When Dom Gregory Dix wrote his "Letters to a Layman" about "The Question of Anglican Orders" in 1944, he was responding to doubts that had been raised about sacramental validity. It appears that, after years of receiving Christ in the sacrament of Holy Communion, one individual was shaken to learn that the Roman Catholic Church had officially declared our orders to be "Absolutely null and utterly void." Dix wrote answers from a purely Anglo-Catholic perspective, and in doing so addressed specific concerns to reassure his reader (and eventually readers) of the certain validity of the sacraments he had been receiving, and should continue to receive in the Church of England; no small matter in a time when German bombs were falling on English cities just about every day.
In one sense, Dix's little book is the least important work in defense of our validity (specifically, our validity, inasmuch as Continuing Anglicans have inherited Anglican Orders through the Chambers Succession), weighing in as rather light compared to other works, especially Saepius Officio (1897). The need for the book, the doubt that occasioned its writing, should be of great concern to us. The man to whom Dix wrote his letters, whether real or invented for the book, seems to have arrived on the scene rather early, his doubts a bit premature for having existed in a generation that was taught, we would think, to have confidence. It seems likely that Dix began to see a generation coming in which the people who call themselves Anglo-Catholics, or even simply "High Church," would suffer a famine on teaching materials designed to ward off the bullying of bad apologetics and attack.
When I survey the scene of "Anglo-Catholic" practice and consider the many expressions of thought I have heard from people, lay and clergy, over the last several years, I am aware of how severe the famine has been. The evidence I weigh, and the meaning of it that I ponder, indicates that even a good number of Continuing clergy are not equipped to defend their position, or what should be their position, from a kind of Roman Catholic polemicist (generally self-appointed) whose efforts amount to an intellectual sort of bullying. Many of the people who, these days, like to imagine themselves to be Anglo-Catholics among the Continuers, need to learn to take an intellectual punch and stand on their feet, or better yet, to ward off the punches altogether. It is time for them to stop learning everything they know about Anglicanism from Roman Catholic storm troopers (again, self appointed); for, generally, what little they know about Anglicanism tends to be just enough to leave them weak and defenseless, just enough to be wrong instead of ignorant.
Boosting confidence-more power to the shields
What does it take to ward off the school yard bully? Frankly, it takes knowledge. The older I get, the more I appreciate the words of my first Church History professor, Aristeides Papdakis, in 1980: "Robert, you cannot be a theologian until you are first a historian." It is the combination of history and theology that, when learned well, provides the defense needed by those who are troubled and soon shaken in spirit by the many jibes and attacks against Anglican validity offered in abundance every day, especially on websites and blogs that specialize in just that kind of misinformation. Indeed, if anyone reading this has been subjected to such treatment, or had a school yard intellectual bully making him afraid, it would be wholesome medicine to read the essays I have spent these last few years writing, partly for the aid of those so troubled, and have posted here on The Continuum. It is a course of study that takes a bit of time.
In these essays you will learn the true meaning of such words as "Catholic" and "Protestant" as, in Anglican usage, complementary rather than contradictory, and the purpose and goal of the English Reformers and Anglican Divines. You will see why the Anglican Church affirmed seven sacraments, even affirming them in the easily misunderstood Article XXV. You should regain any confidence you lost, whether confidence in sacramental validity, or confidence in your church body as fully a part of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.
Clarity
It remains, however, for us to write and speak clearly about practical issues that have never gone away, so that we may cease from doing anything to hinder our own growth. I have written enough to have acquired a reputation as a defender of Anglican patrimony from the beginning of our "separated" existence, namely the sixteenth century. The Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion and the Book of Homilies, Cranmer's actual theology of the sacrament of Holy Communion (contrasted against the popular perception thereof), and so forth.
Consequently, when my Archbishop (who is also my Diocesan Ordinary) wrote briefly to explain a few fine points of the Constitution and Canons of the Anglican Catholic Church, some people wondered how we could reconcile our positions, particularly concerning his point that the Thirty-Nine Articles "have no independent authority." Frankly, it is not even difficult; and if you will wade through just a little of it, we will get to a point that should be useful. The answer is in the Canons that were discussed:
CANON 2.1. THE SEVEN OECUMENICAL COUNCILS AND THE CANONS ACCEPTED BY THEM.
This Church submits itself and subscribes to the Seven Holy Oecumenical Councils of the undivided Primitive Catholic Church and their Doctrine, Definitions, Letters, Epistles, Acts, and Decrees, both doctrinal and synodal, and the Letters and Decrees of the Regional Councils or Synods and of the Fathers received, accepted, and affirmed by the same Oecumenical Councils, all as received in the Church of England through the year 1543, as well as the Canons, Canonical Acts and Decrees, and the Rulings Canonical thereof or made therein, and the Canonical principles expressed therein, as have been accustomed and used in the Church since their adoption and which have neither been expressly altered or amended by positive action of this Church nor have fallen into and remained in desuetude...etc.
This is followed by Canon 2.2
CANON 2.2. MATTERS NOT EXPRESSLY LEGISLATED HEREIN.
Any matters not expressly legislated by or provided for by the Constitution and Canons of this Church or the Constitution and Canons of any Province or Diocese or other Jurisdiction thereof shall be referred to and be subject to the General Canon Law and the Common Law of the Church as received by the Church of England in its estates in convocation assembled as specified by the Acts of Parliament of 1534 and 1543, or any and all other Anglican Laws Ecclesiastical in effect in part or parts of North America or elsewhere prior to 1967, all of which bodies of Anglican Canon Law not expressly altered or amended by any Synod or Synods of this Church or rendered inapplicable in the particular circumstances thereof, are incorporated by reference and are to be of continued force and effect.
Students of history should know why I have used the terms first and second secession, the two waves, Henrican and Elizabethan, that launched Anglicanism. But, in reality, though there were but two secessions in history (two breaks with Rome), there were three waves: Henrican, Edwardian and Elizabethan.
Our own Fr. Charles Nalls pointed out the words of Bishop Charles Grafton, to the effect that it was Providential that the English Reformation started over again when certain forces were taking it too far in an alien kind of Reformed or Protestant direction; that is, trying to take it away from that distinctive Anglican position of Catholic Reformation that retained the Tradition of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, including the Apostolic Succession of the Episcopate. The Church of England was, briefly, in danger of a kind of Reformation that is rooted in nothing older, in far too many particular points, than Calvinism, Lutheranism or Zwinglianism. That fate was prevented, however violent and unhappy the times of Mary Tudor's blood soaked reign (even by the standards of that century).
But getting back to the question of reconciling what some have seen as contradiction between Archbishop Haverland's essay and my arguments, and my reason for quoting from the two canons, the consistency of our positions is based on the combination of history and theology in light of what canons 2.1 and 2.2 actually say, and based on the Affirmation of St. Louis that provides a foundation for the entire body of the ACC Constitution and Canons. The point was made, by his Grace, that these canons root Anglican Catholic practice and theology in the Henrican period of Reformation. This is true, even though most of the emphasis in what we read is on the Elizabethan period.
About this I want to make the following points:
1. The goal of the Elizabethan Reformers was to root the Church of England firmly in the Tradition received from Antiquity, which also meant a return first to the Henrican standards. To this end, canon 2.2 provides a very large context, saying, "...as specified by the Acts of Parliament of 1534 and 1543, or any and all other Anglican Laws Ecclesiastical in effect in part or parts of North America or elsewhere prior to 1967." That period takes in the full corpus of the works of the Elizabethan Reformers, and also of the Caroline Divines, and so forth. In terms of "Laws Ecclesiastical" it includes standards for what may be practiced and taught.
2. This was intended as a route to Antiquity. Queen Elizabeth I, herself said that the Church of England must be faithful to what was taught by "the most ancient Catholic Doctors and Bishops." In placing the Anglican period of our Catholic history at an earlier date, we are doing exactly what the Elizabethans themselves were doing.
3. The emphasis on the Henrican standards cannot be about conforming wholly to the practices of his day, for we do not insist on celibate clergy (having mostly married bishops, priests and deacons, like the ancient Church even during times of Roman persecution before Constantine), and we do not burn Lutherans at the stake. Neither would we destroy monasteries or churches who do not pay up to the English Crown. It must be about something else.
4. It is about the intention to have a more thorough foundation from something older than the Reformation. This means we have not lost anything, but rather gained the safety of rooting who we are and what we believe in a more sure and ancient foundation. The result is that no one can misuse Anglican principles to lead our people astray, as, for example, modern Episcopalians have done.
The reality
The reality about certain things expressly and distinctively Anglican, is that they are going to stay with us. What we need to do, therefore, is understand them rightly.
Comments made on this blog have caused me to respond about the question of the Thirty-Nine Articles, and so I should say upfront, that in terms of the Constitution and Canons of the Anglican Catholic Church, based on the Affirmation of St. Louis and canon 2.2 as quoted above, whatever status they had before 1967 they have now. Furthermore, because the Affirmation of St. Louis affirms not merely the Book of Common Prayer in some vague way, but specifically affirms the Canadian 1962 and American 1928 editions, the Articles have not been reduced merely to a historical document (as in the 1979 TEC Book). The table of contents in the 1928 American Book of Common Prayer does not list them as an appendix, but as part of the over all book. We are stuck with them as whatever they were before 1967 in the Episcopal Church.
Furthermore, for purposes of helping the weak in their stand against the school yard intellectual bullies, what matters is that the Thirty-Nine Articles express the mind of those through whom our life, including our Holy Orders, were transmitted. Anglo-Catholics can go on being embarrassed by the Articles, and saying that somehow God preserved a minimum of sacramental intention through a bunch of heretics, and in doing so they can go on ministering to tiny and shrinking congregations, converting people to Roman Catholicism who never really wanted to go there. Or, they can provide a better defense, and maybe even see growth in their own parishes, as they express positive appreciation for their Anglican patrimony (for, if the clergy do not believe in their own church, neither will anybody else). But, with or without defined and authorized "status," the Articles weigh mighty heavy in people's minds. Even if I were wrong about the 1928 Book of Common Prayer (which I am not), most people would still continue to see them as part of the book-properly part, not an appendix. That is not going to change.
Frankly, this can be good or bad. It can be bad, because the Articles are easily twisted and perverted in their meaning. It takes more than mere literacy to understand them, and this makes them as dangerous as they are potentially profitable. Modern readers cannot read them simply for their plain meaning, for their plain meaning is beyond even the competence of fairly educated persons in our time. John Henry Newman did understand them well, but when explaining their meaning in Tract 90, failed to drive home the fact that history and reason were on his side. He said he had given the Articles a catholic interpretation, whereas he had actually given them nothing. He merely explained their plain meaning.
Indeed, it is easy for the "hyper-five-point-Reformed" to subject our Anglican Articles to their own apparent Reform School mentality, and to do so with gusto and confidence. It is easy, then, for lazy modern Anglo-Catholics to accept their spin, and to reject the Articles themselves; of course, the Roman Catholic self-appointed polemicists agree with the Reform School of thought in this matter, for it suits well their aim. This is made more acute by the GAFCON spectacle of elevating the Articles to second in authority only to Scripture, despite the fact that Anglican tradition has never defined them as such.
The best way forward
Frankly, it is the very essay by my Archbishop, that some people have thought to contrast with what they think I have said, that gives us the best way forward. The Articles do not have independent authority, and our theological roots are much older than the sixteenth century.
The best way forward begins, also, with accepting these facts:
1. People will read the Articles and Homilies, and will not understand.
2. People will question how we could have retained sacramental validity, and begin to doubt Anglican orders and all that goes with them.
3. Lazy Anglo-Catholic clergy will continue to be embarrassed by the Thirty-Nine Articles (and everything else they misunderstand in the Book of Common Prayer), and will continue, as a result, to send people to Rome.
That is, unless, we handle the matter rightly.
First of all, the Articles really do not have any independent authority, just as Archbishop Haverland said. That is not merely an ACC idea, but a fact of history. Just as we have no chief Reformer, no Luther, no Calvin, no Zwingli, we have no chief manifesto; no Augsburg Confession, no Institutes, no Council of Trent, or any other sixteenth century Reformation document (yes the Council of Trent-as "Protestant" as it gets, if by that one means innovation and a new direction). The Thirty-Nine Articles were placed right away inside the Book of Common Prayer, which itself works like the tracks on which a train may run; and without which it cannot go where it was meant to go. They were created within a church that had established practices and Canon Law, which itself rules out much of the Reform School mentality. They were placed in a Prayer Book that contains a catechism.
Therefore, the first thing we should do is place them in their rightful context of classic Anglicanism, which means all the Henrican things that the Elizabethans had returned to, which means, in turn, the Catholic Tradition, including, by logic, the Oecumenical Councils. Also, we should read them in the historical context of the sixteenth century and the specific theological issues that needed genuine Catholic-Protestant Reform, namely, a return to Patristic Christian doctrine; i.e., return to emphasis on receiving the sacraments, etc. We have a lot of that here for you to read, beginning with my essays on Classic Anglicanism.
Finally, if we are to ask what authority the Thirty-Nine Articles actually have, we need to answer the question by quoting from Article VI :
"Holy Scriptures 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."
The Articles point the average layman to the Bible, a book which he may get his hands on and open for himself. What kind of Articles rule themselves out, as not to be believed as an article of faith, unless by the Berean method of searching the scriptures? Surely not something that was written to come across with thundering pontifical claims of authority, nor with the smile of someone who says, "trust me."
The best way forward is to know that the Articles really are dangerous in the wrong hands, but very profitable for learning in the right hands. I have endorsed often and early E.J. Bicknell's book on them; and I have written some things in my own essays. Obviously, I endorse my own essays.
Pressing questions about the confidence we may have in the route through which our Anglican Patrimony has come to us will be repeated every day, thrown at people who do not have the knowledge to protect themselves. The clergy, in many cases, need to strengthen their own feeble knees. If they can't defend themselves against the school yard bully, how can they care for the people?
In one sense, Dix's little book is the least important work in defense of our validity (specifically, our validity, inasmuch as Continuing Anglicans have inherited Anglican Orders through the Chambers Succession), weighing in as rather light compared to other works, especially Saepius Officio (1897). The need for the book, the doubt that occasioned its writing, should be of great concern to us. The man to whom Dix wrote his letters, whether real or invented for the book, seems to have arrived on the scene rather early, his doubts a bit premature for having existed in a generation that was taught, we would think, to have confidence. It seems likely that Dix began to see a generation coming in which the people who call themselves Anglo-Catholics, or even simply "High Church," would suffer a famine on teaching materials designed to ward off the bullying of bad apologetics and attack.
When I survey the scene of "Anglo-Catholic" practice and consider the many expressions of thought I have heard from people, lay and clergy, over the last several years, I am aware of how severe the famine has been. The evidence I weigh, and the meaning of it that I ponder, indicates that even a good number of Continuing clergy are not equipped to defend their position, or what should be their position, from a kind of Roman Catholic polemicist (generally self-appointed) whose efforts amount to an intellectual sort of bullying. Many of the people who, these days, like to imagine themselves to be Anglo-Catholics among the Continuers, need to learn to take an intellectual punch and stand on their feet, or better yet, to ward off the punches altogether. It is time for them to stop learning everything they know about Anglicanism from Roman Catholic storm troopers (again, self appointed); for, generally, what little they know about Anglicanism tends to be just enough to leave them weak and defenseless, just enough to be wrong instead of ignorant.
Boosting confidence-more power to the shields
What does it take to ward off the school yard bully? Frankly, it takes knowledge. The older I get, the more I appreciate the words of my first Church History professor, Aristeides Papdakis, in 1980: "Robert, you cannot be a theologian until you are first a historian." It is the combination of history and theology that, when learned well, provides the defense needed by those who are troubled and soon shaken in spirit by the many jibes and attacks against Anglican validity offered in abundance every day, especially on websites and blogs that specialize in just that kind of misinformation. Indeed, if anyone reading this has been subjected to such treatment, or had a school yard intellectual bully making him afraid, it would be wholesome medicine to read the essays I have spent these last few years writing, partly for the aid of those so troubled, and have posted here on The Continuum. It is a course of study that takes a bit of time.
In these essays you will learn the true meaning of such words as "Catholic" and "Protestant" as, in Anglican usage, complementary rather than contradictory, and the purpose and goal of the English Reformers and Anglican Divines. You will see why the Anglican Church affirmed seven sacraments, even affirming them in the easily misunderstood Article XXV. You should regain any confidence you lost, whether confidence in sacramental validity, or confidence in your church body as fully a part of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.
Clarity
It remains, however, for us to write and speak clearly about practical issues that have never gone away, so that we may cease from doing anything to hinder our own growth. I have written enough to have acquired a reputation as a defender of Anglican patrimony from the beginning of our "separated" existence, namely the sixteenth century. The Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion and the Book of Homilies, Cranmer's actual theology of the sacrament of Holy Communion (contrasted against the popular perception thereof), and so forth.
Consequently, when my Archbishop (who is also my Diocesan Ordinary) wrote briefly to explain a few fine points of the Constitution and Canons of the Anglican Catholic Church, some people wondered how we could reconcile our positions, particularly concerning his point that the Thirty-Nine Articles "have no independent authority." Frankly, it is not even difficult; and if you will wade through just a little of it, we will get to a point that should be useful. The answer is in the Canons that were discussed:
CANON 2.1. THE SEVEN OECUMENICAL COUNCILS AND THE CANONS ACCEPTED BY THEM.
This Church submits itself and subscribes to the Seven Holy Oecumenical Councils of the undivided Primitive Catholic Church and their Doctrine, Definitions, Letters, Epistles, Acts, and Decrees, both doctrinal and synodal, and the Letters and Decrees of the Regional Councils or Synods and of the Fathers received, accepted, and affirmed by the same Oecumenical Councils, all as received in the Church of England through the year 1543, as well as the Canons, Canonical Acts and Decrees, and the Rulings Canonical thereof or made therein, and the Canonical principles expressed therein, as have been accustomed and used in the Church since their adoption and which have neither been expressly altered or amended by positive action of this Church nor have fallen into and remained in desuetude...etc.
This is followed by Canon 2.2
CANON 2.2. MATTERS NOT EXPRESSLY LEGISLATED HEREIN.
Any matters not expressly legislated by or provided for by the Constitution and Canons of this Church or the Constitution and Canons of any Province or Diocese or other Jurisdiction thereof shall be referred to and be subject to the General Canon Law and the Common Law of the Church as received by the Church of England in its estates in convocation assembled as specified by the Acts of Parliament of 1534 and 1543, or any and all other Anglican Laws Ecclesiastical in effect in part or parts of North America or elsewhere prior to 1967, all of which bodies of Anglican Canon Law not expressly altered or amended by any Synod or Synods of this Church or rendered inapplicable in the particular circumstances thereof, are incorporated by reference and are to be of continued force and effect.
Students of history should know why I have used the terms first and second secession, the two waves, Henrican and Elizabethan, that launched Anglicanism. But, in reality, though there were but two secessions in history (two breaks with Rome), there were three waves: Henrican, Edwardian and Elizabethan.
Our own Fr. Charles Nalls pointed out the words of Bishop Charles Grafton, to the effect that it was Providential that the English Reformation started over again when certain forces were taking it too far in an alien kind of Reformed or Protestant direction; that is, trying to take it away from that distinctive Anglican position of Catholic Reformation that retained the Tradition of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, including the Apostolic Succession of the Episcopate. The Church of England was, briefly, in danger of a kind of Reformation that is rooted in nothing older, in far too many particular points, than Calvinism, Lutheranism or Zwinglianism. That fate was prevented, however violent and unhappy the times of Mary Tudor's blood soaked reign (even by the standards of that century).
But getting back to the question of reconciling what some have seen as contradiction between Archbishop Haverland's essay and my arguments, and my reason for quoting from the two canons, the consistency of our positions is based on the combination of history and theology in light of what canons 2.1 and 2.2 actually say, and based on the Affirmation of St. Louis that provides a foundation for the entire body of the ACC Constitution and Canons. The point was made, by his Grace, that these canons root Anglican Catholic practice and theology in the Henrican period of Reformation. This is true, even though most of the emphasis in what we read is on the Elizabethan period.
About this I want to make the following points:
1. The goal of the Elizabethan Reformers was to root the Church of England firmly in the Tradition received from Antiquity, which also meant a return first to the Henrican standards. To this end, canon 2.2 provides a very large context, saying, "...as specified by the Acts of Parliament of 1534 and 1543, or any and all other Anglican Laws Ecclesiastical in effect in part or parts of North America or elsewhere prior to 1967." That period takes in the full corpus of the works of the Elizabethan Reformers, and also of the Caroline Divines, and so forth. In terms of "Laws Ecclesiastical" it includes standards for what may be practiced and taught.
2. This was intended as a route to Antiquity. Queen Elizabeth I, herself said that the Church of England must be faithful to what was taught by "the most ancient Catholic Doctors and Bishops." In placing the Anglican period of our Catholic history at an earlier date, we are doing exactly what the Elizabethans themselves were doing.
3. The emphasis on the Henrican standards cannot be about conforming wholly to the practices of his day, for we do not insist on celibate clergy (having mostly married bishops, priests and deacons, like the ancient Church even during times of Roman persecution before Constantine), and we do not burn Lutherans at the stake. Neither would we destroy monasteries or churches who do not pay up to the English Crown. It must be about something else.
4. It is about the intention to have a more thorough foundation from something older than the Reformation. This means we have not lost anything, but rather gained the safety of rooting who we are and what we believe in a more sure and ancient foundation. The result is that no one can misuse Anglican principles to lead our people astray, as, for example, modern Episcopalians have done.
The reality
The reality about certain things expressly and distinctively Anglican, is that they are going to stay with us. What we need to do, therefore, is understand them rightly.
Comments made on this blog have caused me to respond about the question of the Thirty-Nine Articles, and so I should say upfront, that in terms of the Constitution and Canons of the Anglican Catholic Church, based on the Affirmation of St. Louis and canon 2.2 as quoted above, whatever status they had before 1967 they have now. Furthermore, because the Affirmation of St. Louis affirms not merely the Book of Common Prayer in some vague way, but specifically affirms the Canadian 1962 and American 1928 editions, the Articles have not been reduced merely to a historical document (as in the 1979 TEC Book). The table of contents in the 1928 American Book of Common Prayer does not list them as an appendix, but as part of the over all book. We are stuck with them as whatever they were before 1967 in the Episcopal Church.
Furthermore, for purposes of helping the weak in their stand against the school yard intellectual bullies, what matters is that the Thirty-Nine Articles express the mind of those through whom our life, including our Holy Orders, were transmitted. Anglo-Catholics can go on being embarrassed by the Articles, and saying that somehow God preserved a minimum of sacramental intention through a bunch of heretics, and in doing so they can go on ministering to tiny and shrinking congregations, converting people to Roman Catholicism who never really wanted to go there. Or, they can provide a better defense, and maybe even see growth in their own parishes, as they express positive appreciation for their Anglican patrimony (for, if the clergy do not believe in their own church, neither will anybody else). But, with or without defined and authorized "status," the Articles weigh mighty heavy in people's minds. Even if I were wrong about the 1928 Book of Common Prayer (which I am not), most people would still continue to see them as part of the book-properly part, not an appendix. That is not going to change.
Frankly, this can be good or bad. It can be bad, because the Articles are easily twisted and perverted in their meaning. It takes more than mere literacy to understand them, and this makes them as dangerous as they are potentially profitable. Modern readers cannot read them simply for their plain meaning, for their plain meaning is beyond even the competence of fairly educated persons in our time. John Henry Newman did understand them well, but when explaining their meaning in Tract 90, failed to drive home the fact that history and reason were on his side. He said he had given the Articles a catholic interpretation, whereas he had actually given them nothing. He merely explained their plain meaning.
Indeed, it is easy for the "hyper-five-point-Reformed" to subject our Anglican Articles to their own apparent Reform School mentality, and to do so with gusto and confidence. It is easy, then, for lazy modern Anglo-Catholics to accept their spin, and to reject the Articles themselves; of course, the Roman Catholic self-appointed polemicists agree with the Reform School of thought in this matter, for it suits well their aim. This is made more acute by the GAFCON spectacle of elevating the Articles to second in authority only to Scripture, despite the fact that Anglican tradition has never defined them as such.
The best way forward
Frankly, it is the very essay by my Archbishop, that some people have thought to contrast with what they think I have said, that gives us the best way forward. The Articles do not have independent authority, and our theological roots are much older than the sixteenth century.
The best way forward begins, also, with accepting these facts:
1. People will read the Articles and Homilies, and will not understand.
2. People will question how we could have retained sacramental validity, and begin to doubt Anglican orders and all that goes with them.
3. Lazy Anglo-Catholic clergy will continue to be embarrassed by the Thirty-Nine Articles (and everything else they misunderstand in the Book of Common Prayer), and will continue, as a result, to send people to Rome.
That is, unless, we handle the matter rightly.
First of all, the Articles really do not have any independent authority, just as Archbishop Haverland said. That is not merely an ACC idea, but a fact of history. Just as we have no chief Reformer, no Luther, no Calvin, no Zwingli, we have no chief manifesto; no Augsburg Confession, no Institutes, no Council of Trent, or any other sixteenth century Reformation document (yes the Council of Trent-as "Protestant" as it gets, if by that one means innovation and a new direction). The Thirty-Nine Articles were placed right away inside the Book of Common Prayer, which itself works like the tracks on which a train may run; and without which it cannot go where it was meant to go. They were created within a church that had established practices and Canon Law, which itself rules out much of the Reform School mentality. They were placed in a Prayer Book that contains a catechism.
Therefore, the first thing we should do is place them in their rightful context of classic Anglicanism, which means all the Henrican things that the Elizabethans had returned to, which means, in turn, the Catholic Tradition, including, by logic, the Oecumenical Councils. Also, we should read them in the historical context of the sixteenth century and the specific theological issues that needed genuine Catholic-Protestant Reform, namely, a return to Patristic Christian doctrine; i.e., return to emphasis on receiving the sacraments, etc. We have a lot of that here for you to read, beginning with my essays on Classic Anglicanism.
Finally, if we are to ask what authority the Thirty-Nine Articles actually have, we need to answer the question by quoting from Article VI :
"Holy Scriptures 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."
The Articles point the average layman to the Bible, a book which he may get his hands on and open for himself. What kind of Articles rule themselves out, as not to be believed as an article of faith, unless by the Berean method of searching the scriptures? Surely not something that was written to come across with thundering pontifical claims of authority, nor with the smile of someone who says, "trust me."
The best way forward is to know that the Articles really are dangerous in the wrong hands, but very profitable for learning in the right hands. I have endorsed often and early E.J. Bicknell's book on them; and I have written some things in my own essays. Obviously, I endorse my own essays.
Pressing questions about the confidence we may have in the route through which our Anglican Patrimony has come to us will be repeated every day, thrown at people who do not have the knowledge to protect themselves. The clergy, in many cases, need to strengthen their own feeble knees. If they can't defend themselves against the school yard bully, how can they care for the people?
Very well said, Father. Thank you for this thoughtful post.
ReplyDeleteRev'd. Fr. Cyril K. Crume
St. James', Cleveland, OH ACC
Another excellent post, Father Hart, and one which needs to read and re-read both by those who are working their way to the fullness of the Anglican expression of the Catholic Faith as well as those who believed that they have surpassed it. While we must continue to recognize there there is probably no time or place when any locality in the Church Catholic has been a complete and perfect expression of what God would have us be, that realization should give none of us either reason or excuse to do less than work for the perfection of the Church and churchmen in our time and place.
ReplyDeleteYour caution about the possibility of a misreading of the Articles reminded me of a priest long ago who loved to point out that even the very words of the Nicene Creed could be twisted into an untruth. We have to learn to read documents in terms of the language and intentions of the time, not always the easiest task when we are not entirely comfortable in the language in which they were written and in which they were considered authoritative at the time of their writing.
I could raise a quibble here and there, but to do so would or could distract from your central line of reasoning which is, I believe, entirely correct.
The reason(s) that Dix wrote *The Question of Anglican Orders* are answered pretty clearly on pp. 84-89
ReplyDelete(and especially 87-88); and do also note the passing mention of "priestesses" on its p. 67. (I assume that the pagination is the same in all editions and reprintings.)
Great article, Fr Hart. I especially liked this quote:
ReplyDelete"The Thirty-Nine Articles were placed right away inside the Book of Common Prayer, which itself works like the tracks on which a train may run; and without which it cannot go where it was meant to go. They were created within a church that had established practices and Canon Law, which itself rules out much of the Reform School mentality. They were placed in a Prayer Book that contains a catechism."
Doubting Thomas
Dear Fr. Hart,
ReplyDeleteYou did not quote canon 2.1 and 2.2 entirely. Canon 2.1 deals with doctrine. Canon 2.2 deals with other ecclesiastical law and "bodies of Anglican Canon Law not expressly altered or amended by any Synod or Synods of this Church".
However, "the synods of this Church" (ACC) did alter and amend PECUSA ecclesiastical law. Don't forget, Canon 2.1 is the only part of ACC C&C's that deals with 'doctrine'. Thus, if you refer back to 2.1, there is indeed a 'cut-off line' for what is doctrinally authoritative (vs. informative) according to ACC synod. Of course, the Articles never stood 'independently' in their interpretation, their assent (at the very least) including canon and prayer book together.
When discussing the relation of Tudor reforms, doctrine should not be confused with 'discipline'. Henrician standards themselves differentiate the two, touching on what is good for 'church order' vs. that necessary for doctrine. Celibacy is not salvific doctrine, so a comparison cannot be made.
Where the two periods (Henry and Elizabethan) differ in doctrinal opinion, however, was how to apply reformation thinking to the Mass. While Elizabeth corrected the exaggerations of her younger sibling, Edward, the Elizabethan (unlike Henry) effectively distinguished the two sacraments from the others according to their intrinsic 'nature' (and authority, 'instituted by Christ') not 'ubiquity' (or catholicity).
When Newman discusses the 'seven sacraments' in Tract 90, he remarkably glosses over their fundamental difference in 'nature' to the other five, and here is Newman's spectacular failure if not purposed obfuscation. The irony is, in making this very point about sacramental efficacy and catholicity, Newman quotes Jewel who plainly rejects the lesser five over their difference in 'nature' from the dominical ones (sic., how sin is remitted). Re-read Tract 90. This is an important point! But for many clerics not familiar with Reformed doctrine of justification and how Elizabeth and Edward applied it consistently to sacraments, the point is missed, and Newman gets away with theological murder.
There certainly is a logic to the madness of ACC canons. Namely, if justification is applied to the Mass, the ACC cannot have a 'Gregorian option' in her Missals, nor pursue an essentially 'Old Catholic' policy.
It also would have to acknowledge the superiority of the Articles over the Affirmation. As it stands, the Affirmation says, in the use of other formulae (meaning Articles), "In affirming these principles, we recognize that all Anglican statements of faith and liturgical formulae must be interpreted in accordance with them". This would not be a problem until the Affirmation does a "judo-flip" on sacraments, which in turn creates a fulcrum for the divinitization of Tradition for those who wish to take it.
In effect, the ACC replaces the Articles with a weaker (more ambiguous) theological document, guarding the Affirmation with a 1543 cut-off line, so that a 'convergence' with so-called apostolic churches (be it ROCOR or RCC) can be engineered. This is 'bad' ecumenicalism in my opinion,and it ignores the self-confidence which earlier (19th century or even the Carolinian period) divines once had. Ambiguity ("mere christianity") has always been something liberals inculcated, and Anglo-Catholics exploited to get away from the Anglican Reformation.
Charles wrote:
ReplyDeleteThus, if you refer back to 2.1, there is indeed a 'cut-off line' for what is doctrinally authoritative (vs. informative) according to ACC synod.
I cannot see that in the canon; and, if that were so, we would have to remove the Affirmation of St. Louis from the Constitution, because gone would be the Prayer Book.
Celibacy is not salvific doctrine, so a comparison cannot be made.
Comparison was not the point; you have simply restated what I said about that in different terms.
Where the two periods (Henry and Elizabethan) differ in doctrinal opinion, however, was how to apply reformation thinking to the Mass.
I cannot reconcile the idea of any large difference between the two with the Homily on worthy receiving of the sacrament. Cranmer's theology of the sacrament restored true Catholic doctrine in its major emphasis by bringing back the teaching that the people should all receive, and receive frequently. I believe firmly in English Reformation teaching on the subject, for it restored the ancient Catholic doctrine that had been neglected for a long time.
...the Elizabethan (unlike Henry) effectively distinguished the two sacraments from the others according to their intrinsic 'nature' (and authority, 'instituted by Christ') not 'ubiquity' (or catholicity).
That is the point of Article XXV. It is also quite obviously true. The sacraments are not all equal in importance, and not all of them are for each person; this sets baptism and communion apart, and by implication confirmation and absolution.
Namely, if justification is applied to the Mass, the ACC cannot have a 'Gregorian option' in her Missals...
That I do not see. The BCP states it more clearly, as the need of the times required; but, would you say that the Gregorian Canon somehow denies Justification? (It is all academic to me. I would not use the Gregorian canon myself, if only because it would only annoy an American congregation, even if they are too polite to say so).
It also would have to acknowledge the superiority of the Articles over the Affirmation.
Superiority as to what? The two things were written for different respective purposes, to meet different needs, and at specific points in history for specific reasons. What you are saying is like saying red is superior to green; it just doesn't make sense.
"In affirming these principles, we recognize that all Anglican statements of faith and liturgical formulae must be interpreted in accordance with them".
Someone said this makes the Articles and other Formularies subordinate to the Affirmation. Not so. It makes the Affirmation and every Anglican statement subordinate to the ancient Church of the Oecumenical Councils and Scripture. That is not a problem; in fact, considering the issue that drove St. Louis, WO, it appeared as the only safe way to go forward.
In effect, the ACC replaces the Articles with a weaker (more ambiguous) theological document, guarding the Affirmation with a 1543 cut-off line, so that a 'convergence' with so-called apostolic churches (be it ROCOR or RCC) can be engineered.
I have already quoted the canon that actually gives a cut off date, and it is 1967. That is what it says.
Wow. That was great.
ReplyDeleteSuppose that the Churches of the Anglican Continuum agreed together to repudiate the 39 Articles, to burn every last copy, and to excommunicate anyone who uttered a word in their favor even while tortured on the rack.
ReplyDeleteThe Reformation doctrine of Justification and its various corollary doctrines (original sin, predestination, etc) could still be invincibly defended on the bases of sound exegesis and honest use of tradition.
If the Articles have no "independent authority," they still have historical authority as evidence of what quite a few Anglicans subscribed to for quite a long time.
So the effort to discredit the Articles and minimize their authority will turn out in the end to be a hollow victory.
LKW
Fr. Wells:
ReplyDeleteYou made a comment once, on Virtue Online disputing with our old chum Charlie, that really says the same thing. He tried to spin the Articles as if they stood alone, independent. You replied that they are part of the Book of Common Prayer, and on that basis corrected his flawed reasoning.
In the minds of our tradition's ablest divines, the Thirty-nine Articles have never been a stand-alone formulary. The tendency to accord them the pre-eminence is usually found among Anglican Evangelicals, who find the robust sacramentalism of the Prayer Book discomfiting (e.g., the eminent 19-th century Evangelical, Goode).
ReplyDeleteHis younger contemporary, M.F. Sadler, reflecting the authentic biblical and catholic foundations of the Elizabethan settlement and Caroline era, held the Articles in the highest esteem; but only in tandem with the doctrines of the Prayer Book. And, of the two, he insisted that the Church's liturgy (especially in it's calendar of feasts and holy days) was more biblical in it's articulation of the events of the Gospel.
Besides that, as Fr. Wells astutley noted, the Articles have become so deeply embedded within the parlance of Anglican thought,that the likelihood of their being utterly banished from theological discourse is slim indeed.
-MET
Dear Fr. Hart,
ReplyDeletePlease go back and read Canon 2.1 and compare it to 2.2, "their Doctrine, Definitions,Letters, Epistles, Acts, and Decrees, both doctrinal and synodal..."
Canon 2.1 is the only canon which touches upon doctrine. Canon 2.2 discusses all other ecclesiastical law with the exception of "Anglican Canon Law not expressly
altered or amended by any Synod or Synods of this Church".
The fact is 'this Church' did alter Anglican Canon Law before 1967 as per ACC canon 2.1. When Haverland says the Henrician formulas are authoritative while the Elizabethan ones are not, he means just that. The Henrician take priority wherever the two differ, but according to ACC canon (quoted above), this would only apply in areas of doctrine.
That being said, Henrician doctrine is very close to the Elizabethan, and where the two diverge (over sacrament, since Henry was reluctant to reform the Mass), the Henrician is at least implicit in its relationship to 39 Articles, etc..
Nonetheless, it vain to justify the Reformed Anglican thought by ACC canons. Andrew Stahl made certain the Settlement was written out of C&C. It was men like Stahl who constitutionally shaped ACC to be a catholic church. Where Anglo-Catholic bishops disagree is the extent the ACC might tolerate a Protestant-Anglican party within. The ACC canons, of course, are silent on this question, so it remains debatable.
The closest thing to an official position regarding protestant churchmanship in the ACC is by resolution, not canons. ACC resolution acknowledges the curious fact, true since her beginnings, that while ACC canonically does not recognize Anglican protestantism, the Settlement is indeed taught and practiced by certain clergy.
Thus, I implore you, Fr. Hart, to access early ACC synod records. At the Indianapolis Synod (2nd synod of ACC), "the delegates also passed a resolution stating that the ACC accepted several historical documents and concordats tha thad been agreed to by the pre-1977 episcopal church" (Bees, p. 142)...
Also, just before Bp. Doren left, in 1980, the ACC college of bishops, reassured central and low churchmen, by saying, "we are thankful for those various modes and traditions, and especially of liturgical expression in worship, which are part of our unique Anglican character and heritage. And, lest anyone be concerned, we are all of one mind on this matter, and absolutely determined that none shall be put to the test in this regard"
I don't have a way to find these resolutions. But I believe they are the closest documents you have to give a basis for Settlement. They also prove the de-facto situation the ACC finds herself in, which is a broadness with respect to more 'protestant' views of Anglicanism. It would be great if these resolutions were made available for Continuum readers!
I for one am glad that I have never subscribed to the 39 articles (one has never had to subscribe to them in the American Church to be ordained, and one did not in the ACC either... at least not a few years ago.) As far as I am concerned these need to be relegated to the Ashbin on History. The real Anglo-Catholics are moving on with the Apostolic Constitution, Anglican Evangelicals are going their own way with ACNA and the like and the ACC is in dotage. 30 years from now the ACC will be like the Old Catholics, perhaps an isolated flourishing parish but for the most non existent.
ReplyDeleteFr. Hart said,
ReplyDelete"Someone said this makes the Articles and other Formularies subordinate to the Affirmation. Not so. It makes the Affirmation and every Anglican statement subordinate to the ancient Church of the Oecumenical Councils and Scripture. "
Dear Fr. Hart,
No. More precisely, it makes the Articles subordinate to seven sacraments as "objective" and "effective" signs that convey grace. It also positively affirms the seventh council on icons.
When the Affirmation calls each of the seven sacraments "effective" and "objective", this opens a can of worms. Efficacy and objectivity are theologically compact and loaded terms. Applying them to all seven sacraments is unprecedented to reformed Anglicanism and highly questionable. The language, to say the least, was unnecessary.
This is an example of what I meant by "superiority" of Articles. The Affirmation, in contrast, introduces sloppy and unnecessary language, giving opportunity to late antique if not medieval innovations, which endanger the bracketing of Tradition by scripture. Those who wish to take it, may use the Affirmation as a lever to "divinize" Tradition independently of scripture, and this is what one faction of ACC bishops desired to do until the formed HCC-AR.
Perhaps this can be dismissed as merely 'academic', but theology has impact upon how we worship and catechize. Using the loaded terms "effective" and "objective" does not make us more 'Orthodox'. They are unnecessary terms which take us one step away further from the reformation of the Settlement-- hence our own lack of self-confidence.
Dear Fr. Hart,
ReplyDeleteYou asked, "would you say that the Gregorian Canon somehow denies Justification?"
What I mean by this is the Mass following the 'institution' as Christ established, i.e., "Take, eat". Also, the eucharist prayer being one that 'feeds', interceding upon the faith and communion of the people, not exclusively the consecrated bread's sacrifice or 'change'.
The 'justification' controversy, more broadly speaking, clarified how Christ forgives sin. In the context of the Reformation, did pilgrimages, rosaries, papal indulgences, tonsures, etc. remove sin or justify? Instead, Reformers said sin was forgiven by what Christ instituted-- the hearing of his Word and participation in his (two) Sacraments. Other 'sacraments' were kept because they were laudable-- necessary for order, antiquity, and edification-- but they did not have the nature or power of Christ's two sacraments. That's what Jewel is saying in the quote used by Newman in Tract 90. It's incredible that Newman brushes over these mentioning by Jewel, but that's because Romanism intentionally collapses the "objectivity" and "efficacy" in Christ's two sacraments with those sacraments belonging to the Church.
The real Anglo-Catholics are moving on with the Apostolic Constitution...
ReplyDeleteIf that is true, then I am not an Anglo-Catholic at all in any way. However, the "Anglo-Catholics" going to Rome have expressed nothing, publicly, but utter ignorance about what the term means.
Nonetheless, I am glad for the anonymous (courage?) comment, because it demonstrates the mind of those on the other side. They have rejected Anglicanism, and still want to be called "Anglo." And, without Anglicanism, to be "Anglo" is really silly outside of England or English heritage. At least be Anglo by something English: Shakespeare, The Avengers, the Beatles-something to make you Roman catholic wannabes "Anglo."
Charles wrote:
ReplyDeleteWhen [Archbishop] Haverland says the Henrician formulas are authoritative while the Elizabethan ones are not, he means just that.
Those are your own words at this point.
The Henrician take priority ...
That is better, more in accord with the actual essay.
Nonetheless, the fact remains that 1967 is the cut off year in canon 2.2, making the earlier dates a beginning. As I have said, that prevents a version of Protestant thinking in which innovations are too easily justified, and was decided in light of the pressing issue: Women's ordination.
Where Anglo-Catholic bishops disagree is the extent the ACC might tolerate a Protestant-Anglican party within.
Too late.
Frankly, if you go up and down the east coast, especially the further you go South, the more "Protestant" the ACC clergy and parishes tend to be. That is, assuming you mean the word "Protestant" in the classic Anglican sense.
Nonetheless, it vain to justify the Reformed Anglican thought by ACC canons. Andrew Stahl made certain the Settlement was written out of C&C...
Then he failed, because the Affirmation of St. Louis makes that goal utterly impossible.
That being said, Henrician doctrine is very close to the Elizabethan, and where the two diverge (over sacrament, since Henry was reluctant to reform the Mass)...
Does not this reasoning overlook the key man who worked to establish and restore sacramental theology and practice? I do mean Abp. Cranmer. See the dates of his Archbishopric.
the Henrician is at least implicit in its relationship to 39 Articles, etc..
The 39 Articles merely revised work that began under Henry VIII. That makes acceptance implicit, not rejection.
Thus, I implore you, Fr. Hart, to access early ACC synod records. At the Indianapolis Synod (2nd synod of ACC), "the delegates also passed a resolution stating that the ACC accepted several historical documents and concordats tha thad been agreed to by the pre-1977 episcopal church" (Bees, p. 142)...
Also, just before Bp. Doren left, in 1980, the ACC college of bishops, reassured central and low churchmen, by saying, "we are thankful for those various modes and traditions, and especially of liturgical expression in worship, which are part of our unique Anglican character and heritage. And, lest anyone be concerned, we are all of one mind on this matter, and absolutely determined that none shall be put to the test in this regard"
Which is why I do not understand your refusal to see the cut off date in 2.2.
No. More precisely, it makes the Articles subordinate to seven sacraments as "objective" and "effective" signs that convey grace. It also positively affirms the seventh council on icons.
ReplyDeleteCharles:
The Articles teach seven sacraments, clearly taught in Article XXV and obvious to all but the most theologically and Biblically illiterate.
Perhaps this can be dismissed as merely 'academic', but theology has impact upon how we worship and catechize. Using the loaded terms "effective" and "objective" does not make us more 'Orthodox'. They are unnecessary terms which take us one step away further from the reformation of the Settlement-- hence our own lack of self-confidence.
I appreciate the diagnosis, and regard the illness as the key weakness in modern Anglo-Catholic psychology. It is why after three decades the Continuing Church has produced more Roman Catholics than it has Continuing Anglicans, having a built-in strategy for self-defeat. However, my arguments and teaching have been set forth to correct the problem by prescribing medicine to be taken internally. I prefer to show why Henrican and Elizabethan, and more largely, classic Anglican and Patristic/Biblical/Ancient/Universal, are in accord on the essentials.
Charles wrote about the Gregorian Canon and the BCP Holy Communion:
ReplyDeleteWhat I mean by this is the Mass following the 'institution' as Christ established, i.e., "Take, eat". Also, the eucharist prayer being one that 'feeds', interceding upon the faith and communion of the people, not exclusively the consecrated bread's sacrifice or 'change'.
This is not, however, a contradiction. It became clear in the 16th century that the Anglican emphasis was needed to correct popular misunderstanding-and, frankly, it still is needed.
Fr. Hart wrote:
ReplyDelete"... elevating the Articles to second in authority only to Scripture, despite the fact that Anglican tradition has never defined them as such."
I think the question of what position in the order of authority to put the Articles can divert away from an important question.
Are the Articles a true (though not complete) profession or confession of Biblical doctrine? Historically it would seem so.
Adherence to the Articles was made a legal requirement by the English Parliament in 1571, printed in the Book of Common Prayer and other Anglican prayer books.
In 1604 clerical subscription become a necessity under Canon law. Here clergy were required to assent to three articles, the first to do with the sovereign, the second with the Prayer Book and Church order, the third with the Thirty-nine articles.
In 1689 the general practice became to use the wording of 1604 together with the words:
I ___ do willingly and from my heart subscribe to the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion of the United Church of England and Ireland, and to the three Articles of the Thirty-Sixth Canon, and to all things therein contained.
Gradually this was weakened over the centuries from "subscribe" to "assent" and so on.
If The Articles are a true confession of Biblical doctrine, then it seems they need to be not minimized but emphasized because where they speak they speak with Scriptural authority, unless one rejects them as such. Some articles are indeed less clear than others to the modern reader, but nonetheless they do stand unique in Anglican Church as the only document approaching a doctrinal confession of faith.
So I, for one, wish that the Articles were employed more often as a dependable Biblical source for teaching the Christian faith.
Hello Fr. Hart,
ReplyDelete"It is why after three decades the Continuing Church has produced more Roman Catholics than it has Continuing Anglicans, having a built-in strategy for self-defeat. However, my arguments and teaching have been set forth to correct the problem by prescribing medicine to be taken internally."
Yes, I believe you are doing a good job at this, and your analysis of ACA concord with Rome is excellent. I just disagree with your interpretation of ACC Canon, and I believe you are more true (constitutionally speaking) to the ACC if you base it on church documents. This is why I mentioned the 1979 ACC resolution which recognized the de facto status of Anglican-Protestant teaching and practice within the (ACC) Old Catholic church.
I believe when speaking of the ACC, you have two 'churches'. First, the one established by old catholic bishops who took opportunity of parishioner dissent back in 1977. Having acquired success, they proceeded to engrave their anti-protestant brand of churchmanship into the ACC's C&C, etc.. They are privileged as a de jure force. Second, there is an ACC which has struggled and existed ever since the founding of the St. Louis Congress which more or less holds to Settlement standards. The later is found on the parish level, mostly low clergy and laity, but unfortunately they have no real episcopal or canonical voice in the church. Yet they have and do remain a de facto power, constraining the ACC's old catholic wing in significant, albeit informal ways.
While I believe, Fr. Hart, you are sincerely with the Reformer camp, I think you also work to reconcile the two, which is probably for the best, "a house divided soon falls". Nonetheless, I think it's also important to be fair and straight forward with the canons, and so recommend justifying the Anglican Protestant polemic upon early ACC resolutions rather than what I believe is a questionable bending C&C.
As one who believes the Articles to be important, I don't think that I can quite go so far as Jack Miller in suggestion that they are "true (though not complete) profession or confession of Biblical doctrine?" in that they have never been required of the laity at any time. Logically and historically it would seem that they were intended to hedge the Church against the excesses of certain continental thought of the sort that believed that any retentions of the faith and practice of the pre-reformation church bordered on papalism. They were not originally popular with folks of that sort as we should know from the little blow-up in Whitgift's time and the drawing up of the Westminster Confession which the Church rejected.
ReplyDeletePersonally I think them best left in the hands of competent professionals such as Fathers Hart and Wells as changes in our understanding of English and failure to keep up our Latin seem to have made them very dangerous in the hands of amateurs. The fact of their misuse by modern low churchmen which has made them repugnant to those who believe themselves much more Catholic than the rest of us should make all of us grateful for the work of Browne and Bicknell, both solid high churchmen. We need to face that they look easy but are actually dependent upon a tight understanding of key theological terms with the result that those with inadequate backgound and theological reading are apt to find themselves burned.
One of the problems for moderns, all of us included, is that the very grace and learning of the Anglican greats as well as their ability to define the limits with a perilous simplicity is that we frequently forget the depth and wideness of their learning including their mastery of languages which too many simply no longer have. Nor, given the too many constraints on our time, are we likely to make up.
Canon Tallis wrote:
ReplyDelete"... I don't think that I can quite go so far as Jack Miller in suggestion that they are "true (though not complete) profession or confession of Biblical doctrine?" in that they have never been required of the laity at any time."
By 'true' I simply mean 'reliable or 'trustworthy'. Only Scripture is truly true. And I don't think any confessional subscription (be it reformed or Lutheran) has ever been required of laity, rather only of ordained clergy to ensure Biblical preaching, teaching, administration of the sacraments, and discipline that is consistent with the respective churches. So I don't see this as as a negative.
And the Articles were intended for more than a hedge. As I wrote, they were intended and implemented as a clergy subscribed confession along with other documents.
"Personally I think them best left in the hands of competent professionals such as..."
Would you recommend the same for Scripture? I see no unique problem with The Articles being a source of learning and understanding of the faith for anyone. As has been stated by many in the past and present, Scripture should be read and interpreted in the Church. Nowhere is there a place for anyone to go off and find his own doctrines.
As one reformer put it, "Individual interpretation of the Bible allows each man to carve his own path to hell." I would say the same applies to the Articles.
respectfully,
Jack
Charles,
ReplyDeleteYou said: "When the Affirmation calls each of the seven sacraments "effective" and "objective", this opens a can of worms. Efficacy and objectivity are theologically compact and loaded terms. Applying them to all seven sacraments is unprecedented to reformed Anglicanism and highly questionable. The language, to say the least, was unnecessary."
I admit to being mystified as to what you object to here. Do you really want to say that the 5 "other" sacraments are not objective or effective, or only sometimes so? The Catholic tradition already has well established principles acknowledging that certain deficiencies can render a purported sacrament invalid or ineffective, but you seem to want to go beyond this.
Are you claiming that we have no guarantee that Ordination really happens (even assuming the right disposition in the recipient), so that we have no objective reason to say ordination was effective? Do you want to edit the Ordinal and the words of our Lord to say "whose sins thou dost forgive, they are quite possibly forgiven, but don't consider your absolution objective or definitely effective, that would be going too far"?
Although the Eucharist, Orders, Penance, and all the 7 sacraments require the proper dispositions in the sacramental recipient, assuming the sacrament is valid in all other ways, grace is objectively offered and intrinsically effectual. This is the Catholic faith. To deny this is to bring uncertainty precisely where it cannot exist. The Church's members need to know that their priests are real priests, their absolutions are real absolutions, that Confirmation and Unction are effectual in objectively offering the grace of the Holy Spirit, so that the right subjective dispositions allow us to receive these great blessings, which genuinely associated with the Apostolic actions by the word of God, but do not create them.
What would you prefer in place of this certainty?
Charles,
ReplyDeleteYou also said: "The Affirmation, in contrast, introduces sloppy and unnecessary language, giving opportunity to late antique if not medieval innovations, which endanger the bracketing of Tradition by scripture. Those who wish to take it, may use the Affirmation as a lever to "divinize" Tradition independently of scripture".
There is no question of divinising anything. Even Scripture is divinely inspired, rather than divine. There are traditions and there is Tradition. The former can and must be "bracketed" or subject to criticism and revision by Scripture. But Tradition means the consentient teaching of the Church as a whole through the ages, the Church's interpretation of Scripture. To say this can be "bracketed" by Scripture is to reserve the right to interpret Scripture contrary to this consensus, which is the ordinary Catholic definition of heresy.
Either the visible Catholic Church has enjoyed the benefit of the promises of Scripture, including those of our Lord, that it would never fail to be fundamentally guided into the Truth and protected from the deceptions of Hell, thus remaining perpetually the pillar and ground of the truth by its very graced nature, or it has not. If it has not, then you are certainly free and indeed obliged to reject Catholicism, Anglican or otherwise. But be very clear as to how much you are jettisoning, and do not allow yourself to consider this position consistent with classic Anglican theology, which does not allow for individuals or even local churches to defect from the Catholic consensus in understanding the Scripture and the Faith it reveals. Firm statements to this effect can be found even among the Anglican Reformers, Henrician or Elizabethan, and this position was expressed even more clearly and authoritatively by the Caroline Divines and the revisers of the 1662 BCP, including in the Preface they wrote. Therein we find that rejection of whatever is inconsistent with the "established Doctrine" of the "whole Catholic Church" is considered right and necessary.
The ACC has made this commitment to Scripture as understood by the Tradition quite explicit in the Affirmation of St Louis and its Constitution and Canons. Those who wish to reject parts of Holy Tradition in the name of Scripture are free to start their own church or join one that already meets their individual doctrinal approval. But they do not, I contend, have the right to do this and claim to be properly (much less more truly) Anglican Catholic. It just would not make sense.
However, I appeal to you to consider the Scriptural teaching on the Church as well as the patristic teaching, and ask yourself whether, based on these, the whole Church could really become heretical (or be genuinely reduced to an almost invisible remnant for long ages) at any point. If you consider the evidence fairly, I believe you will agree this cannot happen. Therefore, if we find that certain doctrines were virtually universally and explicitly taught for centuries, including the teaching of the 7th Ecumenical Council and the belief in the objective efficacy of all 7 sacraments, we are obliged to submit with docility to the Church. May God grant us all the grace to do so in humble trust.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteJack Miller is, I think, incorrect in believing that "any confessional subscription (be it reformed or Lutheran) has ever been required of laity, rather only of ordained clergy to ensure Biblical preaching, teaching, administration of the sacraments, and discipline that is consistent with the respective churches." If he would check the office of baptism as it has been known since the beginning, he would find that subscription to the articles of what amounts to the Apostles' Creed are and have been required of all. The Nicene Creed has its place in Eucharist as a confession by all and not merely the clergy.
ReplyDeleteIn fact, we we follow the admonitions and practice of the Church which clearly gives Scripture priority of place as in the collect for the Second Sunday in Advent, we as churchmen are intended to "hear them, read, mark, learn and inwardly digest," and that primarily in the ordered worship of the Church. It is in that same ordered worship that we meet and recite the Creeds which are a positive affirmation of the faith. But there is no place in the Church's ordinary life in which the laity were intended by the English Church and the historic prayer books with their services in a language understood of the people do we find a place for the Articles. The laity have never been publicly or privately, so far as I know, asked to assent to them. It would be wonderful if they had a better and more excellent understanding of same in their historic context, but is it not strange that the very folk who seeming place such high importance upon them, can rarely as clergy understand the clear directions of the Book of Common Prayer to the point of giving it an active obedience in their ministry?
Jack, I would ask if you say the office morning and evening and do you attend Holy Communion on every Sunday or Holy Day for which the prayer book provides propers or which by rubric it indicates that such a celebration is appropriate? I realize that may not be possible in the course of your daily work, but you not think that the Church's ordered worship rather more important than this fuss about the Articles. It is clear to me that those who drafted and imposed the Articles on the clergy clearly so believed and expressed it in the Articles as well as in the prayer book.
CT wrote:
ReplyDeleteJack Miller is, I think, incorrect in believing that "any confessional subscription (be it reformed or Lutheran) has ever been required of laity, rather only of ordained clergy to ensure Biblical preaching, teaching, administration of the sacraments, and discipline that is consistent with the respective churches." If he would check the office of baptism as it has been known since the beginning, he would find that subscription to the articles of what amounts to the Apostles' Creed are and have been required of all. The Nicene Creed has its place in Eucharist as a confession by all and not merely the clergy.
I think we are talking about two different things. When speaking of subscription of a confession I am referring to the practice of requiring the subscription to a confession like the Westminster, the Belgic, the Heidelberg. These are confessions of faith that are comprehensive and have only been required of clergy. The Articles are a similar, though less comprehensive, confession that was required in the Church of England only by clergy. Certainly laity are expected to confess and believe the Apostles Creed. As to confessing the Nicene Creed in the Eucharist service, this too is expected to be done as well as believed but it is not a rite of subscription. Nor are the Nicene Creed and Apostles Creed comprehensive confessions of doctrinal faith (they do not speak to justification, sanctification, nor explain baptism, the Lord's Supper, etc.
But there is no place in the Church's ordinary life in which the laity were intended by the English Church and the historic prayer books with their services in a language understood of the people do we find a place for the Articles. The laity have never been publicly or privately, so far as I know, asked to assent to them.
Exactly! That was my point. Laity has never been required to subscribe to confessions... only clergy have been required, in order to guide and ensure Biblical teaching by the clergy in order to ensure that the church receives and digests true doctrine... i.e what is Scriptural. But that doesn't mean laity cannot nor should not benefit from the study of those Articles.
... but you not think that the Church's ordered worship rather more important than this fuss about the Articles.
Fuss?
To answer, No. They go together. The ordered worship is just that, an ordered worship into which the doctrines of our faith are interwoven through and through. But that ordered worship serves a different purpose than the Articles and therefore it is not an either/or, nor one more than important than the other. The Articles explicitly address the substance of the doctrines of our faith. The orders of worship direct us into a right worship that is based on that confession (which is based on Scripture) as well as Scripture, the other creeds, councils, teachings of the catholic faith. They all derive their authority from the special revelation of Scripture through the Church.
And CT...
ReplyDeleteAs to the daily routine of the Morning/Evening and Sabbath/Holy Days Communion... I find that question a red herring, and suggestive of the idea that if I am lacking in some area of practice that that undermines my argument. I hope none of us will be judged on that basis. As you yourself qualify, one's daily schedule (let alone personal failures) may not allow for all practices. But since you asked I will answer. My wife and I regularly, on a daily basis, read Scripture according to the Lexicon. We pray in either the Morning Family Prayer or the Morning Prayer and sometimes Evening... or variations thereof. We worship every Sunday at our church receiving the Eucharist, as well as on any Holy Days that our little church hold services... and I can't believe I'm explaining all this...
As regards "all this fuss"... The fuss, if that is what you want to call it, is about the often abysmal quality of Biblical preaching and teaching in Anglican churches which should be drawing out and reinforcing the incredible richness of our faith as expressed in the BCP orders of worship. I don't think the Articles are the end all, nor a comprehensive expression of the true and catholic faith. Yet it is a Scriptural confession of the many doctrines of the Christian faith that was given to the Anglican Church by the 16th century English reformers for the edification and guidance of the clergy and thus the church. Why ignore them? We say they are important, yet how is that so in practice? Or are they important only as a piece of Anglican history?
again - submitted with respect,
Jack
Over at Prydain blog,
ReplyDeletehttp://tinyurl.com/y3xf6vv
Will has a lengthy quote from Dean Henry Wace (1836-1924) who was Dean of Canterbury Cathedral that I says so much better that which I have been trying to say.
A snippet:
As the Augsburg Confession is the authoritative declaration of the teaching of the Lutheran Church; as the Westminster Confession is that of the Scottish Church; as the decrees and canons of the Council of Trent, supplemented by those of the Vatican Council, are the authorized and characteristic declaration of the teaching of the Roman Church, so the Thirty-nine Articles are the authoritative and characteristic declaration of the teaching of the Church of England...
This is historically verifiable, even if no longer held to be so in many of the various Anglican churches; especially in the United States, as subscription to the Articles by clergy was never required, as far as I know.
Thanks for bearing with me on these many posts.
Jack
Dear Jack and Canon Tallis,
ReplyDeleteAs far as I know, until 1958, PEC required clerical assent to both Articles and Prayer Book. Laity has never been asked to give an 'assent'. However, in England the 1604 canons (canon 5) forbid lay people to publicly teach against the Articles. That said, I know no confessional church from the Reformation-- neither Calvinist nor Lutheran-- which required subscription of lay people. Subscription was typically for the clergy and university officials.
However, I did not know ex animo was different from "assent". Both Roman Catholics and Puritans disliked the ex animo enforced by both Bancroft and Laud. Laud was perjoratively called a "discplinarian" for his rigorous enforcement of canons (following the neglect of AB Abbot), and for this Laud lost his life. How much has changed, and when will Anglicans realize "Anglicanism" is not a half-way mixture of Romanism plus Puritanism, but is the best expression of the catholic faith.
I personally believe we need more saints like Laud in the Church, but today Anglicans fiercely guard their alleged autonomy, and when looking back over the last 150 years, one might indeed wonder the difference between advance-ritualists and black-gown preachers when it pertains to historic Anglican standards?
Dear Fr. Kirby,
ReplyDeleteYou give a strong defense of the seven sacraments. But even Bicknell says these 'seven' resulted more from a magic number than systematic thought. Gibson also says the number and opinion varied over time, 'seven' being in accord with the medieval/Thomist mind.
The further definition by Reformers was necessary to narrow and distinguish between those ordinances established by Christ vs. those belonging to the Church (even for those rites of apostolic pedigree). When Article 25 says "those five commonly called sacraments...yet have not like nature of the Sacraments with Baptism, and the Lord's Supper", this partly alludes to the distinction later made or evidenced by Jewel, namely how sin is remitted. This is what's meant by "nature" since Christ instituted two visible signs for the inward remission of sin. Sometimes reformers named 'three' sacraments, and this was because Penance, although it shared a nature with the greater sacraments, lacked the outward sign. However, does confirmation, marriage, or ordination specifically remit sin? Again, they do not share the nature of the great sacraments, as the Jewel's homily and Article 35 expounds.
While the sacramentarian controversies surely burnt themselves out within Protestantism (they are likely today a passing interest), the nature of sacraments ought to possess a certain importance for high churchmen. The terms "objective" and "efficacious" have special theological meanings, especially in relation to old debates, typically pertaining to the real presence of Christ and role of faith within the sacrament. The Affirmation provocatively says, "objective and effective signs of the continued presence and saving activity of Christ"!?!
Not unlike the East, the RCC, purposely flattens distinctions between 'sacraments', in kind of a 'pantheistic' way, where Church rites are elevated to Gospel Sacraments, thus, demonstrating how Rome and the East 'divinize' Tradition, erecting it equal and at times independent of Scripture. This is not Anglican, primitive, or biblical.
So, when Anglo-Catholics place the Affirmation before Articles, they provide opportunity to illicitly indulge foreign teachings, undermining the very claims Jewel and Hooker made against Rome regarding necessary doctrine. Instead, our arguments boil down to 'jurisdiction' and 'aesthetic', and, in my opinion, these are not only weaker, subjective apologies, but they represent a watering down of classical, historic, and reformed Anglican thought.
cont'd
Dear Fr. Kirby, cont'd
ReplyDeleteUnlike Rome or the East, Anglicanism once eloquently explained the remission of sin, both biblically and primitively, and this is why Hooker and Jewel said without hesitation the doctrine of the CofE was safest, surest, and best amongst all catholic and apostolic churches. This certainly was true! But today Rome and the East continue to purposefully confuse these rites through their carnal ecumenical exchanges because they have committed themselves to many 'corrupt followings'-- namely, meritorious and idolatrous views of salvation-- whereas Anglicans discriminate between ceremonies as well as preventing grace. Thus, the nature, quality, and number of sacraments are indeed important because men are justified by the institution of Christ not the myriad ceremonials/sacramentals of religion-- however laudable Paschal Candles, baptismal salts, marriage rings, anointing (confirmation) oils, and palm leaves might be.
That said, these symbols are not 'unimportant'. According to Article 34 they do not belong to private judgement but are kept or suspended by judgement of the church the sake of order, edification, wholesomeness, and other such beneficial and good precepts. Even Henrician formulas says this, and in no ways is this a licence to puritanism.
The Affirmation, in my opinion, trades what is clear and necessary for what is ambiguous and questionable. If the language of Article 25 were repeated within, the opportunity for some (already demonstrated) Anglo-Catholics to transform Episcopalianism into an English Romanism would have been more than frustrated. The language of "objective" and "effective" is very open-ended and unnecessary. It does not clarify necessary doctrine (either merit or presence), but further distances churchmen from what was laid before by the Articles, already plain and wonderful in their 39 points. It's just sloppy, and I suspect written in astonishing ignorance or incredible duplicity.
Dear Fr. Kirby,
ReplyDeleteI'd like to retract my last couple sentences. I am still hopeful the Affirmation might be understood in light of the articles.
What keeps getting me is the language regarding all seven sacraments which not only say "objective" and "effective" but, sure "signs of the continued presence and saving activity of Christ". This particular phrase along with the sacraments being his 'covenanted means' seem to impinge upon the majesty of the two. I can't help but read it that way, and believe it a unnecessary concession to Anglo-Papism. Rome and the East both teach a promiscuous realism, where the presence may descend upon any inanimate object, making 'everything a sacrement', even nature. So, I have to wonder is his presence found in the marriage ring (or habit robe, annointing oil, salt, or candle) just as it is His Bread? Can the church change the substance of any object it prays for thus making it a 'sacrament', or must the institution of Christ be first declared and limited to what Christ ordained (the Word making the sacrament)? With respect to 'saving activity', there is no effort to distinguish the nature of such, making justification distinct from sanctification as the articles do, leaving us with sacraments that are either instruments of 1) remitting sin, or 2) increasing/stoking faith.
I believe the trading of the more precise for ambiguous in this case clarifies little, and when I re-read this portion of the Affirmation, it really endangers what the Settlement considered 'necessary doctrine' (why we left Rome-- not merely jurisdiction, ancient rights, or language, but the doctrine of salvation).
I understand the words "objective" and "efficacious" in classic Anglican terms, consistent with the Articles and the Homilies. Again, this calls for what has come to called via media thinking. These words can make the sacraments appear to work like magic, but the opposite error turns them into mere symbols. The correct way to proceed is to remember that the Church of the Apostles is charismatic and that its sacraments are mysterious.
ReplyDeleteYes, Fr. Hart, I think there is something certainly efficacious to prayer and blessing, so why not these ancient rites? I like how you identify some ceremony as continuations from the OT. Christ himself carried some OT rites forward as did the apostles and early church.
ReplyDeletejack,
ReplyDeleteI hope that you understand the "confessions" of the Continental reformers were an entirely new thing with no precedent in historical Christianity, in the Catholic past. So in part the Articles were a response to same and, as I said before, a hedge against both their ideas and the teachings of popular Romanism. Historically they have both positives and negatives, but one thing should strike all of us - they have not given the Church doctrinal peace.
Part of that may just be the result of the other historical pressures upon the English and later the Anglican Communion and its clergy. Now, I don't know about any other of the clergy, but I think that the most of us would much prefer to preach the whole of Holy Scripture as we find it interpreted (according to the positive directions of the canon of 1571) as interpreted by the ancient bishops and Catholic fathers. In short, I want to get behind the problems of the 16th century and go where they wanted to go and do what they wanted to do. And if I do it properly i will have addressed all the issues of the Articles without setting things up for an internecine fight.
Frankly, I am sorry to have elicited such a detailed answer about your own spiritual practice but am very heartened by what you have written. I know how hard it is because I have been doing it since my teens and took a fair amount of friendly abuse in my military days from the Bible and prayer book in my flight bag. But I had had a spiritual director from my seventeenth year when Sister Penelope decided that she had clear reason to boss me about.
And of course you are correct that the laity can learn from the Articles, but it helps to have someone of the quality of Fathers Hart, Kirby and Wells to guide you in that learning. But my real question is: do you want to grow spiritually or intellectually? Or both? If spiritually, then regard the "Book of Common Prayer" as a regula, an equivalent of that of St Augustine or of St Benedict and seek a director who can guide your reading in the Fathers, the Creeds and the Councils.
The intent of the Church as expressed in Holy Scripture (Acts 2:42) is that we continue "stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship and in the breaking of bread and prayers." The Apostles doctrine as Father Hart has pointed out again and again is to be found (according to the Church) in Holy Scripture; their fellowship in the keeping the order of the Church as Jesus left it to the apostles including the celebration of Holy Communion and the office before the development of monasticism.
I do not know your background or how you came to Anglicanism, how old you are or how long you participated in the worship of the Church, but I get an idea, possibly quite false, that intellectual activity is more important to you than worship, than knowing Jesus "in the breaking of bread." I really hope I am mistaken because it is clear that you are very bright and the Church, i.e., Christ in His mystical body, can make much use of that if you will offer it to Him.
Besides, I like your spirit.
Canon Tallis writes about Jack,
ReplyDelete"...but I get an idea, possibly quite false, that intellectual activity is more important to you than worship, than knowing Jesus 'in the breaking of bread.'"
This is the second time this "red herring" has been raised in this conversation. While I have the highest regard for you, Canon Tallis, you are wrong to even suggest this about someone you have never met and who has been nothing but respectful of all in this conversation. In my opinion you do owe him an apology.
CT wrote:
ReplyDeletethe "confessions" of the Continental reformers were an entirely new thing with no precedent in historical Christianity
I would again respectfully disagree. The Creeds are confessions. The Church put them forth as authoritative confessions in order to correct heresy and clarify what is true, according to Scripture, concerning the Trinitarian God and His redemptive purpose and actions in and through Christ and His church. Due to the errors of the medieval church The Reformers, continental and English, followed in that tradition of those earlier councils in order to correct heresy and clarify the true faith.
... they have not given the Church doctrinal peace.
The same could be said for the Bible being translated into the common tongue. The Articles/Confessions (as well as Trent) were not intended to bring peace but to be authoritative confessions based on Scripture of the respective churches.
You wrote concerning preaching...
And if I do it properly I will have addressed all the issues of the Articles without setting things up for an internecine fight.
What is it about the Articles that sets "things up for a internecine fight" if they are Biblical? They are in the BCP, ostensibly as true sentences or articles of the Christian faith according to the Anglican Church. As I said earlier, they are not self-sufficient nor self-authoritative. Our final authority is Holy Scripture upon which all true preaching must by based.
And of course you are correct that the laity can learn from the Articles, but it helps to have someone of the quality of Fathers Hart, Kirby and Wells to guide you in that learning.
My point exactly from an earlier post.
The Apostles doctrine as Father Hart has pointed out again and again is to be found (according to the Church) in Holy Scripture
"according to the Church"... And one of the ways Fr. Hart (and we who receive his teaching) tests his preaching is by use of those writings, creeds, confessions, etc. of the Church, of which the Articles are one.
But my real question is: do you want to grow spiritually or intellectually? Or both?
Why would you suppose an answer to that question that is any other than how you would answer?
My concern in this entire discussion is with doctrinal shallowness in much of Anglicanism. To avoid the controversies that true doctrine provokes is not good for the church. In fact, doctrinal shallowness is worse that heresy. At least heretics take doctrine seriously enough to distort it. And when heresy raises its ugly head it causes the Church to think through doctrine more deeply, what is true and why. Doctrinal shallowness, on the other hand, is a cancer that is ultimately deadly to the faith. And is at the center of the confusion that leads too many Anglicans to embrace Roman Catholicism and others to bend to the liberal winds of this age.