Sunday, January 29, 2006

I'm in Rome - Blogging Will Be Light This Week


I'll be in Rome for the next week and will not likely be blogging. If I find a nice internet cafe and my wife allows it, I might write a post. We're going to be having a good old POD time. John Boydon has even told me about an exhibit that has items "touched by Holy Souls from Purgatory." It really doesn't get more overly-devotional than that. We've also got tickets to the Papal Audience, the Scavi tour of the Vatican Necropolis, and a litany of fine restaurants. We are going to the Anglican Church of All Saints, but only for a concert. I would nog be caught in an Anglican Church in Rome.

The chief reason for our trip is to celebrate the fifth anniversary of our sacred union in Christ. But it's a pilgrimage all the same.

If you have any suggestions for us in Rome, drop them in the comments. I will try to check them during the week.

Can the Pill Cause an Abortion?


The following statement was left by a commenter in the comment box below:
I forwarded your post to a doctor and he said that your statement that the Pill is abortifacient is "a medical inaccuracy. the pill prevents contraception by preventing ovulation that is, it is a hormonal manipulation to prevent the woman releasing an egg. so thereby preventing the formation of an embryo. Technically, that is not an abortion."

You may wish to publish a correction.
I'm not publishing a correction, but I want to publish a clarification. There is obviously a misunderstanding. The pill works chiefly by preventing ovulation. You are correct in saying that this is not abortive. However, there is a phenomenon called "break through ovulation" by which a woman will release an ovum even though she is on the pill. If this happens and the husband fertilizes this egg, a child is conceived. But apart from preventing ovulation, the pill also changes the nature of the uterus so that it is difficult for this newly created embryo to implant for nutrients. Thus, the new embryo dies and is flushed out. This is a chemical abortion. The husband and wife will never know about it.

The commenter, I think, misunderstood and thought that I was saying that the pill always aborts. This is not so. However, the pill makes it more likely that if a woman experiences a breakthrough ovulation and conceives, that this child could lose his/her life on account of this essentially unintended abortion. I hope that clears everything up.

By following this link, you will find statements from eleven doctors confirming that the pill can cause an abortion when a breakthrough ovulation occurs.

Saturday, January 28, 2006

How is Natural Family Planning Different from Artificial Birth Control?


This is a very good question and I think it is one of the most common questions that I hear when the topic comes up.

There are essentially two differences:

1) Natural Family Planning (NFP) never breaks the integrity of sexual intercourse.
2) Natural Family Planning (NFP) is ascetic and requires discipline and sacrifice.

The first difference is that sexual intercourse constitutes a single act between a husband and wife. A woman's anatomy and a man's anatomy are constructed for this act and are ordered toward this certain purpose and end. The essential Catholic teaching is that the husband must always ejaculate within his wife's womb without obstruction. This is what constitutes the sexual embrace because it open to the natural purpose of conception. I hope I'm not being too crude, but that is bare truth of it all.

Homosexuality is wrong for the same purpose that contraception is wrong. Both seek the pleasure of sex but do so by divorcing the anatomical and procreative "structure" of sexual intercourse.

NFP also preserves the integrity of the sexual embrace every single time. That's the glaring difference. NFP is basically just practicing abstinence for a certain time of the month when the wife is fertile. This time is discovered by two indicators: temperature (taken orally) and vaginal mucus. The old "rhythm method" was essentially watching the calendar based on previous menstrual cycles. The problem with it is that when a woman is ill or stressed (or any other reason) her cycle can lengthen or shorten). NFP on the other hand analyzes the signs of fertility daily so that you're always on top of the situation. It is therefore very accurate and basically full-proof.

The Catholic teaching is that it's all or nothing. The married couple must preserve the integrity of the sexual act (i.e. ejaculation in the wife's womb without obstruction) every single time. However, married couples are not required to have relations every single day. They can pick their days and if they want to not make love on days of fertility, they are free to do so. They are not compelled to make love during fertile times.

Which brings us to the second difference: asceticism.

NFP requires discipline. A husband can't just have his way with his wife or vice versa at the drop of a hat. They have to practice discipline. Marriage, sex, and procreation are sacred institutions that remain interjoined. You can't just start introducing devices, chemicals, or surgery so that you can have fun. Another way of looking at is like this: If you don't want to be fat, eat less food. It's not appropriate to engage in unnatural quick-fixes like bolemia or anorexia. Being responsible for your body (a holy thing) requires discipline or ascesis. You must eat less or work out. You must deny yourself, something Americans don't want to hear. The same goes for the sacred liturgy of love. If you are not ready for a child, don't make love all the time. Observe the signs and seasons of your God-given fertility and act accordingly.

I hope this is helpful. I imagine that there will be more questions so fire away.

Friday, January 27, 2006

Contraception as the Sexual Vomitorium


Sorry I can't resist one more post on contraception. I found this wonderful quote from Muggeridge:
It was the Catholic Church's firm stand against contraception and abortion which finally made me decide to become a Catholic . . . As the Romans treated eating as an end in itself, making themselves sick in a vomitorium so as to enable them to return to the table and stuff themselves with more delicacies, so people now end up in a sort of sexual vomitorium. The Church's stand is absolutely correct. It is to its eternal honour that it opposed contraception, even if the opposition failed. I think, historically, people will say it was a very gallant effort to prevent a moral disaster . . .
Malcolm Muggeridge, Confessions of a Twentieth-Century Pilgrim, San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1988, 140-141

Modernist Erotic Religion, that of Contraception

It has been left to the last Christians, or rather to the first Christians fully committed to blaspheming and denying Christianity, to invent a new kind of worship of Sex, which is not even a worship of Life. It has been left to the very latest Modernists to proclaim an erotic religion which at once exalts lust and forbids fertility . . . The new priests abolish the fatherhood and keep the feast - to themselves.

- G.K. Chesterton, The Well and the Shallows, New York: Sheed & Ward, 1935, 233

Why Contraception is Sinful


There are two kinds of artificial contraception. The first is chemical, e.g. the pill. The second is what I would call "onanism," which is any attempt to prevent semen from entering a wife's uterus. This would include the use of condoms, barriers, sterilization, sodomy, and coitus interuptus.

Both kinds are evil because they artificially destroy the integrity of the nuptial embrace of husband and wife. This means that the human bodies and act of marital sex should not be tampered with in order to prevent what sex is supposed to achieve. Digesting hormones to destroy the fertility of a human being is contrary to nature. Pulling out and away from one's spouse at the moment of climax is actually greatly insulting. Introducing "devices" to prevent a full exchange is also offensive.

It's worth noting that the "pill" can and does work as an abortifacient. It changes the nature of a woman's uterus so that it is unable to receive a newly conceived human (embryo). The embryo cannot therefore attach and it dies. This is a chemical abortion and it happens all the time. Your doctor is likely to tell you that the pill is not abortive but that is because most doctors don't believe non-implanted embryos are human.

The fundamental reason that contraception is wrong is that it tampers with something that is holy. Marriage is sacred and extends back beyond the fall of man. The first commandment of God to mankind was "Be fruitful and multiply." To desire the pleasure of sex but to obstruct the fullness of the act by obstruction or drugs is disgraceful. Can you imagine receiving Communion but also doing everything in your power to prevent the Eucharist's purpose and power? I believe we call such an action "sacrilege."

If you are contracepting, I would encourage you to check out the Couple to Couple League. They are very helpful.

Was the Prayer Book a Translation of the Sarum Use?


Let me begin with an unequivocal "no."

Cranmer's 1549 Book of Common Prayer was not a translation of the pre-reformational English Sarum Use and don't let anybody tell you that it is.

For those who do not have access to the Missale ad Usum Ecclesiae Sarum, they can compare the 1549 BCP canon by comparing it the Roman Canon of Trent, which essentially that of Sarum. While the Sarum Ordinary of the Mass differs from the Roman Ordinary, the Sarum Canon is the Roman Canon.The twelve prayers of the Sarum/Roman Canon are approximated by Cranmer eleven prayers in the 1549 BCP. Cranmer has nothing to proximate the Nobis quoque of the Roman Rite, largely because its content commemorates twelve martyr-saints by name (something Cranmer was already opposed to by 1549).

Although the ordering of Cranmer's 1549 Canon is similar to the Sarum Canon, the content of the prayers have been adjusted to fit Reformational theology. The names of the Pope and diocesan bishop are omitted in the Prayer for the Church. The Prayer for the Church includes prayer for King Edward VI and for "all Bishops, Pastors, and Curates," in that order. In Erastian fashion, the king takes precedence over the clergy.

Cranmer's goes to great measures to insure that the 1549 Canon does not give any impression that Christ's sacrifice is repeatable by adapting the Sarum oblation prayer Hanc Igitur. Cranmer censors the Sarum references to the sacrifices of Abel, Abraham, and Melchizedek and employs the words, "by his oblation once offered, a full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice, oblation, and satisfaction, for the sins of the whole world," so as not to be misunderstood. Hanc Igitur is an Oblation Prayer but also carried something muted in Western Christendom, a moderate epiclesis of blessing upon the gifts. Cranmer introduces a much more explicit epiclesis of the Holy Spirit in his Oblation Prayer, complete with manual signs of the cross over the elements. The need for an epiclesis in the Canon of the Mass was something uniquely discerned by Cranmer at this time.

The two Canons can be seen as fundamentally disagreeing with the object of oblation. In the Sarum Canon, the surrounding prayers offer our Lord Jesus Christ as victim to God the Father. In Cranmer's 1549 Canon, the surrounding prayers offer ourselves as the sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving in conformity to St Paul's instruction in Romans 12:1. Cranmer makes this distinction in his True Defense when he writes, "The first kind of sacrifice, Christ offered to God for us; the second kind we ourselves offer to God by Christ." According to Cranmer, no human being can participate in the offering of the first kind of sacrifice. Those that attempt to do so, deprive Christ of honor and become "very Antichrists, and most arrogant blasphemers against God and against his Son Jesus Christ whom he hath sent."

All this displays that Cranmer certainly did not carry forward the received Canon of the Western Church. He created something new. The real problem doesn't stop there. If you compare the Sarum Mass to the the Second Prayer Book (1552) the matter becomes clear. There is very little resemblence between post 1552 Communion and the Sarum Use Mass. Even the 1559 BCP and the 1662 are hardly "Sarum" when you line them up. Only the 1549 maintains a faint semblance with the Sarum Use and yet no Anglicans steadily employ that Canon. Even if the 1549 were a "translation" of the Sarum Mass, nobody uses it anyway. Thus the received Anglican liturgies for "Holy Communion" were never intended to be "Masses." That scares me.

I have written a paper on this subject and I can make it available to anyone interested in the subject.

Thursday, January 26, 2006

I Highly Recommend This Book: Waugh's Edmund Campion


I just finished Evelyn Waugh's Edmund Campion: A Life (Ignatius Press, of course). This book is a must-read for the convinced Anglo-Catholic. It is a terrible reminder that the Elizabethan Settlement carried with it a rage against the Mass, which is difficult to explain. This book tells the story of the Oxonian Edmund Campion who refuses the promised glories of Protestant England, flees his homeland and eventually becomes a Jesuit on the Continent. He returns to England to do three things: preach the Roman Faith, hear confessions, and say the Mass in secret. He was successful for just over a year until he was captured. He was taken to London where he was constantly beaten, being racked at least thrice, and spent the rest of his time in dark solitary confinement. He was a few times brought out to debate theology with Anglican divines. He fared pretty well considering his joints were pulled out of socket, he was tired, and had no notes or books on which to depend. He was falsly convicted for treason on account of spurious rumors of Spanish invasion and his "obvious" connection to such schemes.

I couldn't put it down and read it all in almost one sitting. Buy it now at Amazon.com by clicking here.

Ecclesiastical Ignorance in the Media

A biretta tip to my good friend Mark Adams (from whom I get many blogging quotes and ideas). He recently made me aware of the following words from Fr. Neuhaus of First Things:
What prompts me to mention this today is that I'm just off the phone with a reporter from the same national paper. He's doing a story on Pope Benedict's new encyclical. In the course of discussing the pontificate, I referred to the pope as the bishop of Rome. "That raises an interesting point," he said. "Is it unusual that this pope is also the bishop of Rome?" He obviously thought he was on to a new angle. Once again, I tried to be gentle. Toward the end of our talk, he said with manifest sincerity, "My job is not only to get the story right but to explain what it means." Ah yes, he is just the fellow to explain what this pontificate and the encyclical really mean. It is poignant.
This is almost worse than when the BBC reported on John Paul's ceremonial "crow's ear" at the time of the pontiff's death. Of course, they were referring to the crosier. Saints preserve us!

Monday, January 23, 2006

Episco-Molechians


There have been many articles on the web over the Episcopal Church's officially pro-abort stance in the realm of the so-called "reproductive rights," which oddly refers the "right" to destroy human reproduction. I recommend the following articles:

Molech Loves the Little Children by Todd Granger.

Molech in the Episcopal Temple by Al Kimel.

I'm an ECUSA priest and I'm highly involved in NOEL. Even as late as four days ago I was thoroughly cussed out by a lady over my position. Why? Because I was praying silently outside an abortion mill. The rage within in some pro-abort women is extreme and ungodly. Terribly sad. We should only pray all the more.

Homosexual Union Blessings. Priestesses at the Altar. Church Endorsed Abortion. Can we remain in ECUSA? NO!

I think it is now safe to say that the Southern Baptist Convention has a better claim on Catholicity than does the Episcopal Church. I'm dead serious.

Sunday, January 22, 2006

Why isn't it a Sacrament?


The Reformers were resolute in reducing the number of Sacraments from seven to two. I believe Luther held to three Sacraments at one point: baptism, confession, and the Eucharist. But he eventually reduced the number to two, thus setting the standard for magisterial Protestantism.

My suspicion is that the "other five" were cut not because they were not biblical but because they ultimately wanted to cut loose of the Priesthood (Holy Orders) and the necessity of sacramental confession (Penance).

Baptism and the Eucharist are obviously the most important Sacraments and it's easier to support these biblically.

The magisterial Protestants essentially defined a Sacrament in the Catholic way, "an outward sign of an invisible grace, instituted by Christ." Penance was denied sacramental status because it apparently had no outward sign. Confirmation was denied sacramental status because it is difficult to establish the outward sign (chrism or hands?) and it's hard to find a dominical saying of Christ explicitly establishing it. Marriage is a creation ordinance so it isn't necessarily "instituted by Christ," though this can be debated.

But there are two that are pretty hard to dismiss. Ordination was obviously something that Christ instituted. He chose twelve and gave them special instructions. It's also clear that the outward sign, beginning at Pentecost was the laying on of hands.

The real problem for Protestants, as I see it, is the Sacrament of Holy Unction. It has an outward sign: anointing with oil. It has an inward grace: healing and forgiveness. It was definitely instituted by Christ and we see the Apostles doing it in the Gospels:

Mark 6:13 They drove out many demons and anointed many sick people with oil and healed them.

Unction of the Sick clearly meets all the specifications of Protestants, so why is it not granted the status of Sacrament? Could a LowChurcher out there explain this?

I also once read that St Thomas (Episcopal) Church 5th Ave in Manhatten has seven windows commemorating the "Seven Sacraments," though not by that title. There is a window for Baptism, Confirmation, Communion, Marriage, Ordination, Confession & Absolution, and...Prayer. Apparently they were so resistent to the idea of Holy Unction that they swapped it for the rite of "Prayer." I just can't understand this. Why is Unction so bad? I think I'm safe in saying that not even the 1662 Book of Common Prayer contains a rite for Unction. This seems shortsighted given the instructions of St James:

James 5:14 Is any one of you sick? He should call the presbyters of the church to pray over him and anoint him with oil in the name of the Lord.

Saturday, January 21, 2006

In nomine Patris


In the last 250 years, there have only been seven names used by the Popes (eight if you count the composite "John Paul"):

Clement, John, Benedict, Pius, Gregory, Paul, Leo

I wonder why this is. Any thoughts?

[Corrected to include Clement, thanks to Fr Stainbrook.]

Thursday, January 19, 2006

Real Ultimate Anglican Fox Hunting Power

Back by popular demand:

Real Ultimate Anglican Fox Hunting Power
by Taylor Marshall


Anglican Blessing of the Hounds

Hi, this post is all about Anglican Fox Hunters, REAL ANGLICAN FOX HUNTERS. This post is awesome. My name is Alfred and I can't stop thinking about Anglican Fox Hunters. These guys are cool; and by cool, I mean totally sweet.

Facts:
1. Anglican Fox Hunters are mammals.
2. Anglican Fox Hunters sip Earl Grey ALL the time.
3. The purpose of the Anglican Fox Hunter is to sip Earl Grey and kill foxes.

Anglican Fox Hunter Gear:


Anglican Fox Hunter Hounds


Anglican Fox Hunter Horse


Anglican Fox Hunter Outfit


Testimonial:
Anglican Fox Hunters can kill any fox they want! Anglican Fox Hunters hunt ALL the time and don't even think twice about it. These guys are so crazy and awesome that they sip Earl Grey ALL the time. I heard that there was this Anglican Fox Hunters who was enjoying high tea. And when some liberal Brit dropped a spoon the Anglican Fox Hunters ran his hounds thorugh the whole town. My friend George said that he saw a Anglican Fox Hunter totally put his hounds on a fox just because the butler opened a window.

And that's what I call REAL Ultimate Power!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

If you don't believe that Anglican Fox Hunters have REAL Ultimate Power you better get a life right now or they will treat you like a liberal fascist Brit!!! It's an easy choice, if you ask me.

Anglican Fox Hunters are sooooooooooo sweet that I want to actually remain Anglican. I can't believe it sometimes, but I feel it inside my heart. These guys are totally awesome and that's a fact. Anglican Fox Hunters are fast, smooth, cool, strong, powerful, and sweet. I can't wait to get my hounds blessed by an Anglican priest.

Q and A:

Q: Why is everyone so obsessed about Anglican Fox Hunters?
A: Anglican Fox Hunters are the ultimate paradox. On the one hand they don't give a crap, but on the other hand, Anglican Fox Hunters are very careful and precise.

Q: I heard that Anglican Fox Hunters are always cruel or mean. What's their problem?
A: Whoever told you that is a total liar (and probably a liberal Brit). Just like other mammals, Anglican Fox Hunters can be mean OR totally awesome.


Q: What do Anglican Fox Hunters do when they're not sipping Earl Grey or fox hunting?
A: Most of their free time is spent drinking gin and tonics, but sometime they play chess or cricket. (Ask Queen Elizabeth if you don't believe me.)


This is a picture of my hound "Sir Winston" showing off.
He's a lot younger than most hounds and almost done with his training, which is bragable.

Abortion and Episcopalians

I just got back from praying outside Planned Parenthood. I have the privilige of joining many other pious Christians (in particular, a Roman Catholic priest) for prayer as we watch women drive into the parking lot for the murder of their unborn children.


And yet I'm learning that on paper ECUSA is pro-abortion. It seems also that our gay bishop Gene Robinson was the key-note speaker at Planned Parenthood's National "Prayer" Breakfast.

Pontifications has a great article on the ECUSA and abortion that I encourage you to read.

Wednesday, January 18, 2006

I'm going to Rome...


...the city that is. My wife and I are leaving the kids with Grammy and going to Rome to celebrate the fifth anniversary of our Sacramental Marital Union in Christ. Thus far we already have tickets to the Papal Audience and to the Scavi Tour in the Vatican's Necropolis. Does anyone have suggestions on dining in Rome or any ecclesiastical connections?

Is Anglo-Catholicism Just Another Form of Protestant Private Judgment?


Dr. Edward Bouiverie Pusey
Anglican Tractarian Divine

In a recent conversation, I said that Anglo-Catholics are not so much Catholic because they have submitted to their hierarchy but because they have a keen intellectual knowledge of the Fathers. This is not meant to serve as a compliment.

The Anglo-Catholic is picking and choosing just like the Anglican Evangelical or Liberal. The Low Church Anglican blushes when a Presbyterian points to the "regneration" language in the classical Anglican baptismal liturgies or in the consecrationist sounding language of the Eucharist liturgy. The Anglo-Catholic blushes when the 39 Articles are mentioned or the Gorham Case is brought forward. The Liberal every time he recites the Creed.

At the end of the day, Anglicanism was built on a compromise and thus it's a religion for pickers-and-choosers. This has been a terrible "epiphany" for me to realize during this season of Epiphany.

The quote from J.H. Newman (recently quoted at Pontifications) shows the inherant Protestant ethos of the Anglo-Catholic use of private judgment:
What makes this stronger is, that nearly the whole of the Anglican Church repudiates Dr Pusey, and his opinions, as not belonging to them. They respect him (how can they not?) as an individual, but they think him either grievously mistaken, or at least unusually deficient in judgment and common sense. You will not find half a dozen men, who know him fairly, who would profess to go by his opinion. I know how they talk; they reverence his wishes; they are glad to use his name; but they cannot understand his arguments or his position; they only think it is a good thing that they find him on their side, however unintelligibly.

He has indeed no business where he is; he cannot name the individual for 1800 years who has ever held his circle of doctrines; he cannot first put down his own creed, and then refer it to doctor, or school before him. Dear Dr Pusey does not witness by his virtues for his Church, he witnesses for himself, he witnesses for his own opinions; and certainly, were there not a visible Church which superseded having recourse to individuals, (considering that holiness is a prima facie evidence for truth of opinion) certainly, much might be said, for implicitly believing what he taught.

But since he himself would shrink from such a conclusion, since he refers us to his Church and considers that he puts forth its doctrine not his own, I want to know what single individual that ever belonged to the Anglican Church does he follow.

Not Laud, for Laud on the scaffold avowed himself an honest Protestant;

not Hooker, for he gives up the Real Presence;

not Taylor for he blames both the Athanasian and Nicene Creeds;

not Bull for he considers that Transubstantiation ‘bids defiance to all the reason and sense of mankind;’

not Ussher, for he was a Calvinist;

not Jewell, for he gave up the Priesthood;

nor the Articles, for Dr P. puts an interpretation on them;

nor the Prayer Book, for he believes about twice as much as the Prayer Book contains.

Who before him ever joined the circle of Roman doctrine to the Anglican ritual and polity?

- Newman to Catherine Ward: 25 September 1848
Indicative of the problem is that hardly any two Anglo-Catholics are the same (just like the Anglican Evangelicals are not agreed, e.g. on the subject of women "priests" or Calvinism). Some Anglo-Catholics hold to the Marian dogmas, other do not. Some heartily assent to using the word "transubstantiation," others do not. Some grant the properness of Eucharistic adoration, others do not. It's a mixed bag because there is no magisterial statement on the subject for Anglicans.

Some Anglo-Catholics have reverted to Anglo-Papalism, submitting to the Catechism of the Catholic Church and accepting in toto the liturgical reforms of Vatican II complete with the Novus Ordo Missal. But again this is private judgment because it is exactly that: a personal decision. These decisions have absolutely no reference to actual submission to a higher authority. The highest authority is still the beliver or the priest who decides what is what.

I must admit that as an Anglican priest, this is a very frightful situation. I look forward to comments on the matter.

Tuesday, January 17, 2006

Word of the Week: Ephod


Hebrew: aphwd or aphd
Greek: Â’epomís, Â’ephód, Â’ephoúd
Latin: superhumerale

There seems to be two super-sacramental items in the Old Covenant, the Ark of the Covenant and the High Priest's Ephod. The latter consisted of three parts and was worn (it seems) only in liturgical contexts (Exodus 28:4; Leviticus 8:7; 1 Samuel 2:28). It was red, blue, purple, and gold in color.

The Ephod of the High Priest in Three Parts
Supplementing the data contained in the Bible with those gleaned from Josephus and the Egyptian monuments, we may distinguish in the ephod three parts:

1) the "rational of judgment" or breastplate
2) the two shoulder-pieces
3) the girdle or cincture

The "rational of judgment" was a breastplate fastened on the front of the ephod which it resembled in material and workmanship. It was a span in length and width, and was ornamented with four rows of precious stones on which were inscribed the names otwelvewelvfe tribes. It held also the Urim and Thummim (doctrine and truth) by means of which the high-priest consulted the Lord.

The second part of the ephod consisted of a pair of shoulder-pieces, or suspenders, fastened to the bodices in front and behind, and passing over the shoulders. Each of these straps was adorned with an onyx stone engraved with the names of six of the tribes of Israel, so that the high-priest while ministering wore the names of all the tribes, six upon each shoulder (Exodus 28:9-12; 25:7; 35:9; 39:16-19).

The third part of the ephod was the cincture, of the same material as the main part of the ephod and woven in one piece with it, by which it was girt around the waist (Leviticus 8:7). Some writers maintain that the correct Hebrew reading of Ex., xxviii, 8, speaks of this band of the ephod; the contention agrees with the Syriac and Chaldee versions and with the rendering of Josephus (cf. Exodus 28:27 sq.; 29:5; 39:20 sq.).

The Liturgical Use of the High Priest's Ephod
It must not be imagined that the ephod was the ordinary garb of the high-priest; he wore it while performing the duties of his ministry (Exodus 28:4; Leviticus 8:7; 1 Samuel 2:28) and when consulting the Lord. Thus David learned through Abiathar's ephod the disposition of the people of Ceila (1 Samuel 23:11 sq.) and the best plan of campaign against the Amalecites (1 Samuel 30:7 sqq.). In I K., xiv, 18, it appears that Saul wished the priest Achias to consult the Lord by means of the Ark; but the Septuagint reading of this passage, its context (1 Samuel 14:3), and the text of Josephus (Ant. Jud., VI, vi, 3) plainly show that in I K., xiv, 18, we must read "take the ephod" instead of "bring the ark".

"Ephod" from Catholic Encyclopedia.

Sunday, January 15, 2006

Most POD Kid Picture Ever


I double-dog dare anyone to come up with a more POD picture of children.

Let's have a caption contest. May the best man win.

Planned Parenthood's Black Genocide


Planned Parenthood is the largest abortion provider in America.

78% of their clinics are in minority communities.

Blacks make up 12% of the population, but 35% of the abortions in America.

Are Blacks being targeted? Isn't that genocide? Blacks are the only minority in America that is on the decline in population. If the current trend continues, by 2038 the black vote will be insignificant. Did you know that the founder of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger, was a devout racist who created the Negro Project designed to sterilize unknowing black women and others she deemed as undesirables of society? The founder of Planned Parenthood said, "Colored people are like human weeds and are to be exterminated." Is her vision being fulfilled today?

From Black Genocide.

Saturday, January 14, 2006

Ted Kennedy vs. Alito on Discrimination

When Ted Kennedy tried to chastise Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito for his one-time membership in a group opposed to admitting more women and minorities to Princeton, the pot was calling the kettle black.

Sen. Kennedy still belongs to a social club for Harvard students and alumni that was thrown off campus nearly 20 years ago after refusing to allow female members, an investigation by the Washington Times reveals.

From the Drudge Report.

My Pefect Major

In real life I was a Philosophy major and a Classics Minor.

You scored as Journalism. You are an aspiring journalist, and you should major in journalism! Like me, you are passionate about writing and expressing yourself, and you want the world to understand your beliefs through writing.

English

100%

Mathematics

100%

Journalism

100%

Linguistics

83%

Psychology

75%

Dance

75%

Philosophy

67%

Anthropology

67%

Theater

67%

Biology

50%

Engineering

50%

Sociology

33%

Art

17%

Chemistry

0%

What is your Perfect Major? (PLEASE RATE ME!!<3)
created with QuizFarm.com

Friday, January 13, 2006

Cassock Colors and Piping - What's What?


While watching The Cardinal (see previous post), I was wondering about the various cassock styles for differing kinds of Monsignors. There are today only three (actually four if you subdivide numerary from supernumerary Prothonotaries) kinds of Monsignors:
Apostolic Prothonotaries Numerary (the highest and least common form)
Apostolic Prothonotaries Supernumerary
Honorary Prelates of His Holiness
Chaplains of His Holiness
Each office has different vesture embellishments that distinguish it from the others. These differ as to whether the prelate is wearing Choir Dress or Academic Dress (i.e. ordinary extra liturgical dress).

Choir Dress

Apostolic Prothonotaries Numerary
Purple Cassock
Red Piping
Red Buttons
Purple Sash
Purple Mantelletta

Apostolic Prothonotaries Supernumerary
& Honorary Prelates of His Holiness

Purple Cassock
Red Trim
Red Buttons
Purple Sash

Chaplains of His Holiness
(Same as Academic Dress)
Black Cassock
Purple Piping
Purple Buttons
Purple Sash

Academic/Ordinary Dress

Apostolic Prothonotaries Numerary
Black Cassock
Red Trim
Red Buttons
Purple Sash
Purple Ferraiuolo

Apostolic Prothonotaries Supernumerary
& Honorary Prelates of His Holiness

Black Cassock
Red Trim
Red Buttons
Purple Sash
Purple Ferraiuolo (for Apostolic Prothonotaries Supernumerary only and not Honorary Prelates)

Chaplains of His Holiness
(Same as Choir Dress)
Black Cassock
Purple Piping
Purple Buttons
Purple Sash

For the official Roman instructions, click here.

The Most POD Movie of All Time (The Cardinal)



This movie is the most pious and overly devotional (POD) movie I have ever seen. The liturgical footage is phenomenal. If you want Tridentine eye-candy this film will keep you busy counting the embroidered fiddleback chasubles.

But the best part is the story. I must begin with a caveat. The last and final scene is essentially a political speech for the Kennedy political machine. It's basically an apology that Catholics are real Americans and are the greatest advocates of democracy. I wouldn't be surprised if Pappa Kennedy wrote the Cardinal's speech. Given that this move was released in 1963, Catholicism and American politics were still on their honeymoon.

But enough of that. The move traces the life of a man from his ordination to the Priesthood to his elevation as a Cardinal. Along the way it gets very interesting. I'll share two of my favorite scenes.

At one point, the priest's sister is about to die due to labor. She is not only not married but also an apostate from the Faith. The doctor informs the priest that the must abort the baby in order to save the mother. Anguish enters his face. The doctor says, "Is this some sort of religious scruple?" The priest fires back, "NO! It's a commandment. Though shall not kill!" I won't tell you what happens.

Another great scene is when the Nazis are storming the Archbishop of Vienna's palace. As they begin to destroy images of Christ and break down the door, our beloved priest (now a bishop) shouts out, "Save the Blessed Sacrament!" The run to the Cardinal of Vienna's private altar and open the tabernacle. They very piously consume the hosts just as the Nazis barge in and begin abusing the attending priests. Anyway, the whole thing is just so POD. They care not for their lives, but only that the Blessed Sacrament might not be desecrated. You've got to see this movie.

When you see it, let me know what you think. It's definitely worth buying on DVD:

Thursday, January 12, 2006

By the looks of this man's hat - I don't think he made it


On a serious note, it's worth noting the unprejudiced heroism of these African Americans.

Celebrate Christendom - Wear a Necktie!

This is from the comments in the topic below about neckties. It's from my friend Mark Adams:
As a layman I must defend the necktie.

A friend of mine is an administrator at boys school and all the boys wear ties. To encourage them to wear their ties with pride he tells them the history of the garment (a little different than the one provided by Mr. Lauren) that links it to the defeat of the Muslims.

Here is how the story goes according to him:

"I can hunt the details down, but it was a small regiment that held off the Turks outside the gates of Vienna; it was a huge victory for Christendom that finally turned the tide of the great eastern arm of the Crescent until the present ebbing of muslim violence. The regiment wore a long red scarf tied around their necks and draped down in front. People began to honor them all over Europe. Then other regiments began to use the scarf idea with their own designs and colors. Soon colleges and guilds too. Now it is a symbol of almost every profession to wear the tie."

And allow me to note that even today there are some Muslims who say that it is wrong to wear a tie (do a google on Muslims and neckties) because they say it is supposed to be a symbol for the cross. So I say to all the laymen: Wear your neckties with pride as a symbol of Christendom's defeat of the Muslims.
This is awesome. Makes me want to rip off my collar and put on a red necktie!

"Sorry, but I can't hear your confession."


Something happened today that chalks up as one of the saddest moments of my time as a priest. A very nice lady approached me and asked me if I'd hear her confession - if I wasn't too busy. You must understand that I wear a black clerical suit and a Roman collar every day. I even had a purple stole in my pocket.

I very briefly explained, "I'm sorry, but I'm an Episcopal priest and I'm not allowed to hear your confession. I'm terribly sorry." She looked confused and turned away bewildered. I felt terrible. It was a very awkward moment but I would have been dishonest if I had heard her confession.

Schism is a terrible thing.

Wednesday, January 11, 2006

From Whence Cometh the Neck Tie?


Believe it or not, ties may be the oldest part of a man‘s wardrobe, having existed for thousands of years in one form or another. Knotted scarves can be seen on life-size terra-cotta warriors in China dating from the third century B.C. Some say that ancient Roman orators used ties to keep their vocal chords warm when they spoke in their cold marble chambers.

But it‘s certain that the modern idea of a cravat began to develop in the 17th century, during the Thirty Years War. France recruited legions of mercenary soldiers, among them Croatians who were distinguished by their colorful kerchiefs. The look was adopted by French soldiers, made its way to the court of Louis XIV, and by 1650 had spread across Europe. During the 1800s, neck scarves became long and narrow, and popular methods of tying them (the ascot, for example) started to develop. The tie as we know it today took shape when the industrial revolution created a new class of office workers.

In 1924, Jesse Langsdorf patented the modern tie, designed to elongate the silhouette and draw the beholder‘s focus up to the wearer‘s face.

From Ralph Lauren.

C.S. Lewis on Worship

"It is in the process of being worshipped that God communicates His presence to men."

from Reflections on the Psalms

Vows: A Priest, A Nun, and Their Son


I've been reading this book for several months. I won't buy it, so I always find it in Barnes and Noble when I stop in for a coffee. It is a very interesting story about pre Vatican 2 life in the seminary and convent. It then spins out of control into the 60s when liturgical "renewal", liberation theology, and other regressive moves occurred.

You see what seems to be a very pious priest question his vocation to celibacy and a nun who begins to question her vocation as a nun. They are eventually married and have children. Their son relates their story and his confused life.

I picked it up with reservation, but I think the son does a pretty good job at being honest. Thus far, it seems the priest's son does not understand or fully respect his father's decision - and yet he is glad to be alive and exist. Talk about existential angst!

If anything, it shows that 1950s American Catholicism was not the Shangrila that traditionalists like to make it out to be. The anecdotes about seminary life in Boston make you frown while you laugh about them. One particular instance includes the juvenile correspondence of seminarians writing notes of invitation and refusal on the subject of taking walks together around seminary grounds. You see a very unhealthy mechanized system of manufacturing priests. You can see the inception of the paedo-homosexual crises planting its seeds.

Anyway, it's vey interesting. Has anyone else out there read it?

Tuesday, January 10, 2006

Are you a heretic?

According to this online quiz, I am 100% Chalcedonian Compliant and not a heretic. Thank God!

Monday, January 09, 2006

Bishops and Their Stoles

In the comments over at Holy Whapping, there is a little debate over whether a bishop should ever cross his stole over his chest in the manner of priests. The answer is plain, NEVER!


A priest crosses his stole over his chest in order to place a cross on his heart. A bishop, who by right wears a pectoral cross (which should always be under the chasuble, by the way), does NOT cross his stole over his chest because the pectoral cross serves the purpose of having a cross on one's heart. The good Bishop of Rome, wearing a cope, shows the proper usage for a bishop:


As a completely random aside, the Vatican is in need of some better looking microphones, wouldn't you agree?

Almost Finished with John Allen's Book Opus Dei


I'm almost finished and thus far I find St Josemaria Escriva's theology and spirituality to be pure gold. I love everything I have read in John Allen's book and from what I've read in St Josemaria's book The Way.

The only troubling thing I've found was a quote in the Allen book about St Josemaria referring to the human body as "the enemy", but I didn't read the context and so I dismiss it on account of charity.

Anyway, I encourage you to buy and read Allen's book: Opus Dei - An Objective Look Behind the Myths and Reality of the Most Controversial Force in the Catholic Church.

For those ready to read this book, take in this word from St Josemaria:

"An hour of study, for a modern apostle, is an hour of prayer." (The Way, 335)

This Blog and Problems with Internet Explorer

If you're using a Mac based web browser, this site looks beautiful. However, if you're using Internet Explorer (as 61% of you are), things are not appearing as clean as they should.

Could some blogger genius explain to me why this is happening and make a suggestion? The primary problem is with the right column that contains links. In MS Explorer, the links are squished together and do not flow nicely. I assume it is a padding difficulty. Any ideas?

Sunday, January 08, 2006

St James the Less, Philadelphia Sadly Loses Their Property



I had the pleasure of worshiping at St James the Less when living in Philadelphia. My wife was a school teacher there for a year. The Philadelphia Supreme Court has finally ruled against them and in favor of the heretical Bishop Bennison of Pennsylvania. It is a sad day. St James the Less had the most beautiful and sacred building. It was a magical place - almost like the Shire. They also had a glorious Our Lady of Walsingham shrine. Hopefully, it would be returned to some pious Catholics in years to come.

Saturday, January 07, 2006

Israel, Dispensationalism, and the Epiphany


Recently, the evangelical broadcaster Pat Robertson suggested Ariel Sharon's stroke was divine retribution for "dividing God's land" of Israel.

"The prophet Joel makes it very clear that God has enmity against those who, quote, 'divide my land.' God considers this land to be his."

"You read the Bible, God says, 'This is my land.' And for any prime minister of Israel who decides he's going carve it up and give it away, God says, 'No. This is mine.'"

What is wrong with this theology? Two things.

Human suffering is not always linked to individual sin. Sharon's stroke doesn't mean that God is angry at him, anymore than John the Baptist and all the martyrs were being punished for something they did against God.

Secondly, and more importantly: Israel is not specifically "God's land" anymore. Christ's great commission to make disciples of all nations extends "God's land" to the "ends of the earth." Fundamental to Robinson's theology is theological school of Dispensationalism, which teaches that the Old Covenant promises were not fully realized in Christ and the Church but that they are yet to be fulfilled in a ethnically Jewish manifestation of the political nation of Israel. This sort of thinking expressly denies that the Church is the "New Israel" of God.

According to Catholic (and I should add, magisterial Protestant) teaching, the plot of land formerly called "Israel" and the ethnic people known as "Israelites" are no longer the singular object of God's special redemptive interest. This being the second day of Epiphany it is worth noting that the Kingdom of God includes the Gentiles and the Old Covenant promises of "God's land" and "God's people" apply to wherever and whoever calls upon the name of Jesus Christ.

Pat Robinson's literalism of the Old Testament prevents him from seeing that all the Old Covenant promises find their fulfillment in Christ and His Body the Church. These fulfillments are often times allegorical, but true all the same.

Friday, January 06, 2006

Baptists at Nicea?


Nicea, August 24, A.D. 325, 7:41 p.m. "That was powerful preaching, Brother Athanasius. Powerful! Amen! I want to invite any of you folks in the back to approach the altar here and receive the Lord into your hearts. Just come on up. We've got brothers and sisters up here who can lead you through the Sinner's Prayer. Amen! And as this Council of Nicea comes to an end, I want to remind Brother Eusebius to bring the grape juice for tomorrow's closing communion service . . ."

Ah yes, the Baptists at the Council of Nicea. Sound rather silly? It certainly does. And yet, there are those who claim the Church of Nicea was more Protestant in belief and practice than Catholic. I recently read an article in The Christian Research Journal, written by a Reformed Baptist apologist, who argued this very point. No, I'm not making this up. The article, "What Really Happened at Nicea?" actually claimed the Fathers of the Council were essentially Evangelical Protestants.

Rest of article from Envoy.

St Thomas Becket under Attack (Again)


BBC has listed the ten worst Britons of all time. Making the list is St Thomas Becket.
The "greedy" Thomas Becket, Archbishop of Canterbury, was nominated by Professor John Hudson, of St Andrews University, as the 12th century's worst villain.

"He divided England in a way that even many churchmen who shared some of his views thought unnecessary and self-indulgent," he said.

"He was a founder of gesture politics.

"Those who share my prejudice against Becket may consider his assassination in Canterbury Cathedral on 29 December, 1170, a fittingly grisly end."
I'm reading this correctly? This prof is saying that Becket's murder was "fitting."

By the way, this sweet image above was painted by Michael O'Brian, author of Father Elijah. See post below.

Thursday, January 05, 2006

Please Add Me To Your Links

I would be very thankful if any of my fellow bloggers out there would kindly link my blog on their own. I would kindly reciprocate the favor. If you truly enjoy this blog, I'd really appreciate a post.

Did Jesus Exist? Christ Returns to an Italian Court


This is ridiculous. An Italian is sueing a priest as the priest explain:

"Since I'm a priest, and I write in the parish newspaper, he is now suing me because I 'trick' the people."

"Cascioli says he didn't exist. And I said that he did," he said. "The judge will decide if Christ exists or not."

Full story from CNN.

Pope Benedict's First Encyclical on "Agape and Eros"


The Pope's first Encyclical is due any day. Apparently the Holy Father is discussing love, especially the debated relationship between "agape" and "eros."

I jumped for fear when I saw that the Holy Father was going to address eros and agape.

There has been so mucy BAD teaching on it, but it looks like that the Holy Father has done his homework.

I have sat through so many sermons that that teach "agape is the Greek word for divine sacrificial love" and "eros is the Greek word for sexual love." This is incorrect. Here are three examples where agape means nothing close to "divine sacrificial unconditional love"

John 3:19 but men loved [agapeo] darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil.

2 Pet 2:15 who loved [agapeo] the wages of wickedness.

2 Tim 4:10 Demas, because he loved [agapeo] this world, has deserted me...

Hopefully since the Pope is very smart (and infallible?) he will have weighed these sort of texts and not make the common mistake of lumping "agape" with an overly simple definitation. I can't wait to read it.

Wednesday, January 04, 2006

"Cardinal" Graham and an Anglo-Catholic Uniat

Tex Anglican asks:
It is interesting to speculate how the rumored elevation of Monsignor Leonard to the college of cardinals might effect negotiations for an Anglican Rite Church in communion with Rome. What say you, Father P?
Well, it would definitely be a slap across of the face for the Church of England. It would be a sign that Rome is finished with Canterbury and is ready to reward those who defect from Anglicanism. This was true in JH Newman's day but things got friendly between Canterbury and Rome in the 1970s. Maybe Rome is no longer interested in those kinds of ecumenical relations and ready to do something new.

It could also pave the way for the much debated Anglican "Uniat." I'm no expert on this subject. I don't know how Rome works, but maybe "Cardinal" Leonard could serve as a kind of "mitred priest" and be functionally a bishop, without actually being a bishop.

What think ye?

From Purple Biretta, to Black Biretta, to Red Biretta: Married ex-Anglican Bishop to be Named Cardinal?


This is a very interesting story. Several years ago the Anglican bishop of London, Graham Leonard converted to Rome by way of the Pastoral Provision. Pope John Paul II bestowed on him the title Right Reverend Monsignor in 2000. There are now rumors that he might be given the Cardinal's hat, and that as a married priest.

Read the full article from the London Times.

It's worth noting that it is possible for a man to be a Cardinal without receiving the episcopate. Cardinal Dulles is an example.

Biretta tip to Father Nelson of the Vineyard.

Christmas Customs of the Sarum Rite


It's the Eleventh Day of Christmas so I have to squeeze this one in before it is too late. There are some very interesting Christmas customs of the Sarum Rite.

On Christmas Day the geneology of St Matthew was solemnly recited. On Epiphany the geneology of St Luke was solemnly recited. In this way the season had two Gospel "bookends."

Also, the feast of St. Stephen on Dec. 26 was ceremonially elaborated to be the "Feast of Deacons." The feast of St John on Dec. 27 was ceremonially elaborated to be the "Feast of Priests." And Holy Innocents on Dec. 28 (Childermas) was the "Feast of Children."

And of course, who can forget the custom of "boy bishops" that ran from St Nicholas Day (Dec. 6) until Childremas (Dec. 28)? Queen "Bloody" Mary brought back the practice of boy bishops and the Calvinists used this custom against her as clear testimony that Roman Catholicism was full of superstition and foolishness.

But, heh, you've got to admit that at least the Queen was POD at heart. Dressing up little kids like the Infant of Prague and marching them around in processions like bishops is pretty cool. Talk about a stragedy for fostering vocationsto the Priesthood!

Tuesday, January 03, 2006

Christmas and Abortion


On Thursday mornings after Mass I try to go over to the local Planned Parenthood where they start lining up girls for abortions. On the Thursday before Christmas, business was not as usual. It was extra busy. Girls were home from college and need to get their "problem" taken care of before the holidays.

I saw several college age girls with out of state plates. I saw a mother in a Christmas sweater driving her daughter into the parking lot of the abortion mill. I also saw the very typical scene of the boyfriend/husband dropping off the lady for her abortion while he went to Starbucks - Breakfast - Fill-in-the-Blank.

It is always a sorrowful time, but to see ladies murdering their children just days before the feast of the Our Lord's Nativity was heartbreaking. I'm sure many of those girls were in church for Christmas a few days later. How terrifying the contradiction must have been. Thanks be to God that I did see at least one couple drive away and not go in to the mill.

If anyone is in the Fort Worth area and would like to join us as we pray silently on Thursday mornings, please leave your email address in the Comments and I'll contact you.

More Thoughts on Traditional Anglican Communion and Rome

The following is from a great article from the blog Sacramentum Minimum:
Establishing unity between the Catholic Church and the Traditional Anglican Communion would likely have the same effect on Catholic dialogue with the Anglican Communion that unity between the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Catholic Churches has had on Catholic dialogue with the Eastern Orthodox Churches. At the very least, it would contribute to an atmosphere of resentment, in that the Anglican Communion would feel shunned in favor of a body of "Continuing" Anglicans which it views as schismatic. It could also lead to a vitriolic atmosphere of suspicion, such as we've seen with the Russian Orthodox Church, which seems to believe that the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church in particular exists not for unity between East and West, but to proselytize Orthodox Christians.
Follow the link above and read the whole thing.

Monday, January 02, 2006

A Novel You Must Read: Father Elijah


This novel is amazing. It is the only fiction book that I had to put down in order to pray. How can you not like a book that has all the usual POD elements: stigmatics, apparitions of Our Lady, Jewish Carmelite convert priest, the Anti-Christ, random exorcisms of evil places, secret conversations with Cardinals in the catacombs, relics...you get the picture.

It's fast and fun - like the orthodox Catholic version of Da Vinci Code. If you've read it, drop a comment and give me a witness.

Sunday, January 01, 2006

Latest News on Traditional Anglican Communion and Rome


Prydain has brought attention to new statements coming from two bishops of the TAC about their ecumenical talks with Rome. The first is from a Canadian bishop in the TAC, Bishop Peter Wilkinson, and the second from Archbishop John Hepworth, the Primate of the TAC. The following is from Bishop Wilkinson:

Dear Brethren:

Over the course of this year many of you have asked for information on the progress of our talks with Rome. I have told you what I know. So, as a further help to all of us, I have asked the Primate for a letter that would bring us up to date. It follows my introductory comments.

INTRODUCTION

After about 450 years of attempts of varying seriousness, Anglicans and Roman Catholics really began talking to one another after the joint decision by Pope Paul VI and Archbishop Michael Ramsey, expressed in a Common Declaration during their meeting in Rome in March 1966 --39 years ago. Within a year the Commission they established had produced a report that proclaimed "penitence for the past, thankfulness for the graces of the present, urgency and resolve for a future in which our common aim would be the restoration of full organic unity." In April 1977 Archbishop Ramsey's successor in the See of Canterbury, Donald Coggan, and Pope Paul VI, made a further Common Declaration declaring their desire for "the restoration of complete communion in faith and sacramental life." In the same year, The Affirmation of St Louis, so deeply embedded in our ACCC Constitution and the Concordat, also declared "our intention to seek and achieve full sacramental communion and visible unity with other Christians who 'worship the Trinity in Unity, and Unity in Trinity,' and who hold the Catholic and Apostolic Faith in accordance with the foregoing principles." This should not be news to anyone in the ACCC.

Since those days a lot of water has flowed down the Thames and the Tiber, and a big log jam -- the purported ordination of women to the priesthood. Rome reacted immediately with both Pope Paul VI and Pope John Paul II stating in letters to the Archbishop(s) of the day that this act would create a stumbling block to unity. Anglican Synods paid no heed either to the pleas of their own constituency, to Roman Catholics, or to the Orthodox Churches of the East some of whose Synods had declared Anglican Orders valid (Constantinople, Jerusalem and Cyprus). The Anglican-Roman Catholic International Commission [ARCIC] talks continued and some good progress was made to which Rome did not react.

With the advent of the real possibility of the purported consecration of woman to the Episcopate in England, a Roman Catholic Bishops' response to the Rochester Report (which recommends the Church of England proceed to consecrate women) has stated that, "if the Church of England consecrates women bishops its relations with Roman Catholicism could suffer 'irreparable damage' and warns that women bishops would 'radically' impair relations between the two Churches. They also said that the reform was at odds with the ecumenical steps taken between the two Churches. The source of this statement goes on to comment that "the long-hoped for reunion between Anglicanism and Roman Catholicism remains the pipe dream of a few ecumenical specialists."

Sad to say, in the Canterbury Communion the situation is still deteriorating. A report says that Archbishop Ellison Pogo told over 100 delegates to the 11th General Synod of the Church of Melanesia, that the Anglican Church in the Central Pacific should permit the ordination of women to the priesthood. Archbishop Pogo urged the recusants [Anglo-Catholics] to rethink their stance.

Another report has it that "the Anglican Churches of the Global South are as divided over the issue of women's orders as is the Church of England. Evangelical provinces such as Uganda, Kenya and Rwanda ordain women -- while Nigeria and Southeast Asia do not. Anglo-Catholic Provinces are equally divided with Central Africa opposed and the West Indies in favour of ordaining women.

"The leader of the Ugandan Church, Archbishop Henry Orombi argued that women priests were not a universal panacea for the church's ills and would not work in some places he cautioned, but he believed this was not an issue that should divide the Church."

Dissident groups that have left the ACC [note - ed: Anglican Church of Canada] and PECUSA and are bound up with these Provinces and Dioceses, already have some women in major orders.

In light of such a massive defection from Anglican (and therefore Catholic) faith and practice [see the Preface to the Ordinal and the Solemn Declaration in our BCP, which declare that we have no Ministry of our own but only that of Christ's Holy Catholic Church], who is there for Rome to talk to -- only the TAC, and those few remaining faithful dioceses and provinces of the Canterbury Communion? It is a dialogue Anglicans began in good faith 39 years ago, and it is a dialogue that we are bound to continue, "that", as our Lord Jesus Christ said, "they may be one, even as We are one, I in them and Thou in Me, that they may become perfectly one, so that the world may know that Thou hast sent Me and hast loved them even as Thou hast loved Me [St John 17:22b, 23]; who livest and reignest with the same Father, in the unity of the Holy Spirit, One God, forever and ever. Amen.

+Peter Wilkinson, OSG


And here is the statement from Archbishop Hepworth, which is most interesting:

The Primate Responds to Reports and Speculation about the TAC and Rome.

It is twelve years since Archbishop Falk led a little group to Rome to explore the possibility of a closer communion with the Holy See, in continuation of the ARCIC agreement between Archbishop Ramsey and Pope Paul VI.

Since then, every meeting of the College of Bishops of the Traditional Anglican Communion (and we have managed to meet every two years) has endorsed the principle of the TAC seeking to be "an Anglican Church in communion with the Holy See". Different parts of the TAC have different ways of reporting the doings of the College of Bishops, and there are still some differences in the way that the TAC Concordat (the ruling document that creates the "communion" between TAC bishops) is embedded in the Constitutional arrangements of our member churches, so some seem to know more about what happens in the TAC than others.

Some churches have managed frequent visits by the Primate to brief synods and meetings of clergy and laity, others have managed rather less. So the awareness of what is happening with the "Roman question" varies around the TAC. At this time, almost every National Synod has passed some form of resolution accepting the concept of "an Anglican Church in communion with the Holy See", at least in principle. Some have passed very detailed and enthusiastic resolutions, and embarked on detailed activities with local Roman Catholic communities.

Why are we doing this?

Our communion with the Anglican Communion in most parts of the world was shattered by the ordination of women to Holy Orders. In this ultimate of schismatic acts, the Anglican Communion betrayed its claim to share a common Apostolic Ministry with the churches of East and West, which had undergirded its claims to be authentically catholic since the Reformation. In the same step, the great doctrines of Creation, Incarnation and Redemption are denied. The sacramental life of the Church, by which Jesus brings the saving grace of redemption to each of us, becomes an object of suspicion and uncertainty. Placing a woman priest in a diocese is always "communion breaking", since it makes the very act of communion impossible.

At the same time, the ordination of women fractured one of the most solemn agreements ever made by an Archbishop of Canterbury. Michael Ramsey, when he signed the agreement to create "full and organic communion" with the Holy See, acted upon the urging of the Lambeth Fathers since the "Bell Resolutions" of the Lambeth Conference just before the Second World War, and the enthusiasm of the earliest Conferences for discovering a basis of unity with Rome. And the Pope, in agreeing to this unity that he described as "united but not absorbed", determined to end five centuries of often bitter division. The Anglican-Roman Catholic Commission was created to achieve this unity. It was clearly understood that, if Anglicans ordained women to Holy Order, the unity would become almost impossible. So each Anglican Province that voted for women priests, voted to end the possibility of unity.

The TAC has simply determined to continue the process, since the impediment does not exist within our Communion. And there is another reason. Having had our communion with the Anglican Communion shattered, we cannot remain "a church on the loose". To hold the catholic faith requires that faith be exercised in communion. Bishops cannot exist cut off from the mainstream of the church's life. Unity is not an option. Jesus commanded it.

Will we be absorbed by Rome?

Roman Catholics (including a significant number of former Anglican clergy and laity) have urged us to value our Anglican heritage. One author has written movingly that the TAC seeks "to achieve communion (with the Holy See) while maintaining those revered traditions of spirituality, liturgy, discipline and theology that constitute the centuries old heritage of Anglican communities throughout the world".

We seek to be "Anglican Catholics".That is, to value our Anglicanism while being visibly united to the "whole church catholic" of which our formularies have always spoken.

What stage have we reached?

There have been no secrets up until now, and there will be none in the future. The TAC is following a traditional Anglican method of wide consultation, synodical decision-making and deep involvement of clergy and laity.

At Easter this year, I published for the whole TAC a Pastoral Letter on Unity, which set out for publication the point we had reached and pathways for the future. As with all important documents of the TAC, the Messenger carried the full text. I am presuming, perhaps rashly in the case of some countries, that the Messenger goes into every TAC home in the world. Certainly, we print enough for that!

At the moment, there are two documents in the final stages of preparation.

The first is a "Pastoral Plan", prepared by an eminent Roman Catholic layman, which performs the joint functions of "verifying the TAC as a worthy interlocutor with the Roman Catholic Church" and of setting out the "desired levels of recognition of the TAC by Rome both before and after full communion". This document will be delivered to every bishop early in the new year, and will be debated by a full meeting of the College of Bishops, in the presence of clerical and lay representatives of each member church, hopefully in Rome in the first half of next year. The document will then go to the synods of the member churches (even if they must have an extraordinary meeting). If the document wins the approval of the whole Communion, it will be formally presented to the Holy See, and a more formal process will be established. (At the moment, it would be fair to say that wide ranging, multi-level, international contacts between the TAC and Rome have been proceeding for some years, and have intensified in the past year, with a resultant increase in publicity. It is also true to say that a much greater awareness of the TAC still needs to be created.)

The second document is a formal proposal from the TAC to the Holy See for the TAC to become an "Anglican Rite Church "sui juris" in communion with the Holy See". The first draft of this document was submitted to the Council for Christian Unity, and its response, with input from other Roman Catholic and Uniate Catholic sources, shaped the present document. It is not proposed to submit this document until the Pastoral Plan is approved by the TAC. The College as a whole has not yet approved the present draft.

A further letter is sometimes mentioned. On becoming Primate, I wrote personally to the Council for Christian Unity resuming the conversations that had been conducted by Archbishop Falk. I made the basic claim, sometimes wrongly reported, that "there are no doctrinal or moral matters of such significance that they would prevent unity between this Communion and the Holy See".

In all of these documents matters of historic difference are canvassed. But both our own bishops and those with whom we speak emphasise the fact that we seek to create a eucharistic community, in which we can join at the altar of God, and from which all else must flow. Questions of Orders, of Liturgy, of clergy discipline, of the way in which we would experience our relationship with the See of Peter, have all been the object of our, as yet, informal conversations. We have found deep rapport in our conversations, as well as much direct speaking, but nothing is, as yet, official.

I close this summary with some words shared with me by a Cardinal who has followed this journey. "We must learn to practise the unity we already share from the action of the Holy Spirit. Only then can we ask for more. And the time will be God's time, if we are truly prepared to place this in God's hands."

+John Hepworth

Primate

P.S. What Prayer Book will be used?

The Traditional Anglican Communion uses a number of national versions of the Book of Common Prayer, often incorporating the Usage of the English and Anglican Missals. These forms of Public Worship are authorised by the College of Bishops,and member churches do not act on liturgical forms without the authority of the College. English is only the seventh most-used liturgical language in the TAC, so the various English Prayer Books are not the most significant issue in our Communion, albeit they have local importance.

There is no suggestion that we would adopt the Book of Divine Worship. I have personally indicated to the Holy See that we are deeply moved -- and reassured -- that Rome has authorised any Anglican Liturgy at all. A vital issue for us to discuss is whether we want to attempt a Prayer Book for the TAC at some stage in the future, and then translate it into each of our languages. Bishop Mercer has written with some authority on this proposal. Since it would take all of the annual budget of the TAC for a number of years, it is not on my immediate list of things to do."
These statements are indeed most interesting, because for one thing, it appears that the TAC at least has a goal of not simply "intercommunion", but actually becoming a sui generis "Anglican Rite" in the Roman Catholic Church. There has apparently been much thought and prayer invested in this already--and much more is to come if I read this correctly. Note they are already thinking about the Prayer Book to be used it if this all comes about, and the foundation being laid for all of it in the "Pastoral Plan." Note that this also refers to a "Roman Catholic layman" being involved in the planning like other reports we have seen.

New Year's Day - Feast of the Circumcision


According to the older Kalendars, today is the feast of the Circumcision since New Year's Day is exactly eight days after Christmas (eight days being the stipulated time for circumcision in the Old Covenant).

Rome has changed (since Vatican 2) today to "Mary, Mother of God" and I understand that there is an ancient Roman precedent for this custom. Anglicans have changed the day to "Holy Name" so as not to have any reference to that male organ that makes Christ male. Oh how the feminists must hate the Holy Circumcision of Christ!

I'm calling for a return to the Feast of the Circumcision because it proclaims the profound importance of gender within the Judeo-Christian covenantal framework. The Messiah and High Priest had to be male on account of the Abrahamic Covenant. And thus all of His priests from the Twelve Apostles till today must be male. Why? Because they represent the Bridegroom to the Bride, Christ's Church.

Moreover, the Circumcision of Christ (not the giving of the Holy Name) mystically symbolizes Christ's "down-payment" for the shedding of His most precious Blood. Christ not only shed His Blood on the cross, but He shed His blood to become a covenantal Jew in the first place. It is the sign of a Suffering Servant. The Covenant fulfilled in Blood.
Subscribe to feed
Related Posts with Thumbnails

This blog, Canterbury Tales, is solemnly consecrated to the Immaculate Heart of Mary

“Et tuam ipsius animam pertransibit gladius
ut revelentur ex multis cordibus cogitationes.”
(Luke 2:35, Vulgate)
Our Lady, Seat of Wisdom, pray for us.
#navbar-iframe { height:0px; visibility:hidden; display:none; }