Catholic and Apostolic ...

A comment recently on the blog, Cranmer, makes the statement that the Anglican Church is Protestant and not "Catholic." The author of the comment, a Roman Catholic, evidently bases this claim upon the premise that only those who accept Papal claims of being Christ's "Vicar" on earth, can be "catholic." In making this claim he is falling into the trap of assuming that Rome is the only source of truth and catholicism, and overlooking that fact that "catholic" simply means "universal." It also overlooks the fact that any and every "church" that teaches and subscribes to the three "creeds" approved by the various Councils of the Church before Rome attempted to claim absolute authority both spiritual and secular, is "Catholic" in that it follows the universal teaching the creeds contain.

Of course, merely reciting and subscribing to the tenets of the Apostle's Creed, the Nicean Creed and the Athanasian Creed do not a "catholic" make in the sense that the creeds refer to the church as being both "catholic" and "apostolic." It is that last qualification which causes a great deal of misunderstanding and, in Rome's case, a great deal of abuse. 

The term itself means no more than that the church is founded on the teachings received from Christ, through one of those who actually heard Him, encountered Him or walked with Him in His ministry. To be an "Apostle" meant, to the Early Church, that you were one of those who had, at some point, had contact with Christ Himself. The New Testament tells us that these men (and women) appointed others to 'lead' communities, naming them as 'bishops' (episkopoi in Greek) and 'deacons' who filled the role of teachers, care workers, visitors, welcomers and distributers of the elements of communion during worship. Later, as congregations grew larger and more diverse, it became necessary for the bishops (originally one per congregation) to appoint 'presidents of the Eucharist' since they couldn't administer the consecration everywhere in a scattered 'congregation' - and so arose the Office of 'Priest.'

Obviously, since there was a limited 'supply' of 'apostles,' it eventually became necessary for bishops to appoint and 'make' more bishops and for Councils to be led by a 'senior' and usually very respected bishop. This is where Rome claims that only the 'successor' of St Peter has the authority to make a bishop or to call a Council or make determinations on any matter of doctrine or dogma. Often cited as 'proof' of this is a passage from St Mark's gospel in which Christ tells Peter, "You are Peter, the Rock on which I will build my Church." They ignore the fact that in John's Gospel it is clear that this "authority" had a wider intention and extended to all the disciples. In fact, even in Mark's gospel, a careful reading of the whole suggests that "Peter" represents all those who seek to follow Christ, and that view is certainly supported by the manner in which this and similar "authority" passages are presented in the rest of the Gospels and the Letters. 

Rome backs up the passage from Mark by quoting from the Acts of the Apostle's, the section Rome calls the "Synod of Jerusalem." In this, Peter tells the others of his vision that the fledgling 'church' must include Gentiles and must abandon the Laws of Kosher among other things. Rome points to the fact that - in the Vulgate version of this - James immediately launches into a lengthy account of how he will enact Peter's "directions" in Jerusalem.

The fact is there is no evidence that any of the apostles acknowledged any such authority in Peter's successor - and several of them were still very much alive and active when Peter was martyred in Rome. There is no doubt that the other bishops regarded the Roman See as a senior, but there is little evidence that anyone outside the former "Western Roman Empire" viewed him as more than a "first among equals." What is often not mentioned is that at least two of the "Popes" of the 4th and 5th Century were adherents of Arianism and its later manifestation which became the Catharism of the Middle Ages.

So "catholic," in this context, means no more than an adherent to the Creeds agreed by the Early Church as being the core tenets of the True Faith. What then of "Apostolic?"

This is where Rome gets a bit silly. To be "Apostolic" a "church" is "Ordered" according to the Ordinariate of the Early Church. In other words it has Bishops, Priests and Deacons in "ordained" ministry, with the Bishops being consecrated by other bishops who were consecrated by earlier bishops and these consecrations can be traced back to someone originally "consecrated" by an Apostle. Any Apostle. Thus the Church of South India is as "catholic and apostolic" as Rome - and, to the fury of those who think Rome has sole claim on the consecration of bishops - so is the Church of England and all other "Anglican" Churches. So to do all the Orthodox Churches, the Assyrian Catholics, the Old Catholics, the Marianites, Copts and several other Middle Eastern "catholic" churches found in Syria, Iraq, Iran and many more of the countries overrun in the name of Mohammad and his version of Gnostic Arianism from the 10th Century onwards.

The Anglican Church is, among these, rather unique, in that it is both "Protestant and Catholic" as well as "Apostolic." This does create a tension in the church, one that often provides its detractors with what they see as "proof" that it is neither one nor the other. In fact, this very 'weakness' is quite possibly its strength, since to hold together a balance must be struck between the desire to hold to the model of the Early Church and it's "ordered authority" while at the same time nurturing and encouraging a "priesthood of the people" in which the Laity have as great a say as the "princes" of the church. It is a Synodical Church - as was the Early Church - and the clergy do not have a veto over the laity. That too, creates a 'tension' as we have recently seen in the General Synod, yet, again, this is a healthy tension in that it does, in the main, mean that no one faction can seize control and railroad everyone. It also means that all debates, all opinions, and all disagreements are properly and fully aired.

Yes, there will always be dissent and there will always be those who cannot or will not accept the decision of a majority, no matter how large the majority. That too is healthy, even though it is sometimes painful. So, like it or not, the Anglican Churches are both "Catholic and Apostolic" but, to complicate things a little more, they are also "Catholic and Protestant." 

However, that is a sermon for another post.

Many a true word ...

G.K. Chesterton once wrote: “When men have ceased to believe in Christianity, it is not that they will believe in nothing. They will believe in anything.”

When one looks around at today's "secularised" world and the many who claim to have "no faith" one quickly realises that this is not strictly true. Most hold some belief in something, such as a political ideology, climate change, "science" (undefined) and "reason" (again, undefined). Recently Mr. Milliband proclaimed himself an "atheist" but then went on to say he believed "absolutely" in the eventual "triumph of socialism" and the ideology that he espouses. This despite the disastrous examples littering the history of the last century - and his own Party's ruining of the economy every time they've occupied Number 10 Downing Street.

We have a mishmash of "alternative" "faiths" as I was reminded recently in reading a "Chronicle of the Year 1971." That was the era of "Hari Khrishna" and the adoption of a number of strange mixtures of Eastern Mysticism by some celebrities. It also saw the rise of "New Age" religious teaching, among them a number of supposed "Druid" practices - the provenance of which owes more to the fertile imaginations of certain Victorian creators of what are, I think, best described as 'fringe' Masonic "Orders." While I can, to an extent, understand the drift away from organised religion with its clergy centric focus, I really do fail to see the attraction of many of the "new alternatives."

It is interesting to see that many of those most vociferous in their condemnation of Christianity in public and private life, pull back from condemning anything to do with any other faith. There is almost a line of thought running through their activities that suggests they believe that by switching to promoting any alternative, they can destroy the Christian heritage of the west and, presumably, consolidate their own authority as "leaders" of thought.

The funniest example I can find is Phillip Pullman's "Golden Compass" in which "God" is the evil baddie to be defeated - but the theme is straight from the Gospel's he decries - self-sacrificing love to save the world. I wonder if Mr Pullman appreciates the irony? 

I can't escape the feeling, however, that our "leaders" have misjudged or misunderstood human nature. Even as secularism has risen, so has faith - not the traditional type, but a "belief in anything" that embraces "everything." It must be one of the great ironies of our age ...  

Growing fast

Harry is now growing fast. Since he came to live with us, he's almost doubled in weight, and is both taller and longer as you'd expect. He's very active and learns extremely quickly, usually you only have to show him something a few times and he'll remember it. One thing he learned very quickly, is that there are good things in the refrigerator - if someone can be persuaded to open it, take something out and 'drop' it. Not unnaturally we've tried to discourage this particular association!

Our walks are getting longer, and the encounters with other dogs are no longer an occasion for fear for him. According to our vet he's doing fine, coming on exactly as he should and her "dogs v human ages" chart suggests we are about to have to deal with a teenager ...

Still his behaviour at the puppy school is drawing some praise, he's the smallest and youngest there, but already learning fast how to protect himself from bigger and more boisterous dogs. This time out he played enthiusiastically with a five month old Sheltie - eventually. At first his new 'friend' was a bit too big and bowled him over. Then he realised that he could turn faster and evade the other dog - if he dodged between people's legs, other objects and doubled back suddenly. From there on, it was "game on."

One thing surprised everyone, was his response to my Bosun's Call. One long whistle draws his attention and stops him in his tracks, three shorts calls him to me - and, in front of all the other pups, he came straight to me when signalled, not just once, but he even repeated the trick later confirming his understanding of it.

He's a great little guy - but camera shy. Produce the camera and he tries to grab it. So, I'll be trying to sneak a few when he's not looking in future ...

The Falklands Anniversary

I find it interesting that the Guardian, probably the least patriotic newspaper in British history, chooses to publish, on the anniversary of the Falklands War coming to an end, a letter from the Argentine President demanding the "return of the Malvinas." Once again she tries to push the fiction that the British evicted a"setttled" Argetinian presence in 1812. The facts speak rather differently on this topic - Scottish and American whalers were driven out of Stanley Harbour by an Argentinian frigate which then laid claim to the islands - and left having destroyed the whalers huts and facilities.

When they returned - some say with "settlers" they found a British frigate and settlement of Scottish and English farmers in possession. Out gunned and out manoeuvred, they left. The Argentinians have never "possessed" they islands and their claim is based entirely on the Papal Division of the world between Spain and Portugal, a division the British, Dutch, Dames and many others have never recognised and never will.

As usual, the Guardian is showing its true colours in this. We should not forget that they were among the most strident advocates of doing nothing and simply abandoning the Falklanders to the Argentinian invaders in 1982. Even now they seem to be in favour of handing the islands over and throwing the islanders to the proverbial lions. In this I am in total agreement with Mr Cameron, it is not for the useless UN General Assembly, Mrs Clinton, the Argentinians or the Guardian to decide who should "possess" the Falkland Islands - it is for the Falkland Islanders alone. They, and they alone, can decide who they wish to be ruled by or a part of.

As usual, the Argentinian President has raised this issue on the anniversary of their invasion forces being thrown out of the islands, and, as usual, they are attempting to use it to distract their own people from the disastrous state of their economy. Nothing like whipping up a bit of patriotic zealotry to take peoples minds off the mega inflation, lawlessness and collapsing economy.

We can only hope that Cameron's government has not cut our armed forces to the point at which we could no longer defend the Falklanders. This is about a far more important principle than "possession" of the islands - it is about the right of the people who live in a territory to decide who rules them, what language they speak and how they live their lives. That is why I believe the Guardian's support for the Argentinian claim shows their true colours - a complete contempt for the will of anybody they disapprove of. And at present, the Falklanders are on the list of people the Guardian does not like.

The Aid Trap ...

I'm interested to see that The Spectator has, as its cover story this week, "The Aid Delusion." In my view, this is a prime example of how a generally good idea can go horribly wrong. The whole thing has become a very difficult and expensive issue. When one looks at the history of the last half of the last century and at the impact of "aid" on the recipient nations, some rather unpleasant things begin to surface.

Of course, some of the "aid" does reach the people it is intended to help, but a lot doesn't. Figures I saw recently suggest that only some 20% of the amounts raised by various charities is actually spent on the things it is supposed to have been raised for. The rest vanishes into administration, salaries, travel expenses, hotels, rental of warehouses and so on. A substantial amount of what does reach the intended group is still lost through corruption, theft and other 'fiddles'. Government "aid" is probably even worse, since it goes to "government" organisations, and we all know exactly how "efficient" they are at making money vanish for no return.

One does have to ask why the UK is still giving "development aid" to India, a nation now rivalling the UK in industrial output, rich in natural resources, a nuclear power with an advanced space programme (which the UK does not have) and a navy - once a "squadron" owned and operated by the Honourable East India Company - that is larger than the Royal Navy which became its model. How much of the "aid" the UK handed out to Mugabe during his "struggle" is now sitting in his Swiss Bank account? Or how much of the "aid" we are still paying South Africa, is now lining the vaults of the same banks under the names of various ANC "Ministers" - or vanished into Mr Zuma's massive "compound" and his personal Boeings?

As I see it, the problem with all "aid" programmes is two fold. The first is that it creates an "industry" of fund raisers, administrators and field workers, many of whom have wonderful ideas, but only vaguely understand the cultures and peoples they are attempting to help. This costs money, the days of the well heeled and well meaning 'amateur' wandering off to the ends of the earth to do "good works" are long over. So a lot of money goes on travel, luxury hotels or compounds for the 'staff' and fleets of 'all-terrain' vehicles, light aircraft and so on. The second part of the problem is that, as long as people in, say, the UK, are prepared to put up the money to build schools, roads and hospitals in BoputiKosweti or wherever, why should the local politicians? Instead they have a golden opportunity to set up a company to 'contract' for the work, cream off the profit by providing the absolute minimum on everything and loading their own bank accounts.

The most successful "aid" schemes are small scale and "self-help" types which provide the means for small local improvements that really encourage the beneficiaries to improve their own circumstances and demand more of their leaders. The old principle (ironically found in the Bible in Exodus) of, "if I do nothing and you feed me, why should I do anything at all for myself?"applies in spades here.

I have no idea how much money the west throws at Aid. I do know that a lot of it never actually leaves the country of origin, and much of what does ends up coming back in different hands anyway. What it does seems to do is create a "dependence culture" among the recipients and it doesn't seem to have the impact its proponents claim - which is to improve the lives of the receivers and "lift them out of poverty." The problem with that last is that for many of those who insist we "owe it" to developing nations is that their idea of "poverty" is most assuredly not what an African subsistence farmer considers "poverty."

One thing is for certain, the whole concept of "aid" needs to be reconsidered and probably totally rearranged. That will not be welcomed by those employed in perpetuating the industry. I shall read The Spectator's article with great interest.

The Pup in Repose ...

Harry and the Monk had a long and very interesting walk this morning. Harry's first time in the forest and off the leash. He behaved admirably, and is even starting to respond to The Monk's use of a Bo'sun's Call to give him orders. He now knows and responds to "Attention" and "Return" on the call.

But, it was a tiring morning, especially as we had to put in a very good 'playtime' when we got back. So, when The Monk settled down to do some work in his Study, a Pup could get some much needed shut-eye ...

The Monk is enjoying it while it lasts ...

A good start to the year ...

Received notice this morning, from my publisher, that my latest book, A Baltic Affair, is now available on Amazon (though at present only on the US site). The publisher is Indiego ePublishing and though the paperback edition went on sale from midnight, the Kindle, Nook and iBook versions will probably only appear next week. The paperback version is printed by Lightning Source, so it will be on their international catalogue and, no doubt, soon available on order from all UK and other retail outlets. The US price is a very reasonable $12.99 and I am advised the eBook version should be available at $3.99.

I confess that I had a lot of fun writing A Baltic Affair, as it is set in a period of history that I have long been interested in, and in a 'theatre' of the Napoleonic war that receives very little attention outside of serious historical treatises. In strangling Britain's Baltic Trade, Napoleon very nearly won the war by bankrupting Britain. It speaks for itself, that trade valued at £43 million in 1809 had dwindled to £5 million by 1812. Only the Royal Navy and the opening up of new trade markets in the former Spanish, Dutch and French colonies saved Britain.

The Baltic Fleet fought no major engagements, but played a key diplomatic role in keeping the ever shifting alliances of Northern Europe, Scandanavia and Russia open to trade and to the struggle to be free from the French domination of the continent. It must be one of the major ironies that Napoleon's Grand Army was equipped with British manufactured boots and uniforms made from cloth woven in Yorkshire and Lancashire. Right to the last the Royal Navy was engaged in all manner of skirmishes and in support of some major land campaigns. Their efforts to supply Riga, St Petersburg and several other Prussian and Russian ports and cities beseiged during Napoleon's campaign of 1812, contributed in no small part to the catastrophe of the Russian Campaign.

They played a key role in the capture of Gluecksburg, the Danish stonghold at the mouth of the Elbe, supporting a Prussian and Austrian Army against the Danes, then rulers of Schleswig-Holstein. A squadron of Royal Navy 'gunboats' commanded by a lieutenant (I've named him in the story and credited him with his proper role) which attacked and captured the harbour entrance and its defences, that turned the tide and gave the Prussians the city. Elsewhere in the book I've built the story round real events, so I hope my readers will find this an interesting as well as amusing story.

As I said, researching the background to this story was a fascinating exercise in itself and writing it was pure indulgence.