Sorry

For the lack of updates recently this month, Barchester sincerely apologises.  Work has been hectic in preparation for the elections.

However, do please regularly check Fr Hunwicke’s Liturgical Notes and The Anglo-Catholic blog in the meanwhile for your ecclesiastical information and the usual suspects on the sidebar for the political.

Papal Homily at Midnight Mass

VATICAN CITY, DEC. 25, 2006 (Zenit.org).- Here is a Vatican translation of the homily Benedict XVI gave at the Christmas Midnight Mass in St. Peter’s Basilica.

* * *

Dear Brothers and Sisters,

We have just heard in the Gospel the message given by the angels to the shepherds during that Holy Night, a message which the Church now proclaims to us: “To you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, who is Christ the Lord. And this will be a sign for you: you will find a babe wrapped in swaddling clothes and lying in a manger” (Lk 2:11-12). Nothing miraculous, nothing extraordinary, nothing magnificent is given to the shepherds as a sign. All they will see is a child wrapped in swaddling clothes, one who, like all children, needs a mother’s care; a child born in a stable, who therefore lies not in a cradle but in a manger. God’s sign is the baby in need of help and in poverty. Only in their hearts will the shepherds be able to see that this baby fulfils the promise of the prophet Isaiah, which we heard in the first reading: “For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government will be upon his shoulder” (Is 9:5). Exactly the same sign has been given to us. We too are invited by the angel of God, through the message of the Gospel, to set out in our hearts to see the child lying in the manger.

God’s sign is simplicity. God’s sign is the baby. God’s sign is that he makes himself small for us. This is how he reigns. He does not come with power and outward splendour. He comes as a baby — defenceless and in need of our help. He does not want to overwhelm us with his strength. He takes away our fear of his greatness. He asks for our love: so he makes himself a child. He wants nothing other from us than our love, through which we spontaneously learn to enter into his feelings, his thoughts and his will — we learn to live with him and to practise with him that humility of renunciation that belongs to the very essence of love. God made himself small so that we could understand him, welcome him, and love him. The Fathers of the Church, in their Greek translation of the Old Testament, found a passage from the prophet Isaiah that Paul also quotes in order to show how God’s new ways had already been foretold in the Old Testament. There we read: “God made his Word short, he abbreviated it” (Is 10:23; Rom 9:28). The Fathers interpreted this in two ways. The Son himself is the Word, the Logos; the eternal Word became small — small enough to fit into a manger. He became a child, so that the Word could be grasped by us. In this way God teaches us to love the little ones. In this way he teaches us to love the weak. In this way he teaches us respect for children. The child of Bethlehem directs our gaze towards all children who suffer and are abused in the world, the born and the unborn. Towards children who are placed as soldiers in a violent world; towards children who have to beg; towards children who suffer deprivation and hunger; towards children who are unloved. In all of these it is the Child of Bethlehem who is crying out to us; it is the God who has become small who appeals to us. Let us pray this night that the brightness of God’s love may enfold all these children. Let us ask God to help us do our part so that the dignity of children may be respected. May they all experience the light of love, which mankind needs so much more than the material necessities of life.

And so we come to the second meaning that the Fathers saw in the phrase: “God made his Word short”. The Word which God speaks to us in Sacred Scripture had become long in the course of the centuries. It became long and complex, not just for the simple and unlettered, but even more so for those versed in Sacred Scripture, for the experts who evidently became entangled in details and in particular problems, almost to the extent of losing an overall perspective. Jesus “abbreviated” the Word — he showed us once more its deeper simplicity and unity. Everything taught by the Law and the Prophets is summed up — he says — in the command: “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind… You shall love your neighbour as yourself” (Mt 22:37-40). This is everything — the whole faith is contained in this one act of love which embraces God and humanity. Yet now further questions arise: how are we to love God with all our mind, when our intellect can barely reach him? How are we to love him with all our heart and soul, when our heart can only catch a glimpse of him from afar, when there are so many contradictions in the world that would hide his face from us? This is where the two ways in which God has “abbreviated” his Word come together. He is no longer distant. He is no longer unknown. He is no longer beyond the reach of our heart. He has become a child for us, and in so doing he has dispelled all doubt. He has become our neighbour, restoring in this way the image of man, whom we often find so hard to love. For us, God has become a gift. He has given himself. He has entered time for us. He who is the Eternal One, above time, he has assumed our time and raised it to himself on high. Christmas has become the Feast of gifts in imitation of God who has given himself to us. Let us allow our heart, our soul and our mind to be touched by this fact! Among the many gifts that we buy and receive, let us not forget the true gift: to give each other something of ourselves, to give each other something of our time, to open our time to God. In this way anxiety disappears, joy is born, and the feast is created. During the festive meals of these days let us remember the Lord’s words: “When you give a dinner or a banquet, do not invite those who will invite you in return, but invite those whom no one invites and who are not able to invite you” (cf. Lk 14:12-14). This also means: when you give gifts for Christmas, do not give only to those who will give to you in return, but give to those who receive from no one and who cannot give you anything back. This is what God has done: he invites us to his wedding feast, something which we cannot reciprocate, but can only receive with joy. Let us imitate him! Let us love God and, starting from him, let us also love man, so that, starting from man, we can then rediscover God in a new way!

And so, finally, we find yet a third meaning in the saying that the Word became “brief” and “small”. The shepherds were told that they would find the child in a manger for animals, who were the rightful occupants of the stable. Reading Isaiah (1:3), the Fathers concluded that beside the manger of Bethlehem there stood an ox and an ass. At the same time they interpreted the text as symbolizing the Jews and the pagans — and thus all humanity — who each in their own way have need of a Saviour: the God who became a child. Man, in order to live, needs bread, the fruit of the earth and of his labour. But he does not live by bread alone. He needs nourishment for his soul: he needs meaning that can fill his life. Thus, for the Fathers, the manger of the animals became the symbol of the altar, on which lies the Bread which is Christ himself: the true food for our hearts. Once again we see how he became small: in the humble appearance of the host, in a small piece of bread, he gives us himself.

All this is conveyed by the sign that was given to the shepherds and is given also to us: the child born for us, the child in whom God became small for us. Let us ask the Lord to grant us the grace of looking upon the crib this night with the simplicity of the shepherds, so as to receive the joy with which they returned home (cf. Lk 2:20). Let us ask him to give us the humility and the faith with which Saint Joseph looked upon the child that Mary had conceived by the Holy Spirit. Let us ask the Lord to let us look upon him with that same love with which Mary saw him. And let us pray that in this way the light that the shepherds saw will shine upon us too, and that what the angels sang that night will be accomplished throughout the world: “Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace among men with whom he is pleased.” Amen!

O Antiphons

From the 17th to the 23rd of December, the O Antiphons are traditionally used at evening prayer (particularly for the Magnificat in the more classic Church of England context). Barchester has discovered video clips from Blackfriars in Oxford from a couple of years ago.

17 December: O Sapientia (O Wisdom)

Right.

Well at least it’s not another post about angry American Continuing priests.

More on Anglicanorum Cœtibus

Father Hunwicke posted some compelling thoughts on Anglicanorum Coetibus (AC) by arguing that under AC, Ordinariates have the Catechism of the Catholic Church as their ‘authoritative expression of the Catholic Faith’. He writes,

And what about the status of Apostolicae curae, which condemned Anglican Orders? Is that – or at least, its conclusions – such as to require the assent we owe to faith? Of course, the Apostolic Constitution assumes the juridical force of that Bull in its provision for the ‘ordination’ of Anglican clergy entering the Ordinarites. I don’t think many of us have much problem in giving other Christians certainty about the validity of our sacramental ministrations. I have no objection whatsoever to submitting to the juridical implications of Apostolicae curae. On the contrary. (Although the Commentary printed in Osservatore Romano by a Fr Ghirlanda, which states that “ordinations … will be absolute, on the basis of the Bull Apostolicae curae ” appears to be unaware that in the case of Bishop Graham Leonard, the CDF concluded that there was uncertainty about the invalidity of his orders, because of the Dutch Touch.

So how can it be that Fr Hunwicke has no problem submitting to the juridical implications of Apostolicae Curae when Fr Nalls at The Continuum blog is objecting to it and Fr Hart is yet again foaming at the mouth about comments made to that objection over at The Anglo-Catholic blog? Fr Holiday at The Anglo-Catholic blog seems to argue similarly to what Barchester argued previously.

One wonders if Fr Hart will likewise warn Barchester and Fr Hunwicke to not ‘play with theology’ until we have more learning under our belts? One wonders if Fr Hart will similarly warn Fr Aidan Nichols or even the present Holy Father?

Surely men as learned and pious as Fr Robert HART and Fr Charles HART Nalls can trump such simpletons as Dom Gregory Dix or even that group that deigns to call itself the Magisterium of the Catholic Church?

As Fr Hunwicke put it,

But in any case, Apostolicae curae is not part of the Catechism. So it will not be “professed by members of the Ordinariate”. And, notoriously, men consecrated Bishop in the Anglican Church are encouraged to ask for the jus pontificalium. That hardly sounds like a desire to rub Anglican noses in Apostolicae curae until … if you follow me … the pips squeak.

Indeed.

Oh, and one more thing. The learned and pious folk at THE Continuum blog would be delighted to learn of this, which we all knew was coming for the so-called ‘minor leaguers’.

Gaudete Sunday

Barchester requests submissions for the best rose vestments readers might have spotted around the web to commemorate Gaudete Sunday. Please feel free to submit a link to the photo(s) of your submission(s), of either gothic or latin style vestments, below. Rejoice!

Brown Plunges UK £1.5bn Further Into Debt

Anglicanorum Live Now!

If any readers are currently online now, there is a live broadcast via Our Lady of the Atonement Catholic parish in Texas on Anglicanorum Coetibus:

http://www.ustream.tv/channel/anglicanorum

Fundamentalist Atheism

The Rev Arthur Belling is vicar of the parish of St Loony up the Cream Bun and Jam.

Whilst browsing through the news earlier today, Barchester came across a story about a debate which occurred between Richard Dawkins and Charles Moore (among others) with the motion, ‘Is atheism the new fundamentalism?’.

With witty lines such as, ‘Science flies you to the moon. Religion flies you into buildings’, Dawkins seems to himself demonstrate that the answer to the debate topic, at least for him, is indeed a resounding ‘yes’. The discourteous Atheists in the crowd seem to confirm it as well, ironically enough.

The story reports that one of the Christian debaters, the former Bishop of Oxford, Lord Harries, objected at one point at this sort of notion by appealing to all the magnificent art inspired by Christianity throughout the centuries:

The atheists argued that it was only because the Church had the money. The implication – that Mozart, Michelangelo and Bach faked their faith in order to get commissions – is so wrong it’s laughable. Moore’s charge that the atheists were engaged in a narrow pursuit of literal truth above all else began to ring true.

Perhaps Moore is onto the same thing Barchester is onto, concerning the pop-Atheist’s use of Bulverism whilst employing the Nameless Mode of Thinking? This might possibly be the case for Nigel Farndale at least (the author of the story), for after acknowledging the unconscionable attitudes and rhetoric in the Bulveristic argumentation applied by Dawkins & Co, he writes,

Nevertheless, like the majority in that draughty hall, I voted against the motion [that atheism is the new fundamentalism]. Atheists are not fundamentalists, because they are open to any hypothesis, provided that it can be substantiated by evidence. And atheism is not a religion. It doesn’t want followers. The irony is, it gets them anyway. And increasingly, it looks like a cult, with Dawkins its leader. No doubt to his irritation, his The God Delusion has become something of an atheist’s Bible.

‘Atheists are not fundamentalists’. That is like saying Christians are not fundamentalists. Barchester knows better than to fall into this trap. Over-generalising world views in this way never leads to an accurate portrayal of reality. Moreover, Mr Farndale’s assumption of the conclusion based on not only over-generalisations but in stark contrast to his own evidence of certain Atheist individuals behaving badly, stands in direct contradiction to his claim that, Atheists ‘are open to any hypothesis, provided that it can be substantiated by evidence’.

Except hypotheses with spiritual evidence such as visions, exorcisms, healings and the like. That sort of evidence must actually be nothing other than delusions, violent psychological reactions, and scientific fluke. Thus, affirming the consequent.

And what of the claim that Atheism is not a religion? It all depends on the definition of ‘religion’ of course, but in being anti-religious based upon a materialistic secular humanism means it is, by that definition, indeed a religion (or cult perhaps) of its own. The main of Buddhism, for example, does not believe in a ‘god’ as such, yet because of it’s system of viewing the world, it is a religion. It is not just a set of propositions about life, it is a way of living. Likewise with Atheism. Hence the London bus ad campaign featuring slogans like, ‘There’s probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy life’.

The bus campaign, the recent bill proposing to control the Church’s requirements of its own priests based on secular ‘justice’, the many books and ‘aggressive Atheists’ on youtube, etc, all point to the fact that there are Atheists who do, actually, ‘want followers’.

And increasingly, it looks indeed like a cult, with Dawkins as its leader.

Wednesday Wanderings

The Wanderer Above the Mists by Caspar David Friedrich (1774-1840)

The intriguing Ian Dale has graciously linked to Barchester. Are we now on the political radar, or is this just a quick nod to a quickly forgotten blog among thousands of others?

Ireland promises civil unions for same-sex couples…

‘A discussion of how Anglicans can work for the unity of the Church’, writes the Dean of Nashotah House, ‘(or any discussion of the unity of the Church that consists of a solution other than everyone coming under the Papacy) probably holds nothing for you’.

‘Fr. Hart of the Continuum’, says Fr Chadwick at The Anglo-Catholic, ‘returns to his theme of discussing the question of knowing to whom the Apostolic Constitution was intended’.

Fr Hunwick enquires about the dating of the antiphons of Vespers of Our Lady.

An interesting Vestments Fair will be on the 11th of February, 2010 at Staggers.

Cranmer: Conservatives launch Debt Clock

Dearmerites are not the only ones who wear blue, according to the New Liturgical Movement.

The Monarchist: Tony Abbott on why he’s a monarchist.

Paul Vallely on why the Archbishop of Canterbury cannot now prevent an Anglican schism.

Alistair Darling is grabbing more taxes from the middle classes.

Neo-Erastianism runs seriously amok, writes Jeffrey Steel.

DaveWatch is going strong over on Gerald Warner’s blog.