Third Sunday in Advent 2008

I Corinthians 4:1-5

Matthew 11:2-10

As we ponder the Epistle and Gospel appointed for this day, in light of the Collect, we see that John the Baptist is a model for one of the essential features of ordained ministry in the Church. It is the duty of every bishop, priest and deacon, by the grace of God, to live up to this calling: "The ministers of Christ, and stewards of the mysteries of God." It is essential to the very nature of the ordained ministry that a man "be found faithful," and that his life and teaching present a constant message that is part warning and part comfort. A warning that "we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ (Romans 14:10)," and the comfort of imparting strength to persevere by the gifts of the Holy Spirit. The words, "steward of the mysteries of God" sum up the priestly ministry as expressed in our Ordinal: "And be thou a faithful Dispenser of the Word of God, and of his holy Sacraments." For every Divine mystery (μυστήριον) is both of these, God's word and his sacraments.

In light of the Collect, and of the message of Advent in general, the Church is saying to us, from generations past, that the priestly ministry in the church has as its purpose to prepare each person to meet Jesus Christ face to face when he comes again in glory, and when each of us stands before his holy presence. Who better than John the Baptist can so model this ministry, a man who was both priest and prophet? He was a priest, the son of a priest who was named Zechariah, as we learn from the opening of the Gospel of Luke. The Levitical priesthood was inherited, as we know from the Law of Moses. John's priestly ministry was quite unusual, as his offering was the oblation of baptism for every penitent who came in sincerity to be cleansed in his mikvah, his baptism. And, John was a prophet who proclaimed the word of the Lord. He spoke the word of the Lord by the banks of the waters of Jordan. He was not preaching his message simply to add another idea to the eschatology of Judaism, or to promote an intellectual curiosity. Jesus was about to arrive on the scene, and John's message was to make ready a people to follow him.

John was sent "in the spirit and power of Elijah to turn the hearts of the fathers to to the children, and the disobedient to wisdom of the just (Luke 1:17)." The angel Gabriel combined words from Malachi with words from the Books of the Kings (Malachi 4:5, I Kings 18:37), a truly angelic commentary on scripture. Last year, my sermon was a bit lengthy, a Bible Study in which we saw that Elijah "turned the hearts" of the people of Israel back to God through his miraculous victory over the prophets of Baal. "The wisdom of the just" is the wisdom of our fathers. Today there is increasing pressure on clergy to conform to a new standard, and to reject the word of the Lord as it has been revealed, received and taught by all of our fathers, both our Jewish and Christian fathers, and above all Christ the Everlasting Father (Isaiah 9:6,7) or Last Adam (I Corinthians 15:45) of the new and redeemed humanity. But, following the model of John the Baptist, every faithful steward resists the pressure to rewrite God's Law, the pressure to grant permission instead of absolution, the pressure to call evil good, and good evil; for a faithful steward turns the disobedient to the wisdom of the just by teaching right doctrine, and calling for repentance. He remains faithful to what has been declared from the beginning, Quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum est.

The faithful steward preaches his message to make ready a people, each member of the Church and those will hear and become members, for the same Christ who was here before, for the day that is coming when each of us will see him as he is, risen and glorified. That day will be the time when unbelievers will be filled with dread to look upon his holy face. To prepare the heirs of salvation and eternal life is what our mysteries are for, and why we must be faithful stewards.

The message from the Gospel reading appointed for today is this: Do not look to be impressed by the standards of this world. Do not look for a man to be "charismatic" in secular terms, but rather see and know that he is charismatic in the truly Biblical sense of that Greek word. That is, look to the gifts of God that come through a faithful steward, and know that each has the grace, or gift (χάρισμα, charisma) of Christ's own ministry. What did you expect to see here? What do you want to see? A king? A potential CEO or President, a man with worldly wisdom? Someone with razzle-dazzle who can charm or mezmorize? A skillful or exciting entertainer? These things may impress the carnally minded. All you see here, with natural eyes, are men. We do not live in king's houses.

Neither can a faithful steward allow himself to be "a reed shaken with the wind." He must not present new and exciting doctrines, or claim to have revelations that set them apart from or above the teaching of the Church in every age. St. Paul warns about the winds of doctrine that blow in the absence of God's apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers (Ephesians 4:11f). That is, when instead of listening to faithful stewards, "people heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears," that "they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables (II Tim. 4:3,4)." Such fables plant what he also called "the doctrines of demons (I Tim. 4:1)." If only we would be reeds shaken with the wind, we could invent whatever new and strange doctrine it takes to have a following. Not merely a cult following in the sense that is shunned and rejected by society, but the respectable sort of following that eats up "a new thing" other than the only authentic "new thing," that is, the Covenant established by Christ (cp. Isaiah 43:19 with Jeremiah 31:31-34).

But a faithful steward is not a superstar with the worldly and carnal sort of "charisma," and he is not willing to teach windy doctrinal innovations that blow the people around. The faithful steward reminds everyone that Jesus Christ is coming, and we must all be prepared to meet him. Unbelievers will cry out to the mountains and hills to hide them from his face, while believers will see him as he is, and be transformed after his immortal likeness to become partkers of the Divine nature. The faithful steward reminds everyone that it is and shall be "either-or." Each person will be in one of two camps: Either the coming of Christ will be dreadful and the gloom of darkness, or it is the great joy of eternal life, and the brightnes of eternal day. Are you prepared? Which camp will you be in? Which camp are you in right now?

The mysteries that we teach center around the Gospel, and if you understand that Christ died for your sins (I Corinthians 15:3) and was raised again for your justification (Romans 4:25), you know how to repent and be forgiven, free from all sin and every barrier between your soul and God's mercy. You may also receive the mysteries that we administer, and be absolved from your sins, and feed on him as he Bread of life and so live forever. The faithful stewards are here to be instruments of Christ's salvation for all who are in the camp of joy, those who will be glad at the Lord's appearing.

A Christian perspective on the economy

On Friday morning in Easton, Maryland, the situation became more confusing than ever regarding St. Andrew's Anglican Church. The foreclosure sale on the courthouse steps was, of course, an auction. A representative of the very bank that is foreclosing bid immediately, and the bid was so high that no one could have offered competition. In short, the bank did not make a penny, and the church may still find a way to retain the location by finding a generous buyer. (The Wall Street Journal had a reporter who spent hours gathering her facts). Otherwise, it can only sit as a white elephant in the historic district where it can never be torn down or altered.

As I thought on this during the day, my mind took me to consideration of the economy, not just in Maryland, not just in the United States, but in the world. The troubles of this time may be seen as a tragedy or as an opportunity. An opportunity for what exactly we cannot know, except that whatever it is for the world, for us it is an opportunity to serve God in a way designed for this exact time. In every decision we must weigh the general will of God revealed in all of scripture, and the specific actions we must take in light of that revelation, in light of known charismatic endowments from the Holy Spirit, and in light of the manifest need of a given time and place.

Also, we must see that the troubles of this time have come because of the sin of recent generations. Because many have tried to make "pieces of the pie" more available for selfish reasons, and even for misguided ideological reasons, the people who would have created wealth far beyond the perceived limitations of the "pie" were slaughtered in the womb, murdered quietly away in darkness as women's bodies were desecrated into Auschwitz ovens rather than protective and nurturing houses of new life. The consequences of this mass murder, sanctioned by the laws of formerly civilized nations, is an economy without the wealth that would have been created for an aging generation. The laws of consequence are passive retribution, the fruit of sins rather than active judgment. The worst thing God ever can do to any people is to let them have their own way.

And, even so, for us this is a time to be lean and athletic in our faith and in our works. This is a time of opportunity, a time that will not come again. We must know the will of God, that the Gospel of Jesus Christ and the Kingdom of God will be preached to every nation. This time of economic distress has its own special needs, and we are the Body of Christ with many charismatic endowments. And, that is an economy of unlimited wealth.

St. Augustine's Academy

Continuing Anglicans need, more than anything, a good boost to their faith, and the realization that we can build and do. Too often we allow our critics, Anglican and non-Anglican alike, to define us to ourselves; when that happens we let them imprison our imaginations as well as our faith, and keep us trapped in low expectations. The vision of my friend, Fr. Steven Dart, Rector of Christ Anglican Church in Carefree, Arizona, to create a Christian school, is exactly the kind of boost I am thinking of. With the hard work of the school's Headmaster, Mr. Oliver Vietor, this school is underway. I encourage you to visit the website of the school, and to listen to Mr. Vietor's talk, or read it below (but visit the website in any case).

Special Announcement

The Pillars of Faith Campaign for the establishment of Saint Augustine's Academy continues to move forward. Last Sunday, December 7th, Mr. Vietor addressed the parish on the question, How do we measure success in education? The answer to this question is eye-opening.

Here is the text of his address:

Thank you for this opportunity to speak with you this morning, and let me say once more what a great privilege it is to be working on Saint Augustine's Academy.

By now you should have received two more letters regarding Saint Augustine's Academy in addition to the first letter that we sent in October. Copies of that first letter, which gives a full description of our plans, are available on the table in the Narthex and on the school's web site, SaintAugustinesAcademy.org. I hope that if you have not yet done so, you will take a look at both places in order to learn some more about the school.

You should have received recently a letter asking for your participation in the Pillars of Faith Campaign and including an envelope in which to return your gift or pledge. I am very thankful to those of you who have given already, and I would like to thank especially the anonymous donor who gave a one-hundred dollar bill in an envelope two Sundays ago.

Every gift makes a difference. Your participation will demonstrate progress toward our goal and will inspire others to give as well. I wrote that by coming together as one Christian family, we will reach our goal. But I would also like to say that by reaching for our goal, we will come together as one family. Please participate in this Campaign.

Secondly, you should have received a letter about the Arizona Christian School Tuition Organization, or ACSTO for short. Through this program, you can help families afford Christian education at no cost to you. The money that you would otherwise have to pay as income tax to the state of Arizona, you can give instead as a designated scholarship. You can even specify the student and school that you would like to receive your funds. This is a wonderful way to benefit Saint Augustine's Academy and I hope you will take advantage of it.

Christian education is so important for so many reasons - for the love of children, first of all, to give them the best education possible, to educate them in the truth. Christian education puts Christ at the center. Founding a Christian school is also a way for the parish to extend its mission over a much broader area. Schools are a powerful way to reach new families in particular. Christian education draws people together. Through the Statement of Faith, the Bylaws, and the daily chapel service, which will be lead by a priest from this parish serving as the Chaplain, Saint Augustine's Academy will remain an Anglican school, and yet it will reach out to all people.

Our job now is to prime the pump. Saint Augustine's Academy will be self-supporting through tuition, and over time it will develop a larger and larger base of support, but the school needs a first push in order to get going. By doing what we can do, we will get the ball rolling. And then we will keep it rolling through all the churches in the north valley until we reach the level of funding that we need. The monies raised in this Campaign are being held in a separate account where they will remain until we reach our goal. When we reach the goal, then we will move forward and begin enrolling students.

I know that many of you have questions and I wish I could answer them all! I would very much like that opportunity. There is one question, though, that we can address right now, a question that boils down many different issues. How do we measure success in education? The bottom line is that we want the school to be successful. And successful in what? In educating our children. And so the question is: How do we measure success in education?

Now, I can think of several things that constitute success in my mind. I know what success looks like to me. The trouble is that we all might have different ideas about what success looks like. My idea of success might not be your idea. This is why the question is how we measure success. We want something objective, an objective standard on which we all can agree. I suggest that the clearest way to measure success in education is through college matriculations. We can say that the most successful schools are those whose graduates matriculate at the best colleges.

Here is another question then: What are the best colleges? We might have different ideas about this, too. Once again, we want something as objective as possible. I suggest that the best colleges are those that are the highest ranked, the most prestigious, and the most selective. According to this standard, the ten best colleges are the eight of the Ivy League (which are Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Brown, Columbia, Cornell, Dartmouth, and the University of Pennsylvania) plus MIT and Stanford. At a minimum, these colleges are certainly among the best, and a student has to be highly qualified in order to matriculate at any one of them.

Going back to our original question, then - How do we measure success in education? - by asking this question: Which schools send the highest percentage of their graduates to these colleges? And here is the answer: The ten best schools in the country send between 34 and 45 percent of their graduates to these ten best colleges.* The names of these schools do not matter. What matters are the qualities that make them so successful. How do they do it? What do these schools have in common? The answer to this question will give us the real gauge on success in education. What do these ten best schools have in common?

Nine of them are day-schools located in urban areas. Seven of them are single-sex. Six of them begin with Kindergarten (and only one of them is high school only). Their average class size is fourteen students. The number one school, with nearly half of its graduates matriculating at the best colleges, is a Latin school. Its curriculum is centered on the Latin language. In other words, it is a classical school. In fact, all ten schools offer Latin and three of the top four require it.

Here is another point of major significance: Six of these ten best schools were founded by Christian churches - one of them by the Dutch Reformed Church and the other five by Anglicans (and of these, four are still affiliated with the Episcopal Church). Let me say this again, five of the ten best schools in America were founded by Anglicans. In addition, all of these schools are private. In fact, out of the top 137 schools, 135 are private and 2 are public.

What do we make of this? The following: If you wanted to start a school with the greatest potential for success in education, it would be a private K - 12 day-school located in an urban area with small classes offering single-sex classical education founded by Anglicans. In order to actually achieve success, the only other thing needed is sufficient funding. This is our vision for Saint Augustine's Academy.

What we choose to do with our success is another question altogether. We might choose to send our children to different colleges. They might have their own ideas. God might have some say in the matter. After all, God is our greatest good. In terms of secondary goods, however, such as the ability to go to the best colleges, our children will be highly qualified. As a wise man once said: Seek first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness, and all these things shall be yours as well.

* America's Top 50 High School Ranking 2008; www.PrepReview.com.

Check out SaintAugustinesAcademy.Org Copyright © Saint Augustine's Academy 480-488-0525

Now more than ever

Those of you who want to see the Anglican T.V. presentation of the CCP creation of a "new province" may click here. However, this is strictly FYI, inasmuch as we cannot endorse the creation of a church body that includes a very broad and wide tent of theological disparity. Although we pray for these Anglicans as fellow Christians, and especially as Anglicans of a sort, we must remain separate from a "province" that builds its constitution on the principles of the Jerusalem Declaration of GAFCON. Concerning that statement, no finer analysis can be found that the one written by Archbishop Mark Haverland. We posted that statement here, as well as a statement by Fr. John Hollister.

Near the beginning of his statement, Archbishop Haverland wrote: "GAFCON produced a now widely published statement which does not address the innovations that led to the formation of our own Continuing Church in 1976-8: namely the ‘ordination of women’, a new and radical Prayer Book, and a pro-abortion policy." This brings me to my main point. As much as some of us may be on the side of our "Common Cause Partnership" (CCP) brethren and friends emotionally, this new "province" begins its life with the same infection that has killed the Episcopal "Church" and is killing the worldwide Anglican Communion. It may progress more slowly, but it cannot fail to progress.

The result is that, in the day to day world of our churches in real life communities, "where the rubber hits the road," such a church body creates an unfortunate competition for the hearts and minds, and therefore the affiliation, of well-meaning Christians who desire to be faithful and orthodox. In all honesty, and in all sincerity, we know that the truth is stated in our own Affirmation of St. Louis. As a result of the formation of this new "province" our fidelity to, and proclamation of the principles of our Affirmation, is called for now more than ever. Because this new CCP province, led mostly by Bishop Bob Duncan, includes toleration of modern practices that were never allowed in the Apostolic Catholic Tradition of the Church (in which Tradition and for its members, the New Testament was written and recognized as part of the whole Canon of Sacred Scripture), this new church body adds it voice to the general confusion of the world. To use C.S. Lewis terminology, it retains the errors common to our age.
_____

Regarding the entire CCP and GAFCON movement, it is their claim that their main issue is not simply the Homosexualist heresy in some modern Anglican churches, but rather fidelity to scripture and its teaching. To that we answer in two ways. The first is contained in what I stated above, that the Scriptures come from Holy Spirit working within the Church, for the Church, and can be understood rightly, therefore, only with the aid of the entire Apostolic and Catholic Tradition. The second thing we say to them, in reply, is that while we may accept the sincerity of their claim, why has it taken this one issue of Homosexualism to move them to action? Why did they not join with us to resist equally anti-scriptural behavior and doctrine? I am afraid that we know the answer, about which I wrote a controversial article some time ago, which appeared in the pages of Touchstone, and which you may find here.
______

One more thing today. Regarding the above, I want to make available to our readers an analysis from Fr. Geoffrey Kirk of Forward in Faith, United Kingdom (FIF/UK). Although Fr. Kirk is not of the Continuing Church, his writing is always worth reading. This article is particularly relevant to all of the above.

the way we live now

Geoffrey Kirk has been listening to Bishop Gene Robinson and finds him percipient in his understanding of the issues

What would we do without Gene Robinson? He is the bellwether of the liberal agenda. Like God himself, if he did not exist it would be necessary to invent him.

Long ago, when women's ordination was no more than an idea in the mind of Christian Howard, many of us were warning that gay marriages and gay bishops were the logical corollaries. Of course we were ridiculed. The issues were discrete and distinct, it was said. No connection between them could reasonably be posited. Evangelicals in favour of women's ordination were especially adamant on the subject. I recall one particular Archdeacon...but it would be churlish to mock the retired.

Now Gene (bless him!) has come forward with a belated vindication of all those fears - as if the progress of the agenda were not now plain for all to see. Gene was addressing a conference of gay American Roman Catholic priests (like diligent Pharisees, revisionist liberals will encompass sea and land to make one proselyte, and with the same result). He concluded with the following advice: 'It's too dangerous for you to come out as gay to your superiors, but I believe that if you work for the ordination of women in your church, you will go a long way toward opening the door for the acceptance of gay priests.'

It is worth setting out, therefore (for those who still doubt it) why Gene is right about the connection between women's ordination and gay bishops, and to state as clearly as we can what that connection is.

To begin with first principles: what is human life for? To this question orthodox Christians have traditionally replied that it is to be lived in obedient service to God and in the hope hereafter to enjoy him for ever. For liberal Christians, on the contrary, it is self-evident that the end of human existence is self-fulfilment and self-realization. We are, quite literally, an end in ourselves: I exist in order fully to express the person that I am.

From such an understanding it follows that anything which limits or curtails free expression of the self is wicked and destructive. Social or sexual stereotypes not only limit human freedom, but destroy individual potential. We are made, not to conform but to choose. Each person has an inalienable right to be what he or she wishes to be and (so long as the rights of others are respected) to do what he or she wants to do. The argument between liberal and traditional Christians therefore is one of teleology. Catholic Christians find fulfilment in conformity to the given ('...whose service is perfect freedom'). For liberal Christians the highest good is the affirmation of the self (T am what I am').

From this liberal understanding two things follow.

First, it follows that there can be no legitimate reason to prohibit anyone, at any time, from any role, social or sacramental, to which they believe themselves to be called. All professions should be open to both women and men, and no restraints (other than those strictly dictated by biology) should affect men and women in their relationships one with another.

Secondly, it follows that arguments in favour of such restraints and prohibitions must be maliciously self-interested ('...he would say that wouldn't he'). So the arguments for an all male priesthood are seen as part of an over-arching patriarchalist conspiracy and the arguments against gay marriage seek only to sustain the privileges presently (and unjustly) accorded to married heterosexuals. This hermeneutic of suspicion, moreover, attaches not only to contemporary protagonists but to the whole of the tradition and to the Scriptures themselves. There can be no appeal to authority because all authority is necessarily tainted.

Whilst it is by no means certain that Gene has worked all this out consciously, he knows it subliminally He knows that the principal difficulty for homosexual-ists is the explicit prohibitions of Scripture, and that it is not enough to appeal to some over-arching trajectory of'inclusivity' against them.

Scripture itself must be relativized and neutralized. And what better to assist in that process than the ordination of women - where no specific text of Scripture can be cited, and where the unbroken tradition of two thousand years can be portrayed as a perversion of the real meaning of the Bible by a self-interested and repressive clique?

And if Gene knows only too well the uses of the hermeneutic of suspicion, he is just as clear about the dialectic of guilt. Women's ordination in The Episcopal Church was swept forward on a tide of liberal guilt - guilt for the church's attitude to black Episcopalians, which found institutional expression as late as the 1980s. The improbable analogy between slavery and an all male priesthood was a significant factor in the campaign to ordain women; perhaps the most important. Now the displacement of guilt is to be deployed (even less plausibly) in favour of gay marriages and the ordination of practising gays.

Rome, of course, is a tough nut to crack. Thus far the liberal tide has broken against that rock. Humanae Vitae still stands, and women's ordination has been declared to be beyond the Church's competence. It is obvious that if the Doctrine of Self-Fulfilment is to replace the notion of obedience to Revelation (if the gospel of Rousseau is to replace that of Jesus Christ) a breach must be made. Where better to begin, in a Church which accords such honour to the Mother of God, than with the role women play in the sacramental life?

It must by now be clear to every diligent observer that the Catholic Church is crucial in the fight for the very survival of Christianity in the secularised West. If the culture of secular humanism (or de-humanisation, as it appears to faithful Christians) is to be resisted and finally overcome it will be through the exercise of the Roman Magisterium.

Gene has, characteristically, got it absolutely right. If Rome can be forced into retreat on one major issue (and, improbably as it seems at the moment, women's ordination may well be that issue) then the dam is broken and the rest will follow. If Rome stands firm, then the vaunted experiments of The Episcopal Church will wither on the vine.

Scrooge Bank

Update: My own family is safe from the affects of this, inasmuch as we are planning to be in another state serving in an ACC Parish, all of which was underway when we thought things would not go even this far. Nonetheless, I ask everyone to pray that St. Andrew's will remain in a good visible location after Friday morning's foreclosure auction-two weeks before Christmas (I suppose they may call Christmas "a humbug." Nonetheless, this church will still be in the same place on Christmas).

Murmur of Miracles

I just wrote the following poem with Christmas in mind. It seems to march so well with the opening of Fr, Hart's article, just below, that I felt I should post it now.
ed pacht

Murmur of Miracles

Stone-hard frozen winter ground,
stone-hard frozen human hearts,
stone-hard wall of sin before us,
as we bake the bread of misery,
in the oven of rebellion,
in the fires of evil we have made,
and eat that bread of misery
as we stand before that stone-hard wall,
and weep.

A soaring song is sounding in the sparkling sky,
proclaiming there the eight-day dedication
of a blessed Babe in gentle hands,
whose life is light,
as of the lamps before the Ark,
whose candle glow needs no oil,
outshining as it does the bright mist of angels
singing to the trembling shepherds in the field.

A new temple now has come among us.
Behold the shining pillar of hope revealed.
Beyond the night arises our salvation,
and now the veil is torn;
now the stone-hard wall is broken,
now we see the heavens' gates cast wide apart,
and, sin destroyed and stone-hard hearts unfrozen,
we step forth, recite the ancient words
and through the ages enter in
to joy eternal.

Soteriology in Anglican Liturgy

Soteriology is the study of salvation, coming from the Greek word σωτηρία (sōtēria). As such the very word implies the name of our Lord himself, inasmuch as Jesus 1 (Ἰησοῦς) comes from the Hebrew word for salvation, (yĕshuw`ah). The name Joshua, or Jesus, is a form of the very word itself. In fact, if you meet someone named Salvatore, his name means the same thing. In short, this matters because human salvation is only through Jesus Christ, and without him there is no hope. Salvation is not available through a process, and cannot be manufactured from below. It had to come from above. 2 Although some religious teachers may say that life on this earth is a test, the fact is that life on this earth is not a test. If this life were a test, we would all receive an F, and go to Hell. This life is a shipwreck, and we are all in need of the Rescuer, without whom we would be lost to sin and death.

Recently, I heard an Episcopal priest who is better known for talk radio in Maryland than for ministry, staunchly defending his disbelief in the Virgin Birth (and using the Bible with all the deft precision of a bull- a raving bull at that- in a china shop). And yet this same man openly professes his faith in the resurrection of Christ, having no problem with miracles. Yet, on two very important doctrines concerning our salvation in Christ he is completely without understanding. He does not believe that Christ died for our sins, and he does not believe in the Virgin Birth. What these two doctrines have in common is that they require our humility as well as our faith. Man could not create or even beget his own salvation, but needed God to intervene by sending his Son through the miracle of the Incarnation, as the Seed of the woman, 3 having no earthly father, coming as God of God the only and eternally begotten Son, and also being sent into the world (two very different facts). This forever teaches our impotence in this matter; we cannot keep ourselves alive. We had no strength from within ourselves to produce our own salvation. The fact that we needed to have our sins taken away by this same Savior, himself free from the defects of sin and death in every way, by giving his life, giving up his spirit in order to die, is equally humbling to an honest mind. Both doctrines, the Virgin Birth and the Atonement, put us in our place. It is only by the gift from the Father, and not by our own power.

It is quite impossible to understand, however, how a man who was ordained in the Episcopal Church back in the 1950s, as this priest was, could have stood at God's altar, and have said the words of our Mass, the Holy Communion service in the Book of Common Prayer, defend the older version many times for its beauty (as he has done), and yet reject the Gospel that is so very clearly set forth every time it is celebrated. This blindness is a double tragedy for him and for all who fail to believe; for not only is the service of Holy Communion powerful in its proclamation of the Gospel, but quite effective for all who enter into it fully, as the means whereby the Savior pulls them out of sin and death. Not only does it give the message of salvation; it imparts salvation to those who pray, hear, confess and receive. Our Holy Communion service powerfully draws us out of the depths of sin and death, and brings us face to face with the Lord our Salvation. 4

Liturgical history of salvation

The liturgy of Anglicans comes from the Tradition common to the whole Church, even though obvious differences of expression are to found in the Divine Liturgy of the East, the Latin Mass of Rome and the Holy Communion in the Book of Common Prayer. The differences are less significant than the things these Eucharistic liturgies have in common. They fit the pattern I mentioned in my book review of The Spirit of the Liturgy by (then) Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI. In that review, summarizing points made in detail by the author of the book, I said:

The Liturgy itself, and the whole life that it envelops, is connected to the Incarnation of God in Christ, the ultimate revelation. Our words and actions should be faithful to the intention of doing everything the right way, but not as an end in itself; rather, for the sake of the truth and of the presence of God. The Liturgy is written in words larger than any printed page can hold. It is written in history, the redemption history of Israel leading to the salvation history of the New Covenant.

In the Book of Common Prayer this reaches its most important point right at the beginning of the Canon of Consecration:

All glory be to thee, Almighty God, our heavenly Father, for that thou, of thy tender mercy, didst give thine only Son Jesus Christ to suffer death upon the Cross for our redemption; who made there (by his one oblation of himself once offered) a full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice, oblation, and satisfaction, for the sins of the whole world; and did institute, and in his holy Gospel command us to continue, a perpetual memory of that his precious the death and sacrifice, until his coming again...

This follows a recitation of salvation history that includes readings from scripture and reciting of the Nicene/ Constantinopolitan Creed; and it is followed by the Words of Institution and more of the Eucharistic prayer. This includes these words:

...having in remembrance his blessed passion and precious death, his mighty resurrection and glorious ascension; rendering unto thee most hearty thanks for the innumerable benefits procured unto us by the same.

Because salvation history is not merely recorded, but revealed, this is the only history that includes the future, which we find in those words, "until his coming again," that speak of the resurrection to immortality that is the hope and faith of all believers.

Liturgical provisions of grace

The power to absolve is so important that it is specifically mentioned in the Ordinal (in The Form and Manner of Ordering Priests) during the laying on of the bishop's hands:

Receive the Holy Ghost for the Office and Work of a Priest in the Church of God, now committed unto thee by the Imposition of our hands. Whose sins thou dost forgive, they are forgiven; and whose sins thou dost retain, they are retained. And be thou a faithful Dispenser of the Word of God, and of his holy Sacraments; In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.5

The Anglican Holy Communion service offers one additional aid to the worshiper, and that is the opportunity to confess sins and receive at least the General Absolution. The General Confession may not be sufficient to relieve the conscience of all known guilt; and every Anglican priest is obligated to hear confessions and give, when appropriate (as we hope and pray it may be in every case), the sacrament of Absolution. Nonetheless, it is very obvious that the General Confession and Absolution is no mere ritual, but a provision for the sacrament that is based on the revelation of scripture, 6 and that makes use of Right Reason in establishing a form in which the Church may rightly appropriate and make available the grace of God through this sacrament. Jesus gave this power to the men in Apostolic ministry without directing the details of how they may hear confessions and absolve sins. Although one form of this sacrament has been most commonly understood since the early Middle Ages, we must remember that it evolved long after the Church was established and had been administering this sacrament with other forms for centuries.

Therefore, and also inasmuch as the Absolution is spoken only by the priest, the General Confession and Absolution is sacramental, not merely ceremonial as Francis Hall had taught. Yes, we want to make the private Confessional available for many good reasons; but we do not exclude from the altar rail those who have made use of the General Confession with proper self-examination before coming to Church. The purpose of self examination is so that the believer may, with good conscience, come forward and receive the sacrament of Christ's Body and Blood, as St. Paul wrote: "But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup." 7

Since the very first Book of Common Prayer (1549) this provision has been a means by which the individual may receive the sacrament, even if he has not been able to make private confession. Can it be abused? Yes; but so can the private confession. The issue is one of sincerity, and for this reason the conditions for actually receiving the grace of Absolution are stated in the Invitation and in the form for the General Absolution itself. The Invitation is the real Altar Call of Catholic Christian faith, with a real altar, unlike the "altar call" of revivalists. This Invitation clearly appeals to the heart and conscience as it commands genuine repentance in the clearest of terms:

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

What could be more clearly and directly stated than this call for a true conversion? After the General Confession, the words of the Absolution are conditional, so that the priest does not presume some magic power to absolve just anyone, but rather truly Absolves the sincerely penitent:

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

The appeal is to the heart and conscience of each person who plans to come forward and receive the Holy Communion. One of the very unfortunate problems of the American revision of 1979, which Episcopalians wrongly call a Book of Common Prayer, is that all of the conditions were removed from both their Invitation and Absolution (in their Rite II), suggesting nothing more than a magical power of priestcraft. But, the genuine Book of Common Prayer tradition is entirely conditional, requiring "hearty repentance and true faith." That is, it calls the worshiper to true reconciliation with God, requiring this necessary part of experiencing and receiving salvation itself. This is not a mere ritual or ceremony, but a call for true conversion and repentance, with actual forgiveness of sin offered and given. It is a form in which the sacrament of Absolution, with the full grace of that sacrament, can be given and received.

Eating and drinking salvation

As we have seen many times, the Anglican emphasis on receiving the sacrament of Christ's Body and Blood was about the need of each believer to feed on the Bread of Life. Very little needs to be added to the posts that I have already written on this very blog, drawing from the connection I have made between John 6:54 and the recently deleted clause of our Prayer of Humble Access (deleted, that is, by the Revisionists of 1979). The soteriology of Scripture establishes clearly that our catechism is right to teach that two of the sacraments, baptism and communion, are "generally necessary to salvation." These two are set apart from the other five sacraments as "sacraments of the Gospel" because Jesus established them in his Church for every believer, and because they are established in the Gospel itself, in fact in the Four Gospels; but the other five were sacraments established in the Old Testament, now modified and given new meaning in the fuller revelation of the New Testament.

However, we must add this consideration. For too long Anglicans have allowed outsiders to explain to us the contents of our doctrines, even to the point of allowing them to replace Anglican catechesis with their own misinformation. So it is that the very good and necessary emphasis on receiving Christ in the sacrament of his Body and Blood, which emphasis is everywhere to be found in our liturgy, has been twisted into a thing called Receptionism. Because the English Reformers knew that the people needed to come and receive the sacrament, and because they taught frequent communion (which was first taught by Archbishop Cranmer, after centuries of abuse had caused reception to be seldom, or never, a part of normal Christian experience), modern writers and critics of Anglicanism have mistaken this, as they have mistaken the Articles and other statements about transubstantiation as understood in the 16th century, to mean that they rejected belief in an objective Real Presence of Christ in the sacrament. But this is, as I have said, misinformation.

A close examination of the prayers does not reveal any notion of eating mere bread and drinking mere wine that upon being received is, somehow, thereby transformed. Rather, a close examination of the Eucharistic prayers, whether from the Canon of Consecration or the Prayer of Humble Access, reveals (however out of fashion such knowledge may be) that Cranmer and any others who worked on the liturgy were quite sure that the bread and wine was so transformed, in some mysterious and spiritual way, that it had become the Body and Blood of Christ. However, to be received in such a manner that each communicant receives Christ in the salvatory (soteriol) manner of John 6:54, so that receiving imparts grace instead of judgment, the prayers in our liturgy speak very clearly of our need to so eat and so drink, that we are saved by taking the sacrament. To twist this into Receptionism, and create a distinction without a difference between what they believed about Christ's Real Presence in the sacrament, and what the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church has always known by revelation, is an unfortunate practice on the part of both some Roman Catholics and some modern Anglican Evangelicals who seem unable to pay close attention to the actual words of the primary sources (such as the actual service itself). 8

A major Reason to come to church

We need to forget the critics and religious squabbles when we prepare to come to his altar, and simply be glad for the gift that God has given to us. We need to appreciate the words and actions of the Holy Communion service, above all our action of receiving Christ in his Body and his Blood. We need to pay attention to its message, and believe that Jesus Christ will meet us there with his mercy and grace as we seek nothing less than him.

.

This is what needs to be taken seriously when we plan to attend church, and when we encourage each other to stay faithful in attendance. 9 Our liturgy is beautiful, perhaps in some ways too beautiful if it draws our attention to poetic majesty and away from what it says and means. We need to attend the Holy Communion, and each time we attend, attend as well to ourselves, first by self-examination, and then by entering in fully, so that we receive grace as He enters into us. Our liturgy contains not simply the message of salvation, but the means of grace for that salvation. It teaches and imparts, because the sacraments signify what they effect, and effect what they signifiy.

1. See Matthew 1:21

2. John 8:23

3. Genesis 3: 15 "And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel." this is why Jesus called his mother "woman" twice in the Gospel of John (2:4, and 19:26). He identified himself thereby, and affirmed his miraculous conception.

4. Isaiah 33:22 (I have more to say, but for some reason Hebrew characters in a post prevent Internet Explorer from opening it, although it wreaks havoc with Greek too, but at least allows most of it to be seen. Two more reasons for Mozilla Firefox).

5. Drawn from John 20:22,23

6. ibid

7. I Corinthians 11:28.

Now, as for the sacramental intention of the General Confession and Absolution, it is quite clear that the purpose of this form was meant to be equal to private Confession and Absolution. This is obvious from the Exhortation in the Holy Communion Service from 1549:

"And yf there bee any of you, whose conscience is troubled and greved in any thing, lackyng comforte or counsaill, let him come to me, or to some other dyscrete and learned priest, taught in the law of God, and confesse and open his synne and griefe secretly, that he may receive suche ghostly counsaill, advyse, and comfort, that his conscience maye be releved, and that of us (as of the ministers of GOD and of the churche) he may receive comfort and absolucion, to the satisfaccion of his mynde, and avoyding of all scruple and doubtfulnes: requiryng suche as shalbe satisfied with a generall confession, not to be offended with them that doe use, to their further satisfiyng, the auriculer and secret confession to the Priest: nor those also whiche thinke nedefull or convenient, for the quietnes of their awne consciences, particuliarly to open their sinnes to the Priest: to bee offended with them that are satisfied, with their humble confession to GOD, and the generall confession to the churche. But in all thinges to folowe and kepe the rule of charitie, and every man to be satisfied with his owne conscience, not judgyng other mennes myndes or consciences; where as he hath no warrant of Goddes word to the same."

8. Many of the posts in the "Sacraments" of this blog section explain the teaching in detail.

9. "Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching." Hebrews 10:25

Robust if polite?

Click to enlarge

“Christ with Us” first appeared in the May, 2002 issue of Touchstone.

Christ with Us

The Spirit of the Liturgy
by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger
San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2000
(232 pages; $17.95, cloth)

reviewed by Robert Hart

Well-written theology does more than educate the mind. A good theologian takes his readers by the hand and leads them up the Mount of Transfiguration, where they can see the revelation of divine glory in the human face of Jesus Christ. A good theologian helps us to encounter God, because he knows God. Though his work is too objective to indulge in autobiography, his footprints are discernable in his pilgrimage to Zion and the temple.

In The Spirit of the Liturgy Cardinal Ratzinger accomplishes this task by taking us not so much past as behind the details and rubrics of the Liturgy to the very reason for worship. The emphasis is primarily on the why of the Liturgy, and the how of the Liturgy is spoken of only from the vantage point of its source and meaning. The Liturgy is more than following a program of motions and words; it is a life in which we offer ourselves to God and render to him our logike latreia (Rom. 12:1, 2). The Liturgy itself, and the whole life that it envelops, is connected to the Incarnation of God in Christ, the ultimate revelation. Our words and actions should be faithful to the intention of doing everything the right way, but not as an end in itself; rather, for the sake of the truth and of the presence of God.

The Liturgy is written in words larger than any printed page can hold. It is written in history, the redemption history of Israel leading to the salvation history of the New Covenant. It is also written in the cosmos, for the liturgical times and seasons are reflected in the rhythms and cycles of nature. The very stars of the heavens and the seasons of the year help us celebrate the mysteries of the gospel, for sacred time corresponds with these cosmic patterns and seasonal changes.

Christ, who is both present and coming, is our true oriens, our orientation toward the rising of the sun. When Christians face east, it is not the earthly Temple Mount that we face anymore, but the risen Christ, the One who shall return. When we celebrate his nativity, his death and resurrection, the cycles of nature become the instruments of the church’s worship and of its message, the whole creation groaning and awaiting the manifestation of the sons of God.

It is right that nature should serve the Church in this way, for the creation is very good (Gen. 1:31), and mostly so because of the central fact of the Christian faith, the Incarnation. The message of the Christian faith is the message of the Word made flesh (John 1:14), whose friends could see, hear, and touch him. From the beginning of the Church, it is into this fellowship that they have called us (1 John 1:1–4).

In the chapter on sacred images, in which Cardinal Ratzinger appears to show a preference for the icons of the East (which I share), we are taught that these sacred images require “a new kind of seeing” that frees us from the limitations of the senses so that we may perceive “the interior orientation of the icon.” This “enables us to discern the face of Christ and, in Him, of the Father.” This seeing is trinitarian, for “it is the Holy Spirit Who makes us capable of seeing.”

“Only when we have understood this interior orientation of the icon can we rightly understand why the second Council of Nicea and all the following councils concerned with icons regard it as a confession of faith in the Incarnation and iconoclasm as a denial of the Incarnation, as the summation of all heresies” (an obvious reference on the cardinal’s part to 1 John 4:1f). Along these lines, he says: “The complete absence of images is incompatible with faith in the Incarnation of God.” But this requires the new kind of seeing, seeing by faith.

This central truth of the Incarnation is the key to understanding Ratzinger’s thoughts about sacred space, the reservation of the Sacrament, and sacred music. All of these originate from our faith in the presence of Christ, a real and tangible presence in the world of the senses, time, and matter, but one that requires understanding of the God who is making himself known. We need the new kind of seeing, as well as of hearing and even of touching—for we come into physical contact with the Blessed Sacrament. The Liturgy brings us into the presence of the living God by means of all these earthly realities of the very good and redeemed creation.

This book is a theology of what the Liturgy is, and it makes its case for what ought to be done only in the context of the larger meaning that requires the new kind of seeing. The church’s Liturgy did not just happen, nor is it simply an evolution of man-made religion. Like nature itself, like the sacraments, like the great miracles of our salvation history, it is the work of God. It is rooted in the whole history of God’s people and of his salvation of mankind.

The book thus calls us to be faithful to the original intention, the why, of all that the Liturgy contains. It is for this reason that we should be very conservative with the Liturgy. That is, fidelity to that which has been handed down to us moves us to conserve the treasure of this great gift and not to presume that our innovations are equal or superior to that which grew from its Jewish radix in ancient times to flourish as the Liturgy of the Church. Trying to “make the Liturgy relevant” is as misleading a goal as trying to make the gospel relevant. Nothing can be more universally relevant by its nature, or more easily corrupted by man’s tools, his clever ideas and good intentions (Ex. 20:25).

By going behind the details and the rubrics, Cardinal Ratzinger does not make light of them. Indeed, it is his opponents who have been making light of these things for decades—though often not by intention. No, by going to the root of what these details and rubrics are about—the revelation of God in Christ—Ratzinger conveys the true dignity and purpose of the cosmos—the order and harmony—of the Liturgy. He brings its meaning back into focus.

As a result, it becomes clear that many foolish presumptions and practices that have become all too common and comfortable since the 1960s must die. Such things have been a problem not only for the Roman Catholic Church, but also for Christians, such as myself, in other liturgical churches of the West, making us all too lazy in our thinking. We have approached the Liturgy as less than a spiritual journey that must be rooted in the truth. Ratzinger shows us that the true “spirit of the Liturgy” is the Spirit of God, who reveals the glory of the Father in the face of Jesus Christ.

Second Sunday in Advent

Written and preached in Fountain Hills, Arizona, 2005

Isaiah 55, Psalm 119:1-16, Rom. 15:4f, Luke 21:25f,

“Heaven and earth shall pass away; but my words shall not pass away.”

Several years ago I met a man who decided to impress me with his knowledge. He took one look at my collar, and began to tell me about a book he was writing, based on his idea that the Old Testament has a very different message, and a very different image of God, from the New Testament. He seemed to take this notion of his for granted as a self-evident bit of common knowledge, and he expected me to agree with conclusions he was drawing from this idea. He was shocked when I told him that he was completely wrong.

As you can tell, the Collect has drawn from the Epistle for today. The clear message is that God caused the Holy Scriptures to be written for our comfort. And, we need to know what is meant by comfort. We think of the word “comfort” in a very different way than this older English usage. We think of an easy chair, or lounging on a sofa, or roomy clothes. We think of this Arizona Winter weather as opposed to the weather here in July. Well, the definition of the word has shifted, or, rather, its primary usage has changed. In the word “comfort” we find the word “fort.” And “fort” is a form of another word for strengthening, namely to fortify. Fortitude is courage, a fortification is a strong wall of defense, and comfort is to be “strengthened in the inner man,” to borrow a phrase from Saint Paul.

Another point, stated already in the words that the Collect has drawn from the Epistle, is the simple fact that the Holy Scriptures were written because God caused them to be written. In his second Epistle to his son in the faith, Saint Timothy, the Apostle Paul also wrote that the scriptures were, all of them, inspired by God. And, the word “inspired” means that God breathed them into existence, or that the scriptures were created by His Holy Spirit. Saint Peter made it clear that the scriptures were written because holy men were moved by the Holy Ghost. The scriptures are not merely human thought, and not merely enlightened thought. They are the word of God. The scriptures deal with something even more important than life and death; they speak directly to eternal destiny.

We need to know what this means. When the new Testament was being written, the scriptures were the Old Testament, since that was what had been written and recieved. It is a completely false idea that the Old Testament is inferior, or less the Word of God than the New Testament. When our Lord Jesus Christ spoke of the writings of Moses and the prophets, He demanded respect for those scriptures. He said: “the scripture cannot be broken.” He made it clear that the scriptures spoke of Him, that every one of His public actions was a fulfillment of what God had caused aforetime to be written for our comfort. He identified the subject and the theme of the Old Testament scriptures as Himself.

“Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.”

-Matt. 5:17, 18

Consider these words from the fifth chapter of the Gospel of Saint John, vs. 37-39:

“And the Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape. And ye have not his word abiding in you: for whom he hath sent, him ye believe not. Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.”

Listen to what Saint Luke writes about Jesus after His resurrection:

“Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken: Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory? And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.”
– Luke 24: 25-27

Notice, “not all the scriptures concerning Himself” but, “the things in all the scriptures concerning Himself.”

Luke goes on a few verses later:

“And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me. Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures, And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day: And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. And ye are witnesses of these things.”

-vs. 44-48

While walking the earth, the Son of God proclaimed that the Old Testament scriptures were, in fact, actually testifying about Him. After His resurrection He expounded on the meaning of all the scriptures as the things concerning Himself, and opened the minds of His disciples to understand them.

As Saint Augustine put it, “The New is in the Old concealed; the Old is in the New revealed.” The Old Testament, you see, is all about Jesus Christ. The absurd caricature of an angry god of the volcano at Sinai, full of nothing but wrath, wrath and more wrath, being replaced by the good God and Father of Jesus Christ, is simply the anti-Semitic non-sense of the ancient heretic Marcion, the worst of the early Gnostics. The God of Moses is our God; the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. He is the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ; and Christ is One with Him, as is the Holy Ghost. In fact, we can say that Christ gave the Law to Moses, in the words of the great Advent hymn, O’ Come O’ Come Emmanuel:

O’ Come, O’ Come Thou Lord of might

Who to thy tribes on Sinai’s height

In ancient times didst give the Law

In cloud and majesty and awe.

So, too, the New Testament is rich with the reports of Christ’s actions, His words, His life, His death and His resurrection. They tell us, also, who He is: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God… And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. (John 1:1,2, 14).” It goes on to tell us how His Incarnation is extended in this world through time and space by His Church, founded by Him and indwelt by His Spirit. The doctrines of that Church are forever enshrined in the Epistles, and our hope made firm by the last prophetic Revelation.

I remind you of the Old Testament lesson appointed for Morning Prayer on this Second Sunday of Advent. Let’s take another look at part of that lesson from the 55th chapter of the book of Isaiah, vs. 6-11:

“Seek ye the LORD while he may be found, call ye upon him while he is near: Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts: and let him return unto the LORD, and he will have mercy upon him; and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon. For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts. For as the rain cometh down, and the snow from heaven, and returneth not thither, but watereth the earth, and maketh it bring forth and bud, that it may give seed to the sower, and bread to the eater: So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.”

This passage often is quoted as an excuse for ignorance. The implication is, we simply cannot know God’s ways, so let’s not form strong convictions about anything; let’s not be dogmatic.

Of course, a careful reading shows the opposite. Wicked and unrighteous ways and thoughts must be replaced by God’s ways and thoughts through serious repentance. The ways and thoughts of God are made known to us, because like the rain and snow, they come down from heaven. His Word goes forth from His mouth. The key words are “ways and thoughts.” Let the wicked man forsake his way and the unrighteous man his thoughts…for My ways are not your ways, neither my thoughts your thoughts…” Like the earth drinking up the rain and snow, we must drink up His word that comes down from heaven and that goes forth from His mouth. Our wicked ways and unrighteous thoughts must be replaced by God’s very own revealed ways and thoughts ("The secret things belong unto the LORD our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law." -Deut. 29:29). That will, indeed, comfort us, as in fortify.

The Church has a very strong message. We have the scriptures in which we hear the voice of God Himself speaking to man. We can teach their meaning correctly, and no one else can even understand it. Only by the Tradition of the Church can we know how to understand the book of the Church. The scriptures did not simply appear out of nowhere. The Old Testament came through the first Church, which was Israel, the Jewish people. The New Testament has come to us through the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church under the guidance of the Apostles and their Successors, guided, as Christ promised, by the Spirit of Truth. The Holy Spirit spoke through holy men of the household of God, and so any claim that the Bible can be rightly interpreted without the Church by which it came, is silly. We know what our book means. It has belonged to us, as God’s gift and deposit, from its inception.

And, on every page of it, whether in words written by Moses, or the Passion narratives written by the four Evangelists; whether the heart felt cries of David in the Psalms, or the patient and passionate teaching of Saint Paul; it is all speaking to us about Jesus Christ, the Living Word and fullest revelation of God.

The Ultimate Transubstantiation

It has gone unnoticed by the internet's most prolific critics of Anglicanism, those who want to direct us all into the Tiber, that modern Anglicans have not had much to say against "transubstantiation" in modern times. This, among the traditional orthodox Anglicans, is not due to a change of theology on our part, but due to better understanding as expressed by writers from the Church of Rome's side. We have noted here several times, that chief among the best modern thinkers in their communion has been Pope Benedict XVI, writing years ago as Archbishop Ratzinger:

"Reality" is not just what we can measure. It is not only "quantums", but quantifiable entities, that are real; on the contrary, these are always only manifestations of the hidden mystery of true being. But here, where Christ meets us, we have to do with this true being. This is what was being expressed with the word "substance". This does not refer to the quantums, but to the profound and fundamental basis of being. Jesus is not there like a piece of meat, not in the realm of what can be measured and quantified...How should we relate to reality? What is "real"?...Concerning the Eucharist it is said to us: The substance is transformed, that is to say, the fundamental basis of its being...The Lord takes possession of the bread and the wine; he lifts them up, as it were, out of the setting of their normal existence into a new order; even if, from a purely physical point of view, they remain the same, they have become profoundly different.

Whereas, at one time, only the most carnal and materialist interpretation of the word "transubstantiation" was known to Anglicans (which idea they rejected in no small way) in modern times, with more developed thought, better dialogue and a history of serious communication across denominational boundaries, it is not uncommon to find Anglicans who will use the word themselves.

Considering the Anglican emphasis on receiving the sacrament, which emphasis is now shared also by the Church of Rome, it is fitting to let even the Articles, which some use only to a divisive end, take a place of ecumenical significance. With the enlightenment that only clear theological discussion affords, Article XXV can be seen as providing common ground in its attention to the purpose of the sacrament. In the context of the Articles as a whole, it can serve to show why we believe that Christ gave us the sacrament of his Body and Blood, and that receiving the sacrament, and with it the grace of the sacrament, deserves an emphasis that ought not be seen as necessarily competing with a Eucharistic devotion that aims all worship to God, even if it does so through adoration of the Mystery. In past centuries this may have been impossible, since errors of each age require special attention from the Church. But, we are not stuck in the past, bound out of loyalty to old but resolved conflicts as if our sad divisions in the Body of Christ should be preserved and defended against charity, unity and better understanding.

We may, therefore, speak of transubstantiation both in terms of what our fathers knew as the Real Presence of Christ in the Mystery, and also in terms of the grace of the sacrament. For this, we are indebted again to the words of then Archbishop Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI.

Wherever Christ is present, afterward it cannot be just as if nothing had happened. There, where he laid his hand, something new has come to be. This points us back again to the fact that being a Christian as such is to be transformed, that it must involve repentance and not just some embellishment added onto the rest of one's life. It reaches down into our depths and renews us from those very depths. The more we ourselves as Christians are renewed from the root up, the better we understand the mystery of transformation. Finally, this capacity things have for being transformed makes us more aware that the world itself can be transformed, that it will one day as a whole be the New Jerusalem, the Temple, vessel of the presence of God.

This transformation is the very purpose of the grace of this sacrament. Allow me to quote myself:

The Lord Jesus said: "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 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).

The words of St. John teach us that the grace of the sacrament is nothing less than our own transubstantiation.

Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not. Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is. And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure. (I John 3:1-3)

That hope is that your whole being, and mine, will be changed from the substance of one who is dead in trespasses and sins to one who is forever alive in Christ (already prefigured and given to us in baptism, as taught in Romans chapter 6). To be made like him, when we see him as he is, is the hope that the whole substance of the believer will be transubstantiated from bondage to sin and death to the liberty of Christ's Passover from death to life, transubstantiated from a dead sinner into a living saint, alive forever and glorified in Christ. It is the resurrection on the Last Day for those who have fed on the bread of Life. This is the grace of the sacrament for all who receive it with hearty repentance and true faith, the ultimate transubsantiation into partakers of the Divine Nature (II Pet. 1:4).

But What do We Mean by the "Real Presence?"

The following was submitted as a comment to the thread Transubstantiation and the Black Rubric. Frankly, an approximate 2,600 word essay seems a bit too long for the comments. But, having no need or desire to run from an argument, I promised to post this. However, some of it was answered in What is Receptionism? Furthermore, I am using my editorial privilege to answer point by point within the body of the essay with critique and responses, using different type for my remarks. After all, this is our blog, and the dissenting opinion is permitted as a courtesy. Also, we agree with much of it, even though the writer would appear to disbelieve that such a thing is possible.-Fr. Hart

By Dwight Longenecker

"But I believe in the Real Presence!" said Doug, my Bible Christian friend, "Why do you Catholics refuse to admit me to communion?" "Whoa!" I said, "I’m delighted to hear that you believe in the Real Presence, but what do you actually mean by this phrase?" "Well, I prefer to remain vague about the details," said Doug. "I would only want to go as far as the Scriptures do, and St. Paul says in I Corinthians that the communion is ‘the sharing in the body of Christ.’ I don’t think you have to go further than that."

Doug was happy to use the phrase to describe what he believed about the Lord’s Supper at his independent Bible Church. Most Anglo-Catholics use the phrase and even many Evangelical Anglicans seem fairly happy to use ‘real presence’ to describe their view of the Eucharist. Doug’s statement of belief, however, prompted in me more memories. I had come across Methodists, Reformed ministers and other free evangelicals using the phrase as well. When I became a Catholic I found lots of Catholics also using the phrase ‘real presence’ to refer to their Eucharistic beliefs.

What did everyone mean by this phrase? Could it be that God was using ‘real presence’ as a kind of ecumenical bridge? Was it becoming a universally accepted phrase which was bringing non-Catholics into the fold of the Catholic Church? I didn’t want to rule out this creative possibility, but I had my suspicions that ‘real presence’ was in fact, an elastic phrase which could mean almost anything, and was therefore the enemy of true ecumenism.

For instance, a Bible Christian might mean by ‘real presence’, "I feel closer to Jesus at the Lord’s Supper." At the same time a Methodist might mean, "When we gather together the presence of the Lord is real among us"—referring simply to our Lord’s promise that "Where two or three are gathered together, there am I in the midst." A Lutheran might mean Christ’s risen presence is ‘with’ or ‘beside’ the bread and wine. An Anglican evangelical might say, "There is a real sense in which Christ is present as the church gathers—for the Church too is the Body of Christ." An Anglo-Catholic would say there is a real, objective abiding spiritual presence of Christ when the Eucharist is celebrated.

One of the reasons the phrase ‘real presence’ has become a flexible friend is because it has been lifted from its full context. Historically, Catholic theologians spoke of "the Real Presence of Christ’s body and blood in the sacrament of the altar." More recently this has been conveniently shortened to "the Real Presence" with, at least in Catholic circles (as in the articles in this Journal), the full meaning of Transubstantiation being presumed. Some confusion has arisen as a result, since for many people ‘real presence’ has come to mean simply ‘the idea of the risen Lord’ or ‘the Spirit of Christ’ or even just the ‘fellowship of the church.’ In fact, the phrase ‘the real presence’ could mean just about anything to anybody. Undoubtedly there are modern expressions of faith that speak of the ‘real presence of the Christ within.'

Another reason why this phrase is so vague is because ‘real presence’ in most usage focuses on the abstract noun ‘presence’ and not on the body and blood of Christ. This implies that the ‘presence’ is somehow separate from the Sacrament.

First of all, the phrase ought to be rendered "Real Presence," since this is the name of a doctrine. As such, it is far more clearly defined than Mr. Longenecker seems to be aware (Dr? Fr? We do not know, so the use of Mr. is all we know to use).

The widespread use of this phrase is a sign that many non-Catholics are coming around to a higher view of the Sacrament. For Catholics this is—on the one hand—a cause for rejoicing. On the other hand, it is a cause for concern because many non-Catholics—upon hearing Catholics use the phrase—quite innocently assume that Catholics believe the same thing they do. Thus, a Bible Baptist might use the phrase ‘real presence’ meaning he ‘feels closer to Jesus at communion,’ and hearing Catholics use the phrase, he might conclude that Catholics believe the same thing. They do, in fact, believe what he believes—Catholics DO feel closer to Jesus at Communion—but they also believe a whole lot more.

We assume that Mr. Longenecker uses the word "Catholics" in an exclusive sense that contradicts the policy of this blog, and the traditional usage of Anglicans for the past five centuries. We assume he means Roman Catholics, and Eastern Rite Catholics in that large Communion.

As a result—as with my friend Doug—the Bible Baptist cannot understand why he is not welcome to receive communion at a Catholic Mass. While the widespread use of the phrase ‘real presence’ seems encouraging, in reality it’s can be misleading. This ambiguous phraseology can encourage false ecumenism when the phrase ‘real presence’ becomes an artificial lowest common denominator.

Is it really about his Eucharistic theology alone, and not also about being in communion with the Pope?

I recently did a bit of research about the origins of the phrase ‘real presence’. I wanted to find out when the phrase was first used and why. I figured that finding out the background of the phrase might explain why and how it was being used today.

The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church defined ‘real presence’ as an especially Anglican phrase which "emphasized the real presence of the body and blood of Christ at the Eucharist as contrasted with others that maintain that the Body and Blood are present only figuratively or symbolically." The first edition of the dictionary quoted the sixteenth century English reformer Latimer to show his use of the phrase, "this same presence may be called most fitly a real presence, that is, a presence not feigned, but a true and faithful presence."

That sounded pretty Catholic, but then it became a bit more complicated because the second edition of the same dictionary points out that the English Reformers only used the phrase with other expressions which made it a phrase for receptionism—the belief that the bread and wine only become the body and blood of Christ to those who receive it faithfully. Latimer is quoted in the second edition more fully, "that same presence may be called a real presence because to the faithful believer there is a real or spiritual body of Christ."

Since Hugh Latimer was addressing the material, or carnal, definition of "transubstantiation" that was commonly understood at the time, and contrasting it against a more reasonable, Patristic and Biblical understanding, this criticism is wide of the mark. Also, does Mr. Longenecker presume that a spiritual reality is less real than a material one? This entire confusion about some belief called Receptionism, however, is what I addressed in What is Receptionism?

But because Jesus said about the bread, ‘This is my body,’ Catholics believe in a corporeal, substantial presence of Christ in the Eucharist. The whole Christ is present, body, blood, soul and divinity. It is not just a spiritual presence. Furthermore Catholics believe in an objective presence—not one which is only available to those who receive in faith. This, however, is not what the Anglican reformers meant when they used the phrase ‘real presence.’

The use of "corporeal" surprises me greatly. Does Mr. Longenecker believe that the sacrament actually does contain the DNA of Jesus of Nazareth? Once again I ask (not to be irreverant), if we placed the Blessed Sacrament under a microscope, would we find the physical properties of wheat and wine, or flesh and blood? Once again I refer you to the words of one Archbishop Ratzinger, later Cardinal and now Pope, posted elsewhere. Also, why does he now use the word "objective" as if it must be synonymous with "corporeal?" We believe that the spiritual reality of Christ's Body and Blood in the sacrament is most certainly objective.

Latimer’s colleague Ridley makes the Anglican position about the real presence most clear. Writing in the Oxford Disputations of 1554 he says, "The true Church doth acknowledge a presence of Christ’s body in the Lord’s Supper to be communicated to the godly by grace…spiritually and by a sacramental signification, but not as a corporeal presence of the body of his flesh."

The grace of the sacrament, as we have noted very carefully in What is Receptionism? is given only to those who believe. The key words, the significance of which appear lost on Mr. Longenecker, are "grace" and "corporeal."

This seemed to be the root of the phrase. It was a construction of the English Reformation. Latimer and Ridley did their best to come up with a phrase for the Eucharist which would please their Catholic persecutors and yet not compromise their Protestant beliefs. But maybe there was more to it. What if the phrase ‘real presence’ actually originated before the sixteenth century?

In The History of the Doctrine of the Holy Eucharist an Oxford scholar called Darwell Stone traces the Church’s beliefs about the Eucharist from New Testament times through the late nineteenth century. He shows that debates over the body and blood of Christ in the sacrament really blew up with the eleventh century French theologian Berengar of Tours. Berengar denied that there could be a material change at the consecration, and the controversy which raged for the next two hundred years ended in the definition of transubstantiation at the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215. It is interesting that during this controversy the orthodox phraseology is ‘real body and real blood of Christ.’ The phrase ‘real presence’ doesn’t occur.

New phrases must be coined, such as homoosious. The need of the time demanded clarification in both of these examples.

I found the first reference to the phrase ‘real presence’ in the writings of the fourteenth century theologian John of Paris. He wrote, "I intend to defend the real and actual presence of the body of Christ in the Sacrament of the Altar, and that it is not there only as by way of a sign..." But John of Paris was deprived of his professorship because his specific views on the Sacrament were contrary to that defined by the Fourth Lateran Council and were therefore considered unorthodox. It was in the same century that the pre-cursor of Latimer and Ridley—John Wycliffe—also used the phrase ‘real presence’. Like Ridley and Latimer he used ‘real presence’ as an alternative to transubstantiation. In other words, ‘real presence’ was a compromise phrase used to suggest a high view of the sacrament while allowing the theologian to tiptoe around the uncomfortable doctrine of transubstantiation.

The quotation from that Council, that was supposedly contradicted by John of Paris, who says this: "His body and blood are truly contained in the sacrament of the altar under the forms of bread and wine, the bread and wine having been changed in substance (transsubstantiatio), by God's power, into his body and blood, so that in order to achieve this mystery of unity we receive from God what he received from us." Frankly, it appears that John of Paris interpreted these words in a manner identical with the current pope's own teaching.

Ridley’s and Latimer’s use of the phrase ‘real presence’ stemmed from this search for a compromise phrase. They denied transubstantiation and held a merely symbolic and spiritual view of the Sacrament. In response to Catholic pressure and to avoid extreme Zwingli-ism they sought a way to express their beliefs in as high a way as possible. Thus Ridley and Latimer said they believed in the real presence; but this was simply their phrase for a kind of high receptionism.

The problem here is one of philosophy. Why does Mr. Longenecker now try to make two more words synonymous, namely "spiritual" and "symbolic"? This is very sloppy thinking.

The phrase ‘real presence’ then has—from the start—been used as an alternative to the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation. Not only did Latimer and Ridley use ‘real presence’ to deny transubstantiation, but so did the seventeenth century ‘high church’ Anglican divine Jeremy Taylor who used the phrase ‘real presence’ as a contrast to transubstantiation in his treatise, The Real and Spiritual Presence of Christ in the Blessed Sacrament proved against the Doctrine of Transubstantiation.

The second volume of Darwell Stone shows how the great Victorian Anglican, E.B. Pusey, re-coined the phrase ‘real presence’ in the mid-nineteenth century and promoted it most strongly. It is thanks to Pusey that the phrase entered common usage within the Oxford movement and eventually made its way through the Anglican and other non-Catholic churches to be used so widely today.

But what did Pusey mean by ‘the real presence’? He was at pains to point out that he did not hold to any corporeal presence of Christ in the Eucharist. "In the communion there is a true, real actual though spiritual communication of the body and blood of Christ to the believer through the holy elements." In another place Pusey denies transubstantiation explicitly and argues for a "mystical, sacramental and spiritual presence of the body of our Lord." And most explicitly, in 1857 Pusey says, "there is no physical union of the body and blood of Christ with the bread and wine."

Pusey in the Oxford of the mid-1850s was not at risk of being burned at the stake like Ridley and Latimer. But in that same university city he felt a similar pressure of trying to reconcile English reformation doctrines with the beliefs of the Catholic Church. Pusey was under pressure because he sincerely wanted the Anglican Church to be as Catholic as possible, but as an Anglican clergyman he had to subscribe to the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion, and Article 28 specifically repudiates transubstantiation. So Pusey could not hold to transubstantiation even if he wanted to.

The real problem is trying to reconcile The Council of Trent with the beliefs of the Catholic Church-the Catholic Church named in the Creeds, and to which we Anglicans also belong. So far Mr. Longenecker is only managing to undo years of ecumenical progress. Like a bull in china shop he smashes clarification of thought and words, and the progress of reconciling Trent with true Catholic Faith that modern theologians, such as the great Ratzinger, Pope Benedict XVI, have accomplished. And, along with those smashed treasures go the resulting ecumenical advances.

So—like Ridley and Latimer before him—he used the phrase ‘real presence’ to sound as close to Catholicism as possible while, in fact, rejecting Catholic doctrine. Pusey believed that the ‘real presence’ of Christ in the sacrament was only a spiritual and sacramental presence. In this way the Victorian Anglo-Catholic actually agreed with the reformer Ridley who wrote, "The blood of Christ is in the chalice…but by grace and in a sacrament…This presence of Christ is wholly spiritual."

What does he mean by the words "only a spiritual and sacramental presence" in this context? The sacraments signify what they effect, and effect what they signify. The Real Presence is spiritual, and very real-or must true Sacramental Theology assume, as a premise, the philosophical error called Materialism?

Why does it matter whether or not we believe that the presence is only spiritual? It matters because the whole work of Christ is more than spiritual. It is physical. Ever since St. Irenaeus in the second century, the Catholic Church has been insistent that the Incarnation really is a supernatural union of the spiritual and the physical. As Darwell Stone writes, Irenaeus was countering Gnosticism, "which interposed an insuperable barrier between spiritual beings and material things, between the true God of the universe and the universe of matter." It is one of the great heresies of our age that Christians attempt to ‘spirit away’ the physical-ness of the Gospel. So the Resurrection, the miracles and the Incarnation itself become mere ‘spiritual events.’

No one has tried to "spirit away" the physical truth of the Incarnation. Rather, it is dangerous to our understanding of the doctrine of the Incarnation to insist that it must be consistent in every way with this Medieval, backwards, simplistic and superstitious approach to transubstantiation, just as a literal 24 hours/6 days approach to Creation endangers the faith, of educated people, concerning scripture. Furthermore, if we insist on transubstantiation (by this backwards definition) as the only means of appreciating the Incarnation, we will loose the Incarnation. Instead of the Word (Logos) taking the fullness of human nature, we could end up inisting that the body and soul of Jesus of Nazareth was transubstantiated into Divinity, losing both aspects of the Incarnation: That he is eternally God of God and one with the Father, and has taken the fullness of human nature into His eternal Person without changing that human nature into something no longer human. This is why such a version of transubstantiation lends itself to heresy, whereas the Real Presence is perfectly consistent with the Incarnation (from which all sacraments flow). The human nature of Jesus did not turn into God, but remains forever human (perfected human nature by the Resurrection), and the bread and the wine retain their physical properties, even when taken up into Christ and transformed to become a means of grace.

Likewise, the Church has always insisted—despite the difficulties—that the presence of Christ in the Blessed Sacrament is not simply spiritual and subjective. It is objective and corporeal. In some way it is physical. At the Fourth Lateran Council the Church explained this belief with the phrase "transubstantiation." As the Oxford Dominican, Fr. Herbert McCabe has said, "Transubstantiation is not a complete explanation of the mystery, but it is the best description of what we believe happens at the consecration."

The word "transubstantiation" is not defined in the Fourth Lateran Council; and the idea of "corporeal" change is not taught by the Fathers, nor by any ancient Council, and is clearly not true to the plain meaning of scripture, which forbids the eating of material human flesh and blood.

What then, should Christians do with this confusing phrase ‘real presence’? First of all clarity and honesty are most important. Catholics should realize that when used alone, the phrase "Real Presence" is not uniquely a Catholic term. Its history is mostly Anglican, and as such it was used as a way to adroitly sidestep the doctrine of transubstantiation. Therefore, we must be careful that whenever we chose to use this phrase our hearers understand clearly the full extent of what we are inferring by it.

It was used to correct what transubstantiation, at best, said in a clumsy manner. Or, to correct a flat out wrong idea that was corrected as it was clarified by Roman Catholic theologians, including the pope, in modern times.

When our separated brethren say they believe in the ‘real presence’, Catholics should be glad that they have a fairly high view of the Eucharist, yet realize that transubstantiation is almost never meant. Like my buddy Doug, he may ‘prefer to remain a little bit vague’. And if pressed, the person will admit that by the phrase ‘real presence’ he does not mean he believes the sacrament is the body, blood, soul and divinity of our Lord. Asking the person to clarify the meaning of the phrase as they understand it could be a positive and constructive way to move a theological discussion forward.

In his 1965 encyclical Mysterium Fidei, Pope Paul VI encourages the use of clear and unambiguous language about the Eucharist. He says, "Having safeguarded the integrity of the faith it is necessary to safeguard also its proper mode of expression, lest by careless use of words we occasion the rise of false opinions regarding faith in the most sublime of mysteries."

In the same encyclical Pope Paul actually uses the phrase ‘Real Presence’ but he does so to outline the ways in which Christ is present in his church. Interestingly, Paul VI affirms all the ways non-Catholics might define ‘the real presence.’ He says Christ is really present in the Church when she prays. He is also present when she performs acts of mercy. Christ is present in the Church as she struggles to perfection. He is really present when the Church governs the people of God. Christ is present in the preaching of the gospel and he is present as the Church faithfully celebrates the Eucharist.

However Paul VI also makes it clear that the Eucharistic presence of the body and blood of Christ is different from these other forms of Christ’s presence. It is a unique presence. So he affirms, "This presence is called ‘real’ by which it is not intended to exclude all other types of presence as if they could not be ‘real’ too, but because it is presence in the fullest sense. That is to say, it is a substantial presence by which Christ the God-Man is wholly and entirely present. It would therefore be wrong to explain this presence by taking resource to the ‘spiritual’ nature, as it is called, of the glorified Body of Christ which is present everywhere, or by reducing it to a kind of symbolism as if this most august sacrament consisted of nothing else than an efficacious sign of the spiritual presence of Christ and of his intimate union with the Faithful members of his mystical body."

We agree with this quotation. This is perfectly in line with what we have always meant by "Real Presence."

Catholics must continue to use clear language about the Sacrament. We can affirm the ‘real’ presence of Christ which non-Catholics affirm in the fellowship of the church, in the preaching of the gospel and in the celebration of the Eucharist, but we must also affirm that the fullest sense of the ‘real presence’ is that which we worship in the Blessed Sacrament of the altar.

Although Paul VI used the phrase ‘real presence’ in Mysterium Fidei the whole thrust of the encyclical is to support and recommend the continued use of the phrase ‘transubstantiation’ as the Catholic phraseology. Mysterium Fidei also encourages those devotions which are implied by the Catholic belief in the ‘real body and real blood of Christ.’ That such devotions are encouraged as a support to transubstantiation is nothing new. Just fifty years after the doctrine of transubstantiation was promulgated by the Fourth Lateran Council, Pope Urban IV decreed the Feast of Corpus Christi. The beliefs of the Church are always reflected in her devotions.

The Catholic Church encourages the devotions which accompany belief in Christ’s corporeal presence in the sacrament of the altar. It is the practice of benediction, prayer before the sacrament and veneration of the blessed sacrament which makes clear exactly what Catholics do mean by the phrase ‘real presence’ and that it is not the same thing that other Christians mean when they use the same phrase.

Mr. Longenecker needs to catch up with the times. It is now the Church of Rome that he fails to understand.

That many non-Catholic Christians are growing into a higher view of the Eucharist is a sign of real movement toward unity. But that true and costly re-union for which Christ himself prays will not come as long as we accept ambiguous language which allows us to pretend that we all believe the same thing. Instead unity will come as we recognize the true divisions which still exist, understand our differences and seek to resolve them with patience, love and a good sense of humor.

If this came from a student, and I were his instructor, I would give it a D. Good research work, though lacking thoroughness. And, it reveals an undisciplined mind very remiss in philosophical skills.