Newman beatification announced!

Pope Benedict XVI has today promulged the decree that paves the way for the beatification of Cardinal John Henry Newman, England’s most significant convert to Roman Catholicism. Read the background to the Cause at Birmingham Oratory's home page devoted to this.

There is more detail in our news story on the front of Times Online, plus a brief outline of how to become a saint, and the original obituary of John Henry Newman as it appeared in The Times on 12 August 1890. The Catholic Church here has issued the Oratory's release.

Latest news is that the most likely date for the rite of beatification is next spring. That would pave the way for a Papal visit to Britain next September, pegged to a Newman theme.

The way is now clear for Cardinal Newman, who founded the high church Oxford Movement in the Church of England before going over to Rome in 1845, to be made a saint. He would then become the first non-martyr saint in England since the Reformation. 

The Pope cleared the path for the beatification by officially recognising the healing of Jack Sullivan, pictured left, a Catholic deacon in the US, in 2001 as a miracle resulting from the intercession of Newman. I reported this for The Times last month. Read an earlier report about the medical progress of the miracle itself from the Catholic Herald.

This is how the Catholic Herald reported the cure itself:

'In 2000 Mr Sullivan, a married father of three grown children and a long-serving court magistrate for Plymouth District Court, was in the middle of his diaconal studies at St John's Seminary when he began experiencing severe and incapacitating back pain. Tests and scans revealed that several of Mr Sullivan's lumbar vertebrates and disks were squeezing his spinal cord and affecting the nerves going to his legs. Doctors told him that, without surgery, he could become paralysed.

"I was in agony. There was no traumatic event that occurred that would have caused this pain. It just suddenly happened," explained Mr Sullivan. "I was doubled over in agony and experienced constant pain."

'Not only was Mr Sullivan shocked by the diagnosis, but he was also devastated that he could not return to his diaconal studies, which started up in a month. "I enjoyed the first two years of the process and my heart was really set on being ordained because I wanted to be of service to the Church and to serve God in the best way that I knew how," he said.

'To distract himself from his pain and disappointment, he left his doctor's office and went home to watch television. A programme on the beatification process for Cardinal Newman happened to be on the Eternal Word Television Network.

'After the programme Mr Sullivan said he decided to recite this simple prayer to Cardinal Newman: "Please, Cardinal Newman, intercede with God to help me go back to classes and be ordained."

'When he awoke the next morning Mr Sullivan was pain-free and could walk upright for the first time in months.'

The news of the imminent beatification, which trickled out in the quads at Oxford early this morning, has been welcomed by all involved for years with the cause.

Father Daniel Seward, Parish Priest of the Oxford Oratory, said, 'The beatification of John Henry Newman will be a great moment for the Catholic Church in England and for the English Oratory which he founded. Newman's pursuit of truth, his defence of conscience and his kind and faithful exercise of the priesthood make him a figure for us to imitate and a friend whose prayers will help us from Heaven.'

There will be a Solemn Mass of Thanksgiving and Te Deum at the Oxford Oratory at 11am on Sunday 12th July.

'We await eagerly further news of the date of the beatification ceremony,' said Father Seward.

Yaqoob Bangash, past president of the Newman Society in Oxford, said,  'I am delighted to hear the news. Newman has always been regarded as a great thinker and scholar, and now there is also true recognition of his holy virtues. Being in Oxford, where Newman studied and lectured, we now have a another reason to imitate his zealous search of truth in all fields of life— something which the Oxford University Newman Society, of which I am Past President, continues to promote through its series of lectures and other events in Oxford and beyond.'

One question now is where will the rite of beatification take place? Rome or Westminster? And might it herald a visit here by Pope Benedict?

Clues can perhaps be found in the recent changes the Pope introduced for beatifications. The Pope has made it possible for him personally no longer to have to preside at the rites.

The document says: 'The Holy Father Benedict XVI's recent decision not to preside personally at Beatification rites is a response to the widely felt need to: i) give greater emphasis in the celebration to the substantial difference between Beatification and Canonization; and ii) to involve the particular Churches more visibly in the Beatification rites of their respective Servants of God.

'It became clear in the many Beatifications celebrated by John Paul lI in every part of the world that it is more pastorally suitable that Beatifications take place preferably in the particular Churches, while allowing for the possible choice of Rome for special reasons to be assessed, case by case, by the Secretariat of State.'

This means there could be a local ceremony in Westminster for the beatification, with the big one saved up for the canonisation, which could be sooner rather than later, and the perfect opportunity for the Pope to visit Britain.

Here's praying - invoking the intercession of one Cardinal John Henry Newman of course!

Follow Ruth Gledhill on Twitter.

Comments

[Andrew, Venezuela]

Geoff (10/07/09 - 20:53:22). Thanks for your understanding of my involuntary "error" !.

No, Geoff, I do not mean either the very respectable Abp. of Westminster or the similarly respetable Bp. of London, both of whose credentials are in good order. ODM: I'm going to have to "break this to you" very gently:

I invite you to go to Ruth's recent article on the "Post the Host Bishop", and then check out the link to the "Open Episcopal Church", following through to the "Diocese of London and South East England" info page. There you could "read all about it", and learn about the "also Presiding Archbishop of the Communion of the Open Episcopal Church and the Provincial Archbishop of Great Britain". For reasons of space, I abbreviated this to read as "Archbishop of London".

YOU were worrying yourself about self-made "pop up Popes", so you may be "lost for words" on this. Let us hope the 'syndrome' doesn't take on "Ecumenical proportions" !.

I don't particularly enjoy whisky, but I had to pour myself a "wee Apothecaries' drachm", without ice, to stop shaking with laughter over the aforementioned "news item". Your reactions (polite ones, please !) when convenient...

¡ Todo chévere por acá compadre y muchas gracias !.

Andrew, Venezuela

[Geoffrey Smith]

Thank you, Andrew, for your post in which you mentioned Pope Alexander VI as an anti-pope. I was puzzled myself by this comment, but soon realised you had simply made a 'typo'. You are too knowledgeable about Church history to deliberately make that sort of mistake!
However, I am still puzzling over your reference to 'Archbishop of London'.
I must have missed it in the media, there is so much information to ingest, these days! Do you mean 'Archbishop of Westminster', i.e. Vincent Nicholls?

¡Muchos abrazos, mi amigo!

Geoffrey

[Andrew, Venezuela]

Geoff (08/07/09 - 18:19:53). On re-reading our exchanges, I must freely confess to having made an embarrassing "blunder" of my own in my reply to you of 08/07/09 - 23:42:51).

I quite erroneously mentioned Alexander VI (1492 - 1503) as having been an "Antipope", when he was not: he was the "official Pope" with that name and at that time. The "last official Antipope", therefore, should read as Felix V (1439 - 1449).

No excuses here, but humble apologies for the mishap. My printed source of reference, much worn and thumbed over time, includes a series of asterisks, parentheses etc. which can be confusing at a quick glance. Hence, I confused some of the asterisks with some of the parentheses, and came up with the wrong interpretation. I am at pains to correct my "human error" of interpretation here. I still continue to query the "validity" of the new "Archbishop of London" appointment, if that serves as any redress for my error !.

A renewed "¡ abrazo !" to you (actually, it is very similar to the "pax" which is/used to be exchanged between the celebrants in the Latin Mass - the origin of the custom seems to be the same as well).

All the best.

Andrew, Venezuela

[PererB]

G.Smith

Pope Honorius I

After Jesus had re-established the kingdom of heaven on earth in the form of the new Christian community, "the whole group of believers was united in heart and soul" (Acts 4:32)

Different wills, but one unity.

This is what Honorius had in mind when describing the unity of the Jesus' human will with the divine will.

Jesus' re-establishment of the kingdom, the removal of original sin by baptism and the reinstatement of man as the adoptive children of God, was the reconstituion of the free unity of wills between God and man before the fall of Adam.

The unity between the free will of pre-fall man and the will of God, was exemplified by the unity between Jesus free will as an untainted man and the divine will, two separate wills willingly, freely and lovingly united.

The re-establishment of the kingdom on earth in the form of the early Christian community, as the reconstitution of the pre-fall relationship between mad and God, has united in love the individual free wills of the members of that community both with each other and, insofar as they are doing His will, with God Himself.

[Andrew, Venezuela]

Geoff (09/07/09 - 17:58:58). Congratulations for having made Mr. Spencer's article available in extenso to Richard and me. I compliment you for providing such documentary evidence in support of your statements.

Quite obviously, Pope Honorius I DID write the couple of words he penned in his letter to Sergius, and he was made to pay for that human error, as we now know. I would tend to be more compassionate to him: he was consulted by Sergius, and he replied in writing to Sergius, in his position as Bishop of Rome and holder of the "Honorary Primacy" which had been conferred previously on that See by the other historical Sees. Pope Honorius I reigned from 625 - 638, prior to the initial claim to "Supreme Authority" as officially and unsuccessfully made by Pope Nicholas I (858 - 867). We must not forget that, in the 7th. Century, all were still part of the "One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church", until 1054 when the unfortunate "parting of the ways" occurred between East and West.

He does appear to have made a mistake, yes, and in that respect he shows that no human being, however prominent and powerful, can be completely free from error. It is most interesting to note the opinion of Newman et al., as mentioned by Mr. Spencer, that: "Honorius' letters to Sergius are not doctrinal definitions ex cathedra, thus they are outside the scope of infallibility defined by the First Vatican Council". That is a very important observation !. Mr. Spencer got it wrong, however, when he said: "But a Council (= Ecumenical Council), of course, has no authority except insofar as its decrees are confirmed by the pope". It is very much the other way round: a truly Ecumenical Council is the ONLY Supreme Authority which can issue decrees on matters of doctrine, and whose writs are binding on the whole Church. The rest is a matter of "internal denominational concern", nothing more, nothing less.

Purely as an aside, we could accept that the early Popes and Patriarchs might have been speaking from a "sedile" (a moveable seat or bench, somewhat like a deckchair) rather than from a "cathedra" (an ornate chair with armrests, firmly fixed in position).

I am most appreciative of your well-intentioned efforts to keep us duly informed Geoff - its says a lot in your favour.

Although, as usual, I send my best regards to you, I am going to include "un abrazo" (a semi-hug which is the usual ways for friends to greet each other in Latin America).

¡¡ UN ABRAZO !!

Andrew, Venezuela

[Geoffrey Smith]

Hello again, Andrew. I see that your friend, Richard Aluise, has once more raised that hoary old chestnut about Pope Honorius, alleging he was an anti-Pope (he was not), or a heretic (he was not).
To see off Mr Aluise once and for all, here is the true account of what actually happened in the 7th century. This was a time when Orthodoxy, in the Eastern European sense, did not even exist.

I quote:

THE TRUTH ABOUT POPE HONORIUS

By ROBERT SPENCER
This Rock, Volume 5, Number 9, September 1994

FOR the serious anti-Catholic, Pope Honorius I (625-638) occupies a small but pivotal role in the drama of Rome's errors and abuses. This obscure pontiff lacks the lurid luster of the Crusades and the Inquisition in the anti-papist's arsenal; nevertheless Loraine Boettner and other Protestant polemicists have used Honorius in attempting to deflate papal claims. Eastern Orthodox apologists such as John Meyendorff and Kallistos Ware and even Catholic anti-Catholics such as Hans Kng and Richard McBrien have pitched in to make Honorius the favorite pope of everyone who disparages the papacy.

While Alexander VI Borgia and other notorious Renaissance popes rate high among pope-haters, Honorius trumps his colleagues in that his problem was dogmatic, not merely behavioral. By all contemporary accounts Honorius' personal conduct was beyond reproach, but his sincere attempts to resolve a controversy resulted in one brief sentence that many see as the destruction of the idea of papal infallibility and even of papal supremacy.

As a young Episcopalian, I first encountered Pope Honorius during my undergraduate years. I had joined the Episcopal Church just a year or so earlier, leaving behind a campus Evangelical movement bitterly divided over the charismatic gifts. My friends on both sides of that chasm started all their arguments with "The Bible says . . ." I was led by a kind Episcopal priest to seek a resolution to this confusion in the Church's great tradition. That tradition took me places I never expected to go.

After a year with the unblinking theological leftism of the Episcopal Church as a full-time "social ministries intern" with the campus parish, I was reading John Henry Newman and Karl Adam, all Brown equal time to answer the Catholic claims. I also picked up Meyendorff and Ware on the Orthodox Church, and books like Hans Kng's Infallible? An Inquiry, thinking it would be an explanation and defense of the doctrine.

My primary question in all this was: What is Christianity? Or more precisely: How can one determine precisely what Christianity is? I had bitter first-hand experience with the contradiction of the Protestants' sola scriptura doctrine: What was plain and simple in Scripture, what was obligatory for every Christian, depended on who was reading the book.

The Episcopal Church gave me an appreciation of tradition, but its own discarding of that tradition posed the same problem as with Scripture: tradition according to whom? So I began to study the papacy. Cardinal Newman explained masterfully, in An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, that an ongoing, infallible authority in the Church was necessary to preserve the integrity of revealed truth. Whatever the confusion in the Church, a Christian always had recourse to this sure repository of the actual content of revealed truth. Without such a repository, the content of revelation would be subject to mere human conjecture and opinion, thus essentially ceasing to be revelation at all.

The truth, of course, is one. If the papal office really were its repository, then the popes never had contradicted themselves on matters of faith and morals. As I studied Church history, I saw that this seemed to be so. When compared with the other great ancient see of the Church, the patriarchate of Constantinople, the papacy possessed monumental purity. Among the patriarchs of Constantinople were the arch-heretic Nestorius, a collection of grubby Iconoclasts and fellow travelers, and even a Calvinist, Cyril Loukaris! In Rome, on the contrary, was the saint Newman called "the majestic Leo," who stood virtually alone against the Monophysite heresy; Julius I, who faced down the Arian bullies chasing after Athanasius; Gregory VII Hildebrand, whose last words were "I have loved justice and hated iniquity; therefore I die in exile" and others who, without compromising one iota of the faith, outlasted Diocletian and Julian the Apostate, Henry V and Philip the Fair, Napoleon and Bismarck, Hitler and Stalin.

Yet the comparison of Constantinople with Rome would be unfair without looking at the papal black sheep or, perhaps, the papal wolves. Most of these were dissolute scoundrels who were too busy drinking and whoring to occupy themselves with doctrine; thus for a consideration of papal infallibility they were irrelevant. Three names, though, kept popping up in all the sources, whether Protestant, Orthodox, or liberal Catholic: Liberius (352-366), Vigilius (537-555), and Honorius. I disposed of the first two quickly. They had been made to sign questionable statements of faith while under duress. That doesn't count: Papal infallibility applies only to free acts of the pope, not to acts under torture. No contract signed under duress is binding; thus Liberius and Vigilius, whatever their failings, were excused.

That left Honorius. Opponents of infallibility said that his case demolished any pretension of papal infallibility, for he was not only a heretic but was condemned as such by an ecumenical council, Constantinople III, in 680, which declared, 42 years after the Pope's death, that Honorius be "expelled from the Church and anathematized . . . because we find in his letter to Sergius that in all respects he followed his view and confirmed his impious doctrines." [Quoted in Warren H. Carroll, The Building of Christendom: A History of Christendom, vol. 2 (Front Royal, Virginia: Christendom College Press, 1987), 253].

Sergius was another one of those stalwart patriarchs of Constantinople, anathematized in the same conciliar declaration for originating the Monothelite heresy. Monothelitism was one of a series of attempts to reconcile the Monophysites, who at that time were a huge portion of the Christian world, with the Catholic Church they had torn by schism more than two hundred years previously.

The Monophysites maintained that our Lord's human nature had been absorbed into his divine nature. They could not accept the decree of the Council of Chalcedon (451) that "the only-begotten Son of God must be confessed in two natures, unconfusedly, immutably, indivisibly, inseparably united . . . without the distinction of natures being taken away by such union." ["The Definition of Faith of the Council of Chalcedon, 451," in Colman J. Batty, O.S.B., Readings in Church History (Westminster, Maryland: Christian Classics, Inc., 1985), 104].

Sergius, the first Monothelite, tried to affect a compromise by teaching that our Lord had only one will, a divine will. Like many compromises, this one ultimately pleased no one. To the orthodox it was anathema, for it denied the fullness of Christ's human nature. To Monophysites it was no more welcome, for this will-less but otherwise intact human nature which Monothelitism attached to Christ seemed to them to deny his unity.

None of this was clear in the palmy days of 634. Monothelitism had encountered some criticism from the prescient Patriarch of Jerusalem, Sophronius, but elsewhere it was more politely received. The Pope had not yet heard of it. With evident high hopes in his own inventiveness and craftiness, Sergius wrote to Honorius about his thoughts.

In his two letters Sergius warned that teaching two wills in Christ would lead to the idea that the human will of the Son of God was opposed to that of his Father. He advised the Pope that it was better to speak of only one will in our Lord. Sergius was trying a little sleight of hand: He was attempting to deny the existence of Christ's human will by pointing out that our Lord never opposed the Father. Yet if two persons agree, they may be spoken of as being of "one will" this doesn't mean, of course, that one of them has no will at all.

The Pope, with no idea of Sergius' between-the-lines message, answered the Patriarch on the unthinkable subject of Christ's "opposition" to the Father. "We confess one will of our Lord Jesus Christ, since our (human) nature was plainly assumed by the Godhead, and this being faultless, as it was before the Fall." [Quoted in Charles Joseph Hefele, A History of the Councils of the Church, vol. 5 (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1896; AMS Reprint, 1972), 29]. Since Christ's human will is "faultless," there can be no talk of opposing wills. (Christ hardly would have been faultless if he opposed his Father's will.)

Monothelites, as they grew in numbers and influence over the ensuing years, seized upon Honorius' confession of "one will of our Lord Jesus Christ" as confirmation that the Pope believed with them that Christ had no human will. Newman and other commentators have noted that Honorius' letters to Sergius are not doctrinal definitions ex cathedra; thus they are outside the scope of infallibility defined by the First Vatican Council.

That is true, but, even more to the point, a look at Honorius' exact words shows that while he did use a formula--"one will"--that was later declared heretical, he used it in a sense that implied the orthodox belief.

This was picked up as early as 640 by Pope John IV, Honorius' successor, who pointed out that Sergius had asked only about the presence of two opposing wills. Honorius had answered accordingly, speaking, says Pope John, "only of the human and not also of the divine nature." Pope John was right. Honorius assumed the existence of a human will in Christ by saying that his nature is like humanity's before the Fall. No one would claim that before the Fall Adam had no will. Thus Honorius's speaking of Christ's assumption of a "faultless" human nature shows that he really did believe in the orthodox formula of two wills in Christ: one divine, one human, in perfect agreement.

The Third Council of Constantinople was thus in error when it condemned Honorius for heresy. But a Council, of course, has no authority except insofar as its decrees are confirmed by the pope. The reigning Pontiff, Leo II, did not agree to the condemnation of his predecessor for heresy; he said Honorius should be condemned because "he permitted the immaculate faith to be subverted." [Carroll, 254]

This is a crucial distinction. Honorius probably should have known the implications of using the "one will" formula; he could have found out by writing a letter to Sophronius of Jerusalem. But he was no heretic.

The anti-papists got the wrong guy. It seems incredible that so many readers of Honorius's letters, from Patriarch Sergius to Hans Kng, see only what they want to see in Honorius's "one will" formula. We should thank God that this poor old pope saw fit to explain himself. Rarely outside of the homoousios/homoiousios controversy at the First Council of Nicaea has so much hinged on so few words.

Since this case seemed to be the best one the anti-infallibilists could turn to, I became an infallibilist, a Catholic with faith in the pope as the Vicar of Christ and successor of St. Peter. The Church will live beyond the trials of these days as it did those of Honorius's day. That bare fact may seem abstract and impenetrable in the convulsions of our age, yet it is our unshakable guarantee.

(www.catholic.com)

I apologise for the unusual length of my post, but it really is essential that Mr Aluise' historical gaffes should be corrected, and the true position concerning Pope Honorius vindicated.

As`always, Andrew, my very best wishes,

Geoffrey

[Andrew, Venezuela]

Richard (09/07/09 - 15:51:49). You are forgiven for your very human "spelling mistake". Now please forgive me for so many aberrant "typos" in my previous post which, quite accidentally, appeared twice as if to emphasise my gormlessness in "previewing" and "posting" !. Sorry about that.

Yes, I do appreciate your comment on the electoral process by which a Pope is traditionally elected, as Geoff so kindly mentioned in his own post. I can also fully agree with Geoff's "concerns" as to the several individuals who suddenly take it upon themselves to "proclaim themselves as Pope" in this modern age. Honesty is the best policy in that matter.

Your mention of the authoritative electors of Popes, and the possible partiality of those in favour of their own candidate(s) is a valid point. It is a strange coincidence that said procedure in history, and the whys and wherefores behind it, are admirably dealt with in the DVD on "The Borgias" which I drew to your attention. Were you to obtain a copy, you should put a "Do Not Disturb" sign on your door until you have seen it from start to finish: it is THAT thought-provoking to a sensible spectator (the abundant "blood and guts", "poisons", "sex" etc. might appeal more to the "hoi polloi" !).

The very last thing I want to do is to create a "stir", but it would be interesting to see some exchanges here on the "Infallibility" question, particularly with reference to the dogmas as proclaimed on the Immaculate Conception (1854) and the Assumption (1950). With respect to those two doctrines, I found Bp. Timothy Ware's explanation of the Orhtodox position to be more than fair and reasonable. Perhaps we should prepare ourselves to enter into some respectful dialogue with our RC friends on the topic ?.

Thanks Richard, and please receive my kindest regards to you and your family.

Andrew, Venezuela

[Andrew, Venezuela]

Richard (09/07/09 - 15:51:49). You are forgiven for your very human "spelling mistake". Now please forgive me for so many aberrant "typos" in my previous post which, quite accidentally, appeared twice as if to emphasise my gormlessness in "previewing" and "posting" !. Sorry about that.

Yes, I do appreciate your comment on the electoral process by which a Pope is traditionally elected, as Geoff so kindly mentioned in his own post. I can also fully agree with Geoff's "concerns" as to the several individuals who suddenly take it upon themselves to "proclaim themselves as Pope" in this modern age. Honesty is the best policy in that matter.

Your mention of the authoritative electors of Popes, and the possible partiality of those in favour of their own candidate(s) is a valid point. It is a strange coincidence that said procedure in history, and the whys and wherefores behind it, are admirably dealt with in the DVD on "The Borgias" which I drew to your attention. Were you to obtain a copy, you should put a "Do Not Disturb" sign on your door until you have seen it from start to finish: it is THAT thought-provoking to a sensible spectator (the abundant "blood and guts", "poisons", "sex" etc. might appeal more to the "hoi polloi" !).

The very last thing I want to do is to create a "stir", but it would be interesting to see some exchanges here on the "Infallibility" question, particularly with reference to the dogmas as proclaimed on the Immaculate Conception (1854) and the Assumption (1950). With respect to those two doctrines, I found Bp. Timothy Ware's explanation of the Orhtodox position to be more than fair and reasonable. Perhaps we should prepare ourselves to enter into some respectful dialogue with our RC friends on the topic ?.

Thanks Richard, and please receive my kindest regards to you and your family.

Andrew, Venezuela

[Richard Aluise]

Andrew, Venezuela

Please forgive my accidental slip into my former use of Valenzuela! Purely accidental, as I was posting late at night.

Rival popes (anti-popes) are definitely a problem, especially since some were duly elected by, as Geoffrey Smith puts it, cardinals who are the authoritative electors of a pope. In some cases, both popes were elected by a faction of cardinals dedicated to their candidate.

I would still like to see an explanation from one the RC contributors regarding why the successors of St. Peter from the Antioch region do not possess the charism of infallibility. Anyone?

Lewis Winders

So far, I haven't misspelled your name! As always, it's enjoyable exchanging thoughts with you as well.

[Andrew, Venezuela]

Richard (09/07/09 - 05:45:20). Thank you. You came up with a good example of something "inexplicable" by your reference to Pope Honorius I. His major crime seems to have been that os seneing a letter in response to one he had received from Sergius, Patriarch of Constantinople, in about 634, and in which he used the expression "free will", which found ityself included in the Ecthesis issued in 638. For that, he found himself formally "anathematised" in the 680 - 681 Council of Consantinople (= the 3rd. Ecumenical Council).

The "pros" and "cons" of Papal Infallibility have been dealt with elsewhere, and by various posters to Articles of Faith. In all fairness, though, I don't think we should eelect any one or more of the historical "bad apple Popes" and consider them to be fully representative of the "system", since there certainly hacve been many others whom could be described as "good Popes". Our concerns should not be limited to repeating obvious examples of "human failures", but to consider other important matters, e.g. when the various "rival claimants" mutually excommunicated each other and their supporters, who was right and who was wrong ?. Were the respective excommunications lifted, and by whom and on what authority, once things had settled down again ?.

I recently obtained the DVD format of a very good film, an Italian and Spanish co-production, entitled "Los Borgia" (= "The Borgias: Ambition, Passion and Power"). It studiously traces the history and various deeds and misdeeds of the Borgia family from Rodrigo's appointment as Pope Alexander VI to just after his death. The original sound track is in Spanish, but English is one of the "linguistic options "available on clicking the appropriate button. I recommend it to you as something which you would probably enjoy seeing (try to get hold of that film in DVD format).

My kindest regards.

Andrew, VENEZUELA (!)

[Andrew, Venezuela]

Richard (09/07/09 - 05:45:20). Thank you. You came up with a good example of something "inexplicable" by your reference to Pope Honorius I. His major crime seems to have been that os seneing a letter in response to one he had received from Sergius, Patriarch of Constantinople, in about 634, and in which he used the expression "free will", which found ityself included in the Ecthesis issued in 638. For that, he found himself formally "anathematised" in the 680 - 681 Council of Consantinople (= the 3rd. Ecumenical Council).

The "pros" and "cons" of Papal Infallibility have been dealt with elsewhere, and by various posters to Articles of Faith. In all fairness, though, I don't think we should eelect any one or more of the historical "bad apple Popes" and consider them to be fully representative of the "system", since there certainly hacve been many others whom could be described as "good Popes". Our concerns should not be limited to repeating obvious examples of "human failures", but to consider other important matters, e.g. when the various "rival claimants" mutually excommunicated each other and their supporters, who was right and who was wrong ?. Were the respective excommunications lifted, and by whom and on what authority, once things had settled down again ?.

I recently obtained the DVD format of a very good film, an Italian and Spanish co-production, entitled "Los Borgia" (= "The Borgias: Ambition, Passion and Power"). It studiously traces the history and various deeds and misdeeds of the Borgia family from Rodrigo's appointment as Pope Alexander VI to just after his death. The original sound track is in Spanish, but English is one of the "linguistic options "available on clicking the appropriate button. I recommend it to you as something which you would probably enjoy seeing (try to get hold of that film in DVD format).

My kindest regards.

Andrew, VENEZUELA (!)

[PererB]

G.Smith
"I came across a web site about Pope Pius XIII"

There's also a John Paul III.

Oh, it's John Paul Getty III.

Sorry.

[Richard Aluise]

Andrew, Valenzuela

Your mention of anti-popes also leads me to note that one pope, Honorius I, was condemned as a heretic by a council. Let me quote from the Catholic Encyclopedia: "It is clear that no Catholic has the right to defend Pope Honorius. He was a heretic, not in intention, but in fact; and he is to be considered to have been condemned in the sense in which Origen and Theodore of Mopsuestia, who died in Catholic communion, never having resisted the Church, have been condemned."

So we have a pope condemned as a heretic because he did not defend the proper belief, which is a matter of faith. Popes are supposedly infallible in matters of faith and morality. There have been feeble attempts to say that this pope wasn't really speaking "ex cathedra", but they are extremely feeble. Anyway, the very term "ex cathedra" would be an anachronistic term when used in reference to a seventh century pope. They simply didn't use the term, since it was not part of the early church. It's use and definition developed after the 1500s.

At any rate, a hearty thanks to the Catholic Encyclopedia for pointing out a fact that forces our eyes to re-examine the notion of papal infallibility. There are numerous other facts that do so as well - not just anti popes. Thanks again Andrew!

[Andrew, Venezuela]

Geoff (08/07/09 - 18:19:53). This post of yours does you much credit. I can not only understand, but also appreciate and be sympathetic with you in your evaluation of the "questionable status" of certain self-proclaimed "Popes" who have appeared on the scene, following the last "Antipope" Alexander VI (1492 - 1503). I would afford the same "status" to the novel "Archbishop of London" whose name hit the press recently.

The "problem" has its origins in the feuds between influential family dynasties, political disputes for political reasons between countries and their sovereigns etc. during history. The saying "heavy lies the head that bears the crown" is obviously just as applicable to the "tiara" !.

Please understand, Geoff, that I don't have any "hang up" about Popes and Antipopes. It just worries me to think that approx. 40/260 Popes have been "Antipopes", and that repesents about 6.5% of the total. It contributes to my personal "unease" at the thought of a "Supreme Authority" which is supposed to reside in the persona of the Roman Pontiff (whether or not that Pontiff actually lived/lives in Rome or elsewhere). It would lead me to suppose that such a "Supreme Authority" could have been diluted, or at the very least indented, by all of those strange historical goings on. As an outsider, therefore, I can draw some comfort from the knowledge that the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople, the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Moderator of the Church of Scotland etc., etc. make no such claim to exercise "Supreme Authority" over ALL of the Churches of Christendom, more so because they have never had "challenges" from within to their respective internal moral authority in their corresponding denominations.

The several past and present "episcopi vagantes" have got a lot to answer for in these matters.

To conclude here, Geoff, you and I are in complete agreement as to the validity of the spurious claims made by some more modern elements as to being the "Pope" and to represent the See of Rome, just as much as we can beg to differ in our appreciation of the meaning of "Supreme Authority" within Christendom. On a basis of the historical evidence, I would accept the "Supreme Authority" of a truly Ecumenical Council, as of old.

My very best and most sincere personal good wishes to you.

Andrew, Venezuela

[Geoffrey Smith]

I see you have a hang-up about anti-popes, Andrew. No need to, my friend:
Q: In an Internet search for encyclicals, I came across a web site about Pope Pius XIII. I was shocked and amazed. The last Pius was Pius XII. What is this all about?

A: Currently there is more than one individual calling himself Pope Pius XIII. These gentlemen are, of course, anti-popes, false claimants to the See of Peter. They have no significant following and have drawn no comment from the Holy See.

Every era has people who either proclaim themselves pope or who have themselves "elected" pope by tiny, unqualified constituencies. (Under the Church’s law, only validly appointed cardinals are qualified electors.) There hasn’t been an anti-pope with a significant following in centuries. These guys are merely the most recent crop.
(www.catholic.com)

So you see, Andrew, your estimate of 41 anti-popes is way below the actual figure. You haven't been keeping up with events, have you, eh?

Kindest regards,

Geoffrey

[Andrew, Venezuela]

Lewis (08/07/09 - 00:44:25). What a nice way of putting it, and how glad I am that we should both share a liking for jazz. The two Louis Armstrong works I mentioned are among my own favourites. I always prefer "traditional jazz" to most of the later "mainstream variety". Who knows, the two of us might be 'in that number' when "All the Saints" start marching to jive on the bridge at Avignon. I wonder whether Ruth and some of our fellow posters here might accept an invitation to join us on that occasion ?.

All the very best.

Andrew, Venezuela

[Andrew, Venezuela]

Robert (08/07/09 - 06:17:39). I will try to comment on your interesting post as follows:

1. All Anglicans, albeit tacitly, affirm their belief in the "Communion of Saints" on saying the Apostles' Creed daily at Matins and Evensong, and on many other occasions. This applies as much to "Anglo-Catholics" as to "Evangelicals".

2. On becoming Abp. of Canterbury in 1633, Laud made an effort to maintain the traditional "order and decency" of the post-Reformation liturgy and everyday life of the C of E. A suspicion, current at the time, that he had been offered a Cardinal's hat in return for his personal submission to Rome, was countered by: "Something dwelt within that would not suffer that (= submission to Rome) till Rome was otherwise than it was at the present time" (Works III: 219).

3. Bp. Lancelot Andrewes (1555 - 1626) stoutly defended the episcopacy of the C of E and is credited with also acccepting the rights of other Churches of the Reformation to abandon that system of ecclesial government. He never suggested, of course, that as fellow Christians they should be considered "outcasts" or similar. His Preces Privatae, published in 1648 after his death, are a good example of the devotional elements prevalent in the C of E at the time.

4. George Herbert (1593 - 1633), on becoming parish priest in Bemerton, organised public worship in such a way that, it is reported, most would rest and be silent when his "saint's-bell rang to prayers". Why would he have rung a "saint's-bell" if there were no saints ?.

5. King Charles I may have shown signs of "duplicity" in his dealings with the Scottish Presbyterians, but for "political ends", not for "religious ends". Again, his own family life was quite exemplary, and he remained an Anglican even up to the moment of his execution.

6. Among the subsequent "benefits" brought about by the Oxford Movement was the restoration of "external liturgical practices" as those had been used in the C of E in 1549. No conscious effort was ever made to "romanise" the form of worship of the C of E in Victorian times.

7. The great advantage of the C of E having its own saints is that these include good examples of people from all walks of life, clerical and lay, and representing "High Church" and "Low Church" traditions. Sainthood is not reserved for pre- or post-Reformation clerics and "coherent theologians", but is open to all. I cannot remember the name of the Anglican scholar who said the words (in respect to "private confession to a priest"), but the same words are equally applicable to private prayers to saints: "All can, none must, some should !.

My kind regards to you Robert.

Andrew, Venezuela

[JHN]

Dear Robert Williams

Have you been reading "1066 And All That"?

[Robert Ian Williams]

Andrew,the other Anglican " high Church " Saints you refer to , had no coherent theology.

Until the Oxford movement the high church element were fundamentallly Protestant. Archbishop Laud for instance nver prayed to a Saint or for the dead. He also accepted the validity of non-episcopal orders if conferred outside England. he specuifically rejected the doctrine of the Eucharist as a propitiatary sacrifice.

Others like Keble and Pusey rejeected many things which Anglo-catholics regard as standard today.

Even the" martyr" King King Charles the first was dong a secret deal with the Scottish Presbyterians.

[Lewis Winders]

Hello again, Richard Aluise, and many thanks for your far-from-feeble attempt at explaining the spiritual side of sainthood. That is easily the most lucid and rational explanation I've read, the icing on the cake being your disclaimer that your interpretation is not necessarily the correct one.

In my quest to understand the religious mind it is refreshing to find people who don't hide behind dogma or shibboleths but instead are prepared to think for themselves.

That's why it is a pleasure to be able to engage with people such as yourself and Andrew, and I thank you again for taking the trouble to respond.

[Lewis Winders]

Andrew, you have certainly struck a chord, because Louis Armstrong is one of my, er, gods. In fact, I have often plagiarized Will Rogers by saying "When I die I don't care where I go, as long as Louis and Ella are there."
Regards, Lewis.

[Andrew, Venezuela]

Geoff (07/07/09 - 20:28:31). This is a second attempt to get through, so I will try to be a bit briefer than earlier.

You made a good point which, I think, could be quite easily resolved by providing lay Anglicans and lay RCs with "short memories" with photocopies of the texts of the Apostles' and Nicene Creeds so that they could read them and participate actively in the vocal rendering.

One of the distinct advantages of the Churches of the Anglican Communion is that their members can demonstrate "unity in diversity". The Lambeth Conferences are occasions when the clergy and lay representatives can meet to discuss and debate matters of interest and/or concern. The Abp. of Canterbury merely presides the gathering, and makes its decisions (taken by vote) known elsewhere. No single Abp. of Canterbury, of the 104 of them who have followed in uninterrupted suuccession to the Chair of St. Augustine, has ever pretended or attempted to constitute some "Supreme Authority" in matters of doctrine, morals etc.

The RCC has every right to continue with its idea that "Supreme Authority" rests with its own CEO, but the rest of Christendom (Eastern and Western) has not accepted that idea since it was thrown out on being first proposed to the Council of Constantinople in 867.

I would have my serious doubts about the validity of any infallible ex cathedra pronouncements made from the occupant of the "Rock", given the numerous Popes/Antipopes etc., etc. which have afflicted the RCC over history. It doesn't provide much "credibility", I'm sorry to say.

Right Geoff, I'll now see if I am successful in getting this much abbreviated post "through" for your attention.

My very best personal wishes to you.

Andrew, Venezuela

[Andrew, Venezuela]

Lewis and Richard: Better late than never !. I think I may have stumbled on (or rather, it hit me as it fell off from the top shelf of my library as I was searching for it) a very acceptable and reasoned definition of 'saints' and just about everything to do with 'sainthood', as given in the 9 pages of Introduction to "The Penguin Dictionary of Saints". The author and reviser are Donald Attwater and Catherine Rachel John, and it is the 1986 reprint of the 1982 second edition (published by Penguin Books Ltd.) Although it gives particular consideration to the saints of Western Christendom, it also includes many of the saints of the Eastern Orthodox Churches. I can recommend it to both of you, and apologise for not having "stumbled upon it" earlier !.

The biography of St. Jude (the Apostle, NOT Judas Iscariot) ends with the following statement which I shall transcribe in toto: "St. Jude enjoys great popularity as a powerful intercessor for those in desperate straits, AS STUDENTS OF THE PUBLICITY COLUMNS OF 'THE TIMES' NEWSPAPER ARE AWARE". Since we are contributing to Articles of Faith on the TOL, I wonder whether we should contact St. Jude in order to add strength to a case for Ruth's 'future prospects' ?.

Kindest regards to you both.

Andrew, Venezuela

[Geoffrey Smith]

Some Anglicans could sing or recite the Apostles' creed, Andrew, but some could not. The late Bishop Barnes, for example; he did not believe in the Resurrection.
Again, I have to ask you: who represents the Anglicans? How many Anglicans would accept Peter Akinola as their delegate and agree to support him and give him their backing?
We Catholics would find ourselves talking with, not the official representatives of the Church of England, or the wider Anglican Communion, just a deputation of individuals, each one representing no one but himself and his own particular style of theology. This was the scenario at the Lambeth Conference last year. A lot of individuals talking about their own ideas and opinions. No sense of a teaching magisterium or final authority. Simply a plea for unity, but nothing really solid on which to construct it. No rock of St Peter. Sorry, Andrew, it saddens me, it really does, to see such an earnest Christian as yourself struggling against these impossible odds.
My prayerful regards to you,

Geoffrey

[Geoffrey Smith]

Yes, Christopher, I thought we had just about reached the point when you would begin to use epithets to disguise the feebleness of your argument.
A strong defence of the Christian faith will always attract some element of abuse from our enemies. I see you are now putting words into Mr Pearce's post in an effort to bolster a collapsing cause.

[Richard Aluise]

Lewis Winders

I will make a very feeble attempt to answer some of your questions. I hope this doesn't further confuse the matter.

Why the need for saints or other intercessors? The simple answer as a Christian is that I don't know. It is obvious by the scriptures and history of the Christian Church, however, that God for whatever reason permits a certain intercessory charism through those who have responded to his call in a deeper manner than most. For example, even in scripture, there were those in the Acts of the Apostles whom, similar to Christ Himself, people wanted simply to touch in order to be healed, and many times they were. St. Paul and St. Peter both raised people from the dead by their prayers. Why does God ask such intercession? Again, I don't know. I personally believe it is simply to demonstrate that he is in our midst. In people far closer to God than I, his presence is manifested in a much more evident manner. It is simply a manifestation of one's depth of response to God's call. God, it appears to me, allows these activities to a greater degree in some in order to manifest his presence in the Church in every age and to encourage others to follow their example. Like those in the scriptures, we more worldly faithful try to come closer to God by coming closer to those who have clearly had a deeper response and dedication to God's activity in their lives. It gives us a greater sense of the depth of God's presence and activity in the Church and the world at large.

I can attest that God has acted in my life both with and without my invocation of saints. Yet both manners of prayer have had astonishing results. I won't bore you with the details. That would be another post in and of itself.

I doubt this will help, because I have no way of explaining it even to my own satisfaction, let alone someone else's. As we say in Orthodoxy, God is Mystery (μυστήριο) that cannot be explained by reason.

I'm not sure even the prayers of Ruth Gledhill can clarify this one for either of us!

[Christopher]

Open secret, Geoffrey? Yes it seems that even Newman's biographer felt obliged to counter the rumours about Newman's sexuality. Rather weakly and unconvincingly, in my opinion, and to what end? I agree with you when you assert that it should make no difference to how we judge a man's goodness what his sexuality is. The trouble is you are hardly consistent - you think gay people (oh, I know you can't get over the idea that a man can be gay and celibate, but there it is) - you think homosexual people are objectively disordered because Josef Ratzinger has told you so, and yet you also want to say they can be saints. As far as "the mantra "hate the sin..." I am glad to see you are alert, but you really don't like being teased, do you Geoffrey? Why else did you think I inverted the thrust of the dictum if only to show what a meaningless and idiotic make-believe expression it is and how insulting and insensitive it is to offer such obviously tainted and conditional "love"? I don't know anyone who would want that kind of patronising love unless he was clinically lacking in self-respect. So you can have it back and shove it somewhere JPearce might suggest. Stop being such a twerp. You sound like that old woman Dante in Joyce's Portrait of the Artist who at Christmas dinner cried, "God and religion before everything! [...] God and religion before the world!"

[Andrew, Venezuela]

Geoff (07/07/09 - 14:18:05). I was somewhat disappointed to hear from you that there are no "equal partners" in any ecumenical diaglogue which may be envisaged between the RCC and "the rest", but rather that "what Rome says is binding and has to be obeyed without question", which same is the "be all" and "end all" of the entire matter.

I do not pretend, and I certainly have no "authority" whatsoever, to 'represent the Anglican position' myself. If I do say anything in defence of that position, it merely shows that I have a "soft spot" for Anglicanism, and can understand much (though by no means all !) of its historical case and the arguments for or against a particular position.

I'm glad you agree that most Christians, of whatever denomination, could join together in saying the Lord's Prayer. Having got so far, and using "step-by-step debating techniques" which I learned from the Jesuits, would it be too much to hope that the parties could say (recite or sing) the Apostles' Creed and the Nicene Creed together ?. Would such a simple ecumenical exercise be something far too difficult to achieve (even if, by common accord, the "Filioque" be left out of the Nicene Creed so as to 'not rock any boats') ?.

In spite of our obvious differences of opinion in many areas and on many topics, Geoff, I can join with you in our mutual desire to remain "friends". You can certainly count on that sentiment from me.

My very kindest regards to you.

Andrew, Venezuela

[Andrew, Venezuela]

Lewis (07/07/09 - 00:42:18). Your "light-hearted contribution" as to Ruth's future has been instrumental in reducing some of the "tensions" generated here, and has been accepted in that same spirit of good humour.

I enjoyed your comparison between "St. Lewis" and "St. Louis". I don't know whether you have a liking for jazz, but I could certainly recommend Louis Armstrong in that context. It might even be possible to include him as a "spiritual example" to this blog: His well-known "When All the Saints, go Marching In" and "Sur le pont d'Avignon, on y danse" could be extremely relevant....at the very least, they make for good listening, and could even get a few feet tapping.

Oh, and before I forget, there are several small towns, Departments, Provinces, States etc. in the Spanish-speaking countries of Latin America which bear the name "San Luis" - if that should give you any personal satisfaction.....

All the best.

Andrew, Venezuela

[Geoffrey Smith]

"There should be no such thing as "impenetrable roadblocks" to obstruct the honest attempts of equal partners to establish and maintain ecumenical dialogue between each other."
- Andrew, Venezuela, 6 JUL 2009, 23:54

That is precisely my point, Andrew.
We are not equal partners. You are well aware of our position in this matter, and I think your proposition of a dialogue is simply an attempt to paper over the cracks, to pretend that a solution to the problem of our separation is possible, albeit one in the far distant future. Even if such a dialogue began, who would represent the Anglican position? Indeed, what would that position be? Yours? Gene Robinson's? Peter Akinola's? And if, miracle of all miracles, some degree of agreement became possible, what guarantee would there be that most, if not all, of the Anglican Communion would accept it? None, I'm sorry to say. All of which reminds me of the Malines conversations. If ever there was a waste of time!
Yes indeed, we can say the Lord's prayer together, but that, I'm afraid, is as far as we can go.
Notwithstanding our differences, my friend, I send you my sincere good wishes,

Geoffrey

[Geoffrey Smith]

"Be careful, Geoffrey, lying is a sin even if it doesn't get you thrown off this blog. I never said that Newman was sexually active. I didn't even say he was gay, or homosexual if you wish,..."
- Christopher, 6 JUL 2009, 23:57

I quote: "But Geoffrey's recognition that Newman may have been gay is only part of an open secret." - Christopher, 4 JUL 2009, 20:44
I recognised that some people think Newman may have been a homosexual. I did NOT recognise that he may have been a gay. You are putting words into my post!

I quote: "YOU may choose to make a semantic distinction between "gay" and "homosexual".
That is your prerogative, but don't expect the rest of us to follow your absurd "love-the-sin-hate- the-sinner" ideology-driven distinction." - Christopher, 6 JUL 2009, 23:57

A semantic distinction? I see. All gays are homosexuals, therefore all homosexuals are gays. All rapists are men, therefore all men are rapists. Your logic is entirely your own, Mr C.
You don't even know what you are talking about. Your confusion in the above quote is the real absurdity. You really mean "love-the-sinner-but-hate-the-sin", but such is your malice towards all Christians who oppose your way of life that you can't even bring yourself to quote our true attitude with any accuracy.

I quote: "I am concerned that people should be honest with themselves..."
- Christopher, 7 JUL 2009, 00:14

Before you go accusing me or any other Catholic of lying or being dishonest or in denial, perhaps you should take the trouble to study what we Catholics actually believe about the subject of homosexuality, as expressed in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (2357-2359).
Perhaps, like Merseymike, you are involved in a partnership which you are determined to defend at all cost, whatever we may say to try and dissuade you. In such a case, I would expect you to make an attempt to discredit our Church's teaching authority by the usual allegation of hypocrisy and humbug, levelled against those churchmen who fall short of the required standard. The fact remains, however, that Bl. John Newman did not fall short, and he gives the lie to everything you have alleged about the Catholic Church.

[Andrew, Venezuela]

Richard (07/07/09 - 06:51:54). Thank you very much for such an interesting summary of the Orthodox perspective on sainthood, and for having made us all more aware as to the "practical" and "matter of fact" manner in which the subject is approached.

All to frequently, people tend to think of saints as men and women who existed in historical times FULL STOP, without appreciating that there are many "good people" who - without being 'saints' - can certainly serve as an example to others even nowadays. When members of the Salvation Army, for example, are making a street collection, they would always receive something from me since I have the greatest admiration for the type of social work they do with people who are suffering "misfortune" in their lives.

Thank you once again for your concise and informative post. I am glad to see that there are many who would be in favour of Ruth being considered for "promotion" in the future !.

My very kindest regards.

Andrew, Venezuela

[Andrew, Venezuela]

Lewis (07/07/09 - 01:12:49). I think I may have come to the "outer limit" of my own capacity to say things in response to your question. You will surely find Richard's (07/07/09 - 06:51:54) post of great interest in its helpful reflection and explanation of the Orhtodox approach to sainthood, something about which many of us may not have been previously all that aware. Your own posts have certainly been instrumental in encouraging some useful exchanges here. Who knows - you yourself may be in line as a "future candidate" !!!.

Best wishes.

Andrew, Venezuela

[Richard Aluise]

Andrew, Venezuela

Thank you for directing me to this thread for discussion of sainthood, more particularly from an Orthodox Christian perspective.

Orthodoxy follows the more ancient practice of "glorification". This is the process whereby sainthood is more a manifestation of saintliness as granted by the action of God after one has fallen asleep in the Lord than a hierarchical act bestowing sainthood upon the candidate. It is therefore much more a grass roots acceptance of the manifestation of God's action in the individual than a formal authoritative act. Devotion to the saint grows from the grass roots among the people as miracles begin to manifest themselves. The Orthodox Church then "recognizes", if you will, the fact that the person in question is acknowledged as a saint. "Glorification" then takes place by the local bishop in the area where the saintliness has been recognized. It may be performed by any bishop within his diocese.

As an example, St. John of San Francisco (sometimes known as St. John of Shanghai), was a very beloved man during his lifetime. Numerous miracles took place after his death in 1966. His body was exhumed in 1993, and found to be incorrupt, even though there was no embalming. He was solemnly glorified in 1994, by the local bishop. His veneration has spread back to the eastern countries.

Sometimes, however, there is no formal glorification. Saints can be recognized without a service. "Glorification" doesn't "make" as saint, but rather recognizes what God has already made clear.

CP36 wrote:

"If I pray for the intercession of Ruth Gledhill and I receive a cure will she be made a saint?

Yah, that is a good question. Will she? If not, why not?"

This is a great quote, and one that I will use as an example of Orthodox understanding. I can't really explain it better than the former Anglican, now Orthodox Bishop Kallistos Ware, when he said: "In private, an Orthodox Christian is free to ask for the prayers of any member of the Church, whether canonized of not. It would be perfectly normal for an Orthodox child, if orphaned, to end his evening prayers by asking for the intercession not only of the Mother of God and the saints, but of his own mother and father. In its public worship, however, the Church usually asks the prayers only of those whom it has officially proclaimed as saints; but in exceptional circumstances a public cult may become established without any formal act of canonization."

I hope, Andrew, that this will provide the Orthodox perspective you were seeking. Our process follows nearly identically the ancient practice of the early church.

As always, thanks for your posts!

Ah yes...and St. Ruth Gledhill, ora pro nobis!

[Lewis Winders]

Andrew, thank you for your responses to my queries about saints and sainthood. As usual, the answers were better than the questions.

I failed to make the distinction between corporeal and spiritual sainthood, so I shall attempt to do so now.

If a church (any church) which embraces the concept of sainthood has a hierarchy of saints and other worthy forerunners, as a sort of equivalent to the secular honours and awards system (knighthoods, etc), I can readily accept that in terms of an earthly recognition of their good works. The system might even make allowance for those who have done great service to that church or its members but who might not be of that faith, such as the Righteous Gentiles of Judaism.

But to transpose that earthly concept into the afterlife is the point where I strike difficulty. I can only put it in these simple terms: (a) Given that the saints are already in Paradise for eternity, what "bonus" can be accorded to them there in order to recognise their special status, and (b) why do some prayers have to be directed via a saint rather than direct to God?

As always, I'd appreciate responses from anyone (well, virtually anyone), rather than continually taxing Andrew with my requests.

Regards, Lewis.

[Lewis Winders]

Ms Gledhill and Andrew, I make no claim to having initiated the "Ruth For Sainthood" movement. My post came as a continuation of a couple of posts further down, and was made as a light-hearted contribution to a topic which is seeing far too much angst being aired.

Thank you both for responding in kind.

Incidentally, there is no St Lewis either. There is, of course, a St Louis, and I believe one of those quaint villages in America has been named after him.

[Christopher]

For your information Geoffrey, re, John Henry Newman but not limited to him, I am not interested in whether a person commits sexual acts or not, but I am interested in the heart. And I am concerned that people should be honest with themselves about where their heart is leading them. More serious is to be in denial about what your heart tells you but to lie about it to yourself; worse to act on it but to pretend otherwise. But worst of all is for those in positions of power, politicians and churchmen to duplicitously act on their desires but still use their power to harm gay people to present a front to the world. Boy, that takes some neck and it deserves the greatest scorn when found out.

[Christopher]

"Christopher deliberately distorted my meaning to suggest that I accepted that Newman was a sexually active homosexual, which is what the word 'gay' means in the present-day parlance."

Be careful Geoffrey, lying is a sin even if it doesn't get you thrown off this blog. I never said Newman was sexually active. I didn't even say he was gay, or homosexual if you wish - I have no idea - but if he was he'd be in good company.

YOU may choose to make a semantic distinction between "gay" and "homosexual". That is your prerogative but don't expect the rest of us to follow your absurd "love-the-sin-hate-the sinner" ideology-driven distinction. Who do you think you are, the late Dr Onions or the Anglophone rep on the Academie Française?

[Andrew, Venezuela]

Geoff (06/07/09 - 19:51:41). Thank you for your rapid and honest response, which I greatly appreciate (I do, of course, respect your opinions, even though I may not always agree with them).

Although the ARCIC initiative was for a limited period of time, the conversations were intended to be "exploratory", and I am sorry that they should have "died of natural causes without leaving any offspring". That is sad, since when a door is shut and locked, and the keys are thrown away, due care must always be taken to avoid any symbolic "rock" from becoming transformed into a "millstone" around the neck of the locksmith or lock-keeper.

Your mention of "how many candles should be lit on the altar" is a significant starting point. You may remember that Vatican II established TWO lit candles on the altar as a MINIMUM for celebration of the Eucharist within the RCC, just as had been established by the C of E in 1559 as a result of the Elizabethan Settlement. I would always have assumed that the Eucharist itself may be more important than the number of lit candles, co-celebrants and their attire etc., etc. to actually celebrate it. Post-Vatican II, in the countries with which I am familiar, the RC Eucharist made me think I was attending HC in an Anglican church of the "Evangelical tradition".

There should be no such thing as "impenetrable roadblocks" to obstruct the honest attempts of equal partners to establish and maintain ecumenical dialogue between each other. Could they not, at least, say the Lord's Prayer together, just for starters, without coming to blows or causing 'schisms' because of the wording ?.

We have already exchanged ideas between us on contraception etc., so it shouldn't be necessary to repeat ourselves here. Cobwebs, bats in the belfry and other 'problems' exist in many denominations, and a good and thorough "Spring Clean" is often convenient and necessary to clear the air, so to speak. Involution is the antithesis of evolution, and "encystment" (voluntary or obligatory) leads to the affected organ or tissue being cut off from the rest of the body. That statament would characterise your own: "You cannot bargain with a Church that believes that she and she alone is the one established by O.L.". Allow me to be "catholic" enough to say that such an attitude is not at all "orthodox", and represents a completely untenable position from the historical, philosophical and theological (etc.) points of view. Surely you would not "try that one out" on a population of non-Christians to which you had been sent as a missionary ?.

The Anglican, various Eastern Orthodox and historical 'Protestant' churches may be "small fry" to the sagacious appetite of the RCC, but - Geoff - they are visible manifestations of the "widow's mite" as witnessed and commented on as a parable by Christ in person (or so we are led to believe from scripture). The days of ecclesial "Frankenstein's Monsters" are disappearing, and I sincerely hope that St. Malachy's Prophesies will not come to pass re the arrival on the scene of "Petrus II". The envisaged "rivers of blood" in Rome could be explained away by a possible "Red Tide", or dinoflagellate bloom, associated with the release of organic matter streaming forth from the ancient Roman 'Cloaca Massima' which is still extent in that former imperial capital, rather than "blood" susceptible to ABO and Rhesis typing (this bit is just an innocent leg pull, don't worry !).

With the greatest respect, however, and in the most friendly manner, I would invite you to remember the words of Caractacus, that famous "Ancient Brit" who was captured and taken to Rome as a future slave, when he saw the city for himself: "Why do you envy our miserable huts, when you have such magnificent mansions of your own ?" (or words to that effect). Beware, Geoff, lest the Roman ecclesial court suffers the same destiny as its onetime imperial predecessor.....

My very best wishes personally, as usual, and I repeat how enjoyable it is to join in pleasant and serious exchanges with you here.

Andrew, Venezuela

[Geoffrey Smith]

You have misunderstood my comment, Robert.
I said that some people considered Bl. John Newman to be a homosexual, not a gay.
Christopher deliberately distorted my meaning to suggest that I accepted that Newman was a sexually active homosexual, which is what the word 'gay' means in the present-day parlance. Of course, I meant nothing of the sort. Bl John was a virtuous man who lived a holy and saintly life. No way did he behave as sinfully as Christopher would like us to believe.

[Geoffrey Smith]

"Are YOU - personally - afraid of entering into free discussion and mutual dialogue on an amicable basis?"
- Andrew, Venezuela, 6 JUL 2009, 15:29

Afraid? No, Andrew, I am simply not prepared to waste my time on a fruitless exercise. ARCIC disappeared down the drain 15 years ago. The participants managed to agree on how many candles should be lit on the altar for any particular service, but when it came to the seriously important issues they were North and South poles apart in their thinking.
Forgive the cliché, but at the end of the day even you will have to acknowledge the futility of trying to reconcile our two positions on such a basic moral theological matter as contraception. No way is the Catholic Church going to retract one iota of its teaching in order to accommodate Anglican obeisance to the PC zeitgeist. And this is just one roadblock among several, equally impenetrable. Ecumenism is dead in the water, Andrew. You cannot bargain with a Church that really believes that she and she alone is the one established by Our Lord.

[Robert Ian Williams]

Couldn't belive you could write that Geoffrey...homosexuality is an invention of the late nineteenth century.Just because he was not macho and was devoted to a male friend ..doesn't mean he was gay.
Indeed the lsdies of Llangollen ( two Irish noblewomen who ran away to Wales in the noneteenth century) who lived near me in Llangolen aree arecnow being sterotyped as lesbians. How sad, Please leave the dead alone.

As for unkind remarks about Anglicanism... just read Newman's assesment of it. He always made the distiction between individuals from the system...something I always do..after all I was one, once! I knew many Godly Anglicans, inclusing Ruth's saintly Father.

I know several Church in Wales bishops who can't speak Welsh, but Ruth's Dad when he retired to Wales learnt it fluently.

[Andrew, Venezuela]

Ruth: You really deserve some positive encouragement in order to reassure you that your personal candidature for sainthood (Lewis Winders 05/07/09 - 12:40:06 and your response to that) will proceed and be compassionately reviewed and approved. Take heart: some time in the future, and on publication of a revised ASB, you will probably appear as "Ruth Gledhill, responsible Religious Correspondent (born...deceased...)".

Pro tem, we shall all remember you on "All Saints Day", although your personal contributions may warrant a "special day" being designated in your own particular case. Furthermore, and unless you are aspiring to "greater things" within another denomination, you shouldn't need to worry yourself about allegations of "professional malpractice or misconduct" with respect to performing "medical miracles" - in that respect, at least, it seems Anglicans are far more "practical" and "down to earth" when they include 'their own' in the "List of Lesser Festivals and Commemorations: Of any Saint".

There will be plenty of support for your "cause", don't doubt that, just as long as you keep up the good work you are doing already in your "Articles of Faith".

Cheers.

Andrew, Venezuela

[J Pearce]

"There will be a Solemn Mass of Thanksgiving and Te Deum at the Oxford Oratory at 11am on Sunday 12th July."

Tedium? Well, thats a given, surely...

[Andrew, Venezuela]

Geoff (06/07/09 - 11:50:05). Thanks for your post. I beat the birds to it this morning, and had to be up and about at 02:00 hrs (local time), so am feeling in an "intellectual frame of mind" today !.

Perhaps the "helpful conversations" initiated by ARCIC could provide a reasonably good starting point to some "continuum" ?. At least they served to emphasise points on which there was general agreement, and identify others on which more discussion would be necessary. Are YOU - personally - afraid of entering into free discussion and mutual dialogue on an amicable basis ?.

For reasons of courtesy, and to show respect, I will not make mention of any "lapses" (public scandals, questionable public pronouncements etc.) made by one of the parties, which are vox populi and have recently received quite wide coverage in the media. They do, however, underline the inherent dangers of any one party adopting an adamant "I am holier than thou" attitude with respect to the other party, when efforts to advance in ecumenical dialogue are being attempted.

Discussions do, at times, have the unfortunate habit of "breaking down" or "becoming interrupted", but if the parties are really sincere, the conversations can always be renewed, albeit at a slower pace. None of the historical Churches would ever be prepared to become "phagocytosed" or completely absorbed into one single denomination which claims for itself any "Supreme Authority" over all the rest. An authoritarian political regime (and I have known several, from the two opposite extremes !) is popularly known as a "dictatorship". I don't know what the corresponding term might be to describe an all-embracing, all-encompassing religious body which is ruled on strictly authoritarian principles by a single CEO - would "theocracy" be an acceptable term for such a system ?.

However much one or another ecclesial community may claim to be "100% right" in everything, one must ask what the yardstick is for that claim to be "100% right" in the first place. Ecumenism will not be encouraged by a succession of dog fights, but will need a lot of time and a lot of effort and good will from all participants, if it is to flourish.

I shall look forward to reading your comments on these thoughts Geoff.

My usual best personal regards to you.

Andrew, Venezuela

[Andrew, Venezuela]

Lewis (04/07/09 - 01:39:23). Please accept this as a modest P.S. to my post of 05/07/09 - 14:51:09 on the subject of "saints".

Your query as to the meaning of "Major" and "Lesser" saints, and to whether there is a "hierarchy", was quite interesting. I really don't know whether the "bigger ones" have any authority to tell the "smaller ones" what to do, or whether - in a democratic society - they would each have their own say and their vote !.

Any attempt to grade saints on a basis of the Linnean binomial classification of living beings faces a number of difficulties, and becomes frustrating (particularly since there are now species and sub-species which can be sub-divided into biotypes, biovars, pathovars, phenotyes, serotypes, serovars etc.).

The best recommendation I could give you is to use the generally accepted hagiographical classification of saints, and then try to work it all out for yourself with one, two, or three Calenders at your fingertips. The generally accepted traditional abbreviations for the conditions/activities/jobs of saints in Western Christendom is as follows: Ap. = Apostle; Ab. = Abbot; Abs. = Abbess; Ar. = Archbishop; B. = Bishop; C. = Confessor; D. = Doctor; Dc. = Deacon; Emp. = Emperor; Eps. = Empress; Ev. = Evangelist; H. = Hermit; K. = King; M. = Martyr; P. = Pope; Pen. = Penitent; Q. = Queen; St. = Saint (obvious !); V. = Virgin; W. = Widow.

You should also be aware of some more extensive additional terms, as used in English in certain Post-Reformation Calenders, which helpfully inform us that the person was: an Author; a Companion; a Founder; a Friar; a Missionary; a Mother; a Mystic; a Non-Juror; a Pastor; a Poet; a Preacher; a Social Reformer; a Teacher; a Theologian; a Translator; a Wife.

I don't know whether this makes anything more clear to you in your search for information ?.

My kindest personal regards.

Andrew, Venezuela

[Andrew, Venezuela]

Robert. As I had just returned from the airport after seeing family members off, I forgot to add in my earlier post to you of 06/07/09 - 11:32:20, the name of Edward Bouverie Pusey, Priest, 1882, whose Feast Day is on 18 September each year. The Anglo-Catholics, therefore, already have several of "their own" duly approved and included in the list of Lesser Feasts in the Anglican Calender.

The ordinary "High Church" Anglicans have a very wide selection of Post-Reformation candidates from which to choose, including King Charles I, Abp. Laud, and several of the Caroline Divines, etc. It would be untrue to suggest that Anglicans are being "left in the dark" as far as the availability of saints of their very own is concerned.

My renewed regards and best wishes.

Andrew, Venezuela

[Lewis Winders]

Mrs Jackie Parkes: "Why are people talking about homosexuals on this thread? Isn't it about the saintliness & holiness of Venerable John Henry Cardinal Newman?"

The thread is, Mrs Parkes, but unfortunately there are those to whom Cardinal Newman's forthcoming elevation is much less important than their squalid attempts to exorcise their own demons by persecuting others. You are obviously thrilled at the prospect of Cardinal Newman's canonization, so rest easy with that and don't let the turkeys get you down.

Cheers, Lewis.

[Geoffrey Smith]

"Seriously, though, I do think that there is plenty of "room" for helpful conversations to be held between Anglicans and Roman Catholics,..."
- Andrew, Venezuela, 5 JUL 2009, 15:06

About what, Andrew? Female clergy? Gay bishops? Contraception? Every man his own theologian? Forty years ago, at the close of Vatican II, there was a realistic possibility of healing the divisions within Christendom. Then came the Anglican Communion with their
'women priests' and openly homosexual bishops, not to mention their long-standing toleration of birth control and eventual acceptance of abortion. What's next, Andrew? The church blessing of gay duos in CPs?
Sorry, my friend, we now have our five non-negotiables, and these make any talks between your mob and our mob just another opportunity to spend the pew-sitters' money on tea and biscuits.

Best wishes,

Geoffrey

[Andrew, Venezuela]

Robert (05/07/09 - 07:27:48). You made an interesting suggestion. However, Anglo-Catholics, in particular, should have no problem with 29 March each year, which is the appproved and designated Feast Day of St. John Keble, one of the pivotal figures in the Oxford Movement.

All Anglicans, if they prefer 'one of their own', have a wide selection of other saints from which to choose, ranging from "Evangelicals" to "High Church", whose names and other information are given in the 1980 ASB (see my post on this thread of 03/07/09 - 16:18:08 for a few examples).

Those of us who are not RCs do not have to depend on the RCC for any "Grace" or "Favour" in these matters, you see !.

Regards.

Andrew, Venezuela

[Mrs Jackie Parkes]

Why are people talking about homosexuals on this thread? Isn't it about the saintliness & holiness of Venerable John Henry Cardinal Newman? His appeal to all including women is phenomenal. We are deeply grateful to the Holy Father. Te Deum Laudamus!

[Mrs Jackie Parkes]

The gay suggestions continually hurled at Newman. How utterly boring for us Brummies! I've had a devotion to Newman for 46 years being baptised in the former gin distillery he turned into a Church. I am happily married for 25 years, with 10 children & love reading Newman's correspondence to all his many women friends. Just coz he was buried close to one of his good friends..oh give us a break!

[Andrew, Venezuela]

Pererb (04/07/09 - 08:23:53). Thanks for your comment about Cardinal Newman. He had a somewhat interesting personal history, having been brought up in an "Evangelical" environment within the C of E, and then having gone on to make his important contributions to the "Oxford Movement" before taking his decision to move to Rome.

Fortunately for the C of E, however, Drs. Edward Pusey, John Keble, Richard Church and other "leading lights" of the "Oxford Movement" stuck by their guns (Keble, at least, is in the 1980 ASB Calender, as I pointed out elsewhere on this thread, so he "made it" long before his colleague John Henry Newman did).

It is important to remember that William Ward, who also moved over to Rome with Newman, was actually deprived of his academic degrees by the University of Oxford, in 1845, for "heresy": perhaps he might have "taken things a bit too far", even for those times !.

Seriously, though, I do think that there is plenty of "room" for helpful conversations to be held between Anglicans and Roman Catholics, using Newman's recent "elevation" as a basis (or as an "excuse" !).

My best wishes.

Andrew, Venezuela

[Andrew, Venezuela]

Lewis (04/07/09 - 01:39:23). Your query as to saints "great and small" is interesting, and I'll try to give you some form of explanation (as I see it myself, of course !).

The "Greater Saints" would be the Apostles, Evangelists etc., plus St. Mary, whose names are retained in the Calenders of most of the Christian Churches.

Certain other "major contributors" also receive special mention, and among these are included those whose writings and teachings have led to their being called "Doctors of the Church".

Many of the early "martyrs" and so forth, about whom very little factual information is available, have also traditionally been included amongst the "saints".

The "Lesser Saints", in my own opinion, would include those whose names may be little known beyond their original more local areas or regions. As examples we could cite St. Hilda of Whitby, St. Julian of Norwich, St. Columba, St. Ninian, St. Machar in Scotland, St. Winifred (or Gwenfrewi) in Wales, St. Chad in England and, as opportunely mentioned in one of Ruth's previous articles, St. Piran in Cornwall.

Each Church has, traditionally, included its own saints in its Calender for internal use. St. Cyril, for example, is important because he prepared an alphabet, the basis of the modern Cyrillic alphabet, in order to translate parts of the Bible and the liturgy etc. for use by the Slavs. St. Sergius holds a position of particular importance and respect for the Russian Orthodox Church.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (otherwise known as the Mormons) may have somewhat more spectacular criteria for sainthood, and you would need to check that out.

Basically, I suppose than anyone who "does good" could be considered a potential candidate for sainthood. I can't remember the actual source, but a statement attributed to Dr. Michael Ramsey, when he was Abp of Canterbury, has añways stuck out in my mind: "I expect to meet many atheists in heaven !". To me, that suggests that one doesn't necessarily have to be a Christian, or to believe in any one particular faith, to be able to do good to others.

I shall quote directly from Bp. Stephen Neill's "Anglicanism" (Pelican Original Series, 3rd. edition, 1965) p. 424: "...we can understand the unbroken tradition of 'saintliness' in the Anglican Churches, Ecclesia Anglicana Mater Sanctorum. Perhaps we do not produce such exciting saints as the Roman Catholic tradition - ours are of a much more workaday kind. But, if diligence, humour and a transcendent holiness are the marks of sainthood, most Anglicans will feel they have been privileged to know scores of people who, if they had happened to be Roman Catholics, would be suitable candidates for canonisation". I think that is a very fair statement.

Hope the foregoing helps, even though it is not at all "academic" !!!.

Best wishes.

Andrew, Venezuela

[Lewis Winders]

I just ran "Saint Ruth" on Wikipedia to discover who she was and what she'd done, and it appears that no such saint exists. A gap waiting to be filled? A saint whose time has come? No argument from me.

(Ruth Gledhill writes: You've got to go further back than Wiki, to the beginnings of time itself. 'My God is your God...' &c.)

[Geoffrey Smith]

Christopher is full of charming stories told to him by 'a Catholic priest'. Always anonymously, you notice, like his own characterless label.
Bl. John Newman is a saint who lived a virtuous life. The gays who seek to enter our seminaries do not, as our very expensive punishment in the United States and elsewhere has proved only too well.
Never again, Mr C, never again.

[JHN]

Robert Williams, you may call yourself a Catholic, but I see little evidence of Christianity in your obsessive campaign to give offence to Anglicans.

Newman would disown you.

[David Cohen]

Decomposition is what happens when you bury bodies in the ground.

After 119 years in most churchyards there is nothing left of the body, especially where the soil is acidic or damp or both.

In our local churchyard there is nothing left after 50 years. All gone, including the wood of the coffin.

[Robert Ian Williams]

Cardinal Newman saw right through the spurious claims of the Protestant Church of England. I challenge any sincere Anglo-Catholic to pray to him for a similar Grace from God.

[cp36]

>>f I pray for the intercession of Ruth Gledhill and I receive a cure will she be made a saint?

Yah, that is a good question. Will she? If not, why not?

According to Vine's Dictionary hagios (saint) is used of believers, it designates all such and is not applied to persons of exceptional holiness, or to those who, having died, were characterised by exceptional acts of saintliness. 2 Thess 1:10 where "His saints" are also described as "them that believed," i.e. the whole number of the redeemed."

The Corinthians had a lot of problems with Paul yet he addressed them as, "To the Church of God in Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints ...". There are other verses that can be used to show that all believers in Jesus Christ are saints.

>>[We all know she is one anyway]

I agree. As soon as the Gafcon conferences were over she said, "Praise the Lord". :-)

Cheers

[Peter Palladas]

GS "There are some people who think Bl. John Newman was a homosexual."

You mean there are some who imagine he wasn't? Or Hopkins for that matter.

Sensitive souls both, I fully presume they wardrobed their sweaters - the few that holy poverty permitted them - by colour; possibly even ironed their yellow silk socks. (Well, all right, that's what lay brothers were for after all.)

What matters, though, is not Newman's sexual 'orientation' - like he were some kind of magnetic compass but with a reversed polarity - but rather the ordering of his celibate life.

Were then Newman to be sainted and thence to become some holy gay icon, I might just have to give certain 'pro-gay' evangelists a good spanking. (You know who you are people!)

But, hey, that's just my fantasy.

[Lapinbizarre]

Coffin wood, cloth and the coffin plate, still painted, were recovered, but not a single fragment of bone - nor, it seems, were calcium traces observed and reported in the soil, David Cohen? Not very credible, is it? Perhaps they should have dug a little deeper to see if Ambrose St John had company.

[Christopher]

"There are some people who think Bl. John Newman was a homosexual. Maybe they are right. If so, this is proof positive that even homosexuals are capable of being raised to the altars of the Church by virtue of the saintliness of their lives. Such people are indeed welcome in the Church, and it is simply a baseless allegation to suggest that they are not."

All the more bizarre, then, for Ratzinger to pull up the drawbridge and stop gay men entering the priesthood, wouldn't you say, Geoffrey?

[Christopher]

"Yes Gay people are welcome in the Catholic Church..."

Yes, so right, Kevin. But Geoffrey's recognition that Newman may have been gay is only part of an open secret. Perhaps he was judging from Newman's effeminate appearance, if nothing else. Anyway it reminded me of a charming story I was told by a Catholic priest about George Brown, the Foreign Secretary in the Wilson government, who was well-known for his enjoyment of a drink. While representing this country at some function in Peru he espied an old lady dazzingly dressed in scarlet silks and lace with well-coiffed silver locks. He staggered up to her and asked "Madam, may I have the last waltz?" She answered "I am not Madam but the Cardinal Archbishop of Lima, and this is not the last waltz but the Peruvian National Anthem!"

[Mrs Jackie Parkes]

Can't ever remember reading that homosexuals couldn't become saints if they lived holy & chaste lives like all saints are called to. The Holy Father's announcement confirms the saintliness of Newman's life. I visit Rednal every week & the Oratory he founded in Birmingham every day. A wonderfully inspiring Saint for our times. Let the rumours continue..Rome has spoken & us ordinary Catholics are thrilled!

[David Cohen]

"Was there ever explanation, rational or otherwise, for the complete disappearance of his body?"

He decomposed.

[Pageantmaster]

If I pray for the intercession of Ruth Gledhill and I receive a cure will she be made a saint? [We all know she is one anyway]

[PererB]

Andrew of Venezuela
"Were the (Newman) cause to proceed further towards canonisation"

That depends on a second miracle taking place through his intercession.

This can only be wrought through intense prayer.

So I suggest we all start as soon as possible if we want to see a great English saint and, most likely, another Doctor of the Church.

[cp36]

>>What miracle did he perform?
(rg writes: Deacon Jack Sullivan in the US was miraculously healed of a debilitating spinal illness after praying for Newman's intercession.)

I thought this sort of thing is very common among the Pentecostals from the USA. They use to have people like T.L. Osborn, Oral Roberts, Gordon Lindsay, Jack Coe and many, many others who claim to have miraculous healing of cripples, the blind, etc in their ministries. Also I read long ago that they had some unusual miracles in Indonesia.

I am not saying that God cannot or will not perform any miracles but I believe it is according to his sovereign will and purpose.

Cheers

[Lewis Winders]

Greetings, Andrew of Venezuela, and thanks for another informative post. As you know, I am a simple (and possibly simplistic) soul, so I would appreciate your -- or anyone else's -- help with some questions.

Leaving aside the issue of whether or not sainthood has scriptural backing, exactly what is the purpose of sainthood? One would think that eternity in Paradise under the grace of God would be difficult to top as a reward, yet saints do apparently receive preferential treatment or recognition. What exactly does that involve?

I see there are "lesser" saints, which indicates to me that not only is there something special about sainthood per se, but there is even a hierarchy of saints within it. Again, exactly what does that mean?

It seems not uncommon for people to pray to a particular saint asking him or her to intercede with God. This just doesn't gel for me, and the obvious question is: if God hears all prayers, why the need for an intermediary?

[Lapinbizarre]

Was there ever explanation, rational or otherwise, for the complete disappearance of his body?

[Peter Weatherby]

Please please please - the beatification ceremony of Cardinal Newman MUST be in Birmingham - NOT in Westminster. He did once write (to a rather pompous English priest in Rome, refusing an invitation)'People in Birmingham have souls too'

[Geoffrey Smith]

"He [Pope Benedict] is coming to visit Geoffrey Smith."
- Edward I, 3 JUL 2009, 17:20

A reciprocal visit for the one I paid him at the time of his election. He owes me.

[Geoffrey Smith]

"Let us hope Michael Jackson will soon be 'made a saint' (sic)"
- Iain Rae, 3 JUL 2009, 14:50

Why? For a guy who inhabited Neverland, that is not very likely. Anyway, Farah Fawcett has a much better claim; she was, at least, a Catholic.

[Edward I]

I have it on the best of confidential, inside information that the Pope's visit has nothing at all to do with Cardinal Newman.
He is coming to visit Geoffrey Smith.

[Archbishop Cranmer]

“It is no good our disputing; it is like a battle between a dog and a fish - we are in different elements.”
Sound familiar, anyone?

The problems come when the dog appears to be oblivious to the enlightenment wrought by the age of Aquarius; believes itself to be spiritually, intellectually and theologically superior to the fish; and holds unquestionable jurisdiction over not only over its own terrestrial element but also over the aquatic. The arrogant canine, deluded by its own infallible sense of self-righteousness, is apparently oblivious to the fact that the fish's best friend is a great white.

[Andrew, Venezuela]

The proposed beatification of Cadinal Newman, as announced, is certainly very interesting. Not all readers of his "Apologia Pro Vita Sua" would, of course, concur with his conclusions as justification to "cross the Tiber".

Were the cause to proceed further towards canonisation, Ruth, you may have to rephrase your statement: "He would thus become the first non-martyr saint in England since the Reformation". The Anglican "Alternative Service Book" (1980) includes no less than 21 individual clerics and layfolk whose names and activities/contributions are mentioned in the list of "Lesser Festivals and Commemorations", and in respect to which "the collects, psalms, and readings 'Of any Saint' may be used, when no others are appropriate".

In addition to the "Saints and Martyrs of the Reformation Era" (wide and ecumenical coverage indeed), the list includes, inter al., Abp. William Laud, King Charles I, Bp. Thomas Ken, Abp. Thomas Cranmer, Fr. John Keble, Bp. William Law, Revs. John and Charles Wesley, Dr. Thomas More, Bp. Lancelot Andrewes, Dr. William Tyndale, Dr. Richard Hooker, Deacon Nicholas Ferrar and Dr. John Wycliff, together with the "Social Reformers" Mr. William Wilberforce (1833) and Mrs. Jospehine Butler (1907).

It is important and useful to mention these examples as evidence of the C of E being capable of recognising and opportunely recompensing members of its own flock (and representing different 'trends'), even in the absence of "miracles" which have to be tried and tested by means of a process of verification elsewhere.

The C of E, therefore, is exercising the same rights as the Eastern Orthodox Churches and the RCC in drawing attention to those within its own denomination who may have done something "meritorious" during their lives.

If the canonisation of Cardinal Newman goes ahead, then I would agree that Pope Benedict XVI should be encouraged to make a visit to England. During such a visit, he could hopefully hold friendly conversations with his colleagues from other Churches. Ecumenical exchanges should always be supported, since "respectful dialogue" is helpful to all concerned.

Regards.

Andrew, Venezuela

[j]

Very familiar- though actually it would depend on whose home turf was used for the fighting.

Dog and trout on the grass- the dog wins.
Dog and shark in the sea- the fish wins.

[Ruth Gledhill]

I've just typed this paragraph in my backgrounder on Newman for tomorrow's paper:
Newman once responded to one of his main critics by saying: “It is no good our disputing; it is like a battle between a dog and a fish - we are in different elements.”
Sound familiar, anyone?

[iainrae]

This is exciting and welcome news from the vatican. Let us hope Michael Jackson will soon be made a "saint".

[Geoffrey Smith]

"Interestingly, the Vatican has a higher percentage of Gay people than San Francisco."
- Kevin Morgan, 3 JUL 2009, 13:18

You have, of course, been to Rome, Mr Morgan, and conducted a personal survey of all the clergy in the Vatican, including the Pope? And when you asked them what was their sexual preference, what did they say in reply? Remember that Ruth is a lady and leave out the obscenities.

[j]

thank you Ruth though I actually asked, not what wold make it possible, but what it would make possible? You have already sort of replied, in that it would rejuvenate the spiritual life of the nation and provide the opportunity for some engaging journalism. I'm interested in tyhe quesion of how much the physical person and live presence of the man is in itself inspiring, over and above what already reaches people through the normal channels from Rome.

I guess there is a glamour/ emotional value/ call it what you will in seeing the key people in the flesh, and also as you say there would be speeches and events.

[Kevin Morgan]

Yes Gay people are welcome in the Catholic Church, if they stay closeted and deny their true selves.
Out and proud Gays, while they may be quietly welcomed in their own parish, certainly are not welcomed by Rome. Interestingly the Vatican has a higher percentage of Gay people than San Francisco.

[Dan]

What miracle did he perform?

(rg writes: Deacon Jack Sullivan in the US was miraculously healed of a debilitating spinal illness after praying for Newman's intercession.)

[NewmanCause]

For more information on Newman and his Beatification why not look at the official website for the Cause - click on NEWMANCAUSE below.

[j]

thats a much nicer photo, Ruth.

I can see that the thought of the Pope coming to the UK is particularly valued. Tell us what you would hope such a visit would be like, or what it would make possible?

(rg writes: Personally speaking, I think a visit to Britain by the Pope would be the spiritual equivalent of having the Olympics here. That it might possibly happen around the same time as the Olympics, or just before.... it would be heaven in every way! I can hardly imagine a better story to cover, a great event for the spiritual health of our nation. All we need to start up these steps to paradise is for Murray to win Wimbledon, but a Papal visit might just conceivably make up for it if he doesn't!

(What would make it possible? There are so many places around the world crying out for Benedict to visit them, places arguably in far greater need than we are, and he does not do as many trips as JPII. I think he would have to be convinced of the 'good' that such a visit could do here. It is by no means certain yet he will come at all.)

[JHN]

Alleluia!

[Geoffrey Smith]

There are some people who think Bl. John Newman was a homosexual. Maybe they are right. If so, this is proof positive that even homosexuals are capable of being raised to the altars of the Church by virtue of the saintliness of their lives. Such people are indeed welcome in the Church, and it is simply a baseless allegation to suggest that they are not.

[PererB]

Alleluliah!