BISHOP RENFREY ON WORSHIP

Father Stephen Hill is the celebrant at this Patmos House Community Mass

It is interesting that liturgical scholarship is now calling into question so many of the assumptions of the 1960s and 70s, including the idea that in authentic Christian worship the "celebrant should face the people" across the altar. The following piece from Bishop Renfrey's book What Mean Ye by this Service (1978), a critique of An Australian Prayer Book of the Anglican Church of Australia, should not be forgotten. Back then his was a voice crying in the wilderness. Now many others have caught up!

"In the years which have followed Vatican II considerable interest has been aroused in the Church of England concerning the place of the altar in the church and the position which the priest takes at the altar. Following the changed custom of the Roman Catholic Church whereby the priest now stands behind the altar and faces westward towards the people, some Anglican priests have followed suit. It is worth looking at some basic considerations concerning this subject.

"In Christian centuries from the earliest times prayer and worship have been offered to God by worshippers, priest and people, facing east. Since it was believed that Christ had ascended on the Mount of Olives, which lay to the east of Jerusalem, and also that his expected and eagerly awaited Second Coming would also appear in the east (Acts 1:11), Christians turned to the east to welcome the Parousia of the glorified Christ.

"The house churches of the second century frequently had a cross placed on the eastern wall in acknowledgment of the belief that the Second Coming of Christ would be marked by the sign of the cross appearing in the eastern sky (Matt. 24:30). It is good for us to be reminded that for those early Christians the celebration of the Holy Eucharist did not only look back to the Last Supper, but also heralded a joyous looking forward to the Second Coming of Christ in his glory in the consummation of the ages. We bear St. Paul's words in mind in this connection. 'As often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes' (1 Cor. 11:26).

"When Christians were able to move from house churches to buildings constructed exclusively for worship, these buildings were constructed to face the east for the reason already given. They were 'orientated', as we would say. There is also evidence that the priest celebrating the liturgy faced the east with the people. The Rev’d. C.E. Pocknee, who is a recognised authority on primitive liturgical matters and the author of several books on these subjects, has recently written that archaeological evidence now available from Syria demonstrates the fallacy of the belief that the priest celebrating the liturgy in primitive times always stood facing the people. He goes on to say: 'Throughout the larger part of Christendom and from the earliest times churches have been constructed to face east; and for the celebrant to celebrate in such buildings facing the people would have meant facing west, the region of darkness, a liturgical and ceremonial contradiction of the purpose of an orientated building. In the primitive era baptizands faced west and renounced Satan, and then turned east and embraced Christ and the light of the Cospel.'

"It is sometimes said in support of the westward position that in some old basilicas in Rome the celebrating priest faces the people across the altar. However, as the Rev'd. C.E. Pocknee points out, in these churches, notably in St. Peter’s in the Vatican and at St. Mary’s Major in Rome, it is impossible for the priest to stand on a foot-pace before the altar because an opening or fenestration has been constructed in that position through which the faithful can see the reliquary of the Saint whose body has been buried beneath the altar. Such basilicas give no liturgical support for a universal adoption of the westward position. Pope Vigilius bore witness to the normal practice when, writing in the sixth century, he said that although in some churches in Rome the celebrant faced the people, in most other places the celebrant had to turn round when he saluted the people.

"Those who desire to promote the custom of the priest facing the people across the altar need to find grounds of justification other than those of primitive practice and belief. In fact, there are strong liturgical considerations in favour of the eastward position, because nothing then stands between priest and people, but all are turned in the same direction to offer to Cod their united worship in the great action of our redemption in Christ."

* * * * * * * * * *

Bishop Renfrey was a devotee of the 1662 Book of Common Prayer, and an active member of the Prayer Book Society. But in 1980 he published a Mass book which demonstrated his preference was for enrichment of the Prayer Book Rite with material drawn from Catholic sources (i.e. the English Missal). Here is his rationale for doing so:

" . . . It may be as well to answer those who assert that . . . the Book of Common Prayer must be used without any additions, deviations or enrichment. . . . an assertion which reveals in those who make it a failure to understand that those who believe the Church of England to be catholic see the Book of Common Prayer as steeped and grounded in the catholic faith, and to be interpreted accordingly. Ours is not a religion of a book, but of Christ our Lord, and of that living organism, His Church, which He founded and which He continually infuses with His life. The Book of Common Prayer is Catholic because it belongs to the Catholic Church, and, in using it the Church clothes it, where it is bare, with the prayers and ceremonies of the past. Our loyalty is to Christ's Church, and to the Book of Common Prayer only as it belongs to this Church. It does not stand alone, apart from the Church from which it derives. What it asserts is Catholic: what it is silent about is supplied from Catholic tradition."

From Catholic Prayers for Members of the Church of England in Australia , Adelaide, 1980

THE BEGINNING OF ADVENT

One of the prayers written for the Book of Common Prayer (i.e. not translated from the old Missal) is the Collect for the First Sunday of Advent. It is one of the most memorable of Thomas Cranmer's works, and sums up exactly what we ought to be praying at this time of the year:

Almighty God, give us grace that we may cast away the works of darkness, and put upon us the armour of light, now in the time of this mortal life in which thy Son Jesus Christ came to visit us in great humility; that in the last day, when he shall come again in his glorious majesty to judge both the quick and the dead, we may rise to the life immortal; through him who liveth and reigneth with thee and the Holy Ghost, one God, now and for ever. Amen.

* * * * * * * * * *

A number of times I have been in Rome on a Sunday and have managed to get into St Peter's Square for the Angelus Address the Pope gives to the crowd from his window. Of course, this was during the Pontificate of Pope John Paul the Great. A real evangelist, his utterances were anointed by the Holy Spirit. He was also a great "worker of the crowd", and would departed from his notes in order to chat spontaneously to sections of the crowd in their various languages. He would use his gift of humour to drive home his message. At peak times of the year it could be quite difficult to squeeze into the Square.

Many observers expected the more reserved and "bookish" Benedict XVI to have difficulty "charming the crowds", as they would put it. However, it has been remarked that even BIGGER crowds than in the time John Paul II are gathering for these precious moments at mid-day on Sundays! There is a difference, however. In the days of JPII there was something of a carnival atmosphere. I'm told that these days, even though the crowds keep growing, you can hear a pin drop as Pope Benedict teaches the people. (Of course, that is not to say that one style is better than another . . . it is just to appreciate that the Holy Spirit gives a variety of gifts to his people for the enrichment of the Church and the world.)

Anyway, the Vatican web site has just posted an English translation of Benedict XVI's Angelus Address from last Sunday, the First Sunday in Advent. It is SO good that I want to share it with you:

History of humanity defined in three pivotal moments

God breaks the boundaries of time

Dear Brothers and Sisters,

Today, with the First Sunday of Advent, we begin a new liturgical year. This season invites us to reflect on the dimension of time, which always exerts great fascination over us.

However, after the example of what Jesus loved to do, I wish to start with a very concrete observation: we all say that we do not have enough time, because the pace of daily life has become frenetic for everyone.

In this regard too, the Church has "good news" to bring: God gives us his time. We always have little time; especially for the Lord, we do not know how or, sometimes, we do not want to find it. Well, God has time for us!

This is the first thing that the beginning of a liturgical year makes us rediscover with ever new amazement. Yes, God gives us his time, because he entered history with his Word and his works of salvation to open it to eternity, to make it become a covenantal history.

In this prospective, already in itself time is a fundamental sign of God's love: a gift that man, as with everything else, is able to make the most of or, on the contrary, to waste; to take in its significance or to neglect with obtuse superficiality.

Then there are the three great "points" in time, which delineate the history of salvation: at the beginning, Creation; the Incarnation-Redemption at the centre and at the end the "parousia", the final coming that also includes the Last Judgment. However, these three moments should not be viewed merely in chronological succession.

In fact, Creation is at the origin of all things but it also continues and is actuated through the whole span of cosmic becoming, until the end of time. So too, although the Incarnation-Redemption occurred at a specific moment in history the period of Jesus' journey on earth it nevertheless extends its radius of action to all the preceding time and all that is to come. And in their turn, the final coming and the Last Judgment, which were decisively anticipated precisely in the Cross of Christ, exercise their influence on the conduct of the people of every age.

The liturgical season of Advent celebrates the coming of God in its two moments: it first invites us to reawaken our expectation of Christ's glorious return, then, as Christmas approaches, it calls us to welcome the Word made man for our salvation.

Yet the Lord comes into our lives continually. How timely then, is Jesus' call, which on this First Sunday is powerfully proposed to us: "Watch!" (Mark 13: 33, 35, 37). It is addressed to the disciples but also to everyone, because each one, at a time known to God alone, will be called to account for his life.

This involves a proper detachment from earthly goods, sincere repentance for one's errors, active charity to one's neighbour and above all a humble and confident entrustment to the hands of God, our tender and merciful Father.

The icon of Advent is the Virgin Mary, Mother of Jesus. Let us invoke her so that she may help us also to become an extension of humanity for the Lord who comes.

LIONEL EDWARD WILLIAM RENFREY 1916-2008

Bishop in the Church of God

On 18th November I attended the funeral of Bishop Lionel Renfrey at Christ Church, North Adelaide. Bishop Lionel believed and lived the Catholic Faith; he was courageous when standing for God's truth in a church that had become wishy-washy at best. He was an inspiration to many people.

Here is the homily from his Requiem Mass, preached by the Rector of Christ Church, North Adelaide, Father Lyndon Sulzberger:

"We sing the praise of him who died"

– this was the song that Bishop Lionel sang –

"of him who died upon the Cross.
The sinner’s hope let men deride,
for this we count the world but loss." (1)

If he were preaching here today it would be about the Cross – the precious death, the Blood that was spilt for you and me.

How do I know this . . . what Bishop Lionel would have preached?

Well, I have here a very precious letter that he wrote over 40 years ago from the Deanery just down the way. He had come to a realization of his faith – and I want to share it with you. He wrote:

“I give my soul into the hands of Almighty God, humbly beseeching Him to pardon all my sins, known to me and unknown, through the sole merits of the Blood of my Redeemer Jesus Christ, one drop of whose Precious Blood might cleanse the whole world.” (2)

We have here a foundation built on Christ. A firm foundation for faith. A faith which carries us through this world and into the next.

The Gospel for today says, “I am the way the truth and the life. No man cometh unto the Father but by me.” Bishop Lionel’s letter reiterates this. He says, “It is through the sole merits of the Blood of our Redeemer Jesus Christ.”

In this world of uncertainty that talks about all ways leading to God, the church needs to stand up and say: “No!” It is through Faith in Christ, in his death and resurrection that we can know salvation.

It is this Salvation that gives the sinner the hope that we need. The hymn continues:

“for this we count the world but loss.”

"Inscribed upon the Cross we see
in shining letters GOD IS LOVE."

This is the most important thing in life we can know. Life is never measured by its length but by its depth. Its depth of love. If we have not love we are but a sounding brass or a clanging cymbal. The Church teaches the Cross is the ultimate expression of love; the vertical and the horizontal love – up to God and out to others. This is what the cross is about.

The Cross is

"The balm of life, the cure of woe,
the measure and the pledge of love
the sinners refuge here below –
the Angels theme in Heaven above."

We all come to the certainty of death. It is then we need to be able to give an account of the hope that is within us.

Let me read to you again Bishop Lionel's account of the hope within him:

“I give my soul into the hands of Almighty God, humbly beseeching Him to pardon all my sins, known to me and unknown, through the sole merits of the Blood of my Redeemer Jesus Christ, one drop of whose Precious Blood might cleanse the whole world.”

You see this is what makes "the coward spirit brave and nerves the feeble arm for fight." Bishop Lionel had 2 strokes yet fought on. His the cross that "takes the terror from the grave and gilds the bed of death with light."

I thank God that I have been privileged to know this man of God who was never afraid to stand up and give an account of the faith that was within him, who continually looked to Jesus, the Author and Finisher of his faith in life and in death – and what a peaceful death it was at home surrounded by love going to love.

I challenge you this day – to commit yourself to this Faith more fully – to follow the example of Bishop Lionel and those who have gone before us, to build on the firm foundation of Jesus Christ, who is the way, the truth, and the life. It is through faith in his Blood that "all men might be saved."
___________________________

(1) "We sing the praise of him who died" by Thomas Kelly, 1769-1854 (English Hymnal 510).

(2) Bishop Lionel quoted these lines from the Last Will and Testament of Dr Pusey, 19th November, 1875.

* * * * *

OBITUARY:
BISHOP LIONEL RENFREY
DEAN OF ADELAIDE 1966-1997

- Father Andrew Cheesman

Lionel Edward William Renfrey's origins were humble. He was born in 1916 in Adelaide. Five years later his father, an enameller died in the Spanish influenza epidemic. His mother, Catherine Rose, took whatever work she could to support her son and daughter, Joyce, who, sadly, lost her life prematurely.

After schooling at Unley High, Lionel found a clerical position with the Taxation department to support both his mother and the University course he entered upon. This led him on a scholarship to St. Mark's and ultimately St. Barnabas Theological College. A brilliant literary scholar he obtained a first class honours degree in English in 1938 and the Bundey prize for English verse. He became a firm friend of the Professor, J.I.M. Stewart who wrote detective stories under the pseudonym of Michael Innes and included Lionel in one of them. Lionel himself loved to tell stories particularly of the "shaggy dog" kind. He had a wonderful sense of humour and love of the ridiculous. His partiality for rhyming verse and limericks cemented a growing friendship with the future Diocesan Bishop Thomas Reed.

Lionel's love of cricket was intertwined with his pastoral work. His lifelong support of Sturt, both football and cricket clubs, began in Unley days at St. Augustine's and St Oswald's. His association with the Hawthorn ground began with his appointment to Mitcham as catechist under Archdeacon Clampett in 1939 and he was to be seen on the pickets right up to the current season. No mean batsman himself he played for Burnside whilst at Kensington Gardens and for West Torrens during his tenure at Mile End. This was a most happy period for the growing family of six children who well remember the spacious garden and much loved vintage Rolls Royce which conveyed them to the beach for summer twilight picnics. Lionel's love for the Catholic faith nurtured by his friendship with Fr Percy Wise found full expression at St. James' and the children who attended the parish school took full part in the liturgy.

Lionel's love of liturgy and ordered spiritual life had grown during his leadership of the Bush Brotherhood of St. John Baptist which served the upper south east from Tailem Bend in 1944-47. It was here that Lionel met and fell in love with Joanne Smith of Cooke Plains. After their marriage they served together in the Berri-Barmera Mission. Jo was a wonderful helpmeet throughout sixty years of married life immersing herself in their hobbies, diocesan and family life. Her unfailing help sustained her husband when those causes dearest to his heart were threatened. Some of their happiest years with the family were spent in the Deanery next to the Cathedral where their hospitality, especially after Synod Evensongs was renowned. Lionel annually led Church Office staff and their family members on a picnic to Keyneton after worship in the Cathedral on Ascension day.

Appointed Dean of Adelaide in 1966 Lionel was made Assistant Bishop of the Diocese in 1969 which gave full rein to those administrative and pastoral talents already widely recognised in his role as Archdeacon and Organising Chaplain of the Bishop's Home Mission Society in 1965-66. His beloved Dean and Chapter and Church Office staff were recipients of his personal care and humour, but so were casual acquaintances, former parishioners, wayfarers, and shop assistants. Like his great predecessor Dean James Farrell he was truly the persona of the city as he walked to Church Office in Leigh Street and returned nightly to the Cathedral for Evensong. He was editor of the Church Guardian from 1961-65 and published theological and devotional treatises as well as two significant biographies of Diocesan figures, Bishop Nutter Thomas and Fr Percy Wise.

The final and best witness of his allegiance to Christ and love of the Book of Common Prayer was testified to by the Sanctuary party at his Requiem Mass made up of his son, two sons-in-law and four grandsons. This took place at Christ Church North Adelaide 18th November 2008.

Part of Bishop Lionel's final spiritual testimony was there read out by the Rector, "I give my soul into the hands of Almighty God, humbly beseeching Him to pardon all my sins, known to me and unknown, through the sole merits of the Blood of my Redeemer Jesus Christ, one drop of whose Precious Blood might cleanse the whole world."

REMEMBRANCE DAY - 90 years on

Like many clergy of all traditions, I accepted an invitation to speak at a Remembrance Day service yesterday. This was out of the city, up in the Gold Coast hinterland in the small but growing town of Upper Coomera. The service was in the open air at the town's war memorial.

Here, as in every city and town throughout Australia, a diverse group of people met to remember those members of our armed forces who laid down their lives in the defence of our country and our allies. Present were veterans and their spouses, children from the local school, representatives of government and the police, and those whose families have lost loved ones on the battlefield (including the family of a young soldier killed in Iraq last year).

It was low-key and slightly understated as such services tend to be in Australia. I was able to speak about the impact of World War 1 on Australian society, and the significance of Armistice Day ninety years ago, reflecting on the paradox that war simultaneously brings out the worst and the best in us, especially the great courage and selflessness for which members of the Australian armed forces have become justly famous. I finished with the observation that it takes no less courage to learn how to forgive and move beyond the differences we have with others, especially when from our point of view they have been clearly in the wrong . . . observing that in Australia after World War 2 many returned soldiers, air force and naval personnel actually led the community at large in building bridges with our former enemies - especially the Japanese. Finally we thought about how the courage to forgive and move on translates into our daily lives if we are to make our local communities worthy of those men and women who paid the ultimate price for our freedom. That's something that each of us needs to keep working on!

I hope you like the painting at the top of this post. It is La Messe en Foret d'Argonne by Henri Gervex (1915).

ALL SOULS' DAY

This time of the year has a special appeal for me. I love the celebration of Mount Zion, the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, where innumerable angels gather to keep festival, where the the first-born who are enrolled in heaven, the spirits of just men made perfect, have assembled before the judge who is God of all, and before Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant. (See Hebrews 12:22-24). That is All Saints' Day, 1st November.

The next day, 2nd November, All Souls' Day, is just as dear to my heart, as we pray for "those whom we love but no longer see" as they grow in God, as their sanctification continues, and as they are healed of the hurts and wounds sustained in this life, all in preparation to gaze on the fulness of the Lord's glory in heaven.

Over a week ago I went to Sydney where my father had died without warning. The funeral and all the other things that had to be done very much focused my attention on the Lord's promise of eternal life, and the fundamental unity of life here and in the hereafter. Of course, there are continuities and discontinuities every time we pass from one phase of life to the next. But the role of a Christian funeral is to proclaim the Good News that the Lord shares his victory over death with all his people, and through thanksgiving and intercession to celebrate our oneness in Christ with those who have died, thus overcoming the sense of discontinuity that death brings.

It was a very strange feeling, then, having arrived back in Brisbane late Friday night, to be at the altar today, offering the early morning All Souls' Day Mass, and mentioning, with the list of other names, both my parents for the very first time. But it was also a fitting way to round off the week.

I want to take this opportunity to say what prayer for the dead is really all about (especially in the light of opposition to such praying among protestants, and even some Anglicans).

I pray for the dead . . .

1. BECAUSE IT IS NATURAL

There really does seem to be an instinct within us to pray for loved ones who have died. In my ministry I have often been surprised at the desire of completely unchurched and secularised people to pause, pray and light a candle for someone they have lost. (If I may say, this gives credence to the idea that the Catholic Faith is the natural religion of humanity . . . in other words, it is all quite normal except for those who have been specifically programmed against it by teachers of other traditions.) So, I NEED to pray for those close to me who have died. It is part of what helps to heal me in times of grief. Did you know that because of this, praying for the departed was the easiest aspect of the Faith to restore to the Church of England in the Catholic Revival, gaining special momentum in the tragic loss of life during World War 1.

2. BECAUSE JESUS DID

Jesus often prayed alone; but he also routinely attended synagogue worship, where prayers for the dead were an integral aspect of what happened. There is not the slightest suggestion in the New Testament that this aspect of prayer should be discontinued. At the time of Jesus there were, in fact, some Jewish people who strongly disapproved of praying for the dead. These were the Saducees. Unlike other schools of thought they didn't believe in resurrection or in angels and spirits. It is interesting that Jesus was extremely direct in his criticism of their errors: "You are wrong because you understand neither the Scriptures nor the power of God" (Matthew 22:29).

3. BECAUSE OF THE DEATH AND RESURRECTION OF JESUS

By his death he destroyed death, and by his rising to life he revealed the resurrection. Jesus showed us that death is not the end. St Paul, writing to a beleaguered, persecuted church in Rome was able to say that therefore NOTHING - not even death - can separate us from the love of Christ. (Romans 8:37 - end) It follows, then, that nothing - not even death - can separate us from those we love in his love. Jesus is the focal point of the gathering of his people. Because we gather around him, the Saints in glory gather around him, and those who have recently died gather around him, we continue our relationship with each other in his love. There is ONE community of faith and love (which we call the "Church"), and the main way we express our love and care for each other is through PRAYER.

4. BECAUSE THE CHURCH HAS ALWAYS PRAYED FOR THE DEAD

Without doubt, the mainstream Jewish practice of praying for departed loved ones uncontroversially continued among the early Christians. The evidence of archaeology - dating back to the first and second centuries - bears witness to this, as does graffiti from the Catacombs in Rome. This is the formative period of Church life, before even the outer limits of the Canon of Scripture had reached their final determination. Couple that with the fact that not one of the ancient liturgies fails to hold the dead before the Lord, and it is clear that to be a Catholic Christian has always meant to express our love for "those whom we love but no longer see" in this particular way.

5. BECAUSE OUR DEPARTED LOVED ONES ARE STILL JOURNEYING MORE DEEPLY INTO GOD

In other words, they are not really DEAD at all! They are still our brothers and sisters in Christ, very much alive in him. And they continue to grow, especially in holiness and love. Speaking to Christians, the writer to the Hebrews says that there is a "holiness without which no man will see the Lord" (Hebrews 12:14). Through faith and baptism we, too, became Christians and embarked on a lifelong journey of sanctification ("becoming holy" or, as some would put it, following St Augustine, "becoming what we are") by co-operating with God's grace, learning more and more to surrender to his will. For the vast majority of us this process is not compete at the point of death.

It is unfortunate that many macabre ideas about the continuing sanctification of our departed loved ones evolved in the middle ages (causing an understandable but tragic over-reaction at the Reformation). This is particularly sad when you consider how brief and restrained is the Catholic Church's official teaching on this matter, certainly not committing us to every detail of the medieval cultus.

Here, for example, are some stunning words from Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) about "purgatory" as encounter with the love of Christ:

"Purgatory is not, as Tertullian thought, some kind of supra-worldly concentration camp where one is forced to undergo punishments in a more or less arbitrary fashion. Rather it is the inwardly necessary process of transformation in which a person becomes capable of Christ, capable of God [i.e., capable of full unity with Christ and God] and thus capable of unity with the whole communion of saints. Simply to look at people with any degree of realism at all is to grasp the necessity of such a process. It does not replace grace by works, but allows the former to achieve its full victory precisely as grace. What actually saves is the full assent of faith. But in most of us, that basic option is buried under a great deal of wood, hay and straw. Only with difficulty can it peer out from behind the latticework of an egoism we are powerless to pull down with our own hands. Man is the recipient of the divine mercy, yet this does not exonerate him from the need to be transformed. Encounter with the Lord is this transformation. It is the fire that burns away our dross and re-forms us to be vessels of eternal joy." (Eschatology: Death and Eternal Life, page 229)

So, there you have it: as we journey from this earthly life into complete union with Jesus, his fiery love and holiness cleanses and heals us in preparation for the eternity of God's overwhelming glory.

At every All Souls' Day since my ordination I have seen to it that this wonderful hymn is sung after Communion. It expresses in a perfectly balanced way, the sentiments that should dominate Christian prayer for the departed. A jewel of the Catholic Revival in Anglicanism, it is number 356 in the English Hymnal (tune: Corpus Domini Appendix 47); it was written in Swahili, and translated by E.S. Palmer (1857-1931).

Jesu, Son of Mary,
Fount of life alone,
Here we hail thee present
On thine Altar-throne.
Humbly we adore thee,
Lord of endless might,
In the mystic symbols
Veiled from earthly sight.

Think, O Lord, in mercy
On the souls of those
Who, in faith gone from us,
Now in death repose.
Here 'mid stress and conflict
Toils can never cease;
There, the warfare ended,
Bid them rest in peace.

Often they were wounded
In the deadly strife,
Heal them, good Physician,
With the balm of life.
Every taint of evil,
Frailty and decay,
Good and gracious Saviour,
Cleanse and purge away.

Rest eternal grant them,
After weary fight:
Shed on them the radiance
Of thy heavenly light.
Lead them onward, upward,
To the holy place,
Where thy Saints made perfect
Gaze upon thy face.

Richard Dawkins: "A serious case could be made for a deistic God."

When I read "The God Delusion" I was deeply shocked. Like most people I have close friends who don't share my world view, but they are at pains to present themselves as well mannered agonisers after truth, admitting the strengths of the opposing argument while pointing out its weaknesses. What shocked me about Dawkins was not his arguments, all of which in a grossly unsophisticated form we covered in Philosophy I and Theology I. It was the fact that HERE WAS THE TRUE FUNDAMENTALIST . . . far more vicious and one-eyed than any hard-core Christian or Muslim fundamentalist of my acquaintance. Over the years I've known many of the former, and a handful of the latter. Some of them scare me. But Dawkins left them all for dead. Read the book if you don't believe me.

That's why a number of scholars whose beliefs are similar to those of Dawkins have distanced themselves from him.

BUT, IS DAWKINS EVOLVING?

This article by Melanie Phillips in The Spectator would seem to suggest as much. It's well worth reading.

On Tuesday evening I attended the debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox at Oxford’s Natural History Museum. This was the second public encounter between the two men, but it turned out to be very different from the first. Lennox is the Oxford mathematics professor whose book, God’s Undertaker: Has Science Buried God? is to my mind an excoriating demolition of Dawkins’s overreach from biology into religion as expressed in his book The God Delusion -- all the more devastating because Lennox attacks him on the basis of science itself. In the first debate, which can be seen on video on this website, Dawkins was badly caught off-balance by Lennox’s argument precisely because, possibly for the first time, he was being challenged on his own chosen scientific ground.

This week’s debate, however, was different because from the off Dawkins moved it onto safer territory– and at the very beginning made a most startling admission. He said:

A serious case could be made for a deistic God.

The rest of the article is HERE.

The Language of the Bride

Some time ago I downloaded the following article by Archbishop Mark Coleridge (the Roman Catholic Abp of Canberra - Australia). As the original link is broken, I have reproduced it in its entirety. A great apologia for the new translation of the Roman Missal, it also vindicates those Anglican Catholics who are unwilling to allow the beauty and power of our own liturgical English (and the Extraordinary Rite in its ENGLISH MISSAL form) to disappear completely.

http://www.catholicvoice.com.au/219/features.htm

In early 2004 I was invited to be the Chair of the Roman Missal Editorial Committee. In accepting the invitation, I had no idea of what I was in for. I had been involved in liturgical translation for some years, and I had a vague notion of the shape of the new Missal project. But I had no idea that I would be thrust on to a very steep learning-curve as I came to grips with the riches of the Roman Missal. I have had to become a student once again, and that has been a great grace.

My seminary studies were done at a time of upheaval in the Church, and the liturgical training we received was negligible. It was a time of great liturgical ferment, as "the new Mass" in English appeared and took hold. Certainly we never looked at the Latin prayers. Latin was out and English was in: that was the long and short of it.

But in my work with the Editorial Committee, I have been forced to go back to the Latin again and again and again. As a result, I have come to see that the translations I grew up with were often not really translations at all. They were paraphrases that bounced off the Latin original and which in the process lost much of the Latin richness. As I discovered more of what the Latin contained, the Roman Missal stirred in me a sense of awe. Not everything in it is a masterpiece by any means, but I now think the Missal is one of the greatest cultural artefacts the West has ever produced.

The Missal is not some lifeless book of perplexing and irrelevant prayers from other times. It is a great mosaic of the Church's journey through two thousand years. It even draws upon elements which go much further back than that. We hear, for instance, the voice of the Bible at every turn.

As a student and teacher of the Bible, I have been surprised to see just how drenched in Scripture the Missal is. In the translations we have known, many of the biblical references, echoes and allusions have been obscured or even omitted. But when you look at the Latin closely, the many voices of the Old and New Testaments sound at every turn. It is now clear to me that in many ways the Missal is the Bible turned into prayer, or even a prayer-book which is a "How to Read the Bible". The new project of which my Committee is a small part is trying to allow the voice of Scripture to sound more clearly in the English texts we use at Mass, and in that sense to make our worship more biblical.

As well as Scripture, we find in the Missal pre-Christian elements which the Church has made part of her repertoire. We hear, for instance, the voice of ancient Roman religion. The way the Opening Prayers are structured is drawn from ancient Rome. Christianity simply took over the Roman prayer-form and, as it were, baptised it.

One of the most striking features of the Missal is that it can take elements from here, there and everywhere and meld them into a deeply coherent whole. It is like symphonic or polyphonic music: many different sounds or voices are brought together to make a single sound or voice. In that sense, the Missal embodies an understanding of the Church where, though we are many, we are one body. It gives voice to the universality of the Church.

Beyond the Scripture, the many voices of Catholic tradition are heard. The Fathers of the Church from East and West are there. Not surprisingly, the great Doctor of the West, St Augustine, is there. In the translations that we have known, Augustine's voice is somewhat muffled, and as a result the theology of grace of which he was the great proponent is obscured. At times, there is a semi-Pelagian sense that we need God's grace only to a certain point as a help, but that beyond that point we can go it alone.

This is not Augustine's theology of grace. He insists that there is never a time when we do not depend totally upon God's grace. We can never go it alone; we certainly cannot save ourselves, as the heretic monk Pelagius claimed. This sense of grace is something which the new Missal project wants to show forth more clearly, allowing Augustine's voice to sound in the chorus as mightily as it should.

Then beyond the Church Fathers, we hear the voices of Saints of every age. We also hear voices rising from the great moments of the Church's life like the General Councils - not just the Councils of long ago, but also the Second Vatican Council. It is surprising how many traces of Vatican II are found in the Latin texts as they were revised after the Council. New touches were added to old texts and new texts were written, which goes to show that the Roman Missal is always a work in progress. It is never a finished product but bears all the marks of the Church's ongoing journey through time. It will be finished only when the Lord returns in glory at the end of time.

Just as there are many different voices in the Missal, so too there are many different idioms. But for all their differences, these idioms have one thing in common: they are not the language of everyday speech. The language of Christian worship was always more complex and elevated than what was spoken in the streets. Therefore, in attempting to produce an English which is accessible to people, we are not trying to reproduce the English of everyday speech, especially given that we are producing a Missal for the entire English-speaking world where the language is spoken in a bewildering variety of ways.

Yet this does not mean that the language of the new Missal will be hopelessly formal or incomprehensible. It does mean, however, that it will have an elevated quality which may sound strange at first. My hope is that, like Shakespeare's verse, the language of the Missal will have its roots in common speech but will take common speech to far distant realms. It will be a language attuned to all the nuances of the Latin, yet deploying all the rich resources of English. But it will be above all the language of the Church's prayer.

When the work of my Committee becomes tedious and hard, or when I am weary of all the travel it involves, I sometimes remind myself that what we are doing is preparing words to place on the lips of the Bride of Christ as she speaks to the Bridegroom. These must be words of earth but also words that reach to heaven. They cannot be banal or one-dimensional; they cannot be the plain speech of everyday life. They must be worthy of the marriage bond between Christ and the Church, words that unite heaven and earth. I also think of Christ instructing his disciples to prepare a place where they could eat the Passover. In working on the Missal at these long and distant meetings, I like to think of myself as one of the disciples who is simply doing what he was told - preparing an appropriate place where we may sit down with the Lord to eat the Passover.

Singing from the same hymn book!

I copped a bit of flack for my article "Codes of practice" and "Protocols" - You've got to be joking! It was even said that I was being discourteous to all those liberal bishops who are "trying their hardest" to support clergy and people still within the Anglican Church of Australia who cannot in conscience believe that women can be priests and bishops.

So it is good to see that the keynote speakers at this weekend's Forward in Faith National Assembly in London made it quite clear that nothing less than a "structural solution" that gives our constituency its own bishops with REAL EPISCOPAL JURISDICTION will do, also that whatever ecclesial arrangements emerge, the pilgrimage of Anglican Catholics must be towards Catholic unity. Have a listen . . .

Click HERE for Fr David Houlding's speech. Fr Houlding is Chairman of the Catholic Group in the English General Synod, and also the Master General of the Society of the Holy Cross ("SSC").

Click HERE for Bishop John Broadhurst's speech. Bishop Broadhurst - a real friend to us in Australia - is Bishop of Fulham in London Diocese as well as Chairman of Forward in Faith.

Click HERE for Fr Geoffrey Kirk's speech. Fr Kirk is the Secretary of Forward in Faith (UK) and Vicar of St Stephen's Lewisham. (Click HERE for Fr Kirk's introduction to the 2nd Plenary Session, and HERE for his speech on GAFCON)

Click HERE for Fr Jonathan Baker's speech. Fr Baker is Principal of Pusey House, Oxford. He gave a second presentation - his real blockbuster! - the FINAL CHARGE at the end of the Assembly. If you're really pushed for time and can only listen to one of these, THIS is the one!

Click HERE for Bishop Martyn Jarrett's homily at the Assembly Eucharist, HERE for Fr Bill Scott's devotional address, HERE for Fr Sam Philpott's speech, and HERE for Fr Alan Rabjohns on the situation in Wales.

Click HERE to listen to Fr Paul Benfield, and HERE to listen to Fr James Patrick, Members of the FiF Legal Working Party.

Click HERE for Fr Ronald Crane, HERE for three FiF seminarians, HERE for Fr Brownsell & others, and HERE for Fr Darren Smith, all on WHY SHOULD WE BOTHER?

Click HERE to listen to Fr Gareth Jones, Peter Hart, Fr Ed Tomlinson, Christopher Smith, Fr Victor Bullock, Emma Forward, Fr Jeff Woolnough and Claire Epsom on WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE.

For photographs of many of the above, as well as the text of particular resolutions, go to the Forward in Faith website HERE.

How many Lambeth Conferences were there?

Clergy from a number of liberal Australian dioceses have passed on to me the reports of their bishops on the Lambeth Conference. Even given a certain sensationalism on the part of the media, I have to ask, did these bishops attend the SAME conference as a few of my friends who (representing a range of perspectives) speak of the trauma and ungodly manipulation they suffered? Perhaps the liberals (especially the Australians) have sunk to the depths of that political malaise where they actually now believe their own spin!

If you are tired of the liberal spin and you want a realistic and fearless assessment of the Lambeth Conference and related issues, go HERE to listen to Bishop John Broadhurst's keynote address at the 2008 National Assembly of Forward in Faith in London this weekend.

I still believe in . . . CONVERSION!

The Mass readings over the last two Sundays have had us thinking about the real meaning of CONVERSION.

NOT EVERYONE LIKES CONVERSION
It is really untrendy in some church circles to talk about conversion - especially conversion to Jesus! In my travels I've even heard liberal so-called "missionaries" carry on about how their role is to help Hindus and Muslims etc become better Hindus and Muslims rather than to nudge them along the way to being "converted" to Jesus . . . that "this is what Jesus would want if he were on earth today" (where else have we heard that turn of phrase!!!).

Well, I'm sorry, but Jesus doesn't send us into the world JUST to "dialogue." He sends us into the world to preach the Gospel, to live the Gospel, to incarnate the Gospel in our relationships and communities so that all those people from every background, race, language and culture for whom he died and rose again will be inspired to respond to his love and come to know him as their Saviour and Lord.

Another way of putting this is to say that he sends us out as part of his "loving the world back to himself." So, obviously, we relate to those around us with respect, reverence, acceptance and love, not as potential "pew fodder", but as real people who enrich our lives, even as we long for them to give us the privilege of sharing with them what we have discovered of the Lord. That's the case whether we live in London, New York, Iran, India, China, Africa or suburban Brisbane!

And, as has happened everywhere the community of Jesus has gone over the last two thousand years, some of those we love will be converted. Praise the Lord!

I believe in conversion.


A SLAVE TRADER WHO CONVERTED
Two Sundays ago we thought about John Newton. He was born in London in 1725, and went to sea with his father at the age of eleven.

As a teenager he reluctantly worked on a battleship. He ran away, but was caught, flogged, stripped of his rank, and bullied. He was allowed to swap over to a slave trading vessel that worked the waters off Sierra Leone. Newton was brutally abused in that job also, but his luck changed when he was rescued by the captain of another ship who had known his father.

By now he had seen how wealthy a man might become trafficking in slaves, and eventually he became captain of his own slave ship. Newton prospered.

With little or no religious conviction, it didn't matter to him whether God approved or disapproved of what he was doing.

But on one voyage home all that changed. Newton was trying to steer his vessel through a violent storm. He thought he'd come to his end. As his ship was about to sink, he surprised himself by crying out, “Lord, have mercy upon us.”

And, just at that moment the storm began to die down. This really got to John Newton. Eventually he became convinced that God had spoken to him through the storm.

His life changed. He got out of the slave trade. He married, studied theology, was ordained to the priesthood in the Church of England, and spent the rest of his life bringing others to Christ. He wrote these now famous words:

Amazing grace! (how sweet the sound)
That saved a wretch like me;
I once was lost, but now am found,
Was blind, but now I see. ’

Twas grace that taught my heart to fear,
And grace my fears reliev’d;
How precious did that grace appear,
The hour I first believed!

Through many dangers, toils and snares,
I have already come;
’Tis grace has brought me safe thus far,
And grace will lead me home.

The Gospel reading from two Sundays ago (Matthew 20:1-16) was about workers employed at the eleventh hour who received as much as those who had laboured the whole day. The latter were annoyed about the supposed unfairness of grace.

But, God's grace ("his free gift to us of himself, his love and his help") is amazing, precisely because it saves wretches at the eleventh hour!

I guess it's easy to understand those who think that God was unfair in saving the life of that slave trader, especially when you consider how many hundreds, maybe thousands, died on Newton’s ships . . . just so that he could get rich!

But God's grace really is amazing, and in his grace he reached out to this man who had ignored him for years. And Newton was CONVERTED.

The bottom line is that you and I could never tell God that this is unjust, because we’ve all FREELY received grace from him. And the plain fact that should demolish our foolish pride is that you and I deserved God's grace not one little bit more than John Newton did. So, we're not in a position to begrudge Newton his opportunity to respond to God’s love.

That’s what the parable of the labourers in the vineyard is really about. God’s grace comes to different people at different times and in different ways.


A WILDE ELEVENTH HOUR CONVERT
Last Sunday we thought about the very different conversion story of Oscar Wilde. We considered how in his book, The Unmasking of Oscar Wilde, Joseph Pearce shows Wilde’s conversion before he died to be a true surrender to Jesus - a surrender from which Wilde had backed off a number of times throughout his life.

While rightly celebrating Wilde as the scintillating genius he was, Pearce carefully examines his life-long struggle to respond to Jesus, and his frequent teetering on the brink of damnation (sometimes even courting it). The triumph of God’s grace is seen in Oscar Wilde's surrender to Jesus at the eleventh hour - and it really was the eleventh hour! It is something that all who have a ministry with the dying witness more often than others might imagine. It is always a REAL triumph, and - as Jesus reminds us in the Gospel - never, never, NEVER to be despised!

Of course, understanding this enables us to re-read Wilde in a new way, tracing his struggle with grace all the way through his life and his writings.


OTHER EXAMPLES
On Sunday we thought about two other experiences of conversion . . .

# the university student who went on to become a priest and bishop as a result of being converted during a concert performance of Schubert's Mass in G. "Before it began," he said, "I didn't believe anything much; as we walked out at the end I realised that something had happened to me, and I now believed the lot"!

# C.S. Lewis, who described his conversion on these words: "I was driven to Whipsnade one sunny morning. When we set out I did not believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and when we reached the zoo I did. Yet I had not exactly spent the journey in thought. Nor in great emotion. 'Emotional' is perhaps the last word we can apply to the most important events. It was more like when a man, after long sleep, still lying motionless in bed, becomes aware that he is now awake." (Surprised by Joy page 237)


TRUTH, LOVE AND BEAUTY - IN JESUS
Of course, the tricky thing about conversion in the Christian sense is that it's not JUST about helping people change what they BELIEVE (as if our task is complete when we help them tick each of the propositions of the Apostles' Creed). It is about helping people change what (that is, "Who") they LOVE. Truth and love go together. Being converted is even more about surrendering to the drawing power of the Lord's love than it is about coming intellectually to assent to a series of propositions.

Yet we all know that conversion is not as easily divided up as that because our search for truth and our discovery of the Lord's love are really one piece. And, as Pope Benedict reminds us in many of his teachings, it's not just truth and love, but also beauty.

For most of us, the search for truth, love and beauty is immensely complicated, and it is a real triumph of grace when someone eventually sees these realities in Jesus. The movement to this point is a mystery; it usually involves the witness of friends and the accepting love of a congregation; it is always chiefly the work of the Holy Spirit.

In the words of the great charismatic Belgian Cardinal Suenens:

"Christianity cannot be reduced to an ideology. It is first and foremost an event, a person: Jesus Christ acknowledged as Lord.

"A Christian is not a philosopher who has opted for an explanation of the universe: he is someone who has experienced in his own life Jesus of Nazareth, crucified on Good Friday, risen from the tomb on Easter Sunday. The cry of Claudel: 'Why, all of a sudden you have become A PERSON!' is a cry of faith for all generations.'"

Or in the words of Cardinal Ratzinger in the year before he became Pope:

"Many people perceive Christianity as something institutional rather than as an encounter with Christ, which explains why they don't see it as a source of joy. If we stay with this impression, we do not live the essence of Christianity, which is an ever new encounter, an event thanks to which we can encounter the God who speaks to us, who approaches us, who befriends us. It is critical to come to this fundamental point of a personal encounter with God, who also today makes himself present, and who is contemporary. If one finds this essential centre, one also understands all the other things. But if this encounter is not realized, which touches the heart, all the rest remains like a weight, almost like something absurd. We need to understand Christianity in a personal way, from the point of view of an encounter with Christ."


NOT "THEN" BUT "NOW"
WHEN were you converted?

For some Christian traditions, all that matters is that you can give a date and time to your "conversion experience" . . . "the realization of this personal encounter".

Now, don't get me wrong. I love to hear how people come to Christ, especially those who were hardcore atheists, wishy-washy agnostics, followers of other religions, great public sinners, and even lapsed Anglicans. I honestly believe that when Church members really witness to Jesus and his Gospel in our generation there will be many MORE of these stories!

But I have to be honest and say there are at least three problems with the idea that absolutely everyone should be able to give a "date and a time":

The first is that there are many millions of truly blessed people who can look back over their lives and never remember NOT knowing the Lord. That, too, is a wonderful work of his grace for which we praise and thank him. (It's just that that has not been the particular theme of the readings these last two Sundays!)

The second is that many cannot in all honesty pinpoint things, but they do know that, as they have matured, their lives have come to focus on Jesus.

The third is that sometimes the "date and time" people can be so focused on the past that they've got little to say about their continuing growth in Christ.

What, then, are we to say about this?

It was Archbishop Jensen of Sydney who said not long ago that the really important question is not "WHEN were you converted?" but "ARE you converted?"

For me this means that we should ask ourselves if we know Jesus as a Person, as our LORD - as the One we trust to run our lives, knowing that we only mess them up if we don't surrender to him. In this relationship he forgives us and cleanses us from our sins, he shares with us his strength and his peace, and he assures us of his presence in our struggles and tragedies as well as in our times of happiness and joy. Furthermore, we keep on receiving his truly amazing grace through prayer and the sacramental worship of his Church, the community he gathers around himself that spans heaven and earth.

So, you can see why I still believe in conversion.

And you can see why it is not presumptuous to say in all humility that we are "converted" people, trusting not in ourselves but in the Lord and his grace.

Are YOU converted?

* * * * * * * * * * * * *

This photo is of my friend Father Trevor Jones, the Parish Priest of St Peter's London Docks at the High Altar of that historic Anglo-Catholic church, which you MUST visit if you go to London. And if you can't afford to do that, go to Father Jones' blog HERE. You'll learn a great deal about Anglo-Catholics preaching the Gospel and witnessing to the love and presence of Jesus in the "ordinariness" of human life.

"Codes of Practice" and "Protcols" - You've got to be joking!

My blog is not intended for church-political comment (see my first ever post!) But it is really important to those of us who have fought over the last thirty years for the catholicity of the Anglican tradition that people know just why a "structural solution" is the only fair way of meeting the needs of faithful Catholics within the Anglican Communion. I wrote this article for the September 2008 Forward in Faith Australia newsletter:

On the 8th July this year, the morning after the English General Synod voted to deny opponents of women bishops a "structural solution" to their problems of conscience when women are "bishops" in the Church of England, Fr Matthew Bernard SSC posted these words on the blog of Ruth Gledhill, religion correspondent for the London Times:

"I was one of the young traditionalist priests in the public gallery throughout the debate. What bothered me more than the result, I think, was the sheer nastiness of the 'scorched earth' policy on the part of the liberals, and their unwillingness to listen to people of both sides, not least the archbishops, insisting that a code of practice would not do . . ."

We in Australia got used to the "scorched earth" policy a long time ago, as, indeed, did the North Americans. Our English brothers and sisters are now just beginning to understand that the Church of England doesn't really want them. Is it any wonder that after the disastrous vote, shock waves reverberated around our constituency there; the flying bishops sounded to the press as if they were off to Rome immediately, and priests and people alike withdrew from public discussion in utter disbelief, to spend the summer licking their wounds.


NO LONGER AN EXAMPLE
From our point of view, the really sad thing about this is that until now we have been able to point to the "fairness" of the Church of England's Act of Synod by which the flying bishop arrangement came into being as the truly "Anglican" way of caring for a vital minority whose only sin is a strong commitment to the faith and order of the Church Catholic as the Church of England received it. Now, however, unless the English General Synod changes its mind (and I suppose it just might after the 2010 General Synod elections) Catholics in the "Mother Church" of the Communion will be in exactly the same position as we are.

The flying bishops arrangement - the provision of "extended episcopal care" - was based on the Eames' Commission's understanding of "reception", that is, that as either side of the women's ordination debate might turn out to be right at the end of the day, the Church has a responsibility to create the environment in which BOTH sides can flourish and grow. This was popularly known as the "Gamaliel principle", and the provisions made have worked well over the fourteen years since they were put in place. Too well, in fact. There is real anger in liberal circles in England that our constituency has been steadily growing, that on average, our ordinands are the youngest, with a real passion for the Gospel of Jesus and the full Catholic Faith, and that parishes keep being added to the A, B & C list - that is, the list of those who have voted to have the ministry of a flying bishop ("provincial episcopal visitor") rather than their liberal diocesan bishop.


CODE OF PRACTICE
In the light of this growth, and the relative strength of our numbers, it was thought fairly inevitable by FiF people in England that even if the C. of E. didn't give them a "Free Province" with the advent of women bishops, some kind of structural arrangement would be permitted, such as adding to the present prerogatives of the flying bishops the ability to select, train, ordain and place our own ordinands, and the jurisdiction to manage the selection and induction of priests into parishes. This would have created something analogous to a "Diocese", and as a holding arrangement would have "just" sufficed for the time being.

Instead, all that the English will be offered is a "Code of Practice." Throughout the General Synod debate speaker after speaker from our side spelt out the reasons why such a provision is woefully inadequate.

This contrasts with the approach of many Australian Anglo-Catholics - a dying race! - who sit so lightly on the FiF Communion Statement as to think that the "Code of Practice" approach in the form of the "Australian Anglican Bishops' Protocol" will do nicely.

I cannot believe on the one hand that our brothers' consciences are not stretched to breaking point over matters of sacramental communion, or, on the other, that they are prepared to trust the assurances of the kind of liberals who run the Church almost everywhere in Australia but Sydney, whose track record in providing for the consciences of orthodox minorities is abysmal.


A LITTLE HISTORY
Indeed, the appalling behaviour of most liberal bishops right from the beginning of the process that has led to the "ordination" of women here in Australia makes it highly unlikely that their assurances about addressing the real difficulties of conscience our people experience are worth the paper they're written on.

(Notice I said "most." We do, in fact, have a few friends among the liberal bishops who deeply regret the way we have been treated over the years, and who also dislike the bureaucratic bullying that now passes for church leadership in many places.)

Consider:

1. The Appellate Tribunal's opinion that the Fundamental Declarations in the Constitution could mean the opposite of what they actually say (an opinion described by no less than Archbishop Donald Robinson as "unconscionable"). These Declarations are supposed to assure Anglicans that ours is a Catholic and Apostolic Church, taking our stand on the Scriptures and the ancient Creeds, and that our ministry is a continuation of the Holy Order of the wider Catholic Church.

2. The pretence of bishops who in the debates leading up to the ordination of women claimed to speak in the interests of "tolerable plurality" (assuring "minorities" of pastoral care!!!) but who then proceeded viciously to persecute and hound those who could not in conscience accept that such women had in fact received Catholic orders.

3. The devising of operative canons claiming to "clarify" the law of the church, which in fact deliberately obfuscated that law, together with the 1992 appeal to the last handful of swinging voters in the General Synod that they were not really being asked to vote for the ordination of women, but for the unity of the Church.

4. The refusal in 2001 and 2004 to provide a "structural solution" to our people in the event of women bishops becoming a reality - with some of the most passionate supporters of women bishops voting against the legislation on the basis that it sought to give "wriggle-room" for our consciences. (Our people also voted against it because the "wriggle-room" proposed was inadequate!)

5. The consistent denial that what we have asked for reflects a theologically legitimate point of conscience (as when in 2005 the Archbishop of Brisbane made the rejection of "sacramental space" and the acceptance of his sacramental ministry in the parish of All Saints' Brisbane a condition of the appointment of a new priest).

6. The sneaking in of women bishops through the back door (on the basis of a 4 - 3 vote of the Appellate tribunal) when it became clear to proponents that the continuing decline of most dioceses and the growth of Sydney Diocese meant that they would never have the numbers get legislation for women bishops through the General Synod.

Why on earth should anyone now trust those who are responsible for such behaviour to start being pastoral and caring? In all honesty, who would buy a used car from a crowd like that? It is highly likely that they believe their opposition to be so marginalised as to make it "safe" to offer their "protocol", knowing full well that almost no-one is left who will seek to avail themselves of it.


THE WELSH VOTE
On 2nd April this year, the bill to introduce women bishops into the Church of Wales was narrowly lost. The Archbishop of Wales - who sings from the same hymn sheet as most of his Australian counterparts, thinks nothing of dismantling Catholic Faith and Order; but he opposed the inclusion of legislative protection for traditionalists (i.e. the right to their own bishop) on the basis - he said - that it would be "institutionalised schism"!

Where have we heard that before?

The amazing thing is that in the Welsh Governing Body a number of liberals who want women bishops, were unwilling to pass the required legislation if it did not include legislative protection (a "structural solution") for opponents.


WHY A STRUCTURAL SOLUTION IS NECESSARY
An astute commentator on this episode is Roland J. Morant, who points out that mere gentlemen's agreements will never be enough for the orthodox when they are in an ecclesial body in which women purport to be bishops. I quote him at some length as he summarises why "Codes of Practice", "Protocols", the best of "gentlemen's agreements", and even the present "flying bishop" arrangement in the C. of E. just will not do once a province goes from women priests to women bishops:

"As was realised in England a year or more ago when discussion was taking place on women bishops there, when women bishops are introduced into an episcopal college of men (as would apply to the present bench of Welsh bishops), the system using a 'Provincial Assistant Bishop' (or in England, 'Provincial Episcopal Visitors') would become unmanageable. Here are six objections:-

"1. Traditionalists in holy orders would find it impossible to join in acts of collegiality e.g. at clergy chapters etc. The main reason for this is that the question would always be in traditionalists' minds as to whether revisionist clergy (male or female) were actually in holy orders.

"2. Traditionalist bishops, priests and deacons would be unable to make oaths of allegiance to revisionist bishops or archbishop of the province.

"3. Given that there must be nothing provisional about the sacramental acts of a bishop (especially ordinations and eucharistic celebrations), traditionalist clergy and people would have to have sacramental assurance that such acts were valid.

"4. Traditionalist bishops, priests and deacons would be unwilling to take part in sacramental acts with clergy of other provinces and dioceses, if there were question-marks hanging over the heads of the clergy of these other provinces and dioceses as to whether they were actually in holy orders.

"5. Traditionalist bishops would require total control of their parishes, be it for reasons jurisdictional, administrative, pastoral or spiritual. Anything less, and protection from revisionists would be whittled away in the course of time.

"6. Traditionalist bishops would need to retain the authority to ordain their own subordinate clergy and to consecrate their successor bishops."

In other words, the ordination of women as bishops represents such a significant departure from "the Catholic Faith as this Church has received the same" as to be a betrayal of our Lord Jesus Christ that strikes at the very core of Church life.

If the bishops who ordain women really believe that this is a "period of reception", as I said before, they must at least believe it is possible that we are right and that they are wrong.

If we are right, and it is NOT God's will that women be ordained to the priesthood and consecrated as bishops, then the women purportedly ordained are not priests and bishops at all. The sacraments over which they preside are null and void. As Fr Tom Davis has written in New Directions (Sept.2008):

"[In the case of women priests and bishops] . . . The Holy Spirit will not transform the bread and wine into the saving Body and Blood of Christ, even though the correct words have been said over them; we receive just bread and wine. The Holy Spirit will not impart the charism of ordination or confirmation to those upon whose heads a woman bishop places her hands . . . And in the case of priests she ordains, male or female, they will NOT be priests, and the sacraments will have no effect."

That is what the Church has always believed and practised, and what the wider Church still believes and practises today. As the ones who believe it to be right, the orthodox Anglican minority in places like Australia, England and Wales, are entitled to a "structural solution", embedded in canon law, that will guarantee them a distinct sacramental life, the validity and effectiveness of which is not impaired by what any fair-minded reading of Catholic theology must regard as the technically schismatic actions of the so-called liberals.

That would do for a generation, making it possible for orthodox Anglicans around the world to re-group, even as liberal Anglicanism shrinks away before our very eyes, along with what are now the old fashioned social movements of which it has been a pale imitation.