Pope Benedict XVI's Mass today at the National Stadium in Washington DC was criticized by Father Neuhaus today on EWTN as being very multicultural and perhaps not to the liking of the Pope himself, who has expressed himself frequently as favoring the traditional music of the Catholic Church. Of course the Pope showed no sign of not liking the music. One wouldn't expect that he ever would show any sign of displeasure at something so carefully prepared and presented by so many American musicians. One can say that the occasion was extraordinary in that it brought together thousands of American Catholics in one place for a Mass that surely must have posed many logistical and diplomatic stumbling blocks for the masters of ceremony and protocol who planned it. In my opinion it was very well done indeed, and there was something for everyone.

From a musicological standpoint, there was perhaps more Latin than we would normally find in any Catholic Mass in the United States, but the Latin formed the foundation of the musical texts at many points with other languages interspersed. Gregorian Chant found its expression as the musical basis for many of the musical themes presented as new compositions. The introduction of Latin American and Native American instruments and rhythms during the Communion was entirely appropriate, and, if I were to complain about anything, it would be the fact that Placido Domingo unavoidably upstaged the Pope himself with his rendition of Panis Angelicus. Of course, I am just kidding. It was operatic, but thoroughly appropriate for the occasion, after all, the Pope is the Bishop of Rome, Italy.

The music intended for the congregation to sing was eminently singable. There were none of the sentimental faux-folk tunes that still blight the air in many Catholic parishes. The Sanctus was perhaps the most familiar setting of all, and the people sang it with gusto. At the end, I was greatly gratified with the hymn, "Alleluia, Sing to Jesus" which sounded to me like it was right out of the 1940 Episcopal Hymnal with its wonderfully moving bass line. The people clearly knew this hymn and sang it enthusiastically even though it could be easily dubbed a Protestant hymn.

The Mass was a votive Mass for the Holy Spirit, and the Collect of the Mass made me sit up straight when I heard Pope Benedict read it, for it was none other than the Collect for Purity. Of course Cranmer took this beautiful Latin prayer and made it an invariable introductory prayer to the Communion Service. So here we had a Mass which began with the Collect for Purity and ended with "Alleluia, Sing to Jesus". I doubt if it was an intentional bow to the Anglicans and Anglican converts like myself, but it was certainly appreciated.

So, if Father Neuhaus thinks the Pope didn't like the music, my guess is that the music may not have been exactly what the Pope was expecting, but that he could not fail to have approved of it.

C. David Burt

Rome Pilgrimage

From September 22 to September 29th over 100 people connected with the Anglican Use converged on Rome as pilgrims hailing from such places as Scranton, San Antonio, Arlington, and Houston. I was a happy member of the Scranton contingent led by Father Eric Bergman, the newest of the Anglican Use Pastors. Father Phillips and Deacon Orr of Our Lady of the Atonement, San Antonio, led their group, which included the choir of Atonement Academy. Father Noble and Deacon Barnett of Our Lady of Walsingham in Houston led their group, and there was a group led by Father Hart of Corpus Christi, Texas. Father Hawkins of Arlington, Texas put in an appearance during the pilgrimage. Archbishop John Myers, the Ecclesiastical Delegate for the Pastoral Provision, was already in Rome, and he and his Secretary, Father Stetson met with us and participated in most of the liturgies. Bishop Vann was also there. So all in all, most of the Anglican Use was there in Rome. The Archbishop, Father Stetson, and Bishop Vann stayed at the North American College, and the rest of us were in hotels. Our hotel was about a mile from the Vatican. Joe Blake, the President of the Anglican Use Society flew over to be with us for a couple of days and to hold a meeting of the Anglican Use Society Board of Directors.

The Archbishop met us for Mass at St. Peter’s Chains on Sunday shortly after our arrival. I had prepared music for the Masses Sunday through Wednesday, and we had a combined choir of 14 people. On Monday the Anglican Use Mass was at the Venerable English College. On Tuesday it was at the North American College, On Wednesday we went to the Papal Audience where we had preferred seating. Some of the Anglican Use Pastors were able to greet the Pope. In the evening the Novus Ordo Mass was at St. John Lateran. On Thursday the Anglican Use Mass was at St. Susanna with the Atonement Academy Choir singing. In the evening we sang Evensong with Cardinal Law at St. Mary Major, and Friday the Novus Ordo was celebrated by Archbishop Angelo Amato in Latin at St. Peter’s with the Atonement Academy singing.

Aside from Masses, our time was taken up primarily with touring the sights in Rome and eating in restaurants. The favorite dish in Rome seems to be macaroni and cheese with bits of bacon. A plate of that can cost as much as €12.00! I went with the Houston group to the Taverna dei Gracchi, just up the street from our hotel. The waiter asked, “Quanti personi?” and I answered “dieci”. He opened a double sliding door and there was a formal private dining room with a table set for ten. I knew then that we were in trouble. The whole meal cost about €700, and the waiter wasn’t even Italian; he was Greek! From champagne to grappa we were treated with the best meal you can get in Rome.

The high point of the touring for me was the Scavi Tour in the excavations under St. Peter’s. There you may view the relics of St. Peter. The whole Vatican is exceedingly impressive; that goes without saying. But when you cut through all of the pomp and extravagant excess of art, which really makes you tired if you try to see it all in such a short period of time, you realize that what it comes down to is that little box of bones lying only a matter of yards away from where he was crucified upside down. This is the most important thing. The pope is a prisoner in the Vatican, only a few yards away from that famous tomb, and he must have the worst job in the whole Church; everybody wants to greet him personally or to give him a gift or something, but the man cannot possibly greet everyone personally. So he greets and blesses the crowd, and he greets a few in the name of the many. For us, when he greeted some of the priests in our group, we rightly felt that we were being given special recognition. I viewed the tombs of all of the popes who lived during my lifetime, from Pius XI to John Paul II. They are all buried within a few yards of the bones of St. Peter. And the present successor of Peter, except when he is traveling, is always very near this place, and he must know that his bones will soon rest there in the same crypt too. Please pray for Pope Benedict XVI.

An Anglican Covenant

The Draft Anglican Covenant looks like a vanilla version of Anglicanism, but one must observe carefully what it does not say along with what it does say. Most glaring, in my opinion, is the lack of any truly catholic ecumenical perspective; there is no view either toward reunion with Anglicans of the continuing churches or with the great catholic communions of Rome and Orthodoxy.

Would it be too much to hope for some statement, however bland, in favor of maintaining the apostolic ministry of Bishops, Priests, and Deacons in apostolic succession? While the Anglican Communion is certainly split on the issue of homosexuality, it is equally split on the issue of ordination of women. The Windsor Report accepts the ordination of women as a fact of life within Anglicanism and this "covenant" by failing to mention the issue at all does the same thing. I thought that Women's ordination was still being tested and that, hard as it might be to imagine it, the final verdict on the question might still be, "No". A covenant such as this implies the tacit acceptance of WO, and this is out of the question for Anglo-Catholics, Biblically based Evangelicals, and even broad-church Anglicans who yearn for unity with the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church.

So much for what it doesn't say; now for what it does say: By emphasizing the 39 Articles, the 1662 Book of Common Prayer, and the limitation of the sacraments to two only, the covenant alies itself with a certain brand of Anglicanism that seems to be going out of its way to affirm itself as Protestant and not Catholic. I thought that in the light of ARCIC we had moved beyond this. My question is, "Are these touchstones necessary?" Again, the effect is to make Anglo-Catholics extremely uncomfortable.

I am not entirely convinced that the Anglican Communion needs a covenant at all, especially since the purpose seems to be to define who is "in" and who is "out". In any case, this one may unintentionally put people or groups "out" that might better remain "in". A covenant such as this is a dangerous thing. In any case, the people working on it would do well to examine the Affirmation of St. Louis, which is another attempt to define who is truly Anglican and who is not. The effect of the Affirmation of St. Louis was to leave its adherents outside the official Anglican Communion. That was not its intention.

Finally, does the draft covenant actually exclude the people it is intending to exclude? It says that where there are disputes the matters should be submitted to the Primates Meeting, and the Primates will offer guidance and direction. There is no language in the covenant that would compel churches to accept the admonition of the Primates, nor is there any clear language on how a church would be declared to be outside of the covenant relationship. If an unrepentant ECA is to be excluded from the Anglican Communion by this covenant, I would say it won't work.

The Anglican Communion would be better off without a covenant and would be much better off without this one.

C. David Burt

Episcopal Bishops Reject Dar es Salaam Communiqué

A couple of months ago, I went over to my old Seminary for a memorial organ concert. After the concert I had the opportunity to talk with the current dean of The Episcopal Divinity School, Bishop Charleston, and I remarked somewhat pointedly that while Gordon Conwell Seminary was now accepting Episcopalian and Anglican students, EDS may now have a niche market preparing people for ministry in the "new" church. The bishop actually seemed to agree with me if he didn't agree with the underlying presumption on my part that this was really a bad thing.

You have to put yourself in their place to really understaind the point of view they represent. The Episcopal Divinity School has come a long way since I graduated from ETS in 1968. Before I went there, it was the civil rights movement. While I was there, the Vietnam War was the great issue. When that was over, the ordination of women became the new issue, and now that the ordination of women is solidly accepted in the Episcopal Church, it is the gay and lesbian agenda which is the new issue. The seminary community sees itself as being in the forefront of these great social justice issues, and I believe it can quite rightly take pride in being on the right side of the first two: The Civil Rights Movement, and the Anti Vietnam War effort. Once they moved on from those issues, like rebels without a cause, they lost sight of the fact that justice for one group may entail injustice to another.

This is the current situation. They affirm that the ordination of women is a matter of justice, and they affirm that same-sex marriage is also a matter of justice. Bishop Charleston has launched out on some initiatives of his own aimed at achieving reconciliation. These are all well meant, and who can argue against the plea, comming from many sides, that ask, "Why can't we just get along?" In Massachusette, gay marriage is now the law, even though the Episcopal Church hasn't actually officially started doing it yet, but the justice issue is put quite simply, if the Commonwealth views this is a positive thing, why should people be thrown out of the church? The general view of things here is that the discussion is over on this issue, and we are moving on.

That, of course, does not satisfy everybody, and here is where the justice argument backfires. If you belong to a church that accepts the marriage of homosexuals, what if you don't happen to believe that to be in accord with Holy Scripture? The same was true with the ordination of women. If you belong to a church which ordains women, what if you don't happen to believe that women are called by God to be priests. Both issues effectively "un-church" the individual who can not assent to the new teaching. This is why it is a justice issue. It does no good to say that the fathers of the church in the past were mistaken and we now have a more enlightened point of view.

While the Episcopal Bishops express the desire to continue in the councils of the Anglican Communion, They have now rejected all external authority. Here is what they say to the Dar es Salaam proposal, "It is a very serious departure from our English Reformation heritage. It abandons the generous orthodoxy of our Prayer Book tradition. It sacrifices the emancipation of the laity for the exclusive leadership of high-ranking Bishops, and for the first time since our separationf from the papacy in the 16th century, it repalces the local governance of the Chrurch by its own people with the decidsions of a distant and unaccountable group of prelates." So the one thing that could pull the Episcopal Church back from the brink of separation from the Anglican Communion they have rejected with nothing but a wan appeal to be able to continue in the councils of the Communion. Of course they have made some important points here, but I would say that their rejection of the Dar es Salaam Comuniqué is a fatal mistake.

What the bishops of the Episcopal Church don't seem to realize is that dissatisfaction with the church's ability to correct doctrinal error has been widespread for many years. For the Bishops of the Episcopal Church to have quite a number of jurisdictions that left the Episcopal Church over the issue of the ordination of women is no great recommendation for their leadership in the direction of reconciliation. To have a large group of dissident congregations and even dioceses under the jurisdiction of African archbishops, as seems to be developing now is likewise no great claim to fame for their powers of reconciliation.

There is something in the Episcopal character that seems to think they can overcome any crisis through the grace of God. This stems from hubris, pure and simple. It is the attitude that we know better and that those who disagree with us, given time, will come around to our point of view. Katharine Jefferts Schori preached a interesting sermon in which whe talked about vision. Refering to the Rublev icon of the Trinity, she pointed out that each member of the trinity looks in a different direction. She went on to draw on her knowledge of biology to say that there are some kinds of fish that have eyes that are divided in such a way that they can look at things above the surface of the water and below the surface at the same time. She goes on to say that the blesser of the Gospel invites us into a deeper seeing. "When we have seen that blessing, however, briefly, it begins to rise into more easily visible depths, it comes more clearly into focus and into what we call 'normal reality.' ...To see as God sees is to bless what is into the reality of the (sic.) God's reign." There you have it. The expression of complete confidence that whatever the Episcopal Church perceives or believes, even it it seems unusual, is God's view of things. There is not even the slightest hint that the Episcopal Church might be mistaken.

Well, it is all very sad. The Episcopal Church is or was an important part of the Anglican Communion. Certainly the Anglican Communion will never be what it once was after this. One has to ask, will it be able to continue on in anything like the positive influence it has been so far? I think it could if it were to quickly gather back in the continuing churches alienated by the antics of the Episcopal Church. But that is probably too much to hope for.

C. David Burt

The Pope and Islam

I have thus far refrained from commenting on the Pope's lecture at Regensburg, but I received an e-mail from an old correspondent with whom I have debated extensively on the merits of Islam and Christianity. You can read that correspondence on the Islam to Christianity Yahoo Group.

Here is my reply to the letter I just received today:

Dear Faisal,

Thank you for taking time to respond to the Pope's University of Regensburg lecture. It is quite clear that this pope is not as soft on Islam as Pope John Paul II was, but I think he is sincere in saying that he wants intellectual dialogue with Islam. I don't know if he anticipated the furious reaction from the radical Islamist faction or not. I tend to think that he may have expected it but that he trusted that the elements of reason and moderation in Islam would also stand up. If it results in a healthy dialogue within Islam itself, it must be viewed as a good thing. You are part of that dialogue, and I commend you for taking the time to read the Pope's lecture carefully.

I probably wouldn't have read the Pope's lecture myself if it were not for the Islamic reaction, so it has also provoked a debate within Christianity about what we should think about Islam. Either the lecture was ill advised and stupid or it was a calculated bid to spark dialogue. I think it is the latter. Because of the position of the Pope in the Church, people are unused to hearing him speak in a way that may be in error. But he was speaking at a University where lively debate and dialogue goes on all the time. In fact he made a great point in saying that there were not one but two Theological Departments at that university, and that he hoped that there would be frank dialogue between them. The lecture was not about Islam. The contrast between Islam and Christianity was being used as a case in point.

The argument that violence does not pertain to the nature of God is a clear Christian teaching. The Emperor's statement that Islam seems to entail a lot of bloodshed is a point well taken, and you have not contradicted it. Instead you point to violence in the Old Testament as an indication that violence is God's will as if this could justify violence. Your characterization of the crucifixion being an act of violence on God's part towards the man Jesus simply does not coincide with Christian teaching and you know it. Even Mohammed seemed to realize that the crucifixion makes no sense if Jesus is merely a man, therefore according to the Qur'an he escapes crucifixion by some trick and someone else dies in his place. The settled Christian interpretation is that Jesus, as God, accepted crucifixion and that this ultimate sacrifice is the propitiation for our sins. Far from being violent on God's behalf, the crucifixion shows Him submitting to a violent death. I don't have to teach you this, but even if you don't believe it, you need to understand that this is the basis of the Christian abhorrence of violence in the name of religion. This has been the crux of the debate between you and me, and I believe the Emperor and the Pope were touching on the same issue.

You have listed ten instances where you say the Pope breached the very reason he was arguing to uphold. I beg to differ.

Number 1: The lecture was not addressed to Muslims, nor was it about Islam. The "offending" remarks were simply made in passing to support the main thrust of his argument.

Number 2: His using of this example was deliberate in order to spark dialogue between Christianity and Islam.

Number 3: Neither the Pope nor the Emperor would have agreed with you at all on the divine authority of the Qur'an. On the matter of abrogated teaching, it is my understanding that this is a matter of debate within Islam. The Pope was not distorting the reality of scripture.

Number 4: The conversation between the Emperor and the Persian scholar took place while the city of Constantinople was under siege by the Turks. Islam had wiped out the Christian Church in North Africa and now was threatening to invade Europe. This was the historical background of the dialogue, not some genocide that you blame the Christians for.

Number 5: The Pope said that the Emperor did not mention the distinction made between People of the Book and Infidels. The Pope went on to characterize the Emperor's challenge as brusque and to us unacceptable.

Number 6: The Catholic Church does recognize Islam as a genuine religion, and anyone who knows Islam would have to agree that there are many elements of peace and beauty about it, but this does not mean that the Catholic Church endorses Islam as a true religion in any sense. The only thing true about it is that we seem to be worshiping the same God.

Number 7: You claim that Christianity is oxymoronic. You and I have debated this in the past and I won't comment on it here.

Number 8: The Pope would agree with you that violence is part of Man's nature—his fallen nature. But the Emperor said that violence is alien to the God-given human soul.

Number 9: The reason to love God is not out of fear of Him. Sure, "The fear of God is the beginning of wisdom." But what do we really mean by this? Certainly we mean that at the very least we should be concerned about transgressions. But that is just the "beginning" of wisdom. Where does it lead to? I would say that it leads to loving intimacy with God and the sanctification of the soul. Hell is something to be concerned about, however, because it is real. Islam does not contradict this. So is it violence to warn people not to fly in the face of God's merciful goodness?

Number 10: This also relates to something you and I have debated in the past. I have rejected your insistence that God might will one truth for one person and a contradictory truth for someone else. I think the Pope was fascinated with this seeming paradox in Islam. "Were it God's will, we would even have to practice idolatry." Here is a big difference of opinion between Christianity and Islam.

You say, "The Ten marks of Papal breach of reason accumulate to characterize Christian misconceptions of God Whose Purpose is that we should Know Him, not reformulate Him by way of Greek inspired incarnation."

Obviously I do not agree with any of your ten marks, but do you agree that God's purpose is that we should know him, or do you disagree with that? Quite apart from Greek philosophy, it seems quite clear to me that the Old and New Testaments show God attempting to break through to us so that we should know him.

You say, "It is clear that Theologically, Christianity has polarized itself from Jewish and Islamic Omnipotent Monotheistic Godhead. 'Yet we can meet at the point of human reason despite the intractable mystery of the Triune Godhead, in matters of common interest for mutual welfare.'"

Is this you speaking, or is it what you think the Pope means? I don't think the Pope would invite Islam into some kind of theological dialogue with Christianity. I think he would welcome cultural and intellectual dialogue, however. One of his main concerns is freedom of religion in Islamic countries, and the big question of Turkey. Should that country be admitted to the European Union?

Peace,

David

Begin forwarded message:

From: MFRahman
Date: October 16, 2006 11:05:35 AM EDT
To: 'MFRahman'
Subject: Pope's speech - Examining the Logic.

MFRahman. 8 North Drive, Champs Fleurs. 683 4698. 16/10/06.

Greetings to all.

Examining the Pope’s Logic and Religious Assumptions.


The object of the Pope in his now controversial address at The University of Regensburg on Tuesday, 12 September 2006 is clearly as he has claimed - to initiate dialogue with Islam and perhaps other faiths to come to common ground.

Since there were no formal Muslim representatives present on that auspicious occasion, he would have intended that his message was to be transmitted to his target audience via the mass media.

Now, even the insulated Holy Father must know that the media thrives on sensationalism and innuendo and is ever ready to exploit differences and conflict.

Thus we must record our First observation of the Papal breach of the exercise of reason which he sets out most of all to promote.

Given the legendary volatility of Muslim response and particularly at a time when Muslims are hyper sensitive from experiencing very real global persecution because of the responsive misdeeds of its fringe elements to decades of injustice, the resultant outcry to the extracted quotes was predictable. That the carefully crafted address was prepared in advance by a sectarian leader whose every word is news calls into question the exercise of reason employed if not the ulterior motive for its deliberate phrasing. Let this be observation number Two of Papal breach.

In quoting “the erudite Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus” ’ circa 1391 dialogue, he credits the emperor with knowledge of Sura 2:256 which reads: ‘There is no compulsion in religion’ but dismisses this fundamental law with the words “this is probably one of the suras of the early period, when Mohammed was still powerless and under threat.” To support this aspersive statement he continues: “But naturally the emperor also knew the instructions, developed later and recorded in the Qur'an, concerning holy war”.

Both the emperor and the Holy Father must also know that the entire Quran pre-existed its revelation to Muhammad (sas) and that the sequence of revelation has no abrogating effect on Its revealed Law. How could they know? The Quran so states of itself repeatedly. The exigencies of chronological revelation are in fact prophesied in the Old Testament which promises “The Book shall be offered to him who cannot read saying ‘Read’ and he shall say ‘I cannot read!’” and further that the book shall be revealed in bits and pieces “a line here… a line there… a law here, a law there…”. The Quran was constantly being arranged under Divine Instruction as to form and sequence as it was revealed fragmentally in Divinely orchestrated circumstances to facilitate it.

Is it reasonable for the Holy Father to distort the reality of Scripture?

Mark number Three of Papal breach.

The referenced conversation, one must bear in mind, occurred in the wake of Christian crusading genocide which makes the arrogance of the “erudite” emperor sheer hypocrisy, of which the Holy Father ought to be aware as much as he would be of the centuries of Papally supported Inquisition which followed. Reasonable? Mark Four of Papal breach.

The Holy Father equally dismisses the relevance of Quranic distinction between People of the Book and pagan Idolaters which the erudite emperor disregards. He does not feel it necessary to correct the errant emperor’s breach. Mark Five.

History records that in the intervening years between the emperor and John Paul, Islam has been increasingly Papally discovered to be a genuine religion of Peace and beauty emanating from the Abrahamic traditions. All that Muhammad (sas) brought has found increasing acceptance by millions of Christians who have embraced her. The “erudite” emperor’s tirade is the least worthy reference to quote. Mark Six.

Now to examine the theological underpinnings of the Holy Father’s thrust. “Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul. ‘God’, he says, ‘is not pleased by blood - and not acting reasonably (σὺν λόγω) is contrary to God's nature.’”
Here we have the foundational basis of Atheism established by Christian Doctrine.

Christianity is based upon the faith of salvation by the blood of Jesus shed in violence by men created by God. Judas was born for his role in the New Testament words of Jesus. God’s Will which denied Jesus’ plea for rescue according to Christianity, was that Jesus must drink of the cup he feared. The entire creation proceeds on violence in the food chain we know so well. Yet Christian faith is based upon a stout denial of these realities and seeks to characterize God as a surrealistic impotent being who must struggle to redeem his creatures from an uncontrollable evil which emerged of its own power.

Men of reason dismiss this as dyslexic theology and either reject religion or seek Islam today. The tenets of Christianity are oxymoronic despite the crystal clarity of the Biblical Omnipotent God Who created both good and evil for His Own Purpose. We have arrived at number Seven in Papal breach of reason albeit canonized.

But what the words of the Holy Father do in agreeing with the paradigm of the emperor is to misperceive the thread of argument, to create a straw argument that is illogical. The violence of men who aberrantly enforce religion cannot characterize God. Violence as we well see is entirely compatible with the nature of man. As to God’s Nature, what do we know of that? He is the Creator of nature and is above His Creation being unaffected by any of it. To the simplest mind, God is Transcendent and Other. Mark that Eight.

Now as absurd as all else, Christianity uses violence as much as all other faiths to coerce men into obedience. Threats of hellfire and damnation are the stuff of faith. “Fear of God is the beginning of wisdom.” Faith if not reasonable is based upon mental abuse. How does a loving Christian God accomplish acceptance of salvation? He Commands Love and extorts obedience. How can one Love on Command? The emperor’s erudite words endorsed by the Holy Father ring hollow: “Whoever would lead someone to faith needs the ability to speak well and to reason properly, without violence and threats... To convince a reasonable soul, one does not need a strong arm, or weapons of any kind, or any other means of threatening a person with death...".”Mark Nine.

The words which the Holy Father cannot comprehend because he prefers Greek philosophy to Scriptural Integrity are “But for Muslim teaching, God is absolutely transcendent. His will is not bound up with any of our categories, even that of rationality. Here Khoury quotes a work of the noted French Islamist R. Arnaldez, who points out that Ibn Hazm went so far as to state that God is not bound even by his own word, and that nothing would oblige him to reveal the truth to us. Were it God's will, we would even have to practice idolatry.” He pays scant regard to Biblical Guidance. Mark Ten.

The Evangelist John chose to confound Genesis by re-interpretation and set the stage for the deification of a man contrary to explicit Scripture. “Modifying the first verse of the Book of Genesis, the first verse of the whole Bible, John began the prologue of his Gospel with the words: ‘In the beginning was the λόγος’. This is the very word used by the emperor: God acts, σὺν λόγω, with logos. Logos means both reason and word - a reason which is creative and capable of self-communication, precisely as reason. John thus spoke the final word on the biblical concept of God, and in this word all the often toilsome and tortuous threads of biblical faith find their culmination and synthesis. In the beginning was the logos, and the logos is God, says the Evangelist.” Far from the final word on God, John gave the first word on Christian Scriptural deviance.

The metamorphosing of Christian faith from scripture to convoluted man made doctrine has accomplished for atheism what Socrates warned of false notions in general: “It would be easily understandable if someone became so annoyed at all these false notions that for the rest of his life he despised and mocked all talk about being - but in this way he would be deprived of the truth of existence and would suffer a great loss.” Christians indeed suffer a great loss today for Jesus warned “In vain do they worship me, taking for Precepts the Commandments of men”. To all such he will say as promised: “Get away from me you wicked people! I do not know you!”

The Ten marks of Papal breach of reason accumulate to characterize Christian misconceptions of God Whose Purpose is that we should Know Him, not reformulate Him by way of Greek inspired incarnation.

It is clear that Theologically, Christianity has polarized itself from Jewish and Islamic Omnipotent Monotheistic Godhead. Yet we can meet at the point of human reason despite the intractable mystery of the Triune Godhead, in matters of common interest for mutual welfare.

MFRahman.

Church of England to have Women Bishops

Those of you who know me are certainly aware that I opposed the ordination of women in the Episcopal Church back in the 70s and that issue primarily drove me out of the denomination. Now, why should I be concerned about Women Bishops in the Church of England? The reason I am concerned is that I see signs of an unhappy compromise in the making. This, of course, is the typical Anglican way of living with conflict, so why should I be surprised? But it is insidiously misleading and souls will be led astray.

At the recent Synod in England, July 7-11, 2006, (let's see if I can get it right) two significant votes were taken. One vote was to pave the way for the consecration of women as bishops by declaring that it was not a doctrinal issue in the C of E, and the other vote was to reaffirm a previous vote about the Ordinal (Canon A4) saying that the orders conferred ought to be considered as valid by all in the church. Never mind the fact that since 1993 clergy and people have been allowed to dissent from accepting the ministry of women priests, now there is a vote on the books which insists that the ministry of female bishops must be considered as valid. It seams to me that this leaves anyone totally out in the cold who considers the ordination of women to be impossible from a doctrinal point of view, for whatever reason: biblical, theological, or from the standpoint of apostolic tradition. While the English are famous for their ability to "muddle through", one finds it hard to see what they can do to patch this muddle up.

One of the suggestions being made is for a third province. The Church of England presently has two provinces, Canterbury and York. A third province would cover the same geographical area as both those provinces but would be allowed to dissent from the ordination of women. They would presumably also not allow gay ordination or gay marriage. But they would still be in the C of E and they would be in communion with other Anglican provinces world-wide. Geoffrey Kirk has suggested that this would create a "museum piece" of the part of the church that would be in the Third Province. I quite agree. But even more, I can not conceive of how it would work. I mean, what is the point? Isn't this just unity for the sake of unity? Isn't it at root a face saving device whereby we agree to disagree, but we remain "in communion"?

The Archbishop of Canterbury seems to be preparing the way for a two-tiered Anglican Communion. Provinces willing and able to sign a covenant would be able to participate in Anglican meetings like Lambeth, but those who do not sign the covenant would be associate members. This almost presumes and would even provoke the break-up of the Episcopal Church and other Anglican provinces world-wide. Any parishes or even dioceses wishing to remain fully in the Covenanted Anglican Communion would have a legitimate reason to break away. It is another part of the muddle that has become Anglicanism.

The time has come to stop trying to save face. The Anglican Communion is already hopelessly fragmented, particularly if you include the "continuing churches" in the picture. All efforts to pretend it hasn't happened simply contributes to the muddle and misleads serious Christians who wish to get on with their lives. Why must we wait until the C of E gets its act together? The way it looks now, the C of E has created facts on the ground that will never be satisfactory to Anglo-Catholics, and are also repugnant to the Evangelicals' understanding of Scripture.

Back when the Church of England voted to ordain women to the priesthood, there was provision made for priests who wished to leave. Quite a lot of money was given to each priest leaving the ministry of the C of E because of a conscientious objection to the measure. No such settlement was made when the Episcopal Church began to ordain women; so the C of E by comparison should be commended for its magnanimity. It seems to me that we have come to another point in which it would be best to be magnanimous. If parts of the Anglican Communion are going to break up about this, let them do it as amicably as possible. After all, this is the gentlemanly English way.

The Catholic Church in England and in the United States is gaining converts as a direct result of the crisis in Anglicanism. Those of us who made our peace with Rome quite some time ago look at what is happening now with a philosophical attitude. Quite simply put, I thought I learned as an Anglican what it meant to be a Catholic, and now that I am one, I seen nothing attractive about the mess Anglicanism is in. The word "communion" means something entirely different to me now. In Anglicanism churches are in communion because of their historical connections and their ability to agree to disagree about doctrinal issues. In the Catholic Church being in communion means, at least in part, being in communion with the Pope. Belonging to The Church in its most visible and obvious form, in other words. In some sense we already belonged to this Church as Anglicans, but we were in a state of imperfect communion. Now imperfect communion is a fact of life even within the Anglican Communion.

As Anglicans we all knew where Anglicanism had come from. The interesting question was always where it was headed. As long as we thought that it was headed back into communion with the visible Catholic Church, it was possible to be Anglican and still be a believing Catholic, the Anglo-Catholic position. Now this is impossible. So it is time for Anglo-Catholics to become true Catholics.

The vote in the Church of England was made against the advice of Cardinal Kasper. Just as the Pope had pleaded with the Anglican Communion not to ordain women to the priesthood, so now, the Catholic Church has urged the Church of England not to proceed to ordain women to the episcopate. The reason is that the Catholic Church inexplicably still holds out some hope that it would be possible to undo some of the facts of Reformation history in England and restore the provinces of Canterbury and York to full communion with the Holy See. I would say that great figures like Archbishop Michael Ramsey and Pope Paul VI even dared to hope that this could happen in this generation. And we dared to hope that it could happen even during our lifetime. How things have changed!

I can not even begin to go into why I think there is such a fundamental difference in attitude between Rome and Canterbury that has led to this impasse, but I would urge you to think about all of the issues that have led up to this mess. Most of them have to do with morality. It really starts with Lambeth allowing divorce and re-marriage. I remember how shocked many of us were when suffragan Bishop of Massachusetts Ben Arnold got divorced and remained in his position. When I was in seminary Joseph Fletcher was my professor of Ethics, and his "Situation Ethics" has become the hallmark of the Episcopal approach to moral decisions. Anglicans seem to have the hubris to think that all of this is progress and that Catholics and others who do not agree are just not as well educated.

So do not be fooled by Anglican attempts to muddle through. The time to get out of Anglicanism and into the Catholic Church is now. Fortunately we do not have to give up all that we love about Anglicanism. We can join the Anglican Use in the Catholic Church. http://anglicanuse.org

By the way, the "Third Province" already exists. It consists of the five Roman Catholic provinces in England and Wales.

C. David Burt