Showing posts with label BCP. Show all posts
Showing posts with label BCP. Show all posts

Tuesday, February 19, 2013

Sydney Anglicans and Other Oxymorons

A Facebook friend named Mark Talley wrote something in a group called "The Society of Archbishops Cranmer and Laud" (which also happens to be the title of another blog I've posted on). He said there:

"When I asked the present Anglican Archbishop of Sydney, when he was Principal of Moore College, why the College no longer used the Book of Common Prayer in worship (although it was studied as an historical document then - I'm not sure if it even has that precarious status now), he replied that there was no longer a place for the Prayer Book in living worship.

"Furthermore, he said, it would be an obstacle to the preaching of the Gospel, rather than an aid."

That sounds like Archbishop Peter Frederick Jensen. He is the one who allows lay members to celebrate the Eucharist as if they were ordained to the priesthood. I have written about that before, as readers of The Continuum may recall. 

How does anyone recognize Anglicanism without the Book of Common Prayer? "Sydney Anglicanism" is an oxymoron. You know what an oxymoron is: Jumbo Shrimp, for example, is an oxymoron. A famous oxymoron is Grape Nuts. Actually, it is more than an Oxymoron, because it is not just a case of a second word standing in opposition to a first word. In truth, it is a double misnomer. Grape Nuts is a cereal that is neither grapes nor nuts. It has been used to explain "Christian Science," a cult with beliefs that make it neither Christian nor science. 

Sydney Anglicanism, however, is merely an oxymoron. The Sydney part is accurate. They really are in that part of Australia. But, they are not Anglicans in any recognizable way. 

To reject the Book of Common Prayer as having no place in "living worship" is to suggest that our worship is dead. We do not say that the Book of Common Prayer is essential to living worship, because Christians worship God with other forms of liturgy. But we do know that anyone who cannot worship the Father in spirit and in truth (John 4:23) using the Book of Common Prayer, simply has no understanding of what worshiping God is. Anyone who considers the Book of Common Prayer to be "an obstacle to the preaching of the Gospel, rather than an aid," simply has no knowledge of what the Gospel is.

Worshiping God in spirit and in truth is best accomplished with the truth revealed in the Bible. It has been said rightly, that the classical editions of the Book of Common Prayer are the Bible as prayer. Indeed, in the genuine Prayer Book tradition, everything is drawn out of Scripture. If the truth revealed in Scripture seems dead, it is because people have itching ears rather than ears to hear (II Tim. 4:3, Mat. 11:15, etc.). 

The Gospel is preached by words that proclaim its content. The liturgy of Holy Communion, in every classical and genuine edition of the Book of Common Prayer, cannot be celebrated without the preaching of the Gospel taking place during the very act of prayer and worship. It is rehearsed fully each and every time. For this reason, I caution against distractions during the celebration, and against long delays and silence. It must flow in order to be the people's sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving, and so that each mind absorbs the full truth of the Gospel.

Spontaneous prayers have their place. But those who would cast off so fine a liturgy have nothing worthwhile to say about living worship or the preaching of the Gospel, except to itching ears. 

Wednesday, May 25, 2011

Lex Credendi

It is a favorite expression of many, Lex Orandi Lex Credendi. Literally, it translates "The law of prayer is the law of belief." It means, in practical terms, that as people pray, so they believe. At its best it supports the idea that the Book of Common Prayer is a Formulary, and that by liturgical prayer the Church passes on its teaching through practice. This is why our service of Holy Communion is one of the best evangelistic and catechetical tools we have. It teaches the whole Gospel every time it is celebrated. Every part of it, the Creed, the Canon of Consecration, etc., is at one time prayer, worship, evangelism and catechesis. The offices of Daily Morning and Evening Prayer also instruct as they are practiced.

Nonetheless, it is not wise for clergy to depend so heavily on this concept that they fail to teach diligently. The Canon Law of the ACC requires, in full consistency with the practice of the Church from earliest times, that at the very least every Sunday the priest shall preach, or cause to be preached, a sermon in the church. This is the minimum standard for carrying out his work as a minister of God's word, not the maximum. A sermon is not a seven minute homily carried out as a necessary evil; it is the preaching of God's word with preparation and prayer, carried out with diligence, produced by true work of the most responsible kind. Yes, the truth is well expressed in the liturgy, but somehow the human mind cannot comprehend it without teaching and preaching. 

Repetition has both an advantage and a disadvantage. The advantage is that it enters the long term memory and stays there. Every priest who visits the elderly in nursing homes to bring Communion to them, when dealing with those who are barely able to speak and whose eyes can no longer read, sees that people raised on the Book of Common Prayer are joining in, praying from memory, moving their lips. It works. 

But, the disadvantage is that people who recite the words can shut out the meaning. One elderly woman, greeting a rector after a service in the Episcopal Church in 1980, unhappy with their 1979 book, complained: "If Jesus could hear that new book, he would roll over in his grave." She had said the words, "On the third day he rose again" thousands of times; but, somehow, she had ceased to hear those words. Lex Orandi is not enough, by itself, to produce Lex Credendi; the teaching and preaching ministry remains a chief responsibility of all priests.

Finally, at its worst, Lex Orandi Lex Credendi can be misused in theological debate. Individuals may insist that they can raise pious opinion to the level of dogma, or perhaps even argue erroneous opinion, by treating all approved or allowed prayers as if they were equal to the Canon of Scripture; though the latter may involve twisting the meaning of prayers or failing to think them through. This approach does not work, however, on orthodox theologians. 

For me, the slogan is more accurate if we reverse it: Lex Credendi Lex Orandi: As I believe, so I pray. After years of reading and studying the word of God, by which I mean the holy Scriptures, I am able to pray only according to my convictions. Eventually, for every student of theology, this must become the case. And, this too is a strength of our Book of Common Prayer tradition. Those who really know the Scriptures have no qualms about saying "amen" to the prayers in that book. C.S. Lewis pointed out that this is an advantage to having a proper liturgy instead of public prayers composed by a minister or improvised: No one fears to say "amen." Our Book of Common Prayer is so good and sound, that the more we know the Bible the more easily and readily we use our liturgy, and the more readily we say "amen" to it.

Monday, March 15, 2010

Embers or Ashes



And there’s nothing cold as ashes, after the fire is gone.
-Conway Twitty and Miss Loretta Lynn

We should worry when suddenly something becomes “optional.” For example, when a favorite café or restaurant announces a “neckties optional” policy for gentlemen, you can bet your last breadstick that the polo shirt or, worse still, the t-shirt emblazoned with some too-clever slogan shortly will be the norm. Whether we care to call it entropy or dumbing-down, the result is the same: things sink to the least common denominator. Ultimately, that which makes a place special disappears and the dining adventure grows as cold and sterile as any chain eatery out by the interstate.

I become even more concerned when the “optional” is introduced into the Church such as, for example, when Ember Days were made optional by churches of the Anglican Communion in 1976. Their non-observance, particularly in that they are days of fasting and discipline to sanctify the season, was virtually guaranteed, and, in many quarters they are as dead as Morley’s ghost and colder than the embers burned to ash in the fire grate at chez Scrooge.

That is why I have come to look somewhat askance at wistful journals such as Anglican Embers which is billed as “the Quarterly Journal of the Anglican Use Society published at or near the four embertides of the Church Year.” The motto of the publication is “Keeping the embers of Anglicanism alive in the [Roman] Catholic Church.” That would be the same Roman Catholic Church which has the Anglican Use as an “option” for former Anglicans and has announced that it will expand that “option” to those newly bound across the Tiber to Rome on that most recent lifeboat sent from aboard the barque of Peter.

Yes, the big chain out by the mall where simply everyone goes for standard, un-sumptuous fare has opened the Bistro Anglicano right next to any number of franchised joints—perhaps even inside one of the franchises—to offer a quaint, aesthetically delightful “option” for those with a sophisticated, but perhaps untrained palate. More on that “option” in a bit.

Of Embers

Embers are the glowing, hot coals made of greatly heated wood, coal or other carbon-based material that remain after, or sometimes precede a fire. Embers can burn hot-very hot-nearly as hot and sometimes as hot as the fire which created them. They radiate a substantial amount of heat long after the fire has been extinguished, and if not taken care of properly can rekindle a fire believed to be completely extinguished and can pose a fire hazard to anyone who is not careful.

Curiously, there is little or no mention of embers in Scripture, essentially a reference about them in certain translations of Proverbs (26:21) is about it. Coals, which are hot embers, get a bit more play as long as they are live and burning. For example, in the tenth chapter of Ezekiel, coals of fire are symbolic of the fiery trials, distress, tribulation, and purification. Further, when Isaiah was given a vision of the Lord, a hot, burning coal was used to “purify” him. (Is. 6:5-7). Of course, there is the moment amidst Peter’s denials when the servants and officers who had made a fire of coals; “for it was cold: and they warmed themselves: and Peter stood with them, and warmed himself.” (Jn. 18:18).

Ah, but fire? It is the measure of our labor, for “the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is.” (I Cor. 13:3) In fact, at the parousia “the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ.” (II Thess. 1:7-9) Indeed, our God is a consuming fire. (Heb. 12:29) There are pages upon pages of Scripture relating to fire, but none to embers, much less those of an Anglican variety.

To borrow from the American author James Arthur Baldwin (1924-1987), “Fires can't be made with dead embers, nor can enthusiasm be stirred by spiritless men.”

A Burning Historical Question

So what about the Ember Days in the Book of Common Prayer? If embers be a Scriptural non-entity, why commemorate remnants of a burning fire, even if they might be still hot?

The origins of the observance appear open to considerable debate. What is generally agreed upon, however, is that the concept of the observance predates the Christian era, and that since Ember Days have never been observed in the Eastern Churches, the pagan origins seem to lie in the West. Some point to Celtic origins, linked to the custom of observing various festivals at three-month intervals. In pagan Rome, offerings were made to various gods and goddesses of agriculture in the hope that the deities would provide a bountiful harvest (the feriae messis in July), a rich vintage (the feriae vindimiales in September), or a productive seeding (the feriae sementivae in December).

The Christian observation of this seasonal observance of the Ember days had its origin as an ecclesiastical ordinance in Rome and spread from there to the rest of the Western Church. At first the Church in Rome had fasts in June, September, and December. The Liber Pontificalis ascribes to Pope Callixtus I (217-222) a law regulating the fast, although Leo the Great (440-461) considered it an Apostolic institution. When the fourth season was added cannot be ascertained, but the earliest mention of four seasonal fasts seems to lie in the writings of Philastrius, bishop of Brescia (died ca 387)

Pope Gelasius I (492-496) spoke of all four, and they were known as the jejunium vernum, aestivum, autumnale and hiemale, so that to quote Pope Leo (A.D. 440 - 461) the law of abstinence might apply to every season of the year. In Leo’s time, Wednesday, Friday and Saturday were already days of special observance. In order to tie them to the fasts preparatory to the three great festivals of Christmas, Easter and Pentecost, a fourth needed to be added “for the sake of symmetry” as the Encyclopædia Britannica 1911 would have it.

From Rome the Ember days gradually spread unevenly through the whole of Western Christendom. In Gaul they do not seem to have been generally recognized much before the 8th century. Their observation in Britain, however, was embraced earlier than in Gaul or Spain, interestingly, and Christian sources connect the Ember Days observations with Augustine, AD. 597. The precise dates appears to have varied considerably however, and in some cases, quite significantly, the Ember Weeks lost their connection with the Christian festivals altogether. Spain adopted them with the Roman rite in the eleventh century. Charles Borromeo introduced them into Milan as late as the sixteenth century.

Ember days in the Western Church, traditionally the Wednesday, Friday, and Saturday following the first Sunday in Lent; Whitsunday; Sept. 14 (Exaltation of the Cross); and Dec. 13 (St. Lucy's Day). They were days of fasting to sanctify the season, and the ember Saturdays were considered especially appropriate for ordinations. The Ember Weeks—the weeks in which the Ember Days occur—are the week between the third and fourth Sundays of Advent, between the first and second Sundays of Lent, the week between Pentecost and Trinity Sunday, and the week beginning on the Sunday after Holy Cross Day (September 14), the liturgical Third Week of September.

Prior to the reforms instituted by the Second Vatican Council, the Roman Catholic Church mandated fasting (only one full meal per day plus two partial, meatless meals) on all Ember Days (which meant both fasting and abstinence from meat on Ember Fridays), and the faithful were encouraged (though not required) to receive the sacrament of penance whenever possible. But then, on February 17, 1966, Pope Paul VI's decree Paenitemini excluded the now “optional” Ember Days as days of fast and abstinence for Roman Catholics. The revision of the Roman Catholic liturgical calendar in 1969 laid down the following “rules” for Ember Days and Rogation days:

In order to adapt the rogation and ember days to various regions and the different needs of the people, the conferences of bishops should arrange the time and plan of their celebration. Consequently, the competent authority should lay down norms, in view of local conditions, on extending such celebrations over one or several days and on repeating them during the year. On each day of these celebrations the Mass should be one of the votive Masses for various needs and occasions that is best suited to the intentions of the petitioners.
Optional is as optional does and I think we can safely wager that there isn’t a whole lot of unnecessary fasting and abstinence taking place on Ember Days of late, much less a coherent reason even to observe them. They are grown cold, and, for the most part, are relegated to the high heap of liturgical and theological ashes that followed in the wake of the post-Vatican II Roman Catholic Church.

So, why still with the embers?

I do hate to keep injecting the patrimony of the English Church into discussions, but here is some substance we might consider from The Golden Legend or Lives of the Saints. Compiled by Jacobus de Voragine, Archbishop of Genoa, 1275. First Edition Published 1470. Englished by William Caxton, First Edition 1483, Edited by F.S. Ellis, Temple Classics, 1900 (Reprinted 1922, 1931.) Here are at least eight good reasons to keep our Ember Days:

The fasting of the Quatretemps, called in English Ember days, is kept four times in the year, ‘for divers reasons.’ For the first time, which is in March, is hot and moist. The second, in summer, is hot and dry. The third, in harvest, is cold and dry. The fourth in winter is cold and moist. Then let us fast in March which is printemps for to repress the heat of the flesh boiling, and to quench luxury or to temper it. In summer we ought to fast to the end that we chastise the burning and ardour of avarice. In harvest for to repress the drought of pride, and in winter for to chastise the coldness of untruth and of malice.
The second reason why we fast four times; for these fastings here begin in March in the first week of the Lent, to the end that vices wax dry in us, for they may not all be quenched; or because that we cast them away, and the boughs and herbs of virtues may grow in us. And in summer also, in the Whitsun week, for then cometh the Holy Ghost, and therefore we ought to be fervent and esprised in the love of the Holy Ghost. They be fasted also in September tofore Michaelmas, and these be the third fastings, because that in this time the fruits be gathered and we should render to God the fruits of good works. In December they be also, and they be the fourth fastings, and in this time the herbs die, and we ought to be mortified to the world.
The third reason is for to ensue (imitate or follow after) the Jews. For the Jews fasted four times in the year, that is to wit, tofore Easter, tofore Whitsunside, tofore the setting of the tabernacle in the temple in September, and tofore the dedication of the temple in December.
The fourth reason is because the man is composed of four elements touching the body, and of three virtues or powers in his soul: that is to wit, the understanding, the will, and the mind. To this then that this fasting may attemper in us four times in the year, at each time we fast three days, to the end that the number of four may be reported to the body, and the number of three to the soul.
The fifth reason, as saith John Damascene: in March and in printemps the blood groweth and augmenteth, and in summer coler, in September melancholy, and in winter phlegm. Then we fast in March for to attemper and depress the blood of concupiscence disordinate, for sanguine of his nature is full of fleshly concupiscence. In summer we fast because that coler should be lessened and refrained, of which cometh wrath. And then is he full naturally of ire. In harvest we fast for to refrain melancholy. The melancholious man naturally is cold, covetous and heavy. In winter we fast for to daunt and to make feeble the phlegm of lightness and forgetting, for such is he that is phlegmatic.
The sixth reason is for the printemps is likened to the air, the summer to fire,harvest to the earth, and the winter to water. Then we fast in March to the end that the air of pride be attempered to us. In summer the fire of concupiscence and of avarice. In September the earth of coldness and of the darkness of ignorance. In winter the water of lightness and inconstancy.
The seventh reason is because that March is reported to infancy, summer to youth, September to steadfast age and virtuous, and winter to ancienty or old age. We fast then in March that we may be in the infancy of innocency. In summer
for to be young by virtue and constancy. In harvest that we may be ripe by
attemperance. In winter that we may be ancient and old by prudence and honest
life, or at least that we may be satisfied to God of that which in these four seasons we have offended him.
The eighth reason is of Master William of Auxerre. We fast, saith he, in these four times of the year to the end that we make amends for all that we have failed in all these four times, and they be done in three days each time, to the end that we satisfy in one day that which we have failed in a month; and that which is the fourth day, that is Wednesday, is the day in which our Lord was betrayed of Judas; and the Friday because our Lord was crucified; and the Saturday because he lay in the sepulchre, and the apostles were sore of heart and in great sorrow.

These days and their accompanying mini-seasons—Embertides—are among the loveliest of the treasures of the medieval church brought to English-speakers through the Book of Common Prayer. In recent centuries of Anglican history, the Ember days have been especially devoted to prayer for the ministry of the Church, for those about to be ordained. In many places,Ember-weeks are the appointed time for ordinands to write letters to their bishops with summaries of their spiritual and educational growth. "Though we know their name has nothing to do with the glowing bits of wood in a fireplace, at each return of an Embertide we think of the Church as a big, holy hearth that needs just the right aim of a bellows to bring its smoldering spots roaring back to bright glowing life."

Of Embers, Ashes and Options

And, so, embers may work in two directions: they can die out from lack of tending, or they can be fanned so hot as to forge steel. For the latter to happen, they must be fueled and fanned with the fresh air breathed upon them. In the former instance, those charged with the fire watch muse long about the fine fire they once tended, perhaps even waxing poetic about it. They remember the color and the heat and the warmth, but they no longer feed it with the fuel it requires—fuel that is yet available. There may even be some admission as to how hard it is to tend such a fire, although that bit seldom is heard. The requirements of the old fire were difficult, and there is the matter of option.

For another fire seems to burn brightly not too far away. While it uses much of the same fuel, it does not favor the fuel that burned with the intensity and beauty of that old hearth. Nevertheless, it presents an option that requires far less ardor and energy. It is “easy-lite” and affords a measure of comfort. So, those given the task of tending that home fire of happy memory, take the remainder of the fuel in the hope of rekindling it. In the end, the fuel will be used up and “option” will have its way.

For others, there are the same embers of the same Anglican fire. They determine to tend the fire, though there may be some types of fuel that are difficult and expensive to obtain. The tools may be old, but the labor goes on and embers become coals with even fires springing up. The work is hard as there are not thousands of woodcutters to assist although, at times, there
appear to be a plethora of folks who yet try to warm themselves by the fire before they flee, whilst constantly critique the fire-tending! They cannot fathom those who don’t opt for options and fretfully declare coals but ashes despite their obvious glow and warmth. So it has been since the early fathers and martyrs were offered the dying incense embers before the idols of a decaying empire, or Christ Jesus was presented cheap opportunities to bypass the Cross by the ancient adversary

And, what of the bright options generously offered café Anglicans building their theme restaurants...er, communities...in the midst of “the big franchise”? Despite the trappings, they will be part of that big franchise. When the hours of service become inconvenient, the locale of the nearest boutique experience at a distance or the franchise holder puts on a better mealtime show perhaps in Latin with better costume, music and stagecraft, where will patron opt to go? Well, the fact that after more than twenty-five years there remain only ten or so Anglican Use franchisees, the big place out by the mall with its choice of convenient locations and hours,“informal settings” for the folks, and (for the most part) ample free parking seem to have become the preferred option.

Oh, one other thing, when you are a boutique of the major market shareholder, the settings may be familiar, but you have to take everything on the menu. Everything. Some of the familiar time-tested entrees may be gone, but there will be ample additions made up from scratch from time to time by the head chef. One must take these too, with gusto.

It’s not a cafeteria, after all.

Burning Embers

The Collect appointed by the 1928 Book of Common Prayer for the keeping of the Ember Days sums together masterfully the perennial themes of hope for increased vocations, and speak to potential new generations who would dare to tend the flame, themselves burning with the Holy
Spirit:

O ALMIGHTY God, who hast committed to the hands of men the ministry of
reconciliation; We humbly beseech thee, by the inspiration of thy Holy Spirit,
to put it into the hearts of many to offer themselves for this ministry; that
thereby mankind may be drawn to thy blessed kingdom; through Jesus Christ our
Lord. Amen
To sacrifice comfort, buildings, secular career and life may be the cost of tending the real Anglican Embers-those that burn bright no matter how “incomplete” some would view those coals of faith.

Perhaps authenticity distills down to a question of love, of charity. Certainly, there are many who experienced none of that in Communion Anglicanism. All too often, in the Continuum there has been a distinct dearth of charity and a shameless self-promotion that have driven many into
arms that seem to offer safety even where compromise is the price. As we know from the great theologians Conway Twitty and Miss Loretta Lynn:

Love is where you find it,
When you find no love at home
And there’s nothing cold as ashes,
After the fire is gone.

Where we fail to show love, we know that someone will say, “Sweet words of love you remember, That the one at home forgot.” At that point, embers will fade to ashes.

We pray that it may never be so.
(Sources: Various Prayer Book Commentaries and Histories; Britannica (1911); Medieval Sourcebook)

Friday, November 20, 2009

Q & A on Apostolic Succession

I was sent a behind the scenes email with questions about Apostolic Succession. Upon considering my answers, I thought it may be helpful for some if I post here a summary of the questions, and my answers. This may be read in connection with an essay about Apostolic Succession and Scripture posted back on August 8, last year.

Questions

I have read your articles about the apostolic succession, and I think that I have grasped your argument. Paul ordained Timothy and Titus by the laying on of hands, something was transmitted to them by the imposition of hands, and we have no other biblical model for ordination, so we must stick to it. The early church did it this way, and this way the Apostolic Succession (AS) has been transmitted to the present day.

1. The Ordinal makes the Bishop say that the Holy Spirit is transmitted to the priest by the imposition of his hands, and that he thereby receives authority to forgive or retain sins. My difficulty is that I do not see that this necessarily results in the conclusion that AS is in the Book of Common Prayer (BCP).

2.So the Bishop ordains, and in so doing the transmits the Holy Spirit for a particular purpose. How do we conclude that it must always be a bishop in the line of AS? Is it not also reasonable to think that this happens in any ordination, such as the Presbyterians practice? I am thinking of continental Presbyterians like a Laski (?) who came to England with Presbyterian orders and were received into English orders without re-ordination. I have in mind the letters between Cranmer and Calvin, in which the necessity of episcopal ordination for the purpose of transmitting the AS is not mentioned. Surely something so necessary for a valid sacrament, which sacrament is generally necessary for salvation, would be boldly and plainly stated, instead of being inferred? Why is the AS not mentioned in the articles?

Please believe that I am not trying to change your mind, or to have an argument, but to rightly understand this issue.

My Answer

(Before getting into the meat of the answers, let me say this: About Laski: The fact is, if any man who had never been episodically ordained was allowed to minister as if he had been, the bishop who knew this would have been in violation of the Law, and both men in danger of imprisonment. The official records of the Church of England simply do not bear out the Laski story; and, on the other hand, the records of English Law are indisputable. As for Cranmer's letters to Calvin, they were intended for an ecumenical purpose, and the practices of the Church of England were well-known, making any difference fairly obvious and perhaps not worth discussing in that context. One generation later, however, answering domestic matters, Hooker had much to say against "Calvin's Geneva Discipline" when defending the unbroken practice of the English Church.)

It is evident that only disputed matters get enough attention to receive clarification. The answer to why the BCP, including as it does the Articles and Ordinal, does not explicitly speak of Apostolic Succession in the clearest of terms is covered by answering your other question at the same time, namely: "Is it not also reasonable to think that this happens in any ordination, such as the Presbyterians practice?" For, neither the Calvinists nor the Lutherans have ever rejected Apostolic Succession to this day. True many of them do not know this fact; but, it is known to their more astute theologians.

What the Presbyterians and Puritans in England rejected was the episcopate. They believed that the Apostolic Succession was passed on well enough through their presbyters. They would emphasize I Tim. 4:14: "Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery." Our side has always replied that this verse does not stand alone, and must be read along with II Tim. 1:6: "Wherefore I put thee in remembrance that thou stir up the gift of God, which is in thee by the putting on of my hands." So, the Apostolic hands of Paul were essential somehow, since the gift came by his hands. The hands of the presbytery seem not have the same efficacy, as what happened was merely with their laying on of hands, not by it. Therefore, we believe that we must make sure that what is passed on is truly Apostolic and not merely ecclesiastical, and why this requires bishops will be clear in what follows. Moreover, II Tim. 1:6 speaks in expressly charismatic terms, not merely institutional terms; what we see in scriptural references to ordination bears witness to supernatural grace, not merely a formal procedure of licensing ministry.

It is evident from the Epistles to Titus and to Timothy that each of these men was placed in the position of what we call these days the Ordinary-they ordained. They needed to exercise sound judgment concerning who they should ordain, and who not to ordain. Clearly, their authority was greater than that of the Presbytery. It is evident that they were left in Crete and in Ephesus respectively in place of the Apostle himself. Whether or not the word ἐπίσκοπος (episkopos, bishop) was synonymous with the word πρεσβύτερος (presbyteros, elder) in the usage of the Church, at the time of Paul's writing, within one generation the word episkopos (bishop) was set apart to refer only to those men like Titus and Timothy who succeeded the Apostles (most evident in the Epistles of St. Ignatius of Antioch, who knew Paul, Peter and John). And, as noted, this succession, drawing from what we read in scripture is not only authoritative but charismatic. Furthermore, our reading of scripture also happens to coincide with the only practice of the ancient Church for which we have evidence. Non-episcopal ordination simply has no historic witness. The closest we come is mention of laying on of hands with the presbytery in Alexandria; but, on examination it is evident that, there too, this was not without the laying on of a bishop's hands as well.

I hope this answers your questions.

Sincerely,
RH+

Wednesday, August 19, 2009

Religion and Theology

G.K. Chesterton once wrote that theology kept men sane when religion would have driven them mad. All one needs to do, if he would apply Chesterton's observation about Medieval piety to the the modern world, is notice that everything from dubious Marian apparitions to snake-handling "Signs Following" cults in West Virginia, are filled with people who are deeply religious, utterly ignorant of theology, and quite mad. One sees the Blessed Virgin in muffins, and another thinks that when a snake does what snakes do, it is because a man's faith failed. Their exclusively emotional approach makes them Gnostic. What is needed by these Enthusiasts is a good dose of Scripture and the Right Reason of the Church with her authority in matters of polity and the doctrines of Antiquity and Universal Consensus (how is that for a mouthful of St.Vincent and Richard Hooker?). The problem with Enthusiasts is in their head, not their hearts.

Nonetheless, the reverse is equally true. After one labors in the academy or debates in the blogosphere, even when standing for truth, justice and the Vincetian way, and for the very noble effort of preventing the end of civilization as we know it, there must be an entering into His rest. There must be a place as well for the deep feelings of true devotion. When theology would make men Vulcans, religion keeps them human.

Yet, I propose a third alternative that unites head and heart in the truly Anglican way, the tradition of English spirituality, so practically given to us in our Book of Common Prayer. This way is the way of deep feeling and right doctrine combined in the experience of prayer and worship. To love God with your whole heart, soul and mind, is to worship at once as a whole person, one who thinks and feels simultaneously. A choice between theology for the mind and religion for the heart is not really necessary, neither is it a healthy choice, inasmuch as choosing to stifle one for the other is fraught with danger.

Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father. Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews. But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshipers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him. God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth. John 4:21-24

What serves better to this end than our Rule of life?

The experience of Anglican worship and prayer makes use of the mind and moves the emotions in ways that bring both under subjection to the spirit. That is because the Book of Common Prayer is nothing less than the Bible as prayer, expressing the deepest truth revealed in Scripture in a way that teaches and renews the mind, while moving the heart of man ever closer to God in repentance, gratitude, awe and love. That the language itself is sanctified by repeated holy usage, only aids the experience.

O GOD, from whom all holy desires, all good counsels, and all just works do proceed...

More especially we pray for thy holy Church universal; that it may he so guided and governed by thy good Spirit, that all who profess and call themselves Christians may be led into the way of truth, and hold the faith in unity of spirit, in the bond of peace, and in righteousness of life...

We bless thee for our creation, preservation, and all the blessings of this life; but above all, for thine inestimable love in the redemption of the world by our Lord Jesus Christ; for the means of grace, and for the hope of glory. And, we beseech thee, give us that due sense of all thy mercies, that our hearts may he unfeignedly thankful: and that we show forth thy praise, not only with our lips, but in our lives, by giving up our selves to thy service...

Expression of love and of revealed truth pour out together, standing, sitting and kneeling, in a unity of body, soul and spirit. The Psalms are not merely read through in the thirty-day cycle, but prayed through. We join with King David and others in that very first ever Book of Common Prayer for the people of Israel, the Psalter that expresses the full depths of fears and the lofty heights of hope, the humblest and most sincere repentance and the most joyful exclamations of praise. Above all, in the Psalms we experience Christ himself, Son of God and Son of Man. The written words of king and prophets become our own words of prayer and worship; words inspired by the Holy Spirit, words that inspire our spirits to holiness. The Scriptures are read, informing the mind of God's revealed truth in the context of prayer and thanksgiving, where it is most safely and effectively transmitted from heaven into earthen vessels.

And, in the service of Holy Communion, as we prepare to receive the Sacrament of Christ's Body and Blood, the food and drink of eternal life, all the counsel of God is declared to us and by us. The Law is spoken and repentance is the response:

Lord, have mercy upon us, and incline our hearts to keep this law... Lord, have mercy upon us, and write all these thy laws in our hearts, we beseech thee.

The word of God is read, including the Gospel where Christ himself is proclaimed. In this liturgy we are given the whole truth, so that even should the preacher fail in his responsibility by neglect or weakness, everyone hears the full message of the Gospel anyway. The message is heard along with confession and receiving the grace of God through the sacrament. Sorrow for sin, thanksgiving for forgiveness, worship, prayer and praise all coming together with sound and excellent presentation of the full truth of God's word, drawing near to God himself so as to combine experience with doctrine and emotion with sober thought. The heart and mind are together, the body, soul and spirit unified in one purpose, as we combine the deep feeling of religion, the experience of God, with sound learning in one united act.

Our religion cannot make us mad, because the sanity of our theology is part of the whole experience of drawing nigh to God.

Tuesday, September 18, 2007

Just what is the Book of Common Prayer?

Anyone familiar with the Breviary and the Rule of St. Benedict has an advantage in understanding the Book of Common Prayer. Anyone who understands how English village life had been organized for centuries around the monastery, also has an advantage. Knowing these things helps enormously, because it prevents the mistake of seeing the Book of Common Prayer as no more than a book of public services. Prayer tradition that has grown out of the Rule (Regula) looks to an ideal life of seven offices with a Mass every day. The average person cannot live this way, but can live with a simplified Rule for one's own life. That Rule of life is what the Book of Common Prayer gives to us.

This is one reason why I cannot share the enthusiasm some have for the Anglican Service Book; it perpetuates one basic mistake of the revised ’79 Prayer Book of the Episcopal Church. That is the same basic reason why the ’79 book is not a proper edition of the Book of Common Prayer, but is instead a different sort of book altogether, a book, as Peter Toon has called it, “of occasional services.” Putting those occasional services into Elizabethan English does not rectify the error.

Anyone who has a copy of the 1611 Authorized Version of the Bible may notice that in the front of the book we find the schedule of daily Bible readings and the thirty-day cycle of Psalms, for daily Morning and Evening Prayer. Imagine, if you can, a Bible published in our time with the assumption that the reader is living by the Rule expected of him by his church. Imagine a Bible reader today taking care to make his reading conform to the Rule of his church.

The average working man or woman, or the average child in school or young person in college, can read daily Morning Prayer and daily Evening Prayer and at least keep up with the schedule of scripture reading. It is true that the Prayer Book contains services for the Church, sacramental rites for Baptism, for Confirmation, for marriage, and the Ordinal added in 1550. It contains a funeral rite. Yes, the book is the book for all public services. But, it is more than that. It is also a simplified Benedictine Rule for the common man, and this is the tradition of English prayer that has been made available to everyone through the Anglican Common Prayer tradition.

We have, in addition, a specific Anglican way of speaking. Among many High Church, Anglo-Catholic circles, so as not to be confused with Low churchmen, the phrase “the Mass” is used almost exclusively. But, is this really an indication of churchmanship? If so, it should not be. After all, the first Book of Common Prayer (1549) called the service “The Supper of the Lorde and the Holy Communion, commonly called the Masse.” Either name is fine, and they are interchangeable. But, in later editions it came more and more to be called “Holy Communion,” with the use of the word “Mass” being less frequent (though always brought out for Christmas “Midnight Mass”).

The first BCP added the words “Supper” and “Holy Communion” to make a point. That point is that the Christian really ought be receiving the sacrament, not simply “hearing the Mass,” communing only very occasionally, as had been the practice of most people up until that time. In fact, it may interest readers to know that it was, at first, the practice of some of the more Protestant elements in the Church of England, including Archbishop Cranmer himself, to recommend and teach the virtue of frequent communion. I suggest that using the term “Holy Communion” a bit more often is a very Catholic idea, and more in keeping with the meaning of the sixth chapter of St. John, about our need to feed on Christ’s flesh and to drink his blood, the food and drink of eternal life.

Take a look, as well, at the words that surround the General Confession. I do not agree with the practice that I have witnessed among some who shorten the invitation (and exclude the intercession as well) by violating the rubric, and saying only, “let us pray for the whole State of Christ’s Church, beginning with the words of the General Confession.” Look, instead, at the powerful words that the priest is required to say by the BCP:

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

In this invitation conditions are laid down for an honest confession coupled with sincere repentance. This invitation cannot fail to do good for the souls in a congregation if they listen and heed the words. Likewise, notice the conditional aspect of the Absolution that follows:

“Almighty God, our heavenly Father, who of his great mercy hath promised forgiveness of sins to all those who with hearty repentance and true faith turn unto him; Have mercy upon you; pardon and deliver you from all your sins; confirm and strengthen you in all goodness; and bring you to everlasting life; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.” ("Hearty" would be the same as "sincere.")

The ’79 Book Rite II (and some of its other occasional services) lays down no condition of “hearty repentance and true faith.” Instead, we see only some magic wand of priest craft, and all is forgiven without the heart of the sinner turning to the Lord.

I could say more about the artificial Confirmation Rite in the ’79 Book, have done so before and will do so again. For now, I want to state the plain facts about the Rule and about the Holy Communion. Our Book of Common Prayer tradition is worth preserving and passing on because it was formed by men who believed in the serious business of saving souls.

Monday, January 22, 2007

Liturgists Take Note

The Anglican Mission in America has published a trial-use Order for Holy Communion based on the 1662 Book of Common Prayer, which can be found here.

For those of you who are interested, an interesting and lively discussion on the pros and cons of the rite is taking place at Stand Firm in Faith.