Desiring to be teachers of the Law

The following is an e-mail I received from Mr. X, with my own responses to him. I know that such discussion can be quite unedifying on the part of those who entertain strife for the pleasure of it; but, after consideration, I thought it best to make this conversation public for those who may also be attacked with foolish prejudices by those "desiring to be teachers of the law; understanding neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm." (I Tim. 1:7 ) The reality is, we should make an answer only once or twice before cutting these people loose to drift (Titus 3:10); so we may as well do so with charity and also in terms strong enough to trouble them later, in the hope they may be saved from error.

Anyone who supports views that make tradition equal to Scripture is an heretic and no better than a Mormon or a Roman Catholic.

Does that include the Tradition we call the Canon of Scripture? Does that include the Tradition that teaches that the Canon is closed? Does that include the Tradition (παράδοσις) St. Paul spoke of in II Thes. 3:6? Do you understand the difference between tradition, and the Tradition, in which the Scriptures take the highest place of authority? Do you even know what you are talking about, or rather, what others are talking about? If you want to criticize what others say, first learn to speak their language; otherwise your words are simply irrelevant.

Anyone who denies that justification by faith alone is an essential point of the Gospel message cannot be saved.

The only verse that uses the words "faith" and "alone" in close proximity is James 2:17. Does not faith abide with hope and charity, making it essentially never really alone at all?

Nonetheless, using the expression as it was used by the Reformers (opposed to what modern Evangelicals to with it) requires that these questions be answered: What is faith? Does not the life of faith include obedience? Does not obedience require partaking of Christ in the sacramental system he himself established? Does it not involve of necessity repentance from willful sin? Does not repentance from willful sin require good works in accord with charity?

Anyone who thinks the sacraments in and of themselves save have forgotten or never known the God who saves. While the 39 Articles do say that the two sacraments are "generally" necessary to salvation, which I would agree with because they are means of grace, the Articles do not say that they are absolutely necessary and Cranmer's writings confirm that.

Amen. But, concerning the idea that sacraments could save "in and of themselves," who has ever said any such thing? I know of no one anywhere who has ever taught this, whether Roman, Greek, Anglican or any kind of Protestant. That is, except for Revivalists who have created their own "sacrament" of accepting Jesus as a one time act, that is, the "sacrament" of the Altar Call.

"Absolutely" you say? See how you must add a word to set up a straw man. Nonetheless, the Reformers would not consider the faith of any man to be true if he refused to receive these sacraments. The Church has never taught, however, that God depends on the sacraments; rather, that we have no right to neglect what he has commanded and revealed, as much as it is in our power to obey. Otherwise, when this cannot be done (that is, by no fault of anyone), we look to the thief crucified next to Jesus as the Scriptural example of God saving by no means other than his promise and the faith of the dying man. If you think anyone teaches otherwise, you are seriously misinformed. This fact may kill your prejudices and make it harder to be consumed by hate; but I am not trying to spoil your fun in and of itself. I am trying to save you from its consequences.

The fact that you deny that Cranmer's theology undergirds the 39 Articles shows how ignorant you are of the Protestant sources of Anglicanism. Why don't you consult Gerald Bray's work on the documents of the English Reformation? He has most of the changes listed in parentheses.

I have never denied the importance of Cranmer. Rather, I have pointed out that he stands alongside other Anglican fathers, not above them. That is the only position of Anglican patrimony.

You put on a good bluff. But your articles are pure bull manure and designed with a tendentious and misleading intent.

If you commented like an adult, with proper manners, you would see your comments posted, and might even find others who comment on the blog to present quite a challenge to your certainty about a good many things. In fact, you might even enjoy having others open up for you a path to better understanding, if you could learn simple humility. It is a joy to be challenged by those who can teach new things, but not for those consumed by pride.

Hooker, for example, never pushed real presence in the elements. And when he appealed to mystery in Book V, ch. 67... it was regarding the quibbling over transubstantiation and consubstantiation. It had absolutely nothing to do with real presence. In fact, Hooker even says that his view is that Christ is present in the believer's reception in the Lord's Supper:

What he said, clearly, was that it did not matter if Christ was present in the elements before they were received with faith; that he was present in a saving manner after the believer received them is all that truly matters. That is the kind of "real presence" that mattered to Hooker.

"The real presence of Christ's most blessed Body and Blood is therefore not to be sought for in the Sacrament, but in the worthy receiver of the Sacrament." Shall I wish that men would more give themselves to meditate with silence what we have by the Sacrament, and less to dispute of the manner how?" V, lxvii. 6, 3, 12, 7.

Funny you would pretend to know what is in my articles, and yet quote one of the points I lingered on, a quotation I myself posted in an article.

You oh so conveniently left that part of the quote out of your article. Why? Because you have an agenda and have not sought to be objective at all.

But, this quotation is in my article [Richard Hooker on the Communion of Christ's Body and Blood]. Did you read it? Does your knee jerk with reaction before you finish reading?

Regarding John 6, Jesus often taught in parables or extended metaphors. When he said, "This is my body and this is my blood," he could not possibly have referred to literal body and blood or real presence or consubstantiation or even transubstantiation. Why? Because he had not yet been crucified! The obvious escapes those who wish to read back into the Scriptures what is not there. Cranmer deals extensively with the topic of metaphors in John 6 but I seriously doubt you have bothered to read that.

Literal? Of course not. That would be cannibalism. But, the Lord established a sacrament, with commandments, and that suddenly made the promises of John 6 come within reach. This is not so with metaphors. Here, therefore, we have an effectual sign, because it is connected to a promise. Only baptism is akin to this, not metaphors like door, shepherd, etc. The word "effectual" is in Cranmer's vocabulary. Why is it not in yours?

As for the timing of the crucifixion, do you really mean to include such a weak and meaningless point? The principle here is eternal, outside of time; and we partake of the Risen and Living Christ; for he is not to be sought for among the dead. You may have heard, but maybe not: He rose from the dead on the third day.

Also, I was at one time a deacon in the Reformed Episcopal Church only to learn it had sold out to Anglo-Catholicism. I resigned after one year. The only reason I'm at ... is the fact that the rector is from the Sydney Diocese in Australia. He's ... one of the founding fathers of the low church movement in Sydney . The Sydney Diocese is low church, almost no prayer book, no vestments, and mostly 5 point Calvinist.

And so, therefore, It is not truly Anglican; no Prayer Book indeed! Excluding that 1979 fraudulent edition, no Book of Common Prayer means not Anglican. And, that heretical Lay Celebration thing would have angered all the English Reformers.

No matter the excuse, you are in Jefforts-Schori's cult, officially by membership.

The Scriptures are so plain even an idiot can understand them. I need no Anglo-Catholic idiots to explain to me what is obvious to anyone who reads it for themselves and compares Scripture with Scripture. The Bible is the best commentary on the Bible.

Once again, if this is so, make your case from Scripture rather than ranting about Scripture. I have made points from Scripture, and you have not done so yet at all, not even once.

I have been reading the KJV since I was 8. And later I read modern versions as well. Not one of them says that the sacrament is a mystery.

The Greek word is μυστήριον (mystērion). So, does this mean that the sacraments (or the mysteries) are not at all mysterious to you? Are you aware that, by this boast, you claim to be God?

What it does say is, "Do this in remembrance of me." What the Bible does say is REPENT! What the Bible does say is you must believe that you are a miserable sinner and you need a Savior who died for your sins on the cross.

I know this very well; and a great sinner, a miserable offender, I am indeed. Are you a sinner too?

All of your religion, smells and bells and rituals...

My whole religion is Jesus Christ, as we confess the truth in the Great Creeds that are drawn from the Bible. Allow me to introduce myself: I am a Christian. What exactly are you?

...will only earn you a deeper spot in hell along side the self-righteous Pharisees and scribes. Unless and until you realize that nothing you do can merit or earn your justification or salvation before an omni-Holy God you can never be saved. Until you realize you good works are worthless outside of faith in Christ, you can never be saved.

Are you saying that "smells and bells" lead to Hell? I thought only unbelief and rejection of Christ did that. Or does one have to accept the "five points" instead of Jesus Christ, to be saved?

What if I said, Your whole religion, the five T.U.L.I.P. points, ties and shirts as vestments, no smells allowed, no bells rung or heard, yes your whole religion of TULIP without bells and smells (that being your WHOLE RELIGION) will only lead you to Hell...You must repent and call on the Lord for mercy instead of wearing a tie...?

And, are smells and bells somehow part of my "religion"? How would you know? But, inasmuch as High Churchmen (and I am a High Churchman) use these things to aid their worship, your condemnation is simply a hateful example of Pharisee religion in and of itself, making your self-righteous prejudices all the more sinful. You damn those who approach God through Jesus Christ, simply because they make use of good created things (Genesis 1:31) that uplift their spirits to praise him, as they worship the Lord in the beauty of holiness. If smells and bells, and so forth, are sinful, then prove it by certain warrant of Holy Scripture, or be silent.

Good works are only accepted by God after you are converted and even then they cannot withstand the severity of God's judgment.This is precisely the teaching of the Articles.

Yes. That is in our Article XIII. Why would you presume to imagine that we have ever taught differently? In fact, I know of no one who teaches differently, and that means not even those bloody papists (as you think them to be). I perceive that this irrelevant subject has come up suddenly due to prejudice, some notion that all Catholic Christians are teaching salvation by good works; But, no one in the Church has ever taught that anywhere at all, at least not as far as I am aware of.

Only the perfect life of Christ can merit eternal life for you and this can only be imputed to you. You cannot ever be infused with enough grace to make you perfect because you were born with original sin, a sinful nature, and you sin daily in thought, word and deed, in what you have done and in what you have left undone. Your only hope is to cry out for mercy to Almighty God and rely only on Christ and His promises to save you.

Unlike you?

The Book of Common Prayer cannot be used without the need for "hearty repentance and true faith" made obvious and clear; so why would you imagine that we need you to point out what our very liturgy has us confess? If you think that "Prayer Book Catholics" need you to teach them what the Holy Communion, the Daily Offices, and the Bible place before their eyes each and every day, then it is obvious that your prejudice and hate has driven you far from reality. We cannot even begin our services without facing these things. Don't you know anything at all? Just how long has it been since you opened a real Book of Common Prayer and looked inside?

There is none righteous. No NOT EVEN ONE. This means you.

And, how about you? Does it mean you too? Are you the one who is righteous, and who may rightly despise others? Dare you say, "I thank thee God I am not as other men are...?"

So, will you accept that Christ is the ONLY substitute for your sins? Or will you continue on in your blindness which can lead only to hell?

Do you mean sacrifice for sins? I hope you mean sacrifice rather than "substitute."

Our Holy Communion service cannot be celebrated without this proclaimed for all to hear:

"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..."

_________________________________

Well folks, this is not something I made up. When I speak of their prejudices, it is quite a real problem. May our tongues be seasoned with grace.

This month's Maggot Gagger award goes to...

Normally we ignore the ECUSAn cult; but sometimes it is useful to remember the Egypt from whence our fathers were delivered, and see how it is led even now by the Zeitgeist (whose leadings they try to blame on the Holy Spirit)....

(Pictured, Presiding "Bishop" Katherine Jefforts-Schori of the Episcopal "Church")

The General Convention of the US Episcopal Church will be asked to authorize rites for the blessing of same-sex unions at their triennial meeting in July. On Jan 31 the Diocese of Newark synod endorsed a resolution asking the General Convention to amend the national Church’s canons governing Holy Matrimony, making them gender-neutral.Newark’s Resolution 2009-05 asks the national church to amend Canon 18: Of the Solemnization of Holy Matrimony, substituting the words “two persons” where the words “a man and a woman” now appear, and to amend Canon 19: Of Regulations Respecting Holy Matrimony, to substitute the word “spouse” where the words “husband or wife” appear. Delegates to the Newark synod also asked their diocesan clergy to henceforth record services solemnizing same-sex civil unions in the parish register “in a manner identical to the recording of marriages,” and stated the diocese’s intention of asking the national Church to amend its canons making this innovation church wide. Originally set down as a resolution to be adopted without debate, but removed from the synod’s “consent calendar” after protest, the resolution to amend the Church’s marriage canons stated that it would not authorize any further public rites for same-sex blessings, but would modify existing rites “when the needs of the congregation so require.” It was “important that The Episcopal Church modify its canons to reflect the gender neutrality now reflected in the law in those states where the law permits” gay marriage, the resolution said. Recording gay marriages in parish registers was a matter of justice, the second resolution averred. “Until same-sex couples are accorded full marriage rights it is incumbent upon the Church to recognize their unions in an identical manner as opposite-sex couples and to give civil unions the same dignity and respect bestowed on opposite-sex marriages. The Church does justice and exercises pastoral care by requiring clergy to record civil unions in the Parish Register” in states that have permitted gay marriage, the resolution said. At their Feb 1-5 meeting in Alexandria, the Primates urged the Episcopal Church to maintain its moratorium on gay bishops and blessings as did the 2008 Lambeth Conference. While many US dioceses have called for an end to the moratorium enacted at the 2006 General Convention, it is unclear whether the church as a whole will repudiate Lambeth, the primates and Dr Rowan Williams’ call for “gracious restraint.”

George Conger writes for The Living Church and The Church of England Newspaper

Second Sunday in Lent

I arrived at St. Benedict's in Chapel Hill, N.C. late in the week, and so I will be working on an introductory sermon for my first Sunday in my new church until some time in the night. The entire move from Easton, MD. was delayed by the snow storm, hence the lateness of preparation. Meanwhile, I am re-posting an oldie but goodie, more of a theological work and Bible Study than a sermon I suppose.

Second Sunday in Lent

"Not in the lust of concupiscence, even as the Gentiles which know not God...For God hath not called us unto uncleanness, but unto holiness."

I Thessalonians 4:1-8
Matthew 15:21-28

The will of God, St. Paul tells us in today’s Epistle, is your sanctification. He repeats this, saying it a second time this way: “For God hath not called us unto uncleanness, but unto holiness.” The will of God is treated by many like a problem, like a mathematical problem so complex in nature that it requires endless work and a thousand chalk boards. Others treat the will of God as a matter that requires special revelation about their own futures, a kind of direction either from his very mouth, or by dreams and visions or by signs. Often this causes sincere Christians to be behave much too much like unbelievers who commit the sin of going to fortune tellers (strictly forbidden in scripture), being obsessed with answers about the future, and very much for selfish motives. Still others treat the will of God as a matter to be neglected by its very nature, a complete mystery not to be solved. This last category is not unlike the common misreading of the prophet Isaiah, where a famous passage is often taken to mean the very opposite of what it truly says:

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. 1

In that text the prophet contrasts the ways and thoughts of the unrighteous and wicked against the ways and thoughts of God, too high for the wicked and unrighteous man to grasp. But, God’s ways and thoughts come down from heaven like the rain and snow, coming down in the revelation of his word. Therefore, the wicked and unrighteous man can repent, and can learn to renew his mind. 2 The ways and thoughts of God that are revealed speak to the mind of man. So said the prophet Moses to the whole people of Israel: “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.” 3 It may be comforting to treat the will of God only as those secret things of Providence, hidden mysteries beyond human thought. Indeed, more of God’s wisdom remains hidden to human view than what is seen. But, the will of God does not belong exclusively in these categories: It is not a problem to work on endlessly, nor is it likely that most individuals will be guided in every decision of life by signs and dreams, nor is the will of God too lofty a subject for our consideration. For, as Moses and Isaiah spoke long ago, it is the task of the believer to pay heed to what God has, in fact, revealed. And why? As Moses said, to do what God has commanded, and as Isaiah said, to repent, to abandon all wicked ways and unrighteous thoughts, so to learn God’s ways and thoughts.

Therefore, in that light we repeat what St. Paul wrote: “This is the will of God, even your sanctification…For God hath not called us unto uncleanness, but unto holiness.” I want to quote two other passages by the Apostle that help clarify this even more. In the first chapter of his Epistle to the Romans he addressed the Christians there as “all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints.”4 He opened another Epistle in similar fashion: “Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours.” Whatever else the will of God may mean in your own life, this is clear: You are called to be a saint. That is what is meant by the words: “For I am the LORD that bringeth you up out of the land of Egypt, to be your God: ye shall therefore be holy, for I am holy.”6

The word “holy” is related to the words “sanctify,” “sanctification,” “santos” and “saint.” Since the will of God is your sanctification, the will of God is your sainthood. Some people are sure that saints are not ordinary people at all, but special people like the comic book superheroes. They can leap tall buildings at a single bound: They came from Krypton, or were bitten by a radioactive spider. They have an advantage over regular people. Only a fool, they figure, thinks he can become a saint. Others, especially among Evangelicals, assume that Paul says that the Christians are all called saints because we have already arrived. But, the word “called” does not mean labeled, as in tagged and designated. A nominal sainthood, a merely titular sanctification, or even one somehow completely imputed by grace alone, is not his meaning. Rather, the word “called” appears, as in all those who are “called saints,” to speak of a calling. Whatever you do in life, all Christians have a common vocation to become saints. Some of us have been called to the ordained ministry, and others have been called to various ministries in the Church as laity. But, all of us who are baptized into Christ have been called to become saints.

Most of us began like the Gentile woman in today’s story. That is, most of us were born as Gentiles, which means that in addition to being born in sin we were also, in the words of St. Paul, “in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands; That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world.” 7 I do not see how the human condition can get any worse this side of Hell. If you believe that Paul was rough on the Gentiles, remember that in today’s Gospel, the Lord, that is, Jesus the Lover of mankind, “all compassion, holy unbounded love” himself, referred to Gentiles by the flattering title, “the dogs.” We need to pay attention carefully in order to learn the point that Jesus was making, and to understand we must learn some Biblical theology. So, we proceed.

Father Abraham

The story of this Gentile woman is related very much to the Epistle today, for in it we heard, “that every one of you should know how to possess his vessel in sanctification and honour; not in the lust of concupiscence, even as the Gentiles which know not God.” St. Paul makes the same distinction here that he made elsewhere when addressing converts to Christianity from among the Gentiles. “Ye know that ye were Gentiles, carried away unto these dumb idols, even as ye were led,” 8 he writes to the Corinthians. In the passage I quoted earlier he began with the words, “remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles.” Note the past tense in these words. “You were Gentiles…In time past Gentiles.” What is he teaching these people, but that, as he goes on to say in the Epistle to the Ephesians, “But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ…Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow-citizens with the saints, and of the household of God; And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.” 9

Whatever ethnic pride you may have from whatever background, in Christ you are part of Israel. When my Celtic ancestors were painting themselves blue and offering human sacrifice, the Jews were worshiping the living God in his temple at Jerusalem. But, I do not say these things only to condemn anti-Semitism (though I do point out that to hate the Jews is to hate Jesus Christ, since we can say, truly, in the Incarnation God [the Son, as he has taken human nature,] is a Jew). I say these things to make you aware of how your sanctification begins. In the Gospel today we do not see the woman become angry or offended. Why not? She was just called, along with all her people, a dog. She came for help because of what her daughter needed, and here this Jewish holy man ignores her at first, and when pressed seems to respond with an insult. But, she continued to press for his help, and in her persistence faith took the form of humility. Indeed, as all the virtues are related and finally summed up in charity, this woman’s faith was expressed by humility in that she continued to plead for his help. “And she said. Truth Lord: yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters' table.” At this point the Lord turns to face her, and in so doing reveals his will for all the nations of mankind whom he had come to save from sin and death.

The Amen of Abraham

“Then Jesus answered and said unto her, O woman, great is thy faith: be it unto thee even as thou wilt.” This is why we need the Biblical theology I mentioned. What does faith, as mentioned by our Lord, indicate for us? Again, we turn to St. Paul, the Apostle to the Gentiles. 10 In the fourth chapter of his Epistle to the Church in Rome, he builds on the meaning of a very significant part of the Book of Genesis. The Apostle made a very important point about the faith of Abraham. First, that faith was counted to him for righteousness. 11 This was important to Paul, for in his conversion he learned that it is by faith that we receive salvation; that grace is something we cannot receive by the Law. The importance of this faith is the essence both of his Epistle to the Romans and his Epistle to the Galatians. Indeed, he tells the Ephesians, “For by grace are ye saved through faith.” 12 Now, in the fourth chapter of Romans, as I mentioned, Paul develops this teaching about faith, and reminds us that at the time that Abraham’s faith was counted to him, or to Abram as he was still named (God would change his name later to Abraham), he was not yet circumcised. The meaning of this is that the same faith that was counted to Abram for righteousness is the faith that also is counted as righteousness to all those who were in time past called Gentiles.

“And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also: And the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised.”13

We are taught by Paul that the uncircumcised Abram, that is Abraham, is the father of all believers, even those who were Gentiles. When our Lord tells the woman that “great is her faith,” he welcomes her into the family of Abraham, which is the household of God. So too, he welcomes you.

“He therefore that ministereth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you, doeth he it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness. Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham. And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed. So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham.”14

And, what is the faith that Abraham had? Look at the actual revelation he received from God:

“And, behold, the word of the LORD came unto him, saying, This (i.e. his servant) shall not be thine heir; but he that shall come forth out of thine own bowels shall be thine heir. And he brought him forth abroad, and said, Look now toward heaven, and tell the stars, if thou be able to number them: and he said unto him, So shall thy seed be. And he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness.”15

If we look at this in light of all that would follow, we can say that Abraham believed the Gospel. How so? Because the promises made to Abraham were about the land his people would have, and about his seed. Immediately, that promise about his seed makes us think of Isaac. But, once again it is Paul who takes it to its end: “Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.” 16 The history that unfolded takes us from Isaac the son of Abraham to Mary the Virgin, centuries later. In all its history, God would neither scatter Israel nor allow them to be lost in idolatry. He did not allow them to be destroyed like so many other nations who were taken captive by powerful kings, but he let them suffer when they needed to be purified. “Salvation is of the Jews,” 17 said our Lord. So, the revelation given to Abraham was about more than simply the son that Sarah would bear.

The revelation given to Abraham was to unfold among the people of Israel in coming centuries, as it would be clarified by prophets, such as Jeremiah who told of the New Covenant that Christ spoke of, on the night in which he was betrayed, as the new Covenant in his own blood. It would be clarified by Isaiah who spoke of the Servant of the Lord, especially the Suffering Servant who would take away the sins of the whole world: “But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.” 18 The prophets foretold all, and so it came to pass. The Word was made flesh and dwelt among us, 19 and he went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil, 20 until the day came that he was crucified as the one true sacrifice for the sins of the whole world. And the words of the prophets were fulfilled again when he rose the third day from the dead, that is, the third day before any corruption could begin. 21

The faith that Abraham had was belief that what God had revealed is true. The word “believed” as it appears in the original in that verse, where we see that Abram believed, is a very interesting Hebrew word. You say that word quite often, usually at the end of prayers. People tell us it means, “so be it.” But, it really means, very simply, “true.” That word is “amen.” The word amen is from the word emet, which means truth. What is the faith of Abraham; that faith that makes you a child of God, and that you need in order to begin to become a saint?

The extent to which Abraham would see is a mystery to us, and it is only partly unfolded by what Jesus said. “Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad.” 22 We know this, however: Abraham believed the truth fully to the extent that God revealed it to him. We see, on this side of salvation history, that God has revealed to the Church the fullness of the Gospel. It is given to us to know the mysteries of the Kingdom of Heaven. 23 We have been given the revelation that Jesus Christ is God of God, light of Light, very God of very God, begotten not made. We know that he is fully God and fully man, born of a Virgin. We know that he died to take away our sins and give us his righteousness, and rose to give us his own immortality. We were taught by the Risen Christ the true name of God: “The Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.”

We said the words of that great Creed of the Church, and we affirmed our belief in everything that God has revealed. Each of you said, “I believe.” In that Creed you spoke of the God who has called you to be holy as he is holy, and you have spoken of the great love he revealed in giving you salvation through his Son. You confessed your faith in the Son who is one with the Father as God, and one with us as a man begotten by the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary. You said “I believe” about his atoning death and victorious resurrection. You said “I believe in the Holy Spirit,” God in our very midst who gives grace and makes us holy as we participate in the life he offers. You are a child of Abraham, and when you said “Amen” it was the faith of Abraham. On this side of God’s revelation, you said the “Amen” of your father Abraham.

• 1. Isaiah 55:7-11
  2. Romans 12:1,2
  3. Deuteronomy 29:29
  4. Romans 1:7
  5. I Corinthians 1:2
  6. Leviticus 11:45
  7. Ephesians 2: 12
  8. I Corinthians 12:2
  9. Ephesians 2:13, 19, 20
  10. Not only does Paul use this as a personal title, but it is the clear meaning of the words spoken to him by Jesus Christ: “for I have appeared unto thee for this purpose, to make thee a minister and a witness both of these things which thou hast seen, and of those things in the which I will appear unto thee; Delivering thee from the people, and from the Gentiles, unto whom now I send thee, To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me.” Acts 26:16-18
  11. Genesis 15:6
  12. See Ephesians 2:8-12
  13. Romans 4:11,12
  14. Galatians 3:5-9
  15. Genesis 15:4-6
  16. Galatians 3:16
  17. John 4:22
  18. Isaiah 53:5,6
  19. John 1:14
  20. Acts 10:38
  21. Psalm 16:10
  22. John 8:56
  23. Matthew 13:11

On my way

I am packing up my computer and heading down South to North Carolina. It will be Friday, some time late in the day at least, before I can get back online.

In the meantime, I thought you all might enjoy the latest exhibition of prejudice aimed at the Continuing Church from a man who identifies himself as a "five-point Calvinist* Anglican," who was angry with me because he could not fit our Patrimony into his little box.

Ok, I researched your name and discovered you're not even an Anglican. You're a member of some teeny tiny continuing Anglo-Catholic denomination. You probably don't even have a master of divinity from an accredited seminary. Enough said.

There's no sense discussing academic subjects with you so any further remarks you make will be ignored.

The presumptions of prejudice are startling, are they not? He need not find out any facts, just as the old white bigots needed no facts about black men, or about Jews. We have some very well educated clergy among us, even if we choose not to be in communion with the Archdriud of the Vacant See. I put these words here for the same reason the bishop smacked your face when you were Confirmed (or, I hope it was for the same reason); to remind you that you have to be tough to walk this walk; they won't applaud you for following Christ.

* Real Calvinists I have known over the years, including professors at a PCA seminary, would consider this to be self-contradictory.

Housekeeping note

I've been thinking, and have decided that I should post this.

Last night I rejected a pair of comments, not because I disagreed with them, though I indeed did. We cheerfully entertain opinions here that merit our very strong objection. A reader of this blog will see a great deal of that, and the discussion is often lively.

No, I rejected these because they were gratuitously insulting and intended to be so, not arguments of a point of view, but rather more like slaps in the face. We don't do that here. Readers may criticize us as they feel it necessary, but with expressed reasons, please, and without sneering and angry attacks. Let's act like Christian gentlemen and ladies. Thank you.

ed

Defining the terms

Update: My move to Chapel Hill, N.C. has been delayed two days by the snow storm

It may be apparent by now that one of the great hindrances to clear thinking and teaching is a combination of simplistic and reactionary thought mixed with nominalism. In all of the recent posts on this blog about the sacrament of Christ's Body and Blood, drawing on Hooker who drew on Cranmer, I hope that I have demonstrated that true Catholic teaching on sacramental grace is far more flexible and mysterious than modern interlocutors, mainly Roman Catholics on one hand and modern nouveau "Anglican" Evangelicals on the other, are wont to admit. They have, in their simplistic approach, created false contrasts. One of these is a false contrast between Catholic belief concerning the charismatic reality of Christ's Body and Blood in the sacrament and what they loosely, indeed inaccurately, term "Receptionism." We have demonstrated that the Anglican emphasis on Receiving the sacrament was due to a very real faith that this is a sign and more than a sign, an effectual sign and means of grace. They strongly rejected any concept of a "bare sign empty of Christ," or as Hooker spelled it out:

For we take not baptism nor the eucharist for bare resemblances or memorials of things absent, neither for naked signs and testimonies assuring us of grace received before, but (as they are indeed and in verity) for means effectual whereby God when we take the sacraments delivereth into our hands that grace available unto eternal life, which grace the sacraments represent or signify. V.57.5

False contrasts create a Babel where before we could engage in thoughtful communication, learning from one another and establishing, we may hope, unity in the Church. For, this false gulf stands between us and Rome in its official error concerning the validity of Anglican Orders, charging that our fathers rejected Eucharistic sacrifice, and truly Catholic faith concerning the sacrament (as if that alone could have canceled out validity). Having been forced by better history and scholarship to abandon all arguments for their position but one (rather, they yet claim to have one) they must continually misinform themselves and their own people about Anglican sacramental theology, while their boldest and most daring polemicists attempt to misinform our people too. Meanwhile, the nouveau Evangelicals echo Rome's factual errors, but try to say that it really does not matter.

Of course, real theologians cannot live with the simplistic and reactionary nominalism that eradicates honest inquiry and thought. For this reason, my brothers and I (one a Roman Catholic priest, the other an Orthodox theologian well-known) never manage to argue or debate each other about theology, but rather have very enjoyable discussions. We talk about the explosive subject of religion because God himself is at the center of our lives; we are all Christians, and respect each other. Our discussions avoid the traps others fall into when keywords become red flags, behind which stand misinformation, simplistic reactions and nominalism.

Also, for the sake of genuine thought and discussion we have, on this blog, looked at how the current pope himself has redefined "Transubstantiation" in a manner acceptable to Anglicans. Though I cannot retroactively credit the Church of Rome with his wholesome point of view, his teaching on the subject bridges a gap because Joseph Ratzinger himself (even had he never been elevated) approached the subject with respect for the Patristic period, the antiquity of the Tradition, and the need that every doctrine be built on the foundation of revelation from Scripture.

Nonetheless, many Anglicans these days have suffered a blow because they have never been grounded in the writings of their own fathers, and have never realized how thoroughly those English Reformers believed and taught the true Catholic Faith of antiquity, understanding the Scriptures in a way that could not be corrupted by innovations from any contemporary source. They held their ground to find the middle way of truth between many opposing extremes: They were not Calvinists, Lutherans, Papists, Anabaptists, etc. Their language overlapped some of these because they kept alive the kind of thinking and writing that had been acceptable in the Holy Catholic Church since the beginning, that allowed for honest questions, and that limited the source of final determination in every question to what could be shown to come from Scripture as understood by the Church Quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum est.

The unfortunate remark of an Anglican bishop who called his own patrimony a failed 450-year old experiment, demonstrates that knee-jerk nominalism has created a new kind of "Anglo-Papalism." This is not the original kind that sought for the reunification of the Church, and saw the pope as the logical choice for Western Patriarch, seeing even the doctrine of papal infallibility as potentially acceptable if Rome would define it as the last stage of the conciliar process. Indeed, the key to understanding the old Anglo-Papalism well enough to distinguish it from the new kind, is seeing that the old kind required an orthodox definition from Rome on this and other related matters as necessary to organic unity. Instead, the nouveau Anglo-Papalist lets others define all the terms, allows others to teach him the theology of his own patrimony, and so gives ground to all interlocutors and polemicists, waving the white flag of an inferiority complex. And, if only they knew better, they would see that their inferiority complex is undeserved, and that it misrepresents the rest of us. (This is very sad, because when they leap into the Tiber due to false contrasts and simplistic definitions, they throw away the baby with the bathwater, generally becoming miserable, that is, over time quite unhappy with their decision.)

So, in those recent posts, I hope that I have demonstrated, to those most in need of the lesson, that the mysteries are deep. True theology is both complex and flexible enough to allow us to abide by the terms established in antiquity, rather than feeling the pressure to swallow late, modern and very modern, philosophically dubious, legalistic definitions that shake the conscience for no good reason. For example, on this one matter of Eucharistic theology, we ought to set the terms of any debate ourselves, seeing our own patrimony in light of the Scriptures and the Tradition in which we have received them. If our own people will learn this, they will bring forth from their treasures things both old and new.

First Sunday in Lent

On Monday night we plan to set off for Chapel Hill N.C. where I will serve at St. Benedict's Anglican Catholic Church. I am busier than sin (a good Lenten theme), so here is a sermon I wrote and preached in the Phoenix Valley back in 2006.

Matt. 4:1f

Earlier this week, while driving, I heard a news report on the radio about a funeral for a family from Mesa (Arizona) that had been murdered. The only comforting thing in the story is that we live in an area of the country where these things are noticed by the larger community, instead of what I am used to from the news in Baltimore and Washington. In those towns the murder and the funeral would go largely unnoticed. As I listened to the report, the Pastor of the church where the funeral was taking place was offering a prayer about how hard it is to make sense of this terrible tragedy. But, thank God, he then went on to say that their purpose that day was not to make sense of it, but to know the love of God.

I cannot help but think, when I hear Christians trying so hard to make sense out of the evil in the world, that they need to read my younger brother’s second book, The Doors of the Sea by David Bentley Hart. Because in that book he states the most liberating truth of all about the evils that happen so often in the world. Namely, that we should not try to make sense out of them. Christ did not come to make sense out of the evil in the world, neither to justify God against the charge that suffering and tragedy must indicate some kind of flaw, or lack of true goodness. Christ did not come to show that evil and woe, whether by human malice or natural disaster, fit a larger and higher purpose that is somehow necessary in God’s scheme of things. Indeed, he never suggests that it does. The Gospel for today shows that a time comes to resist temptations that are spiritual in nature; and the internal pressure to commit bad theodicy is one that I wish most clergymen would resist.

What Christ did in fact actually come to do, is told to us by Saint John: “For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the Devil (I John 3:8).” The cross of Christ made use of the evil that is done by violent men and unjust authorities; but it does not fit into a pattern that needs evil in order to balance the scales and make the universe work. On His cross He was the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world. In His resurrection he destroyed death. The liberating truth of the Gospel is not that God will make sense of evil and tragedy; but rather that Christ has won the victory against the senseless, meaningless condition of suffering and death, of sorrow and tragedy, that we experience while we live in this condition of being fallen, being made subject for the time being to pain in a world that knows death because it knows sin. The fact that we will die, and that life is "this vale of sorrows,” that illness, poverty and disaster fall upon all sorts and conditions of men, will yield and give way at Christ’s coming again to the fullness of complete victory over every consequence of Adam’s Fall. Death will be no more, and He will wipe away every tear from their eyes. Our hope is not that we will someday make sense of evil; Our hope is in the Living Christ Who was dead and is alive forevermore, who holds the keys of Hell and of death; Who will, when He returns in glory, destroy the last enemy- Death- and share with us the spoils of His conquest over the grave.

So, I cannot make sense of the murders in Mesa. I cannot make sense of the Holocaust, or the American Holocaust of millions of innocent babies murdered by abortion. And, as my brother’s book was dealing with quite directly, I cannot make sense of the Tsunami that killed so many people on December 26th of 2004. I am free to mourn, and to face sorrows, not because I believe they must make sense, but because I know that they make no sense, ultimately- even when they are used for good by Providence, as the selling of Joseph into Egypt, and the good use made of Christ’s cross. In my article for Touchstone, titled Her Mother’s Glory, I related the fact that my beloved adopted daughter was conceived by rape. After my wife’s courageous battle to have and to keep her daughter, against all the forces that were trying to pressure her to abort the child, I married Diane and adopted Hannah (who is now grown up and happily married). God alone is the Author of Life, even when something as hideous as rape has been committed; and no child is unworthy to see the light of day because of someone else’s sin. This is what I wrote about that:

“What if the Author of Life takes the opportunity to do good from someone’s evil? The injustice done to Joseph resulted in the saving of his life, and that of millions of people, foreshadowing the good done for the whole world by the unjust crucifixion of a young rabbi from Nazareth. It is ever the way of God to make good come from the evil that men do.”

Providence is always at work, and so, yes, God takes the evil that men do and turns it into good. This is not because He needs the evil; He is not dependent upon anything- certainly not evil. It is simply that He always wins, and His goodness cannot be deterred or overcome. When evil is as evil as it can be, God is still good and is also All-powerful, able to give life and to act by His eternal character of Love. As Joseph said, “But as for you, ye thought evil against me; but God meant it unto good, to bring to pass, as it is this day, to save much people alive (Genesis 50:20).”

All of this relates to the last of the three temptations we read about today. The Devil tempted the Lord to enter right away into His kingdom and, as clichés go, to “make the world a better place.” The temptation was to avoid the cross, and to put an immediate end to the apparent problems of the world, but not to the real problem of the world. He could end hunger and poverty and injustice and make the world safe for Utopianism, and also avoid the suffering, humiliation and death that was an inherent part of the cross.

Let us back up and take a good look at these three temptations. The scriptures tell us that our Lord Jesus Christ was “tempted in every point like as we are, yet without sin (Hebrews 4:15).” This can be misunderstood. He lived in the real world as a real man. But, even in His human nature He did not have the problem we have, namely that thing called concupiscence. His human nature was not deprived of the grace to live above “the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes and the pride of life (I John 2:16).” The point of the Gospel for today is not that we can follow His example and be perfect. We cannot. We are supposed to imitate Christ in His life of obedience to the Father’s will, of self-denial and of holiness. We also find, at the end of the day, that no day has gone by in which we have lived without sin by thought, word or deed. Not so Christ. He lived His entire life without sin, born of a virgin and having come into the world from above as its Lord.

In terms of the weakness that the Devil sought for in Christ (but could not find) the temptations we face are similar in that the Devil tried to use those weapons, the things that St. John calls “all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes and the pride of life.”(I John 2:16) Remember the words from the Book of Genesis that show these tools used against Eve. “And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.” (Gen.3:6). The tree was good for food, that is, it could satisfy the lust of the flesh. It was pleasant to look at, and so the Devil used the lust of the eyes. This is covetousness, the sin of wanting to take what is not rightly one’s own, wanting even to take it from someone else. The implication is clear: They could eat fruit of all the trees in the garden, except this one. This tree belonged to God; and now she coveted its fruit which pleased the eyes. The fruit of this tree was desired to make one wise, to satisfy the pride of life. The Devil did use these elements in the desert when trying to tempt the Lord himself, aiming his weapons at the human nature of Christ, making these three suggestions: To turn the stones to bread in order to satisfy lusts of the flesh; to covet the nations of the earth as his prize possession before the time when the Kingdom of God is meant to come, aimed at the lust of the eyes; to prove his true Divine nature by an unnecessary, show-off miracle, landing on his feet from the pinnacle of the temple, aimed at the pride of life.

The temptations about which we read in today’s Gospel are, in another sense, not the kind that most of us face. I have never been tempted to turn stones into bread, nor to leap off of a high pinnacle to dazzle a crowd as I land safely (not being the Son of God, and having nothing to prove). And, I have never been tempted to become the king of the whole world. I have been tempted to use what feeble powers I have to satisfy my flesh; I have been tempted to end or compromise my fasts (sometimes having yielded), but the temptation to turn stones to bread is something unique to Christ.

So, looking again at the third temptation, many people are tempted to “make the world a better place” by worshiping the Devil; or even if by worshiping some thing they give in to the Devil, the idolatry still serves his end. Alexander, Caesar and Napoleon worshiped themselves; Marx worshiped economic power as the only true force; Hitler worshiped racial purity; and many modern American Utopians worship some form of education or some ideology. Even people who believe that the only hope for the world is to spread Democracy, must face what happened when the Palestinians elected the terrorist organization, Hamas, to run their affairs. Democracy cannot work in a psychiatric ward.

Christ was tempted by the Devil to rule the world with perfect justice, and to end man’s outward troubles. But the real problem of the world is not ignorance and injustice; it is not inequity and woe, hunger and unequal distribution, or whatever evil you can name. Christ will rule the world with perfect justice when He comes again in glory; but first He took away sin and overcame death; just as the Old Testament first speaks of Messiah as the priest who offers sacrifice for sin, and only after that as the King. For, ultimately, all that really plagues us are those two things that are always connected: Sin and death. He came the first time as the Suffering Servant, and will return as the Lord of Glory. And, He will not make sense of those things that plague us. He will take them away forever, and wipe away the tears from off all faces.

For now, we must overcome in this life, "all that is in the world," hoping not to have our questions answered about how God could allow suffering; hoping, rather for something better and eternal.

And now, unto God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Ghost, be ascribed, as is most justly due, all might, majesty dominion, power and glory, henceforth world without end. Amen.

The Words of Institution, Receiving and Real Presence

And Right Reason

My suggestion, the other day, was that the western tradition of placing great emphasis on the Words of Institution, and seeing it as a special place in the service of Holy Communion in which many genuflect during elevations, is consistent with the scriptural revelation that God's word in the mouth of his spokesmen is filled with the same power that created heaven and earth out of nothing. That post presents the case for this view, and I need not reiterate it here. This met with a comment that not every Eucharistic rite in the long history of the Church has included the Words of Institution; and, we were reminded of the eastern emphasis on the Epiclesis. And, of course, these facts are well known.

What this really brings up is the subject of Right Reason. This is the most misunderstood element in what has so wrongly been called Hooker's Three legged Stool for far too long. Some think of it as merely "reason" and make it one of three equally balanced sources of authority. Some replace "Tradition" with "experience," subjecting the one and only reliable source of revelation left to us from the Apostolic age and the earlier age of the prophets, that is the Scripture, to the whims of human thought; they subject the Church to every wind of doctrine in the process.

In fact, Hooker wrote about Scripture, Right Reason and The Church with her Authority. For this last, he did in fact use the word "tradition" despite popular misinformation to the contrary. But, he used it sparingly, instead preferring to write in such a way as I have summarized: The Church with her Authority. This speaks not only of the Church's authority to teach the true meaning of the revelation, that is the content of Holy Scripture, but also of the Church's use through the centuries of Right Reason, and of the Church's strutures of authority, the pastoral offices of bishops and priests, polity, the making of Canon Law and Rubrics, etc. It was more, for Hooker, than only the Tradition of the Church's teaching. Right Reason is both the Wisdom we see in the Old Testament, and it is the "Mind of Christ" we see in the New Testament (I Corinthians 2:16). As such, the mind of Christ is not the sole property of any one individual, but is the gift of God granted to the Church. Perhaps, St. Paul saying "we" meant the Apostles primarily; but the context indicates he was speaking of all those whom he classified as spiritual (πνευματικός) rather than natural or "soulish" (ψυχικός).

Right Reason is, frankly, almost impossible to separate from Tradition, or the Church with her Authority. It is not at all clear, really, that Hooker was thinking of three elements that guide us rather than two. Modern day "liberals" might be shocked to learn that what they call "Reason" was, for Hooker (whom they wrongly think of as one of their own) completely tied to the Tradition, and was in fact the same thing, being the mind of Christ in the Church; that is, the Church with her Authority. They may think of "reason" with a mind no higher than a gutter in which the zeitgeist reigns; but Right Reason is beyond their reach. It is very conservative, and demands that we give place to what G.K. Chesteron wrote of as Democracy that includes the dead.

About the subject of the sacrament of Christ's Body and Blood, we have no revelation concerning when in the Eucharistic prayer the Bread and Wine become the Body of Blood of Christ that allows us to make a dogma out of singling out the Words of Institution for special consideration. Certainly, using the very tools he spelled out for us, Hooker considered it to be unimportant when the consecration was consummated, and believed we know only that they are the Body and Blood of Christ to the one who duly receives them (and condemnation to the one who presumes to receive without "hearty repentance and true faith." That is, his presumption adds sin to sin). He ruled out, of course, Transubstantiation (as then understood), making the question of when the Real Presence is fully in the sacrament immaterial.

Nonetheless, I have no problem genuflecting and elevating the elements after saying the Words of Institution. With the proper use of Right Reason the western Church knows that we cannot, after the Word of God is spoken, treat these elements any longer as common bread and wine. Indeed, the rubrics themselves testify that they are considered to be consecrated. This does not contradict the fully acceptable Catholic sort of Receptionism (if it be called Receptionism) that teaches that the grace of the sacrament comes only by receiving. The Word of God has power, and the fullness of consecration may have only begun at that point, to be completed only by receiving; or the consecration has happened at that moment when the words are spoken. We do not know; but we can trust that the Church with her Authority has given us, in our patrimony a liturgical shape that allows us to believe that God's power is behind his words spoken by his servants who act as Christ's own mouthpiece. Can we then genuflect, and later enjoy Eucharistsic devotions before the Reserve Sacrament? That depends on our faith in God's word, so long as nothing be substituted for eating and drinking.

With all of its wisdom, and all of its dogmatic teaching, the Church's Right Reason leads us to acknowledge the glorious mystery, and to humbly confess our ignorance about how God works his wonders. That is enough; it is as far as even Right Reason can go.

Getting a Dirty Face

February 25, 2009. Ash Wednesday. It was a hard day today. My mood was wretched indeed, and yet, because of the day it was I went to Mass. As Fr. Christian marked a cross of ashes on my forehead, my mood began to change. The folly of letting little things drag me down began to be put into perspective. Sin and sorrow are great realities. Powerlessness afflicts us all, but there is hope. There is promise ...

Getting a Dirty Face

Ash to ash, dust to dust,
from dust we came, to dust return.
Our mortal frames such short times live,
so briefly walk upon this earth,
so soon like candles burnt and snuffed,
whose light must cease to shine.
And yet we walk, and yet we shine,
and for a few years we live,
and live for what? ourselves to please?
transient pleasures to obtain, to use, to lose?
And when these pleasures have been had,
and when allotted days are done,
what, pray tell, remains of them;
what purpose has there been?
What difference have we made in life,
or was that living all in vain?
Was it useless, pointless, wasted, gone?
Are we merely vapor in the wind,
to be blown aside, dissipated in the breeze,
forgotten as if in truth we'd never been?
Or is there pattern, grand intent,
design and purpose to our days?
Does our coming, walking, going really matter,
has our living changed a world,
or left a print upon its face?
Does design perhaps inhabit vastness we can not perceive?
Can our ending be beginning; is there more to come?
Is there meaning in our doing?
Can we seize upon that myst'ry we can not perceive?
Can the dross we know we carry
be removed and made no more?
Can we step forth in shining radiance evermore?
Can we fly?
Ash to ash, dust to dust,
within a certain hope,
in Him.

Receptionism Roman Style

(Below this top post you will find a piece for Ash Wednesday)

Upon reading the most recent analysis of Hooker's Eucharistic theology on this blog, my brother who is a Roman Catholic priest, and who was an Episcopal priest until 1996, pointed out a fact that is worth remembering. The teaching of Rome has its own form of what may be called Receptionism, because the consecration of the sacrament is not completed before the celebrant (at least) eats and drinks the communion. What Cranmer did, and what Hooker a generation later elucidated further, extends that to the members of the Body of Christ who are present and able to receive.

His response was interesting when I pointed out that, recently, one Church of England priest argued for the restoration of "non-communicating Masses" (which means, when the laity are not invited to receive) to emphasize sacrifice as, in that priest's opinion, the most important thing about the sacrament. "In that case," my brother replied, "he has offered no sacrifice."

With which I can only agree without reservation.

Ash Wednesday

Fellow priests, please remember the words are "Remember, O Man, that thou art dust; and unto dust shalt thou return." This is to said whether the ashes are being imposed on a man or a woman or a child. The word "Man" for the fallen children of Adam, in whom all are dead, to be delivered only by the Lord, the Second Man and Last Adam. Each member of the fallen human race, that race called Man or Adam, is told the first half, the bad news. We say these words and receive them in anticipation of Easter that will come at the end of this exile in the desert: "For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive." I Cor. 15:22

“Remember, O Man” first appeared in the March, 2002 issue of Touchstone.

Remember, O Man

Robert Hart on Ash Wednesday

In its emphasis on mortality and guilt, Ash Wednesday offers a two-fold remedy to what ails society. That is, to what ails society because of the prevalent deception that is in the air, and is, like most unthought-out yet strongly held opinions, caught like a virus. Only someone with a Christian mind understands why the thought of our death and our guilt brings comfort. But then, this also suggests why only the Christian can, in the end, be truly happy.

Mortality & Guilt

About death and dying, popular thinking seems itself to be in a state of denial. Perhaps with the beginning of the worship of youth in the 1950s, and the resulting youth culture, people began to seek to avoid death by avoiding age, perhaps by avoiding adulthood itself (after all, the word adult is beginning to mean nothing more than childish delight in things pornographic). If we do not grow up, we cannot grow old, and we can live forever. Viagra can even take away the (to them) greatest disadvantage of age, the loss of sexual gratification.

Maybe we can stay young forever, like Hugh Hefner, who at 75 may still ponder what he wants to be when he grows up. But for now he has nothing more important to do than to score with the chicks, his seven live-in girlfriends. As long as we can sing with Peter Pan, “I won’t grow up,” how can we grow old? How can we die?

The only virtue recognized by the Zeitgeist is that of staying in the best physical shape, having the sleekest and strongest body, and maintaining peak sexual performance. We cannot die. Let us eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we shall live.

So much for mortality. As for guilt, somehow our society has bought the lie that guilt is no problem at all, unless it is felt. All fingers must point to the professions of psychology and psychiatry for forging this deception, and selling it after the model of the most talented con artists and snake oil salesmen. The feeling of guilt is now a medical disability; the reality of guilt must at all costs be denied.

I recall vividly an experience from some 20 years ago, as I sat eating in a restaurant within hearing distance of two men who had no interest in keeping their comments private. “Look, she made the decision to have the abortion,” the conversation went. “Well, that’s that. Now she feels sad all the time because she feels guilty. The doctor told us that we have to be tough with her for her own good, and tell her to knock it off, quit moping, and get on with it.”

Funny how the doctor knew that would happen. Probably, as my experience of sidewalk counseling has made me know, one of these heroes was the sperm donor who, after a bit of pleasure, had to muscle his girl into making what he considered to be the responsible decision. First the girl was deprived of her child, and now she is deprived of her mourning, her conscience—her soul. Part of her very inconvenient humanity had to be eradicated, of course for her own good, just as the child was exterminated for its own good. It’s always for their own good: “The tender mercies of the wicked are cruel” (Prov. 12:10).

The feeling of guilt, even when it is another doing the feeling, gets in the way of sheer pleasure. The feeling of guilt is a malady, and must be treated by searing the conscience with a hot iron. After that, one can sleep nights, if not with peace, at least without painful, annoying distractions.

Thank God for Ash Wednesday. We are reminded by the words, “Remember, O Man, that thou art dust, and unto dust shalt thou return,” that death is a certainty, and we can cease from endless, tireless labors to stay young and naturally immortal. We can focus on something bigger: the eternity into which we most surely shall enter.

We are reminded also that guilt is not so much a feeling as it is a fact, a fact of our fallen sinful lives. We do not have to eradicate the feeling of guilt, and we can cease from the hopeless struggle to deny it. The feeling of guilt must lead us to God, and that fact of guilt be dealt with by Christ, who alone cures that fact and creates a restful conscience. Our consciences can live quite powerfully, and we should not consider it a sickness, but rather the greatest health of the soul leading us to seek absolution with repentance. When we in faith give our conscience its place of effect and power, we face mortality without fear.

So I find comfort in the themes of mortality and guilt on Ash Wednesday. It is the world, not I, that is mad.

Hooker's Eucharistic theology revisited

The previous post, Richard Hooker on the Communion of Christ's Body and Blood, requires a further analysis. First of all, we need to appreciate the main emphasis that his generation of English Churchmen were placing on the salvatory effect of two sacraments. This is necessary to reestablish in this day and age, particularly in light of the "Reasserter" version of Anglicanism, that does not deserve to be called "Anglicanism" at all. That two of the sacraments, Baptism and the Lord's Supper, are "generally necessary to salvation" is a part of Anglican theology that cannot be taken away without toppling the whole structure. Contrary to popular misinformation, Anglicanism has a distinctive theological system, even though that distinctive system is not its own, but only that of the Catholic Church as described in the Vincetian Canon ("That which has been believed everywhere, always and by all." Quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum est). That some modern people call themselves Anglican, and yet deny the effect of these two sacraments in their soteriology, favoring instead a religion more akin to ultra-Protestant Revivalism (Baptist, Pentecostal, etc.), demonstrates a kind of ignorance from which we must turn away and withdraw ourselves.

On the other hand, while appreciating the emphasis placed by Hooker and his fellow Church of England theologians, it is only to right to give critical analysis with all due respect. In our own time words like "Receptionism" are tossed about, particularly by polemicists, without any understanding of what such a word might indicate, or how it can represent more than one school of thought. To the extent that Hooker was willing to accept the theory that full consecration of the sacrament of Christ's Body and Blood might take place upon receiving the sacrament (which his writing indicates to be the theory he favored), one might call him a believer in Receptionism. I say, "might." The position he took was that we need not bother to argue about when the consecration happens, because the saving effect of the sacrament requires reception. On this point I disagree only with the idea that we cannot see a point in the Holy Communion service when the consecration takes place. More about that later.

Historical context

As I pointed out in the previous post, by the time of the Reformation people had become accustomed to attending church to hear Mass, and they did not receive the sacrament often, if at all. This, in spite of the Apostle's words, "For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come." (I Cor. 11:26) He did not say "seldom," but "often." The combined witness of scripture and of history tells us that the Eucharist was offered every Lord's Day, from the beginning of the Church's life, through the persecution by the empire of Rome, and throughout the entire period called "Patristic." This is not a debatable point, but solid fact. Now, inasmuch as St. Paul says "as often," we can take it that he did not mean for his readers to treat that as if he had written "as seldom." Frequent Communion of the laity was an idea first presented, or rather rediscovered, by Archbishop Thomas Cranmer. By Hooker's time, during the reign of Elizabeth I, the people were being exhorted to receive the sacrament frequently, and a generation had been taught that they were not there simply to attend or "hear" Mass, but to receive the Holy Communion. To teach this very thing, the Church of England called the service by a Biblical name, "Holy Communion."

As I pointed out, this is why Article XXV says, "The Sacraments were not ordained of Christ to be gazed upon or to be carried about, but that we should duly use them. And in such only as worthily receive the same, have they a wholesome effect or operation: but they that receive them unworthily, purchase to themselves damnation, as Saint Paul saith." You will notice, there is no mention in these words of idolatry. The Article was not directed at some notion that people were worshiping the elevated Host. Rather, the Article was written to teach the people that the main purpose for which the sacrament was established by Christ was that it be received, and that for the salvation of each individual. This is why the Article is not relevant to such things as Benediction services. The men of that day would have, no doubt, objected to such a service; but, again, for them it would have been stepping backwards merely into the High Middle Ages, rather than stepping all the way back to the beginning, and to Christ's purpose. The Article was teaching a positive thing; what the sacrament is for. In our own time, we may allow orderly and proper Eucharistic devotion that may indeed assist the soul of a believer; but in that time it was probably better not to do such things and cause confusion.

If the men of that time, Hooker included, were teaching what some might call "Receptionism," it was nothing like Zwinglianism. It was simply a question about when the elements are endowed with the Real Presence of Christ; also, the Real Presence is a charismatic means to impart to us eternal life. Let us look at the things Hooker affirmed in the context of the chapters we were looking at from Book V of his Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity.

He affirmed the Real Presence clearly, not vaguely.

He affirmed Eucharistic sacrifice.

He affirmed the charismatic and salvatory effect of the sacrament. This last part depended on a worthy reception, and about that all Catholic believers must agree.

He sent his word and healed them

So, what about Hooker's version of "Receptionism" so-called? On one hand, we may agree that what matters most is that the sacrament be received, and that for its saving effect. It really does not matter when the sacrament is consecrated, that is, at what exact moment in time, as long as we know that we have fed on the Living Christ by the communion of his Body and Blood. And, that at or by the point of reception this has happened, everyone with a Catholic mind must agree.

Nonetheless, we have to abide by a theological principle. The principle I refer to is the power of the word of God. This is a systematic theological principle. By that I mean, it is consistent throughout the whole of scripture.

"And God said, Let there be light: and there was light." Gen. 1:3

"By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth. " Psalm 33: 6

"Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear." Heb. 11:3

When Jesus called the young man back from the dead in Nain, he did so by speaking to him. The people of the town said, "a great prophet is risen up among us; and, That God hath visited his people." That is because the word in the mouth of a prophet had the same power as if God spoke it from heaven, and the prophet is the mouth of God.

"If thou take forth the precious from the vile, thou shalt be as my mouth." (Jer.15:19)

"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." (Isaiah 55:11)

So too, the word of God in the mouth of a angel. This is why we celebrate the Feast of the Annunciation as the feast of the Incarnation. "And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God. And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS." (Luke 1:30, 31) These words are not simply a foretelling or prediction, and neither were the words of the prophets; the scriptures had to be fulfilled because once the word had come from the mouth of God, nothing could stop the creative power of that word. When the young man sat up, the people knew that Jesus was at least a prophet, for his word healed the man from death itself, and was filled with the creative power by which heaven and earth were made. (Psalm 107:20)

For this reason, it is consistent with all of scripture, that is, by proper use of systematic theology, to see that when the words of Institution are spoken, the bread becomes the Body of Christ, and the wine becomes the Blood of Christ. How this charismatic wonder takes place we cannot know; but, how can the elements not become the Body and Blood of Christ once his word is spoken over them? For this reason I see the Words of Institution as a moment after which we may no longer doubt that Christ is really Present in the sacrament on the altar.

I acknowledge that Hooker placed the same confidence in the word of God and the creative power of that word; regarding this sacrament, however, he pointed out that the full Words of Institution include "Take, eat..." and "Drink, ye all, of this..." I cannot rule out that this might indicate that upon eating and drinking each Christian who receives finalizes the consecration. However, once "This is my Body...This is my Blood" have been uttered, the creative power of God's word has begun its work.

These matters are not a distinction between "Protestant" and "Catholic" (which is no distinction at all for those who say "Protestant" according to Anglican usage). These are matters of discussion among Catholics, as they were in Antiquity. What we have no room for is a Eucharistic theology that excludes Baptism and the Lord's Supper from the all important topic of salvation, or that makes them into bare signs, or that makes gazing equal to receiving. These sacraments are "generally necessary to salvation."