MetaCatholic

AKMA draws attention to the splendidly bizarre Arian Catholic Church, which seems to be a new British cult (and possibly not much more than a one man band. A little more about its beliefs in a minute, but a quick Google reveals that its recently “consecrated” Arian Catholic Primate Archbishop of York (why use one title when more will do?) is a “Most Reverend Dr. B. B. Michael John Mackenzie-Hanson, BA (Hons), DD, acOSB. and Arian Catholic Primate of the worldwide Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.” Nothing like a delusion or two of grandeur.

Another quick Google helps me note that at the same address as the Diocesan Office, a certain Brian B. M. J. Mackenzie-Hanson is the genealogist for the Earl of Cromartie and the Mackenzie clan, and from there it’s a short leap to discovering that the same bloke also runs a Russian-English translation service, a consultancy and design service, with software development. You’d think he might be a bit too busy to run the worldwide Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

So what does this new cult believe? Well: here’s just a taster. According to their downloadable new parishioner form, attending Mass every Saturday comes first on the list. Hmm, I’d forgotten Arius was a seventh day adventist. They note in their calendar that 1st of May is “Beltane / St James (the Less) and St Philip the Apostles - Feast” Apparently Arius was also a Gaelic pagan. According to the new parishioner form again, you have “to keep the eleven holy commandments” — and I bet you thought ten was more than enough. (You also get a bigger Bible, with the Shepherd of Hermas and the Epistle of Barnabas added in)

Oh, and because Jesus spent some time in Britain (although the real evidence is lost because that nasty Roman Catholic church burnt all the evidence) England is the natural home for one of the patriarchates of the church, as “endorsed by St Paul, St Simon Zealotes and St Joseph of Arimathea”, apparently. Okay, Arius was a British Israelite too.

At this point my mind begins to spin as much as I suspect the Arius of history might be spinning in his grave. As if it wasn’t enough being an old-fashioned Arian, now he’s got to be a sabbatarian, Gaelic, British Israelite pagan too.

Update:

Actually, it might not be such a laugh after all: see this page, where you can find this seriously nasty and objectionable quote among others:

“It is an inalienable fact that humans have evolved on the Earth into four principle sub-species and these were distributed primarily on separate continents … The Arian Catholic policy is to promote cultural identity and not multiculturalism. It is not racist to be proud of being Caucasoid, Christian and English, in just the same way as being proud of being Mongoloid, Buddhist and Mongolian! God put the mechanism in place for humanity to evolve the way it has for very good reasons (each sub-species is tailored to suit a particular continent with its own Environment and cultural ways of life), it is the Church’s belief that to work against the grain of evolution is unnatural and will result in problems that will later become disastrous for society”

Starting to look at the readings for this coming Trinity Sunday has got me thinking again about the text of Romans 5:1.

Therefore, since we are justified by faith, we have [or let us have] peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. (NRSV)
Δικαιωθέντες οὖν ἐκ πίστεως εἰρήνην ἔχομεν [or ἔχωμεν] πρὸς τὸν θεὸν διὰ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ

Virtually every translation and commentary accepts the indicative “we have peace” while noting that the subjunctive “let us have peace” has by far the strongest manuscript support.

The argument is essentially this: the two words were almost identical in their pronunciation, so that it was easy to mishear the indicative as a subjunctive. The following verbs are all indicative, and the flow of thought seems to demand that this argument starts with the state of having peace with God. It is not only modern commentators who have difficulty with the subjunctive: the manuscripts of Sinaiticus and Vaticanus were early corrected to the indicative.

The problem I have with this is that it overturns one of the most basic methods of textual criticism, and plays with another. It overturns the maxim of accepting the most difficult reading, and it (at the least) offers a somewhat disingenuous version of the idea that a reading capable of generating the other versions is the most likely original.

To take the latter first: all we are offered is the view that it can easily be understood how the virtually identical pronunciation of the two words led to the scribe writing down the wrong one. I would contend, however, that when there is widespread evidence of the “mistake” across a range of witnesses, the most likely “mistake” would be to hear the homophone that makes most sense in the context. In other words, it is easier to accept that a scribe misheard the subjunctive as an indicative, because an indicative appears to make most sense, then as now.

This simply intensifies the sense that the subjunctive is indeed the most difficult reading. The argument, however sophisticated, for preferring the indicative is simply that it is easier, rhetorically and theologically. This does seem to me to be a very odd way to go about things: “We will prefer the more difficult reading, except when we like the easier one.” I would suggest that it is better to start by saying, how could we read this text, and see the argument, if we adopt the more difficult reading, and only if that exercise proves the impossibility of the difficult reading, should we give it up.

We have, in my view in Romans, a letter addressed to a church which experiences both internal divisions between Jewish and Gentile believers, and external conflicts with the Jewish community. Even if that controversial picture is not granted, there are clear references in the immediate text to sufferings (θλίψεσιν – 5:3) experienced by these believers. This is followed by the model of Christ who rather than oppose his enemies dies for them showing God’s love (5:6ff). This leads to present justification, and a future salvation (5:9). Much of the rhetorical trajectory of these verses reaches its climax in chapter 8.

In this context, it is possible to read “Let us have peace with God.” Let us have peace with God, even though we do not find peace with those around us. Let us maintain peace with God, by enduring the suffering in hope, and not being deflected. Let us hold on to peace with God, by modeling ourselves on the Christ who died for his enemies, and not going in for vengeance on those who afflict us with suffering (and cf Rom 12: 14:21). In all these ways, the subjunctive exhortation offers a perfectly acceptable reading, and one which hints at the letter’s unity in anticipating the paraenetic material still to come. Perhaps the main translation tradition should not have given up so easily on the difficult reading, but, ah, persevered with patience.