Sunday, October 16, 2011
Trinity 17 sermon notes
“forebearing one another in love”+
I found it difficult to suppress a smile when I re-read this verse as I prepared today's sermon. Now, St Paul is not known for foolish , starry-eyed optimism about human nature, but it's worth noting that he is addressing Christians here. And he pleads with them to be humble and gentle, and to be patient with and tolerant of each other, all in the same sentence. Do you think he might be making a point? The fact that an essential first step to love among Church members is mutual forbearance is certainly interesting.
Forbearing (which could be translated as tolerating) one another is here seen as a key element of love. It turns out that a large part of caring for each other is putting up with each other! You might call this a very practical, down-to-earth truth. It's not just that we have to forgive other Christians if they sin against us, though we do. The truth is that people will often “rub us the wrong way” even when they intend us no harm and are not knowingly doing wrong against us. People are annoying. I am annoying and so are you. Sometimes despite our best efforts. If you think of yourself as pretty inoffensive, I can pretty much guarantee there's somebody who can't stand your particular mode of inoffensiveness. You see, all of us have our idiosyncrasies, weaknesses and other features that irritate some people. This very fact should remind us to control our reactions to what we see as the weaknesses of others.
One of the silliest things we can do is be angry with people who have not actually sinned. Anger should be reserved for moral failure. Anywhere else, it is a mere temper tantrum indulged in because a person has been inconvenient to us.
Now, none of this may seem a particular concern for our small, friendly parish. But our relationships within the Church, with other Christians, generally go beyond our congregation. And all our relationships, even those outside the membership of the Church, need to express these principles as far as it lies in us (Romans 12:18).
So, St Paul realises that, community of Christians though we be as the Church, human sin and human frailty will require self-discipline from us if we are not to become fractured and furious. Forebearance means not giving in to the temptation to strike out or strike back when one or more of the brethren harm us or just annoy us. And, of course, it means even more than that.
As well as crucifying over-reaction from immoderate anger, we must actively make peace. That is why St Paul tells us to endeavour to maintain “the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace”. So, another down-to-earth truth is that this peace-making requires effort. Love is hard work. This shouldn't need saying, but it does because it's easy for us to confuse mere soft sentiment with the real act of the will that is love.
As Christians we have access to the grace of the Spirit, and God dwells in us, as I have often mentioned and as is repeated again in today's Epistle. But that does not change the fact that we must cooperate with this grace and strive to avoid sin and practise virtue. Grace means that we can do this, and do it with heavenly effectiveness. Apart from inward grace we have the outward grace of the wisdom St Paul reveals to us here: our unity and therefore our peace with one another is grounded in the unity of our faith and baptism and in the one God who is our common Father, the one Lord whose Body we receive and become, the one Spirit who inspires that Body. Spiritually, we are already as stuck with one another as Siamese Twins are physically, conjoined “bodily”. The fact that, in addition, St Paul mentions the one hope to which we are all called should give us pause. Think of it this way. We have to get used to each other. We're spending eternity together!
+
Saturday, October 15, 2011
Seventeenth Sunday after Trinity
Eph. 1:1-6 * Luke 14:1-11
The Pharisees in today's Gospel reading were full of malice because of their pride. Here was a man, a carpenter by trade, whose formal education was simply that of any Jewish man; far better on average than that of the Gentiles if only because Jews have always aimed at 100 percent literacy. All of their people (men and women) could read at least their prayers and the Psalms. But, Jesus had not sat at the feet of any of the notable Rabbis of their time, such as Gamaliel, who was in his own day the equivalent of a highly reputable Professor of Theology in our time. Nonetheless, Jesus the carpenter spoke with authority that the Pharisees could not even so much as imitate; and beyond that, his word was with power. His word drove out demons, healed those with diseases and afflictions of all sorts, and on at least three occasions brought dead people back to life. He did not need the Pharisees, and he did not seek either their guidance or their permission to teach and to heal.
On this day, the Pharisees were threatened by a man who wanted to be healed on the Sabbath; for if Jesus were to grant such a request he would openly contradict their teaching just by doing the healing. He would not have to say anything. As if that was not bad enough, Jesus silenced them in front of everybody by uttering a simple "one liner" hypothetical question: "Which of you shall have an ass or an ox fallen into a pit, and will not straightway pull him out on the sabbath day?" St Luke goes on to tell us, "And they could not answer him again to these things." Simply by having the power to heal, and by using that power, Jesus won the argument. We know from Mark's Gospel that it was at this point that some of these same Pharisees either joined the effort, or maybe even started the effort, to have Jesus put to death. Matthew tells us that when the time finally came when Jesus was tried by Pilate, that the Roman Governor knew that not only the Pharisees, but also the chief priests and Sadducees, wanted Jesus dead because of their envy (Matt. 27:18).
But on this particular day, by demonstrating his divine power to heal, Jesus won the argument twice over. For, already he had spoken with wisdom beyond the reach of his foes; and then he acted with power they could never match. But, the Lord really had no concern with something as trivial as winning arguments. Possessing all wisdom, a mere show of cleverness would have been quite beneath him. His motivation had no room for anything petty, or self-seeking. First of all, he had compassion on the man who suffered, and on all who needed to see the grace and love of God demonstrated by an act of mercy. For every healing Jesus ever did signified something far more important for all of us than simple physical healing in this transitory life. Every healing proved that God does not deal with us as our sins deserve; every healing pointed to something greater and far more permanent: Every healing pointed to the forgiveness of sin, which is of eternal value.
Jesus was quite willing to trample on the sinful pride of fallen man, sparing no one's delicate ego when people's knowledge of the truth was at stake. But, this not about truth in some academic sense. It was about something infinitely more important than who was correct. It says in the eighth chapter of the Gospel of John, "Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free (31,32)." What truth is that? Is it a perfect grasp of History, of Mathematics or of Science? Is it even truth about various peripheral and speculative areas of theology, or of liturgy, or of Biblical Literacy? As important as these academic subjects are, we need to know the truth that is deeper than any of them. Indeed, if someone knows the facts and details of the Bible, and yet cannot know the Word who is present, Himself, throughout all of it, he does not really know the Bible at all.
Jesus Himself is the Truth, as he said: "I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." As the Truth he is also the only Path to the Father, and the only Life that overcomes death. This knowledge of the Truth, of Jesus Christ the Word who is eternally with the Father and the Holy Spirit, and who has been made flesh and dwelt among us, gives us knowledge of all truth. When we understand the truth as it is revealed fully in Jesus Christ, we know the truth about ourselves, and first of all, that we sinners utterly in need of his salvation from sin and death. We begin by knowing we are lost, and we need him to take us home; that we are blind and need him to open our eyes to see; that we are deaf and need him to open our ears to hear. We need forgiveness of sin, but neither can we buy or earn it; the Healer must give us mercy just as he gave it to the man with the dropsy-the same mercy that does not deal with us as our sins deserve.
Jesus did not have tolerance or respect for the pride of the Pharisees, and he had no regard for their delicate egos that could not stand to be proved wrong. The only argument he wanted to win was that of light over darkness, of mercy over condemnation, of love over indifference. His argument was for truth on the very practical level of meeting real human need, the need of a man with dropsy and the need of sinners everywhere and always to know the truth and to be made free. So must our concern for truth be; not to be proved right as pride would have it; but to impart the life-giving knowledge of God's truth to a world in need, beginning with the need of your neighbor. To be correct academically, and to be lauded for it, is itself no better than trash. Christ-like desire to clarify the truth is practical; it is pastoral and evangelistic; it is motivated by love, which is of great worth in the eyes of God.
Every healing Jesus did not only demonstrated mercy, but the price of love that he planned to pay later for each act of compassion. As Isaiah the prophet foretold, "By his stripes we are healed." Matthew records that as Jesus went about doing good and healing, he fulfilled these words by the prophet: "Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows." But, these words are not from a passage that foretells the glory of his miracles; these words are from the famous Suffering Servant passage in Isaiah, the fifty-third chapter; and they are followed immediately by the words,
"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 - See Matthew 8:17, and compare.)
When Jesus healed the man with the dropsy on that Sabbath, to the anger of those Pharisees, he was planning to pay later, on the cross. All of his compassion and all of his mercy moved him to forgive and to heal as he walked the earth among the lost sheep of the House of Israel. When he told those who had marked out for themselves places of honor, that they ought rather to have taken the lowest place, he bade them repent and follow him; for he was going to take up the cross and carry it to his humiliating and tortuous death. There he took away the sins of the world, and on the third day when he rose again, he also conquered death for you and for me. So, we must follow, beginning at the lowest place; and beginning again today at that lowest place, beginning always anew at that lowest place when we confess our sins, before we may be bidden to come up higher, bidden to come to the very rail of the altar to partake of his Body and Blood.
Know this: Hanging on the cross was no occasion for pride. But, what an argument he won, indeed what a battle.
The Urgency of Unity
One of the frustrations of my life as Archbishop of the United Episcopal Church is the lack of progress that I see being made by the Anglican Continuum here in America. Progress, as I define it, consists of two thing - growth and unity. Apart from some transfers of parishes from the Traditional Anglican Communion, the three jurisdictions with a straight line back to the St Louis Congress, all remain stubbornly about the same size as they have been for the last dozen or so years with a total of about 170 parishes, sixty percent of which belong to the Anglican Catholic Church. On the unity front, apart from the "Prague Spring" of the ACC-UECNA Concordat of a few years ago, nothing much has happened though a sort of shuttle diplomacy has developed with leaders from the ACC, APCK, UECNA and other jurisdictions meeting periodically at various conferences. Whilst this represents an improvement on the sort of deep frozen attitudes between sister jurisdictions that prevailed a ten years ago, it is still a major hinderence to the further unity, and therefore greater growth, in the Anglican Continuum.
I had hoped that the appearence of the new Anglican Church of North America would provide a sort of catalyst for the "real" continuers to bite the bullet and begin the process of reunification. However, it seems that that optimism was misplaced. Instead, the Episcopalian realignment in the USA is very largely leaving the 1977 Continuum out in the cold, with most new conservative/traditional parishes going to ACNA, apart from a few Anglo-Papalist congregations, which, often at huge cost in terms of membership, are committing themselves to the extended Roman Catholic Pastoral Provision.
Whilst I do not wish the ACNA harm, I think even their leadership realizes that they are a church divided. Some dioceses accept women priests, some do not; others have a positive view of the Charismatic movement; others are more skeptical; and then we have the thing about ACNA accepting 1662 as the standard BCP, but most parishes use something else... So far the leadership of ACNA has been pretty good at keeping everyone focussed, but sooner or later some decisions will have to be made about those contentious issues which ACNA has so far successfully ignored or put off. I am hoping that this process of gaining greater theological clarity will not be long delayed and will lead them back towards the mainstream of historic Christianity, but who knows. So far they are reaping the rewards of their outward unity in the form of rapid growth, and a favourable press from the few who are in any way favourable to tradition or conservative Anglicanism.
Now before those of us in the Continuing Churches dislocate our shoulders trying to pat ourselves on the back for our doctrinal purity, we have our own elephant in the living room with which to contend. The question of Unity. In my honest opinion, it is probably unprofitable to revisit what went wrong in 1978-83 that led to the original Anglican Church in North America (Episcopal) falling apart other than to say "OK, we all goofed. Sorry. Let's try again." In fact, most of us who are in positions of leadership today were not even around in the Continuing Church Movement as clergy when the thing began. In my own case, I was not even confirmed when this show got going! This should enable us to approach the situation without too much in the way of personal baggage, though I am sure we have all heard the various war stories from the perspective of our own particular jurisdiction.
I frankly do not see any major obstacles to the major Continuing Anglican groups achieving institutional unity over the next five to ten years other than a tradition of disunity, old wounds, and too many bishops. I think I should, as Archbishop of the UECNA, say that we are as guilty of those "crimes" as anyone else, but there is no use in our dwelling in the past. The crisis that led to the 1977 St Louis Congress necessarily led to a clarification of the Anglican position, as it needed to define itself against theological Liberalism. This neccessarily lead to a narrowing of the boundaries, and, as the Continuing Church Movement began in North America, that meant a move in the catholic direction. On the whole, this more Catholic Anglicanism has worked well, with the problems not being caused by the Affirmation of St Louis or any other specific document, but by occasional over zealous interpretors of our own tradition. This was not a new problem that we started just after the St Louis Congress, but an old one, that had been with us for years. However, the need for unity against the 'foes within' had tended to dampen down the internal tensions within the Anglo-Catholic and catholic-leaning parties in the Episcopal Church.
Perhaps one inevitable part of the Continuum maturing is that we need to realize that we need each other, and also that most folks cannot tell the difference between the various Continuing Churches. What puts them off is the fact that the next parish of your jurisdiction might be several hundred miles away, and you pass parishes of several other jurisdictions on the way there. This is an inhibiting factor to Church growth as we cannot pool clergy and resources to plant new congregations. Without greater unity the Continuing Church is condemning itself to a slow and lingering death, slowing achieving unity through decline.
Do we really want to go this route?
The answer that I get from the laity, time and again, is an unequivocable 'No.' This may be one of those occasions when, in the most literal sense sense 'vox populi' is indeed 'vox Dei.' Unity is no longer an issue we can safely leave on the back burner, but an urgent and insistent need in order to advance the kingdom of God.
I had hoped that the appearence of the new Anglican Church of North America would provide a sort of catalyst for the "real" continuers to bite the bullet and begin the process of reunification. However, it seems that that optimism was misplaced. Instead, the Episcopalian realignment in the USA is very largely leaving the 1977 Continuum out in the cold, with most new conservative/traditional parishes going to ACNA, apart from a few Anglo-Papalist congregations, which, often at huge cost in terms of membership, are committing themselves to the extended Roman Catholic Pastoral Provision.
Whilst I do not wish the ACNA harm, I think even their leadership realizes that they are a church divided. Some dioceses accept women priests, some do not; others have a positive view of the Charismatic movement; others are more skeptical; and then we have the thing about ACNA accepting 1662 as the standard BCP, but most parishes use something else... So far the leadership of ACNA has been pretty good at keeping everyone focussed, but sooner or later some decisions will have to be made about those contentious issues which ACNA has so far successfully ignored or put off. I am hoping that this process of gaining greater theological clarity will not be long delayed and will lead them back towards the mainstream of historic Christianity, but who knows. So far they are reaping the rewards of their outward unity in the form of rapid growth, and a favourable press from the few who are in any way favourable to tradition or conservative Anglicanism.
Now before those of us in the Continuing Churches dislocate our shoulders trying to pat ourselves on the back for our doctrinal purity, we have our own elephant in the living room with which to contend. The question of Unity. In my honest opinion, it is probably unprofitable to revisit what went wrong in 1978-83 that led to the original Anglican Church in North America (Episcopal) falling apart other than to say "OK, we all goofed. Sorry. Let's try again." In fact, most of us who are in positions of leadership today were not even around in the Continuing Church Movement as clergy when the thing began. In my own case, I was not even confirmed when this show got going! This should enable us to approach the situation without too much in the way of personal baggage, though I am sure we have all heard the various war stories from the perspective of our own particular jurisdiction.
I frankly do not see any major obstacles to the major Continuing Anglican groups achieving institutional unity over the next five to ten years other than a tradition of disunity, old wounds, and too many bishops. I think I should, as Archbishop of the UECNA, say that we are as guilty of those "crimes" as anyone else, but there is no use in our dwelling in the past. The crisis that led to the 1977 St Louis Congress necessarily led to a clarification of the Anglican position, as it needed to define itself against theological Liberalism. This neccessarily lead to a narrowing of the boundaries, and, as the Continuing Church Movement began in North America, that meant a move in the catholic direction. On the whole, this more Catholic Anglicanism has worked well, with the problems not being caused by the Affirmation of St Louis or any other specific document, but by occasional over zealous interpretors of our own tradition. This was not a new problem that we started just after the St Louis Congress, but an old one, that had been with us for years. However, the need for unity against the 'foes within' had tended to dampen down the internal tensions within the Anglo-Catholic and catholic-leaning parties in the Episcopal Church.
Perhaps one inevitable part of the Continuum maturing is that we need to realize that we need each other, and also that most folks cannot tell the difference between the various Continuing Churches. What puts them off is the fact that the next parish of your jurisdiction might be several hundred miles away, and you pass parishes of several other jurisdictions on the way there. This is an inhibiting factor to Church growth as we cannot pool clergy and resources to plant new congregations. Without greater unity the Continuing Church is condemning itself to a slow and lingering death, slowing achieving unity through decline.
Do we really want to go this route?
The answer that I get from the laity, time and again, is an unequivocable 'No.' This may be one of those occasions when, in the most literal sense sense 'vox populi' is indeed 'vox Dei.' Unity is no longer an issue we can safely leave on the back burner, but an urgent and insistent need in order to advance the kingdom of God.
Fr Wells' Bulletin Insert
TRINITY XVII
Today's reading from Luke 14 concludes with a text which we find more than once in the Bible. "For whosoever exalteth himself shall be abased, and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted." Similar words are found at Luke 18.14 (in the parable of the Pharisee and the publican), and at Matt 23. 12 (to follow up our Lord's pronouncement that "the greatest among you must be your servant"). The saying can be traced back into the rich subsoil of the Old Testament, where we may read at Proverbs 3.34-35,
"Toward the scorners, [the Lord] is scornful,
but to the humble he shows favor.
The wise will inherit honor,
but fools get disgrace."
Like many similar statements, the first part is a familiar truth but the second is an amazing paradox. Common sense alone tells us that those who exalt themselves "are riding for a fall." We have had many opportunities to observe this, and perhaps we have learned this the expensive way. But when have we seen the humble exalted? That defies common sense.
Our Lord's saying is more than a general observation about ordinary affairs. It points us right back to the first Adam himself. The original head of the human race wanted to be "as God, knowing [that is, arbitrating] good and evil." Ironically, this man was already made in God's image and likeness. But that did not deter him from the most stupendous act of self-aggran-dizement conceivable. In a crazy fit of assertiveness, Adam triggered the fall and ruin of all mankind. We see that calamity re-enacted over and over.
But the Gospel comes to us in the second part of Christ's saying, "he that humbleth himself shall be exalted." In those words, which the Gospel writers must have treasured and cherished, Jesus speaks of himself. As St Paul tells us, "he took upon him the form of a servant, .... he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him..." Here we see the most stupendous act of self-denial conceivable, which triggered the reverse of Adam's tragedy, the redemption of the world, a radical new beginning to human existence.
Jesus invites us to humble ourselves along with Him. When we acknowledge our own unworthiness and dependence on him, our own eternal exaltation begins. When we say, "Lord, I am not worthy that thou shouldest come under my roof," then He truly speaks His word of pardon and forgiveness and our souls are healed for time and eternity.
Yes, the Gospel defies all common sense and runs counter to ordinary experience. But that is why we call it "Good News."
"Toward the scorners, [the Lord] is scornful,
but to the humble he shows favor.
The wise will inherit honor,
but fools get disgrace."
Like many similar statements, the first part is a familiar truth but the second is an amazing paradox. Common sense alone tells us that those who exalt themselves "are riding for a fall." We have had many opportunities to observe this, and perhaps we have learned this the expensive way. But when have we seen the humble exalted? That defies common sense.
Our Lord's saying is more than a general observation about ordinary affairs. It points us right back to the first Adam himself. The original head of the human race wanted to be "as God, knowing [that is, arbitrating] good and evil." Ironically, this man was already made in God's image and likeness. But that did not deter him from the most stupendous act of self-aggran-dizement conceivable. In a crazy fit of assertiveness, Adam triggered the fall and ruin of all mankind. We see that calamity re-enacted over and over.
But the Gospel comes to us in the second part of Christ's saying, "he that humbleth himself shall be exalted." In those words, which the Gospel writers must have treasured and cherished, Jesus speaks of himself. As St Paul tells us, "he took upon him the form of a servant, .... he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him..." Here we see the most stupendous act of self-denial conceivable, which triggered the reverse of Adam's tragedy, the redemption of the world, a radical new beginning to human existence.
Jesus invites us to humble ourselves along with Him. When we acknowledge our own unworthiness and dependence on him, our own eternal exaltation begins. When we say, "Lord, I am not worthy that thou shouldest come under my roof," then He truly speaks His word of pardon and forgiveness and our souls are healed for time and eternity.
Yes, the Gospel defies all common sense and runs counter to ordinary experience. But that is why we call it "Good News."
Friday, October 14, 2011
Hearing the cry and facing the challenge
This is a comment that was written to the post directly below. I could defend our record here, and debate a few points. But, I think it wiser to hear the plea and the expressed need in what this person is saying to us. What can we do to make Continuing Anglicanism available and, in the right sense, welcoming? I want us to hear the challenge and cry for help in this comment.
******************
Anonymous said...
******************
Why does this blog seem to fixate on what the Romans are up to? Can't we just ignore the Tiber rather than urinating in it? I just don't see the numbers defecting to Rome to merit this kind of indignation. Are there many more people leaving the Anglican Church than I realize?
Let me put it this way. I have the misfortune of living in a country where there is no ACC or other continuing Church. Thus, I must go to a mainstream Anglican parish, which is, quite mercifully, nothing at all like a TEC parish. There are a couple women pseudo-priests hidden under rocks somewhere, but they are off dry cleaning their pantsuits more often that pretending to celebrate the Eucharist. We have no 1979 BCP or the dreadful materials they use in England now--I forget the name, but it's a cut-and-paste make-your-own-liturgy software package. (Thank you, Jesus, for helping me to forget the horrors of the modern Church!). As it's not my native language, I'm familiar enough with the language of our service that I know what's going on, but not so familiar that I could point out theological errors in the text, if there are any. As I said, this is no TEC hootenanny. It is merely a bland, broad church service. (They think it's high, but it's broad. Reminds me of the Novus Ordo.)
Having said all that, I would be much more edified by posts about what the ACC is doing to bring disaffected Anglicans into the ACC rather than decrying the RCC. I don't really worry what they are up to. However, I never hear about Continuing Anglicans evangelizing to the Communion Anglicans. We need that kind of evangelization: "Hey, remember our heritage? The one left to us by our Fathers and their Fathers and their Father's Fathers? WE have it, and you can, too, if you will just take a step across the street."
It's a difficult sell to anyone in the TEC. Most are so far gone that just the thought of "being conservative" is enough to make them need diapers. But there are those, men such as my father, who suffer silently through Rite II because he has never been told by anyone in the ACC that there is an option. He often talks about how when he was in grad school (a little older than most), a priest would celebrate the 1928 Eucharist for him and his roommate.
I'm not sure exactly how to do it, but Fr. Hart, I whole-heartedly agree with what you wrote in your second comment on this page.
I would surely like to see the ACC make itself known well enough that Communion Anglicans will choose to become Continuing Anglicans. What are the challenges? manpower? Money? Romans? (really?) Real estate? I have a hard time understanding why the ACC isn't siphoning off mainstream Anglicans who realize that something is deeply wrong. Is there a pre-existing post in the Archives that might explain it?
Monday, October 10, 2011
Returning to bad habits
Well, when in Rome, whether Georgia or New York, or even Italy, do as the Romans. A few former Anglicans are about to find out the hard way what that can mean. Today we have yet more news that shows why opposite camps in the Roman Catholic Church (RCC), "liberal" and "traditionalist," offer no safe haven to former Anglicans looking for orthodoxy in practice or teaching. The National Catholic Reporter tells us, "It's officially a trend now. A second diocese, Madison, Wis., has moved to restrict Communion under both species." And then it provides details. I was first alerted to this movement a few years ago, and learned that it is likely to become the rule again throughout much of the RCC.
The problem is very simple. In the RCC a return to the past is often a return to an innovation, in this case an innovation of the Medieval period, one that persisted through more than half of the Twentieth Century. But, like the rule of clerical celibacy, various doctrines such as Purgatory and the Treasury of Merits, Papal Infallibility, etc., we may pin point the place in history when it began. It did not begin with Jesus and the Apostles.
In fact, as one person commented, "This is a disturbing trend. Withholding the cup from the laity is a return to the old RC clericalism that should have died out half a century ago. After one has listened to the nonsense about why this is being forced here and there, the matter still is one of priestly disobedience to Jesus' clear intention: 'Drink from it, all of you. This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. (cf. Matthew 26:26-28)'"
The arguments for returning to this bad habit remind me of how amusing it can be to hear complaints about "receiving in the hand." Like so many alleged Protestant innovations we Anglicans indulge in, receiving in the hand was the ancient practice about which me may read in some of the writings of the Fathers; receiving on the tongue is the innovation, dating way, way back to the eighteenth century. Receive on the tongue if you prefer; but, don't think it is fidelity to the catholic tradition.
What I really fear is the spectacle of some Anglican priest somewhere deciding that he ought to withhold the cup from the laity. I will not go so far as to call it a "half communion." But, I will call it disobedience to Christ's command.
Saturday, October 08, 2011
Sixteenth Sunday after Trinity
Eph. 3:13-21 * Luke 7:11-17
And there came a fear on all: and they glorified God, saying, That a great prophet is risen up among us; and, That God hath visited his people.
And there came a fear on all: and they glorified God, saying, That a great prophet is risen up among us; and, That God hath visited his people.
The people's reaction to this miracle, Jesus raising the dead man back to this mortal life (unlike His own resurrection to follow), has behind it the great Tradition of the Old Testament. The prophets spoke the word of God with power, power that changed things, such as Moses rolling back the waters of the Red Sea, or Elijah bringing down fire from Heaven to turn the hearts of the disobedient back again. 1 The word of God came with such power as we see in the opening of Genesis, where all creation comes alive when God says, "let there be light." The word of God comes with power, miraculous power. The word of God, in the mouth of a prophet, is powerful. 2
The word for "power" in the Greek New Testament, that is also translated as "might" (as in "mighty") in today's Epistle, is a word always associated with miracles. It is δύναμις(dynamis), from which we get the word "dynamic." The New Testament reveals that the Christian life is the life of power that comes from the Holy Spirit. It is a supernatural life that does not depend on mere human strength. It is the life of the Risen Christ imparted to us from the Holy Spirit by our baptism into Christ 3 and to which we have access only by faith. This power converts our hearts to faith and obedience, and brings us to the knowledge of God. The word of God proclaimed in the Gospel contains this supernatural power of the Holy Spirit within it, because whenever and wherever the Gospel is proclaimed the Holy Spirit speaks to the hearts of believers and unbelievers alike, 4 creating faith in unbelieving hearts as he convicts the world. 5
We can approach this life in different ways. Today's Epistle tells us, as believers in the Lord Jesus Christ, how we ought to approach this life, living here and now the life that draws its power from the life of the Risen Christ, and that is breathed within us by the Holy Spirit. Look at those powerful words of St. Paul, and ask yourself, honestly, if you find them meaningful, or completely hidden to you.
...that he would grant you, according to the riches of his glory, to be strengthened with might (δύναμις ) by his Spirit in the inner man; that Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith; that ye, being rooted and grounded in love, may be able to comprehend with all saints what is the breadth, and length, and depth, and height; and to know the love of Christ, which passeth knowledge, that ye might be filled with all the fullness of God.
Is that how you approach each day? Do you begin your day in prayer, asking for this to be your experience throughout the day? Do you hear these words as hollow and meaningless, or do they entice you, in a good and healthy way, to know God better?
I do not mean to create the impression of a life that is always full of some kind of emotional high, nor do I underestimate the necessary times of dryness that mystics call "the dark night of the soul." The life of faith faces the same setbacks and fears that affect all people everywhere. But, the life of faith perseveres, and is not overcome by this world, because Christ Himself, the Risen and Glorified Lord, is its source, its goal and its hope. Only the Holy Spirit can give you this life, because it is not a man made commodity.
It begins each day by the honest recognition that we have sinned, and have not earned some right to know God. It begins in the honest light of humility that confesses, repents and asks forgiveness. The life of faith means that you receive that forgiveness because you understand that Christ has paid the full price for all your sins, that he did this when He poured out His soul unto death for you on the cross, 6 and that through Him the Father welcomes you into His presence, fully justified because you are in Christ. Because you know this, by faith, you dare to ask for the grace of God that is brought to you by the Holy Spirit, and for the power to live in that grace.
...to be strengthened with might (δύναμις ) by his Spirit in the inner man; that Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith...
Because of this power and grace from the Holy Spirit, that God gives you breath by breath as you live in your own daily reality, you can love your neighbor with the love of God, even when your own power fails.
...that ye, being rooted and grounded in love, may be able to comprehend with all saints what is the breadth, and length, and depth, and height...
You can give the love of Christ freely, because, freely, it has been given to you. 7
...and to know the love of Christ, which passeth knowledge, that ye might be filled with all the fullness of God.
The life of faith is simple but not easy. It is powerful, but known only in weakness. St. Paul wrote to the Church in Corinth:
And lest I should be exalted above measure through the abundance of the revelations, there was given to me a thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I should be exalted above measure. For this thing I besought the Lord thrice, that it might depart from me. And he said unto me, My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness. Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me. 8
What is the weakness in which Christ's power is made perfect in our own experience? It is when we have come to the end of our own power, and learn that we need His power. It is why I remind you, on the First Sunday after Trinity, that it is harder by far to love thy neighbor than it is to love some big impersonal thing we call "mankind." Our own weakness is evident in many ways, as it was for Peter, James and John who fell asleep, though they really had intended to watch with Christ in the Garden of Gethsemane. We know we ought not to fear death as others do, but we cannot live without some fear of it from time to time. We cannot forgive others as God forgives us, that is, we cannot forgive when we rely on the power of our emotions. I could go on and on, for there is much we cannot do.
The life we live is the life of faith, and it is the sacramental life.
When you approach God today it is with thanksgiving, hearing His word, confession of sin, receiving His forgiveness, and then actually partaking of the Food and Drink of Eternal Life by taking and eating, and by drinking, Christ's own Body and Blood as He gives Himself in the sacrament. You need His grace, and ought to avail yourself of every means of grace. Seeing this need for what it is, requires the honest evaluation of humility. You need what He gives. He givesHimself; as he gave Himself on the cross, he gives Himself through every means He has established, and by faith you receive Him. That is what His grace is--it is His own presence and power here and now.
But, beware of what St. Paul described in words he wrote to St. Timothy about some
...having a form of godliness, but denying the power (δύναμις) thereof: from such turn away. 9
I hope that none of you think of this time spent in church as merely "a little religion" to distract you from real life. Real life is here, and real life is in Christ. The world offers many distractions, and those are the fantasy, the things that pass away. Eternity is forever (as much as that may sound like a Yogi Berra-ism). St. John said it better:
Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world. And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever. 10
You may approach the Christian life merely as religious duty, concerning which you have little conviction, about which you think, "let's not get carried away." You may think it enough to give God one hour each week (which is never a time limit we set on a service!), but then to live the rest of your time assuming that He will be satisfied with that, as if you gave Him something that He needed. God does not need an hour from you once a week, and He does not need a bit of your money, or a few hours from you on Holy Days. He does not need anything from you, and you cannot give Him anything.
You need
You, however, need to give God as much attention as you can. You need to give what you can. You need to come here, you need to pray each day wherever you are, you need to hear His word (to read it), and you need to take the sacraments He offers. You need to obey His voice, and you need faith that is present moment by moment, day by day. The power that you need is a gift that is given, and that you need to receive every hour of your life. Do not hold a mere form of godliness if you are going to go out of here to deny the power thereof.
Instead,
know the love of Christ, which passeth knowledge, that ye might be filled with all the fullness of God.
____________________
1. That is, to the fathers, or to the wisdom of the just; cp. I Kings 18:37, Malachi 4:5,6 & Luke 1:17
2. cp. Jer. 15: 19 & Isaiah 55:11
3. Romans 6:1f
4. "For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek." Romans 1:16
5. John 16:8
6. Isaiah 53:12
7. Matt. 10:8
8. II Cor. 12:7-9
9. II Tim. 3:5
10. I John 2:15-17
The word for "power" in the Greek New Testament, that is also translated as "might" (as in "mighty") in today's Epistle, is a word always associated with miracles. It is δύναμις(dynamis), from which we get the word "dynamic." The New Testament reveals that the Christian life is the life of power that comes from the Holy Spirit. It is a supernatural life that does not depend on mere human strength. It is the life of the Risen Christ imparted to us from the Holy Spirit by our baptism into Christ 3 and to which we have access only by faith. This power converts our hearts to faith and obedience, and brings us to the knowledge of God. The word of God proclaimed in the Gospel contains this supernatural power of the Holy Spirit within it, because whenever and wherever the Gospel is proclaimed the Holy Spirit speaks to the hearts of believers and unbelievers alike, 4 creating faith in unbelieving hearts as he convicts the world. 5
We can approach this life in different ways. Today's Epistle tells us, as believers in the Lord Jesus Christ, how we ought to approach this life, living here and now the life that draws its power from the life of the Risen Christ, and that is breathed within us by the Holy Spirit. Look at those powerful words of St. Paul, and ask yourself, honestly, if you find them meaningful, or completely hidden to you.
...that he would grant you, according to the riches of his glory, to be strengthened with might (δύναμις ) by his Spirit in the inner man; that Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith; that ye, being rooted and grounded in love, may be able to comprehend with all saints what is the breadth, and length, and depth, and height; and to know the love of Christ, which passeth knowledge, that ye might be filled with all the fullness of God.
Is that how you approach each day? Do you begin your day in prayer, asking for this to be your experience throughout the day? Do you hear these words as hollow and meaningless, or do they entice you, in a good and healthy way, to know God better?
I do not mean to create the impression of a life that is always full of some kind of emotional high, nor do I underestimate the necessary times of dryness that mystics call "the dark night of the soul." The life of faith faces the same setbacks and fears that affect all people everywhere. But, the life of faith perseveres, and is not overcome by this world, because Christ Himself, the Risen and Glorified Lord, is its source, its goal and its hope. Only the Holy Spirit can give you this life, because it is not a man made commodity.
It begins each day by the honest recognition that we have sinned, and have not earned some right to know God. It begins in the honest light of humility that confesses, repents and asks forgiveness. The life of faith means that you receive that forgiveness because you understand that Christ has paid the full price for all your sins, that he did this when He poured out His soul unto death for you on the cross, 6 and that through Him the Father welcomes you into His presence, fully justified because you are in Christ. Because you know this, by faith, you dare to ask for the grace of God that is brought to you by the Holy Spirit, and for the power to live in that grace.
...to be strengthened with might (δύναμις ) by his Spirit in the inner man; that Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith...
Because of this power and grace from the Holy Spirit, that God gives you breath by breath as you live in your own daily reality, you can love your neighbor with the love of God, even when your own power fails.
...that ye, being rooted and grounded in love, may be able to comprehend with all saints what is the breadth, and length, and depth, and height...
You can give the love of Christ freely, because, freely, it has been given to you. 7
...and to know the love of Christ, which passeth knowledge, that ye might be filled with all the fullness of God.
The life of faith is simple but not easy. It is powerful, but known only in weakness. St. Paul wrote to the Church in Corinth:
And lest I should be exalted above measure through the abundance of the revelations, there was given to me a thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I should be exalted above measure. For this thing I besought the Lord thrice, that it might depart from me. And he said unto me, My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness. Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me. 8
What is the weakness in which Christ's power is made perfect in our own experience? It is when we have come to the end of our own power, and learn that we need His power. It is why I remind you, on the First Sunday after Trinity, that it is harder by far to love thy neighbor than it is to love some big impersonal thing we call "mankind." Our own weakness is evident in many ways, as it was for Peter, James and John who fell asleep, though they really had intended to watch with Christ in the Garden of Gethsemane. We know we ought not to fear death as others do, but we cannot live without some fear of it from time to time. We cannot forgive others as God forgives us, that is, we cannot forgive when we rely on the power of our emotions. I could go on and on, for there is much we cannot do.
The life we live is the life of faith, and it is the sacramental life.
When you approach God today it is with thanksgiving, hearing His word, confession of sin, receiving His forgiveness, and then actually partaking of the Food and Drink of Eternal Life by taking and eating, and by drinking, Christ's own Body and Blood as He gives Himself in the sacrament. You need His grace, and ought to avail yourself of every means of grace. Seeing this need for what it is, requires the honest evaluation of humility. You need what He gives. He givesHimself; as he gave Himself on the cross, he gives Himself through every means He has established, and by faith you receive Him. That is what His grace is--it is His own presence and power here and now.
But, beware of what St. Paul described in words he wrote to St. Timothy about some
...having a form of godliness, but denying the power (δύναμις) thereof: from such turn away. 9
I hope that none of you think of this time spent in church as merely "a little religion" to distract you from real life. Real life is here, and real life is in Christ. The world offers many distractions, and those are the fantasy, the things that pass away. Eternity is forever (as much as that may sound like a Yogi Berra-ism). St. John said it better:
Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world. And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever. 10
You may approach the Christian life merely as religious duty, concerning which you have little conviction, about which you think, "let's not get carried away." You may think it enough to give God one hour each week (which is never a time limit we set on a service!), but then to live the rest of your time assuming that He will be satisfied with that, as if you gave Him something that He needed. God does not need an hour from you once a week, and He does not need a bit of your money, or a few hours from you on Holy Days. He does not need anything from you, and you cannot give Him anything.
You need
You, however, need to give God as much attention as you can. You need to give what you can. You need to come here, you need to pray each day wherever you are, you need to hear His word (to read it), and you need to take the sacraments He offers. You need to obey His voice, and you need faith that is present moment by moment, day by day. The power that you need is a gift that is given, and that you need to receive every hour of your life. Do not hold a mere form of godliness if you are going to go out of here to deny the power thereof.
Instead,
know the love of Christ, which passeth knowledge, that ye might be filled with all the fullness of God.
____________________
1. That is, to the fathers, or to the wisdom of the just; cp. I Kings 18:37, Malachi 4:5,6 & Luke 1:17
2. cp. Jer. 15: 19 & Isaiah 55:11
3. Romans 6:1f
4. "For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek." Romans 1:16
5. John 16:8
6. Isaiah 53:12
7. Matt. 10:8
8. II Cor. 12:7-9
9. II Tim. 3:5
10. I John 2:15-17
Wednesday, October 05, 2011
Reposted from November 2008
A worn out gotcha
Among the comments in this blog we saw another one of those "gotchas," manufactured by Polemicists R Us, that is guaranteed to make Anglicans throw their hands in the air, shake their pointed little heads, and beg to be forgiven for five hundred years of mistakes (or is that 450 years of a failed experiment?). The problem is, manufacturers guarantees are designed only to sell products, even products that were built broken and never did work.
I have seen this little "gotcha" before. Back when he was still deciding between the Two One True Churches, Fr. Al Kimel's blog featured it all the time. Here is what the polemical comment said:
"The regula fide--under whatever form of his Branch Theory you might use--requires assent by both East and West, but the assent granted by both East and West is that Anglicans are not a part of the Church. But you will not accept that one ruling from them..."
This reminded me of one of the "Pontificator's Laws" that said something to this effect: "When Rome and Orthodoxy agree on something and Protestants don't agree, Protestantism loses." Of course, that might make sense as long as the Two One Trues are also right on the particular subject, which is not a given; for, by any rules of logic, all such things must be demonstrated rather than assumed. Also, it requires that we define what and whom we mean by the word "Protestantism," which begs definition these days more than ever. It begs the question, as well, whether or not a restoration of Catholic truth is the same as what Fr. Al the Pontificator meant by "Protestantism."
More to the point of the particular "gotcha" quoted above, and the defect of the manufacturer's guarantee, it is not even true that Rome and Orthodoxy agree on the matter in question. At least two facts stand against the argument.
Orthodoxy has never made an official ruling on any Church except the Orthodox Church. However, the only rulings ever made by Orthodox Patriarchs about Anglicanism were far from anything that could be called agreement with Rome. Specifically, the Orthodox Church wrote of their recognition of Anglican Orders (no small matter) in several letters to the Archbishop of Canterbury beginning in 1922. Also, the meaning of this recognition was clear, inasmuch as the Patriarchs and Archbishops allowed Orthodox Christians to receive Anglican sacraments during a time when Orthodox churches and clergy were few and far between in many western countries, including the United States. This ended in 1976, only because of the heresy of women's "ordination"- a heresy we have rejected from its beginning. (Furthermore, concerning the United States, one Russian bishop's opposite opinion that dates much earlier, to 1904, is not relevant, as the date alone makes obvious.) All of the letters will appear in the appendix below.
I quote an earlier post:
"In 1978, after it became clear that churches within the Anglican Communion were 'ordaining' women and intent on spreading this untraditional practice, Orthodox Archbishop Athenagoras remarked: '…the theological dialogue [between the Orthodox and the Anglicans] will continue, although now simply as an academic and informativeexercise, and no longer as an ecclesial endeavor aiming at the union of the two churches.'”(1)
As you can see, the recognition of Anglican orders, and the permission granted to Orthodox Christians from their own bishops, that they could receive sacraments from Anglican priests, was part of an effort to become one Church.(2)
At no time in modern history have the Orthodox Patriarchs, Archbishops and Bishops allowed any of their people to receive the sacraments of Roman Catholic priests. The fact is, Anglican priests were given this honor, and Roman Catholic priests were not. To this day, even though Rome has opened the door to them, the Orthodox are forbidden to receive sacraments from the Roman Catholic Church. Nonetheless, if not for women's "ordination" the practice might still continue ("might" since many Orthodox churches have since been built where there had been none, eliminating the need to go to anyone else), and the goal of unity would have gone forward. How ironic this is for Continuing Anglicans, since we have never suffered women's "ordination" either.
The second problem with the "gotcha" is that it is basically untrue for an even deeper reason. This is also why the "Pontificator's Law" quoted above is irrelevant to this subject. The Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church do not agree about Anglicanism; rather they disagree with each other on which of the two of them is, in fact, Really and Truly The One True Church. Any effect this might have on their consideration of any other church is merely an extension of this, their basic disagreement with each other. This disagreement also rules out any validity to their respective doctrines of an exclusive claim to the title, The Holy Catholic Church. That is because it proves immediately that neither claim has Universal consent.
This also begs what I have called the Anglican solution. We look at them and wonder: Why are they blind to the obvious? They are both the One True Church, and so are we. The Anglican solution is summed up not by a Lambeth Conference, not by an ABC, and not even by our Affirmation of St. Louis. Rather, it is summed up by Saint Paul the Apostle:
"If the foot shall say, Because I am not the hand, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body? And if the ear shall say, Because I am not the eye, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body? If the whole body were an eye, where were the hearing? If the whole were hearing, where were the smelling? But now hath God set the members every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased him. And if they were all one member, where were the body? But now are they many members, yet but one body. 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. Nay, much more those members of the body, which seem to be more feeble, are necessary." -I Corinthians 12: 15-22
Not only does the body need the "two lungs" of east and west; we, the Continuing Anglicans are needed as well. Only by what we have taught all along can these two ancient communions realize that they are already part of One Church, like it or not (in fact, let's hope they learn all this at the Church of the Nativity before Christmas Eve- a little peace would be nice this year).
(1) As quoted in Anglican-Orthodox Dialogue: The Dublin Agreed Statement, (Crestwood, N.Y.: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1985), p.3
(2) The permission to receive the sacraments was an official way of treating the Anglican priesthood as completely valid in fact (which pretty much sinks a theory of Metropoltan Kaillstos Ware designed to make it all mean nothing).
*************************************************************
Appendix.
Encyclical on Anglican Ordersfrom the Oecumenical Patriarch to the Presidents of the Particular Eastern Orthodox Churches, 1922
[The Holy Synod has studied the report of the Committee and notes:]
1. That the ordination of Matthew Parker as Archbishop of Canterbury by four bishops is a fact established by history.
2. That in this and subsequent ordinations there are found in their fullness those orthodox and indispensable, visible and sensible elements of valid episcopal ordination - viz. the laying on of hands, the Epiclesis of the All-Holy Spirit and also the purpose to transmit the charisma of the Episcopal ministry.
3. That the orthodox theologians who have scientifically examined the question have almost unanimously come to the same conclusions and have declared themselves as accepting the validity of Anglican Orders.
4. That the practice in the Church affords no indication that the Orthodox Church has ever officially treated the validity of Anglican Orders as in doubt, in such a way as would point to the re-ordination of the Anglican clergy as required in the case of the union of the two Churches.
The Patriarch of JERUSALEM, 1923
The Patriarch of Jerusalem wrote to the Archbishop of Canterbury in the name of his Synod on March 12, 1923, as follows: To His Grace the Archbishop of Canterbury, First Hierarch of All England, our most beloved and dear brother in our Lord Jesus, Mgr. Randall. Greeting fraternally your beloved to us, Grace, we have the pleasure to address to you the following: Yesterday we dispatched to Your Grace the following telegram: ‘We have pleasure inform Your Grace that Holy Synod of our Patriarchate after studying in several meetings question Anglican Orders from Orthodox point view resolved their validity.' Today, explaining this telegram, we inform Your Grace that the Holy Synod, having as a motive the resolution passed some time ago by the Church of Constantinople, which is the church having the First Throne between the Orthodox Churches, resolved that the consecrations of bishops and ordinations of priests and deacons of the Anglican Episcopal Church are considered by the Orthodox Church as having the same validity which the Orders of the Roman Church have, because there exist all the elements which are considered necessary from an Orthodox point of view for the recognition of the grace of the Holy Orders from Apostolic Succession. We have great pleasure in communicating to Your Grace, as the First Hierarch of all the Anglican Churches, this resolution of our Church, which constitutes a progress in the pleasing-to-God work of the union of all Churches, and we pray God to grant to Your Grace many years full of health and salvation.(Signed) DAMIANOS
February 27/March 12, 1923 Official translation published in The Christian East, vol. IV, 1923, pp. 121-122. The Archbishop of the autonomous Church of Sinai expressed for his Church adherence to the decisions of Constantinople and Jerusalem.
The Archbishop of CYPRUS, 1923
The Archbishop of Cyprus wrote to the Patriarch of Constantinople in the name of his Synod on March 20, 1923, as follows: To His All-Holiness the Oecumenical Patriarch Mgr. Meletios we send brotherly greeting in Christ. Your Holiness – Responding readily to the suggestion made in your reverend Holiness' letter of August 8, 1922, that the autocephalous Church of Cyprus under our presidency should give its opinion as to the validity of Anglican Orders we have placed the matter before the Holy Synod in formal session. After full consideration thereof it has reached the following conclusion: It being understood that the Apostolic Succession in the Anglican Church by the Sacrament of Order was not broken at the Consecration of the first Archbishop of this Church, Matthew Parker, and the visible signs being present in Orders among the Anglicans by which the grace of the Holy Spirit is supplied, which enables the ordinand for the functions of his particular order, there is no obstacle to the recognition by the Orthodox Church of the validity of Anglican Ordinations in the same way that the validity of the ordinations of the Roman, Old Catholic, and Armenian Church are recognized by her. Since clerics coming from these Churches into the bosom of the Orthodox Church are received without reordination we express our judgment that this should also hold in the case of Anglicans – excluding intercommunio (sacramental union), by which one might receive the sacraments indiscriminately at the hands of an Anglican, even one holding the Orthodox dogma, until the dogmatic unity of the two Churches, Orthodox and Anglican, is attained. Submitting this opinion of our Church to Your All-Holiness, we remain,
Affectionately, the least of your brethren in Christ,Cyril of Cyprus
Archbishopric of Cyprus. March 7/20, 1923 Published in The Christian East, vol. IV, 1923, pp. 122-123.
The Patriarch of ALEXANDRIA, 1930
After the Lambeth Conference of 1930, the Synod of the Patriarchate of Alexandria found itself able to join in the recognition of Anglican Orders. The decision was announced in a letter from the Patriarch to the Archbishop of Canterbury as follows: To the Most Reverend Dr. Cosmo Lang, Lord Archbishop of Canterbury and Primate of All England, Greetings in the New Born Christ The Feast of the Nativity, according to the Flesh, of the Redeemer of our Souls being a most suitable occasion for us, as it were, to visit your Beatitude, our friend, by means of a letter, we come to you hereby with a heart that is filled alike with joy, that "unto us is born a Savior, which is Christ the Lord," and with fervent prayers both for your health and for the peace and stability of the holy Churches of God over which you preside. At the same time, together with our greetings for the Feast, we send you as our gift the news, which we are sure will be good news, to you, that having derived the greatest gratification from the accounts which it has received, both of the marks of honor which were rendered in London, alike by your Grace and by the general body of your Church, to the office which is ours, and also of the happy results which by the favouring breath of the Holy Spirit have emerged from the contact of the Orthodox Delegation with the Lambeth Conference, our Holy Synod of the Metropolitans of the Apostolic and Patriarchal Throne of Alexandria has proceeded to adopt a resolution recognizing the validity, as from the Orthodox point of view, of the Anglican Ministry. The text of that resolution is as follows: "The Holy Synod recognizes that the declarations of the Orthodox, quoted in the Summary, were made according to the spirit of Orthodox teaching. Inasmuch as the Lambeth Conference approved the declarations of the Anglican Bishops as a genuine account [1] of the teaching and practice of the Church of England and the Churches in communion with it, it welcomes them as a notable step towards the Union of the two Churches. And since in these declarations, which were endorsed by the Lambeth Conference, complete and satisfying assurance is found as to the Apostolic Succession, as to a real reception of the Lord's Body and blood, as to the Eucharist being thusia hilasterios [2] (Sacrifice), and as to Ordination being a Mystery, the Church of Alexandria withdraws its precautionary negative to the acceptance of the validity of Anglican Ordinations, and, adhering to the decision of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, of July 28, 1922, pronounces that if priests, ordained by Anglican Bishops, accede to Orthodoxy, they should not be re-ordained, as persons baptized by Anglicans are not rebaptized." We rejoice to see the middle wall of partition being thrown down more and more, and we congratulate your Beatitude that under God you have had the felicity of taking the initiative in furthering that work. May the Lord Who was born in Bethlehem give to you and to us the happiness of its completion. In Alexandria upon the Feast of Christ's Nativity, 1930 Your Beatitude's Beloved Brother in ChristMeletios of Alexandria
In reporting this decision to the Oecumenical Patriarch Meletios emphasized that his Synod was acting on the basis that the statements made at Lambeth had removed their former hesitation "as to the teaching of the Anglican Church upon the mysteries and Apostolic succession," and could be held to have met the desire expressed by the Romanian Patriarch in replying to Constantinople in 1925, when he wrote, But in order to make a definite pronouncement, we desire especially that the Anglican Church herself should precise her doctrine concerning the holy mysteries and particularly concerning orders: does she hold it to be a mystery or not? Since that requirement had now been satisfied, wrote Meletios, It is proper that the validity of Anglican Orders should now be recognized by all Orthodox Churches. For that which, according to the same letter, was "one of the most serious obstacles in the way of the Union of the two Churches," has been "removed."
Letter published in The Christian East, vol. XII, 1931, pp. 1-6, with notes as above; the quotation in Note 2 is from No. 11 in the Resume of the Lambeth Discussions, reprinted below, p. 22.
FOOTNOTES[1] The words in the Resolution of the Lambeth Conference are "sufficient account." [2] We transliterate the term, thusia hilasterios, and do not translate it by propitiatory sacrifice, or expiatory sacrifice, because, as generally used, these terms present conceptions which are not attached by the Orthodox to thusia hilasterios. The words used by the Anglican Bishops in their discussions with the Orthodox Delegation, as recorded in the Resume, and endorsed by the Lambeth Conference are: "… that the Anglican Church teaches the doctrine of Eucharistic Sacrifice as explained in the Answer of the Archbishops of Canterbury and York to Pope Leo XIII, on Anglican Ordinations: and also that in the offering of the Eucharistic Sacrifice, the Anglican Church prays that ‘by the merits and death of Thy Son Jesus Christ, and through faith in His Blood, we and all Thy whole Church may obtain remission of our sins, and all other benefits of His Passion,' as including the whole company of faithful people, living and departed." Lambeth Conference Report, 1930,
I have seen this little "gotcha" before. Back when he was still deciding between the Two One True Churches, Fr. Al Kimel's blog featured it all the time. Here is what the polemical comment said:
"The regula fide--under whatever form of his Branch Theory you might use--requires assent by both East and West, but the assent granted by both East and West is that Anglicans are not a part of the Church. But you will not accept that one ruling from them..."
This reminded me of one of the "Pontificator's Laws" that said something to this effect: "When Rome and Orthodoxy agree on something and Protestants don't agree, Protestantism loses." Of course, that might make sense as long as the Two One Trues are also right on the particular subject, which is not a given; for, by any rules of logic, all such things must be demonstrated rather than assumed. Also, it requires that we define what and whom we mean by the word "Protestantism," which begs definition these days more than ever. It begs the question, as well, whether or not a restoration of Catholic truth is the same as what Fr. Al the Pontificator meant by "Protestantism."
More to the point of the particular "gotcha" quoted above, and the defect of the manufacturer's guarantee, it is not even true that Rome and Orthodoxy agree on the matter in question. At least two facts stand against the argument.
Orthodoxy has never made an official ruling on any Church except the Orthodox Church. However, the only rulings ever made by Orthodox Patriarchs about Anglicanism were far from anything that could be called agreement with Rome. Specifically, the Orthodox Church wrote of their recognition of Anglican Orders (no small matter) in several letters to the Archbishop of Canterbury beginning in 1922. Also, the meaning of this recognition was clear, inasmuch as the Patriarchs and Archbishops allowed Orthodox Christians to receive Anglican sacraments during a time when Orthodox churches and clergy were few and far between in many western countries, including the United States. This ended in 1976, only because of the heresy of women's "ordination"- a heresy we have rejected from its beginning. (Furthermore, concerning the United States, one Russian bishop's opposite opinion that dates much earlier, to 1904, is not relevant, as the date alone makes obvious.) All of the letters will appear in the appendix below.
I quote an earlier post:
"In 1978, after it became clear that churches within the Anglican Communion were 'ordaining' women and intent on spreading this untraditional practice, Orthodox Archbishop Athenagoras remarked: '…the theological dialogue [between the Orthodox and the Anglicans] will continue, although now simply as an academic and informativeexercise, and no longer as an ecclesial endeavor aiming at the union of the two churches.'”(1)
As you can see, the recognition of Anglican orders, and the permission granted to Orthodox Christians from their own bishops, that they could receive sacraments from Anglican priests, was part of an effort to become one Church.(2)
At no time in modern history have the Orthodox Patriarchs, Archbishops and Bishops allowed any of their people to receive the sacraments of Roman Catholic priests. The fact is, Anglican priests were given this honor, and Roman Catholic priests were not. To this day, even though Rome has opened the door to them, the Orthodox are forbidden to receive sacraments from the Roman Catholic Church. Nonetheless, if not for women's "ordination" the practice might still continue ("might" since many Orthodox churches have since been built where there had been none, eliminating the need to go to anyone else), and the goal of unity would have gone forward. How ironic this is for Continuing Anglicans, since we have never suffered women's "ordination" either.
The second problem with the "gotcha" is that it is basically untrue for an even deeper reason. This is also why the "Pontificator's Law" quoted above is irrelevant to this subject. The Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church do not agree about Anglicanism; rather they disagree with each other on which of the two of them is, in fact, Really and Truly The One True Church. Any effect this might have on their consideration of any other church is merely an extension of this, their basic disagreement with each other. This disagreement also rules out any validity to their respective doctrines of an exclusive claim to the title, The Holy Catholic Church. That is because it proves immediately that neither claim has Universal consent.
This also begs what I have called the Anglican solution. We look at them and wonder: Why are they blind to the obvious? They are both the One True Church, and so are we. The Anglican solution is summed up not by a Lambeth Conference, not by an ABC, and not even by our Affirmation of St. Louis. Rather, it is summed up by Saint Paul the Apostle:
"If the foot shall say, Because I am not the hand, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body? And if the ear shall say, Because I am not the eye, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body? If the whole body were an eye, where were the hearing? If the whole were hearing, where were the smelling? But now hath God set the members every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased him. And if they were all one member, where were the body? But now are they many members, yet but one body. 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. Nay, much more those members of the body, which seem to be more feeble, are necessary." -I Corinthians 12: 15-22
Not only does the body need the "two lungs" of east and west; we, the Continuing Anglicans are needed as well. Only by what we have taught all along can these two ancient communions realize that they are already part of One Church, like it or not (in fact, let's hope they learn all this at the Church of the Nativity before Christmas Eve- a little peace would be nice this year).
(1) As quoted in Anglican-Orthodox Dialogue: The Dublin Agreed Statement, (Crestwood, N.Y.: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1985), p.3
(2) The permission to receive the sacraments was an official way of treating the Anglican priesthood as completely valid in fact (which pretty much sinks a theory of Metropoltan Kaillstos Ware designed to make it all mean nothing).
*************************************************************
Appendix.
Encyclical on Anglican Ordersfrom the Oecumenical Patriarch to the Presidents of the Particular Eastern Orthodox Churches, 1922
[The Holy Synod has studied the report of the Committee and notes:]
1. That the ordination of Matthew Parker as Archbishop of Canterbury by four bishops is a fact established by history.
2. That in this and subsequent ordinations there are found in their fullness those orthodox and indispensable, visible and sensible elements of valid episcopal ordination - viz. the laying on of hands, the Epiclesis of the All-Holy Spirit and also the purpose to transmit the charisma of the Episcopal ministry.
3. That the orthodox theologians who have scientifically examined the question have almost unanimously come to the same conclusions and have declared themselves as accepting the validity of Anglican Orders.
4. That the practice in the Church affords no indication that the Orthodox Church has ever officially treated the validity of Anglican Orders as in doubt, in such a way as would point to the re-ordination of the Anglican clergy as required in the case of the union of the two Churches.
The Patriarch of JERUSALEM, 1923
The Patriarch of Jerusalem wrote to the Archbishop of Canterbury in the name of his Synod on March 12, 1923, as follows: To His Grace the Archbishop of Canterbury, First Hierarch of All England, our most beloved and dear brother in our Lord Jesus, Mgr. Randall. Greeting fraternally your beloved to us, Grace, we have the pleasure to address to you the following: Yesterday we dispatched to Your Grace the following telegram: ‘We have pleasure inform Your Grace that Holy Synod of our Patriarchate after studying in several meetings question Anglican Orders from Orthodox point view resolved their validity.' Today, explaining this telegram, we inform Your Grace that the Holy Synod, having as a motive the resolution passed some time ago by the Church of Constantinople, which is the church having the First Throne between the Orthodox Churches, resolved that the consecrations of bishops and ordinations of priests and deacons of the Anglican Episcopal Church are considered by the Orthodox Church as having the same validity which the Orders of the Roman Church have, because there exist all the elements which are considered necessary from an Orthodox point of view for the recognition of the grace of the Holy Orders from Apostolic Succession. We have great pleasure in communicating to Your Grace, as the First Hierarch of all the Anglican Churches, this resolution of our Church, which constitutes a progress in the pleasing-to-God work of the union of all Churches, and we pray God to grant to Your Grace many years full of health and salvation.(Signed) DAMIANOS
February 27/March 12, 1923 Official translation published in The Christian East, vol. IV, 1923, pp. 121-122. The Archbishop of the autonomous Church of Sinai expressed for his Church adherence to the decisions of Constantinople and Jerusalem.
The Archbishop of CYPRUS, 1923
The Archbishop of Cyprus wrote to the Patriarch of Constantinople in the name of his Synod on March 20, 1923, as follows: To His All-Holiness the Oecumenical Patriarch Mgr. Meletios we send brotherly greeting in Christ. Your Holiness – Responding readily to the suggestion made in your reverend Holiness' letter of August 8, 1922, that the autocephalous Church of Cyprus under our presidency should give its opinion as to the validity of Anglican Orders we have placed the matter before the Holy Synod in formal session. After full consideration thereof it has reached the following conclusion: It being understood that the Apostolic Succession in the Anglican Church by the Sacrament of Order was not broken at the Consecration of the first Archbishop of this Church, Matthew Parker, and the visible signs being present in Orders among the Anglicans by which the grace of the Holy Spirit is supplied, which enables the ordinand for the functions of his particular order, there is no obstacle to the recognition by the Orthodox Church of the validity of Anglican Ordinations in the same way that the validity of the ordinations of the Roman, Old Catholic, and Armenian Church are recognized by her. Since clerics coming from these Churches into the bosom of the Orthodox Church are received without reordination we express our judgment that this should also hold in the case of Anglicans – excluding intercommunio (sacramental union), by which one might receive the sacraments indiscriminately at the hands of an Anglican, even one holding the Orthodox dogma, until the dogmatic unity of the two Churches, Orthodox and Anglican, is attained. Submitting this opinion of our Church to Your All-Holiness, we remain,
Affectionately, the least of your brethren in Christ,Cyril of Cyprus
Archbishopric of Cyprus. March 7/20, 1923 Published in The Christian East, vol. IV, 1923, pp. 122-123.
The Patriarch of ALEXANDRIA, 1930
After the Lambeth Conference of 1930, the Synod of the Patriarchate of Alexandria found itself able to join in the recognition of Anglican Orders. The decision was announced in a letter from the Patriarch to the Archbishop of Canterbury as follows: To the Most Reverend Dr. Cosmo Lang, Lord Archbishop of Canterbury and Primate of All England, Greetings in the New Born Christ The Feast of the Nativity, according to the Flesh, of the Redeemer of our Souls being a most suitable occasion for us, as it were, to visit your Beatitude, our friend, by means of a letter, we come to you hereby with a heart that is filled alike with joy, that "unto us is born a Savior, which is Christ the Lord," and with fervent prayers both for your health and for the peace and stability of the holy Churches of God over which you preside. At the same time, together with our greetings for the Feast, we send you as our gift the news, which we are sure will be good news, to you, that having derived the greatest gratification from the accounts which it has received, both of the marks of honor which were rendered in London, alike by your Grace and by the general body of your Church, to the office which is ours, and also of the happy results which by the favouring breath of the Holy Spirit have emerged from the contact of the Orthodox Delegation with the Lambeth Conference, our Holy Synod of the Metropolitans of the Apostolic and Patriarchal Throne of Alexandria has proceeded to adopt a resolution recognizing the validity, as from the Orthodox point of view, of the Anglican Ministry. The text of that resolution is as follows: "The Holy Synod recognizes that the declarations of the Orthodox, quoted in the Summary, were made according to the spirit of Orthodox teaching. Inasmuch as the Lambeth Conference approved the declarations of the Anglican Bishops as a genuine account [1] of the teaching and practice of the Church of England and the Churches in communion with it, it welcomes them as a notable step towards the Union of the two Churches. And since in these declarations, which were endorsed by the Lambeth Conference, complete and satisfying assurance is found as to the Apostolic Succession, as to a real reception of the Lord's Body and blood, as to the Eucharist being thusia hilasterios [2] (Sacrifice), and as to Ordination being a Mystery, the Church of Alexandria withdraws its precautionary negative to the acceptance of the validity of Anglican Ordinations, and, adhering to the decision of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, of July 28, 1922, pronounces that if priests, ordained by Anglican Bishops, accede to Orthodoxy, they should not be re-ordained, as persons baptized by Anglicans are not rebaptized." We rejoice to see the middle wall of partition being thrown down more and more, and we congratulate your Beatitude that under God you have had the felicity of taking the initiative in furthering that work. May the Lord Who was born in Bethlehem give to you and to us the happiness of its completion. In Alexandria upon the Feast of Christ's Nativity, 1930 Your Beatitude's Beloved Brother in ChristMeletios of Alexandria
In reporting this decision to the Oecumenical Patriarch Meletios emphasized that his Synod was acting on the basis that the statements made at Lambeth had removed their former hesitation "as to the teaching of the Anglican Church upon the mysteries and Apostolic succession," and could be held to have met the desire expressed by the Romanian Patriarch in replying to Constantinople in 1925, when he wrote, But in order to make a definite pronouncement, we desire especially that the Anglican Church herself should precise her doctrine concerning the holy mysteries and particularly concerning orders: does she hold it to be a mystery or not? Since that requirement had now been satisfied, wrote Meletios, It is proper that the validity of Anglican Orders should now be recognized by all Orthodox Churches. For that which, according to the same letter, was "one of the most serious obstacles in the way of the Union of the two Churches," has been "removed."
Letter published in The Christian East, vol. XII, 1931, pp. 1-6, with notes as above; the quotation in Note 2 is from No. 11 in the Resume of the Lambeth Discussions, reprinted below, p. 22.
FOOTNOTES[1] The words in the Resolution of the Lambeth Conference are "sufficient account." [2] We transliterate the term, thusia hilasterios, and do not translate it by propitiatory sacrifice, or expiatory sacrifice, because, as generally used, these terms present conceptions which are not attached by the Orthodox to thusia hilasterios. The words used by the Anglican Bishops in their discussions with the Orthodox Delegation, as recorded in the Resume, and endorsed by the Lambeth Conference are: "… that the Anglican Church teaches the doctrine of Eucharistic Sacrifice as explained in the Answer of the Archbishops of Canterbury and York to Pope Leo XIII, on Anglican Ordinations: and also that in the offering of the Eucharistic Sacrifice, the Anglican Church prays that ‘by the merits and death of Thy Son Jesus Christ, and through faith in His Blood, we and all Thy whole Church may obtain remission of our sins, and all other benefits of His Passion,' as including the whole company of faithful people, living and departed." Lambeth Conference Report, 1930,
Saturday, October 01, 2011
Fifteenth Sunday after Trinity
GALATIANS 6:11-18 * MATTHEW 6:24-34
Inexperienced clergymen, when preparing a sermon, need not fear that the plain meaning of Scripture is too strong for the likes of ordinary people, nor to assume that everyone is afraid of theology. On a couple of occasions, several years ago, back when I still sat in a pew with my wife, we were treated to exegesis and in-depth commentary on a text that appealed to some clergymen more than the passages of scripture that were read in church. It must have been some trend or fad, something recommended in some journal, because more than one of them proceeded to expound upon the meaning of a children’s story called The Velveteen Rabbit. Their sermons, the "gospel" they preached, could be summarized as follows: "Get real.” After being tortured by these homilies two or three times, I resolved that, were I ever to meet this velveteen rabbit chap I would kill it, and put myself out of its misery. With all of the writers of the Bible, Moses, David, Isaiah, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John and Paul- to name only a few- why is it that anyone would have trouble thinking of something to say?
The problem that some clergymen have with preaching is that they know they are handling dynamite, and it scares them. “The word of God is quick and powerful, sharper than any two edged sword,” says the writer to the Hebrews. When you and I are facing the real life traumas and struggles that threaten to shake either our lives or our faith, or that seem to challenge the very idea that God is good, merciful and kind, it is that objective thing called doctrine, that unchanging Creed, yes, our theology, that provides an anchor in the storm. When the world presents the illusion that our faith can be threatened by some sophisticated and trendy new “final blow to Christianity” (as opposed to last month’s “final blow to Christianity” which died away as soon as the clear light of reason shone upon it), it is theology that keeps us rooted and unshaken. What the teaching of the word of God does for you is by no means some irrelevant academic exercise divorced from the real world. No indeed. It is, rather, the armor and weaponry by which you advance in the knowledge of God and of His Son Jesus Christ, by which you overcome the world through your faith by the power of the Holy Spirit Who is in you. In times of sorrow, in times of joy, in times of suffering, and in times of merriment, the word of God is our daily bread for the mind and for the spirit; it is the lamp for our feet. It does not divorce us from reality because it keeps us rooted and grounded in the truth.
The scriptures today warn us of two kinds of deception, namely the deception of false religion and the deception of the cares of this world. And, what we see connecting these passages of scripture is summed up perfectly by our Lord when He tells us to seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness. In that seeking we are not escaping reality, rather we are facing it in its fullest. We can face good news and bad, even the fact of our own mortality, with a brand of courage unknown except by faith.
Saint Paul, in this Epistle to the churches in Galatia, saw the need to correct the heresy of self-appointed teachers who proclaimed a new and different “gospel.” In the first chapter (vs. 6-9) he told them:
“I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.”
These words may sound harsh to people who imagine that all religion is good: But every genuine pastor, every sincere bishop, priest, or deacon, cannot help but agree fully and empathize with the burden that Saint Paul expressed. We cannot simply smile and accept what is taught in cults, or even in churches that are turning away from a clear and faithful adherence to the doctrine of Scripture as received by the the most ancient catholic bishops and doctors of God’s Holy Catholic Church.
The heresy addressed in this Epistle was a new teaching that all of the Gentiles who had converted to Christ could not be saved unless they were circumcised and kept the Six Hundred and Thirteen Commandments of the Torah, and then only as interpreted by their approved Rabbis. Today we have false teaching of every sort all around us, and it has terrible consequences spiritually, and sometimes physically.
For example, the Jehovah’s Witnesses not only teach the Arian and Pneumatimachian heresies by denying the Trinity, by denying the existence of the Holy Spirit, and denying the bodily resurrection of Christ (who appeared to witnesses). They also cause their people to die, and at times have caused the deaths of their own children, because they forbid something as good and practical as blood transfusions. It is tragic. For many years my father worked side by side with a good friend, a man we all liked very much, who died at the age of sixty from heart disease. A very simple medicine could have kept him alive to this day; but he was a member of Mary Baker Eddy’s so-called “Christian Science Church,” (wrong in all three words) and so he would not take medicine. As a result of his misguided religious beliefs he died before he could retire, before he could meet his grandchildren. The picture we are given of God, by these kinds of doctrines, is very much like the picture given by the teaching that we have to keep the rules of the early Talmudic Rabbis in order to be saved: that is, the picture of God is one of a very unreasonable and harsh taskmaster who demands the impossible without providing grace.
To avoid false gospels we need sound doctrine, and true theology.
In the Gospel Jesus lifts our eyes heavenward. The Book of Common Prayer (1928, American) does something unusual in this passage. It does not use the exact words of the King James Bible, “give no thought for the morrow.” Instead, this one passage uses the 1888 Revised Version: “Be not anxious for the morrow.” Anxiety can take your mind off of the Lord; it can disturb your peace and ruin your whole life. Anxiety is the opposite of faith. Isaiah the prophet tells us:
“Thou wilt keep him in perfect peace, whose mind is stayed on thee: because he trusteth in thee. Trust ye in the LORD for ever: for in the LORD, the LORD, is everlasting strength (Isa. 26:3,4).”
This strength is real and effective for us here and now in this life, and it is the only strength that lasts forever. No matter what evils come in this life, as people face the death of loved ones, as they face betrayal, economic hardship, illness, their own mortality and the hostility of an unbelieving world, in the Lord is everlasting strength.
“Ye have heard of the patience of Job,” we are told (James 5:11). Let us look as well to the suffering of the Apostles. One of the most moving passages in all of Saint Paul’s Epistles, at least for me, is a personal plea that he wrote near the end of his life to his son in the Faith, Timothy. It is not a deeply theological passage, at least not in an academic sense. It is not a passage that we can use to illuminate our minds with doctrine- and yet is a very useful passage for theology and doctrine if you reflect upon it. In the last chapter of Second Timothy we find two requests. First he wrote: “The cloak that I left at Troas with Carpus, when thou comest, bring with thee, and the books, but especially the parchments.” Then he wrote, “Do thy diligence to come before winter.”
Think about that. When the Romans locked up a prisoner they did not feed him, or tend to his needs. That had to be arranged by family and friends. At the end of his many years of service, which he once described as involving constant persecutions, and other troubles such as shipwrecks, hunger and cold, he had come to this. The Saint, the former Rabbi who was the father of the Gentile Christians, the man who wrote about charity in words more meaningful than any other passage ever written about love, the man who gave us most of the words of the New Testament, bearing in his body the marks of Christ, glorying only and ever in the cross of Christ, had instead of retirement and a nice pension, a cell in a dungeon and a sentence of death. He was going to face Nero's executione
r. To get through his last Winter on this earth he asked Timothy to bring the cloak, and to hurry up and get it to him before the cold winds of Winter could blow through his cell.
r. To get through his last Winter on this earth he asked Timothy to bring the cloak, and to hurry up and get it to him before the cold winds of Winter could blow through his cell.Well, that may not seem like a very deep theological passage. But it is. We see the faith of this saint who looked above the things of this world, this last witness of Christ’s resurrection facing death without fear, suffering the loss of all things with joy. His needs were real. He needed the cloak. Also, he wanted his books, probably hand-written copies of the Old Testament scriptures. What good were “the books, especially the parchments,” to a man on death row? The answer is, he wanted to keep his mind fed with the word of God, because he knew, living in prison and facing death, that the truth of the word of God was his anchor.
“Seek ye first the Kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things shall be added unto you.” Everything you need for this life will be added. You have no cause for anxiety as unbelievers do. But more than that, more than food and drink, clothing and a place to lay your head, in the Lord is everlasting strength, the gift of sharing immortality with the Risen Christ, and the hope of partaking of the Divine nature through grace. You need not fear that the one who died to take away your sins, and who has promised in His resurrection to be with us forever, will change His mind and break His promises. What you need in this life will be provided as you seek first His kingdom and righteousness. But, even more so, “in the Lord is everlasting strength.” The pledge is eternal life through the risen Christ who has overcome death.
This is the faith that takes you through a life of real struggles and temptations. To feed and strengthen this faith you need to know what to rest your hope upon. For that you need the teaching that God has given by the revelation of His word. Dare I say it? You need the stable anchor of true theology and sound doctrine, because His word revealed in Scripture and known to His Church is where you discover the truth of God’s love.
Study of Scripture: On the Epistle
Gal. 6:11-18
It may well be that Saint Paul’s words in this Sunday’s portion of his Epistle to the churches of Galatia, sound a bit strange. All of this talk about circumcision contrasted against the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, and people “glorying”- that is, in modern English, boasting- about the “flesh” of these Christians, may well confuse a new Bible reader. It can lead to mistaken ideas. The first mistaken idea is that whatever Saint Paul was talking about cannot be relevant to modern people. The second mistaken idea is that this provides a basis for an anti-Semitic interpretation of scripture. Another mistaken idea would be we have no need for the authority and teaching of the Church.
In fact, let me deal with this third mistake. In so doing, I will have already answered the others. Since we speak in the Creeds of the Catholic Church and of the Catholic Faith, which we believe, we are stuck with the Catholic Tradition- and thank God we are. The Nicene (/Constantinopolitan) Creed says, “I believe One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.” Yes, we do believe in the Church, because Christ Himself founded it and is its Head. But, in this great Creed you say I believe the Church; I believe what it teaches.
The scripture, without solid teaching of what it means, can be taken captive by any kook, fraud or con-man. So, when we speak of the Catholic Tradition we must go back to the ancient times, those early centuries when the Church was under persecution, or just emerging from persecution. We are saying that we believe what Christ promised, namely that the Spirit of Truth would guide the Apostles into all truth (John 16:13). And, as that promise of Christ applies to this passage from Galatians, the young Church first had to deal with a heresy that came about so early in its history that we see it addressed by St. Paul. When the apostles and elders gathered in Jerusalem, they also, with complete unanimity, addressed and refuted it (Acts chapter fifteen). This ancient heresy taught that, in order to be saved, a Gentile who converts to Christianity must be circumcised and live by all of the 613 commandments of the Law of Moses.
Trendy writers have sold the idea that some controversy raged over what to do with Gentiles converts. They sell the notion that this alleged controversy raged for years, even among the Apostles, pitting Paul against James, and maybe against Peter. They insist that we may infer, from this invented story of theirs, that important questions can go unresolved and debated within the Church for extended years before the Spirit leads us to a right conclusion. They use their false and contrived reading of the New Testament to justify new and outrageous ideas (including women's ordination and same sex blessings, etc.).
But, that tale of a raging and prolonged controversy is pure fiction; and so, like the future, it can teach us no lessons. What we really see in the New Testament is that the Proto-Council in Jerusalem was unanimous in its conclusion, without disagreement among the Apostles and the Elders. At the Council they unanimously affirmed the earlier decision recorded in the eleventh chapter of Acts, when they all agreed with Saint Peter that he had been right to baptize the new Gentile converts without circumcising them; because when the Holy Spirit came upon the Gentiles, gathered that day in the house of Cornelius, God made no distinction between Jew and Gentile. The immediate and unanimous Apostolic conclusion had been, at that time, “then hath God granted the Gentiles repentance unto life.” (Acts 11;18) So, when a new heresy arose, as Gentile Christians were troubled by unauthorized teachers who wanted them to be circumcised and to keep the Law, Saint Paul was in complete agreement with Saint James, and with Saint Peter, and with all the Apostles, that the Tradition of the Church (new as that Tradition was, but established nonetheless) had to be defended. What Saint Peter had learned years before when Gentiles first converted to Christ, and what his fellow Apostles affirmed without argument (if you simply read the record in the Book of Acts), was the very same teaching proclaimed by Saint Paul, and the same teaching that the Council in Jerusalem upheld for all of the churches everywhere. In short, the New Testament does not show a controversy among the Apostles, but rather that they were in complete unity, agreeing among themselves concerning what it was that the Holy Spirit had revealed. And so, in the New Testament we see the Church teaching the content of Apostolic witness.
What does this mean for you? It means that what the Church has always taught since its earliest days, as recorded in Scripture, is to be believed. In this case, believe and know that you cannot save yourself by your own power. That first heresy, that we are saved by circumcision (of the males) and by keeping the 613 commandments, suggests that we have the power to save ourselves without God’s help--that we can pull ourselves up to Heaven by our own bootstraps. A few centuries later, this same idea would reappear in another form from Britain’s very own heretic, a fellow named Pelagius. Pelagius taught that we can, without God’s grace, live holy lives simply by our own will power; that Christ came merely to be our example. The man who worked hardest to refute the heresy of Pelagianism was Saint Augustine. He picked up the teaching of the Apostles back in the first Century, that we cannot save ourselves by our own power; that we need the grace of God.
Today we can speak of the heresies of the Judaizers and of the Pelagians with ease. But, think of what it meant for people back then to hear such teaching. What if Christ had come only to be the example of perfection? Would not we be without hope? We should all know about the problem of sin and death. What I know about sin I did not need to learn in Seminary. I had the subject pretty well mastered without reading a text book on it. Death is the flip side, a part of the problem of sin; sin and death are two sides of one coin. One thing I do not need is a perfect example to make the sting of my condemnation worse. I need a Savior, both to rescue me from the reality of guilt (whether I have the good sense to feel guilt, or not), and to heal my fallen soul of its waywardness. Jesus the Good Example cannot save me; Jesus Christ, the Word made flesh, the Lord and Savior Who is One with the Father, forever God even as He takes into His own Person our human nature and redeems it, and by grace perfects it, can and does save me. And, no one else can; certainly I cannot save myself. In Christ, however, no longer am I bound for destruction, for an eternity of death without God. Rather, forgiveness is extended, along with grace and power by the Holy Spirit to be transformed, right up until that day when we are made partakers of the Divine Nature (II Pet. 1:4) because the One Who as God was made man, gives us even this very grace.
So, I trust you see that Saint Paul’s words are very relevant to you.
Friday, September 30, 2011
Liberation
The Anglican Church in America (ACA) House of Clergy, meeting at Our Lady of the Snows, have urged their Archbishop John Hepworth to resign as Primate of the Traditional Anglican Communion, saying that his attempt to take his flock to Rome makes it impossible for him to continue as their leader.
'It is increasingly obvious to us and those for whom we are pastorally responsible that recent developments have made it impossible for you to continue to function effectively as Primate of the Traditional Anglican Communion, and that the responsibilities of that office add immeasurably to the personal stress inevitable in your personal situation.'...
Analysis
I remember a movie in which children in a French school had to make due with a city block, having no gymnasium or schoolyard. In the scene, the Physical Education teacher is leading the boys on a run around the city block, himself in the lead. Bit by bit, in small groups, the boys break off and leave to play hooky while the teacher, running ever forward without a backwards glance, ends up with exactly two of the original class of more than twenty. I thought, "that's Archbishop Hepworth leading his people to Rome."
It was 2008. As of yet there was no Anglicanorum Coetibus. But, I could see that Abp. Hepworth forgot to see if anyone was following him when he made his bold announcements that he would lead "400,000 Traditional Anglicans" into the Church. First of all, the TAC never promised to follow him to Rome. Second, there was never anything even close to 400,000 people in the TAC (never more than about 50,000 at its height). Third, Anglicans have never called the Roman Catholic Church the Church, nor even the Catholic Church. To us, it is a branch of the Catholic Church, and not wholly free from error. It is part of the Church, and we love its people and share much of the same doctrine. But, we also have theological differences.
Hepworth and the few who zealously followed him wanted to ignore those theological issues, with the same careless and unprincipled ecumenism that leads, ultimately, to nothing substantive (like the Charismatic version of Ecumenism in the 1970s). They depended on ignorance among all their followers, which is never a safe bet. Then, when Rome insulted every convinced Anglican with Anglicanorum Coetibus, Hepworth and his Tiber swimmer squad depended on gullibility and uninformed credulity on the part of the whole TAC.
It is notable that the ACA House of Bishops has agreed with my earlier analysis about Hepworth's psychological problems. They wrote to him in their statement,
"There is an urgent need for focused leadership of the TAC at this critical time in the life of the church. For the good of the church and your family, as well as for your own emotional, physical, and spiritual health, we prayerfully urge you to consider submitting your resignation as Primate forthwith."
I had said, "All this time the Roaming Romeward emphasis, in what people joined and contributed to as an Anglican church, was really about one man and his personal trauma." Some of his defenders screamed bloody murder, calling me by "the usual suspects" list of names. Nonetheless, the truth is obvious to the men who bear responsibility for souls under their pastoral care as bishops. The good thing is, they are doing their duty.
Let us hope, with this Roaming Romeward effort to convert them out of the way, the TAC will be a full partner in unifying the Continuing Anglicans back into one big family.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)