Thursday, June 28, 2007

Cranmer's Pulpit IV



Cranmer has decided to reward his intelligent and erudite communicants with another open Pulpit. So much has happened since the last, and His Grace is eager to glean the insights of his flock. Previous pulpits have been most interesting reads, and this one offers communicants a further opportunity to raise their concerns, vent their fury, or exercise their apologetics upon whatever religio-political or politico-religious concerns they do so wish…

…intelligently, and eruditely, of course.

63 Comments:

Blogger Harry Hook said...

Your Grace,

It seems to me that the main difference between Virtue and Sin, is that the later tends to be habit forming.

Could you possibly offer an explanation for this curious phenomena and perhaps suggest one virtue that I may gladly attempt at least twice.

28 June 2007 at 02:41  
Anonymous Voyager said...

One might think that Original Sin is the permanent stain and redemptive virtue an intermission on the road to perdition.

Perhaps reading Pilgrim's Progress written 430 years ago by a former Cromwellian soldier would help you see the reasons ?

28 June 2007 at 06:42  
Anonymous bob said...

I was taught that virtue is essentially a habit, and like all habits virtue has to be formed over time. To make virtue habitual requires the commitment to constantly practice virtue.

Sin is also habit forming but due to concupiscence the habit forms much more easily.

28 June 2007 at 09:18  
Anonymous Miss Jelly bean said...

Progress in the development of character depends on inherent tendencies,unconcious imitation and the voluntary efforts of the will. Character can be affected by the unconcious imitation of those with whom one often associates, and good character can also be aquired by a special effort of the will which determines the moral worth of one's actions. In the beginning such efforts will involve great willpower and determination. Perfection of character is attained when one feels pleasure in performing good actions. Thus the journey is a mixture of both pain and ecstacy. The mental state of man, whatever it may be, affects the internal process of his body. Therefore, outward actions for cultivating desirable habits, should be performed even if they are not accompained by the state of mind which they mean to express. Such actions induce the desired states of mind gradually, for man cannot become moral in one day. The significance of single acts lies in the impressions which they leave behind. These impressions, when they become numerous and repeated, create a new attitude of the mind. The wish to seek comes first and foremost, then it is followed by the intention, and then the action. The nature and temprament of the individual, his spiritual condition and material circumstances are all factors which must be taken into consideration.

28 June 2007 at 10:54  
Anonymous Barrymore's Fist said...

I think that essentially it is to do with rewards. Sinful actions do reap 'rewards', such as stealing, murdering, adultering etc. It is only if one is able to see the rewards are greater for not doing these, essentially through experience, that virtue will replace sin.

Whilst Christ taught fully, perhaps he could have given a more practical basis to experience the boon of virtue rather than relying on faith?

28 June 2007 at 13:36  
Anonymous Voyager said...

Whilst Christ taught fully, perhaps he could have given a more practical basis to experience the boon of virtue rather than relying on faith?

You misunderstand completely....perhaps you should go back to Leviticus and the 518 Mitzvot and then understand what exactly it was that Jesus Christ was preaching

28 June 2007 at 14:09  
Blogger dizzyfatplonka said...

If politicians had the solutions there should by now be nothing left to solve.
Nothing new under the sun a philosophers experience, it is for me an example that Christianity and the buddhist dharma wheel of life bare a lot in common.
Politics is a turning repetition of continualy creating that what needs changing.

Humanities collective conscious needs to evolve beyond believing in politics and look more at natural law.

28 June 2007 at 15:50  
Blogger Harry Hook said...

All fine words, but why does it seem so natural and instinctive to covet a cream bun, rather than organic muesli.

If our prime directive is one of reproduction and survival, then surely there must be a case that habit forming vices are connected to this drive, especially considering their natural attraction.

28 June 2007 at 18:38  
Anonymous Miss Jelly bean said...

"Whilst Christ taught fully, perhaps he could have given a more practical basis to experience the boon of virtue rather than relying on faith?"

Well, I assume he was waiting for the 'comforter' to come and do that.

"I have yet many things to say unto you, but you cannot bear them now. How be it when he, the spirit of Truth will come, he will guide you into all truth, for he shall speak not of himself, but whatsoever he shall hear, that he shall speak, and he will show you things to come. He shall glorify me, for he shall receive of mine, and he shall show it unto you".
(Bible, John 16-12/14)

So Voyager, any idea about who this comforter or spirit of truth might be? I have previously heard from a born again Christian that the 'spirit of truth' is the Father (God) himself. But if that was so, then why has God not fulfilled his religion for the past 2000 years since Jesus left? What's he waiting for?

28 June 2007 at 19:11  
Anonymous Voyager said...

Islam

http://www.answering-islam.org/Silas/comforter.htm

I think Miss Jelly Bean you should read up on Pentecost or what we call Whit Sunday....you might then learn that The Holy Ghost first came among the Christians after the Death and Resurrection of Jesus and subsequent to His final ascent to Heaven

You will find that a deeper reading of Christian Theology will serve you better than using those little crib sheets they issue you to show your limited comprehension of Christian Doctrine -

28 June 2007 at 19:35  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think this can be summarised in 5 words
"You must be born again"
Miss Jelly bean said...

Progress in the development of character depends on inherent tendencies,unconcious imitation and the voluntary efforts of the will. Character can be affected by the unconcious imitation of those with whom one often associates, and good character can also be aquired by a special effort of the will which determines the moral worth of one's actions. In the beginning such efforts will involve great willpower and determination. Perfection of character is attained when one feels pleasure in performing good actions. Thus the journey is a mixture of both pain and ecstacy. The mental state of man, whatever it may be, affects the internal process of his body. Therefore, outward actions for cultivating desirable habits, should be performed even if they are not accompained by the state of mind which they mean to express. Such actions induce the desired states of mind gradually, for man cannot become moral in one day. The significance of single acts lies in the impressions which they leave behind. These impressions, when they become numerous and repeated, create a new attitude of the mind. The wish to seek comes first and foremost, then it is followed by the intention, and then the action. The nature and temprament of the individual, his spiritual condition and material circumstances are all factors which must be taken into consideration.

Greg

28 June 2007 at 20:52  
Anonymous Dr Mabuse said...

Though I doubt Miss Jelly Bean wrote it herself.....I might even accuse her of plagiarism

28 June 2007 at 21:05  
Anonymous Miss Jelly bean said...

"I might even accuse her of plagiarism"

I'm fascinated that you are able to make such a determined assessment of my character and yet, you don't even know me. I have been studying Sufism for the past 2 years. I'm flattered that you'd think I would plagiarise. Now I'm feeling quite tentative about posting a comment on this blog. First I'm accused for being rude and ignorant by Cranmer, now his communicant is accusing me of plagiarism!

Voyager, interesting link and anonymous, no I'm not a born again. I'm not even a Christian.

28 June 2007 at 21:25  
Blogger dizzyfatplonka said...

"All fine words, but why does it seem so natural and instinctive to covet a cream bun, rather than organic muesli".
Harry I like your style, muesli could be thrown together from the forest floor, so would be more natural and instictive when it comes down to survival.
Much like meals such as French escargo are the food of the lazy hunter.
Cream buns took creative vision and venture, so the cream bun although coveted by some would demonstrate that being creative and venturous is natural and instinctive.
The cream bun coveting is then just the lazy hunter rearing their head again :-D

28 June 2007 at 21:29  
Anonymous Miss Jelly bean said...

Sorry anonymous/Greg. I think I misinterpreted you when you said "you must be born again". I thought you were accusing me of being a 'born again'. I didn't read your comment properly, I was quite annoyed with dr mabuse's comment at that time.

28 June 2007 at 22:01  
Blogger Harry Hook said...

Dizzyfatplonka said:
"Harry I like your style"

Thanks DizzyFP. My first job in the NHS brought me into contact with many sudden death situations ...no, I wasn't a cleaner. Never once did I witness someone demised and face down in a plate of chocolate eclairs, or suffering a heart attack opening a six pack during an England match. My point is, people tended to croak it trying to achieve the those very same virtues i.e. health via squash and cleanliness with too much water and electricity.

28 June 2007 at 22:22  
Anonymous Miss Jelly bean said...

"Sin is also habit forming but due to concupiscence the habit forms much more easily."

Yes, I quite agree with this statement. Of course, the question is, how do we prevent ourselves from forming such habits? If you contemplate upon commiting a sinful act but do not commit it, you shall not be deemed a sinner, until the very moment when you put the thought into action and literaly comit the sin. So does this mean that one is permitted to think sinful thoughts, as long as he/she doesn't commit them? Some Christians legitimise the concept of homosexuality by stating that you can be a homosexual as long as you don't commit the act itself. But then one may argue, if you constantly think homosexual thoughts and eventualy formulate a habit of doing so, would this not entise you to commit the act also? In order for one to cure his heart full of disease, he must remove the tree from its very roots or it shall continue to grow again and again. If the same medicine is constantly used to cure the disease, it shall gradually become immune to the effects of the medicine. Therefore, in order to prevent ourselves from sinning, we must break the habits, and cleanse ourselves from the very roots; which includes the removal of sinful thoughts.

28 June 2007 at 22:30  
Anonymous bob said...

Ms Jelly Bean, there is, I would think, wisdom in what you say in that to try and eradicate sin from our lives we must first try to eradicate the temptation to sin. Living a life of virtue would require self-control and the triumph of reason over passion. However, that is generally more easily said than done.

I think to say someone is a sinner without having committed the act of sinning is for me a step to far. One cannot be a murderer no matter how much one desires to commit the act. One cannot be a thief until one commits the act, no matter how many robberies they plan in their mind. I think the cultivation of these thoughts and desires makes it more difficult to be virtuous, and if they are actively cultivated then the pursuit of virtue might not be high on the person's agenda. I think, however, a person who struggles with temptation, but who is nonetheless struggling to overcome it should not be condemned as a sinner for having the temptation, if that makes any sense.

28 June 2007 at 22:57  
Blogger Harry Hook said...

Bob said:
"I think to say someone is a sinner without having committed the act of sinning is for me a step to far. One cannot be a murderer no matter how much one desires to commit the act. One cannot be a thief until one commits the act, no matter how many robberies they plan in their mind."

Ahhh ...you must be Bill Clinton's attorney.

28 June 2007 at 23:09  
Anonymous bob said...

Not at all... my salary is not nearly enough to be Bill Clinton's attorney.

29 June 2007 at 00:17  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I had been hoping to get an insight from Archbishop Cranmer on a momentous event in the history of the Anglican Church, which was due to happen last weekend, had been long heralded, but apparently fizzled out.

The Times religious correspondent gave it very emphatic coverage.

Priest claims Tony Blair to become Catholic after stepping down
The Times, UK
May 17, 2007
Ruth Gledhill, Jeremy Austin and Philip Webster
Tony Blair will declare himself a Roman Catholic on leaving Downing Street, according to a priest close to him.
Father Michael Seed, who is known for bringing high-profile politicians and aristocrats into the Catholic fold and who says Mass for the Blairs in Downing Street each week when they are in London, made the prediction to friends at a recent memorial service……………………
To receive Mr Blair into the fold would be a triumph for the Roman Catholic Church, which has in the past two decades in particular regained its confidence, recovering from centuries of persecution that followed the Reformation………..
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The meeting between Tony Blair and the Pope took place last weekend. It was so important that Tony Blair rushed there immediately after the European Summit and was joined by the head of the Roman Catholic Church in England and Wales.
The Sunday Times tells of the great significance of the meeting:June 23, 2007
Blair talks with Pope in Vatican
GERARD O'CONNELL IN ROME FOR THE SUNDAY TIMES
Tony Blair met Pope Benedict XVI at the Vatican this morning for the last time in his capacity as prime minister.
After the Pope welcomed Mr Blair into his private study, the prime minister told him he had just flown in from the European Union summit in Brussels….
The two men met privately for 25 minutes and then were joined for further talks by Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor, head of the Catholic Church in England and Wales.
A Vatican source later told The Sunday Times that he could not recall a similar occasion in living memory when a cardinal had joined a prime minister or head of state during his private audience with the pope.
What was astonishing was that the pope used the meeting to give the British Prime Minister a dressing down:
From Times Online
June 24, 2007
Pope takes Blair to task over Iraq, abortion and stem cells


Tony Blair received a tough dressing down from Pope Benedict XVI during his audience with the pontiff yesterday, not only over the war in Iraq but also over legislation passed during Mr Blair's ten years in power on abortion, gay adoption and stem cell research.
Some newspapers at the end of last week carried reports predicting that Mr Blair would convert to Roman Catholicism after leaving office and that the Pope would give the conversion his blessing during their farewell meeting at the Vatican on Saturday.
However the Vatican said after the meeting that the pontiff and Mr Blair had had a "frank exchange" on "particularly delicate subjects", which is Vatican-speak for downright disagreement. Italian reports said the Pope had criticised UK laws allowing greater stem cell research on human embryos, easy access to abortion, same-sex marriages, and adoption by gay couples.
Today, the Pope made an enigmatic reference to "true conversion" in his midday Angelus prayers. Addressing English speaking pilgrims on St Peter's Square he said: "Today, as the Church celebrates the birth of St John the Baptist, let us ask for the gift of true conversion and growth in holiness…………
It appears that the Catholic Church had set up a highly public conversion of the British Prime Minister, to humiliate the Church of England and to give an enormous boost to the morale of the English Catholic Church. Unfortunately, in this, as in other matters, this massively opinionated pope chose to read off his own script and brought the arrangements crashing down.
As always it was left to the diplomats in the Vatican to pick up the debris in the hope of salvaging a similar, but of necessity a much lesser event of British humiliation. This would seem to explain the letter of Jesuit casuistry appearing in the Times on Tuesday the 27th of June:
From The Times
June 27, 2007
Vatican relations
Sir, Certain articles that appeared in the British press after the visit of Prime Minister Tony Blair to the Vatican presented a negative picture of the atmosphere of the meetings that took place. Such a negative picture does not reflect what really happened.
The reason behind such coverage lies mainly in a mistranslation of the Italian words “franco confronto” used in the press release issued by the Vatican press office. In Italian these words do not have the negative connotation ascribed to them in English which certainly does not reflect the tone of the Vatican communiqué.
In reality, the intention was simply to state that it had been an “open and sincere discussion”, without any acrimonious or hostile overtones. The meetings took place in a relaxed and friendly atmosphere, as the journalists who were present can confirm.
It is important to remember that the Holy See has always expressed its appreciation for certain very important initiatives taken by the British Government, especially with regard to furthering the peace process in Northern Ireland and promoting the development of the world’s poorest countries. Relations between the Holy See and the United Kingdom, therefore, are both healthy and positive.
FR FEDERICO LOMBARDI SJ, Director, Press Office of the Holy See
I would welcome your much more expert analysis.





From The Times
June 27, 2007
Vatican relations
Sir, Certain articles that appeared in the British press after the visit of Prime Minister Tony Blair to the Vatican presented a negative picture of the atmosphere of the meetings that took place. Such a negative picture does not reflect what really happened.
The reason behind such coverage lies mainly in a mistranslation of the Italian words “franco confronto” used in the press release issued by the Vatican press office. In Italian these words do not have the negative connotation ascribed to them in English which certainly does not reflect the tone of the Vatican communiqué.
In reality, the intention was simply to state that it had been an “open and sincere discussion”, without any acrimonious or hostile overtones. The meetings took place in a relaxed and friendly atmosphere, as the journalists who were present can confirm.
It is important to remember that the Holy See has always expressed its appreciation for certain very important initiatives taken by the British Government, especially with regard to furthering the peace process in Northern Ireland and promoting the development of the world’s poorest countries. Relations between the Holy See and the United Kingdom, therefore, are both healthy and positive.
FR FEDERICO LOMBARDI SJ, Director, Press Office of the Holy See

29 June 2007 at 00:42  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I had been hoping to get an insight from Archbishop Cranmer on a momentous event in the history of the Anglican Church, which was due to happen last weekend, had been long heralded, but apparently fizzled out.

The Times religious correspondent gave it very emphatic coverage.

Priest claims Tony Blair to become Catholic after stepping down
The Times, UK
May 17, 2007
Ruth Gledhill, Jeremy Austin and Philip Webster
Tony Blair will declare himself a Roman Catholic on leaving Downing Street, according to a priest close to him.
Father Michael Seed, who is known for bringing high-profile politicians and aristocrats into the Catholic fold and who says Mass for the Blairs in Downing Street each week when they are in London, made the prediction to friends at a recent memorial service……………………
To receive Mr Blair into the fold would be a triumph for the Roman Catholic Church, which has in the past two decades in particular regained its confidence, recovering from centuries of persecution that followed the Reformation………..
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The meeting between Tony Blair and the Pope took place last weekend. It was so important that Tony Blair rushed there immediately after the European Summit and was joined by the head of the Roman Catholic Church in England and Wales.
The Sunday Times tells of the great significance of the meeting:June 23, 2007
Blair talks with Pope in Vatican
GERARD O'CONNELL IN ROME FOR THE SUNDAY TIMES
Tony Blair met Pope Benedict XVI at the Vatican this morning for the last time in his capacity as prime minister.
After the Pope welcomed Mr Blair into his private study, the prime minister told him he had just flown in from the European Union summit in Brussels….
The two men met privately for 25 minutes and then were joined for further talks by Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor, head of the Catholic Church in England and Wales.
A Vatican source later told The Sunday Times that he could not recall a similar occasion in living memory when a cardinal had joined a prime minister or head of state during his private audience with the pope.
What was astonishing was that the pope used the meeting to give the British Prime Minister a dressing down:
From Times Online
June 24, 2007
Pope takes Blair to task over Iraq, abortion and stem cells


Tony Blair received a tough dressing down from Pope Benedict XVI during his audience with the pontiff yesterday, not only over the war in Iraq but also over legislation passed during Mr Blair's ten years in power on abortion, gay adoption and stem cell research.
Some newspapers at the end of last week carried reports predicting that Mr Blair would convert to Roman Catholicism after leaving office and that the Pope would give the conversion his blessing during their farewell meeting at the Vatican on Saturday.
However the Vatican said after the meeting that the pontiff and Mr Blair had had a "frank exchange" on "particularly delicate subjects", which is Vatican-speak for downright disagreement. Italian reports said the Pope had criticised UK laws allowing greater stem cell research on human embryos, easy access to abortion, same-sex marriages, and adoption by gay couples.
Today, the Pope made an enigmatic reference to "true conversion" in his midday Angelus prayers. Addressing English speaking pilgrims on St Peter's Square he said: "Today, as the Church celebrates the birth of St John the Baptist, let us ask for the gift of true conversion and growth in holiness…………
It appears that the Catholic Church had set up a highly public conversion of the British Prime Minister, to humiliate the Church of England and to give an enormous boost to the morale of the English Catholic Church. Unfortunately, in this, as in other matters, this massively opinionated pope chose to read off his own script and brought the arrangements crashing down.
As always it was left to the diplomats in the Vatican to pick up the debris in the hope of salvaging a similar, but of necessity a much lesser event of British humiliation. This would seem to explain the letter of Jesuit casuistry appearing in the Times on Tuesday the 27th of June:
From The Times
June 27, 2007
Vatican relations
Sir, Certain articles that appeared in the British press after the visit of Prime Minister Tony Blair to the Vatican presented a negative picture of the atmosphere of the meetings that took place. Such a negative picture does not reflect what really happened.
The reason behind such coverage lies mainly in a mistranslation of the Italian words “franco confronto” used in the press release issued by the Vatican press office. In Italian these words do not have the negative connotation ascribed to them in English which certainly does not reflect the tone of the Vatican communiqué.
In reality, the intention was simply to state that it had been an “open and sincere discussion”, without any acrimonious or hostile overtones. The meetings took place in a relaxed and friendly atmosphere, as the journalists who were present can confirm.
It is important to remember that the Holy See has always expressed its appreciation for certain very important initiatives taken by the British Government, especially with regard to furthering the peace process in Northern Ireland and promoting the development of the world’s poorest countries. Relations between the Holy See and the United Kingdom, therefore, are both healthy and positive.
FR FEDERICO LOMBARDI SJ, Director, Press Office of the Holy See
I would welcome your much more expert analysis.





From The Times
June 27, 2007
Vatican relations
Sir, Certain articles that appeared in the British press after the visit of Prime Minister Tony Blair to the Vatican presented a negative picture of the atmosphere of the meetings that took place. Such a negative picture does not reflect what really happened.
The reason behind such coverage lies mainly in a mistranslation of the Italian words “franco confronto” used in the press release issued by the Vatican press office. In Italian these words do not have the negative connotation ascribed to them in English which certainly does not reflect the tone of the Vatican communiqué.
In reality, the intention was simply to state that it had been an “open and sincere discussion”, without any acrimonious or hostile overtones. The meetings took place in a relaxed and friendly atmosphere, as the journalists who were present can confirm.
It is important to remember that the Holy See has always expressed its appreciation for certain very important initiatives taken by the British Government, especially with regard to furthering the peace process in Northern Ireland and promoting the development of the world’s poorest countries. Relations between the Holy See and the United Kingdom, therefore, are both healthy and positive.
FR FEDERICO LOMBARDI SJ, Director, Press Office of the Holy See

29 June 2007 at 00:45  
Blogger Harry Hook said...

I need a cream bun after reading that lot!

29 June 2007 at 01:26  
Anonymous Dr Mabuse said...

Dr Mabuse

I was quite annoyed with dr mabuse's comment at that time.

http://mabuse.de/mab-drmabuse.mhtml

Dr. Mabuse lives on: his name and appearance became a myth, representing a cold intellect whose one and only target means destruction of state, law, and order. He resembles the french character Fantômas, a phantom haunted by the unlucky inspector Juve in about thirty novels by the authors Allain and Souvestre.

Das Testament des Dr. Mabuse has been banned in Nazi Germany. Goebbels: "I will ban this movie because it proves that a group of men prepared to go to any lengths, if they really want to, is able to lift a state out of its hinges." Dr. Mabuse and his destructive power were forces even Nazis were afraid of.

29 June 2007 at 07:01  
Anonymous Miss Jelly bean said...

I think, however, a person who struggles with temptation, but who is nonetheless struggling to overcome it should not be condemned as a sinner for having the temptation, if that makes any sense.

Yes that does make sense and I agree with you. Those who are able to cultivate a good intention to become a better human, are not left stranded by God. "So remember me, and I will remember you" (Quran2:152)

29 June 2007 at 09:23  
Blogger Little Black Sambo said...

"I had been hoping to get an insight from Archbishop Cranmer."

I wonder whether His Grace would use the same expression as he did when summing up Blair's premiership - "Good riddance!"

29 June 2007 at 11:02  
Anonymous Voyager said...

but who is nonetheless struggling to overcome it should not be condemned as a sinner for having the temptation, if that makes any sense.

Luke 4:1-13


Compare and contrast with Dr Faustus

29 June 2007 at 12:14  
Anonymous The Recusant said...

I think to say someone is a sinner without having committed the act of sinning is for me a step to far…

Instinctually I would agree Mr Bob however we are left with the words of Mt 5:27-28 to contradict our nature..

‘But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart’

Surely this lesson teaches that sin originates in the mind, the thought being father to the deed, and while explicit sin may be mortal all interior sin must at least be venial whether acted on or not. Hence our desperate need for the mercy of Christ. Only a very disciplined and practiced man may be able to control all the thoughts that pop into his head, failing that controlling our appetites and what we allow ourselves to come into contact with, the eyes being windows on the soul, is perhaps the best we can do.

29 June 2007 at 12:47  
Anonymous Miss Jelly bean said...

‘But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart’

And this is where it all gets very complicating. Does this therefore imply that sin is not entirely physical, practical or carnal in its nature.

29 June 2007 at 13:06  
Anonymous Miss Jelly bean said...

P.S
We know there are various types of vices, those associated with the physical body, and others such as malice, envy, anger,etc. Would we perceive the latter (malice envy and anger) as sins, or the root causes which lead to other sins?

29 June 2007 at 13:32  
Anonymous Voyager said...

Why is Sin associated so directly with vice. Sin is a far broader category and involves disposition which is why we are all sinners and only he who is without sin can cast the first stone.........it is acknowledgement of Sin and plea for forgiveness and redemption through acknowledgement of sin that is the Christian Doctrine not to find shades and gradations of sin according to our disposition

29 June 2007 at 14:21  
Anonymous The Recusant said...

Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches

II. THE DEFINITION OF SIN

1849 Sin is an offence against reason, truth, and right conscience; it is failure in genuine love for God and neighbour caused by a perverse attachment to certain goods. It wounds the nature of man and injures human solidarity. It has been defined as "an utterance, a deed, or a desire contrary to the eternal law."121

…1876

It is examined in great depth in subsequent paragraphs the the CCC but i think the above is ample to demonstrate we all fail in this regard

29 June 2007 at 15:03  
Anonymous Alexandrian said...

Here is a curious story from TEC.

http://tinyurl.com/37ker3

29 June 2007 at 23:35  
Blogger Cranmer said...

Mr Alexandrian,

The article includes the following statement:

Some say that, depending on how one interprets the tenets of the two faiths, it is, indeed, possible to be both.

With a warped christology, it is doubtless true that one may be 'Christian' and Muslim, insofar as the latter simply means 'submission' to Allah, which is simply Arabic for 'God'. Of course, this 'Jesus' ceases to be the revealed Son of God of the New Testament, and is reduced to being a mere prophet.

30 June 2007 at 00:10  
Anonymous Voyager said...

this 'Jesus' ceases to be the revealed Son of God

He also does not get crucified in Chairman Mo's script which makes it very hard to be a Christian....denying both Crucifixion and Resurrection

30 June 2007 at 06:39  
Anonymous Observer said...

She experienced racism in schools, was sexually abused and, by the time she was a young adult, was struggling with alcohol addiction; she's been in recovery for 20 years.

Alexandrian may find this a causal factor in this schizophrenic confession of faith....there is also the phenomenon in the USA of denomination shopping with a tour of all the various religions like sampling in a supermarket.....

I doubt this woman would be inspiring and has probably found her harbour in ECUSA which is a social convention rather than a defined Church....isn't it Denver Cathedral that employs an Imam.....ECUSA - All Things To All Men

30 June 2007 at 06:59  
Anonymous The recusant said...

This is a crib from the Standing on My Head blog which also examines this topic


There is a long tradition of this sort of thing in the Anglican Church. For many years there has been a strange phenomenon called 'Anglo-Catholicism'. This is a practice where Anglican priests practice what seems to be the Catholic faith while continuing to be Anglicans.

In fact, this seems to be the peculiar genius of the Anglican denomination, because on examination you also find Anglicans who are very zealous Presbyterians, others who are committed Pentecostalists, and I have even known some Anglican priests who refused to baptize infants--insisting on 'believer's baptism'. This would make them Anglo-Baptists I suppose.

Then there are the mainstream Liberal Anglicans who follow a religion that does not demand belief in anything at all. For them God--If he is there--is a sort of amorphous force in the universe. They are fond of the via negativa way of prayer--in which prayer is a kind of entry into nothingness. They follow a benign ethic of doing no harm and float about in a state of manufactured calm. Hey presto! The Anglo-Buddhist.

So we have Anglo-Muslims, Anglo-Hindus, Anglo-Buddhists, Anglo-Catholics, Anglo-Presbyterians, Anglo-Pentecostalists, Anglo-Baptists and we mustn't forget the Anglo-homosexualists, Anglo-feminists and Anglo-Marxists. Did I leave anything out?

When I was an Anglican I just wanted to be an Anglican Christian. I wanted the historic Christian faith. I was looking for C.S.Lewis' Mere Christianity. I soon discovered that practically all my fellow clergy had bolted something else on to Anglicanism. The more I searhed, the more I disovered (initially to my dismay) that the historic Christian faith was fully intact where it had always been, and that was in only one place: Rome Sweet Home.

30 June 2007 at 09:51  
Anonymous Voyager said...

I have even known some Anglican priests who refused to baptize infants

Obviously not in England where it would be illegal for an Erastian Church to do so

The problem is entryism...it did not take long for Catholic Emancipation to reveal Cardinal Newman and establish Oxford as the home of lost causes

The fragmentation of the Church of England through alternating Archbishops of Canterbury between Anglo-Catholics and Evangelicals has brought us to the sorry incumbent of that post today, a man not even from the Church of England.

The inevitable unwinding of the national fabric will be reified in 2008 and eventually an Evangelical Protestanism of a type more prevalent in Northern Ireland or the USA may well lead to a resurgence of politics in what used to be the Conservative Party.

Like most English institutions it has drifted from safe anchor and is now shipping water

30 June 2007 at 11:22  
Anonymous Miss Jelly bean said...

A muslim christian sounds so very oxymoronic. I really don't see how the two can converge. The basic 'aqeedah' (doctrines) of both faiths vary manifestly.

"and is reduced to being a mere prophet."

Indeed Cranmer, it's a bit like Christians reducing God to a mere human.

30 June 2007 at 11:46  
Blogger Cranmer said...

Indeed Cranmer, it's a bit like Christians reducing God to a mere human.

They do not, Miss Jelly Bean.

You really ought to be sure of Christian orthodoxy before you presume to resurrect a heresy and portray it as orthodoxy when it was dealt with at Nicea in the fourth century.

30 June 2007 at 11:55  
Anonymous Miss Jelly bean said...

Well, I would appreciate it if you, or any other Christian on this blog, could educate me on this matter.

30 June 2007 at 12:14  
Anonymous The Recusant said...

MJB

The Church has always had to deal with heresies, most were dealt with in the first 1000 years or so, since which time more modern versions are just old heresies resurrected, possibly with a new twist but essentially variation on a theme. The main heresies being Adoptionism, Apollinarianism, Arianism, Docetism, Donatism, Dualism, Ebionism, Eutychianism, Gnosticism, Iconoclasm, Idolatry, Macedonianism, Manichaeism, Marcionism, Dynamic Monarchianism, Modalistic Monarchianism, Monophysitism, Monothelitism, Montanism, Nestorianism, Patripassianism, Pelagianism, Psilanthropism, Quietism, Sabellianism, Socinianism

The heresy HG refers to is Arianism. Arianism teaches that Jesus was a created being. He was not one substance with the Father or Holy Spirit. This heresy denies that Christ was divine in the same way as the Father. So now you can see how Islam is heretical from the Christian point of view but we dealt with this particular error 300 years or so before Mohammad emerged from the desert.

One story I like is about St. Nicholas

So it was that when this Arius blasphemed at the First Council (First Universal Church Council which took place in the year 325 in Nicea), St Nicholas stood up and slapped him across the face. The other Fathers were horrified by St Nicholas' violent action, defrocked him and sent him away. St Nicholas did not justify himself by saying that he was trying to silence the demonic blasphemies of Arius, by saying that he was trying to bring this arrogant man to his senses, by saying that if Arius were right, then mankind was condemned to live as animals. Instead he accepted this punishment with humility.

St Nicholas was the Bishop of the once great city of Myra. In what is now a Muslim country (Turkey) there stand only the ruins of the great Cathedral of St Nicholas and the ruins of the buildings he had raised up. But St Nicholas is still venerated there, including by Muslims.

30 June 2007 at 12:41  
Anonymous The Recusant said...

PS

St Nicholas = Father Christmas, so be good or else get a Christmas Slap

30 June 2007 at 12:43  
Anonymous The Recusant said...

Mr Voyager

In response you you’re interesting point ‘Obviously not in England where it would be illegal for an Erastian Church to do so’:

Father Dwight

'And I have even known some Anglican priests who refused to baptize infants--insisting on 'believer's baptism'

Did this happen in the UK and if so can you expand on it please



Fr. Dwight Longenecker said...

When I attended an Evangelical Anglican seminary in England a number of the man training to be priests did not believe in infant baptism and many more certainly did not believe in baptising the baby of non church going families.

When I got out into the parishes I found Evangelical clergymen who, while not insisting that they would not baptize infants, had a policy of discouraging the practice through all sorts of administrative obstacles, neglect and pushing it to one side.

Some didn't refuse to baptise infants, but they just never did so.

30 June 2007 at 12:52  
Blogger Little Black Sambo said...

"The fragmentation of the Church of England through alternating Archbishops of Canterbury between Anglo-Catholics and Evangelicals."
The divisions were there from the Elizabethan settlement onwards, and the parts could be held together by the glue of Establishment, Patronage, the Prayer Book, &c. What broke the Church up was self-government, beginning with the recalling of the Convocations, through the Church Assembly to the present Pseudo-Synod, which is now the engine of destruction.

30 June 2007 at 13:30  
Anonymous Alexandrian said...

I thank the Recusant for jogging my memory by his reference to Anglo-Buddhists.

About a quarter of a century ago I went along to a meeting at which an Anglican clergyman was speaking. (I seem to recall that he was based in Cardiff, but cannot recall whether he was English or Welsh.) The reason that I went along was that he had been a Buddhist monk, and I was interested to find out what had led a British born Buddhist to reject Buddhism and embrace Christianity. As I listened, it became clear that he had not actually rejected Buddhism.

So our tale of an American Episcopalian cleric who also professes to be a Muslim is not, perhaps as new or radical as I had believed.

As Qohelet said . . . .

30 June 2007 at 14:18  
Anonymous Voyager said...

The divisions were there from the Elizabethan settlement onwards, and the parts could be held together by the glue of Establishment

No the glue was the XXXIX Articles, the 1662 Book of Common Prayer and its matching KJV Bible, the Test & Corporation Acts, and the Oath of Supremacy

Apart from the Test & Corporation Acts everything remains in force as in 1662....which leaves us wondering about the quality of those who were ordained and their being lost to their true vocation in social services departments

30 June 2007 at 14:33  
Anonymous Voyager said...

So our tale of an American Episcopalian cleric who also professes to be a Muslim is not, perhaps as new or radical as I had believed.

Not at all. Heresy has a long pedigree - Article XXVI

30 June 2007 at 14:35  
Anonymous Miss Jelly bean said...

Thankyou for the explanation Recusant. I would like to ask you one more question.

Since Christians don't like to differentiate between the father, son and holy ghost, and claim them all to be 'of one substance' or 'one being', does this therefore mean that whoever the holy spirit is breathed into, becomes divine also?

"...and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost" (Luke1:41)

"And his father Zacharias was filled with the Holy Ghost" (Luke 1:67)

"he (Jesus) breathed on them, and saith unto them, recieve ye the Holy Ghost"

"and he (John the Baptist) shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb" (Luke 1:15)

Oh and why did Jesus have to wait for 30 years after his birth to obtain the Holy Ghost, when baptised by John the Baptist (Matthew 3:16)? Infact, if all 3 are of one substance, then why did Jesus even need to be baptised?

30 June 2007 at 16:43  
Anonymous Miss Jelly bean said...

P.S

I understand that Christians perceive Jesus to be divine, but if this is so, could you direct me to one reference in the Bible were Jesus himself said 'I am God, worship me'. If not, why? Why would Jesus disclose such an important fact? Did he not think it crucial enough to be told?

30 June 2007 at 16:59  
Blogger Little Black Sambo said...

"No the glue was the XXXIX Articles, the 1662 Book of Common Prayer and its matching KJV Bible, the Test & Corporation Acts, and the Oath of Supremacy."
Voyager, your first word should have been "Yes". It was the Establishment. Now the Establishment is subordinate to the Pseudo-Synod, which is unravelling the whole institution by diversifying doctrine and ritual, centralizind patronage, Toyota-izing the clergy into a docile workforce, and enabling the selling off of assets; and modern Governments will be inclined to cooperate.

30 June 2007 at 18:04  
Anonymous Miss Jelly Bean said...

Here's another question.

In mark 13:32 Jesus claims,

"But of that day and that hour knows no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the son, but the Father."

If Jesus is equal to the Father, how can he be unaware of this? If they are all of one substance, how can one know, but not the other? If your answer to this is that Jesus is human and therefore is restricted due to his nature, this wouldn't make sense because Jesus is one hundred percent God and one hundred percent man. His human nature does not restrict his Godly characteristics. Since they are of one substance, all three must therefore possess the same qualities.

Some may argue that in John 10:30, Jesus said "I and my Father are one," which proves Jesus to be God. But according to a site I found on this topic, the Greek word hen (one) doesn't mean a part of the same substance. This verse compared with John 17:11 and 17:21-22 where Jesus prays to God that the disciples may be one (hen) as are Jesus and God, clearly shows that Jesus wasn't claiming to be god. Jesus is praying that the disciples be 'of one unified purpose, not of the same substance or part of the Trinity.'

30 June 2007 at 18:15  
Anonymous Voyager said...

Since Christians don't like to differentiate between the father, son and holy ghost,

a) Holy Ghost is capitalised

b) Father is capitalised

c) Son in this context is capitalised

d) Unitarians and Mormons do not recognise The Holy Trinity

e) The Holy Ghost comes from a Jewish expression Ruakh Ha Qodesh .....it is essentially the invisible, incorporeal animating force which empowers the Christian with God's grace

30 June 2007 at 19:26  
Anonymous Voyager said...

If Jesus is equal to the Father, how can he be unaware of this? If they are all of one substance, how can one know, but not the other?

You had better go back to the Greek Miss Jelly Bean and look up the word "Son"

Jesus called himself the Son of Man .

Try Philippians 2

Matthew 26:63-64

You will find Miss Jelly Bean that Christianity is a much more complex theology than Islam, much more philosophically imbued which was the simple verity the Pope tried to makev in his Regensburg address and which so many people in both Western media and the Muslim world failed to comprehend.

The average person in Muslim societies and in CHristian societies has the most superficial understanding of their own religion, and in the West there is remarkable ignorance about the fundamental tenets of the Christian Faith

30 June 2007 at 19:34  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The average person in Muslim societies and in CHristian societies has the most superficial understanding of their own religion

Perhaps in Christianity but I think, certainly in strictly Islamic countries, such is the emphasis on religion, that there is a far clearer understanding of their own faith.

30 June 2007 at 19:55  
Anonymous Voyager said...

such is the emphasis on religion, that there is a far clearer understanding of their own faith.

I don't. They learn to chant and recite verses....not to understand. In societies with high levels of illiteracy I fail to see how they could ever have a clearer understanding of their own faith

30 June 2007 at 20:04  
Anonymous Alfred of Wessex said...

Miss Jelly Bean (4:59 PM). ... could you direct me to one reference in the Bible were Jesus himself said 'I am God, worship me'. ...

Might I respectfully suggest you start with Chapter 8 of John's Gospel in the
New International Version.

Starting at verse 14 and throughout the rest of the Chapter, Jesus makes explicit reference to His Divine Origin, His future glorification and His co-equality with God the Father: "I know where I came from and where I am going ... if I do judge, my decisions are right, because I am not alone. I stand with the Father, who sent me. ... my other witness is the Father, who sent me."

Jesus lays claim to Divine Nature, His sinlessness, and the absolute requirement to believe in Jesus as Messiah to avoid eternal condemnation in verses 23 and 24: "You are from below; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world. I told you that you would die in your sins; if you do not believe that I am the one I claim to be, you will indeed die in your sins."

Here He states categorically that "you" [the Pharisees - and by extension all who trust in their own efforts to achieve righteousness before God] will go to a lost eternity ("die in your sins") if "you" do not "believe that I am the one"[the promised Messiah]..

There are many references in this Chapter to Jesus' claims to His Divine Nature and Messiahship, but most are lost to the non-Jewish reader. The "killer" verses here comes right at the end in verses 56 and 58.

54 Jesus replied, "If I glorify myself, my glory means nothing. My Father, whom you claim as your God, is the one who glorifies me. 55 Though you do not know him, I know him. If I said I did not, I would be a liar like you, but I do know him and keep his word. 56 Your father Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing my day; he saw it and was glad."

57 "You are not yet fifty years old," the Jews said to him, "and you have seen Abraham!"

58 "I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!" 59 At this, they picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus hid himself, slipping away from the temple grounds.

Any Jewish hearer would be in absolutely no doubt as to who Jesus was claiming to be. In verse 56 He claimed to have pre-existed Abraham - the father of the Jewish faith and nation. And in verse 58 He claimed to be God "before Abraham was born, I am!" "I am" [I am who I am / I will be what I will be] is none other than the Tetragrammaton YHWH (rendered Yawheh in English) - the Name God gave for Himself when speaking to Moses at the burning bush (Exodus 3:15) - the Name so Holy to the Jews that none would utter for fear of unintentionally blaspheming it.

To any Jewish hearer this is as clear as shouting "I AM GOD" from the rooftops.

But far greater proof of Jesus' Divinity was given on Easter Day, when He loosed the bonds of death and sin and He rose again, showing that God the Father had accepted Jesus' sacrifice on behalf of all who were to believe in, now believe in and will believe in Him, appeared over 40 days to hundreds of His disciples and He ascended to Heaven, after which the Holy Spirit was poured out on His disciples at Pentecost and the Church was born. True Christians await His return in Glory to judge the living and the dead and live their lives in the light of this truth. (See the final chapters of each of the four Gospels, the first two chapters of the Book of Acts, and the Book of Revelation.)

I hope this gives you a starting point (brevity never was one of my strengths).

30 June 2007 at 20:23  
Anonymous Miss Jelly bean said...

Mr Alfred of Wessex, I have already come across the verses to which you have directed me. Non of them give any direct reference to Jesus claiming to be God and are open to many interpretations. I was rather hoping you could give me a reference from the Bible where Jesus has explicitly claimed to be God, and therefore should be worshiped.

Nevertheless, thankyou for your reply.

30 June 2007 at 22:43  
Anonymous Voyager said...

I was rather hoping you could give me a reference from the Bible where Jesus has explicitly claimed to be God, and therefore should be worshiped.

I think your understanding of Christianity is very flawed....Muslims worship Mohammed....Christians worship God

30 June 2007 at 22:53  
Anonymous Dallas said...

"...before Abraham was IAM is an example of a deliberate error in grammar. The verb tenses do not agree. There is a reason for this. Jesus is making an explicit point. Jesus is saying that a point of time 2000 years into His hearer's past is still in His present tense. Jesus was saying that His present was eternal. Jesus was claiming eternal existence.Any person educated in logic or philosophy should easily detect that Jesus is claiming to be an eternally existent being-Jesus is saying that He is God.

As Alfred of Wessex pointed out the phrase I AM has special meaning to Jews. In Exodus 3:14 the Lord reveals Himself to Moses And "God said to Moses, 'I AM WHO I AM.' And He said, 'Thus you shall say to the children of Israel, ‘I AM has sent me to you.’” I AM is God's name.The Hebrew word for I AM is related in meaning to the God's Hebrew name YHWH which literall means eternally existent one or self-existent one.

1 July 2007 at 03:41  
Anonymous The Recusant said...

MJB

Since Christians.... becomes divine also?

No

Oh and why did Jesus have to wait...

Not sure if 'Have to' is the right premise, however he definetly had a plan, he said at the wedding at Canae that his time was not yet, so there you go, had to - No, chose to - yes, why? well something’s, even for Christians, are what we call divine mysteries which is short hand for let it go.

Did he not think it crucial enough to be told….
If Christ wanted to arrive in a chariot of fire atop a mountain, pass down divine judgement and demand public worship he could have, however he chose not to. In all his teaching he put primary emphasised conversion of the heart which is summarised in the saying of St. Augustine ‘Seek not to understand so that you may believe, but believe so that you may understand.’ There is such profundity in this that one can get lost just contemplating it.

You questions are intelligent and deserve answering, but the answers to some are complex and need exploring, a one line answer would just not do. Believe me your questions are more insightful than that of many, many Christians I know. Let me point you to a site where you question may be answered by those better qualified than I Here failing that have you read the New Testament through and do you have access to a Christian theologian (Priest/Vicar), you really need to speak with one. I feel you approach Christian apologetics from your Islamic heritage, as Voyager says this will only take you so far, understand Christianity from love not duty, from surrender not submission, it is of the heart and soul so the head will follow.

The trinity is thee persons, one Godhead, of one substance and one being, look for St Patrick’s explanation with the shamrock, but in the end it is a divine mystery (see above).

1 July 2007 at 16:28  
Anonymous Miss jelly bean said...

Recusant, thankyou for your reply, and for directing me to the site you mentioned. I don't have access to a Christian theologian...anymore (for now). (I used to ask my politics teacher because he's a Protestant Christian and is very intelligent in all matters theological, philosophical and political). Evenso, usually when I have a question regarding Christianity, I would ask a Christian, not a Muslim. As for approaching Christian apologetics from my Islamic heritage, well that's quite hard to avoid. I feel it would be the same for you, regarding Islam.

2 July 2007 at 11:26  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

because he's a Protestant Christian

How do you know ?

3 July 2007 at 12:24  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older