Trinity Sunday

Readers may wish to refer to last year's Trinity Sunday sermon for theological study. (That was written when the blogger html still accepted Hebrew letters).

Isaiah 6:1-8, Psalm 29, Rev. 4:1-11 (i.e. the entire chapter), John 3:1-17

It is fitting that we should read about new birth on Trinity Sunday, and be reminded that, "That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit." Nicodemus asked the question,"How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?" The answer that Jesus gave him was about the invisible work of the Holy Spirit. Invisible and yet observable in effect; for the Holy Spirit's working cannot be seen, but his work can be seen when a man is born of water and of the spirit; for he is a new man in Christ, literally a new creation. "If any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new." (II Cor. 5:17) Adam was a creature, and his offspring are creatures, but not individually created as much as creatures by derivation, in that each new human being is the result of a man knowing a woman (one hopes, his wife). But, in the new birth, each person is a new creature, individually created by the breath of God with that new life that we receive from the Risen Christ, that new life that is eternal and will survive our death, so that our mortal nature becomes a seed planted to be raised as Christ is risen, that is life immortal. "Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him." (Rom. 6:9)

Currently, among the Reaaserter camp, we find that some who call themselves "Anglican" do not understand that John chapter three, where Jesus speaks of the new birth, is referring to baptism. No doubt, they have never learned the genuine Anglican Catechism, embracing, as they do, over the last thirty years a book that has new things instead. But, here is what the authentic Anglican Catechism says:

QUESTION. What is your Name?
Answer. N. or N. N.
Question. Who gave you this Name?
Answer. My Sponsors in Baptism; wherein I was made a member of Christ, the child of God, and an inheritor of the kingdom of heaven.

In baptism we were adopted through Christ, born of water and the Spirit as children of God.

This is clear from the sixth chapter of Romans:

What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein? Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. (vs. 1-4)

Well I understand why the Evangelicals interpret the new birth as that moment of conscious conversion, for in a sense it really feels like a new birth of sorts: This I know from my own experience. And, it likely completes something valid and real that was planted in baptism, even though it may appear to unsympathetic critics as merely subjective. I understand why they resist the ancient teaching of the Church that the new birth is in baptism, because their experience of conversion just had to be what Christ spoke of. But, the new birth is objective, and we must interpret John chapter three by Romans chapter six. The new birth is into the newness of life, having been buried with Christ by baptism into death, and raised to walk in the newness of life. That is objective and real; and for an Anglican it should contain no contradiction that we accept the teaching of the Catholic Tradition regarding the meaning of Scripture, and that we rejoice when a person's dormant faith comes so alive in his soul that he can mark it as a beginning. But, it is the grace of his baptism awakened by the Holy Spirit, so that his conscience, with all his heart and soul, renders him like the prodigal son who came to himself, and went home to his father.

And, baptism brings us to the nominal theme of Trinity Sunday.

We must look at the words of the Risen Christ at the close of the Gospel According to Matthew, where we read the Great Commission:

And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach (μαθητεύω, mathēteuō, make disciples of) all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen. (Matt.28:18-20)

This new birth involves the full revelation of the Name of God. And, before proceeding, we must answer yet another objection some have. They have noticed, as have we, that in the Book of Acts baptism was said to be in the Name of Jesus Christ (Acts 2:38), or the Lord Jesus (Acts 8:16, 10:48, 19:5). But, they do not understand. They make the mistake of assuming that Luke's designation of Christian baptism reveals the formula, or the actual words that were spoken, which is not at all what the text actually says.

When the Book of Acts reveals what happened in those earliest days, Luke is making clear that the baptism was not that of John the Baptist, but rather it was Christian baptism. Since the word "Christian" appears only once in that whole book, as something that came about after many people were baptized (11:26), it was not yet customary to say "Christian baptism" as opposed to "the baptism of John." But, that this is the meaning is clearly drawn from the nineteenth chapter. "Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus." Would those who think they are using the formula of Acts by rejecting the commandment of Christ at the close of Matthew's Gospel, not have made the same argument if "Christian" had been a more fully established word from the start? Would they not likely insist that the formula should be "I baptize thee a Christian?" Dom Gregory Dix discovered an ancient baptism liturgy in which the Trinitarian formula appeared as part of a long prayer that was, as a whole, in the Name of Jesus Christ. This makes perfect sense.

The formula for baptism is "In the Name of The Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost (or Holy Spirit)." The revelation of this Name, indeed, this One Name, is the end result in Matthew's Gospel, of all that Jesus did and said. Now, we know God. The revelation of this One Name of The Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, could not be given to us before the Incarnation of the Word; the Name could not be revealed before Christ's atoning death in which he took away the sins of the world; the Name could not be revealed until after he defeated death itself and rose from the grave. The Name could be revealed only after we see the full picture of the Son, in his complete victory for our sakes over sin and death, having cast out the prince of this world in his Passion and Resurrection. And, it had to be revealed right then, just before the Ascension and the ten days when the disciples were about to stand on that bridge between the coming of the first Comforter and the coming of the other Comforter; that is, between the coming of Christ our Advocate (παράκλητος, paraklētos I John 2:1), and the coming of "the other Comforter" (same word, παράκλητος, paraklētos, John 14:16,17), the Spirit of Truth.

God the Father has been perfectly (Heb. 1:1f) revealed by the Son; and the Father and the Son are known only through the Holy Spirit (John 15:26). Therefore, the revelation of the Divine Name is also the revelation of our salvation, for the revelation of the One Divine Name of The Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit came only out of the mouth of Jesus Christ after he had accomplished all things, and was ready to go back to the Father in order to send the other Paraklētos. The new life, into which we are born again in baptism, is eternal life; that eternal life is to know the God of this revelation intimately.

And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; even the Spirit of truth; whom the world can not receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you. ..And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent. (John 14:16,17; 17:3)

Eternal life is to know the Spirit of Truth, for he alone reveals the Son. It is to know the Son, for he alone reveals the Father. It is to know the Father. Our salvation and eternal life is to know the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.

Hear what the Prophet Jeremiah foretold, as the substance of the New Covenant:

Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD: But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. And they shall teach no more every man his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD; for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more. (Jer. 31:31-34)

This is salvation and eternal life.

This is also universal, to be proclaimed in all nations; for it is in all nations that we are to make and baptize disciples. "For the earth shall be filled with the knowledge of the glory of the LORD, as the waters cover the sea." (Hab. 2:14) In recent years we have read of false teachers (such as one Bishop Swing of the Episcopal "Church") tell us that Christianity should no longer be a missionary faith, and that we should respect the alleged right of all people to have their ancestral gods. Thank God St. Patrick did not think so, or my Irish ancestors would have continued the practice of human sacrifice, burning people in the Wicker Man. The Gospel is not a form of oppression, but the only way out of the darkness into the light. "But thus shall ye deal with them; ye shall destroy their altars, and break down their images, and cut down their groves, and burn their graven images with fire...And ye shall overthrow their altars, and break their pillars, and burn their groves with fire; and ye shall hew down the graven images of their gods, and destroy the names of them out of that place. " (Deut. 7:5, 12:3). It is a service, it is compassionate, to liberate people from the cruelty of paganism, and to bring to them knowledge of the true God. When the Church built its new shrines on the sites of old pagan shrines, it practiced wisdom; for the old ways of darkness were replaced by the worship of the loving God of salvation. In the old places of dread and darkness the Church built new places of joy and light.

We have been given a mission, whether or not the world and its defeated prince approve. The Church has that same mission in all the world that Christ gave in a special way to St. Paul: "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 26:18)

Baptism in the One Name, revealed by the Risen Christ, is entrance into the New Covenant, into death to sin and the newness of life, into the knowledge of God. It is for all nations. To proclaim the Name of The Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit is to proclaim our only hope and our only salvation. Only the Risen Christ could reveal it, and so prepare his Disciples to receive the Holy Spirit on Pentecost. We know the Name not in some academic or theoretical sense, but rather because The Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit have been revealed in the coming of one Paraklētos, Christ our Lord who defeated sin and death in his passion and resurrection, and the coming of the other Paraklētos, the Spirit of Truth who gives life and power to the Body of Christ. The revelation of the Trinity is the seal of our salvation history and it is our life here and now.

Grace and Sacraments Part IV

This follows Parts I, II and III

In Part II of this series I wrote the following:

Contrary to what many have thought, Anglicanism never goes so far as to deny the effect of what most Protestant bodies refer to as sacraments. Neither does Anglicanism affirm them. Simply, we claim not to know how God may work within those venues. We cannot do as the Roman Catholics have done, that is, to declare ministries to be "absolutely null and utterly void." The reason is simple. God has revealed what the sacraments are, and we have been given in that revelation a proper and Traditional way to administer them. But, he has clearly revealed something more, namely his willingness to work beyond the limits of what we understand, and that is because of his mercy and love.

My friend, Dr. William Tighe, posted this question in a comment:

Why not? The Early Church did this all the time, as, for example, in the canons of the Council of Nicaea when differentiations were made as to how those coming to the Church from various heretical groups and sects were to be treated...?

Indeed, his hypothetical question deserves a clear answer.

One thing has been clear in Anglicanism all along, and that is that we maintain the Apostolic Succession, having many strongly stated affirmations of our identification with the ancient Church. Many of the Protestant bodies have been based on a very different idea, namely that they have restored the Church, finding the most extreme definition of this idea in "outside the camp" Anabaptist terms, that they began all over again because the Church fell like Adam. Not so with the Church of England, and with the later development of international Anglicanism. During the English Reformation the Archbishop of Canterbury continued to be the successor of St. Augustine, and Ecclesia Anglicana retained its identity as that same church that traces its roots both to the ancient celtic British Church and to the later English Church, and the unity of those two churches into one Church at the Council of Hertford in 673 (following the successful groundwork for unity at the Council of Whitby in 664.)

Therefore, the English Church never redefined anything to do with the Orders of Ministry, but simply and clearly made known its intention and doctrine in the Preface to the Ordinal (1550):

IT is evident unto all men, diligently readinge holye scripture, and auncient aucthours, that from the Apostles tyme, there hathe bene these orders of Ministers in Christes church, Bisshoppes, Priestes, and Deacons, which Offices were evermore had in suche reverent estimacion, that no man by his own private aucthoritie, might presume to execute any of them, except he were first called, tried, examined, and knowen, to have such equalities, as were requisite for the same. And also by publique prayer, with imposicion of handes, approved, and admitted thereunto. And therfore to the entent these orders shoulde bee continued, and reverentlye used, and estemed in this Church of England, it is requysite, that no man (not beynge at thys presente Bisshop, Priest, nor Deacon) shall execute anye of them, excepte he be called, tryed, examined, and admitted, accordynge to the forme hereafter folowinge.1

Anglicanism was, from the start, unique among Protestant churches, and remained unique by retaining Apostolic Succession and the ancient Catholic Faith that included the administration of the sacraments.

Apologists and Bin Divers

Many writers tried to convert Anglicans to Rome. Appealing to our belief in the Catholic Tradition, they attempted to color the history of the English Church, especially as that history encompasses the 16th and 17th centuries, in such a way as to bring discredit to the clearly stated entent of the Preface, and to the whole body of doctrine and Canon Law that provides context for it. They have found unlikely bedfellows among a new wave of Evangelicals, many of whom delight in digging up old arguments Rome itself has abandoned, apparently without the consent of self-appointed apologists who frequent the Internet. Rome has abandoned them because she no longer pretends to believe the fictions her apologists once wrote boldly. Nonetheless, along come modern Evangelicals who claim to be Anglican, having only just discovered the trash Rome threw away and mistaking it for treasure, spouting this combination of a little knowledge with a large amount of ignorance, waving the trophies of their Bin Diving expeditions.

So, all over again, this time to refute the new-wave pseudo Anglican(?) Evangelicals, we find ourselves pointing out why the Church of England never knowingly violated its own laws, why rumors about non-episcopally ordained ministers amounts to no evidence at all, and that the English bishops actually meant what they said in ecclesiastical legislation, and that breaking these laws was also a crime in England ,etc., (the same old arguments Anglicans wrote to refute Roman apologists for centuries). Only this time, we are answering people whose agenda is not to convert Anglicans to Rome, but rather to deny the distinct nature of Anglicanism as both Catholic and Protestant without any internal contradiction.

Invalid versus Null and Void

This is because they do not want to "unchurch" Protestant Christians who make no claim to Apostolic Succession, and to historic continuity with the ancient Church. What I wrote in Part II of this series, however, is very different. The title of this series is "Grace and Sacraments." A distinction that needs to made and understood is that of what God may do and what the Church is commanded to do.

The very fact that the Church of England and Anglicanism world-wide, had always required, without exception, that no man may carry out the sacred ministry without episcopal ordination, is itself sufficient proof that the patrimony that we are Continuing has no hesitation in distinguishing valid sacraments from invalid sacraments (or, even non-sacraments, such as church bodies that merely license with not so much as a pretense to ordination). We have no hesitation declaring that some sacraments are invalid, such as baptism without the Trinitarian Name, or communion with no priesthood and no proper Intention. We reject women's ordination as invalid, and our concept that some marriages, though legal, may for proper considerations deserve a Decree of Nullity, are all based on our understanding that the Church has the authority and duty to recognize what is valid and to distinguish it from what is invalid.

Writing in Faribault on January 20, 1880, Rt. Rev. Henry B. Whipple, first bishop of the Diocese of Minnesota (known as a truly great missionary bishop to American "Indians," including the Dakota-or Souix), summarized our position simply with profound brevity:

God has wonderfully preserved our branch of the Church from this one error [from the context, exclusive claims as the One True Church], and I believe she is to be the Healer of Christian division in the last days. She preserves as primitive and apostolic her visible polity. She celebrates Divine sacraments as ordained by Christ, but does not define what God has not defined. She rests all her teaching on Holy Scripture, but gives her children the old Catholic Creeds for which she is a trustee. 2

This summarizes the Anglican understanding of our own patrimony, and in doing so expresses a standard of reason to be applied to Christian unity and to sacraments. "She celebrates Divine sacraments as ordained by Christ, but does not define what God has not defined." What we cannot define includes the "mechanics" of the sacraments (if I may invent a phrase). A perfect example of trying to define what God has not defined is found on the extreme ends of trying to explain the mystery of Holy Communion. The strained efforts of injecting man-made philosophical method into this sacrament, thus creating Transubstantiation (as understood pre-Ratzinger 3, or Pope Benedict XVI), and the opposite extreme of reducing the sacrament to a mere symbol, are two opposite results of the same presumption: Namely, that we can unravel the Holy Mysteries. Both of these extremes, indeed each of them equally, "overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions." 4 These words are equally applicable to the Memorialist as they are to the pure (pre-Ratzinger) Tridentine Roman Catholic. Both have made a dogma out of human reason instead of revelation. Indeed, that the Memorialist may fall prey to superstition is evident in the fear expressed by some Fundamentalists that the sacrament of the Catholics may contaminate them with something evil, maybe even (as some have expressed) the Mark of the Beast. Trying to define what God has not defined, trying to solve mysteries that he has deliberately hidden as far above and beyond man's imagination and highest thought, leads always to useless and foolish ramblings.

The limits of God's own workings and grace, however, are also in the category of what he has not defined. The Anglican position of refusing to define these limits is what has confused the two strange bedfellows, the out-dated Roman Catholic apologist and the new-wave Evangelical "Bin diver." Both have confused refusal to define what God has not defined with a low standard, perhaps a non-standard, in judging any sacrament to be invalid. Here we must distinguish between what is meant by two different terms: Invalid on one hand, and Absolutely null and utterly void on the other.

"Invalid" refers to the sacrament itself, and to the part of it that is under human control. We shall use as an example the Holy Communion. The Church has received a clear command from Christ, "this do in remembrance of me." This command contains a promise:

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. 5

The Church has received clear teaching from the lips of our Lord Jesus Christ himself, that the bread becomes his Body and the wine becomes his Blood; and this is a mystery beyond our comprehension. It is a reality, not merely a symbol; but the nature of that reality is never defined by God, nor could we understand if he had defined it. We know from careful study of Scripture that every sacrament requires Form, Matter and Intention, and that every Sacrament carries a promise of specific Divine action in response. So, these four things mark each sacrament: The human work of Form, Matter and Intention, and the Divine work of fulfilling a promise of grace. When any one of the human workings is missing a sacrament is invalid.

However, the expression "Absolutely null and utterly void" suggests a thing beyond our knowing, for it dares to presume, beyond what God has revealed, a limitation to his grace. 6 "Absolutely null" may refer simply to invalidity, but "utterly void" cannot help but beg the question "void of what?" The only logical answer is grace, the part that God fulfills. This is what we cannot know. We are able rightly to say that a sacrament is invalid, but are not able to say that God has withheld his grace, even the grace that normally comes through the sacrament. 7 Furthermore, charity compels us to hope that the Roman Catholic doctrine of Invincible Ignorance (without exclusive claims), is as true as the ancient doctrine of Baptism by Desire.

It is true that Anglicans have always refused the call any sacrament "Absolutely null and utterly void." It is not true that we lack, or ever have lacked, the true standard by which we must treat some as invalid, and to treat them so for reasons that are pastoral and born of charity.
__________________________________
1. Later revised as follows: It is evident unto all men diligently reading holy Scripture and ancient Authors, that from the Apostles' time there have been these Orders of Ministers in Christ's Church; Bishops, Priests, and Deacons. Which Offices were evermore had in such reverend Estimation, that no man might presume to execute any of them, except he were first called, tried, examined, and known to have such qualities as are requisite for the same; and also by publick Prayer, with Imposition of Hands, were approved and admitted thereunto by lawful Authority. And therefore, to the intent that these Orders may be continued, and reverently used and esteemed in the Church of England, no man shall be accounted or taken to be a lawful Bishop, Priest, or Deacon, in the Church of England, or suffered to execute any of the said Functions, except he be called, tried, examined, and admitted thereunto, according to the Form hereafter following, or hath had Episcopal Consecration, or Ordination.

2. Quoted in Lights and Shadows of a Long Episcopate, Rt. Rev. Henry Benjamin Whipple, D.D., L.L.D., New York, London, 1902

3. To understand the difference made by Pope Benedict XVI, long before his elevation to the papacy, see the blog article at this link.

4. Article XXVIII

5. John 6:54-56

6. Probably, these days no learned theologian anywhere, including Rome, would be comfortable with the implications of that phrase, as we discuss them here.

7. The Scriptural arguments are the same as before. II Chron. 30:18-20, Luke 23:39-43.

An oldie but goodie I posted three years ago.

DEFINITIONS

Orthodox: Someone who believes in Apophatic Ecclesiology, i.e. he is not Western

Roman Catholic: Someone who believes that the Pope is Infallible, and often wrong.

Episcopalian: A Unitarian with Trinitarian liturgy.

Anglo-Catholic: A pretend Roman Catholic who prays like Shakespeare

Methodist: A Unitarian who sings Trinitarian hymns

Unitarian: Someone who rejects the very idea of dogma, and dogmatically rejects the Trinity

Baptist: Once saved always saved, and does not believe in Indulgences

Pentecostal: Part Baptist, part Medieval mystic

Calvinist: Someone for whom the words of Christ shed light on the teachings of John Calvin.

Lutheran: Someone for whom the words of Christ shed light on the teachings of Martin Luther

There. Now I have offended everybody equally. I have even offended myself. In fact, I have offended me so bad that I will never talk to myself again.

The time

My last post appears to have been at 4:18 AM. Don't believe it. Remember, this international blog was set by Albion Land on Cyprus time.

What is the Continuum at this present time?

We have been rebuked often by people who dislike our definition of the Continuing Church, also known as the Anglican Continuum. We set the date of our origin with the 1977 Affirmation of St. Louis, followed by the 1978 Denver consecrations. More than once, a member of the Reformed Episcopal Church (REC) has expressed offense that we did not set the date in the late 19th century, in honor of their beginning. However, no offense has been intended. The REC started for reasons that are alien to the thinking of the Anglican Continuum, inasmuch as we would have sided with the Anglican Communion, and the Episcopal Church in particular, about the necessity of maintaining the episcopacy for reasons both of order and sacramental validity, and therefore would have sided against the position of the REC when it began. We acknowledge also that the Anglican Province in America (APA) had its origin in the decade before the Anglican Continuum separated from the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada (and has, we are happy to say, since then formally stated its agreement with our Affirmation of St. Louis). So, it is not based on disrespect for these older jurisdictions that we look at the date of our origin as 1977, but in recognition that the straw that broke the camel's back for us was women's "ordination," because the destruction of the sacrament of Holy Orders among the Episcopalians and other official Canterbury Anglicans threatened not only the order of the Church, but the validity of the sacraments of Absolution and Holy Communion. These sacraments touch the very lives of individuals in our churches regarding their salvation. This is especially so with Holy Communion, as it is "generally necessary to salvation." It also destroys the sacrament of Confirmation.

So, in looking at the current state of the Continuing churches, we must first identify who we are. Most people see only that our churches are not centrally united under one House of Bishops. They look at the fact that all too often bishops have been consecrated not to fill a vacancy or to establish a mission, but rather because someone wanted to wear a purple shirt. All too often this has been true, as it has been true that unnecessary proliferation of bishops has not produced unity. Indeed, recently two out of the three new bishops consecrated to assist Archbishop Reber of the United Episcopal Church in North America (UECNA) bolted from their jurisdiction altogether. We can hope only that their motives were not unholy.

Nonetheless, we on this Blog do not recognize every group that claims to be a Continuing Anglican Body. The charge that there are now some 42 jurisdictions in Continuing Anglicanism is a false claim, inasmuch as Freedom of Religion makes it impossible to prevent as many imitations as ambition, psychosis, delusion, heresy or pride may create. We recognize, in fact, really only two major groupings. One is the united bodies of the Anglican Catholic Church (ACC), the Anglican Province of Christ the King (APCK) and the UECNA. The other is the Traditional Anglican Communion (TAC) together with with its American branch, the Anglican Church in America (ACA). (As I have stated, the APA has a separate origin, and existed before the Continuing Church.) The APCK and the UECNA have become very small over the years, and exist solely in North America, whereas the ACC has grown to be worldwide with a second Province that is headquartered in India. Therefore, it is not a criticism or a negative judgment on my part that I see the UECNA and the APCK as satellites held in orbit by the ACC. This is simply my own way of phrasing things, and is stated with respect and charity for our fellow Anglicans in the two smaller jurisdictions.

At this time, the stated desire of the TAC/ACA bishops is to enter into unity with the See of Rome, and yet somehow, at the same time, to retain a distinct Anglican identity. In fact, communications have been going on for years between their bishops and other clergy with Rome, and these communications have intensified since late 2007. Nonetheless, even though I myself have friends who are priests, and in one case a bishop, in the ACA, and even though I have talked personally one on one with Archbishop Hepworth for about ninety minutes (having posted his statements here last year), and even though two of our four bloggers are part of the TAC (Ed Pacht, and our newest blogger, Sandra McColl), we cannot report many details. We simply do not know very much of what is happening on that front, and most of it is kept secret according to Archbishop Hepworth himself. The concern that has been brought to my attention, by TAC members who have written to me, or commented here, is mainly a desire to see or hear a commitment to Anglicanism itself, that its riches not be lost in the process, wherever that process may lead. Certainly, to recover unity with Rome has been an idea that Anglicans, alone of all the Reformation churches, never rejected, and that even Richard Hooker wrote about. It was very much a stated hope of Anglicans in the early 20th century, and so was unity with the Orthodox Church (which was bearing observable fruit until Women's "Ordination"). Our Catholic beliefs and sacraments unite our thinking in many ways already.

The desire of the bloggers here is to see a day when the bishops of the TAC will be reconciled to the other grouping, namely the ACC-APCK-UECNA. Speaking for myself, I state openly and with all due respect for my associates here who belong to the TAC, that the ball is in Archbishop Hepworth's court, and has been for years. Archbishop Mark Haverland wrote an open letter to his fellow Archbishop quite a long time ago, and it calls for an equally open and public response. It seems to me, if to no one else, that working for unity beyond the Anglican Continuum ought to wait for unity within it. Then a common effort towards greater Catholic unity can pick up where it left off when the Canterbury Communion dropped the ball by contaminating Holy Orders (and then by having continued to become worse and worse with no bottom to the abyss).

I became part of the ACC, as many readers may recall, more than a year after initially protesting my own mistreatment at the hands of one APCK bishop early in 2007. I felt a personal sense of gratitude to Bishop Rocco Florenza (and still do), inasmuch as he was the champion of priests who had been similarly mistreated before the APCK elected a new Archbishop later that same year. My bias at that time was pro TAC/ACA, simply because that is where Bishop Florenza went. My decision, therefore, to be received into the ACC involved a conscious and deliberate series of considerations. Nonetheless, the commitment we all share at this blog has never changed. It is to help unify the jurisdictions in any way we can, and each of us is committed to this effort.

Contrary to what people write on other blogs and websites, my experience these last several months is one of vital and thriving churches that have plenty of children, youth and young couples. The various churches I have seen in the two dioceses of the ACC, in which I have served, show every sign of health and of having a bright future (currently I am in the Archbishop's diocese, expecting to serve at St. Benedict's until I get too old to function, or until I depart this life). The stereo-type of congregations consisting solely of only a few elderly, grumpy people about to die off, or of churches top-heavy with clergy, or of the priesthood of all bishops, is not only a caricature, but altogether false. But, if our expectations are set on a low standard, we may well achieve that and no more, inasmuch as when you aim at nothing you hit it every time.

The health of the Continuing churches requires a commitment to evangelism, based on the conviction that the riches we possess are needed by those who are without. If our motivation for growth is to meet our own needs we may well fail, and deserve to. If our motivation is to save souls, and to that end lead people into the fellowship of the Church, God himself is with us and we are co-laborers with Him. The health of the Continuing churches requires, as well, that we believe that our churches can thrive. This is why I relate my happy experiences of late; to lift the level of your faith and expectations. The health of the Continuum requires also that we teach our people why Anglicanism provides the best way to live as a Christian, and to that end I have written a large number of articles explaining classic Anglican teaching.

A belated announcement

Alas, absorbed in preparation for our own Pentecost Sunday at St. Benedict's, the following announcement got past me. It is too late to make use of what follows as an announcement, but it is still an interesting read.

Book of Common Prayer marks 460th birthday

Originally published May 30, 2009


By Ron Cassie
News-Post Staff

The English separation from the Holy Roman Catholic Church famously came during the reign of Henry VIII. However, the Church of England continued to use the Latin liturgies throughout his rule, as it had for a milennium.

It wasn't until 1549, two years after Henry VIII's death, when Thomas Cranmer, Archbishop of Canterbury, is believed to have written the Book of Common Prayer, the first complete liturgy for the English Church.

The historical work contains the calendar of daily morning and evening prayers as well as epistles and "gospelles" in the old English" style. It includes the traditional Church of England instructions for the celebration of the "lordes Supper and Holy Communion through the yere, with proper Psalmes and Lessons, for diverse feastes and dayes."

"It is the basis of worship for Anglicans of all kinds throughout the world," said the Rev. Arthur Woolley of St. Michael the Archangel Anglican Church in Frederick, Maryland.

In celebratation of the 460th birthday of the Book of Common Prayer, St. Michael the Archangel will use the 1549 edition of this volume, written in the beautiful language of Renaissance England, at its service this weekend.

First introduced on Whitsunday, also called Pentecost, during the reign of King Edward VI, the Book of Common Prayer formally brought together the forms of service for daily and Sunday worship. Whitsunday falls on May 31 this year and the public is invited to attend the St. Michael the Archangel's service.

Five hundred years before Second Vatican Council in the mid-1960s called for Catholic Mass to be said in the native language of its faithful, Woolley noted, Cranmer translated the Bible and holy Communion celebration so that the educated and uneducated alike could comprehend God's words.

The Archbishop explained why in the Common Book of Prayer's preface: "And moreover, whereas s. Paule (St. Paul) would have suche language spoken to the people in the churche, as they mighte understande and have profite by hearyng the same; the service in this Churche of England (these many yeares) hath been read in Latin to the people, whiche they understoode not; so that they have heard with theyr eares onely; and their hartes, spirite, and minde, have not been edified thereby."

The Book of Common Prayer became one of the most influential works ever written in English, preceeding the King James Bible and the works of Shakespeare by six decades.

"It has been so widely used, and for so long, that it has given the English language many of its common sayings and phrases, such as 'the apple of my eye,' 'out of the mouth of babes,' and 'little lower than the angels,'" said Judy Warner, a member of St. Michael the Archangel Anglican Church.

Much of the prayer book's marriage service, she added, is familiar. For example, "forsaking all others ... so long as you both shall live" ... "to have and to hold from this day forward, for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health ... till death us do part"... "with this ring I thee wed."

"Earth to earth, ashes to ashes, dust to dust" is thought by some to be in the Bible, Warner said, "but although the idea is biblical, the words come from the burial service of the Book of Common Prayer."

These phrases, and other parts of the Book of Common Prayer, have been used for centuries and have been adopted by other Christian denominations.

"The English is even older than Elizabethean English, the language, especially the spelling, had not settled down as much," as when even Shakespeare began writing, Woolley said. "We'll be using a version with updated spelling for the service, otherwise I don't think we wouldn't be able to get through it."

However, he did point out that one young couple in the congregation has decided they want to use the original Common Book of Prayers vows for their wedding ceremony this summer.

Woolly read: "With his ring I thee wed; this gold and silver I thee give, with my body I thee worship and with all my worldly goods I thee endow. In the name of the Father and the Son and Holy Ghost. Amen."

"The spelling is often archaic," Woolley said, "but the writing is remarkable."

Pentecost (Whitsunday)

Acts 2:1-11
John 14:15-31

Who hath heard such a thing? who hath seen such things? Shall the earth be made to bring forth in one day? or shall a nation be born at once? for as soon as Zion travailed, she brought forth her children. Isaiah 66:8

We could say rightly that Zion's labor was brief, for, after only ten days of prayer, the Church came forth as a nation born in a day. Christ, as touching his human body as Jesus of Nazareth, had stepped behind the veil when a cloud took him out of their sight. Then, on the Day of Pentecost, the infant Church was born in what we might rightly call the second chapter of the Incarnation. God the Word (λόγος) came into the world on the Day of the Annunciation, and showed himself in his Nativity when he was born in Bethlehem. He walked the earth as a man, and "went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil." (Acts 10:38) On the Day of Pentecost, the Church that waited so short a time in the womb, as they were together in prayer, was born to carry on the ministry of Jesus Christ. He still goes about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil, this time through the Church which is his Body. Make no mistake about it; when the Holy Spirit was poured out on the disciples, the Church was born just as truly as Christ was born in Bethlehem. Our ministry as the Church is his ministry, as he extends his Incarnation through us, and goes about doing good not only as far as one man may travel, but into every place on earth, preaching the Gospel in all the world as a testimony to all nations, gathering out of all nations those who are his disciples. The Church, his bride and his Body, believes and does works greater in number, just as the disciple Elisha did twice the miracles of Elijah the prophet, when a double portion of the same Spirit rested on him. (II Kings 2:9f, John 14:12)

Among the many people in Jerusalem, who had come for the feast, were pilgrims from various nations, that is the God-fearers and proselytes who were born as Gentiles, and either had begun to convert to Judaism, or had fully converted. Also, there many Jews of the Diaspora who lived most of the time in foreign countries. Although just about everyone in the Roman Empire spoke enough Greek to get by, as it was the international language, these pilgrims heard the disciples speaking in the languages of their own distant homelands. Anyone with genuine experience of such things knows fully well that this was not something uncontrollable, not the result of a trance or ecstasy, and certainly not emotionalism; the speaking was subject fully to the self-control of each one who spoke in these other tongues; but the words themselves were known only to those foreigners who heard the word of God each in his own native tongue.

Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language. And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galilæans? And how hear we every man in our own tongue, where in we were born? Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judæa, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia, Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome. Jews and proselytes, Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God.

What were these tongues (γλῶσσα, glōssa) that we read about? How did they serve as a sign for unbelievers? Why did God choose a thing that seemed so weak and foolish that onlookers were filled with derision expressed in mocking words: "Others mocking said, These men are full of new wine." The Scripture goes on to say, "But Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice, and said unto them, Ye men of Judaea, and all ye that dwell at Jerusalem, be this known unto you, and hearken to my words: For these are not drunken, as ye suppose, seeing it is but the third hour of the day." (Acts 2: 13-15) The many disciples spoke mysteries to God (I Cor. 14:2), understood by none of the local men. But to those who heard the truth spoken in their own tongues, by men who never learned to speak them, but were simply given utterance of praise and thanksgiving for "the wonderful works of God," this was not a thing to be treated with contempt, but with fear. It was a sign. The division of mankind into different nations through the confusion of tongues at Babel, was a curse that is undone within the Church. In Christ we are one Body, gathered by one Spirit from the four corners of the earth.

And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation; And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth. (Rev.5:9,10)

Peter had no trouble identifying what had happened, and doing so from Scripture:

But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel; And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams: And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy. (Acts 2:16-18 quoting Joel 2:28)

Peter had changed. He had been a natural man (ψυχικός psychikos-soulish) unable earlier in his life to understand why the Christ, the Son of the Living God, was ready and willing to take up the cross; later he was afraid and denied the Lord three times. But, now he stands on his feet boldly, not afraid of death, having his mind focused on the truth, able to understand and know from Scripture everything that had unfolded and was unfolding. He had been a disciple for more than three years, but now was closer to Christ than at any time when he beheld him with the eyes; for he was now part of the Body of which Christ is the Head. Many a time Peter had stumbled and tripped over his own tongue, and had failed to speak the right words on the night in which his Lord was betrayed. But, now he spoke with more clarity, more power and more authority than any prophet of the Old Covenant. He delivered the first Christian sermon, as he was now the fisher of men Christ had foreseen; his dragnet of words brought in about three thousand souls. The young Church, born in a day thrived with healthy vital signs.

None of this was man-made. The best efforts of organization could not have produced it; the most detailed planning could not have pulled it off. No human effort could have brought it forth in a day, because the nation born on the Day of Pentecost was chapter two of the Word made flesh. The Body of Christ now came into the world.

What is the life of the Church? It is the Holy Spirit present within us. What is the strength of the Church? It is the power (δύναμις) of God by his Holy Spirit, present within us. Who is it that takes fallible and failed human beings, lifts them up from the ground and sets them on their feet? It is the Holy Spirit present within us. Who is is that puts his word of eloquence and power on their once unclean lips? It is the Holy Spirit present within us. Who is it that fulfills his own purpose and will with flawed human instruments? It is the Holy Spirit present within us. Who makes Christ known among all nations of the earth to people of every race and tongue? It is the Holy Spirit present within us. Who has unlimited power, and works most effectively through us after we have come to the end of our own strength, and can go no further? It is the Holy Spirit present within us.

We know from the end of the Gospel of Luke that the disciples were forbidden to take this work on themselves prematurely, as if it depended simply on human power and wisdom.

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. And, behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you: but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high. (Luke 24:45-49)

Frankly, in light of the foolishness of sinful men, it is very obvious that God's power and grace have never depended on anyone less than God himself. Never think that we, as the Church, have succeeded in anything simply by our own human cleverness, or our best laid plans, or our own strength. We have an organized structure, but the permanent shape of that structure was revealed and enacted by the Holy Spirit. The whole life of the Church is charismatic (χάρισμα); from the receiving of Scripture to the Sacraments, from the Apostolic Succession to the faithful service of each member.

Indeed, St. Paul, speaking in the context of spiritual gifts, even goes as far as to call the Church by the name of Christ himself: "For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ...Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular." (I Cor, 12:12, 27) So, I have not spoken carelessly in saying that the Church is part two of the Incarnation. The Jesus who goes about now doing good and healing is none other than the Body of Christ and members in particular. He does his work through you, through his Body the Church, by the Holy Spirit, the other Comforter who is with us and in us.

The day of Pentecost was a feast in the Law of Moses when the first sheaf of the harvest was waved before the Lord. It was also the same day that the Lord had descended on Mount Sinai, when the whole nation of Israel heard the voice of God as he spoke his ten commandments. Therefore, it is quite fitting that the Lord Jesus foretold the outpouring of the Spirit in terms of his commandments. "If ye love me, keep my commandments. And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; even the Spirit of truth." Therefore, if we remain faithful to him, we continue to take part in his Incarnation as the Church, the Body of Christ. For his Spirit not only comes upon us, but abides within us always.

Welcome Sandra McColl

Readers should be familiar with the name of Sandra McColl, whose comments have always demonstrated a commitment to classic Anglicanism combined with serious thought and education. We are happy to say that she has agreed to join us as a member of the team here on The Continuum. Sandra is a member of the TAC and lives in Australia. You may read her profile from the link in her picture.

Welcome aboard.

Letter to Bishop Robert Duncan from the ACC Acting Primate, Archbishop Haverland

20 May 2009. Vigil of the Ascension

Dear Bishop Duncan,

I thank you for your invitation to attend as an observer the inaugural Provincial Assembly of the Anglican Church in North America, which is to gather in Bedford, Texas, from June 22^nd to 25^th. I congratulate those who will assemble on their movement out of the Episcopal Church. Whatever else we agree or disagree about, we believe that that movement is correct.

Those of us who left the Episcopal Church and Anglican Communion a generation ago believe that the ordination of women was then the central problem in the Canterbury Communion. The notion that women can receive the sacrament of Holy Orders in any of its three parts constitutes, in our view, a revolutionary and false claim: a claim false in itself; a claim destructive of the common ministry that once united Anglicans; and, finally, a claim productive of an even broader and worse consequence. That worse consequence is the claim that Anglicans have authority to alter important matters of faith and order against a clear consensus in the central tradition of Catholic and Orthodox Christendom. Once such a claim is made it may be pressed into service to alter any matter of faith or morals. The revolution devours its children. Many of the clergy represented at GAFCON and now joining the ACNA seem to us to accept the flawed premise and its revolutionary claim in one matter while seeking to resist the application of the premise in the matter of homosexuality. This position seems to us to be internally inconsistent and impossible to sustain successfully over time.

In brief, then, we would suggest that the only sound basis for Continuing Anglican life is something akin to that already established in the Affirmation of Saint Louis with its clarity concerning the subordination of all Anglican authorities to the central tradition of Christendom.

We make this suggestion with a strong recognition of our own personal and ecclesial failures. But the failure of the Continuing Churches to unite and grow sufficiently does not at all alter the cogency of our observations about your own fundamental principles. Our own history teaches us that anything other than clear agreement on all significant doctrinal issues at the outset will lead eventually to division and decline.

To put matters another way, already now at the beginning of your enterprise, your dioceses and bishops are only in a state of impaired communion with each other. Some of your bishops do not recognize the validity of the priestly ministry of a significant body of clergy in other dioceses. Such divisions and problems at the beginning will not resolve themselves in time, but rather will grow. Ambiguity, or local option, or silence cannot undo the damage of essential disagreement concerning Holy Orders and authority in the Church.

In summary, then, we see in the ACNA the fundamental alterations in traditional Anglican faith, worship, order, and practice that led to the formation of our own Continuing Church in 1978. We would be glad to establish conversations with your ecclesial body in hopes that you may, having freed yourselves of the Episcopal Church, continue further on the same path by decisively breaking from a corrupt Anglican Communion and by returning to the central tradition of Christendom in all matters, including the male character of Holy Orders, the evil of abortion, and the indissolubility of sacramental marriage. We recommend to your prayerful attention the Affirmation of Saint Louis, which we firmly believe provides a sound basis for a renewed and fulfilled Anglicanism on our continent.

We suspect that any Anglican body that permits the ordination of women, or otherwise fails to return to the central tradition of Christendom, will soon move from what we might call neo-Anglicanism, which is already removed in ministry and worship from classical Anglicanism, and will eventually merge into the general stream of evangelical Protestantism. While faithful Protestantism of that sort is far preferable to what the Episcopal Church has become, it is not the Catholic Faith which we hold, it is not the Anglicanism that formed us, and it does not seem to us to have a bright future.

We have already communicated with persons in the ACNA about the Anglican Catholic Church's prior use of the name you have adopted (ACNA). We are certain that this matter can be successfully resolved to our mutual satisfaction, but pending such resolution we do note our prior use.

I fear that this letter in response to your kind invitation may seem somewhat abrupt. I do not mean it to be such. I wish instead to indicate clearly that our first principles seem to be very different. A fruitful dialogue would need to begin with those principles, and the plans outlined in your letter for the Bedford meeting do not seem to encompass such fundamental questions. I would be happy, however, to assist in the establishment of such dialogue in the future if the ACNA is not wedded to its position on the ordination of women and the authority of Anglican bodies to alter matters of faith and order.

With all good wishes, I am,

Faithfully yours in Christ,

(The Most Reverend) Mark Haverland, Ph.D.

Acting Primate, Anglican Catholic Church

The Prayer of Humble Access defended

This post is the result of genuine provocation. One of the comments that followed Fr. Kirby's erudite article about the use of Missal and Prayer Book, ruffled my feathers. They were not ruffled by the writer of the comment, but rather by what he described:

I've often thought that the continuing Churches (at least in the UK) 'talk' a lot about the BCP and but rarely use it. You always see it mentioned on websites but of the three continuing Churches I've been to in the UK none of them use the 1662 or 1928 (UK) BCP for Mass - it's all been English Missal. One Priest told me that he'd reluctantly printed the Prayer of Humble Access for devotional use in the Mass booklets but refused to say it himself. Personally, I find this disappointing.

Well, at least this priest is good enough to let the prayer appear in print, even if he feels compelled to denounce it as, no doubt, "too Protestant." Inasmuch as the content of the Prayer of Humble Access was drawn largely from prayers said by the priest in older Latin Missals, prayers of the same kind as "Lord Jesus Christ...regard not my sins, but the Faith of thy Church..." the burden of proof weighs heavily on anyone who thinks its content to be an innovation of the 16th century.

To some degree this seems like a problem more intense in England than in other countries. The Anglo-Catholics in that country have reason to feel that their Book of Common Prayer (1662) is not quite as rich in its Eucharistic expression as it ought to be. The same comment closed with these words: "Knowing the American BCP, I can't think why you'd want to use anything else." Indeed, the Eucharistic celebration from the Missal in the United States is, in practice, simply an embellishment of the Book of Common Prayer 1928 edition. Nonetheless, I cannot understand why some of the English Anglo-Catholics inflict the Novus Ordo on their congregations, as if selecting an inferior liturgy is the solution; and for that matter, one with all the charm we might well imagine from a revision of Shakespeare produced by a committee. In such a nightmare, "Even a dog is obeyed in office" (King Lear) is replaced with, "The barking dog gets his way." How much more serious the real life problem of replacing "And with they spirit" (Et cum spritu tuo) with, "And also with you." If the English Anglo-Catholics want a richer liturgical expression, they need not abandon the Book of Common Prayer tradition altogether, especially not in favor of something about as uplifting as the financial page of the Times of London.

That is, unless the idea is to reject Anglicanism itself in favor of a Roman brand of Christianity that does not "out-Catholic," but merely "out-Romans," Rome. I fear such to be the case even in the thinking of a man as learned and accomplished as Fr. John Hunwicke, whose theories on the most important aspect of the Mass I have criticized. Just as many converts to the Orthodox Church have deluded themselves into thinking that they have found a way to cut themselves off from all stain of their western ancestry, I fear such Anglo-Catholics are self-loathing Anglicans, due no doubt to the failure of Canterbury and the Anglican Communion. The solution, however, is to Continue with us, not to cultivate Roman affectations. And, as my Orthodox brother, David Bentley Hart, has observed about the converts to the Orthodox Church, that they labor so industriously to reject anything western that they end up rejecting the actual teaching of Orthodoxy, these self-loathing Anglicans finish their endeavors by rejecting what is truly Catholic by the standard of Scripture and Antiquity. As we have observed many times, Quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum est, is replaced with the Doctrinal Development theory Newman espoused. "The Faith once delivered to the saints" is not good enough for them, so they embrace innovations, some of which Rome itself discarded in recent decades, having learned from us.

For the Prayer of Humble Access to be treated with either contempt or embarrassment by any Anglican is, however, a new low in theological illiteracy. Perhaps this prayer is considered to be lacking in decorum, like celebrating the Masse 1 in a surplice-the unforgivable sin for which any priest is, no doubt, condemned to everlasting Hell (that, and failure to wear black socks). That is, maybe the UK cleric mentioned in the comment is embarrassed by the Prayer of Humble Access the same way I would be embarrassed by my crazy Uncle Ernest, but simply because it is not in the Tridentine Mass rather than for its content. However, to defend the prayer, it must be looked at for its theological meaning, which is very deep and truly Catholic. Therefore, we will assume that the embarrassment this cleric has expressed (which makes me embarrassed for him), has to do with his own want of theological understanding rather than a matter of his own bad taste.

Let us analyze the Prayer of Humble Access and see the richness of the theology contained therein.

We do not presume to come to this thy Table, O merciful Lord, trusting in our own righteousness, but in thy manifold and great mercies. We are not worthy so much as to gather up the crumbs under thy Table. But thou art the same Lord, whose property is always to have mercy...

Anyone who seeks a religion that is affirming of his life style and choices, or even of himself, cannot appreciate our service of Holy Communion at all. Neither can he appreciate our Morning Prayer and Evening Prayer. Throughout all our public prayers we confess that we are sinners, and supplicate to be forgiven. Often, it takes even more of God's grace for the religious person to know he is a sinner than it does for a notorious backslider or completely unchurched man who is suddenly converted. Too often, the religious man can be like the Pharisee in the parable, and actually think the same way. "God, I thank Thee I am not as other men are." (Luke 18:11) What C.S. Lewis once wrote rings true:

But are we really to believe that on each of us there lies something which if not taken off us, will in fact break us? It is very difficult. No man has any natural knowledge of his own inner state and I think that at the beginning we probably find it much easier to understand and believe this about other people than about ourselves. 2

In addition, that expression, "We are not worthy to gather up the crumbs under thy table," is from the Gospel of Matthew.

And, behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou Son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil. But he answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him, saying, Send her away; for she crieth after us. But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel. Then came she and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me. But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it to dogs. And she said, Truth, Lord: yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters' table. Then Jesus answered and said unto her, O woman, great is thy faith: be it unto thee even as thou wilt. And her daughter was made whole from that very hour. (Matt. 15:22-28)

Although we are no longer Gentiles, but children of the Covenant baptized into Christ, we do not forget that we are here by grace rather than merit. In terms that John the Baptist would approve, we say these words to remind ourselves "that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham." (Matt. 3:9) Only by his mercy do we come into his presence, never by any righteousness of our own.

I hope the English cleric in question does not consider the realistic appraisal of our sinful state to be "too Protestant" for him; if so, he does not stand alongside the great saints of the Church, East and West. If so, he distances himself from St.Paul who wrote, "This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief." (I Tim. 1:15) Nor does he stand alongside any of the true believers in the Communion of the Church of Rome today; he distances himself from Pope Benedict XVI, who knows himself to stand only by God's mercy and grace. If this is "too Protestant" for the English priest, so is all Christianity throughout all time.

...Grant us therefore, gracious Lord, so to eat the flesh of thy dear Son Jesus Christ, and to drink his blood, that our sinful bodies may be made clean by his body, and our souls washed through his most precious blood, and that we may evermore dwell in him, and he in us. Amen.

The words "so to eat...and to drink" have everything to do with why we, as Anglicans, call the Mass "Holy Communion." The Anglican emphasis on receiving the Sacrament must not be thought of in terms of the worn out charge of Cranmer's apparent "Receptionism," which later was repeated by Richard Hooker. As we have seen already in posts on this blog, what these men wrote was not a rejection of the Real Presence, but rather the view that it is immaterial when and how the elements are fully consecrated; when they are received, having been consecrated at the altar,3 they are the Body and Blood of Christ. This adds to the guilt of those who receive them in an unworthy manner; but for those who receive them with "hearty repentance and true faith" they are eternal life and health.

Here I quote from my sermon for the Sixteenth Sunday after Trinity written in 2007.

"But, this other part they [contemporary Episcopalians] cut out, '…that our sinful bodies may be made clean by his Body, and our souls washed through his most precious Blood…' [this] offends the modern mind, because the modern mind cannot comprehend- as well I understand and sympathize- how the body could be sinful...The general resurrection of the dead on the last day will destroy that last enemy to be destroyed, death. So says the Bible, as we find in St. Paul’s first letter to those in Corinth...The Law of Moses teaches us that if a man so much as touched the dead body of any person, he was unclean and had to bring his sin offering to be cleansed...

"The body, as it is now, is affected by sin because it will die, and death itself is unclean. Death is not natural at all in the philosophical and theological sense. Death is the consequence of sin, not a good and natural part of God’s creation, but the last enemy of God and man that will be destroyed at Christ’s coming. So, how do we understand those words from our Prayer of Humble Access? '…that our sinful bodies may be made clean by his Body, and our souls washed through his most precious Blood…' We must think about what we are about to do. After the sermon you will confess that you are a sinner like everybody else. The General Confession is the opposite of the proud Pharisee’s prayer. He thanked God that he was not like other men, like the sinners; that is because he deceived himself. But we will confess the very opposite: We will confess the truth, seeking to be cleansed by God through the Absolution (if we come with 'hearty repentance and true faith'), and so will approach, will draw near to take into ourselves the very body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ. Remember his words:

"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 feed on Christ, the Bread of Life, the food of eternal life"

This Sacrament that is "generally necessary to salvation," as taught in our Catechism, gives us this food and drink, His Body and Blood to cleanse us from our mortal uncleanness; so when saying these words, we ought to look to his coming again on the Last Day when we rise pure from the defilement of sin and death.

When we say the Prayer of Humble Access, let us say it boldly and in strong voice for all the world to hear. It is good, solid, Biblical and quite Vincentian. It expresses our sure and certain hope of the resurrection on the Last Day, the Divine promise that comes to us through the salvation Christ purchased for us on the cross when he gave his life, poured out his soul unto death, and thus took away the sins of the world; so that, at his rising, he could overcome death, and at his coming again destroy it forever. I am not ashamed to say these words, but grateful that I may pray them and mean them.
_________

1. And remember, whereas the term "Holy Communion" is from the Bible and is rich in theological meaning, the word "Mass" means, to translate it freely, nothing more significant than "time to leave." Middle English masse, from Old English mæsse, from Vulgar Latin messa, from Late Latin missa, from Latin, feminine past participle of mittere, -to send away, dismiss. But the term "Holy Communion" is from I Cor. 10:16. I insist, there is no comparison. For Heaven's sake, call it the service of Holy Communion-we are Anglicans after all.

2. Miserable offenders from God in the Dock: Essays on Theology and Ethics, C. S. Lewis, Walter Hooper (Editor), Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company; Reprint edition (October 1994; original copyright 1970 by the Trustees of the Estate of C. S. Lewis).

3. The actual issue is settled in the rubrics themselves, commanding reverent treatment of whatever "remain of that which was consecrated."

Fr. Hart's essays on Classic Anglicanism

See the fully updated page by clicking here.

Sunday after Ascension Day

Click on the icon for a link to the sermon for this Sunday (I have had not the time to write a new one this week, dealing with one pastoral crisis after another).

The Corinthian Problem

The disarray, foolishness and sin that St. Paul addressed, when writing his first extant Epistle to the Church in Corinth, has been turned to our benefit inasmuch as it gave rise to teaching in the Scriptures that has been needed throughout the subsequent history of the Church, and that we need today. As the selling of Joseph into Egypt was used by God to save Israel from famine, God can use anything for good. This is one aspect of Providence. So, the sins and foolishness of the Church in Corinth give us more words of Holy Scripture.

Nonetheless, it takes effort to understand this Epistle. The difficulty we have in seeing what St. Paul addressed in the Epistle comes from the familiarity we have with some of the external issues affected by the Corinthian foolishness, and in other cases their supernatural and mystical gifts, the manifestation of which were equally affected. This puzzles the modern mind: How can what is good and holy be so sinfully practiced?

Paul, called to be an apostle of Jesus Christ through the will of God, and Sosthenes our brother, 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: Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ. I thank my God always on your behalf, for the grace of God which is given you by Jesus Christ; That in every thing ye are enriched by him, in all utterance, and in all knowledge; Even as the testimony of Christ was confirmed in you: So that ye come behind in no gift; waiting for the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ: Who shall also confirm you unto the end, that ye may be blameless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ. God is faithful, by whom ye were called unto the fellowship of his Son Jesus Christ our Lord.

This opening comes across as out of place with everything that follows.

The essential problem in Corinth is, for many, difficult to discern, even by intense reading of the Epistle, for one major reason. We have a bias in our time that blinds us to the reality that the same people who "come behind in no gift" (which means equally that they possess every grace), of the Holy Spirit can be, at the same time, "carnal, babes in Christ." The same people who have the gifts to work miracles and to prophesy, can, at the same time, be guilty of creating and perpetuating sinful divisions within the Body of Christ. The same people who truly discern spirits, able to test and know which spirits are not of God, can at the same time be proud to have a notorious fornicator among them, allowing him to receive the Communion of Christ's Body and Blood along with all of the rest. The alarming fact we must glean from the Epistle is that neither mystical and supernatural gifts nor orthodox doctrine are enough to keep people from being carnal, childish, divisive and utterly selfish. And, indeed, selfishness is the most apparent symptom of their carnality, addressed over and over again in several places. And, in terms of Providence, it is that very selfishness that gave the occasion for St. Paul to write his most famous passage, the chapter on charity (chapter 13).

Before proceeding, it is necessary to define the term charisma (χάρισμα). The word can be translated "gifts" or "graces." When I read the words of Bishop Iverach, that he considers the charismata to be essential to our ongoing mission, I assumed he used the word charismata in its larger sense. For, indeed, that word encompasses more than simply the "spectacular" gifts (as some term them), and includes all of the gifts of the Holy Spirit mentioned in Scripture, including the Sacraments themselves. That means that the word charismata includes the "Institutional gifts" mentioned in the Pastoral Epistles of Paul to Titus and Timothy, which includes the sacramental gifts that work in Holy Orders and that come to the rest of the Church through Holy Orders. Therefore, we see in those Pastoral Epistles that Apostolic Succession is the pattern set forth in Holy Scripture, and regard that as both a matter of order and the continuation of charismata unique to the episcopal office.

It is necessary also to consider that within that larger grouping of gifts are all of the things given that name by St. Paul in his Epistles, along with scenes described by St. Luke in the Book of Acts. The words of Christ himself teach us that no gift, no matter how impressive it may appear to be, is an indication that the minister of that gift is holy.

Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity. Matt. 7:21-23

Therefore, the words of Article XXVI apply:

XXVI. Of the unworthiness of the Ministers, which hinders not the effect of the Sacraments.

Although in the visible Church the evil be ever mingled with the good, and sometime the evil have chief authority in the ministration of the word and sacraments; yet forasmuch as they do not the same in their own name, but in Christ's, and do minister by His commission and authority, we may use their ministry both in hearing the word of God and in the receiving of the sacraments. Neither is the effect of Christ's ordinance taken away by their wickedness, nor the grace of God's gifts diminished from such as by faith and rightly do receive the sacraments ministered unto them, which be effectual because of Christ's institution and promise, although they be ministered by evil men.

This was always understood within the Catholic Tradition of the Church, and rejection of this teaching was an element essential to the heresy of the Donatists. More than twenty years ago, when I was serving as a church organist, a curate who was very popular in that congregation was arrested, and eventually convicted, of notorious crimes involving young boys. Several people there were concerned about the baptism of their children, wanting to know if it had been valid; others, if they had really received Communion from his hand over the years. To an informed mind, aware of the teaching of the Church, those questions would not have arisen.

This fact is indeed relevant to solving the apparent mystery: The apparently less spectacular gifts of the charismata, such as the regular administration of Holy Communion, do not indicate that the minister is truly a holy and godly man. Gifts of the Holy Spirit, whether "spectacular" or "institutional," whether astounding or seemingly normal, say nothing about the minister's character. Eventually the false prophet might teach error, or perhaps he may never teach error. He may be able to say all of those things our Lord has predicted, and more. He may be among those who say, quite truly, "have we not prophesied in thy name?" But, this will not save him. The sheep's clothing will have come off, exposing the wolf beneath.

Although the Corinthians were not accused of being wolves, that is false prophets, they were corrected sternly for being carnal, selfish and chaotic. Nonetheless, St. Paul had told them that they come behind in no gift, and that each of them was called to sainthood. This is not self-contradictory at all. It demonstrates two things: 1) God's work does not depend on man's worthiness, and 2) it is right and the practice of hope to place before the eyes of carnal people their calling to become holy.

Recently, we had a long discussion about chapters 12-14 as they relate to the charismata. Different people are sure they see that long text accurately, but they disagree. Those who actually have allowed various charismatic expression into the context of liturgy have long treated chapter 14 as a kind of Robert's Rules of Order regarding how and when to exercise these gifts, while others are sure that Paul was contemptuous of the very gifts he himself had identified as coming from the Holy Spirit (an impossibility). But, the overall text of the Epistle shows that his words about the gifts of the Holy Spirit were not centered on the gifts themselves, but rather on the same problem he was addressing from the very first chapter on.

I will glean from places in this Epistle that seem to repeat a very noticeable refrain.

Although Paul places before the Church in Corinth, at the start of his letter, his high estimation of their gifts, their knowledge and understanding, and of their faith, stating his confidence that God will hold them by his grace and sanctify them according to the common vocation of all Christians ("called saints"), he quickly changes his tone. He admonishes them, chastises and rebukes them, for being divided. Somehow, they had developed into parties, and had claimed to be followers of various apostles.

Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ. Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul? I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius; Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name.

Interestingly, those who said "I am of Christ" are rebuked with the others. Their pretense to moral and spiritual superiority did not fool the Apostle: They too were just as partisan, just as carnal, and perhaps a little worse as they might have thanked God that they were not as other men are. And, despite this outward display of chaos and division, these same people came behind in no gift, but were enriched by God in all utterance and all knowledge. They were both orthodox and learned. Indeed, the problem in Corinth was not scriptural illiteracy, theological ignorance or false doctrine. They were very knowledgeable.

Indeed, look at chapter 8:

Now as touching things offered unto idols, we know that we all have knowledge. Knowledge puffeth up, but charity edifieth.

Yes, they knew the right doctrine about idols. Their knowledge and orthodoxy was not questioned by the Apostle. However, their lack of charity was rebuked in the clearest of terms. Why, for such learned people, should it have been necessary to write these words in the same chapter?

But take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumblingblock to them that are weak...And through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died? But when ye sin so against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, ye sin against Christ. Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend.

How, in their knowledge so enriched, with their utterances so gifted, did they miss this obvious point? How could they have been so blind to the simple rule of putting the needs of their brothers and sisters ahead of their own desires? They were orthodox. They were learned. They were gifted. They were also carnal.

Look too at how they approached the Supper of the Lord:

When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper. For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken. What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? What shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not.

The evidence from this text is that the Agape feast was connected somehow to the Eucharist in this very early period, perhaps even coming before in imitation of the Last Supper. How correctly or not we may be able to sort out the facts of history, it is clear that even as they approached the Body and Blood of Christ, they were selfish. Their actions indicated that even in this they were carnal.

It is this same theme, that of selfishness, that truly dominates the most "Charismatic" portions of chapters 12-14. Their treatment of the Lord's Supper, each one looking after himself and no one else, came from the same selfishness we see here as they treat various gifts of the Holy Spirit in a completely self-indulgent manner, with no regard for each other's needs. In Chapter 12 Paul has mentioned various gifts known to operate among them, all of which he affirms.

Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit. And there are differences of administrations, but the same Lord. And there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in all. But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal.

In this Trinitarian passage he identifies the working of the Spirit, of the Lord and of God. He never even hints that any of these manifestations might have come from any lower source.

But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will.

Rather, he goes on to explain to them that these gifts have been given so that each member of the Body of Christ may help others in the same Body. The text is not about tongues, or prophecy or miracles. It is about the Body of Christ, and the care each member should have for all the rest, and that the rest should have for even one member who suffers. He mentions the gifts as another way of saying to them the same thing he has been saying all along. He speaks to them about unity that ought to overcome partisanship, and care for others that, as in the 8th chapter, should be placed ahead of their own desires, even their own perceived needs.

This is why he writes about tongues and prophecy in the 14th chapter.

Follow after charity, and desire spiritual gifts, but rather that ye may prophesy. For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries. But he that prophesieth speaketh unto men to edification, and exhortation, and comfort. He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself; but he that prophesieth edifieth the church. I would that ye all spake with tongues, but rather that ye prophesied: for greater is he that prophesieth than he that speaketh with tongues, except he interpret, that the church may receive edifying.

Already, back in chapter 12, he has identified both tongues and prophecy as coming from "the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will." Here, however, he appears to exalt one of these above the other. But, it is not that the gift of prophecy is exalted above that of tongues; it is that serving the needs of others is placed above serving one's own needs. He is teaching them not to be selfish anymore, and simply using this example as yet another way to say it. The beautiful chapter 13, about charity, has come between these chapters as part of the same long text extending back deeper into this letter. That beautiful chapter was a rebuke, meant not to inspire but to correct. It was written not to move with poetic sublimity, but to admonish with prophetic indignation. It was a fire lit to melt their frozen unloving, selfish hearts. Those hearts had taken good and holy things, the very gifts of God, and used them for selfish ends.

Charity suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up, Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil; Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth; Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things. Charity never faileth.

These words were not addressed to holy men and women crowned with the virtues, but to carnal, selfish, partisan, squabbling babes. They teach what should have been clear and obvious, especially to those who come behind in no gift, those who are in every thing enriched by him, in all utterance, and in all knowledge.

The Corinthian problem was simple: They possessed all things richly, but had not charity. When I consider this I must confess that Christ came to save Corinthians, of whom I am chief.