Functional illiteracy

I do not read The Former Anglican blog as a rule, or, excuse me, the one they call The Anglo-Catholic for no apparent reason, unless my friends and readers (sometimes the same people) bring something to my attention. It was brought to my attention that one of their writers named Anthony Chadwick had this to say late Monday:

Then someone else shows a picture of a comic motorcycle on his website called it [sic] “Archbishop Hepworth’s Car”. I don’t even take that one seriously, because it’s the same old stuff being spewed out. It’s almost like Lenin or Gramschi droning on about the Proletariat being exploited by the Capitalists and the Enemies of the People! Perhaps he could do an article on my sailing dinghy or my old Renault van! I still have my old bicycle too. In the end of the day, who cares?

More than twenty-four hours later he added the words, "might as well " to make it read "and might as well have called it “Archbishop Hepworth’s Car”. Perhaps someone pointed out the error of stating something contrary to such obvious fact. Well, of course, anyone who took the time to read His Excellency's car! would have seen, right away, that even in its present form, Chadwick's entire paragraph misses its target, inasmuch as the image of the car had nothing to do with the Australian prelate. Indeed, it was not about cars, not about motorcycles, and not about you know who.

I would leave this alone, except that we see a reputedly learned man writing a glaring misrepresentation of fact for a supposedly informative and educational blog, demonstrating that if he read my essay the whole point went over his head completely (and the humor apparently past him). This should give everyone an indication of the analytical skills, or lack thereof, to be found among the crowd that keeps selling Anglicanorum Coetibus as something it is not. They cannot understand even the things I write; not even when I set aside my academic theological mode in favor of straight-on column style Wes Pruden mode.

And, once more, to be crystal clear, we do not condemn Rome for producing Anglicanorum Coetibus. It is quite understandable given their particular ecclesiology. It is even charitable given their belief in the papacy.

My target was, in fact, one element of the Anglo-Papalist sales approach; focusing on the "much ado about nothing" facet of treating this little bit of fine tuning to the Pastoral Provisions as if it were the Second Coming of Christ, or next to it. Rome has merely come up with a way to say "no" to the TAC request for "full cooperate communion," but still keep open the door for converts. The next person to use the word "historical" or to gush out the word "generous" might exhaust all the goodwill we can spend safely on banality.

In fact, they cannot analyze a humorous "hard hitting" column style essay that opens with a reference to the Marx Brothers; so, you need not waste your time reading their efforts to explain Anglicanorum Coetibus, which is really, really way over their heads. Perhaps with enough hallucinogens one could make sense of the words to "I am the Walrus," or see some rhyme, reason and logic to the hype for treating Rome's latest methodology for turning Anglicans into Roman Catholics as if it were "inter-communion" or a "yes" to the TAC petition-which it clearly was not, is not, and never will be.

An update on Haiti

The following is an update about the Anglican Catholic Church Mission Fund and relief efforts for Haiti. The ACC website tells how to send contributions for that effort-Fr. Hart.

First, I would like to thank all of those who have contributed, and are still contributing, so generously to help our brothers and sisters in Haiti. The ACC Mission Fund has seen an outpouring of generosity from many, in and outside the ACC.

I can report some assistance already conveyed. Father Lerow on behalf of the Missionary Society of Saint Paul has sent a substantial amount of cash by Haiti through Mrs. Bien-Aime, who is travelling by land through the Dominican Republic. Mrs. Bien-Aime is in a group to help provide security. We hope she will reach Port-au-Prince today or tomorrow. This cash should assist in the most pressing needs of the two dozen orphans immediately under Father Bien-Aime's care in Port-au-Prince and perhaps also the needs of the wider circle of people he helps there.

I am happy to report that an old friend of mine, who is a reporter for one of the major U.S. networks, was able this weekend to deliver to Father Bien-Aime a substantial amount of water, food, medicine, and cash. Again, this helps with the immediate problem.

We are not yet able to determine accurately the amount of damage at our mountain parishes in Mannonville and Tapio. At the moment it seems likely that the orphans will be taken further to the north of Haiti, which is relatively free of earthquake damage. A friend of Father Bien-Aime's there has kindly offered space for the children for the time being.

Due to the generosity of our donors, we should be able to replace the orphanage truck, which was destroyed in the collapse of the orphanage. The orphanage itself was rented, so its loss does not pose a long-term problem to us. Apart from immediate care for the orphans and replacing the truck, the funds now in hand will be used to rent an alternative orphanage, help rebuilding in Tapio and Mannonville as needed, and permit Father Bien-Aime to assist others in need. The orphanage has always been a center for a wider circle of help, including a feeding program, assistance with education for children formerly in the orphanage, and medical care for those older children and others in need who do not live in the orphanage itself. Much of this work is on hold of necessity until the children are safely provided for, but I know Father Bien-Aime will resume such work as soon as possible.

Again, I am very grateful to all who are helping us help. When I have significant further news, I will report it.

Yours in Christ,

+Mark Haverland

(The Most Reverend) Mark Haverland

Archbishop & Metropolitan

His Excellency's car!

Duck Soup (Paramount Pictures, 1933), one of the great epic war movies, or rather a Marx Brother's movie, features Groucho as His Excellency, Rufus T. Firefly. Early in the movie, Firefly, the Leader of the nation state Freedonia, emerges from his inauguration in a hurry to meet with the Parliament as the new Head of Government and Head of State. He shouts "His Excellency's car!" This cry is repeated around the palace and trumpets play a ceremonial fanfare in honor of the transport for their country's leader. With so much ado one expects a limousine, with several vehicles before and behind, filled with armed security men. Instead, an old motor cycle pulls up driven by Harpo, with a sidecar (and the joke does not end there).

All that fuss over a motorcycle got me thinking. Recently, I was directed to a blog where someone commented that he was unhappy with The Continuum, and that was because we did not do editorial cartwheels in delirious joy over the "historic occasion" of Anglicanorum Coetibus. In fact, the statement was made that we were "negative" about it. The truth is, we saw it in perspective. With numerous trumpets blaring about a "historic occasion" that was going to change the world, the reality seemed much more like his excellency's car, or like finding out that the long awaited answer to "the question of life, the universe and everything" is 42.

So, the Roman Catholic Church has expanded the Pastoral Provisions to make it easier for former Anglican clergy to take their wives with them into the really big denomination. So what? Even though our lack of enthusiasm for the new Roman constitution was expressed in no uncertain terms, let us get one thing very straight: We never criticized it; we analyzed it. The difference is quite important. We explained accurately what it is and what it is not, to clear up misinformation that continues to be spread.

In analyzing it, we put up a defense for Anglicans who still believe in The Affirmation of St. Louis, who want to be Anglican, and, (for many) whose TAC bishops don't. Those TAC bishops seemingly want to be Roman Catholics already! So, who is stopping them? Go for it. But, stop telling Anglicans that the Anglican way of living the Catholic faith is a failed 450 year-old experiment. We like our way of doing things, and we believe in it. If our fathers were such a bunch of numb skulls as the Tiber Swimmers believe, then what are they waiting for?

But, we have not criticized Rome or their constitution. After all, it is only right for Roman Catholics, if they really believe all that One True Church stuff, to try to bring people into their fold. But excuse us if we notice the following things.

1. Our fathers were not heretics; and

2. Though it is difficult for some to translate 16th century English into modern English, and to read their works in historical context, they were faithful Christians trying to teach the Catholic and Evangelical Faith in their country in their generation, under the pressures of that time, and

3. They did a good job of it, even if modern polemicists pervert and twist their words and their meaning.

Also, though we love and respect the See of Rome for its honorable place in Antiquity, and for its place of leadership among millions of our Christian brethren, let us be honest about their elephant in their living room. I know it is not polite to say anything about the large gray animal that takes up most of the room's air, and threatens to sit down on you if you go to sleep; but it may become necessary. We respectfully suggest that it would have been more diplomatic of Rome not to send a man with the baggage of Cardinal Levada, as if it had not been bad enough to make Cardinal Law, before him, the main man for the wannabe former Anglicans. The song "When will they ever learn?" comes to mind. More seriously, it makes us wonder if Rome really understands even now just how much of a scandal such men represent, and makes us question why anyone wants, at this point in history, to hand over the reins of leadership to them. They still need to get their own house in order; and we hope they will.

Nor does it seem polite, I suppose, to notice that Rome's recent letter to the TAC bishops, quoted only in part by their Archbishop in public statements, is not much of a big hurrah either. The way it was announced, and what it really turned out to be, is another "his Excellency's car!" scene. In a nutshell, Rome, having caught wind of certain people announcing and promising a "special deal" with new and improved "special norms," decided to ask the TAC bishops to rein in the rumors. There is no special deal. Anglicaorum Coetibus is all there is, and what you see is what you get-if you want it. That was the gist of the letter, and it merited no fanfare from Adelaide, Australia via Orlando, Florida, as if it was anticipated, or part of the plan. (One would think it was the answer to tonight's big question. But, never fear. Our leading contestants will get to answer that question, which is worth 230,000 dollars.)

Although some folks who call themselves Anglo-Catholics choose to label us "negative," in fact a whole blog calling itself The Anglo-Catholic, the truth is we are very positive about the future of Continuing Anglicanism (which is easy for me, having found a home in the Anglican Catholic Church). Our mission work is reaching many people across the world, and we see growth and vitality at home and abroad. I see it around me every day in the parish here.

But, for those whose enthusiasm over Rome's gesture has yet to die down to a reasonable level, and who want to be Roman Catholics, we wish them all the best. Nonetheless, we will continue to view things realistically. Anglicanorum Coetibus is merely Rome's newest policy for the same old opportunity that has been there all along, namely, to swim the Tiber. Go ahead, blow the trumpets over Rome's constitution, do cartwheels, jump up and down, and announce the biggest news in the history of mankind. But, in fact, "His Excellency's car!" is a motorcycle.

Third Sunday after the Epiphany

John 2:1-11

Today we will look at three important things meant to be drawn out, exegeted, from this portion of the Gospel of John. These are:

1) Christ’s presence at a wedding
2) His phrase “my hour”
3) The title that he gives to His mother, namely, “Woman.”

The mysterion of matrimony

First, let us consider His presence at a wedding. We know that the Lord is present in a very special way whenever a couple performs the sacrament of marrying each other with the blessing of the Church. Saint Paul calls the marriage union the “mystery” of Christ and His Church, and by the use of the word “mystery” (μυστήριον, mystērion) the scriptures tell us that this is a sacrament. We know that a sacrament conveys the grace of God, each according to His plan and purpose, a special and specific grace. The grace of the marital union is specific and has everything to do with our hope for a future and for new life.

We can say, with both scripture and reason on our side, that the Lord is not present in any meaningful way in unions outside of marriage. Certainly, they lack the grace of the sacrament, and even among non-Christians they are not conformable to God's laws. They have instead the nature of sin. But, in our time such non-marital unions are treated as acceptable by society. This is an area where the Church has no right and no authority to take the side of popular “culture.” We must be different. Whatever the world is teaching and doing, Christian parents, remember: You must teach your children to wait until marriage. The problem is, people treat the ultimate human relationship, the kind that alone brings forth new life, as a casual thing, and as something to be subject to experimentation. They experiment by living as if they were married; and when such a couple decides that it is finally safe to get married, they have become accustomed to the idea of the experiment; and that idea never goes away.

No wonder that such couples have a high divorce rate, as, indeed, the statistics show. They failed to learn certain important facts. First of all, marriage is not an experiment, but a commitment. Second, any human relationship that is experimental must fail at some time, because everybody is impossible to live with. If you do not consider yourself impossible to live with, than read the Epistle to the Romans and take note of Saint Paul’s description of what a sinner you are, and wise up. Finally, marriage is not simply a commitment two people make to each other, but a commitment two people make to God, with faith that He is making the same commitment to them, and that (in the words from Ecclesiastes) “a threefold cord is not easily broken.” For the occasion of joy, when a couple begins to live in the sacrament of matrimony, the Lord is present.

The seed of the woman

“Jesus saith unto her, Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come.”

The way this sounds to modern ears, ‘What have I to do with thee?’ is a bit misleading. The way to understand it is simply, “what is there to be done between you and Me?” That is, what did the two of them have as a matter of mutual concern?

For this second point, I am grateful for a book by one of the genuine lights of the Roman Catholic Church here in America in the 20th Century, Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen. His commentary on this part of the Gospel of John, in his classic book that came out in 1961, Life of Christ, highlights one simple phrase and draws out the meaning with clarity. What did our Lord mean by “Mine hour is not yet come,” that enigmatic line He spoke to His mother? In the other places in the Gospel of John that speak specifically of His hour, the meaning has to do with His cross, the time of His death.

“Then they sought to take him: but no man laid hands on him, because his hour was not yet come.” John 7:30

“These words spake Jesus in the treasury, as he taught in the temple: and no man laid hands on him; for his hour was not yet come.” John 8:20

“And Jesus answered them, saying, The hour is come, that the Son of man should be glorified…Now is my soul troubled; and what shall I say? Father, save me from this hour: but for this cause came I unto this hour.” John 12:23, 27

“Behold, the hour cometh, yea, is now come, that ye shall be scattered, every man to his own, and shall leave me alone: and yet I am not alone, because the Father is with me.”
John 16:32

And with the cross His hour speaks of His resurrection and glorification:

“These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee.” John 17:1

Here is how Archbishop Sheen put it:

“The ‘Hour,’ therefore, referred to His glorification through His Crucifixion, Resurrection and Ascension…His mother was asking for a miracle; He was implying that a miracle worked as a sign of His Divinity would be the beginning of His Death. The moment He showed Himself before men as the Son of God, He would draw down upon Himself their hatred, for evil can tolerate mediocrity, but not supreme goodness. The miracle she was asking for would be unmistakably related to His Redemption.” P.77

Mary knew full well the prediction that Simeon had made to her years before, as recorded in the Gospel of Luke: “A sword shall pierce thine own soul also.” The pain of the cross awaited her too, for her ordeal was to watch her Son die in shame and agony while His enemies rejoiced and delighted in His sufferings as entertainment, amusement and a kind of victory. Knowing that He was going to begin to take the path that would lead to the cross, she speaks her last line that was recorded in scripture: “Whatsoever he saith unto you, do it.”

Here we see the same willingness on her part that was expressed years earlier at the Annunciation: “Behold the handmaid of the Lord. Be it unto me according to thy word.”
As Archbishop Sheen wrote:

“He was telling His mother that she was virtually pronouncing a sentence of death over Him. Few are the mothers who send their sons to battlefields; but here was one who was actually hastening the hour of her son’s mortal conflict with the forces of evil.” P. 78

Here we see, as well, how the Lord took up the work of His cross willingly. Years later, in the garden of Gethsemane, the most significant words that he spoke to the Father were, “nevertheless, not My will, but Thine be done.”

Finally, what of this curious title that he gives to His mother? Here at Cana, as He works that first miracle that would lead to His being “despised and rejected of men, a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief… cut off out of the land of the living” “for the sins of the whole world,” He calls her “Woman.” One more time He would call her that. On the day of His death as she stood by helplessly, with the sword piercing her own soul, He said: “Woman, behold thy Son.”

Perhaps to the modern American ear this has no meaning. But, to the ancient Jews, educated in the scriptures, it was obvious, indeed it was rich in meaning. This comes from the Proto Evangelium, the first announcement of the Gospel. In the third chapter of the Book of Genesis, after the fall of Adam into the sin and death that passed to all mankind, God spoke to the serpent the words of his coming defeat:

“And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life: And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.” Gen. 3:14, 15

The Lord Jesus identified Himself as the “seed of the woman.” His heel was bruised, that is He died, but He could not be held by death; and so He rose on the third day. The serpent’s head was bruised, that is, the prince of this world was cast out in the judgment that was rendered, by the Lord’s cross, on the world’s system of sin. The entire dominion of Satan was destroyed by the cross of Christ, the entire oppressive usurpation of rebellion against the Maker and Ruler of all things, destroyed like the armies of Pharaoh, so that we might be set free from slavery to sin and death. The Lord's heel was bruised for our sake, and the power of Satan was overthrown. Sin was killed by the cross, and death was slain by His resurrection.

The whole of idea using the word "seed," (זֶרַע, zera`) that is, the woman’s seed, is to express a miracle, that a woman would conceive without a natural father. He, the Son of the virgin mother, is the seed of the woman, spoken of by God in the first promise ever revealed that He would save us from sin and death; for he does not damn Adam and Eve in the third chapter of Genesis; instead he makes this promise. So, in the Gospel, Mary is not simply any woman, but rather she is the Woman, because Jesus Christ is the Savior of the world.

We have seen:


1) Christ’s presence at a wedding
2) His phrase “my hour”
3) The title that he gives to His mother, namely, “Woman.”

Fr. Wells' bulttein inserts

EPIPHANY III

Following the visit of the Gentile Magi and the Baptism in the Jordan River, the miracle at the Cana marriage feast is the third manifestation of the God-Man in the Church's liturgical celebration. To many commentators, this seems to be a miracle almost unique, in that it does not serve any critical human need. Other miracles of Jesus healed the sick, fed the hungry, raised the dead. But this miracle merely saved an ordinary family from social embarrassment. Is this situation, with no one sick, hungry, or dead, too prosaic to warrant Divine intervention? Recalling a wedding in my own experience when the caterer almost failed to appear, surely the Cana wine shortage cried out for God's help. No human need is beneath God's compassionate attention.

As St. John relates the event, the miracle seems almost like a parable in the constellation of symbols. The wedding itself recalls God's marriage covenant to Israel and Our Saviour's taking the Church for His bride. The transformation of water into wine reminds us of the Old Testament, with its types and shadows, giving place to the New Testament, in which the Word is made flesh. From another perspective it symbolizes sinners' being made into saints. Even the number of water-jars seems significant: six (as in the Days of Creation) frequently bespeaks incompleteness, just falling short of the mystical seven. And the presence of the Blessed Mother (not seen again in John until she stands at the foot of the Cross) is not without great importance. Both times Jesus addressed her as “Woman,” echoing Gen. 3:15, naming her as the New Eve, “mother of all living.”

At bottom, this episode is important because John tells us this was “the beginning of miracles.” The first half of the fourth Gospel is organized around an ascending series of six (that number again!) miracles. These form a crescendo of intensity and power, with the climax in the raising of Lazarus from the dead. John takes us from the gift of new and better wine to the restoration of life to a stinking corpse (his symbol for lost sinners). The seventh miracle, of course, is the resurrection of Jesus Himself.

The response to the miracles progresses in a counter-direction. The wine of Cana aroused pleasure and delight. “Thou hast kept the good wine until now.” But the succeeding miracles triggered growing animosity. The beneficiary of one miracle, the lame man of John 5, himself became a betrayer of Jesus. The hostility of sinners, like the power of God, found its climax in the desperation of the Jews: “What are we to do? For this man performs many signs” (John 11:47). We know the resolution of that quandary.

So John's magnificent Gospel carries us from “the beginning of signs” to “many signs.” The greatest sign, surely, still continues in the healed and transformed lives of all whom He encounters. LKW

THE LAST SUNDAY AFTER EPIPHANY

Today would not be quite complete if we did not sing Hymn 54, marked in our Hymnal “for the last Sunday after Epiphany.” This hymn reflects a fine point of sound liturgical usage and perhaps a bit of unpacking may be helpful in our enjoyment of the hymn. As St. Paul says, “I will sing with the Spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also.”

The liturgical point is that from Septuagesima Sunday (which comes a week from today) until Easter Day, the Greek word “Alleluia” is not heard in the worship of the Church. That word, in Hebrew “Hallelujah,” meaning “Praise ye the LORD,” is our ultimate exclamation of joy. It expresses the joy unique to Easter, Resurrection-joy. The word is so joyful that we have never quite accepted a translation, but kept it in its Hebrew or Greek forms.

In Medieval worship, there was a little ceremony of “saying farewell to Alleluia” on this final Sunday of the Epiphany Season. Therefore this lovely hymn was written. In the first Stanza, a contrast is drawn between the worship of the Church in heaven, “the choirs on high,” where “Alleluia” is sung forever without interruption. But we are not in heaven yet, so our worship cannot realistically maintain this tone of elation. (Don't people who are “happy all the time” get on your nerves?)

For the time being (that is all our time here on earth), we are still sinners. By God's gracious justification, we are “simul iusti et peccatores,” righteous and sinful at the very same time. But Lent, beginning on February 17, calls us to face with courage the fact of our continuing sinfulness even in our justified state. The third stanza of our hymn states, “For the holy time is coming Bidding us our sins deplore.” That “time” is, of course, the holy season of Lent.

Stanza two plays on a contrast between Jerusalem and Babylon. Jerusalem is the true home of God's people, Babylon is the place of our exile, the exile brought about by our habitual sinfulness. But in a larger sense, Jerusalem is our heavenly city, our home of eternal destiny, and Babylon is fallen and corrupt world in which we live. As Psalm 137 reminds us, we cannot “sing the Lord's song in a strange land.”

So do not think it odd or peculiar that we refrain from singing “Alleluia” during that portion of the year when we recall that we still live in “the strange land” of our sinful existence. Instead, rejoice that most of the year, from every Easter until the next Septuagesima, God mercifully permits us to sing the “songs of Sion” in our earthly worship. “Grant us, blessed Trinity, at the last to keep thine Easter in our home beyond the sky.” Septuagesima and Lent are painfully typical of “this present evil age,” but Easter, Ascensiontide and Pentecost are the promise and down-payment of the world to come. LKW

January 22, a day of infamy

This is the anniversary of the abominable Roe vs. Wade decision in the United States, and therefore a day to pray, work and make our voices heard in defense of the innocents who are being murdered and have been murdered by abortion.

Although I have posted this in previous years, we have many new readers who may never have seen it.

“Her Mother?s Glory” first appeared in the January/February, 2004 issue of Touchstone.

Her Mother’s Glory

Robert Hart on the Hardest of Abortion Cases

I promised myself that I would not be the stereotypical father of the bride, like Spencer Tracy, who hates to give away his little girl. But as I walked her down the aisle, and approached the moment she would become a full-grown, married lady, I felt everything I had determined not to feel. Very far from my mind was the story of her strange origins. It is always far from my mind, unless something reminds me of it, like the recent news from Poland.

The infamous abortion ship from Holland was daring to stop off a port in Poland in order to make its “services” available to Polish women who do not have “reproductive rights”—as the anti-life crowd call them—in their own country. Polish law restricts abortions to cases in which the mother’s life is threatened, to cases of incest, and to cases of rape. Compared to the ease with which most women in the Western world can obtain legal abortion for any reason, in fact for no reason at all, and at just about any time during pregnancy, Poland is better. But pro-life? No, sadly, no.

His Daughter Alone

Of my four children, my daughter alone is the one I adopted. I never exactly forget the fact; it simply passes out of conscious thought since it does not matter, for she is, in every way that counts, my daughter, my first child. Over the years, I have always felt what a father ought to feel.

When she was eleven, she suffered a staph infection, and Diane and I feared we would lose her. This was the second time in her short life that she was in danger of dying. The first time she was in danger she did not face an impersonal disease, but determined persons: when her mother had to fight against intruding social workers, and the whole system, for the right to make the choice that her baby would be born. After all, when a woman has been made pregnant through rape, it is not only her right, but her duty, to do the “honorable thing.” At least, so it seemed from all the pressure put on her in those months. She was upsetting the expectations and demands that “liberated” women have no right to upset. She was refusing the “sacrament” of abortion.

What a terrible thing she did. For a woman to bear a child when abortion seemed so justified, so necessary, when the pregnancy was the result of rape—well, it was certainly anti-social behavior. She was coerced into seeing a psychiatrist who could help her overcome the obvious defect known to Christians as principle. He might even have cured her of maternal instinct and the malady called love.

But all those years ago I knew nothing of what had happened, only that she was suddenly gone, nowhere to be found. Why had this girl vanished from our hometown in Maryland without a trace? When I discovered her whereabouts, 3,000 miles away in California, I hastened to call her. I had expected, had hoped, to have seen her in those months. “I have a baby girl,” she told me.

“Are you married?”

“No.”

“I see. Well, as a Christian I hope you have repented of . . .”

“Well, it was from rape, actually.”

I found that she would not put up her child for adoption. She was willing to live as a single mother because she could not be sure that a couple would raise her child to believe in Jesus Christ. She decided to keep the baby; and God rewarded her by giving her a wonderful, not to mention dashingly handsome, husband.

Convoluted Reasoning

I never think of my daughter’s origins and the strange circumstances of her early life unless something brings them to mind; for example, the disappointing remarks of a “conservative” radio talk-show host. This fellow talks a lot about his Catholic faith and Irish heritage, so it was with some astonishment that I heard him defending his view that abortion in cases of rape may be justified. “After all,” he pointed out, “it’s not the same as when it’s someone’s fault that she is pregnant. I just think it’s different.” He certainly did not get this idea from the Catholic Church.

I remembered back over twenty years ago hearing the same convoluted reasoning from Christians, some Catholic, some Evangelical. I recall a very Evangelical and Charismatic lady asking me, “But if it was rape, why didn’t she get an abortion?” I thought about the king of Judah, the one who would not execute the sons of his father’s assassins because of the Law of God, which says “the children shall not be put to death for the sins of the fathers, nor the fathers for the sins of the children” (2 Chronicles 25:4; Deuteronomy 24:16).

Where did the “conservative” radio talk-show host get the idea that pregnancy is a penalty? If it is a penalty, it might be unjust for the innocent to bear it. But what if it is not a penalty? What if it is the healing that God might give to a woman who has suffered a violent attack? 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.

Just who is it that these well-meaning people, such as the very Charismatic lady and the talk-show host, would sentence to death?

I remember the very wide eyes of a ten-month-old baby girl looking up at me, having just arrived by plane from California with her mother. I remember her first steps across my parents’ living-room floor. After her mother and I were married, I remember the first Christmas in our apartment, and her excitement at the wonder of a lit and decorated tree. She had names for us from Winnie the Pooh. I was Pooh, she was Piglet, and as she looked at her mom, now pregnant with the first of our three sons, she said, “And mom’s the kangaroo.”

Her very first day of school I remember watching her bravely walking into the classroom, as a lady laughed at the sight of my perplexity—a feeling of mingled loss and pride that was small compared to what I felt when I gave her in marriage to a fine young man. I remember her saying the wedding vows and pledging her life not only to him but also to any children they are blessed with, and to God who blesses them.

She is a young lady who spreads joy wherever she goes. She has a place in the lives of many, not only her new husband, her parents, and her brothers, but many who know her well, and many who have met her in passing—a unique place that no one else could fill. She is happy by nature at 23, married, an avid reader, a good friend, a serious Christian. This is the person that these well-meaning people were willing to sentence to death. Oh, not now, not when they can see her; but when she was in danger the first time, in the womb and hidden from view.

Enough for Her

My wife is not living the life of a tragic victim. She is the happy mother of four children, and would not wish to part with any of them. My daughter learned of her origin after she was over twenty years of age and it became obvious that the truth could not be hidden without confusion. Someone had taken pictures of her as a three-year-old, at the wedding of her parents. I had been warned, “Never tell her, it would devastate her to know.”

Not so. Rather, the mystery was unsettling, and the truth was welcome. You see, it did not matter. She had always known that God is the Author of Life—all life. Every human being is made in his image, and that means everything when a child is raised to understand that the image of God became more than an abstract idea in Hebrew Scripture when the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us. And it was enough for her that she has a mother and a father who love her.

For both Diane and me, the details of our daughter’s early life and strange origins are very much out of mind, far from conscious thought. That is, unless something brings them to mind, such as realizing that it is time to tell our story for the benefit of others who are caught in what seem like desperate circumstances, and who need the courage to make the decision to let the Author of Life do his healing and creative work, bringing light out of darkness and good out of evil: who need to make the decision of love.

___________

I will add that since the time this was published in Touchstone Hannah has become the mother of two children, our grandson born in 2007, and our next grandchild due to be born in March. So far, three lives have been saved.

Reminder

The aftershocks in Haiti amounted, really, to another earthquake, just not as large as the devastating one last week. I was sent a request to make information available about International Medical Corps. Also, for relief efforts and a suggested from of prayer (a novena to be exact), see what we have posted before here and here. It's not over.

Not entirely daft

Because of recent attacks on Anglican Orders on the EWTN network, it seemed necessary to fortify the faith of those who have not been warned or taught properly, which is why I posted a brief piece (which you can access here) with links to more detailed works. As much as I hate to delve into the Papal Bull Apostolicae curae (1896), especially since Saepius Officio (1897) said what needed to be said right away, it seems necessary to clear up one bit of confusion that Rome has thrown our way. That is, they see in the 1662 Ordinal more than is really there, or, rather, they see less in the 1550 Ordinal than was really there. It is the same mistake either way.

Nonetheless, I want to quote something by the Church of England priest Fr. John Hunwicke, with whom I agree about many things, and disagree about other things. Writing from within the Canterbury Communion, what he expressed, in the following remarks back in 2006, is very close to the Continuing Anglican view:

I am not in favour of criticising and trying to unpick Apostolicae curae. That would simply put us in the same position as all those other people who are so totally loyal to the Holy See ... except in one particular matter. The only point I would make is that that the actual bull sealed for Leo XIII described the question as hoc caput disciplinae, and this is what was first officially published. It appeared to situate the question in the area of discipline and not of dogma. Pressure from the English RC hierarchy resulted in the removal from subsequent editions of the word disciplinae...Now, of course, we are nearly in agreement with Rome about the dubiety of Anglican Orders anyway. We believe that a large and growing percentage of Anglican Ordinations are invalid: the purported ordinations of women, and of both men and women by 'women bishops'. That is why, if we are to hang on in the C of E, we need a separate episcopate and clear mechanisms for the reordination of men who come to join us having been invalidlty ordained within the 'mainstream' Church.

Like Fr. Hunwicke, we also do not see the See of Rome as the judge or arbiter in this matter, but also see many current Anglican orders as invalid, due to the "ordination" of women in some Anglican churches of the Canterbury Communion. That is why we have already in place a "separate episcopate."

Nonetheless, one little bit of confusion may as well be addressed, if only to say "checkmate" and put the whole matter of Apostolicae Curae to rest, if only for the sake of our own people, Continuing Anglicans. That is because, after 1896, the Church of Rome conceded one by one over the years that all of their supporting arguments for the 1896 Bull were wrong, that is all but the one they hold to stubbornly. As Fr. Hunwicke also said in the same little essay, "Remember that in 1662 the C of E had made the formulae in presbyteral and episcopal ordination (which Leo [XIII in 1896] had asserted were insufficiently clear), more explicit." What he referred to is this.

At least as early as the thirteenth century, when the Church of England usually held ordinations on Sundays, they used the formula that began in each case Accipe Spiritum Sanctum for ordinations to the priesthood, and consecrations to the episcopate. This means "Receive the Holy Spirit." These words were followed by quotations of II Timothy 1:6,7 for the episcopate, and of John 20:22, 23 for the priesthood. The words were first translated for us in the first English Ordinal in 1550:

(In the form for consecration of bishops)

Then the Archebisshoppe and Bisshoppes present, shal lay their handes upon the head of the elect Bisshop, the Arohebisshoppe saying.

TAKE the holy gost, and remember that thou stirre up the grace of god, whiche is in thee, by imposicion of handes: for god hath not geven us the spirite of feare, but of power, and love, and of sobernesse.

And,

(In the form for ordination of priests)

¶ When this praier is done, the Bisshoppe with the priestes present, shal lay theyr handes severally upon the head of every one that receiveth orders. The receivers humbly knelyng upon their knees, and the Bisshop saying.

RECEIVE the holy goste, whose synnes thou doest forgeve, they are forgeven: and whose sinnes thou doest retaine, thei are retained: and be thou a faithful despensor of the word of god, and of his holy Sacramentes. In the name of the father, and of the sonne, and of the holy gost. Amen.

(Followed by words and actions:

The Bisshop shall deliver to every one of them, the Bible in the one hande, and the Chalice or cuppe with the breade, in the other hande, and saying.

TAKE thou aucthoritie to preache the word of god, and to minister the holy Sacramentes in thys congregacion[, where thou shalt be so appointed].)

By using the words of II Timothy 1:6,7 the office of bishop was identified. By using John 20:22,23, the office of priest was identified. The scholars of the era knew that Timothy was the first Bishop of the Church in Ephesus, and that the power to forgive sins, mentioned by the Risen Lord in John 20:22,23 was a charism given to all priests. Most of the laity did not know Latin and could not follow the service before 1550. But, for the educated, as early as the first use of these formulae in Latin centuries before the English Reformation, the identification was obvious. The words from Paul's Epistle to Timothy referred directly to the episcopate, and Christ's words recorded by John to the priesthood. The sacramental actions and words were seen as following the pattern of each. Because, by 1662, it had become necessary to refute the Puritans and put an end to their influence, the High Church Caroline designers of the new edition of the Prayer Book and Ordinal thought it wise to add the words, "...for the Office and Work of a Bishop in the Church of God..." and "...for the Office and Work of a Priest in the Church of God..." directly after "Receive the Holy Ghost," and before the rest of the old formula.

At present the Church of Rome concedes that the Form is valid, but the problem is that they say that it became valid, and attribute the lack of those additional words to a lack of Sacramental Intention between 1550 and 1662; then they conclude that the gap was too long, and no bishop in Holy Orders survived to keep valid Orders alive in the Church of England (ignoring the Italian lines of Archbishop William Laud, and the "Dutch Touch"-not that they really matter anyway; but still...).

Before we accuse the See of Rome of Biblical illiteracy, even though they throw themselves wide open to it, let us understand their dilemma. With priestesses in the Church of England and the Canterbury Communion in general, what else can they do? We sympathize with their problem. They have given in on every other point, and to admit now that they have no real argument for their 1896 Bull might encourage some of their own people to go into churches presided over by actresses, playing the role of men, in reality female transvestites in mock Holy Orders (and God knows what else goes on in those sacred sleazy joints). Better to leave the disciplinae intact without letting the facts complicate the matter.

But, much as we sympathize, we cannot let ourselves be affected by their solution to a problem that we, in equal measure, find appalling. The simple fact is, the 1662 Ordinal added nothing substantial; the Intention had been stated clearly all along, inasmuch as the men responsible for the whole thing knew exactly what they were doing and what it all meant in every relevant language, and therefore had an obvious Intention whether or not they expressed it to all the laity in the clearest of terms. Since the issue is Sacramental Intention, there can be no justification for the Roman point of view.

The Supreme Being

Nonetheless, why they zero in on the Accipe Spritum Sanctum portion is not clear. With Rites named to specify the meaning, with appropriate ministers of the sacrament (one bishop for ordination of a priest, three for consecration of a bishop), with prayers and examinations specifying priest or bishop, the Intention is rather obvious anyway. Sacraments are not magic, depending simply on a perfect "Harry Potter" type of formula. Sacraments are supernatural cooperation between man and God to give us a means of His grace.

In the English comedy movie Time Bandits, the Supreme Being is played by Sir Ralph Richardson, who appears near the end in an impeccable suit, acting like the definitive headmaster in an English Public School. When one of the dwarfs he has been chasing presumes to inform the Supreme Being about something, he replies in a dignified manner: "I know. I am the Supreme Being; I'm not entirely daft."

I sometimes think that the real God of heaven and Earth could say the same thing in response to the Roman position on Anglican Orders. As it stands now, they seem to be telling us that the Supreme Being (to use that objectionable term, though it is better than "the Man upstairs" I suppose) is daft, and He failed to understand the Intention because He needed it spelled out more clearly. Because the designers of the first English Ordinal did not inform God in very clear terms, and because the doddering old codger had forgotten the scriptures after all those centuries, He just did not know what to with that Matthew Parker chap, and there went Anglican Orders to heck in a hand basket.

Somehow, we find that hard to accept.

A new era not of our making

Upon receiving the news that over three thousand people in the Congo have been received into the Anglican Catholic Church (ACC) recently, I did not assume that they were leaving the Traditional Anglican Anglican Communion (TAC) simply because of the Roman issue. I suspected it had very much to do with the same problem that motivated the Continuing Anglicans of South Africa also to turn to the ACC. In the Congo, as part of the TAC, no bishop has come to them in over five years, meaning there have been no ordinations and no confirmations; neither has any effort been made to give them a diocesan structure and a bishop of their own. The Rt. Rev. Wilson Garang of the Diocese of Aweil in Sudan will be there in the near future to meet immediate needs, and the effort will be underway to provide in their own country, the Congo, the necessary diocesan structure and episcopal ministry essential to the growth and vitality of any Church in the Catholic and Apostolic Tradition. The people in South Africa were also neglected; but, now they have two dioceses, and are scheduled to have two bishops consecrated in (as I understand it) March.

The old status quo cannot be sustained

When The Continuum blog was created in late 2005 by Albion Land one major idea was to bring unity among the various jurisdictions which adhere to The Affirmation of St. Louis. At that time it seemed to make sense that a blog could exist for clergy and laity to try to discuss openly whatever issues needed to be discussed in order to bring us all closer together. The idea was that all of the major and well-known jurisdictions were, more or less, equally valid (without regard to the many "vagante" operations that spring up as a result of religious freedom). Therefore, under the old status quo we almost had to accept division as a reality, as if it were an essential part of the Continuing Anglican identity. Maintaining the status quo has come to mean, however, maintaining the division itself.

When I was face to face with Archbishop John Hepworth of the TAC, in the Summer of 2008, I asked him why he had never responded to the open letter from Archbishop Haverland, inviting a discussion for the purpose of establishing unity. The answer I was given, which I would not even consider repeating at this time, was no answer at all. That is, in one sense, perfectly acceptable, inasmuch as he is free to ignore the plea for unity, and therefore the gracious invitation to talks. Nonetheless, it raises an issue that effects this blog directly.

In June of 2009 I wrote the following in an essay entitled What is the Continuum at the present time?

"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 [Anglican Province in America] has a separate origin, and existed before the Continuing Church.) The APCK [Anglican Province of Christ the King] and the UECNA [United Episcopal Church North America] 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."

Of these two major groupings, we must ask whether or not the TAC has a commitment to Anglicanism at all. Is there still any reason to hold out hope for unity? if so, what sort of unity?

In light of the experience of the African churches that have turned to the ACC, the question is even more significant. Has the TAC effort to create some kind of "full cooperate communion" with the See of Rome interfered with more than their commitment to Anglicanism itself? As I was told by Bishop Louis Campese in 2007, the advice of the Roman Catholic Church to the TAC/ACA was that they stop making bishops. Have the people of the Congo and South Africa lived without bishops all these years because of misplaced priorities, because meeting their need was inconvenient given the desire to establish a new relationship with Rome? If so, it is a grave matter indeed. The Church needs the Apostolic ministry of its bishops if it is to grow and thrive, and cutting off this vital function for some other priority can hardly be justified. The shifting of at most a few thousand people from one denomination into another (Roman Catholicism) has been confused with "the unity of John 17," and has been spoken of in terms eschatologiocal and messianic. But, weighty as this sounds, it does not justify neglect of one major charge given by Christ to all bishops everywhere: "Feed my sheep."

The time for real unity

Inasmuch as our only TAC/ACA contributor to the blog resigned for private reasons, this blog has, purely by accident, come exclusively under the control of three priests who belong to the ACC. We never planned this, and we did not want Mr. Pacht to leave us, just as we never wanted Sandra McColl to resign earlier. But, neither did we plan any of the events related to Anglicanorum Coetibus. We plan to carry on as before, but in light of the times that have changed; therefore, in some ways not quite as before, inasmuch as living in a fantasy would make us irrelevant.

We distinguish between two realities both of which may be called the TAC/ACA. One is the reality of bishops trying their very best to sell Anglicanorum Coetibus, and the other reality is the people who want now, as ever, to Continue the Anglicanism of the Book of Common Prayer, the Catholic Faith as it has been "believed everywhere, always and by all" without innovations of Protestantism or Roman Catholicism. That is what The Affirmation of St. Louis was all about. I know a large number of people in the TAC/ACA who agree with everything that Archbishop Haverland wrote about this new Roman Constitution:

"We believe that classical Anglicanism, as presented clearly in The Affirmation of Saint Louis and in our liturgies and other authoritative formularies, is already faithful to Scripture and the Fathers and is already fully Catholic and Orthodox. Conversion is not necessary and absorption is not appropriate. We believe that our Anglican patrimony is, moreover, by God’s grace and Providence, also most appropriate for the English-speaking peoples and probably is essential for the successful evangelization or re-evangelization of the English-speaking lands. We hope eventually for a genuine dialogue concerning the Petrine Office and long for the day when we, with our Orthodox and Oriental Christian friends, may again find in the successor of Saint Peter a patriarch with the primacy of honor and with high authority both as an organ for strengthening the Church’s unity and also as an instrument for the articulation of the Church’s teaching. We regret that the forthcoming Constitution, while kindly meant, seems set to delay that happy day."
(The full text may be read here)

So we have two ways to look at the current crisis. One is to say that unity with the TAC is no longer even a possibility, insasmuch as they have chosen to go to Rome, and are merely working out details. The other is to realize that now is the time for genuine unity, because if their bishops go to Rome, the people who want to remain Anglican have no one blocking the path to unity within the Continuing Anglican Church, a home where the lamp is burning in the window and the soup is on the stove.

And, the purpose of this blog can no longer be to maintain a status quo of division, which we see coming to an end; even if we were to maintain that status quo it in the name of unity. The times have changed, we hope for the better.

About the question of Peter

And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Matt. 16:18,19

The Roman Catholic Church places a great emphasis on Matt. 16:18,19 (seeming to ignore words in 18:18 spoken to all of them). It is true, however, that "upon this rock" is spoken of the one man Peter. It is instructive to notice that the only thing in Scripture that can be called a Petrine charism, or that describes a calling unique to the fisherman, apostle and martyr, is fulfilled in the Book of Acts. The comparison of Acts 1:8, especially the last part of the verse ("...and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth") shows a pattern of how the witness of the Apostles would grow in the earth. To understand what the scriptures say about the keys of the kingdom of Heaven that Christ gave to Peter, we should look at the man's life that he himself lived on earth.

The Book of Acts shows the unfolding of this ministry of the Apostles, and we see Peter exercising a leadership role, and also acting as the doorkeeper in the house of the Lord, the one who unlocked the door and opened the kingdom of Heaven first to Jerusalem and all Judea, then to the Samaritans, then to the uttermost, that is to the Gentiles, those who once had been far off, strangers and foreigners to the covenant (Eph. 3:17f).

In the second chapter of Acts it is Peter, on the day of Pentecost, who unlocked the door for his own people, the Jews. It was his sermon that unlocked the door of the kingdom of God, and opened it to those who heard, Jews and proselytes. In the third chapter another sermon following the miraculous healing of a crippled man unlocked the door again, and the Church was firmly established in Jerusalem, and growing among the Jews.

In chapter eight, it is Phillip who preaches to the people of Samaria, and who baptizes them; but when he needs the Apostles to come and Confirm (as we would say it) the new Christians, the Apostles send Peter and John from among them. It is instructive that Peter, although he was the leader in obvious and visible ways, was not exercising authority over his equals, the other Apostles. For, in being sent he showed that he submitted to the others as a group, rather than telling them that he had decided to act on his own. "Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John: Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.) " (Acts 8:14-16)

The Greek word translated "sent" is ἀποστέλλω (apostellō), and this tells us that Peter was "sent" along with John bearing the authority of the Apostles as a group; that they were apostles of the Apostles. The difference here between leadership and authority is quite obvious. From the text we see that Peter had been acting as a leader by setting the pace and exercising gifts, but, he was acting under the authority of the Apostolic College. Otherwise he would tell them his plans rather than being sent.

Nonetheless, his presence in Samaria, to Confirm the converted and baptized people, places him within the pattern outlined by the Risen Lord Jesus Christ; for after the kingdom of God was unlocked to the Jews, it was unlocked to those next in line, the Samaritans. For this the man who was the Rock was present, fulfilling the special calling that he had. He continued in the work of unlocking the door to the Samaritans, along with John. "And they, when they had testified and preached the word of the Lord, returned to Jerusalem, and preached the gospel in many villages of the Samaritans." (v.25)

Finally, it was Peter who unlocked the door, and allowed the Gentiles into the kingdom of God. At the house of the Roman Centurion, a "God Fearer" named Cornelius, the amazing story unfolds that begins with an angelic visitation and ends with a repeat of the Sovereign work of God that had happened on Pentecost. "While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word. And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost." (Acts 10:44,45)

Contrary to a new popular way of twisting the Scripture to create an apologetic for heresies such as Women's Ordination and Same Sex Blessing, there was no long period of confusion or disagreement. As soon as Peter explained to the other Apostles what had happened, they accepted the whole event as a revelation from God. "Forasmuch then as God gave them the like gift as he did unto us, who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ; what was I, that I could withstand God? When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life." (Acts 11:17,18) At that moment the teaching of the Church was established on the matter, based on revelation.

There was no "period of discernment" that can be used to justify innovations, nor any period of confusion. Later, in the fifteenth chapter, the heresy of those who taught contrary to what Peter and the other Apostles had established so clearly in chapter eleven, was a sudden shocking new teaching that contradicted the teaching the Church had lived by during those years in between. The Jerusalem Council in chapter fifteen was not called to sort out the question of what to do with the Gentiles, but rather how to defend the young Church's Apostolic teaching against heresy. Hence the words of the letter from that Council: "Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment...(Acts 15:24)."

The anecdote related by St. Paul when writing to the Galatians (Gal. 2:11f) had nothing to do with the heresy described in Acts chapter fifteen, though it might give a glimpse of a cultural problem that allowed the heresy to arise. Nonetheless, the issue was one of abiding by the teaching of the Church based on revelation as it had been established, and that even Peter himself, being only human, needed help in remembering that.

For our main point of this study, however, it was the presence of Peter in the house of Cornelius unlocking the kingdom of Heaven to the uttermost parts of the earth that matters. Even though Paul (Gal. 2:7) would take over the main work of establishing churches as a witness to Christ "unto the uttermost parts of the earth," it was Christ building His Church on the Rock, Who had appointed Peter to open the door with the keys.

Beyond that, we have nothing in Scripture that gives significance to Peter above the significance it gives to the other Apostles. The focus in the Book of Acts shifts to Paul, because the writer, Luke (who, contrary to popular misinformation, certainly was not some gentile convert later on) was really telling his own story as a quiet witness who "having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first," gave us his testimony of those things he had lived through.

Yes, we know that the Council of Chalcedon was so impressed with Leo's Tome that they said, "Peter has spoken through Leo." But, standing where that quotation is to be found, it gives recognition only to the apostolic teaching he had faithfully transmitted (as every bishop should). I have no reason to doubt the tradition that Peter died a martyr's death in Rome, nor would I care to challenge the report from antiquity that he spent his last years or months there. But, nothing other than eisegesis can fill in the wide gulf between the Scriptures and any connection to men who supposedly are his successors in the see of Rome; nor, even if I grant Rome's assertion simply for argument's sake, could I accept the enormous claims associated with their eisegesis.

Lord God, in thy mercy, BLESS HAITI

(This was produced by Archdeacon Donald B. Rice, Dean of Christ Church Pro-Cathedral, Metairie, LA., and sent to us by Rev. Canon John Hollister)

A NOVENA

for the earthquake afflicted

Christ Anglican Catholic Church

Metairie, Louisiana

A NOVENA is a nine-day period of prayer in preparation for some particular feast, or to pray for some special intention. It may be made by an individual or by a group, either in public or in private.

* * *

OUR Father, who art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name; Thy kingdom come; Thy will be done; In earth as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread. And forgive us our trespasses, As we forgive them that trespass against us. And lead us not into temptation; But deliver us from evil. Amen.

After a Disaster

ALMIGHTY God, who art a very present help in time of trouble: Let not the heart of thy people fail when fear cometh; but sustain and comfort them, until these calamities be overpast; and since this grievous disaster of earthquake has fallen upon men, do thou of thy great mercy heal the wounded, console the afflicted, protect the helpless, and deliver all who are still in peril. Grant this for thy Son’s sake, Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

For those who proclaim the Gospel

O MOST merciful Saviour and Redeemer, who wouldest not that any should perish, but that all men should be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth: Fulfil thy gracious promise to be present with those that go forth in thy name to preach the Gospel of salvation. Be with them in all perils, by land and by water, in sickness and distress, in weariness and pain, in disappointment and persecution. Bless them, we beseech thee, with thy continual favour, and grant that thy Word spoken by their mouths may never be spoken in vain. Hear us, O Lord, for thy mercy’s sake. Amen.

For the Bereaved

ALMIGHTY God, Father of mercies and giver of all comfort; Deal graciously, we pray thee, with all those who mourn, especially thy servants, handmaidens, and children who have been bereaved through the earthquake in Haiti, that, casting every care on thee, they may know the consolation of thy love; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

For The Departed

ALMIGHTY God, we remember this day before thee thy servants, handmaidens, and children who have perished in the earthquake in Haiti, and we pray thee that, having opened to them the gates of larger life, thou wilt receive them more and more into thy joyful service; that they may win, with thee and thy servants everywhere, the eternal victory; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

REST X eternal grant unto them, and let light perpetual shine upon them. May their souls, X and the souls of all the faithful departed, through the mercy of God, rest in peace. Amen.

THE grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Ghost, be with us all evermore. Amen.

Not that old nonsense again!

It seems that some Continuing Anglican clergy have been sent into the vineyard to labor without having been given a proper warning about Rome's erroneous opinion of Anglican Orders from 1896. My email inbox contained exchanges between some of these poor uninformed clergy who have come to doubt their orders because the whole subject is new to them, inasmuch as no one taught them about it. How sad that they were ill-prepared to face this easy challenge; this says something about the need to educate fellows before ordaining them and sending them out. I advise them not to panic, but to read Saepius Officio, and then the brief summary by E.J. Bicknell, and renew their confidence. Short and sweet, Rome got it wrong and that was because their 1896 Bull was agenda driven, and just plain ridiculous. You need have no fear. Oh God, when might we lay this silliness to rest once and for all?

Second Sunday after the Epiphany

Romans 12:6-16a
Mark 1:1-11

The season of Epiphany gives us pictures of Christ that are meant to help us understand the revelation of who He is. Look at an icon of this event, and you get a glimpse of the meaning of this Gospel passage. The Son stands in the water, the Spirit appears in form as of a dove and lights upon Him, and the Father’s voice comes from above. This clear revelation of God is why we should think of today as a companion Sunday to Trinity Sunday. It is why the Orthodox Church sees this scene from the Gospels as the most significant Theophany, for which they name this season.

About thirty years ago I heard a man preach that when the Father spoke the words, “Thou art my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased,” that this was somehow necessary in order to meet the psychological need of Jesus, a word of approbation from the Father that, as the preacher’s words still ring in my memory, “His Son needed.” I do not know where people get these ideas, but they do not find them in the pages of scripture. The idea that we can understand Jesus Christ in psychological terms that are based upon the normal condition of fallen sinful people, who need healing or affirmation because of the brokenness of their lives, is a short route to heresy. We must not try to get into the mind of Jesus Christ as if He were subject to the problems that sinful people have. His understanding of His mission is not a subject for that kind of analysis.

Another idea that was popular for many years is that Jesus was suddenly aware of who He was, and of His unique relationship to the Father, because of the voice from heaven and this whole spiritual experience. This interpretation comes from the idea that He was drawn to hear the preaching of John the Baptist, and underwent some sort of personal epiphany akin to religious conversion, the kind that takes place when revivalists preach. According to this interpretation, he emerged from the water a new man, suddenly filled with divine purpose. Again, this would require that we imagine a Jesus who came to John in order to be forgiven his own sins, because John’s baptism was a baptism of repentance for the remission of sins. But, the thought of Jesus having sins of which to repent is heresy. He is without sin.

We need to think according to the actual revelation that is recorded here in the scriptures, and free our minds from wrong ideas. For, the simple fact is, nothing that Jesus did in His public ministry had anything to do with meeting a supposed need of His own. Everything was for our sakes, like the hymn says- “for us baptized, for us He bore his holy fast and hungered sore.” That wonderful hymn begins each line of most verses with those two words, “for us.”

“For us He prayed, For us He taught, For us His daily works he wrought…For us to wicked men betrayed…For us he rose from death again.” What happened here at the River Jordan did not happen because the Son needed the Father’s affirmation, and it is was not some personal epiphany that changed His life. He knew already exactly who He was, and of His unique relationship to the Father, having expressed it to Joseph and Mary in the temple many years earlier when he was a child twelve years old. He asked them why they had looked for Him when they ought to have known that he would be in His Father’s house.

Jesus went to the River Jordan in order to begin His public ministry, to appear to the people of Israel, and to be proclaimed by John the Baptist as the Son of God. The baptism itself serves as a prelude to the crucifixion that He, for us, later would endure unto death. For here, standing with sinners in the waters of the Jordan, He is willingly taking on the sins of the whole world for the first time, letting Himself be identified with sinners and with their sins, remaining Himself guiltless, completely holy, and the only person among all of the human race about Whom the Father would say that He, God, is well pleased. God loves the fallen sinful children of men; but He is not well pleased with any of them in their Fallen state. Only His Son, free from sin, was pleasing to God; and here we see him entering the waters of the Jordan to begin his identification with our sins, a voluntary identification that would culminate on the cross. In John’s Gospel it is after this epiphany, this epiphany to John the Baptist and the people gathered, that the Baptist proclaims “Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sins of the world.”

I remember another strange idea that was expressed in my hearing, only this time it was from a layman. According to this fellow, there was some point when Jesus complained in response to the demands of a crowd that he was only one man, and they were asking too much from him. I do not know what movie this man saw, or what silly story he once heard from a well-meaning relative while growing up, or what dream he dreamt. I pointed out to him that nothing of the sort ever happened; that the Gospels record no such thing. Jesus fed thousands of people with five loaves and two fishes, rose people from the dead, walked on water, healed everyone who came to Him, and never once complained about anything, except for how little faith people have. He did not work within the confines of His human nature, but from within His eternal Godhead as the Son eternally begotten of the Father. He did not diminish His Divine nature, but rather he raised human nature. He did not reveal what is possible for a good man, but what is possible with God. The human nature that he took into His Divine Person as God the Son was a complete human nature; but the Person of Jesus the man was that of God the Son.

The voice from Heaven, and the appearance like that of a dove, all centered upon Jesus in the River Jordan, did not come for His sake. It did not meet some need that He had. It was for the sake of those who stood upon the bank of the river, those who saw and heard. It was for the sake of all of us who have learned about this epiphany, this revelation of the Trinity, that full and perfect name of God that later would be spoken by Christ after he rose from the dead; the name of “The Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost.” Here is a revelation of God, and of the mysterious relationship that has existed from all eternity, about which we have no right to speculate, hidden and veiled except for glimpses of revelation meant to aid us in our salvation. At no point was the Son alone, for the Father was always with Him, and the Holy Spirit remained upon Him.

The other people came to the Baptist confessing their sins. But, about this man the Father made a confession, that He was well pleased. The others came out of need. Jesus was there to meet our needs, especially the deepest need of all, to be reconciled to God; to know Him, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom He has sent. Others came to lay down their sins; Jesus was there to take up the sins they laid down, and to carry them to Calvary where they would be nailed to the cross with Him. The others came to lay down their burdens; Jesus was there to take up their burdens. “Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. 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 (Isaiah 53: 4-6).”

The Holy Spirit appears as a dove. Now, this is a different kind of manifestation than the physical presence of Jesus Christ, the Word made flesh. The Holy Spirit is appearing in a vision granted to everyone there; His appearing is in a symbolic way, that is to say, it is a Divine writing of iconography in the very heavens. The appearance of a dove is a symbol, and the message is that God’s wrath is over and done. This is the Christmas message of the angel who appeared and spoke to the shepherds of “peace on earth, goodwill towards men.” Not among men, but towards men. We are reminded of the story of Noah, who sent out the dove, which returned with an olive branch in its mouth to reveal that the waters of God’s wrath had abated from off the earth. Noah later offered a sacrifice after he left the ark, and God promised not to destroy man, and hung up His bow, His rainbow, as a pledge. The meaning is this: By appearing as a dove that descended upon Jesus, the Holy Spirit signified to us that Christ is the peace offering that reconciles us to God. This too, just like the very baptism itself, points to our redemption by Christ’s full and complete offering of Himself on the cross.

And, to the ear came the audible voice of the Father, telling us of His pleasure in the Son. This is more than simply His approval of Christ’s holy life. It is the eternal love within the Trinity, wherein God delights in being God, where each of the Persons delights in the perfection and worthiness of the other two Persons. ..we know this is true, but our speaking of it cannot do justice to the reality as we shall begin to know it when the risen Christ returns in glory. For now, we see the significance in the Father’s words, telling us not only of His Son’s worthiness and holiness, but telling us this in contrast to the pleasure He cannot take in the fallen state of every other human being who was there. Here too we understand why this voice was heard at the Lord’s baptism. As Jesus Christ identified Himself with sinful mankind, the other Persons of the Godhead told us Who He is, and why He is Himself without sin, but standing in for us to save us. The Father speaks of His Son Who always pleases Him, telling us not only that He remains holy and without spot or stain of sin, but even more; that He is the Son Who throughout eternity and before all worlds gives delight to the Father in that Divine love that is beyond our comprehension.

We see the Trinity in this report of the Lord’s baptism that day. The vision of the Holy Spirit was for our sake; the voice of the Father was for our sake. Here we see and hear the Trinity with eyes and ears, and we see also that only in Jesus Christ and His offering of Himself do we have salvation from sin and death. And, we can say, from all this, that the revelation of the Trinity tells us, in the words of Saint John the Apostle, “God is love.”

The revelation of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost, the Trinity, is a necessary part of our salvation. It is not about abstract and difficult theology, but about how God, who is Love, saves us from sin and death and promises to raise us up in His Son. He has made Himself known in our world- not perfectly understood, but known. What was revealed that day at the River Jordan was a revelation to every human being except Jesus, who alone already knew.

Fr. Wells' Bulletin Inserts

EPIPHANY II

The Baptism of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, celebrated in today's liturgy, is the hinge event in the Gospel history which ties together the Good News of His coming and the Even Better News of His perfect sacrifice on the Cross and His victory over sin and death.

The first thing we must say about His Baptism is that it was not necessary for the usual reason. The multitudes went out to be baptized at the hands of John “confessing their sins.” The baptism administered by John and his disciples was a multi-faceted rite, but all four Gospels agree that it was above all a penitential rite, in which sinners sought cleansing to prepare for the kingdom of God.

As the New Testament tells us many times, Jesus was sinless. Even Pontius Pilate himself declared, “I find no fault in this man.” And John, for all his spiritual insight, was almost distraught to find the Lamb of God standing in a throng of sinners, seeking baptism. John asked, “I have need to be baptized by thee, and comest thou to me?” The sinless One asking for a sinner's bath was almost too much for John. Jesus answered him somewhat cryptically, “Suffer it to be so now, for thus it becometh us to fulfill all righteousness..” (This dialogue is from Matthew's account.)

The meaning of Our Saviour's words did not become clear until the whole Gospel story unfolded. But we should notice carefully the shift from singular to plural, a grammatical nicety lost on English speakers but striking to those who examine the underlying Greek text. John addressed Jesus as a mere man, a sinless man, but only a human being. Jesus speaks of “We.” He was the spokesman for the entire Trinity, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. In the Father's heavenly voice, in the Spirit descending as a dove, and in the Incarnate Son thrust below the surface of the Jordan, the entire threefold Godhead was at work.

As the Messianic God-man, our Emmanuel, stood before John, a plan of salvation designed before the foundation of the world was getting under way. “To fulfill all righteousness” mean to carry out the saving purpose by which sinners could be redeemed in a manner consistent with the holiness of God.

St Paul wrote, “He who knew no sin was made sin for us, that in Him we might become the righteousness of God.” In His Baptism, the sinless Jesus allowed Himself to be “numbered with the transgressors,” so that we sinners can be numbered with the righteous. Truly God has fulfilled all righteouess in the righteous status He has lavished on us. LKW