Now if commenting on today's referendum, you would think I would do it in advance, but I've only just got round to it...
Most of what has been said (by both sides) has been utter tosh. For some examples (probably mostly from the Yes campaign, because it winds me up more):
Today in the Guardian Timothy Garton Ash claims that reforming the voting system will fix all that is wrong with the current Parliament system. Will it obviously increase the power of Parliament over the Executive? Will it ensure MPs do not fiddle the expenses system? Will it increase engagement and encourage people to vote when they don't care about any of the candidates on the ballot? Will it solve the problem of what to do with the Upper House? And did those feet in ancient time walk upon England's mountains green?
He is however, topped by one of the comments on his column though. Apparently, voting no to AV will "entrench Tory power in England until the end of time". Well actually, since 1945 there have been swings of over 5% on only three occasions. One of those occurred in 2010... and didn't give a Conservative majority! (The other two were 1997 and 1979 - bringing in Blair and Thatcher respectively.). Sounds like it's not the voting method deciding if the Government stays in!
On the No side, there has been rubbish too. AV is certainly not complicated - certainly not when compared to STV that almost anyone who has been a student recently will have voted in (nearly every Students' Union in the country uses it to elect their officers). The only genuine criticism I have seen for people understanding it was when it was first introduced in some Australian states, but the confusion mostly stemmed from the fact people didn't realise that they didn't have to rank all the candidates (in federal elections in Australia it is compulsory to vote, and to rank all the candidates in order of preference). Yes, it is more complex, but it isn't that hard!!
My ire next falls on Ekklesia, a Christian think tank, who have basically claimed that the Bible demands a change to AV. Now, last time I read it, there was very little in there about what voting system to use in a Parliamentary democracy. Instead, there is quite a lot of time spent, especially by this 1st Century AD jew who kept calling himself the "Son of Man", on how the best form of government is a theocracy called the "Kingdom of Heaven". But then WWJK? (What Would Jesus Know)
Now, enough with the ranting, a point of confusion. Apparently, this referendum (unlike the only other one in British history) is binding. I don't understand how that can be true, though I will accept it may require drastic measures to avoid it. Let me explain: the foundation of the constitution - yes we do have one, it's just not written down nicely together like the American one - is that Queen-in-Parliament is sovereign. If so, then a popular vote cannot bind them - or they are not sovereign - they should be able to pass a law that says that they will ignore the outcome of the referendum. Another cornerstone is that Parliament may not not bind its successors. Now in the event of a Yes vote (much as opinion polls suggest it is unlikely, consider the hypothetical), either under its sovereignty QinP can change the law to ignore the outcome or under the future binding principle, the Queen can dissolve Parliament before the change is implemented, and then the new Parliament (elected FPTP - no implementation) can decide it doesn't wish to follow the previous Parliament's decision. In the event of a No vote, sure the existing legislation is dropped, but that doesn't stop any MP who can get the Parliamentary time introducing a new bill that would introduce AV without a referendum.
Of course, the path above in the event of a Yes vote would create a constitutional crisis on par with the entire Royal Family joining the Ordinariate en masse, but...
Now, leaving all the poltiking aside, it is important that we vote. People have died to allow us today to have the freedom to choose our own government. Remember those who fell in the Second World War and the suffragettes, and put an X in a box, any box!
Aside from this referendum on a major constitutional change, there has been much talk lately of other reforms. Much of this seems to be to give the Deputy Prime Minister something to do that he thinks is important but is too complicated and uninteresting to go anywhere, but some is worthy of comment.
There has been talk about revision to the principles used to decide who should inherit the throne. Unfortunately, the Government seems a little unaware of the possible consequences of some of the changes. The two big highlights seem to be primogeniture and Roman Catholicism. Apparently, Mr. Clegg wishes to abolish primogeniture, and allow girls to inherit on an equal basis with boys, and wishes to abolish the prohibition on Roman Catholics inheriting the throne. That clearly means there are two mainstream parties now in Westminster who wish to review the Act of Union 1707 - the SNP and the Lib Dems. To clarify, the most recent piece of legislation that determines the application of these principles is not the widely touted Act of Settlement 1701, but the Act of Union - after all the latter was the piece of Law passed to join England and Scotland, and determine that they would forever share the same King (subject to the same principles above about sovereignty and successors). I'm not sure it was one of Nick Clegg's ambitions to discuss Scottish independence!
Aside from this oversight, the official reason behind the review is fairness and equality. I don't understand the logic that leads to a discussion about whether or not it is fair for a certain member of a family to do a job over another on religious or gender grounds, without also asking the question about whether we should continue to only offer the job to members of just one family!
Thursday, May 5, 2011
Tuesday, March 1, 2011
The Laws and Usages of the Realm
I have not blogged for a while, and my first post back is no doubt an ill-informed rant about the misunderstandings of the Law by the Judiciary!
Firstly, I think the answer that the Lord Justice Munby and Mr Justice Beatson have reached in the case of Eunice and Owen Johns is in danger of creating a legal precedent where what we think about religion can be criminsalised. I have limited objection to the illegality of incitement to violence against a minority, but regulating what we think... I think Winston Smith would like to welcome us to Airstrip One and to remind us to be ready for a visit from the Thought Police later...
One particular part of their judgement has been quoted a lot. The judges said that "the laws and usages of the realm do not include Christianity , in whatever form". Now according the Government's website, legislation.gov.uk, the Coronation Oath Act 1688 is still part of "the law and usage of the realm" - at least no claim is made that it has been repealed, and last time it was necessary to use it, we did. And said Act contains the following Oath which the Sovereign shall swear at their Coronation: Will You to the utmost of Your power Maintaine the Laws of God the true Profession of the Gospell and the Protestant Reformed Religion Established by Law? And will You Preserve unto the Bishops and Clergy of this Realme and to the Churches committed to their Charge all such Rights and Priviledges as by Law doe or shall appertaine unto them or any of them.
Yes, that's right, it does indeed call upon the Sovereign to "maintain the Laws of God, the true Profession of the Gospel and the Protestant Reformed Religion Established by Law". And on the 2nd June 1953, our Sovereign Lady Elizabeth II did so swear. Now m'lords, how exactly does this sit with you assertion that Christianity is not part of the law and usage of the Realm?
Indeed if Christianity has no such part, why then does a Papal (later Parliamentary) title still appear on all our coinage? Look on the head side of any coin issued by the Bank of England, and you shall see around the Queen's head the letters DG REG FD. For those with limited Latin, DG stands for Dei Gratia - "By the Grace of God", REG for Regina - "Queen", FD - fidei defensor - defender of the faith. The latter title was initially issued to King Henry VIII by the Pope for his theological critique of Martin Luther, and following their later dispute, it has been issued by Parliament to each successive British Monarch.
Ignoring the question of whether or not the judges made a correct legaljudgement, I also feel they made the wrong moral judgement. Obviously, we do not have judges to tell us morals, we have bishops, but, as bishops in the Church of England don't usually feel the need to criticise Caesar...
I disagree with the position held by Mr and Mrs Johns that homosexuality is sinful. However, I respect their view as a fair reading of Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition and not entirely unreasonable. It is also largely indistinct from the official position of the Established Church - that homosexual sex is sinful but being homosexual is okay. If the State may regulate who is fit to take care of children because of their religious convictions, we are well on the way to Doublethink. I suppose a reasonable argument could be made against extremist views, but when was the last time anyone called the Church of England "extremist"?
It might be a little bit of a jump from prohibiting people from fostering because they hold "unacceptable views" to taking away children from the biological parents because of the parents' views, but in some way that is not my objection - that is a view taken by the more screechy libertarians, but to my mind, it is a far more pressing concern that the State has legal precedent to discriminate against people because of how they think!
Firstly, I think the answer that the Lord Justice Munby and Mr Justice Beatson have reached in the case of Eunice and Owen Johns is in danger of creating a legal precedent where what we think about religion can be criminsalised. I have limited objection to the illegality of incitement to violence against a minority, but regulating what we think... I think Winston Smith would like to welcome us to Airstrip One and to remind us to be ready for a visit from the Thought Police later...
One particular part of their judgement has been quoted a lot. The judges said that "the laws and usages of the realm do not include Christianity , in whatever form". Now according the Government's website, legislation.gov.uk, the Coronation Oath Act 1688 is still part of "the law and usage of the realm" - at least no claim is made that it has been repealed, and last time it was necessary to use it, we did. And said Act contains the following Oath which the Sovereign shall swear at their Coronation: Will You to the utmost of Your power Maintaine the Laws of God the true Profession of the Gospell and the Protestant Reformed Religion Established by Law? And will You Preserve unto the Bishops and Clergy of this Realme and to the Churches committed to their Charge all such Rights and Priviledges as by Law doe or shall appertaine unto them or any of them.
Yes, that's right, it does indeed call upon the Sovereign to "maintain the Laws of God, the true Profession of the Gospel and the Protestant Reformed Religion Established by Law". And on the 2nd June 1953, our Sovereign Lady Elizabeth II did so swear. Now m'lords, how exactly does this sit with you assertion that Christianity is not part of the law and usage of the Realm?
Indeed if Christianity has no such part, why then does a Papal (later Parliamentary) title still appear on all our coinage? Look on the head side of any coin issued by the Bank of England, and you shall see around the Queen's head the letters DG REG FD. For those with limited Latin, DG stands for Dei Gratia - "By the Grace of God", REG for Regina - "Queen", FD - fidei defensor - defender of the faith. The latter title was initially issued to King Henry VIII by the Pope for his theological critique of Martin Luther, and following their later dispute, it has been issued by Parliament to each successive British Monarch.
Ignoring the question of whether or not the judges made a correct legaljudgement, I also feel they made the wrong moral judgement. Obviously, we do not have judges to tell us morals, we have bishops, but, as bishops in the Church of England don't usually feel the need to criticise Caesar...
I disagree with the position held by Mr and Mrs Johns that homosexuality is sinful. However, I respect their view as a fair reading of Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition and not entirely unreasonable. It is also largely indistinct from the official position of the Established Church - that homosexual sex is sinful but being homosexual is okay. If the State may regulate who is fit to take care of children because of their religious convictions, we are well on the way to Doublethink. I suppose a reasonable argument could be made against extremist views, but when was the last time anyone called the Church of England "extremist"?
It might be a little bit of a jump from prohibiting people from fostering because they hold "unacceptable views" to taking away children from the biological parents because of the parents' views, but in some way that is not my objection - that is a view taken by the more screechy libertarians, but to my mind, it is a far more pressing concern that the State has legal precedent to discriminate against people because of how they think!
Saturday, September 18, 2010
General Synod
In case any one who can introduce any voters reads this nonsense, I am standing for election to the House of Laity of the General Synod of the Church of England in the Diocese of Southwark. My election address can be found here: http://db.tt/IKekcsi
Friday, September 17, 2010
A Response to Evangelicals Now
I haven't blogged here for a while, been busy, but a an article my dad linked me to deserves correcting. After all it just won't do for someone to be wrong on the internet, now would it?
The article in question is here: http://www.e-n.org.uk/5182-Roman-Catholicism.htm
Given it is written in a list format, I shall attempt to respond point by point! For reference, I am not a Roman Catholic, but I am a catholic (the small c is significant).
1. "It (Roman Catholicism) holds basically to a Trinitarian view of God"
What? I'm not sure I even can comprehend this statement in a way that the word "basically" is necessary. The Trinitarian understanding of all Western Christianity stems from the teachings of those hyper-evangelical protestants St. Augustine of Hippo and St. Thomas Aquinas, and before them St. Iraneaus. Oh, and who coined the magnificent Greek (homoousios) at the centre of the Christological part of this question? Oh, yes, the Orthodox Catholic Church of which the Pope was part, meeting in council in Nicea! Not only does Roman Catholicism hold to a Trinitarian view of God, it damn well defined it!!!
2. "In third world countries often their missionaries, monks and nuns do wonderful work helping the poor and needy."
Damnation by faint praise anyone?
3. "Catholicism has a different Bible"
No. Factual error. You (as in Evangelicals Now), historically, have a different Bible. Either accept this by simple statistics: the Orthodox and the RCs (without counting the many Anglicans, Old Catholics etc who also accept the Apocrypha) are more than a majority of world Christians; or accept it by historical fact: when the Canon of Scripture closed in the 4th Century, the position of the Church was that the Apocrypha was simply a part of Scripture. It was not seriously questioned until the time of the Reformation. And even then even the great reformer Luther wasn't certain he wanted to be rid of it!
NB - The definition of different I am using here is that of "not the norm". Given the statement is clearly meant prejudiciously I assume it was not this definition being used by the author.
4. "there is no record of Jesus ever quoting from or referring to the Apocrypha"
This may be true, but if that is the requirement for inclusion in the Bible, we can probably exclude (just off the top of my head) Joshua, Judges, Ruth, some of the Samuels, the Kings and the Chronicles, Esther, Job, Song of Songs, Lamentations, several minor prophets and all of the New Testament. (Brownie points for each proof text from these books made in comments, and for anything I've missed!)
5. "Catholicism gives their church tradition equal authority with the Bible"
Pot, kettle, black... Where does the Bible say within itself that it should be read literally? You mean that you do it because it is tradition... so long as its not Holy Tradition, hey? And as to equality, using your quotation from the CotCC: "Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture make up a single sacred deposit of the Word of God: Each must play there part, but we only understand Holy Scripture through the lens of Holy Tradition, using reason (see, I am an Anglican!).
6. "But this is to deny 2 Timothy 3.16,17"
First up, someone is confusing a priori and a posteri statements. You cannot use St. Paul's letter to Timothy to conclude anything about the use of books that hadn't even been written never mind accepted as Scripture. Furthermore, according to the NIV, the reference reads "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work." Nowhere does that claim uniqueness, sufficiency or even (Warning: Heretic Alert!!!) necessity! It merely claims usefulness!
7. "Herein we see the root of Rome’s error. Because they put the church on a par with Scripture they are unable to engage in self-criticism" (And the rest of the paragraph)
Somewhere we went from "tradition" to "the Church", and I didn't notice... However, yes it can lead to a lack of self-criticism, but so can any form of certainty that you are right! And that includes those evangelicals who think that what their preacher intones based on his reading of that beautifully inaccurate translation the King James Version is the Word of God(TM)!
8. "The pope (sic) is said to be in the place of the Jesus Christ."
In place here is only accurate here if we read it as "acting as a messenger for" not as Prince Regent for a King. Whilst I disagree with the statement in the CotCC, it does not mean what EN think it means. It means power over in the way that St. Paul commands husbands to have power over their wives... to be as Christ to them... Christ who washes the feet of his disciples... Christ "who being in very nature God... made himself nothing". Some power!!! Hence the description of priests as the servants of the servant of God, and by extension, the Pope must be the servant of the servants of the servants of the servants of the servants of the servants of God, or thereabouts!
As a side note, infallibility is one of the reason I am not a Roman Catholic.
9. "The true ‘vicar of Christ’... is the Holy Spirit"
Not sure I understand this statement. A vicar has responsibility for God's possessions both spiritual and temporal in a parish. In the case of the Holy Father, this parish is the world, and the possessions everything in it. In the case of the Holy Spirit, that is not how I understand it to act!
10. (The Holy Spirit) who has come to earth in the place of Jesus
Would that not then be the same Spirit that called Abram from Ur, or called young Samuel in the temple, or came upon a young shepherd anointed King of Israel who went on to slay a giant? Or who spoke through Moses, Elijah, Isaiah, or the other prophets? The Holy Spirit certainly came upon the infant church at Pentecost, but I'm not sure we can deduce that it wasn't already there, especially given God is supposed to be omnipresent!
11. "titles of the pope actually border on blasphemy"
Again, huh? If you wish to argue exclusively for the the priesthood of all believers, then everything we investe in the ancient priesthood of the Church inherited from the Apostles, must be contained within it. Ergo, we claim that blasphemy for ourselves!
12. "by ordination receives special grace"
No. Recall the mantra: a sacrament is an outward sign of an inward grace. It is not good to argue that the bishop tapping you on the head gives you the priestly character, because without the selection by the church, then you are not a priest. Whilst it is convenient to draw nice neat lines, reality doesn't always work like that!
13. "He is able, for example, to hear confession and forgive sins"
Anyone can hear your confession, the ancient tradition (whilst it was still practical) was to confess publicly before the gathered people during the service. The priest does not forgive sins. The priest pronounces God's forgiveness of the sins. Don't confuse the message with the messenger!
14. "We need no one else to mediate with God for us."
True, but stop confusing necessity and sufficiency. Just because we don't need a priest to pray for our salvation, it doesn't mean it doesn't help!
15. "how could the bread change into his literal body?"
This paragraph indicates a complete lack of understanding of the range of possibilities (or even the existence thereof) regarding a Real Presence, so I will only engage fleetingly.
Before I can answer the quoted question, we need some reference. Firstly how can God be "contracted to a span" as Wesley puts it? If we can accept the full and complete divinity of Christ alongside the full and complete humanity of Christ, then the idea of Him also being really present in the Most Blessed Sacrament is trivial! I am also amused that we can take these words non-literally but anything else must be literal, historical truth...
16. Council of Constance
Hey, the Council realised the Most Precious Blood was indeed precious, but as people often are they were overly protective. So, they messed up. But we just agreed this was only a trivial memorial anyway, so what does it matter?
17. "the priest is supposed to offer Christ, embodied in the bread, etc., as a sacrifice to God the Father for sin."
This statement is untrue in many ways. First up, the gifts only become the MBBaMPBooLaSJC once offered as the sacrifice. So, this is a bit of a non-starter really, but... The eucharistic prayer contains a direct contradiction to this comment though: "the sacrifice made once for the sins of the whole world" Because, as the good doctor would put it, time is not simple, but full of timey-wimey stuff, it is possible for the priest to stand in personnae Christi as our Great High Priest and offer the sacrifice of himself upon the altar, without contradicting that this sacrifice is made but once.
18. "in the New Testament, the Lord’s Supper is a ‘remembrance’"
Well that is one translation of the word. The Greek is anamnesien, which (I'm not a Greek scholar, but) means much more than we today mean by remembrance. In an episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation, Picard and crew meet an alien race who communicate by recalling legends and myths, i.e. to describe something as brave, you name a brave hero from an ancient myth. The way that these aliens remember their legends is much closer to the way St. Paul would have understood the word than the way I might remember a friend from primary school; to remember here is a living, ongoing memory not something that is over and completed.
19. Baptism
As I said before, a sacrament is an outward sign of an inward grace.
20. "personal faith"
It strikes me that this is the most fundamental difference between the evangelical and the catholic viewpoints. To an evangelical, Christianity is about the individual. To a catholic, Christianity is about the group. That is not to say that personal faith is unimportant from a catholic viewpoint, but that one cannot have that faith without the whole body to sustain it. I might be a little toe on St. Paul's body of Christ, but if the body doesn't supply me with blood and oxygen I will shrivel up and die, and also if I am absent the whole body loses its ability to balance and keels over. I am only a small part, but without me, we are all screwed!
21. Penance
The distinction between a mortal and venial sin is much the same as the American legal system distinguishes between a felony and a misdemeanor. Only thing is, whilst in the USA it takes a felony to disqualify you from things, when approaching an all-good God, even a misdemeanor is a problem. With regard to confession, doing it to a priest rather than a cell group is a matter of church order rather than doctrine. Penance is part of the tradition of sackcloth and ashes - it satisfies a human need to be able to show off even as we declare our weaknesses!
22. Purgatory
I know nothing about the RCC's teaching on Purgatory, so will not comment. However, IIRC, it is no longer current teaching, and certainly at a quick glance I can't find reference in my CotCC.
23. Indulgences
Definitely no longer a part of the RCC. Yeah, the Church is imperfect. No shit, Sherlock!!
24. "Mary continued as a virgin"
Matthew 1:25 merely states that Joseph didn't have sex with Our Lady before She gave birth to the Lord. No comment is made to the aftermarth.
25. "Jesus had brothers and sisters"
The evangelist uses the word "adelphos" for brother which simply means close male relation, so at worst first cousin or half-brother or adopted brother. Similar use of language is made in the two geneaolgies of Christ given by SS Matthew and Luke, which have different names in them!
26. "she prays for her church, and in some degree is worshipped"
Yes, she prays for the Church. Being sat in God's presence for eternity without any earthly distractions probably allows a bit of time for that! And as the Italians would explain, if you would the kid to do something, you ask his mother, and when she asks the good little boy goes and does it! Our Lady is however not worshipped. Veneration is shown to those who have gone before and shown the way, but worship is due to God alone!
--
Right, much of that probably makes very little sense, but that is that. If it doesn't, and you want me to expand/rewrite when more awake, I might!
The article in question is here: http://www.e-n.org.uk/5182-Roman-Catholicism.htm
Given it is written in a list format, I shall attempt to respond point by point! For reference, I am not a Roman Catholic, but I am a catholic (the small c is significant).
1. "It (Roman Catholicism) holds basically to a Trinitarian view of God"
What? I'm not sure I even can comprehend this statement in a way that the word "basically" is necessary. The Trinitarian understanding of all Western Christianity stems from the teachings of those hyper-evangelical protestants St. Augustine of Hippo and St. Thomas Aquinas, and before them St. Iraneaus. Oh, and who coined the magnificent Greek (homoousios) at the centre of the Christological part of this question? Oh, yes, the Orthodox Catholic Church of which the Pope was part, meeting in council in Nicea! Not only does Roman Catholicism hold to a Trinitarian view of God, it damn well defined it!!!
2. "In third world countries often their missionaries, monks and nuns do wonderful work helping the poor and needy."
Damnation by faint praise anyone?
3. "Catholicism has a different Bible"
No. Factual error. You (as in Evangelicals Now), historically, have a different Bible. Either accept this by simple statistics: the Orthodox and the RCs (without counting the many Anglicans, Old Catholics etc who also accept the Apocrypha) are more than a majority of world Christians; or accept it by historical fact: when the Canon of Scripture closed in the 4th Century, the position of the Church was that the Apocrypha was simply a part of Scripture. It was not seriously questioned until the time of the Reformation. And even then even the great reformer Luther wasn't certain he wanted to be rid of it!
NB - The definition of different I am using here is that of "not the norm". Given the statement is clearly meant prejudiciously I assume it was not this definition being used by the author.
4. "there is no record of Jesus ever quoting from or referring to the Apocrypha"
This may be true, but if that is the requirement for inclusion in the Bible, we can probably exclude (just off the top of my head) Joshua, Judges, Ruth, some of the Samuels, the Kings and the Chronicles, Esther, Job, Song of Songs, Lamentations, several minor prophets and all of the New Testament. (Brownie points for each proof text from these books made in comments, and for anything I've missed!)
5. "Catholicism gives their church tradition equal authority with the Bible"
Pot, kettle, black... Where does the Bible say within itself that it should be read literally? You mean that you do it because it is tradition... so long as its not Holy Tradition, hey? And as to equality, using your quotation from the CotCC: "Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture make up a single sacred deposit of the Word of God: Each must play there part, but we only understand Holy Scripture through the lens of Holy Tradition, using reason (see, I am an Anglican!).
6. "But this is to deny 2 Timothy 3.16,17"
First up, someone is confusing a priori and a posteri statements. You cannot use St. Paul's letter to Timothy to conclude anything about the use of books that hadn't even been written never mind accepted as Scripture. Furthermore, according to the NIV, the reference reads "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work." Nowhere does that claim uniqueness, sufficiency or even (Warning: Heretic Alert!!!) necessity! It merely claims usefulness!
7. "Herein we see the root of Rome’s error. Because they put the church on a par with Scripture they are unable to engage in self-criticism" (And the rest of the paragraph)
Somewhere we went from "tradition" to "the Church", and I didn't notice... However, yes it can lead to a lack of self-criticism, but so can any form of certainty that you are right! And that includes those evangelicals who think that what their preacher intones based on his reading of that beautifully inaccurate translation the King James Version is the Word of God(TM)!
8. "The pope (sic) is said to be in the place of the Jesus Christ."
In place here is only accurate here if we read it as "acting as a messenger for" not as Prince Regent for a King. Whilst I disagree with the statement in the CotCC, it does not mean what EN think it means. It means power over in the way that St. Paul commands husbands to have power over their wives... to be as Christ to them... Christ who washes the feet of his disciples... Christ "who being in very nature God... made himself nothing". Some power!!! Hence the description of priests as the servants of the servant of God, and by extension, the Pope must be the servant of the servants of the servants of the servants of the servants of the servants of God, or thereabouts!
As a side note, infallibility is one of the reason I am not a Roman Catholic.
9. "The true ‘vicar of Christ’... is the Holy Spirit"
Not sure I understand this statement. A vicar has responsibility for God's possessions both spiritual and temporal in a parish. In the case of the Holy Father, this parish is the world, and the possessions everything in it. In the case of the Holy Spirit, that is not how I understand it to act!
10. (The Holy Spirit) who has come to earth in the place of Jesus
Would that not then be the same Spirit that called Abram from Ur, or called young Samuel in the temple, or came upon a young shepherd anointed King of Israel who went on to slay a giant? Or who spoke through Moses, Elijah, Isaiah, or the other prophets? The Holy Spirit certainly came upon the infant church at Pentecost, but I'm not sure we can deduce that it wasn't already there, especially given God is supposed to be omnipresent!
11. "titles of the pope actually border on blasphemy"
Again, huh? If you wish to argue exclusively for the the priesthood of all believers, then everything we investe in the ancient priesthood of the Church inherited from the Apostles, must be contained within it. Ergo, we claim that blasphemy for ourselves!
12. "by ordination receives special grace"
No. Recall the mantra: a sacrament is an outward sign of an inward grace. It is not good to argue that the bishop tapping you on the head gives you the priestly character, because without the selection by the church, then you are not a priest. Whilst it is convenient to draw nice neat lines, reality doesn't always work like that!
13. "He is able, for example, to hear confession and forgive sins"
Anyone can hear your confession, the ancient tradition (whilst it was still practical) was to confess publicly before the gathered people during the service. The priest does not forgive sins. The priest pronounces God's forgiveness of the sins. Don't confuse the message with the messenger!
14. "We need no one else to mediate with God for us."
True, but stop confusing necessity and sufficiency. Just because we don't need a priest to pray for our salvation, it doesn't mean it doesn't help!
15. "how could the bread change into his literal body?"
This paragraph indicates a complete lack of understanding of the range of possibilities (or even the existence thereof) regarding a Real Presence, so I will only engage fleetingly.
Before I can answer the quoted question, we need some reference. Firstly how can God be "contracted to a span" as Wesley puts it? If we can accept the full and complete divinity of Christ alongside the full and complete humanity of Christ, then the idea of Him also being really present in the Most Blessed Sacrament is trivial! I am also amused that we can take these words non-literally but anything else must be literal, historical truth...
16. Council of Constance
Hey, the Council realised the Most Precious Blood was indeed precious, but as people often are they were overly protective. So, they messed up. But we just agreed this was only a trivial memorial anyway, so what does it matter?
17. "the priest is supposed to offer Christ, embodied in the bread, etc., as a sacrifice to God the Father for sin."
This statement is untrue in many ways. First up, the gifts only become the MBBaMPBooLaSJC once offered as the sacrifice. So, this is a bit of a non-starter really, but... The eucharistic prayer contains a direct contradiction to this comment though: "the sacrifice made once for the sins of the whole world" Because, as the good doctor would put it, time is not simple, but full of timey-wimey stuff, it is possible for the priest to stand in personnae Christi as our Great High Priest and offer the sacrifice of himself upon the altar, without contradicting that this sacrifice is made but once.
18. "in the New Testament, the Lord’s Supper is a ‘remembrance’"
Well that is one translation of the word. The Greek is anamnesien, which (I'm not a Greek scholar, but) means much more than we today mean by remembrance. In an episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation, Picard and crew meet an alien race who communicate by recalling legends and myths, i.e. to describe something as brave, you name a brave hero from an ancient myth. The way that these aliens remember their legends is much closer to the way St. Paul would have understood the word than the way I might remember a friend from primary school; to remember here is a living, ongoing memory not something that is over and completed.
19. Baptism
As I said before, a sacrament is an outward sign of an inward grace.
20. "personal faith"
It strikes me that this is the most fundamental difference between the evangelical and the catholic viewpoints. To an evangelical, Christianity is about the individual. To a catholic, Christianity is about the group. That is not to say that personal faith is unimportant from a catholic viewpoint, but that one cannot have that faith without the whole body to sustain it. I might be a little toe on St. Paul's body of Christ, but if the body doesn't supply me with blood and oxygen I will shrivel up and die, and also if I am absent the whole body loses its ability to balance and keels over. I am only a small part, but without me, we are all screwed!
21. Penance
The distinction between a mortal and venial sin is much the same as the American legal system distinguishes between a felony and a misdemeanor. Only thing is, whilst in the USA it takes a felony to disqualify you from things, when approaching an all-good God, even a misdemeanor is a problem. With regard to confession, doing it to a priest rather than a cell group is a matter of church order rather than doctrine. Penance is part of the tradition of sackcloth and ashes - it satisfies a human need to be able to show off even as we declare our weaknesses!
22. Purgatory
I know nothing about the RCC's teaching on Purgatory, so will not comment. However, IIRC, it is no longer current teaching, and certainly at a quick glance I can't find reference in my CotCC.
23. Indulgences
Definitely no longer a part of the RCC. Yeah, the Church is imperfect. No shit, Sherlock!!
24. "Mary continued as a virgin"
Matthew 1:25 merely states that Joseph didn't have sex with Our Lady before She gave birth to the Lord. No comment is made to the aftermarth.
25. "Jesus had brothers and sisters"
The evangelist uses the word "adelphos" for brother which simply means close male relation, so at worst first cousin or half-brother or adopted brother. Similar use of language is made in the two geneaolgies of Christ given by SS Matthew and Luke, which have different names in them!
26. "she prays for her church, and in some degree is worshipped"
Yes, she prays for the Church. Being sat in God's presence for eternity without any earthly distractions probably allows a bit of time for that! And as the Italians would explain, if you would the kid to do something, you ask his mother, and when she asks the good little boy goes and does it! Our Lady is however not worshipped. Veneration is shown to those who have gone before and shown the way, but worship is due to God alone!
--
Right, much of that probably makes very little sense, but that is that. If it doesn't, and you want me to expand/rewrite when more awake, I might!
Monday, August 9, 2010
Language and the Church
Two posts in one day... something must be up!
My other post today is meant to be serious, this is a little more humorous (I hope!)
Within the Church, and the Church of England in particular, certain words seem to have developed certain meanings, which are quite different from what they seem to mean.
What am I?
My other post today is meant to be serious, this is a little more humorous (I hope!)
Within the Church, and the Church of England in particular, certain words seem to have developed certain meanings, which are quite different from what they seem to mean.
For example
Or the following words and phrases are synonyms:
"I value women's ministry"contains the following implication
"...making tea and coffee and running the creche"
Or the following words and phrases are synonyms:
traditionalist
catholic
anglo-catholic
seeking sacramental assurance
orthodox
anglican use
sound
Unfortunately they seem to be synonymous with "we hate the gayz and the wimin"
Similarly,
liberal
inclusive
anglo-catholic
seem to be synonyms for "gay"
(Serious point follows!)
So I'm white, male, straight, middle class, and I believe the Church should consecrate women to the episcopate, and I believe that there is an equal place in the Church for men and women of all sexualities within the Church (i.e. I support the consecration of Mary Glasspool as a Suffragan Bishop of Los Angeles on a political level, I know next to nothing about the woman or the diocese so couldn't tell you how well she'll match the job, just to be clear how I'm misusing my words). I also accept the two traditional creeds of the Church. I say I go to mass on a Sunday, I would describe myself variously as reformed, catholic, protestant, orthodox and traditionalist. I also quite like dressing up to serve at mass. I even regularly go to Eucharistic Devotions and Benediction, and am sometimes heard to say an Angelus on occasion.
What am I?
To those who claim particular uses for these words, can I give some advice from Humpty Dumpty? "When I make a word do a lot of work like that, I always pay it extra"
--
Humpty Dumpty speaks to us via the medium of Lewis Carroll's Through the Looking Glass, Chapter 6.
PS - Please email me, and I will help you make suitable arrangements for paying your words properly :P
What Does the World Outside Think Of the Church of England?
Tonight, I was at a meeting for prospective candidates and voters for the elections for General Synod in the Autumn. During this meeting I had to give a quick, off the cuff, introduction to who I was and why I was standing.
I do my job for a number of reasons, one of which is that I hate standing at the front talking, so this was never going to be one of my favourite things to do. However, thanks to the clergy present, I had had sufficient wine to give me a little courage, and so I stood up and spoke...
And amongst my waffle (because that is all it probably was!), I found myself telling the floor that I wanted the Church to re-engage with the world out there (arm gestures toward the windows was included). I found myself saying that the "the world out there" (TWOT) thinks that the Church is obsessed with sex and needs to get back to the Gospel.
Upon getting home, I found myself asking whether this was really true. What does TWOT really think about the Church? What do we want TWOT to think about us as the Church? What does God think?
My survey to answer these questions is fundamentally flawed in that it starts and finishes with information that I can pull together in one other browser tab whilst typing this post. Mostly this means I'm judging the answer based on the Church of England newspaper's Twitter feed which seems to act as an aggregator for stories relating to the Anglican Communion in particular and religion in general, so this is a very poor sample, but this is meant to elaborate the question not to give a definitive answer.
In the last 40 posts on that feed, the word "sex" (or compounds based on it e.g. sexual, homosexual etc.) appears 10 times, another post is about civil partnerships, one is about CANA (the Nigerian Anglican Church's invasion of the USA, so that comes down to who the bishop was bonking anyway), some on abortion and family rights and 10 posts were about Islam and Christianity in tension in Asia. Only two were about poor people, and they are both about the same story, the situation in Somalia.
So if this indication is anything to go by, TWOT thinks (or at least the Church thinks TWOT thinks) that the Church is obsessed by sex and Islam.
What do we want to people to think of about us then? Well the prophet Micah made a suggestion: he delivered the Lord's message that we should "act justly, love mercy and walk humbly with God", a certain first century rabbi suggested we should be the light of the world. A hymn suggests that "they'll know we are Christians by our love".
That same rabbi explained that on the Last Day the Son of Man will say to those on his right: "I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me." The Son of Man, in this tale, goes on to say "whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me"
So how are we to act justly, love mercy and walk humbly with our God? As the rich man didn't quite ask Christ, how do I love my neighbour?
--
The long quotation is from Matthew 25, and I've copied and pasted from the NIV because its the default on the site I copied it from.
The Micah quotation is from Micah 6:8, again NIV.
Sunday, August 1, 2010
On why I've only just got home from the pub... Or on subtlety.... Or on ordination
So this evening I left home at 5pm to go to mass as usual. And I've only just got home, over four hours after leaving the church. It takes me under 45mins to travel. So what happened?
Also this week, I had a conversation with my flatmates about whether we were going to continue living together next year once our current contract on the flat expires. One of the things we talked about was my ability to understand subtle hints.
I realise that the above paragraphs appear to have little connection, except in the conversation we were having in the pub this evening. Said conversation was closely linked to other conversations I have had in pubs this week. And I am trying to work out if these conversations contain a (less than) subtle hint from God.
You see, this evening's conversation was the fourth independent conversation I have had this week (three of which occurred in pubs, for the record - opinion to follow on what this demonstrates) where someone has asked me if I am considering the priesthood. To some of my friends the idea of me as a priest seems entirely alien - they clearly know some of my vices far too well. But so does God, so we'll see..
The first of these four conversations (and the one not in a pub) occurred in a relatively normal place for such conversations to happen, and by itself it probably wouldn't have been something I would have noted. What roughly happened was a quick conversation, whilst preparing for the evening service last Sunday, between Lee (one of the vergers who has just been accepted into training for the priesthood), Brett (a fellow server) and me. And I was asked whether I was considering ordination. As I said a casual conversation in the vestry, of a sort that would normally be washed off and forgotten.
Onto Wednesday, and I was drinking with one of the clergy from the Cathedral, and another friend from there. And again, over a few beers, I was asked had I considered the priesthood.
Once is unlucky, twice is coincidence...
Saturday night I was out for a drink (which turned into a evening in the bar...) after work with a friend. And it sort of happened again that after a couple, Laura and I were talking about whether I was going to become a priest...
...But three times is just plain carelessness
And we come back to this evening. After mass, Guy, David and I decamped to the nearby pub, as is something of our fashion. Initially we were just discussing David's reaction to his first sermon at a major Cathedral service (which btw, was generally quite positive). And then that same question got asked again...
So what is a fourth time?
Now back to subtlety, apparently I'm not very good at getting subtle hints (I wouldn't know, I never noticed any...) Has God stopped being subtle this week? Whilst He has started shouting my name at me in the night (cf 1 Samuel 3), the subtle hints to give this some thought that started about a year ago seem to be starting to be replaced by something clearer!
I'm not sure whether the little advertisement in the church notice sheet each week for a vocations conference is targeted at me too... (And if so, whether it's the Dean's doing or God's - and if there is a difference, and if there is, which matters most!)
So Tom's big question for the week... is this some big kick up the arse I'm meant to be detecting?
PS (mostly for my own benefit, whilst its in mind, I should collate the information) - For a little background, the subtle hints began (again?) at an ordination service I attended nearly a year ago after which a little old lady who I don't think I know asked if she was likely to see me "up there anytime soon". And I can't get that question out of my head. There have a been in the interim a number of other conversations like the ones this week where people have suggested the idea and I've been a little uncertain, but I can't recall details. This week is only notable for the volume!!
PPS - the amount of time I spend in pubs. So this week, my time appears to have divided between work, sleep, the pub and church (not in that order). I don't know whether I should be drawing a link between pubs and the above, but I'm certainly not being a good anglo-catholic, there is no GIN.
PPPS - GIN is a very old in-joke from the Ship of Fools, for now I suggest accepting the reference as one of my many many quirks!
PPPPS - Along with my liking for making extra points on the end of my ramblings, just like this one!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)