Papa Benny Picks Up Anglo-Catholics In This Year's Draft

Much like the buzz about Hockey starting up and the teams formed by new draft picks it seems like Papa Benny 16 in his near-infinite genius has picked up the Traditional Anglicans:

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/guestvoices/2009/10/romes_new_home_for_anglicans.html?hpid=topnews

That means the 400 000+ in the Traditional Anglican Communion / TAC are probably joining our Church (now 1 000 400 000).

But the questions I'm wondering about are:

1. How can Anglo-Catholicism survive as a rite without constant criticism of liberal Anglicanism? (I guess Liberal Catholicism will be the new enemy) It seems like Anglo-Catholicism thrives on the puritan/elijah mindset of 'we're the only ones!'

2. How f-ed up will the rest of the Anglican Communion become now that the Evangelicals and the High Church Anglicans have left? I'm predicting the Episcopal or Anglican Church of Canada releasing a statement that they will now be removing the Bible's status as inspired scripture due to misogynistic and racist tones.

3. Will they make a new Anglican-Catholic Book of Common Prayer and when can I go to this Anglican-rite Catholic liturgy? (the Anglo-Catholic liturgies as is are more reverant than most Novus Ordos)

I was so excited when I heard this at work, I think Newman has been praying up a storm up there. I also found out Newman is becoming a saint next year! Everyone hates Newman, but I really like his sermons, and I'm reading his Apologia right now and it's quite good.

Lord Jesus Christ, thank you for your earthly Vicar, Pope Benedict XVI, and for the increase in Church unity. May all your children share in the unity of faith and the fullness of truth. Ad Maiorem Dei Gloriam

Different Views of the Catholic Church & The Development of Doctrine

As I've read Catholic ecclesiology I've noticed two distinct traditions of understanding Church Dogmatics. In a weird way they seem counter-intuitive, as the Traditional Catholics seem to advocate the development of Doctrine, and the Nouvelle Theologie seems to advocate a Reformation-style jump backwards.

The First View: (I'll call it the Development of Doctrine)

Cardinal Newman and Tolkien and others tend to see theological growth in the Church as the Development of Doctrine. That doctrines existed in "seed" form and eventually grew. So that Mary's Assumption was in seed form (in the gnostics?...not going to try to defend this one) and over time it became more obvious (don't know how) but that basically enough people talked about it and so it then becomes Catholic dogma. This is the view when people tell you that the Church is like a tree growing gradually over time and expanding to higher and higher heights. Others would argue that doctrinal innovation and modernism could spring out of this view, yet strangely, this seems to be the view of the Anti-Vatican II Catholics. They didn't want to go ad fontes because the early church was just an immature version of the current Church. (if that makes sense)

The Second View: (I'll call it the "flight to antiquity" view in honor of Calvin's attack that this is what Catholics do)
This seems to be the view of many of the "Nouvelle Theologie" people / ressourcement theology. A return back to Patristics and Scriptural exegesis. They focus on the fact that the faith was once delivered to the saints, and will continue in a constant return to the same old truths expressed in new ways. This seems to be a fairly "protestant" view (if you can call it that. Except that Patristics are almost on par with Scripture, as is generally the case in Catholicism. This view seems to be quite popular among Catholic-converts and in general with people who aren't keen on new Marian doctrines and extended emphasis on things that have been recently emphasized.

The Third View: (Super-Traditionalist)
I do acknowledge a possible third view however, that of the super-traditionalists (as I'll call them) who think every new definition was there from the beginning, just no one talked about it (kind of like when the Reformed tell you the Fathers all taught the 5 solas, but forgot to mention them except in their pseudo condemnations of them). Sometimes this becomes a mixing of groups one and two by saying that all the dogmas as we now understand them were there in the beginning. The oath against modernism that SSPX takes deliberately recants the idea that doctrine develops (how I don't yet fully understand), and they seem to fall into this last view.

My View: I tend to go with the first people like Newman. I generally hate people who think Left Behind was basically Revelation word for word just in a modern context, and others who think Jesus taught Adam Smith's wealth of nations, or that Extrinsic imputed righteousness was in the Bible even though it wasn't. But a part of my detestation for such a historical ignorance is people who try to say that the Immaculate Conception is a clear biblical doctrine. There are a few proof texts you could bend to try and make say that, and some patristic phrases that seem to possibly indicate something like the sinlessness of Mary, but by and large it's a construct of scholasticism. But my argument would be: so is everyone elses theology.

I've said it a thousand times, and I'll say it again. You can't know what the bible means for complex theological questions. I don't know if Paul was made to pass the test on Chalcedonian orthodoxy if he would get it correct. My argument would be that you either have faith in Pentecost and Christ's Church with all of it's developments, or you become a Quaker. Of course most people try to make some wacky mix of the two, but to me, those are the only two totally logical perspectives.

Some Thursday Newman

"He who could walk the waters, could also ride triumphantly upon what is still more fickle, unstable, tumultuous, treacherous—the billows of human wills, human purposes, human hearts. The bark of Peter was struggling with the waves, and made no progress; Christ came to him walking upon them; He entered the boat, and by entering it He sustained it. He did not abandon Himself to it, but He brought it near to Himself; He did not merely take refuge in it, but He made Himself the strength of it, and the pledge and cause of a successful passage. "Presently," another gospel says, "the ship was at the land, whither they were going."

Such was the power of the Son of God, the Saviour of man, manifested by visible tokens in the material world, when He came upon earth; and such, too, it has ever since signally shown itself to be, in the history of that mystical ark which He then formed to float upon the ocean of human opinion. He told His chosen servants to form an ark for the salvation of souls: He gave them directions how to construct it,—the length, breadth, and height, its cabins and its windows; and the world, as it gazed upon it, forthwith began to criticize. It pronounced it framed quite contrary to the scientific rules of shipbuilding; it prophesied, as it still prophesies, that such a craft was not sea-worthy; that it was not water-tight; that it would not float; that it would go to pieces and founder. And why it does not, who can say, except that the Lord is in it? Who can say why so old a framework, put together eighteen hundred years ago, should have lasted, against all human calculation, even to this day; always going, and never gone; ever failing, yet ever managing to explore new seas and foreign coasts—except that He, who once said to the rowers, "It is I, be not afraid," and to the waters, "Peace," is still in His own ark which He has made, to direct and to prosper her course?" - Venerable John Henry Cardinal Newman (Sermon Preached Oct. 27, 1850, in St. Chad's, Birmingham, on occasion of the Installation of Dr. Ullathorne, the first Bishop of the See.)

Cardinal Newman on Luther and St. Augustine's Opposition

"The main point is whether the Moral Law can in its substance be obeyed and kept by the regenerate. Augustine says, that whereas we are by nature condemned by the Law, we are enabled by the grace of God to perform it unto our justification; Luther [and Calvin equally] that, whereas we are condemned by the law, Christ has Himself performed it unto our justification — Augustine, that our righteousness is active; Luther, that it is passive; Augustine, that it is imparted, Luther that it is only imputed; Augustine, that it consists in a change of heart; Luther, in a change of state. Luther maintains that God's commandments are impossible to man Augustine adds, impossible without His grace; Luther that the Gospel consists of promises only Augustine, that it is also a law, Luther, that our highest wisdom is not to know the Law, Augustine says instead, to know and keep it — Luther says, that the Law and Christ cannot dwell together in the heart. Augustine says that the Law is Christ; Luther denies and Augustine maintains that obedience is a matter of conscience. Luther says that a man is made a Christian not by working but by hearing; Augustine excludes those works only which are done before grace is given; Luther, that our best deeds are sins; Augustine, that they are really pleasing to God" - Venerable John Henry Cardinal Newman (Lectures on Justification, ch. ii, 58)

Short Quote By Newman- Interesting View On Justification

"...Christ in us is said to be the hope of glory. Christ then is our righteousness by dwelling in us by the Spirit: He justifies us by entering into us, He continues to justify us by remaining in us. This is really and truly our justification, not faith, not holiness, not (much less) a mere imputation; but through God’s mercy, the very presence of Christ." - Ven. John Henry Cardinal Newman "Lectures on Justification"

These lectures on Justification by Newman have been criticized heavily by Alister McGrath, that it fails to understand both Trentine Catholicism and Lutheran Soteriology. It is imperative to note that at this time he was not trying to defend either position, but rather trying to find an Anglican "via media" between the two views. I believe this passage is almost identical to the teaching of Peter Lombard, a heretic the Church condemned for teaching that the Holy Spirit alone is necessary for salvation.

Still, heretical, heterodox, or orthodox, it still stands as a more unique view on justification.

Newman : Sermon 2 - The Religion of the Pharisee

I was saying to an Evangelical Seminarian friend of mine that the prayer I pray every night has been either the Jesus Prayer (in English or Latin) or a modified version of it: 'Lord Jesus Christ, Son of the living God, have mercy on me, a sinful man'. This comes from the story of the Pharisee and the Tax Collector in St. Luke's account chapter 18, verse 3.

I read a sermon by the Venerable John Henry Cardinal Newman about it today : http://www.newmanreader.org/works/occasions/sermon2.html

It was an alright sermon, if you don't like Newman I wouldn't bother reading it.

His main message was that Paganism was the Same Religion of all mankind and that of the Pharisee. It was based on self-sufficiency and social rewards. He calls it 'religious in the worst sense of the word'. It is not a religion of repentance, but pride. He states that the "The Catholic saints alone confess sin, because the Catholic saints alone see God" and his argument is that because as Christians we see God, we know we can never reach his standard without resting wholly on his grace and mercy. Thus the prayer of the Christian is always for God's grace and mercy.

"...whether it be the thief on the cross, Magdalen at the feast, or St. Paul before his martyrdom:—not that one of them may not have, what another has not, but that one and all have nothing but what comes from Him, and are as nothing before Him, who is all in all.... Let us thank Him for all that He has done for us, for what He is doing by us; but let nothing that we know or that we can do, keep us from a personal, individual adoption of the great Apostle's words, "Christ Jesus came into this world to save sinners, of whom I am the chief." - John Henry Cardinal Newman 1856

I love Newman, he always focuses on God's grace, he's very Augustinian.

Friday Night Newman

1 year before crossing the Tiber (becoming a Roman Catholic) John Henry Newman wrote this about his thoughts of Revelation in history and to the reason why the Magesterium must be without error in it's teaching:

"The most obvious answer, then, to the question, why we yield to the authority of the Church in the questions and developments of faith, is, that some authority there must be if there is a revelation given, and other authority there is none but she. A revelation is not given if there be no authority to decide what it is that is given. . . . If Christianity is both social and dogmatic, and intended for all ages, it must humanly speaking have an infallible expounder. Else you will secure unity of form at the loss of unity of doctrine, or unity of doctrine at the loss of unity of form; you will have to choose between a comprehension of opinions and a resolution into parties, between latitudinarian and sectarian error. You may be tolerant or intolerant of contrarieties of thought, but contrarieties you will have. By the Church of England a hollow uniformity is preferred to an infallible chair; and by the sects of England an interminable division. Germany and Geneva began with persecution and have ended in scepticism. The doctrine of infallibility is a less violent hypothesis than this sacrifice either of faith or of charity. It secures the object, while it gives definiteness and force to the matter, of Revelation." - Venerable John Henry Cardinal Newman

You're free to disagree with it, but I rather like it. I don't perfectly understand it, but I understand about 90% of it. I also think that Cardinal Newman looks like Harry Potter in the above picture.

Lent: True Repentance

Today was the rite of election for Catechumens and Candidates at our Roman Catholic Cathedral. Our bishop presided and preached an amazing and passionate sermon which spoke to me powerfully. The text was St. Mark's account of the desert temptation and his sermon was all about temptation and conversion. To explain why this was anything more than your average sermon let me QUICKLY explain recent happenings in my life.

I had a Christian friend almost died and still in hospital, I got bluntly rejected by a girl I (sort of) asked out, I found out I have a dentist appointment this monday (one of my biggest fears), I had a terrible night at work, my computer got a virus and is completely destroyed meaning that I've lost all my lecture notes and school work for this year. The computer part was probably the worst as it happened while I was trying to look up the lyrics for "Abide with me" which was going to be my worship song to God in spite of my terrible week. ....and then my comp broke...and I pretty much decided to follow Job's Wife's advice: "Curse God and die". So God and I have been on rough ground recently.

SO, at mass today our Bishop was discussing how Christ is the essence of the Kingdom of God and that unless Christ is sovereign in our hearts/souls then we are denying God's sovereignty in our lives, and excluding ourselves from the Kingdom of God. He tied this to the Rite of Election which he defined as 'the process where God in sovereign freedom chose you to join the body of Christ and to turn your life to him'. Which wasn't Calvin or Augustine, but was still good. So he tied this idea of sovereignty in the Kingdom of God to sovereignty in our own lives. He also said that Satan is never so obvious as to tempt us to openly disown God and side with him (satan). But rather he said Satan tempts us with good things which we overglorify and these become the temples or idols in our hearts. He says this leads us to spiritually write a declaration of independence from God (sorry to the Americans). And so the purpose of Lent is to deprive ourselves of inherently good things to remind us that we need to destroy these temples in our own hearts and lives. As the Lord led Jesus into temptation, so he will lead us, and this is done to remind us who is sovereign in our lives. Is Christ's flag flying in our lives, or have we set up our own rule, our own independence.

I'm reading a book by Brother Andrew called "The Calling" with all these wild evangelistic stories. One of them recounts how difficult it was to get the gospel into China, and how the borders are closed, and the only book permitted is 'Mao's little red book of sayings'. He talks about how they smuggled in bibles disguised as these books, etc, and began by evangelizing the borders and gradually made their way in.

I thought about my own life this afternoon, have I declared a revolution in my heart, have I closed off the gospel and built idols to lust and gluttony and self-centredness. Is my heart more populated with 'Andrew's red book of rationalizations' or sayings that excuse me of my own sin and responsibility, than with God's Word. Is the Lord trying to penetrate the borders of my soul.

Well, today I learned a little more about true repentance, and tried to remember whose side I am on and re-declare my allegiance to Christ. Today's readings also talked about authorities and rulers in the heavenly realms, and so in the language of spiritual warfare, I realized today that maybe Lent will be a beneficial time for God's hostile takeover of my soul, for my unconditional surrender, and for the flag of the gospel to fly high once more. All of this state/warfare/kingdom language and metaphors remind me of something the Ven. John Henry Cardinal Newman said in a sermon on the prodigal son:

"The most noble repentance (if a fallen being can be noble in his fall), the most decorous conduct in a conscious sinner, is an unconditional surrender of himself to God—not a bargaining about terms, not a scheming (so to call it) to be received back again, but an instant surrender of himself in the first instance. Without knowing what will become of him, whether God will spare or not, merely with so much hope in his heart as not utterly to despair of pardon, still not looking merely to pardon as an end, but rather looking to the claims of the Benefactor whom he has offended, and smitten with shame, and the sense of his ingratitude, he must surrender himself to his lawful Sovereign. He is a runaway offender; he must come back, as a very first step, before anything can be determined about him, bad or good; he is a rebel, and must lay down his arms. Self-devised offerings might do in a less serious matter; as an atonement for sin, they imply a defective view of {97} the evil and extent of sin in his own case. Such is that perfect way which nature shrinks from, but which our Lord enjoins in the parable—a surrender. The prodigal son waited not for his father to show signs of placability. He did not merely approach a space, and then stand as a coward, curiously inquiring, and dreading how his father felt towards him. He made up his mind at once to degradation at the best, perhaps to rejection. He arose and went straight on towards his father, with a collected mind; and though his relenting father saw him from a distance, and went out to meet him, still his purpose was that of an instant frank submission. Such must be Christian repentance: First we must put aside the idea of finding a remedy for our sin; then, though we feel the guilt of it, yet we must set out firmly towards God, not knowing for certain that we shall be forgiven. He, indeed, meets us on our way with the tokens of His favour, and so He bears up human faith, which else would sink under the apprehension of meeting the Most High God; still, for our repentance to be Christian, there must be in it that generous temper of self-surrender, the acknowledgment that we are unworthy to be called any more His sons, the abstinence from all ambitious hopes of sitting on His right hand or His left, and the willingness to bear the heavy yoke of bond-servants, if He should put it upon us." -John Henry Cardinal Newman (http://www.newmanreader.org/works/parochial/volume3/sermon7.html)

May God show you this Lent, the heart of true Christian repentance.

Lead Kindly Light

As I've read more and more about Cardinal John Henry Newman, I realize I know very little about him, and that he is not as simple as I had imagined. But I read this story the other day about how he was away from England and was quite sick and had to be brought home, and how at the same time he was in this spiritual journey from Anglicanism to Catholicism, and so he wrote this beautiful hymn which is absolutely amazing no matter what your denomination is and I thought I'd post the lyrics.

Lead kindly light, amid the encircling gloom,
Lead though me onThe night is dark and I am far from home
Lead thou me on.
Keep thou my feet, I do not ask to see
The distant scene one step enough for me
I was not ever thus, nor prayed that thou
Should'st lead me on.
I loved to choose and see my path but now,
Lead Thou me on.
I loved the garish day, and spite of fears
Pride ruled my will, remember not past years
So long Thy powers has blest me,
Sure it still will lead me on.
O'er moon and fern, o'er crag and torrent, and till the night is gone,
And with the morn those angel faces smile.
Which I have loved long since, and lost awhile.

"I am the light of the world, whoever follows me will never walk in darkness but have the light of life" - John 8:12 NIV