Apostolic Church

The Nicene/ Constantinopolitan Creed says, "I believe One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church." Because of a printer's error the word "Holy" has not appeared in the Book of Common Prayer, but "I believe in the Holy Catholic Church" is said at least twice a day in the Daily Morning and Evening Prayer; so we profess all four of these facts about the Church. In this essay I want to focus on what it means to believe the Apostolic Church.

Before I undertake to write this, my recent interest in writing an apologetic for the polity that has always been Continued by us as the only polity known to orthodox Anglicanism, and the only kind consistent with all Canon Law of Anglican churches throughout history, and with the Church of England since its inception, is due to confusion regarding the origin of the episcopacy and the needless question of presbyteral ordinations. I say needless because only episcopal ordinations have been recognized in Anglicanism as conferring the authority to act as a member of the three orders of ministry mentioned in the Preface to the Ordinal. This leaves us only with ecumenical considerations about how far we may go in relations with Protestant churches such as the Presbyterians. That Anglicans have any other reason for asking such a question is contrary to all evidence from Canon Law, The idea of it as a pressing issue within our churches is a false issue. 

It may be that some of the readers of this will want to provide quotations from famous Anglicans who were willing to admit to the possibility of such ordinations among other churches. To that I say three things. Even if there has been varied opinion among Anglicans it does not change the rules, practice and even doctrine of Anglicanism. The Ordinal gives no room to any but episcopal ordinations. Second, any such quotations ought to be examined only in context and considered in limitation to the immediate reason for what was stated. Third, Anglicans have always understood that a line is to be drawn between validity and efficacy in this regard: We must act according to what is certainly valid, but for ecumanical relationships have no interest in declaring, as Rome does, other ministries to be "absolutely null and utterly void." God is free to work His grace without everything that we are bound to do, as He may will. But, at no time has any Anglican Canon allowed for violating the rule of recognizing, for us, only ministers with episcopal ordination in our churches. To presume that this is unrelated to theology makes no logical sense. 

The Greek word Apostolos (ἀπόστολος) is a very strong word, meaning that one is sent by a person in authority to act, where he is sent, with the authority of the sender himself. This is very important, and has everything to do with the authority Jesus gave to His Apostles. The Apostolic Jurisdiction is the whole world (Matthew 28:18-20). Among those who denounce our polity are voices that say, "there is no direct command from the Lord that gives the episcopal office its historic role and authority." In fact, this is an argument from silence. But, as we shall find from historical fact, we cannot say that the Lord is not the Author of the episcopal office with its specific authority and charisms. Bearing in mind the amount of authority in men called apostles of any ruler, especially Apostles of the Lord Jesus Christ, to act with the Lord's own authority in a worldwide jurisdiction, remember the following words.

"He that receiveth you receiveth me, and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me." (Matthew 10:40)

"Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent (apostellō, ἀποστέλλω) me, even so send I you." (John 20:21)

(The second of those verses will be of great significance when we get to the writing of St. Ignatius of Antioch.) For those who question when and where the Lord Himself has spoken, and for noble Bereans who require biblical evidence, I proceed by building on those words of Christ from the Gospels.  

The questions of essence, bene esse, juro divino, etc. should all be answered by the historical evidence concerning what the Apostles did. The Church, instead of asking all sorts of academic questions about what is possible within the limitless sphere of God's direct working, ought to consider that whatever the Apostles taught, however they ordered, and whatever they ruled in their judgment, has been given to the Church as coming from Jesus Christ. We may be sure they were directed by the Holy Spirit. Passing judgment on others or trying to determine if they may have some validity in a wide sphere of unknowable possibilities, and without Roman arrogance and presumption of labeling ministries "absolutely null and utterly void" of God's grace, especially simply because "he followeth not with us," is not our burden to bear. But neither is it legitimate for us to disregard the clear teaching and practice that we trace to the ancient catholic doctors and bishops. Here I will use a phrase that no Anglican has business disputing, but that some have presumed to dispute, Apostolic Succession.

Ironically, the term is quite likely used for the first time in a famous letter by St. Jerome, writing of all bishops the following:

"It is not the case that there is one church at Rome and another in all the world beside. Gaul and Britain, Africa and Persia, India and the East worship one Christ and observe one rule of truth. If you ask for authority, the world outweighs its capital. Wherever there is a bishop, whether it be at Rome or at Engubium, whether it be at Constantinople or at Rhegium, whether it be at Alexandria or at Zoan, his dignity is one and his priesthood is one. Neither the command of wealth nor the lowliness of poverty makes him more a bishop or less a bishop. All alike are successors of the apostles." (Jerome's Letter to Evangelus)

Ironically, some have taken this letter to be an apologetic for Presbyterianism, and a careless reading with a few lines taken out of the context of the whole, can indeed give that false impression. The preceding sentence is what they quote.

"For even at Alexandria from the time of Mark the Evangelist until the episcopates of Heraclas and Dionysius the presbyters always named as bishop one of their own number chosen by themselves and set in a more exalted position, just as an army elects a general, or as deacons appoint one of themselves whom they know to be diligent and call him archdeacon. For what function, excepting ordination, belongs to a bishop that does not also belong to a presbyter?"

Because this paragraph deals with the origin of the episcopate, they argue that it was a creation of presbyters themselves, and they presume contrary to all the historical evidence about ecclesiastical praxis, that this election process was sufficient without any consecration from any bishop. But the quotation never even implies that an election held by the presbytery takes the place of consecration, and the hypothetical question, "For what function, etc.?" proves that Jerome meant to imply no such thing, as is quite obvious. Knowing the practice of the ancient Church, as recorded too many times to dismiss, we must conclude that the presbytery did not presume the power to themselves consecrate their fellow to the office of bishop simply by having elected him. We know from other sources that episcopal elections were quite normal throughout antiquity, but that a bishop elect could not act as a bishop prior to the laying on of hands by at least one other bishop, in time the norm being by three bishops. All the sentence speaks of is the election process itself, and why the office of bishop (ἐπίσκοπος, epískopos) was separated at that time in history from the office of Presbyter  (πρεσβύτερος, presbyteros). 

More importantly, when was this decided? To begin with, the sentence, so often abused and dragged out of context, is not even speaking of the Church beyond Alexandria. Furthermore, it is quite apparent that St. Mark, who, as we see in the Book of Acts, had been a companion of Paul and Barnabas, later with Barnabas and praised by Paul writing to Timothy, the author of the Gospel that bears his name, was alive and well, and present in Alexandria. And in the sentence that follows, Jerome says that all bishops are "successors of the Apostles." For anyone to drag this letter out, and dust it off, as some argument against the historic fact of Apostolic Succession, is indeed ironic and self-defeating.

The logical conclusion is that the Church catholic has gotten it right all along. Though in the earliest days, as is quite evident in the New Testament, the office of presbyter was one and the same as the office called, at the time, bishop (Acts 20:28, Titus 1:5,7),  which is something no one has ever denied, it was after a while the Apostles themselves who separated the office of presbyter from that of the episcopate. It became the rule in their time, and could not have been decided by any others. Indeed, it was the presbyterian office that developed rather than the episcopal office. To the episcopal office alone belongs the power to ordain, and the bishop has authority to command obedience from the presbyters and deacons. 

We come now to a very important figure in history, the martyr St. Ignatius of Antioch. He was the bishop of the Church where disciples were first called Christians, that is Antioch in Syria. On his way to Rome to be martyred in an arena, he wrote several epistles that are included in a collection called The Apostolic Fathers. Ignatius, like Polycarp, learned directly from the Apostles themselves, having learned firsthand from no less of an authoritative source than those whom Christ sent as He Himself had been sent by the Father, the men to whom Jesus had said that they would be guided by the Spirit of Truth into all truth (John 16:13), those in whose doctrine we must remain steadfast. It is of no small significance, therefore, the several things Ignatius wrote in those epistles concerning the office of bishop.

"See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid. Moreover, it is in accordance with reason that we should return to soberness [of conduct], and, while yet we have opportunity, exercise repentance towards God. It is well to reverence both God and the bishop. He who honours the bishop has been honoured by God; he who does anything without the knowledge of the bishop, does [in reality] serve the devil. Let all things, then, abound to you through grace, for you are worthy. You have refreshed me in all things, and Jesus Christ [shall refresh] you. You have loved me when absent as well as when present. May God recompense you, for whose sake, while you endure all things, you shall attain unto Him." (Epistle to the Smyrnaeans, chapters 8 and 9)

The words "so that everything that is done may be secure and valid" give Anglicanism its logical basis for insisting on episcopacy, and having always done so as the only Anglican polity ever or anywhere. Recently someone retorted to the very mention of the name of Ignatius, with some quotation by an obscure "scholar," to the effect that Ignatius never said anywhere that the episcopate was established by the Lord. In light of the above quotation (and others like it), and in light of the fact that Jesus sent His Apostles as the Father had sent Him, and in light of the very definition of Apostolos, I cannot take such a "scholarly" objection at all seriously, and neither should you. It is utterly meaningless at best.

I could call further witnesses, such as Polycarp, Clement of Rome, Justin Martyr, and later Irenaeus. Frankly, I could call as witness the whole Church catholic in antiquity and the most ancient catholic doctors and bishops. Recognition of presbyteral ordinations for our churches is neither secure nor valid, as it is done without the bishop. So taught the disciple of the Apostles. The Apostolic Succession of bishops, is unquestionable and indisputable.

Finally, it is not sufficient to speak of these things strictly in terms of laws and authority as men understand it. In recent years I see that apostate "churches," especially in America the Episcopal Church, have come to prefer the term "Historic Episcopate" to Apostolic Succession. I believe that this is clearly because the latter carries with it a weight of doctrine that they transgress shamelessly (Acts 2:42, II Timothy 2:2), and also the charismatic power that they have forfeited. They hold a form of godliness, denying the power thereof. From such turn away (II Timothy 3:5). For true believers, understand that we must believe the Apostolic Church, and in saying that realize that God uses the Bishop, when strange doctrines are banished and the truth is taught, and by his charism as bishop, in making the whole Church Apostolic.

Who needs Canterbury?

Was there any doubt that the Church of England would vote to have women "bishops" from now on? How is the C of E really any different from the Episcopal "Church" here in the United States, other than certain particular cultural traits of the English and the C's Establishment (i.e., as the State Church)? Nonetheless, we see the phenomenon of some people in the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA) openly trumpeting communion with Canterbury as some sort of advantage, as if it provides a superior status of some kind, making them the authentic Anglicans. We see the phenomenon of the Reformed Episcopal Church (REC) apparently delighted finally, since its birth in the 1870s, to have a connection to the See of Canterbury. 

Continuing Anglicans did initially seek to begin their venture hoping to be in communion with Canterbury. In the Affirmation of St. Louis, back in 1977, we find this:

"The Continuation of Communion with Canterbury
We affirm our continued relations of communion with the See of Canterbury and all faithful parts of the Anglican Communion. WHEREFORE, with a firm trust in Divine Providence, and before Almighty God and all the company of heaven, we solemnly affirm, covenant and declare that we, lawful and faithful members of the Anglican and Episcopal Churches, shall now and hereafter continue and be the unified continuing Anglican Church in North America, in true and valid succession thereto."

Then Archbishop of Canterbury, Donald Coggan, strongly opposed the new Continuing Church, and gave it no recognition. As a result, the Continuers went ahead without any official status as part of the Anglican Communion. Frankly, forced to choose between orthodoxy and Anglican Communion membership, it was clear that genuine fidelity to Christ required the willingness to forego that membership. After a while, it became obvious that this estrangement was beneficial to the Continuing churches. The Anglican Catholic Church even went so far as to add this note to the original Affirmation of St. Louis:  

"[Note: Because of the action of General Synod of the Church of England, Parliament, and the Royal Assent, the College of Bishops of the Anglican Catholic Church is obliged no longer to count the See of Canterbury as a faithful part of the Anglican Communion.]"

The operative word is "faithful," both in the original and in the note. To preserve Church order and the validity of Holy Orders, the separation proved necessary. Perhaps there exists a failure of communication between us and the ACNA. You see, we are glad not to be in communion with Canterbury. If we were offered communion with Canterbury we would decline it, as in "Thanks, but no thanks."

The ACNA, on the other hand (which still has Priestesses in the Church, though we hope, and pray, not for long), has held communion with Canterbury as worth having. And this comes at a time when the Anglican Communion is falling apart, due largely to the refusal of African churches to participate in future Lambeth Conferences. For most of those African Anglicans, the final straw has been the liberal acceptance of homosexual acts, something very clearly revealed to be sin in the Scriptures. 

Perhaps, under political pressure, someday in the future, the Church of England will go the way of the Church of Sweden, where the clergy are required by law to perform same-sex "weddings." I have no doubt that right here, in my adopted state of North Carolina, the local Episcopalians will be performing same-sex "weddings" and feeling all warm and fuzzy about how liberal and advanced they have become. The See of Canterbury has watched for years the Episcopalians, trailing only slightly behind them into heresy and apostasy. 

Back in the beginning, the Continuers saw that ordination of women was simply the latest symptom, and one that required separation to protect sacramental validity. The arguments that were used for women's ordination were not merely similar to the arguments for acceptance of homosexual acts, leading to same-sex "blessings" and now "weddings," but largely the very same arguments. Just substitute a word here and there, and it all boils down to the same reasoning. Where did it begin? By believing that a person's sex (not "gender"- the word is "sex"- as in male and female) was totally irrelevant to anything sacramental. So, it went from ordination to marriage. The confusion of seeing a woman "priest" at the altar, portraying the heavenly Bridegroom, and seeing two people of the same sex get "married" to each other, may be different in degree, but it is the same in kind. The C of E, with its priestesses and bishopettes, is just a little behind the Episcopalians here in America. It is only a matter of time, as always.

What is the Anglican Communion anyway? Was the Episcopal Church part of something called the Anglican Communion in the late eighteenth century? How about during the War of 1812? Historically, the Anglican Communion is a very recent thing.

I would urge my friends in the ACNA, including those in the REC, to cut themselves free from the weight of it. Of my charity, I wish they would take several pages from our book. One of those pages says we don't need communion with the See of Canterbury. No orthodox church body does. In fact, no orthodox church body can afford the price that comes with it.

Not a mouthful

"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."

II Timothy1:6

"Thou therefore, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus. And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also." 

II Timothy 2:2

Even as a child I knew that the Episcopal Church and the Anglican family to which it belonged was, along with the Anglican Communion as a whole, unique in identifying itself as Protestant and Catholic, with Catholic ministers and Protestant priests. I knew that one major thing that distinguished us from other Protestants was the Apostolic Succession of bishops. The phrase readily dripped off the tongue. For some it may have been simplistically understood or, at its worst, treated like some form of claim to nobility, placing our church in a higher class. But, in general, it was appreciated as a genuine link to Christ Himself and His Apostles. 

A few years ago I noticed, when writing for The Christian Challenge, that the Episcopal Church (TEC) of today has chosen a phrase they prefer: "The Historic Episcopate." As with so many phrases that cannot be disputed, it simply goes by unnoticed. It is sort of like their use of "God our Creator and Jesus Christ our Savior" that has become standard with them. It is true; but they use it to avoid saying "God our Father and Jesus Christ our Lord." So, to camouflage an ignoble intention, they hide it behind unassailable truth, but only in terms of unobjectionable accuracy masking something unacceptable.

So, by now you may be asking, "What is wrong with saying Historic Episcopate?" Well, in one sense, nothing at all. The episcopate is absolutely indisputable as a fact of history. Indeed, it is so indisputable that any atheist has to acknowledge it. But, that happens also to be the problem. 

When we say "Apostolic Succession," we say a mouthful. The expression carries with it truth deeper than  mere historical fact. It includes the history, but contains so much more. That truth is in a twofold and inseparable combination: Sacrament and Word. 

The sacrament is that of consecration. It is so important that the Church of England and Queen Elizabeth made extra sure that the first Archbishop of Canterbury to be consecrated during her reign, thus establishing Anglican orders for generations to come, was consecrated beyond doubt by men with unquestionably valid orders. This importance is further highlighted by the efforts of enemies to discredit those orders, all vain efforts that no scholar today takes seriously. 

But, those strained efforts at deceit against Anglican validity are a compliment to the care taken for the Consecration of Archbishop Matthew Parker. The sacrament, about which we read St. Paul's words to St. Timothy in the earliest of times, is consistent with the way Moses had ordained Joshua to take his place, and reminds us of Elijah and Elisha also. The laying on of Apostolic hands, for the purpose of handing on necessary gifts and authority, is charismatic, the work of the Holy Spirit in giving grace to fulfill the work and ministry of the office of bishop. 

But, it is possible that TEC has fallen into the trap of contenting itself with a merely Historic Episcopate partly because the sacramental element of Apostolic Succession had come to be nothing more, to some of them, than a relay race; a historical record of who laid hands on who, and nothing more. Also writing to Timothy, Paul warned of those "Having a form of godliness, but denying the power (dunamis) thereof: from such turn away (II Timothy 3:5)." 

"Apostolic Succession" speaks of the power of the Holy Spirit and His gifts. Anyone who knows both our Ordinal and its Preface knows how highly Anglicans have regarded the work of God the Holy Spirit as the true source for all ordained ministry: The words "Receive the Holy Ghost" have been essential in imparting His special grace to all bishops and priests. 

But, I am sure that even the most deluded and misleading of TEC clergy would love to be able to claim the gifts and power of the Holy Spirit; indeed, they blame Him for all their errors, insisting that they are His only true followers. Indeed, "only" because of the new "revelations" they claim as well. No, they haven't dropped the term "Apostolic Succession" from frequent usage because of that. They deny the power, of course, but they do so by denying the essential truth, the truth that His power is present in His Church to confirm.

The part of Apostolic Succession that bothers them is the continuity of Apostolic doctrine to which it commits the bishops, and under their care the work of establishing and defending that doctrine in Christ's Church. Frankly, TEC has not come down with a case of admiral honesty in stepping back from the term "Apostolic Succession." They are not admitting to failure in passing on the pure word of God as taught from the earliest times. Rather, they don't want to pass it on. They really believe they are smarter than the Apostles, and would be embarrassed to teach something as un-stylish as orthodoxy. The true Gospel is not in fashion. They see themselves as far more enlightened than the eyewitnesses of Christ's resurrection, those who had heard from His own mouth, those to Whom He gave clear teaching, clear direction, and an unchanging charge; those to whom he sent the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost.

But, Apostolic Succession remains, and it remains for word and sacrament. "The same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also" - for all generations to come.

What of Sydney?

The question of Sydney Anglicanism has come up in recent comments. Sadly, the extremists in that diocese are being allowed to redefine the meaning of "Evangelicalism" among Anglicans. We must not allow this to take hold, or it will further the confusion of Babel against the blessings of clarity. In 2009 I posted my thoughts on the subject. I have edited the original to fit this current moment of history more acutely than the original. Here it is, a bit updated.

Sydney "Anglicanism" - the other innovation 

Probably, most of our readers are aware of an innovation that had arisen in the Diocese of Sydney before the end of the last century. That innovation is called "Lay Administration," which means Lay Celebration of the Eucharist. It has never seemed necessary from my home in America to spend much time and effort combating the Sydney innovation, because until recently it has been unthinkable that it might spread (perhaps our Australian blogger, Fr.Kirby, has run into the problem directly). After all, in the official Anglican Communion with the heresy of women's "ordination," several women have come to feel empowered-finally!-having broken through the stained-glass ceiling; and, no doubt, they'll be damned if they are going to share the "power" with just anybody.

However, some of the Sydney "Anglicans" have begun showing up in other spots, including America. Furthermore, after GAFCON and its American child (having appropriated a name formerly taken), the Anglican Church in North America, the Sydney innovation may come to be tolerated, helping to make it seem mainstream, conservative or orthodox compared to the Same-Sex heresies. For, sadly, that is how the re-appraisers known as "Reasserters" think: They see error as a matter of priorities that they can number in terms of their importance, rather than as symptoms of revolt against God by rejection of His word, as received, understood and affirmed by the universal Church in Antiquity.

The Reapparaisers have no concept of Antiquity, and would have to look up the term "Universal Consensus." They have a Bible, and they have modern teachers through whom they see as much of the English Reformers as those modern teachers care to let them see. Their spiritual and doctrinal epistemology jumps from the close of the first century (just the Bible), to the 16th century with a very brief stay, lest they gather more than they want, directly to the modern era (and, in some ways they have picked up more from the Anabaptists than from the English Reformers). For absolute authority they have a new version of Sola Scriptura, and it is not the kind first mentioned by Thomas Aquinas, or trumpeted by 16th century Reformers. The new Sola Scriptura is an absolute sola, in the sense of something destitute. In that sense, the Reappraisers finally have no Bible, at least not the Bible recognized by the Church.

The Bible, in their view, is subject to a process of reduction to an original or autographa, an actual manuscript produced by the writers. That is because those who hold to what we shall call Scriptura Egenus (i.e. Destitute) cannot trust even so much as the scribes who copied Scripture, inasmuch as discovery of a better manuscript has, theoretically, the power to overthrow the Bible as we know it. If you doubt this, consider that Dr. Wayne Grudem actually wrote that if a book were found, and verified to be the work of an Apostle from the First Century, we would have to recognize it as Scripture (apparently, without regard to its content).1 The logic of this must lead, as well, to the opposite conclusion: If a book could be shown not to be the work of an Apostle (Grudem's own dubious standard, inasmuch as no one knows who wrote the Epistle to the Hebrews) it would have to be scratched from the Canon. An obvious problem with Grudem's view is that it places recognition of Scripture in the hands of modern day scientists and their methodologies, not in our trust that the Church has recognized the Master's voice as guided by the Holy Spirit with universal consensus in Antiquity (John 16:13, I Cor. 2:16).

Jensen vs. the Church

How does this relate to the Sydney innovation? In every way. To be fair, we may note that Archbishop Peter Jensen wrote a defense of his position favoring Lay Administration and posted in online. 2 In some ways it presents some good ideas that do not need to be disputed, but they always end with a twist that disregards the Reason of Anglican doctrine. At best, his good ideas are half-truths. That is not to accuse him of dishonesty, inasmuch as I cannot doubt that he really believes he is teaching the truth of God's word. The problem is not the direction he seems to be going, but rather, that he does not go far enough in that direction. Nor does he spend enough time paying attention along the way. In other words, he means to go in the same direction that the English Reformers traveled, towards the true meaning of Christian doctrine and practice, the truly Catholic way. However, he does not spend enough time with those English Reformers; he does not hear all that they say, and so he actually contradicts the very Formularies of Anglicanism that he professes to believe. So, in the end he summarizes his position "in a box," with five points. The first is "1 Scripture is silent on the question as who [sic] may administer the Lord’s Supper."     

Once again, this presents the difference between Sola Scriptura, and this new Scriptura Egenus or Destitute. We all know Article VI, which opens, "Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation." The Article lists the Scriptures with the words, "the Canonical Books." Here we run into the genuine Anglican doctrine, because only the Church could have determined the Canon. Anyone who even so much as uses the expression "the Canon of Scripture" has already acknowledged what we call, in Hooker's terms, the Church with her authority, in which both Right Reason and Tradition are, actually, one.3     
Here we see that by having a Canon of Scripture, rather than merely a Recommended Reading List, we may invoke the real meaning of the Vincentian Canon (in its original context, where it is perfectly harmonious with the correct meaning of sola scriptura): Quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum est ("That which has been believed always, everywhere and by all" – which, admittedly, requires poetic license). In determining doctrine, the teaching of the Church from earliest times and the Bible are interdependent and inseparable. To understand the Biblical doctrine on Eucharistic Celebration, we must see the apparent silence of Scripture on this one point as answered by the universal consensus of the community in which and to whom the New Testament was written; by whom it has been handed down with the rest of Scripture, and its various books recognized.        

Archbishop Jensen has named Cranmer, Hooker and others, and quoted from the Articles, to try to strengthen his case, which he sets forth clearly:  

"It is commonly suggested that the development of lay administration of the Holy Communion is contrary to the very being of Anglicanism. Certainly it would have to be agreed that non-priestly administration would be quite contrary to some expressions of Anglicanism. But the assertion that it is contrary to the ethos of the Anglican Church really speaks for one side of the Church only. It suggests that one particular view of priesthood and of communion, and one only, is of the essence of the Eucharistic theology. Without going into the question of whether there is only one valid opinion, it is empirically true that at least two views have been evident in the Church for a very long time. According to the thinking of one such view, lay administration is impossible. Accordingly to the other view it is possible, although opinions differ as to whether it is advisable."    

Whether or not what the Ordinal presents within "the ethos of the Anglican Church really speaks for one side of the Church only," must be weighed by the Rites of Ordination that have been a part of the Church of England and Anglicanism since 1550, with the clarifications of the later editions. 4 So, does he mean that only "one side" believes the Preface to the Ordinal?

"It is evident unto all men diligently reading holy Scripture and ancient Authors, that from the Apostles' time there have been these Orders of Ministers in Christ's Church; Bishops, Priests, and Deacons. Which Offices were evermore had in such reverend Estimation, that no man might presume to execute any of them, except he were first called, tried, examined, and known to have such qualities as are requisite for the same; and also by publick Prayer, with Imposition of Hands, were approved and admitted thereunto by lawful Authority. And therefore, to the intent that these Orders may be continued, and reverently used and esteemed in the Church of England, no man shall be accounted or taken to be a lawful Bishop, Priest, or Deacon, in the Church of England, or suffered to execute any of the said Functions, except he be called, tried, examined, and admitted thereunto, according to the Form hereafter following, or hath had Episcopal Consecration, or Ordination."        

About the Ordinal, does only “one side” accept what is clearly stated by the imperative Form (or Accipe Spiritum Sanctum) in the Ordering of Priests?  To "execute" the office of priest certainly includes Eucharistic celebration. But, to get around "which Offices were evermore had in such reverend Estimation, that no man might presume to execute any of them, except..." etc., Jensen makes this argument:

3 "The priestly role is above all that of pastor of the congregation and cannot be handed over to someone else. 

4 Delegation of the various elements of the role is possible, however, and given developments in ecclesiology, desirable.

"5 The retention of administration of the Lord’s Supper as the only element which cannot be delegated detaches word from sacrament and confuses the congregation about the nature of the sacrament and the priestly role."

Earlier, he had quoted a report by the Australian House of Bishops called Eucharistic Presidency:
"As far as the English Reformation was concerned, the Report says: ‘we find the same heavy stress on the Ministry of the Word in relation to ordination, in line with the continental reformers. In the pre-Reformation Sarum rite, the candidate for priesthood was handed the chalice and/or paten as symbols of priestly office with the words, 'Receive the power to offer sacrifice to God', whereas in the 1552 English Ordinal, the Bible alone is given, accompanied by the words, 'Take thou authority to preach the Word of God, and to minister the holy sacraments in the congregation.’ (para 4.42)"

On which he builds his case further:

        "That is to say the two dominical sacraments depend for their life upon the explicit word of Christ and upon the fact that they visibly proclaim the gospel. In particular, the Lord’s Supper focuses us on the death of Christ with the assurance of God’s favour towards us. It is a 'Sacrament of our Redemption by Christ’s death' (Article 28).

         “There is an indissoluble connection, therefore, between the word of God and the sacraments indicated by the necessity of the sermon in the service of Holy Communion. It is not 'Anglican' to equate word and sacrament. A non-preaching communion service is a contradiction in terms, where the taking of bread and wine is removed from the context of the preaching of God’s word. It is the word of God which warrants the sacrament and explains it. The communal eating of bread and wine is the outward and visible sign of an inward and invisible grace, namely the grace of God towards us in Christ and at work in our lives. Despite the current emphases of Eucharistic theology, the emphasis of the Book of Common Prayer (including the Catechism thereof) dwells on the Lord’s Supper as spiritual union with Christ (the refreshment of our souls by the bread and blood of Christ) and the faithful remembrance of what Christ has done on our behalf. What is required of those who come to the Lord’s Supper is that they 'examine themselves, whether they repent them truly of their former sins; steadfastly purposing to lead a new life; have a lively faith in God’s mercy through Christ, with a thankful remembrance of his death; and be in charity with all men' (Catechism of the Book of Common Prayer). Not surprisingly, the ordination service published with the Book of Common Prayer emphasises the priestly role of preaching and living the word of God rather than the administration of the sacraments"       

The obvious, glaring problem with his reasoning is that he ignores what the bishop says in even the earliest Ordinal, when Ordering a man to the priesthood:

"Receive the holy goste, whose synnes thou doest forgeve, they are forgeven: and whose sinnes thou doest retaine, thei are retained: and be thou a faithful despensor of the word of god, and of his holy Sacramentes. In the name of the father, and of the sonne, and of the holy gost. Amen... Take thou aucthoritie to preache the word of god, and to minister the holy Sacramentes in thys congregacion[, where thou shalt be so appointed]."  
      

In this earliest Ordinal it is sacramental ministry that identifies the specific Order of "priest" with the words of Scripture, "whose synnes thou doest forgeve, they are forgeven: and whose sinnes thou doest retaine, thei are retained."5 

The later editions say the same thing, adding only these words to clarify, for those untrained in the use of Scripture, the specific Order , "... for the Office and Work of a Priest in the Church of God, now committed unto thee by the Imposition of our hands." The words, "be thou a faithful Dispenser of the Word of God, and of his holy Sacraments," and "Take thou Authority to preach the Word of God, and to minister the holy Sacraments in the Congregation, where thou shalt be lawfully appointed thereunto," suffer at the hands of extremists. Some modern people who fancy themselves to be Anglo-Catholics (but having very little in common with the Tractarians) seem only to hear the mention of sacraments, and Sydney "Anglicans" seem only to notice the part about preaching. But, the priest is a minister of both.  

As has been stated on The Continuum, more than once, efforts by some Anglo-Catholics (following an alleged Roman Catholic lead) to reduce the priestly office to its sacramental role, and thereby to under-emphasize the pastoral and teaching responsibilities and gifts inherent in that Order, is quite wrong. This I have stated in clear terms more than once, summarizing my arguments with the words of E.J. Bicknell (from a footnote):

"As we have said, the English word priest by derivation simply means 'presbyter'. But it has acquired the meaning of 'sacerdos'. The Christian presbyter in virtue of his office is a 'priest'. Priesthood is one of his functions."6  

We must turn neither to the right hand nor to the left, but walk within a via media that avoids extremes, following the advice of St. John Chrysostom not to endorse by accident one error through the effort of refuting the opposite error.7 In this manner we must refute Jensen's view. Archbishop Jensen argues that the laity may preach, and that, of necessity, along with preaching is Eucharistic Celebration; if they may do one they may do the other. 8 We may explore the argument itself presently, but first we must note that he tries to pin Sydney's new and novel idea on Cranmer. What he fails to see is that we cannot interpret the English Reformers accurately by drawing our own conclusions from their writings, no matter how intact our logic, unless we face the facts of what polity they insisted on, both by the full body of their teachings and by Canon Law. In the words of Richard Hooker:

“Is it a small office to despise the Church of God? ‘My son, keep thy father’s commandment,’ saith Solomon, ‘and forget not thy mother’s instruction: Bind them both always about thine heart.’ It doth not stand with the duty we owe to our heavenly Father, that to the ordinances of our mother the Church we should show ourselves disobedient. Let us not say we keep the commandments of the one, when we break the law of the other: for unless we observe both we obey neither.” (Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity, 3.IX.3)

Hooker upholds not only the teaching of the Church, but also, what he calls “her ecclesiastical authority,” not to be redundant, but to extend the meaning to include all aspects of polity.

No one doubts that some sort of Lay Preaching is permissible under certain conditions, and certainly no one should silence a member of the laity who can, by writing and teaching, edify and instruct us in the ways of holiness and in theology, or who may be a very effective evangelist. Indeed, and without any dispute, Deacons may preach from the pulpit if licensed by the Bishop. But, the Anglican Ordinal, in the Ordering of Priests, lays specific and particular emphasis on the authority, responsibility and the gift through Ordination to be a minister of God's word in a new way that he had not been heretofore as a Deacon, and does so in a line that includes as well his sacramental role. Surely this teaches us something of substance. The priest has a duty and a charism to be that minister of Word and Sacrament, and this answers Jensen's argument on the connection between preaching and celebrating the Eucharist. Furthermore, it answers it according to the only practice ever permitted in the Church, both before and after the English Reformation.       

Archbishop Jensen and the Sydney "Anglicans" quite rightly reject women's "ordination." But, they employ the same method of Scriptura Egenus used by its advocates. In so doing they reject both the particular teaching of Anglicanism, and how that teaching is one of fidelity to Scripture as understood since the beginning in Antiquity, through the Right Reason of Tradition by “the Church with her authority.” The result is, in the Diocese of Sydney, though they are for the moment free from the error of women’s “ordination,” they promote an innovation every bit as rebellious and heretical.

____________________________

1. Grudem, Wayne: Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine, Zondervan Publishers, 1995 Van Nuys.

2. It is entitled Theological reflection on lay administration. 

3. “Be it in matter of the one kind or of the other, what Scripture doth plainly deliver, to that the first place both of credit and obedience is due; the next whereunto is whatsoever any man can necessarily conclude by force of reason; after this the Church succeedeth that which the Church by her ecclesiastical authority shall probably think and define to be true or good, must in congruity of reason overrule all other inferior judgments whatsoever.” (Richard Hooker, The Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity,Book 5.VIII.2)

4. That is, clarification of what the Rites always had meant.

5. From an earlier Latin Ordinal translated by Cranmer, the first English Ordinal used verses of Scripture to identify respectively the three Orders.

6. E.J.Bicknell, A Theological Introduction to The Thirty-Nine Articles of the Church of England. See Pastoral Priesthood, andThe Elders that Rule Well.

7. St. John Chrysostom: Six Little Books on the Priesthood.

8. What does he make, then, of Cranmer's rubric from the 1549 Book of Common Prayer? "When the holy Communion is celebrate on the workeday, or in private howses: Then may be omitted, the Gloria in excelsis, the Crede, the Homily, and the exhortacion, beginning..."

What's the difference...

...between us & the Anglican Church North America (ACNA)? This question comes up at least once a day.

Officially, the difference is that the ACNA is treating the latest stages of a disease that has been allowed too long to develop. We deplore blessing of same-sex unions as much as the next fellow; but we also deplore the basic rejection of God's own authority that laid the groundwork, the earlier rebellion that made this latest symptom of ECUSAnism possible. We recognized the earlier symptoms of the fatal disease back in 1977. We knew that we had to treat it drastically by cutting out the infected organs and taking the full dose of antibiotics. But, the leaders of the ACNA have yet to detect the early symptoms, for they still accept priestesses in the church.

This confusion about sexual identity in one sacrament, ordination, was the necessary first step leading to rejection of the marriage sacrament and covenant as established by God in the creation of Man. If a woman can be ordained to a male role (a father in the household of God-see I Tim. 3), then two men can marry each other, or two women. Therefore, though we may pray for our ACNA brthren to become enlightened, we cannot join with them. They are following along the same path as the Episcopalians, only they are going at a slower pace from a further distance. The destination is the same.

This old essay, reprinted from October 2007, may help explain:

The Holy Ghost made me do it

Flip Wilson's Geraldine character said "the Devil made me do it." It is what modern ECUSAns have been saying about the Holy Spirit. "The Holy Spirit" has made them do all sorts of things, from "ordaining" women to blessing the "union" of man and husband, and of woman and wife. Soon, the Holy Spirit will be blamed when they bless the union of a man and his horse. And, the "wedding" will be beautiful, full of warm and fuzzy things that bring tears to the eyes of animal lovers everywhere. Some ECUSAn conservatives who embrace "Biblical doctrine" will approve of the union as long as the horse and the human are of the opposite sex. As Fr. Thomas Hopko of the Orthodox Church said to my brother David (sorry to say, in a conversation you cannot google up on your computer), "the Holy Spirit does all sorts of things that the Holy Ghost would never do."

The problem with those who are "led by the Spirit" is that they must re-imagine the Bible and disregard Tradition. To do this, they must first invent little fictions. Did you know, for example, that New Testament approves of and endorses slavery? This would have come as no small surprise to the American Abolitionists who based their movement on their Christian Faith and scripture. But, now we have the generally accepted consensus of the Revisionists. I suppose that Saint Paul, instead of teaching the right way of life to Christians who were slaves under the pagan system of Rome, should have urged a Spartacus style revolution, no doubt with the same results, instead of carrying out his mission. His failure to do so must be read as approval of slavery, if not endorsement. And, why must it be so read? To make the Revisionist argument, that's why. Obviously, these Revisionists have never read Deuteronomy 23:15, 16: "Thou shalt not deliver unto his master the servant which is escaped from his master unto thee: He shall dwell with thee, even among you, in that place which he shall choose in one of thy gates, where it liketh him best: thou shalt not oppress him." The abolitionists, however, had read it.

These allegedly Spirit led innovations teach us that God is capricious, but at least he is growing in his understanding, and so leading us to follow him in his own search for enlightenment. It took him quite a while, by another of their fictions, to figure out what to do with Gentiles in the Church (it seems that their Holy Spirit, unlike the One we know, never plans ahead). Once again, a little passage of scripture the Revisionists seem never to have read is Acts 11:17, 18. "[Peter said] Forasmuch then as God gave them the like gift as he did unto us, who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ; what was I, that I could withstand God? When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life." They confuse Peter's later flaw, as recorded in the Epistle to the Galatians when he was corrected by St. Paul, with the heresy of the "Judaizers" that sprung up even later still. They miss the fact that Paul corrected his fellow apostle on the basis of settled, revealed, doctrine already established, and that the Council in Jerusalem (Acts 15) defended and upheld that same established doctrine. But, by inventing this period of doctrinal confusion, this historical "fact" of their collective imagination, they show once again, by using scripture (in clear "Jehovah's Witness" style) that their God takes a while to figure these things out, and then leads them into the newest discovery of his limited, finite understanding, His never-ending search for truth.

So, their Holy Spirit takes them into new and unsettled territory as he matures and learns. Our Holy Ghost, however young He was on the Day of Pentecost, has become old and set in His ways. He does not approve of women's "ordination" anymore than He did when Christ bestowed Him on the Apostles. And, He does not bless same sex unions, no matter how many clergy persons do. The Revisionists have used the same arguments for women's "ordination" that they now use for Homosexualism because, they walk in the same spirit, and in the same steps. And, no, it is not the Holy Spirit.

If they are going to quote Flip Wilson, they ought to quote him verbatim.
_______

So, you see, returning to 2011; the difference between us and the ACNA is that they have no ultimate defense against the thinking I have described above.