An Anglican Priest

2010-11-28T20:24:00.000-08:00

A very nice letter:

I just received a very nice letter from a reader of the blog. I know I haven't been posting regularly, but it is good to know that people continue to find this blog edifying and useful.

"Dr. Hassert--My name is Jonathan T, I'm an REC Deacon (I'll be ordained to the Priesthood next month) and currently working as an assistant minister at St. Francis. . . .I thoroughly enjoy your blog. I find it to be the single most edifying and nourishing blog on the net. I avoid all the angry, political, issue-driven blogs that just get my blood boiling, but yours has always been, for me, the finest expression available on the net of that glorious something which is classical Anglicanism. Your blog sustained me through seminary (constantly reminding me why I am an Anglican) and I continue to enjoy it. Thank you for feeding the sheep the filet mignon they need!"

2010-08-14T19:55:00.000-07:00

Saint Mary the Virgin, August 15th

At this time I’d like to explore some of the history of this Feast day of August 15th, which the calendar of lesser feasts and fasts calls the feast of Saint Mary the Virgin. The lesser feasts and fasts of the Church of England calls it the feast of the blessed Virgin Mary. The Anglican Church of Canada calls it the Falling Asleep of the Blessed Virgin Mary. The Lutherans call it the feast of Mary, mother of our Lord.

However, this feast was thrown off the liturgical calendar of the Church of England at the time of the Reformation. Was it because the Church of England didn’t like to celebrate the feast days of Saints? Not at all. If you look in the Book of Common Prayer of 1662 you see feasts for all of the biblical Saints, including red letter feast days for Mary—there are the feasts of the Purification of the Virgin Mary and Annunciation of the Blessed Virgin Mary—again as red letter feasts with their own appointed collects and lessons. In the list of lesser feasts of the 1662 Prayer Book there is also the feast of Conception of the Virgin Mary.

However, the primary or principle pre-reformation feast of the Virgin Mary was pointedly omitted from both the list of red letter primary feasts and black letter lesser feasts. Why is this?

Well, we must consider that during the time of the Reformation there were many abuses related to the saints—excessive devotion to specific saints was one of those abuses. Indeed, one could call it the cult of the saints. Chief among those individuals around whom cults had developed was the Virgin Mary. There had arisen so many specific and esoteric beliefs about Mary by the late middle ages that the theological study of Mary herself had developed—Mariology, as we now know it.

The Church of England attempted to keep a middle path between ignoring the feast days of the saints altogether and keeping them as they had been kept before the Reformation. The primary calendar omits all but the Biblical saints, and the list of lesser feasts and fasts kept only the feast days of the saints of the undivided Church.—Saint Cyprian, Saint Augustine, etc. While it kept the Biblical feasts of Mary, her primary feast was set aside, because at the time it was not simply the Feast of Saint Mary the Virgin, it was the Feast of the Assumption of the Virgin Mary—which means, of course, that she was assumed bodily into heaven. This belief had arisen around the 5th or 6th century and was based upon fanciful and apocryphal writings from the 4th century. The belief in the Assumption became accepted teaching in the 7th century Eastern Church. As the Roman Catholic historian Eatmon Duffy points out, “there is, clearly, no historical evidence whatever for it.”

Since this belief had no scriptural warrant the feast bearing the name of the Assumption was—rightly I believe—done away with in the official calendar of the Church of England. As I said, this does not mean that Anglicanism had forgotten the saints of the Church, nor did it mean that it had forgotten one of the primary saints of the New Testament. The goal of the new red letter calendar of Saints of the Book of Common Prayer was to make their celebration Christocentric in nature—the black letter lesser feasts and fasts pointed to the life of the ancient Church. The goal of the Saints was to point to Christ, and keeping the feast of the Assumption made this rather difficult , since it was centered around a nonbiblical and ahistorical event, and required numerous theological explanations and justifications.

When this once primary feast of Mary was reintroduced as a lesser feasts in America, Scotland, England, and Canada, mention of the Assumption was omitted, and now it was simply the feast of the BVM, Saint Mary the Virgin, or in its strongest form the “Falling Asleep of the Blessed Virgin Mary” (which is also the Eastern Orthodox title for the Feast). Now we have a feast of Mary that can celebrate the entirety of her life in relation to Christ, rather than celebrating an apocryphal event. This reminds one of the fact that in Orthodox iconography Mary is always to be presented holding the Christ Child, never alone (as she often is in the West), for her primary theological importance is that she was Theotokos, which is most often translated as Mother of God, but this manner of presenting the Greek is a little misleading. In English this makes it sound as though the emphasis is on the Mother. A more literal translation would be “she who gave birth to Him who was God”—and here the emphasis is on the deity of the child, not the motherhood of Mary. However, the very mention of a human mother implies the humanity of the Son, even after the divinity of the Son has been expressed and emphasized. We have here the very mystery of the Incarnation and are reminded of what Saint Paul has to say of the Person of Jesus as concerns his origin: “when the time had fully come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons. And because you are sons, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, "Abba! Father!" So through God you are no longer a slave but a son, and if a son then an heir.”

Paul focuses on Christ’s fulfilling of the law, his humanity in conformity to his divinity to fulfill what we could fulfill not due to our sinful natures. Indeed, Paul does not even mention Mary’s name. But Mary is at the beginning of the historical drama of the Incarnation that Paul preached. In the liturgical life of the Church she appears most prominently at Christmastide, in statuary form as part of nativity displays, without prejudice in the homes of Christians of all backgrounds. The feast of Saint Mary, as well as the other Prayer Book feasts of Mary, allow us to dwell further on the biblical events surrounding this mystery from Mary’s perspective and examine what we can apply from her experience and example, to our lives.

In the gospel lesson for the feast we hear Mary rejoice in the part she will play in God’s plan of salvation. And Mary said, "My soul magnifies the Lord, and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior, for he has regarded the low estate of his handmaiden. For behold, henceforth all generations will call me blessed; for he who is mighty has done great things for me, and holy is his name. And his mercy is on those who fear him from generation to generation. He has shown strength with his arm, he has scattered the proud in the imagination of their hearts, he has put down the mighty from their thrones, and exalted those of low degree; he has filled the hungry with good things, and the rich he has sent empty away. He has helped his servant Israel, in remembrance of his mercy, as he spoke to our fathers, to Abraham and to his posterity for ever."

Her soul magnifies God. Her spirit rejoices in Her savoir. This song of praise echoes Luke’s Gospel from just a few verses earlier where Mary tells the angel Gabriel:
"Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord; let it be to me according to your word."
And Elizabeth’s words to Mary: "Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb! And why is this granted me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? For behold, when the voice of your greeting came to my ears, the babe in my womb leaped for joy. And blessed is she who believed that there would be a fulfilment of what was spoken to her from the Lord."

She hears God’s word. She counts herself blessed to be chosen by God. She responds to God’s word obediently. Luke tells us that Mary pondered all these wonderful and strange events in her heart, but it does not tell us that she fully comprehended these events. Indeed, Luke tells us that Mary and Joseph did not understand what Jesus meant when they found him in the temple and he told them Did you not know that I must be in my Father's house?" Mary’s reaction can teach us about our own reactions to Christ ‘s role and work in our lives. Sometimes we won’t understand. Sometimes we have to wait and see. As Jesus grew in wisdom and in stature there were still times when Mary and Jesus’ brothers, in their inability to comprehend His work, sought after Him to bring Him home. Mark’s Gospel tells us that Jesus’ family thought He was crazy and attempted to seize Him. All we can do is wonder what Mary thought. We know that Mary knew the Jesus’ true origins, but we cannot know what she thought of the path His ministry had taken. Even if she knew He was the Messiah, like so many of Jesus’ disciples she may have misunderstood His actions.

However, even if Mary (and many of the disciples) didn’t fully understand the work of her Son, she was present in His earthly life until the end. John’s Gospel and Mark’s Gospel attest to her continued presence. We find her at the foot of the Cross. Ultimately, we find her as well at the founding of the Church in the Book of Acts. “All these with one accord devoted themselves to prayer, together with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brothers.”

While we cannot say that Mary was assumed into Heaven, or that she was perfect in all of her actions, we can say that she was blessed amongst women, blessed for all generations, a woman who rejoiced in the knowledge that she needed a savior and that in her God she had a savior. We can say that she followed her Son her entire life, saw her own flesh and blood suffer and die a painful death upon the cross. . .and still find her in the Upper Room, rejoicing once again in the knowledge of her own salvation through Jesus Christ, fully God and fully man, her Son and our Lord. So, in Mary’s life we see the grace of God, reliance upon that grace, obedience to the will of God, and persistence in her faith through times of doubt, inability to comprehend, and probably fear. We see ultimate persistence. Let us pray that we too will be filled with grace, conformed to the will of God, and persist to the end in the Christian life that is laid before us.

2010-07-14T11:11:00.000-07:00

This may seem like a rather small thing, but someone else in the blogosphere has adopted my original moniker "An Anglican Cleric," so I've now adopted the title "An Anglican Priest" for the blog (even though the address for the blog is still anglicancleric). This way when I post on other blogs people will know there is a difference.

2010-03-28T21:00:00.001-07:00

A Scriptural Way of the Cross

"Is it nothing to you, all ye that pass by? Behold and see if there be any sorrow like unto my sorrow, which is done unto me, wherewith the LORD hath afflicted me in the day of His fierce anger. Lamentations 1:12

ASSIST us mercifully with thy help, O Lord God of our salvation; that we may enter with joy upon the meditation of those mighty acts, whereby thou hast given unto us life and immortality; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

The First Station: The Last Supper
Matthew 26:26-29
26And as they were eating, Jesus took bread and blessed it and broke it, and gave it to the disciples and said, "Take, eat; this is My body." 27And He took the cup and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, "Drink ye all of it; 28for this is My blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. 29But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in My Father's Kingdom."

ALMIGHTY Father, whose dear Son, on the night before he suffered, did institute the Sacrament of his Body and Blood; Mercifully grant that we may thankfully receive the same in remembrance of him, who in those holy mysteries giveth us a pledge of life eternal; the same thy Son Jesus Christ our Lord, who now liveth and reigneth with thee and the Holy Spirit ever, one God, world without end. Amen.

The Second Station: The Agony in the Garden
Luke 22:40-46
40And when He was at the place, He said unto them, "Pray that ye enter not into temptation." 41And He was withdrawn from them about a stone's cast, and kneeled down and prayed, 42saying, "Father, if Thou be willing, remove this cup from Me; nevertheless not My will, but Thine be done." 43And there appeared an angel unto Him from Heaven, strengthening Him. 44And being in agony, He prayed more earnestly, and His sweat was, as it were, great drops of blood falling down to the ground. 45And when He rose up from prayer and had come to His disciples, He found them sleeping for sorrow. 46And He said unto them, "Why sleep ye? Rise and pray, lest ye enter into temptation."

O GOD, the strength of all those who put their trust in thee; Mercifully accept our prayers; and because, through the weakness of our mortal nature, we can do no good thing without thee, grant us the help of thy grace, that in keeping thy commandments we may please thee, both in will and deed; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

The Third Station: Jesus is Arrested
Luke 22:47-48, 52-54
47And while He yet spoke, behold, a multitude; and he that was called Judas, one of the twelve, went before them and drew near unto Jesus to kiss Him. 48But Jesus said unto him, "Judas, betrayest thou the Son of Man with a kiss?" 52Then Jesus said unto the chief priests and captains of the temple and the elders, who had come to Him, "Have ye come out as against a thief, with swords and staves? 53When I was daily with you in the temple, ye stretched forth no hands against Me; but this is your hour, and the power of darkness." 54Then they took Him and led Him, and brought Him into the high priest's house. And Peter followed afar off.

ALMIGHTY God, we beseech thee graciously to behold this thy family, for which our Lord Jesus Christ was contented to be betrayed and given up into the hands of wicked men, and to suffer death upon the cross; who now liveth and reigneth with thee and the Holy Ghost ever, one God, world without end. Amen.

The Fourth Station: Jesus is Brought Before the Sanhedrin
Mark 14:55-62
55And the chief priests and all of the council sought for witness against Jesus to put Him to death, and found none. 56For many bore false witness against Him, but their witness agreed not together. 57And there arose certain ones who bore false witness against Him, saying, 58"We heard him say, `I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and within three days I will build another made without hands.'" 59But neither did their witness agree together. 60And the high priest stood up in the midst and asked Jesus, saying, "Answerest thou nothing? What is it which these witness against thee?" 61But He held His peace and answered nothing. Again the high priest asked Him and said unto Him, "Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?" 62And Jesus said, "I am; and ye shall see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming in the clouds of heaven."

ALMIGHTY and everlasting God, who of thy tender love towards mankind, hast sent thy Son, our Saviour Jesus Christ, to take upon him our flesh, and to suffer death upon the cross, that all mankind should follow the example of his great humility; Mercifully grant, that we may both follow the example of his patience, and also be made partakers of his resurrection; through the same Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

The Fifth Station: Peter Denies Jesus
Mark 14:66-72
66And as Peter was below in the courtyard, there came one of the maids of the high priest. 67And when she saw Peter warming himself, she looked upon him and said, "And thou also wast with Jesus of Nazareth." 68But he denied it, saying, "I know not, neither understand I what thou sayest." And he went out into the porch, and the cock crowed. 69And a maid saw him again and began to say to those who stood by, "This is one of them." 70And he denied it again. And a little after, those who stood by said again to Peter, "Surely thou art one of them, for thou art a Galilean, and thy speech agreeth thereto." 71But he began to curse and to swear, saying, "I know not this man of whom ye speak!" 72And the second time the cock crowed. And Peter called to mind the words that Jesus had said unto him: "Before the cock crows twice, thou shalt deny Me thrice." And when he thought thereon, he wept.

LORD, we beseech thee, grant thy people grace to withstand the temptations of the world, the flesh, and the devil; and with pure hearts and minds to follow thee, the only God; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

The Sixth Station: Jesus is Brought Before Pilate
Luke 23: 1-5
1And the whole multitude of them arose and led Him unto Pilate. 2And they began to accuse Him, saying, "We found this fellow perverting the nation and forbidding to give tribute to Caesar, saying that he himself is Christ, a king." 3And Pilate asked Him, saying, "Art thou the king of the Jews?" And He answered him and said, "Thou sayest it." 4Then said Pilate to the chief priests and the people, "I find no fault in this man." 5And they became the more fierce, saying, "He stirreth up the people, teaching throughout all Judea, beginning from Galilee to this place."

ALMIGHTY God, whose most dear Son went not up to joy but first he suffered pain, and entered not into glory before he was crucified; Mercifully grant that we, walking in the way of the cross, may find it none other than the way of life and peace; through the same thy Son Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

The Seventh Station: Jesus is Scourged and Crowned
John 19: 1-3
1Then Pilate therefore took Jesus and scourged Him. 2And the soldiers plaited a crown of thorns and put it on His head, and they put on Him a purple robe 3and said, "Hail, King of the Jews!" And they smote Him with their hands.

O LORD God, whose blessed Son, our Saviour, gave his back to the smiters and hid not his face from shame; Grant us grace to take joyfully the sufferings of the present time, in full assurance of the glory that shall be revealed; through the same thy Son Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.
ALMIGHTY and everlasting God, who didst will to restore all things in thy well-beloved Son, the King of kings and Lord of lords: Mercifully grant that all the kindreds of the earth, set free from the captivity of sin, may be brought under his most gracious dominion; who liveth and reigneth with thee and the Holy Spirit ever, one God, world without end. Amen.

The Eighth Station: Jesus is Condemned to Death
John 19: 12-16
12And from thenceforth Pilate sought to release Him, but the Jews cried out, saying, "If thou let this man go, thou art not Caesar's friend. Whosoever maketh himself a king speaketh against Caesar." 13When Pilate therefore heard that saying, he brought Jesus forth and sat down in the judgment seat in a place that is called the Pavement, but in Hebrew, Gabbatha. 14And it was the Preparation of the Passover and about the sixth hour, and Pilate said unto the Jews, "Behold your king!" 15But they cried out, "Away with him, away with him! Crucify him!" Pilate said unto them, "Shall I crucify your king?" The chief priests answered, "We have no king but Caesar!" 16Then he delivered Him therefore unto them to be crucified. And they took Jesus and led Him away.

O GOD, who by the passion of thy blessed Son hast made the instrument of shameful death to be unto us the sign of life and peace: Grant us so to glory in the Cross of Christ, that we may gladly suffer shame and loss; for the sake of the same thy Son our Lord. Amen.

The Ninth Station: Jesus Meets Simon
Mark 15: 21
21And they compelled one Simon, a Cyrenian, the father of Alexander and Rufus, who was passing by, coming from the country, to bear His cross.

DIRECT us, O Lord, in all our doings, with thy most gracious favour, and further us with thy continual help; that in all our works begun, continued, and ended in thee, we may glorify thy holy Name, and finally, by thy mercy, obtain everlasting life; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

The Tenth Station: Jesus Meets the Women of Jerusalem
Luke 23: 27-31
27And there followed Him a great company of people, and of women who also bewailed and lamented Him. 28But Jesus, turning unto them, said, "Daughters of Jerusalem, weep not for Me, but weep for yourselves and for your children. 29For behold, the days are coming in which they shall say, `Blessed are the barren, and the wombs that never bore and the breasts which never gave suck.' 30Then shall they begin to say to the mountains, `Fall on us!' and to the hills, `Cover us!' 31For if they do these things in a green tree, what shall be done in the dry?"

GRANT, we beseech thee, Almighty God, that we, who for our evil deeds do worthily deserve to be punished, by the comfort of thy grace may mercifully be relieved; through our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. Amen.

The Eleventh Station: Jesus is Crucified
Mark 15: 22-27
22And they brought Him unto the place called Golgotha (which is, being interpreted, The Place of a Skull). 23And they gave Him to drink wine mingled with myrrh, but He received it not. 24And when they had crucified Him, they parted His garments, casting lots for them to see what every man should take. 25And it was the third hour when they crucified Him. 26And the superscription of His accusation was written above: THE KING OF THE JEWS. 27And with Him they crucified two thieves, the one on His right hand and the other on His left.

O GOD the Father, Creator of heaven and earth; Have mercy upon us. O God the Son, Redeemer of the world; Have mercy upon us. O God the Holy Ghost, Sanctifier of the faithful; Have mercy upon us. O holy, blessed, and glorious Trinity, one God; Have mercy upon us.

The Twelfth Station: Jesus Speaks from the Cross
Luke 23: 39-43
39And one of the malefactors who was hanged railed against Him, saying, "If thou be Christ, save thyself and us!" 40But the other answering rebuked him, saying, "Dost not thou fear God, seeing thou art under the same condemnation? 41And we indeed justly, for we receive the due reward of our deeds. But this Man hath done nothing amiss." 42And he said unto Jesus, "Lord, remember me when Thou comest into Thy Kingdom." 43And Jesus said unto him, "Verily I say unto thee, today shalt thou be with Me in Paradise."

By the mystery of thy holy Incarnation; by thy holy Nativity and Circumcision; by thy Baptism, Fasting, and Temptation,
Good Lord, deliver us.
By thine Agony and Bloody Sweat; by thy Cross and Passion; by thy precious Death and Burial; by thy glorious Resurrection and Ascension, and by the Coming of the Holy Ghost,
Good Lord, deliver us.
In all time of our tribulation; in all time of our prosperity; in the hour of death, and in the day of judgment,
Good Lord, deliver us.

The Thirteenth Station: The Heart of Jesus is Pierced
John 19: 30-34
30When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, He said, "It is finished." And He bowed His head and gave up the ghost. 31The Jews therefore, because it was the Preparation, and so that the bodies should not remain upon the cross on the Sabbath day (for that Sabbath day was a high day), besought Pilate that their legs might be broken and that they might be taken away. 32Then came the soldiers and broke the legs of the first and of the other who was crucified with Him. 33But when they came to Jesus and saw that He was dead already, they broke not His legs, 34but one of the soldiers with a spear pierced His side, and forthwith there came out blood and water.

O GOD, merciful Father, who despisest not the sighing of a contrite heart, nor the desire of such as are sorrowful; Mercifully assist our prayers which we make before thee in all our troubles and adversities, whensoever they oppress us; and graciously hear us, that those evils which the craft and subtilty of the devil or man worketh against us, may, by thy good providence, be brought to nought; that we thy servants, being hurt by no persecutions, may evermore give thanks unto thee in thy holy Church; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

The Fourteenth Station: Jesus is Buried
Luke 23: 50-56
50And behold, there was a man named Joseph, a council member, and he was a good man and a just. 51(The same had not consented to their counsel and deed.) He was of Arimathea, a city of the Jews, who himself also waited for the Kingdom of God. 52This man went unto Pilate and begged the body of Jesus. 53And he took it down and wrapped it in linen, and laid it in a sepulcher that was hewn in stone, wherein never man before was laid. 54And that day was the Preparation, and the Sabbath drew near. 55And the women also, who came with Him from Galilee, followed after, and beheld the sepulcher and how His body was laid. 56And they returned and prepared spices and ointments, and rested the Sabbath day according to the commandment.

GRANT, O Lord, that as we are baptized into the death of thy blessed Son, our Saviour Jesus Christ, so by continual mortifying our corrupt affections we may be buried with him; and that through the grave, and gate of death, we may pass to our joyful resurrection; for his merits, who died, and was buried, and rose again for us, the same thy Son Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

Son of God, we beseech thee to hear us.
Son of God, we beseech thee to hear us.
O Lamb of God, who takest away the sins of the world;
Grant us thy peace.
O Lamb of God, who takest away the sins of the world;
Have mercy upon us.
O Christ, hear us.
O Christ, hear us.
Lord, have mercy upon us.
Lord, have mercy upon us.
Christ, have mercy upon us.
Christ, have mercy upon us.
Lord, have mercy upon us.
Lord, have mercy upon us.
Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost;
As it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.

From our enemies defend us, O Christ.
Graciously look upon our afflictions.
With pity behold the sorrows of our hearts.
Mercifully forgive the sins of thy people.
Favourably with mercy hear our prayers.
O Son of David, have mercy upon us.
Both now and ever vouchsafe to hear us, O Christ.
Graciously hear us, O Christ; graciously hear us, O Lord Christ.
O Lord, let thy mercy be showed upon us; As we do put our trust in thee.

Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost;
As it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.

(Scripture selections from Pope Paul VI and Pope John Paul II: Adapted with selections from The Book of Common Prayer and Lesser Feasts and Fasts)

2010-01-10T14:28:00.000-08:00

Anglican History: Anglicanism defended from Puritan Extremists

(In honor of the lesser feast of William Laud, Archbishop and Martyr)

While the forging of the Via Media of Anglicanism began with the liturgical work of Archbishop Thomas Cranmer, the apologetics of Archbishop Jewel, and the theological genius of Richard Hooker, it was a sovereign, Queen Elizabeth, that sought to put into practice the Reformed Catholicism of Protestant Anglicanism (Clark 1897, 248-300). It was under her reign that the major doctrinal and liturgical disputes in the Church of England were “officially” laid to rest. In keeping with the ideals of the Anglican Reformation, the canons of 1571 directed that all who preach in the name of the Church shall: “. . .see to it that they teach nothing in the way of a sermon, which they would have religiously held and believed by the people, save that what is agreeable to the teaching of the Old and New Testament, and what the catholic fathers and ancient bishops have collected from this self-same doctrine.”

Under Elizabeth the liturgy, the Creeds, the historic ministerial Orders of Bishop, Priest, and Deacon would all be preserved in the Church of England. The liturgy of the Church would be simpler and in English (clearly the language of the people, following the ancient custom of national churches as expressions of the Church Catholic; see Article XXIV). In keeping with ancient practice, married clergy would be allowed, although Elizabeth personally disliked the notion (Hibbert 1991). The matter of the Eucharistic presence was not elaborated in the Articles of Religion any further than stating that the Body of Christ is given, taken, and received in the Supper by faith (Article XXVIII). Lutherans and Calvinists could find similarities and common ground with the bare bones theology of the Articles on most points within an ecclesiastical structure that preserved continuity with the pre-Reformation Church.
The Sacraments of Baptism and the Lord’s Supper were affirmed (in keeping with the Anglican Reformers) to be effectual signs of grace (Article XXV), not bare tokens only (rejecting Zwingli’s teaching). While the presence of Christ in the Lord’s Supper was affirmed, transubstantiation was firmly and explicitly rejected (Article XXVIII). Contentious matters like predestination were pronounced upon using the austere language of Saint Augustine of Hippo. Clergy were to wear vestments, namely the surplice for parish churches, surplice and cope for collegiate churches and cathedrals, and use the Prayer Book exclusively, thus providing a common national Use. The first four great Councils of the Church would provide the doctrinal basis for Anglican teaching (Middleton 2001). Essentially, all the basics for a primitive and reformed Catholicism were laid down. It was a lofty ideal. The Church of England was to be a national Church that all Christian people could honestly belong to. It satisfied many, but caused dissent and anger among others.
Queen Elizabeth is purported to have commented that she knew how much the Romans would need to be pleased in the reformed English Church, but she thought that the Puritans would never be pleased—no matter how much she agreed to their demands (Hibbert 1991; Middleton 2001). If this was her mindset, in retrospect she could be pronounced essentially correct. The Puritan element in the Church of England saw the Prayer Book as being culled from the “dunghill of the Mass” and the reformed vestments as being “popish” garb (Bourne 1947). The Church of England, in the Puritan view, was far from being rightly reformed. Episcopacy was seen as a form of prelacy not far removed from Papacy , willfully ignoring that it was the form of church governance as far back as the first century. The Elizabethan appeal to the ancient Catholic past of the English Church, explicit in the use of a fixed liturgy, the maintenance of the Orders of Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, as well as an appeal to patristic theology (the Homilies of the Church of England are punctuated with quotations from the Church Fathers) left many Puritans disquieted and desirous of further change and “reform.”

The English Civil War under the reign of King Charles the First and his Archbishop, William Laud, was a direct result of the goals and ideals of the Elizabethan Settlement and the Puritan resentment it caused. Laud defended the Episcopacy, sought to enforce the use of the Prayer Book, the wearing of vestments, the upkeep of churches, the formal training of ministers, and the use of the King James Bible (Bourne 1947; McGrath 2001). Many historians today see Laud as right in his aim, but heavy handed and errant in the method of his reach (Wedgwood 1958). He was beheaded by a Puritan Parliament for seeking to re-introduce “Popery” into England, and his King was later beheaded as well. Elizabethan Anglicanism, Episcopacy and Prayer Book, was outlawed under the Puritan Commonwealth, only to be brought back at the Restoration under Charles II in 1660. Anglicanism asserted itself again by law, but much less by force as in the days of Elizabeth and Charles. Anglicanism had grown weary of doctrinal disputes, and Puritan sympathies as well as Deist tendencies slowly crept into the Church.

Over the next century Latitudinarianism (an academic approach, at its best broadly orthodox but perhaps a little too philosophical, at its worst Deist and far removed from the relevant issues of Christian orthodoxy) became prevalent in the Church. Distinctly reformed Catholic theology, such as that taught by Cranmer, Jewel, Hooker, and Andrewes was slowly forgotten (although learned men like Bishop Berkeley and William Law resisted the darker aspects of Deism and the overemphasis of Reason in establishing “natural religion”). Anglicanism—broadly speaking—became apathetic concerning its past, in practice often forgetting its own rules and theology. The reformed Catholicism of the Elizabethan Settlement that seemed hard won at the Restoration, with its appeal to the ancient Church and her doctors and martyrs, slowly sunk below the horizon, to be replaced by a Church happy to be the “Established” Church of England. The foregoing might very well be a gross oversimplification of the matter—the essential unity of Anglicanism in England between the years of 1688 and 1832 is stressed—in some detail—by Gibson (2001). Moorman (1983) also attests to the vibrancy of the Church during the 18th century. However, the very existence of extremist Low Church elements within the Church of England that seemed to stand for the very things the Puritan movement stood for argues for a certain doctrinal incoherence within Anglicanism during this period. Teachings concerning the Eucharist, which the Prayer Book describes as the chief act of worship, although in some places it was celebrated only four or five time per year, ran the gamut from the heresy of Zwinglianism—in clear contradiction to the Articles—to the near orthodoxy of Calvin’s teaching (Hall 1993; I say this because most readers today would have difficulty distinguishing Calvin’s teaching on the Eucharist from most quotes from the Henrician Bishop Gardiner), notwithstanding Moorman’s (1983) attestation that there could be no doubt as to the straightforward Anglican teaching in the Prayer Book concerning the Lord’s Supper. The 19th century would see a re-emergence of distinctly “Anglican” theology (in a rediscovery of the works of Hooker, Herbert, Andrewes, etc.) in response to the Evangelical and Oxford Movements (each right in their essentials, but wrong in their extremes).

2010-01-02T20:09:00.000-08:00

Politics and Religion

I don’t know where I came across the link, but I recently saw a December 28th piece on the American Thinker where a formerly secular Jewish woman, searching for God in various houses of worship, found only political indoctrination of the progressive sort. On Christmas eve she saw a website from an Episcopal parish that appeared to be focused on religion, not politics. She called the church and left a voice mail message inquiring about the services, commenting that she wanted a church without a political agenda. She received a reply: “I don’t think you should check us out.”

Sad to say, I am not shocked by this. Several years back I was visiting an Episcopal cathedral in the Midwest and had a pleasant worship experience. The service was Anglo-Catholic and fairly orthodox, the sermon was from the Scripture reading and did a solid job of exposition. After the service some of the congregation came up to great the “newcomers” and ask about what brought us to church that day. I told them we were taking a little weekend trip and had previously visited the cathedral. I was then asked about our home parish. I hesitated, but told them the full name: Saint Andrew’s. . .Anglican. . .Reformed Episcopal. There was silence. Icy looks, a pause, and then one parishioner angrily asked me: “What made you think you’d be welcome here?”

I was flabbergasted, dumbfounded, speechless. I had worshiped in Episcopal churches for most of my adult life and I had welcomed numerous visitors as a member of the congregation. I would never have thought of uttering those words to anyone. If someone were an atheist and told me as much I would have welcomed them warmly. However, over the years what the woman in her essay describes is what I’d come to expect. Politics confused with religion, the Stations of the United Nations Millennium Development Goals replacing the Stations of the Cross, inserts in the bulletin about the evils of plastic (or paper), sermons with analogies and comparisons made between Christ and revolutionary political figures. All I wanted to do in an Episcopal church was pray the liturgy and hear the Gospel. I didn't (and don’t) care if the priest is a Democrat, Republican, Green, or Socialist. However, far too many rectors have been far too eager to tell me, and pat me on the head like a child if a voiced a disagreement.

I am a liberal and a humanist. . .circa 1920 or so. I am open minded, but as Chesterton rightly noted: “Merely having an open mind is nothing. The object of opening the mind, as of opening the mouth, is to shut it again on something solid.” I do believe there are truths that the Christian religion teaches that, if they were changed, would change the essence of the Catholic Faith and make it meaningless, devoid of content. In discussions of Christianity I will not move on these issues, almost all of them taught quite explicitly in the Bible, the Creeds, and the Book of Common Prayer. However, it is wrong to equate the political agenda of one party or system with Christianity. I am fairly libertarian in my political leanings, but if we were in a truly Christian realm (where state and Church were systematically linked) I could perhaps see myself espousing the Christian socialism of Archbishop Temple. However, in a representative Republic that guarantees “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness” to all, confusing a political party with the teachings of Christ is an error, one that is made on the left and the right. The mainline Episcopal Church (and many other mainline bodies) have done that writ large. They have replaced the Faith of the Gospel with the platform of European secularism, and it appears to be killing them.

2009-12-26T21:44:00.001-08:00

I'm not sure if anyone follows this blog anymore, given my long absence from writing anything meaningful on these pages. I've left it standing, however, because I think that the older posts have something to offer (and I always have the "good intentions" of writing something new). If there is anyone out there who still visits these pages from time to time, I wish you all a Merry Christmas and a blessed New Year!

Another reason for my absence is that I sometimes feel that it would be best to simply be part of the local church, leaving the contentiousness and fractiousness of the online face of Anglicanism to one side for a time. However, we continue to see the drama of this fractiousness lived out in "the real world." Rome "invites" disaffected Anglicans into the "fullness of the faith" and the media has a field day with it, when it was (and is) nothing more than the Pastoral Provision writ large. However, this news does again make us face the decision as to what we Anglicans want to be--Anglicans or Romans? Some will be happy (or happier) making the move to Rome and the aura of stability that this offers. Others will move away from this. We have seen episcopal movements from the Anglican Church in America to the Anglican Catholic Church and from the United Episcopal Church to the Reformed Episcopal Church/Anglican Church in North America. If we look for the reasons behind these moves, we will hear those who moved explaining that they did so because they believed their new home offered them a place to be more fully Anglican.

As the Anglican world continues to undergo sometimes turbulent change (even within the traditionalist bodies and the Continuum), let us pray to be ever mindful of what Anglicanism was always meant to be: A Via Media between groups in error, the radical reformers on the one hand and the Church of Rome on the other. The Church of England was to be tolerant and charitable in non-essentials, but Catholic and Orthodox in the foundations of the faith. However, in the mainline churches of Anglicanism the non-essentials became almost everything: If you said anything was essential (like the Trinity) you were a de facto fundamentalist. In many of the Continuing Churches the essentials became whatever the bishop (or rector) felt to be essential, down to the manner of bowing and when and where the people should genuflect and make the sign of the cross (it's all spelled out in the little booklet that often replaces the Book of Common Prayer in the pew).

What unites Anglicans must be a common core that we have from the Bible, the ancient Councils, the doctors and fathers of the ancient Catholic Church, and the historic liturgies of the Anglican Communion. It is here we will find our unity and how strength. If we seek it elsewhere, in becoming as close to Rome in faith and liturgy as possible or in replacing our orthodox liturgies with pale imitations, we will lose the essence of Anglicanism itself.

2009-04-26T17:50:00.000-07:00

The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon
Defender of the Holy Catholic Faith
Rest in Peace Eternal

The Anglican Church militant has lost one of her most faithful sons.

He is now with the Lord.

http://anglicancontinuum.blogspot.com/2009/04/peter-toon-1939-2009.html

2009-04-25T12:09:00.000-07:00

Proud to be English?

From Christianity Today:

http://www.christiantoday.com/article/proud.to.be.english/23169.htm

2009-04-21T16:41:00.000-07:00

The New Creed. . .

Of course, as history has shown, this isn't all that far off the mark:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IUQcCvX2MKk

2009-04-04T19:10:00.000-07:00

A Scriptural Way of the Cross

2009-03-30T18:11:00.000-07:00

When a bishop has to leave the Church of England to stand up for Christians, what hope is left for Britain?

By Melanie Phillips, writing in the Daily Mail

The resignation of Michael Nazir-Ali as Bishop of Rochester is a terrible blow, not just for the Church of England but for Britain.
The bishop says he is resigning so that he can work for endangered or beleaguered Christian minorities both abroad and in the UK.
What a shocking rebuke to the church, that he has to leave his post of influence and authority as a bishop in order to carry out the church's core duty to defend its own against attack.
Shocking - but hardly surprising. Across the world, in countries such as Nigeria and Sudan, millions of Christians are being persecuted at the hands of militant Islam, with forced conversions, the burning of churches and widespread violence.
Yet in the face of this global onslaught, the Church of England makes scarcely a peep of protest.
Worse still, when Dr Nazir-Ali warned last year that Islamic extremists had created 'no-go areas' across Britain where non-Muslims faced intimidation, he was disowned by his fellow churchmen who all but declared that he was a liar - even though he was telling the truth.
Courage
For this act of moral courage, he and his family had to be put under police protection, while his own church left him to swing in the wind of bigotry and intimidation.
Dr Nazir-Ali is one of the very few inside the church to make explicit the link between Christian and British values, and to warn publicly that they are being destroyed through the prevailing doctrine of multiculturalism.
That strong voice of protest has never been needed more than it is now. For Christianity in Britain is under attack from all sides.
Last month, the bishop protested that the arrival in Britain of so many from other faiths had led to the closure of chapels, the retrenchment of Christian chaplaincy and the advent of a 'doctrinaire multi-faithism' - not through pressure from the incoming minorities, but from British secularists who wanted to destroy Christianity.

Full story here:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1165719/MELANIE-PHILIPS-When-bishop-leave-Church-England-stand-Christians-hope-left-Britain.html

2009-03-29T17:19:00.000-07:00

Wooden Liturgies

As I've commented in the past, I have nothing against "contemporary" language liturgies--if they are done well. However, the problem is that most are definitely not done well. The 1979 Prayer Book of the Episcopal Church has some beautiful parts (aesthetically speaking), but these qualities mask a great many problems--not the least of which is that the book departs wildly from the pattern of Common Prayer set down in the classic liturgies following the Cranmerian-Laudian path. In short, it is not Common Prayer in the great tradition of the 1549 The Book of the Common Prayer.

Given that I have no problem in principle with the use of the modern language in divine liturgy, I have been open minded to those that have attempted faithful (re)productions or renderings of those classic Anglican liturgies for those who have not come from a traditional language background. The Reformed Episcopal Church produced a (little known) modern language 1662 Communion rite which I think is excellent, in that all it really does is replace the "thees" and "thous" with "you." It is good because it changes so little from that which is excellent.

For the 1928 American Communion rite, we have the work presented in the Rev'd. Dr. Peter Toon's Worshipping the Lord in the Anglican Way. Some have suggested that this be used as a modern language rite in worship. I would hesitate in making such a move. While the Toon text is better than the 1979 Prayer Book, in many places it lacks the poetry and cadence of the original 1928 service. Indeed, in some places it is simply unnecessary to "update" the language--but it is updated nonetheless. For instance, in the Litany, why would we need to change "Mercifully forgive the sins to thy people" to "In mercy, forgive the sins of your people." Why not simply update only that which needs updating? This would have rendered the portion mentioned as "Mercifully forgive the sins of your people." Perhaps I'm being overly critical, but needless revision is. . .well. . .needless. Another instance comes in the Eucharistic prayer, where the priest in the 1928 service prays "All glory be to thee, Almighty God. . ." whereas Toon renders this "We give all glory to you, Almighty God. . ." I know it isn't "common English" to say that we give someone "all the glory" but couldn't we simply say "All glory be to you, Almighty God"? I think most would understand it.

I think Toon's contemporary service is good as a bit of an "explanation" for those worshipping in a 1928 Prayer Book parish who may desire a better understanding of the traditional language. Due to some of the turns of phrase that will cause many familiar with the 1928 service to stumble, I would advise a more conservative "revision" where the "thees" and "thous" are replaced and only those parts of the English language that have passed from usage are updated.

Another updating of the classical Anglican tradition comes in An Anglican Prayer Book, wherein the Eucharistic services of the English 1662, the American 1928, and the Canadian 1962 are rendered in contemporary language. It is purported that this is largely the work of Toon, but given that it is a production for the Anglican Mission in America I can only assume that the leaders of the that body had a strong hand in the composition as well. In some places this book is better than Toon's Worshipping the Lord in the Anglican Way, in some places it is worse. When one begins to read the service for Holy Communion one is struck by this "Our Lord Jesus said: Hear O Israel, the Lord our God is one. And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all soul and with all your mind and with all your strength. The second is this: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. There is no other commandment greater than these."

Why are we now using Mark instead of Matthew? Why has this, one of the most memorable parts of the Anglican liturgy, been changed so noticeably? In that we are now using Mark (itself jarring given that most classical Anglicans are familiar with the use of Matthew in the 1928 service) why is the Markian verse provided in such an inelegant manner. We read "the second is this" in reference to loving your neighbor as yourself, but having a second implies a first. The opening sentence of the verse is amputated, making the rest read almost as though it were a misprint. In the very least we should have had "The most important [commandment] is. . ." When the rendering of one of the most memorable parts of the American Anglican service is done in such a way, I can only hope that they revise the book very soon.

In short, the original services have yet to be matched in either their beauty and or their theology. Again, although I am open to contemporary language services I have yet to see a complete service published for wide use that doesn't clunk and sputter in too many places to make it liturgically viable. As a result I'm increasing in my fondness for the straight 1928.

2009-01-02T18:47:00.000-08:00

A fine post from Father Hart at

The Continuum

http://anglicancontinuum.blogspot.com/2008/12/year-that-was-and-anglican-education.html

The year that was and Anglican education

Looking back on 2008 at The Continuum, I would like to summarize the major thrust of my contributions with this simple line: We are Continuing Anglicans because Anglicanism is worth continuing. The opposite point of view was expressed by a significant bishop in one jurisdiction who made the very unfortunate remark that Anglicanism is a 450 year-old experiment, and that the case may be made that the experiment has failed. To this my answer is twofold: Anglicanism is not an experiment at all, and Anglicanism has not failed. The official Anglican Communion has failed in recent decades; mostly it has failed to continue Anglican practice and teaching. But, we are not of the Anglican Communion, since long ago they rejected our efforts to preserve sound teaching and to safeguard the sacraments.

The bishop's unfortunate remark tells me that even some Continuing Anglicans have fallen into a very dangerous trap, and that for different reasons that interact. First of all, we must confront the problem of ignorance. Obviously, many traditional or Catholic Anglicans have never read the works of the English churchmen of the formative period of the 16th and 17th centuries. As a result, they have swallowed a great deal of what our critics have to say, having nothing in their intellectual arsenal with which they may defend their patrimony. The bishop who made the unfortunate remark merely spoke for many such Anglicans who live in desperation because they believe that something extra is needed for sure and certain sacramental validity. They have no confidence in their own heritage, but nonetheless sweat it out the way conservative Episcopalians sweat out the problems of apostasy, heresy, and immorality. They await a day of some future liberation when they may become truly Catholic.

This is, however, a deception. The cause of this deception is that they have adopted medieval Roman definitions, which then develop endlessly into modern Roman definitions, as the standard of what it means to be "Catholic." But, Anglicans have always held the standard of Antiquity, the Tradition of the early centuries and above all Scripture, to provide the standard of Catholic Faith and practice. In line with what I have written several times, and with what Fr. Kirby has written, Roman definitions do not possess the necessary attributes of authenticity and authority to command either our allegiance or our obedience. The genuine meaning of "Protestantism" in the English tradition was not the same as it was on the European continent; it was not about rebuilding the Church as if it needed a foundation dug out and laid all over again. It was about restoring the true Catholic Faith and practice of the Church.

A line from the oft misunderstood Article XXV sums it up well: "Being such as have grown partly of the corrupt following of the Apostles." The subject of the Article was the sacraments, and it should be easy to follow what the English Churchmen were saying. For example, how Anointing for healing (a sacrament that is explained and described in the Epistle of James) became Extreme Unction for the dying involved a corrupting evolution and "doctrinal development" that strayed away from a genuine following of the Apostles. A sacrament for healing, and one that effectually signifies reconciliation to God and his Church, so that a Christian may be fully restored, was corrupted into a sacrament reserved for the deathbed only, and that carried weighty and Pharisaical requirements on anyone who survived and recovered, such as life-long celibacy, no matter what age the person was, or if he were married. A means of grace became a heavy burden of the Law, grievous to be borne. This was a corrupt following, in the same sense as a corrupt manuscript. The sacrament was preserved, but it required a purifying effort to return to the original meaning and purpose. This is what the thinking and theological stance of the English Reformation was about: Returning to what Christ and his Church taught and practiced "from the beginning."1

I have used this Article quite deliberately too, inasmuch as the average reader's ability to understand it perfectly exemplifies the need for education, which is my next, and obviously related point. In fact, it is almost redundant. But, whereas the problem of ignorance is a diagnosis, this is the prescription.

This education will not come from Roman polemicists, because they do not understand Anglicanism, anyway, and because their goal is to convert us to "the One True Church" that we may be saved (rather, the larger of the Two One True Churches). It will not come from modern Evangelicals or Reformed Protestants (i.e. Calvinists), even if they are living in the Doublethink world of confusing their theology with that of the Anglican tradition. The problem is complicated by the strong agreement between those on the right hand or the left as to the beliefs of our Fathers. They have agreed between themselves that the English Reformers were really Calvinists, and one of their number actually tried to argue that the Anglicans did not believe in Apostolic Succession. The absurdity of that claim should provoke laughter, inasmuch as the only arguments for the ecclesiology and sacraments of Continental Protestants ever made by English churchmen, in those centuries, were along the lines of a possible Divine economy, a theory that the sacraments of non-episcopal churches might be valid if the intention was to meet a true emergency. And this theory, which had existed before the Reformation as a matter of speculation among Catholic theologians, eventually died. And the theory had absolutely no effect on the practice and Canon Laws of the Church of England, in which it was never legal for any but those ordained by a bishop in Apostolic Succession, to act as priests.

What has amazed me is this: All of the evidence proves that the Church of England had always Intended to be remain Catholic in every proper sacramental sense, and no evidence exists that can, under scrutiny, contradict this simple fact. And, yet, because Anglicans are urged to turn to the right hand or to the left, and stray from the via media, many of them come to believe that the Roman and the Calvinist polemicists have to be right. This is the danger we have seen expressed in that one bishop's unfortunate remark. The poor man was sincere, and sincerely wrong. And, what is needed now is education.

Our archives (at the Continuum) are full of useful articles to that end, mostly during 2008. And, in the future it is my purpose to follow through on helping to meet the educational need. Anglicanism is worth Continuing, so it is worth learning properly.

1. I make here a deliberate allusion to Matt. 19:8, that demonstrates the same principle.

2008-09-07T19:17:00.000-07:00

Ecclesiastical Musical Chairs

APCK diocese goes to the ACA, APCK diocese splits off into new jurisdiction, REC parish goes to AMiA, REC parish goes to APA, now the latest. . .

Anglican Province of America Diocese of the West Joins Reformed Episcopal Church

By David W. Virtue http://www.virtueonline.org/

9/7/2008

In a move that could have serious implications for the Common Cause Partnership, an entire diocese of the Anglican Province of America with some 22 plus churches has fled that Anglican jurisdiction and allied itself with the Reformed Episcopal Church in America (REC).

"I pray that you will understand that we are not leaving the APA out of any anger but are entering into the REC so we can fulfill what we have been working on for the past ten years. By transferring to the REC we remain in intercommunion with each other and still brothers," wrote the Rt. Rev. Richard Boyce, OCD Bishop of the Diocese of the West (DOW/ APA.)

In a series of letters obtained by VirtueOnline, Bishop Boyce announced this week that he was taking his diocese out of the APA and formally bringing it into the Reformed Episcopal Church, a move that angered the Presiding Bishop of the APA, the Most. Rev. Walter Grundorf, who promptly relieved Boyce of his position as Bishop and appointed the Very Rev. Douglas King as interim administrator of the DOW.

"You are no longer the Diocesan Bishop of the DOW of the APA as of September 5. I have named the Very Rev. Douglas King as interim administrator." Grundorf then said that all DOW priests and parishes wishing to leave the APA must send a letter of their intention to him and request Letters Dismissory. He then said that until he hears from them, they remain in good standing and has his and the APA's full support.

He concluded his letter saying that the letters would provide for an "orderly transition" to the REC. "We have made such orderly transfers in the past between REC/APA and I hope and pray that this will be no exception."

Boyce responded from his parish in Seattle, saying that Grundorf's understanding of the meaning of the word "jurisdiction" was a misconception on his part.

"I have not resigned my jurisdiction nor has coadjutor Bishop Winfield Mott. We have only requested the REC to receive the Diocese of the West (DOW) which has not been acted upon."I would remind you that the Reformed Episcopal Church (REC) has similar beliefs, traditions and practices on the Sacraments and Holy Orders particularly as they pertain to women's ordination."

The DOW is a jurisdiction. I would refer you to Article 2., Sect. 6 of the Constitution of the Anglican Province of America (APA), and Canon 16, Sect. (a) and (e) which refer to the Bishop's jurisdiction. If you recall since the third century tradition has said that "Where the Bishop is, there is the Church, where the Church is there is the Bishop". Boyce went on to say that the Anglican Communion has stated through the Archbishop of Canterbury, that the basic unit of the Church is the Diocese, and you do consider yourself as Anglican.

"Boyce said that no one is required by the Constitution or the Canons to send the Presiding Bishop a letter of resignation when leaving the APA. A letter Dismissory is from Diocesan Bishop to Diocesan Bishop.

Boyce blasted Grundorf saying that provincial protocol was a recent invention, "as I do not find it stated anywhere in APA documents. You, as Presiding Bishops have authority only to conduct the meetings of the House of Bishops (HOB) and to take orders for the consecration of Bishops.""As a result of this restriction you have no authority to declare that I am no longer the Diocesan Bishop of the DOW."

Boyce argued that the APA Constitution states that a bishop shall confine the exercise of his office to his own Diocese. "Therefore as a Presiding Bishop with no authority, and functioning as a Diocesan Bishop of the Diocese of the Eastern US (DEUS), you must not intrude into the affairs of the DOW."

"There is no authority conferred to you by the Constitution of the APA nor by the Canons of the APA to appoint the Rev. Douglas King, nor anyone else as an interim administrator of the DOW. This action would appear to follow The Episcopal Church (TEC) as in the case of the Diocese of San Joaquin.

"DOW Priests and Parishes do not need to send you a latter of intention of staying members of DOW. This is a Diocesan matter for DOW.

"This supposed protocol has no standing in the Constitution of the APA nor in the Canons of the APA.

"No Article of the Constitution of the APA or Canon of the APA prevents the DOW from effecting a merger with the REC, with whom we are in communion, as is the APA. We are following the time-line established by the APA and REC as this is the ten year mark leading to the merger. We just plan to do this before the rest of the APA."

Grundorf wrote to all the parishes of the DOW responding to Boyce's letter saying that while he was not totally surprised, "I am disappointed. I am also disappointed that the REC did not discuss this with me if indeed they are fully aware of all of Bishop Boyce's plans.

"The Presiding Bishop said the DOW "still exists" with some having notified him that they had no intention of leaving the APA."Bishop Boyce has resigned from the APA, therefore he is no longer the Bishop of the APA/DOW." Grundorf who then said he was appointing King to serve as interim administrator "until such time as we can determine who is leaving and who is staying. I will then call an extraordinary Synod to reorganize and elect the appropriate officers." Grundorf said there would be no attempt to claim church property or funds. "For all concerned in the APA and the REC, this transition must be done in a proper and orderly manner."

The PB said that one of the subjects to be addressed at their next Federation of Anglican Churches in the Americas (FACA) meeting will be "jurisdiction hopping."

"I am well aware that the motivation of this action has been driven by the Common Cause Partnership (CCP). While I support much of what the CCP stands for I, along with many others, have reservations as to what will be the final decision on the ordination of women, which most of the CCP members enthusiastically support. We have stood our ground for the last 30 plus years to the theological innovations of the Episcopal Church and I do not think we should abandon our principles at this point."

One observer told VOL that APA's Diocese of the West's decision to secede was to join Common Cause by way of the REC. It is believed that, in time, CCP will form the basis of a new North American Anglican Province, an orthodox alternative jurisdiction separate from The Episcopal Church and coming under the oversight of the newly formed Global Anglican Fellowship Conference (GAFCON.)VOL could not obtain comment from leaders of the Reformed Episcopal Church.

END

2008-08-25T20:55:00.000-07:00

Bishop Ridley on the Holy Eucharist

(in discourse with representatives of the Church of Rome)

"Both you and I agree herein, that in the Sacrament is the very, true, and natural Body and Blood of Christ; even that Which was born of the Virgin Mary; Which ascended into heaven; Which sits on the right hand of God the Father; Which shall come from thence to judge the quick and the dead; only we differ in modo, in the way and manner of being. We confess all one thing to be in the Sacrament, and dissent in the manner of being there. I, being by God’s word fully thereunto persuaded, confess Christ’s natural Body to be in the Sacrament indeed by spirit and grace, because that whosoever receiveth worthily that Bread and Wine, receiveth effectually Christ's Body and drinketh His Blood (that is, he is made effectually partaker of His passion); and you make a grosser kind of being enclosing a natural, a lively, and a moving body, under the shape or form of Bread and Wine. Now this difference considered, to the question thus I answer, that in the Sacrament of the Altar is the natural Body and Blood of Christ vere et realiter, indeed and really, if you take these words ‘indeed and really’ for spiritually by grace and efficacy; for so every worthy receiver receiveth the very true Body of Christ. But if you mean really and indeed, so that thereby you would include a lively and moveable body under the forms of bread and wine, then, in that sense, is not Christ's Body in the Sacrament really and indeed."

"Always my protestation reserved, I answer, thus; that in the Sacrament is a certain change, in that the Bread, which was before common bread, is now made a lively presentation of Christ's Body, and not only a figure, but effectuously representeth His Body; that even as the mortal body was nourished by that visible bread, so is the internal soul fed with the heavenly food of Christ's Body, which the eyes of faith see, as the bodily eyes see only bread. Such a Sacramental mutation I grant to be in the Bread and Wine, which truly is no small change, but such a change as no mortal man can make, but only that omnipotency of Christ’s word." – Works, edit. 1843, p. 274

"Think not because I disallow that Presence which the first proposition maintaineth (as a presence which I take to be forged, phantastical, and beside the authority of God’s word, perniciously brought into the Church by the Romanists,) that I therefore go about to take away the true Presence of Christ's Body in His Supper rightly and duly ministered, which is grounded upon the word of God, and made more plain by the commentaries of the faithful Fathers. They that think so of me, the Lord knoweth how far they are deceived. And to make the same evident unto you, I will in few words declare what True Presence of Christ's Body in the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper I hold and affirm, with the word of God, and the ancient Fathers.

"I say and confess with the Evangelist Luke, and with the Apostle Paul , that the Bread on the which thanks are given is the Body of Christ in the remembrance of Him and His death, to be set forth perpetually of the faithful until His coming.

"I say and confess the Bread which we break to be the Communion and partaking of Christ's Body with the ancient and the faithful Fathers.

"I say and believe, that there is not only a signification of Christ's Body set forth by the Sacrament, but also that therewith is given to the godly and faithful the grace of Christ's Body, that is, the food of life and immortality, and this I hold with Cyprian.

"I say also with Saint Augustine, that we eat life and we drink life; with Emissene, that we feel the Lord to be present in grace; with Athanasius, that we receive celestial food which cometh from above; the property of natural communion, with Hilary; the nature of flesh and benediction which giveth life, in Bread and Wine, with Cyril; and with the same Cyril, the virtue of the very Flesh of Christ, life and grace of His Body, the property of the Only-Begotten, that is to say, life, as He Himself in plain words expounded it.

"I confess also with Basil, that we receive the mystical advent and coming of Christ, grace, and the virtue of His very nature; the Sacrament of his very Flesh, with Ambrose; the Body by grace, with Epiphanius; spiritual flesh, but not that which was crucified, with Jerome; grace flowing into a sacrifice, and the grace of the Spirit, with Chrysosthom; grace and invisible verity, grace and society of the members of Christ's Body, with Augustine.

"Finally, with Bertram, (who was the last of all these,) I confess that Christ's Body is in the Sacrament in this respect; namely, as he writeth, because there is in it the Spirit of Christ, that is, the power of the Word of God, which not only feedeth the soul, but also cleanseth it. Out of these I suppose it may clearly appear unto all men, how far we are from that opinion, whereof some go about falsely to slander us to the world, saying, we teach that the godly and faithful should receive nothing else at the Lord’s table, but a figure of the Body of Christ." – p. 201, 202

2008-08-21T16:53:00.000-07:00

With Angel and Archangels and All the Company of Heaven. . .

I’ve chosen to address the Invocation of the Saints (a bit of a repost, to be honest) because I was reminded of this topic by Father Chad's fine post on Saints and the Liturgy:

http://philorthodox.blogspot.com/2008/08/saints-and-liturgy.html

How to address this contentious issue, the issue of the "Invocation of the Saints"? Do Anglicans accept this practice? Many do, but think that the Articles are thereby opposed to “Catholicism” as they see it because it denounces the "Romish Doctrine of Invocation." As with some of the other issues we’ve addressed, we must not equate the Roman practices of the Reformation era (or the 19th century, which many Anglicans chose to mimic) with Catholicism proper.

We’ve seen that Purgatory is not a Catholic doctrine (rejected as it is in the Eastern Church and without foundation in the ancient Church), but a Roman one. Here too we must distinguish the Roman from the Catholic, for they are not identical. We can still pray for the departed (as we do in the 1549 and 1928 Eucharists) and have no need to embrace the Roman justification for engaging in the practice by making recourse to the concept of Purgatory. So, do we Anglican believe that the saints pray for us? Yes, for we pray with “all the company of heaven” in the Holy Eucharist (whether one uses the 1549, the 1662, or the 1928 variations). I’ve read pieces by C.S. Lewis and the Rev’d Dr. Toon supporting the notion that as we can ask the saints on earth for their prayers (“oremus”), so too can we ask the Saints in heaven for theirs. However, are there objections to the practice? I must admit that there are, if we engage in this practice after a certain way, namely phrasing the prayers to the saints without reference to God the Father or Christ Jesus. Can the objections be overcome? I believe they can, in a manner commensurate with the thinking of the Caroline divines of Anglicanism and the practice of the ancient Church. On this issue I will first turn to a favorite English Catholic text of mine—Vernon Staley’s The Catholic Religion, for I believe Canon Staley addresses this issue in a concise, honest, and forthright manner:

“That the saints who have gone before pray for us, has always been the belief of the Church. We believe that they join in prayer for us on earth with a power which was not theirs whilst in the flesh—the mother for her children, the priest for his flock, friend for friend. And it is lawful to ask God to grant us a share in their intercession. In what way, or to what extent, the saints are conscious of our needs, has not been revealed to us. The Church of England, in Article XXII condemns “the Romish doctrine concerning invocation of the saints,” that is to say, that system of prayer to the saints which led to their being regarded otherwise than as exalted supplicants. Before the Reformation serious abuses had arisen. It was supposed, for instance, that the saints had power with God because of their own merits, and that they were kinder, and had greater sympathy for sinners than Christ our Saviour. Upon this subject we quote the words of Dr. Pusey—

“The exclusive address of unseen beings has an obvious tendency at once to fall into a sort of worship; it is too like the mode in which we address almighty God to be any way safe; the exclusive request of their intercession is likely at once to constitute them intercessors in a way different from God’s servants on earth, and to interfere with the office of the Great Intercessor;”

and again ,

“For members of the English Church, who desire the prayers of the departed, it has to him ever seemed safest to express the desire for those prayers to God ‘of whom and through whom and to whom are all things.’”pp 130-131

Here we are actually left with a solution to any perceived problem with “invoking the saints,” which we will come back to shortly. In summary of the points above, Canon Staley notes that the Roman practice was tied up with the saints having merits of their own, something that is rejected in the Articles when they reject the works of supererogation: “whereas Christ saith plainly When ye have done all that are commanded to you, say, We are unprofitable servants.” The only merits we can rightfully plead are the merits of Christ. So this element of the practice must be left by the theological wayside. We must also reject the notion that the saints are, in a sense, replacements for Christ as a mediator—that Christ is too far off, too fearfully awful that we must come to Him through another channel. The is a notion of the Middle Ages that Staley rightfully notes as erroneous. This idea must be countered, for Christ is our only Mediator and Advocate who intercedes with the Father on our behalf. That Christ is too remote or unsympathetic is no justification for invoking the Saints: We do not come to Christ through the Saints; rather we have communion with the Saints in and through Christ.

The last issue that Staley notes it the idea that the Saints in heaven may not be conscious of our needs. This issue must be addressed. Pusey remarks that “The exclusive address of unseen beings has an obvious tendency at once to fall into a sort of worship; it is too like the mode in which we address almighty God to be any way safe.” Pusey is not rejecting prayers to the Saints—he is commenting that prayers composed in a manner in which they are exclusively addressed to the Saints comes too close to the form of prayer we use to address God alone. What then is the remedy to this and to the criticism that we have no assurance that the Saints even hear our requests? Pusey provides the suggestion that addresses both of these issues, that

“. . .for members of the English Church, who desire the prayers of the departed, it has to him ever seemed safest to express the desire for those prayers to God ‘of whom and through whom and to whom are all things.”

Here we have a conclusion that was arrived at also by the Caroline divines, one that is illustrated by reference to the old Roman Mass itself. For in the old Roman Mass, we have a prayer addressed to God Almighty, but within this prayer there is a request for the prayers of the saints. Again, note that this is not initially a prayer addressed to the Virgin, St. Andrew, or St. Agnes—it is addressed to God and concluded “through Christ.” What many Anglo-Catholics rejected (see Pusey, Staley, or Westcott’s Catholic Principles) were long prayers addressed to the saint alone and giving the saint (especially the Blessed Virgin) titles usually reserved for Christ. But the prayer in the old Roman Mass is different. Within it is a petition that the saints may pray for us. Several other prayers of the old Missals resemble this prayer. Consider this prayer on the Vigil of the Feast of St. Andrew:

“Grant, we beseech Thee, Almighty God: that as we do prevent the festival of Thy holy Apostle Saint Andrew, so he may implore Thy mercy for us; that we being delivered from all our iniquities, may likewise be defended against all adversities. . .”

At this point it should be clear that this older manner of requesting the prayers of the Saints addresses the main concerns that usually arise. In that we are addressing the prayer to God through Christ, we have the assurance that the Saints in heaven are being commanded by God. We do not pray to the saints to bypass Christ because He is too stern and the saints more merciful—the mercy of God is implored and His omnipotence is rightly assumed. Also, we do not use titles and manners of address reserved for God in Trinity. As Pusey rightly states, those who desire the prayers of the saints ought address this desire to God, in whom are all things.

2008-08-19T09:01:00.000-07:00

Icons, shrines, and Anglicanism

Iconoclasm, the destruction of images of Christ, the Virgin, or the Saints, stems from an insufficient appreciation of the full humanity of Christ, and as such it is a heresy. The creation of specific imagery of Christ and other Christian figures did not become prevalent until after the waning of paganism. Iconoclasm was most prevalent during these introductions; by the 8th Century a great deal of superstition had arisen in connection with the images and the debate concerning their use had become contentious (Moss, The Christian Faith, 1957, p 88). Saint John of Damascus clarified the issue of images as it related to Christology, stressing the reality of Christ’s humanity. The Second Council of Nicea in A.D. 787 condemned the iconoclasts and directed pictures be restored to the churches.

Churches north of the Alps not represented at Nicea II rejected the decrees of the council. The Council of Frankfort declared that pictures could be used in churches, but not worshipped (misunderstanding the nuances of Nicea II between "veneration" and "adoration" or worship). The authority of Nicea II was questioned by the theologians of the western Church as late as 1540. The Protestant Reformation ignited a new wave of iconoclasm in the West, especially in the churches of the Puritan, Presbyterian, and Reformed traditions. Iconoclasm did not affect Lutheranism to a great degree—crucifixes, statues, and paintings have been in continuous use in Lutheran worship since the Reformation.

Anglicans had varying views on the subject. The cross and candles upon the Altar were often retained by the high churchmen (for instance, Queen Elizabeth I kept an ornate crucifix in her chapel). Post-Reformation portraiture of Anglican divines such as Cranmer, Andrewes, and Laud demonstrated the development of a type of “Anglican iconography,” as did the continued practice of creating effigies for the monuments of the deceased prelates in English Cathedrals. During the Puritan Commonwealth much ancient Christian art left in place in England at the Anglican Reformation was thoughtlessly defaced (literally—it means to destroy the faces) or otherwise destroyed. Anglo-Catholic churches (from the late 1800s to the present) have brought back the crucifix, icons, and statues of Saints to Anglican places of worship (they were never completely gone in some places), but the iconographic structure and organization of the images as found in the Eastern churches is often lacking. Indeed, in many parishes proportion and focus are lost amid a sea of statuary and images and a repetition of the crucifix.

While God the Father cannot be pictorially represented (He is never depicted in the icons of the Eastern Church, although He often is in the West—as an elderly mirror image of Christ; this is indeed an example of bad theology), both the Holy Ghost and Christ have been depicted in Eastern iconography, the Spirit as a dove or a tongue of fire, both images with biblical foundations. As Christ was Incarnate and fully assumed our human nature, it is not incorrect that His image can be likened as best we can assume He appeared in the flesh. Honor (veneration) paid to such an image is not to the wood or paint, but to the Person of Christ (just the same as when we bow in the Liturgy at the Name of Jesus, we bow not to vibrations in the air, but to the Incarnate Word). The ability to depict Christ as man, as Incarnate God, speaks to the truth of Christianity—we don’t just worship some unseen Deity. Even though we cannot imagine the glory of God the Father nor create any likeness of Him, we have the human attestation of His nature in the Person of Christ.

I have a Methodist relative (I come from that tradition myself and have a bust of John Wesley on my desk) and she has a picture of Jesus (normal European depiction: flowing hair, pale skin, blue eyes) in her bedroom. When I visited her house some time back she mentioned, looking at the picture, that she talks to Him every day. I knew what she meant, as would almost any other Christian. Nobody would think that she spoke to the picture or thought that it had any special power. She had an implicit theory of Christian iconography. She speaks not to the image, but to the One that it represents.As Christ was Incarnate, we can depict Him and revere His image and likeness. As the Saints were humans, we can do likewise. We cannot think that the images have any value or power in and of themselves. They are not magic. I believe most protestants have an understanding of icons close to the understanding of the Second Council of Nicea, even though they might abhor or question their use in Lutheran, Orthodox, Anglican or Roman Catholic worship. Pictures of Christ (or even the Holy Family, if it is Christmas time) might be set upon the mantle and treated with respect in Christian homes of many traditions. If someone were to come into the home and spit upon the image of Christ or smash the crèche the person would probably be horrified, because they would rightly interpret the attack upon the image as an attack on the idea of Christianity or the person of Jesus. If a Democrat has a picture of Kennedy on the wall or the Republican a picture of Reagan and a visitor looks at the image and expresses pleasure or disdain, almost everyone knows that the displeasure or appreciation is directed at the person, not at the image.

The Affirmation of Saint Louis embraces the Seven Ecumenical Councils without qualification. The Constitution and Canons of the Reformed Episcopal Church states: “Nicea II (787). . .is disputed in respect of its ecumenicity and application, though in principle its condemnation of Iconoclasm is conceded to be orthodox.” Therefore, the bulk of classical Anglicanism embraces the theology of Nicea II. The main questions that remain for many classical Anglicans pertain not to the general theological conclusions of Nicea II, but rather to the wording of many of the directives within the pronouncements of the Council. The canons resulting from this council do not just allow for images in places of worship, but direct that images be placed in all churches and that honor be paid to these images through gestures (bowing, kissing, etc), and that those who reject “all ecclesiastical tradition, whether written or non-written” be condemned (something that would have to be reconciled to the Articles and their affirmation that nothing is required than that which can be proven by Holy Scripture). An Anglican service of the Holy Eucharist can be validly celebrated without a cross upon the Holy Table or a single icon in the parish church; several Anglo-Catholic churches I know have no images and no stained glass except for the cross or crucifix on the altar. An Orthodox liturgy (to the best of my knowledge) demands the use of an icon--even a mission parish requires a portable set of standing icons. It is in these regards that many Anglicans still question the “ecumenicity and application” of the council, while readily admitting that its Christology in defense of Christian art and its use is orthodox. If any Anglican you speak with says otherwise, ask him if he has a Nativity set or has sent a Christmas card with the Virgin and Child upon it.

Relics and Pilgrimages

Every year or so I go to a large shrine that houses the mortal remains, the relics, of a man beloved by millions--the shrine is huge and impressive, filled with icons of the man entombed there. There are paintings, busts, and in a museum nearby numerous wax figures. It is the shrine of the 16th president of the United States. Usually I will take a token of my pilgrimage back with me; last time it was a bust of President Lincoln. With this example we see that most people will embark on some manner of pilgrimage in their lives to visit the tomb of a famous person now deceased, even if it is a secular one. All of us visit the graves of those we have loved and lost. Even the most ardent Protestant must admit the similarity between the two practices.

Wheaton College in Illinois has a collection of the "relics" of C.S. Lewis (personal belongings, etc) and many Christians have made pilgrimages to see them. However, there are no indulgences granted for such trips, and no years will be taken off of time to be spent in purgatory. What such pilgrimages will do is help to connect the living with the faithful who have "departed this life in Thy faith and fear" that "we might follow in their good examples."There should be no objection to pilgramages to such shrines, either to C.S. Lewis or to Lancelot Andrewes, or to the site of Cranmer or Laud's martyrdom. What most find abhorent (as the Reformers did in the late Middle Ages) is the creation and selling of relics--body parts taken from the grave, dismembered portions from a desecrated corpse removed from his resting place in Christian burial and sold for profit. There is a great and important difference between visiting the tomb of a faithful Christian and taking parts from that faithful Christian in order to create "a tomb away from the grave." We must ask ourselves if we would approve of the dismemberment of a saintly elder of our family so that a church might have "a piece of her" for the parish. . .I would hope not.

2008-08-18T15:19:00.000-07:00

A piece that illustrates some of the perils on the ground of Anglicans hoping for "The Roman Option"

The Roman Option
(from http://www.unavoce.org/)

Commentary and proposal
by Mark Cameron

I recently read (almost at a sitting actually as I found it quite gripping) William Oddie's The Roman Option (New York: Harper Collins, 1997), the story of the entry of Anglo-Catholic dissidents into the Catholic Church in the UK, and to a lesser extent the US, after the decision of the Church of England to "ordain" women. I think there are many lessons in this book which are relevant to traditionalist Catholics, especially when it comes to tactics on how to carve out our own distinct but integral place in the Church.

The Anglo-Catholics were by and large perfectly orthodox, willing to accept all Catholic doctrine and to submit themselves to reordination. But they also wished to preserve some of their liturgical and historical traditions. Quoting Pope Paul VI's statement to Anglican Archbishop Michael Ramsey, they wished to be "united but not absorbed." They also wished to maintain their group and parish identities, not simply be absorbed into the anonymity of large (and liberal) suburban Catholic parishes. While traditionalists may argue with some of their liturgical preferences, and certainly with married priests, I think most of us would sympathize with their general goals.

The path they faced in trying to find a way to join the Church as distinct groups and to preserve their liturgical heritage is both discouraging and highly familiar to traditionalists. At first, they received a warm welcome from Cardinal Hume, and an even warmer welcome in Rome (where their biggest ally was, surprise, surprise, Cardinal Ratzinger). Their ideal goal was an Anglican rite personal prelature. But they quickly realized that this was a non-starter, so they started negotiating for a lesser aim: a canonical structure that would allow them to be catechized and join the Church together, and to continue to worship together after they had joined. (I will come back to the details of this later) Rome was keen for this, and Hume was initially willing. But the English Catholic bishops, egged on by liberals and feminists in the Church who did not want to see 1,000 priests and 50,000 laity loyal to Rome and against women priests enter the Church, balked. What the English Bishops eventually produced was a very watered down statement saying that parishes or groups could join together, but once received they would be absorbed into the mainstream church. The hope of staying together as parishes or keeping elements of Anglican liturgy was more or less crushed. It was join Father Flippant at St. Teilhard de Chardin's for the Novus Ordo, or nothing.

Some U.S. bishops, led by Cardinal Law, were more keen and were promoting a wider explansion of the "pastoral provision", by which a few Anglican parishes, mostly in Texas, had already been received into the Church. Rome tried to push for a more generous settlement in both the US and the UK, but it came to nothing. Some of the individual stories are shocking. One key player in the negotiations was Episcopalian Bishop Clarence Pope of Fort Worth, Texas. He tried to negotiate for a personal prelature, or some form of nationwide, expanded patoral provision, with the help of Cardinal Law. They had a meeting in Rome with key Cardinals, which concluded with a dramatic meeting where Pope John Paul II embraced Bishop Pope and gestured towards him saying, "in communion." But when they went back home, nothing happened. Finally, the ailing Bishop Pope announced his retirement as Anglican bishop, and that he couldn't wait any longer and wished to come into the Church as an individual. On retirement, he moved to the diocese of Baton Rouge, Louisiana. The bishop of Baton Rouge had said that he would happily reordain Bishop Pope as a priest. But having said this, the bishop then said that he would first... (wait for this) put it to a vote of the diocesan priests council. Guess what? They voted against allowing an Anglican bishop, involved in direct negotiations with the Pope and Cardinals Law and Ratzinger, to become an ordinary priest. Pope was completely isolated from the Catholic community in Baton Rouge, and was left in the dark as to what was happening atthe national and international level (after all, he was just a retired layman now). Old and sick, he started getting calls from the Episcopalian primate and the new Episcopal Bishop of Fort Worth to return to the Episcopal Church to the dignity of being a retired bishop. He did, thanks to the petty jealousies and heartlessness of a small bishop and his liberal priests.

In the end, thanks to a myriad of stumbling blocks on the Catholic side, and a more creative response on the Anglican side by giving the dissident parishes four bishops of their own and allowing them to opt out of the regular Church of England structure, the negotiations with Rome and Westminster came to nothing. Many individual priests and laity came over, but the prospect of a mass conversion of whole parishes flopped.

The similarities to the position of Roman rite traditionalists to the Anglo-Catholics discussed in Oddie's book were striking. How many times have we had friendly words or documents from Rome, only to be shot down by bishops? How many times have we heard initially positive responses from bishops, only to be shot down by a vote of the priests council? How many times have we had to endure insults that we are not really loyal to the Church because we want our own distinct liturgy? It also makes me think that if Rome is too powerless to bring over an Anglican bishop who the Pope has said he is "in communion" with because of the Baton Rouge priests council, or unwilling to help bring over 200+ whole Anglican parishes, how much power will they have or energy will they spend to help us? We may have to come to the same sad lesson that most of the Anglo-Catholic dissidents still in the Church of England came to: the bishops and priests don't want us, and Rome is unwilling or unable to help us. Therefore, we have to help ourselves. The dissident Anglicans, with their own four bishops, are united through the Forward in Faith movement in the U.K. (and now in the U.S.as well) This will give them a powerful structure to negotiate with Rome as a bloc. Next time, it will take more than kind words from Cardinals: they will want it in writing.

2008-08-17T14:59:00.000-07:00

Anglican Unity

There is a great hunger for Christian unity within Anglican circles these days, pulling various factions of Anglicanism in different directions. In some respects one of the forces at work seems to be the desire to be part of "something bigger." On the one hand you have groups like the Traditional Anglican Communion (represented in America by the Anglican Church in America) and perhaps certain elements of the Diocese of Forth Worth hoping to become something of a "uniat" Anglican Rite within the Roman Catholic Church. Of course, for most traditional Anglicans this is not a viable approach. Perhaps more viable (for those who desire to be a part of a larger group of Christians), given the Anglican ethos, is to explore the Western Rite currently in use in one or two Orthodox jurisdictions. Why do I see this as more viable? I have a copy of the Western Rite Service Book and roughly 90% of its contents comes from the 1928 Book of Common Prayer--most high church Anglicans probably couldn't tell the difference during a service. However, one thing that hinders many is the feeling that they are second class citizens in Orthodoxy as those who use either the 1928 liturgy or the Gregorian canon and not one of the "real" Orthodox liturgies. The creation of a western rite bishop--or working towards such a creation--would be a great move forward.

However, many Anglo-Catholics feel the pull of Rome much more strongly, even if they have previously identified themselves as being of one mind with the Seven Councils (thereby rejecting the peculiar Roman additions to the faith). The visible unity that Rome provides is apparently far stronger.

Similarly, the pull from remnants of the Canterbury Communion is also very strong. The Common Cause Partnership, which includes Anglo-Catholic dioceses from the Episcopal Church, elements of Forward in Faith, the Anglican Mission in America, and the Reformed Episcopal Church is hoping to become the new orthodox Anglican province in North America and become recognized by the more conservative elements of worldwide Anglicanism that met in Jerusalem. However, parts of the Common Cause Partnership ordain women to the priesthood and show no signs of stopping--as Bishop Martin Minns has put it, there are "two integrities" on this issue, both of which will "be respected" (as women continue to be ordained). I hate to sound cynical, but this language is remarkably like that of the Episcopal Church from a few decades back. However, leaders such as Bishop Hewett of the Diocese of the Holy Cross sound very hopeful that the majority in Common Cause will win the day and the historic order of the Church will be preserved. We will need to wait and see, but the 800 pound (and he seems to be gaining weight) gorilla in the corner of the room need be acknowledged. If he is not, the result will be a new province with "impaired communion" as one of its founding elements, and as such it will not remain viable for long.

Anglican Christians do indeed need to work for unity, but it cannot be achieved at the expense of a common ministry for the Holy Table or Common Prayer built around the Cranmerian-Laudian prayer book tradition.

Just my two cents. . .

2008-08-14T22:05:00.001-07:00

August 15th

Saint Mary the Virgin, Mother of Our Lord Jesus Christ

(The Falling Asleep of the Blessed Virgin Mary)

The Collect
O GOD, who hast taken to thyself the blessed Virgin Mary, mother of thine only Son: Grant that we who have been redeemed by his blood may share with her the glory of thine eternal kingdom; through the same Jesus Christ our Lord, who liveth and reigneth with thee and the Holy Ghost ever, one God, world without end. Amen.

The Epistle Isaiah 61:7-11
THEREFORE in their land they shall possess a double portion: everlasting joy shall be unto them. For I the Lord love justice. I hate robbery and wrong; and I will direct their work in truth, and I will make an everlasting covenant with them. And their seed shall be known among the Gentiles, and their offspring among the people: all that see them shall acknowledge them, that they are the seed which the Lord hath blessed. I will greatly rejoice in the Lord, my soul shall be joyful in my God; for he hath clothed me with the garments of salvation, he hath covered me with the robe of righteousness, as a bridegroom decketh himself ornaments, and as a bride adorneth herself with her jewels. For as the earth bringeth forth her bud, and as the garden causeth the things that are sown in it to spring forth; so the Lord God will cause righteousness and praise to spring forth before all the nations.

The Gospel St Luke 1:46-55.
MY soul doth magnify the Lord and my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour. For he hath regarded the low estate of his handmaiden: for, behold, from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed. For he that is mighty hath done to me great things; and holy is his name. And his mercy is on them that fear him from generation to generation. He hath shewed strength with his arm; he hath scattered the proud in the imagination of their hearts. He hath put down the mighty from their seats, and exalted them of low degree. He hath filled the hungry with good things; and the rich he hath sent empty away. He hath holpen his servant Israel, in remembrance of his mercy; as he spake to our fathers, to Abraham, and to his seed for ever.

2008-07-30T21:16:00.000-07:00

The List

Over at The Continuum (now, due to the writing of Father Hart, my favourite blog) a discussion in the comments has generated a list of basic premises that ought to be held when dealing with the Church of Rome in ecumenical dialogue. I've laid them out in a mildly adapted way here and can only add my hearty agreement.

Father Lawrence Wells contributed the following points that ought to be essential:
1) Anglican orders are absolutely valid and always have been,
2) The papal claims of infallibility are rejected,
3) The Marian dogmas of Immaculate Conception and Assumption are lacking in true Catholic consensus,
4) The Reformational understanding of justification is the only correct reading of Scripture.

Father Hart rightly added:
When Rome understands our position, then we can talk. This is no arbitrary list. I would say that at least all of these points are necessary. I would add one more:

5) "Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation."

2008-07-24T16:12:00.000-07:00

William Temple,

Archbishop of Canterbury, on symbolism and the Holy Eucharist

From Christus Veritas:

In the physical universe symbolism is the principle of existence. Each lower stratum of Reality exists to be the vehicle of the higher. The organism which was Christ’s Body in His earthly ministry derived the significance entitling it to that name from the fact that it was the instrument and vehicle--the effective symbol--of His Spirit. . . .The identity which makes it appropriate to speak of our Lord’s fleshy organism, the Church, and the Eucharistic Bread by one name—the Body of the Lord--is an identity of relation to His Personality on the one hand and to His disciples on the other. The addition of the outpoured Blood makes it plain that it is the symbol of His Personality as offered in sacrifice. As we receive His sacrificial Personality we become able to take our part in the one Sacrifice, which is the self-offering of humanity to God. . . .It is essential to the spiritual value of this sacrament that we do what the Lord did. It is all symbol, but it is expressive, not arbitrary, symbol; that is to say, the spiritual reality signified is actually conveyed by the symbol. The symbol is emphatically not mere symbol; if it were that, we should only receive what our minds could grasp of the meaning symbolised. It is an instrument of the Lord’s purpose to give Himself to us, as well as the symbol of what He gives. What we receive is not limited by our capacity to understand the gift. When with the right intention I receive the Bread and the Wine, I actually receive Christ, whether I have any awareness of this at the moment or not, and always more fully than I am aware. We, by repeating and so identifying ourselves with His sacrificial act, become participants in His one sacrifice. (1924, pp 239-251)

2008-07-18T19:51:00.001-07:00

"These are the days when the Christian is expected to praise every creed except his own."
— G.K. Chesterton

2008-07-18T19:41:00.000-07:00

A RESPONSE FROM THE PRESIDING BISHOP OF THE REFORMED EPISCOPAL CHURCH

July 15, 2008 TO THE CLERGY AND CONGREGATIONS OF THE REFORMED EPISCOPAL CHURCH IN NORTH AMERICA

Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ:Grace and peace to all of you in the Name of our gracious and eternal God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. I write to provide you with a report on the historic gathering of faithful Anglican Christians which took place in the city of Jerusalem from June 22 through 29, 2008. Participation in this event, known as the Global Anglican Future Conference, was by invitation only, and drew together nearly 1,200 participants representing some 35 million of the world's orthodox Anglicans from more than 25 nations on 6 continents. The Reformed Episcopal Church was represented by 14 persons including five of our bishops. The Rt. Rev. Charles W. Dorrington, the Rt. Rev. Alphonza Gadsden, Sr., the Rt. Rev. Royal U. Grote, Jr., the Rt. Rev. Ray R. Sutton, and I were all privileged to be part of this unprecedented gathering.Throughout the span of 8 days pilgrims devoted themselves intensively to worship in daily plenary sessions, to prayer in small groups, to Bible study and discussion, and to substantive examination of significant issues in skillfully conducted workshops and discussion groups. Throughout the week we traveled together to the holy places of Jerusalem and its immediate environs, as well as to more distant places such as Bethlehem and Galilee. An especially moving experience came on Wednesday, June 25, when all pilgrims assembled on the southern steps of the Temple, joining in a service of rededication and renewed commitment of Christ, to the truth of the Gospel, and to the mission of the church.The purpose of the Global Anglican Future Conference (or 'GAFCON') was stated by the Most Rev. Peter Akinola, Primate of All Nigeria, in his opening address. The Archbishop said that "GAFCON is a godly instrument to reshape, reform, renew and reclaim a true Anglican, biblical, orthodox Christianity that is firmly rooted in the historic faith and in the ancient formularies....We are here to inaugurate and determine the roadmap to our future."The logo of GAFCON bears the two words "Unity" and "Truth" superimposed upon the cross. The truth-claims of Christianity were the reiterated emphasis of the Conference, because they are the bedrock upon which historic Anglican Christianity was established. Every conference speaker and workshop leader made clear, in his own way, that Christ's desire for the unity of His people is always based upon truth. "Sanctify them through the truth; Thy Word is truth." (St. John 17:17)The outcome of this eventful week in the Holy City is articulated in the GAFCON Conference Statement, and in the Jerusalem Declaration which it embodies. This important document is attached to this letter, and I commend it to the serious attention and study of all of our people. The following matters are worthy of special note.

* Our core identity as Anglicans is clearly defined as based upon the Holy Scriptures as God's Word written; upon the catholic creeds and the ancient Councils of the undivided church; and upon the historic formularies of our Anglican heritage: the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion, the Book of Common Prayer, and the Ordinal.

* The Jerusalem Declaration offers a clear and forthright articulation of our present-day commitment, mission and purpose as a fellowship of faithful Anglican Christians.

* The establishment of a Primates' Council marks a step toward restoring the church to the ancient, conciliar form of order and government by which substantive matters of belief and practice can be collectively considered, effectively determined, and strongly upheld, so that both orthodoxy and orthopraxis are maintained and promoted in the life of the church.

* The Primates' signed affirmation, attached to the Conference Statement and the Jerusalem Declaration, provides authentication and recognition to the Reformed Episcopal Church as full partners in the realigned global Anglican fellowship which has emerged from GAFCON, together with other "confessing Anglican jurisdictions" who also agree to promote the Gospel and defend the faith.

* The commitment of the Primates anticipates the formation of a new ecclesiastical structure for North America, to be presented to the Primates' Council for recognition as a province. Work on the formation of this new structure has engaged the Lead Bishops' Executive Committee throughout the past ten months, ever since the College of Bishops of the Common Cause Partnership met in Pittsburgh in September, 2007, and commissioned us with the task. Relationships within this new structure will continue to be federated, with jurisdictions retaining individual identities, integrities, and autonomy.

GAFCON establishes a new alignment and marks a new beginning for faithful Anglicans throughout the world. In particular, it launches a new era of opportunity for the Reformed Episcopal Church. With joy and thanksgiving we take our place as members of a global family and fellowship, uniting in witness, mission, and purpose to bear testimony to Jesus Christ as the only Name whereby men must be saved, and to serve Him, together with all faithful Anglicans, in building His church.

Faithfully yours, in Christ,

The Most Rev. Leonard W. Riches

Presiding Bishop

2008-07-10T11:03:00.000-07:00

Thoughts on GAFCON

by the Rt. Rev. Paul C. Hewett, SSC

Moderator of the Federation of Anglican Churches in the Americas

Bishop of the Diocese of the Holy Cross

http://dioceseoftheholycross.org/involvement/gafcon_08.html

Nearly 1,200 pilgrims from five continents, representing 35 million faithful Anglicans, two thirds of the Anglican Communion, gathered for 8 days in Jerusalem, in what must surely be the most significant watershed for Anglicans since the Reformation.

The Most Rev. Peter Akinola, Primate of Nigeria, the Communion’s largest province, gave the Opening Address, entitled “GAFCON – A Rescue Mission.” “GAFCON,” he said, “is a godly instrument to reshape, reform, renew and reclaim a true Anglican Biblical orthodox Christianity that is firmly anchored in historic faith and ancient formularies...We are here to inaugurate and determine the roadmap to (our) future. And from what better place in the world could we take the fullest advantage of the most powerful reminders of the life and ministry of our Lord and only Saviour Jesus the Christ than here in the holy land where he was born, grew up, served, was killed, rose again for our justification, ascended to heaven and now is seated at the right hand of God the Father, interceding for us.”

Normally a conference of this magnitude takes years to prepare. GAFCON was put together, brilliantly, and funded, in five months. The hand of God was upon this mighty work. Our time together was filled with pilgrimages to holy sites, worship, devotional prayer sessions, workshops, Bible study and several plenary sessions. Each of these was arranged so that we could truly be pilgrims, journeying from our roots into the future God has in mind for us. We heard outstanding presentations and sermons from Professor Os Guinness, Bishop Michael Nazir-Ali of Rochester, England, Archbishop Yong Ping Chung from Malaysia and Archbishop Gregory Venables from the Southern Cone, and numerous others. The daily morning workshops were superb. I looked in on two, “Family and Marriage,” and “Anglican Identity in the 21st Century.” The others were “Gospel and Culture,” “Gospel and Leadership,” “Biblical Authority and Interpretation,” “Evangelism and Church Planting,” “Theological Education,” and “Bishops’ Wives.” We had opportunities to visit shrines in Jerusalem, Bethlehem and the Galilee.
FACA was represented by bishops, clergy and laity from the Diocese of the Holy Cross, the Episcopal Missionary Church, the Reformed Episcopal Church and the Anglican Mission in America. I had an opportunity to speak as part of a panel of bishops in the Common Cause Partnership, when we met as the CCP to lay out our perceptions and expectations. I said that it was clear that a green light was being given to us in North America to use CCP as the nucleus of a new and recognized North American province that could remain federated until it resolves its differences. And in so resolving our differences, we must always commit ourselves to the consensus of the undivided Church of the first millennium.

Forward in Faith from North America and England were well represented, and it was very useful to have time to network closely with them, to keep coordinated and on the same page. We could see that what GAFCON was doing was launching a new, or second, reformation, positioning itself as the beginning of an ecclesial movement for renewal and proclamation opportunities. To do this GAFCON would open up enough structure, like a giant umbrella, within which we can deal with secondary issues. The largest of these is the ordination of women. In his Address, “Where do we go from here?” Bishop John Rodgers noted the “serious degree of impaired communion...around this matter,” and the need for a proper study such as the one AMiA conducted. To encourage this, Forward in Faith at its recent Assembly in Belleville, IL, passed a resolution urging Common Cause Partners who ordain women to begin such a study, with a moratorium on ordinations until the study is completed. The same resolution will be on the agenda at FACA’s meeting this September.

Bishop Rodgers went on to assert the necessity of returning to “a common prayer book tradition. The classic expression of this is the 1662 Book of Common Prayer and Ordinal. This classic prayer book is grace-centered to a unique degree. Cranmer surpassed all others in placing the Gospel in the center of the worship and prayers of the people.”

He also takes a strong stand for a conciliar form of governance, using the sobornost theology of the Russian Orthodox Church and the other Orthodox. “Our present form is really more like a global family picnic than a council. The early Church from biblical times onward held councils, not picnics...In addition, with regard to ecumenical conversations, a conciliar form of Communion would enable clearer and more easily recognized conversations and cooperation. We should do this because it is biblical, traditional, catholic, missional and ecumenical.” In a Diocese like ours, Holy Cross, we already have a markedly conciliar way of governance. For example, we have holy synods, not conventions. The business or political part of our synods is an hour or two at most, and the rest is all “fellowship in the Holy Spirit.” It is recognized in advance that no matter of Faith or Morals could ever even appear on an agenda.

Bishop Rodger’s projection for the future is that a new faithful Anglican conciliar Communion should be formed as soon as possible. The GAFCON primates would call a Council “which would begin the reformed Global Anglican Family comprised of all those provinces, dioceses and congregations as wished and were able to align with it. It would thus initiate the reformed Anglican Family allowing it to take its place in the world, unattached from the present Anglican Communion. The days of weak response and delay are past. The issues are far too serious, too serious for the spread of the Apostolic Gospel, and too serious for the preservation and vital work of faithful Anglicanism. No matter what the pain or no matter what the cost, we are called by the Lord to devote ourselves to the Apostles’ teaching and fellowship, the breaking of bread and prayers, while living in vigorous apostolic mission.”

The opportunities for networking were massive, meeting new people and strengthening existing ties, with people like Fr. Kevin Donlon, Bp. Mark Lawrence, Professor Edith Humphrey, Bp. John Rodgers, Fr. Douglas Mussey, Bp. and Mrs. Jim Davis, and Ron Spears and the Association of Western Anglican Congregations, and many others. After the final Eucharist and lunch, the Ackermans took me to the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, and I shall never forget kneeling in the Empty Tomb with Bishop Keith, placing our SSC Pectoral Crosses on the spot where Jesus rose from the dead.

Bishop Keith by the way was a strong presence at GAFCON, as was everyone from Forward in Faith and FACA. Everyone knows that we cannot and will not compromise the ministry as our Lord instituted it and the apostles continued it. We are not, and can never be, in communion with anyone who ordains women. If those who do so continue the practice, we will remain in our federated relationships, entirely independent in our own synods and structures. But we will declare to them “all the counsel of God,” (Acts 20:27) and the way in which all the issues we face are interrelated. All these issues are one and the same thing: the gnostic impulse to redefine human nature apart from Christ. Those who persist in ordaining women are backing themselves into an ever-shrinking corner. It is the women themselves who are increasingly going to rise up against it, and ask that the tables in the house of the Lord have men at their heads. Boys must have this if they are to be men-in-Christ. Our culture is crumbling because not enough boys are learning how to be godly men. Chesterton predicted, early in the 20th century, that the most radical thing in the world by the end of the century would be Christian Fatherhood. The Bible shows us how patriarchy is redeemed, modeled in Jesus the Son, who reveals the Father as the ultimate gracious Patriarch. The Incarnation of the Son is the ultimate in kenosis, or self-emptying. In the Holy Spirit, patriarchy is gracious and kenotic.

For a proper, biblical release of feminine gifts that grows out of the one great tradition, we begin with Our Lady, the first Christian, the new Eve. With a growing awareness of Mary as our Mother, we can begin to ennumerate and build up the ways in which girls and women live in the Body, first as wives and mothers, and then in the plethora of ministries that are or can be open to them, according to their gifts, to build once again a culture of life. Christian women from Africa, with their dress, modesty, courtesy and manners, have some things to teach us, and are a good example to our secular culture.

It is essential that we deepen our relationships with Rome and Orthodoxy, first and foremost because our Lord desires this, and also because the Muslims are coming. At the very least, we need to learn to speak with one moral voice in the face of the rising tide of Islam. The person who hinted at the need for convergence with the larger Catholic world was the Bishop of Rochester, Michael Nazir-Ali, in his brilliant talk, “The Nature and Future of the Anglican Communion.” The patristic consensus of the undivided Church is our foundation as Anglicans, and is now the basis for dialogue with Rome and Orthodoxy.

As Anglo Catholics we have been in the purgative fires for over 30 years. The Evangelicals have not been in as many refinings. We need to help them understand the Catholic Faith. We need to help them get rid of the cancer of gnosticism that has invaded evangelicalism and the mushy theology that has marked much of the charismatic world. We can help them to really go counter cultural and swim against the tide, as transformers of our culture. Meanwhile they can help us become better evangelicals and take sides with John Wesley, who saw the world as his parish, not his parish as his world. I am going to be asking what opportunities or structures we can create for encounters, at the deepest level, between Anglo catholic, evangelical and charismatic Anglicans.

I would say that GAFCON got it about right with the amount of structure being put into place. We can go slowly on structures now, until we begin to sort out the issues we face. This is the Anglo-Saxon-Celtic way. We cooperate to the greatest extent possible, and let the paperwork follow. This will help us to steer clear of some of the division that followed the St. Louis Congress in 1977. In some ways GAFCON resembled St. Louis on a global scale. One senses from both events that from now on, nothing will ever be the same. What makes GAFCON different is the preponderance of Global South leadership and membership, which will drive our faithful Communion for generations to come.

Of the three models for governance (confessional, conciliar and magisterial) we will, many of us hope, emphasize the conciliar. We are a confessing Church, (now, more than ever, like the confessing church movement in Nazi Germany that resisted Hitler). But we are not a Church with a Confession (a quite lengthy doctrinal statement) like the Lutherans and Presbyterians. Our only confessions are the 3 creeds of the primitive Church, and the Ecumenical Councils. There can be magisterial elements in our governance, because the Book of Common Prayer is our equivalent of a magisterium, a teaching office. But like the Orthodox, we do not have a magisterium centered in the Pope. The teaching office of the Pope should be sufficient for the entire Body, because all Christians should be aware of what he says, and take it very seriously.
GAFCON’s blessing to us in the United States is the acceptance by the Primates’ Council of the Common Cause Partnership as the nucleus of a new province in North America. Building this is a monumental task, probably our last chance to “get it right.” The task before us is staggering, as it was before Nehemiah and the Jews returning from exile. Nehemiah told them “of the hand of my God which was good upon me; as also the king’s words that he had spoken unto me. And they said, Let us rise up and build. So they strengthened their hands for this good work.” (Nehemiah 2: 18)

2008-07-06T17:45:00.000-07:00

Bishop N.T. Wright on the Colbert Report. . .

Truth in advertising here: I think N.T. Wright is an excellent New Testament scholar and theologian. However, he is very weak on other areas of theology and when he walks off the path into political theorizing he sounds like a liberal member of the House of Lords channeling Karl Marx. Also, I really don't like the parody show "The Colbert Report." All that being said, I think N.T. Wright did rather well in this little segment, given to his sticking to what he knows best:

http://www.comedycentral.com/videos/index.jhtml?videoId=174352

2008-07-06T17:33:00.000-07:00

Some initial thoughts (on GAFCON)

by + John H. Rodgers Jr.

Introduction

It is important, when considering what was accomplished at GAFCON, to keep in mind its singular focus. That focus was to identify the Anglican grasp of the apostolic faith, to claim that identity for the whole Anglican Communion and to provide a firm oversight and standing from which to confess the apostolic faith as we Anglicans have received it. This singular focus meant that many very important matters were not directly addressed at GAFCON, in the Statement or in the Jerusalem Declaration. This by no means relegates matters such as the status of 5th, 6th and 7th Councils, the ordination of women, the form of the Anglican Communion, abortion, the nature of and conflict with militant Islam, our relation to the persecuted Church etc. to secondary issues. There are serious issues and differences among the fellowship of confessing Anglicans that must and will be faced. It will not be easy, nor will solutions be sudden, nor can we be absolutely certain that some will not, in the end, decide they must walk apart. The difference is that they will be faced in the context of the authority of Holy Scriptures and the apostolic faith as Anglicans have historically received it. The Conference said, echoing Canon A5 of the Chu rch of England: “The doctrine of the Church is grounded in the Holy Scriptures and in such teaching of the ancient Fathers and Councils of the Church as are agreeable to the said Scriptures. In particular such doctrine is to be found in the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion, the Book of Common Prayer and the Ordinal. We intend to remain faithful to this standard and we call on others in the Communion to reaffirm and return to it.”

With that in mind, let me state I believe to be the most important things that we did accomplish:

1. We are the Communion. “We are not breaking away from the Anglican Communion.”
In essence the fellowship of confessing Anglicans took things in hand and declared that we are the true and faithful Anglicans, upholding the historic Anglican grasp of the apostolic faith, and as such we are the true representatives of the Anglican Communion. Let those who are departing from historic Anglican convictions about the authority and content of the Scriptures come back to what Anglicans have confessed all along. If they are unwilling to do so, it is they, not we, who should leave. I suspect that there are differing expectations among those who have placed themselves under the Jerusalem Declaration as to the future of the structures and membership of the Anglican Communion as it is presently constituted. I myself do not see how we can long abide together structurally, but I could be wrong, my friends do remind me of the parting of the Red Sea and God still does miracles. However, of a faithful confessing Anglican Communion, all at the Conference expressed a confidence in a fruitful and “bright future”.

2. We are under the Jerusalem Declaration.

If we are a confessing fellowship of Anglicans, then we have to be clear as to what we are confessing. In essence we are simply confessing what the Scriptures confess, the apostolic confession. The 16th Century Reformation was not a new faith but a correction of teachings and practices where the Western Church had contradicted Scripture. It was a return to the apostles teaching, particularly with regard to the depth of sin in fallen humanity and the application of God’s grace to the sinner. The specific value of the Declaration is not that it is new, for it is not; it is really ancient in content. The value is that it is clear and concise and we can all be held accountable to teach and act in accord with its statements. One need only to be familiar with much that is being said and taught and done in significant portions of the Anglican Communion today to see what a difference adherence to the Declaration would make, were all to comply with its teaching. We mean to set a caring, welcoming example of obedience.

3. We are under the oversight of Primates who themselves are under the Jerusalem Declaration.
The establishment of a Council of Primates who can and will give recognition, oversight and direction to the various expressions of the fellowship of confessing Anglicans constitutes a new form of authority among Anglicans. It is an effective form of authority. It is concilior, that is, we are governed by a council. It has authority to act. And it is new and distinct from the all other authorities previously existent in the Anglican Communion. It is hoped and expected that other Primates will be added to this Council. There is a freeing aspect to the formation of the Primates Council as well. Being under the Primates Council, we can ignore erroneous and oppressive structures and leaders. In the Jerusalem Declaration we have said that we reject the authority of leaders, structures and churches that operate in contradiction of the apostolic faith as Anglicans have received it. For example, it is noteworthy that this Council of Primates will give recognition to the new orthodox province in North America. The Anglican Consultative Council, which is the official body in the Anglican Communion which recognizes provinces, will be by-passed and not be asked to recognize the new province. Surely this is an application of the rejection of an authority which at present is not seen to be in agreement with the apostolic faith. Couple that claim to and exercise of authority with the assertion that being Anglican is not necessarily attached to recognition by the Archbishop of Canterbury and one sees a very serious demarcation and hedge of protection for the fellowship of confessing Anglicans and for the call to all Anglicans to return to the apostolic faith.

Two thoughts come to mind. First, I wonder if those quickly reading the Statement and Declaration have realized just how serious this action is. One could hold that this action is actually more searching and radical than just leaving would have been.

Second, we can only hope that this initial concilior form of governance under the Primates Council will one day be the form of the entire Anglican Communion. At present, with our autonomous provincial structure, we Anglicans lack an authority to effectively discipline errant provinces. The Concilior form of oversight is biblical, apostolic, patristic, catholic, and ecumenical in nature. Our present structure in the Anglican Communion has existed only after Henry the VIIIth absorbed concilior authority to Himself and as the Anglican Communion grew outside of the Great Britain. Our loose federation resembles an international annual family picnic more than a global Communion. The early Church held a council not a picnic. Unlike some in fellowship of confessing Anglicans, I do believe the Communion is a visible expression of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church as are congregations, dioceses and provinces, each in their own sphere, and hence is best governed by a council and is to be in conformity to Articles 19, 20 and 21 of the 39 Articles. This too is a difference among us needing to be addressed in the days ahead.

Conclusion: On Mission: Free to Serve

We do not know what the future holds, given this bold claim and action by the fellowship of confessing Anglicans, but we do know that we have been delivered from the oversight and from limitation by those oppressive structures and leaders in the Communion (not all of structures and leaders in the Communion by any means) that have been moving in an increasingly unbiblical consensus and direction. Such compromise, error and time-consuming delay has hindered us in our mission. Now we have been freed to serve without hindrance or delay. May we in the days ahead, by God’s mercy, take full advantage of the freedom to serve Him that He has given to us. And may the entire Communion return to its apostolic foundation and calling. So help us God!

2008-06-27T13:28:00.000-07:00

Remaking Anglicanism
In Jerusalem, conservatives stage an ecclesiastical coup.

By Travis Kavulla

Jerusalem — The future of the Anglican Communion, the third largest Christian church in the world, has been in serious doubt since the 2003 election of Gene Robinson, an openly gay cleric, to be bishop of New Hampshire.
This week, some of that uncertainty is being resolved. The Global Anglican Future Conference (GAFCON) convened in Jerusalem on Sunday, drawing 1,200 conservative Anglicans, including 304 bishops. One of their number, Archbishop Emmanuel Kolini of Rwanda, describes the event as “the beginning of a second reformation.”
Immediately in advance of the gathering, conservative church leaders issued a pamphlet entitled “The Way, the Truth, and the Life.” In it, they assert that on issues of sexuality the collective decisions by primates, as the leaders of the 38 Anglican provinces are known, have been “ignored” and conservatives “derided” and “demonized” by the U.S. Episcopal Church. “There is no longer any hope, therefore, for a unified communion,” the document proclaims.
GAFCON attendees have been reticent to use the word schism — they prefer “broken.” But this seems a preference without distinction. Most of those at GAFCON are boycotting the Lambeth Conference, the once-a-decade gathering on doctrinal matters — deemed “an instrument of unity” in Anglican theology — which will be held next month in Canterbury, the ancient seat of the Church of England. One of the pamphlet’s authors, the Oxford theologian Rev. Roger Beckwith, says that the move puts Rowan Williams, the archbishop of Canterbury and nominal head of the global communion, “in an impossible position.”

Read the full piece here:
http://article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=NzZmYTFjY2JhOWY1ZTA4MTllZWE5OTExNWI5Yzg1ZmI=

2008-06-01T19:06:00.000-07:00

Christianity as "hate crime."

From the London Telegraph:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2058935/Police-advise-Christian-preachers-to-leave-Muslin-area-of-Birmingham.html

A police community support officer ordered two Christian preachers to stop handing out gospel leaflets in a predominantly Muslim area of Birmingham.

The evangelists say they were threatened with arrest for committing a "hate crime" and were told they risked being beaten up if they returned. The incident will fuel fears that "no-go areas" for Christians are emerging in British towns and cities, as the Rt Rev Michael Nazir-Ali, the Bishop of Rochester, claimed in The Sunday Telegraph this year.

Arthur Cunningham, 48, and Joseph Abraham, 65, both full-time evangelical ministers, have launched legal action against West Midlands Police, claiming the officer infringed their right to profess their religion.

Mr Abraham said: "I couldn't believe this was happening in Britain. The Bishop of Rochester was criticised by the Church of England recently when he said there were no-go areas in Britain but he was right; there are certainly no-go areas for Christians who want to share the gospel."

2008-05-29T07:54:00.000-07:00

Ah. . .tolerant liberalism. . .

(from the Corner of the National Review)
Misguided youth with a liberal fascist instinct:

"In response to a series of controversies over abortion debates on Canadian campuses, the student government of York University in Toronto has tabled an outright ban on student clubs that are opposed to abortion.

Gilary Massa, vice-president external of the York Federation of Students, said student clubs will be free to discuss abortion in student space, as long as they do it "within a pro-choice realm," and that all clubs will be investigated to ensure compliance.

"You have to recognize that a woman has a choice over her own body," Ms. Massa said. "We think that these pro-life, these anti-choice groups, they're sexist in nature ... The way that they speak about women who decide to have abortions is demoralizing. They call them murderers, all of them do ... Is this an issue of free speech? No, this is an issue of women's rights."

Another sign that open-minded classical liberalism is by and large a thing of the past. I think I hear the Emperor's March from the Empire Strikes Back playing quietly in the background.

2008-05-27T18:18:00.001-07:00

Baptism

There are two Sacraments ordained of Christ our Lord in the Gospel, that is to say, Baptism, and the Supper of the Lord.

It is through baptism by water in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost that an individual dies to sin and rises to new life in Christ. Through this rebirth, or regeneration, baptism washes away original sin and opens the door to God’s grace. At baptism, a person is grafted into the Church, the Body of Christ, and becomes a branch of the Vine. Furthermore, in Baptism a visible confirmation is given of God’s forgiveness of the individual’s sins, and one’s adoption as a son of God and an heir of salvation.

Baptism is not only a sign of profession, and mark of difference, whereby Christian men are discerned from others that be not christened, but it is also a sign of Regeneration or New-Birth, whereby, as by an instrument, they that receive Baptism rightly are grafted into the Church; the promises of the forgiveness of sin, and of our adoption to be the sons of God by the Holy Ghost, are visibly signed and sealed, Faith is confirmed, and Grace increased by virtue of prayer unto God. The Baptism of young Children is in any wise to be retained in the Church, as most agreeable with the institution of Christ.

Not every deadly sin willingly committed after Baptism is sin against the Holy Ghost, and unpardonable. Wherefore the grant of repentance is not to be denied to such as fall into sin after Baptism. After we have received the Holy Ghost, we may depart from grace given, and fall into sin, and by the grace of God we may arise again, and amend our lives. And therefore they are to be condemned, which say, they can no more sin as long as they live here, or deny the place of forgiveness to such as truly repent.

2008-05-24T17:50:00.000-07:00

A new book linked to at Cranmer and Laud!

http://cranmerandlaud.blogspot.com/2008/05/hardwicks-history-of-articles.html

Hardwick's A History of the Articles of Religion

A must read for all classical Anglicans, demonstrating the soundness of our doctrine.

2008-05-24T17:37:00.000-07:00

What's in a name?

(Summer is a time for re-runs, so here's an oldy with some new comments)

This may be completely inconsequential, but as a traditionalist Anglican priest I always take notice of what conservative Anglicans/Episcopalians call themselves. Our parish is within the Reformed Episcopal Church, but we do not label ourselves primarily as "Reformed Episcopalians," because we've taken note that very few people know what this means--are they Calvinist Episcopalians? Not really, since the Prayer Book and the Articles are not Calvinist, but biblical, patristic, Augustinian, and protestant, but by no means Calvinist (indeed, many of the Calvinists of generations past claimed the Anglican Articles did not go far enough and wished to throw them overboard and replace them with something "more Calvinist"!). Indeed, there is no reason to expect anything "Calvinist" in them, for they predates such disputes--see Browne's excellent Exposition on the Articles as well as Hardwick's History of the Articles (see the link over at Cranmer and Laud). It is ironic that in the past history of the Reformed Episcopal Church in the United States the Articles were "rewritten" a strongly Arminian manner--gutting the doctrine of predestination--while the Free Church of England essentially left them alone). This doctrine of Predestination is not "Calvinist," but biblical and Pauline, as many Anglican authors have noted.

Also, we are in full-communion with the Anglican Province of America and the Anglican Church of Nigeria, and in federation with the Anglican Church in America and the Anglican Mission in America. Our primary bond of unity is found in our common history as Anglicans; the designation of "Reformed Episcopal" is a jurisdictional title. Therefore, the moniker of our parish is "St. Andrew's Anglican Church, a Reformed Episcopal parish." Most classical Anglican parishes do something similar, using the word Anglican as the primary designation with a later description that informs the reader of the jurisdictional link. The word "Anglican" in use in the United States has become a bit of a code word for "conservative" or "traditional" Episcopalian, something that seems to make the mainline body quite angry--they're not real Anglicans, they often say, but counterfeits! I've noticed that several parishes in the Anglican Province of Christ the King do something similar to what I mentioned above in regards to my own parish--"All Saints Anglican Church, a traditional Episcopal parish of the Province of Christ the King."

The Episcopal heritage of the Church in the United States is something that traditionalists sometimes use to demonstrate that we really are Episcopalians, just as much as the "official" and now heterodox body. We have bishops, and we have the Anglican Book of Common Prayer. I've seen the title "Anglican Episcopal" used as well to describe parishes in several jurisdictions. Although we lack communion with the See of Canterbury, we lay claim to the heritage and doctrine of the Reformed Catholic Faith as expressed in the Anglican Way via the classical Prayer Books (1549-1928), the Ordinal, and the Articles of Religion. I've noticed that some parishes in the United Episcopal Church and the Reformed Episcopal Church are even bold enough to simply call themselves "Episcopalian" without an "Anglican" qualifier: "St Paul's Episcopal Church, a parish of the. . ." How this must upset the mainliners. Ah, but what is in a name? I prefer the term Anglican myself. If someone doesn't know what I mean when I say "Anglican" I may fall back on something like "traditional Episcopalian." Yes, we have bishops, but is that enough? The mainline church put all of their stock in the office of bishop, but those bishops turned out to be wolves, not shepherds of the flock. They cast aside the Prayer Book and the Articles, cast aside Catholic order of bishop, presbyter, and deacon, and cast aside the heritage of the Anglican Church. Notice how all of the classic texts of Anglicanism once published by the mainline church are now being replaced by books that fit the "new religion" of "affirming catholicism." In the end, all they had was the title "Episcopalian," but that is not enough to be Anglican--it may be necessary, but it is not sufficient. As we continue as "Continuing" or classical Anglicans, let us be mindful that what makes us Anglicans is not just episcopal polity, but the faith of the primitive Catholic Church as expressed in our liturgies and the Creeds.

2008-04-19T12:52:00.000-07:00

New Books. . .posted over at Cramner and Laud

2008-04-12T16:09:00.000-07:00

New "old" books coming soon!

I'll have more books posted to Cranmer and Laud in a couple of days. Please stay tuned.

2008-03-18T18:33:00.000-07:00

Thoughts on Common Cause. . .

I have a few misgivings about the current state of the Common Cause Partnership between numerous Anglican bodies (mostly those that are somehow linked to Canterbury); they can be summed up in the following 1) the use of numerous and conflicting liturgies, 2) the open rejection of Catholic order in some quarters (while this a minority position, in many estimations), 3) a sometimes glaring lack of contact with actual Anglican theology, leading to a "reinvention" and questioning of things settled in the Magisterial Reformation. However, the basics are sound:

"1) We confess the canonical books of the Old and New Testaments to be the inspired Word of God, containing all things necessary for salvation, and to be the final authority and unchangeable standard for Christian faith and life.
2) We confess Baptism and the Supper of the Lord to be Sacraments ordained by Christ Himself in the Gospel, and thus to be ministered with unfailing use of His words of institution and of the elements ordained by Him.
3) We confess the godly historic Episcopate as an inherent part of the apostolic faith and practice, and therefore as integral to the fullness and unity of the Body of Christ.
4) We confess as proved by most certain warrants of Holy Scripture the historic faith of the undivided church as declared in the three Catholic Creeds: the Apostles', the Nicene, and the Athanasian.
5) Concerning the seven Councils of the undivided Church, we affirm the teaching of the first four Councils and the Christological clarifications of the fifth, sixth and seventh Councils, in so far as they are agreeable to the Holy Scriptures.
6) We receive The Book of Common Prayer as set forth by the Church of England in 1662, together with the Ordinal attached to the same, as a standard for Anglican doctrine and discipline, and, with the Books which preceded it, as the standard for the Anglican tradition of worship.
7) We receive the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion of 1562, taken in their literal and grammatical sense, as expressing the Anglican response to certain doctrinal issues controverted at that time, and as expressing the fundamental principles of authentic Anglican belief.

In all these things, the Common Cause Partnership is determined by the help of God to hold and maintain as the Anglican Way has received them the doctrine, discipline and worship of Christ.

"The Anglican Communion," Archbishop Geoffrey Fisher wrote, "has no peculiar thought, practice, creed or confession of its own. It has only the Catholic Faith of the ancient Catholic Church, as preserved in the Catholic Creeds and maintained in the Catholic and Apostolic constitution of Christ's Church from the beginning." It may licitly teach as necessary for salvation nothing but what is read in the Holy Scriptures as God's Word written or may be proved thereby. It therefore embraces and affirms such teachings of the ancient Fathers and Councils of the Church as are agreeable to the Scriptures, and thus to be counted apostolic. The Church has no authority to innovate: it is obliged continually, and particularly in times of renewal or reformation, to return to "the faith once delivered to the saints."

To be an Anglican, then, is not to embrace a distinct version of Christianity, but a distinct way of being a "Mere Christian," at the same time evangelical, apostolic, catholic, reformed, and Spirit-filled."

I can find nothing to disagree with in any of this--the sticking point is to get all those involved to take such a declaration with the utmost seriousness. Classical Anglicanism, in the past, would take this all quite seriously: No innovation. Period. End of sentence. To fully resolve any issue in dispute, see what the practice and belief of the ancient Church was.

The problem with extreme "party" aspects of Anglicans (here I do mean Anglo-Catholic, Evangelical, and Latitudinarian/Liberal) is that they all want to introduce innovations and somehow baptise such innovations as right, proper, and truly Anglican (meaning, in essence, truly ancient and Catholic). Elements of the Anglo-Catholic movement have tried to impose elements of the Roman system into Anglicanism and say "it is as it always has been" (extra-liturgical devotions to the Blessed Sacrament, Roman feasts and their underlying doctrines, Purgatory, etc--Catholicism is assumed to be an equivalence with 19th century Italian Roman practice or the Council of Trent). There is a tendency among some in the Evangelical party to ignore those parts of the Prayer Book found to be "too Catholic" (the teachings concerning confession, the theology of Baptism as an ingrafting into the very Body of Christ, the nature of the ministry--a Puritan streak comes about from time to time which tends to reject anything not in the Bible and even to embrace some things not in the Bible as long as they flow from "evangelical theology"), and there is the most striking tendency, that of the modern Liberal, to pretty much throws out all foundational doctrine while retaining the externals (perhaps the unkindest cut of all).

American Anglicanism does indeed need a Reformation and a restructuring. The CCP is a good place to start. I hope and pray it succeeds. As a body the CCP must seek an honest return to the old and Catholic ways of the Reformed Church of England as outlined above, and it must not be afraid of saying to Canterbury that it will walk apart from her such a move would be the best thing for the survival of the Anglican Way in its fullness. I am given some hope that there is strength in the current numbers of parishes now associated with CCP--right now over a thousand. For those in the Continuing Anglican Churches, please pray for those in the various Episcopal groups that comprise the CCP, that they may be filled with the Holy Spirit to follow the truth of Christ in all things.

2008-02-24T18:47:00.000-08:00

Yet Another Free Book!

Now available for download over at Cranmer and Laud. . .

http://cranmerandlaud.blogspot.com/2008/02/ministry-of-absolution.html

Happy reading!

2008-02-18T15:29:00.000-08:00

Prayer Book Catholics. . .

(I've taken the following comment from a discussion group discourse. The original author will know who he is, and I hope he doesn't mind me reposting his thoughts here).

"Prayer-Book Catholics are truly Catholic in the ancient, authentic, nonsectarian sense of the word as it is used in the Creeds -- looking to the doctrine of pre-Great Schism and the mildly reformed liturgical trajectory of the Ancient British Church. Remnant Prayer-Book Catholics are found scattered about in various jurisdictions attempting to witness to the Anglican Formularies in an authentic, faithful manner."

Which is why we all need to try and foster such thinking in our own jurisdictions, wherever we find ourselves. At the roots, most Anglican jurisdictions (and even many diocese in ECUSA/TEC) affirm the ancient Faith, the doctrines set forth in the worship of the classical Prayer Books, and the Anglican Formularies. We need to unite around these common principles and start a grass roots effort to work together as Anglicans with a common purpose for the Gospel of Christ and His Church.

2008-02-11T08:33:00.000-08:00

Do we need another Anglican blog?

The answer, of course, is yes.

I've set up the blog just for Cranmer and Laud. For those who would like to contribute to the blog please e-mail me via the link at the Cranmer and Laud web site (the link on the side-bar of this page). The blog link is below:

http://cranmerandlaud.blogspot.com/

2008-02-10T11:41:00.000-08:00

The Society of Archbishops Cranmer and Laud

The Society is established to be beneficial to members of the Anglican Church, particularly the clergy and especially those in the traditional Anglican community, who desire to see the Anglican Christianity of the Book of Common Prayer strengthened and preserved.

Why Archbishops Cranmer & Laud?

"We must honour Thomas Cranmer and be grateful to him, for in the English Bible, the Book of Common Prayer, the Book of Homilies, he helped translate and reform the faith and worship of the English speaking world, recalling it to a simpler more direct proclamation of Christ and the Gospel. His faith enriches ours day by day and week by week whenever we pick up the Scriptures, open the Prayer Book, and indeed, whenever we open our mouths, for along with Shakespeare, the English Bible (revised again in 1611, admittedly) and the Book of Common Prayer are as formative of our very language as they are of our faith."
The Rev'd David Garrett, the Prayer Book Society of Canada

"Gratefully remembered by scholars, Laud has found apologists among the clergy of the Church for which he died, but he is not generally loved. If his methods had been mistaken, his diagnosis of the ills of the Anglican Church has been right and his vision for its improvement had been lofty. . . .Had he succeeded in what he meant to do, he would be one of the great architects of the English Church. He failed, and sealed his failure with his blood. He stands with Archbishop Cranmer as an imperfect and much criticised man, but in the final record a faithful servant and martyr whose blood has been the seed of the Church."

Historian C.V. Wedgewood in The King's War

Principles of the Society:
1) The spread of the Christianity as enshrined in the faith of the historic Church of England, Reformed and Protestant according to the principles of the Ancient Catholic Church (after the teaching of Bp. Cosin), as taken from the One canon of Holy Scripture in the Two Testaments, as taught in the Three Creeds of Western Christendom, as clarified by the Four Ecumenical Councils of the undivided Church, as practiced during the first Five centuries of the ancient Church (after the teaching of Bishop Lancelot Andrewes, Abp. Laud’s mentor).

2) Dedication to the prayerful study of the Holy Scriptures and ancient Fathers and Doctors of the Church, per the principles of Abp. Cranmer during the Reformation.

3) Holding to the doctrinal teachings of the Reformed Church of England as clarified in the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion and as understood in their historical context based on a patristic and reformed foundation.

4) Holding to the sacramental teachings of Anglicanism as espoused in the Church of England’s 39 Articles, the Catechism of the 1662 Prayer Book, the 1662-1928 Prayer Books, and the Ordinal, stressing the preeminence of Baptism and the Holy Eucharist.

5) Dedication to the continued use of the classic English translation of Holy Scripture, the 1611 text dedicated to King James I or a close derivation or revision thereof (RSV, ESV, ASV, NKJV).

6) Perpetuation of the use of the classical and orthodox Church of England Prayer Books of 1549, 1662, and 1928, the 1928 American Prayer Book and the 2003 Prayer Book of the Reformed Episcopal Church (containing the 1662 English and 1928 American services), and the 1962 Canadian Book of Common Prayer.

7) Dedication to the study of the Anglican divines, particularly of the Reformation and Restoration periods.

2008-02-09T21:39:00.000-08:00

An invitation to like-minded Anglicans:
The Society of Archbishops Cranmer and Laud

Many have e-mailed me in the past and urged me to start something (anything) related to the grand notion of the Society of Archbishops Cranmer and Laud, which for too long has languished as an ideal unrealized. In the past I could only direct people to the discussion group at yahoo. However, I'd like to invite anyone interested, especially the clergy, to help me in utilzing this blog as a site for like-minded Anglicans, from any jurisdiction willing to share with others in a spirit of unity and concord, to foster spiritual and intellectual growth in the Anglican Way. The hope is that this site could be an "online journal" of sorts. What say ye? Any takers?

2008-02-09T15:47:00.000-08:00

A word to the readers. . .

I'm very happy that this blog has been well received by Anglicans from a variety of jurisdictions (including orthodox priests within traditionalist dioceses in the once Episcopal Church in these United States, now THE Episcopal Church, soon to be Something Else Entirely). It has always been meant as a "clearing house," as it were, for good old fashioned High Church theology.`But as Canon Tallis pointed out in one of his replies, the need arises, from time to time, to dust off the old authors of the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries and reply to the claims of the Church of Rome, who although a sister in Christ, is a sister that makes claims that we cannot abide by. Every Anglican blog I've read (and every traditionalist Anglican I know) will be, at one point or another, confronted with the Roman claims. Thus, the need for the old--and very good--replies to the old arguments. These are not meant to be anti-Rome for the sake of anti-Romanism. They are meant to honestly present our Anglican difficulties with the historical and theological claims of the Roman Church and to defend the traditional Anglican positions as they were solidified during the Reformation and Restoration periods. My reasoning for saying all of this to elaborate my original intent of this blog, which is a positive one and not a negative one.

(for those readers living in England, please imagine all posts being read with the high and proper British accent commonly heard in the old broadcasts from the BBC)

2008-02-08T18:22:00.000-08:00

The Papal Claims Examined
from
Catholic Principles
by
The Revd Frank N. Westcott

It is a sad and most unfortunate fact, yet one which is easily capable of demonstration by any competent historian, that all along the ages, Rome’s interests have been advanced by forgeries and falsification of the Fathers; and that such interpolations are quoted with approval today, in Roman controversial books; and that it is not safe to accept patristic quotations in such books, without verifying them at first hand.

There are plenty of historic facts which are utterly inconsistent with the assumption that the supreme judicial and spiritual authority of the Church, has always been in the hands of the Bishops of Rome. For example: the first difficulty which required judicial action in the Apostolic Church, was settled by a council of the whole Church at Jerusalem, under the presidency, not of St. Peter, but of St. James, who pronounced sentence in his own name, without any regard to St. Peter.

When Victor, Bishop of Rome, AD 196, undertook to excommunicate the Asiatic Churches, because they disagreed with him about the time of the observance of Easter, he was rebuked by the other Bishops, including Irenaeus, and his excommunication was ignored, and had no effect whatever.

In the fourth century, the Council of Sardica allowed a condemned Bishop to appeal to Rome for a new trial, not as a recognized right, but as conferring a privilege. This canon of Sardica, was misquoted by the Bishops of Rome as being a canon of the Council of Nice in a controversy with the African Bishops. But the latter consulted the Eastern Patriarchs, and, so discovering the misquotation, replied to the Patriarch of Rome through his legates, “We find it enacted in no council of the Fathers, that any person may be sent as legates of your holiness . . . . Do not therefore at the request of any, send your clergy as agents for you, lest we seem to introduce into the Church of Christ, the ambitious pride of the world.”

The great Arian heresy which denied the divinity of our Lord, was settled by the Nicene Council, which was called, not by the Pope, but by the Emperor Constantine. Hosius presided, and the heresy was finally refuted, not through the pronouncement of the Pope, but through the argument of Athanasius; while Pope Liberius himself became a heretic.

Then the heresy denying the divinity of the Holy Ghost, was settled at the Council of Constantinople in 381, at which the Nicene Creed was reaffirmed, and the sentences defining doctrine concerning the Holy Ghost added, and the Roman Bishop was not present either in person or through his legates. Meletius of Antioch presided at the council, and was succeeded by Gregory Nazianzen, Patriarch of Constantinople; and so in the settlement of the two greatest heresies, the authority of the Bishop of Rome counted for little or nothing; and it is interesting to note that the Bishops assembled in council at Constantinople in 381, in their Epistle to the Western Bishops assembled at Rome, called the Church of Jerusalem the “Mother of all Churches.”

Of course the most complete refutation of the Roman claim of supremacy has been the historic position of the four patriarchates of the Eastern Church, which have never acknowledged the claims of such universal jurisdiction, and yet were in communion with the patriarch of Rome until the twelfth century.

The claims of supreme and spiritual jurisdiction over the whole Church, on the part of the Bishop of Rome, cannot stand the test of catholicity, and so become articles of faith, unless they have been acknowledged always, everywhere, and by all Catholics; and this we have shown to be historically incredible.

Roman Catholics are very fond of asserting that a visible Church must have a visible head; and that as there is no other Bishop who claims to be the head of the Church but the Pope of Rome, therefore he must be that head. We reply, that in the Holy Scriptures St. Paul asserts that Jesus Christ is the Head of the Church; and he nowhere recognizes any other head; though he constantly insists on the visible, organic nature of the Church itself. St. Augustine asserts the same fact, thus: “Since the whole Christ is made up of the head and the body, the head is our Saviour Himself, who suffered under Pontius Pilate, who now, after He has risen from the dead, sits at the right hand of God; but His body is the Church; not this Church, or that, but the Church scattered over all the world . . . . For the whole Church, made up of all the faithful, because all the faithful are members of Christ, has its head situate in the heavens which governs this body: though it is separated from their sight, yet it is bound to them by love.” Then again, it must be remembered that the greater part of the Catholic Church is made up of souls in Paradise, and therefore is not visible to us; and Christ is the Head of the Church to them, as well as to us. To them He may be visible.

But supposing the visible Church must have a visible head: we reply, as a practical matter of fact, the universal episcopate assembled in general council was from the first regarded as the head of the Church; the ultimate source and seat of authority, to which the Bishop of Rome himself was always subject: as is proved by the fact, that the universal episcopate settled heresies, defined the Faith, and deposed Popes who were themselves heretics, and excommunicated them. Gregory the Great, as we have seen, expressly repudiated the title of "universal Bishop” which he most certainly would not have done, if he had considered himself the “head of the Church,” in the modern Roman sense.

It makes a neat turn of an argument to say that the visible Church must have a visible head; and then to set forth the Pope as that head; but after all, it is merely a question of historic fact, and history points to the universal Episcopate as the head, and not to the Pope of Rome. If the Pope of Rome is the head of the Church, then when the Pope dies, apparently the Church has no head, and remains a headless monster, perhaps for several months, until another Pope is elected and enthroned. Surely this is a curious condition of things, that the Church should be continually sloughing off its head, and growing another, every generation or so; so that every little while it has no head at all. The collective episcopate does not die; but lives on from age to age, and as the head of the Church, is abiding and permanent.

The whole growth of the papal claims may be summarized by four words: Primacy, Supremacy, Sovereignty, and Infallibility. The Primacy of Rome, Anglicans admit to be lawful; not as of divine appointment, but as a matter of precedence and executive convenience, originating from the prominence of the Imperial city. The Supremacy of Rome, Anglicans reject, as disturbing the original balance of power defined by the general councils and canon law of the Church. The Sovereignty of Rome, Anglicans repudiate, as mere secular Imperialism transferred to the Church, from the State. The Infallibility of the Roman pontiffs, the Anglican Church denies, as an assumption by one man in the Church of a power, or faculty, conferred by our Lord on the Church as a whole.

From what has been said, it seems evident that there is no scriptural evidence that St. Peter was appointed supreme head of the Church by our Lord, and that there is no historical evidence of any sort which proves that St. Peter ever attempted to transfer any authority, peculiar to himself to the Bishops of Rome; and that what the early Church conceded to the Patriarch of Rome, was a primacy of honor among equals, and not a supremacy of authority, by divine appointment.

2008-02-07T20:22:00.000-08:00

Article XXII. Of Purgatory.The Romish Doctrine concerning Purgatory. . .is a fond thing, vainly invented, and grounded upon no warranty of Scripture, but rather repugnant to the Word of God.

Often, when in debate or discussion with other Christians, it is posited that Anglicans believe in “Purgatory.” I often reply “Why do you think that?” The answer usually is “Because you pray for the dead.” Indeed, we do pray for the dead, and we believe the dead pray for and with us—but does this mean that we follow the peculiar teaching of the Church of Rome on this matter? The answer is, based on historical and dogmatic theology, an emphatic “no,” but one that often demands explanation to both Anglicans and those outside of the Anglican tradition.The equation of Purgatory with the Intermediate State (in the Anglican teaching, the state in which the souls of all of the faithful departed exist before the Resurrection of the dead) is an erroneous one, especially since the Roman Church elaborates upon both Purgatory and the Intermediate State (in this line of thinking, occupied when “the souls” pass out of Purgatory before the Resurrection, translating their status from that of mere “souls” into true “saints,” and thus necessitating the feast day of All Souls along with that of All Saints); to adopt the Roman terms while attempting an Anglican description usually results in linguistic confusion and theological consternation (See Bishop N.T. Wright’s For All the Saints ).

Indeed, in that the Roman teaching is clearly rejected in the East, such a teaching can in no wise be held as a “Catholic” doctrine proper. When we read Eastern Orthodox texts on such issues there are often narrow variances of opinion than those found in the West and far less elaboration. This from Father Pomazansky’s Orthodox Dogmatic Theology:

"Concerning the state of the soul after the Particular Judgment, the Orthodox Church teaches thus: “We believe that the souls of the dead are in a state of blessedness or torment according to their deeds. After being separated from the body, they immediately pass over either to joy or into sorrow and grief, however, they do not feel either complete blessedness or complete torment. For complete blessedness or complete torment each one receives after the General Resurrection, when the soul is reunited with the body in which it lived in virtue or in vice (The Epistle of the Eastern Patriarchs on the Orthodox Faith, paragraph 18). Thus the Orthodox Church distinguishes two different conditions after the Particular Judgment: one for the righteous, another for sinners; in other words, paradise and hell. The Church does not recognize the Roman Catholic teaching of three conditions: 1) blessedness, 2) purgatory, and 3) gehenna (hell). The very name “gehenna” the Fathers of the Church usually refer to the condition after the Last judgment, when both death and hell will be cast into the “lake of fire” (Rev. 20:15)."

Here it would seem difficult to apply the “Purgatory” label as many moderns wish to use it.

When we look at other Anglican dogmatic texts, such as Browne’s Exposition on the Thirty-Nine Articles, or The Christian Faith by C.B. Moss we are confronted with differing views on these issues within a narrow range of opinion, seeming closer to the Orthodox teaching than to the Roman. Few Anglican authors and even fewer Orthodox authors use the term or designation “Intermediate State” to denote a place of pain, suffering, or retribution for sin. However, the Roman Catholic tradition, and some Anglo-Catholics modeling their views after it, emphasizes the pain and satisfaction that are required of the sinner for the sins of his life. How are we to keep this line of thinking in concert with the Comfortable Words (all from the Holy Scriptures) of the Anglican Eucharist, in which we are assured from Scripture that Christ is the propitiation for our sins? Indeed, how are we to read such a view of purgation (in which a satisfaction of pain is required) in light of the Anglican Eucharist’s canon that states Christ is the “full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice, oblation, and satisfaction, for the sins of the whole world”? N.T Wright summarizes the issue when he says in For All the Saints:

"I cannot stress sufficiently that if we raise the question of punishment for sin, this is something that has already been dealt with on the cross of Jesus. Of course, there have been crude and unbiblical versions of the doctrine of the atonement, and many have rightly reacted against the idea of a vengeful God determined to punish someone and being satisfied by taking it out on his own son. But this is to mistake caricature for biblical doctrine. Paul says, in his most central and careful statement, not that God punished Jesus, but that God 'condemned sin in the flesh' of Jesus (Romans 8.3). Here the instincts of the Reformers, if not always their exact expressions, were spot on. The idea that Christians need to suffer punishment for their sins in a post-mortem purgatory, or anywhere else, reveals a straightforward failure to grasp the very heart of what was achieved on the cross." p 30

We should view any period of “purgation” (if we are even to employ the term, perhaps “growth” or “purification” would be better terms) in the Intermediate State as the 1549 English and 1928 American Prayer Books put it; as simply a period of “continual growth” in God’s “love and service,” a view I have heard espoused by Lutherans, Anglicans, Orthodox, and Baptists alike (a Baptist New Testament professor of mine from Westminster Seminary described it in this manner). This way of thinking of the Intermediate State puts to rest notions of satisfaction for sin and places the emphasis on the inexhaustible nature and love of God; it also eliminates any notion of the ahistorical and theologically incoherent idea of an “Anglican doctrine of Purgatory.”I include the Eastern Orthodox position to show that the notion of Purgatory as found in Roman teachings is not found in the East, and therefore cannot as such be labeled as “Catholic,” unless we take the Roman doctrine to be the measure of the terminology. Indeed, the classical Anglican position on prayers for the departed bears a greater resemblance to Orthodoxy than it does to the medieval concepts of the Church of Rome. As Meyendorff (1979) recounts in Byzantine Theology:

"The debate between Greeks and Latins (on the question of Purgatory). . . showed a radical difference in perspective. While the Latins took for granted their legalistic approach to divine justice—which, according to them, requires a retribution for every sinful act—the Greeks interpreted sin less in terms of the acts committed than in terms of a moral and spiritual disease which was to be healed by divine forbearance and love. The Latins also emphasized the idea of an individual judgment by God of each soul, a judgment which distributes the souls in three categories: the just, the wicked, and those in a middle category—who need to be “purified” by fire. The Greeks, meanwhile, without denying a particular judgment after death or agreeing on the existence of the three categories, maintained that neither the just nor the wicked will attain their final state of either bliss or condemnation before the last day. Both sides agreed that prayers for the departed are necessary and helpful. . .even the just need them;. . .in particular. . .the Eucharistic canon of Chrysostom’s liturgy. . .offers the “bloodless sacrifice” for “patriarchs, prophets, apostles, and every righteous spirit made perfect in faith,” even for the Virgin Mary herself." p 220-221

So here even the state of the most blessed is to be viewed". . .not as a legal and static justification, but as a never-ending ascent, into which the entire communion of saints—the Church in heaven and the Church on earth—has been initiated in Christ. In the communion of the Body of Christ, all members of the Church, living or dead, are interdependent and united by ties of love and mutual concern; thus the prayers of the Church on earth and the intercession of the saints in heaven can effectively help all sinners, i.e., all men, to get closer to God." p 221This view of growth during the Intermediate State as a “never-ending ascent” is expressed, as was mentioned above, in the Anglican Eucharists of the 1549 English and 1928 American Prayer Books. The emphasis is not on penance, nor on pain, nor satisfaction for sins (which Christ has already paid) but on growth “in the knowledge and the love of God” of those who have “died in thy faith and fear.” This emphasis is the Body of Christ as the Communion of Saints, who all continue in their walk with God before the Resurrection, is taught in the American Prayer Book—but it goes no further than this measured theology and it is accepted by and differentiated from Purgatory by Reformed minded Anglicans. Litton’s Introduction to Dogmatic Theology, a text that places Anglican theology firmly in the Reformed and Protestant school of thought, summarizes the difference between the Roman concept of Purgatory and the traditional doctrine of the Intermediate State shared by most Christians not in the Roman Communion (notice the similarity to Meyendorff’s logic):

"The Romish doctrine of purgatory must not be confounded with the belief of spiritual progress in the intermediate state, against which no objection from reason or Scripture can be urged. . . .But the doctrine of the Roman schools is of a different character. It is forensic in nature, and implies the payment of debt not fully discharged in this life. "

As noted above, in Orthodox theology, the prayers for the faithful departed are even offered for the Virgin Mary (assuming that she too is increasing in grace and the knowledge and presence of God and being conformed to His image—theosis). Therefore, praying for the faithful departed—as expressed in the 1928 American Prayer Book—is a truly “Catholic” doctrine and can be held by Anglicans, as is praying with them in the worship of the Church: “Therefore with Angels and Archangels and with all the company of heaven, we laud and magnify thy glorious Name. . .” We pray for the faithful departed in their growth in love and knowledge of God’s love as well as with them in the thanksgiving of the Sacrament of Christ’s Body and Blood.

2008-02-07T20:10:00.000-08:00

Well, there you have it folks. . .no further need for this blog. So long, farewell, aufweidersehen, and goodbye.

A reader by the name of Christian submitted the following reply in response to my post "I am an Anglican." I've removed it from that space and reposted it below:

"Purgatory, Indulgences, and pious beliefs about the Blessed Virgin Mary can all be shown to have been believed by the earliest Christians though they where often expressed differently in the East. Viz the definition of these things as dogma - have courage! Be brave enough to accept the rulings of those who have the authority. Christ has given it to them and the definitions are final, those who disagree have lost the argument. I do not like the Assumption but I now accept it on faith as those with authority I do not have have decided I am wrong. It can take courage and faith to submit and over look one's own vanity. Luther failed in this. "Here I stand I can do no other" - Yes you can! you can submit."

Of course, I will renouce my Orders forthwith and submit to the Holy Roman Church.

2008-02-03T12:59:00.000-08:00

How can you call yourself an Anglican? Why you're not even in the Episcopal Church!

Perhaps you've heard this line of reasoning before. Of all the attempts to de-Anglicanize members of traditional (non-Canterbury linked) Anglican Churches, it is the most painful to hear. This stance is rooted in the belief that churches bearing the name Anglican must be in communion with the See of Canterbury. If this is true (which I do not believe it to be), I would gladly give up the name "Anglican" and urge the adoption of some modification thereof as the "official" name if we were to be sued by the Church of England or the Episcopal Church. However, historically there have been Anglicans who have been forced from the "official" Church from one reason or another, usually for the sake of conscience. Was the schismatic Scottish Episcopal Church less Anglican because it was not recognized by Canterbury? These godly folk worshipped in house churches and barns rather than in the few "official" Anglican chapels in Scotland. If it was not Anglican, what did it bequeath to the American Episcopal Church with its Prayer Book and Episcopate? Were the Nonjuring bishops less Anglican because they followed their consciences and refused to swear an oath to new royalty when the King they had sworn themselves to was still alive (keeping in mind that they had been imprisoned and persecuted by this same King)? If an essential aspect of a "truly Anglican identity" is being in the good graces of Canterbury (as the Rev'd Dr. Toon seems to believe, although I'm not sure about this), then obviously I disagree, as I have demonstrated in practice for the last decade or so.

Here is my quandary to those who believe that being in communion with Canterbury is a part of the essence of Anglicanism: You are in a town (it could be anywhere in the English-speaking world) with an option between two parish churches bearing the name "Anglican". One is offering a 10:30 Eucharist that is advertised to focus on "the feminist Christ" or perhaps it offers the "Stations of the United Nations Millennium Development Goals" (in place of the Stations of the Cross--I did not make this up). This is the "official" Anglican parish. The second is a parish that is offering a Eucharist celebrated from the 1662 English or 1928 American Prayer Books; the advertisement for the parish says simply that--1662 Eucharist, Biblical preaching. This parish is part of a group that broke with the "official" Anglican Communion some time back (could have been last week, could have been 30 years ago, could have been more than a hundred years ago). Which do you think is truly preserving the Anglican Way in worship, ideals, and heritage? Which is more "essentially" Anglican?

2008-01-30T16:27:00.000-08:00

I am an Anglican.

I am a Catholic Christian. I believe in Christ as my Lord and Savior. I believe in the teachings of the Nicene Creed. I believe in the Christological teachings of the ancient and undivided Church: I believe in the teachings of the Seven Ecumenical Councils. I believe that the Word and Sacrament are to be kept together and not torn asunder. I believe that the historic Books of Common Prayer teach the Catholic Faith in worship.

I am not an Anglo-Papalist nor Anglo-Romanist; while I have read the works of Benedict and John Paul I do not long for the shores of Rome. While I've studied the theology of Thomas Aquinas I do not desire to force his views on others as dogma. If there is ever to be a union with the Roman Catholic Church it must be a union based on honesty: Rome has erred.

I am a Protestant (or Reformed) Catholic, as the Anglican divines of old used the terms together--this is based on the obvious assertion that Roman has erred. I do not and cannot hold Purgatory, nor Indulgences, nor pious beliefs about the Blessed Virgin Mary to be things "necessary to salvation." They are demonstrably late additions to the thinking of the Western Church and had no place in the East, therefore they are not "Catholic" and it is right to protest against teaching them as such. Those who wish to impose such things on Anglicans as "the teachings of the Church" really mean the Roman Church, not the ancient Catholic Church. I believe the Articles of Religion to be a concise and accurate statement of where Anglican teaching differs from the teachings of the Church of Rome and the (ana)Baptists.

I am not an Anglo-Calvinist: His teachings may be interesting and he may be right on many things, he cannot be taken as the last word on theology. His ideas need to be compared to the belief and practice of ancient Christendom (just in the same way the beliefs and practices of Rome do as well). However, Anglicans can read him and judge for themselves what they may agree or disagree with him on. They cannot read his teachings and pronounce something he has said as "this is the teaching of the Church" unless it has backing from the Scriptures what the Fathers concluded from those same Scriptures. Likewise, I am not an Anglo-Lutheran either, but likewise one can read Luther profitably yet critically in the same way one may read Aquinas or Calvin. That being said, it must be realized that the theology of the Anglican Reformation is a manner of thought that desired to bring both Calvinists and Lutherans to the same table based upon the truths of the ancient Catholic Faith. Being a son of the Western Church and the Anglican Reformation I am most definitely Pauline and also a bit Augustinian.

I am definitely not an Anglo-Baptist--the Prayer Book and the Articles have addressed those issues, and those within Anglicanism who desire to "rethink" the practice of infant Baptism should try and find a liturgical Baptist church.

I am an Anglican. I will always try and uphold the principles of the Anglican Reformation because I believe them to be Christian and true, a correct middle way between the error of deleting from the Christian Faith and the error of obscuring this same faith with superfluous and heretical additions. If I were the last priest on earth with the moniker "Anglican" I would gather a few together each Sunday to preach the gospel and celebrate the Eucharist. For the sake of conscience I could do nothing less nor nothing more.

2008-01-29T16:06:00.000-08:00

Wise Words to the Priests

"It is your duty to fix the lines (of doctrine) clearly in your minds: and if you wish to go beyond them you must change your profession. This is your duty not specially as Christians or as priests but as honest men. There is a danger here of the clergy developing a special professional conscience which obscures the very plain moral issue. Men who have passed beyond these boundary lines in either direction are apt to protest that they have come by their unorthodox opinions honestly. In defense of those opinions they are prepared to suffer obloquy and to forfeit professional advancement. They thus come to feel like martyrs. But this simply misses the point which so gravely scandalizes the layman. We never doubted that the unorthodox opinions were honestly held: what we complain of is your continuing in your ministry after you have come to hold them. We always knew that a man who makes his living as a paid agent of the Conservative Party may honestly change his views and honestly become a Communist. What we deny is that he can honestly continue to be a Conservative agent and to receive money from one party while he supports the policy of the other. ”

--C.S. Lewis, “Christian Apologetics,” Easter 1945; reprinted in God in the Dock

2008-01-24T13:44:00.000-08:00

The irrational atheist
Posted: November 17, 20031:00 a.m. Eastern
From WorldNet Daily

by Vox Day

The idea that he is a devotee of reason seeing through the outdated superstitions of other, lesser beings is the foremost conceit of the proud atheist. This heady notion was first made popular by French intellectuals such as Voltaire and Diderot, who ushered in the so-called Age of Enlightenment.

That they also paved the way for the murderous excesses of the French Revolution and many other massacres in the name of human progress is usually considered an unfortunate coincidence by their philosophical descendants.

The atheist is without God but not without faith, for today he puts his trust in the investigative method known as science, whether he understands it or not. Since there are very few minds capable of grasping higher-level physics, let alone following their implications, and since specialization means that it is nearly impossible to keep up with the latest developments in the more esoteric fields, the atheist stands with utter confidence on an intellectual foundation comprised of things of which he knows nothing.

In fairness, he cannot be faulted for this, except when he fails to admit that he is not actually operating on reason in this regard, but is instead exercising a faith that is every bit as blind and childlike as that of the most unthinking Bible-thumping fundamentalist. Still, this is not irrational, it is only ignorance and a failure of perception.

The irrationality of the atheist can primarily be seen in his actions – and it is here that the cowardice of his intellectual convictions is also exposed. Whereas Christians and the faithful of other religions have good reason for attempting to live by the Golden Rule – they are commanded to do so – the atheist does not.

In fact, such ethics, as well as the morality that underlies them, are nothing more than man-made myth to the atheist. Nevertheless, he usually seeks to live by them when they are convenient, and there are even those, who, despite their faithlessness, do a better job of living by the tenets of religion than those who actually subscribe to them.

Still, even the most admirable of atheists is nothing more than a moral parasite, living his life based on borrowed ethics. This is why, when pressed, the atheist will often attempt to hide his lack of conviction in his own beliefs behind some poorly formulated utilitarianism, or argue that he acts out of altruistic self-interest. But this is only post-facto rationalization, not reason or rational behavior.

I am saying nothing new here. It is an ancient concept. More than 2,000 years ago, the first atheist martyr, Socrates, declared "The only good is knowledge and the only evil is ignorance." Being fully aware of the repercussions of this teaching, he also argued that it was necessary to keep such virtuous knowledge to the elite.

"I mean, I replied, that our rulers will find a considerable dose of falsehood and deceit necessary for the good of their subjects ... these goings on must be a secret which the rulers only know, or there will be a further danger of our herd ... breaking out into rebellion."

The Romans, ever practical, understood this as well. Seneca the Younger wrote: "Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful." It is more than useful for a civilized society, though, it is a downright necessity.

Even the great champions of reason accepted this bitter truth. Alvin Bernstein writes of Voltaire: "He regarded belief in God and in an afterlife of rewards and punishments as requisites of ethical behavior ... Voltaire was convinced that the lower classes must fear God in order to be ethical. His religious outlook ... is a stepping-stone toward a full secular outlook in which moral judgments have nothing to do with religious and spiritual abstractions.

This is not to say there are no atheists who are rational, that there are none who are true to their godless convictions. Friedrich Nietzsche is the foremost example, but there are certainly others who do not fear to determine their own moral compass. Today, we call them sociopaths and suicides.

Without God, there is only the left-hand path of the philosopher. It leads invariably to Hell, by way of the guillotine, the gulag and the gas chamber. The atheist is irrational because he has no other choice – because the rational consequences of his non-belief are simply too terrible to bear.

2008-01-21T09:58:00.000-08:00

The Synod of Jerusalem, 1672

Over at The Continuum a repost of my essay on the intent of the Eucharist has sparked a debate over the adoration of the Eucharist. My position has been that of Lancelot Andrewes: We do not adore an "it," we adore "Him." We worship Christ who is made present to us via the sacramental elements, we do not adore the elements of bread and wine. Even if we go down a Thomist road, we still cannot say we adore the "accidents" or "forms" of bread and wine. We adore Christ. Therefore, talk of "adoring the Sacrament" is a bit confusing and misleading, and very much against our Prayer Book, homilies, Catechism, and Articles.

However, Father Chad of the blog Philorthodox countered with the assertion that the Orthodox do worship the elements, and indeed many Orthodox authors assert this, while other authors say that such a practice is unnecessary and goes against Christ's command to "take and eat," in that He did not say "lift up and pray to." The consensus position seems to be that while indeed the Bread and Wine simply are the Body and Blood of Christ (without philosophical elaboration), there is no need for separate services set aside for "adoration" of the elements.

As a defense of the view that the Orthodox view the Sacrament exactly as the Romans do, the pronouncements of the Synod of Jerusalem (1672) are often used. Indeed, in these documents the theology of Thomas Aquinas is reproduced writ large. More troubling to the Anglican mind is the adoption of the Roman view of Purgatory (rejected in almost every Orthodox dogmatic text I've read).

In order to place this in a broader context I've reposted below a treatment of the topic from the blog "Conjectures of a Guilty Seminarian."

http://www.kerygma.org/lee/2004/11/jerusalem-bethlehem-synod-of-1672.htm

"A question came up today about the Jerusalem-Bethlehem Synod of 1672, an Eastern Synod which affirmed transubstantiation (and Purgatory--my addition here, AC+). The Synod has often been claimed as a victory for the Roman Catholic position, some going so far as to claim that the Eastern Church actually taught the doctrine. The Patriarch of Jerusalem at the time was Dositheos, who was under the influence of French Jansenists living in the Holy Land. He wanted to refute a work called Confession of Orthodox Faith, by Cyril Lucaris (the Patriarch of Constantinople in the 1620s), which seemed to teach most of the body of Calvinist teaching, claiming that Calvin's teaching adequately teaches Eastern doctrine (especially in reference to the Fathers). The Synod was affirmed in the Russian Church until recently, with the rejection of Scholasticism. Mostly, I think we can relegate the Synod of Jerusalem of 1672 to realm of Roman manipulation of the East.

Judith Pinnington writes in Anglicans and Orthodox:
"In Covel's view, the Bethlehem-Jerusalem Synod (so-called) was framed by Dositheos on Nointel's advice, as the ambassador himself had admitted before witnesses in his own hand. So although there may have been a document, there had not been - nor was there intended to be - synodal deliberation and free choice. In any case, the Turks would never have allowed Synod to go on long enough to deliberate without monetary penalties. Dositheos was therefore the sole author of the document and he, Nointel, had said in writing that the Patriarch had "fully satisfied that which we had desired of him." The fact that Dositheos had had to take responsibility for the textual details because the Ambassador understood no Greek nor Dositheos Latin or French was beside the point. Covel was convinced that the whole thing was a French stitch-up in collusion with sympathetic Catholic diplomats. The Jesuits in the Ambassador's train had done all the preparation and supplied Dositheos with statements to make about Claude and Bellarmine which were quite beyond him to judge. He, Covel, had obtained confirmation of this from Dionysios as an unwilling accessory in a process which ran counter to Orthodox canonical procedures. Modern scholars keep an open mind as to whether the synod was wholly 'synthetic'; but it is easy to see how Covel, knowing the principles as he did, could have come to this conclusion, given his general estimate of Greek ecclesiastical character and the capacity for influence which the western diplomats possessed."

Nointel was the French Ambassador in Jerusalem at the time and it becomes clear that the decretals of the Synod were dictated by the Jesuits. The statement is clearly Roman:
"Further [we believe] that after the consecration of the bread and of the wine, there no longer remaineth the substance of the bread and of the wine, but the Body Itself and the Blood of the Lord, under the species and form of bread and wine; that is to say, under the accidents of the bread." This, a clear repetition of Trent. Thus, the extremism of Lucaris was met with the opposite - transubstantiation.

All the while, the Non-Jurors, Jeremy Taylor, and company were holding (to the) Via Media, confuting both the Roman position as well as that of Continental Calvinism, which is a great testimony to the. . .scholarship of the English Church."

And here I agree with the writer of the aforementioned blog: The best Anglican minds of this period maintained a patristic position, while one portion of the Orthodox Church adopted the teachings of the Roman Church. While as an Anglican I see myself bound by the teachings of the ancient and undivided Church, I do not see myself bound by the pronouncements of the Synod of Jerusalem, especially if they embrace transubstantiation and Purgatory.

2008-01-20T21:14:00.001-08:00

P.S. To the readers of this blog. . .

The Anglican Cleric has been added to the list of "favorite blogs" over at the Continuum .

(http://anglicancontinuum.blogspot.com/)

I only mention it because I'm honored to be on their list of favorites. I've enjoyed the articles over there by Father Hart for some time. Once I get a little more savvy on the technical front I'll fix some of my broken links and add a new list of blogs.

2008-01-20T20:06:00.000-08:00

The Anglican understanding of Baptism.

Over on Stand Firm (which I do not frequent often, unless someone else mentions something of note) there is a "debate" about infant Baptism. To which I say, "You must be joking, right?"

From time to time, in such contexts, I hear the well-worn and inaccurate phrase that the Reformed Episcopal Church "rejected baptismal regeneration." Suffice it to say that it is largely an inaccurate statement on historical and theological grounds. The doctrine of the Articles of Religion was not the matter of debate (how the Articles define "regeneration"); what was in question was 1) did regeneration mean being "born again" in a modern evangelical sense? and 2) Could regeneration come to a believer apart from the Sacrament?

The answer to the first question, for Bishop Cheney was "no," being baptized did not mean one would immediately feel "an ardent desire after God and elevated affections," "born again" in the way many use the term. As to the second question, Cheney believed one could have these things apart from the Sacrament. So, we have 1) both parties (High Church and Evangelical) misusing the term, hence Cheney's rejection of it (whereas the Free Church of England--the REC of England--continued the use of the term but clarified what it meant, i.e., read the Article on Baptism), and there being some insistence that if you said one could have any sort of regeneration apart from the Sacrament you were rejecting its efficacy. Below is a quote from Richard Hooker that should clarify the debate somewhat.

I'm sure Cheney would have agreed wholeheartedly with Master Hooker on this issue:

"A few statements will make clear the kind of necessity involved in baptism. First, we must understand what is meant by necessity, and then we must see in what sense baptism is necessary. Those things are called necessary which are either the source of some great good or the means of avoiding some grievous evil. If regeneration were not in this sense necessary for eternal life, would Christ have said to Nicodemus, "Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God"? [Jn. 3. 3.] Christ’s next words are, "Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." [Jn. 3. 5.] By these words he shows us that the Spirit is as necessary for regeneration as regeneration is necessary for eternal life.

These words also prove to us that just as the Spirit is the inward cause of our regeneration, so water is the outward means of our regeneration. If baptism by water were not in some sense necessary, why is our new birth spoken of as "of water" as well as "of the Spirit"? [Ibid.] Why is it that we are taught that God sanctifies and cleanses his Church "with the washing of water by the word"? [Eph. 5. 26.] Why does one Apostle of Christ call baptism "the washing of regeneration" [Tit. 3. 5.] and another advise men to receive outward baptism "in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of Sins"? [Acts 2. 38.]

There is a kind of necessity about baptism, but it is not an absolute necessity. That would only be true if baptism were a condition without which regeneration could not come to be. In that case baptism would have such natural or supernatural power in itself that regeneration would not take place without it, and then nobody would ever receive grace before baptism. If you do not first have the cause, you do not have the results that necessarily spring from it. Thus, if baptism were absolutely necessary for the reception of grace, no man would receive grace without it. In many cases we know that this is not so, but in other cases, although we do not make baptism the necessary cause of grace, yet we do recognize that grace given in baptism has a dependence on the outward sacrament. God wishes us to use the outward sacrament not only as a sign or token of what we receive, but also as an instrument or means by which we receive grace. Baptism is a sacrament instituted by God in his Church as a means of incorporating us into Christ; and thus by his most precious merit we obtain that grace which takes away all former guiltiness, and that divine virtue of the Holy Spirit which gives to the powers of the soul their first inclination to a future newness of life."

2008-01-19T18:17:00.000-08:00

A repost of note:

Article XXIX. Of the Wicked, which eat not the Body of Christ in the use of the Lord's Supper.

"The Wicked, and such as be void of a lively faith, although they do carnally and visibly press with their teeth (as Saint Augustine saith) the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ; yet in no wise are they partakers of Christ: but rather, to their condemnation, do eat and drink the sign or Sacrament of so great a thing."

Of all of the Articles, it seems that this is the one that many point to when attempting to demonstrate that Anglicans who hold to the Prayer Book and the Articles do not "really" believe in the Real Presence (a charge usually made by Lutheranism--who believe in a corporal presence, sometimes by Roman Catholics and Orthodox, and sometimes by a few Anglo-Catholics who are convinced that the Articles are not "Catholic," in that they do indeed reject several Roman doctrines--and here we have a confusion of Catholic doctrine with late western Roman doctrine), for does not the aforementioned Article say that only the faithful are given the Body and Blood of Christ? The answer to such a question so stated is "no."In the preceding Article we are told that "The Body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten, in the Supper, only after an heavenly and spiritual manner."

The Body of Christ is indeed given in the Supper, thereby ruling out any manner of mere receptionism. It is done in an "heavenly and spiritual manner," ruling out a carnal and physical presence and siding with Aquinas, but against several versions of transubstantiation common in the Middle Ages (that did not reflect the actual teaching of Aquinas). What then are we to make of the assertion that the wicked "eat not the Body of Christ" in the Supper? Well, first and foremost we must read the content of the Article itself, and take note that the quote given to elucidate the meaning of the title is nearly verbatim from Saint Augustine of Hippo, and that this same quote and manner of speaking is used by Saint Thomas Aquinas, the great expounder of the doctrine of transubstantiation. If we are to use this Article to argue that the official and historic doctrine of the Church of England is somehow "receptionist," then we must also use this logic consistently and accuse both Augustine and Aquinas of this same belief.

Let us examine the writings of Aquinas and determine how he can state that the wicked "eat the Sacrament" and yet "eat not."

First, in De Sacramento Altaris, cap. XVII., Aquinas writes that:"The first mode of eating the Body of Christ is Sacramental only, which is the way wicked Christians eat it, because they, receiving (sumentes) the venerable Body into mouths polluted by mortal sin, close their hearts with their unclean and hard sins, as with mire and stone, against the effect which conies from the influence of His virtue and goodness. . . These eat, and yet they do not eat. They eat because they receive (sumunt) sacramentally the Body of the Lord, but, nevertheless, they eat not, because the spiritual virtue, that is, the salvation of the soul they do not partake (non percipiunt). . . .

There is, says Gregory, in sinners and in those receiving unworthily the true Flesh and true Blood of Christ in efficacious essence, but not in wholesome efficiency. He who is at variance with Christ, says Augustine, 'neither eats His Flesh nor drinks His Blood,' and though he daily receives (sumat) the Sacrament of so great a thing, he receives it unto judgment. They are at variance with Christ who, averting the purposes of their heart from him, turn them to sin. And such may be said, to be truly wretched to whom so great a good oftentimes comes, and yet, who never receive or partake (accipit sive percipit) of any spiritual gain therefrom."

Father William McGarvey, in his excellent essay "The The Doctrine of the Church of England on the Real Presence Examined by the Writings of Thomas Aquinas" (Milwaukee, WI: The Young Churchman, 1900) summarizes the issue when he writes that: "So anxious is St. Thomas to guard against the supposition that the reception of the Sacrament necessarily implies a participation in the Body and Blood of Christ, that he thinks it well to explain that when St. Paul says we are all partakers of that one Bread, it is meant that we are all partakers by a worthy reception that is, a spiritual and not a mere Sacramental reception (Exposition super I. ad Corinthios, cap. X. lec. 4). And it was, no doubt, with a desire to accentuate the same truth that he inserted in the office for Corpus Christi as the eighth lesson the passage from St. Augustine, referred to and partly quoted by our Article. It is as follows: He who abideth not in Christ, and hath not Christ abiding in him, doth not spiritually eat His Flesh nor drink His Blood, although he may carnally and with his teeth press the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ, but rather eateth and drinketh the Sacrament of so great a thing to his own condemnation."

Father McGarvey further comments:"Considering, then, all that St. Thomas says in the above quotations with regard to the reception of the Sacrament, can any words sum up his teaching more fully and accurately than those of our Articles? Such as rightly, worthily, and with faith, receive the same, the bread which we break is a partaking (communicatio) of the Body of Christ, and likewise the cup of blessing is a partaking (communicatio) of the Blood of Christ; and those who receive otherwise do not eat the Body of Christ, and are in no wise partakers of Christ."

I will conclude by stressing that in the language of the Article (and Aquinas and Augustine), there is a difference in what it means to receive the Body and Blood of Christ and what it means to partake of the Body and Blood of Christ. Indeed, Aquinas mentions two manners of "eating" as well, as do other sacramental theologians. Therefore, the Articles in this regard do no more than reiterate the writings of Saint Augustine (verbatim) and do not differ, in regards to the importance of the worthy reception of the sacrament, from the writings of Thomas Aquinas. Indeed, they use the very same language. By the standards of the ancient Church and even by the standards of the Angelic Doctor, the official position of the English Reformation in this regard is doctrinally sound.

AC+

2008-01-16T08:17:00.000-08:00

What brave new world is this?

Organs to be taken without consent.

At the moment I'm teaching a two week interim class on bioethics. We'd just watched the film Coma from the late 1970s, in which a hosptial has decided to put people into comas in order to harvest their organs (they're now brain dead, you see) for profit. After the film we discussed the current system, which assumes that the patient has to actively and explicitly express their desire to voluntarily donate their organs (or else relatives must express their consent). This new system turns that concept on its head.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/01/13/norgans113.xml

Thankfully a brave Church of England bishop has spoken out against the policy in a principled way. Ok, not really. . .his statement actually lacks any firm set of foundational principles.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=FJLNJRJZ4Y33RQFIQMFCFFWAVCBQYIV0?xml=/news/2008/01/14/norgans114.xml

As Victor Frankenstein comments in the Kenneth Branagh film version of the novel: "Raw materials, nothing more."

2008-01-14T20:43:00.000-08:00

The Holy Communion
From the 1549
Book of Common Prayer
Adapted for American use

¶ A Psalm, Hymn, or Anthem may be sung when the Minister enters
or, after a sentence of Scripture, the Minister may say,

Minister: The Lord be with you.

Answer. And with thy spirit.

Minister. Let us pray.

¶ Then shall be said the COLLECT FOR PURITY following.
ALMIGHTY God, unto whom all hearts are open, all desires known, and from whom no secrets are hid; Cleanse the thoughts of our hearts by the inspiration of thy Holy Spirit, that we may perfectly love thee, and worthily magnify thy holy Name; through Christ our Lord.
Amen.

Lord, have mercy upon us.
Christ, have mercy upon us.
Lord, have mercy upon us.

Then, all standing, shall be said or sung together the GLORIA IN EXCELSIS,

GLORY be to God on high,
and on earth peace, good will towards men.
We praise thee, we bless thee, we worship thee,
we glorify thee, we give thanks to thee for thy great glory,
O Lord God, heavenly King, God the Father Almighty.
O Lord, the only-begotten Son, Jesus Christ; O Lord
God, Lamb of God, Son of the Father, that takest away the
sins of the world, have mercy upon us. Thou that takest away
the sins of the world, receive our prayer. Thou that sittest
at the right hand of God the Father, have mercy upon us.
For thou only art holy; thou only art the Lord; thou only,
O Christ, with the Holy Ghost, art most high in the glory of
God the Father. Amen.
Minister: The Lord be with you.

Answer. And with thy spirit.

Minister. Let us pray.

Then shall the Priest say the Collect of the Day, followed by the collect for the state.

ALMIGHTY God, whose kingdom is everlasting and power
infinite; Have mercy upon this whole land; and so
rule the hearts of thy servants, [N ], the President of the
United States, [N ], the Governor of this State (or Commonwealth),
and all others in authority, that they, knowing
whose ministers they are, may above all things seek thine
honour and glory; and that we and all the people, duly
considering whose authority they bear, may faithfully and
obediently honour them, according to thy blessed Word
and ordinance; through Jesus Christ our Lord, who with
thee and the Holy Ghost liveth and reigneth ever, one God,
world without end.
Amen.

¶ Then shall be read the EPISTLE Lesson, the Reader first saying,
The Reading (Lesson) from the Epistle_____ , chapter _____ , beginning at
the _____ verse. The Epistle being ended, the Reader may say, Here
endeth the Epistle, or,

Reader. This is the Word of the Lord.
People. Thanks be to God.

¶ Here may be sung a Hymn or an Anthem.
¶ Then, all the people standing, the Minister appointed shall read the
GOSPEL, first saying, The Holy Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ according
to St. _____ , chapter _____ , beginning at the _____ verse. In response
to the announcement of the Gospel shall be said,

Glory be to thee, O Lord.

¶ And after the Gospel, the Minister shall say, The Gospel of the Lord,
the people then responding,

Praise be to thee, O Christ.

¶ Then shall be said the CREED commonly called the Nicene, or else
the Apostles’ Creed; but the Creed may be omitted, if it has been said
immediately before in Morning Prayer; provided, That the Nicene
Creed shall be said on Christmas Day, Easter Day, Ascension Day,
Whitsunday, and Trinity Sunday.

The Nicene Creed
I BELIEVE in one God the Father Almighty, Maker of
heaven and earth, And of all things visible and
invisible:
And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of
God, Begotten of his Father before all worlds, God of God,
Light of Light, Very God of very God, Begotten, not made,
Being of one substance with the Father, By whom all things
were made: Who for us men and for our salvation came
down from heaven, And was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of
the Virgin Mary, And was made man, And was crucified also
for us under Pontius Pilate. He suffered and was buried,
And the third day he rose again according to the Scriptures,
And ascended into heaven, And sitteth on the right hand
of the Father. And he shall come again with glory to judge
both the quick and the dead; Whose kingdom shall have
no end.
And I believe in the Holy Ghost, The Lord, and Giver
of life, Who proceedeth from the Father and the Son, Who
with the Father and the Son together is worshiped and glorified,
Who spake by the Prophets. And I believe one holy
Catholic and Apostolic Church. I acknowledge one Baptism
for the remission of sins. And I look for the Resurrection
of the dead, And the Life of the world to come. Amen.

¶ Then shall be declared unto the people what Services are in the week
following to be observed. And here also (if occasion be) shall notice
be given of the Communion. And nothing shall be proclaimed or
published in the church during the time of Divine Service, but by
the Minister.

¶ Here may be sung a Hymn or an Anthem.
¶ Then shall follow the SERMON or Homily.
¶The Offertory may be placed here.

Priest: The Lord be with you.

Answer: And with thy spirit.

Priest: Lift up your hearts.

Answer. We lift them up unto the Lord.

Priest: Let us give thanks unto our Lord God.

Answer: It is meet and right so to do.
The Priest:
IT is very meet, right, and our bounden duty, that we should at all times, and in all places, give thanks unto thee, O Lord, Holy Father, Almighty, Everlasting God.

¶ Here shall follow the PROPER PREFACE, according to the time, if
there be any specially appointed; or else immediately shall be said
or sung by the Priest,
THEREFORE with Angels and Archangels, and with all the company of heaven, we laud and magnify thy glorious Name; evermore praising thee, and saying,

¶ Priest and people.

HOLY, HOLY, HOLY, Lord God of hosts, heaven and earth are full of thy glory: Hosanna in the highest. Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord. Glory be to thee, O Lord in the highest. Amen.

Let us pray for the whole state of Christ’s Church.

ALMIGHTY and everliving God, who by thy holy Apostle hast taught us to make prayers, and supplications, and to give thanks for all men; We humbly beseech thee most mercifully to receive these our prayers, which we offer unto thy Divine Majesty; beseeching thee to inspire continually the universal Church with the spirit of truth, unity, and concord: And grant that all those who do confess thy holy Name may agree in the truth of thy holy Word, and live in unity and godly love. We beseech thee also, so to direct and dispose the hearts of all Christian rulers, that they may truly and impartially administer justice, to the punishment of wickedness and
vice, and to the maintenance of thy true religion, and virtue.
Give grace, O heavenly Father, to all Bishops, Pastors, and Curates, that they may, both by their life and doctrine, set forth thy true and lively Word, and rightly and duly administer thy holy Sacraments.
And to all thy People give thy heavenly grace; that, with meek heart and due reverence, they may hear, and receive thy holy Word; truly serving thee in holiness and righteousness all the days of their life.
And we most humbly beseech thee, of thy goodness, O Lord, to comfort and succour all those, who in this transitory life are in trouble, sorrow, need, sickness, or any other adversity. And especially we commend unto thy merciful goodness this congregation, which is here assembled in thy Name, to celebrate the commemoration of the most glorious Death of thy Son.
And here we do give unto thee most high praise, and hearty thanks, for the wonderful grace and virtue, declared in all thy saints, from the beginning of the world: And chiefly in the blessed Virgin Mary, mother of thy son Jesus Christ our Lord and God, and in the holy Patriarchs, Prophets, Apostles and Martyrs, whose examples (o Lord) and steadfastness in thy faith, and keeping thy holy commandments, grant us to follow. We commend unto thy mercy (O Lord) all other thy servants, which are departed hence from us, with the sign of faith, and now do rest in the sleep of peace: Grant unto them, we beseech thee, thy mercy, and everlasting peace, and that at the day of the general resurrection, we and all they which be of the mystical body of thy son, may altogether be set on his right hand, and hear that his most joyful voice: Come unto me, O ye that be blessed of my father, and possess the kingdom, which is prepared for you from the beginning of the world. Grant this, O father, for Jesus Christ's sake, our only mediator and advocate.

O God, heavenly Father, which of thy tender mercy didst give thine only Son Jesus
Christ to suffer death upon the Cross for our redemption; who made there (by his one oblation of himself once offered) a full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice, oblation,
and satisfaction, for the sins of the whole world; and did institute, and in his holy Gospel command us to continue,a perpetual memory of that his precious death and sacrifice,
until his coming again; Hear us, O merciful Father, we beseech thee; and with thy Holy Spirit and Word vouchsafe to bless (+) and sanctify (+) these thy creatures of bread and wine, according to thy Son our Saviour Jesus Christ’s holy institution, in remembrance of his death and passion, may be partakers of his most blessed Body and Blood: who, in the same night in which he was betrayed, took Bread; and when he had given thanks, he brake it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, Take, eat, this is my Body which is given for you: Do this in remembrance of me. Likewise after supper he took the Cup; and, when he had given thanks, he gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of this; for this eis my Blood of the New Testament, which is shed for you and for many for the remission of sins: Do this, as oft as ye shall drink it, in remembrance of me.

W HEREFORE, O Lord and heavenly Father, according to the institution of thy dearly beloved Son our Saviour Jesus Christ, we, thy humble servants, do celebrate and make here before thy Divine Majesty, with these thy holy gifts, which we now offer unto thee, the memorial thy Son
hath commanded us to make; having in remembrance his blessed passion and precious death, his mighty resurrection and glorious ascension; rendering unto thee most hearty thanks for the innumerable benefits procured unto us by the same.

AND we earnestly desire thy fatherly goodness, mercifully to accept this our sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving; most humbly beseeching thee to grant that, by the merits and death of thy Son Jesus Christ, and through faith in his blood, we, and all thy whole Church, may obtain remission of our sins, and all other benefits of his passion. And here we offer and present unto thee, O Lord, our selves, our souls and bodies, to be a reasonable, holy, and living sacrifice unto thee; humbly beseeching thee, that we, and all others who shall be partakers of this Holy Communion, may worthily receive the most precious Body and Blood of thy Son Jesus Christ, be filled with thy grace and heavenly benediction, and made one body with him, that he may dwell in us, and we in him. And although we be unworthy (through our manifold sins) to offer unto thee any Sacrifice: Yet we beseech thee to accept this our bounden duty and service, and command these our prayers and supplications, by the Ministry of thy holy Angels, to be brought up into thy holy Tabernacle before the sight of thy divine majesty; not weighing our merits, but pardoning our offences, through Christ our Lord, by whom, and with whom, in the unity of the holy Ghost: all honour and glory be unto thee, O father almighty, world without end.

Amen.

Let us pray.
AS our savior Christ hath commanded and taught us, we are bold to say.
Our father, which art in heaven, hallowed be thy name. Thy Kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread. And forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive them that trespass against us. And lead us not into temptation. But deliver us from evil. For thine is the kingdom, the power, and the glory, for ever and ever. Amen.
Then shall the priest say.

The peace of the Lord be always with you.

Answer. And with thy spirit.

The Priest. Christ our Paschal lamb is offered up for us, once for all, when he bare our sins on his body upon the cross, for he is the very lamb of God, that taketh away the sins of the world: wherefore let us keep a joyful and holy feast with the Lord.

Here the priest shall turn him toward those that come to the holy Communion, and shall say.
YOU that do truly and earnestly repent you of your sins to almighty God, and be in love and charity with your neighbours, and intend to lead a new life, following the commandments of God, and walking from henceforth in his holy ways: draw near and take this holy Sacrament to your comfort, make your humble confession to Almighty God, and to his holy church here gathered in his name, meekly kneeling upon your knees.

Then shall this general Confession be made, in the name of all those that are minded to receive the holy Communion, either by one of them, or else by one of the ministers, or by the priest himself, all kneeling humbly upon their knees.

ALMIGHTY GOD father of our Lord Jesus Christ, maker of all things, judge of all men, we acknowledge and bewail our manifold sins and wickedness, which we from time to time, most grievously have committed, by thought, word and deed, against thy divine majesty, provoking most justly thy wrath and indignation against us, we do earnestly repent and be heartily sorry for these our misdoings, the remembrance of them is grievous unto us, the burden of them is intolerable: have mercy upon us, have mercy upon us, most merciful father, for thy son our Lord Jesus Christ's sake, forgive us all that is past, and grant that we may ever hereafter, serve and please thee in newness of life, to the honour and glory of thy name; Through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

Then shall the Priest standing up, and turning himself to the people, say thus,
ALMIGHTY GOD, our heavenly father, who of his great mercy hath promised forgiveness of sins to all them, with hearty repentance and true faith, turn unto him: have mercy upon you, pardon and deliver you from all your sins, confirm and strengthen you in all goodness, and bring you to everlasting life: through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

Then shall the Priest also say,
HEAR what comfortable words our saviour Christ saith, to all that truly turn to him.

Come unto me all that travail, and be heavy laden, and I shall refresh you.

So God loved the world that he gave his only begotten son, to the end that all that believe in him, should not perish, but have life everlasting

Hear also what Saint Paul saith.
This is a true saying, and worthy of all men to be received, that Jesus Christ came into this world to save sinners.

Hear also what Saint John saith.
If any man sin, we have an Advocate with the father, Jesus Christ the righteous, and he is the propitiation for our sins.

Then shall the Priest turning him to Gods board kneel down and say in the name of all them, that they receive the Communion, this prayer following.

WE do not presume to come to this thy table (0 merciful Lord) trusting in our own righteousness, but in thy manifold and great mercies: we be not worthy so much as to gather up the crumbs under thy table: but thou art the same lord whose property is always to have mercy: Grant us therefore, gracious Lord, so to eat the flesh of thy dear son Jesus Christ, and to drink his blood in these holy Mysteries, that our sinful bodies may be made clean by his body, and our souls washed through his most precious blood. Amen.

Then shall the Priest first receive the Communion in both kinds himself, and next deliver it to other Ministers, if any be there preset, (that they may be ready to help the chief Minister,) and after to the people.

And when he delivereth the Sacrament of the body of Christ, he shall say to every one these words.

THE body of our Lord Jesus Christ which was given for thee, preserve thy body and soul unto everlasting life.

And the Minister delivering the Sacrament of the blood, and giving every one to drink once and no more, shall say,

THE blood of our Lord Jesus Christ which was shed for thee, preserve thy body and soul unto everlasting life.

Then the Priest shall give thanks to God, in the name of all them that have communicated, turning him first to the people, and saying.

The Lord be with you.

The Answer. And with thy spirit.

The Priest. Let us pray.
ALMIGHTY and everliving God, we most heartily thank thee, for that thou hast vouchsafed to feed us in these holy Mysteries, with the spiritual food of the most precious body and blood of thy son our Saviour Jesus Christ, and hast assured us (duly receiving the same) of thy favour and goodness towards us, and that we be very members incorporate in thy Mystical body, which is the blessed company of all faithful people, and heirs through hope of thy everlasting kingdom, by the merits of the most precious death and passion of thy dear son. We therefore most humbly beseech thee, 0 heavenly Father, so to assist us with thy grace, that we may continue in that holy fellowship, and do all such good works, as thou hast prepared for us to walk in: through Jesus Christ our Lord, to whom with thee and the holy ghost, be all honour and glory, world without end. Amen.

Then the Priest turning him to the people, shall let them depart with this blessing.
THE peace of GOD, which passeth all understanding, keep your hearts and minds in the knowledge and love of GOD, and of his son Jesus Christ our Lord: And the blessing of God Almighty, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, be amongst you and remain with you always.

Then the people shall answer.

Amen.

2008-01-12T17:30:00.000-08:00

Since this blog is now a debate as to the propriety of any form of "modernized language" services. . .

THE ORDAINING OF PRIESTS

(from the AMiA "green book," largely the result of the work Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon of the American Prayer Book Society).

On the appointed day, the Service shall begin with Morning
Prayer which shall be followed immediately by a Sermon or
Exhortation, in which the duty and office of those who are to be
ordained Priests shall be declared, the necessity of the office of
Priest in the Church of Christ explained, and how the people of
God ought to esteem those who are made Priests, stated
After the Sermon or Exhortation, a senior Minister shall present
unto the Bishop (sitting in his Chair near to the holy Table) those
who are being presented for ordination and who are appropriately
dressed for the occasion.

Reverend Father in God, I present unto you these persons
to be admitted to the Office of Priest.

The Bishop shall reply,
Have you made sure that these persons whom you present
to us are truly suited and prepared, by their knowledge
of Holy Scripture, sound doctrine and holiness of
life, to exercise their ministry for the glory of God and the
building up of his Church?

A Senior Minister shall reply,
I have examined them and I believe that they are suited
and prepared for this Office.

The Bishop addresses the congregation
Brothers and Sisters, we intend, God willing, to receive
today these persons into the holy Office of Priesthood ( or,
the Presbyterate). After examining them we find that they
are both lawfully called to their Ministry and fit to enter
into it. But if any of you knows a reason why any of these
persons ought not to be received into this holy Ministry,
come forward in the Name of God and make known that
reason.

If any serious objection is alleged against a candidate, the
Bishop shall postpone that person’s ordination so that proper
investigation can be made.
The Bishop proceeds by commending to the prayers of the congregation
all those against whom no objection has been lodged.
Thus here shall be said or sung the Litany (see above pp.93).
After the Litany the Service of Holy Communion shall begin with
this Collect, followed by the Epistle and Gospel.

Almighty God, giver of all good things, who by your Holy
Spirit have appointed various orders of Ministry in your
Church: Look in mercy upon these your servants now
called to the Office of Priesthood (or, the Presbyterate);
and so fill them with the truth of your teaching, and
adorn them with holiness of life, that, both by word and
good example, they may faithfully serve you in this office,
to the glory of your Name, and the building up of your
Church; through the merits of our Savior Jesus Christ,
who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, now
and for ever. Amen.

The Epistle. Ephesians 4. 1-7
The Gospel. Matthew 9. 36-38 or John 10. 1-16

Sitting in his chair the Bishop says to those about to be ordained,

My brothers in Christ, you have heard both beforehand
in your private examination and now in the sermon and
Scripture readings of what dignity and great importance
this office is, to which you are called. In the Name of our
Lord Jesus Christ, I urge you to keep in mind the nature
of this office. You are called to be messengers, watchmen
and stewards of the Lord; to teach and to warn, to feed
and nurture the Lord’s family; to seek for Christ’s sheep
scattered abroad in the evil world, so that they may be
saved through Christ for ever.
Always have printed in your memory what a great
treasure is committed to your charge. For the people
whom you serve are the flock of Christ, which he purchased
with his death and for whom he shed his precious
blood. The church and congregation is both Christ’s
Bride and his Body. Thus, if the congregation itself, or
any member of it, is hurt or hindered as a result of your
negligence, God will surely discipline or punish you for
this sin. Bearing this in mind, remember what God has
called you to be and to do. Never cease your work, care
and diligence, until you have done all that you can
possibly do, as is your duty, to bring all those under your
pastoral care, to a true knowledge of God, unity of faith
and maturity in Christ, so that there is no place available
for erroneous belief and immoral behavior.
Since this office is both so excellent in nature and so
difficult in its exercise, you see how most carefully and
studiously you ought to apply yourselves to this Ministry,
so as to prove yourselves dutiful and thankful to the
Lord, who has placed you in such a dignified position;
and also to take care neither to offend nor to cause others
to do so. It is only God himself who can give you the
intention and ability to do these things. Therefore, you
ought and you need to pray earnestly for his Holy Spirit.
And, bearing in mind, that you cannot accomplish so
important a work relating to the salvation of man, except
by using teaching and exhortation taken our of the Holy
Scriptures, and by living a life agreeable to the same,
consider how seriously you ought to study and learn the
Scriptures, and order your own life and that of your family,
according to the rule of the same Scriptures. For the
same reason, you ought to forsake and set aside, as
much as you can, all worldly cares and studies which
hinder you doing your duty.
We are persuaded that you have carefully weighed and
pondered these things for some time, and that you have
clearly determined, by God’s grace, to give yourselves
wholly to this office, into which it has pleased God to call
you, so that, to the extent of your ability, you will apply
yourself wholly to this one thing, and draw all your concerns
and studies towards the fulfillment of this ministry.
We are also persuaded that you will continually pray to
God the Father, by the mediation of our only Savior Jesus
Christ, for the heavenly assistance of the Holy
Spirit; that, by daily reading and considering of the
Scriptures, you will grow stronger in your ministry, and
endeavor to sanctify and shape your lives and those of
your families according to the rule and teaching of Christ,
that you may be wholesome and godly examples and patterns
for the people to follow.
And now, in order that this congregation of Christ’s
flock may also understand your minds and wills in these
things, and in order to strengthen your resolve to do your
duty before God, you shall plainly answer the questions
which we, in the Name of God, and of his Church, now
ask you.
Do you genuinely think that you are truly called,
according to the will of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the
canon law of this Church, to the order and ministry of
priesthood [or, the presbyterate]?

Answer. I do think so.

Are you persuaded that the holy Scriptures contain sufficiently
all doctrine that is necessary for eternal salvation
through faith in Jesus Christ? And are you determined
to teach the people committed to your pastoral
care from those Scriptures, and to teach nothing as
required or necessary for eternal salvation except that
which you are persuaded can be proved from the
Scriptures?

Answer. I am persuaded and will do so, by God’s grace.

Will you always make every effort faithfully to provide the
doctrine, the sacraments and the discipline of Christ, as
the Lord has commanded and this Church has received
them, according to the commandments of God; so that
you may teach the people under your pastoral care diligently
to keep and observe the same?

Answer. I will do so, with the Lord’s help.

Will you be ready, with all faithful diligence, to banish
and drive away all erroneous and strange doctrines contrary
to God’s Word? And will you use private warning
and public exhortation, both to the sick as well as to the
healthy within your congregation, to accomplish this?

Answer. I will do so, with the Lord’s help.

Will you be diligent in prayers, in reading of the Holy
Scriptures, and in such studies as assist in gaining a
fuller knowledge of them? And will you at the same time
lay aside worldly study and private pursuits?

Answer. I will do so, with the Lord’s help.

Will you strive to frame and fashion your own selves, and
your families, according to the teaching of Christ? And
will you make both yourselves and them, to the best of
your ability, to be wholesome examples and patterns to
the flock of Christ?

Answer. I will do so, with the Lord’s help.

Will you maintain and promote, as far as you are able,
quietness, peace and love amongst all Christian people,
and especially among those that are or will be under your
pastoral care?

Answer. I will do so, with the Lord’s help.

Will you reverently obey those who are set above you in
the Church, and gladly and willingly accept their godly
advice and judgments?

Answer. I will do so, with the Lord’s help.

The Bishop stands and prays,
Almighty God, who has given you the will to do all these
things, grant you strength and power to perform them;
that he may complete the work that he has begun in you;
through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

During a period of silence the congregation shall be urged to pray
for those to be ordained. Then, as all those to be ordained kneel,
the Bishop shall lead the singing of Veni Creator Spiritus in an
appropriate English translation. On occasion, a suitable alternative
may be sung.

All shall continue in prayer as the Bishop says,

Let us pray.
Almighty God and heavenly Father, by your infinite love
and goodness towards us, you have given to us your only
and most dearly beloved Son Jesus Christ, to be our
Redeemer and the Author of everlasting life. After he had
completed our salvation by his death, and had ascended
into heaven, he sent into the world his Apostles,
Prophets, Evangelists, Teachers, and Pastors, by whose
labor and ministry he gathered together a great flock in
all parts of the world to proclaim the eternal praise of
your holy Name. For these great benefits of your eternal
goodness, and because you have graciously determined
to call these your servants to the same office and ministry,
which is appointed for the salvation of mankind, we
give you our heartfelt thanks, and we praise and worship
you. And we humbly pray that through your Son, you will
grant to all, who both here and in other places, call upon
your holy Name, the commitment to show ourselves continually
thankful to you for these and all your blessings;
and that we may increase daily in the knowing and
believing in you and in your Son, by the Holy Spirit.
Further, we humbly pray that by these your Ministers,
and by those over whom they shall be appointed as pastors,
your holy Name will be for ever glorified, and your
blessed kingdom enlarged; through the same your Son
Jesus Christ our Lord, who lives and reign with you in
the unity of the same Holy Spirit, now and for ever.
Amen.

The Bishop, with the Priests present, shall lay their hands upon
the head of each of the candidates, as in turn they kneel before
the Bishop, who says,

Receive the Holy Spirit for the office and work of a Priest
[Presbyter] in the Church of God, now committed to you
by the laying on of our hands. Whosoever’s sins you forgive,
they are forgiven; and whosoever’s sins you retain,
they are retained. And be faithful in the teaching of the
Word of God and in the administration of his holy
Sacraments, in the Name of the Father, and of the Son
and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.

Then the Bishop shall give to each a Bible, saying to him,
Take authority to preach the Word of God, and to administer
the holy Sacraments in the congregation to which
you are lawfully appointed.

When the ordinations are completed, the Nicene Creed shall be
said or sung in either the traditional or contemporary version,
and the Order for Holy Communion shall continue. Those who
have been ordained shall receive Communion first and together.
After the last Collect and before the final Blessing, these two
Collects shall be said.

Most merciful Father, we earnestly ask you to send upon
these your servants your heavenly blessing, that they
may be clothed with righteousness, and that your Word
spoken by their mouths may have such success that it
may never be spoken in vain. Grant also that we may
have grace to hear and receive what they shall proclaim
and teach from your most holy Word as the means of our
salvation, and grant that in all our words and deeds we
may seek your glory, and the increase of your kingdom;
through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

Go before us, Lord, with your most gracious favor and
accompany us with your continual help, so that in all
our works begun, continued and ended in you, we
may glorify your holy Name, and finally by your
mercy obtain everlasting life; through Jesus Christ
our Lord. Amen.

The Blessing.

If on the one day some are to be made Deacons and others
Priests, those to be Deacons shall first be presented, and then
those to be Priests. The Litany shall be said or sung once but the
Collect for Deacons and that for Priests shall both be used. The
Epistle shall be Ephesians 4. 7-13.and immediately after the
Epistle shall be the examination and ordination of the Deacons.
Then, after one of them has read the Gospel (Matthew 9. 36-38;
or Luke 12. 35-39) those to be ordained Priest shall be examined
and ordained.

2008-01-08T18:23:00.000-08:00

An
Anglican
Prayer Book
Contemporary English Services
based on those in
the Book of Common Prayer and
the Ordinal,
in their English 1662 ,
American 1928, and
Canadian 1662
editions

The aim of this prayer book is to make available in contemporary language the doctrine, devotion and structure of classic Anglican Common Prayer, as these are provided in the historic editions of The Book of Common Prayer. It is designed for use primarily with the
English Standard Version of the Bible, but the Revised Standard Version and other conservative translations will work also.
It is intended in the first place for the congregations in the networks of The Anglican Mission of the Americas; but; it is expected that it will also be used within other parts of contemporary Anglicanism, especially by churches in the Common Cause Partnership, and English-speaking congregations abroad.
The aim is not to replace the standard, traditional editions of The Book of Common Prayer authorized in England, U.S.A. and Canada, but to build a bridge towards them by presenting their basic theology, spirituality and reformed catholic ethos in a form of language that a majority feel is now the only real option—contemporary English.
It may be recalled that most of the forms of service designed for use since the late 1960s in western Anglicanism have sought to set aside the pattern and doctrine within the historic Book of Common Prayer, and replace them with a shape and theology that is a mixture of ancient shape and modern theology. Even where some of the historic content has been preserved, as in Rite One services of the 1979 Prayer Book of The Episcopal Church, it is made to fit into the “shape” of the modern Rite Two, and further, there is not sufficient traditional material within the 1979 Book to be consistently traditional (e.g., the Psalter uses inclusive language and there is no traditional Baptismal Service). Therefore, there is a real need in contemporary Episcopalianism and Anglicanism for the availability of classic Common Prayer in a way that is acceptable and usable by those who currently use Rite Two, or the Canadian 1985 Book, or the like. There is an open space developing for the experimental (and then continuing) use of traditional services in contemporary English, where the doctrine and devotion of the historic Anglican Way are present, known and received.

Contents

Preface
The Christian Year
Morning and Evening Prayer
The Litany
The Athanasian Creed
Compline
Holy Communion
The Collects and Eucharistic
Lectionary
Baptism
The Catechism
Confirmation
Marriage
Visitation of the Sick
Burial of the Dead
Interment or Scattering of
Ashes
Family Prayer
Daily Lectionary
The Ordinal
The Making of Deacons
The Ordination of Priests
The Consecration of a Bishop
The Articles of Religion

An Anglican Prayer Book is published for The Anglican Mission in the Americas by The Preservation Press of the Prayer
Book Society on February 1, 2008. ISBN: 978-1-879793-13-2 and 1-879793-13-X. It has 240 pages and is in hardback.
Individual copies are $15.00 including S & H; multiple copies for congregations are $10.00 each, including S & H. Available from: The Prayer Book Society of the U.S.A., P.O. Box 35220, Philadelphia, PA. 19128-0220. 1-800-PBS-1928. Checks to “The Prayer Book Society.”
Very soon after February 1, 2008, individual copies only will be available at www.anglicanmarketplace.com for purchase with a credit card in a secure system.

2008-01-07T21:20:00.000-08:00

The Place of the Prayer Book

In the disjointed world of classical Anglicanism, the one tie that usually binds is the use of and affection for the orthodox editions of the Book of Common Prayer (1549-1928 English; 1928 American, 1962 Canadian and derivations thereof). I have visited numerous Anglican parishes in many jurisdictions and the services have, thankfully, been rooted in the classic Prayer Book. Ceremonial and vestments may differ from place to place (surplice and stole in some places, alb and chasuble in others; there may be bowing in some churches and genuflection in others; the sign of the cross may be made more often here and less often there, etc.), but the theology of the Prayer Book prayed devoutly is the great golden thread that runs through time and across fragmented groups.

However, the situation is different in the new grouping of Anglicans that are now departing the mainline Episcopal Church. Many have never encountered the 1662 or 1928 Prayer Books or used them in a worship setting, despite affirmation of the theology of these books. Instead, many put together liturgies culled from a variety of sources, using the 1979 ECUSA book as the framework and starting point. This presents the interesting fact that some Anglican parishes have a designated "liturgist" to draw up the service, while most traditional Anglican parishes simply select hymns based on the liturgical season. It is a happy occurrence then that one of the groups newly separated from ECUSA, the Anglican Mission in America, has produced a book of services in the modern language that simply updates the contents of the 1662 and 1928 books--this is a step firmly in the right direction, drawing those who profess Anglican orthodoxy to the services and theology of actual historic Anglicanism, the reformed Catholicism of the Anglican Way. Many traditionalists balk at the notion of "modern language" services, but it must be realized that--as I mentioned--many seeking to leave the mainline church body have known nothing else except modern language services (often expressing heterodox doctrine). I believe it is much better to have prayers used that are in line with the substance of what Archbishop Cranmer actually set forth.

In the Common Cause Partnership (encompassing Forward in Faith, many Episcopal dioceses, CANA, AMiA, and the Anglican Province of America and the Reformed Episcopal Church) one of the 800 pound gorillas standing in the corner, glowering, is the issue of Prayer Book "revision." This word means something quite different than it does when applied to the 1970s "revision" of the classical Cranmerian-Laudian text. In the 1970s we saw something completely new created, something that looked quite unlike anything that had come before. In my humble opinion, few in the APA and REC will accept anything but minor variations on the 1662 and 1928 texts. A conservative and faithful modern language counterpart to these volumes could possibly bridge that gap. Common Prayer means common theology; without this Anglicanism is lost. The other 800 pound gorilla in the corner is the ordination of women. If this is not addressed, little hope can be had for any full union of the Common Cause Partners.

That being said, it is with equal sadness that I read months ago of some parts of the Continuum approving the old Roman Mass, without restrictions, for use at the Eucharist. Many would ask "What's wrong with that? Is there something wrong with that Canon?" That is actually beside the point. Just as with the stitched together services coming from the newer departees from ECUSA, the use of the Roman Mass moves one further away from classical Anglican theology and Common Prayer. It effectively makes one an Old Catholic, and there is nothing really wrong with that, but when one goes to an Anglican church one would expect an Anglican service, not the old Roman one. I would just hope such bodies or congregations would accurately label their worship services, and sign on to the 14 Old Catholic Theses as well.

There is no need for a brand new (or brand new old Roman) liturgy. We have a fine liturgy. And there is no need for a brand new liturgist. We had an excellent liturgist. His name was Archbishop Thomas Cranmer.

2008-01-05T21:07:00.001-08:00

Around the church. . .

I love looking over the web pages of various churches to get a feel of what is going on in the different parishes. In the past I've done small profiles of parish churches in the APA, REC, ACA, APCK, etc., that I've been to or am familiar with from conversations with the clergy (not meaning to leave some out, but I only do profiles of traditional 1662 or 1928 Prayer Book parishes of the type that would list themselves in the Prayer Book Society publications). Below is an assorted grab bag of photos, culled from the web, of parish life within the Reformed Episcopal Church (in no particular order without labels). The "iconography" and content of the picture should be enough to tell you what is going on.

2008-01-04T18:06:00.000-08:00

The Teaching of the Western Church on Free Will and Grace

For a traditional Anglican these are the definitive statements about the acceptance of Augustine's teaching in the Western Church. Indeed, they tend to be the things that divide East from West. However, in that the Western Church had to confront the teaching of Pelagius in a way that the East did not, they must be considered with some seriousness and brought to the table in any ecumenical discussion with the Eastern Church.

Q: What does the Catholic Church believe about grace, human free will and salvation?

A: The answer lies in the dogmatic teaching of the Second Council of Orange (A.D. 549).

CANON 1. If anyone denies that it is the whole man, that is, both body and soul, that was "changed for the worse" through the offense of Adam's sin, but believes that the freedom of the soul remains unimpaired and that only the body is subject to corruption, he is deceived by the error of Pelagius and contradicts the scripture which says, "The soul that sins shall die" (Ezek. 18:20); and, "Do you not know that if you yield yourselves to anyone as obedient slaves, you are the slaves of the one whom you obey?" (Rom. 6:16); and, "For whatever overcomes a man, to that he is enslaved" (2 Pet. 2:19).

CANON 2. If anyone asserts that Adam's sin affected him alone and not his descendants also, or at least if he declares that it is only the death of the body which is the punishment for sin, and not also that sin, which is the death of the soul, passed through one man to the whole human race, he does injustice to God and contradicts the Apostle, who says, "Therefore as sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned" (Rom. 5:12).

CANON 3. If anyone says that the grace of God can be conferred as a result of human prayer, but that it is not grace itself which makes us pray to God, he contradicts the prophet Isaiah, or the Apostle who says the same thing, "I have been found by those who did not seek me; I have shown myself to those who did not ask for me" (Rom 10:20, quoting Isa. 65:1).

CANON 4. If anyone maintains that God awaits our will to be cleansed from sin, but does not confess that even our will to be cleansed comes to us through the infusion and working of the Holy Spirit, he resists the Holy Spirit himself who says through Solomon, "The will is prepared by the Lord" (Prov. 8:35, LXX), and the salutary word of the Apostle, "For God is at work in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure" (Phil. 2:13).

CANON 5. If anyone says that not only the increase of faith but also its beginning and the very desire for faith, by which we believe in Him who justifies the ungodly and comes to the regeneration of holy baptism -- if anyone says that this belongs to us by nature and not by a gift of grace, that is, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit amending our will and turning it from unbelief to faith and from godlessness to godliness, it is proof that he is opposed to the teaching of the Apostles, for blessed Paul says, "And I am sure that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ" (Phil. 1:6). And again, "For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God" (Eph. 2:8). For those who state that the faith by which we believe in God is natural make all who are separated from the Church of Christ by definition in some measure believers.

CANON 6. If anyone says that God has mercy upon us when, apart from his grace, we believe, will, desire, strive, labor, pray, watch, study, seek, ask, or knock, but does not confess that it is by the infusion and inspiration of the Holy Spirit within us that we have the faith, the will, or the strength to do all these things as we ought; or if anyone makes the assistance of grace depend on the humility or obedience of man and does not agree that it is a gift of grace itself that we are obedient and humble, he contradicts the Apostle who says, "What have you that you did not receive?" (1 Cor. 4:7), and, "But by the grace of God I am what I am" (1 Cor. 15:10).

CANON 7. If anyone affirms that we can form any right opinion or make any right choice which relates to the salvation of eternal life, as is expedient for us, or that we can be saved, that is, assent to the preaching of the gospel through our natural powers without the illumination and inspiration of the Holy Spirit, who makes all men gladly assent to and believe in the truth, he is led astray by a heretical spirit, and does not understand the voice of God who says in the Gospel, "For apart from me you can do nothing" (John 15:5), and the word of the Apostle, "Not that we are competent of ourselves to claim anything as coming from us; our competence is from God" (2 Cor. 3:5).

CANON 8. If anyone maintains that some are able to come to the grace of baptism by mercy but others through free will, which has manifestly been corrupted in all those who have been born after the transgression of the first man, it is proof that he has no place in the true faith. For he denies that the free will of all men has been weakened through the sin of the first man, or at least holds that it has been affected in such a way that they have still the ability to seek the mystery of eternal salvation by themselves without the revelation of God. The Lord himself shows how contradictory this is by declaring that no one is able to come to him "unless the Father who sent me draws him" (John 6:44), as he also says to Peter, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven" (Matt. 16:17), and as the Apostle says, "No one can say 'Jesus is Lord' except by the Holy Spirit" (1 Cor. 12:3).

CANON 9. Concerning the succor of God. It is a mark of divine favor when we are of a right purpose and keep our feet from hypocrisy and unrighteousness; for as often as we do good, God is at work in us and with us, in order that we may do so.

CANON 10. Concerning the succor of God. The succor of God is to be ever sought by the regenerate and converted also, so that they may be able to come to a successful end or persevere in good works.

CANON 11. Concerning the duty to pray. None would make any true prayer to the Lord had he not received from him the object of his prayer, as it is written, "Of thy own have we given thee" (1 Chron. 29:14).

CANON 12. Of what sort we are whom God loves. God loves us for what we shall be by his gift, and not by our own deserving.

CANON 13. Concerning the restoration of free will. The freedom of will that was destroyed in the first man can be restored only by the grace of baptism, for what is lost can be returned only by the one who was able to give it. Hence the Truth itself declares: "So if the Son makes you free, you will be free indeed" (John 8:36).

CANON 14. No mean wretch is freed from his sorrowful state, however great it may be, save the one who is anticipated by the mercy of God, as the Psalmist says, "Let thy compassion come speedily to meet us" (Ps. 79:8), and again, "My God in his steadfast love will meet me" (Ps. 59:10).

CANON 15. Adam was changed, but for the worse, through his own iniquity from what God made him. Through the grace of God the believer is changed, but for the better, from what his iniquity has done for him. The one, therefore, was the change brought about by the first sinner; the other, according to the Psalmist, is the change of the right hand of the Most High (Ps. 77:10).

CANON 16. No man shall be honored by his seeming attainment, as though it were not a gift, or suppose that he has received it because a missive from without stated it in writing or in speech. For the Apostle speaks thus, "For if justification were through the law, then Christ died to no purpose" (Gal. 2:21); and "When he ascended on high he led a host of captives, and he gave gifts to men" (Eph. 4:8, quoting Ps. 68:18). It is from this source that any man has what he does; but whoever denies that he has it from this source either does not truly have it, or else "even what he has will be taken away" (Matt. 25:29).

CANON 17. Concerning Christian courage. The courage of the Gentiles is produced by simple greed, but the courage of Christians by the love of God which "has been poured into our hearts" not by freedom of will from our own side but "through the Holy Spirit which has been given to us" (Rom. 5:5).

CANON 18. That grace is not preceded by merit. Recompense is due to good works if they are performed; but grace, to which we have no claim, precedes them, to enable them to be done.

CANON 19. That a man can be saved only when God shows mercy. Human nature, even though it remained in that sound state in which it was created, could be no means save itself, without the assistance of the Creator; hence since man cannot safe- guard his salvation without the grace of God, which is a gift, how will he be able to restore what he has lost without the grace of God?

CANON 20. That a man can do no good without God. God does much that is good in a man that the man does not do; but a man does nothing good for which God is not responsible, so as to let him do it.

CANON 21. Concerning nature and grace. As the Apostle most truly says to those who would be justified by the law and have fallen from grace, "If justification were through the law, then Christ died to no purpose" (Gal. 2:21), so it is most truly declared to those who imagine that grace, which faith in Christ advocates and lays hold of, is nature: "If justification were through nature, then Christ died to no purpose." Now there was indeed the law, but it did not justify, and there was indeed nature, but it did not justify. Not in vain did Christ therefore die, so that the law might be fulfilled by him who said, "I have come not to abolish them but to fulfill them" (Matt. 5:17), and that the nature which had been destroyed by Adam might be restored by him who said that he had come "to seek and to save the lost" (Luke 19:10).

CANON 22. Concerning those things that belong to man. No man has anything of his own but untruth and sin. But if a man has any truth or righteousness, it from that fountain for which we must thirst in this desert, so that we may be refreshed from it as by drops of water and not faint on the way.

CANON 23. Concerning the will of God and of man. Men do their own will and not the will of God when they do what displeases him; but when they follow their own will and comply with the will of God, however willingly they do so, yet it is his will by which what they will is both prepared and instructed.

CANON 24. Concerning the branches of the vine. The branches on the vine do not give life to the vine, but receive life from it; thus the vine is related to its branches in such a way that it supplies them with what they need to live, and does not take this from them. Thus it is to the advantage of the disciples, not Christ, both to have Christ abiding in them and to abide in Christ. For if the vine is cut down another can shoot up from the live root; but one who is cut off from the vine cannot live without the root (John 15:5ff).

CANON 25. Concerning the love with which we love God. It is wholly a gift of God to love God. He who loves, even though he is not loved, allowed himself to be loved. We are loved, even when we displease him, so that we might have means to please him. For the Spirit, whom we love with the Father and the Son, has poured into our hearts the love of the Father and the Son (Rom. 5:5).

CONCLUSION. And thus according to the passages of holy scripture quoted above or the interpretations of the ancient Fathers we must, under the blessing of God, preach and believe as follows. The sin of the first man has so impaired and weakened free will that no one thereafter can either love God as he ought or believe in God or do good for God's sake, unless the grace of divine mercy has preceded him. We therefore believe that the glorious faith which was given to Abel the righteous, and Noah, and Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and to all the saints of old, and which the Apostle Paul commends in extolling them (Heb. 11), was not given through natural goodness as it was before to Adam, but was bestowed by the grace of God. And we know and also believe that even after the coming of our Lord this grace is not to be found in the free will of all who desire to be baptized, but is bestowed by the kindness of Christ, as has already been frequently stated and as the Apostle Paul declares, "For it has been granted to you that for the sake of Christ you should not only believe in him but also suffer for his sake" (Phil. 1:29). And again, "He who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ" (Phil. 1:6). And again, "For by grace you have been saved through faith; and it is not your own doing, it is the gift of God" (Eph. 2:8). And as the Apostle says of himself, "I have obtained mercy to be faithful" (1 Cor. 7:25, cf. 1 Tim. 1:13). He did not say, "because I was faithful," but "to be faithful." And again, "What have you that you did not receive?" (1 Cor. 4:7). And again, "Every good endowment and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights" (Jas. 1:17). And again, "No one can receive anything except what is given him from heaven" (John 3:27). There are innumerable passages of holy scripture which can be quoted to prove the case for grace, but they have been omitted for the sake of brevity, because further examples will not really be of use where few are deemed sufficient.According to the catholic faith we also believe that after grace has been received through baptism, all baptized persons have the ability and responsibility, if they desire to labor faithfully, to perform with the aid and cooperation of Christ what is of essential importance in regard to the salvation of their soul. We not only do not believe that any are foreordained to evil by the power of God, but even state with utter abhorrence that if there are those who want to believe so evil a thing, they are anathema. We also believe and confess to our benefit that in every good work it is not we who take the initiative and are then assisted through the mercy of God, but God himself first inspires in us both faith in him and love for him without any previous good works of our own that deserve reward, so that we may both faithfully seek the sacrament of baptism, and after baptism be able by his help to do what is pleasing to him. We must therefore most evidently believe that the praiseworthy faith of the thief whom the Lord called to his home in paradise, and of Cornelius the centurion, to whom the angel of the Lord was sent, and of Zacchaeus, who was worthy to receive the Lord himself, was not a natural endowment but a gift of God's kindness.

2008-01-04T11:24:00.000-08:00

Father Schmemann on the Holy Eucharist

from the essay "Theology and Eucharist"

http://www.schmemann.org/byhim/theologyandeucharist.html

Having forgotten the ecclesiological and the eschatological significance of the Eucharist, having reduced it to one "means of grace" among many, our official theology was bound to limit the theological study of the Eucharist to only two problems: that of the transformation of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ and that of communion. As applied to the Eucharist, the term "sacrament" usually means either one of these acts or both, although it is explicitly admitted that they can be treated separately. Within this theological framework the Church remains mainly as a "power" — to perform the transformation, to give communion. The priest is the minister (the "performer") of the sacrament, the elements of bread and wine — its "matter," the communicant — its recipient. But communion having long ago ceased to be a self-evident fulfillment of the sacrament — 90% of our eucharistic celebrations are without communicants — there developed an additional and virtually independent theology of the Eucharist as sacrifice, essential per se, regardless of the people’s presence or participation. And finally, since theology by focusing its attention on these two moments of the Eucharist imperceptibly relegated all other elements of the eucharistic celebration into the category of "non-essential" rituals, the door was open to their interpretation in terms of liturgical symbolism. As understood and explained since Cabasilas, the Eucharist is a symbolical representation of the life of Christ, serving as a framework for the double sacrament of consecration and communion, yet not essential for its "validity" and "efficacy."

But from the standpoint of Tradition the sacramental character of the Eucharist cannot be artificially narrowed to one act, to one moment of the whole rite. We have an "ordo" in which all parts and all elements are essential, are organically linked together in one sacramental structure. In other words, the Eucharist is a sacrament from the beginning to the end and its fulfillment or consummation is "made possible" by the entire liturgy. Liturgy here is not opposed to sacrament, as "symbolism to realism," but indeed is sacrament: one, organic, consistent passage, in which each step prepares and "makes possible" the following one.

For the Eucharist, we have said, is a passage, a procession leading the Church into "heaven," into her fulfillment as the Kingdom of God. And it is precisely the reality of this passage into the Eschaton that conditions the transformation of our offering — bread and wine — into the new food of the new creation, of our meal into the Messianic Banquet and the Koinonia of the Holy Spirit. Thus, for example, the coming together of Christians on the Lord’s Day, their visible unity "sealed" by the priest ("ecclesia in episcopo and episcopus in ecclesia") is indeed the beginning of the sacrament, the "gathering into the Church." And the entrance is not a symbolical representation of Christ going to preach but the real entrance — the beginning of the Church’s ascension to the Throne of God, made possible, inaugurated by the ascension of Christ’s Humanity. The offertory — the solemn transfer of bread and wine to the altar is again not the symbol of Christ’s burial (or of His entrance into Jerusalem) but a real sacrifice — the transfer of our lives and bodies and of the whole "matter" of the whole creation into heaven, their integration in the unique and all-embracing sacrifice of all sacrifices, that of Christ. The prosphora (offering) makes possible the anaphora — the lifting up of the Church, her eschatological fulfillment by the Eucharist. For Eucharist — "thanksgiving" — is indeed the very content of the redeemed life, the very reality of the Kingdom as "joy and peace in the Holy Spirit," the end and the fulfillment of our ascension into heaven. Therefore, the Eucharist is consecration and the Fathers called both the prayer of consecration and the consecrated gifts "Eucharist." The insistence by the Orthodox on the epiclesis is nothing else, in its ultimate meaning, but the affirmation that the consecration, i.e., the transformation of bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ, takes place in the "new eon" of the Holy Spirit. Our earthly food becomes the Body and Blood of Christ because it has been assumed, accepted, lifted up into the "age to come," where Christ is indeed the very life, the very food of all life and the Church is His Body, "the fullness of Him that filleth all in all" (Eph. 1:23). It is there, finally, that we partake of the food of immortality, are made participants of the Messianic Banquet, of the New Pascha, it is from there, "having seen the true light, having received the heavenly Spirit," that we return into "this world" ("let us depart in peace") as witnesses of the Kingdom which is "to come." Such is the sacrament of the Church, the "leitourgia" which eternally transforms the Church into what she is, makes her the Body of Christ and the Temple of the Holy Spirit.

2008-01-03T10:55:00.001-08:00

What it the intent of the Eucharist?

It is communion. Pure and simple. The Real Presence of Christ, which is the Catholic doctrine enshrined in the Articles, is there to be received. In Saint Paul's First Epistle to the Corinthians we read of the Eucharist still embedded in a communal meal, and Paul is concerned that those who came to the Lord's Table did not discern the presence of Christ that they were partaking of nor their Communion with Christ and with one another that was achieved through the bread and the cup. Please read these comments from our learned doctor Richard Hooker taken from his Ecclesiastical Polity:

"Take, eat; this is my body; drink ye all of it; for this is my blood." [Mat. 26. 26–28.]

If we have any doubt as to what is expressed by these admirable words, let that one be our teacher as to the meaning of Christ, to whom Christ himself was a schoolmaster. Let our Lord’s Apostle be his interpreter, and let us content ourselves with his explanation, "The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?" [1 Cor. 10. 16.] Is there anything clearer and easier than the fact that just as Christ is called our life because we obtained life through him, so the parts of this sacrament are called his body and blood because when we receive these elements we do receive the body and blood of Christ?

We say that the bread and the wine are his body and his blood because through their instrumentality we participate in his body and blood, and that is a valid assertion because we quite properly give the name of the effect to the cause which produces it, for the cause is in the result which grows out of that cause. Our souls and bodies receive eternal life, and this life in them has as its source and cause the Person of Christ, and his body and blood are the source from which this life flows. The influence of the heavens is in plants, animals and men, and in everything which they make alive; but the body and blood of Christ are in that communicant to which they minister in a far more divine and mystical kind of union, a union which makes us one with him, even as he and the Father are one.

We all agree that Christ really and truly carries out his promise by means of the sacrament; but why do we trouble ourselves by such fierce contests about consubstantiation and the question whether the elements themselves contain Christ or not? Even if consubstantiation or transubstantiation are true, it does not benefit us, and if they are not true it does not handicap us. Our participation in Christ through the sacraments depends upon the cooperation of his omnipotent power, and that power makes the sacrament a means of creating his body and blood in us. Whether there is or is not such a change in the elements themselves, as some people imagine, need not make any great difference to us.

Let us, then, accept that in which we all agree, and then consider why the rest should not be considered superfluous rather than urged as necessary. In the first place, it is generally agreed that this sacrament is a real participation in Christ, and that by its means he imparts his full Person as the mystical head of every soul who receives him and thereby becomes a very member incorporate in his mystical body, which is the blessed company of all faithful people.

In the second place, it is also agreed that the communicant who receives the Person of Christ through the sacrament also receives the Holy Spirit who sanctifies the communicant as it sanctified Christ who is the head of all those who participate in him. In the third place, it is commonly held that whatever power or virtue there is in Christ’s sacrificed body and blood we freely and fully receive this sacrament.

In the fourth place, it is agreed that the result of the sacrament is a real transmutation of our souls and bodies from sin to righteousness, from death and corruption to immortality and life. In the fifth place, all believe that the sacramental elements are only corruptible and earthly things; therefore, they must seem to be an unlikely instrument to work out such admirable effects in man. For that reason, we must not rest our confidence in these elements themselves, but put our trust altogether in the strength of his glorious power, which he can and will give us."

Now read these comments from a learned theologian and presbyter of the Orthodox communion, the late Father Alexander Schmemann taken from his excellent text The Eucharist (the complete text of which I urge everyone, especially clergy, to read and digest) and see the same points that were made by Hooker. The first comment will strike many as "rather protestant" due to the similarity of the argument made to some of the same arguments made by Cranmer and Hooker (indeed, one could easily misatribute Schmemann's quote to Hooker), but realize that Father Schmemann is speaking past the arguments made in the West, as Hooker was attempting to do. Both men, Hooker and Schmemann, are trying to reach past the disagreements based on scholastic logic to the real crux of the matter, the purpose of the Eucharist:

"The purpose of the eucharist lies not in the change of bread and wine, but in our partaking of Christ, who has become our food, our life, the manifestation of the Church as the body of Christ.

This is why the holy gifts themselves never became in the Orthodox East an object of special reverence, contemplation and adoration, and likewise an object of special theological "problematics": how, when, in what manner their change is accomplished. The eucharist--and this means the changing of the holy gifts--is a mystery that cannot be revealed and explained in the categories of "this world. . ." It is revealed only to faith. . .

We find the answers to these questions in the epiklesis. But the answer is not "rational," built upon the laws of our "one-storied" logic; it is disclosed to us by the Holy Spirit. . .

Thus the epiklesis concludes the anaphora, the part of the liturgy that encompasses the "assembly as the Church," the entrance, the proclamation of the good news of the word of God, the offering, the oblation, the thanksgiving and remembrance. But with the epiklesis begins the consummation of the liturgy, whose essence lies in the communion, in the distribution to the faithful of the holy gifts, the body and blood of Christ."

2008-01-02T11:25:00.000-08:00

This is a fine piece from Father Robert Hart at "The Continuum"
http://anglicancontinuum.blogspot.com/

To it's contents I can only give a hearty "Well said!"

Swim the Tiber without me
I would like to address some of my dear Anglo-Catholic brethren. Not so much the learned ones who appreciate their Anglican heritage, but the effeminate fussy ones whose inferiority complex toward the Italian Mission (i.e. the Roman Catholic Church) is quite inexplicable. Don't misunderstand. Roman Catholicism is not the enemy; it is a valid way of being Catholic, better than Protestantism in terms of the sacraments, but defective compared to your own heritage. At the end of the day, if you cannot see the truth of your Anglican heritage, I pity you. Therefore, I am nailing to the door a few theses of my own.
1. An Anglican is fully Catholic by the standards of the Scriptures and the Patristic period.
2. Our orders have been preserved without defect, with all of the charisms and power Christ has granted through his apostles to his Church.
3. Our doctrine is better and more pure than that of Rome.
4. Newman was not all there, as in, not quite right in the head.
5. Newman's theory of Doctrinal Development is as dangerous as the Pentecostalist notion of "Progressive revelation."
6. The Pope is not infallible.
7. The Pope does not have Universal Jurisdiction.
8. The Pope is the bishop of Peter's See, but so is the Patriarch of Antioch.
9. The service of Holy Communion is a perfectly valid Mass or Eucharist.
10. Our Anglican fathers were not Calvinists or Lutherans.
11. "Protestant" is not the opposite of "Catholic."
12. Some Catholics are Protestant Catholics.
13. We do not need doctrines like "the merits of the saints" or a concept of Purgatory as "temporal punishment."
14. When the Articles say that "The Romish doctrine of Purgatory is a fond thing," this does not mean that we are supposed to be fond of it.
15. At the end of the day, if it is not in the Bible, it REALLY cannot be necessary for salvation.
16. Point 15 is classic Catholic teaching.
17. You should not care what the Roman See thinks of your status as a true church.
So, if you must swim the Tiber, do it quickly. Otherwise, learn to appreciate the wisdom of the Anglican Way.

2007-12-27T09:51:00.000-08:00

A note from this blogger: To all that is written below I say a hearty "Amen!" However, it must be noted that within the membership or partnership (full and otherwise) of Common Cause there is a great deal of "diversity," to the point that it may simply end in fracture. The REC and the APA use the historic Prayer Books of 1662 and 1928, while almost all of the other groups use the 1979 American Prayer Book--something no APA or REC bishop would allow in their jurisdictions. Also, there is the 800 pound gorilla standing in the corner--the issue of the ordination of women to the priesthood. Bishop Minns of CANA has recently stated that he will press on for the ordination of women in order to maintain the "two integrities" that were present in the Episcopal Church (language that makes me shudder. . . this is the language of TEC/ECUSA, not the language of historic Anglican theology). There can be no true common cause without Common Prayer and catholic order; if these are lacking the whole endeavor will be in jeopardy.

From the Common Cause website:

http://www.united-anglicans.org/

Theological Statement

We believe and confess Jesus Christ to be the Way, the Truth, and the Life: no one comes to the Father but by Him. Therefore, the Common Cause Partnership identifies the following seven elements as characteristic of the Anglican Way, and essential for membership:

We confess the canonical books of the Old and New Testaments to be the inspired Word of God, containing all things necessary for salvation, and to be the final authority and unchangeable standard for Christian faith and life.

We confess Baptism and the Supper of the Lord to be Sacraments ordained by Christ Himself in the Gospel, and thus to be ministered with unfailing use of His words of institution and of the elements ordained by Him.

We confess the godly historic Episcopate as an inherent part of the apostolic faith and practice, and therefore as integral to the fullness and unity of the Body of Christ.

We confess as proved by most certain warrants of Holy Scripture the historic faith of the undivided church as declared in the three Catholic Creeds: the Apostles', the Nicene, and the Athanasian.

Concerning the seven Councils of the undivided Church, we affirm the teaching of the first four Councils and the Christological clarifications of the fifth, sixth and seventh Councils, in so far as they are agreeable to the Holy Scriptures.

We receive The Book of Common Prayer as set forth by the Church of England in 1662, together with the Ordinal attached to the same, as a standard for Anglican doctrine and discipline, and, with the Books which preceded it, as the standard for the Anglican tradition of worship.
We receive the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion of 1562, taken in their literal and grammatical sense, as expressing the Anglican response to certain doctrinal issues controverted at that time, and as expressing the fundamental principles of authentic Anglican belief. In all these things, the Common Cause Partnership is determined by the help of God to hold and maintain as the Anglican Way has received them the doctrine, discipline and worship of Christ.

"The Anglican Communion," Archbishop Geoffrey Fisher wrote, "has no peculiar thought, practice, creed or confession of its own. It has only the Catholic Faith of the ancient Catholic Church, as preserved in the Catholic Creeds and maintained in the Catholic and Apostolic constitution of Christ's Church from the beginning." It may licitly teach as necessary for salvation nothing but what is read in the Holy Scriptures as God's Word written or may be proved thereby. It therefore embraces and affirms such teachings of the ancient Fathers and Councils of the Church as are agreeable to the Scriptures, and thus to be counted apostolic. The Church has no authority to innovate: it is obliged continually, and particularly in times of renewal or reformation, to return to "the faith once delivered to the saints."

To be an Anglican, then, is not to embrace a distinct version of Christianity, but a distinct way of being a "Mere Christian," at the same time evangelical, apostolic, catholic, reformed, and Spirit-filled.

2007-12-24T10:02:00.000-08:00

A blessed Christmas!

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by Him, and without Him was not anything made that was made. In Him was life, and that life was the Light of men. And the Light shineth in darkness, and the darkness comprehended it not. There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. The same came as a witness to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe. He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light. That was the true Light which lighteth every man that cometh into the world. He was in the world, and the world was made by Him, and the world knew Him not. He came unto His own, and His own received Him not. But as many as received Him, to them gave He power to become the sons of God, even to those who believe in His name, who were born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us (and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only Begotten of the Father), full of grace and truth.

2007-11-18T13:47:00.000-08:00

Very sorry the the absence. . .

I see that people continue to read the blog and stop by and leave comments, for which I am thankful. I'm sorry I haven't been very productive recently. One of the readers in the past requested that I post at least once a week. . .I will try to get back to something of a schedule around the New Year.

Please do keep sifting through the archives though. There might be something useful or informative in there.

AC+

2007-10-24T16:59:00.000-07:00

The classical and orthodox rite in the Anglican Church and the Anglican Rite in the Orthodox Church.

I've been meaning to post for sometime, but life is always busy. I've been told by some readers in the past that I should post at least once a week--I have obviously fallen short of that goal.

In any case, I'd like to set forth a brief comparison between the eucharistic canon from the "Liturgy of Saint Tikhon" and the Cranmerian-Laudian rite as set forth in the American Prayer Book of 1928. A recent reader commented on the substantial changes made to the 1928 rite in order to expunge all "protestant" elements. I will leave it to the readers to decide for themselves how much change was actually made.

That being said, I admire the work of the Western Rite Orthodox in preserving a very nice edition of the Book of Common Prayer in their Saint Andrew's Service Book, taking note that most of the work was done over four centuries ago by the blessed archbishop and martyr, Thomas Cranmer.

Here is the 1928 Eucharistic Canon from the BCP:

ALL glory be to thee, Almighty God, our heavenly Father, for that thou, of thy tender mercy, didst give thine only Son Jesus Christ to suffer death upon the Cross for our redemption; who made there (by his one oblation of himself once offered) a full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice, oblation, and satisfaction, for the sins of the whole world; and did institute, and in his holy Gospel command us to continue, a perpetual memory of that his precious the death and sacrifice, until his coming again: For in the night in which he was betrayed, (a) he took Bread; and when he had given thanks, (b) he brake it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, Take, eat, (c) this is my Body, which is given for you; Do this in remembrance of me. Likewise, after supper, (d) he took the Cup; and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of this; for (e) this is my Blood of the New Testament, which is shed for you, and for many, for the remission of sins; Do this, as oft as ye shall drink it, in remembrance of me.

WHEREFORE O Lord and heavenly Father, according to the institution of thy dearly beloved Son our Saviour Jesus Christ, we, thy humble servants, do celebrate and make here before thy Divine Majesty, with these thy holy gifts, which we now offer unto thee, the memorial thy Son hath commanded us to make; having in remembrance his blessed passion and precious death, his mighty resurrection and glorious ascension; rendering unto thee most hearty thanks for the innumerable benefits procured unto us by the same.

AND we most humbly beseech thee, O merciful Father, to hear us; and, of thy almighty goodness, vouchsafe to bless and sanctify, with thy Word and Holy Spirit, these thy gifts and creatures of bread and wine; that we, receiving them according to thy Son our Saviour Jesus Christ's holy institution, in remembrance of his death and passion, may be partakers of his most blessed Body and Blood.

AND we earnestly desire thy fatherly goodness, mercifully to accept this our sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving; most humbly beseeching thee to grant that, by the merits and death of thy Son Jesus Christ, and through faith in his blood, we, and all thy whole Church, may obtain remission of our sins, and all other benefits of his passion. And here we offer and present unto thee, O Lord, our selves, our souls and bodies, to be a reasonable, holy, and living sacrifice unto thee; humbly beseeching thee, that we, and all others who shall be partakers of this Holy Communion, may worthily receive the most precious Body and Blood of thy Son Jesus Christ, be filled with thy grace and heavenly benediction, and made one body with him, that he may dwell in us, and we in him. And although we are unworthy, through our manifold sins, to offer unto thee any sacrifice; yet we beseech thee to accept this our bounden duty and service; not weighing our merits, but pardoning our offences, through Jesus Christ our Lord; by whom, and with whom, in the unity of the Holy Ghost, all honour and glory be unto thee, O Father Almighty, world without end. Amen.

Here is Tikhon's rite:
ALL glory be to Thee, Almighty God, our heavenly Father, for that Thou, of Thy tender mercy, didst give Thine only Son Jesus Christ to suffer death upon the Cross for our redemption; who there (by His own oblation of himself once offered) made a full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice, oblation, and satisfaction, for the sins of the whole world; and did institute, and in His holy Gospel command us to continue, a perpetual memory of that His precious death and sacrifice, until His coming again: (A bell rings once.) For in the night in which He was betrayed, He took bread; and when He had given thanks, He brake it, and gave it to His disciples, saying, Take, eat, this is My Body, which is given for you; Do this in remembrance of Me. (A bell rings thrice for the offering of the Host.) Likewise, after supper, He took the cup; and when Hehad given thanks, He gave it to them, saving, Drink ye all of this; For this is My Blood of the New Testament, which is shed for you, and for many, for the remission of sins; Do this as oft as ye shall drink it, in remembrance of Me. (A bell rings thrice for the offering of the Cup.)

The Oblation
WHEREFORE, O Lord and heavenly Father, according to the institution of Thy dearly beloved Son, our Saviour, Jesus Christ, we, Thy humble servants, do celebrate and make here before Thy Divine Majesty, with these Thy holy gifts, which we now offer unto Thee, the memorial Thy Son hath commanded us to make;having in remembrance His blessed Passion and precious Death, His mighty Resurrection and glorious Ascension; rendering unto Thee most hearty thanks for the innumerable benefits procured unto us by the same.

The Epiclesis
AND we most humbly beseech Thee, O merciful Father, to hear us; and of Thy almighty goodness, vouchsafe to send down Thy Holy Spirit upon these Thy gifts and creatures of bread and wine, that they may be changed into the Body and Blood of Thy most dearly beloved Son. Grant that we, receiving them according to remembrance of His death and passion, may be partakers of His most blessed Body and Blood.R. Amen. Amen. Amen.

AND we earnestly desire Thy fatherly goodness, mercifully to accept this our sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving; most humbly beseeching Thee to grant that, by the merits and death of Thy Son Jesus Christ, and through faith in His blood, we, and all Thy whole Church, may obtain remission of our sins, and all other benefits of His Passion. And here we offer and present unto Thee, O Lord, our selves, our souls and bodies, to be a reasonable, holy, and living sacrifice unto Thee; humbly beseeching Thee, that we, and all others who shall be partakers of this Holy Communion, may worthily receive the most precious Body and Blood of Thy Son Jesus Christ, be filled with Thy grace and heavenly benediction, and made one body with Him, that He may dwell in us, and we in Him.And although we are unworthy, through our manifold sins, to offer unto Thee any sacrifice; yet we beseech Thee to accept this our bounden duty and service; not weighing our merits, but pardoning our offences, through Jesus Christ, our Lord; by whom, and with whom, in the unity of the Holy Ghost, all honor and glory be unto Thee, O Father Almighty, world without end. Amen.

2007-09-28T19:56:00.000-07:00

For your consideration

The Eucharist

of the 1928 Book of Common Prayer

in contemporary language

Let us pray for the whole state of Christ's Church.

ALMIGHTY and everliving God, who by your holy Apostle has taught us to make prayers, and supplications, and to give thanks for all men; We humbly implore you most mercifully to accept our [alms and] oblations, and to receive these our prayers, which we offer unto your Divine Majesty; imploring you to inspire continually the Universal Church with the spirit of truth, unity, and concord: And grant that all those who do confess your holy Name may agree in the truth of your holy Word, and live in unity and godly love.We implore you also, so to direct and dispose the hearts of all Christian Rulers, that they may truly and impartially administer justice, to the punishment of wickedness and vice, and to the maintenance of your true religion, and virtue.Give grace, O heavenly Father, to all Bishops and other Ministers, that they may, both by their life and doctrine, set forth your true and living Word, and rightly and duly administer your holy Sacraments.And to all your People give your heavenly grace; and especially to this congregation here present; that, with humble heart and proper reverence, they may hear, and receive your holy Word; truly serving you in holiness and righteousness all the days of their life.And we most humbly implore you of your goodness, O Lord, to comfort and support all those who, in this transitory life, are in trouble, sorrow, need, sickness, or any other adversity.And we also bless your holy Name for all your servants departed this life in your faith and fear; imploring you to grant them continual growth in your love and service, and to give us grace to follow their good examples, that with them we may be partakers of your heavenly kingdom. Grant this, O Father, for Jesus Christ's sake, our only Mediator and Advocate. Amen.

¶ Then shall the Presbyter say to those who come to receive the Holy Communion,

You who do truly and earnestly repent you of your sins, and are in love and charity with your neighbours, and intend to lead a new life, following the commandments of God, and walking from this time foreword in his holy ways; Draw near with faith, and take this holy Sacrament to your comfort; and make your humble confession to Almighty God, devoutly kneeling.

¶ Then shall this General Confession be made, by the Presbyter and all those who are minded to receive the Holy Communion, humbly kneeling.

ALMIGHTY God, Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, Maker of all things, Judge of all men; We acknowledge and bewail our many sins and wickedness, Which we, from time to time, most grievously have committed, By thought, word, and deed, Against your Divine Majesty, Provoking most justly your wrath and indignation against us. We do earnestly repent, And are heartily sorry for these our misdoings; The remembrance of them is grievous unto us; The burden of them is intolerable. Have mercy upon us, Have mercy upon us, most merciful Father; For your Son our Lord Jesus Christ's sake, Forgive us all that is past; And grant that we may from this day forward Serve and please thee In newness of life, To the honour and glory of your Name; Through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

¶ Then shall the Presbyter (the Bishop if he be present) stand up, and turning to the People, say,

ALMIGHTY God, our heavenly Father, who of his great mercy has promised forgiveness of sins to all those who with hearty repentance and true faith turn unto him; Have mercy upon you; pardon and deliver you from all your sins; confirm and strengthen you in all goodness; and bring you to everlasting life; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.
¶ Then shall the Presbyter say,

Hear what comfortable words our Saviour Jesus Christ says to those who truly turn to him:

COME to me, all who labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. St Matthew 11:28
God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. St. John 3:16

Hear also the words of Saint Paul:
The saying is trustworthy and deserving of full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners. 1 St. Timothy 1:15

And hear what Saint John says:
If anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. He is the propitiation for our sins. 1 St. John 2:1, 2

¶ The Presbyter continues, saying,

[The Lord be with you.]
[Answer. And with your spirit.]
Presbyter. Lift up your hearts.
Answer. We lift them to the Lord.
Presbyter. Let us give thanks to the Lord our God.
Answer. It is right to give him thanks and praise.

¶ The Presbyter turns to the Lord's Table and says,

IT is indeed right, it is our duty, at all times and in all places to give thanks and praise to you, Lord, Holy Father, Almighty, Everlasting God.

¶ The PROPER PREFACE, if one is appointed, shall be said here, otherwise the Presbyter continues saying,

THEREFORE with angels and archangels, and with all the company of heaven, we proclaim and magnify your glorious name, forever praising you, and saying,

¶ Presbyter and people.

HOLY, HOLY, HOLY, Lord God of hosts, heaven and earth are full of your glory. Glory be to you, O Lord most high.

PROPER PREFACES

On CHRISTMAS DAY, and the seven days following
BECAUSE you gave Jesus Christ, your only Son, to be born as at this time for us, who by the operation of the Holy Spirit, was made man of the substance of the Virgin Mary, his mother, but without spot of sin, to make us clean from all sin.
Therefore with Angels, etc.

On the EPIPHANY, and the seven days following
THROUGH Jesus Christ our Lord, who in substance of our mortal flesh, revealed his glory, that he might bring us out of darkness into his own marvellous light.
Therefore with Angels, etc.

On the feasts of the PURIFICATION, ANNUNCIATION, and TRANSFIGURATION
BECAUSE in the mystery of the Word made flesh you have caused a new light to shine in our hearts to give the knowledge of your glory in the face of your Son, Jesus
Christ our Lord.
Therefore with Angels, etc.

On EASTER DAY, and the seven days following
BUT chiefly we are bound to praise you for the glorious resurrection of your Son Jesus Christ our Lord. He is the very Passover Lamb who was offered for us and has taken away the sin of the world. By his death he has destroyed death; and by his rising to life again he has restored everlasting life to us.
Therefore with Angels, etc.

On ASCENSION DAY, and the seven days following
THROUGH your most dearly loved Son Jesus Christ our Lord, who after his glorious resurrection plainly appeared to all his Apostles, and in their sight ascended up into heaven to prepare a place for us, so that where he is, there we might also ascend and reign with him in glory.
Therefore with Angels, etc.

On WHITSUNDAY, and the six days following
THROUGH Jesus Christ our Lord, according to whose most true promise the Holy Spirit came down from heaven, with a sudden and great sound, as it had been a mighty wind, and in the likeness of fiery tongues, lighting upon the Apostles to teach them, and to lead them into all truth; giving them both the gift of tongues, and also boldness with fervent zeal, constantly to preach the Gospel to all nations, by which we have been brought out of darkness and error into the clear light and true knowledge of you and of your Son Jesus Christ.
Therefore with Angels, etc.

On the feast of TRINITY only
WHO with your only-begotten Son and the Holy Spirit, we confess to be one God, one Lord, in Trinity of Persons and in Unity of Substance. For what we believe of your glory, O Father, we believe of the Son also, and of the Holy Spirit, without any difference of inequality.
Therefore with Angels, etc.

¶ Or this.

FOR the precious death and merits of your Son Jesus Christ our Lord, and for sending to us the Holy Spirit, the Comforter; who are one with you in your Eternal Godhead.
Therefore with Angels, etc.

On ALL SAINTS' DAY, and the seven days following
WHO, in the multitude of your saints, has surrounded us with so great a cloud of witnesses, that rejoicing in their fellowship we may run patiently the race that is set before us, and, together with them, may receive the crown of glory that fades not away.

THEREFORE with angels and archangels, and with all the company of heaven, we laud and magnify your glorious name, for ever praising you, and saying,

¶ Presbyter and people.

HOLY, HOLY, HOLY, Lord God of hosts, heaven and earth are full of your glory. Glory be to you, O Lord most high.

¶ When the Presbyter, standing before the Holy Table, having so ordered the Bread and Wine, that he may with the more readiness and decency break the Bread before the People, and take the Cup into his hands, he shall say the Prayer of Consecration, as follows.

ALL glory be to thee, Almighty God, our heavenly Father, for that you, of your tender mercy, gave your only Son Jesus Christ to suffer death upon the Cross for our redemption; who made there (by his one oblation of himself once offered) a full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice, oblation, and satisfaction, for the sins of the whole world; and did institute, and in his holy Gospel command us to continue, a perpetual memory of that his precious death and sacrifice, until his coming again: For in the night in which he was betrayed, he took Bread; and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, Take, eat, this is my Body, which is given for you; Do this in remembrance of me. Likewise, after supper, he took the Cup; and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them, saying, Drink this, all of you all you; for this is my Blood of the New Testament, which is shed for you, and for many, for the remission of sins; Do this, as often as you shall drink it, in remembrance of me.

The Oblation
WHEREFORE, O Lord and heavenly Father, according to the institution of your dearly beloved Son our Saviour Jesus Christ, we, your humble servants, do celebrate and make here before your Divine Majesty, with these your holy gifts, which we now offer unto you, the memorial your Son commanded us to make; having in remembrance his blessed passion and precious death, his mighty resurrection and glorious ascension; rendering unto you most hearty thanks for the innumerable benefits procured unto us by the same.

The Invocation
AND we most humbly implore you, O merciful Father, to hear us; and, of your almighty goodness bless and sanctify, with your Word and Holy Spirit, these your gifts and creatures of bread and wine; that we, receiving them according to thy Son our Saviour Jesus Christ's holy institution, in remembrance of his death and passion, may be partakers of his most blessed Body and Blood.

AND we earnestly desire thy fatherly goodness, mercifully to accept this our sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving; most humbly imploring you to grant that, by the merits and death of your Son Jesus Christ, and through faith in his blood, we, and all your whole Church, may obtain remission of our sins, and all other benefits of his passion. And here we offer and present unto you, O Lord, our selves, our souls and bodies, to be a reasonable, holy, and living sacrifice unto you; humbly imploring you, that we, and all others who shall be partakers of this Holy Communion, may worthily receive the most precious Body and Blood of your Son Jesus Christ, be filled with your grace and heavenly blessing, and made one body with him, that he may dwell in us, and we in him. And although we are unworthy, through our many sins, to offer unto you any sacrifice; yet we implore you to accept this our honour-bound duty and service; not weighing our merits, but pardoning our offences, through Jesus Christ our Lord; by whom, and with whom, in the unity of the Holy Spirit, all honour and glory be unto you, O Father Almighty, world without end. Amen.

Presbyter. And now as our Saviour Christ has taught us, we are bold to pray,

OUR Father in heaven, hallowed be your name, your kingdom come, your will be done, on earth as in heaven. Give us today our daily bread. Forgive us our sins as we forgive those who sin against us. Lead us not into temptation but deliver us from evil. For the kingdom, the power and the glory are yours now and for ever. Amen.

¶ Or this.
OUR Father, who art in heaven, Hallowed by thy Name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, On earth as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread. And forgive us our trespasses, As we forgive those who trespass against us. And lead us not into temptation, But deliver us from evil. For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever and ever. Amen.

¶ Then shall the Presbyter, kneeling down at the Lord's Table, say, in the name of all those who shall receive the Communion, this Prayer following.
WE do not presume to come to this your Table, O merciful Lord, trusting in our own righteousness, but in your many and great mercies. We are not worthy so much as to gather up the crumbs under your Table. But you are the same Lord, whose property is always to have mercy: Grant us therefore, gracious Lord, so to eat the flesh of thy dear Son Jesus Christ, and to drink his blood, that our sinful bodies may be made clean by his body, and our souls washed through his most precious blood, and that we may evermore dwell in him, and he in us. Amen.
¶ A Hymn may be sung while the bread and wine are distributed.

¶ The Presbyter shall receive the Communion in both kinds himself, and then proceed to administer the Bread and Wine to the Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons, in the same way, and after that to the people, placing it in their hands as they devoutly kneel. Sufficient time shall be given for all to communicate. The Presbyter shall distribute the Bread saying,

THE body of our Lord Jesus Christ which was given for you, preserve your body and soul to everlasting life. Take and eat this in remembrance that Christ died for you and feed on him in your heart by faith with thanksgiving.

¶ And the Minister administering the Cup shall say,

The blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, which was shed for you, preserve your body and soul to everlasting life. Drink this in remembrance that Christ’s blood was shed for you and be thankful.

¶ If the consecrated Bread or Wine be spent before all have communicated, the Presbyter is to consecrate more, according to the Form before prescribed; beginning at, All glory be to thee, Almighty God, and ending with these words, partakers of his most blessed Body and Blood.¶ When an have communicated, the Presbyter shall return to the Lord's Table, and reverently place upon it what remains of the consecrated Elements, covering the same with a fair linen cloth.¶ Then the following is said by the Presbyter, or by the Presbyter and the people together,

ALMIGHTY and everliving God, we heartily thank you for feeding us, who have received these holy mysteries, with the spiritual food of the most precious Body and Blood of your Son, our Saviour Jesus Christ, and by that feeding, assuring us of your favour and goodness towards us, and that we are true members of the mystical body of your Son, the blessed company of all faithful people, and are also heirs, through hope, of your everlasting kingdom, by the merits of the most precious death and passion of your dear Son. And we humbly implore you, O heavenly Father, so to assist us with your grace, that we may continue in that holy fellowship, and do all such good works as you have prepared for us to walk in; through Jesus Christ our Lord, to whom with you and the Holy Spirit be all honour and glory, now and for ever. Amen.

¶ Then the GLORIA IN EXCELSIS or another appropriate Hymn shall be sung, all standing.

¶ And note that alternately the Gloria may be sung immediately after the Kyrie Eleison.

GLORY to God in the highest, and peace and goodwill to his people on earth. Lord God, heavenly King, almighty God and Father, we worship you, we give you thanks, we praise you for your glory.
Lord Jesus Christ, only Son of the Father, Lord God, Lamb of God, you who take away the sins of the world, have mercy on us; you who are seated at the right hand of the Father, receive our prayer.
For you alone are the Holy One, you alone are the Lord, you alone are the Most High, Jesus Christ, with the Holy Spirit, in the glory of God the Father. Amen.

¶ Or this.

GLORY be to God on high, and on earth peace, good will towards men. We praise thee, we bless thee, we worship thee, we glorify thee, we give thanks to thee for thy great glory, O Lord God, heavenly King, God the Father Almighty.
O Lord, the only-begotten Son, Jesus Christ; O Lord God, Lamb of God, Son of the Father, that takest away the sins of the world, have mercy upon us. Thou that takest away the sins of the world, receive our prayer. Thou that sittest at the right hand of God the Father, have mercy upon us.
For thou only art holy; thou only art the Lord; thou only O Christ, with the Holy Ghost, art most high in the glory of God the Father. Amen.

¶ As the people kneel, the Presbyter, or Bishop if he is present, shall give this BLESSING.

THE peace of God, which passes all understanding, keep your hearts and minds in the knowledge and love of God, and of his Son Jesus Christ our Lord: and the blessing of God Almighty, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, be amongst you, and remain with you always. Amen.

¶ A Hymn may be sung.

2007-09-17T15:56:00.000-07:00

A reflection on communion cups. . .

Being from the Methodist tradition, with relatives in the Lutheran tradition, I'm very familiar with the practice of using the small individual cups in the serving of the Communion elements. Also, when celebrating a Sunday Eucharist at a nursing home I was requested to use individual cups in delivering the elements; I complied (using my chalice and paten for the consecration and laying my hand on the tray with the individual cups per the rubrics where it states the the priest is to lay his hand on every vessel to be consecrated), while I know this is not the preferred method for most in the Anglican tradition. Indeed, one priest just out of seminary informed me that anyone who would allow this practice, the use of the small individual cups, is obviously un-Christian--his exact words were "anti-Christ."

I inquired as to why he thought this was so. His response was clear: such a practice destroys the symbolism of sharing the one Cup of the Blood of Christ, per the First Epistle of Saint Paul to the Church at Corinth. Where is the unity in Christ symbolized if each person has their own tiny cup? Also, the rubrics mention that the priest is to take the cup (not cups) into his hands during the consecration. I agreed with him, this is true. But I also asked if he had seen celebrations of the Eucharist where more than one chalice was used. He said yes, he had. I asked what the essential difference was between using one chalice, two chalices, or let's say one small chalice for each person. All destroy the symbolism he seeks. He didn't have an answer. I agreed that the use of the small cups is not ideal, but in some circumstances where it is employed (such as where it is requested in a nursing home) it does not render the sacrament in any way invalid.

Also, it must be noted that the same manner of argument used for the individual cups is used by most who desire to use wafers as the bread in the Eucharist. While the priest mentioned above had an obvious dislike of the small cups for destroying the symbolism of the one Cup, he was blind to the fact that the use of individual pieces of bread destroys the symbolism of the one Bread in the exact same manner. The loaf is not broken with each person receiving a piece; each is separate, just as the small glasses of wine are separate. The logic of protesting against one can be employed just as quickly and validly against the other. Ideally, for each celebration of the Holy Eucharist there should be one Bread and one Cup: the great Anglo-Catholic theologian Bishop Gore argued similarly. Of course, convenience has long been an argument for the use of wafer bread; it is easy to distribute and store as the reserved sacrament. If convenience is the most pressing argument for wafer bread, I can't see how this argument cannot also be used in favor of individual cups. Some things are far from the ideal, such as the use of the little cups and the tiny pieces of bread (also, there is nothing more "Catholic" in using a round wafer and somehow more "Protestant" in using square pieces of bread), but neither invalidates the sacrament. They just take away from the outward symbolism. . .

2007-09-10T19:52:00.000-07:00

An ordination to the priesthood. . .

A very nice slide show from Saint Thomas of Canterbury Church in Houston, Texas.

http://stochouston.org/Ordination/Fr_Stephen.htm

2007-09-09T15:44:00.000-07:00

A little levity. . .

Have you heard of Methodist transubstantiation?

It's when they turn wine into grape juice.

(Having grown up in the Methodist tradition--I still have a bust of John Wesley in my study--I found this pretty darned funny).

2007-09-09T13:58:00.000-07:00

A little clarification on "magic touch" theology

In the essay reproduced below Dean Crenshaw rejects "magic touch" theology. One reader ignores the main point of the essay, that modern protestantism has ". . .gone to the other extreme—we don’t want church at all, or we’ll make up our own version."

The thesis of the whole essay is summed up in the concluding paragraph: "With Rome, you can only have access to the Cross through the Church, which promotes their legalism. With modern day Protestantism, you can have the Cross apart from the Church, which is license. With Anglicanism you have the Cross in the context of the Church, which is balance." Remember that Rome has allowed herself to introduce new doctrines as "necessary to salvation." How has she claimed to the "right" to do this? Because the authority of someone touched by someone touched by someone else who was touched by Saint Peter is presumed to give them the right to create new doctrines unheard of in the first thousand years of the Church (please see the Old Catholic theses for details).

A similar statement is made by Archbishop Haverland of the Anglican Catholic Church: "Mere maintenance of a mere outward or tactile line of succession does not by itself maintain catholicity: the faith and worship of the Church also must be maintained.” This sounds like a rejection of "magic touch" theology just as much as Dean Crenshaw's comments.