even quickly, so put her house in order that there would be nothing scandalous about her, then a case, insufficient but plausible, might be constructed for remaining outside until the interior reformation should be accomplished. But if the Church never will be what she ought to be, then an inescapable question arises: Is it not our duty to join her without more ado and to lend our aid to her continual 'purification' from within her ranks? For, imperfect though she is and will always be, she is the divinely given and guaranteed, new and supernatural, historical reality within which and by means of which God's eternal purpose for the salvation of all men and the supernatural elevation of his creation is being accomplished.

The Church, in fact, is the 'sacramental' re-presentation of the appeal of God in Christ, an appeal directed to every man everywhere and at all times. It is an appeal of love and calls for an answer of not theoretical but actual, existential, love which gives itself as fully and immediately as God has given himself in Christ. On the one hand, the appeal is: 'Come to me, all who labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest...My yoke is easy, and my burden is light'. On the other hand, it is inexorable with all the inexorability of perfect love. And because it is inexorable it is 'judgmental'. 'The Father judges no one, but has given all judgment to the Son...He who hears my word and believes him who sent me, has eternal life; he does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life'. the message of Christian history is that the way to come to Christ is to belong to the koinonia; and that hearing Christ and believing in him who sent him entails, not as a distant aspiration but as a here-and-now urgency, seeking membership of that koinonia.

A Moving Reflection in the Midst of Media Hysteria

Massinformation has a moving and well reasoned response to the ongoing saga concerning the Pope lifting the excommunications of SSPX. The recent remarks by Bishop Williamson of SSPX are appalling but what the Holy Father has done is not to give a blessing on his remarks but simply a lifting of excommunication of a group of people who belong to the Church. Perhaps the media will one day get a story correct. This recent reflection at Massinformation comes with much appreciation in contrast to responses such as others. Father Z at WDTPRS clearly explains what is the result of the lifting. I pray the entire blogging community and media listen to the facts and keep the story, the story.

It was not the gas chamber or the Todessteige which had the most profound effect on me that day, but a film showing an interview with an American soldier who helped to liberate the camp. The terror in his eyes as he recounted the horrific scenes is forever fixed in my mind, and towards the end of the interview he burst into tears, as did I and my friends who were watching.

I do not need exact figures or statistics to understand the scale of the atrocities which occurred under the Nazis, because at Mauthausen-Gusen I felt it – not only proof of the Holocaust but proof of indescribable evil. An eminent historian once told me that he has never yet heard a convincing argument for why the Holocaust happened, and for me the only answer can be that evil was at work. As a religion that values above anything else the sanctity of human life, Christians of all denominations cannot forget what happened in these camps, and pray that such things may never happen again.

At the end of a day of frantic blogging and media reaction, I reflect on what exactly the Pope has achieved. At the risk of another fierce media backlash he has made it possible for more separated brethren to come back to the mother church. The views of Williamson are shocking and unacceptable, but they are not shared by the majority of the SSPX. I was particularly moved by the words of a Jewish reader who posted on Ruth Gledhill's blog, whose wife's great uncle was saved from a Nazi camp by Marcel Lefebvre's Father. Whilst his excommunication has been lifted, it is very unlikely that Williamson will again function in the Roman Catholic Church as a priest or a bishop, and he and his small number of followers may not even choose to return. I do expect there to be an announcement from Rome regarding Williamson in the near future, for his views and his investigation in Germany for Holocaust denial cannot and must not go unnoticed.

To echo the words of my brother seminarian Athanasius, Pope Benedict's "master plan for unity" seems to be gathering pace, and we wait prayerfully to see what his next move will be.

SSPX Reunited with the Holy See: Are There More Reunions to Come?

This piece is from Father Tim Finigan of hermeneutic of continuity. Thanks to Father for this fuller update. This is proving to be a positive move by the Holy Father and I sense deeply within me that this is only the beginning of what could come about. I would like to call upon all Catholic Anglicans to enter into the prayer and devotion to our Lady in the spirit that was offered in this decision for an ecclesial solution to a serious ecclesial problem.

This morning, the Holy See has communicated the Decree of the Congregation for Bishops which remits, for the four Bishops ordained by Archbishop Lefevbre, the censure of excommunication declared against them on 1 July 1988.

Links
Official announcement at the Vatican website (Italian)
English translation provided by Rorate Caeli
Press release issued by the SSPX superior general, Bishop Fellay
Bishop Fellay's Letter to the Faithful

Some reactions are beginning to come in. Cardinal Vingt-Trois, Archbishop of Paris, in an interview this morning with Radio Notre Dame expressed some cautionary remarks but said:

I am delighted. This is an opportunity, a door open to allow Christians to find the fullness of communion with the Church. As long as they want or they accept it. It is a gesture of mercy and a gesture of openness to strengthen the unity of the Church.

The Chairman of the German Conference of Bishops has issued a statement in which he says that the Pope has offered his outstretched hand and that he hopes that they take it.

Not everyone is happy, of course: I am not thinking of the sandalistas or the secularists but of many good and sound Catholics who are concerned at the tendencies shown by some within the SSPX and given voice especially by Bishop Williamson. Damian Thompson has written a good piece this morning which summarises those concerns. (See: Pope Benedict is taking a huge risk in lifting the SSPX excommunications). I agree that he is taking a huge risk and that "Joseph Ratzinger has already factored the hostile reaction into the equation."

As I indicated yesterday, I am delighted by this news. I have met some very good people from the SSPX and it is a great joy to know that the principal obstruction to their full jurisdictional normality in the Church has now been removed. It is a typically "Benedictine" move to have the announcement made during the Octave of Prayer for Christian Unity and I trust Pope Benedict's judgement that this will "promote unity in the charity of the universal Church." Nevertheless, Damian is right to say that "This is the biggest risk that Pope Benedict has taken in his pontificate so far."

In his letter to the faithful, Bishop Fellay attributed today's good news to the one million, seven hundred and three thousand rosaries that have been said to obtain the intercession of Our Lady. We must pray for the Holy Father - offer up rosaries, Masses, penances, and almsgiving that his courageous "gift of peace" will bear abundant fruit.

Why Vatican II Matters: Bishop Patrick O'Donoghue

I really hope that in 2009 we all return to the documents of the Council, especially the four Constitutions, because they are our direct link to a time in the life of the Church dramatically blessed by the Holy Spirit.

I have little sympathy with those who argue that we should somehow get past the documents of the Council – which they say are fatally flawed by compromise and politics – and try to re-construct the “event” of the Council in order to know the “true” intentions of the Council Fathers and periti [theological advisers].

Just as many scripture scholars involved in the historical search for Jesus created a “Jesus” that merely reflected themselves, there is the danger that those involved in the historical search for the Council will create a picture of the “Council” that reflects their own likes and dislikes. If Catholics really knew the documents of the Council there would not be so much confusion about what they actually say:

1) Catholics could not continue to live lives focused on their own prosperity if they truly knew that Gaudium et Spes 69 teaches, among other things, that we must “feed the man dying of hunger, because if you have not fed him, you have killed him”.

2) Catholics could not say that Paul VI’s prophetic encyclical, Humanae Vitae, went against Vatican II if they knew that Gaudium et Spes 51 teaches that couples “may not undertake methods of birth control which are found blameworthy by the teaching authority of the Church in its unfolding of the divine law”.

3) Catholics would not mock the Mass of Paul VI if they accepted that Sacrosanctum Concilium 36 teaches that “the use of the vernacular... may frequently be of great advantage to the people”.

4) Catholics would not say that Pope Benedict XVI’s Summorum Pontificum went against Vatican II if they knew that Sacrosanctum Concilium 36 teaches that “the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rite”.

Looking back at the ages of the saints, such as St Francis, St Clare and St Dominic, it’s tempting to think: “Wouldn’t it have been wonderful to have lived during that golden age, when the Church was young and creative?”

It is time for us to wake up to the fact that during and after the Council, giants have walked among us: Blessed John XXIII, Blessed Mother Teresa, Servant of God Pope John Paul II, Servant of God Pope Paul VI, Cardinal Henri de Lubac, Fr Karl Rahner SJ, Fr. Hans Urs von Balthasar, Brother Roger of Taizé, Archbishop Oscar Romero, Chiara Lubich, Dietrich Von Hildebrand, Pope Benedict XVI, and many more.

I suspect that future generations will look back and say: “Oh, to have lived in times so blessed by the Holy Spirit!”

The Catholic Herald

The Ad Says it All: Thank You Mother Church

Biretta Tip Standfirm.

Some Interesting News for Damian Thompson

Arthur Roche, the Bishop of Leeds, may well be out of the running to be the next Archbishop of Westminster, but I've been told that he is in line for a move to Rome.

A senior Catholic source says he has heard that the bishop has been recommended for a post in the congregation for worship.

He also correctly predicted that Cardinal Antonio Canizares Llovera was being made prefect ahead of his appointment so he clearly has good contacts.

At the moment, there are no vacancies in the congregation, but he understands that Bishop Roche will replace Archbishop Malcolm Ranjith who is currently secretary.

If this turns out to be true, the promotion will be welcome news for the bishop, but no doubt even more welcome news for many of the parishes in his diocese who have been left devastated by the closure of their churches.

Telegraph

Father Peter Ould Does Not Believe WO Has Anything to do with Galatians

Let’s move on. We now come to Gal 3:28 and we see very clearly that when Paul says there is neither Jew nor Greek, male nor female, he does so in the context of us all being “clothed with Christ”, which is a statement about redemption, not ministry. This “clothed with Christ” would probably be better expressed “put on Christ” (see for example Matt 27:31 - lit. “put on himself own clothes” and Rom 13:14 where the same word down to the precise grammar as Gal 3:27 is translated “put on”) indicating that our faith in Christ makes us ones who “put on” the promise that is found in him, an idea clearly articulated in Gal 3:29.

So we see without any doubt that the whole thrust of Galatians 3 is about soteriology, not ministry. Being equal in Christ, as verse 28 teaches, is about the equality amongst us of the promise of salvation in Christ, a promise which is not restricted by sex, economic status or race. To then jump from here to using the passage to talk about specific callings is to misuse the text, for Gal 3:28 is a statement of soteriology, not ministry. Indeed, the logical extension of the argument that this (Gal 3:28) means there is no bar to a woman presiding at the Eucharistic table is to argue that absolutely anybody, ordained or unordained, who is “put in Christ” should be able to preside at the Eucharistic table, and that it would automatically be a valid sacrament. I don’t think this is what the proponents of women’s ordination have in mind and therefore by their restricting of the presidency at the Eucharist to those who are ordained (or at least authorised) they admit openly that Gal 3:28 is not itself an open invitation to allow sacramental presidency to all the “baptised”, which de facto means that neither women, nor men, have any right via baptism to such a position.

As I said above, I would welcome responses on the theology presented here, but please restrict yourselves to engaging with the exegesis as laid out. Other comments in this thread not discussing Galatians 3 (or passages that might help interpret the specific meaning of sections and words in Gal 3) will be treated as spam. This is not the place to tell anybody that they’re either misogynist or not following the Scriptures.

Read it all here.

Gene Robinson's Prayer: The God of Our Many Understandings

I question whether or not I ought to even post this prayer but having read it and thinking about the controversies facing traditionalists at present, it is a bit of a shock to see the difference between bishops in good standing in the AC and bishops conducting themselves in the RCC.

Interestingly though, due to a power failure, the prayer went pretty much unheard. I wonder who Mr. Robinson will blame for this? Read it for yourselves and leave your comments.

Welcome to Washington! The fun is about to begin, but first, please join me in pausing for a moment, to ask God’s blessing upon our nation and our next president.

O God of our many understandings, we pray that you will…

Bless us with tears – for a world in which over a billion people exist on less than a dollar a day, where young women from many lands are beaten and raped for wanting an education, and thousands die daily from malnutrition, malaria, and AIDS.

Bless us with anger – at discrimination, at home and abroad, against refugees and immigrants, women, people of color, gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people.

Bless us with discomfort – at the easy, simplistic “answers” we’ve preferred to hear from our politicians, instead of the truth, about ourselves and the world, which we need to face if we are going to rise to the challenges of the future.

Bless us with patience – and the knowledge that none of what ails us will be “fixed” anytime soon, and the understanding that our new president is a human being, not a messiah.

Bless us with humility – open to understanding that our own needs must always be balanced with those of the world.

Bless us with freedom from mere tolerance – replacing it with a genuine respect and warm embrace of our differences, and an understanding that in our diversity, we are stronger.

Bless us with compassion and generosity – remembering that every religion’s God judges us by the way we care for the most vulnerable in the human community, whether across town or across the world.

And God, we give you thanks for your child Barack, as he assumes the office of President of the United States.

Give him wisdom beyond his years, and inspire him with Lincoln’s reconciling leadership style, President Kennedy’s ability to enlist our best efforts, and Dr. King’s dream of a nation for ALL the people.

Give him a quiet heart, for our Ship of State needs a steady, calm captain in these times.

Give him stirring words, for we will need to be inspired and motivated to make the personal and common sacrifices necessary to facing the challenges ahead.

Make him color-blind, reminding him of his own words that under his leadership, there will be neither red nor blue states, but the United States.

Help him remember his own oppression as a minority, drawing on that experience of discrimination, that he might seek to change the lives of those who are still its victims.

Give him the strength to find family time and privacy, and help him remember that even though he is president, a father only gets one shot at his daughters’ childhoods.

And please, God, keep him safe. We know we ask too much of our presidents, and we’re asking FAR too much of this one. We know the risk he and his wife are taking for all of us, and we implore you, O good and great God, to keep him safe. Hold him in the palm of your hand – that he might do the work we have called him to do, that he might find joy in this impossible calling, and that in the end, he might lead us as a nation to a place of integrity, prosperity and peace.

AMEN.

Bishop Tom Wright's Christmas Sermon

I have been meaning to post this but it was put back in a place where I was able to forget about it. Bishop Tom's defense of incarnational life and his apologetic for the Christian faith in the public sphere is a breath of fresh air! Read it all here.

God breathes his Spirit, his breath, into people, into the world, into animals even, and his presence brings things and people to life. In each of these five ways the Old Testament insists that the living God, the creator God, the God of Israel, is not a remote being away up in the sky but is actively engaged with his creation and his people.

All these themes rush together at key points of the Old Testament, particularly in relation to the King from David's house, the coming Messiah. He would be equipped with God's Spirit to bring God's judgment to the world, speaking words of power, teaching and embodying wisdom, upholding the Law, and building or cleansing or rebuilding the Temple. That's how it works in John's gospel, too. ‘The Word became flesh and tabernacled among us', with the word in question echoing both the Greek and the Hebrew for Tent: the Tabernacling or Tent-pitching of God, the glorious presence of God with his people, like fire itself, dangerous yet full of delight. And the Word-made-flesh is then introduced to us as the true King, the Messiah, Jesus.

All of this, every single bit of it, would be anathema to the kind of modernist liberalism that used to rule the roost theologically and is now trying to make a late run politically. Incarnation is a nuisance because it implies that God wants to make his presence felt around the place, and he may well want to do so especially where people are trying to run things their own way and making a mess of it. We live today amid the flotsam and jetsam of the failed liberal project - the deregulation of sex giving us AIDS and a nation of confused young people and lonely old people, the deregulation of power giving us atom bombs, Guantanamo Bay, Iraq, Darfur and the Congo, and the deregulation of money giving us loadsamoney one minute and market meltdown the next - and we who know these things, and yet resist fresh regulation because we like our freedom even if it's the freedom to go to Hell in a Hedge Fund, we resist the message of Incarnation, of God being around the place, and we invent excuses to say it's a bad idea all round, lest the fire consume us or the cloud confuse us and we have to admit we don't know who we are or why we're doing things the way we are . . .

Now of course, things being what they are, there are other ways of resisting the message of Incarnation than downright denial. You can turn it, if you like, into a general pantheistic principle, of God being part of the air we all breathe. Then Jesus may be divine, but so are you and so am I and so is this pulpit and so is Bruce Forsyth. And, in particular, when you go this route you lose, at once, the cross and resurrection. No: the Christian story of Incarnation, John's story of incarnation, doesn't leave you with a generalized, vague sense of divine presence but with a single human being embodying in himself the personal life and love of the personal God, and carrying the world's sorrows and pains all the way to the cross. In the same way, the notion of Establishment can be perverted into the church simply being a vague religious presence, unable to comment much on the world around, just as it could be perverted the other way, by the church claiming for itself a pseudo-theocratic power, giving itself airs, trumpeting its own pomp and prestige, and forgetting again the fact of the cross. But to object to the perversions is not to demolish the reality.

And the reality of an established church, here in the north-east of England at least, is not about an outmoded nostalgia for a bygone past when everyone was more or less Christian. It is about partnerships in education, in ecology, in peacemaking, in climate campaigning. I am proud of the fact that the school which, this time two years ago, was labelled the worst school in England has now been turned completely around because the local authority in question came to the Diocese of Durham to ask if we could go into partnership on it. Establishment is about the church being alongside people when they are hurting most, as the farmers were last year and as many small businesses, and some large ones too, are doing right now. It is about the church being the voice of the voiceless, the loyal and courageous opposition to wrong-headed ideas and the equally loyal and courageous supporter for right-headed ideas, wherever the ideas come from. It is about the church refusing to confine its work to those who come looking for spiritual help, because we know that the God who became incarnate in Jesus went about inaugurating the kingdom, which was and is a reality whether or not people acknowledge it. And it is about a society that recognises that the church has this role and that it's a good thing that it does, and that sets up structures to make sure it goes on having and exercising it. Where we are right now, historically and culturally, a vote for Disestablishment would be a vote against Incarnation, a vote against Christmas - as you can see when secular councils, despite all the mockery about political correctness, still try to ban it - and a vote for a flatland society with no room for the word of God, no room for the wisdom of God, no room for the law or the Temple or the Spirit of God, no room for glory, no room for Jesus . . .

Hmm. Wasn't that how it was at the first Christmas? Fortunately somebody was on hand with a manger . . . and the rest is history - but it's the history that we are now to make happen, the history of what God wants to do in the next generation, through you, not least the younger ones among you, who will learn and live the truth of Incarnation in a world that badly needs it but daren't admit it. ‘And the Word was made Flesh, and Tabernacled Among Us': as we celebrate that reality in bread and wine this Christmas morning, let us pray that we may be strengthened by this food, this Tabernacling Presence, to become ourselves people of incarnation, lively members of the Church not just in England, as though by some historical accident, but the Church of England and for England, the Church which, despite all its awful failures and flaws, nevertheless stands as a witness to the truth that God's kingdom shall come and his will be done on earth as in heaven. That's what Christmas is all about; that's what every Eucharist is all about; and that's what we need to be about, as we pick up from this glorious festival the inspiration and energy we need to face the coming year with faith, hope and love.

The Priest and Symbolic Signification

I thought another posting of a commonly raised objection to traditionalist would create more understanding into the theological arguments for a male only priesthood. I recall moments in my life and theological reflection where I perhaps wondered if I may have been wrong and there was nothing really theologically problematic with women priests. For numerous reasons there were times I thought how easier life might be if I could be convinced of this change in our communion. I really never wanted to be a priest in any form of an impaired communion with a diocesan bishop as that would really call into question my ecclesiology. But, in my efforts to really look at and understand the arguments in favour and by experience in this move by Anglicans, I have actually become more convinced of the theological error for going forward and canonically allowing this change.

There are some who are against WO basically as an issue of authority only and if the RCC were to allow it then they would go along with it. They really see no theological rationale for not having WO other than the entire Church didn't do it together. I think this position lacks the most theological integrity of all and misses the theological framework in which the early Church and the present Catholic bodies of East and West have not allowed for this position to go forward. Some would call me an impossibilist but whatever term I am labelled with I am reminded that Jesus said, 'I called you, you didn't call me.' So, here is another objection from Hauke with a reply. Feel free to discuss.

Objection: A priest represents not only Christ but also the Church. If men can thus fulfill the role of bride within the community, one must ask why women cannot, supposedly, fulfill the role of bridegroom. So far, no one has taken the conception of representation (men as typal of Christ, women as typal of the Church) as a basis for concluding that the community should consist solely of women.

Reply: Representation of Christ and representation of the Church cannot be played off against each other in regard to a priest. He represents the Church insofar as he first represents Christ as the head of the Church. A priest participates in this way in the dual representation of Christ: the self-surrender of Christ, as the head of mankind (or of the Church), in the sacrifice of the Cross is made present in the sacrifice of the Mass, which comes into being only through the actions of a consecrated priest. Through instruction and leadership, too, a priest, as representative of Christ the head, guides man toward God.

In effectively representing God vis-a-vis man, a priest also participates in Christ's headship. It is his task to mediate further God's sovereign claim by preaching revealed truth and leading the Church. That authority, or power, and service cannot in this context be played off against one another is shown particularly by the administration of the sacraments: the transubstantiation of the eucharistic offerings, the absolution after expiation of sins and the anointing of the sick can be performed only by a priest, but, precisely through a priest's authority, he contributes to strengthening the divine life in man and imparting more intensive form to man's relation with Christ.

This nourishing function, to Christ as head of the body, is described in the New Testament especially in the letter to the Ephesians, where the symbols head and bridegroom are virtually merged into one another. Mediation of grace forms the common material content of both these symbols. The head symbol signifies, at the same time, the Christian's orientation toward God (Father), which is tied to mediation, while the symbol of the bridegroom refers primarily to Christ's love for the Church.

Every Christian, of course, stands as a receiver before God and thus fulfills the bridal role. Whenever he passes divine grace on to another, he represents Christ, the bridegroom, as well. However, this representation of Christ attains a special intensity in the service of a priest. Since the representation of Christ ranks higher than the representation of the Church, which is subordinate to it, there is good sense in not distributing priestly office to all the members of God's people but only to a relatively small part. If this selection remains limited to male candidates, then an added symbolic approximation to Christ takes place.

Priesthood: Efficacy and the Integrity of Symbol

This evening I am having a nice little tropical styled drink and have looked back at my book shelf and pulled Manfred Hauke's book Women in the Priesthood off for a brief read. I have yet to read completely through this large book but I am determined to start at the beginning and read it straight through in the very near future. That being said, I think his chapter 'The Behaviour of Christ' is fascinating and there is so much within this chapter that has never been discussed by our General Synod in any sort of a theological debate. Why move on such important issues and the efficacy of sacramental integrity without dealing with how serious Christ's own behaviour in the Gospels was for determining the importance of sacramental efficacy through symbols? I'll probably never get that answer but let's look at an objection to not allowing women's ordination in relation to sacramental integrity.

Objection: That God became man in the form of a male may well be of sacred historical significance. But why must the representative of Christ be a male? In the secular realm, for example, a woman can represent a male head of state, and do not 'profane offices', too, 'function at the level of the symbolic'?

Reply: The relationship between Christ and his official representatives is not merely an external legalistic but rather 'a sacramental significative one,' with the signifier being, however, the whole living person.' This imaging relationship has its foundation in the sacrament of ordination to the priesthood, through which, in a way that goes beyond baptism to the priesthood, by virtue of its character indelebilis, an ontological approximation to Christ is realized. Just as Christ, as mediator of salvation, 'can exist in his totality only if his masculine identity is included, so things stand too regarding his priestly representative.

Already at the level of philosophy of religion, we can establish that symbolic connections are much more important for the priesthood than for profane occupations; in Christianity however, we find not only symbols, but effective symbols, that is, sacraments. Similarly to the way that bread and wine were singled out by Christ as redemptive symbols, so, too, were the apostles as fully authorized office bearers.

The efficacy of the sacrament, moreover, depends on the integrity of the symbol. To be sure, we find ourselves living in an age of rationalism, but if the Church were to adapt herself to this temporally conditioned deficiency in symbolic thinking, then she would be incapable of bringing the world the very thing that it particularly needs today. At the same time, she would clog up the channels of her own life, name, of grace, which ought to be effectively embodied in a mankind that God has created as a priori suited for that. (pp 338-39.)

Does anyone see this as a very important point or is it just me and perhaps this nice cool beverage of mine?

Conference on the Family: Sadly an Improbability for Anglicans

I would think a conference like this would be essential for the Church to hold for the good of its life. There is no greater time than the present for something like this for Anglicans. But, sadly, an impossibility when so many question how to even define "The Family". What is refreshing is the focus on the reality of the Incarnational life of the Church that is a calling for families to become the building block of a blessed society. The sacramental imagery is so attractive and wooing as a model of Christ's love for his bride. If only we could focus on such things!

Vatican City, 19 Jan. (AKI) - Pope Benedict XVI has announced plans for an international conference on the family to be hosted by the Vatican in the northern Italian city of Milan in 2012.

The World Meeting of Families will focus on the theme, 'The Family, Work and Feast'.

The pope announced the conference during a live television link with pilgrims participating in the closing Mass of the Sixth World Meeting of Families, at the basilica of Our Lady of Guadalupe in Mexico on Sunday.

"The family is the essential foundation for society and peoples, an irreplaceable benefit for children, who deserve to come into the world as the fruit of love, of the total and generous giving of the parents," Benedict said.

"The family occupies a primary position in the education of the individual. It is a true school of humanity and of perennial values."

The pontiff also reinforced the church's hardline position that marriage should be founded on heterosexual relationships.

"The family founded on indissoluble marriage between a man and a woman expresses this interrelational, filial and community dimension, as well as being the environment in which human beings can be born with dignity, and grow and develop fully," he said.

The Milan conference will take place within the context of the ecclesiastical and civil preparations for the 1,700th anniversary of the Edict of Milan, which proclaimed religious tolerance in the Roman Empire and was granted by the Roman Emperor Constantine who ruled the west of the empire and Licinius who ruled the east.

Pope John Paul II initiated the first World Meeting of Families in Rome in 1994 for the occasion of the International Year of the Family promoted by the United Nations. Others have been held in Rio de Janeiro, Rome, Manila, and Valencia.

Milan is also due to host the World Expo 2015.

Words for Reflection Today

From the Office of Readings for today from the letter of St. Ignatius of Antioch to the Ephesians.

Indeed, it is better to keep quiet and be, than to make fluent professions and not be. No doubt it is a fine thing to instruct others, but only if the speaker practises what he preaches...A man who has truly mastered the utterances of Jesus will also be able to apprehend his silence, and thus reach full spiritual maturity, so that his own words have the force of actions and his silences the significance of speech...As for me, my spirit is now all humble devotion to the cross: the cross which so greatly offends the unbelievers, but is salvation and eternal life to us.

Women Bishops and Thoughts from the Laity

David Smart in the Ebbsfleet Extra for February writes some thougths from the perspective of a layman on the present debate of women bishops and its effects on the laity as well as the clergy. I place it here for any laity who would like to consider his thoughts for comment and or reflection.

It feels like a Phoney War. A crucial battle was fought in the General Synod last July. Fought and lost. Yet nothing seems to have changed. And we are promised more of the same: another Synod debate in February, the revision stage, consultation in the dioceses, more Synod votes. What will emerge from all this and what decisions individual consciences will make is unknowable, but it is certain that eventually the Church of England will have women bishops. It is also certain now that there will be a Parting of the Ways among Anglican Catholics.

The possibility had existed of a solution that would keep all (or almost all) of us in the Church of England, but the Synod vote effectively removed that possibility. The proposals that the Manchester Group published in late December are not inspiring. They are brutal, and Byzantine in their complexity. But even if they were set aside and provisions of the utmost generosity granted, it is too late: the genie is out of the bottle.

In the long run the choices that have to be made are the same for both clergy and laity, and though differing in detail they will be equally costly for both. There are no longer any easy answers, only painful ones. I do, however, have a sense that at the moment the clergy have a clearer sense of what has happened and its consequences.

We laity, though fully aware of the gravity of the situation, are perhaps slower in coming to terms with it. (This is a generalisation of course – there are many exceptions.) This is only natural. The impact is more immediate for the clergy: frighteningly soon they will have to make decisions that affect their life and livelihood, the roof over their heads. Such a difference of perspective, even if it is only temporary, is problematic, and places demands on our charity, understanding, and patience, at a time when we are already under stress and when there will be no let up in the external pressures on us. But, unlike other aspects of the present situation it is our problem, and noone else’s: one that we can chose (with grace) to manage – or choose not to manage.

A similar, but greater, challenge lies ahead as the Parting of the Ways draws closer. As Bishop Andrew has said, there are good, honourable reasons for going or staying. The difficulty will be for us to work together to secure the best future, not just for ourselves, but for our brethren who take the other road. Again, this is our problem. External circumstances may make it easier or harder, but it is our choice how we deal with it. When we part, will we part as friends? And will the distance between us be only as little as it has to be and not an inch more? If this proves so, history may judge that – her buildings, liturgy and theology notwithstanding – herein was the true glory of the Catholic Movement in the Church of England.

David Smart
Vice Chairman of the Lay Council

Whatever Happens Pope says, No Fear!

NO REASON FOR FEAR!
There is no reason to fear anyone or anything, if we stay united to Christ, says Benedict XVI.

The Pope affirmed this today during the general audience in which he continued his reflections on St. Paul. Today, he looked at the "twin" letters of Colossians and Ephesians, concentrating particularly on a title given to Jesus in these epistles: Christ as head.

The Holy Father noted how this title is given to Christ in two senses: He is head of the Church and he is head of the cosmos.

He explained that Paul presents Christ as "the governor, the director, the one in charge who guides the Christian community as its leader and lord." In this role as head of the Church, he is also the one who "raises and vivifies all the members of the body of which he is head. [...] That is, he is not just one who directs, but one who is organically connected to us, from whom comes also the strength to act in an upright way."

The Pontiff added that "Christ in fact is dedicated to 'present to himself the Church in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish.' With this he tells us that the strength with which he builds up the Church, with which he guides the Church, with which also he gives correct direction to the Church, is precisely his love."

Victor

In the second sense of Christ as head -- head of the cosmos, Christ's power is shown forth, Benedict XVI explained.

Ephesians and Colossians "bestow us with a highly positive and fruitful message," he said. "It is this: Christ need not fear any eventual competitor, because he is superior to any type of power that would try to humiliate man. [...] That's why, if we are united to Christ, we should fear no enemy and no adversity; but, this also means that we should remain closely united to him, without letting go!"

The Pope said that for the pagan world that lived in fear of dangerous "spirits," this revelation came as a great liberation.

"The same is true also for the paganism of today, because also the current followers of these ideologies see the world as full of dangerous powers. To these people, it is necessary to announce that Christ is the conqueror, such that one who is with Christ, who remains united to him, should not fear anything or anyone," he contended.

And, the Holy Father added, "It seems to me that this is also important for us, who should learn to face all fears, because he is above every domination, he is the true Lord of the world."

Anglo-Catholic Departures? Does Anyone Know Anything Yet?

Damian Thompson has this story.

There are signs that proper Anglo-Catholics - the Forward in Faith crowd, not the Vichyite Affirming "Catholics" - realise that the game is up. In the February issue of the newsletter of the Diocese of Ebbsfleet, David Smart, vice chairman of its lay council, predicts a parting of ways. The big question, he says, is whether Anglo-Catholics part as friends.

The newsletter doesn't, alas, tell us what progress the Bishop of Ebbsfleet, Andrew Burnham, has made with plans to lead some of his people into full communion with Rome. My guess is that he still doesn't know how things will play out. A lot depends on the identity of the next Archbishop of Westminster. Perhaps the next one will possess a spark of theological imagination; perhaps not. I can understand why many Anglo-Catholics feel queasy at the thought of joining a Church run by the Magic Circle. An Anglican priest friend told me the other day that the RC representatives at the General Synod tend to side with the liberal Anglicans against the Anglo-Catholics. How predictable.

But, in the end, Anglo-Catholics should remember that, if they become Roman Catholics, they will be joining a Church led by Pope Benedict XVI, not some grey-shirted placeman from Eccleston Square. True, the Pope is now well into his 80s - but the liberals are making a big mistake if they assume that the next pontiff will undo the Benedictine reforms. Not only the up-and-coming cardinals but also the new generation of priests are liturgically conservative. In ten years' time, the average Catholic parish will present a far more welcoming aspect to traditionalists that it does at the moment. I see the change in my own parish church; but more of that another time.

The move towards Rome will be dominated, this time round as it was in the early 1990s and the Victorian era, by the conversion of clergy. For this reason, the Vatican is unlikely to put in place a formal framework for mass receptions. On the other hand - and this point is really crucial - the departing Anglicans do have friends in Rome. Pope Benedict, for one, will not allow former Anglican priests to be treated with disdain by Magic Circle bishops.

I hope that the Bishop of Ebbsfleet realises that the ball is in his court. If he and a substantial number of priests announce their firm intention to convert as members of an ex-Anglican priestly fraternity, then Kieran, Crispian, Declan et al are unlikely to be able to frustrate those plans. The message to Anglo-Catholics who wish to take the logical step of becoming "Romans" is clear: be bold. Ignore our wretched Bishops' Conference; it will not survive for long in its present incarnation.

What about those Anglo-Catholics who are determined to remain members of the Church of England? They, too, will be making a big decision; for, by remaining in a denomination that ordains women priests and (soon) bishops, they will be discovering their true identity. As Protestants.

Eucharist and the Ethics of Love

13. Jesus gave this act of oblation an enduring presence through his institution of the Eucharist at the Last Supper. He anticipated his death and resurrection by giving his disciples, in the bread and wine, his very self, his body and blood as the new manna (cf. Jn 6:31-33). The ancient world had dimly perceived that man's real food—what truly nourishes him as man—is ultimately the Logos, eternal wisdom: this same Logos now truly becomes food for us—as love. The Eucharist draws us into Jesus' act of self-oblation. More than just statically receiving the incarnate Logos, we enter into the very dynamic of his self-giving. The imagery of marriage between God and Israel is now realized in a way previously inconceivable: it had meant standing in God's presence, but now it becomes union with God through sharing in Jesus' self-gift, sharing in his body and blood. The sacramental “mysticism”, grounded in God's condescension towards us, operates at a radically different level and lifts us to far greater heights than anything that any human mystical elevation could ever accomplish.

14. Here we need to consider yet another aspect: this sacramental “mysticism” is social in character, for in sacramental communion I become one with the Lord, like all the other communicants. As Saint Paul says, “Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread” (1 Cor 10:17). Union with Christ is also union with all those to whom he gives himself. I cannot possess Christ just for myself; I can belong to him only in union with all those who have become, or who will become, his own. Communion draws me out of myself towards him, and thus also towards unity with all Christians. We become “one body”, completely joined in a single existence. Love of God and love of neighbour are now truly united: God incarnate draws us all to himself. We can thus understand how agape also became a term for the Eucharist: there God's own agape comes to us bodily, in order to continue his work in us and through us. Only by keeping in mind this Christological and sacramental basis can we correctly understand Jesus' teaching on love. The transition which he makes from the Law and the Prophets to the twofold commandment of love of God and of neighbour, and his grounding the whole life of faith on this central precept, is not simply a matter of morality—something that could exist apart from and alongside faith in Christ and its sacramental re-actualization. Faith, worship and ethos are interwoven as a single reality which takes shape in our encounter with God's agape. Here the usual contraposition between worship and ethics simply falls apart. “Worship” itself, Eucharistic communion, includes the reality both of being loved and of loving others in turn. A Eucharist which does not pass over into the concrete practice of love is intrinsically fragmented. Conversely, as we shall have to consider in greater detail below, the “commandment” of love is only possible because it is more than a requirement. Love can be “commanded” because it has first been given.

Deus Caritas Est

Confession and the Salvation of Souls

I found this news item to be very interesting and I do hope there will be more coverage of this very important topic within the sacramental teaching of the Church on confession. Leave your comments.

Times Online

For the first time Vatican officials will this week discuss in public sins committed by clergy considered so deadly that they require forgiveness from the Pope himself, including sexual abuse by priests and the profanation of Holy Communion wafers in Satanic rituals.

The Apostolic Penitentiary, currently headed by Cardinal James Stafford of the United States, the Major Penitentiary, was once described by Pope John XXIII as "the most secret" of Vatican departments. Starting tomorrow (Tuesday) however it will emerge from the shadows to hold a two day conference in Rome on the five "ultimate crimes" - abortion, using the Eucharistic host in Satanic rites, paedophile offences committed by the clergy, violation of the secrets of the confessional, and "offences against the person of the Pope".

The Apostolic Penitentiary, founded in the thirteenth century by Pope Honorius III (reigned 1216-1227) is a Vatican tribunal responsible for matters relating to confession, absolution, indulgences and the forgiveness of sins, and is sometimes described as "the tribunal of the soul". For the "five worst sins" however confession is not enough, and a special dispensation from the Pope himself is needed for absolution.

Bishop Gianfranco Girotti, Cardinal Stafford's deputy at the Penitentiary, said although he could not "give numbers", the five deadly sins were on the increase, and it took "constant work" by the tribunal to keep pace. In theory cases were decided at one sitting, but it sometimes took several sessions for the tribunal to satisfy itself that penance was "authentic, spontaneous and sincere", Monsignor Girotti said.

He said the conference was not an attempt to "showcase" the work of the Penitentiary but rather to "show that we are not a bureaucratic department but one of grace and mercy, charged by the Holy Father with giving life and meaning to confession, one of the most important of the sacraments. We deal with the ultimate goal of the Church - the salvation of souls".