Some words from Blessed Father Seraphim Rose on the occasion of the Feast of the Holy Cross:
“Let us not, who would be Christians, expect anything else from it than to be crucified. For to be a Christian is to be crucified, in this time and in any time since Christ came for the first time. His life is the example -– and warning -– to us all. We must be crucified personally, mystically; for through crucifixion is the only path to resurrection. If we would rise with Christ, we must first be humbled with Him -– even to the ultimate humiliation, being devoured and spat forth by the uncomprehending world.
“And we must be crucified outwardly, in the eyes of the world; for Christ’s Kingdom is not of this world, and the world cannot bear it, even in a single representation of it, even for a single moment. The world can only accept Antichrist, now or at anytime.
“No wonder, then, that it is so hard to be Christian -– it is not hard, it is impossible. No one can knowingly accept a way of life which, the more truly it is lived, leads more surely to one’s own destruction. And that is way we constantly rebel, try to make life easier, try to be half-Christian, try to make the best of both worlds. We must ultimately choose–our felicity lies in one world or the other, not in both.
“God give is the strength to pursue the path of crucifixion; there is no other way to be Christian.”
Hat tip to Thomas Richter
Saturday, September 13, 2008
Friday, September 12, 2008
Reply to the "Anglican Use Society"
This was sent us by a bishop of the Anglican Catholic Church.
.
.
Many of my parishes and I have gotten a come-on from the Anglican Use Society which many of us have also found to be rather disingenuous and offensive. You might care to run that below which is, I think, a sufficient response, namely a juxtaposition of their mention of Eric Mascall with something actually by Father Mascall.
.
-----------------------------------------------
This is part of twhat the so-called Anglican Use Society has in its unsolicited mailings:
This is part of twhat the so-called Anglican Use Society has in its unsolicited mailings:
.
"Those of us who have entered into full communon with the Catholic Church have taken with us our Anglican/Episcopal heritage of faith and liturgy, devotion, hymnody and scholarship developed and matured especially as a result of the Oxford Movement and the Anglo-Catholic Movement as represented by figures such as...Dr. Eric L. Mascall....’
"From ‘A Message from Members and Friends of the Anglican Use Congregations in the Catholic Church of the United States to other Christians of the Anglican Tradition on Restoring Communion with the See of Rome’"
-----------------------------------------------
From Father Eric L. Mascall. Corpus Christi: Essays on the Church and Eucharist. London: Longmans, 1965. 2nd ed. Pages 17f.
"...the Church, as a visible and tangible society, living in the historic process, needs a visible and tangible organ of its unity, though that union is, as I have emphasised, an interior and mystical unity and not a moral or political one. The Church is a visible and tangible society, but it is a sacramental one, and the organ of its unity will be a sacramental organ. This is why, as I see it, the apostolic Episcopate precisely fulfils the requirements for such an organ, for the episcopal character is conferred by a sacramental act. And this is why it seems to me impossible to locate the organ of the Church’s unity in the Papacy, for the papal character is not conferred by a sacramental act at all, but by the purely administrative and organisational process of election. Whether the Papacy has, by divine providence, a unique status in the Church and, if so, what are the functions which rightly attach to it are, of course, important questions, but by its very constitution the Papacy does not, so far as I can see, possess the nature which is required in the organ of the Church’s unity."
"From ‘A Message from Members and Friends of the Anglican Use Congregations in the Catholic Church of the United States to other Christians of the Anglican Tradition on Restoring Communion with the See of Rome’"
-----------------------------------------------
From Father Eric L. Mascall. Corpus Christi: Essays on the Church and Eucharist. London: Longmans, 1965. 2nd ed. Pages 17f.
"...the Church, as a visible and tangible society, living in the historic process, needs a visible and tangible organ of its unity, though that union is, as I have emphasised, an interior and mystical unity and not a moral or political one. The Church is a visible and tangible society, but it is a sacramental one, and the organ of its unity will be a sacramental organ. This is why, as I see it, the apostolic Episcopate precisely fulfils the requirements for such an organ, for the episcopal character is conferred by a sacramental act. And this is why it seems to me impossible to locate the organ of the Church’s unity in the Papacy, for the papal character is not conferred by a sacramental act at all, but by the purely administrative and organisational process of election. Whether the Papacy has, by divine providence, a unique status in the Church and, if so, what are the functions which rightly attach to it are, of course, important questions, but by its very constitution the Papacy does not, so far as I can see, possess the nature which is required in the organ of the Church’s unity."
______________________
I will add to the above that I have also received the same mail from the alleged Anglican Use Society. I call them "alleged" because their liturgy is not Anglican, and the changes that were made fit the Novus Ordo, but have no real essential meaning. Frankly, I find their changes more insulting than theological.
.
As for Eric Mascall, he was greatly troubled by the idea that the Church of England might eventually "ordain" women, and he expressed his anguish to Dr. William Tighe in private conversation. Nonetheless, he died a Church of England priest. In his book The Recovery of Unity, he wrote at length his apologetic for the Anglican position, and with respect argued against the Roman teaching on the papacy as it has developed (the above statement is from a separate work, and summarizes part of the more detailed argument in the book). The same is true of the Dogmatic Theology series by Francis Hall, in which a defense of the Anglican position was skillfully written in light of theology and history.
.
The AUS literature mentions others, including Dom Gregory Dix. He too died an Anglican priest, and had written a famous defense of Anglican Orders in 1944: The Question of Anglican Orders, letters to a laymen.
.
The attempt to paint such men (including C.S. Lewis) as modern Anglo-Papalists and closet Roman Catholics is not accurate. From the writings we have, it is more honest to say that we are Continuing the faith they practiced and taught. They wrote respectfully of the See of Rome, but made their differences abundantly clear.
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
Another Christ or Another Joe?
This was written for an ecumenical magazine for which I am a Contributing Editor. We call our magazine Touchstone: A Journal of Mere Christianity. I use the commonly known Roman Catholic expression "another Christ" for reasons that I am prepared to defend from Scripture, not merely because this was a review of Archbishop Sheen's book.
.
“Another Christ or Another Joe?” first appeared in the May, 2005 issue of Touchstone.
.
The Priest Is Not His Own by Fulton Sheen
Ignatius Press, 2005 (278 pages; $15.95, paperback. Reprinted)
.
reviewed by Robert Hart
.
Sometimes the timing of a message is as prophetic as the message itself. Writing about the priesthood in 1963 in a book that will be of value to pastors in every church, Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen wrote: “We become significant to our fellow men not by being a ‘regular guy’, but by being ‘another Christ’. . . . Popularity is not necessarily influence.” Soon after, many clergy sought to be nothing more than a “regular guy,” trying to make church more comfortable and inviting by diminishing the authority and separateness of their role.
.
Sheen explains that role by reminding the reader that Christ was both Priest and Victim, and that it is not only in the sacrificial ministry at the altar (in Catholic terms), but also in the personal life of sacrifice, that Christ’s pastors must follow him; not only in preaching the Cross, but also in taking it up every day. In this light, the desire to be a “regular guy” can be seen for what it is: a desire to be popular and safe, to avoid the suffering and death of Christ, to live for oneself instead of living for God and the sinful men who need salvation.
.
Sheen calls the priest to live the priesthood of Jesus Christ, and to live it in such a way that people will feel that they have been with “‘another Christ’ and not merely ‘another Joe’.” In his words:
.
Unlike anyone else, Our Lord came on earth, not to live, but to die. Death for our redemption was the goal of His sojourn here, the gold that he was seeking. He was, therefore, not primarily a teacher, but a Savior. Was not Christ the Priest a Victim? He never offered anything except Himself. So we have a mutilated concept of our priesthood, if we envisage it apart from making ourselves victims in the prolongation of his Incarnation.
.
Sheen makes it clear that priests have a special responsibility to live a holy life in order to serve God truly and to be an example for the laity, not to limit the growth in holiness of the laity, but to increase it. When the people look down on the clergy as being less holy in their manner of life, it is an unhealthy situation for everyone, harming not only the life but also the power of the Church.
.
The priest who is, by God’s grace, seeking to live up to the call to holiness (as an example to all Christians) “crushes his ego and its desires, so that in him there are two natures in one person: on the one hand, his human nature; on the other, his ‘participation in the Divine Nature’ through grace and the losing of his human personality in the Person of Christ.”
.
Sound Advice
.
As idealistic as this may sound, it comes with very practical advice, such as: “How much more our words would burn as we preach . . . if, before preaching, we prayed for five minutes to the Holy Spirit for Pentecostal fire; if we kept the scriptures ever near us, that we might gird ourselves with their truth when mounting the pulpit.”
.
The book is uncompromising in its pure and traditional Roman Catholicism, but (speaking as an Anglican) this is one of its strengths. We see in it the kind of clarity so often lacking in the works of the last few decades, even by Catholics for Catholics.
.
One can imagine the fictional character played by Ward Bond in John Ford’s The Quiet Man nodding his head in approval. Remember the authority that priest had in the Irish village, walking into a saloon and ordering Victor McLaughlin, “You’ll take the man’s hand, or I’ll read your name in the Mass on Sunday.” Would a character with that much authority ring true in a movie made in the seventies, or the eighties, or now?
.
The Priest Is Not His Own should have a useful message to every man who has entered ordained ministry in whatever body. For every pastor has something to gain from being willing to take up his cross, and follow the Lord to Calvary; that something may be the redeemed souls of those who not only have heard his preaching, but have also seen his message in the life he lives.
.
“Another Christ or Another Joe?” first appeared in the May, 2005 issue of Touchstone.
.
The Priest Is Not His Own by Fulton Sheen
Ignatius Press, 2005 (278 pages; $15.95, paperback. Reprinted)
.
reviewed by Robert Hart
.
Sometimes the timing of a message is as prophetic as the message itself. Writing about the priesthood in 1963 in a book that will be of value to pastors in every church, Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen wrote: “We become significant to our fellow men not by being a ‘regular guy’, but by being ‘another Christ’. . . . Popularity is not necessarily influence.” Soon after, many clergy sought to be nothing more than a “regular guy,” trying to make church more comfortable and inviting by diminishing the authority and separateness of their role.
.
Sheen explains that role by reminding the reader that Christ was both Priest and Victim, and that it is not only in the sacrificial ministry at the altar (in Catholic terms), but also in the personal life of sacrifice, that Christ’s pastors must follow him; not only in preaching the Cross, but also in taking it up every day. In this light, the desire to be a “regular guy” can be seen for what it is: a desire to be popular and safe, to avoid the suffering and death of Christ, to live for oneself instead of living for God and the sinful men who need salvation.
.
Sheen calls the priest to live the priesthood of Jesus Christ, and to live it in such a way that people will feel that they have been with “‘another Christ’ and not merely ‘another Joe’.” In his words:
.
Unlike anyone else, Our Lord came on earth, not to live, but to die. Death for our redemption was the goal of His sojourn here, the gold that he was seeking. He was, therefore, not primarily a teacher, but a Savior. Was not Christ the Priest a Victim? He never offered anything except Himself. So we have a mutilated concept of our priesthood, if we envisage it apart from making ourselves victims in the prolongation of his Incarnation.
.
Sheen makes it clear that priests have a special responsibility to live a holy life in order to serve God truly and to be an example for the laity, not to limit the growth in holiness of the laity, but to increase it. When the people look down on the clergy as being less holy in their manner of life, it is an unhealthy situation for everyone, harming not only the life but also the power of the Church.
.
The priest who is, by God’s grace, seeking to live up to the call to holiness (as an example to all Christians) “crushes his ego and its desires, so that in him there are two natures in one person: on the one hand, his human nature; on the other, his ‘participation in the Divine Nature’ through grace and the losing of his human personality in the Person of Christ.”
.
Sound Advice
.
As idealistic as this may sound, it comes with very practical advice, such as: “How much more our words would burn as we preach . . . if, before preaching, we prayed for five minutes to the Holy Spirit for Pentecostal fire; if we kept the scriptures ever near us, that we might gird ourselves with their truth when mounting the pulpit.”
.
The book is uncompromising in its pure and traditional Roman Catholicism, but (speaking as an Anglican) this is one of its strengths. We see in it the kind of clarity so often lacking in the works of the last few decades, even by Catholics for Catholics.
.
One can imagine the fictional character played by Ward Bond in John Ford’s The Quiet Man nodding his head in approval. Remember the authority that priest had in the Irish village, walking into a saloon and ordering Victor McLaughlin, “You’ll take the man’s hand, or I’ll read your name in the Mass on Sunday.” Would a character with that much authority ring true in a movie made in the seventies, or the eighties, or now?
.
The Priest Is Not His Own should have a useful message to every man who has entered ordained ministry in whatever body. For every pastor has something to gain from being willing to take up his cross, and follow the Lord to Calvary; that something may be the redeemed souls of those who not only have heard his preaching, but have also seen his message in the life he lives.
Monday, September 08, 2008
Eating and drinking salvation
In recent comments we have had questions about "non-communicating Masses." Whereas St. Paul gave us a clear warning not to receive the Holy Communion unless we approach this great mystery in a worthy manner, with both repentance and faith, he also recorded the words of the Lord, "Eat...Drink." As Article XXV puts it: "The Sacraments were not ordained of Christ to be gazed upon or to be carried about, but that we should duly use them. And in such only as worthily receive the same, have they a wholesome effect or operation: but they that receive them unworthily, purchase to themselves damnation, as Saint Paul saith."
.
Some people who read that Article think that it is addressing Corpus Christi processions, and the service of Benediction. It did not seem so to an earlier generation of Episcopalians who authorized the Hymn "Now my tongue the mystery telling," or Pange Lingua by St. Thomas Aquinas (199, Hymnal 1940). Both Roman Catholic and "Calvinist" polemicists deride Anglo-Catholics and other high Church Anglicans for holding services of Benediction, insisting that such a practice somehow violates the Article. Indeed, to an English Reformer from the time of Queen Elizabeth, such a sight would be most disagreeable. Nonetheless, it is likely that the American Anglicans who created the Hymnal 1940 understood Article XXV far better than the polemical critics do.
.
The history of the Reformation period reveals that what needed correction was the practice of merely "hearing Mass" on the part of the people, most of whom were present with no intention to receive the sacrament. As we have noted quite a few times here, the whole reason for calling the Mass by a new name, Holy Communion, was to make the point that the people were supposed do two things. First, they were to receive the sacrament, and second, they were to examine themselves (as St. Paul exhorts), and with "hearty repentance and true faith" prepare themselves to receive in a worthy manner.
.
Article XXXV lists homilies that we ought to read for our instruction as Anglicans. Quoting from AN HOMILIE OF THE worthy receiuing and reuerend esteeming of the Sacrament of the body and blood of Christ
.
And as of olde time GOD decreed his wonderous benefits of the deliuerance of his people, to be kept in memory by the eating of the Passeouer, with his Rites and Ceremonies (Exodus 12.14): So our louing Sauiour hath ordeyned and established the remembrance of his great mercy expressed in his passion, in the institution of his heauenly Supper (Matthew 26.26-28), where euery one of vs must be ghestes, and not gazers, eaters, and not lookers, feeding our selues, and not hiring other to feed for vs, that we may liue by our owne meat, and not to perish for hunger, whiles other deuour all (1 Corinthians 11.21). To this, his commandement forceth vs, saying, Do ye this, drinke yee all of this (Luke 22.17). To this, his promise entiseth, This is my body which is giuen for you (1 Corinthians 11.24-25), this is my blood which is shed for you (Matthew 26.28). So then of necessity we must be our selues partakers of this table, and not beholders of other: So wee must addresse our selues to frequent the same in reuerent and comely maner, lest as Physicke prouided for the body, being misused, more hurteth then profiteth: so this comfortable medicine of the soule vndecently receiued, tendeth to our greater harme and sorrow.
.
This homily was revolutionary. The practice of frequent communion was restored in the West by the English Reformers, indeed, by the teaching of Archbishop Cranmer himself. Those words, "So wee must addresse our selues to frequent the same in reuerent and comely maner," were bold. The theology of this is simple. If we should "frequent the same" at all, we need to be in a state of belief and repentence as the normal practice of our daily lives. Since it must be in "comely maner," we must be ready always to receive the Lord. What better way to live as men who are prepared to die, or to meet the Lord at any moment? If we must live in such a way as to be able to receive frequently in a manner that makes the reception worthy, we must be quick to confess and repent from the heart, and be living in charity with our neighbors. Frequent Communion, done in light of Paul's warnings, requires a saintly life, a holy walk with the Lord.
This is very much a part of our salvation, and so again we quote the words of the Lord Jesus Christ:
.
Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me. This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever (John 6: 54-58).
.
By eating this bread and drinking this cup our sinful bodies are made clean by his body, and our souls are washed through his most precious blood of the New Covenant. Springing from his Incarnation, from the Word made flesh, is this sacrament by which we receive Christ, the Bread of Life, the food and drink of eternal life. The words: “…that our sinful bodies may be made clean by his Body, and our souls washed through his most precious Blood…” offends the modern mind, which is why TEC cut these words out of the Prayer of Humble Access. They fail to understand that the body is unclean by reason of death, to which it is subject, and the soul is stained with both original sin and our own added culpability by thought, word and deed.
.
The Homily goes on:
.
Let vs rather in these matters follow the aduice of Cyprian in the like cases, that is, cleaue fast to the first beginning, hold fast the Lords tradition, doe that in the Lords commemoration which he himselfe did, he himselfe commanded, and his Apostles confirmed.
But thus much we must be sure to hold, that in the Supper of the Lord, there is no vaine Ceremonie, no bare signe, no vntrue figure of a thing absent (Matthew 26.26): But (as the Scripture saith) the Table of the Lord, the Bread and Cup of the Lord, the memorie of Christ, the Annuntiation of his death, yea the Communion of the Body and Blood of the Lord, in a marueilous incorporation, which by the operation of the holy Ghost (the very bond of our coniunction with Christ) is through faith wrought in the soules of the faithfull, whereby not onely their soules liue to eternall life, but they surely trust to win their bodies a resurrection to immortalitie (1 Corinthians 10.16-17). The true vnderstanding of this fruition and vnion, which is betwixt the body & the head betwixt the true beleeuers and Christ, the ancient Catholike Fathers, both perceiuing themselues, and commending to their people, were not afraid to call this Supper, some of them, the salue of immortalitie and soueraigne preseruatiue against death: other, a deificall Communion: other, the sweet dainties of our Sauiour, the pledge of eternall health, the defence of Faith, the hope of the Resurrection: other, the food of immortalitie, the healthfull grace, and the conseruatorie to euerlasting life (Irenaeus, Bk. 4, Chap. 34; Ignatius, Epis. ad Ephes.; Dionysius?; Origen, Optat. Cyp. de Cana Domini; Athanasius, De Pec. in Spir. Sanct.). All which sayings both of the holy Scripture and godly men, truely attributed to this celestiall banket and feast, if we would often call to minde, O how would they inflame our hearts to desire the participation of these mysteries, and oftentimes to couet after this bread, continually to thirste for this food?
The hope of the resurrection of the dead on the Last Day, receiving immortality by feeding on Christ, not only who died, but who rose again and everlives to make intercession for us, is the great benefit of eating and drinking salvation by this sacrament (not the memorial of the dead, but the reminder of the living).
This requires faith, since "without faith it is imposible to please Him." (Hebrews 11:6) It has proved easy for our critics to misread Anglican formularies, and come to very wrong opinions about our faith. When the English Reformers wrote "Of the wicked which do not eat the body of Christ, in the use of the Lord's Supper" (Artilce XXIX), they did not attack the reality of the sacrament, or deny that the Lord is truly present. Rather, they took a look at the great gulf fixed between those who presume upon God's grace by eating and drinking damnation to themselves (I Corinthians 11:29), and those who take the food and drink of eternal life. The distinction is made because of faith in the presence of Christ in the sacrament, not to deny that Reality; just as Paul's words of warning were based on that Reality (Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.-I Cor. 11:27-29).
The Lord promised salvation to those who recieve him in the sacrament: ""Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him." Yet, Paul warns the unbelieving and unrepentant that receiving the same sacrament brings God's judgment on them. We know that God's revelation in Holy Scripture cannot contradict itself. So, the homily says:
Whereas by the aduice of the Councell of Nicene, we ought to lift vp our mindes by fayth, and leauing these inferiour and earthly things, there seeke it, where the sunne of righteousnesse euer shineth (Council of Nicene, Concilium). Take then this lesson (O thou that art desirous of this Table) of Emissenus a godly Father, that when thou goest vp to the reuerend Communion, to be satisfied with spirituall meates, thou looke vp with fayth vpon the holy body and blood of thy GOD, thou maruayle with reuerence, thou touch it with the minde, thou receiue it with the hand of thy heart, and thou take it fully with thy inward man (Eusebius Emissenus, Serm. de Euchar.).
And:
For the vnbeleeuers and faithlesse, cannot feed vpon that precious body: whereas the faythfull haue their life, their abiding in him, their vnion, and as it were their incorporation with him. Wherefore let vs prooue and trie our selues vnfaynedly, without flattering our selues, whether we bee plants of the fruitfull Oliue, liuing branches of the true vine, members indeed of Christs mysticall body, whether GOD hath purified our hearts by fayth, to the sincere acknowledging of his Gospel, and imbracing of his mercies in Christ Iesus, so that at this his table we receiue not only the outward Sacrament, but the spirituall thing also: not the figure, but the trueth: not the shadow only, but the body: not to death, but to life: not to destruction, but to saluation: which GOD grant vs to doe through the merits of our Lord and Sauiour, to whom bee all honour and glory for euer, Amen.
In this time we are assailed by opposing errors, and need to to stay on the Via Media, turning neither to the right hand or to the left. Those of the "Reasserter" camp treat the sacrament as less than "the holy body and blood of thy God." They reject the Anglican Catechism that declares this sacrament, along with baptism, to be "generally necessary to salvation." Meanwhile, at least one prominent Anglo-Papalist has written to suggest that we return to late medieval practice, with silent celebration (called in the Homilies, "dumb massing"), and non-commuinicating Masses.
The Anglican emphasis on Reception has been rejected in both of these extremes. Some have distorted that emphasis by inventing a doctrine, called "Receptionism" by some, in which the Body and Blood of Christ are real only by some invisible effect on the heart, rather than as objectively real by his word. But, that was not what the Anglican emphasis was ever about. It is about the purpose of the sacrament as designed by God's goodness and mercy. Worthy and frequent reception is practical, for it forces us to live a holy life and truly and earnestly to repent of our sins. The sacrament is charismatic, and the power of the sacrament springs from the Incarnation of the Word, is tied to his death and sacrifice, and quickened by his resurrection in order to be the food and drink of eternal life.
With our mouths and by faith, we eat and drink our Salvation, that is, Jesus.
Saturday, September 06, 2008
Across the Threshhold
Across the threshhold I had been afraid to cross, things suddenly seemed so very simple. There was but a single vision, God, who was all in all; there was but one will that directed all things, God's will. I had only to see it, to discern it in every circumstance in which I found myself, and let myself be ruled by it. God is in all things, sustains all things, directs all things. To discern this in every situation and circumstance, to see His will in all things, was to accept each circumstance and situation and let oneself be borne along in perfect confidence and trust. Nothing could separate me from Him, because He was in all things. No danger could threaten me, no fear could shake me, except the fear of losing sight of Him. The future, hidden as it was, was hidden in His will and therefore acceptable to me no matter what it might bring. The past, with all its failures, was not forgotten; it remained to remind me of the weakness of human nature and the folly of putting any faith in self. But it no longer depressed me. I looked no longer to self to guide me, relied on it no longer in any way, so it could not again fail me. By renouncing, finally and completely, all control of my life and future destiny, I was relieved as a consequence of all responsibility. I was freed thereby from anxiety and worry, from every tension, and could float serenely upon the tide of God's sustaining providence in perfect peace of soul.
Walter Ciszek, SJ
Walter Ciszek, SJ
Thursday, September 04, 2008
rev'd up said...
On another blog the man who calls himself rev'd up has decided to attack The Continuum. He says we do not post his comments because we hate him, and so I decided to post the entire remark here.
The phonies at "Continuum" hate my guts and won't post my comments, so don't be alarmed when I offer high approval for what you have written (though I'm not a fan of Neusner, maybe you aren't either, but if an enemy can make your point...). The "Continuum" boys are venomous Donatists who recoil from demonstrable catholic traditions choosing rather the traditions of select men. They love to play it fast, lose and neo-novus ordo. Provincialists all.
So, now he's had his say.
Whereas we have never banned anyone from commenting, we reject comments that attack individuals, or that express bigotry.
The phonies at "Continuum" hate my guts and won't post my comments, so don't be alarmed when I offer high approval for what you have written (though I'm not a fan of Neusner, maybe you aren't either, but if an enemy can make your point...). The "Continuum" boys are venomous Donatists who recoil from demonstrable catholic traditions choosing rather the traditions of select men. They love to play it fast, lose and neo-novus ordo. Provincialists all.
So, now he's had his say.
Whereas we have never banned anyone from commenting, we reject comments that attack individuals, or that express bigotry.
Response to Fr. Hunwicke
I have long respected Fr. John Hunwicke, coiner of the phrase "the Dutch Touch," even though I do not share his Anglo-Papalist sentiments. Normally, he argues his points very well, with a gentle style of forceful logic that seems very English in temperment. However, a recent post on his blog does not sit well with my convictions.
.
In his piece entitiled, "What's Mass for?" he argues for silent celebration, a practice that Pope Benedict XVI also lauded in one of his pre-elevation books; but, a practice I object to. Hunwicke's argument centers on the Sacrifice of the Mass as its most important feature. He writes:
.
But the centrality of Sacrifice, in the last resort, is more important than the worship or reception of the Sacramental Christ. I hesitate to blunder carelessly and over-simplistically around in so great a mystery; it is certainly true that both ....and is more important than either ... or. But, to be simple and crude, the Eucharist is firstly a sacrifice; only when we have said this do we go on to say that it is (we can't get away from the terminology of our Jewish roots here) a communion sacrifice.
.
Then he lists the features of the Eucharist in the order of their priorities as he sees them:
.
In the last resort, the Lord's Body and Blood are present substantialiter et realiter upon our altars primarily to be the propitiatory sacrifice which (since the first Holy Week) replaces the the Temple cult; secondarily, to be received so that Christ's Body and Blood can (Dr Pusey's banned sermon citing a great crop of Eastern Fathers is good on this) be commingled with ours; thirdly, to be adored.
.
How exactly did Fr. Hunwicke come up with this list of priorites? Is there a scriptural and theological justification for teaching such a list of priorities in this matter? Although I have no arguments against the third point itself, it is worth noting that it has the weakest support in antiquity.
.
Obviously, we cannot reject the theological truth of Eucharistic Sacrifice. In a recent comment on a very different topic, Fr. Laurence Wells reminded us of the very clear Biblical support for this ancient doctrine: "I could develop this further, with St. Paul's use of the terms leitourgos and hierogounta in Romans 15:16: 'because of the grace given to me by God, to be a minister of Christ Jesus in the priestly service of the gospel of God, so that the offering (prosphora, a term denoting sacrifice) of the Gentiles may be acceptable, sanctified by the Holy Spirit.' A person who rejects a sacerdotal concept of the ministry would have a hard time explaining away this and similar texts." We may add that simple statement from the writer to the Hebrews, comparing the superiority of the Eucharist to temple sacrifices (that were about to be abolished), "We have an altar, whereof they have no right to eat which serve the tabernacle."(Heb. 13:10)
.
Nonetheless, how does Fr. Hunwicke conclude that there exists this order of priorities? Furthermore, how does this make a silent celebration in any way desirable? We could as well argue from the sixth chapter of John that receiving the sacrament is, indeed, the highest priority (e.g. v.54: "Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day"). In this light the understanding of the people is crucial. The warning of St. Paul in I Corinthians chapter 11 only makes this all the more apparent. "For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come. Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord." (I Cor. 11:26, 27).
.
Continuing, Fr. Hunwicke brings up one of the worst problems in Medeival practice with seeming admiration:
.
Look at it diachronically: most Christians in most Chrisian centuries have attended Mass without communicating. S Pius X's great campaign for Frequent Communion does not need to be denigrated but it is not simpliciter the whole Christian tradition.
.
Attending Mass without communicating does not fit the Lord's instructions: "And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me." (I Cor.11:23,24) Should we return to the times of ignorance and darkness, in which the people attended Mass without participating at all, excluded by celebration that, if audible, was in a tongue not "understanded of the people," usually without communion? The high point for them was adoration, looking up at the right time when they heard the bell, never partaking of the food and drink of eternal life but maybe once or twice a year, if then.
.
To correct this error, the Church of England provided a Mass in the language of the people, and called the Mass by the very Biblical name Holy Communion. They emphasized the Lord's own command to eat and drink it, mindful of St. Paul's teaching to do so in a worthy manner. Furthermore, they corrected the error of clericalism in this service by having the people participate in the prayers and worship. This was because the Eucharistic Sacrifice is not merely the offering of the priests, but through the priests the offering of the whole Church. The sacrament is mystically tied to the Church as the Body of Christ, no longer relegated to mere spectators of esoteric priestcraft, an inferior class inhabiting the court of the Gentiles.
.
Do we really want to restore a time in which the priest, instead of facing east to lead the people in their prayers, did so merely to turn his back on them? Should we restore practices in which the understanding of the people counted for nothing? In addition to the theological reasons for the Reformation, one major reason also must be weighed in the scales: For centuries people were kept in the darkness of ignorance, and treated as if the Word of God had not been inspired to teach them and to turn their reason into Right Reason. For centuries the need for faith was kept secret. The clear light of understanding was a revolution, and there is no going back because knowledge is a kind of liberation.
.
Silent celebration ceases to be the sacrifice of the people through the priest, and restores clericalism. What good is a tongue that the people understand if that tongue is not heard? It may as well be the gift of tongues applied wrongly: "Now, brethren, if I come unto you speaking with tongues, what shall I profit you, except I shall speak to you either by revelation, or by knowledge, or by prophesying, or by doctrine?...Else when thou shalt bless with the spirit, how shall he that occupieth the room of the unlearned say Amen at thy giving of thanks, seeing he understandeth not what thou sayest? For thou verily givest thanks well, but the other is not edified. " (I Cor. 14:6,15-17)
.
Fr. Hunwicke continues:
.
Or it can be done done silently; catechesis will have no trouble explaining that it is silent because it effects the great act of consecration and sacrifice; silent becuse it effects this without essentially needing lay participation or even understanding; silent because the priest is in the holiest possible commerce with God rather than saying something for the interest, diversion, or even edification of the people.
.
This is true, since we do not argue with the validity of such a celebration.* Rather, Anglican priests were never authorized to celebrate in silence for the same reason they were not allowed to use a language foreign to the people (and this ought to be what we, as Anglicans, Continue). It is a bad idea to exclude the people from participation in the worship, prayers and understanding of the Church. We should not go back to clericalist practice, such as silent celebration. Valid it may be, but wise it is not.
.
Finally, Fr. Hunwicke concludes by writing.
.
At S Thomas's, I inherited a Eucharistic Prayer which says that Christ on the Cross made 'by his one oblation of himself once offered a full perfect and sufficient sacrifice oblation and satisfaction for the sins of the whole world'. This prayer ... I'm not sure who can have composed it ... looks superficially like a piece of Proddy polemic. I have sharpened up the text by simply changing the indefinite article a to the deictic pronoun this.
.
I cannot sympathize with a lawless approach to liturgy, and I find it quite annoying when anyone, be he High or Low, treats the Book of Common Prayer tradition with disrespect. Furthermore, we are in serious trouble when a piece of Biblical truth, whether phrased eloquently or haltingly, is dismissed with the partisan expression: "Proddy polemic." Frankly, the "a" is correct, inasmuch as the connection between the once for all sacrifice and the mystery of the Eucharist is about to be stated in the prayer that follows.
.
On this one, I can't applaud Fr. Hunwicke.
.
*Though complete silence brings up a possible problem of invalid Form.
Wednesday, September 03, 2008
St. Vincent of Lerins
The "Vincentian Canon"
From Chapter 4 of the Commonitorium A.D. 434
(1) I have continually given the greatest pains and diligence to inquiring, from the greatest possible number of men outstanding in holiness and in doctrine, how I can secure a kind of fixed and, as it were, general and guiding principle for distinguishing the true Catholic Faith from the degraded falsehoods of heresy. And the answer that I receive is always to this effect; that if I wish, or indeed if anyone wishes, to detect the deceits of heretics that arise and to avoid their snares and to keep healthy and sound in a healthy faith, we ought, with the Lord's help, to fortify our faith in a twofold manner, firstly, that is, by the authority of God's Law, then by the tradition of the Catholic Church.
(2) Here, it may be, someone will ask, Since the canon of Scripture is complete, and is in itself abundantly sufficient, what need is there to join to it the interpretation of the Church? The answer is that because of the very depth of Scripture all men do not place one identical interpretation upon it. The statements of the same writer are explained by different men in different ways, so much so that it seems almost possible to extract from it as many opinions as there are men. Novatian expounds in one way, Sabellius in another, Donatus in another, Arius, Eunomius and Macedonius in another, Photinus, Apollinaris and Priscillian in another, Jovinian, Pelagius and Caelestius in another, and latterly Nestorius in another. Therefore, because of the intricacies of error, which is so multiform, there is great need for the laying down of a rule for the exposition of Prophets and Apostles in accordance with the standard of the interpretation of the Church Catholic.
(3) Now in the Catholic Church itself we take the greatest care to hold that which has been believed everywhere, always and by all. That is truly and properly 'Catholic,' as is shown by the very force and meaning of the word, which comprehends everything almost universally. We shall hold to this rule if we follow universality [i.e. oecumenicity], antiquity, and consent. We shall follow universality if we acknowledge that one Faith to be true which the whole Church throughout the world confesses; antiquity if we in no wise depart from those interpretations which it is clear that our ancestors and fathers proclaimed; consent, if in antiquity itself we keep following the definitions and opinions of all, or certainly nearly all, bishops and doctors alike.
(4) What then will the Catholic Christian do, if a small part of the Church has cut itself off from the communion of the universal Faith? The answer is sure. He will prefer the healthiness of the whole body to the morbid and corrupt limb. But what if some novel contagion try to infect the whole Church, and not merely a tiny part of it? Then he will take care to cleave to antiquity, which cannot now be led astray by any deceit of novelty. What if in antiquity itself two or three men, or it may be a city, or even a whole province be detected in error? Then he will take the greatest care to prefer the decrees of the ancient General Councils, if there are such, to the irresponsible ignorance of a few men. But what if some error arises regarding which nothing of this sort is to be found? Then he must do his best to compare the opinions of the Fathers and inquire their meaning, provided always that, though they belonged to diverse times and places, they yet continued in the faith and communion of the one Catholic Church; and let them be teachers approved and outstanding. And whatever he shall find to have been held, approved and taught, not by one or two only but by all equally and with one consent, openly, frequently, and persistently, let him take this as to be held by him without the slightest hesitation.
From Chapter 4 of the Commonitorium A.D. 434
(1) I have continually given the greatest pains and diligence to inquiring, from the greatest possible number of men outstanding in holiness and in doctrine, how I can secure a kind of fixed and, as it were, general and guiding principle for distinguishing the true Catholic Faith from the degraded falsehoods of heresy. And the answer that I receive is always to this effect; that if I wish, or indeed if anyone wishes, to detect the deceits of heretics that arise and to avoid their snares and to keep healthy and sound in a healthy faith, we ought, with the Lord's help, to fortify our faith in a twofold manner, firstly, that is, by the authority of God's Law, then by the tradition of the Catholic Church.
(2) Here, it may be, someone will ask, Since the canon of Scripture is complete, and is in itself abundantly sufficient, what need is there to join to it the interpretation of the Church? The answer is that because of the very depth of Scripture all men do not place one identical interpretation upon it. The statements of the same writer are explained by different men in different ways, so much so that it seems almost possible to extract from it as many opinions as there are men. Novatian expounds in one way, Sabellius in another, Donatus in another, Arius, Eunomius and Macedonius in another, Photinus, Apollinaris and Priscillian in another, Jovinian, Pelagius and Caelestius in another, and latterly Nestorius in another. Therefore, because of the intricacies of error, which is so multiform, there is great need for the laying down of a rule for the exposition of Prophets and Apostles in accordance with the standard of the interpretation of the Church Catholic.
(3) Now in the Catholic Church itself we take the greatest care to hold that which has been believed everywhere, always and by all. That is truly and properly 'Catholic,' as is shown by the very force and meaning of the word, which comprehends everything almost universally. We shall hold to this rule if we follow universality [i.e. oecumenicity], antiquity, and consent. We shall follow universality if we acknowledge that one Faith to be true which the whole Church throughout the world confesses; antiquity if we in no wise depart from those interpretations which it is clear that our ancestors and fathers proclaimed; consent, if in antiquity itself we keep following the definitions and opinions of all, or certainly nearly all, bishops and doctors alike.
(4) What then will the Catholic Christian do, if a small part of the Church has cut itself off from the communion of the universal Faith? The answer is sure. He will prefer the healthiness of the whole body to the morbid and corrupt limb. But what if some novel contagion try to infect the whole Church, and not merely a tiny part of it? Then he will take care to cleave to antiquity, which cannot now be led astray by any deceit of novelty. What if in antiquity itself two or three men, or it may be a city, or even a whole province be detected in error? Then he will take the greatest care to prefer the decrees of the ancient General Councils, if there are such, to the irresponsible ignorance of a few men. But what if some error arises regarding which nothing of this sort is to be found? Then he must do his best to compare the opinions of the Fathers and inquire their meaning, provided always that, though they belonged to diverse times and places, they yet continued in the faith and communion of the one Catholic Church; and let them be teachers approved and outstanding. And whatever he shall find to have been held, approved and taught, not by one or two only but by all equally and with one consent, openly, frequently, and persistently, let him take this as to be held by him without the slightest hesitation.
[ed. Moxon, Cambridge Patristic Texts]
________
On this blog I have criticized the theory put forth by Cardinal Newman about Development of Doctrine, inasmuch as it runs contrary to the Vincentian Canon. Notice here the weight that St. Vincent gives to "antiquity," and think of that in relation to the Anglican emphasis on the early centuries of the Church, including the first millennium in which the Church was mostly unified; consider also the One Faith in Two Testaments, in Three Creeds, in Four [formulative] Councils,* and Five Centuries (Anglican 1,2,3,4,5-attributed to the writings of Lancelot Andrewes). To St. Vincent, the later ideas must be weighed by the earlier teaching that was universally accepted; not the other way around.
For more clarity on this, look at what he wrote in chapter 25 of the same work:
"But the Church of Christ, the careful and watchful guardian of the doctrines deposited in her charge, never changes anything in them, never diminishes, never adds, does not cut off what is necessary, does not add what is superfluous, does not lose her own, does not appropriate what is another's, but while dealing faithfully and judiciously with ancient doctrine, keeps this one object carefully in view,--if there be anything which antiquity has left shapeless and rudimentary, to fashion and polish it, if anything already reduced to shape and developed, to consolidate and strengthen it, if any already ratified and defined to keep and guard it. Finally, what other object have Councils ever aimed at in their decrees, than to provide that what was before believed in simplicity should in future be believed intelligently, that what was before preached coldly should in future be preached earnestly, that what was before practised negligently should thenceforward be practised with double solicitude? This, I say, is what the Catholic Church, roused by the novelties of heretics, has accomplished by the decrees of her Councils,--this, and nothing else,--she has thenceforward consigned to posterity in writing what she had received from those of olden times only by tradition, comprising a great amount of matter in a few words, and often, for the better understanding, designating an old article of the faith by the characteristic of a new name."
From the earliest days of Anglicanism, the goal has been fidelity to what the Church has believed from the beginning, rejecting nothing that custom has added to this by the wisdom of past generations concerning polity, but rejecting all doctrines and practices that cannot stand the two-fold test of antiquity and universal consent.
*In the first four Ecumenical Councils we see formulations of clarity and expression for dogmatic theology that were not restated in the final three, but only defended.
________
On this blog I have criticized the theory put forth by Cardinal Newman about Development of Doctrine, inasmuch as it runs contrary to the Vincentian Canon. Notice here the weight that St. Vincent gives to "antiquity," and think of that in relation to the Anglican emphasis on the early centuries of the Church, including the first millennium in which the Church was mostly unified; consider also the One Faith in Two Testaments, in Three Creeds, in Four [formulative] Councils,* and Five Centuries (Anglican 1,2,3,4,5-attributed to the writings of Lancelot Andrewes). To St. Vincent, the later ideas must be weighed by the earlier teaching that was universally accepted; not the other way around.
For more clarity on this, look at what he wrote in chapter 25 of the same work:
"But the Church of Christ, the careful and watchful guardian of the doctrines deposited in her charge, never changes anything in them, never diminishes, never adds, does not cut off what is necessary, does not add what is superfluous, does not lose her own, does not appropriate what is another's, but while dealing faithfully and judiciously with ancient doctrine, keeps this one object carefully in view,--if there be anything which antiquity has left shapeless and rudimentary, to fashion and polish it, if anything already reduced to shape and developed, to consolidate and strengthen it, if any already ratified and defined to keep and guard it. Finally, what other object have Councils ever aimed at in their decrees, than to provide that what was before believed in simplicity should in future be believed intelligently, that what was before preached coldly should in future be preached earnestly, that what was before practised negligently should thenceforward be practised with double solicitude? This, I say, is what the Catholic Church, roused by the novelties of heretics, has accomplished by the decrees of her Councils,--this, and nothing else,--she has thenceforward consigned to posterity in writing what she had received from those of olden times only by tradition, comprising a great amount of matter in a few words, and often, for the better understanding, designating an old article of the faith by the characteristic of a new name."
From the earliest days of Anglicanism, the goal has been fidelity to what the Church has believed from the beginning, rejecting nothing that custom has added to this by the wisdom of past generations concerning polity, but rejecting all doctrines and practices that cannot stand the two-fold test of antiquity and universal consent.
*In the first four Ecumenical Councils we see formulations of clarity and expression for dogmatic theology that were not restated in the final three, but only defended.
Tuesday, September 02, 2008
Substantive Unity
Archbishop Reber, Primate of the United Episcopal Church, has released the following:
On the morning of August 23, 2008, at 10:00 a.m., the Right Reverend D. Presley Hutchens, Bishop Ordinary of the Diocese of New Orleans, Anglican Catholic Church, did ordain Mr. Ralph James Caley to the Holy Order of Deacon.
Mr. Caley is a member of St. Barnabas Anglican Church in Heber Springs, Arkansas, a parish in the United Episcopal Church. The Reverend Father Tom Bradshaw, Rector of the parish, preached. Archdeacon Sam Seamans, UEC Deanery of the Ozarks, assisted Bishop Hutchens at the Mass. Approximately 80 parishioners and family members attended the ordination service and the reception following.
This sharing of bishops for the purpose of Episcopal acts between both the UEC and ACC is the direct result of a commitment signed by Archbishops Haverland and Reber on Ascension Day, 2007, signaling an ernest desire by both jurisdictions toward complete unity.
Both jurisdictions have been sharing clergy for sometime. However, this is the first such use of bishops between the two jurisdictions.
Monday, September 01, 2008
New low
Sanctity of Human Life
Every human being, from the time of his conception, is a creature and child of God, made in His image and likeness, an infinitely precious soul; and that the unjustifiable or inexcusable taking of life is always sinful. -Affirmation of St.Louis, 1977
This is not a political blog. Nonetheless, on the life issue, just as the slavery issue 150 years ago, politics and morality get mixed together. When political issues and moral issues intertwine, it is necessary to make a statement.
Writing for the Baltimore Sun, Susan Reimer criticized John McCain's choice of a running-mate, Sarah Palin Governor of Alaska, as unfit to hold office for a reason that the writer believes to be self-evident: In her September 1, op-ed Reimer wrote: "You want to look good to the Evangelicals? Choose a running mate with a Down syndrome child... A woman who made the decision to carry to term a baby she knew to be developmentally disabled."
No argument was made to explain why this should be held against Gov. Palin. Apparently, in Ms. Riemer's world, it is obvious to her readers that any mother who does not choose to snuff out the life of a handicapped child is not fit to become Vice President of the United States. Equally disturbing to her anti-life view is Ms. Reimer's assumption that the public actually is duly horrified.
Reimer went on: "Does McCain think we will be so grateful for a skirt [sic] on the ticket that we won't notice that she's anti-abortion...?" Since when is the abortion issue a women's issue among voters in the United States? The old game of treating liberal abortion laws as a women's issue is not only dishonest, but insulting. Many of the pro-life leaders and advocates in the U.S. are women, and many of the pro-abortion advocates are men- after all, a certain kind of man has the most to gain from shifting the burden of "doing the right thing" when contraception fails.
But, to add to this worn-out claptrap some new idea that the public should recoil from a mother because she chose life for a disabled child, and then to assume that the public reaction will be to shun such a mother, is a new low, even for modern liberals. Happily, I think Ms. Reimer's assumption is dead wrong, and that most people will not be horrified.
It is worth adding the perspective of history. Often people wax over-dramatic by comparing people to the Nazis. In this case, however, it is not over-dramatic at all. The fact is, in the ideology of Adolf Hitler and the Nazi party, Reimer's view was the only permitted view. If Mrs. Palin's Down Syndrome child had been born in Hitler's Germany, he would have been killed by the state.
Why don't these modern liberals realize that they are embracing Nazi ideology by trying to create a super race, free from the defilement of disabled people? For now, their only difference with Hitler is that they want it to be done by a mother's choice rather than by legal mandate and force. If, however, they continue to assume that the public embraces their view, they are not far from accepting, in their own minds, this very kind of government intervention.
Politics aside, Mrs. Palin made the only choice that pleases God, since the alternative would have been murder. For us, that is the only issue for anyone facing this same choice.
Every human being, from the time of his conception, is a creature and child of God, made in His image and likeness, an infinitely precious soul; and that the unjustifiable or inexcusable taking of life is always sinful. -Affirmation of St.Louis, 1977
This is not a political blog. Nonetheless, on the life issue, just as the slavery issue 150 years ago, politics and morality get mixed together. When political issues and moral issues intertwine, it is necessary to make a statement.
Writing for the Baltimore Sun, Susan Reimer criticized John McCain's choice of a running-mate, Sarah Palin Governor of Alaska, as unfit to hold office for a reason that the writer believes to be self-evident: In her September 1, op-ed Reimer wrote: "You want to look good to the Evangelicals? Choose a running mate with a Down syndrome child... A woman who made the decision to carry to term a baby she knew to be developmentally disabled."
No argument was made to explain why this should be held against Gov. Palin. Apparently, in Ms. Riemer's world, it is obvious to her readers that any mother who does not choose to snuff out the life of a handicapped child is not fit to become Vice President of the United States. Equally disturbing to her anti-life view is Ms. Reimer's assumption that the public actually is duly horrified.
Reimer went on: "Does McCain think we will be so grateful for a skirt [sic] on the ticket that we won't notice that she's anti-abortion...?" Since when is the abortion issue a women's issue among voters in the United States? The old game of treating liberal abortion laws as a women's issue is not only dishonest, but insulting. Many of the pro-life leaders and advocates in the U.S. are women, and many of the pro-abortion advocates are men- after all, a certain kind of man has the most to gain from shifting the burden of "doing the right thing" when contraception fails.
But, to add to this worn-out claptrap some new idea that the public should recoil from a mother because she chose life for a disabled child, and then to assume that the public reaction will be to shun such a mother, is a new low, even for modern liberals. Happily, I think Ms. Reimer's assumption is dead wrong, and that most people will not be horrified.
It is worth adding the perspective of history. Often people wax over-dramatic by comparing people to the Nazis. In this case, however, it is not over-dramatic at all. The fact is, in the ideology of Adolf Hitler and the Nazi party, Reimer's view was the only permitted view. If Mrs. Palin's Down Syndrome child had been born in Hitler's Germany, he would have been killed by the state.
Why don't these modern liberals realize that they are embracing Nazi ideology by trying to create a super race, free from the defilement of disabled people? For now, their only difference with Hitler is that they want it to be done by a mother's choice rather than by legal mandate and force. If, however, they continue to assume that the public embraces their view, they are not far from accepting, in their own minds, this very kind of government intervention.
Politics aside, Mrs. Palin made the only choice that pleases God, since the alternative would have been murder. For us, that is the only issue for anyone facing this same choice.
Saturday, August 30, 2008
Fifteenth Sunday after Trinity
Gal. 6:11-18
Matt. 6:24-34
Matt. 6:24-34
Years ago Diane and I were subjected to the spectacle of clergymen who could not think of what to say in their sermons, because the scriptures seemed to them something much too strong for the likes of ordinary people, and they assumed that everyone is afraid of that thing called theology. On a couple of occasions, several years ago, back when I still sat in a pew with my wife, we were treated to exegesis and in-depth commentary on a text that appealed to these clergymen more than the passages of scripture that were read in church. And, so it was that they proceeded to expound upon the meaning of a children’s story called The Velveteen Rabbit. Their sermons could be summarized as follows: “Hey, like get real, man.” After being tortured by these homilies two or three times, I resolved that, were I ever to meet this velveteen rabbit chap I would kill it, and put myself out of its misery. With all of the writers of the Bible, Moses, David, Isaiah, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John and Paul- to name only a few- why is it that anyone would have trouble thinking of something to say?
The problem that some clergymen have with preaching is that they know they are handling dynamite, and it scares them. “The word of God is quick and powerful, sharper than any two edged sword,” says the writer to the Hebrews. When you and I are facing the real life traumas and struggles that threaten to shake either our lives or our faith, or that seem to challenge the very idea that God is good, merciful and kind, it is that objective thing called doctrine, that unchanging Creed, yes, our theology, that provides an anchor in the storm. When the world presents the illusion that our faith can be threatened by some sophisticated and trendy new “final blow to Christianity” (as opposed to last month’s “final blow to Christianity” which died away as soon as the clear light of reason shone upon it), it is theology that keeps us rooted and unshaken. What the teaching of the word of God does for you is by no means some irrelevant academic exercise divorced from the real world. No indeed. It is, rather, the armor and weaponry by which you advance in the knowledge of God and of His Son Jesus Christ, by which you overcome the world through your faith by the power of the Holy Spirit Who is in you. In times of sorrow, in times of joy, in times of suffering, and in times of merriment, the word of God is our daily bread for the mind and for the spirit; it is the lamp for our feet. It does not divorce us from reality because it keeps us rooted and grounded in the truth.
The scriptures today warn us of two kinds of deception, namely the deception of false religion and the deception of the cares of this world. And, what we see connecting these passages of scripture is summed up perfectly by our Lord when He tells us to seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness. In that seeking we are not escaping reality, rather we are facing it in its fullest. We can face good news and bad, even the fact of our own mortality, with a brand of courage unknown except by faith.
Saint Paul, in this Epistle to the churches in Galatia, saw the need to correct the heresy of self-appointed teachers who proclaimed a new and different “gospel.” In the first chapter he told them: “I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.” These words may sound harsh to people who imagine that all religion is good: But every genuine pastor, every sincere bishop, priest, or deacon, cannot help but agree fully and empathize with the burden that Saint Paul expressed. We cannot simply smile and accept what is taught in cults, or even in churches that are turning away from a clear and faithful adherence to “that which has been believed in all times, everywhere and by all” of the true teachers and saints in God’s Holy Catholic Church.
The heresy addressed in this Epistle was the new teaching that all of the gentiles who had converted to Christ could not be saved unless they were circumcised and kept the Six Hundred and Thirteen Commandments of the Torah as interpreted by the early Talmudic Rabbis of the time. Today we have false teaching of every sort all around us, and it has terrible consequences spiritually, and sometimes physically. For example, the Jehovah’s Witnesses not only teach the Arian and Pneumatimachian heresies by denying the Trinity, by denying the existence of the Holy Spirit, and denying the bodily resurrection of Christ (who appeared to witnesses). They also cause their people to die, and at times have caused the deaths of their own children, by forbidding blood transfusions. It is tragic. For many years my father worked side by side with a good friend, a man we all liked very much, who died at the age of sixty from heart disease. A very simple medicine could have kept him alive to this day; but he was a member of Mary Baker Eddy’s so called “Christian Science Church,” and so he would not take medicine. As a result of his religious beliefs he died before he could retire, before he could meet his grandchildren. The picture we are given of God, by these kinds of doctrines, is very much like the picture given by the teaching that we have to keep the rules of the early Talmudic Rabbis in order to be saved: that is, the picture of God is one of a very unreasonable and harsh taskmaster who demands the impossible without providing grace.
To avoid false gospels we need sound doctrine, and true theology.
In the Gospel Jesus lifts our eyes heavenward. The Book of Common Prayer does something unusual in this passage. It does not use the exact words of the King James Bible, which tells us “give no thought for the morrow.” Instead, this one passage is changed from the King James to translate the words as “be not anxious for the morrow.” Anxiety can take your mind off of the Lord; it can disturb your peace and ruin your whole life. Anxiety is the opposite of faith. Isaiah the prophet tells us: “Thou wilt keep him in perfect peace, whose mind is stayed on thee: because he trusteth in thee. Trust ye in the LORD for ever: for in the LORD, the LORD, is everlasting strength (Isa. 26:3,4).” This strength is real and effective for us here and now in this life, and it is the only strength that lasts forever. No matter what evils come in this life, as people face the death of loved ones, as they face betrayal, economic hardship, illness, and the hostility of an unbelieving world, in the Lord is everlasting strength.
“Look for an example to the suffering of Job” we are told. Let us look as well to the suffering of the Apostles. One of the most moving passages in all of Saint Paul’s Epistles, at least for me, is a personal plea that he wrote near the end of his life to his son in the Faith, Timothy. It is not a deeply theological passage, at least not in an academic sense. It is not a passage that we can use to illuminate our minds with doctrine- and yet is a very useful passage for theology and doctrine if you reflect upon it. In the last chapter of Second Timothy we find two requests. First he wrote: “The cloke that I left at Troas with Carpus, when thou comest, bring with thee, and the books, but especially the parchments.”
Then he wrote, “Do thy diligence to come before winter.” Think about that. When the Romans locked up a prisoner they did not feed him, or tend to his needs. That had to be arranged by family and friends. At the end of his many years of service, which he once described as involving constant persecutions, and other troubles such as shipwrecks, hunger and cold, he had come to this. The Saint, the former Rabbi who was the father of the Gentile Christians, the man who wrote about charity in words more meaningful than any other passage ever written about love, the man who gave us most of the words of the New Testament, bearing in his body the marks of Christ, glorying only and ever in the cross of Christ, had instead of retirement and a nice pension, a cell in a dungeon and a sentence of death. He was going to face Nero’s executioner. To get through his last Winter on this earth he asked Timothy to bring the cloak, and to hurry up and get it to him before the cold winds of Winter could blow through his dungeon cell.
Well, that may not seem like a very deep theological passage. But it is. We see the faith of this saint who looked above the things of this world, this last witness of Christ’s resurrection facing death without fear, suffering the loss of all things with joy. His needs were real. He needed the cloak. Also, he wanted his books, no doubt hand written copies of the Old Testament scriptures. What good were “the books, especially the parchments,” to a man on death row? The answer is, he wanted to keep his mind fed with the word of God, because he knew, living in prison and facing death, that the truth of the word of God was his anchor.
“Seek ye first the Kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things shall be added unto you.” Everything you need for this life will be added. You have no cause for anxiety as unbelievers do. But more than that, more than food and drink, clothing and a place to lay your head, in the Lord is everlasting strength, the gift of sharing immortality with the Risen Christ, and the hope of partaking of the Divine nature through grace. You need not fear that the one who died to take away your sins, and who has promised in His resurrection to be with us forever, will change His mind and break His promises. What you need in this life will be provided as you seek first His kingdom and righteousness. But, even more so, “in the Lord is everlasting strength.” The pledge is eternal life through the risen Christ who has overcome death.
This is the faith that takes you through a life of real struggles and temptations. To feed and strengthen this faith you need to know what to rest your hope upon. For that you need the teaching that God has given by the revelation of His word. Dare I say it, you need theology and sound doctrine, because that alone- and nowhere else- is where you discover the truth of God’s love.
Friday, August 29, 2008
The APA and the CCP
At a recent synod of the Anglican Province of America (APA), the Most Rev. Walter H. Grundorf, D.D, as their presiding bishop explained why his jurisdiction will not be part of the Common Cause Partnership at this time. For your information as readers of The Continuum, here is the relevant portion of his address:
As I address this subject, I am reminded of a quotation of a wise man, "Be careful not to sacrifice the permanent on the altar of the immediate." At no time in my ten years as bishop of this Province has anything created more discussion and controversy as the Common Cause Partnership. So much of what the CCP stands for, we of the APA enthusiastically support.
A return to Biblical standards of faith and practice and the Anglican Way are what we would like to see re-established in this country and the world. Areas of great concern to those of us who left the Episcopal Church 30-40 years ago and upon which we have stood firm has been theological opposition to the ordination of women to the sacred ministry which in turn affects the validity of the sacraments and the theological weakening of the Book of Common Prayer. We have witnessed a steady decline in the witness of the Episcopal Church over these years which culminated in their consecrating an actively gay man as Bishop of New Hampshire. Nothing seemed to disturb the Episcopal Church as much as this, although their course and direction pointed this way for many years. It has all been part of the incrementalism that has infected the church in the 20th and 21st centuries.
We have always prayed that others who in conscience disagreed with the direction of The Episcopal Church (TEC) would leave and join those of us who left earlier. That time has come; the problem is the incremental changes that have taken place in TEC has created an entire generational gap.
Those of the APA and others who left in the 70's over the ordination of women and Prayer Book are theologically and culturally different from those who are now leaving. Aside from the homosexual concerns, our issues and their issues seem so different and what we see as of primary importance are of only secondary importance to the new exiles.
We must now ask ourselves as Bishop John Broadhurst, head of Forward in Faith, U.K. has asked recently, "Are we prepared to give up what we have worked so hard to maintain and what we believe is essential to being a Classical Anglican to be part of CCP?" Although the seductive nature of GAFCON has appealed to a number of our people, having read the Jerusalem Declaration coming from GAFCON, I find little encouragement for those of us who call ourselves "catholics." It is not so much what the Declaration says, but what it does not say. We must ask ourselves, are we prepared to break communion with our APA brethren to join something of which we are not sure ultimately what it will be?
"Be careful not to sacrifice the permanent on the altar of the immediate."
There are differing opinions about what the level of participation in the CCP we should have, particularly as it is now rapidly moving to become "the New North American Province." My statement in January 2008 that the APA not join the CCP at this time was supported by the majority of the House of Bishops, the Provincial Council, and many of the Christian media. The positive effect of this seems to have been that it has raised the issue of women's ordination (WO) to a new level of consciousness.
It appears that our not joining the CCP has caused more interest in addressing the problem. Bishop John Rodgers of the Anglican Mission in America noted at GAFCON the "serious degree of impaired communion...around this matter." Bishop Hewett, who attended GAFCON representing FACA, stated that FACA and Forward in Faith, N.A. (FIF/NA) and therefore the APA, will introduce a resolution to the CCP to begin a study of the women's ordination issue. There are forces and personalities in CCP equally intent on maintaining the status quo of allowing the ordination of women. Until a resolution is reached on this vital issue, there can be no inter-communion with other members of CCP who accept the practice.
It has been argued that the APA will have no voice at the table to defend our theological position as Classical Anglicans. This is not true. In October 2007, the Federation of Anglican Churches in the Americas, which we of the APA helped to create a couple of years ago, voted to become a member of the CCP. At the April 2008 meeting, the Rt. Rev. Paul Hewett was elected to serve as the new Moderator of FACA. Although his jurisdiction, the Diocese of the Holy Cross, like the APA, are not voting members of the CCP, through the FACA we do have a voice and a vote on the direction of the New Province. Some will argue that we need to join now because the train is leaving the station. It has been stated that if the direction or the leadership changes we can always get off. Getting off a moving train can be very dangerous and we would no doubt have numerous casualties. I will state also, that not joining now does not mean this is irrevocable. I would like to quote one of our members who had served as a lay representative to CCP, Mr. D. J. Fulton of St. Barnabas' Church.
"I am actually cautiously optimistic on this matter (WO) although I cannot tell if a resolution will be reached in 20 days or 200 years. My guess is that whenever the resolution comes it will resemble the fall of the Soviet Union - it will come unexpectedly and quickly. The APA, by being in the unique role of collaborative initiator and principled non-joiner with respect to CCP will have played an important role in the resolution.
"Be careful not to sacrifice the permanent on the altar of the immediate."
As I address this subject, I am reminded of a quotation of a wise man, "Be careful not to sacrifice the permanent on the altar of the immediate." At no time in my ten years as bishop of this Province has anything created more discussion and controversy as the Common Cause Partnership. So much of what the CCP stands for, we of the APA enthusiastically support.
A return to Biblical standards of faith and practice and the Anglican Way are what we would like to see re-established in this country and the world. Areas of great concern to those of us who left the Episcopal Church 30-40 years ago and upon which we have stood firm has been theological opposition to the ordination of women to the sacred ministry which in turn affects the validity of the sacraments and the theological weakening of the Book of Common Prayer. We have witnessed a steady decline in the witness of the Episcopal Church over these years which culminated in their consecrating an actively gay man as Bishop of New Hampshire. Nothing seemed to disturb the Episcopal Church as much as this, although their course and direction pointed this way for many years. It has all been part of the incrementalism that has infected the church in the 20th and 21st centuries.
We have always prayed that others who in conscience disagreed with the direction of The Episcopal Church (TEC) would leave and join those of us who left earlier. That time has come; the problem is the incremental changes that have taken place in TEC has created an entire generational gap.
Those of the APA and others who left in the 70's over the ordination of women and Prayer Book are theologically and culturally different from those who are now leaving. Aside from the homosexual concerns, our issues and their issues seem so different and what we see as of primary importance are of only secondary importance to the new exiles.
We must now ask ourselves as Bishop John Broadhurst, head of Forward in Faith, U.K. has asked recently, "Are we prepared to give up what we have worked so hard to maintain and what we believe is essential to being a Classical Anglican to be part of CCP?" Although the seductive nature of GAFCON has appealed to a number of our people, having read the Jerusalem Declaration coming from GAFCON, I find little encouragement for those of us who call ourselves "catholics." It is not so much what the Declaration says, but what it does not say. We must ask ourselves, are we prepared to break communion with our APA brethren to join something of which we are not sure ultimately what it will be?
"Be careful not to sacrifice the permanent on the altar of the immediate."
There are differing opinions about what the level of participation in the CCP we should have, particularly as it is now rapidly moving to become "the New North American Province." My statement in January 2008 that the APA not join the CCP at this time was supported by the majority of the House of Bishops, the Provincial Council, and many of the Christian media. The positive effect of this seems to have been that it has raised the issue of women's ordination (WO) to a new level of consciousness.
It appears that our not joining the CCP has caused more interest in addressing the problem. Bishop John Rodgers of the Anglican Mission in America noted at GAFCON the "serious degree of impaired communion...around this matter." Bishop Hewett, who attended GAFCON representing FACA, stated that FACA and Forward in Faith, N.A. (FIF/NA) and therefore the APA, will introduce a resolution to the CCP to begin a study of the women's ordination issue. There are forces and personalities in CCP equally intent on maintaining the status quo of allowing the ordination of women. Until a resolution is reached on this vital issue, there can be no inter-communion with other members of CCP who accept the practice.
It has been argued that the APA will have no voice at the table to defend our theological position as Classical Anglicans. This is not true. In October 2007, the Federation of Anglican Churches in the Americas, which we of the APA helped to create a couple of years ago, voted to become a member of the CCP. At the April 2008 meeting, the Rt. Rev. Paul Hewett was elected to serve as the new Moderator of FACA. Although his jurisdiction, the Diocese of the Holy Cross, like the APA, are not voting members of the CCP, through the FACA we do have a voice and a vote on the direction of the New Province. Some will argue that we need to join now because the train is leaving the station. It has been stated that if the direction or the leadership changes we can always get off. Getting off a moving train can be very dangerous and we would no doubt have numerous casualties. I will state also, that not joining now does not mean this is irrevocable. I would like to quote one of our members who had served as a lay representative to CCP, Mr. D. J. Fulton of St. Barnabas' Church.
"I am actually cautiously optimistic on this matter (WO) although I cannot tell if a resolution will be reached in 20 days or 200 years. My guess is that whenever the resolution comes it will resemble the fall of the Soviet Union - it will come unexpectedly and quickly. The APA, by being in the unique role of collaborative initiator and principled non-joiner with respect to CCP will have played an important role in the resolution.
"Be careful not to sacrifice the permanent on the altar of the immediate."
Expelled
One of our readers, Fr.John Roddy, sent me this request:
Father,
Could you give us a plug for any readers you may have in the metropolitan Atlanta area?
Please help us publicize this important film. Atheists worldwide are determined that this film will not be shown in theaters. See extended clips from the movie at here.
Ben Stein in EXPELLED
Father,
Could you give us a plug for any readers you may have in the metropolitan Atlanta area?
Please help us publicize this important film. Atheists worldwide are determined that this film will not be shown in theaters. See extended clips from the movie at here.
Ben Stein in EXPELLED
Merchants Walk Theater
1301 Johnson Ferry Road
Marietta, GA 30068
Phone: (678) 560-1111
Admission is free, donations appreciated.
Block Reservations available by emailing:
expelled07sep08@comcast.net
or calling (404)713-5753
If you make reservations please arrive by 4:00 pm.
Sponsored by: Parish of St. Hilda of Whitby
www.sthildasacc.org
Thursday, August 28, 2008
A 450 year old experiment indeed!
The following is a word for word quotation from a public address by a Continuing Anglican clergyman, whose identity I am not at liberty to divulge at this time (except to say, it was not-as in not-Archbishop Hepworth of the TAC). All that we can gather from this quotation is that the man who said this is aware of a case that some people can make, and we cannot conclude that he believes the case himself. I will add, not only can the case be made, but some people have been making it for years. First I will provide the quotation, then comment, then open the question for discussion.
"The ongoing collapse of the Anglican Communion and the concurrent inability of conservative Anglicans outside that body to get their act together suggest that these groups may share a fatal flaw. Anglicanism may arguably be seen as a 450-year experiment to determine whether a separated part of the church can remain fully catholic, keeping its apostolic ministry and grounding its teaching and practice in Holy Scripture and the Sacraments, but replacing the authority structures of the main body of the Church with a sort of democracy in which no single leader has complete authority, and in which clergy and laity gathered together in Synods and Conventions take the place of Church Councils. A strong case can be made for the premise that the experiment is concluded, and it has failed."
My first point would be to say that the second half of the quotation applies equally to the Orthodox Church, except that we must replace the 450 year time span with a 2,000 year time span. By this reasoning, "A strong case can be made for the premise that the experiment called the Orthodox Church is concluded, and it has failed." They too have "a sort of democracy in which no single leader has complete authority," and that relies on cooperation and the Conciliar process to a degree impossible in the Roman Communion (no matter how much they may protest that it is possible).
My second point begins with a hypothetical question: What is wrong with a properly balanced kind of democracy? The objection may be made that it is all too often a bit messy. In the Church that means that pastors and teachers must always clean up doctrinal confusion; but, then again, is that not simply our calling anyway? Part of the work priests are ordained to do is to teach, and bishops are consecrated with the charge to banish strange doctrines. If we want to see an example of tidiness and efficiency we may look to the German government under Hitler, the trains that ran on time in Mussolini's Italy, and the Soviet or Chinese Communist methods for maintaining an orderly society. But, who wants that much efficiency?
In the Roman Catholic Church the authority of one man is not producing everything truly needed by faithful members. But, if we want to see where the efficiency of the Roman Catholic beauracracy was quite effective, we need only look to the clericalism that shielded pederast clergy, hiding their crimes and relocating them to inflict their brutality on fresh unsuspecting children. We need to see that the absolute authority of the papal office created this abuse over centuries in which required celibacy has forced them to accept a standard far lower than "the cream of the crop." The idea that this kind of system can be trusted to relay the guidance of the Holy Spirit is simply impossible to believe.
My third point would be to ask if indeed the stronger and well-established jurisdictions of the Continuning Church really share a fatal flaw with the apostate bodies in the Anglican Communion. I see very real evidence to the contrary among the legitimate Continuing Church bodies. It was rejection of heresy and apostasy that led the pioneers of the Continuing Church to produce the Affirmation of St. Louis, in which we have embraced a truly Catholic and Apostolic standard.
If the imperfections and sins of Continuing Anglicans are weighed against the imperfections and sins of the First Century Church, which required (as you may have read in scripture) more than a few corrective directives from St. Paul, it would appear that we are not better than that first generation of Christians; nor would I expect that a church full of sinners ever could be (including the Roman Catholics too). Perhaps the solution is to quit and join a Pentecostal church where only saints are allowed to be members -just ask them if you don't believe me; they are all saints.
But, to say that we share a fatal flaw that is only 450 years old, instead of the same fatal flaw that has "made many sinners" since the Fall of Adam, is outrageous. It suggests that this flaw was not to be found in any significant degree in the Roman Communion. I think that point need not be argued further.
This brings me to my fourth point: The principles that led our fathers to seek an obedient reform of a disobedient Church was no rebellion. It was faithfulness, a good response to consciences quickened by the word of God to be faithful to Jesus Christ and his Gospel. Furthermore, over the centuries the true effect of Anglican scholarship and the witness of our patrimony has helped Rome to correct its own abuses and its neglect in matters theological. Our own Fr. Matthew Kirby laid this out very well in one of the earliest posts on this blog. (Hit that link when you are done, and read it for yourself.)
My fifth point is that many of the problems of the Roman Catholic Church really are experiments that have failed, and failed big. Do we really need to ask why they have such few clergy that men like Cardinal Law shielded child abusers in recent times? In the Lutheran Augsburg Confession the same problem was clearly alluded to as common knowledge, and that was written in the 16th century. Do we really need to ask why they have such a problem of homosexuality, alcoholism and the drainage of good priests who simply leave the ministry? Is there not a glaring experiment of Rome's that has failed, but one they cannot admit to? What a burden it is to have to be an infallible Church; it prevents solutions to obvious problems if mistakes and errors of the past cannot be admitted to and repaired. It confuses every precedent with the Tradition itself.
I am not anti-Roman Catholic, and I know that we are no more perfect and holy than any other body of Christians seeking to be faithful to our Lord Jesus Christ. But, our own patrimony is not an experiment, rather a return to Catholic principles that had been abandoned by the Church of Rome. "Also the Church of Rome hath erred, not only in their living and manner of ceremonies, but also in matters of faith." This was obvious to the English Reformers in the 16th century who saw it as their duty to have done with errors that obscured the Gosepl of Christ, and laid on men heavy burdens, grievous to be borne. Were those Reformers infallible? Of course not.
Neither is the "Successor of Peter."
"The ongoing collapse of the Anglican Communion and the concurrent inability of conservative Anglicans outside that body to get their act together suggest that these groups may share a fatal flaw. Anglicanism may arguably be seen as a 450-year experiment to determine whether a separated part of the church can remain fully catholic, keeping its apostolic ministry and grounding its teaching and practice in Holy Scripture and the Sacraments, but replacing the authority structures of the main body of the Church with a sort of democracy in which no single leader has complete authority, and in which clergy and laity gathered together in Synods and Conventions take the place of Church Councils. A strong case can be made for the premise that the experiment is concluded, and it has failed."
My first point would be to say that the second half of the quotation applies equally to the Orthodox Church, except that we must replace the 450 year time span with a 2,000 year time span. By this reasoning, "A strong case can be made for the premise that the experiment called the Orthodox Church is concluded, and it has failed." They too have "a sort of democracy in which no single leader has complete authority," and that relies on cooperation and the Conciliar process to a degree impossible in the Roman Communion (no matter how much they may protest that it is possible).
My second point begins with a hypothetical question: What is wrong with a properly balanced kind of democracy? The objection may be made that it is all too often a bit messy. In the Church that means that pastors and teachers must always clean up doctrinal confusion; but, then again, is that not simply our calling anyway? Part of the work priests are ordained to do is to teach, and bishops are consecrated with the charge to banish strange doctrines. If we want to see an example of tidiness and efficiency we may look to the German government under Hitler, the trains that ran on time in Mussolini's Italy, and the Soviet or Chinese Communist methods for maintaining an orderly society. But, who wants that much efficiency?
In the Roman Catholic Church the authority of one man is not producing everything truly needed by faithful members. But, if we want to see where the efficiency of the Roman Catholic beauracracy was quite effective, we need only look to the clericalism that shielded pederast clergy, hiding their crimes and relocating them to inflict their brutality on fresh unsuspecting children. We need to see that the absolute authority of the papal office created this abuse over centuries in which required celibacy has forced them to accept a standard far lower than "the cream of the crop." The idea that this kind of system can be trusted to relay the guidance of the Holy Spirit is simply impossible to believe.
My third point would be to ask if indeed the stronger and well-established jurisdictions of the Continuning Church really share a fatal flaw with the apostate bodies in the Anglican Communion. I see very real evidence to the contrary among the legitimate Continuing Church bodies. It was rejection of heresy and apostasy that led the pioneers of the Continuing Church to produce the Affirmation of St. Louis, in which we have embraced a truly Catholic and Apostolic standard.
If the imperfections and sins of Continuing Anglicans are weighed against the imperfections and sins of the First Century Church, which required (as you may have read in scripture) more than a few corrective directives from St. Paul, it would appear that we are not better than that first generation of Christians; nor would I expect that a church full of sinners ever could be (including the Roman Catholics too). Perhaps the solution is to quit and join a Pentecostal church where only saints are allowed to be members -just ask them if you don't believe me; they are all saints.
But, to say that we share a fatal flaw that is only 450 years old, instead of the same fatal flaw that has "made many sinners" since the Fall of Adam, is outrageous. It suggests that this flaw was not to be found in any significant degree in the Roman Communion. I think that point need not be argued further.
This brings me to my fourth point: The principles that led our fathers to seek an obedient reform of a disobedient Church was no rebellion. It was faithfulness, a good response to consciences quickened by the word of God to be faithful to Jesus Christ and his Gospel. Furthermore, over the centuries the true effect of Anglican scholarship and the witness of our patrimony has helped Rome to correct its own abuses and its neglect in matters theological. Our own Fr. Matthew Kirby laid this out very well in one of the earliest posts on this blog. (Hit that link when you are done, and read it for yourself.)
My fifth point is that many of the problems of the Roman Catholic Church really are experiments that have failed, and failed big. Do we really need to ask why they have such few clergy that men like Cardinal Law shielded child abusers in recent times? In the Lutheran Augsburg Confession the same problem was clearly alluded to as common knowledge, and that was written in the 16th century. Do we really need to ask why they have such a problem of homosexuality, alcoholism and the drainage of good priests who simply leave the ministry? Is there not a glaring experiment of Rome's that has failed, but one they cannot admit to? What a burden it is to have to be an infallible Church; it prevents solutions to obvious problems if mistakes and errors of the past cannot be admitted to and repaired. It confuses every precedent with the Tradition itself.
I am not anti-Roman Catholic, and I know that we are no more perfect and holy than any other body of Christians seeking to be faithful to our Lord Jesus Christ. But, our own patrimony is not an experiment, rather a return to Catholic principles that had been abandoned by the Church of Rome. "Also the Church of Rome hath erred, not only in their living and manner of ceremonies, but also in matters of faith." This was obvious to the English Reformers in the 16th century who saw it as their duty to have done with errors that obscured the Gosepl of Christ, and laid on men heavy burdens, grievous to be borne. Were those Reformers infallible? Of course not.
Neither is the "Successor of Peter."
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
Following the Devil
The "Conservative Episcopalians" and other Gaffe-Conned Anglicans who stand firm in quicksand, have devised a way to follow the Devil, that is, a plan to to let him lead the way. The method is very simple. In order to recognize an issue as "communion breaking" they choose a heresy that they don't like, which is always going to be the latest one inasmuch as they have put up with all of the previous ones. Right now, in the international Psycho-Ward called the Anglican Communion, that heresy is acceptance of same-sex unions on all levels. To be a good follower of Satan, you dig in your heels and "stand firm" only now. In this way, you concede all the ground he has taken heretofore, which gives aid and comfort to the enemy, and leads to the destruction of souls.
Lest anyone accuse me of caricaturing the "Conservative Episcopalians" and their kind in my 2004 article, The Gay Divorcé, they may see for themselves the convoluted reasoning of one of the chief spokesman of that party, in the third part of his 2006 series, Has the Episcopal Church been “Falsely Accused” Part III. Matt Kennedy, an Episcopal priest married to another Episcopal "priest" (just like the confusing and confused Ephraim Radner), actually proved the accuracy of my analysis. The problem is, to this day he no doubt continues to think that his position was clever. Kennedy wrote:
In yesterday’s article I argued that that the “accusations” of heresy and apostasy against the Episcopal Church do not rest on the presence and/or influence of John Shelby Spong or Dr. Marcus Borg, but on the historical fact of the election, consent and consecration of V. Gene Robinson to the office of bishop in the state of New Hampshire. By this official legislative and sacramental act, the Episcopal Church crossed the boundary between right and false doctrine, orthodoxy and heresy. The transgression was confirmed, officially, at GC2006.
He follows with more of the same bizarre reasoning:
The case against the Episcopal Church is not that there are influential false teachers in the church and therefore the Church is heretical. Nor is it that “hundreds or thousands” of parishioners hold beliefs consistent with the heretical teachings espoused by the false teachers above and therefore the Church is heretical.
No.
The Church is in error because the election, consent, and consecration of V. Gene Robinson officially moved the Episcopal Church beyond the limits of orthodoxy.
The orthodox emphasis on the influence of Spong, Dr. Borg, +Pike, +Righter, et al ... is not intended to “prove heresy” but to explain the root origins and causes of the heretical acts of 2003.
In other words the assertion is that the Episcopal Church officially stepped away from orthodoxy and into heresy in 2003 because the false teachers and errors above, over the course of thirty years, significanly influenced the collective body of the Episcopal Church and played a major, if not definitive, role in the decision to give consent to the election in New Hampshire.
He concludes:
The point...is that the “embrace” occurred in 2003, the seduction leading up to the embrace was long, drawn out, and, in fact, did and does include alien and pagan forms of religion.
This reminds me of the meeting that I described in my own article, published over two years before Kennedy decided to prove me right.
My article included this:
Lest anyone accuse me of caricaturing the "Conservative Episcopalians" and their kind in my 2004 article, The Gay Divorcé, they may see for themselves the convoluted reasoning of one of the chief spokesman of that party, in the third part of his 2006 series, Has the Episcopal Church been “Falsely Accused” Part III. Matt Kennedy, an Episcopal priest married to another Episcopal "priest" (just like the confusing and confused Ephraim Radner), actually proved the accuracy of my analysis. The problem is, to this day he no doubt continues to think that his position was clever. Kennedy wrote:
In yesterday’s article I argued that that the “accusations” of heresy and apostasy against the Episcopal Church do not rest on the presence and/or influence of John Shelby Spong or Dr. Marcus Borg, but on the historical fact of the election, consent and consecration of V. Gene Robinson to the office of bishop in the state of New Hampshire. By this official legislative and sacramental act, the Episcopal Church crossed the boundary between right and false doctrine, orthodoxy and heresy. The transgression was confirmed, officially, at GC2006.
He follows with more of the same bizarre reasoning:
The case against the Episcopal Church is not that there are influential false teachers in the church and therefore the Church is heretical. Nor is it that “hundreds or thousands” of parishioners hold beliefs consistent with the heretical teachings espoused by the false teachers above and therefore the Church is heretical.
No.
The Church is in error because the election, consent, and consecration of V. Gene Robinson officially moved the Episcopal Church beyond the limits of orthodoxy.
The orthodox emphasis on the influence of Spong, Dr. Borg, +Pike, +Righter, et al ... is not intended to “prove heresy” but to explain the root origins and causes of the heretical acts of 2003.
In other words the assertion is that the Episcopal Church officially stepped away from orthodoxy and into heresy in 2003 because the false teachers and errors above, over the course of thirty years, significanly influenced the collective body of the Episcopal Church and played a major, if not definitive, role in the decision to give consent to the election in New Hampshire.
He concludes:
The point...is that the “embrace” occurred in 2003, the seduction leading up to the embrace was long, drawn out, and, in fact, did and does include alien and pagan forms of religion.
This reminds me of the meeting that I described in my own article, published over two years before Kennedy decided to prove me right.
My article included this:
Last August (2003) the Episcopal Church’s General Convention approved the election of V. Gene Robinson to be the bishop of New Hampshire. Many protests have been made, meetings held, resolutions passed, and stands taken by conservative Episcopalians and other Anglicans because of this man’s open and unrepentant life of homosexual sin. In protesting [Robinson's] elevation to the episcopate on these grounds alone, many conservatives have only advanced the agenda of his supporters, and have shown that their understanding of the issue is little better than that of the liberal wing of the Episcopal Church.
I saw this at a meeting held by and for Episcopalians who were trying to deal with the practical effects of this latest crisis. These well-meaning and very sincere people were concerned only about his homosexuality. It is for them the straw that breaks the camel’s back, the point of no return. What I heard that night has been said over and over again: “We cannot allow the consecration of an openly ‘gay’ man to the office of bishop.”
When I took the floor during that meeting, I argued that a spokesman for the AAC (American Anglican Council), who had just addressed that same meeting, was wrong. He had said that what the Episcopalians needed to do was to get their church back to where it was just before the vote to elevate Robinson. I asked them what they would gain if their "church" went from being the "church" that had done the deed, to being the "church" that was about to do the deed.
In a comment a while back, a defender of Kennedy insisted that the issue of contention on Stand Firm was not only the homosexualist heresy, but "the authority of scripture." It seems that this commenter had either not read Kennedy's 2006 blog entry, or had forgotten it. What Matt Kennedy wrote perfectly summarizes the position of the "conservatives" who pretend to stand firm, all the while being blown about by every wind of doctrine even if tossed a little slower or not quite as far as other heretics. Perhaps they did not get carried all the way to OZ; nonetheless, they are not in Kansas anymore.
In a comment a while back, a defender of Kennedy insisted that the issue of contention on Stand Firm was not only the homosexualist heresy, but "the authority of scripture." It seems that this commenter had either not read Kennedy's 2006 blog entry, or had forgotten it. What Matt Kennedy wrote perfectly summarizes the position of the "conservatives" who pretend to stand firm, all the while being blown about by every wind of doctrine even if tossed a little slower or not quite as far as other heretics. Perhaps they did not get carried all the way to OZ; nonetheless, they are not in Kansas anymore.
What does it take to be in heresy? What is communion breaking? For the very polite, reasonable Canterbury Crowd, adopting an English temperament even if they are not English, it does not do to get excited and overreact. Putting up with all manner of abuses while maintaining a stiff upper lip, but remaining always polite, it can be all too easy to let things go by. Such people need a bit of help in realizing that right doctrine required a break in communion quite a long time ago. Faithfulness to the Gospel cannot live with these things.
It was necessary to break communion over women's "ordination" because the validity of priestly and episcopal sacraments was done away.
It was necessary to break communion because this put souls in peril, since two of these sacraments are "generally necessary to salvation."
It was necessary to break communion because this put souls in peril, since two of these sacraments are "generally necessary to salvation."
It was necessary to break communion when no clear stand could be taken on moral issues, such as abortion, etc.
We could cite many things, but essentially this is the true dividing line: It was necessary to break communion when orthodoxy became merely one acceptable option among others. The Church either functions as the pillar and ground of the truth (I Tim. 3:15), or it loses its very nature, and with it the calling of God. Its ministry is gone, even though its earthly organization remains intact.
We are the ones who, by the grace of God, try to stand firm. Our principles are eternal and defined by the unchanging standard of Heaven. We must never merely react to the latest turn the Devil has taken on a twisted path, and that is possible only if we have not been following him at all.
Sunday, August 24, 2008
Defining the terms
We saw this in a recent comment: "More Roman does not necessarily mean more Catholic." This was in response to my earlier statement: "Low church does not mean un-Catholic." Again we see (as if proof were needed) that Anglicans who are never accused of being both too Catholic and too Protestant, at the same time, need to consider if they have strayed from the via media; that is, if they have turned to the right hand or to the left.
The Left Hand
My observation about Low Church does not apply, of course, in modern Gaffe-Con circles, where the word "orthodox" is spread so thin that orthodoxy itself becomes slender, slight and lighter than air, with a girlish figure. A body that includes Anglo-Catholics and Archbishop Peter Jensen of Sydney Australia, is not embracing High or Low Church, but new animals altogether as yet unnamed by Adam. Dr. Jensen allows "lay celebration" in his diocese, and that is why he doesn't need women's "ordination." He has no concept of holy orders at all, and would have been jailed in England back when a State Church was really a State Church.
There was a time when Anglican Comprehensiveness meant that the worship of both Low and High Churchmen need not lead to division in the Catholic Church- that is, as Anglicans defined "Catholic Church." But, for the Gaffe-Con folks, Low Church means High Church Baptistry, with infant baptism. This is why Dr. Jensen wears the traditional vestments of a Baptist preacher, no doubt. A few years ago he preached a sermon about why sacraments have nothing to do with salvation, which means that he rejected the Anglican Catechism, that short catechism in the Book of Common Prayer for confirmands.
"Question. 
OW many Sacraments hath Christ ordained in his Church?
Answer. Two only, as generally necessary to salvation, that is to say, Baptism, and the Supper of the Lord."
"As generally necessary to salvation." That seems clear to me.
The bottom line here is simple. These modern day Anglican conservatives cannot define the terms of debate for us. Their usage of such words as "orthodox" or even "conservative" is entirely unacceptable. They may call themselves Evangelical, Protestant or Reasserter. But, we cannot accept their terms, or discuss doctrine by their definitions.
The Right Hand
The Romeward-Bound Anglicans suffer from an inferiority complex. When Roman Bulldog polemicists beat them up, they come back meekly and beg for more. No wonder they get what they ask for. They should answer the idiotic, nit-picking, historically erroneous, academically embarrassing and theologically inept Bull, Apostolicae Curae with both appropriate laughter and derision, and then quote the factually accurate, scholarly superior and theologically sound Saepius Officio. But, instead, they worry. Perhaps they did not read the Anglican response, or even know about its existence. By the way (attention up in Canada), no Continuing Anglican bishop has any business mentioning the 1896 Roman Bull (I did not make up that word, so don't blame me) unless he quickly mentions the 1897 Anglican Response in the same breath. Let the Romans make their own bad case without giving them help- for crying out loud.
Stop trying to out-Catholic the Romans by their own terms. Don't you know that faithfulness to our own patrimony does that automatically? This is true whether you use the Missal or just the Book of Common Prayer, whether you celebrate in a chasuble or merely a surplice and stole. The religion of Roman Catholicism began at the Council of Trent, and continued to embrace innovations, inventing new dogma like papal infallibility in 1870, and then leaning towards Cardinal Newman's theory of Doctrinal Development out of necessity. That is because their innovations are as obvious as those of Protestant sects. But, real Catholic doctrine, as taught in the Bible, the Creeds and Councils, is what our own church tradition has aspired to all along.
If you want to honor the Blessed Virgin Mary because of your faith in the Incarnation, do so with wisdom, not because you think Rome gets to set the terms. If you want to think about the intermediate state, think Biblically and Patristically, not in terms of "temporal punishment." If you want to teach potential Anglicans use the Offices of Instruction, the Catechism in the BCP, and our wealth of Anglican sources (including modern writers such as the late Fr. Louis Tarsitano, or Archbishop Haverland of the ACC). If you use The Catechism of the Catholic Church you should not need to wonder why your congregation fails to grow, while the local Roman Catholic parish obtains the people you were teaching.
Proactive
It is not necessary to enter into doctrinal discussion by allowing either the Reasserters or the Romans to define the terms. The scholarship and theology of modern times has no finer jewel than the Anglicanism we continue. It is time for us to define some terms.
The Left Hand
My observation about Low Church does not apply, of course, in modern Gaffe-Con circles, where the word "orthodox" is spread so thin that orthodoxy itself becomes slender, slight and lighter than air, with a girlish figure. A body that includes Anglo-Catholics and Archbishop Peter Jensen of Sydney Australia, is not embracing High or Low Church, but new animals altogether as yet unnamed by Adam. Dr. Jensen allows "lay celebration" in his diocese, and that is why he doesn't need women's "ordination." He has no concept of holy orders at all, and would have been jailed in England back when a State Church was really a State Church.
There was a time when Anglican Comprehensiveness meant that the worship of both Low and High Churchmen need not lead to division in the Catholic Church- that is, as Anglicans defined "Catholic Church." But, for the Gaffe-Con folks, Low Church means High Church Baptistry, with infant baptism. This is why Dr. Jensen wears the traditional vestments of a Baptist preacher, no doubt. A few years ago he preached a sermon about why sacraments have nothing to do with salvation, which means that he rejected the Anglican Catechism, that short catechism in the Book of Common Prayer for confirmands.
OW many Sacraments hath Christ ordained in his Church?Answer. Two only, as generally necessary to salvation, that is to say, Baptism, and the Supper of the Lord."
"As generally necessary to salvation." That seems clear to me.
The bottom line here is simple. These modern day Anglican conservatives cannot define the terms of debate for us. Their usage of such words as "orthodox" or even "conservative" is entirely unacceptable. They may call themselves Evangelical, Protestant or Reasserter. But, we cannot accept their terms, or discuss doctrine by their definitions.
The Right Hand
The Romeward-Bound Anglicans suffer from an inferiority complex. When Roman Bulldog polemicists beat them up, they come back meekly and beg for more. No wonder they get what they ask for. They should answer the idiotic, nit-picking, historically erroneous, academically embarrassing and theologically inept Bull, Apostolicae Curae with both appropriate laughter and derision, and then quote the factually accurate, scholarly superior and theologically sound Saepius Officio. But, instead, they worry. Perhaps they did not read the Anglican response, or even know about its existence. By the way (attention up in Canada), no Continuing Anglican bishop has any business mentioning the 1896 Roman Bull (I did not make up that word, so don't blame me) unless he quickly mentions the 1897 Anglican Response in the same breath. Let the Romans make their own bad case without giving them help- for crying out loud.
Stop trying to out-Catholic the Romans by their own terms. Don't you know that faithfulness to our own patrimony does that automatically? This is true whether you use the Missal or just the Book of Common Prayer, whether you celebrate in a chasuble or merely a surplice and stole. The religion of Roman Catholicism began at the Council of Trent, and continued to embrace innovations, inventing new dogma like papal infallibility in 1870, and then leaning towards Cardinal Newman's theory of Doctrinal Development out of necessity. That is because their innovations are as obvious as those of Protestant sects. But, real Catholic doctrine, as taught in the Bible, the Creeds and Councils, is what our own church tradition has aspired to all along.
If you want to honor the Blessed Virgin Mary because of your faith in the Incarnation, do so with wisdom, not because you think Rome gets to set the terms. If you want to think about the intermediate state, think Biblically and Patristically, not in terms of "temporal punishment." If you want to teach potential Anglicans use the Offices of Instruction, the Catechism in the BCP, and our wealth of Anglican sources (including modern writers such as the late Fr. Louis Tarsitano, or Archbishop Haverland of the ACC). If you use The Catechism of the Catholic Church you should not need to wonder why your congregation fails to grow, while the local Roman Catholic parish obtains the people you were teaching.
Proactive
It is not necessary to enter into doctrinal discussion by allowing either the Reasserters or the Romans to define the terms. The scholarship and theology of modern times has no finer jewel than the Anglicanism we continue. It is time for us to define some terms.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)