Roland Morant Writes on the Direction of Foward in Faith

* It should go without saying that in regards to postings from others or comments in the comment section does not mean that the owner and author of this blog agrees with comments or all posts that find their way into the main page. These are here for discussion and to make us think about the important issues involved. That may include my posting something from another author that I may personally believe is a load of tosh as would others!

Given the direction in which the C. of E. is remorselessly moving, FIF would be advised to abandon attempts to achieve a structured provision using this synodical process. For reasons given above, this failed process is getting those opposed to the consecration of women as bishops and the ordination of women as priests nowhere.

If FIF terminates its longstanding aim in trying to get a settlement for traditionalists by synodical means, what could take its place? The response has to be direct action, a type of action that has been used effectively in North America and elsewhere.

In England the constitutional position whereby the C. of E. is "by law established", creates an impediment for individual churches. As each parish with its church building and incumbent represents the Church in any given neighbourhood, no parish can opt out of its obligation to serve all the people living there, people who are in theory at least its parishioners. So unless a legal settlement is reached which is agreed by traditionalists and liberals/revisionists, Resolution C parishes and/or FIF-affilated parishes cannot cease to belong to the C. of E. as they do at present.

Some years ago one of the leading spokesmen of FIF suggested that if an independent province was not offered traditionalists, FIF "would take it". The meaning of this was never made clear. That FIF could establish its own province alongside those of Canterbury and York was soon seen to be impossible, and the original suggestion a touch of rhetoric. The legal constraints on action of this kind were just too many.

However, FIF has been remiss over the years in not working out how the idea of "a church within a church" might be formulated with FIF taking on the role of "proto-province". Admittedly, it has taken what many would see as half-hearted steps to end its regional-dean system and replace it with four episcopal areas based on the areas covered by the three PEVs and the Bishop of Fulham. A proto-province based in England would be not so much as a church within a church as "a proto-province within the provinces of Canterbury and York". Such an institution, though keeping within existing legal constraints, might even constitute the notion of an episcopal society, an idea that has recently been suggested in the second report of the LDG.

In an article like this where a modicum of brevity is needed, an identification of other possible forms of direct action is not something that can be addressed here, but may well form the subject of future reflection.

Postscript

To sum up, FIF is split down the middle over the strategy it should take. On the one hand there is the approach of the Vice Chairman of FIF, Anne Williams, who maintains that traditionalists should hang in there and hope for something to come from the tortuous legislative process which will be acceptable to traditionalists who desperately want to stay in the C. of E. On the other hand there are the Jonathan Bakers of this organisation who want to withdraw from the legislative process because it is not getting it anywhere. At least one commentator knows in what direction he wants FIF to go.

Read it all at Virtueonline.

Prayers at the Shrine of S. Cuthbert and Tomb of S. Bede For Lent: St. Peter's Tomb Easter Week

To all of my readers around the world and locally. This morning in my prayers and reflections I reflected on ways that I would spend my Lent praying for the Church and the world. My conclusion was that I thought I would offer a ministry of prayer for all who read here as well as anyone that you would like to let know that I will be doing this prayer ministry during the season of Lent.

What I am intending to do is to offer all readers the opportunity to send me prayer requests that I will bring to the Shrine of S. Cuthbert and the tomb of S. Bede every Friday during Lent at the noon hour at the Durham Cathedral. There I will pray for all the needs and requests that have been sent during each week. At the end of Lent, during the week of Easter, I am going to Rome for a retreat. I will take all of the intentions during Lent to the tomb of S. Peter and leave them there as I pray.

If there are requests that are confidential, please feel free to email me the intention without any names attached. Everything I receive will be confidential and will of course remain under the priestly seal. So, if you send me an email, and title it LENT PRAYERS, I will put my purple stole on before I read the request just so that all will be assured of full confidentiality.

I believe that this will be a wonderful spiritual exercise for me during Lent and effectual for all who request certain intentions to be brought to these wonderful saints in the northeast of England. This way, I can give back to those who faithfully read here and serve all with this ministry of prayer on Fridays.

I will begin receiving these today and will bring the first set of requests this Friday when I visit the cathedral. If you want to contact me by email with prayer requests, please write to my email at jeffrey.steel1[at]btinternet.com. If you would like to leave the request personally by phone, send me an email stating that and I will reply with my contact details.

Please be assured of my love and prayers this season of Lent as we pray for the unity of Christ's Church and His guiding Spirit to lead us into all TRUTH and HOLINESS.

Please forward a link to this blog entry to all bloggers and your friends. I will try to find a way to keep it at the top of the postings on my blog throughout Lent. May God bless all of you in this season of preparation for Easter!

Almighty and merciful God, thou didst make Saint John Mary Vianney wonderful by his pastoral zeal and constant prayer and penance. Grant, we beseech Thee, that by his example and intercession we may be able to win the souls of our brethren for Christ, and together with them attain to everlasting glory. Through Christ our Lord, amen.

Dr. Michael Liccione Challenges the Worldview of Ruth Gledhill

I found this post below a portion of an interesting piece by Dr. Liccione. It is worthy of serious discussion and thought. He titles it Sacramental Contradiction. I particularly point out his touching on a worldview of moral theology that runs throughout his critique. A good dose of old fashioned moral theology might do wonders for Anglican seminarians and future priests as well as those of us presently serving. One may differ on the style or tone but let's look at the substance of his argument theologically and objectively. Read it all at the blog Sacramentum Vitae.

Most Catholics, most Christians for that matter, have values and attitudes that do not cohere with the faith they profess. Of course they are unwilling to admit as much; if they were, they'd be motivated to change. Having emerged from the immigrant ghetto and joined the "mainstream" over the last fifty or sixty years, American Catholics are as guilty of incoherence as anybody, and more than many. For many of us, worldly values and attitudes are now prejudices taken for granted. We judge the Church by the values of our "set" in the world, not vice-versa. Usually, such values and attitudes have never been exposed to informed, objective examination themselves. That's easy to explain, but impossible to justify. People don't like examining and critically evaluating their prejudices. That would mean thinking, as opposed to quite a number of more entertaining activities; worse, it would mean admitting that what we like being may not be what we ought to be. That is why the discipline of Lent is so vital. By denying ourselves things we like, and using the space created thereby to love more sacrificially, we get out of our comfort zones and admit that we need repentance—not just for a season and ritually, but every day of the year.

And so I feel no sense of moral superiority when I savage Ruth Gledhill and her set. She and they are merely one illustration, and not the most important one, of a universal human tendency that Lent exists to help root out. By observing our Lenten rituals with the humble yet acute awareness that we are all wretched sinners, we might open ourselves to the grace of being taught just what our most insidious sins are. Being taught as much takes grace because the sins in question are more deeply rooted than we think. But the truly serious Christians will often seem a bit dotty for wanting to root out of themselves the kinds of sins most people are happy to live with. The truly serious Christians willingly embrace the sacramental contradiction of dying to self in order to live more abundantly. In other words, they live the Paschal Mystery. That's the kind of dottiness we need more of.

Remember, man, thou art dust and to dust thou shalt return!

O my all-merciful God and Lord,
Jesus Christ, full of pity:
Through Your great love You came down
and became incarnate in order to save everyone.
O Savior, I ask You to save me by Your grace!
If You save anyone because of their works,
that would not be grace but only reward of duty,
but You are compassionate and full of mercy!

You said, O my Christ,
"Whoever believes in Me shall live and never die."
If then, faith in You saves the lost, then save me,
O my God and Creator, for I believe.
Let faith and not my unworthy works be counted to me, O my God,
for You will find no works which could account me righteous.

O Lord, from now on let me love You as intensely as I have loved sin,
and work for You as hard as I once worked for the evil one.
I promise that I will work to do Your will,
my Lord and God, Jesus Christ, all the days of my life and forever more.
Prayer of St. John Chrysostom

Benedict XVI and the Chair of Charity and Unity

I was pleased to read in this morning's arrival of ZENIT news that provided us with the very encouraging message from the Holy Father at the reciting of the Angelus on Sunday. The topic was the primacy of the chair of S. Peter. The very important comments are highlighted in red below. These comments being said by the HF, and those things being true to his ministry thus far, perhaps we will see more unity flowing from the Chair of Charity? I am planning a trip to Rome that begins on Easter afternoon and I arrive in Rome at about 8:00 pm. I will be there for a week of retreat and study. I have been given a reparto speciale biglietto ticket for the general audience! I am very much looking forward to my first visit to Rome.

Dear Brothers and Sisters!

The Gospel passage that today's Sunday liturgy offers for our meditation is the one in which the paralytic is forgiven and healed (Mark 2:1-12). While Jesus was preaching, among the many sick people who were brought to him, a paralytic was brought to him on a mat. Seeing him, the Lord said: "Son, your sins are forgiven you" (Mark 2:5). And because some of those present were scandalized on hearing these words, he added: "'So that you may know that the Son of Man has authority to forgive sins on earth' -- he said to the paralytic, 'I say to you, rise, pick up your mat, and go home'" (Mark 2:10-11). And the paralytic went away healed. This Gospel episode shows that Jesus has the power not only to heal the sick body but also to forgive sins; and indeed, the physical healing is a sign of the spiritual healing that his forgiveness produces. In effect, sin is a kind of paralysis of the spirit, from which only the power of the merciful love of God can liberate us, allowing us to pick ourselves up and set out again along the path of goodness.

This Sunday is also the feast of the Chair of Peter, an important liturgical feast that highlights the office of the successor of the Prince of the Apostles. The chair of Peter symbolizes the authority of the Bishop of Rome, who is called to perform a special service for the whole People of God. Immediately after the martyrdom of St. Peter and St. Paul, the primacy of the Church of Rome in the Catholic community was recognized. This role was already attested to in the 2nd century by St. Ignatius of Antioch (Letter to the Romans, Pref.: Funk, I, 252) and by St. Irenaeus of Lyons (Contra Haereses, III, 3, 2-3). This singular and specific ministry of the Bishop of Rome was stressed again by the Second Vatican Council. "Moreover, within the Church," we read in the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, "particular Churches hold a rightful place; these Churches retain their own traditions, without in any way opposing the primacy of the Chair of Peter, which presides over the whole assembly of charity (cf. St. Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Romans, Pref.) and protects legitimate differences, while at the same time assuring that such differences do not hinder unity but rather contribute toward it" (Lumen Gentium, 13).

Dear brothers and sister, this feast provides me with the occasion to ask you to accompany me with your prayers, so that I may faithfully carry out this great task, entrusted to me by Providence, as successor to the Apostle Peter. We invoke the Virgin Mary, whom we celebrated yesterday, here in Rome, under the title of Our Lady of Confidence. We ask her to help us to enter into the Lenten season -- which will begin on Wednesday with the evocative Rite of Ashes -- with devout dispositions of soul. May Mary open our hearts to conversion and to a docile listening to the Word of God.

[Translation by Joseph G. Trabbic]

© Copyright 2009 -- Libreria Editrice Vaticana

Benedict XVI Reflects on the Venerable Bede

I thought it a good audience address and being that St. Bede's tomb is less than 1 1/2 miles from my home in Durham Cathedral it should be published on my blog. I know that Father Hunwicke recently enjoyed his visit to the Durham Cathedral while staying in my home.

VATICAN CITY, 18 FEB 2009 (VIS) - In the general audience, held this morning in St. Peter's Square in the presence of 15,000 people, Benedict XVI dedicated his catechesis to St. Bede the Venerable.

Bede was born around the year 672 in the English region of Northumbria. When he was seven years old his family entrusted his education to the abbot of a nearby Benedictine monastery and he became, the Holy Father explained, "one of the most outstanding scholars of the early Middle Ages. ... His teaching and the fame of his writings brought him many friends among the principal personages of his day, who encouraged him to continue his work, which brought benefits to so many people".

"Sacred Scripture was the constant source of Bede's theological reflections". He considered "the events of the Old and New Testaments jointly" as "a way towards Christ", a testament to the same faith, "though expressed using different signs and institutions".

As an example of this, Benedict XVI mentioned Bede's interpretation of the construction of the Temple of Jerusalem: "Just as pagans also helped to build the ancient Temple by supplying materials and the technical experience of their master builders, so the edification of the Church involved apostles and masters who came not just from the ancient Hebrew, Greek or Latin peoples, but also from the new peoples, among whom Bede mentions the Irish Celts and the Anglo-Saxons".

The Pope then dwelt upon some of the saint's written works, such as the "'Chronica Maiora' in which he establishes a chronology which would become the basis of the universal calendar 'ab incarnatione Domini', ... and his 'Ecclesiastical History of the English People', for which he is known as the father of English historiography.

"The characteristic traits of the Church which Bede sought to underline are: catholicity, seen as faithfulness to tradition while remaining open to historical developments, and as the search for 'unity in diversity', ... and apostolicity and 'Romanitas'. In this context Bede considered it vitally important to convince the Churches of the Celts and the Picts to celebrate Easter together, in accordance with the Roman calendar".

"Bede was also a great master of liturgical theology, ... educating the faithful to celebrate the mysteries of the faith with joy, and to reflect those mysteries coherently in their lives while awaiting their full manifestation in the return of Christ".

"Thanks to his approach to theology - which involved a combination of the Bible, liturgy and history - Bede has a modern message for the various 'states' of Christian life", said the Pope. "He reminds scholars of two essential tasks: scrutinising the marvels of the Word of God so as to present them in a manner attractive to the faithful, and explaining dogmatic truths while avoiding heretical complications and keeping to 'Catholic simplicity', with the attitude of the meek and humble to whom it pleases God to reveal the mysteries of the Kingdom".

For their part, pastors "must give priority to preaching, not only through sermons and hagiographies, but also by using icons, processions and pilgrimages". To consecrated people, "Bede recommends focus on the apostolate, both by collaborating with bishops in various kinds of pastoral activities in support of young Christian communities, and by offering themselves for evangelising missions".

The scholar saint also affirmed that Christ "wants an industrious Church, ... one intent on cultivating other fields and vineyards, .... in other words on introducing the Gospel into the social fabric and cultural institutions". He also "exhorted the lay faithful to be assiduous in their religious education, ... He taught them how to pray continuously, ... offering all their actions as a spiritual sacrifice in union with Christ".

The Venerable Bede died in May of the year 735. "It is a fact", Pope Benedict concluded, "that with his works he made an effective contribution to the construction of a Christian Europe".

Cardinal Newman's Ecclesiological Reflections

For it is evident enough, a National or Branch Church can be of the highest service to the State, if properly under control. The State wishes to make its subjects peaceful and obedient; and there is nothing more fitted to effect this object than religion. It wishes them to have some teaching about the next world, but not too much: just as much as is important and beneficial {188} to the interests of the present. Decency, order, industry, patience, sobriety, and as much of purity as can be expected from human nature,—this is its list of requisites; not dogma, for it creates the odium theologicum; not mystery, for it only serves to exalt the priesthood. Useful, sensible preaching, activity in benevolent schemes, the care of schools, the superintendence of charities, good advice for the thoughtless and idle, and "spiritual consolation" for the dying—these are the duties of a National or Branch Church. The parochial clergy are to be a moral police; as to the Bishops, they are to be officers of a State-religion, not shepherds of a people; not mixing and interfering in the crowd, but coming forward on solemn occasions to crown, or to marry, or to baptize royalty, or to read prayers to the House of Peers, or to consecrate churches, or to ordain and confirm, or to preach for charities, and to be but little seen in public in any other way. Synods are unnecessary and dangerous, for they convey the impression that the Establishment is a distinct body, and has rights of its own. So is discipline, or any practical separation of Churchmen and Dissenters; for nationality is the real bond, and Churchmanship is but the accident, of Englishmen. Churches and churchyards are national property, and open to all, whatever their denomination, for marriage and for burial, when they will. Nor must the Establishment be in the eye of the law a corporation, even though its separate incumbents and {189} chapters be such, lest it be looked upon as politically more than a name, or a function of State...

And now I think I have shown you, my brethren, as far as I could hope to do so in the course of a Lecture, that if your first principle be, as it was the first principle of the movement of 1833, that the Church should have absolute power over her faith, worship, and teaching, you must not be contemplating an ecclesiastical body, local and isolated, or what you have been accustomed to call a Branch Church. The fable of the bundle of sticks especially applies to those who have no weapons of flesh and blood,—to an unarmed hierarchy, who have to contend with the pride of intellect and the power of the sword. Look abroad, my brethren, and see whether this union of many members, divided in place and circumstances, but one in heart, is not most visibly the very strength of the Catholic Church at this very time. Then only can you resist the world, {196} when you belong to a communion which exists under many governments, not one; or should it ever be under some empire commensurate with itself (which is not conceivable), a communion which has, at least, an immovable centre to fall back upon. But if this be the state of the case, if you must, on the one hand, leave the existing Establishment, yet, on the other, not seek or form a Branch Church instead of it, I have brought you by a short, but I hope, not an abrupt or unsafe path, to the conclusion that you must cease to be an Anglican by becoming a Catholic. Indeed, if the movement, of which you are the children, had any providential scope at all, I do not see how you can disguise from yourselves that Catholicism is it. The Catholic Church, and she alone, from the nature of the case, is proof against Erastianism.

Direction of a Branch Church

Church of England General Synod Votes on Women Bishops

Do you wonder how those who are on the General Synod to represent you voted on the recent issue of women bishops? Well, wonder no longer. Biretta tip to FiF web site for pointing us to the recorded votes on General Synod. You may go here to read. Biretta tip to Simon Sarmiento for pointing out a 'friendly' reading format at Thinking Anglicans here and here.

Fr. Hunwicke's Visit to Durham

It was interesting for me to know that my house guest for the next few days is on his first journey to Durham. Fr. Hunwicke SSC is staying with us and is giving a lesson on the new translation of the Missal tomorrow at our SSC chapter meeting. It should prove to be a good time together. This afternoon when he arrived allowed for us some time to take a stroll into Durham for him to visit the cathedral and the shrines of Cuthbert and the tomb of Bede. It is always a great history lesson when walking through places like historical Durham with Father Hunwicke. You get about two terms worth of history in a couple of hours. Fantastic!

We are having a great time. We had an excellent meal tonight: steak on the grill, grilled prawns with garlic butter, baked potato, salad and a nice bit of wine. Then we retired to the study and discussed many interesting items facing priests and people in the Church of England and the Church as a whole in our very secular society. Tomorrow we make our way down to Darlington for the chapter meeting followed by a wonderful lunch put on by the hospitable folk at St. James the Great Darlington.

I must say that this is the very first time that I have ever posted about a visitor and food on this blog! But, I didn't take a picture of my food; I just ate it.

Ecclesiology: Primacy, Authority, Unity--The Quest for Communion

The title of this post may cause some healthy discussion and perhaps some strong disagreements. This posting is going to be more question raising than it is in stating direct answers to what I want to explore here with the readers and perhaps spur Anglo-Catholics into deeper thinking about communion and what it is and what duty perhaps we have in seeking to fulfill it. What I want to steer away from is attacking moral imperatives for those who perhaps disagree with others on the answers to these questions as if affirming or denying them equates treason of some shape or another. I would like to pose these questions in an academic way to my fellow Anglo-Catholic readers and Catholics or Protestants who may read as well.

I sense that the Church in the West is presently in a deep struggle for her identity. What is communion? How do we know it when we see it and what will it take to build that which was Jesus' primary prayer for us all that we might be one?

Does the NT as a whole demonstrate the primacy of Peter?

What connection is there to the formative development of tradition and Peter's authority in Rome as an intrinsic condition of community?

Is the primacy of Peter an essential element of ecclesial unity that goes back to the LORD and was developed faithfully by his Church?

All sorts of issues flow from the particular answers to these questions with regards to the relationship between the Universal Church and the particular church. So, how can we see and live out communion in a concrete form so as to please God? There is a real urgency to this question for all sorts of philosophical and ecclesial reasons. A quick look at the Western culture and its road to collapse is a major one. When the LORD said, 'Do this in memory of me,' he did not tell us to take and seize the Church but was rather offering his body that we receive as a gift come down out of heaven. That is why the Church is Eucharist and Eucharist is Church.

What does it mean to be called to live out the horizontal and the vertical unification of God and his people? How does that manifest itself ecclesially and communally? What are we seeking and where do we feel we are taking what it is that we are seeking/receiving? Since the Church is communion is it not a theological imperative for us to ask what it is that we are looking for? When we think we have found it and discover that the horizontal is not in line with the vertical unification, what do we do then?

These are serious theological questions that I believe need sorting through both academically and practically. These questions are not meant to make people do anything other than engage with them at a serious level. Is the Petrine office contradictory to the Eucharistic community as some sort of a worldly pattern of hierarchy that is opposed to real sacramental unity represented in the Eucharistic offering of the whole Christ? In what sense is it essential or not essential as we are on the quest for communion?

FiF Meeting

I really do not have many thoughts about the meeting today, at least that I feel prepared to share publicly. I found some of the discussion tough going at times and ecclesially trying for the brain. There were some good speeches made that made a lot of sense about the future or lack thereof. There is no doubt that our people are in different places and that is okay really. There is no need to be threatened by that or concerned that there is a lack of unity. I think the question about the future direction we take is still one that is going to require a lot of soul searching and the facing of reality about the true state of things with regards to the ecclesiological problems the C of E is facing.

There is a lot that is still up for grabs as the church enters the process of trying to figure out what or if anything worthy will be offered to help those committed to remain within the structures of the Church of England a real possibility. The clear point for me was the intellectual and spiritual imossibility of truth and error trying to be held together. A statement made that the Archbishop of Canterbury sees that both positions (structural provision for traditionalists and those in favour of the ordination of women) are true positions is hard for me to square. What is clear is the need for Catholic Anglicans to seek COMMUNION with the See of S. Peter as the ultimate goal of any theologically coherent position. Catholics in the Church of England are not seeking toleration or a 'place' within the CofE that merely becomes something similar to an indian reservation in North America. Ecclesially, this sort of an arrangement of 'provision' is incoherent.

I believe there are many wise people working hard on this dilemma and are trying to find a way forward that is consistently Catholic. ARCIC is still the most desireable of ecumenical pursuits but it is not going to be with the Anglican Communion as a whole and especially not with the C of E. There will have to arise a group of committed Catholics who are prepared to answer what could be a very difficult call. How and when that answer to the call comes is actually going to be different for many people. If nothing else was learned today, what I did come away with was a more realistic picture of where we are as a group. Some of this was encouraging and other portions were disconcerting. We are called to quietly pray, seek holiness, and wait on God to make whatever path he calls us to clearly evident. It is that posture that I am seeking to take while I wait for God's clear answer to our church's serious ecclesiological problem.

The Petrine Element: von Balthasar

Notwithstanding all the problems connected with the papacy throughout the history of the Church, two things speak in favor of its recognition within the Communio Sanctorum and its apostolicity.

In the first place (and we have already touched upon this) the Petrine element is taken for granted, so to speak, right at the beginning, in the Petrine texts of the New Testament. And of these the most impressive is not the passage in Matthew but rather the overpowering apotheosis of Peter at the end of John's Gospel of love, which begins with the choosing of Peter in the first chapter and contains, at its center, the Apostle's great confession of faith in the Lord.

The Lukan text, in which Peter is commissioned to strengthen his brethren, is no less striking than the passage in Matthew. Then there are the very many other places in Gospels, letters, and in the Acts of the Apostles. How can anyone who claims to adhere to the Word-the Word alone-fail to be profoundly struck by these texts?

In addition there is the fact that, since the first and second centuries, an undisputed primacy of the Apostolic See has been attributed to the Bishop of the Roman community. Rome had no need to demand to be recognized; rather, it was unquestioningly acknowledged, as we can see from the Letter of Clement, the Letter of Ignatius, from Irenaeus, from the sober Admonition to Pope Victor, etc. The principle of primacy had long been established by the time Rome allegedly began to put forward exaggerated claims when starting to develop its own theology of primacy. There can be many differing views as to when these increasing claims began to be unevangelical and intolerable within the context of the Church–in the fourth or ninth or twelfth century–but the "unhappy fact" had already taken place.

One can only try to restore an internal balance within the Church, as the Second Vatican Council saw its task to be; it is impossible to abolish the principle without truncating the gospel itself.

The second argument for the Petrine principle is the qualitative difference between the unity of life and doctrine within the "Roman" Catholic Church and the unity that exists within all other, Christian communions. For, if we begin with the Orthodox, no- ecumenical council has been able to unite them since their separation from Rome. And if we turn to the innumerable ecclesial communities that arose from the Reformation and subsequently, even though they are members of the World Council of Churches, they have scarcely managed to get any further than a "convergence" toward unity. And this unity, as we see ever more clearly, remains an eschatological ideal. Christ, however, wanted more for his Church than this.

If we look only from the outside, the Petrine principle is the sole or the decisive principle of unity in the Catholica. Above it is the principle of the pneumatic and eucharistic Christ and his everliving presence through the apostolic element, i.e., sacramental office, fully empowered to make Christ present, and tradition, actualizing what is testified to in Scripture.

Above it, too, is the Sanctorum Communio, the Ecclesia immaculata, concretely symbolized by the Lord's handmaid who utters her Fiat. But these deeper principles could not exercise their unity-creating power right to the end without the external reference of the Roman bishop. And the more worldwide the Church becomes the more threatened she is in the modern states with their fascism of the right and of the left, the more she is called upon to incarnate herself in the most diverse, non-Mediterranean cultures, and the wider theological and episcopal pluralism she contains, the more indispensable this reference-point becomes. Anyone who denies this is either a fanatic or an irrational sentimentalist.

Ignatius Insights

Feel free to discuss with charity and theologically intelligent remarks. Personal attacks will be deleted.

General Synod: No Worries and Why I can Smile Back at God

After a mother has smiled at her child for many days and weeks, she finally receives her child's smile in response. She has awakened love in the heart of her child, and as the child awakens to love, it also awakens to knowledge: the initially empty-sense impressions gather meaningfully around the core of the Thou. Knowledge (with its whole complex of intuition and concept) comes into play, because the play of love has already begun beforehand, initiated by the mother, the transcendent. God interprets himself to man as love in the same way: he radiates love, which kindles the light of love in the heart of man, and it is precisely this light that allows man to perceive this, the absolute Love: "For it is the God who said, 'Let light shine out of darkness', who has shown in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ" (2 Cor 4:6).
In this face, the primal foundation of being smiles at us as a mother and as a father. Insofar as we are his creatures, the seed of love lies dormant within us as the image of God (imago). But just as no child can be awakened to love without being loved, so too no human heart can come to an understanding of God without the free gift of his grace–in the image of his Son.

Prior to an individual's encounter with the love of God at a particular time in history, however, there has to be another, more fundamental and archetypal encounter, which belongs to the conditions of possibility of the appearance of divine love to man. There has to be an encounter, in which the unilateral movement of God's love toward man is understood as such and that means also appropriately received and answered. If man’s response were not suited to the love offered, then it would not in fact be revealed (for, this love cannot be revealed merely ontologically, but must be revealed at the same time in a spiritual and conscious way).

But if God could not take this response for granted from the outset, by including it within the unilateral movement of his grace toward man, then the relationship would be bilateral from the first, which would imply a reduction back into the anthropological schema. The Holy Scriptures, taken in isolation, cannot provide the word of response, because the letter kills when it is separated from the spirit, and the letter's inner spirit is God's word and not man's answer. Rather, it can be only the living response of love from a human spirit, as it is accomplished in man through God's loving grace: the response of the "Bride", who in grace calls out, "Come!" (Rev 22:17) and, "Let it be to me according to your word" (Lk 1:38), who "carries within the seed of God" and therefore "does not sin" (i jn 3:9), but "kept all of these things, pondering them in her heart" (Lk 2:19, 51), She, the pure one, is "placed, blameless and glorious" (Eph 5:26-27; 2 Cor 11:2) before him, by the blood of God's love, as the "handmaid" (Lk 1:38), as the "lowly servant" (Lk 1:48), and thus as the paradigm of the loving faith that accepts all things (Lk 1:45; 1I:28) and "looks to him in reverent modesty, submissive before him' (Eph 5:24, 33; Col 3:18).

von Balthasar's Love Alone is Credible

von Balthasar on the Divided Church

Precisely this principle of unity, however--the Eucharist of the pneumatic Lord--is a wholly new and incomparable principle, and this makes the initial split, which becomes aggravated into full-blown schism, to be practically irreversible. Urged by the most elementary sense of Christian duty, the ‘ecumenical movement’ must indeed tirelessly exert itself for the reunion of the separated ‘churches’. By doing this many partial successes can doubtless be achieved: for instance, the reduction of mutual misunderstandings, suspicions and denigrations.

But the fact remains that the group of churches separated from the Catholic Church has, by this very separation, necessarily gotten rid of the visible symbol of unity, the papacy, and this results in a situation in which our partners in dialogue (including the Orthodox) do not possess any authority which is recognized by all the believers and as such can officially represent these. In each case we are dealing with individual groups or bishops who regularly divide themselves into a party of agreement and a party of objection whenever reunion with the Catholic Church is contemplated. And, seemingly, the best that such groups can produce is an offer of abstract catholicity arrived at by overlooking real differences. We have already described such ‘catholicity’ as being plainly unacceptable.

However fruitful and instructive the ecumenical dialogue between Churches is, exemplary holiness will show not only that obedience to the Church (as understood by Catholics) can be integrated into Christian *agape* but that it is actually an indispensable part of the latter and of the discipleship of Christ.

Finally, while the Church's missionary task is to give witness to the world, the chimera of the divided Church shows just how shaky her self-transcendence into the world is. Indeed, it becomes increasingly precarious, the more Christian sects proliferate. Even if the worst stumbling blocks were overcome by making pacts between missions professing different beliefs, the fundamental stumbling block would remain as far as the recipient of missionary activity is concerned.

Nor can it be removed by portraying the diversity of Christian expressions as something harmless, something arising necessarily as a result of historical development, or even as something that brings blessing. To do this would simply be to obscure Jesus' original wish even more. To repeat the words of Karl Barth on the phenomenon of division in the Church: ‘We should treat it as we treat our sins and those of others.’"

Archbishop Rowan Williams's Address to General Synod

Underlying this is something that dawned on me last week with a renewed force. We have not yet got to the point where we can no longer recognise one another as seeking to obey the same Lord. To make a very simple point, common Bible study would not be possible if we did not see in one another at least some of the same habits of attention and devotion to Scripture, whatever the diversity of interpretation. We can see that the other person is trying to listen to God's self-communication in scripture, not just imposing an agenda. But this entails a more complex and challenging point. If we recognise this much, we have to recognise that the other person or community or tradition is not simply going to go away. They are near enough to be capable of conversation, shared prayer and shared discernment with us. They are not just going to be defeated and silenced. For the foreseeable future, they are going to be there, recognisably doing something like what we are doing. We can't pretend.

But we'd like to. All of us – and I do emphatically mean liberals as well as traditionalists – have a bit of us that is in love with purity, that wants to find in the other a perfect echo of ourselves and to be able to present to the world outside a united face, whether of clear commitments to the liberties and dignities of humanity as seen in the modern world or of unswerving fidelity to the faith delivered to the saints – or both, of course. But what are we to do in a world where people don't go away? where the Church of God overall is never going to be pure as we would want to define purity and we are always going to be embarrassed by the fact that we bear the same name as people whose views we don't own or approve to the extent that they follow the same patterns and habits of prayer and listening?

Anglicanism has always tacitly acknowledged this as a real issue – not because of an indifference to basic doctrinal integrity, a lazy belief that any formulation will do (the Creeds remain our touchstone, accepted as providing the authoritative framework in which we read Scripture), but because of a keen pragmatic awareness of the oddity and resilience of flesh and blood, the diversity of personal perception or reception of the common heritage, perhaps rooted in the commitment of our Church of England to be genuinely a church for this particular place and language and culture. Many feel that just this is what is now threatened from both ends of our current debates, whether on sexuality or on the role of ordained women. And I want, before concluding this address, to suggest some possible implications for our discussions this week of the issues around women in the episcopate.

We all know that if women are ordained to the episcopate, those who cannot in conscience accept it will not go away. And those who long to see women in episcopal orders and want to be able to rejoice wholeheartedly at this would, I think, hope that this rejoicing could carry with it some good news also for these others who are still going to be our brothers and sisters and companions in mission. Some of course may in one sense 'go away' to another Christian communion; but even then they will still be there as fellow-Christians, fellow-missioners and disciples, and the debate will not be over just because one local jurisdiction has made a decision. But many do not want to go away in that sense at all. They want to be part of the same family still. And this means that some dreams of purity and clarity are not going to be realised. We have – and the Communion as a whole has – recognised that doubts about whether the ordination of women to the historic ministry is opportune or legitimate do not disqualify anyone from claiming an Anglican identity. We acknowledge that those who have such doubts represent that strand in Anglican thinking that sees what we do and think in the Provinces of the Communion as part of the universal process of discerning the will of God for the Church overall – not as the whole story. Losing that perspective, as I suggested last July in York, is not a small matter, not a minor change – given that one of the perennial temptations of Anglicanism is a complacent insularity that repeatedly has to be combated by one means or another.

I think we are already asking in this Synod what we can do in a Church where the others are not going to go away. Traditionalist opponents of women in the episcopate have long since acknowledged that it is likely to come and that they must find ways of living with the results; and those who passionately believe it to be right and good for the Church's health have acknowledged that opponents are not going to disappear. Both have to some extent turned their backs on the fantasy of a Church that is 'pure' in their own terms, in favour of a Church that is honest about its diversity – even when that diversity seems at first embarrassing and unwelcome. And one of the questions that is going to be around this week – and that will be in the forefront of the work of the Revision Committee if legislation is remitted to it – will be, 'What is the form of legislation best adapted to the good of the Church as a body where The Others do not simply go away and become invisible?'

This is not the place to elaborate on what that could mean in practice, but it does no harm to hold in mind the vision of a Church in which a difficult plurality of conviction will not simply be done away with by decree. This is not, though, simply a matter of tolerating private views, since it bears on the public life and worship of the church. If I hear correctly what is being said by those opposed to the Code of Practice currently on the table, they are asking what more might be offered to secure some kind of continuity of pastoral care for congregations and clergy unwilling to accept women as bishops, and some measure of organisational (including sacramental) coherence for them, rather than being wholly dependent on ad hoc provision and local chance. Forgetting for a moment the word 'jurisdiction', which is far from clear in its implications here, the questions seem to me to be (i) whether such a degree of continuity and cohesions is a desirable outcome, (ii) whether it would gravely compromise or undermine the authority accorded by the Church to a woman in Episcopal ministry and (iii) if the first two questions are answered benignly, whether what is before us is adequate to secure that level of continuity and cohesion. I hope that all this will be carefully explored in our debates. Not all will agree, I know, but my own hope is that we may yet be able to offer the rest of the Communion some possibilities for coexistence if we could get this right. One of the most insistent themes in international consultations of the Communion is how to deal with the fact of people who want to 'belong to the family', yet cannot find the structures to make it work.

ANY THOUGHTS? [Other than everyone doing what is right in his own eyes {Book of Judges}]

Anglo-Catholic Bloggers' Dinner Reservation

There is a table reserved for 14 on 13 February at 7:30 pm for those who have responded to a desire to gather for a meal before the Saturday FiF meeting. For all who are attending, please note the time and the place. If you have to cancel, please let me know! See you there. Wives, fiances and friends welcome.

Colosseo
79 Victoria Street
Victoria
London
SW1H 0HW
United Kingdom

Defining Communion: Eucharistic Levels?

I was not able to do any blogging over the weekend as I was driving down to London on Sunday after Mass with the family. We were on a journey to renew the children's US passports as they are only good for five years when under the age of 16. So, we set off for central London and arrived safely Sunday night in our apartment (six children requires such extremes and all had to be present with both parents). On Monday we spent the morning (walking through the rain) at the US embassy and left central London at 11:30 am. It took an hour and twenty minutes to get out of London and then we had our five and a half hour trip home arriving in Durham at 6:20 pm. I will return to London on Friday afternoon for the FiF meeting on Saturday that follows this week's General Synod (GS) meeting. None of this has to do with the title of the post but since I rarely write of 'personal' aspects of family events, I thought I would share my exciting weekend. Plus, I must be initiated into some 'cool' group for having driven in and out of central London!

My actual post is a result of the reporting from Damian Thompson and Ruth Gledhill on the opening day of GS where the Cardinal of Westminster spoke on communion and unity. Damian, excitingly reports, that the Cardinal used the word 'ecclesial' communities rather than church as he spoke of the Cardinal's speech to the C of E GS which is in reference to Ratzinger's direction that the term 'church' cannot be used for Anglicans in its 'purest' form. Yet, Ruth has the Archbishop of Westminster later addressing the Synod and saying,

England is terra ecumenica and it is up to us here to set the tone and the style, and the impetus that can carry our ecumenical journey forward. Our two churches, it seems to me, increasingly see that we have to face the challenges of our very secular society together. And underlying all this is the fact that we now experience each other, as I myself have done, as friends, brothers and sisters in Christ, people attempting the same mission of bringing the Gospel to today’s world. I think this is hugely significant and a reason for great hope.' So, who could the Archbishop be speaking about when he says 'ecclesial communities'?

Interesting!

The begging question then is how the 'two' become ONE? This is the ecumenical dilemma that the C of E has, for some time, turned away from in my opinion. This democratic form of doctrinal decisions (GS) is anything but Catholic and goes against all ecclesial aspects of a eucharistic communion. Galatians 3:28 demands a local communion and eucharistic unity around one bishop. We are all called to communion with one another and it is my understanding that eucharistic communion is the basis for all communion or there is no communion to be spoken of. There may be differing levels of communion within Catholic ecclesiology (++Rowan's remarks) but there is 'broken' communion when communities break off and do 'their own thing'. There is ONE first step that must be taken by ALL. In his book Called to Communion, Benedict XVI speaks to the heart of this issue. He writes,

...one cannot benefit from the 'blood shed for many' by withdrawing to the 'few'. In this sense, the 'monarchical episcopate' taught by Ignatius of Antioch irrevocably remains an essential structure of the Church, being as it is a precise exegesis of a crucially important reality: the Eucharist is public; it is the Eucharist of the whole Church, of the one Christ. Therefore no one may rightfully pick out 'his own' Eucharist. The reconciliation with God that the Eucharist offers always demands reconciliation with one's brother as a prior condition (Mt. 5:23f.). The eucharistic nature of the Church pointed first to the local gathering; at the same time we recognized that the episcopal office is an essential component of the Eucharist--as a service to the unity that follows necessarily from the character of the Eucharist as sacrifice and reconciliation. A Church understood eucharistically is a Church constituted episcopally.

It is for THIS reason that if/when the C of E proceeds with women's ordination to the episcopacy that the demand for reunion and reconciliation becomes impossible for the two churches/'ecclesial communities'. If the GS cannot understand this position from the Catholic/eucharistic nature of the Church then perhaps any sort of real hope for ecumenical dialogue ends in a matter of days from now. Without an understanding of the eucharistic character of the Church, I am afraid that the result and direction may become quite clear for those who know and desire to meet the demands of reconciliation as a prior condition if eucharistic communion is going to be a reality rather than mere talk.

UPDATE: I promise I wrote this before seeing Father Pinnock's entry for today. Glad to know we share so much in common as Father Tomlinson reminds us about in the recent New Directions on blogging.

Prelature and Anglicans: Catholic Journalists Asking the Question

I, like Father Pinnock, have no desire to speculate on what the Vatican is going to do about a personal prelature for the TAC and other Anglicans who may come to decide that they are ready to cross the Tiber. Anything said at this point by way of rumour is speculation and nobody knows until the Vatican actually says one way or another. They will say, when they are ready. Father Pinnock mentions a story on the front page of the Catholic Herald and offers the link. There is also an editorial that is not on the site. I subscribe to the paper and so will offer the editorial here for anyone interested in reading it.

The headline asks, 'Is Rome offering a personal prelature to ex-Anglicans?'

The Traditional Anglican Communion is a strange body: a group of dissident Anglicans who have existed in a sort of ecclesial limbo for many years, celebrating the Eucharist according to The Book of Common Prayer. They have a reputation for eccentricity and they have married bishops, of whom one, their leader, is divorced and a former Catholic. On the face of it, therefore, these are not obvious candidates for reception into full communion with the Holy See. Yet that is the direction in which the TAC is heading, and it is good news.

The TAC has around 400,000 members, most of them in America and the Commonwealth rather than in England. As we have known for some time, all its bishops have signed the Catechism of the Catholic Church and therefore recognise Pope Benedict as the successor of Peter. This corporate determination is impressive; but it will not produce what some Romeward-bound Anglicans desire, which is an elaborate pastoral provision amounting to an Anglican-rite church within a Church. Indeed, Vatican spokesmen are still officially denying that any special arrangements are on the table. Unofficially, however, they admit that Rome is open to radical propositions in an era when conventional Catholic-Anglican dialogue has run into the ground.

The latest rumour is that the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is considering granting a personal prelature to the TAC and other former Anglicans. Informed Roman sources suggest that this is the ultimate aim of the Holy Father, who is well aware that Anglican clergy are worried that local Catholic bishops will be insufficiently welcoming to them. The devil, of course, will lie in the detail: such a move would certainly need to be more carefully thought out than the lifting of the SSPX excommunications, a welcome move handled clumsily by the Vatican. But, in principle, the establishment of a 'safe haven' for ex-Anglicans inside the Roman Catholic Church is an acceptable and perhaps necessary step. We admire the TAC for its determination to follow Peter, and we look forward to its admission to full communion with Christ's Church.

A Reminder of the Necessity of Christian Unity

GENERAL AUDIENCE ADDRESS

January 21, 2009

Dear brothers and sisters:

The Week of Prayer for Christian Unity began last Sunday and will conclude this Sunday, feast of the Conversion of St. Paul, the Apostle. This is a beautiful spiritual initiative, which is spreading more and more among Christians, in harmony, and we could say, in response to the pressing invocation that Jesus directed to the Father from the Upper Room: “That they may all be one, that the world may believe that you sent me” (John 17:21).

On four occasions during this priestly prayer, the Lord asks that his disciples be one, according to the image of the unity between the Father and the Son. This is a unity that can only grow in the example of the surrender of the Son to the Father, that is, going out of oneself and uniting oneself to Christ. Twice, moreover, in this prayer, Jesus adds as the objective of this union: That the world may believe. Full unity is connected, therefore with the life and the very mission of the Church in the world. [The Church] should live a unity that can only be derived from her unity with Christ, with its transcendence, as a sign that Christ is the truth.

This is our responsibility: That the gift of unity be visible for the world, in virtue of which our faith is made credible. For this, it is important that each Christian community become aware of the urgency of working in every way possible to reach this grand objective. Only going out of ourselves and toward Christ, only in this relationship with him can we come to be truly united among ourselves. This is the invitation that, with the present week [of prayer], is directed to believers in Christ of every Church and ecclesial community; to him, dear brothers and sisters, we should respond with generosity.

This year, the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity proposes for our meditation and prayer words taken from the book of the prophet Ezekiel: “That They May Become One in Your Hand” (37:17). The theme was chosen by an ecumenical group from Korea and then revised for its international use by the Mixed Committee of Prayer, formed by representatives of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity and the Ecumenical Council of the Churches of Geneva. The process itself of preparation has been a stimulating and fruitful exercise of authentic ecumenism.

In the passage of the book of the prophet Ezekiel from which the theme has been taken, the Lord orders the prophet to take two sticks, one as a symbol of Judah and his tribes and the other as a symbol of Joseph and of the whole house of Israel united to him, and he asks him to “join” the two such that they form “just one stick” in his hand. The parable of unity is transparent. To the “sons of the people” who ask for an explanation, Ezekiel, enlightened from on high, will say that the Lord himself takes the two sticks and joins them, such that the two kingdoms with their respective tribes, divided among themselves, become “one in your hand.” The hand of the prophet, which joins the two shoots, is considered as the hand of God himself that gathers and unites his people and finally, the whole of humanity.

We can apply the words of the prophet to Christians, as an exhortation to pray and to work, doing everything possible so that the unity of all the disciples of Christ is fulfilled, to work so that our hand is an instrument of the unifying hand of God. This exhortation appears particularly moving and urgent in the words of Jesus after the Last Supper. The Lord wants his entire people to walk — and he sees in this the Church of the future, of future centuries — with patience and perseverance toward the fulfillment of full union. This is a commitment that implies the docile and humble adherence to the commandment of the Lord, who blesses it and makes it fruitful. The prophet Ezekiel assures us that it will be precisely him, our only Lord, the only God, who takes us in “his hand.”

In the second part of the biblical reading, the meaning and the conditions for the unity of the various tribes in just one kingdom are considered in depth. In the dispersion among the Gentiles, the Israelites had learned erroneous cults, had assimilated mistaken concepts of life, had taken on customs foreign to divine law. Now the Lord declares that they will no longer be contaminated with idols from the pagan peoples, with their abominations, with all of their iniquities (cf. Ezekiel 37:23). He reclaims the need to liberate them from sin, to purify their heart: “I will deliver them from all their sins of apostasy,” he affirms” and cleanse them.” And thus, “they may be my people and I may be their God” (ibid.)

In this condition of interior renovation, they will “live by my statutes and carefully observe my decrees.” And the prophetic text concludes with the definitive and fully salvific promise: “I will make with them a covenant of peace … and put my sanctuary among them forever” (Ezekiel 37:26).

Ezekiel’s vision is particularly eloquent for the whole ecumenical movement because it makes clear the unavoidable demand of an authentic interior renewal in every component of the People of God, which only the Lord can bring about. We too should be open to this renewal, because we too, dispersed among the peoples of the world, have learned customs very far from the Word of God: “Every renewal of the Church,” reads the decree on ecumenism from the Second Vatican Council, “is essentially grounded in an increase of fidelity to her own calling. Undoubtedly this is the basis of the movement toward unity” (”Unitatis Redintegratio,” 6), that is, greater fidelity to the vocation from God.

The decree emphasizes as well the interior dimension of the conversion of the heart. “There can be no ecumenism worthy of the name,” it adds, “without a change of heart. For it is from renewal of the inner life of our minds, from self-denial and an unstinted love that desires of unity take their rise and develop in a mature way” (”Unitatis Redintegratio,” 7). The Week of Prayer for Christian Unity becomes for all of us, in this way, a stimulant toward a sincere conversion and an ever more docile listening to the Word of God, toward an ever deeper faith.

The week is also a conducive occasion for thanking the Lord for how much he has conceded already “to join” one to another, divided Christians, and the Churches themselves and ecclesial communities. This spirit has animated the Catholic Church, which, during the last year, has progressed with firm conviction and sure hope, maintaining fraternal and respectful relations with all the Churches and ecclesial communities of East and West. In the diversity of situations, sometimes more positive, and sometimes more difficult, it has worked to never fail in the effort of implementing every effort for the restoration of full unity. The relationships between the Churches and the theological dialogues have continued giving encouraging signs of spiritual convergence. I myself have had the joy of meeting, here in the Vatican and in the course of my apostolic trips, Christians coming from every horizon.

I have welcomed with joy on three occasions the ecumenical patriarch, His Holiness Bartholomew I, and — an extraordinary happening — we heard him take the floor, with fraternal ecclesial warmth and with convinced trust in the future, during the recent assembly of the synod of bishops. I have had the pleasure of receiving the two catholicoi of the Armenian Apostolic Church, His Holiness Karekin II of Etchmiadzin and His Holiness Aram I of Antelias. And finally, I have shared the sorrow of the Patriarchate of Moscow at the passing of our beloved brother in Christ, Patriarch His Holiness Alexy II, and I continue remaining in communion of prayer with these our brothers who prepare to choose the new patriarch of that venerated and great Orthodox Church.

Likewise, I have had the chance to meet with representatives of the diverse Christian Communions of the West, with whom continues the dialogue about the important testimony that Christians should give today in harmony, in a world ever more divided and facing so many challenges of a cultural, social, economic and ethical character. For these and for so many other meetings, dialogues and gestures of fraternity that the Lord has permitted us to be able to carry out, let us give thanks together with joy.

Dear brothers and sisters, let us take advantage of the opportunity that the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity offers us to ask the Lord for a continuation, and if it is possible, an intensification of ecumenical dialogue and commitment. In the context of the Pauline year, which commemorates the 2,000th anniversary of the birth of St. Paul, we cannot fail to refer to what the Apostle Paul left written for us regarding the unity of the Church.

Every Wednesday, I am dedicating my reflections to his letters and his beautiful teaching. I take up again here simply what he wrote to the community of Ephesus: “One body and one Spirit, as you were also called to the one hope of your call; one Lord, one faith, one baptism” (Ephesians 4:4-5). Let us make our own the desire of St. Paul, who dedicated his entire life for the one Lord and for the unity of his mystical body, the Church, giving with his martyrdom, a supreme testimony of fidelity and love for Christ.

Following his example and counting on his intercession, may each community grow in the determination for unity, thanks to the diverse spiritual and pastoral initiatives and the assemblies of common prayer, which tend to become more numerous and intense in this week, bringing us to already foretaste, in a certain way, the joy of full union.

Let us pray so that between the Churches and ecclesial communities, dialogue in the truth continues, indispensable for resolving divergences, and [dialogue] in charity, which conditions the theological dialogue and helps to live united for a common testimony. The desire that dwells in our hearts is that the day of full communion arrives soon, when all of the disciples of our one Lord can finally celebrate the Eucharist together, the divine sacrifice for the life and salvation of the world. We invoke the maternal intercession of Mary so that she helps all Christians to cultivate a more attentive listening to the Word of God and a more intense prayer for unity.

'It's How I am' by Father Giles Pinnock

Father Pinnock has an excellent post over at onetimothyfour on how the Church faces issues in human sexuality. It is written with charity and truth and I commend it for reading. Below is a selection from it. Engage with charity.

Anyone, it seems, who is unable in reason and conscience to accept the claimed innateness of homoerotic and other behaviours that the LBGTQ community wants accepted as part of what it is to be human, is likened to whichever pariah of human history is most likely to produce an emotional–guilt response - in this case, as so often, the Nazis.

No-one wants to be compared to Nazis exterminating Jews. Therefore, if the popular mind can be persuaded that non-acceptance of the innateness of LGBTQ tendencies is on a par with the extermination of the Jewish race, the hearts and minds battle may be won, at least superficially. Most people won’t gamble on being seen as Nazi, so they shut up, through guilt and fear.

The Catholic Church – and I hope Christians in general – can’t be silenced in this manner.

The problem is that it is morally dangerous to act as if the only way to express Christian love for people in all the forms and conditions of life is to affirm them unconditionally and on their own terms, presented often in psychoanalytic and subjective language.

It is not difficult to think of psychological and psychosexual states that may be subjectively experienced by those who have them as innate, even though the Church and human society generally would objectively regard them as criminal and enduringly dangerous. ‘It is how I am’ cannot of itself be justification for anything.

Farrow dismisses the claim that ‘The Church has spoken out constantly that those with a homosexual orientation must be respected with the dignity of every child of God. Every individual is created in the image and likeness of God and should never be subjected to prejudice or hatred’, but it is true. It is also true that the Church teaches that we must love the sinner but hate the sin.

Unfortunately, we live in an age in which the claim ‘but it is how I am’ cannot be challenged and apparently justifies just about anything, dismissing the sinfulness of acts that people believe they just can’t help.

Ecclesiology and Authority: What is it in the Anglican Communion?

The paragraphs below are taken from the Primates' Communique issued yesterday from Egypt. What does it say? What does it reveal?

11. The Windsor Continuation Group Report asks whether the Anglican Communion suffers from an "ecclesial deficit."[6] In other words, do we have the necessary theological, structural and cultural foundations to sustain the life of the Communion? We need "to move to communion with autonomy and accountability"[7]; to develop the capacity to address divisive issues in a timely and effective way, and to learn "the responsibilities and obligations of interdependence"[8]. We affirm the recommendation of the Windsor Continuation Group that work will need to be done to develop the Instruments of Communion and the Anglican Covenant. With the Windsor Continuation Group, we encourage the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Anglican Consultative Council and the Anglican Communion Office to proceed with this work. We affirm the decision to establish the Inter-Anglican Standing Commission for Unity, Faith and Order. We recognise the need for the Primates' Meeting to be engaged at every stage with all these developments.

Theological Answer: Most Definitely the Anglican Communion suffers from an ecclesial deficit. The Church is not a club of friends of interdependence for support that brings people together with some of the same likes and related interests. It's not a place of autonomy and accountability as if one was joined up with sailors in the yacht club. The Church is not a club of private status with 'self-rule'. Allow me to quote from a theologian on this question. The Church always faces an immense task of reconciliation;she is not Church if she does not bring together those who--from the point of view of their sensibilities--do not suit one another and have no sympathy for one another. With autonomy at the helm this communio will not ever be established. Therefore the WCG rightly asks the very serious question about ecclesial deficit. A church that sets itself up in this way will never have any sort of a public voice but can only be a private support group within each autonomous jurisdiction. The question is, 'Is it Church?' All catholicity crumbles away when a church thinks she can stay together by some 'internal agreement'. Communion must be Catholic [Theologically Catholic] or it is not communion at all. The result of an ecclesial deficit is the theologically meaningless paragraphs of 12 and 13 in the Communique.

12. There are continuing deep differences especially over the issues of the election of bishops in same-gender unions, Rites of Blessing for same-sex unions, and on cross-border interventions. The moratoria, requested by the Windsor Report and reaffirmed by the majority of bishops at the Lambeth Conference, were much discussed. If a way forward is to be found and mutual trust to be re-established, it is imperative that further aggravation and acts which cause offence, misunderstanding or hostility cease. While we are aware of the depth of conscientious conviction involved, the position of the Communion defined by the Lambeth 1998 Resolution 1.10 in its entirety remains, and gracious restraint on all three fronts is urgently needed to open the way for transforming conversation. [What does this mean?]

13. This conversation will include continuing the Listening Process[9], and the "Bible in the Church" Project. It is urgent that we as primates, with the rest of the Communion, directly study the scriptures and explore the subject of human sexuality together in order to help us find a common understanding. [A common understanding has been found on the issues of human sexuality. 'In the beginning God created male and female in his own image. They complemented one another.]

The origin of the Church is not the decision of men but the product of the Holy Spirit. Perhaps one might think this too strong of a critique but it is worthy of consideration: autonomy is the Babylonian spirit of the world rather than the Holy Spirit. This is because autonomy seeks to produce uniformity and its interest is domination and forced subjection that gives birth to hatred and division. The story is well-known to us all. The image of the Church in Sacred Scripture is so different from this. What first exists is the one Church not a federation of churches birthed from the Church of England now trying to establish itself as communio around the world while demanding autonomy. How can you have communion with provincial autonomy? How does the above communique allow for us to be an embodiment of the one and only Church? I am afraid it doesn't. We can only come into communion when we find our way to truth about ourselves and the need of grace and forgiveness. This grace and forgiveness doesn't come in a federation of an interdependent gathering defined by related interests but from the one Church established by the Holy Spirit from which all find truth and life. Sadly, I am afraid with this sort of an approach catholicity is quickly crumbling away.

Update: I wrote the above before seeing this piece of news from George Conger. It seems to confirm my ecclesial suspicions.

Priests: Fishers of Men

von Balthasar and Bendict XVI: Treasures in the Library

I have had a few fun moments on Amazon UK just now buying some new additions to add to the library. I have come to really appreciate the small amount that I have read of von Balthasar and I have a hunger to read more. Having recently dipped into his work on Mary: the Church and Its Source, I felt the urge to start purchasing more of his writings. So, while on Amazon I purchased three new books this evening. Two are from von Balthasar and the other is from Pope Benedict XVI.

Benedict XVI: Priests of Jesus Christ
von Balthasar: The Spirit of Truth: 3 Theo-Logic; and Love Alone is Credible

Below is a portion from Fr. John Cihak on von Balthasar's Love Alone is Credible

Divine grace, working in the interior of the person, allows him to see the form for what it is. Only grace enables him to organize the evidence for belief into a coherent whole and see what the sign reveals. As with beauty, to share in the revelation of divine love, we must renounce ourselves and surrender to the grace offered. Furthermore, we do not "get behind" the form of the cross in order to then see God. Rather, the Trinity is revealed in the cross.

Man sees "that the love offered him is quite unlike anything he knows as love; and that the scandal [of God’s love] exists in order to make him see the uniqueness of this new love—and by its light to reveal and lay bare to him his own love for what it is, lack of love" (LA, 60). The nonbeliever asks, "With my broken love, and my life hurtling toward death, is there anything worthy of my belief?" Jesus of Nazareth draws the beholder into the same dynamic of love.

In the act of faith, as in the encounter with beauty, we are marked by the beautiful form. The Father impresses his form on the Son, and the Son, through the Holy Spirit, presses his form on the believer. Our own lives are to take on the dimensions of the Christform. He is not to be a bystander but a participant in this dynamic of divine love.

In the encounter of faith, the nonbeliever realizes that this revelation not only unites the fragments of truth in the world, not only gives meaning to mankind at the deepest level, but that he is encountering a love beyond his capacity to imagine. Finally, one finds a love worthy of his faith, of his very life. This is a love that is believable.

As we can see, Balthasar is not out to prove the revelation of God’s love through reason. Divine love is reasonable, but it transcends human reason. Rather, Balthasar provokes the nonbeliever with the historical sign of revelation in order that he may open his heart and so be drawn in by beauty. The nonbeliever, with his limited human love, is offered the possibility of sharing an eternal life of divine love. But the encounter with divine love requires an open heart, a heart sensitive to beauty, a heart able to wonder, a heart anguished by its attempts to love in the face of death.

A consequence of Balthasar’s insight is that the divine love revealed on the cross is meant to transform not just the nonbeliever but the apologist as well. As a believer, the apologist has been pulled by divine grace into the encounter of the form of Christ, and so his life must then take on the contours of the form. In this world, divine love is revealed in the suffering and death of the Son. The apologist can win a person to Christ only if he first loves that person and is willing to suffer, and even die, for him. A believer’s life must radiate the beauty of divine love. The work of apologetics goes beyond winning arguments to being grasped by the Christform: "It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me" (Gal. 2:20).

In reflecting on his own work, Balthasar wrote, "You do good apologetics if you do good, central theology; if you expound theology effectively, you have done the best kind of apologetics" (My Work . . . In Retrospect, tr. Brian McNeil, Ignatius/Communio [1993], 100). God’s self-revelation is disguised under the crucifixion and death of Jesus, the obedient Son. Through the encounter with divine love revealed as beauty, we are led back to truth and goodness because we are led into the encounter with the One who is True and Good. Through the beauty of divine revelation, we discover a love that is believable.

To All Those Who So Quickly Condemned Pope Benedict XVI

The Vatican has demanded that a bishop who denied the Holocaust must recant his position before being fully readmitted into the Roman Catholic Church.

The Vatican also said in a statement Wednesday that Pope Benedict XVI didn't know about Bishop Richard Williamson's views when he agreed to lift his excommunication and that of three other ultraconservative bishops last week.

The statement was issued by the Vatican's Secretariat of State a day after the German Chancellor Angela Merkel urged the pope to make a clearer rejection of Holocaust denials.

(Perhaps we'll get an apology from the reader John for his disparaging comments about the Pope!)

Catholic Author and Blogger Amy Welborn's Husband Dies Suddenly

This is devastating news. Over at Amy Welborn's blog she briefly writes of her husband's sudden death at the gym where he collapsed. May Michael rest in peace and rise in glory! May God comfort Amy, the children and all who mourn. Amy, be assured of our prayers! Biretta tip to Standfirm.

November 16, 1958-February 3, 2009

Michael collapsed this morning at the gym and was not able to be revived despite the efforts of EMTs and hospital personnel.

We are devastated and beg your prayers.

Amy Welborn.

Support Letter for the Pope

Biretta tip to Fr. Ivan at St. John blog for the publishing of the letter to support Pope Benedict XVI. If interested, there is a space in which to confidentially sign.

Appeal from plain Catholic faithful.

This letter gathers different Catholic faithful, from different tendencies, who wish to support the pope in his brave gesture. The authors of this site assure you of the complete confidentiality guaranteed to the names of the signatories, the list of which will be transmitted only to the Holy See.

On January, 21^st, You decided, Holy Father, to put an end to the excommunication which pressed on the bishops of the The Society of Saint Pius X. By this brave gesture, You acted as the minister of the herd entrusted to You by God.

We are men and women invested in the life of our city, we are fathers and mothers with a family or unmarried and, after stormy times, when « the boat seemed to take the water everywhere », we wish to build with You the Church of tomorrow with its Tradition for base. This project includes inevitably the transmission of the Faith to the future generations, by the love of the Catholic Liturgy and by the defence of the human life.

By this letter, we wish above all to express You our deep gratitude. If this historic gesture can provoque on You the denial from certain hostile media making confused mixtures, it arouses in us a tremendous joy and fills us with Hope. We prayed for Your intentions, according to the demand which You formulated at the beginning of Your Pontificate: « Pray for me, that I may not flee for fear of the wolves.(1)»

We want, by affixing our signature to this letter, to communicate to You our age and the number of our children to say to You that with You, we want to build the Christendom for the generations which will follow us, hoping wholeheartedly that this Christianity will be self-confident and will proclaim to all World the Credo.

So, it is in a spirit of filial respect that we bring You our support and our daily prayers for the pursuit of Your Pontificate, so that God's Church will emerge increased by it.

(1) Benedict XVI, April 25th, 2005

"Nothing emboldens more the audacity of the naughty ones than the weakness of kind people"

Leon XIII, encyclical Sapientæ Christianæ, January 10th, 1890