Quotes worth noting. . .

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

Anglicanism: Protestant or Catholic?

That Anglicanism is wholly "protestant" is an extremely simplistic assertion and hinges on the meaning of the term itself. However, so too is the contention among some that the term "protestant" doesn't apply to Anglicanism in even the slightest sense. If asked if we Anglicans are Protestant or Catholic some will say: "We are Catholic, but not Roman--we are not Protestants." This is simplistic and historically erroneous, and any layperson with an interest in reading would soon find very Catholic sounding Churchmen of the 16th and 17th centuries embracing the term Protestant. (But my rector said it wasn't so!) What to make of it then?

If we are using today's terminology perhaps "Protestant" isn't wholly accurate, but neither would be the use of the term "Catholic," for in today's use of the term this means Roman. Many Anglicans are happy to explain the historic and correct use of the term "Catholic" but do not wish to do so with the term "Protestant." This is a selective use of logic--if the historic usage of one term is explained the other term ought to be likewise explained. "You see, you misunderstand the term Catholic dear friend. . ." The follow up should be they also misunderstand the historic use of the term Protestant. However, it needs to be noted that many Anglicans today have become Latter-Day Puritans, attempting to sweep the Anglican Church of any hint of "Romanism" (which may mean choirs robed in surplices, a priest wearing a coloured stole, or keeping the 1662 Prayer Book calendar of saints days): Many from this group do indeed wish to deny any "Catholic" character or nature existing within Anglicanism. This also is to deny history. 

How do the Anglican divines use the terms? It is shocking to many that the terms are used together: Protestant Catholic, Reformed Catholic, etc. Again, as I say so often quoting Bishop Cosins: "Protestant and Reformed according to the principles of the ancient Catholic Church." What does this mean? Well, it should be clear to most. The English Reformation was built upon removing erroneous beliefs and practices (the Mass not in the vernacular, the Bible not in the vernacular, Purgatory, indulgences, transubstantiation, doctrines about the excess merits of the saints, etc). All needed to be stripped away--reformation was needed, and the Church of England protested against the errors of the Roman Church.

To put it more concisely: "At the Reformation the Church of England became protestant in order to become more truly and perfectly Catholic." William Van Mildert, Bishop of Durham 1826-36.

Let me turn to the good Father Moss for a fuller explanation (from Answer Me This):

"Remember, 'Catholic' means universal. Strictly speaking, only those doctrines and practices are Catholic which have always been believed and used in all parts of the Church. More loosely, the word is applied to practices and traditions (such as the observance of Christmas Day or the use of special dress by the clergy) which have a long continuous history and are universally accepted, even though they do not go back to apostolic times. The word also implies 'orthodoxy,' holding the right faith and worshiping God in the right manner as required by the Church."

In answer to the question: Is the Anglican Church Catholic or Protestant? Moss replies

"Both; it is Catholic positively and Protestant negatively. It is Catholic in its essential nature because it maintains the Catholic and apostolic faith and order. It is Protestant, in the old sense (emphasis added), negatively because it rejects the papal claims to supremacy, infallibility, and universal jurisdiction, and the decrees of the Councils of Trent and the Vatican."

When one is confused as to the use of these terms, they ought to be clearly explained. Some will argue (as Moss actually does) that the term Protestant has changed so much that we should omit its use all together (many Lutherans argue likewise, in that the old use of the term Protestant only referred to Anglicans, Lutherans, and Presbyterians; now that it refers so loosely to almost anyone not Roman Catholic it has become meaningless). However, the same could be said of the term "Catholic," since almost everyone means Roman when they say "Catholic" in the United States: Let's just stop using the word since it is so easily misunderstood. In my opinion we should follow the language of the Anglican divines, using both terms correctly and explaining the meaning in a clear manner to avoid confusion.

Is Anglicanism Protestant or Catholic? Ideally it is both, in the best sense of both terms.

The Anglican Way: A Faith that Shaped a Culture

When one holds the classic Book of Common Prayer and prays from it, when one reads the Scriptures in the version commanded by King James and guided in its translation by Bishop Lancelot Andrewes, one holds a culture (the cultus of the Anglo-Saxon Christian people). One prays the prayers penned by a martyred Archbishop, cribbed and molded from the older prayers of the British and English Churches, as well as from the ancient Eastern Churches and the contemporary German Church. One worships according to a rite that inspired a King and his Archbishop to succumb to the executioner’s blade, fidelity to which resulted in exile or clandestine and persecuted worship.

When one holds the Prayer Book one holds nearly half a millennium of religious and literary heritage that guided a nation and helped bring many nations to faith in Christ. When one holds a Book of Common Prayer in the classic lineage (1549-1929 editions for the Church of England) one holds a volume that united a nation in worship and inspired magnificent cathedrals and humble parish churches. We in the Anglican Church in North America and in the Continuum are now entrusted with this heritage of faith and the culture it produced in the British and English Churches; in this sense we are like the Christian peoples of Eastern Europe, whose faith and worship have been suppressed by Islam and Communism in turn and now by Islam again. Many of these people have immigrated to the West and preserve their faith and culture in the United States, sometimes outnumbering those they left behind in the "Old World." Often this is the reason one will see in this country Armenian Churches (their people slaughtered by the Turks in the first genocide of the 20th century), Coptic Churches (now a minority in Muslim Egypt and under increased threat to their existence in that land) and various other Orthodox Churches that suffered under Communism. I feel for these people and sympathize with their attempts to preserve what was in danger of being destroyed from without. Similarly, we now see "Anglican" (a word that conveys an ethnic and cultural heritage) parishes rather than simply Episcopal (a word that describes polity) parishes. Sadly, the Anglican Church and its preservation is being done because the West has largely destroyed this tradition from within, perverting the ancient faith and defacing the traditional worship of the English Church and her sister Churches.

Know the history and faith of the Christian Church, especially the Church of the British and English peoples, know the devotions of the English divines, know the music of the English Church—know what it is you are “Continuing” in and why, know why the Anglican Church in North America came into existence, so that you may faithfully preserve it for your children and your children’s children.

As the Anglican Church in North America develops a new Book of Common Prayer let us pray that it keeps in mind the great heritage with which it has been entrusted.

Christus Rex: The ancient Cross

One of the most striking and meaningful images to me in Christian art has been the Christus Rex, Christ the King "reigning from the Tree." This is the image that most frequently greets me when I've visited Lutheran parishes.

Collin Morris in The Oxford Illustrated History of Christianity in comments as to the development of the traditional (corpus in repose) crucifix we usually think of as being a mark of "Catholicism." Morris observes:

"The crucifix was becoming a prominent feature of church decoration, replacing the Christ in majesty which dominated early buildings, and it was a crucifix in a new style. The Lord was no longer shown upright and majestic, clothed in purple and reigning from the tree: now, a dying man was offered for the loyalty and compassion of the beholders. . . "

I commented once to a priest who had a Christus Rex upon the altar how much I liked that particular cross. To my surprise he told me how much he disliked it: To him it was an image of the living Christ re-crucified, brought back to the cross following the resurrection and sacrificed again. This comment resulted in my spending some time researching the theology and history of the Christus Rex. My findings were those that Morris expresses above: The Christus Rex is the more ancient emphasis, and the dead Christ is a more recent development. Indeed, is it--the image of the dead Christ--the most proper image to have on the altar when celebrating the Holy Thanksgiving of not only Christ's sacrifice, but of His resurrection, glorious ascension, and His coming again? Here are some comments on the image and its place in Western iconography from various sources:

Percy Dearmer, Anglican liturgical scholar, notes in his 1899 edition of The Parson's Handbook (p 88):

"A CROSS was sometimes set on the Holy Table before the Reformation; but it was by no means the rule, though nowadays many seem to consider it a necessity. In cases where a painting forms the altarpiece it is often better dispensed with (even where there is room for a small cross below the picture), especially in the case of minor altars; and the appropriateness of using a cross where the Crucifixion forms part of the altarpiece is more than questionable. Under no circumstances should a cross be placed on the altar when it would stand in front of a picture or of the figures of a sculptured reredos, The idea that an altar is incomplete (or ‘Protestant’) without a cross needs to be strenuously combated. Indeed, although altar crosses and crucifixes are certainly included under the rubric, there is much to be said both from the ceremonial and from the theological point of view against their use on the altar. The proper place for a representation of the crucified Redeemer is the Roodscreen. In any case the primitive crucifix, in which our Lord is represented in an attitude of benediction and majesty, is more seemly than the twisted and distorted figure one often sees."

Similarly, Canon Vernon Staley, the Anglo-Catholic scholar, wrote in his 1904 Ceremonial of the English Church (p 113-115):

"It is not well to regard the Eucharist as commemorative solely of the death and passion of our Lord, and to forget that it is also the memorial of His mightly resurrection and glorious ascension. In thus emphasizing His humiliation at the expense of His exhaltation some have been led to associate the crucifix with the altar rather than the cross of glory. In connection with this, it may be pointed out that our Lord in glory is a much more suitable subject. . .over the altar, than our Lord crucified."

The question remains, why were Christus Rex images (or variations of this image) prevalent in the ancient Church? Bishop of Oxford Richard Harries addresses this question in his book The Passion in Art. He comments first on the first depiction of the crucifixion (about 400 A.D.):

". . .This is no defeated Christ: his eyes are open and head upright, and his arms stretch firmly outwards. He looks boldly to the front, not so much constrained by the cross, as superimposed upon it. The contrast is deliberately made with Judas hanging on the tree, the thirty pieces of silver spilled onto the ground at his feet. . .Judas is dead and defeated, but Christ is alive with the life of triumphant love. . . .Over. . .anger and sadness and death the love of God wins through. Christ reigns from the tree" (p 13).

"In the earliest depictions of the Passion that have surivived, Christ is shown alive on the Cross. This was true both in the West and in the East. . . .The major theological issue that concerned the Church from the fourth to the eighth centuries. . .was the person of Christ. The Church came to assert that he is truly God and truly human, yet remains one undivided person. If this is the case then how should Christ be depicted on the Cross? If he was simply shown dead, or in the tomb, people might wonder what happened to his divinity. So it would seem that from the fourth to the end of the seventh centuries artists chose to avoid the controversial questions by not showing him dead on the Cross at all. Christ is shown, as we have seen, with arms outstretched, head upright and eyes open, very much alive. This had the doctrinal adavantage of making it clear that Jesus had indeed been crucified as a human being, for there he was on the Cross. But his open eyes could be interpreted as the logos, the eternal word of God. . .being very much alive" (p 29).

Back to blogging?

I had begun to believe that blogging had gone by the wayside--what with Facebook and other forms of social media--so I had made a mental excuse for not posting all that frequently. However, the system that I'm using gives me some useful statistical information that tells me that people still stop by fairly frequently to read, most of the readers being from the United States and the United Kingdom. For those who are going back through the archives of this blog I hope that you've found some useful and inspiring content. I hope to add to that content more frequently in the future.  

Article II of the Articles of Religion

Article II of the Articles of Religion:
The Son, which is the Word of the Father, begotten from everlasting of the Father, the very and eternal God, and of one substance with the Father, took Man's nature in the womb of the blessed Virgin, of her substance: so that two whole and perfect Natures, that is to say, the Godhead and Manhood, were joined together in one Person, never to be divided, whereof is one Christ, very God, and very Man; who truly suffered, was crucified, dead, and buried, to reconcile his Father to us, and to be a sacrifice, not only for original guilt, but also for actual sins of men.

Anglicanus Whateverus

What I am about to say may offend many, especially if they have strong feelings on the topics about which I am to write. However, these are my own controversial thoughts, so I thought I’d share them in the appropriate place for such things—the blogosphere.

I was invited to celebrate the Holy Eucharist last week at a parish (different from my own, obviously) and I inquired of the rector as to what the parish was used to: What service did the parish use? Did the priest face the people (facing west, facing altar and people) or the altar (facing east) during the Eucharist? What did the priest usually wear? When did the priest do this, that, or the other? I thought these were important questions, because I wanted to provide the people of the parish with a service as close as possible to the service they were used to. It turned out that there were many differences that I had to contend with (none of them controversial, to my mind). The service used was the 1928 Book of Common Prayer (which I am quite used to, but our parish uses the 1662, so I needed to remind myself of the differences). The priest faced the altar (east facing celebration) when celebrating the Eucharist (something I’m quite used to, but our parish faces the people, so once again I needed to remind myself of the differences and where and when to do what). One priest of the church usually wore a chasuble, the other alb and stole (I usually wear surplice and stole at my home parish, so to be consistent I wore an alb, stole, and chasuble).  A few other little differences: The church used a short service booklet that called the service “The Mass,” but the text of the service itself was directly from the 1928 Prayer Book (was I celebrating "The Mass" or "the Holy Communion"? To my mind they were and are the same, given the text was identical to the 1928 Prayer Book); during the Creed the altar servers only stayed bowed during the mention of the incarnation itself, whereas at my home parish we stayed bowed until “He rose again”; when the offering was received the priest usually made the sign of the cross over the offering plate (the altar server politely reminded me to do it when I was handed the plate) which we don’t do at my home parish; when handing me the cruets the server seemed confused when I made the sign of the cross over the wine and water—something we do at my home parish but that they didn’t seem to do at their parish. Little things. Things that altar servers notice (and need to notice to get used to the priest), but not things usually noticed from the pew.  

What is my point of pointing out these little differences? First and foremost is this: None of them bother me. None of them are really all that important to me. To me they are things indifferent.  Adiaphora. Anglicanus whateverus. I have faced East. I have faced West. I would stand at the “north end” of the Holy Table if asked to. There are good reasons for doing any of the three, and if I were asked to celebrate in a parish I would ask: Which way does your priest usually face when celebrating the Eucharist. I just don’t care all that much as to what direction I am facing, for I’m sure God can hear me and the people.

As to what to wear? I have worn a surplice and stole. I have worn alb, stole, and chasuble. I would wear surplice and tippet if asked to. . .or surplice, tippet, and cope. My main concern is that I look like a priest of the historic Anglican Church and that the parish can tell I’m a priest, rather than a judge or an academic (or a visiting Prebyterian minister). If someone asked me to wear a pulpit gown I would insist on it being white, with a tippet or stole and a clerical collar underneath. I don’t care all that much for the debates over vestments: They are symbolic. If people think they change the substance of the rite I would have to tell them that they’re wrong. The most important symbolism was and is the white garment of the minister; this is the most ancient piece of Christian clerical garb and symbolic of baptismal purity. It was originally what we now know as the alb, but the surplice is a derivation of the alb, so I can’t get too emotional about wearing one or the other. Some people insist that to be “really Catholic” you need to wear a chasuble, but Anglican priests have celebrated the Eucharist in a surplice and tippet or stole for hundreds of years and I have seen Roman Catholic priests celebrate a weekday Eucharist in surplice and stole, so I can’t get all that emotional about that either. Some will say that it is wrong to celebrate in a cope (as Anglican bishops and priests used to do in cathedrals and collegiate churches), because the cope is not “a sacrificial garment,” but one has only to trace the history of the cope and chasuble to see that they are derived from the same garment (so either both are sacrificial or neither of them are). Also, if one looks at the Eucharistic vestments of the Eastern rites we see chasubles that look very much like copes (again, not much of a shock since they are derived from the same source).

I have been an Anglican for several decades, and I have seen many different types of churchmanship. I have seen “high Masses” and simple said Eucharists, grand cathedrals and plain chapels, priests in simple surplices and stoles and ornate chasubles. What really matters to me is that I’m celebrating a service from an orthodox Prayer Book (or a close derivation thereof, such as An Anglican Prayer Book), preaching a coherent and orthodox sermon, and that the service is done “decently and in order.” In most instances this means doing what the people are familiar with so as not to harm the consciences of those in the parish.