What is in Kelvin's Head?

Conversations with Catholics (and others)

08/01/2016

Over the next couple of weeks, I’m trying something new and a bit different at St Mary’s. I’m offering coffee and a chat to a couple of different kinds of people who are always present within the congregation. Tomorrow morning (Saturday 9 January 2016) I’m having a coffee morning for people in the congregation who have Roman Catholic roots. There’s always a significant number of such people in St Mary’s and I thought it might be interesting to get some of us together for a chat. In a fortnight’s time I’ll be repeating the exercise with those who have a background as evangelicals. I’ll see how these go and then see whether there’s any other groups which might want to meet. A couple of people said that they grew up as presbyterians and they should have a coffee morning but I’m not sure whether that one is one to go for or not. Another possibility that I’ve thought of is a chat with those who fit the Spiritual Seeker profile – those who’ve meditated with Buddhists, banged their drums, sweated in their sweat lodges, spun in circles and knitted their own lentils. We’ve always got a fair representation from that constituency and it might be interesting to gather such people together.

However, I’m starting with catholics because I know that those who come from a Roman Catholic background have a common conversation though not necessarily a common experience. Some come to St Mary’s who are quite clear that they are Roman Catholics still and that St Mary’s just happens to be a resting place for them on their journey. Others have an articulate conversation about what they have left behind and why they needed to move on from the Roman Catholic church and find something new. Rather intriguingly there’s a mix between those who come to St Mary’s because it allows them to live out their catholicism and those who come because it allows them to say that they’ve moved on from it.

St Mary’s offers an interesting place for those with catholic roots to worship. For many there’s the surprise that the worship is just like the worship that they have known within Roman Catholicism.

I once said to a liturgist that it wonderful, amazing and surprising that the modern Roman Catholic Mass was so similar to the liturgy of the Scottish Episcopal Church. “Not amazing at all!” he exclaimed – “we all of us, Romans and Anglicans and all the rest went to the same liturgy conferences in the 1970s”. Sadly in recent years with the new translation of the Roman Catholic mass into (terrible) English, we’ve moved a little further apart again but you can still very much recognise that things are essentially the same.

I’m soemtimes puzzled by the reactions of Roman Catholics who find themselves present in St Mary’s. We often have tourists who come from Roman Catholics countries who presume that it is a Roman Catholic church. They do so even, in my experience, when a female colleague has been celebrating at the Sung Eucharist. This puzzles me. But also encourages me a little.

For many from a catholic background we provide what they would have hoped for from their own church – a mass they recognise, social teaching on sexuality, marriage and divorce that is as positive as the catholic social teaching on economics that they believe in and a shared love and devotion to the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist alongside a love for his mother too. There are no doubt negatives – the sorrow of families feeling parted by church divisions over the Eucharist. (Everyone is welcome to receive in St Mary’s but that doesn’t begin to scratch the deep irritations surrounding who is and who is not able to receive communion in various churches). There are also confusing messages that the Scottish Episcopal Church sends out about membership that we might talk about. People tend to know they are Roman Catholics and tend not to be entirely sure whether they are Scottish Episcopalians. That could well be part of the conversation.

I’m looking forward to this and expect I’ll learn things. The invitation is open to anyone who wants to come and have a coffee with me in the Synod Hall on Saturday morning at 10.30.

5 responses to “Heresy hunting”

Nick Brindley

14/05/2014

It is probably helpful to be clear about the distinction between “dogma” (which is best understood as the definition of orthodoxy and of heresy, of the things it is mandatory to affirm and the things it is forbidden to affirm) and “church order” (the rules about how people are to conduct themselves). These are related but by no means the same thing.

“Doctrine” is a third thing again, to my mind. It is the body of teaching that the church affirms but is much more extensive and changeable than dogma.

Of particular relevance is who has the authority to pronounce on these things. Denominational authorities quite properly establish church law and discipline (this needs to be done and there’s nobody else to do it) but would go beyond their proper sphere (in my view) if they tried to establish new definitions in the field of dogma.

Reply
Andrew

14/05/2014

I feel the need to separate praxis and doctrine, but I suppose that is probably a minor heresy in itself, in a church that hides its doctrine in its liturgy. Although I suppose the deftness of the ‘McCarthy Liturgy’ has maybe sidestepped that pitfall as deftly as an 18th century non-juring bishop side-stepping western orthodoxy and the rest…

Reply
Rosemary Hannah

15/05/2014

To a degree I think it is a matter of tradition. Anglican churches have tended (and it is only a tendency) to insist of orthopraxis. Church of Scotland churches have tended (same health warning) to emphasise orthodoxy of belief, call it doctrine or dogma. St Andrews is not of course a C or S institution, but it used to be, certainly in my day, and to a degree in yours, heavily steeped in C of S ethos. St Mary’s trained C of S ministers and that was ALL the training they got, because then they knew Orthodoxy.

Reply
Jimmy

15/05/2014

The links on this post have led me to think of this –

The Inner Party – The Outer Party – The Proles.

The model demands tight control of the middle class, with ambitious Outer Party members neutralised via promotion to the Inner Party or “reintegration” by Miniluv, while proles can be allowed intellectual (and sexual) freedom because they lack intellect. Winston nonetheless believed that “the future belonged to the proles”. Wikipedia.

Reply
Allan Ronald

19/05/2014

There was most definitely a C of S ethos at St Andrews in my day [67-71]. Robin Buchanan-Smith was running a packed college chapel and one president of the SRC and one president of the Union were St Mary’s men who went on to ordination and, in one case, to be Moderator of the Kirk. Perhaps they got their orthodoxy from Matthew Black at St Mary’s and their skill in future clerical politics from their student posts…….

Reply