I am not sure what to make of this. Is it a message about Obama or a reminder to eat another Lindt snowball or are you wishing to promote a fine example of a male role model (a choice of two)? I hope you enlighten me.
The music is unforgettable and it gives the Christian story, which in turn conveys what is discussed here regularly, morality.
Personation appears to mean impersonation so it is bizarre, if not blasphemous.
Patently may be Boney M's biggest fan but there are so many fabulous carols. I take myself off alone to carol concerts. How was your Christmas, Albert?
Doesn't look plausible from that does it? but look at the (odd) way the KJV has rendered it:
Who [Christ] being the brightness of his [God's] glory, and the express image of his person.
Yes, Patently is a Boney M fan. The man in the group (the one with whose expansive hair contrasts painfully with his eye-wateringly tight trousers) - that's Patently.
I'm still having a lovely Christmas thanks - though you'll never guess what we sang before Midnight Mass...Mary's Boy Child by Boney M (I'm not joking - the Catholic church is very Radio 2 at times in this country). Though we didn't sing the stuff about personation - as you say, a surprising theological formulation if ever there was one.
Next week we're singing By the Rivers of Babylon (Ps.137) (with optional spliffs for those who think there's hidden Rasta symbolism in it).
What are your favourite carols? I have you down as being a bit more Radio 3 in your preferences than poor old Patently.
(I am impressed by the Greek; could be a first on a blog. By the Rivers of Babylon is better than Mary's Boy Child in my opinion. I am more a Radio 4, Classic and Magic listener than Radio 3.
You are in no trouble, Albert. Patently won't be able to run fast in those trousers and you can go to a confessional. Is the Pope still poorly?)
Measured, I'm not sure about my favourite Boney M song, but Patently's favourite was "Love for sale". Though apparently, he had to have his singing dubbed by a third party (he also needed additional body hair provided by a young Rowan Williams).
Measured, I couldn't quite bring myself to speak of the Holy Father in that last comment (for obvious reasons).
Apparently he is well - it's quite impressive for an 82 year old to be knocked down so forcefully and then get up and celebrate a full solemn Midnight Mass. He clearly has real inner strength.
I feel really sorry for Cardinal Etchegary, aged 87 whose hip was broken in the attack, as he tried to defend the Pope. At his age, he'll be lucky to get back to normal. But imagine his position - he starts the Mass all excited to be concelebrating with the Holy Father and at Christmas Midnight Mass and ends up in hospital with such an injury. He deserves our prayers, it would have been easy for him to think that he is an old man and that it is down to others to defend the Pope.
ROFL! What a smouldering look .... {^~^} .... I may melt... [.^.]
But, Albert, are you sure it is Patently? I have had the impression that Patently is portly. Albert, has it not been suggested to us that Patently may wish to wear a tie, possibly in his fine set of teeth rather than round his neck? After all, modesty may wish him to disguise such a fine chest of hair. It could be a personation of Patently. Perhaps Patently will decide to reveal himself to us this Christmas.
My thoughts are with Cardinal Etchegary for a speedy recovery. I am sure he will be in good hands. Albert, he could have broken his hip in less auspicious circumstances, but to break any bone at his age is likely to be debilitating. His faith will give him strength. It is very positive to see the Pope being so undaunted by the incident.
I was amazed to see the newspapers openly disagreeing with the Archbishop of Canterbury's seemingly uncontroversial message this Christmas that children are forced to grow up too quickly. Such disagreement on this occasion seemed unnecessary and disrespectful to our culture in my opinion.
It could be a personation of Patently. Perhaps Patently will decide to reveal himself to us this Christmas.
LOL and very clever to tie such disparate strands together like that. Whether Patently is portly or not now, he was a dancer in his youth and therefore was in good shape. But remember, he didn't have such a fine chest of hair, that's why Rowan was required to help. Rowan Williams was also a dancer once. He belonged to the Order of St Vitus - a strange group of dancing nuns.
I thought Rowan was spot on in what he said about children - I am astonished that anyone could disagree with what he said, and yet, at the same time, I'm not surprised. Our society has forgotten how to be human, in such a society a man who speaks prophetically is bound to be shouted down.
+Vincent also was good (did you see Midnight Mass from Westminster Cathedral? - I saw it on the iplayer - Catholic worship as it should be - fabulously beautiful and mystical). Interesting that Rowan and Vincent were on similar lines. I wonder if they did that deliberately.
I hope this is Patently indulging in a bit of kitsch rather than deliberate self promotion, but the jury is still out. We await his response.
I can recall the articles, but am unable to provide a link, regarding criticism of Williams' Christmas message. Basically it stated children used to go out to work at 14 - 15 years old and now they travel, stay in full time education for longer and live with their parents. Meanwhile, adults are treated liked children.
Williams really should have qualified his assertion by stating he was comparing modern day childhood to children who only lived a hundred years ago. It concerns me that Williams has shown himself to be so naive at public relations that he will be easily led astray by false compliments or misguided good intentions, hoisted aloft by an air of self importance. It appears you also have reservations about him.
The midnight mass looked rather wonderful. I would be surprised if the Churches were so close as to send out a coordinated message but there again, isn't the Church as political as politics? Know thine enemies and keep them close.
My feelings about Rowan are genuinely mixed. He is undoubtedly a good and holy man - certainly one of the most authentic people I've ever met (which considering his grand office is quite an achievement).
Authenticity may be one of his public failings - he would sooner be authentic in his pronouncements than adapt them to the prevailing culture that is not really able to cope with profound and nuanced thoughts (cf.Tony Blair).
These days, it is hardly possible to have a public discussion about any thought worthy of our thought. Ideas must be expressible in short pithy sentences. In such a context, the richness of humanity and culture is lost. It suits people with uninteresting and misleading things to say - like Richard Dawkins, not those who want to probe serious questions about meaning and humanity, like Rowan Williams.
Regarding Rowan's comments on children, I would have predicted the response about children going out to work aged 14-15. It is the standard response of the liberal left. It fails in my view, because we shouldn't be complacently comparing ourselves with the past - we should be striving for the best we can offer now. Imagine if we compared health-care on those grounds - the fallacy would be immediately obvious.
This inadequate, off the shelf, response is wheeled out because it is evident that to deal with the problems Rowan is raising would challenge the liberal paradigm - and most liberals would, I am afraid, prefer children to suffer, than that we adults should live more responsibly towards them.
Besides, is our situation so much better now than when children went out to work then? Now an alarming proportion of our children miss that part of their childhood because they are pregnant, or because the collapse of a narrative of the common good, means educating in some situations is impossible - even supposing the children have bothered to attend school.
Personally, I would rather grow up in the socially stable culture in which I had to go out to work aged 14, but in which I felt valued by my parents, and clear on what society expected from me, than one in which, throughout my childhood, life was constantly turned upside down because of family break-up, not knowing who my father was, or who the next man in my mother's bedroom would be.
Of course, such circumstances have always existed - it's nothing new. But New Labour seems determined to generate such circumstances, make them strangely normative, rather than face the fact so obvious to everyone - especially the children - that, all things being equal, children flourish best with both parents married, and in a socially and morally stable culture.
Re: Midnight Mass - it is possible the Archbishops coordinated their messages. Although ecumenically things are at a low ebb (owing to the fact that the CofE is so divided Rome doesn't know which bit of it to talk to), the personal relationships are close and warm. There's no way that +Rowan and +Vincent would regard each other - or each other's communions as enemies, there's too much common ground and friendship.
Anyway, speaking of Archbishops getting a pasting, a happy feast of St Thomas Becket to you!
Sorry, Albert, I read that the Catholic Church were looking to poach, no, sorry, convert parts of the Church of England by agreeing to various concessions. Is this not a reason for tension between the Churches and those involved? Still waters run deep?
Patently, Albert and I will pleasantly pass the time so you are not let off the coat hanger. Albert & I patiently await a revelation. ;-)
I could never have a day which is happy in terms of celebrating Archbishop Thomas Becket's murder. Such a terrible deed to a man of the cloth. Well, little changes since 1170 (albeit the Holy Father survived his attack) in this respect.
Well, I have been asked to believe much and jumping to conclusions is never a wise move, so you need to present your case, P. Or are you leading us all astray?
Please show us what you had in mind. Are you blonde, not ginger? ::jaw drops slightly:: What do you think, Albert? ;-)
I read that the Catholic Church were looking to poach, no, sorry, convert parts of the Church of England by agreeing to various concessions. Is this not a reason for tension between the Churches and those involved?
That's the way the papers presented it, it's the way some of the more self-indulgent Anglicans felt about it. But really what happened was that the CofE had promised to provide adequate provision for opponents of women's ordination (details on request). By moving forward to make women bishops, without creating new provision, the CofE has been breaking that promise - and its own report said so in black and white.
Consequently, over the last few years, a number of Anglican bishops: Chichester, Gibraltar (I think), Fulham, Richborough and Ebbsfleet have been going to Rome or holding conversations with the Vatican about leaving the CofE and being allowed to be received en masse. Similar visits have been made by other (former) Anglican bishops in America and Australia who have already broken away from the Anglican Communion.
In other words, Rome isn't looking to poach, but is simply responding to an initiative from certain Anglican (and former Anglican) Bishops and their flocks, already signalling they want to become Catholics. As the Bishop of Fulham put it “We have felt increasingly marginalised [within the CofE]. The significant thing is that Rome has heard our cries and our own church has not. This is like my kids going next door to be fed because they are hungry."
It's embarrassing for Rowan because he's been caught out - shepherds are supposed to gather their flocks not scatter them, and you ought to be able to rely on bishops to keep their promises. But even Rowan admits Rome isn't poaching because these are people who wanted to leave in any case. (In fairness, Rowan would probably have given the traditionalists a much better deal, but he is not master in his own house.)
It won't have affected relations between English bishops of each tradition much because the English Catholic bishops didn't know anything about it either. And truth to tell, some of them might not have approved if they had.
I could never have a day which is happy in terms of celebrating Archbishop Thomas Becket's murder. But a martyr goes straight to heaven, so his death day is really his birthday into eternal life. It shows he has placed goodness above every other consideration, even his own life- that marks a great victory.
In other words, Rome isn't looking to poach, but is simply responding to an initiative...
I have noted you have tried to qualify this, but imagine that a child from next door knocks on my door after Christmas and says that his family are being mean to him. They said that if his sister was allowed to play with his toys, they would give him some extra Christmas cake and they didn't. Of course I would listen and offer sympathy, but would I offer to adopt him? Would I offer him Christmas cake every day of the year?
No, I would not. I would not look to interfere or meddle in the affairs of another family, even if that child wished to use my influence as leverage. What are the real motives of those involved? I do not wish to speculate further but I doubt it is as simple as you or I have protrayed.
It is in Williams' interest to concede Rome is not poaching but it does not demonstrate he honestly believes it. However, you have raised my opinion of the Catholic Church as it is evident they have spoken to e. The CofE appears to have palpably failed in this respect.
Terrorists are martyrs but no victory is to be had there. Was Becket a martyr? He was undoubtedly brave as he must have known he was in grave danger, but did he consciously choose death? However, I have no doubt he went straight to heaven but a crime had been committed. That is not something to celebrate and you can not persuade me otherwise on this occasion.
Albert, wonderful photographs. So Bobby was Patently's alter ego. Given Patently denies it, perhaps he is embarrassed by his past. Do you still speak with a squeaky voice, P? ;-)
I doubt it is as simple as you or I have protrayed.
Rather than further defend my post, I’d simply ask you which part of my account do you think is inaccurate? I would say however, that your story doesn’t quite work because the situation is not of people feeling unable to “play” but of them being excluded and therefore leaving the family.
The CofE’s own (non-partisan) report said (in 2004), if the CofE followed the path it has subsequantly chosen to follow, people will have to leave (or stay in bad conscience, break the law etc.). It also said that this would be a breach of its own promises. That’s why the bishop who left the General Synod debate of July 2008 in tears, was a supporter of the ordination of women – he knew the course chosen to ordain women bishops meant a whole wing of the CofE was being forced out.
It’s just like New Labour’s equality laws – you’re only equal and included if you can subscribe to a novel and by no means certain set of dogmas.
What are the real motives of those involved? Many of my friends are in this position. Their motivation is simple: they have tried to stay within the CofE, basing themselves on promises given in the past. Now that those promises are being broken, they have had to have a rethink about whether they are in the right Church. For those who ask that question, there is only one answer – they even have an acronym for it: RITA – Rome Is The Answer!
I have no doubt that we will see Anglican bishops leaving the CofE, almost certainly in the next 12 months, and perhaps even sooner.
Terrorists are martyrs
No, terrorists are not martyrs in any Christian sense (and “martyr” has a Christian etymology and should not be allowed to by hijacked by Muslim terrorists): it is always and everywhere wrong for anyone directly and deliberately to take innocent human life. A martyr can only ever be a victim of violence, not its perpetrator.
Was Becket a martyr?
Yes, because he was killed for defending the Church from secular aggression.
a crime had been committed. That is not something to celebrate and you can not persuade me otherwise on this occasion.
The crime is not something to celebrate – I never meant that it was. What was done was gravely wrong and really bad for Becket. But there are also two goodnesses at work here: (a) Becket’s willingness to stand for the Church even though he knew standing up to the secular power put him in mortal danger.
(b) The goodness of God to bring eternal life out of the darkness of that evil.
A good comparison would be St Maximilian Kolbe in Auschwitz. When the Nazis found that a prisoner was missing (they later remembered they’d murdered him in the toilets, but it’s easy to forget such things) they singled out 10 men to be tortured and murdered to deter further escape attempts. When they picked on Franciszek Gajowniczek he cried out, lamenting his family. Brave Fr Maximilian offered to die in his place – as a priest he had no wife or children to leave behind.
Maximilian’s murder was horrific, but his willingness to die for another was a great victory of grace over our normal selfishness. His glorification in heaven is similarly a great good. Ditto Thomas Becket.
Rather than further defend my post, I’d simply ask you which part of my account do you think is inaccurate?
I did not suggest or do suggest any part of your post was inaccurate.
The situation is very political and emotions obviously run high and will continue to run high. Sometimes situations can reconciled, sometimes they cannot be, but it is up to the CofE to put its house in order. Given Williams attended the press conference, which announced the moves of the Catholic Church to welcome in the disillusioned Anglicans, suggests that the CofE was caught by surprise and was ill prepared for the actions of the Catholic Church, Albert, this brings me back to my concerns about Williams' abilities. I would still be happier if CofE were left to resolve their own problems. You may feel that the Catholic Church was responding to a need.
Life is sacred so I do not celebrate a death, especially that of a worthy and/or selfless individual, whereever they may end up so I agree with (a) but I have my reservations about (b). I lament the unnecessary loss of life for a worthy cause.
emotions obviously run high and will continue to run high.
True, and I'm not unsympathetic to women priests who feel they are second-class priests (which they obviously are) while they can't be bishops. My sympathy runs a little thin though when I see them prepared to push themselves forward in such a way as to make clergy friends of mine - and their families - literally homeless (in the sense not only of having to leave the CofE but their vicarages too). I am even more saddened when having pushed for such a circumstance, they then complain that the Pope is offering such homeless clergy somewhere to go. What exactly are such clergy supposed to do - they're effectively kicked out by the theological equivalent of New Labour but then criticised when they go somewhere else. I can't see that that sort of behaviour is really what being a priest is about.
I would still be happier if CofE were left to resolve their own problems. Agreed, but this has been going on for nearly two decades without Rome doing anything. Rome has only stepped in now because it has reached the point where Anglican bishops are going to the Vatican to ask for help because things are so bad in the Anglican Communion. In such a situation, I think it is right for Rome to respond to those knocking on the Holy Father's door, and if Anglicans don't like that, then they had every opportunity to avoid it - they simply had to keep their promises.
I do not celebrate a death
Absolutely not - death is never anything to celebrate in itself. Christianity would be weird indeed if it proposed that we should celebrate it in itself. But we can celebrate the good that God brings out of the evil of death, either our own, the saints, or above all, Christ's.
I enjoy our discussions Measured - you also engage well, which is unusual on the internet, and you're right, Patently is still on a coat hanger! :-)
Both men and women can be too ambitious and self-centred. Certainly I have been unimpressed by the demeanour and ambitions of some women priests when interviewed on the radio; their arguments are beautifully couched in logical argument though. I am surprised some clergy are being made 'homeless' without due warning but their grievances still lie with the CofE.
Why doesn't the Catholic Church just change to accommodate all Anglicans? Why is it making concessions? Out of pity or for other motives?We live in interesting times for the CofE.
By the by, my mother is quite decided that she could not contemplate being buried by a woman. She is adamant that she will be buried by a man next to my father. It surprised me that she had strong feelings about this.
Patently, please reveal yourself. Stop hiding in the wardrobe. ;-)
Both men and women can be too ambitious and self-centred.
I agree, and I never meant to imply ambition was a purely female preserve. However, I think ambition in a priest which results in making other people homeless is pretty horrible.
their arguments are beautifully couched in logical argument though.
Perhaps, but are their premises theological, or just rehashes of secular equality thought, (mis)applied in a new context? What kind of argument do you have in mind?
I am surprised some clergy are being made 'homeless' without due warning
It is not so much the lack of "due warning", as the lack of just cause. In a CofE in which it is possible to be a minister while believing next to nothing (in some cases, not even believing in God) and to live in ways which are plainly at variance with the clear teaching of the Church of England, there's something a little odd about a situation in which clergy and their families are made homeless, simply because they think the Church should follow the practice of Christ, until such time as it has been shown by Anglican principles that Christ's example no longer applies. Does anyone seriously believe that authority to unhouse such people, for such reasons, in such a circumstance, really comes from Christ?!
But don't get me wrong. I think this is all a felix culpa, insofar as it provides some Anglicans with the occasion to realise the reason that the CofE is behaving in such an untheological way, is because the CofE is not the full Church of Jesus Christ. Provided such Anglicans think carefully and pray hard, it is likely they will see that they need to become Catholics. That is a good thing, it's good for them, and it's good for the Church. But (like the martyrdom) it does not justify the injustices that are being done to them.
Why doesn't the Catholic Church just change to accommodate all Anglicans? Why is it making concessions? Out of pity or for other motives?
Good set of questions.
1. It's important to be clear on the kinds of concessions not being made. Converts from the Anglican schism naturally have to accept the Catholic faith in its fullness, including all the stuff about the Pope. Any Anglican who accepts that is welcome to join, but clearly this does not apply to all Anglicans. So there are no "Credal" concessions.
2. The kinds of concessions that are being made therefore are purely cultural. Effectively the Holy Father is saying there are genuine fruits of the Spirit in the CofE, real riches which at least should be preserved, but at best can teach ordinary Catholics some things about their faith. The Pope is saying, why should convert Anglicans have to give these things up, instead of bringing them with them? He realises how important culture is to people, and sees nothing to be gained by forcing people to give up what is good in their culture, provided they believe the Catholic faith.
3. In addition to pity, implicit in this is (a) a high regard for Anglican culture and tradition and (b) a recognition that the Catholic Church can be enriched by this Anglican tradition.
In short, contrary to the way the media have presented it, the move shows great humility and kindness on the part of the Holy Father. It also shows real respect for the Anglican way. Given that Anglicanism is tearing itself apart, it may be that one of the major ways in which what is good in the Anglican tradition will be preserved will be in the Catholic Church.
Patently, please reveal yourself. Stop hiding in the wardrobe. ;-)
I for one am keeping my eyes peeled for a half-naked, burnt-out pop star, with an Afro, driving a silver Landrover.
In a CofE in which it is possible to be a minister while believing next to nothing (in some cases, not even believing in God) and to live....
with
a high regard for Anglican culture and tradition....
and the inherent contradiction in
to realise the reason that the CofE is behaving in such an untheological way
They behave in the way they choose. There is no point at this stage discussing the arguments regarding the ordination of women as the trend in the CofE is inevitable.
It is very kind of the Holy Father to respond to requests displaying his great humility and kindness, but I am not so sure it shows real respect for the Anglican way. It demonstrates the taking advantage of an opportunity. I would wish to ask more questions about the reasons for these requests. After all, in the past I have observed that it is usually the Catholic Church that is slow to embrace change and prefers to adher to tradition.
So be it. I appreciate the time you have taken to reply to my comments. It is sad that there is currently so much discontent within the Anglican faith.
Yes, I will keep an eye out for Patently. He may be hard to miss looking like that. ;-)
Measured, there is no difficulty reconciling my two sentences. "CofE" and "Anglican tradition" no more refer to the same thing than do "English monarchy" and "English King" or Wagner (the music I love) and Wagner (the anti-semite I hate).
"Anglican tradition" refers to beautiful worship in beautiful buildings using beautiful English. It is the Coverdale Psalter, the prose of the Book of Common Prayer, Choral Evensong, Anglican Chant, the poems of George Herbert and the prayers of Lancelot Andrewes, it is a great tradition of biblical and patristic scholarship. "The CofE" on the other hand simply refers to the individuals who at this time happen to be the heirs of such a tradition. There is no more contradiction than between the man who says he loves his old school (meaning its traditions, buildings, grounds, uniform etc.) and hates his school (meaning the modernisers who (he thinks)) are wrecking the place.
They behave in the way they choose.
Exactly, my point entirely.
it is usually the Catholic Church that is slow to embrace change and prefers to adher to tradition.
On the contrary, the Catholic Church embraces change. As Newman said (defending Catholicism) "In a higher world it is otherwise, but here below to live is to change, and to be perfect is to have changed often." 17.5% of the world's population is Catholic. You don't manage that without being adaptable. It is precisely the Catholic Church's capacity for development that was the original complaint of the Protestant Reformation. Of course, it may be the Catholic Church does not change as you think it should, but that does not show that it does not change.
It demonstrates the taking advantage of an opportunity.
Why are you so determined to believe the worst of it?
I would wish to ask more questions about the reasons for these requests.
Ask away - I have enough experience of the move from the CofE to Catholicism to be of some use here.
"Anglican tradition" refers to beautiful worship in beautiful buildings using beautiful English. It is very kind of you to say so. The Catholic Church has very beautiful aspects too, as memorable as the midnight mass you linked to at the beginning of this discussion.
If I were going to question you further, my line of questioning would pursue why you are so concerned certain members of the clergy are being made homeless and why this is taking place. However, the Catholic Church has broken no rules or laws to the best of my knowledge and in my opinion we have pursued this enough, Albert.
There are plenty of other matters we will discuss, as you always greatly further my understanding about how religious belief is able to contribute to an increasingly secular society. I also think you are aware that the actions of the Catholic Church have become a sensitive topic for many in this country. I have no doubt that the ordination of women has heightened these sensitivities.
Now where is Patently? Is he busy being Daddy Cool? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qpt5w2wsnZM&NR=1 Nice moves, P. ;-)
Re: Dancing in Daddy Cool. Has someone stuck some jump-leads into Patently's back?
I also think you are aware that the actions of the Catholic Church have become a sensitive topic for many in this country.
I'm not sure which actions you have in mind. As far as I can see the Catholic Church has been a controversial organisation in England since the Reformation. In addition to the heritage of Protestant England, there are modern reasons why people are suspicious about the Catholic Church.
The Catholic Church is, for example, one Western institution (perhaps the only significant such insitution) which is able to think for itself, and provide others with the resources to think for themselves, rather than just ratify the dictats of the liberal left (cf. the modern Conservative Party).
And yet for all that it rejects the gospel of the secular as false (and faintly ridiculous in some regards), the Catholic Church still commands devotion which is unrivalled both for its depth and popularity - that really gets up the nose of the liberal left (which thinks nothing could deserve more devotion than itself).
Finally, anyone with any sense can see that when culture and society have reacted against the present ideology (in ways presently unpredicatable) and consigned it to the dustbin of history, the Catholic Church will remain standing, still teaching all those things that liberals and secularists hate. Ironically, it will be the Catholic Church which will bear what is good, true and agreeable in liberalism and secularism into a new age.
Isn't it amazing that we have got 30 comments from Patently's Boney M post?
P.S. Are you a practising Anglican Measured - I hadn't felt that until your last post? P.P.S. I'm sure I saw Patently in the Chilterns today.
My apologies, Albert. I have been so busy. I was thinking whether I should disclose my religious views but who is going to read the 31st comment, apart from you & P? You have a right to know who you are dealing with in order that you recognise that I am straightforward with no axe to grind.
In my opinion the Catholic Church needs to build bridges as much as the CofE needs to think about where it is at. There is no doubt that the populist view of Henry VIII, who in fact was a very dangerous man, does not assist your cause, but you have had plenty of time to turn things around. Some opinions are formed from events outside your control but little is black and white so Ironically, it will be the Catholic Church which will bear what is good, true and agreeable in liberalism and secularism into a new age. seems unnecessarily extreme for the appetite of some.
As for me, I live a lie. I do not believe in God, but at the same time I think everyone worships the same God and that I should support the Church as it provides benefits for and control of society in the main. I will overlook birth control guidance, women crawling on their hand and knees to the Catholic Church in South America to atone for their husband's unfaithfulness... Other religions are open to criticism too, like Hindus make everyone be satisfied with their lot owing to fate. :-)
Yes, the local vicar knows my name which surprises me as I rarely see him. I always compliment the service and smile though. I dragged the family to Church for Christmas and was delighted my daughter was asked to light one of the advent candles, but inside me, I do not feel much. God has never been there when I needed Him and logical totally defies His presence. I feel death is a peaceful place to be. Some need religion to behave properly but a religious code does not need to be displayed outwardly to others in my view. I hope I haven't opened up a can of worms, but there you go.
Did you see P? I hope he is not stranded in the snow as I reckon his upper half might get cold. What was he driving? Did he have a bevy of women in the back?
Yes, I did see Patently yesterday in the ice. He wasn't driving anything, and as you will realise from the picture, wasn't surrounded by a bevy of women. He did tell me though that even he wasn't reading our discussion in any detail any more, so I expect your secret is safe - I will keep it sub rosa.
Thank you for replying so fully. I am sorry God has seemed not to be there when you needed him. If it's any consolation you're in good company .
That's the mystery of Christianity, it doesn't so much tell you to expect to find the presence of God, as his absence. This is because, as the crucifixion shows, the God we are looking for and think we would recognise is not the God that exists. This is why St Thérèse de Lisieux is so popular - her experience is so authentic in that she shows us how we find the real God through experiencing the absence of the God we think should exist. Then we discover that the God that does exist is infinitely greater than what we thought should have existed.
I don't doubt that the Catholic Church has done and does some bad things (it's also done some excellent things of course). I'd be genuinely interested to hear which bridges you think need building.
But there's nothing in the Catholic faith that implies we Catholics will be good - only that Christ will teach and be present through his Church. Moreover, some practices - like those you mention in South America would be abhorred by most Catholics too.
but you have had plenty of time to turn things around. Except of course, that for most of that time, Catholicism was illegal in England, and since emancipation, I think we've made a good showing of ourselves in the face of a lot of residual prejudice and determination to see the worst in everything Catholic.
At the same time, I think atheism is open to criticism - though often the criticism is dissipated because atheists are so evasive about what they positively belief and because atheism doesn't really bring people together as religion does. It is difficult (though not impossible - as the history of atheism demonstrates) to commit social sins if your ideology does not create any societies.
On the other hand, I think Catholic teaching on birth control makes sense (though it's not well understood), and takes better account of the fullness of our humanity/sexuality - rather than regarding it as something in need of technical modification. As philosopher GEM Anscombe prophetically put it over thirty years ago "no sort of sexual acts could be excluded if once you admitted contraceptive intercourse." That may be a little extreme, but there's no doubt that Catholic teaching on sexuality has a consistency that is lacking elsewhere. Most people still retain sexual taboos which are inconsistent with what they allow.
I feel death is a peaceful place to be. I don't think worrying about death motivates my faith much - at least not consciously. My faith is much more about making sense of life, and about making sense of the encounter with Christ.
I'm not sure if I would describe death as peaceful though. If there's no God then I would have thought death would be a kind of nothingness in which we no longer exist to experience anything - including peace.
Anyway, I'm glad you went to Church at Christmas and that the Vicar knows your name!
I do not consider myself to be an atheist but to be concerned about a description of myself may be contradictory. I agree that atheism is very open to criticism.
Thank you for such a full reply. It provides me with plenty to think about. I am pleased you are glad the Vicar knows my name. I am more concerned by it to be honest. I am actually quite shy.
That was Patently you saw. I can tell; the codpiece and the heels are a BIG giveaway. Well done for having your camera with you at the time. No sign of him since?
I don't think you're an atheist either. Perhaps the god you do not believe in, is not the living God, the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, anyway.
I am not sure what to make of this. Is it a message about Obama or a reminder to eat another Lindt snowball or are you wishing to promote a fine example of a male role model (a choice of two)? I hope you enlighten me.
ReplyDeleteThe music is unforgettable and it gives the Christian story, which in turn conveys what is discussed here regularly, morality.
Happy Christmas, P.
Happy St Stephen's Day to everyone, especially to Measured.
ReplyDeleteP.S. While you are searching for answers to your questions Measured, could you find out what this line means:
"Oh my Lord (So praise the Lord)
with the child’s adoration
Oh my lord (He is a personation)
Albert,
ReplyDeletePersonation appears to mean impersonation so it is bizarre, if not blasphemous.
Patently may be Boney M's biggest fan but there are so many fabulous carols. I take myself off alone to carol concerts. How was your Christmas, Albert?
Thanks Measured, after I wrote the question, I wondered if it was a reference to Heb.1.3:
ReplyDeleteὃς ὢν ἀπαύγασμα τῆς δόξης καὶ χαρακτὴρ τῆς ὑποστάσεως αὐτοῦ
Doesn't look plausible from that does it? but look at the (odd) way the KJV has rendered it:
Who [Christ] being the brightness of his [God's] glory, and the express image of his person.
Yes, Patently is a Boney M fan. The man in the group (the one with whose expansive hair contrasts painfully with his eye-wateringly tight trousers) - that's Patently.
I'm still having a lovely Christmas thanks - though you'll never guess what we sang before Midnight Mass...Mary's Boy Child by Boney M (I'm not joking - the Catholic church is very Radio 2 at times in this country). Though we didn't sing the stuff about personation - as you say, a surprising theological formulation if ever there was one.
Next week we're singing By the Rivers of Babylon (Ps.137) (with optional spliffs for those who think there's hidden Rasta symbolism in it).
What are your favourite carols? I have you down as being a bit more Radio 3 in your preferences than poor old Patently.
Albert, you are in *so* much trouble.
ReplyDelete;-)
Patently hasn't denied it, Albert. ;-)
ReplyDelete(I am impressed by the Greek; could be a first on a blog. By the Rivers of Babylon is better than Mary's Boy Child in my opinion. I am more a Radio 4, Classic and Magic listener than Radio 3.
You are in no trouble, Albert. Patently won't be able to run fast in those trousers and you can go to a confessional. Is the Pope still poorly?)
Better tight trousers than a long black dress ... err cassock.
ReplyDeleteMeasured, I'm not sure about my favourite Boney M song, but Patently's favourite was "Love for sale". Though apparently, he had to have his singing dubbed by a third party (he also needed additional body hair provided by a young Rowan Williams).
ReplyDeleteMeasured, I couldn't quite bring myself to speak of the Holy Father in that last comment (for obvious reasons).
ReplyDeleteApparently he is well - it's quite impressive for an 82 year old to be knocked down so forcefully and then get up and celebrate a full solemn Midnight Mass. He clearly has real inner strength.
I feel really sorry for Cardinal Etchegary, aged 87 whose hip was broken in the attack, as he tried to defend the Pope. At his age, he'll be lucky to get back to normal. But imagine his position - he starts the Mass all excited to be concelebrating with the Holy Father and at Christmas Midnight Mass and ends up in hospital with such an injury. He deserves our prayers, it would have been easy for him to think that he is an old man and that it is down to others to defend the Pope.
ROFL! What a smouldering look .... {^~^} .... I may melt... [.^.]
ReplyDeleteBut, Albert, are you sure it is Patently? I have had the impression that Patently is portly. Albert, has it not been suggested to us that Patently may wish to wear a tie, possibly in his fine set of teeth rather than round his neck? After all, modesty may wish him to disguise such a fine chest of hair. It could be a personation of Patently. Perhaps Patently will decide to reveal himself to us this Christmas.
My thoughts are with Cardinal Etchegary for a speedy recovery. I am sure he will be in good hands. Albert, he could have broken his hip in less auspicious circumstances, but to break any bone at his age is likely to be debilitating. His faith will give him strength. It is very positive to see the Pope being so undaunted by the incident.
ReplyDeleteI was amazed to see the newspapers openly disagreeing with the Archbishop of Canterbury's seemingly uncontroversial message this Christmas that children are forced to grow up too quickly. Such disagreement on this occasion seemed unnecessary and disrespectful to our culture in my opinion.
It could be a personation of Patently. Perhaps Patently will decide to reveal himself to us this Christmas.
ReplyDeleteLOL and very clever to tie such disparate strands together like that. Whether Patently is portly or not now, he was a dancer in his youth and therefore was in good shape. But remember, he didn't have such a fine chest of hair, that's why Rowan was required to help. Rowan Williams was also a dancer once. He belonged to the Order of St Vitus - a strange group of dancing nuns.
I thought Rowan was spot on in what he said about children - I am astonished that anyone could disagree with what he said, and yet, at the same time, I'm not surprised. Our society has forgotten how to be human, in such a society a man who speaks prophetically is bound to be shouted down.
ReplyDelete+Vincent also was good (did you see Midnight Mass from Westminster Cathedral? - I saw it on the iplayer - Catholic worship as it should be - fabulously beautiful and mystical). Interesting that Rowan and Vincent were on similar lines. I wonder if they did that deliberately.
I hope this is Patently indulging in a bit of kitsch rather than deliberate self promotion, but the jury is still out. We await his response.
ReplyDeleteI can recall the articles, but am unable to provide a link, regarding criticism of Williams' Christmas message. Basically it stated children used to go out to work at 14 - 15 years old and now they travel, stay in full time education for longer and live with their parents. Meanwhile, adults are treated liked children.
Williams really should have qualified his assertion by stating he was comparing modern day childhood to children who only lived a hundred years ago. It concerns me that Williams has shown himself to be so naive at public relations that he will be easily led astray by false compliments or misguided good intentions, hoisted aloft by an air of self importance. It appears you also have reservations about him.
The midnight mass looked rather wonderful. I would be surprised if the Churches were so close as to send out a coordinated message but there again, isn't the Church as political as politics? Know thine enemies and keep them close.
It appears you also have reservations about him.
ReplyDeleteMy feelings about Rowan are genuinely mixed. He is undoubtedly a good and holy man - certainly one of the most authentic people I've ever met (which considering his grand office is quite an achievement).
Authenticity may be one of his public failings - he would sooner be authentic in his pronouncements than adapt them to the prevailing culture that is not really able to cope with profound and nuanced thoughts (cf.Tony Blair).
These days, it is hardly possible to have a public discussion about any thought worthy of our thought. Ideas must be expressible in short pithy sentences. In such a context, the richness of humanity and culture is lost. It suits people with uninteresting and misleading things to say - like Richard Dawkins, not those who want to probe serious questions about meaning and humanity, like Rowan Williams.
Regarding Rowan's comments on children, I would have predicted the response about children going out to work aged 14-15. It is the standard response of the liberal left. It fails in my view, because we shouldn't be complacently comparing ourselves with the past - we should be striving for the best we can offer now. Imagine if we compared health-care on those grounds - the fallacy would be immediately obvious.
This inadequate, off the shelf, response is wheeled out because it is evident that to deal with the problems Rowan is raising would challenge the liberal paradigm - and most liberals would, I am afraid, prefer children to suffer, than that we adults should live more responsibly towards them.
Besides, is our situation so much better now than when children went out to work then? Now an alarming proportion of our children miss that part of their childhood because they are pregnant, or because the collapse of a narrative of the common good, means educating in some situations is impossible - even supposing the children have bothered to attend school.
Personally, I would rather grow up in the socially stable culture in which I had to go out to work aged 14, but in which I felt valued by my parents, and clear on what society expected from me, than one in which, throughout my childhood, life was constantly turned upside down because of family break-up, not knowing who my father was, or who the next man in my mother's bedroom would be.
Of course, such circumstances have always existed - it's nothing new. But New Labour seems determined to generate such circumstances, make them strangely normative, rather than face the fact so obvious to everyone - especially the children - that, all things being equal, children flourish best with both parents married, and in a socially and morally stable culture.
Re: Midnight Mass - it is possible the Archbishops coordinated their messages. Although ecumenically things are at a low ebb (owing to the fact that the CofE is so divided Rome doesn't know which bit of it to talk to), the personal relationships are close and warm. There's no way that +Rowan and +Vincent would regard each other - or each other's communions as enemies, there's too much common ground and friendship.
Anyway, speaking of Archbishops getting a pasting, a happy feast of St Thomas Becket to you!
Sorry, Albert, I read that the Catholic Church were looking to poach, no, sorry, convert parts of the Church of England by agreeing to various concessions. Is this not a reason for tension between the Churches and those involved? Still waters run deep?
ReplyDeletePatently, Albert and I will pleasantly pass the time so you are not let off the coat hanger. Albert & I patiently await a revelation. ;-)
I could never have a day which is happy in terms of celebrating Archbishop Thomas Becket's murder. Such a terrible deed to a man of the cloth. Well, little changes since 1170 (albeit the Holy Father survived his attack) in this respect.
Just for the record, I deny that I am, ever was, or ever will be a member of Boney M or in any way associated with them. I'm actually Björn Ulvaeus*.
ReplyDelete*and if you believe that, you'll believe anything.
Well, I have been asked to believe much and jumping to conclusions is never a wise move, so you need to present your case, P. Or are you leading us all astray?
ReplyDeletePlease show us what you had in mind. Are you blonde, not ginger? ::jaw drops slightly:: What do you think, Albert? ;-)
To deal with the important matter first, P says:
ReplyDeleteJust for the record, I deny that I am, ever was, or ever will be a member of Boney M or in any way associated with them.
Come off it, there's no denying that this picture of Bobby Farrell is you - it looks just like you, when Gordon Brown has come into view.
I'm actually Björn Ulvaeus
Do you think we're stupid? Of course you aren't Björn Ulvaeus: (a) you don't look anything like him, (b) he's much too happy
I read that the Catholic Church were looking to poach, no, sorry, convert parts of the Church of England by agreeing to various concessions. Is this not a reason for tension between the Churches and those involved?
ReplyDeleteThat's the way the papers presented it, it's the way some of the more self-indulgent Anglicans felt about it. But really what happened was that the CofE had promised to provide adequate provision for opponents of women's ordination (details on request). By moving forward to make women bishops, without creating new provision, the CofE has been breaking that promise - and its own report said so in black and white.
Consequently, over the last few years, a number of Anglican bishops: Chichester, Gibraltar (I think), Fulham, Richborough and Ebbsfleet have been going to Rome or holding conversations with the Vatican about leaving the CofE and being allowed to be received en masse. Similar visits have been made by other (former) Anglican bishops in America and Australia who have already broken away from the Anglican Communion.
In other words, Rome isn't looking to poach, but is simply responding to an initiative from certain Anglican (and former Anglican) Bishops and their flocks, already signalling they want to become Catholics. As the Bishop of Fulham put it “We have felt increasingly marginalised [within the CofE]. The significant thing is that Rome has heard our cries and our own church has not. This is like my kids going next door to be fed because they are hungry."
It's embarrassing for Rowan because he's been caught out - shepherds are supposed to gather their flocks not scatter them, and you ought to be able to rely on bishops to keep their promises. But even Rowan admits Rome isn't poaching because these are people who wanted to leave in any case. (In fairness, Rowan would probably have given the traditionalists a much better deal, but he is not master in his own house.)
It won't have affected relations between English bishops of each tradition much because the English Catholic bishops didn't know anything about it either. And truth to tell, some of them might not have approved if they had.
I could never have a day which is happy in terms of celebrating Archbishop Thomas Becket's murder. But a martyr goes straight to heaven, so his death day is really his birthday into eternal life. It shows he has placed goodness above every other consideration, even his own life- that marks a great victory.
Albert,
ReplyDeleteIn other words, Rome isn't looking to poach, but is simply responding to an initiative...
I have noted you have tried to qualify this, but imagine that a child from next door knocks on my door after Christmas and says that his family are being mean to him. They said that if his sister was allowed to play with his toys, they would give him some extra Christmas cake and they didn't. Of course I would listen and offer sympathy, but would I offer to adopt him? Would I offer him Christmas cake every day of the year?
No, I would not. I would not look to interfere or meddle in the affairs of another family, even if that child wished to use my influence as leverage. What are the real motives of those involved? I do not wish to speculate further but I doubt it is as simple as you or I have protrayed.
It is in Williams' interest to concede Rome is not poaching but it does not demonstrate he honestly believes it. However, you have raised my opinion of the Catholic Church as it is evident they have spoken to e. The CofE appears to have palpably failed in this respect.
Terrorists are martyrs but no victory is to be had there. Was Becket a martyr? He was undoubtedly brave as he must have known he was in grave danger, but did he consciously choose death? However, I have no doubt he went straight to heaven but a crime had been committed. That is not something to celebrate and you can not persuade me otherwise on this occasion.
Albert, wonderful photographs. So Bobby was Patently's alter ego. Given Patently denies it, perhaps he is embarrassed by his past. Do you still speak with a squeaky voice, P? ;-)
I doubt it is as simple as you or I have protrayed.
ReplyDeleteRather than further defend my post, I’d simply ask you which part of my account do you think is inaccurate? I would say however, that your story doesn’t quite work because the situation is not of people feeling unable to “play” but of them being excluded and therefore leaving the family.
The CofE’s own (non-partisan) report said (in 2004), if the CofE followed the path it has subsequantly chosen to follow, people will have to leave (or stay in bad conscience, break the law etc.). It also said that this would be a breach of its own promises. That’s why the bishop who left the General Synod debate of July 2008 in tears, was a supporter of the ordination of women – he knew the course chosen to ordain women bishops meant a whole wing of the CofE was being forced out.
It’s just like New Labour’s equality laws – you’re only equal and included if you can subscribe to a novel and by no means certain set of dogmas.
What are the real motives of those involved?
Many of my friends are in this position. Their motivation is simple: they have tried to stay within the CofE, basing themselves on promises given in the past. Now that those promises are being broken, they have had to have a rethink about whether they are in the right Church. For those who ask that question, there is only one answer – they even have an acronym for it: RITA – Rome Is The Answer!
I have no doubt that we will see Anglican bishops leaving the CofE, almost certainly in the next 12 months, and perhaps even sooner.
Terrorists are martyrs
No, terrorists are not martyrs in any Christian sense (and “martyr” has a Christian etymology and should not be allowed to by hijacked by Muslim terrorists): it is always and everywhere wrong for anyone directly and deliberately to take innocent human life. A martyr can only ever be a victim of violence, not its perpetrator.
Was Becket a martyr?
Yes, because he was killed for defending the Church from secular aggression.
a crime had been committed. That is not something to celebrate and you can not persuade me otherwise on this occasion.
The crime is not something to celebrate – I never meant that it was. What was done was gravely wrong and really bad for Becket. But there are also two goodnesses at work here:
(a) Becket’s willingness to stand for the Church even though he knew standing up to the secular power put him in mortal danger.
(b) The goodness of God to bring eternal life out of the darkness of that evil.
A good comparison would be St Maximilian Kolbe in Auschwitz. When the Nazis found that a prisoner was missing (they later remembered they’d murdered him in the toilets, but it’s easy to forget such things) they singled out 10 men to be tortured and murdered to deter further escape attempts. When they picked on Franciszek Gajowniczek he cried out, lamenting his family. Brave Fr Maximilian offered to die in his place – as a priest he had no wife or children to leave behind.
Maximilian’s murder was horrific, but his willingness to die for another was a great victory of grace over our normal selfishness. His glorification in heaven is similarly a great good. Ditto Thomas Becket.
Glad you liked the pics Measured!
Albert
ReplyDeleteRather than further defend my post, I’d simply ask you which part of my account do you think is inaccurate?
I did not suggest or do suggest any part of your post was inaccurate.
The situation is very political and emotions obviously run high and will continue to run high. Sometimes situations can reconciled, sometimes they cannot be, but it is up to the CofE to put its house in order. Given Williams attended the press conference, which announced the moves of the Catholic Church to welcome in the disillusioned Anglicans, suggests that the CofE was caught by surprise and was ill prepared for the actions of the Catholic Church, Albert, this brings me back to my concerns about Williams' abilities. I would still be happier if CofE were left to resolve their own problems. You may feel that the Catholic Church was responding to a need.
Life is sacred so I do not celebrate a death, especially that of a worthy and/or selfless individual, whereever they may end up so I agree with (a) but I have my reservations about (b). I lament the unnecessary loss of life for a worthy cause.
You are knowledgeable and very good at engaging.
Patently, you are still on a coat hanger.
Measured,
ReplyDeleteemotions obviously run high and will continue to run high.
True, and I'm not unsympathetic to women priests who feel they are second-class priests (which they obviously are) while they can't be bishops. My sympathy runs a little thin though when I see them prepared to push themselves forward in such a way as to make clergy friends of mine - and their families - literally homeless (in the sense not only of having to leave the CofE but their vicarages too). I am even more saddened when having pushed for such a circumstance, they then complain that the Pope is offering such homeless clergy somewhere to go. What exactly are such clergy supposed to do - they're effectively kicked out by the theological equivalent of New Labour but then criticised when they go somewhere else. I can't see that that sort of behaviour is really what being a priest is about.
I would still be happier if CofE were left to resolve their own problems. Agreed, but this has been going on for nearly two decades without Rome doing anything. Rome has only stepped in now because it has reached the point where Anglican bishops are going to the Vatican to ask for help because things are so bad in the Anglican Communion. In such a situation, I think it is right for Rome to respond to those knocking on the Holy Father's door, and if Anglicans don't like that, then they had every opportunity to avoid it - they simply had to keep their promises.
I do not celebrate a death
Absolutely not - death is never anything to celebrate in itself. Christianity would be weird indeed if it proposed that we should celebrate it in itself. But we can celebrate the good that God brings out of the evil of death, either our own, the saints, or above all, Christ's.
I enjoy our discussions Measured - you also engage well, which is unusual on the internet, and you're right, Patently is still on a coat hanger! :-)
Albert,
ReplyDeleteBoth men and women can be too ambitious and self-centred. Certainly I have been unimpressed by the demeanour and ambitions of some women priests when interviewed on the radio; their arguments are beautifully couched in logical argument though. I am surprised some clergy are being made 'homeless' without due warning but their grievances still lie with the CofE.
Why doesn't the Catholic Church just change to accommodate all Anglicans? Why is it making concessions? Out of pity or for other motives?We live in interesting times for the CofE.
By the by, my mother is quite decided that she could not contemplate being buried by a woman. She is adamant that she will be buried by a man next to my father. It surprised me that she had strong feelings about this.
Patently, please reveal yourself. Stop hiding in the wardrobe. ;-)
Happy New Year - sorry for the delay in replying.
ReplyDeleteBoth men and women can be too ambitious and self-centred.
I agree, and I never meant to imply ambition was a purely female preserve. However, I think ambition in a priest which results in making other people homeless is pretty horrible.
their arguments are beautifully couched in logical argument though.
Perhaps, but are their premises theological, or just rehashes of secular equality thought, (mis)applied in a new context? What kind of argument do you have in mind?
I am surprised some clergy are being made 'homeless' without due warning
It is not so much the lack of "due warning", as the lack of just cause. In a CofE in which it is possible to be a minister while believing next to nothing (in some cases, not even believing in God) and to live in ways which are plainly at variance with the clear teaching of the Church of England, there's something a little odd about a situation in which clergy and their families are made homeless, simply because they think the Church should follow the practice of Christ, until such time as it has been shown by Anglican principles that Christ's example no longer applies. Does anyone seriously believe that authority to unhouse such people, for such reasons, in such a circumstance, really comes from Christ?!
But don't get me wrong. I think this is all a felix culpa, insofar as it provides some Anglicans with the occasion to realise the reason that the CofE is behaving in such an untheological way, is because the CofE is not the full Church of Jesus Christ. Provided such Anglicans think carefully and pray hard, it is likely they will see that they need to become Catholics. That is a good thing, it's good for them, and it's good for the Church. But (like the martyrdom) it does not justify the injustices that are being done to them.
Why doesn't the Catholic Church just change to accommodate all Anglicans? Why is it making concessions? Out of pity or for other motives?
Good set of questions.
1. It's important to be clear on the kinds of concessions not being made. Converts from the Anglican schism naturally have to accept the Catholic faith in its fullness, including all the stuff about the Pope. Any Anglican who accepts that is welcome to join, but clearly this does not apply to all Anglicans. So there are no "Credal" concessions.
2. The kinds of concessions that are being made therefore are purely cultural. Effectively the Holy Father is saying there are genuine fruits of the Spirit in the CofE, real riches which at least should be preserved, but at best can teach ordinary Catholics some things about their faith. The Pope is saying, why should convert Anglicans have to give these things up, instead of bringing them with them? He realises how important culture is to people, and sees nothing to be gained by forcing people to give up what is good in their culture, provided they believe the Catholic faith.
3. In addition to pity, implicit in this is (a) a high regard for Anglican culture and tradition and (b) a recognition that the Catholic Church can be enriched by this Anglican tradition.
In short, contrary to the way the media have presented it, the move shows great humility and kindness on the part of the Holy Father. It also shows real respect for the Anglican way. Given that Anglicanism is tearing itself apart, it may be that one of the major ways in which what is good in the Anglican tradition will be preserved will be in the Catholic Church.
Patently, please reveal yourself. Stop hiding in the wardrobe. ;-)
I for one am keeping my eyes peeled for a half-naked, burnt-out pop star, with an Afro, driving a silver Landrover.
Albert
ReplyDeleteI have difficulty reconciling:
In a CofE in which it is possible to be a minister while believing next to nothing (in some cases, not even believing in God) and to live....
with
a high regard for Anglican culture and tradition....
and the inherent contradiction in
to realise the reason that the CofE is behaving in such an untheological way
They behave in the way they choose. There is no point at this stage discussing the arguments regarding the ordination of women as the trend in the CofE is inevitable.
It is very kind of the Holy Father to respond to requests displaying his great humility and kindness, but I am not so sure it shows real respect for the Anglican way. It demonstrates the taking advantage of an opportunity. I would wish to ask more questions about the reasons for these requests. After all, in the past I have observed that it is usually the Catholic Church that is slow to embrace change and prefers to adher to tradition.
So be it. I appreciate the time you have taken to reply to my comments. It is sad that there is currently so much discontent within the Anglican faith.
Yes, I will keep an eye out for Patently. He may be hard to miss looking like that. ;-)
Measured, there is no difficulty reconciling my two sentences. "CofE" and "Anglican tradition" no more refer to the same thing than do "English monarchy" and "English King" or Wagner (the music I love) and Wagner (the anti-semite I hate).
ReplyDelete"Anglican tradition" refers to beautiful worship in beautiful buildings using beautiful English. It is the Coverdale Psalter, the prose of the Book of Common Prayer, Choral Evensong, Anglican Chant, the poems of George Herbert and the prayers of Lancelot Andrewes, it is a great tradition of biblical and patristic scholarship. "The CofE" on the other hand simply refers to the individuals who at this time happen to be the heirs of such a tradition. There is no more contradiction than between the man who says he loves his old school (meaning its traditions, buildings, grounds, uniform etc.) and hates his school (meaning the modernisers who (he thinks)) are wrecking the place.
They behave in the way they choose.
Exactly, my point entirely.
it is usually the Catholic Church that is slow to embrace change and prefers to adher to tradition.
On the contrary, the Catholic Church embraces change. As Newman said (defending Catholicism) "In a higher world it is otherwise, but here below to live is to change, and to be perfect is to have changed often." 17.5% of the world's population is Catholic. You don't manage that without being adaptable. It is precisely the Catholic Church's capacity for development that was the original complaint of the Protestant Reformation. Of course, it may be the Catholic Church does not change as you think it should, but that does not show that it does not change.
It demonstrates the taking advantage of an opportunity.
Why are you so determined to believe the worst of it?
I would wish to ask more questions about the reasons for these requests.
Ask away - I have enough experience of the move from the CofE to Catholicism to be of some use here.
Albert,
ReplyDelete"Anglican tradition" refers to beautiful worship in beautiful buildings using beautiful English. It is very kind of you to say so. The Catholic Church has very beautiful aspects too, as memorable as the midnight mass you linked to at the beginning of this discussion.
If I were going to question you further, my line of questioning would pursue why you are so concerned certain members of the clergy are being made homeless and why this is taking place. However, the Catholic Church has broken no rules or laws to the best of my knowledge and in my opinion we have pursued this enough, Albert.
There are plenty of other matters we will discuss, as you always greatly further my understanding about how religious belief is able to contribute to an increasingly secular society. I also think you are aware that the actions of the Catholic Church have become a sensitive topic for many in this country. I have no doubt that the ordination of women has heightened these sensitivities.
Now where is Patently? Is he busy being Daddy Cool? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qpt5w2wsnZM&NR=1 Nice moves, P. ;-)
Re: Dancing in Daddy Cool. Has someone stuck some jump-leads into Patently's back?
ReplyDeleteI also think you are aware that the actions of the Catholic Church have become a sensitive topic for many in this country.
I'm not sure which actions you have in mind. As far as I can see the Catholic Church has been a controversial organisation in England since the Reformation. In addition to the heritage of Protestant England, there are modern reasons why people are suspicious about the Catholic Church.
The Catholic Church is, for example, one Western institution (perhaps the only significant such insitution) which is able to think for itself, and provide others with the resources to think for themselves, rather than just ratify the dictats of the liberal left (cf. the modern Conservative Party).
And yet for all that it rejects the gospel of the secular as false (and faintly ridiculous in some regards), the Catholic Church still commands devotion which is unrivalled both for its depth and popularity - that really gets up the nose of the liberal left (which thinks nothing could deserve more devotion than itself).
Finally, anyone with any sense can see that when culture and society have reacted against the present ideology (in ways presently unpredicatable) and consigned it to the dustbin of history, the Catholic Church will remain standing, still teaching all those things that liberals and secularists hate. Ironically, it will be the Catholic Church which will bear what is good, true and agreeable in liberalism and secularism into a new age.
Isn't it amazing that we have got 30 comments from Patently's Boney M post?
P.S. Are you a practising Anglican Measured - I hadn't felt that until your last post?
P.P.S. I'm sure I saw Patently in the Chilterns today.
My apologies, Albert. I have been so busy. I was thinking whether I should disclose my religious views but who is going to read the 31st comment, apart from you & P? You have a right to know who you are dealing with in order that you recognise that I am straightforward with no axe to grind.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion the Catholic Church needs to build bridges as much as the CofE needs to think about where it is at. There is no doubt that the populist view of Henry VIII, who in fact was a very dangerous man, does not assist your cause, but you have had plenty of time to turn things around. Some opinions are formed from events outside your control but little is black and white so Ironically, it will be the Catholic Church which will bear what is good, true and agreeable in liberalism and secularism into a new age. seems unnecessarily extreme for the appetite of some.
As for me, I live a lie. I do not believe in God, but at the same time I think everyone worships the same God and that I should support the Church as it provides benefits for and control of society in the main. I will overlook birth control guidance, women crawling on their hand and knees to the Catholic Church in South America to atone for their husband's unfaithfulness... Other religions are open to criticism too, like Hindus make everyone be satisfied with their lot owing to fate. :-)
Yes, the local vicar knows my name which surprises me as I rarely see him. I always compliment the service and smile though. I dragged the family to Church for Christmas and was delighted my daughter was asked to light one of the advent candles, but inside me, I do not feel much. God has never been there when I needed Him and logical totally defies His presence. I feel death is a peaceful place to be. Some need religion to behave properly but a religious code does not need to be displayed outwardly to others in my view. I hope I haven't opened up a can of worms, but there you go.
Did you see P? I hope he is not stranded in the snow as I reckon his upper half might get cold. What was he driving? Did he have a bevy of women in the back?
Yes, I did see Patently yesterday in the ice. He wasn't driving anything, and as you will realise from the picture, wasn't surrounded by a bevy of women. He did tell me though that even he wasn't reading our discussion in any detail any more, so I expect your secret is safe - I will keep it sub rosa.
ReplyDeleteThank you for replying so fully. I am sorry God has seemed not to be there when you needed him. If it's any consolation you're in good company .
That's the mystery of Christianity, it doesn't so much tell you to expect to find the presence of God, as his absence. This is because, as the crucifixion shows, the God we are looking for and think we would recognise is not the God that exists. This is why St Thérèse de Lisieux is so popular - her experience is so authentic in that she shows us how we find the real God through experiencing the absence of the God we think should exist. Then we discover that the God that does exist is infinitely greater than what we thought should have existed.
I don't doubt that the Catholic Church has done and does some bad things (it's also done some excellent things of course). I'd be genuinely interested to hear which bridges you think need building.
But there's nothing in the Catholic faith that implies we Catholics will be good - only that Christ will teach and be present through his Church. Moreover, some practices - like those you mention in South America would be abhorred by most Catholics too.
but you have had plenty of time to turn things around. Except of course, that for most of that time, Catholicism was illegal in England, and since emancipation, I think we've made a good showing of ourselves in the face of a lot of residual prejudice and determination to see the worst in everything Catholic.
At the same time, I think atheism is open to criticism - though often the criticism is dissipated because atheists are so evasive about what they positively belief and because atheism doesn't really bring people together as religion does. It is difficult (though not impossible - as the history of atheism demonstrates) to commit social sins if your ideology does not create any societies.
On the other hand, I think Catholic teaching on birth control makes sense (though it's not well understood), and takes better account of the fullness of our humanity/sexuality - rather than regarding it as something in need of technical modification. As philosopher GEM Anscombe prophetically put it over thirty years ago "no sort of sexual acts could be excluded if once you admitted contraceptive intercourse." That may be a little extreme, but there's no doubt that Catholic teaching on sexuality has a consistency that is lacking elsewhere. Most people still retain sexual taboos which are inconsistent with what they allow.
I feel death is a peaceful place to be. I don't think worrying about death motivates my faith much - at least not consciously. My faith is much more about making sense of life, and about making sense of the encounter with Christ.
I'm not sure if I would describe death as peaceful though. If there's no God then I would have thought death would be a kind of nothingness in which we no longer exist to experience anything - including peace.
Anyway, I'm glad you went to Church at Christmas and that the Vicar knows your name!
Albert,
ReplyDeleteI do not consider myself to be an atheist but to be concerned about a description of myself may be contradictory. I agree that atheism is very open to criticism.
Thank you for such a full reply. It provides me with plenty to think about. I am pleased you are glad the Vicar knows my name. I am more concerned by it to be honest. I am actually quite shy.
That was Patently you saw. I can tell; the codpiece and the heels are a BIG giveaway. Well done for having your camera with you at the time. No sign of him since?
I do not consider myself to be an atheist
ReplyDeleteI don't think you're an atheist either. Perhaps the god you do not believe in, is not the living God, the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, anyway.
Albert,
ReplyDeletePerhaps not.