Helping ...

Getting to grips with the computer and typing ...

Worthless 'Gifts'?

The news today is full of the collapse of the HMV store chain, though the current 'management' seem to think they can 'save' the company. What I find astonishing is their blatant attempt at what I can only call theft. Customers who, in good faith, exchanged 'coin of the Realm' for a 'Gift Voucher,' are now being told they can't exchange these for 'goods' in any of the stores.

I am no legal expert on this, but I'm pretty sure that anyone holding such a 'Gift Voucher' could argue a case in law for either the return of their money or the supply of some 'goods.' It is my understanding that a 'Gift Voucher' is legally a form of 'Promissary Note' in that it has a 'value' printed on it and a form of words setting out what it may be exchanged for. That puts it into the same league, in a more restricted way, as a Bank Note issued - say - by the Bank of England which carries the legend "I promise to pay the bearer on demand the sum of £X." The difference is that the Gift Voucher may only be exchanged for 'goods' in a branch of the issuing company's store.

Effectively, when I buy a Gift Voucher from a company, I am receiving a Bill of Exchange in which transaction they are accepting my money and agreeing to provide me with, at some future date, goods to the same value from their stock. Promissary Notes and Bills of Exchange have been around since Roman times at least and probably longer. Carrying around gold and silver coins was risky and they were heavy, so a system of 'deposits and receipts' came into being. The receipts eventually became exchangeable between traders and the system developed into the bank notes we have today. An extension of the system allowed companies to issue a "promise to pay" on a certain date in the future for goods already received - that is the Promissary Note. These could be and often are, "discounted" to a bank by the receiving company for 'cash in hand' so they get the money, less a small percentage, and the bank later collects the full amount from the payer.

The HMV Board's decision to renege on its Gift Voucher promissary notes has some serious implications for every company that sells such certificates. They've taken the customers' money, but now refuse to honour the agreement. If it isn't outright theft, it is certainly fraud.

Catholic and Protestant

The Church of England (and by definition all its 'daughter' churches in the Anglican Communion) is 'Catholic' in its adherence to the three ancient Creeds and 'Apostolic' in its orders of clergy and the consecration of its bishops, again, traceable back to the Apostolic appointments of the first century. It is also 'Protestant' in rejecting the claims of Papal supremacy and in some of its reformation theology which rejects, among other things, the concepts of needing a 'spiritual intercessor' in the form of a 'saint,' Mary, the Mother of Christ or one of the Apostles to 'speak' on our behalf to God in the person of Christ. The Anglican belief follows the early church understanding that one 'spoke directly to God' and did so individually or as a part of a congregation.

It is often said, in derogation, that the Church of England was born out of Henry VIII's desire to obtain a divorce. In part this is true, but it is rather the tip of a much larger iceberg. Henry, like many other Sovereigns, was increasingly frustrated by the refusal of the clergy to recognise his authority or to submit to justice and the 'law of the land.' Henry certainly wasn't the only sovereign having trouble with Abbots and Bishops who had become so rich and powerful they kept their own armies, made their own laws and sometimes issued decrees in defiance of the King. Records from other European nations show a similar pattern. 

The Popes were often in the pay of one or another would be "Emperor of the World," and were also usually members of one of the ruling families of Italy or another of the Southern European Kingdoms. On occasion there was more than one "Pope" at large as well. At the time of Henry's matrimonial problem the Pope was a "guest" of one of Henry's wife's relatives. He certainly wasn't going to do anything to upset his "host."

Within England, many of the bishop's saw an opportunity to reform the church and get rid of the superstition, abuses and, it must be admitted, consolidate their own positions. In its original form, the Church merely rejected the "Bishop of Rome's" overriding of the laws of England and Wales. The relevant legislation states very simply, "The Bishop of Rome hath no jurisdiction in this Realm," and it would very likely have stayed within that 'traditional catholic' state were it not for the immediate excommunication the said Bishop of Rome then issued, and the even stupider direct attempt to claim that Henry held his throne and crown by the 'consent' of Rome. When the Pope went one step further, calling for Henry's assassination, that was enough to launch an anti-Rome purge of all offices of state and all the livings of anyone who still harboured hopes of a return to the 'fold.'

It was the opening the more protestant reformers were waiting for, and they seized the opportunity. The teachings of Calvin, Luther and Zwingley found a ready reception among a populace sick to death of the "Roman" clergy lording it over them, living literally in many cases like lords, often seizing property 'in lieu of tithes' and always hiding behind the common people's fear of being denied absolution or being condemned by a priest or monk to Hell for some minor slight or observance. One thing often forgotten - or perhaps not generally known today - is that at the time of the Reformation the vast majority of people attending church to 'hear' the Mass were not 'communicants.' The nearest most commoners got to it was to see the Host raised in a Monstrance at a Benediction. Only the clergy and the nobility ever got communion at these services and the English reforming bishops recognised this as the travesty it was.

This led to the Mass being translated into English and the forbidding of the use of Latin, the King and the bishops declaring that to be included in the Eucharist, a man (and a woman obviously) must be able to understand the words of the Mass. They went one further, when Henry died and Edward VI came to the throne and declared that the Bible must be read, and the Gospel proclaimed, in English. 

It was under Edward VI that the Protestant Reformers really got the bit between their teeth, and very nearly went completely overboard. Fortunately Parliament refused to ratify the Prayer Book they produced which, incidentally, contained the first version of the Articles of Religion numbering more than fifty. In the 1662 version, many of the more extreme items were struck out and the list reduced to the 39 we still have today. It also required that, for a Eucharist, the "Communion Table" was to be set in the Quire, longwise, and those 'admitted to Communion' to be seated around it. It then directed that the priest stand upon the North side to celebrate the Eucharistic Rite. This was, in part, carried over into the 1662 Prayer Book which states only that the priest must 'stand on the North side' but omits the position of the 'table.'

One has to appreciate that all of that was purely to put a distance between the 'reformed' Church in England, and the Roman east facing practice. There is no liturgical reason for the priest to attempt to perform the consecration or any other part of the Eucharist from the North End of the altar, other than the politics and prejudice of the 16th Century. It has no Biblical or theological credence and its perpetuation by the 'Protestant' wing of the Church of England is purely a matter of practice and the desire to reduce the importance of the central act of worship for anyone who believes in the 'catholic' traditions and understanding of the significance of what the Eucharist represents. 

Much as I love the poetry of Cranmer's prose in the 1662 Book of Common Prayer, I have to acknowledge that it was a compromise. It was an attempt by the Church leaders of the 'Restoration' to hold together the conflicting demands of the 'catholic and apostolic' wing of the Church of England, and reconcile the demands of the anti-catholic 'presbyterians' who had held sway over all religious practice under Cromwell. Thus, the Eucharistic Rite includes much that is 'catholic' and blends it with the 'Protestant.' So we have the opening Collect for Purity and the Prayer of Humble Access preceding the Prayer of Consecration. 

The Eucharist was intended, in the minds of the 17th Century compilers of the BCP, to follow, by arrangement and the agreement of the Church Wardens, the 'normal' Sunday Morning Prayer service. Thus there was no provision for a sermon in the Eucharist, since anyone 'admitted to communion' would already have endured one of at least an hour and a half in Morning Prayer. Don't think you could get away with only attending the Eucharist either. If you weren't present at Morning Prayer, the Vicar had the power to deny you access to the Eucharist. This was the purpose of his having to give 'notice' that he intended to celebrate the Eucharist, and to charge those wishing to attend to 'prepare themselves and amend their ways to ensure they were worthy of admittance.'

The Rubric states that, having prepared the 'table' (ghastly protestant term) and led the congregation as far as the reading of the 'charge' as set out in the BCP service, he was to station himself at the entrance to the chancel and examine each person who wished to remain and be admitted to the Eucharist. It further states that he was to turn away those HE considered 'unworthy.' As late as the early 19th Century, these 'rules' were enforced and followed - and it took the 'rebellion' of John and Charles Wesley and their 'Methodist' movement to shake the CofE out of this 'Protestant' hatred of the the catholicity of a Eucharist open to all to cause this unChristian and frankly ridiculous system to be abandoned.

It must be one of life's great ironies that the Methodists now have a closer resemblance to the Church of England in the 17th Century than its 'parent' does (though there are sections of the Anglican Church 'family' that make the Methodists look positively "Roman!"). 

The Book of Common Prayer was revised in 1928/29, but an atheist Parliament refused to allow its use. It was however, adopted by a number of the 'Provinces' of the Church, among them South Africa, Australia and Canada. Further attempts to sort out the unworkable elements of the BCP resulted in the Alternative Service Book, which rather fell between stools in the sense that it tried to be too inclusive and to provide for all options. It also abandoned the beauty of Cranmer's prose and adopted expressions and language that many felt was overly familiar and 'common.' Hence the comment by Josephus on my recent post regarding the Catholic and Apostolic nature of the Church of England. To a very large extent his criticisms are addressed very successfully in the Common Worship services now in use in England, Wales and elsewhere. It does strike a happy balance in that it preserves the best language, provides a liturgical platform which fits with both 'catholic' practices and with those who adhere to the 16th Century 'north side' celebration. It also gives alternatives to Evensong and Morning Prayer - though the Monk confesses, his daily 'Offices' remain his beloved Prayer Book versions of these.

The tension between 'Catholic' and 'Protestant' remains a part of the Anglican Church. There will always be those who find it either 'too Catholic' or 'too Protestant,' but, as I said in my opening, that is probably healthy. It ensures that it cannot be dragged back into the folly of the Cromwellian Presbyters and their hate filled vision and it also ensures it cannot become 'another Rome.'

The Anglican Church has much to offer, and the new Archbishop has a great deal to build on to move this great church forward during his tenure. I commend him to everyone's prayers.

Chinese Smog?

The smog currently smothering Beijing made me think of the infamous smogs that covered London in the 1950s, and probably have the same sort of origin. Most common in winter, they are often caused by a temperature inversion in the atmosphere over a city. This 'traps' cold polluted air beneath it and prevents dispersal. For those who love to beat western society with the "pollution" stick, perhaps this is a reality check. Not many western cities suffer from this problem any longer - but almost every city in the 'developing world' does.

Perhaps it's time to take a look at why? Or maybe not, for those of that mindset the pollution in Beijing and elsewhere is all the fault of the west. Their argument runs along the lines of "if the west didn't buy the goods, the XXXX wouldn't be 'forced' to produce them and pollute their cities."

I think its time to stop pointing fingers and blaming the society that actually enables these morons to pursue their blinkered agendas. It is time to start looking at this problem realistically and find some workable solutions. You can't tell people not to use their cars if the alternative is unreliable or inadequate. You can't tell people not to use coal to heat their homes if the alternative is no heating or too expensive to use.

In the meantime, Beijing has a problem, until the weather lifts and the wind begins to blow the smog away.

The Dishonours List?

An item in Private Eye caught my eye and, sadly, I think they have a point. Quite a number of those "honoured" have received these for - shall we say - questionable reasons. It seems that presiding over something disasterous is, now, a prime qualifier for an "honour." Many extremely able individuals who make a huge contribution to society through their careers in many fields are never acknowledged or recognised, the argument always being advanced that 'they were paid to do the job ..."

Evidently that doesn't apply to the Civil Service, who, despite being generously paid and looking forward to an extremely generous pension from the taxpayers, still can rely on getting a knighthood or some other 'honour' during their careers or at the end of it. Hardly surprising, since the committee that makes the decision on who to "honour" is composed entirely of, surprise, surprise, civil servants. Nor does it apparently disadvantage them if they have presided over some major failure - in fact that seems to guarantee an "honour." This applies to politicians as well. Not only are they generously paid for their services - drawing a 'full pay' pension after only one term in officer, but they are mre or less guaranteed further very lucrative remuneration as 'advisers' or 'lobbyists' when they do retire - plus, if you've managed to hold some ministerial brief, however briefly and however badly - a place in the "Honours List."

To my way of thinking, awarding the likes of Mrs Blair (Now well on the way to becoming a multimillionaire thanks to her legal practice exploiting legislation she 'persuaded' her husband to enact), Mrs Beckett (a very wealthy woman in her own right, who presided over a complete fiasco which cost billions while Blair's Minister in charge of DEFRA) and various other politicians and civil servants who have all had a finger in one aspect or another of the nation's declining economy, with "honours" actually dishonours everyone who does receive an "honour" for some act of bravery, self sacrificing community service or whatever.

John Major tried to broaden the range of people who could be honoured, it seems that Mrs Beckett's sneering at his attempt to create a "meritocracy" had its roots in her own snobbery. She might have done better to gracefully decline this knighthood - at least it would have demonstrated that she does have some principles.

I think Private Eye have a point. In including these people in the "honours" they have dishonoured the list.

Back ...

The Monk returned home yesterday evening after a short and busy visit to the UK. He managed to deliver a lecture to a course at a university, and visit his son and his partner. It proved to be a good visit, an opportunity to catch up on news, and see their new home. This is a new 'town house' in Shaftesbury, the highest town in the South West, and a stunning area.

It's tricky keeping up with each others news at a distance, but, by and large, we manage. Visits like this one, even though short, help to keep relationships alive.

Though he left ahead of the predicted 'cold snap' in the UK, he arrived home to minus temperatures in Germany - and the promise of even lower temperatures to come.

Ah well, it is winter ...

Leave of Absence

The Monk will be away for a few days and isn't sure of internet access, so there may be a break here, no doubt to the relief of some readers.

Normal posting will resume at the weekend, but in the meantime the 'spirit' may move Josephus or Mausi to tackle a subject near and dear to them. Harry may even make a contribution in between walks, games, redesigning his 'day bed,' excavating parts of the garden in search of field mice or making new friends.

In the meantime - Pax vobiscum.