Short Shrift and Other Matters

It is really quite interesting how little sometimes our respective communions know about each other: a friend of mine, a convert Anglo-Catholic priest, now a Roman Catholic priest, was, soon after he had made his decision, carefully shown by a kind old lady how to make the sign of the cross. He hadn’t the heart to break it to her that he had been making the sign of the cross for years. I recall my surprise, even shock, as a boy when I discovered that Anglicans recite the Nicene Creed; how, I wondered, could they say ‘I believe in one, holy catholic and apostolic church’ and not be, well, Catholic?

I have seen many preconceptions the other way. A lady Methodist minister, attending Mass for the first time, was surprised indeed to find that it wasn’t all about Mary. There are very many non-Catholics who still fervently believe that Catholic laity are forbidden the scriptures. A Jehovah’s Witness that I met asserted that, to this day, Catholics must listen to sermons in Latin, it being forbidden to preach in the vernacular. That I denied this was proof to him of the mendacity of Catholics.

But there are other, less dramatic, mis-expectations. An Anglo-Catholic priest who is considering the Ordinariate option very seriously emailed to me the other day ‘I’m glad you do sometimes have fun across the Tiber there. I was trying to reconcile myself to doing without fun.’ It reminded me very acutely of my first encounter with the late Canon Brian Brindley. It was in December 1992, or thereabouts, and I was having lunch with a friend in a restaurant, and said friend nudged me and said ‘That’s Canon Brindley over there: he’s going to become a Catholic over this women priests thing.’ It turned out that my friend, also a convert, though of longer standing, knew Brian. When he had finished his meal, the larger than life Brian Brindley stopped by our table to greet my friend, and was introduced to me.

‘Well, Father, I expect you will see me soon at your church; I shall come to the earliest and lowest Mass I can find; after all, nothing’s going to be fun any more.’

I said, of course, that I hoped that would not prove to be the case, and, several years later, Brian, by now a good friend, admitted to me that it had all in fact been great fun; though not in the way that he expected. He enjoyed being a Roman Catholic, though it was a different experience from what he had been used to, and certainly from what he had been expecting. He had made a lot of new friends and had a lot of fun with them, and discovered that the Church of Rome was not a grim totalitarian monolith where everything was forbidden until it was compulsory.

I suppose there are swings and roundabouts. There is not the fun to be gained from being ‘naughty’ in terms of ritual, I suppose, which reminds me of an incident in Mgr Ronald Knox’s life. He was charged with having just had fun at the Church of England’s expense while still in Anglican orders. He was stung, and replied along the lines of ‘not at all; we were all in deadly earnest. But you won’t convince me that it wasn’t fun doing it’.

Liturgical frivolity, I suppose, is not really a feature in our life. But there are compensations. The fraternity among the clergy is much stronger and much more supportive, something akin, perhaps, to the SSC, except that it embraces all the clergy. Apart from the natural antipathies which occur in all walks of life, there is a much stronger interrelationship between clergy working in an area. Differences of views are not nearly as marked as those found in the Church of England, and not nearly as marked as I think you might think. Were you to judge an average diocese by, say Damian Thompson’s blog, you might believe that we were all at each other’s throats. Not at all: there is basic agreement on all the important things with ninety-five per cent of one’s brethren. Differences tend to be those of approach or liturgical style, which subjects tend not to get the blood boiling or make one want to avoid the other.

Part of the reason for this is the practice of incardination; priests live and work in one diocese for their entire careers. This means that they have known their colleagues since seminary and tend to have an underlying affection even when there are differences. The predominance of celibacy among the clergy also means that we tend to regard each other as family. Bishops are far less remote than in the Church of England; I would have no difficulty simply ringing up my bishop for a chat or for some advice; an Anglican friend tells me that that would be unheard of in his Anglican diocese.

On the other hand, I understand that the ‘flying bishops’ have done much to break down barriers—the affection with which Bishop Barnes writes about his clergy is edifying.

As regards the laity, I think the biggest change for people is suddenly belonging to a much bigger operation. I read somewhere recently on an Anglican blog that ‘Anglicans go to church, Catholics go to Mass’; this was to stress the rather congregational focus of Anglicanism; this will not be the case over the Tiber. Catholics tend to identify much more strongly with ‘being Catholic’ than ‘being a member of St Disibod’s’. It sets up all sorts of currents through one’s daily life; suddenly one finds that one has fellow Catholics among ones workmates and this immediately sets up a special bond. You notice others with a smudge on their forehead on Ash Wednesday, and suddenly find that you have more in common with somebody from the other side of the world than with your next-door neighbour.

Going to confession is another suprise for converts. I suppose most Ordinariate members will normally go to their own priests, but many have remarked at their surprise—perhaps shock would not be too strong a word—at the, literally, short shrift they get from ordinary Roman Catholic priests. We do not do spiritual direction in the confessional—in fact, I and many others disapprove of the practice, because of the nature of the seal of the confessional. Talking of other matters under the seal puts a strain on the priest to remember exactly where he heard something, and worry as to whether he can refer to it or not, and to whom. Confession is for sins, a couple of sentences of advice, penance, absolution, and that’s it. Spiritual Direction is for armchairs and a mug of something nice.

No doubt others of you who are familiar with this journey will be able to contribute your own experiences of familiarity and unfamiliarity that might help others on the same road. Although Ordinariates will have their own life, those of you who join one will almost certainly find yourselves joining and being part of a large mainstream which, I pray, will be an entirely positive, and joyful, experience.

I have not called you any names, called you ignorant, or insulted you in any way.

You can go ahead and have the last word. I leave you with a quote I read today from Irish Calvinist, which made me think of our exchange. I don’t know that it will do any good, but maybe.

“Some of the more obvious examples of this is the ‘like to fight…or debate…guy’. He is also known as an evangelist or apologist. But actually he is a trash talking egomaniac who sits around thinking up one liners that he can use in a crowd or drop like a forearm shiver on his Twitter account. He is a grade ‘A’ Christian trash talker who is no different than Ochocinco or Terrell Owens.

My point here is that there should be no such thing as Christian smack talk. If we have something to say it is not about how great we are but how bad we are and how great Christ is. It is pretty jacked up to use Jesus’ band-with to promote your own glory. We need to be about Christ and his gospel. And when people see us they should know it. There should be no confusion on this.”

Just because someone disagrees with you does not mean they are automatically stupid. You disagree with me, but I don’t consider you stupid. To just label someone “ignorant” when they disagree with you, and use sarcastic insults against them, does not behoove you.

You wrote:

“I have not called you any names, called you ignorant, or insulted you in any way.”

It wouldn’t matter to me if you had. You posted falsehoods. I proved it was a falsehood. Anyone who posts such an error is either ignorant or dishonest. There is no other explanation. Which is it?

“You can go ahead and have the last word. I leave you with a quote I read today from Irish Calvinist, which made me think of our exchange. I don’t know that it will do any good, but maybe. “Some of the more obvious examples of this is the ‘like to fight…or debate…guy’. He is also known as an evangelist or apologist. But actually he is a trash talking egomaniac who sits around thinking up one liners that he can use in a crowd or drop like a forearm shiver on his Twitter account. He is a grade ‘A’ Christian trash talker who is no different than Ochocinco or Terrell Owens.
My point here is that there should be no such thing as Christian smack talk. If we have something to say it is not about how great we are but how bad we are and how great Christ is. It is pretty jacked up to use Jesus’ band-with to promote your own glory. We need to be about Christ and his gospel. And when people see us they should know it. There should be no confusion on this.””

You can try to excuse what you did anyway you like. Again, it is either ignorance or dishonesty on the part of anyone who posts that Catholics “re-sacrifice” Jesus. Perhaps someone who posts that thinks it’s okay to lie? Is that it?

“Just because someone disagrees with you does not mean they are automatically stupid.”

But it does mean that they are ignorant if they post that Jesus is “re-sacrificed”. And for anyone claiming to be a Christian to say that Catholics “re-sacrifice” Jesus, when every Christian knows it’s impossible to do it, and no Christian even claims he wants to do it, that would indicate rank dishonesty on the part of that so-called Christian. What will your response to that simple - and unescapable - point be? Will you ignore it just because it is undeniably true? Probably.

“You disagree with me, but I don’t consider you stupid.”

Disagree with? YOU DISAGREE with reality. You seem to be twisting yourself into a pretzyl to avoid the simple truth: anyone who would claim Jesus is “re-sacrificed” is either ignorant or a liar. There are no two ways about it.

Do you have the courage to answer this simple question? Is Jesus “re-sacrificed” by anyone, anywhere, ever?

If a person says yes to that question, he must be ignorant. It has nothing to do with my personal opinion. It is just a fact. I am not asking you about the national anthem of Burkina Faso. You claim to be a Christian. For any Christian to say that Jesus is “re-sacrificed” would be a sign of extreme ignorance or dishonesty. There is no other explanation possible. None.

“To just label someone “ignorant” when they disagree with you, and use sarcastic insults against them, does not behoove you.”

One more time, can Jesus be “re-sacrificed: by ANYONE, ANYWHERE, EVER??? Can it be done? The answer - and every Christian knows the answer - is NO. A Christian would know this. Thus, if a person is a Christian, it can only be ignorance or dishonesty for a person to claim Jesus is “re-sacrificed”. There is zero chance of any other possibility. None.

Everything I wrote is true and undeniable. That fact will not change. If you can’t take the heat...

You wrote:

“Vladimir has a long history of angry posting on FR. He is unlikely to change soon, sadly. I don’t know why he gets so mad, and your point about him not winning anyone that way is well taken.”

Marie, I am not mad. I am long used to the fact that anti-Catholics repeatedly lie. I see no reason to not post that fact repeatedly when the lie is so obvious and unadmitted. Perhaps you have no problem with lying? I think for someone to lie about the Christian faithful is disgusting. I guess it doesn’t bother you.

“There are many polite and reasonable Catholics on FR you can have discussions with without being trashed and insulted.”

Everything I said was true and absolutely undeniable. Saying that Catholics call for or “re-sacrifice” Jesus is clearly dishonest or grossly ignorant. There are no other possible explanations.

“Sadly Vladimir is not one of them, and is not a good representative of the RC church IMO.”

What is not a good representative of the Catholic Church is the lie that we “re-sacrifice” Jesus. I am not surprised that you do not denounce such a lie but instead denounce the person opposing it.

You wrote:

“Yes, there seems to be a cognitive dissonance there.”

Wow. So saying Catholics “re-sacrifice” Jesus when we don’t and can’t is not cognitive dissonance? Hilarious. There we see the sagging edifice of anti-Catholicism. To lie about Catholics and their beliefs is okay, but to oppose it is “cognitive dissonance”. Incredible.

“I can’t really dialogue with a person who just wants to vent his spleen. Thanks for the observation.”

Just wants to vent his spleen? Again, is claiming Catholics want to “re-sacrifice” Christ - when no such thing is even possible and we have always said He was sacrificed once and that was enough - is that venting YOUR spleen?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.