by Jonathan Wright, Catholic Herald
The ecumenical process will be enlivened by the Pontiff and archbishop having some spirited rows
There can be little doubt that the new Pope and the new Archbishop of Canterbury will get along very well. The two men share an admirable concern for the poor and the disenfranchised. They have similar styles when it comes to meet-and-greets and, perhaps most significantly, there is considerable harmony when it comes to the taproots of their spirituality. Welby, the Anglican who has sought spiritual advice from Catholics, is also a fan of Ignatius Loyola, the founder of the Pope’s order. Francis, the Catholic who knows the value of grassroots initiatives, will have been impressed by Welby’s pre-enthronement “prayer pilgrimage”.
The similarities can be exaggerated, of course. That puzzling word “evangelical” has been mentioned a lot in recent weeks, but there is room for caution. An evangelical Catholic (and we might as well go by George Weigel’s detailed, but still rather hazy definition) is not the same as a Protestant Evangelical, and I can’t imagine that Francis would be terribly impressed by everything that transpires at Holy Trinity Brompton. Still, there is a lot of common ground, and this is marvellous. There was a time when popes and Archbishops of Canterbury spat anathemas at each other and traded accusations of heresy. It is good that we are past all that: sending congratulatory messages is much healthier for the Christian commonwealth than burning martyrs at the stake or indulging in continent-blighting religious wars. This doesn’t mean, however, that there should be no tension between Rome and Canterbury. It should always be a respectful but slightly awkward relationship, and there must always be an opportunity to articulate profound differences of opinion. This serves to make both communions stronger and lends moments of genuine agreement much greater significance. With some audacity I urge the Pope and the archbishop to bear this in mind whenever they share a pot of tea.






by George Conger, CEN
Westminster Abbey’s Choir sang for Pope Benedict XVI, with the Cappella Musicale Pontificia ‘Sistina’, the Sistine Chapel Choir, at the Papal Mass marking the Solemnity of St Peter and St Paul in St Peter’s Basilica, Rome, on Friday 29th June, a historic occasion of great significance for Anglican-Catholic relations.
From Ancient Briton
From The Church of England Website
By Christopher Hill
by Richard Owen, Timesonline
From
From
The Church of England has survived the Spanish Armada, the English Civil War and Elton John performing “Candle in the Wind” at Princess Diana’s Westminster Abbey funeral. So it will probably survive
By David W Virtue,
From
More excellent material from Sarah Hey at SF, this time on the incompatibility of Christianity and Buddhism.
‘Sarah, with your indulgence, I’ll copy what I posted earlier in another post (with a few corrections), as this location is more appropriate. I hold an MA in Buddhist Studies and returned to the fold after quite a few years of believing (incorrectly) that I was both a Buddhist and a Christian (turns out I was always a Christian, never a Buddhist). I trust that the good Christian scholars at Stand Firm will correct any mis-statements of misunderstandings I have expressed about the Christian side.
Ways that Buddhism is incompatible with Christianity:
1. Buddhism not only doesn’t acknowledge the divinity of Christ, it does not recognize divinity at all as a serious category. “Worldly” gods who are born, live and eventually die (even though their time-frame is measured in eons) are the only kind of gods acknowledged, and they are rightly considered inferior and not of merit. The easiest to find reference source on this is “The Questions of King Milinda.” Therefore there can be no purpose to life or living, there is no teleology of developing the fullness God has planted in us. However, in the Third Turning school, it is said you do have inherently some Buddha-qualities that are god-like which are revealed when your defilements of mind are purged.
2. Ditto for the soul or souls (I won’t go into the Classic soul/spirit continuum questions here) for that teaching I have the same source (Milinda) and many, many others. You are held to be a mere mental continuum that may be split into a variety of incarnations if circumstances are correct for that. In Buddhism, you don’t “reincarnate” exactly (as you don’t have a soul there’s nothing to “re” anything). Your mind-stream finds itself helplessly in another body. The personality in the subsequent body is not you, in fact you are not the same personality from instant to instant. Coherence as a being is what Buddhism says you are empty of.
3. The point of Buddhism is the attainment of enlightenment, an ontological category that is personal, though it can only be achieved through the accomplishment of heroic virtue and one must have the intention to help others. Only a very, very few are qualified to practice Buddhism seriously enough to accomplish this end, even though it is the stated goal of all Buddhists, whether of the Theravadin (Southern) or Northern Mahayana traditions. Many tens of thousands of years (or more) and possibly uncountable lifetimes are required to accomplish this goal. You have to be a hero. In Christianity, all who willingly accept the lordship of Jesus may be saved. Even if you’re not a heroic type.
4. In Buddhism, suffering is meaningless, except insofar as it it exhausts bad karma. The principle aim of Buddhism is to end pointless suffering. Contrast that with the refiner’s fire we willingly submit to. There is meaning in everything that happens not only to us, but to everything in Creation.
5. To properly be a Buddhist (as opposed to someone who pretends to be one), you must have three supreme refuges, forsaking all others: Buddha, Dharma & Sangha. This explicitly excludes Christ. God. The Bible, His Church, etc. Now, there are traditions that are vague on that point, but of late, for instance, Tibetan Buddhist teachers have been very, very clear about this (e.g. Dzongsar Khyentse’s “Who is a Buddhist?” –approx. title).’
Read the entire article here