TRINITY XXIV

Col. 1:3-12

Matt. 9:18-26

Taken together, the Epistle and Gospel appointed for today speak to the reality of everything we do. St Paul writes to the Colossians about their knowledge of God, a thing essential to the life of every Christian, and the very definition of eternal life. Jesus had said, “And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.”1 This hearkens back to the thirty-first chapter of the book of the prophet Jeremiah, who foretold the New Covenant, that New Covenant that our Lord spoke of as established in his own blood on that night in which he was betrayed. To know God is at the heart of the New Covenant, which contains this promise: “And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD; for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.”2 Here, in the Epistle, St. Paul speaks openly and simply about the knowledge of God; he assumes that his readers do, in fact, know God. The idea that God might be a stranger to the home, and the heart, of any Christian was unfathomable to him. This speaks to the reality of the Christian life of faith; it is not simply a matter of form, and it is never a matter of anything we should call “blind faith.”

Our faith is not blind. Unbelief is blind. Rationalism is blind. The darkness of willful unrepentant sin is the darkness of blindness. But, faith sees, and sees clearly. God remains above and beyond our comprehension, so that we cannot describe him, except by St. Paul’s chapter on charity. That is, we cannot explain God, or know how to define his power, his wisdom or his essence. Nonetheless, this unknowable God has made himself known, and he has revealed himself by the Word made flesh, the only mediator between God and man, the Man Christ Jesus. 3 “He who has seen me has seen the Father,” 4 said our Lord Jesus Christ. We cannot comprehend God, we cannot describe God, we cannot understand God, and yet we can know God. He has made himself known, he has revealed himself in his word, and above all the Word made flesh, his only begotten Son. “No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.” 5

And, we can know his will. He has not hidden it away for the wise and learned, but revealed it. Some of that revelation is so simple that we teach it to our children in their earliest years- or, that is, we should. We teach them the Ten Commandments, the Summary of the Law, to pray “Our Father. “ We begin to teach right from wrong at a very early age. This is part of knowing the will of God. As we mature, and need wisdom, we have the wonderful gift of Holy Scripture to “read, mark, learn and inwardly digest.”6

According to the Wisdom Literature of the Scriptures, such books Proverbs, Ecclesiasticus (or Sirach), Wisdom and Ecclesiastes, the essence of wisdom is moral rather than intellectual. The wise man is a godly and righteous man, and the fool is the one who lives in sin without the fear of God. So, the essence of wisdom is moral rather than intellectual. Someone who has his gaze fixed always and only on the things of this world, and lives as if he is naturally immortal, and will not face judgment, is a fool, no matter how high an IQ he may possess. Recently I wrote an article called “Atheism and Stupidity.” The lack of reason, the laziness of thought, the simplicity and reduction of every theological and philosophical question, that is, the method of atheist apologetics in general, may appear clever to those caught up in them. Indeed, recent books have been produced with this very sort of argumentation by men who should know better, men whose experience when they were in college ought to tell them that simplistic arguments and undocumented material deserve no higher grade than an “f.” Cleverness is no substitute for diligence, and certainly no substitute for either knowledge or wisdom. It cannot deliver the soul from death, nor from standing before the judgment seat of Christ.

True wisdom knows the very thing that genuine science constantly rediscovers. No matter how much knowledge we learn, our ignorance outweighs it all. Every valid scientific discovery adds to our ignorance. How can that be? Simply put, the proportion of human ignorance against human knowledge grows by every major discovery, because every discovery opens more questions than we had before. The arrogance of late 19^th century and early 20^th century Rationalism should have been blown away forever by the major discoveries of Einstein, and by every advance in modern physics. And, despite this fact, that ought to have everyone in awe, and that ought to produce humility, we still see on some cars those silly “Darwin” stickers that mock the Christian Fish symbol. Don’t they know that they are at least 80 years behind? We still run into people who think there is a conflict between faith and science, and who are unaware of the great number of religious people, Christians and Jews, among the world’s prominent physicists. Of course, this is not just an absence of wisdom, but also of education. But, more to the point, the complexity of the physical universe tells us that the mind of God is beyond all human comprehension. The very complexity that makes up what we call matter, and what we call energy, is enough that we should see how far above our comprehension God is.

Yet, even though his creation is beyond our finite minds, and himself completely hidden, we know God. Furthermore, St. Paul tells us that we know his will, and that he opens the eyes of our understanding to know it as we need to. Listen again to his words:

For this cause we also, since the day we heard it, do not cease to pray for you, and to desire that ye might be filled with the knowledge of his will in all wisdom and spiritual understanding; that ye might walk worthy of the Lord unto all pleasing, being fruitful in every good work, and increasing in the knowledge of God; strengthened with all might,6 according to his glorious power, unto all patience and longsuffering with joyfulness; giving thanks unto the Father, which hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light.

If we approach what we do here today as simply a matter of form and nothing more, how can today’s scriptures enter into hearts and minds to renew us? I say this because I have been among traditional Anglicans long enough to know that a very great number of our dear brethren have never sought to penetrate the deep meaning and reality of our faith. I have stood in the pulpit of a church, when I was first in Arizona and had been not yet been among that congregation long enough to have an influence, to look out at the spectacle of individuals scattered here and there throughout the pews observing their watches. This was only a minority of the people, but it was disturbing nonetheless. I was acquainted with the term “Shinto Episcopalians.” I asked what it meant. In Japan, the Shinto religion is very old, and no one knows anything about any teaching associated with it. Those who practice it observe the rituals very strictly, but have no knowledge of what they mean. Among that congregation were a few people who had very strong opinions about how to do a Church service “correctly.” They had their own mental rubrics from a lifetime in the Episcopal Church, and had come to us simply because we used the “old” Prayer Book, and they liked it better than the new one that their church had forced on them. They thought it their duty to let me know if I stepped out of line, and they looked at their watches to see if I preached too long. Usually none of them would try to “correct” me more than once.

Those people wanted a very low church kind of service. But, among the high church Anglo-Catholics we have quite a few “Shinto” Anglicans. They know exactly how to perform everything in Ritual Notes, exactly what to do in every way, even how to approach the Gospel Book “at a ninety degree angle.” They swing the thurible exactly the right number of times, and have every detail down perfectly. Fine. I am not against that at all. But, how many of these details really matter if we fail to worship God in spirit and in truth? Recall these words from John’s Gospel:

The woman saith unto him, Sir, I perceive that thou art a prophet. Our fathers worshipped in this mountain; and ye say, that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship. Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father. Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews. But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him. God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.8

Listen all mountaineers and “Shinto” Anglicans: Today’s Gospel shows the power of Jesus Christ to raise the dead at his will, and the power of true faith to apprehend his promise. The woman who had the flow of blood was able to get to the heart of true sacramental theology; not that she knew what she was doing in those terms. The grace of God was present in the Word made Flesh, in Jesus Christ who was walking among the large crowd of people, and she pressed through the crowd to touch a simple material thing. She reached out to touch the hem of his garment as he walked, a thing so simple and mundane, and so very material. You know, as a Byzantine Catholic priest who was in our Rectory as a dinner guest a few months ago put it, everything you need for the sacraments can be found in a proper Mediterranean kitchen. Wine, water, olive oil, flour- just a few simple things. The hem of Christ’s garment was a simple thing. It was a real material thing. The sacraments work this way. They all stem from the incarnate Christ. He is present in the world that he created, having added to his Eternal and Uncreated Person the created matter and nature of everything that is truly human. From the fact of his incarnation, his human nature that tabernacled among us, the physical matter of his human body that walked the earth complete with a human mind and soul, and from the garment in which he clothed it, grace flowed out and healed the woman.

Yes, you can go through the Form very properly; but, in addition to that, your real need is to reach out and touch the hem of Christ’s garment. You come to this sacrament today in very real need. You cannot even keep your own soul alive. No cleverness, no correctness of rubrical directions, and no proper performance will save you from sin and death. You must come “with hearty repentance and true faith” to "take this sacrament to your comfort." You are subject to sin and death, without hope of eternal life unless you lay hold on the grace of God as you pass through this life. You are not coming to this sacrament because you deserve to have it, but because you need it. You need to feed on the bread of life, to be saved from sin and death by consuming the food and drink of eternal life. 9 You need Jesus. You are coming in that need to reach out and touch the hem of his garment. Without this faith, without this knowledge of God, without this humility, without dependence and reliance on his grace and on his power, you would be lost and doomed. I like correct Form. But, you are coming for something in addition. You need to receive the Matter with the Intention of feeding on the Living Christ. This sacramental life is the life of faith, and it is based on knowing God.

1. John 17:3

2. Jeremiah 31:31-34

3. I Timothy 2:5

4. John 14:9

5.John 1:18

6. Collect for the Second Sunday in Advent.

7. δύναμις

8. John 4:19-24

9. John 6:26-59

Bishop Michael Wright on the TAC and Rome

The following presents a point of view that deserves to be considered, but, like most things that cross jurisdictional lines of thought on this blog, it does not necessarily reflect the views of The Continuum, namely, the host and those of us who are contributors. The point of view of the author, Bishop Michael Wright of The Holy Catholic Church Western Rite, is clearly more in line with Orthodoxy than with Rome. Ironically, the use of the term "Western Rite" should indicate the "Eastern" point of view to those of you "in the know." By e-mail, Bishop Wright has told me:

"I was present at the Portsmouth Synod. It was a well-run and extremely pleasant occasion. When it came to the Letter [to the See of Rome] approval was unanimous. A draft text had been prepared and presented but the only debate was about minor amendments. It was this unanimity which made me wonder whether the leadership really understood the nature of the commitment it was making."

This gets to the heart of the matter. Is the TAC really anticipating that Rome will grant full sacramental communion any time in the near future? I would venture to say, "no." The whole idea that Rome will do anything in a hurry, or that full sacramental communion could be only months or years away is unrealistic. And, from Archbishop Hepworth to the lowliest Deacon, they probably know that it will take a lot of discussion. To be realistic, the reply from Rome could, potentially, restore the kind of earnest discussions that no longer take place between them and the Anglican Communion. However, if such discussions can begin to take place between the TAC and Rome, that is, the kind with a real goal and purpose of unity, this would not fill in the other great blank from Anglican history. In the old days, the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Anglican Communion were working toward a goal of Reunion with Rome (not a simple surrender, but rather something that required Rome to consider the Anglican views- which was taken seriously over there), while at the same time working on unity to become one Church with the Orthodox. If the scenario were to involve a restoration of this newer kind of "East-West" via media that lasted through the Archbishoprics of Lang to Ramsey, where can we see any such approach to the Orthodox at this present time?
- Fr. Robert Hart


"I must leave you to form your own conclusions, but for me the Affirmation of St Louis provides a clear line of direction and responsibility for the Continuing Churches."

+Michael M Wright

IS YOUR JOURNEY REALLY NECESSARY?
A brief study by Bishop Michael Wright

It is now well known that the Traditional Anglican Communion (TAC) is seeking union with the See of Rome. To quote the official statement authorised by the Primate, Archbishop John Hepworth: “The College of Bishops of the Traditional Anglican Communion (TAC) met in Plenary Session in Portsmouth, England, in the first week of October 2007. The Bishops and Vicars-General unanimously agreed to the text of a letter to the See of Rome seeking full, corporate, sacramental union. The letter was signed solemnly by all the College and entrusted to the Primate and two bishops chosen by the College to be presented to the Holy See. The letter was cordially received at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith....”

The action of the Portsmouth Synod is a courageous step to take as it invites misunderstanding by those of other Churches and even risks rejection by some within the TAC’s own membership. Moreover this is a new departure, the first example of a ‘Continuing Anglican Church’ seeking a wider Catholic unity by stepping outside the area of the ‘Continuum’. The question remains however whether this action furthers true Catholic unity.

The Roman Church claims to be the original Catholic Church unchanged from the time of the Apostles onward. For those who think thus - and this seems to be true of the TAC leadership - union with Rome is the first obvious step on the way to restoring full Christian unity. However, in the interest of true union this claim has to be challenged.

The unity of the primitive Catholic Church was established in the following way. Throughout the whole collection of New Testament Epistles there are exhortations ‘to be of one mind’ and ‘to have the mind of Christ’ This theme appears notably in the Epistles of Saints Paul, Peter, and John - it is an understanding common to all three. To have a ‘different mind’ is the same as maintaining a different Gospel because the effect of receiving in Baptism and Eucharist the life of Christ through the Holy Spirit is to unite believers in one mind - the ‘mind of Christ.’ We see this concern to maintain a ‘common mind’ in the face of a particular problem in the account of the First Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15). When the assembly has reached a ‘common mind’ on the question of dietary regulations it is able to announce that the agreement has been achieved by the guidance of the Holy Spirit. It is left to St James to summarise the conclusion reached by the Council. James acts as Council’s voice. All subsequent Councils of the Church, whether local or involving wider areas of consultation (even to the point of those having ecumenical status) reflect the same pattern - a pattern exemplified at its most basic level by the 34th Apostolic Canon.

Unity is achieved through the maintenance of a ‘common mind’ with Christ. The achievement of a ‘common mind’ is proof of the presence and guidance of the Holy Spirit. The unity and identity of the Catholic Church comes about through sacramental incorporation by the Holy Spirit into Christ’s risen life - and thus the possession of His mind.

The maintenance of a ‘common mind’ linking the Apostolic Twelve with their successors the bishops with their flocks is at the heart of what we call the Holy Tradition and this in turn is the consequence of the abiding, active and direct presence of the Holy Spirit within the Church. For the same reason heretics, those of a ‘different mind’, even if they administer an outward form of Christian baptism, do not receive the grace of the Holy Spirit uniting the believer to Christ and making him a member of His Body, the Catholic Church.

In the course of time the Catholic Church had to come to a ‘common mind’ over the doctrinal standing of various movements which threatened conflict within the Church. Arianism, for example, was eventually rejected by the ‘common mind’ established through the first two Ecumenical Councils. Subsequent Ecumenical Councils dealt in a similar ‘conciliar’ manner with other movements and this accounts for the series of Seven Councils acknowledged by the Orthodox and Roman Churches alike (as also by those Anglicans abiding by the Affirmation of St Louis). The ‘conciliar’ ecclesiology was far more than a convenient way of achieving a majority consensus, it was essential to the nature of the Catholic Church.

The Catholic Church therefore is a sacramental fellowship, a koinônia linking heaven and earth, uniting all members, corporately and individually, with the life and mind of Christ through the Holy Spirit. Any challenge to this ‘conciliar’ ecclesiology overturns the very nature of the Catholic Church and constitutes the intrusion of a ‘different mind’, marking a departure into heretical isolation.

Historically the Roman Church came to occupy the chief position among the great patriarchal sees of the Church, but its confirmation, along with the other great patriarchates, of the decisions of the Ecumenical Councils indicated no more than that the ‘conciliar’ process of consultation was now complete. All this changed following the Eighth Ecumenical Council.

It is little known that there is an 8th Ecumenical Council and it is not the Council listed by the Roman Church. In AD 869 a council was held at Constantinople with the purpose of deposing the Patriarch Photios. The council was driven by the political agenda of the then Byzantine Emperor Basil. Ten years later another Council was held which restored St Photios as Patriarch, declared the previous council null and void, and also condemned any addition to the Creed (the Frankish ‘filioque’ clause was the target). This Council was fully endorsed by all five Patriarchs and for almost two hundred years thereafter was recognised universally as the 8th Ecumenical Council (880). Toward the end of this period the Church in Rome, now under the dominant influence of the Frankish Church, inserted the Frankish ‘filioque’ clause into the Creed. This was done unilaterally, ignoring the authentically Catholic ‘conciliar’ procedures observed and maintained by all previous popes. Some decades later the Roman Pope ceased, again unilaterally, to recognise the true 8th Council in favour of the earlier abrogated council (this earlier council is the one still listed by the Roman Church as the 8th Council).

These actions mark the replacement within the great Western Patriarchate of the essential Catholic ‘conciliar’ ecclesiology. The ‘common mind’ was now to be imposed by a single individual claiming a special delegated authority as the successor of Peter and Vicar of Christ. Although this notion had grown up slowly over many centuries within the Western Patriarchate, this was the first time it was put to the open test and it was never universally received - it was not, in short, the ‘common mind’ of the Catholic Church. With this action the Roman patriarchate broke away from the Catholic Church and has remained unreconciled to this day, still asserting, as in Vatican II’s Dogmatic Constitution of the Church, that:

“In virtue of his office, that is as Vicar of Christ and pastor of the whole Church, the Roman Pontiff has full, supreme and universal power over the Church. And he is always free to exercise this power.” (Lumen Gentium, Chapter 3 section 22)

In this way the Roman Church has long since abandoned the authentic Catholic Church and set up a Church with a ‘different mind’. Judged by the Tradition of the Catholic Church this is a departure into heresy. From the Orthodox Church point of view the requirement for reunion of the two Churches is the stark demand that the Roman Church repents and repudiates its innovative ecclesiology. A thousand years of separation have also created other doctrinal obstacles, teachings which have no place in the authentic patristic Tradition - these also would have to be repudiated.

This is a brief blunt sketch of the background against which the decision of the TAC leadership has been made. Much that is written about Christian reunion ignores the gravity of the breach between the Catholic Church and the Roman Church. There is an unfounded assumption that the great divide is between Rome and the Churches of the Reformation and that once this obstacle has been removed the far older dispute will be easily resolved. It would seem that the TAC leadership is taking the road to Rome ignoring (probably not even aware of) the far greater gulf between ‘East’ and ‘West’.

On the other hand The Affirmation of St Louis remains loyal to the original, authentic ‘conciliar’ ecclesiology of the Catholic Church, firmly rooted in Scripture and Tradition. If the intentions of the TAC are fulfilled and ‘full, corporate, sacramental union’ with Rome is achieved it will be less a Catholic Church than it is at present - so is its journey really necessary?

Meanwhile it is spiritually dangerous to claim that the Roman Church and, for that matter, all Churches originating in the Western Patriarchate, are heretical and false Churches devoid of grace. Faithfulness to the Holy Tradition can be turned into a new legalism which stifles the voice of the Holy Spirit and creates blindness toward spiritual reality. It is encouraging therefore to be able to quote another aspect of the Roman Church’s Lumen Gentium:

“The Church recognizes that in many ways she is linked with those who, being baptized, are honoured with the name of Christian, though they do not profess the faith in its entirety or do not preserve unity of communion with the successor of Peter. For there are many who honour Sacred Scripture, taking it as a norm of belief and a pattern of life, and who show a sincere zeal. They lovingly believe in God the Father Almighty and in Christ, the Son of God and Saviour. They are consecrated by baptism, in which they are united with Christ. They also recognize and accept other sacraments within their own Churches or ecclesiastical communities. Many of them rejoice in the episcopate, celebrate the Holy Eucharist and cultivate devotion toward the Virgin Mother of God. They also share with us in prayer and other spiritual benefits. Likewise we can say that in some real way they are joined with us in the Holy Spirit, for to them too He gives His gifts and graces whereby He is operative among them with His sanctifying power. Some indeed He has strengthened to the extent of the shedding of their blood. In all of Christ's disciples the Spirit arouses the desire to be peacefully united, in the manner determined by Christ, as one flock under one shepherd, and He prompts them to pursue this end. Mother Church never ceases to pray, hope and work that this may come about. She exhorts her children to purification and renewal so that the sign of Christ may shine more brightly over the face of the earth.” (Lumen Gentium, Chapter 2 section 15)

What is remarkable about this statement is that it acknowledges that Christians outside the confines of the Roman Church are united to Christ by baptism and likewise participate in the Holy Spirit. This statement can only mean, if unintentionally, that the Orthodox Church possesses the essential elements which constitute the Body of Christ - is, in fact, authentically Catholic. The same judgement applies also to those Continuing Anglicans committed to the Fundamental Doctrinal and Moral Principles set out in the Affirmation of St Louis. The Roman Church, of course, insists on a further requirement, acknowledgement of the unique status of the Roman Papacy, but this adds nothing to the Catholic and salvific reality which it admits to be possessed by Churches outside its self-defined confines.

In summary, union with Rome only makes sense once unity is restored between all five ancient patriarchates of the Catholic Church and the ‘common mind’ broken by the Roman Church is once more restored. The present action of the TAC has no significance in terms of furthering the unity of the Church. Meanwhile it is our responsibility to maintain our present witness to the authentic ecclesiology of the undivided Catholic Church, for this is the standard to which all must return if there is to be the true unity which Christ wills and of which he himself is the abiding foundation.

NOTE: The actual course of events and relationship between the two Councils was establish some sixty years ago by the Roman Catholic Church historian, Francis Dvornik. Since that time much discussion and research has been devoted to the matter. The best recent account which gives the necessary priority to the doctrinal issues is by Fr George Dragas.

The Awful Gravity of Logic

In the "Culture Briefs" from today's Washington Times:

Not getting religion

"Suppose you picked up your morning newspaper, and read that the local softball team, sponsored by Ken's Transmission Specialists, had won the World Series.

" 'That doesn't seem right,' you might say to yourself. The boys from Ken's are as good as any nine men when it comes to pounding the Budweiser, but in terms of athletic ability ... And didn't some team from Boston just win the Series? Puzzled, you read on. The story explains that the World Series took place in the parking lot behind Sal's Discount Suds.

"At this point you realize that the story is complete — well, 'nonsense' is the polite term. You realize that the editor of the sports page is incompetent, and you think seriously about canceling your subscription. Right? "Then you probably won't be impressed with the editors in St. Louis who gave the OK to a story that begins: 'A couple of firsts: Two women were ordained as Roman Catholic priests Sunday in St. Louis — and the ordination was in a synagogue.' "

— Pseudonymous blogger Diogenes, writing on "Journalists Without [bleep] Detectors," on Monday at Catholic World News blog "Off the Record."

It has been thirty years since the meeting in St. Louis when the Affirmation was written. The above blurb, a comment on a recent example of sloppy news reporting in the same city, reminds us that the immediate cause of the Continuing Church movement was the crisis provoked by the "ordination" of women in the Episcopal Church and in the Anglican Church in Canada. As much as we want to applaud the point made by Diogenes the Blogger, the truth keeps us sober. In the case of Continuing Anglicanism, it was the valid and faithful expression of Anglicanism that was made to appear like a local softball team claiming to have played the World Series behind a store in a parking lot. Our own church here in Easton, Maryland spent about eleven years in rented store front space, which earned us the mockery and disdain of the "proper" Episcopalians in town (the respectable folks from from the local ecclesiastical "Gay Bar"); that is, until 2005 when we moved into a large former Roman Catholic church building on a prominent corner, conveniently two blocks from the ECUSAn cathedral. Appearances can be deceiving; in 1977 the official Canterbury Anglicans, with the backing of then Archbishop Donald Coggan -who tried to kill this Continuing baby before it was born- managed to maintain their respectability, not to mention the property, assets and name of the established churches. Frankly, they have, over these thirty years, kept just about everything, except the Faith. So, they should not mind that we have kept it.

In these thirty years the other side have gained notoriety in place of respectability. The Episcopal Church embarrasses itself every time it makes the news; and who can forget that the official Anglicans in Canada almost put themselves out of business by the sexual abuse of Indian children in schools? (No, I haven't forgotten all you Brits, Aussies and others. I was just pointing out a few tidbits.) It may be tempting for us to shift our focus to the issue of homosexuality, the "Blessing" of same sex unions, which sounds like a labor movement, but isn't. After all, when the headlines scream at us about the majority of Anglicans in the world who want to break communion with the ECUSAns, and C of Ers, many of us would like to be in that large, impressive company of "orthodox" Anglicans who stand on principle, those godly Africans and Global Southerners. Sometimes it feels lonely in this movement.

But, we must not forget that the immediate cause of our break with the Cantuarian elite was the issue of women's "ordination." We must consider the theological connection between sacraments. The majority of principled Anglicans cannot help but notice the heresy of Homosexualism (learn that word: it means the heresy of teaching and promoting this form of immorality as an acceptable way of life), since they don't like it. As I said in a Touchstone article published in 2004:

After all, what the homosexualists have been able to do is to base their arguments upon a foundation already laid for them. That foundation has included relaxation of the moral laws about sexual behavior. It has also included the confusion of sex roles ever since women were first “ordained” in the Episcopal Church. The conservatives have accepted these things, but hope now to credibly and effectively oppose the homosexualist cause. This cannot be done.

The fact is, once the "ordination" of women was accepted, the movement to bless same sex unions was inevitable. The arguments for Homosexualism are not merely similar to the arguments for women's "ordination." Rather, they are the exact same arguments. The blessing of same sex unions, practiced now throughout the heretical but official Canterbury Communion, is performed as a church rite by sincerely lusting couples under the direction of clergypersons of both sexes and all genders, to be as close to the semblance of marriage as the Law of each state, province or nation makes possible. In short, it imitates the sacrament of Holy Matrimony, and does so on the newly understood basis that the sex of a person has no significance in a sacrament. If Shirley and Maggie can be "ordained" they can also be married, and so can Adam and Steve.

The "conservatives" among the Anglicans have failed to understand the gravity of logic. It works the same way as this illustration. If I stand at the top of a thirty foot hill with a big round rubber ball, and decide to roll the ball only ten feet down the hill and no farther, like it or not, the ball will roll the entire thirty feet to the bottom before it stops after rolling even farther still. It does not matter that I intended only to roll it ten feet. Once I let go, gravity will take the ball the whole way. This is how a premise works in relation to logic. Once you let go of the ball, that is, once you state or merely accept a premise, the gravity of logic will take over. Perhaps you only meant to let women be priests, but not to let the premise take its own logical course to the final end. However, the premise itself is subject to the gravity of logic, and must keep rolling until you are "blessing" Adam and Steve in the imitation sacrament of Unholy Unmatrimony. Those who want to argue that this was not inevitable have two problems facing them: First, we predicted this would happen, and second, it has.

So, with all due respect to our conservative and principled Anglican friends who want to keep their priestesses, and make new ones, we cannot surrender the doctrine that the sacrament Holy Orders is, by God's revealed will, reserved to men. Otherwise, we only slow the process down instead of preventing it. We don't need to be ECUSA part II, waiting to happen again.

Pray for Fr Tony Clavier

I have received only the barest of news from a friend in the United States, who has asked prayers for Fr Clavier, "who is fighting the Last Battle."

An update from my correspondent on Tuesday night:

He's very weak with pneumonia. They are doing surgery on his lungs to remove infected material. Not directly related to his cancer but from the pneumonia. Mark, his son, said he went into surgery around 9:00 this morning. I haven't heard anything since.

Happy 2nd Birthday to The Continuum

It was two years ago today that I created The Continuum, and there is much cause for celebration.

In the past 24 months we have gone a long way toward becoming the preeminent site for news, commentary and catechesis on the continuing Anglican movement.

We have perhaps also helped to open new channels toward reconciliation among the various jurisdictions that make up the movement. But in the end, whether we have or not, we have certainly provided a forum where all the faithful -- through their observations and their suggestions -- can contribute to that most desirable goal of unity.

We have also provided a fountain of spiritual wisdom and teaching, and it is my hope that this will flow even more fully in the year to come.

My second hope for the coming year is that we begin to fulfill a challenge that we set for ourselves, which is to provide more practical guidandce on how to carry out Our Lord's Great Commission. If we fail to do that, then all else is but the clanging of cymbals.

None of what we have achieved could have been achieved without the sterling efforts of my co-hosts -- Father Robert Hart, Father Matthew Kirby and Ed Pacht. I thank you from the bottom of my heart for all you have done.

We would also not be where we are if it were not for our increasingly devoted group of core readers and the ever-growing number of new ones. My profoundest thanks also to you. In particular, I would like to observe that, except in a few isolated cases, you have all honoured our ground rules of being a forum for "robust, but polite, discussion," and you should feel proud of your contributions.

I am far from home at the moment, so do not have access to the monthly statistics I have kept on the blog, but I can tell you that readership has grown exponentially since The Continuum was born. Monthly readership in October 2006 was around 2,500; last month it reached nearly 11,000!

God grant that we continue to grow in His service.

AMDG

Albion Land

The Threshhold

I just returned this evening from an overnight visit to Visoki Decani monastery in western Kosovo, near the border with Montenegro.

This post will be a work in progress that will take some time to complete, but I wanted to share an image that spoke so much to me when I saw it. The monastery, and its Church of the Ascension, were built in the early 14th century by the Serbian king Stefan Uros III. Despite repeated attacks and looting over the centuries, the church still stands firm as and where it was built. And only heaven knows how many thousands of feet have crossed its threshhold since it was built, gradually wearing down the stone as they did.

The Collect - Trinity 23

The Latin Collect
Deus Refugium nostrum, et virtus: adesto piis Ecclesiae tuae precibus, auctor ipse pietatis, et praesta; ut, quod fideliter petimus, efficaciter consequamur.

The Collect 1549
GOD, our refuge and strength, which art the author of all godlines, be ready to heare the devoute prayers of thy churche; and graunt that those thynges which we aske faithfully we maye obteine effectually; through Jesu Christe our lorde. Amen.

The Collect 1662
O GOD, our refuge and strength, who art the author of all godliness; Be ready, we beseech thee, to hear the devout prayers of thy Church; and grant that those things which we ask faithfully we may obtain effectually; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

Commentary
Appointed in the Sarum Missal for this Sunday, and in the Tridentine for Pentecost 22, and originally from the Gregorian Sacramentary, this was translated by Cranmer.

Meditation
A very simple prayer that should be the background of all our praying. All godliness, and all strength come as the gift of God, without whom we cannot even pray aright. We ask His aid that we may pray faithfully, and His mercy that rightful prayers be answered. There is a corrollary. We also imply the request that those prayers not stemming from true faith may not be answered, for only God's will can bring a good outcome.

-------------ed pacht

TRINITY XXIII 2007

Phil.3:17-21
Matt. 22:15-22

I question if we ever think clearly about how difficult a concept it was to "render unto Caesar” in the place and at the time that we read about. How very different is our society, in which the politicians must answer to the public, and to the Rule of Law (at least once every two, four and six years, respectively), from the life of the Jews under the power of the empire of Rome. This empire had once been a republic, and it still had a Senate. But, in the time of the Caesars it had become a totalitarian regime, and by means of empire, a foreign power that had invaded, defeated and presumed to rule. The fact is, whether or not taxes were paid voluntarily, they would most certainly be taken by force.

The Pharisees knew that if the Lord had answered that taxes were unlawful they could then see to it that this information found its way to the governor, so that he could be put to death for sedition. On the other hand, if he answered that taxes to Caesar were lawful, they could use this to try to discredit him with the people, claiming that he was on the side of their conquerors. No matter how much they tried to flatter him as they built up to the question, the question was meant as a dagger. It was intended to kill him or silence him; they imagined it presented a no win situation.

The answer our Lord gave was not an evasion, but rather authoritative teaching. He did not walk into their trap, but presented the truth, and in so doing he confounded the expectations and presumption of his enemies. Within a generation his Church would be persecuted to the death by the empire, treated as a criminal organization from the time of Nero until the edict of Milan, that is the edict of Toleration by Constantine in 313 AD. Yet, under that burden it was the duty of the apostles to present to the churches a doctrine that “all authority is from God.”1 The evil and injustice of the empire did not prevent St. Paul from teaching that, in general, a ruler is not a terror to good works, but to evil. St. Peter also taught that the king should be honored.2

This important for us today, in our own time, for many reasons. First of all, Christians are not to be “rebels without a cause.” I think of a man who came home from the grocery store with his wife, and discovered that their children had poured molasses on the cat. “I don’t understand,” said their mother. “They have never poured molasses on the cat before. Why would they even think of such a thing?” Her husband answered, “I don’t understand it either. In fact, the very last thing I said to them, before we went out was, ‘Don’t pour molasses on the cat.’” The truth is, for some of us the idea of walking on the grass never comes to mind until a sign says, “keep off the grass.” Remember the lesson from the Book of Acts, however, that only one reason exists to disobey proper authority. That reason is because our consciences constrain us to obey God rather than men 3 when we are faced with a conflict. This was the answer that St. Peter gave to the High priest when he was asked why they had continued to preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ after being ordered by the Sanhedrin not to do so. St. Peter’s conscience told him that his first obedience was due to God, and that Christ’s clear command to preach the Gospel was from the highest authority, the revealed will of God against which no man had the authority to command silence.

Totalitarian regimes know nothing of Christ’s teaching that constitutes the second part of this teaching that came in his answer. “…and to God the things that are God’s.” Last year, in my sermon at the Church of the Atonement in Arizona, I said this:

“Often people want to render unto Caesar the things that are God’s, and that includes the conscience. We are taught by Saint Paul to be subject to the authorities, and, if we may put modern American terminology to the Apostle’s teaching, to be model citizens. In every way we obey the law, pay taxes, and respect the offices of those in government. In this way we render unto Caesar what is his due… [But] The conscience of the Christian is supposed to be informed by the word of God, and so it is the duty of every Christian to learn the scriptures and to learn the meaning of the scriptures from the Tradition of the Church. When the conscience finds itself pitted against authority, it ought to be for a very clear and very real reason… Totalitarian regimes want to take the place of God. Tyrants want to displace the conscience. In the last Century Christians were subjected to more injustices than during the Roman persecution (and we see no sign that things are getting any better). In the 20th century more Christians died as martyrs than in all previous centuries of the Church combined. Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Idi Amin, Sadam Hussein, the Ayatollahs and Sheiks of radical Islam, all wanted to be obeyed absolutely, to dominate the conscience of their subjects, to be in the place of God. And, so it remains in this century. The Christians who have been killed for their faith knew something we need to know: We ought to obey God rather than men. When Jesus gave this answer, it was to a hostile question... The question was meant as a weapon, a clever no win scenario. But, the answer teaches us the priorities by which we order our lives as men under authority. Honor the king, however, with Thomas More, be ready to die as the king’s true servant, but God’s first.”

Your first obedience is to God. Your conscience was designed by the Creator to be the voice inside of you where his Law is written, the inner voice that resonates with the Holy Spirit, and with the word of God. Therefore, the Book of Exodus praises the midwives who refused to murder the male children at Pharaoh’s command. The Bible praises the faith of Rahab who hid the spies, and of Esther who entered the king’s chamber unbidden to plead for the lives of her people. The same Bible condemns the obedience that Doeg the Edomite rendered to Saul when he murdered the priests at Nob as commanded by the mad king.

Too many people are careless in their reading of scripture. When certain leaders of that other denomination over there wanted to blame the Holy Spirit for their heretical and immoral innovations, they decided to proclaim to the world that the Bible approved of slavery. Then, they tried to say that nowadays we know better because the Holy Spirit has corrected his former mistake that he made back then, and so he must have grown in his understanding (they seem to have a very different “Holy Spirit” than the One we know). I love to point out that Deuteronomy 23:15, 16 4 absolutely, and for all time, forbade slavery. The whole idea of slavery is condemned and forbidden in those two verses. The New Testament, specifically in the writings of St. Paul, addresses the reality of slavery in the pagan empire of Rome. The Apostle taught Christians who happened to be slaves, how to behave as Christians in their circumstances. To read approval of the pagan system of slavery into the New Testament is absurd, since the mission of the apostles was not to lead a rebellion like Spartacus, but to build the Church in all nations of the earth. I mention this because, we see here that even rebellion for a good cause is not always duty to God.

The Bible does require obedience to the voice of conscience, and it is the duty of the Christian to inform his conscience not by the changing fashions and whims of culture, but by the word of God. The Affirmation of St. Louis contains this very straightforward statement:

“The conscience, as the inherent knowledge of right and wrong, cannot stand alone as a sovereign arbiter of morals. Every Christian is obligated to form his conscience by the Divine Moral Law and the Mind of Christ as revealed in Holy Scriptures, and by the teaching and Tradition of the Church.”

Furthermore, it is the duty of parents to teach their children these things, because popular culture will teach a false version of morality that has no foundation, and that changes with every breeze that blows. As it says in the Book of Deuteronomy: “And these words, which I command thee this day, shall be in thine heart: And thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up.”5 Now, if any Christian wants to disobey people in authority, it must be for the sake of this higher principle of the conscience as it has been formed by the word of God.

Another point needs to be made. The direct subject of the answer, “render unto God the things that are God’s” is part of a question that has to do with money. To the Jews who heard this answer, the whole subject of tithing would have come to mind, as well as commands to aid the poor. The way that some churches have addressed the subject of contributing, in my experience, can make the poor feel unwelcome. I want to be clear; people who are struggling to get by, and who have no money to spare, are perfectly welcome here. This is the household of God, the Body of Christ. Let me be clear about something else. Those who object to the normal standard of the tithe, that is of ten percent, need to realize that in the New Covenant the real requirement is one hundred percent. The poor widow received the praise of our Lord Jesus Christ because she cast in more than all of the rich, because her two mites were all that she had. I look at our bishop spending his time and energy to raise money for this church, so that it can be here as a light, as a witness for Jesus Christ, as a true and sound church for you in which to bring up your children as Christians. I know that he has been giving his one hundred percent in all the years we have been together.

We are stewards of all that we possess. It all belongs to the Lord. I know that some people cannot give ten percent of what they simply don’t have. Others can give more then ten percent. They can give other things too, such as time and effort. The real question is this: are you giving in a way that is sacrificial? Let me really meddle. Who needs three hundred channels instead of the few you have time for? What is the real point in much that we do with time, money and own energy? Is your giving sacrificial? And, though we think of the word “sacrificial” as something that should hurt and as a loss we should feel, let us turn that around. Let us think of it as an offering, that is, as part of how we worship God by honoring him with our substance. What we contribute should be given with joy; it should represent our very selves as living sacrifices poured out on the altar of joy and service with faith.

The opposite of this is the kind of life that St. Paul speaks of, with sorrow, in today’s Epistle. Earlier I mentioned that other denomination over there, and I suppose most of you know the one I was thinking of. I was thinking of religious teachers whose entire life’s work has been for the purpose of scratching itching ears.6 Talk of giving one hundred percent of your life to God, your whole self to God, requires an embrace of Christ’s call to carry the cross. The Epistle warns us not live a life centered on indulgence of our appetites and whims, of lusts and desires. The Apostle uses a curious phrase, one that could pass us by unheeded unless we slow down and consider it. He speaks of “enemies of the cross of Christ.” What is an enemy of the cross of Christ?

Some people seem to think they can be friends of Jesus, but enemies of his cross. Jesus said, “Whosoever doth not bear his cross, and come after me, cannot be my disciple.”7 To carry the cross means to walk with the burden of death on one’s back. The people who heard him speak these words knew what crucifixion was, and the image this statement brought to mind would have been graphic. Nonetheless, what do we see as the natural reaction that his disciples had when they first heard him foretell his own death? Immediately, after being told that he was blessed, that he was the rock upon whom the Lord would build his Church, we find St. Peter reacting to the Lord’s prediction that he would be put to death, and then rise on the third day.

“Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee. But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men. Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me. For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it.”8

We can identify with Peter’s incredulity, if we are honest. Who wants to bear the cross? In modern religious circles ambitions for success demand that we present a Christ who carries no cross. This christ of theirs, their Jesus, makes no demands that we die to ourselves in order to follow him. His own death makes no sense in their new religion. But, we know why he can call us to lay down our lives to be his disciples. “We love him because he first loved us.”9 We can pour out all that we have, and all that we are, with joy as living sacrifices to God,10 only as our life of worship and thanksgiving, and only by knowing what he did for us. We were lost in trespasses and sins, subject to the twofold power of sin and death, but for the kindness of God our Savior, even the Lord Jesus Christ who “poured out his soul unto death;”11 “for the blood maketh atonement for the soul.”12 I have said this many times, and I will repeat it many more times. You need to come to the foot of the cross, and spend some time there, looking up at your Lord; you need to “See from His head, His hands, His feet, Sorrow and love flow mingled down” as his blood makes atonement for your soul, as he gives up his spirit to death for you. This is the great offering of love that you need to behold, and you need to take it personally.

Only in the light of this love does it make sense to talk of giving to God one hundred percent of your very self as your life of worship and thanksgiving. Only in light of this love can we speak of the everlasting joys won for us on the first Easter in the triumph of his resurrection, when he overcame death and the grave and opened to you the way to everlasting joy. We are speaking of the love that we have for God and for one another as the fruit of gratitude that begins to grow within us as the love of God is poured out in our hearts by the Holy Spirit. It begins with the cross of Christ.


1. Romans 13:1-7
2. I Peter 2:13-17
3. Acts 5:27-29
4. “Thou shalt not deliver unto his master the servant which is escaped from his master unto thee: He shall dwell with thee, even among you, in that place which he shall choose in one of thy gates, where it liketh him best: thou shalt not oppress him.” Simply put, to obey this commandment makes it impossible to treat human beings as property
5. Deut. 6:6, 7
6. II Tim. 4:2-4
7. Luke 14:27
8. Matt. 16:16-25
9. I John 4:19
10. Rom. 12:1,2
11. Isaiah 53:12
12. Lev.17:11

Sacraments and the promises of God

In a previous post I mentioned some important facts about the sacraments, and how it is that the Church arrived at the number seven. In the process I explained why it is that Article 25 attests to the seven, two as Dominical and five as of previous (Old Testament) institution though given deeper meaning and power in the New Testament. I stated also and that the only usages we have of the phrase "commonly called," as used in Article 25, are affirmative in nature, whether in English Bibles or the Earlier editions of the Book of Common Prayer, and that any suggestion that this one instance contained a different or contrary meaning in its usage carried a burden of proof that would be impossible for anyone to demonstrate. I was then made into an object of controversy by writers of another blog who, in discussions that followed, demonstrated inability to pay attention to serious discussion, as well as functional illiteracy concerning theology in general. The bad taste that left in my mouth slowed me down in following through with a planned second part. But, there is a second part.

To get on to the second part, I want to quote a few lines from the first post:

First of all, we must define what a sacrament is. It is a means of grace that is charismatic in nature, and therefore depends upon the Holy Spirit. In a sacrament it is God who works through the material world by making use of the Form, Matter and Intention provided to the Church. The Bible never comes out and says this. Instead it simply demonstrates that God has always worked this way, not only in the New Testament, but as far back as the Book of Genesis. (When Saint Paul described marriage as a mystery in Eph. 5:32, he took all the air out of the low Church room, since he called it a musterion.)

(I would add that every sacrament is part of how the Incarnation is extended through the Church, the body of Christ. God's grace comes to us in the material world. Making use of matter, sanctifying and empowering matter, is consistent with the truth that "Jesus Christ is come in the flesh.")

After centuries of studying the Bible, the Church noticed that in these seven mysteries, as recorded in scripture, we see common characteristics. The Church acts with proper Form, Matter and Intention, and without fail God acts to impart grace specific to the promises relevant to that mystery. It is these characteristics that the seven sacraments have in common, and that are easily drawn out (exegesis) of scripture. It is obvious that this sacramental theological system arose from the promises and recorded facts of scripture. Therefore, any argument to restrict the count of the sacraments to two is nonsense because it requires a new and arbitrary definition in place of the one commonly accepted by ancient Tradition. When my daughter was four years old, she insisted that our cat was not an animal. I asked why, and she informed me that animals live in a zoo, and since the cat lived with us in the house, not in a zoo, the cat was not an animal. I suppose this was a very good Low Church definition of an animal.

We spend so much effort on describing the performance of sacraments in almost a mechanical fashion, that we may forget the important divine element, namely, the promise that God acts when we follow through with the Form, Matter and Intention of outward and visible signs. Look at the promises:

"Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day" John 6:54

"Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead." Colossians 2:12

"Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost." Acts 8:17

"Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them..." John 20:23

"Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord: And the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him." James 5:14, 15

"Wherefore I put thee in remembrance that thou stir up the gift of God, which is in thee by the putting on of my hands." II Timothy 1:6

"For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh. Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. " Matthew 19:5,6

We see in each of these sacraments that when the Form, Matter and Intention are present in God's Church, He acts. I do not know everything that is meant by any of these promises, but I do know enough to see that the work of God according to his promises, as recorded in scripture, is supernatural and charismatic. These seven mysteries are not magic, and they are not merely mechanical. And yet, they are dependable; that is because of the promise of Divine action, namely of Divine grace.

Slippery Slope

We can learn a valuable lesson from the heresies of the Episcopal Church, that is, by their example we may heed a sober warning. At last count, twenty six diocesan bishops of that institution were divorced and remarried, several of these after their consecration to the episcopate. Even if some of these cases would have contained some grounds for annulment, the ECUSAns simply don't annul. Despite the clear teaching of scripture, that God has joined a man and wife as one flesh, they believe that divorce has some sort of efficacy. They seem to think it is real. For decades they have been treating the sacrament of marriage as if it is were simply a man made institution, instead of what it is: "Holy Matrimony; which is an honorable estate, instituted of God, signifying unto us the mystical union that is betwixt Christ and his Church." Their brave new concept of marriage may work for Barney Frank, who argued that marriage is a human and legal invention, and that it can be redefined as between two people of the same sex. And, it may work for ECUSAn bishops who want to put away the wife of their youth, and get "hitched" to a sexy young thing. But, we reject it in favor of the revelation of God, that when a man and woman speak the words of the Form (the vows), with the reality of Matter (their own bodies as a man and a woman) and the correct Intention (as long as they both shall live), that they are no longer two, but one flesh, and that it is God who makes the two one; not the priest, not the law of the state, but God.

Look at this part of the history of the ECUSAn error: They have been treating marriage as less than a Divine institution for decades, having lost all respect for the mystery of Christ and his Church as it is reflected in this outward and visible sign of marriage. And, in recent years they have begun to have "open communion," so that everyone is invited to share in the feast, whether Christian or not, without even so much as a requirement of baptism (and certainly nothing close to the standards of "Ye who do truly and earnestly repent you of your sins, and..."). To them there is no longer any reality of the Body and Blood of Christ, just a "community meal" for the sake of a pleasant "warm and fuzzy." This is all wrong; but, it is consistent. It began with marriage, and spilled over into their flawed understanding of other sacraments (of course we could say a lot about their notion of Holy Orders).

(We in the Continuing Churches need to take warning as well. When an old and established jurisdiction chooses an archbishop who, between himself and his wife, have four marriages and three annulments, they may be legally correct for all we know; and it is their business. But, they will have to live with the consequences to their reputation and the message it sends to the members of each parish and mission.)

If we lose sight of the Divine work that makes any one of the sacraments efficacious, supernatural, charismatic and real, we risk losing the sense of God's presence and power among us, and of forgetting all of his promises. If we approach the sacraments, all of them, having in mind the promise in his word that God will act, they will be the way of life.

W "O" in another venue

This story from the Herald Tribune (with embarrassing typos) tells of a woman's "ordination" movement in another venue, where the problem is handled very well by a Roman Catholic bishop.

Oops

Traditionalist Continuing Anglicans have always known better than to buy into the trendy fads created by re-inventors of the wheel. Therefore, the "Seeker sensitive" movement that came from the Willow Creek "Church" in Illinois has always appeared to us as nothing but another dangerous cult, another false version of Christianity. My friends at the Touchstone website posted a link to a column at Townhall in Mere Comments that tells about the new "shocking confession" by Willow Creek leaders that they have been wrong all along. We could have told them that. The problem is, it seems they still have not learned their lesson. They plan to re-invent their re-invention of the wheel, which is no solution. One of their leaders, Craig Hawkins, came up with this "remedy" to their problem, and all it is is another example of banality:

"Our dream is that we fundamentally change the way we do church. That we take out a clean sheet of paper and we rethink all of our old assumptions. Replace it with new insights. Insights that are informed by research and rooted in Scripture. Our dream is really to discover what God is doing and how he’s asking us to transform this planet."

Everyone from plumbers, to doctors, to generals, knows that to "rethink all of our old assumptions" is to choose the path of unlearning, to un-educate and "dumb down" your own mind. It is to throw away the wealth of knowledge gathered over many years that is essential to doing the job. In Christianity, to "rethink all of our old assumptions" is to create heresy, and to treat the revelation of God in Christ as fraught with errors. The only assumption these "leaders" need to rethink is that they have nothing to learn from those who passed on the Word of God from the apostles until now. Instead of a "clean sheet of paper," these arrogant fools should seek to learn from the many things already written.

Will of the Living God

In 1988, as young man of thirty, I was sick with a strain of meningitis that robbed me, for awhile, of my ability to communicate. I was able neither to talk or write, and yet my mind was fully alert. I was conscious every minute of intense pain. In my weakness I prayed to die, not because I could not communicate, but because my head hurt far worse than I had believed possible. For a great many days I was assured that I had two possibilities ahead of me: Death, or blindness. Finally, after I could speak again, physicians at Johns Hopkins offered me the chance to be a Guinea Pig for a new use of medicine, which brought me to an eventual recovery. As a result of that experience my perspective on suffering and on being completely helpless is not merely theoretical.

At what point, and on what grounds, is it in keeping with Christian faith to decide that we have the right to die in order to avoid suffering or a feeling of humiliation? Having been in enough pain to think of death as relief, I can understand the difficulty of the question, and appreciate the problem. Speaking as a pastor, and in light of what I have already experienced of pain and suffering, I would advise that submission to the will of God requires us to accept suffering, seeking to avoid it only by legitimate means. Medicine and treatments have long been regarded as perfectly legitimate. Suicide, assisted or otherwise, does not have the approval of any sound Christian teaching.

Of course, when the preservation of physical life is maintained completely by “heroic” or extra-ordinary technological means to the point where nothing is preserved except the functions of the body, is it really a Christian view that death should be put off beyond a reasonable time? This question is valid, because medical technology could advance to a point where bodies are maintained as a resource to be harvested in a dystopian scenario as gruesome as any science fiction writer has ever imagined. At what point could this kind of preservation be just as much a matter of playing God as the practice of euthanasia?

But, when the question is about the alleged right to die, what rights can a Christian claim to have? I am speaking here about moral, not legal, rights. The spokesmen for the Libertarian Party always begin by telling us that their basic philosophical view is rooted in the notion that everyone owns himself. “I own myself, you own yourself” is the way Walter Williams customarily begins his explanation of Libertarianism. Perhaps so, in terms of legal and constitutional reasoning. However, in terms of moral theology, and ethical philosophy, Saint Paul tells us that we are not our own, and that we were bought with a price. The Christian belongs to God, first by God’s right of creation, and then by His right of redemption, having bought us back from sin and death with the blood of His Son.

Having been faced with a prognosis of death or blindness, and living with unendurable pain, I was faced with this problem at a relatively young age. By what right do we choose either life or death for ourselves? What is there for us other than the will of the Living God? How do we know His will except by His Word, in light of how the Church understands it? Whether we live or die, does not Saint Paul tell us that we are the Lord’s? Unless death is handed to us as the will of God by a call to heroic sacrifice in the dutiful service of charity or martyrdom, what right do we have to choose other than to live? We are forbidden to dance with Ernest Hemingway’s “mistress” and blow our brains out.

And, since the issue has been brought before the whole nation by very tragic events, we should consider that to have a Living Will which would not permit a feeding tube to be inserted is suicide. For the use of nutrition is a natural and proper thing for the body, and to choose thirst and starvation is a choice to be killed, no less so than to choose a lethal injection. Otherwise, we would have to define nutrition and hydration as extra-ordinary, a legal and moral nightmare of the first order.

This is not the same as the “heroic” and extra-ordinary measures I have mentioned. Certainly the Christian view of life is incompatible with a mad attempt to avoid death altogether. The idea of a cryogenic freezer has been dreamed up simply for those who have a fear of death- and a lot of money to waste. Medicine is rightly used to give us a long life in this world. But, is it consistent with faith to try to find a scientific way to avoid death altogether? Natural immortality most likely would never be achieved; and it has never been revealed to be the will of God for fallen man. Our hope is in the pattern of Christ’s resurrection, the only final perfection and eternal life.

Faith means that we trust God. Suffering may be in our future, but if so, it fails in comparison with the glory which shall be revealed in the children of God. Even in light of the intense pain I suffered all those years ago, I know what is required of me, should it again come to such a pass. The perfection of character, the completed work of the Holy Spirit to bring forth the fruit of faith, hope and charity that please God and edify others, are to be embraced. To cut short the work of God by a legal instrument is a right we do not have.

A Smile Says it All

Sue the illegitimi

ECUSA SITS ON ITS HORDED ENDOWMENT MONEY

In the Sunday Washington Times I came across the column "No Will Power" by Cal Thomas (no doubt it will be posted on Townhall also by Monday morning). Mr. Thomas writes about the descendants of wealthy people who have brought various suits against universities for misapplying the funds from endowments. Rich folks died leaving large sums of money to be used for specific things, and the universities disregard the wishes of such contributors; now we wait to see what the courts will do in these cases.

Part of the column says:

The universities have no right — legal or moral — to use them for anything else. To do so violates the intent and the spirit of the gift and the giver.

There are a lot more cases like these but the operative phrase, as with so many things, is donor beware. Think twice before you give money to any charitable organization or institution — even your alma mater — unless it endorses the Donor Bill of Rights. To do otherwise and to give "in good faith" may have worked in the distant past, but not today. A few precautions can enhance the power of a will.

The precedent set by these cases will be relevant to a certain institution here in the United States called the Episcopal Church. Over the last few centuries they have horded up a fortune in endowments from people who had no intention of leaving their money to a wannebe Unitarian cult and ecclesiastical "gay bar" with priestesses who cross dress in men's vestments, and that sings "Anything Goes" instead of "Faith of our Fathers." It is safe to say that most of their endowment money has been misapplied and should be given, to be true to the wishes of those who willed the endowments, to faithful Continuing Anglican churches that still practice the Faith. Only such churches fit the description these people had in mind when leaving money to what the Episcopal Church was- as opposed to the "morphed" organization that bears no resemblance to what these deceased people understood the Church to be.

The thoughts of lawyers, such as Fr. Nalls and Fr. Hollister would be of interest here.

The Collect - Trinity 22

The Latin Collect
FAMILIAM tuam, quæsumus Domine, continua pietate custodi, ut a cunctis adversitatibus te protegente sit libera, et in omnibus actionibus tuo nimini sit devota. Per Dominum nostrum Jesum Christum. &c

The Collect of 1549
LORDE we beseche thee to kepe thy housholde the churche in continuall godlines; that throughe thy proteccion it maye be free from al adversities, and devoutly geven to serve thee in good workes, to the glory of thy name; Through Jesus Christ our Lorde. Amen.

The Collect of 1662
LORD, we beseech thee to keep thy household the Church in continual godliness; that through thy protection it may be free from all adversities, and devoutly given to serve thee in good works, to the glory of thy Name; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

Commentary
This collect is appointed in the Tridentine Missal for 21st after Pentecost, but has its origins in the Gregorian Sacramentary.

Reflection
Mrs Bridges the cook, Mr Hudson the butler, Rose the maid and Ruby the Scullery maid form the mainstays of the Bellamy Household along with a few other maids and housemen. It is their job to look after Lady Marjorie and Sir Richard (later Lord Richard) Bellamy and their family, keeping the lives, loves and living of this Edwardian and quintessentially English family running through thick and thin in decency and in order. Upstairs live the Bellamys with the concerns that face any wealthy family of the early part of the twentieth Century. Downstairs live the servants, each with various tasks and duties. Apart from mealtimes and other instances, the upstairs family live quite separately from the folk downstairs, yet both sets of people rely heavily on each other to thrive.
This is only a brief summary of the drama series Upstairs Downstairs that first aired on British Television in the early 1970s. It is rather a faithful description of how a typical upper class household used to be. Throughout history, households always have possessed two communities, the family and the servants.
If the Church is the household of God, then who is the family, and who are the servants?
We can clearly see that Our Lord came to remove the distinctions between family and servant. In Christ, God demonstrates perfect servitude through His family. He doesn't change the tasks that have to be done - the nature of service is always the same - but he does change the sense of worth. In the Bellamy household, Ruby the Scullery maid is the lowest of the low, fit only to scrub dishes and mop the kitchen floor. Sir Richard Bellamy is a very important MP and works for the good of the nation. Christ in His service removes any distinction: "lowest of the low" and "very important" are meaningless in His household - the scrubbing of heavenly pots is a duty performed by the most important family member.
We need the continual providence of God's grace to keep our household alive and working, but we also need to recognise that in order to do justice to our membership of the household of faith we need to hear God's direction for our lives, remembering that a seemingly trivial task undertaken in love is as vital as that which seems non-trivial.
In earthly households, there are many different roles and positions - cook, butler, house maid, houseman and scullery maid. Is this really a good analogy for the Household of Faith?

-----------------------Jonathan Munn

From the November Anglican Catholic Church of Canada Newsletter

More on the TAC and Rome

In their November newsletter, the Anglican Catholic Church of Canada (TAC), gave more details about the much reported letter to the See of Rome. To read this you must be able to open it in PDF format, and then scroll to page three. What is most instructive is the recitation of the same historical facts that I was quick to point out when the news broke, and the last paragraph on that third page that says, "...this is only the beginning of a process that will take some time, perhaps many years, to come to fruition." Here we see them relating their approach to the See of Rome to the history of the Anglican Communion and Rome in the 1960s and 70s, and writing about a process that reopens a door, and that will take more discussions and patience. What this tells us is that they are realistic, and taking up the mantle that the See of Canterbury and the larger Anglican Communion laid down in favor of women's "ordination," thus turning their discussions into a meaningless formality. It means that the TAC is seeking something we can understand; it answers the very important questions about their intention. It indicates that talk of absorption, that is, talk of taking their whole jurisdiction into the Tiber is way off the mark. It appears that a responsible effort is underway to resume where the Anglican Communion left off in seeking larger Catholic unity.

Here are the contents of that statement:

The following letter is an Ad Clerum – A recent communication from our Canadian bishops (Wilkinson, Botterill and Reid) to our Canadian clergy, which in turn is herein presented verbatim to all members of the ACCC and other readers of the Circular. It pertains to the very recent meeting of the TAC College of Bishops in the UK.

AD CLERUM
16 October 2007

Dear Brethren,

Since your bishops came back from the College of Bishops’ meeting in Portsmouth many of you have been anxious for information on what happened, especially about the progress of our approach to the Holy See. We can tell you that after the meeting of the College, the Primate, Bishop Mercer and Bishop Wilkinson flew on to Rome on the 8th of October to deliver a letter to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on the 9th.

Remember the background: this is part of a long process. After about 450 years of attempts of varying seriousness, Anglicans and Roman Catholics really began talking to one another after the joint decision by Pope Paul VI and Archbishop Michael Ramsey, expressed in a Common Declaration during their meeting in Rome in March 1966–41 years ago. Within a year the Commission they established had produced a report that proclaimed “penitence for the past, thankfulness for the graces of the present, urgency and resolve for a future in which our common aim would be the restoration of full organic unity.”

In April 1977 Archbishop Ramsey’s successor in the See of Canterbury, Donald Coggan, and Pope Paul VI, made a further Common Declaration declaring their desire for “the restoration of complete communion in faith and sacramental life.”

In the same year, The Affirmation of St Louis, so deeply embedded in our ACCC Constitution and the Concordat, also declared “our intention to seek and achieve full sacramental communion and visible unity with other Christians who ‘worship the Trinity in Unity, and Unity in Trinity,’ and who hold the Catholic and Apostolic Faith in accordance with the foregoing principles.” This should not be news to anyone in the ACCC!

Now we can add that a statement authorized by the Primate, Archbishop Hepworth, has been released.

The College of Bishops of the Traditional Anglican Communion (TAC) met in Plenary Session in Portsmouth England in the first week of October 2007.

The Bishops and Vicars-General unanimously agreed on the text of a Letter to the See of Rome seeking full, corporate, and sacramental union. The Letter was signed solemnly by all the College and entrusted to the Primate and two Bishops chosen by the College to be presented to the Holy See.

The Letter was cordially received at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

The Primate and College of the TAC have agreed that no member of the College will give interviews until the Holy See has considered the Letter and responded.

As you can imagine, this is only the beginning of a process that will take some time, perhaps many years, to come to fruition. There will be further discussions between the COB and the Holy See with respect to the nature and details of what constitutes “full, corporate, and sacramental union” between the TAC and the See of Rome

For now we continue our prayers and our efforts to fulfil the will of our Lord Jesus Christ that there be one Flock and one Shepherd.