Seventh Sunday after Trinity

From the Bible Illustrations of by Gustave Dore'

Romans 6:19-23 * Mark 8:1-9

The Epistle for this Sunday picks up a bit after the place where we left off just one week ago. This sixth chapter of Romans is all about baptism and what it is, what it means, and what it has done for us. Modern society has a secular version of documents that were part of old church records, two important certificates. We have death certificates and birth certificates; and when we think of baptism, we should think in that order. After all, what is a birth certificate but a secular version of the baptism certificates and the entries from Parish records? In the sacrament of baptism, Saint Paul tells us that our death certificates came first. We are dead with Christ, buried with him in baptism and then raised to new life. This is how we are born again of water and the Spirit, as the Lord taught Nicodemus. In the sixth chapter of Romans you will find your death certificate, and then your birth certificate right after it.

The call we read about today is based on the fact that we are dead to sin, because we entered into Christ’s own death. In the mystery of salvation, Christ died for our sins, the just for the unjust, to reconcile us to God. And St. Paul makes it clear that we somehow, in a spiritual reality beyond our full comprehension, have entered into his death. So, in baptism we are also born to new life, risen from the dead with Christ, empowered by His resurrection to enter even now into “newness of life,” having even now a power from that new life in Christ that will be given to us fully on the day when He comes again in glory, and we rise to immortality never to die again. In the sacrament of baptism we are borrowing from our future, but borrowing without debt from a limitless inheritance that is ours in Christ. It is the opposite of owing interest; the more we borrow from this resurrection life in Christ, the more wealth we lay up and keep forever.

About this very same hope, St. John wrote:

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

In a different way, St. John tells us the same thing as St. Paul: we have this hope and so purify ourselves- how? “Even as He (that is, the Lord) is pure.” The holiness St. Paul calls us to, and the purity that is motivated by hope, as St. John tells us, is Christ’s own holiness and Christ's own purity. We are dead with Him, and then are raised with Him, called to live by the hope placed in us already as people of the resurrection.

This is much more than a Law of commandments. We have the commandments, yes, and we know they have come from God. And, they teach us how to live a righteous life. What the sacrament of baptism has done for us is to give us that other thing that the Law cannot give us, namely grace. The word “grace” is often mistaken simply for “mercy.” Grace is unmerited, yes, because the true meaning of “grace” is gift- from the New Testament Greek word karis, that word from which we get “charisma” or “charismatic”, or “charism.” Charism means gift. “Our creation, preservation and all the blessings of this life” are charisma; they are all gifts. And, our new life in Christ is charisma, that is, a gift. The New Testament ties two things together consistently, and those two things that go hand in hand are charisma and dunamis. That is, grace and power; words that often tell us of the working of the Holy Spirit within the believer just as the Holy Spirit worked with our Lord Himself when He performed his miracles.

This grace that is more than a Law, is more because added to the moral requirement of the Law is the power and grace of the Holy Spirit working within you to live a life worthy of your calling. Not a perfectly sinless life like our Lord lived, no, because although aided with this grace and power, we are yet in our mortal weakness. But, nonetheless this is a life in which we are called to be holy, and given grace and power to become holy; more than a law that tells you to live a holy life, you are lifted to a higher place in which you can “walk in newness of life.” You cannot attain perfection in this life; but you can still walk in the Spirit and experience His working within you, transforming you after the pattern of Christ’s own holiness, just as we look to be transformed after the pattern of His resurrection fully and completely when He comes again to raise the dead and establish everlasting life.

Why are we called to a life of prayer and to the sacramental life within the Church? Because it is in such a sacramental life of prayer, and of hearing the word of the Lord in scripture, that we may be constantly cleansed and renewed in His resurrection life, and where we are aided by keeping the Lord Himself in focus. In baptism we died with Him, and were raised with Him, and therefore, we are in Christ. Your whole identity is established in baptism; no longer part of the dead race called Adam, but of the living Christ, having passed through His death into His life; given grace and power unto holiness. For that is your calling. The Epistles of Paul teach us that the calling of every Christian is the call to become a saint, a holy person. This is the calling of a life marked above all by the virtue of charity, by the holy character of God Himself. Even with the struggles of this world, and the inevitable occasions of failure and sin, the grace given to you empowers you to have this mark of knowing God even now, as we await the fulness of our salvation. The real question is, will you let Him change you? And will I let Him change me?

In the Gospel for today, we see that the people in the wilderness could not feed themselves. In the miracle of the loaves and fishes, in which the Lord once again fulfills the prophecy from Deuteronomy of the prophet like unto Moses, we are taught that He meets our greatest need. The truth is, we all need the food of eternal life, because we cannot keep ourselves alive. The bread they ate that day was miraculous, like the manna in the wilderness that fed the children of Israel for forty years. How can we read of the food He gave them in the wilderness, the desert wilderness in fact, and not think of the food of eternal life that He gives us? Indeed, when St. John recalls the miracle, He lets us know that the Lord used this miracle to teach that He Himself is the Bread of Life, and that to live forever we must eat His flesh and drink His blood. Such talk was a scandal to many of the people, and they never walked with Him again.

It may seem as if they turned from Him because the idea sounded crazy- and yet, they had to know that He spoke of a spiritual reality. He was telling them that their truest and deepest need is for Him, the One Who is God revealed in our own nature. He took our limited human nature into His unlimited Person, our finite nature into His infinite Being, our time into His eternity, our weakness into His strength, our death into His life. Indeed, we must feed on Him in order to live. Christ Himself, as the Lord God Almighty- one with the Father and the Holy Spirit, tells us “I AM the provision that meets your greatest need. You must feed on Me and live forever.” So we have this Blessed Sacrament, the wonderful mystery of the food and drink of eternal life. We feed on Him in this sacrament; and we feed on Him by His word.

Today’s scriptures are about our salvation. What does our Catechism tell us? It tells us that two of the sacraments are “generally necessary for salvation.” Five sacraments appear in the Old Testament (as I can quite easily demonstrate), but the sacraments of Baptism and the Holy Communion of our Lord’s Supper, are sacraments that impart life eternal and that have been established by Christ Himself when He walked this earth (“sacraments of the Gospel” –Art. XXV). We can speak of the Law of commandments, but St. Paul tells us that, as holy and good as the Law is, we need grace in order to live the life that is given in Christ. You are given the new birth from death into life by baptism, having become a new creation in Christ Jesus, and you must feed on the Lord Jesus Christ who meets your greatest need in the wilderness of sin and death that this world is, and by feeding on Him live forever. In every way you have been given every gift you need to rise above sin and death, to be saved from sin and death, to enter into life, and to have life enter into you. You are in Christ, and you receive Him as the food and drink of eternal life. This is grace. This is power.

As you hear His word feed on Him by believing. When you come forward this day toward the altar to receive the Blessed Sacrament, feed on Him by taking Him into your very mouth, and so also feed on Him in your hearts by grace and with thanksgiving.

HOBART, AU: First Traditional Anglican Communion Parish joins the Anglican Catholic Church

reported at V i r t u e O n l i n e

News supplied by Rev'd. David Gould
Written by David W. Virtue

July 15, 2010

The congregation of St. James, a parish of the Gold Coast, along with its associate priest Fr. Derek Pryde have left the Traditional Anglican Communion and its leader Archbishop John Hepworth. They have elected to be received into the Anglican Catholic Church (Original Province).

In a news release to VOL, Fr. David Gould said the Mermaid Beach parish could not agree with the stance taken by TAC to join the Roman Catholic Church.

"TAC's College of Bishops and Primate, Archbishop John Hepworth is seeking to take the TAC into the Roman Catholic Church, by route of the Pope's Apostolic Constitution for Anglicans. This will require re-ordination of those clergy that Rome accepts for re-ordination, and by extension requires acceptance of the 1896 Papal decision that Anglican orders and sacraments are null and void. For orthodox Anglican Catholics this is plain wrong.

"The Church of England as the late Archbishop of Canterbury, Archbishop Fisher said, "We have no faith of our own, but only the Catholic faith of the Catholic Church enshrined in the Catholic creeds.

"The Anglican Catholic Church (Original Province) is the successor of the faith of Archbishops Michael Ramsey, and Geoffrey Fisher, and saintly Anglicans stretching back to St. Augustine of Canterbury.

"In this Diocese under Bishops Brian Iverach Bishop of Australia and New Zealand, (based in Sydney, NSW) and the Rt. Rev. Denis Hodge of New Zealand, TAC faithful will find fellowship, compassion, a desire for unity and a commitment to the revival of orthodox Anglican Catholic Christianity in our great nations, that are crying for the saving love and mercy of God, said Mills."

The Australian and New Zealand Missionary Diocese has accepted the parish of St. James saying that their TAC brothers and sisters who are uncertain about their future are welcome to join. "We look with hope to the Missionary Diocese of Australia & New Zealand of the Anglican Catholic Church (Original Province).

The Most Reverend Mark Haverland is the Archbishop and Metropolitan of the Anglican Catholic Church in the U.S. He is based in Athens, Georgia.

Around the world, TAC priests and faithful are wrestling with what it means to be Anglican.

Priesthood and the Church

Theological response to the C of E's recent decision in General Synod

Now that the Church of England has decided that it has some power to consecrate women as bishops, and plans to do so, it seems appropriate to revisit something I wrote in January 2007.

* * *

In 1995 I was in Chicago at an art museum, enjoying French Impressionism, elongated El Greco paintings, and other masterpieces. But, in a special section I saw an archeological find, several identical little statuettes of a woman’s body, from the neck down to the vagina. A modern Westerner might assume that these ancient, mostly forgotten, people were obsessed with sex and had produced pornography; and this would say more about the modern Westerner than about the people who actually carved these little sculptures. The fact is, they were found in graves, clearly sculpted to be buried with the dead. The most logical thing to conclude is that these statuettes showed the part of a woman’s body most clearly identified with bearing children, giving birth and nourishing infants in order to help assure the safe delivery of the departed spirit into another world. There the dead would be reborn and nourished as spirit children.

In a sense, if I am right about their meaning, these ancient pagans had a clearer understanding of a sacredness of the feminine than modern theologians who want to convert the Church into a religion with a Divine Feminine. Their idea even carries a little bit of the ministry of the Church in its role of administering, as well as proclaiming, salvation. Christians do not worship a goddess, and I have commented on that rather extensively in Revelation and Imagination.

But, the imposition of women trying to fulfill the role of the priesthood, and the new “Feminist Theology” of goddess worship meant to overtake and replace the worship of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost, have come together in time, and among the same apostate sections of Anglicanism, as well as the Church of Sweden, and among the Old Catholics of the Utrecht Union. It is not an accident or mere coincidence that women priests and the new “Divine Feminine” are contemporary with each other.

The Russian Orthodox theologian Dr. John Meyendorff once wrote: “There is no doubt that the Protestant rejection of the veneration of Mary and its various consequences (such as, for example, the really ‘male dominated’ Protestant worship, deprived of sentiment, poetry and intuitive mystery-perception) is one of the psychological reasons which explains the recent emergence of institutional feminism” (of course, it would be neither fair nor accurate to lay this charge against all forms of Protestantism, especially unfair to lay it against catholic Anglicans; but, it is fair to say that the charge is uniquely applicable to certain forms of Protestantism). Eric L. Mascall, building on this, went on to say:

“It was male human nature that the Son of God united to his divine person; it was a female human person who was chosen to be his mother. In no woman has human nature been raised to the dignity which it possesses in Jesus of Nazareth, but to no male person has there been given a dignity comparable to that which Mary enjoys as Theotokos, a dignity which, in the words of the Eastern liturgy, makes her ‘more honourable than the cherubim and beyond comparison more glorious than the seraphim.’…The centrality of womanhood in redemption is shown by the fact that the incarnation itself waited for the courageous and obedient Fiat of Mary (Luke 1: 38).”1

We see that redemption cannot be separated from the feminine presence of Mary, as the only human person to share directly and physically in the miracle of the Incarnation with Jesus Christ; in fact she became His mother; not simply a feminine presence, but a female presence. This distinction is necessary in order to clarify its significance to an age that confuses the meanings of the word “sex” and “gender.” People come in two sexes, male and female, rather than in genders. The Mother of God is a woman. However, the Church is not a woman, but it is the Bride of Christ, and as such is of the feminine gender, though not of the female sex. Jesus is a Man, a member of the male sex in His human nature. But, as God he is of the masculine gender, together with the Father and the Holy Ghost. God, speaking strictly of the Divine Nature shared by the three persons of the Trinity, is “without body, parts or passions.” 2

It is necessary to distinguish between the two natures of Christ, the Nature that is proper to His Divine Person as one with the Father, and His nature that has been taken into the Divine Person of the Logos, an alien nature, that is a nature created taken into the uncreated Person of the Logos; a physical nature taken into a nature of Spirit (and different from every created spirit), and a nature fixed in time taken into eternity. Our redemption necessitates this deifying grace, “The Word was made flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory…” Clearly revealed from the beginning, and more clearly revealed in the name of God as “Father” by Jesus Christ, God is masculine in gender. This makes the creation, and the human race in particular, feminine in relation to Him. Our redemption was not accomplished without the Son of God appearing in the material world by assuming our nature, and this requires both the female sex and the feminine gender as necessary for the accomplishment of God's gracious will.

We see that the Blessed Virgin Mary was the woman, the new Eve, mother of a new humanity in the Last Adam, Jesus Christ, in whom all are made alive. The female sex was necessary for our salvation as God willed and accomplished it, since the redemption that has been revealed by God is not merely a spiritual idea supported by speculation, but a real life drama that involved everything that was part of the Incarnation, including the cross of Christ and his resurrection.

Also, the Church provides our need for the feminine gender. It is the Bride of Christ and the mother of all believers. We need to understand and appreciate the Church as an extension of Christ’s Incarnation. Saint Paul clearly taught that the Church is the Body of Christ in this world (I Corinthians 12), and that in the Church Christ reveals His mind, and within her He acts to give new life and salvation to all who truly believe. Knowing that the Church not only proclaims salvation by the ministry of the Word, but also administers salvation through specific sacraments, and that reconciliation to God involves walking in the light with others in the Church 3, we see the necessity of a sacred, though not Divine, feminine. Mary is the woman who bore the Son of God for our salvation, and the Church is the Bride of Christ within which we are born again and nourished unto life eternal.

The Priesthood

The priesthood of the Church is not simply a function, or job to be done. It is not the possession of any man, even of those who are part of it. Rather, it is the extension of Christ’s own ministry in the world. It is uniquely apostolic, and even to a greater degree when it is taken into the episcopate. The priesthood was established with unique power and authority, and it cannot be assumed or granted by any human power. The Church does not authorize the role of bishops, priests or deacons, because they are sent by Christ.

“Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you. And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost: Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained (John 20:21-23).”

Among the many reasons we give for the all male priesthood (in fact for all three of the sacramental orders) is that it is not the ministry of the men themselves, but that of Jesus Christ working in His Church. When the priests forgive sins it is the extension of the ministry of Jesus Christ, who gives this power unto men (Matt. 9:8). And, when they stand at the altar and offer the Eucharist, it is Christ who says, “this is my Body…this is my Blood.” The priesthood belongs to Jesus Christ, not to the Church as such (II Corinthians 5:20). It belongs to the bridegroom, and represents Him in an exclusive sense not shared by any layperson, no matter how gifted and holy. Furthermore, it is not the privileged position of men who belong to the priestly order, and it is not about their desires or status; it is, rather, for the benefit of the Bride of Christ, and the gifts of the priesthood are given for the salvation, pastoral care and edification of all who are baptized into the Body of Christ, as reborn children of the Church.

At this point we must teach that the priesthood is not only the ministry of the altar. To reduce anything to one of its main functions at the expense of its entirety is a serious mistake. When the Archbishops of England wrote Saepius Officio, they made it very clear that they agreed with the teaching of Apostolicae Curae, published under the papal imprimatur of Pope Leo XIII, regarding the administration of Eucharistic sacrifice as unique to the priestly office. But, they found fault with the papal document for failing even so much as to mention the pastoral ministry of the priesthood. A priest always minsters alter Christus, not only when he offers the Eucharist. And, this gives a special sacramental charism to his teaching, his advice, and his fatherly love for the people of God. (as a much earlier Pope, St. Gregory the Great, had written in his book Regulae Pastoralis, i.e. Pastoral Care).

An individual priest may fail to exercise all the gifts of his office, but he does not lose the sacred character implanted in him. So we do not agree with those who say that the priesthood is only about the ministry at the altar and nothing else. Rather, as the ministry of the Church extends the grace of the Incarnation among mankind, the priesthood extends the graces of the Incarnation among the people of the Church, and does so at all times by the sacramental charism of the indelible character added to the man who is ordained to the priesthood. In St. Paul's First Epistle to St. Timothy, the third chapter, we learn that the nature of pastoral care that is charismatically present in the priesthood is fatherly: "For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?" (v.5)

Indeed, laypeople may function as teachers and prophets, and also carry on a kind of priestly ministry as those who are called to be saints. The Sacrament of Confirmation gives each member of the Body of Christ not only a special place, but a special function due to the manifold gifts of the Holy Spirit. The ordained priesthood, however, belongs to the Bridegroom in a special way that makes it the embassy of Christ among His own people. For this reason, among the others we have cited, it is reserved to men who are called and ordained, and only to them.

1) For these quotations see Whatever Happened to the Human Mind? E.L. Mascall, 1980, London, chapter 5, Sexuality and God.
2) From Article I of the Thirty-Nine Articles

3) In the Fifth chapter of the Book of Acts, Saint Peter made it clear that to lie to the Church is to lie to the Holy Ghost (which caused the death of a greedy and dishonest couple).

Fr. Wells' bulletin inserts

TRINITY VII

The account of Jesus' feeding a multitude is read as the Gospel of the day three times during the liturgical year: on Lent IV, the Sunday Next Before Advent, and today. If that seems repetitious, it is remarkable that this is one of very few miracles which are related in all four Gospels. And for good measure, the very brief Gospel of Mark (which we read today) contains two very similar stories, a feeding of 5,000 in chapter 6 and another feeding of 4,000 in chapter 8, our Gospel lesson today.

Because these stories are so much alike, skeptical scholars have speculated that Mark was through forgetfulness just repeating himself. But on the other hand, Jesus repeated His miracles many times. For example, we have no fewer than three episodes in which He raised the dead to life. So there is no reason why a feeding miracle could not occur more than once.

It is interesting that every single instance of this miracle repeats the same four verbs, “He took, ... gave thanks, ... brake, ... and gave.” We find the identical formula in the account of the institution of the Holy Eucharist. Look on page 80 in the Prayer Book (1928, American*). There is more than one way of explaining how this miracle is related to the Sacrament of the Altar. Did the Eucharist shape the way the Gospels tell the story? Or did the miracle prepare for and point the way to the Eucharist itself?

But the main point of this miracle, the reason why it occurs over and over in the NT and in our liturgy, is the surprising abundance of God's grace in a totally unexpected place. Every single time this happens, the Evangelist (that is the technical term for a Gospel-writer) is at pains to tell us of how the left-overs were gathered up. A puritan interpretation would teach us that we should not waste food. But more likely, the point is the amplitude, bounty, and spendthrift generosity which God lavishes on His beloved people. “I have compassion on the multitude!”

And we must not overlook the place where this miracle occurred. It is a wilderness miracle, reminiscent of the 40 years wandering of the people of Israel, who were blessed with bread from heaven. Jesus performed this miracle in a place not unlike the place in which he was tempted to make stones into bread to satisfy His own hunger. There were many poor and hungry people throughout the towns and villages of Galilee and Judea; the entire area was often wracked by famine. But who were fed? Only those who go out to a hard place to see and to hear and to be with Jesus, the One who is the bread of life. Only those who take that risk are the ones who will be fed.

“Blessed are those who hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled.”
LKW
___________________________

* Fr. Wells refers to p. 80 of the 1928 edition of the Book of Common Prayer as published by the Episcopal Church in the United States, and which continues to be published by the Anglican Parishes Association for the Anglican Catholic Church, and by the American Church Union for the Province of Christ the King. For those who have no copy available of this American Prayer Book, here is the content of page 80:

¶ When the Priest, standing before the Table, hath so ordered the Bread and Wine, that he may with the more readiness and decency break the Bread before the People, and take the Cup into his hands, he shall say the Prayer of Consecration, as followeth.

ALL glory be to thee, Almighty God, our heavenly Father, for that thou, of thy tender mercy, didst give thine only Son Jesus Christ to suffer death upon the Cross for our redemption; who made there (by his one oblation of himself once offered) a full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice, oblation, and satisfaction, for the sins of the whole world; and did institute, and in his holy Gospel command us to continue, a perpetual memory of that his precious the death and sacrifice, until his coming again: For in the night in which he was betrayed, (a) he took Bread; and when he had given thanks, (b) he brake it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, Take, eat, (c) this is my Body, which is given for you; Do this in remembrance of me. Likewise, after supper, (d) he took the Cup; and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of this; for (e) this is my Blood of the New Testament, which is shed for you, and for many, for the remission of sins; Do this, as oft as ye shall drink it, in remembrance of me.

WHEREFORE O Lord and heavenly Father, according to the institution of thy dearly beloved Son our Saviour Jesus Christ, we, thy humble servants, do celebrate and make here before thy Divine Majesty, with these thy holy gifts, which we now offer unto thee, the memorial thy Son hath commanded...

[p81...us to make; having in remembrance his blessed passion and precious death, his mighty resurrection and glorious ascension; rendering unto thee most hearty thanks for the innumerable benefits procured unto us by the same. etc.]

A few positive words

The following is part of an email I received from a bishop of the ACC. I think this positive evaluation worth passing on, and more to the point, completely accurate. By God's grace, this is an overview of what our present is and what our future promises to be.

"The Continuing Church had and has its problems. We also have over the last 30 years built hundreds of congregations, and dozens of those are strong parishes with attractive buildings, plausible liturgy, well-educated clergy, serious ministry, and works of mercy. What was once dismissed as a '1928 Prayer Book Burial Society' is alive and multi-generational and growing. We have had, and still have, too much division - as do Rome, the Orthodox, and everybody else. But our divisions, far from multiplying, are reversing. There are significant unities among various Continuing bodies, and they are increasing. There is a good deal of cordiality across ecclesial lines, and that is also increasing. There is no good reason for pessimism and much reason for very great optimism.

"The TAC is jumping ship and abandoning the Affirmation and Anglicanism as our movement is palpably succeeding. That loss of nerve is a tragedy for TAC folk, who could have poped years ago and consciously chose not to do so. However, from that tragedy comes a simplification of the Continuing Church scene...and the opening of serious ecumenical opportunities for the remnants of the TAC that will choose not to become Roman Catholic - a remnant that will prove to be a majority, I think."

All I can think to add is, Amen.

Betrayed

After a period of thirty-three years, going back to The Affirmation of St. Louis in 1977, the Continuing Church has had its ups and downs. It has suffered infighting, civil wars and secessions, and various other divisions. Most of the divisions have been about personalities because of men suffering from "purple fever" who wanted power.1 The only division from those days that I see as based on principle was that of Bishop Doren early on, because he believed that the Continuing Church had been hijacked by one party of Anglicans, the Anglo-Catholics, and he could not agree.2

Nonetheless, after several years and much cleansing, it is clear that the Concordat between Bishop Doren's descendants, namely the United Episcopal Church North America (UECNA) with the Anglican Province of Christ the King (APCK) and the Anglican Catholic Church (ACC), is a concordat between Anglicans of like Faith who are determined to work out whatever details are necessary. A new respect for Classic Anglicanism, one that makes room for all who adhere to The Affirmation of St. Louis, including all who like their worship either High, Low or Mid (or Mid-High, or Mid-Low) has been developing in part, we like to think, because of The Continuum. We are finding a kind of unity that even the old Anglican Communion could not produce in its best days. The other big house on the block, however, the Traditional Anglican Communion (TAC) has no interest in unity with Continuing Anglicans.

We have traced TAC Romeward roaming for quite some time, especially since their various official organs gave a terribly misinformed spin to Anglicanorum Coetibus even before it was released, and for the first several months after its publication. Now, however, the bishops of the American branch of the TAC, the Anglican Church in America (ACA) are faced with a very divided response among the people they had thought, until recently, they could simply herd into Roman Catholicism. Meanwhile, in England the TAC faces its biggest obstruction as coming from the Roman Catholic Church (RCC) itself.

No wonder the present track of that blog we call The Former Anglican (known by the misnomer, The Anglo-Catholic) is concentrating on the choice to be made between the Church of England and Rome. News about the recent General Synod, and the inevitable consecration of women "bishops" to lady it over the people, have produced only those two options. The posted articles treat the solution for C of E Anglicans, of catholic conviction, as Roman Catholicism through the --as of yet unformed-- ordinariates. The idea of suggesting that the Continuing Church, based on The Affirmation of St. Louis, offers a solution worthy at least of consideration, has not been brought up at all. If the TAC considers itself to be, in any way whatsoever, a Continuing Anglican Church body, and if the Orlando blog pretends that it holds to the "Anglo" in its misnomer, then this absolute Rome or bust! line is a betrayal, spurning the "spirit of St. Louis" and the spirit of '77.

What it tells us is simply this: To those Anglicanorum Coetibus enthusiasts The Affirmation of St. Louis, with all of the doctrinal standards of the Book of Common Prayer, is dead and ready to be buried. In place of Anglicanism they hold to what they have called Anglican Patrimony, which, by their definition, is a far cry from the real thing. Boiled down to its actual ingredients, what they term Anglican Patrimony is nothing more than Elizabethan English and classier music than most RCC parishes have at present. The substance is missing.

This false choice, as laid out for the English Anglicans, is tantamount to saying that catholic minded Anglicans in the United States have only two real choices: The modern Episcopal "Church," or the RCC. Indeed, if one strips away the veneer, that is what the ACA bishops were saying only a few months ago, though more delicately phrased, slightly. But, they found that their people will not suffer such betrayal of their principles so easily (and we hope, finally, not at all).

Of course, what else could we have expected from a church body led by clergy whose education, for the most part, has been little more than brainwashing? They reject everything truly Anglican, but speak of "Anglican Patrimony"-- you know, all the thees and thous and a few beseeches (garsh! if that ain't real Anglican with all them pretty soundin' words)--and pretend that Rome, by accepting that, and maybe even preserving it, is saving our heritage (so, what would we need Shakespeare for?). What they do not get is that any actual substance from real Anglican Patrimony is unwelcome in Rome.

And, what about the clergy whose "education" has been a program of brainwashing? These are the kind who have taken a razor blade to the Book of Common Prayer and have removed the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion, mainly because they cannot understand the foreign language, English, in which they were written; and, indeed, really, they cannot understand it. Now, the Stand-firmers and other Reasserters have sort of done the same thing, only from the opposite perspective. For, what they have done is to remove the Articles so as to transform them into a stand alone feature, removed from the genuinely Catholic context of the Book of Common Prayer, so that their meaning may be perverted and twisted to the furthest degree of misinformed imagination. The Reasserters, have never removed them physically by cutting them out; but, they have removed them mentally, to stand alone, where they may be converted into nothing more than a Reformed document in the Zwinglian sense.

But, the brainwashed clergy, of whom I speak, are a purely modern (or post modern, if you must) new breed of so-called Anglo-Catholics, who know the Articles no better than the Reasserters do, and actually see them the same way (that is, as Zwinglian). They have been taught the following equation, drummed into their heads until they spew it back as their own conviction:

Anglican + Protestant = bad.

The brainwashing is designed to convince them of the following Universal "Truths" that are somehow quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum est, even though they were unknown to anybody until the mid to late Twentieth Century. Supposedly, they form the basis for the Oxford Movement, even though the great Anglo-Catholic writers, from the Oxford Movement on, may be quoted in abundance to refute them-- oh the joys of Doctrinal Development.

1. All things "Catholic" are defined strictly by Ultramontane Papists.

With the help of this thinking, one need not study the Bible nor the Church Fathers. Carefully selected and provided sample quotations will suffice. One may pretend that the great Anglican thinkers (including Cranmer) never proved to be the fine Patristic Scholars that, in fact, their writings prove them to have been.

2. The highest duty of a priest is to celebrate according to all the most minute details of Ritual Notes.

Forget worship in spirit and in truth, compared to this much much higher priority. Forget pastoral duties too. It's all about correctly stepping in time in the keenest duds, a performance like Broadway never saw. Boy, won't they be the envy of RC parishes every which where!

3. Our Anglican Fathers were heretics who somehow gave us a splendid liturgy, fully valid, and their patrimony is still, somehow, a great treasure for the whole Church Catholic, despite their obvious and embarrassing heresies.

Never mind that a tree must bear its own fruit. Never mind taking the time to read the great early Anglican writers. Rome says they were heretics, and bothering to read all that olde English is too much work anyway.

4. It's a priest's duty to deliver whimpy, effeminate seven-minute homilies instead of preaching with power and conviction.

Contrary to this idea, I quote a great man whom I remember as a fine example for all Christian clergy: “How much more our words would burn as we preach . . . if, before preaching, we prayed for five minutes to the Holy Spirit for Pentecostal fire; if we kept the scriptures ever near us, that we might gird ourselves with their truth when mounting the pulpit.” Those words were written by Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen 3-for all you youngsters who don't know, a dog of a papist but an ok guy anyway.

I could go on with more examples; but, methinks you have the idea. Is it any wonder that the principles of The Affirmation of St. Louis have been betrayed? With clergy like that, who needs detractors?
___________________________

1. However, most of the divisions that followed the 1978 Denver Consecrations were among those who already had divided from what emerged as the major jurisdictions, and so their never ending strife should not surprise us, nor its rippling effects as they part from each other, treating division as the cure all for what ails. To be blunt, they just don't count, anymore than breakaway sects ever have counted to the Church. Freedom of Religion guarantees that we will continue to see all sorts of prelates and heirarchs with their own "Continuing Church," perhaps holding services in their own cathedral/garage (cathedral on Sundays), with their whole jurisdiction in attendance: Their bishop, Molly and he and baby makes three, along with Spot the family dog, and one or two very elderly folks who drive from out of town every once in a while, constitute the whole church. It is not fair to lump these in with the Continuing Church, as Anglicans Online does. Before Anglicanorum Coetibus came out, when I still entertained hope for unity that included the TAC, I wrote an essay that you may find by clicking here. It balances out the facts.

2. I am not taking a stand on this one way or the other. I say it was, I am told, his perspective.

3. Fulton J. Sheen, The Priest Is Not His Own, San Fransisco Ignatius Press, republished in 2005 (originally 1961).

Sixth Sunday after Trinity

The Epistle. Rom. vi. 3-11
The Gospel. St. Matt. v. 20-26

In Mere Christianity, C.S. Lewis said that anyone who likes the Sermon on the Mount would like being hit in the face with ball peen hammer. If you thought the whole sermon was simply those opening Beatitudes, then Lewis' remark can't make sense to you. If you have read all three chapters that record this sermon, however, that is Matthew chapters 5,6 & 7, you know exactly what C.S. Lewis meant. Frankly, the Sermon on the Mount is not there for you to like, in the emotional sense of liking a thing. If it moves you to fear of God, to an honest evaluation of your own soul, and repentance from all known sin, then you understand it.

The Beatitudes, beginning with "Blessed are the poor in spirit" and going on from there, were somewhat repeated by the Lord on another occasion we call the Sermon on the Plain, recorded in the sixth chapter of Luke. In that sermon, Jesus patterned His words after the Blessings and Curses of the Law. To understand that, we need to go back to the days of Moses. We find, in the Law of Moses that is, the Torah, these words:

And it shall come to pass, when the LORD thy God hath brought thee in unto the land whither thou goest to possess it, that thou shalt put the blessing upon mount Gerizim, and the curse upon mount Ebal. Are they not on the other side Jordan, by the way where the sun goeth down, in the land of the Canaanites, which dwell in the champaign over against Gilgal, beside the plains of Moreh? For ye shall pass over Jordan to go in to possess the land which the LORD your God giveth you, and ye shall possess it, and dwell therein. (Deut. 11:29-31)

These shall stand upon mount Gerizim to bless the people, when ye are come over Jordan; Simeon, and Levi, and Judah, and Issachar, and Joseph, and Benjamin: And these shall stand upon mount Ebal to curse; Reuben, Gad, and Asher, and Zebulun, Dan, and Naphtali. (Deut. 27:12,13)

The blessings were pronounced on those who would obey God, and the curses on those who would rebel against God. Centuries later, Jesus Christ in his role as the Prophet like unto Moses, (Deut. 18:15f) spoke first the Blessings, or Beatitudes. In place of the curses, he spoke words of severe warning, the Woes. All of that makes sense to me, as one who has studied the Bible seriously for decades. The New Covenant Lawgiver following the pattern, as clearly he does in Luke, is easy to understand. But, as I observe the Sermon on the Mount, recorded by St. Matthew, at first it seems to be missing the Woes. The pattern of the Blessings on Mount Gerizim and the Curses on Mount Ebal, more perfectly revealed as the Beatitudes and the Woes, does not appear in Matthew, for the Woes are missing-or, are they?

I think it is wise to see the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew as beginning with the Blessings, the Beatitudes, and then the bulk of what remains throughout chapters 5,6 & 7 constitute a large text full of the Woes. The Sermon on the Mount stands as a sharp rebuke to sin. It is the most terrifying passage in all of the Bible, the long text in which Jesus Christ tells us of the consequences of unrepentant sin, the penalty that everyone of us deserves, mentioning at times the danger of Hell. In the Sermon on the Mount, furthermore, He makes it clear just how high God's standard of holiness really is, and how utterly helpless we are to meet it. After all, who has never lusted? Who has never been unreasonably angry? Who has never spoken an unkind word? Based on the Sermon on the Mount, I know for a fact that I have earned only one penalty: Eternal damnation, that is, Hell.

Hell, in the original Greek New Testament, is the word Gehenna, a simplified form of the Hebrew for the Valley of ben Hinnom. The Valley of ben Hinnom was the place where backslidden Israelites had offered their own children to Moloch (or Baal-the same false god). By the time of Jesus it had been the national dump for hundreds of years. The fires that never go out, the worm that never dies, or never seems to die because worms are always there eating the garbage, reinforced the image brought on by the name of the place, Gehenna, that it was the dump. The warning against the fires of Hell is a warning that unrepentant sinners face being thrown away, burned as trash is burned. It is a warning against the danger of being cast out forever.

And, the opening of today's Gospel reading, taken from this very Sermon on the Mount, makes our hopes sound all the more elusive: "Except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven." And, just in case anyone may begin to measure his own righteousness against that of those very religious, upstanding Orthodox Jewish people called the Pharisees, Jesus crushes our self-confidence: "I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire." I don't know about you; but, that alone does it for me. I look back on my life, if not the last week or day, and see no way to hold up my head as more righteous than anybody.

Why would our Lord begin his preaching by utterly devastating us? He has, in this sermon, judged and found us guilty, for His very word has judged each one of us. We are all convicted as sinners. If ever we despised our own Prayer of Humble Access, we can do so no longer. For, I know of one man who reacted to the words, "we are not worthy so much as to gather up the crumbs under thy table" with an angry protest: "Indeed, we are worthy!" he said. But, when I read the Sermon on the Mount, I know that, as St. Paul said, "in me, that is, in my flesh, dwelleth no good thing," and that I most certainly am not worthy to gather those crumbs that fall from the Master's table.

The Sermon on the Mount gives us, however, one ray of hope. Significantly, and crucially, that one ray of hope lies outside of each of us. In fact, that hope is found only in God.

Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust. For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same? And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so? Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect. (Matt.5:44-48)

How can a commandment to be perfect offer hope? Hasn't Jesus made it even worse for us? But, look closely at this perfection of our Heavenly Father: "Love your enemies" He says. Why? The answer is, "That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust. For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye?...Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect." This perfection he speaks of is the perfection of love, specifically the love we call charity (caritas, agape-I Cor. 13). Jesus shows us, even while diagnosing to us our mortal illness of Original Sin, and our own helplessness, that God loves even His enemies. Frankly, being the sinners that we are, Jesus means that the Father loves you and me, and does good to us.

Of course, the whole point of Christ's coming, as we know from the larger picture of his ministry and teaching, and most of all from his death on the cross and his resurrection, is the love of God to save those of us who, born in sin, were His enemies from the start. As St. Paul would put it, "But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us." (Rom. 5:8) Today's Epistle lets us know that God has done for us what we never could do for ourselves. We could never attain a level of righteousness that pleases Him; but Christ could and did. We have been baptized into Christ, we have died to sin, and entered a new life by being, simply put, "in Christ."

So, we learn two things: 1) Christ has paid in full (John 19:30 τελέω ) the price of all human sin, the price of your sin and mine, and 2) God sees us in Christ. The old prayers of the Psalmist come to life for us: "Behold, O God our shield, and look upon the face of thine anointed;" (Psalm 84:9) and, "turn not away the face of thine anointed." (Psalm 132:10) The face of His anointed, that is His Messiah or Christ, is our shield. Because we are in Christ, and because the Father will not turn away the face of His Christ (anointed), He accepts us, "To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved." (Eph. 1:6) We ought to be the objects of wrath, but in Christ, as God has willed in eternity, we are the objects of mercy and love.

At the Bible Study Wednesday evening, we talked a bit about the baptism of John the Baptist. When John's baptism to repentance was taking place, sinners repented and were forgiven. But, one Man stepped into the water not to lay down his sins, for he had none. He stepped into the River Jordan to pick up the sins of all repentant sinners everywhere: And so, about Him and Him alone, the Father said "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well-pleased." The Father is not well-pleased with any other human being, for no man was found worthy, in heaven or in earth, to break the seals and open the book, except the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Lion who appeared as a Lamb that had been slain (Rev. 5). God's only begotten Son, incarnate as a man, alone pleased the Father, and that Son, alone of all mankind, paid the penalty and full price for the rest of us.

But, to see this takes humility. Our Book of Common Prayer does not flatter us, and does not lie to us. Some people have decided that religion is a self-help program. Be warned; if your idea of the Christian life is some sort of self-improvement program, you are in grave danger of missing the whole point. Unless and until you see yourself as hopeless without God's perfection of love and mercy; unless and until you see yourself as unworthy to eat the crumbs that fall from His table, thus rejecting any illusion about some righteousness of your own; unless and until you see that only Christ has pleased the Father, and that you have not, this whole liturgy we call Holy Communion, and the whole message we call the Gospel, is entirely closed to your understanding.

The words of this service were written to affirm the truth of the Bible, that each one of us needs that love and mercy of God revealed in Christ, that is extended to us because we are in Christ, because we could not save ourselves. This service was written to give each of us a way to confess and pray that truth, saying it to God with gratitude. Let us then offer Eucharist, that is, good thanksgiving, the offering that is sanctified by the Holy Spirit.
__________

If you had any doubt that baptism is new birth, today's Epistle reading clears it up. Spiritually, your life began when you were raised from the death of sin by new birth in Christ. St. Paul's words are not metaphorical; he does not speak of baptism making us dead to sin and alive to God in some allegorical way, using poetic license to mean something else. He means this as a spiritual reality, a fact, beyond our comprehension but in our experience. Only through faith can we become aware of the newness of life in Christ. Some people, after baptism, may resist knowing this new life in Christ, becoming aware of it only after a specific point in time. Others may refuse ever to know it, living as nominal Christians, or walking away completely, but, either way, shutting out the light of Christ. But, the fact of your new birth in baptism is an objective one; some believe that a later conversion was new birth, because the experience was so real. In fact, what awakened in them was faith, adding a subjective cognizance to the objective fact of having been baptized into Christ.

"GAY" ROMAN CATHOLIC SEMINARIES

On his blog, Anglican Catholic Priest, Fr. John Roddy has written:

"In the interest of full disclosure to Anglicans considering accepting the terms of conversion to Roman Catholicism outlined in Anglicorum Coeitibus I am posting excerpts and links to two articles one from News Week and another from Ignatius Press. The one in News Week is approving of the capture of the Roman Seminaries by organized leftists homosexuals. The one from Ignatius Press is an account from a young man who endured the "gay" atmosphere that was imposed on the seminary."

You may read the information posted as "GAY" ROMAN CATHOLIC SEMINARIES by clicking on the title.

Fr. Wells' bulletin inserts

TRINITY VI

In Romans 6:3--11, our first reading today, Paul was grappling with a hard question which might not be obvious if the passage is read out of context. At Romans 6:1, he brought up an argument his opponents had hurled at him,

"Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound?"

In the first five chapters of this monumental epistle (Paul's longest and deepest by far), he had set forth the Gospel of Justification by Faith, God's free pardon of hell-deserving sinners, a pardon totally irrespective of our legal status, rather a pardon grounded exclusively in His mercy and love. Such a Gospel quickly makes nonsense of all conventional religion, now as well as then. No wonder that the rich young ruler went away sorrowful. Not only was he told to sell all that he had, but moreover, all his legal righteousness was worthless in God's sight.

Such a radical Gospel (in sinful ears, downright insulting!) in what Paul termed a "reprobate mind" (a mind corrupted by wickedness) seemed to constitute a temptation in itself. If God is willing to forgive sin freely, then why not continue to sin freely? This is almost like the Prodigal Son who expects his Father to send him a regular allowance, as he continues to reside in the "far country" of depraved living.

As warped as such a viewpoint is, it has an evil sort of logic about it. In ancient times this was known as the Antinomian heresy. In last 20th century this re-emerged under the name of "situation ethics."

Paul refuted this with a two-stage argument. In the first place, we Christians are baptized. This sacrament for Paul makes a real difference in the life of a Christian, a mile-stone which divides our lives into "before" and "after," as surely as the Incarnation divided all time into "before Christ" and "in the year of our Lord." It is illogical for a person to live after Baptism as he lived before it. Baptism in the New Testament was so radical a change that it was the sign of regeneration---new birth into a new life and new life-style.

Secondly, Baptism is the sign, the beginning, and the down-payment of our resurrection. Did you notice that part of today's Epistle is quoted in the Easter Canticle? "Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more..." Paul clinches his argument, however, in these words: "As Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life." The Resurrection itself is therefore the ultimate argument for moral living! Christians cannot continue to live comfortably with sin. We have a risen Saviour who shares His resurrection life with us. Death has no dominion over Him and sin has no more dominion over us. LKW

***

If one asks the average church-goer, "What is your favorite Scripture passage," the answer will be either the 23rd Psalm or the Sermon on the Mount. The second answer will be somewhat fuzzy. Many people imagine that the Sermon on the Mount consists only of a few verses at the beginning of Matthew 5 commonly called the Beatitudes, beginning "Blessed are the poor in spirit." The Sermon on the Mount actually is a much longer passage in St. Matthew's Gospel, consisting of chapters 5, 6 and 7 in their entirety.

Today's Gospel lesson (Matt. 5:20--26) is a small portion of the whole discourse. (It hardly seems small when we begin to chew on it!) As the the Prayer Book gives it to us, this reading combines the final verse of one section with the opening verses of the next. This was no mistake, but an artful way of showing the link between two thought units.

Our reading begins with a striking text which makes us uncomfortable: "Except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven." This is truly scarey: Our blessed Lord Himself is clearly talking about the real possibility of being excluded, shut out, eternally lost. His demand here seems overwhelming. The scribes and Pharisees, whatever their faults may have been, were truly righteous people, at least as the word is used here.

They fasted twice in the week. Are we asked to fast three times or more? They gave tithes of all that they had. Does Jesus require 15 or 20%? This is one of those texts known as a "hard saying," since it is hard to understand and once understood even harder to live with.

The following verses clear things up somewhat. It is not the quantity of our righteousness but its quality. As impressive as the old righteousness was (and God forbid that we ever belittle a kind of righteousness which Jesus praised), it was all based on "how much is really required of me? how little can I get by with?" The new Gospel righteousness which Jesus demands is a righteousness proportional to God's love and mercy exhibited in the Cross. Jesus Himself went on to say, "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your heavenly Father is perfect" (Matt 5:48). As the old Gospel hymn states it, "I gave my life for thee; what hast thou given for me?"

Not that this new righteousness is a price we must pay; not that we buy our way into the kingdom with any righteousness of our own! As the Beatitudes should have taught us, the kingdom is purely God's gift. As one commentator as written, "Entrance into the kingdom is God's gift; but to belong to the kingdom means to follow Jesus' teaching." LKW

Francis Hall Dogmatic Theology

For those interested in reading a work by one of the foremost Anglo-Catholic theologians of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, all ten volumes of Francis Hall's Dogmatic Theology are available online here.

Symptomatic

Writing for the mis-named blog, The Anglo-Catholic (known here as The Former Anglican blog), a Pastoral Provision priest who pastors an "Anglican Use" Roman Catholic parish, Fr. Christopher G. Phillips, the pastor of Our Lady of the Atonement Catholic Church in San Antonio, Texas, has offered an apologetic for his point of view. Oddly enough, the piece is titled, Then. Now. Not Much Difference. I wish I had said that-in fact, I did (but, when I said it, it was, apparently, not very nice).

Fr. Phillips' little piece is symptomatic of the kind of thinking that prevails among those who are "shocked, shocked" that any Anglicans, including those who have been for years committed to The Affirmation of St. Louis, would fail to jump at the opportunity to become Roman Catholics. As such, it is instructive to us of the kind of reasoning that exists among those who are enthusiastic about Anglicanorum Coetibus, and the lack of realism in their logic. About his conversion in 1983, when he led a congregation of Episcopalians and tried to take them into the Roman Catholic Church, Fr. Phillips wrote:

"What was a fairly healthy number of potential converts dwindled down to eighteen people in those last few months before our reception and my ordination. I had no idea there were those in our little group who had been harboring some rather anti-Roman feelings, and when the time drew closer to 'sign on the dotted line,' they bolted, and tried to affect a scorched-earth policy in their wake. It was downright depressing at the time, and when I heard those who stayed behind chortling and saying, 'We told you it would never work,' I had never felt so discouraged."

The line "We told you it would never work," of course, is not relevant. By the low standard of numbers, it may well have worked; what is on the the table now could become large, for all we know, at some future date. Or, not, as the case may be- we shall see. Whether or not anyone "told you so" is hardly worth pointing out. The issues of truth and of principles are what matters, not whether or not something has "worked" by anyone's standards.

Having no firsthand knowledge of his 1983 congregation, I cannot say what constitutes "anti-Roman feelings" from the author's point of view. But, I can say that it does not take anti-Roman feelings, and certainly not feelings of hostility, to prevent individuals from wanting to join the Roman Catholic Church. It can be something as honest as a difference of belief, and therefore a sincere response to the demands of conscience.

The position taken by Fr. Phillips appears to be that the claims of the Roman See have an obvious rightness that only a cold heart could withstand. In fact, the claims of Rome constitute the prosecution, that is, the charge that everyone else is wrong, beginning with the entire body of churches under all the other Patriarchates in 1054, which became known as the Orthodox Church. The prosecution has the burden of proof under our law; and Rome has failed to persuade us of its case. We have reasonable doubts about their claim against everyone else.

It will not suffice, therefore, to categorize dissent from Rome's position as "anti-Roman." We are not persuaded by the case they have made against the rest of us. Why are they anti-Anglican? Why are they anti-Orthodox? Why are they anti-Protestant? It is they who claim to be the One True Church, an obvious statement against the rest of us. In fairness, we point out that Orthodoxy has brought a counter-prosecution against everybody else. This is a great burden that both of the two One True Churches have carried as a basic dogma for centuries. But, we stand with St. Paul: "And the eye cannot say unto the hand, I have no need of thee: nor again the head to the feet, I have no need of you." (I Cor. 12:21) They have no need of us, they think.

Fr. Phillips wrote this as well, thus revealing some unreality that clouds the minds the Anglicanorum Coetibus enthusiasts:

"To those who recoil at 'becoming Roman Catholics' – for heaven’s sake, why? To be in the same visible Church as are the great saints throughout the ages, as well as such men as Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI is a marvelous blessing!"

How telling it is that he can write "for heaven’s sake, why?" not as a genuine question, but as a hypothetical question. He means, "What? Can there be a serious answer? Why, shouldn't every Anglican jump at the chance to be a Roman Catholic?" Clearly, it has not dawned on Fr. Phillips and company, that his title, "Then. Now. Not much difference" answers what ought to have been, for him, a genuine question. If every Anglican was eager to become a Roman Catholic we would have done so already. Nothing has stood in the way.

After all, anyone who believes the claims of Rome has no choice, and never has. Once a person believes all that stuff, it is no longer about what he likes or dislikes; it is not about Elizabethan English (which they seem to confuse with the substance of our Liturgy), or married clergy. If a person believes Rome is right, but has not joined their big denomination already, such a person obviously has no real interest in obtaining eternal life.

Why? indeed

If only "for heaven’s sake, why?" had been a real question, we could answer it.

We could point out that we cannot accept the papal claims, inasmuch as they are not and never were the clear and obvious meaning of Scripture. If the claims of Rome were so evidently true, Rome would not have been alone, among all the Patriarchates, to have believed its own advertising in 1054. In the Orthodox view, Rome left the Church at that time just as certainly as Monophysite churches (or those so accused) left the Church after the Council of Chalcedon.

Nonetheless, Fr. Phillips confuses the Roman Catholic Church with "the same visible Church [of] the great saints throughout the ages." What a terrible charge to lay on everybody else. The rest of the Church is every bit as visible as they are. And, this Roman claim includes an exclusive claim on all saints who came before 1054, as if they know with certainty that the Apostles and Martyrs of the ancient Church thought of themselves, quite obviously, as loyal papists. This exclusive claim also carries a rejection of a fact we know beyond doubt: There are plenty of saints who did not and do not believe the claims of Rome, very many of whom have died as martyrs.

The answer to Fr. Phillips' "gee, golly, why not?" position has been given in countless theological statements over the last several centuries. We could speak of many writings outside of Anglicanism, such as the Augsburg Confession (which is worth reading for its theological clarity and historical importance). But, let us stick to Anglican statements, for purposes of countering the specific target of his essay.

Fr. Phillips writes as if there were no Thirty-Nine Articles that summarize with clarity the mind of the English Reformers about the Gospel, Articles that free the minds of readers from Medieval corruptions and abuses so that the light of Christ may break through. He writes as if the Caroline Divines had never written a word. He writes as if the Oxford Movement and the Anglo-Catholic contemporaries of J.H. Newman had agreed with his rejection of their portion of the Church, as if they all had joined him. But, they, Pusey and all, remained Anglican.

He writes as if Hall, Dix and Mascall, as friendly to Rome as possible, and very much in agreement on more issues than most other Anglicans ever have been, had followed Newman in his conversion. But, they lived and died Anglicans. Indeed, the so-called Anglican Use Society tries to confuse modern readers about this essential fact: None of them became a Roman Catholic. And, they have tried to add C.S. Lewis to the list of those who somehow meant to, but never got around to, accepting Roman Catholicism. The fact is, they did not join it; they remained Anglican one and all. The Anglican (?) Use Roman Catholics suggest that all of these great Anglican thinkers really wanted to be Roman Catholics, as if anything could have prevented them from "converting" if they ever had meant to do so. In fact, in their writings, each gave his reasons for not becoming Roman Catholic, never stating that any one reason stood out as a single issue.

The reasons we are not interested in joining the Roman Catholic Church have been stated over and over again as matters of doctrinal conviction.

We do not accept their papal claims. We see no reason to regard the Bishop of Rome as possessing Primatial status that gives him Universal authority over all Christians. We find their doctrine of Papal Infallibility to be incoherent at best, and to the degree it possess any coherence, a modern innovation as groundless as the "ordination" of women.

We find their peculiar doctrines of Purgatory and the Treasury of Merits to stand in sharp contrast to the Gospel itself, in which we see that Jesus Christ, fully God and fully man, the one Mediator between God and men, has paid in full (John 19:30 τελέω ) the price of all human sins. Their doctrine contradicts the meaning of those words, which summarize well the revelation of God in Scripture on the issue of Atonement, that describe the work of Jesus Christ as "(...his one oblation of himself once offered) a full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice, oblation, and satisfaction, for the sins of the whole world."

We find their position on revelation to contradict the consensus of Antiquity, that the canon of Scripture is both complete and closed, and that it contains all things necessary for salvation. Though they have yet to announce it, Rome recognizes clearly that the only logical defense of their position is Newman's Theory of Doctrinal Development, which contradicts the "Vincentian Canon." In St. Vincent's actual writing this boils down to belief in those things the Church has recognized as having been recorded already in the Bible, about which all true believers agree.

We reject Rome's belief that the Pope has the authority to define new dogmas. In fact, we find the whole idea of new dogma to be absurd and dangerous. It is absurd, because the fallacy of retroactive Apostolic Faith is historical non-sense. It is dangerous because it differs in no real way from "Progressive Revelation," that God may yet reveal essential doctrines never before known to the Church as dogma. It has the potential to turn the Papacy into the ultimate Oracle, as if we had not heard from God through the Apostles and Prophets, as if the Bishop of Rome may rise above the common episcopal role of Defender of the Faith to that of a Buddha.

Loss of moral credibility

Furthermore, it is astonishing that enthusiasts for the Roman position can be insensitive to Rome's tragic loss of credibility. By that I mean its loss of moral credibility. It is obvious that Rome, in protecting its failed experiment of required clerical celibacy, a policy that began in the twelfth century, accepts its unacceptable condition of forcing its faithful members to live with a severe clergy shortage, a shortage all the more tragic for being entirely man-made and unnecessary. It survives by hubris and error.

This tragic clergy shortage has led to the scandal of Roman Catholic bishops hiding clerical predatory sexual abusers of children from law enforcement officials in several countries, hiding them also from the public, and knowingly reassigning them to inflict their destructive abominations on new victims. Because they cannot be replaced with good priests, due to the difficulty imposed by Roman foolishness that results in most of the best men being excluded from ordained ministry, the predators have been protected and allowed to unleash their horrors afresh on innocent victims. This preserves the status quo at the expense of souls for whom Christ gave his life. We see in these men wolves devouring the sheep, not shepherds feeding Christ's lambs. It may be considered bad form to remind anyone of this current state of affairs (now Ireland is learning of the severity of this evil); but, it must be done.

Yes, it may be argued that both the Pastoral Provisions, and their extension by Anglicanorum Coetibus, present something of a solution for the Roman Catholic mess. But, Anglican priests who know their current pastoral responsibilities are not likely to sacrifice the souls under their care simply to patch up a huge wound with a little band aid. Having one life to live for the Lord, the cost of helping Rome heal its self-inflicted gaping wound, is too high. Sadly, the Pastoral Provisions, even as now extended, apply only to convert clergy; as such they are powerless beyond one generation (no matter what the Most Rev. Mr. Hepworth may tell you).

At the very least one could expect, not unreasonably, that those who advertise so loudly for Roman Catholicism would do so with acquired humility. The loss of moral credibility is not the fault of Anglicans, Orthodox and Protestants. Therefore, the person who prosecutes for Rome appears, to the rest of us, to be doubly arbitrary and presumptuous. Who are these dubious fellows who presume to lecture us? How dare they throw stones from within their glass house?

Frankly, the clerical child abuse scandal says quite a lot about Rome's competence to exercise its alleged Universal Primacy. If such a doctrine be true and revealed by God, then we would have to question His wisdom and justice in a manner that would be both honest and morally justified. Really, would He require us to subject ourselves to a system so incapable (if not unwilling) of protecting even our very children from its own ravening wolves? How can we believe that the Lord our God, the Shepherd of our souls, the One who said "suffer little children, and forbid them not to come unto me" would require all of us everywhere to hand them over to such a convoluted system?

Theoretical and legalistic muddying of the water, such as "Papal Infallibility is only about doctrine, not discipline," is no answer. St. Peter's discernment when facing Ananias and Sapphira (Acts 5) sets a true standard of Apostolic authority that makes a lie of all such delicate and intricate, if not tortured, logic. If the Bishop of Rome is sitting in Peter's chair, where is Peter's prophetic insight concerning individuals with whom he associates? Where is Peter's simple moral clarity?

Are these hard questions? Will I be accused of harboring anti-Roman feelings? Will I have to put up with more Bulverism about "hate" or "anger" instead of sincere and honest discussion? I am sorry to have to inform some of you Roman Enthusiasts, that this is not the time for silly essays that posit absurd hypothetical questions such as that put forth by Fr. Phillips. "For heavens sake, why?" he posits. He may be "shocked, shocked," to hear the answer.

The Vincentian Canon and Holy Tradition

Recent discussions on our weblog have led me to realise that some clarifications regarding what the Church's understanding of the authority of Tradition does and does not entail, and regarding church history, might be helpful.

Appeal to the Vincentian Canon, to what has been believed “everywhere, always and by all” within the Church, is a more subtle idea than commonly understood. The appeal to the whole Church's consensus across time does not mean an appeal to any theological opinion enjoying what we might call a simple majority, for example. Nor does it require acceptance of beliefs outside the area of Faith and Morals, no matter how common they have been. It does not even involve acceptance of very common opinions which intersect doctrinal concerns but which are or were held as normal assumptions rather than posited as truths necessary to be held. The apparent consensus of only a brief period is likewise excluded.

So what is included in Holy Tradition (HT henceforth) and considered to satisfy the Vincentian Canon (VC henceforth)? Doctrines defined as dogma by recognised Ecumenical Councils or their equivalent (e.g., local conciliar decisions which are ratified by an Ecumenical Council or otherwise universally treated as correct and authoritative) are the obvious component. However, also included are doctrines held and taught as part of the Faith by an overwhelming majority or virtually universal consensus of Catholic bishops (and accepted by the laity faithful to them) over a long period of time, even if not defined as dogma at a universal level.

It does not matter too much whether certain doctrines are more implicit than verbally explicit for a time, as long as the substance is there throughout. Nor does it matter if a regionalised or temporarily widespread defection from HT can be found. A regional schism based on rejection of an otherwise virtually universal teaching simply characterises that schism as heretical. Too, if something satisfies the VC at one point, it cannot fail to do so later just because a significant number of Christians start to reject it. A very small sample of patristic teaching inconsistent with the consensus does not overthrow it.

It is important to note at this point that this is not an idiosyncratic classification of my own. It is the standard approach. It may be found in Anglican works such as Hall's Dogmatic Theology (e.g., Vol. II, Ch. viii) or Palmer's On the Church (Pt IV, Ch. vi), as well as in Roman Catholic sources (where scholastic terminology differentiates between what is de fide and what is sententia communis theologorum, for example). Eastern Orthodox thinking is very similar.

Now, the standard Catholic position, whether Anglican, Roman or Orthodox, is that Holy Tradition (note the capitals: merely human, ecclesiastical customs are excluded) is infallible. That is, the Church's genuine doctrinal consensus cannot be erroneous or lead Christ's flock astray. However, even here it is accepted that verbalisations may need improvement to give a more complete or balanced view over time.

Three challenges to this thesis have been put by respected contributors to this weblog recently, although none involves outright rejection of the VC or the infallibility of dogma, it should be said. First, there is the claim that counterfactuals exist to this infallibility, that is, truly consensual doctrines of the past now known to be false. Second, there is the claim that the consensus of Holy Tradition (HT henceforth) is infallible only insofar as it can be shown to rest on Scriptural evidence, with the corollary inference by many that HT must be used in a filtered form, with what is considered by the person making the act of faith to be unscriptural being rejected. Third, there is the claim that the VC can often become a useless or simply tautological criterion (especially once the aforementioned filter is taken into account) and that therefore the HT it supposedly identifies is an overly vague concept without definite content that just forces us back to Scripture.

Taking the first challenge, the purported counterfactuals, we find that the following have been proposed: Ptolemaic Cosmology as theologically significant, 24 hr/6 day literalism in the interpretation of Genesis, and support for the moral probity of torturing heretics, Jews and witches for the sake of the defence of the Faith, so to speak. The last two are most easily dealt with, because the supposed universal ancient consensus does not exist.

Most of the earliest Church Fathers condemned the use of force by Christians outright, and even most of the later Fathers who accepted some use of force by Christians rejected the idea that it should be used to compel or kill unbelievers or heretics (e.g., St Ambrose), and we can even find outright papal condemnation of the use of torture (in 866 by St Nicholas I). Early Canon Law forbade clergy even to strike unbelievers or heretics, and threatened them with deposition for this. When the teaching changed, it did so in the West in mediaeval times, due partly to some unfortunate statements of St Augustine extrapolated beyond their original context and partly to the desire of Popes for Ceasar-like powers. While it is true that Church officials often fell short of their ancient teaching as they were compromised by alliances with the civil powers, there was never a universal, East-West consensus as to the legitimacy of the kind of violence seen in the various Western Inquisitions. While the alliance between the Empire and Church produced legislation that subjected certain heretics to severe financial and legal disadvantages, these did not include violent suppression, and the freedom of assembly for heretics and Jews was backed up by the threat of capital punishment for those who disturbed such voluntary assemblies. The Western Church's Law regarding how those opposed in some way to the Catholic Faith were to be treated had to be changed to allow the abuses of the Inquisitions. (On the Eastern side we have instead the mediaeval example of a godly king, St Vladimir, who after his conversion abolished both the use of torture and execution even by the state! And we have just had his feast: July 5th.)

It is also interesting to note that early teaching on witches warned against superstitious acceptance of the supposed powers of witches and showed no paranoid desire to persecute them by burning or execution. In fact, Canon Law threatened excommunication for believing in the reality of the powers of witchcraft! The Council of Frankfurt in 794 prescribed the death penalty for those burning supposed witches. This early tradition was more mocking than fearful. That changed in the later middle ages, and the fatal detour accelerated with the mediaeval publication of the text Malleus maleficarum, which gave credence to the powers of witchcraft and identified witches as a mortal danger needing a violent response.

As for the literal, “24/6” interpretation of the early chapters of Genesis, dissent from this is found in men like Origen, St Augustine and St Aquinas. In other words, the three most influential minds in the history of the Church! Here again, we have a non-existent consensus.

Speaking of Augustine, it was he who advised biblical exegetes not to over-dogmatise on the interpretation of Scripture when this intersected with questions of the physical nature of the universe. He recommended they use some humility and pay attention to the scientific consensus, though that exact term was not yet invented. Now, it was the scientific consensus of the era of the Fathers that Ptolemaic (geocentric) theories were correct and the theories of Aristarchus (which were heliocentric) implausible. This was not the result of mere ignorance. For example, if Aristarchus was right, pre-Copernican astronomers understood that there should be a parallax “movement” of the nearer stars compared to the background stars as the Earth moved around the Sun. No such parallax was observed. The reason for this, we now know, was that the parallax was real but too small to be observed with the naked eye, requiring a telescope. Yes, exegesis of certain biblical passages also had an influence for many, but this was a post facto “demonstration” of the harmony of the Bible with accepted science, not imposing the Bible on the natural philosophers. More importantly, the Ptolemaic cosmology was not generally or normally part of catechesis or doctrinal teaching properly speaking, it was simply assumed and, at certain points, appropriated. In these circumstances, if one can not find a widespread ancient tradition in the Fathers of condemning the views of Aristarchus as objectively heretical, it is false to claim that the Church had a consensus of dogmatic geocentricism.

The second challenge to the definitive authority of HT is to accept it but with a significant qualification: whatever the VC and HT direct Christians to believe must be accepted as long as it is also founded on the Divine Revelation of Scripture. The difficulty with this challenge is that it is true but potentially misleading as it stands. This qualification is not what it appears, since it is the teaching of Scripture as interpreted by the Fathers that the Church Universal will never impose anything as “of Faith” on its members that is contrary to or not founded in the Divine Revelation. Therefore, the qualification is true, but “trivially” so, as mathematicians would put it. Consider, as an analogy, the following theological statement. "The Church only remains the Body of Christ so long as Jesus retains his human nature, since it is in his incarnate state that he is the Bridegroom who unites with himself the Church as his Body." It is strictly true, but not worth saying, since we know that Jesus' humanity is unending. Similarly, this qualification is not practically helpful, as the set of teachings which would satisfy the VC and HT, but is not Scriptural, is a null set necessarily. This means that the qualification, though trivially true, must never be used by any Catholic Christian to reject any part of HT on the grounds that he or she does not see that that part is Scriptural. To deny this statement is to deny the essence of Catholic epistemology and to open up the door to every heresy, since many heresies have made exactly such a claim sincerely, that is, claimed that a particular doctrine is un- or anti-Scriptural, no matter the consistency of consensus. We cannot coherently make the Church Universal the final judge of what is the correct interpretation of Scripture, but reserve to individuals or isolated particular churches the right to judge whether or not the Church was being Scriptural in this determination.

Now for the third challenge. Does the VC, understood correctly, succeed in identifying the HT in practice? That is, does it reveal the HT in such a way as, not merely to repeat Scripture, but to elucidate it in ways not accessible to superficial reading or private judgement and to provide a clear set of Catholic teachings which either must be affirmed or, in some cases, at least may not be denied? The following doctrines may all be found as satisfying the VC properly understood. The doctrines of the Trinity, Incarnation and Atonement contained in the Creeds and defined by Ecumenical Councils; the divine inspiration of Scripture and the necessity to follow HT in interpreting it; the necessity to the Catholic Church of the threefold ministry of Bishop, Priest and Deacon; the benefit of prayers for the dead in Christ; the benefit and reality of prayers by the dead in Christ for those living and the legitimacy of asking for those prayers; the validity of Christian art and cautious reverence for icons; the immaculacy and heavenly repose of Our Lady, the Blessed Virgin Mary; the teaching that the Bread and Wine become (and do not merely signify or contain) respectively the true Body and Blood of Our Lord in an ineffable, spiritual but real manner; the teaching that the Eucharist is a Sacrifice for quick and dead, drawing upon the One Propitiation of the Cross; and the nature of all of the commonly identified “seven sacraments” as divinely appointed means of grace. Given that one can find solid support for them in official Roman Catholic sources, anti-Pelagian Conciliar decrees and in the Eastern Fathers, I would add the soteriological truths 1 to 12 I identified here as well. This is very much a non-trivial list, and is not exhaustive. It is this HT which the Affirmation of St Louis and the Constitution and Canons of the ACC commit members of that Church to unreservedly. Were we to fall back at all as a corporate body from this affirmation, we would thus cease to be a Catholic jurisdiction. I trust that will never happen.

While we must always be cautious to avoid overdogmatising and must carefully distinguish between traditions and the Tradition, let us never lose our trust in God's promises to his One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church or pit ourselves against her manifest mind and heart. Let us never neglect to listen to the Church (Matthew 18:17). She is, without doubt, the “pillar and ground of the truth”, against whom “the gates of Hell shall not prevail”, “the fulness of Him who fills all in all” and the Body to whom Christ has corporately given the anointing of the Holy Spirit, who guides us into all truth (1 Timothy 3:15, Matthew 16:18, Ephesians 1:23, 1 John 2:27, John 16:13). Thanks be to God.