It is said rugby is split between two playing types. Piano lifters and piano players. The ‘players’ sprint off in a moment opening up defences with an array of dazzling skills. The “lifters” ensure, through brawn and grunt, that they have a ball to dazzle with in the first place. Balance is essential- too many players and you get mashed up front. Too many lifters and people dance rings round you. Jonny Wilkinson may have taken the headlines when England won the world cup but, trust me, he would not have done so without the gigantic presence of Martin Johnson up front.
It will surprise nobody that I was/am a lifter. My job to secure ball in the scrum and throw myself around in the loose. Being an amateur the results were mixed and are now declining with age/weight but no matter how good or bad I might be one thing is vital. If trouble breaks out I need to be there. The backs play best when they know the forwards have their backs! And every man on the pitch must know his team mates are 100% behind him. For rugby can be a bruising encounter and the “team” is everything.
One of my concerns following a disastrous synod in Rome is that the team was damaged. There seems to have been an accentuation of division not unity. How sad to see Cardinals bickering over politics not united in proclamation of the faith. Pope Francis’ final speech might be encouraging, following a dire mid term report that had been highjacked by a clear agenda, but sanity only prevailed after blood was spilt. And far from putting families first the whole thing descended into a Machiavellian farce as they were about the only thing we didn’t actually hear about. Why is the modern world so obsessed with homosexuality that nothing else gets a look in?
I guess we should not be surprised modernists attempted to derail this synod. They firmly believe the Pope is for them (he may be? I don’t know) but confidence led to arrogance and an overplaying of hand. Did we also detect desperation? Are they having to push hard because they have largely lost the next generation meaning supporters of such change are increasingly aged?
It adds up. For as I have stated before: the long term future is bright for orthodox Catholics-it is the next 10 years that are dangerous due to the age of those in authority who all come from “that woodstock/revolutionary generation”. The one that has spent its life deconstructing one institution after another in the name of “progress”. Creating a brave new world in their image.
That then is the explanation that makes sense to me. The liberals pushing hard for reform before its too late. The orthodox responding with vigour. Fault lines exposed in the process. And thus a war of adult politics took centre stage at a Synod that should have been there to support and encourage the family and especially children. A scandal in real terms as many parishioners are already asking for reassurance. Their morale low, their faith shaken in the confusion and conflict.
The circus ends for now and both sides leave with casualties. The orthodox witness the shameful demotion of Cardinal Burke. The modernists witness the shredding of the reputation of lead spokesman, Cardinal Kaspar, exposed as lying over comments he made in racist tones. It seems de rigour these days for enlightened liberals to hold vile sentiments about Africans who dare defy trendy Western thinking. They are to be dismissed as “primitive thinkers” against their enlightened views. It is as horrid as it is ignorant but you detect this new racism very often. No matter that most of the African Cardinals have an education and intellect second to none!
And what of people in the pews? As a family man I do NOT feel affirmed by this Synod. I am left wondering why those living out married life seem less interesting than those divorced. I feel as though my children’s voice and needs matter less than the voice of homosexuals at this time. As a priest I ask who has my back?
Does the Pope have my back? Is he there to stand up for the Catholic faith I surrendered so much for? Does he understand we have a revealed faith to defend and not a man made creed to progress? Does he know how undermined those of us who preach the faith are when it is suggested that personal views equate to dogma?
I hope so. The truth is nobody knows because he did not take a clear lead even as blood was being spilled. He did not interject in order to underline the teaching of the ages. Why not I keep asking? Is it a sign of weak leadership? A ploy to expose those peddling the modernist agenda? Or a refusal to put fingerprints on an agenda of his making? Who knows? But ultimately his personal views and politics should not matter for his job is not to promote them but to defend the faith.
What is certain is that these are uncertain difficult times. The modernist agenda threatens the faith and pressure is being applied from without and within. Can the gates prevail as Jesus promised? They must! But it won’t be easy as we have seen in the midst of all other heresies that have rocked the church throughout the ages.
We need to pray then. And those who hold the faith of the Apostles must stand together and have each other’s backs. The road ahead looks bumpy in the short term but positive in the long term. Let us pray and be patient and take comfort in the fact that the modernisers coup spectacularly failed. For this is not a synodical church and our process exists to defend us. Nothing has changed as regards the teaching of the church. We do well to not only remember that but take great confidence in it.
Life, dear father, is not a game with odd shaped balls for everybody. Consider another metaphor: the transcendent beauty of polyphony, the wonderful harmony of many voices each making their own distinctive and discreet contribution to the whole…. Omit one part from ‘spem in allium’, for example, and the whole suffers.
love it….but not a metaphor I would have thought of not being that musical!
You are wrong to say “the circus ends”. The Synod will be reconvened in a year’s time after the “conservative” bishops have reflected upon where they went wrong. Your homophobia shows when you suggest homosexuals are more important than your own children. Nowhere was that suggested in a Synod which showed scant regard for the welfare of gay (and divorced) people. You are obviously disappointed by the fact the RC Church has been shown to be no different from the Anglican Communion. Pope Francis now knows exactly how it feels to be Justin Welby.
Sorry but the label homophobia is so quickly thrown around by those who simply mean you do not agree with them. So either take the comment back or show why it is “homophobic” to believe children’s needs should be of primary concern in family life.
And far from being shown to be no different to Anglicanism the faith stood firm despite enormous pressure from without and within. Or can you direct me to which part of dogma was changed? I didn’t think so…
“no different from the Anglican Communion”…?!
What world do you live in, “Fr” David?
The real one “Anthony”!
I doubt that, it looks more like a very “secular/hedonistic little bubble” to me!
Tough times for those who previously have trumpeted this Pope and Vincent Nichols as stout ‘traditionalists’. It’s becoming increasingly clear that both are compassionate – and passionate – liberals. Parts of the Pope’s final address reeked of ‘liberal Protestantism’. Good. He will win, and the hands of compassionate liberals in all churches will be enormously strengthened. Hope Paul Butler learned a thing or two.
Thank goodness you are so balanced and impartial as to proclaim the pope anglican- or are you putting your own spin to this? Out of interest what do you make of his previous comments about homosexuality? Indeed all his historic comments that suggest he is a son of the church?
I wondered what Pope Francis was letting us in for. And then I read his speech. If it reeks of anything it is of Pope Francis. It is certainly not liberal Protestantism.
Your distaste that mere discussion of your Church’s mistreatment of homosexuals precludes the welfare of your children still smacks of homophobia. They are not mutually exclusive. However, it is sad that the juxtaposition of the words “Roman Catholic clergy” and “children” will raise alarm bells in the hearts of countless millions for years to come.
I admire your convert’s slavish allegiance to so-called “unchanging” dogma. This seems no different from a bible-believer’s adherence to “God’s Word written”. Each is open to different interpretation, showing that possessing ‘infallible’ documents settles nothing. There are countless Roman clergy and laity who don’t share your interpretation of dogma which show s its limited practical use.
I again aver that the divisions and fault lines revealed by the recent conference are identical to those in Anglicanism. I respectfully suggest that your love of dogma shows a desire to possess ‘truth’ and not faith. Your Church contains as many interpretations of the Faith as the one you left.
You have rumbled me. I do want to possess the truth- and the way- and the life. That is Jesus and his Gospel of life and not just the tired polemic of the modern world
Never said he was Anglican, Father Ed. I entirely agree with ‘Fr David’ (is that ‘Father David’ of TA fame? I do hope so) that ‘the RC Church has been shown to be no different from the Anglican Communion’ and that ‘Your Church contains as many interpretations of the Faith as the one you left’. Of course, this has always been known to those Anglicans (like myself) who grew up with RCs from childhood: what is so striking now is the extent to which these differences of interpretation go right up to the top. I fancy that when this Pope has got present matters sorted out, he’ll then move on to inter-communion, since, as he made so emphatically clear in his meeting with Justin Welby (and no doubt also, now, with Paul Butler), he does not regard women priests and bishops as an insuperable barrier to unity. Bravo on all counts!
Well of course you agree with all your chums from the hilariously titled “thinking Anglicans” – the most liberal and pro homosexual blog within the Christian church. And of course you are choosing to project what you want to see on reality.
However I would urge you to read what the Pope has actually written. There you will find him chastising the very liberalism you profess he possesses. How can you explain that? If anything he seeks a moderate path but to suggest he is gunning for all your pet innovations is, frankly, laughable. I would file your suggestion that women bishops are not a barrier to unity alongside documents proving the existence of Nessie. Meanwhile, if it is all the same, I shall continue to stand by what the church officially believes and teaches. None of which has changed in the last week if you hadn’t noticed, even if much pressure is being brought to bear by forces hungry for change.
What is sad, Father, is that if Pope Francis promulgated a Papal Bull on Nessie you would swallow the monster hook, line and sinker.
He has no more done that than introduced any changes in doctrine.
Again: read what he actually said.
Neo-gnostics like “Fr” David and John seems to lack basic understanding of the English language?! There is absolutely nothing in Pope Francis speach that suggests a change in doctrine!
If you are the Fr David I like to read on TA where you are witty and poke genial fun at the liberals there, then it rather saddens me that you are decidedly unpleasant on this blog. My old mum (god rest her) would say, if you can’t say something nice, say nowt!
Jesus Stills a Storm
35 On that day, when evening had come, he said to them, “Let us go across to the other side.” 36 And leaving the crowd behind, they took him with them in the boat, just as he was. Other boats were with him. 37 A great windstorm arose, and the waves beat into the boat, so that the boat was already being swamped. 38 But he was in the stern, asleep on the cushion; and they woke him up and said to him, “Teacher, do you not care that we are perishing?” 39 He woke up and rebuked the wind, and said to the sea, “Peace! Be still!” Then the wind ceased, and there was a dead calm. 40 He said to them, “Why are you afraid? Have you still no faith?” 41 And they were filled with great awe and said to one another, “Who then is this, that even the wind and the sea obey him?”
Just ignore them, Fr. Ed. They are baiting you, trying to get a rise out of you so that they can use it against you.
Gosh, it must really be sad to be an Anglican that you have to resort to coming to a Catholic blog to try and justify yourselves, or are you just trying to convince yourselves?
It’s never too late. The Catholic Church wants to gather all the faithful in, especially those who mock and persecute her.
God’s love is overflowing but His truth is immutable, despite your best efforts.
Of course this is an ordinarate blog…and that means it has some Anglican patrimony. One of the distinctively anglican things is the ability to see several sides of the argument. Perhaps Fr Ed still has it 🙂
It certainly seems that Cardinal Vincent wanted to see another side to things
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/the-pope/11172521/Vatican-call-for-Church-to-welcome-gay-people-did-not-go-far-enough-Cardinal-Vincent-Nichols.html
Indeed. Cardinal Vincent’s comments do suggest the synod will go further next time. Given Fr Ed’s historic disdain for synods and his labelling of this one as ‘disastrous’, I rather fear what he’ll do come 2015…
As you very well know, Father Ed., my comments on TA frequently irritate ‘my liberal chums’ because I always and earnestly strive for full inclusion of diverse traditions within a common framework.
‘There will be no change of doctrine.’ Obviously not, but there are ways of blurring ‘doctrine’ or lessening its importance in the light of greater and more divine imperatives. It’s very clear that that is the path Pope Francis is on – and also the RC cardinal in these islands. If you have a hat, I’m absolutely certain that within 5 years or so, you’ll be eating it.