Easter out of Season

THE CONVERSION OF ST. PAUL January 25th

When the Lord appeared to Saul, and made him an eyewitness of the resurrection, many things changed in his understanding. His righteous act of persecuting the Church was revealed to have been the sin of persecuting the Messiah himself, his own self-attained righteousness was shown to be a delusion, the curse that was evident in the manner of Jesus’ death was revealed to be atonement paid by the Righteous one for the many sinners, thus taking away the curse from those who deserved it, and the prophecies of scripture were revealed to have been speaking of two comings of Messiah, not one. How much of this was clear immediately and how much had to develop over time as he thought about it, is not clear. But, right away, in his conversion, is the revelation that would become Paul’s bold teaching about faith in Jesus Christ and the grace that he gives, himself our only Salvation.

BORN OUT OF DUE TIME

Every winter on January 25th traditional churches celebrate the Feast of the Conversion of Saint Paul. On that day we remember the story recorded in the Book of Acts, the history of how the persecutor of the Church saw the risen Lord Jesus Christ and became a convinced preacher of the Gospel. And, as we remember the conversion of the Apostle, we are presented with a puzzle that requires a little bit of explanation. The traditional calendar contains four colors, one of which applies to every day of the year (sometimes two colors on certain days).

White is the Lord’s color, and it is used as well for saints who are not martyrs. But, for saints who are martyrs the color is red; and Saint Paul is a martyr, for he was beheaded in Rome. The puzzle is that white, not red, is the color for the Feast of the Conversion of Saint Paul. White, the color for the Lord himself, is proper to such times as Christmas, the Annunciation, or Easter. But, the Church long ago decided that white was the appropriate color for this day. If we figure out that puzzle, and meditate on its meaning, we have the answer to the biggest challenge facing the Christian message in our own day and age.

The current challenge to the truth of the Gospel, coming from a school of philosophy that pretends to be a school of science, stretching from Charles Darwin to Richard Dawkins, has to do with an evaluation of what sort of God, God ought to be. The challenge may seem to be an apologetic against Intelligent Design, since that is how it is being presented currently. However, it goes back to the days of Darwin, who considered the world as it is to be less than practical and efficient. The argument has developed along lines of philosophy, particularly of Ethics (part of the larger discipline of Philosophy). It contains criticism of such details as the design, or rather (seeing that it is difficult to come up with a phrase to fit the argument) the shape and form of the human back.

What the argument boils down to is simply this: If the universe were designed, it ought to have been designed better, so as to be more congenial to the people who have to live in it. Therefore, it could not have been designed. This assumes that the critics of God, those who have placed Him in, as C.S. Lewis put it, the dock, are correct about what would be the best way to go about making a world and its creatures. And, assuming their way is the better way, the argument is one of Ethics, that God ought to have made a better world, one that gives more consideration to our needs, and that demonstrates kindness on the Creator’s part. Furthermore, the whole scheme of this Ethics argument depends upon the Christian and Jewish paradigm of goodness. It requires, to summarize the Torah, not doing what is odious to others, as Hillel taught, and doing to others what we would have them do to us, as Jesus Christ taught.

Because this argument is about what kind of God, God ought to be, it is based on conjecture and speculation. Therefore, it places everything in a context that is theoretical, and being theoretical, concerned with logic based upon assumption, or even a kind of reasoning. What if, however, the Christian message is not based on any theory about how the world ought to be, what sort of designer the Creator should have been, or any other concept? What if we should brush aside all that is theoretical and speculative in favor of something evidentiary that is rooted in fact?

The Church’s use of white for the Feast of the Conversion of Saint Paul points to the answer, summoning to the mind very strong accounts of reported history as contained in the Bible. It points to the testimony of eyewitness, in some cases to the testimony of martyrs. The message does not claim to answer any questions about what the Creator ought to have done, but instead it reveals how he has intervened in human affairs. It is fact based, not logic based. That is, it does not come to us as a result of reasoning through to a conclusion, but of accepting reports of fact. The only use of logic that we may use, in this case, begins with the facts rather than with mere conjecture.

We have been given a set of facts that rightly include both revelation and history. Revelation, because God has acted in such a way that the truth has been made known; and history, because the facts are recorded as eyewitness accounts. Testimony of this type constitutes evidence, and the record of it constitutes history, both of which are far more in the nature of science than of philosophy. The Christian message treats as irrelevant arguments that place God in the dock and judge His existence by the conjecture of a system of Ethics. Instead, it simply states a testimony, that of the eyewitnesses who saw the resurrected Jesus Christ.

From the facts of their testimony we draw logical conclusions about the sort of God that God is, rather than trying to figure out what He should be. So, we come to what may be called “The Gospel according to Paul.” This is in the fifteenth chapter of I Corinthians, vs. 1-11. In this passage he declares to them the Gospel he had preached to them, and urges them to be faithful to it. After reminding them that Christ died for our sins, was buried and rose the third day, all in fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy, Paul gives a list of several eyewitnesses who saw the Risen Christ. All of these witnesses saw Him between the first Easter and the day of His Ascension. That is, except for one. The last witness who saw the resurrected Christ was Saint Paul himself, significantly later than the others.

The last appearance was to Saul on the road to Damascus, the day of the conversion of Saint Paul. The traditional celebration calls for white as the Lord’s color, white for Easter, though it falls in the season of Epiphany (or, as this year, in the Pre-Lenten season). It is Easter out of season, because of Paul’s own words: “And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.” (v.8) The Church is teaching us that this day, the day of Paul’s conversion, is about the Risen Christ. And, not simply about Him in a theoretical sense, but in a historical sense. He was seen alive after His death, and the Gospel is not complete without the proclamation that witnesses gave us this testimony, reporting facts rather than trying to figure out answers to philosophical problems.

We are certain that in those facts every philosophical question can finally be answered. But, the Christian message is not that we can figure out what God ought to be like, and then pronounce a verdict either on Him or His existence. The Christian message is the Gospel as preached by eyewitnesses who proclaimed the revelation of God in Christ as historical fact, a testimony that was worth dying for. In this sense, the Christian Gospel is far more a matter of fact and history than it is of philosophy. To those who want to begin with their opinions and speculations, the answer of the Church is that we begin elsewhere; we begin with the facts. This testimony of the eyewitnesses is why, if you enter a traditional church on January 25th, you will see the priest and the altar vested in white.

Purgatory, Indulgences and the Treasury of Merits

A little while ago when purported dogmatic differences between us and the RCC were being discussed, I commented a couple of times that I did not believe any such differences were genuinely irreconcilable, but that I couldn't say much more till I had access to a computer of my own. I have now replaced my dead laptop and re-accessed my old files. So, I am now able to spell out how I think the RC doctrines regarding Purgatory, Indulgences and the Treasury of Merits may be interpreted so as to successfully address traditional Anglican and Eastern objections while not denying anything Rome has given dogmatic status. Due to complications of formatting it is easier for me to post this at my personal site. Here it is.

St.Timothy Bishop and Martyr January 24th

But I trust in the Lord Jesus to send Timotheus shortly unto you, that I also may be of good comfort, when I know your state. For I have no man likeminded, who will naturally care for your state. For all seek their own, not the things which are Jesus Christ's. But ye know the proof of him, that, as a son with the father, he hath served with me in the gospel. Phil.2:19-22

A good summary of St. Timothy's life was given by Pope Benedict XVI in his December 13, 2006 General Audience. You may read it here.

The martyrdom of St. Timothy took place in Ephesus, when angry Pagans murdered him with stones and clubs because he interrupted an annual festival procession in honor of their gods. He preached that they should turn from their dead idols to the Living God through His Son Jesus Christ, and so they fell on him in anger, killed him and dragged his body through the streets.
________________________________________

The Feast Day for St.Timothy is January 24th in the West, but is on January 22nd in the Orthodox Church.

No Checks and Balances Here

“Be it in matter of the one kind or of the other, what Scripture doth plainly deliver, to that the first place both of credit and obedience is due; the next whereunto is whatsoever any man can necessarily conclude by force of reason; after this the Church succeedeth that which the Church by her ecclesiastical authority shall probably think and define to be true or good, must in congruity of reason overrule all other inferior judgments whatsoever.” (Richard Hooker, The Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity, Book 5.VIII.2)

Richard Hooker has been both praised and blamed for creating the “Three-legged Stool.” I am not alone in rejecting this image of three equal legs as the meaning of Hooker’s own argument. But, not a few modern Anglicans have decided that this is the way best to summarize the essence of his teaching about epistemological authority, that is specifically, how we know the truth. As a result of this idea of a Three-legged Stool, some have created a system of checks and balances. Furthermore, they have recast the terms of this in endless and creative fashions, with no fidelity to anything but their whims.

The Three-legged Stool, by correct definition, is “Scripture, Right Reason and Tradition.” These three as sources of knowledge can rightly be said to come from Hooker’s work. However, the word “tradition” was not often used this way by Hooker himself, who used it sometimes in a negative way referring to excesses and distortions associated with the papists of his times. It is, however, quite correct to use the word “Tradition” for the collective mind of the Church, and therefore the mind of Christ (I Cor. 2: 16), and in this way to understand part of Hooker’s meaning in the words, “the Church by her ecclesiastical authority.”

Nonetheless, the problem with the Three-legged Stool is, as I said, that it carries the idea of three equal legs. For Hooker the idea of equality among these three things was simply wrong. The Scriptures have the highest place of authority, for in the Scriptures it is God Himself who speaks, since the word of God is directly revealed there, teaching and setting forth “all things necessary for salvation.” Second, to Hooker, is Reason. In light of the whole of his Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity we must add the word “right.” Right Reason (see Books 1.VIII.3, and 3.IX.3), rather than simply reason, is best understood in light of the opening chapters of Book II, where he teaches that wisdom, as it is explained in the Proverbs of Solomon, and mentioned in other passages of the Bible, includes more than simply what is revealed in scripture. It includes knowledge of the natural world, and practical matters of understanding. We can draw from this that a mad man possesses reason, but not Right Reason (the same may be said of an untrustworthy Enthusiast, whose claims to private revelation defy credibility if only on the basis of his apparent instability). We can draw, as well, that Right Reason placed after Scripture, rules out the notion that human reason is equal by its own weight to the Word of God.

That the teaching and authority of the Church comes third tells us that to Hooker, only a mind enlightened by the Word of God and possessing Right Reason responds truly to the teaching and authority of the Church. So he says in Book 3.IX.3:

“Is it a small office to despise the Church of God? ‘My son, keep thy father’s commandment,’ saith Solomon, ‘and forget not thy mother’s instruction: Bind them both always about thine heart.’ It doth not stand with the duty we owe to our heavenly Father, that to the ordinances of our mother the Church we should show ourselves disobedient. Let us not say we keep the commandments of the one, when we break the law of the other: for unless we observe both we obey neither.”

In this way, he upholds not only the teaching of the Church (to which we add the words, Quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum est: “What has been believed everywhere, always, and by all”), but also, what he calls “her ecclesiastical authority,” not to be redundant, but to extend the meaning to include Government and Canon Law.

False notions

The first mistake concerning the Three-legged Stool is conveyed by the image itself. Hooker taught a hierarchy of authority with Scripture at the highest place, Right Reason as second because it is necessary that the word of God communicate to human minds, and what we call Tradition, but that he called the Church, as the third. (Yes, Hooker meant as well to include the Church’s Government and Canon Law, but for purposes of Epistemology these need to be placed on the back burner.) However, not everyone means to imply equality when using the phrase “Three-legged Stool.” Here the weakness of analogies as a method can meet with innocence. But, the image tends to convey equality nonetheless. Better we should think of a small ladder with three rungs. The revelation of Holy Scripture is the highest rung. This is essential and absolutely necessary to understand because of the deceptive ways in which this idea of three sources of authority is misused. It is misused every time that it is applied as a system of checks and balances.

When used this way it is a method for any party that wants to eliminate from authority the disfavored commandments of God. They find that the Scriptures are against their innovation. So, they pretend that the Scriptures can be weighed either against Tradition or Reason. Furthermore, because Tradition cannot be used as easily as Scripture itself- by misapplication and sophistry of “interpretation”- they replace Tradition with Experience, pretending that these two mean the same thing. The result is a new “Three-legged Stool” of Scripture, Reason and Experience, always put forth as “the historic understanding of comprehensiveness in Anglicanism.” But, in fact, it is nothing but a new invention of dishonest minds relying on the credulity of the uneducated. It is sophistry, not wisdom; a sales-pitch, not teaching; politics, not doctrine. It is a wide gate and a broad path that leads to destruction.

By this means, every teaching of Scripture can be ruled out, whether it is the fact that a bishop must be the husband of one wife rather than simply the spouse of one spouse, or that only when a man cleaves to his wife are the two made one flesh. By claiming that “reason” or “experience” teach things contrary to Scripture, and that these two “legs” must be weighed against that one “leg,” they manage to overthrow all true teaching whenever it stands in the way of Satanic progress.

The older perpsective

It was relayed to me that a popular blog (weak in theology and content) contained an article in which one of their writers claimed that she did not worry about the Anglican Catechism having always taught that two of the sacraments are “generally necessary for salvation,” because for her the scriptures were good enough. What she really meant was not the scriptures, but her very limited understanding of the scriptures. Then she said that for Anglo-Catholics the scriptures are not enough: “They need something from tradition too.” This is not a “liberal” speaking, but rather a sort of theological “new conservative” whose foundation is every bit as innovative as that of the revisionists. She decides for herself what is and is not “a salvation issue” with absolutely no regard for the Anglican heritage she claims as her own. This is also a misuse of the Three-legged Stool as a system of checks and balances.

The Catholic mind of a Traditional Anglican does the opposite of what this writer said. For us the tradition is not enough; we must also be persuaded by Scripture. But, this is in response to what the writer meant when she used the word “tradition.” She thinks of the tradition in strictly superficial terms. For such people, the tradition is only as old as the 1928 Book of Common Prayer and the 1940 Hymnal, the pattern of church buildings and other practical matters to do with how we carry out the Form in which we worship God together. But these things are not the Tradition, even though they are traditional.

When we really understand it is sufficient to say, simply, the Tradition. However, for the sake of clarity and communication, it is not always possible to speak this way to everyone. The Tradition always refers to teaching; it is a purely doctrinal Tradition. As such it safeguards the validity of the Sacraments, and in fact cannot continue without them, nor they without it. Properly understood, even the three things put forth by Hooker are within the Tradition. The Scriptures, Right Reason and the Church-with-her-Authority live inside this Tradition, that is, the teaching carried on along with the Apostolic Succession from age to age. Our liturgical life has taken useful forms due to the wisdom of Right Reason that helped the Church to form them in the earliest years, and that has from time to time and place to place given variety in details according to the needs of the people. But, always, within the Tradition, it is the same Gospel, the same Sacraments, and the same Teaching commissioned by the Lord Jesus Christ, quickened and empowered by the same Holy Spirit, taking us into the presence of God the Father. In a sense, speaking of the Scriptures and the Tradition as two separate things is itself a mistake. The Scriptures are part of the Tradition, and these speak not with voices that must be weighed against each other in the scales. These speak to us with the one voice of God. And, as wisdom teaches, they cannot contradict or vary.

Rachel Wept

Holy Innocents Day five years ago got me to thinking about the innocents being ripped from their mothers' wombs in our own day, and I wrote:

Rachel wept, and wept, and wept,
for her son, her son, her slain son,
and comfort could not be found.

The king raged, and raged, and raged,
for his power, power, earthly power,
and murder was found in the land.

And ever the power of their own will,
seems to give people the right to kill,
and no child is safe in the land.

And empty the womb, empty the heart,
where the infant in promise was living,
but living could never draw breath

And ever before the shrine of "I will",
or mightily driven by deep guilty fears,
murder is found in the land

Rachel wept, and wept, and wept,
for her child, her child, her slain child,
and comfort could not be found.

Save in the arms of the One who knows
the pain that flows from innocent death,
and open-armed calls to the guilty

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

Worse than Carthage

35th Anniversary of Roe v. Wade January 22nd

"Sanctity of Human Life
Every human being, from the time of his conception, is a creature and child of God, made in His image and likeness, an infinitely precious soul; and that the unjustifiable or inexcusable taking of life is always sinful." -from The Affirmation of St. Louis

"Surely at the commandment of the LORD came this upon Judah, to remove them out of his sight, for the sins of Manasseh, according to all that he did; And also for the innocent blood that he shed: for he filled Jerusalem with innocent blood; which the LORD would not pardon." -II Kings 24:3,4

On this day, in 1973, the worst decision of the Supreme Court of the United States since the Dred Scott decision, was handed down. This is an evil anniversary, like the Day of Infamy on Dec.7th, or like September 11th. Continuing Anglicans do not share the moral ambiguity of the Episcopal Church, but rather, as the quotation from our founding document shows, we denounce the evil of legalized abortion. It is murder, and the Pro-Life argument requires no verification beyond that of the Ten Commandments. Any members of our churches who call themselves "pro-choice" have but one option: Repent. The "pro-choice" position is a pro-murder position. To hold such a view is, itself, sinful and heretical. Any members of our churches who support abortion, any who give money to Planned Parenthood or other outlets of this evil, must be excommunicated immediately. I pray that we have no one who is so bent on evil.

Our western society, with the United States leading the way, is far more evil than the ancient Pagan societies. The pagans thought that the gods required human sacrifice, and so they offered their children to Baal (Molech) to prevent the gods from destroying the whole tribe or people by drought or famine. The Aztecs slaughtered countless millions over several centuries in daily sacrifice so that the gods would not put out the Sun, and so destroy all life on earth forever. This agonized killing seemed to them a necessary evil, being blinded by the darkness of Satanic cruelty. In its wisdom, the Church built on the former sacred space of pagans, in this way carrying out the missionary command of the Law of Moses, to destroy their altars and tear down their groves. It was charity, and the result was civilization.

In our Post-Christian West, children are not murdered as offerings to appease the powerful gods, sacrifices offered by the noble instincts of tortured parents to preserve the human race. They are simply slaughtered for convenience. It is not fair to the slaves of Molech to compare our selfish murder of helpless infants to their painful sacrifices, done from ignorance of the true God. Our modern western guilt is greater than the guilt of Carthage and of the Aztecs.
______________________________

No one I know is more heroic than Diane, my wife, in the pro-life cause. Apart from the priestly ministry at the Lord's altar, I have no higher honor in this world than being father of her children- all of them, including one by adoption. See this article I posted last year.

Already?

I got curious and consulted the tables in my Prayer Book, which give the date of Easter from 1786 through 2013 (which latter is coming right up!)

There are only three dates of Easter which will yield a year with no Second Sunday after Epiphany:
March 22 (the earliest possible date),
March 23 (oddly, my birthday), and March 24.

The last time it fell on March 22 was 1818.
The last time it fell on March 23 was 1913,
-----also 1788, 1845, and 1856, and this year.
The last time it fell on March 24 was 1940,
-----and before that in 1799

That's 8 times in 227 years.
Yup, Fr. Hart, it does happen sometimes:
about 3 1/2 percent of the time.
Since I was born in 1941, this is my first year ever
with such a short Epiphanytide.

----------ed

Food for thought

Here is food for thought that was posted several days ago by "An Anglican Cleric." Some of you make think I have gone off the deep end into some kind of Protestant low church view, by reposting this here. Rest assured, I have not. Neither Hooker nor Fr. Schmemann (yes, that Fr. Schemann, of the Orthodox Church) quoted in the post were theological lightweights. My purpose in reposting this is to emphasize the reason why Anglicans coined the name "The Holy Communion" as an additional name for the Mass, the grace given through this sacrament unto salvation, the need to receive Christ's Body and Blood as the food and drink of everlasting life.

What it the intent of the Eucharist?

It is communion. Pure and simple. The Real Presence of Christ, which is the Catholic doctrine enshrined in the Articles, is there to be received. In Saint Paul's First Epistle to the Corinthians we read of the Eucharist still embedded in a communal meal, and Paul is concerned that those who came to the Lord's Table did not discern the presence of Christ that they were partaking of nor their Communion with Christ and with one another that was achieved through the bread and the cup. Please read these comments from our learned doctor Richard Hooker taken from his Ecclesiastical Polity:

"Take, eat; this is my body; drink ye all of it; for this is my blood." [Mat. 26. 26–28.]

If we have any doubt as to what is expressed by these admirable words, let that one be our teacher as to the meaning of Christ, to whom Christ himself was a schoolmaster. Let our Lord’s Apostle be his interpreter, and let us content ourselves with his explanation, "The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?" [1 Cor. 10. 16.] Is there anything clearer and easier than the fact that just as Christ is called our life because we obtained life through him, so the parts of this sacrament are called his body and blood because when we receive these elements we do receive the body and blood of Christ?

We say that the bread and the wine are his body and his blood because through their instrumentality we participate in his body and blood, and that is a valid assertion because we quite properly give the name of the effect to the cause which produces it, for the cause is in the result which grows out of that cause. Our souls and bodies receive eternal life, and this life in them has as its source and cause the Person of Christ, and his body and blood are the source from which this life flows. The influence of the heavens is in plants, animals and men, and in everything which they make alive; but the body and blood of Christ are in that communicant to which they minister in a far more divine and mystical kind of union, a union which makes us one with him, even as he and the Father are one.

We all agree that Christ really and truly carries out his promise by means of the sacrament; but why do we trouble ourselves by such fierce contests about consubstantiation and the question whether the elements themselves contain Christ or not? Even if consubstantiation or transubstantiation are true, it does not benefit us, and if they are not true it does not handicap us. Our participation in Christ through the sacraments depends upon the cooperation of his omnipotent power, and that power makes the sacrament a means of creating his body and blood in us. Whether there is or is not such a change in the elements themselves, as some people imagine, need not make any great difference to us.

Let us, then, accept that in which we all agree, and then consider why the rest should not be considered superfluous rather than urged as necessary. In the first place, it is generally agreed that this sacrament is a real participation in Christ, and that by its means he imparts his full Person as the mystical head of every soul who receives him and thereby becomes a very member incorporate in his mystical body, which is the blessed company of all faithful people.

In the second place, it is also agreed that the communicant who receives the Person of Christ through the sacrament also receives the Holy Spirit who sanctifies the communicant as it sanctified Christ who is the head of all those who participate in him. In the third place, it is commonly held that whatever power or virtue there is in Christ’s sacrificed body and blood we freely and fully receive this sacrament.

In the fourth place, it is agreed that the result of the sacrament is a real transmutation of our souls and bodies from sin to righteousness, from death and corruption to immortality and life. In the fifth place, all believe that the sacramental elements are only corruptible and earthly things; therefore, they must seem to be an unlikely instrument to work out such admirable effects in man. For that reason, we must not rest our confidence in these elements themselves, but put our trust altogether in the strength of his glorious power, which he can and will give us."

Now read these comments from a learned theologian and presbyter of the Orthodox communion, the late Father Alexander Schmemann taken from his excellent text The Eucharist (the complete text of which I urge everyone, especially clergy, to read and digest) and see the same points that were made by Hooker. The first comment will strike many as "rather protestant" due to the similarity of the argument made to some of the same arguments made by Cranmer and Hooker (indeed, one could easily misatribute Schmemann's quote to Hooker), but realize that Father Schmemann is speaking past the arguments made in the West, as Hooker was attempting to do. Both men, Hooker and Schmemann, are trying to reach past the disagreements based on scholastic logic to the real crux of the matter, the purpose of the Eucharist:

"The purpose of the eucharist lies not in the change of bread and wine, but in our partaking of Christ, who has become our food, our life, the manifestation of the Church as the body of Christ.

This is why the holy gifts themselves never became in the Orthodox East an object of special reverence, contemplation and adoration, and likewise an object of special theological "problematics": how, when, in what manner their change is accomplished. The eucharist--and this means the changing of the holy gifts--is a mystery that cannot be revealed and explained in the categories of "this world. . ." It is revealed only to faith. . .

We find the answers to these questions in the epiklesis. But the answer is not "rational," built upon the laws of our "one-storied" logic; it is disclosed to us by the Holy Spirit. . .

Thus the epiklesis concludes the anaphora, the part of the liturgy that encompasses the "assembly as the Church," the entrance, the proclamation of the good news of the word of God, the offering, the oblation, the thanksgiving and remembrance. But with the epiklesis begins the consummation of the liturgy, whose essence lies in the communion, in the distribution to the faithful of the holy gifts, the body and blood of Christ."
posted by An Anglican Cleric | 10:55 AM

Integrity is not plural

Open Questions to Bishop Martyn Minns

With both Christmas and the feast of Epiphany now past, and an early Septuagesima coming at us, I turn attention to a subject upon which I have already touched, and that I should no longer put off. With all due respect for anyone who has tasted the warfare from the leaders of TEC, and has tried to be faithful to Christ, I am addressing open questions to Bishop Martyn Minns of CANA. First I will set up the questions for the readers.

On December 9th Bishop Minns consecrated four new bishops for the CANA churches in North America. At that time he addressed the subject of women's "ordination." It should come as no surprise that among those of us who have led the way out of the Episcopal Church without giving up our Anglicanism, this topic is one of the essential issues. People who laugh it off as a "non-salvation" issue ("off topic" is the popular excuse in one venue where erudition is scarce at best), cannot lay claim to a historic connection with Anglicanism. As one of two sacraments "generally necessary for salvation," the Holy Communion is directly affected by the validity of priests and bishops. So, the connection is obvious (John 6:51-53). Bishop Minns appears to have made a statement that satisfied no one, but that left open the possibility that he intends to "ordain" women as priests. The full text is in the link I have provided (above) to my earlier post.

My first open questions to his Grace are based on this part of his statement (these will not be softball questions):

"At this time the Church of Nigeria, to which we owe canonical obedience, has no provision for the ordination of women although there has been acceptance of women in the order of deacons. At their most recent gathering the Church of Nigeria’s General Synod tabled discussion about ordination of women to a future date. Archbishop Peter Akinola has stated that while he supports this action he recognizes that there needs to be freedom for CANA to take a different direction because of its North American context."

1. Are we to understand that Archbishop Akinola has reversed a long held position to create some kind of exception for CANA churches?

2. If so, how can his words be verified? Where can we find a quotation that comes from his own mouth?

3. Even if Archbishop Akinola were to make this promise, how can even he simply skirt around Canon Law?

4. We know that in TEC this was done in 1975 as an act of rebellion, deemed "prophetic" one year later at General Convention in Minneapolis. Just because the American church proved to be lawless, should we expect the same from the Nigerian church?

My second set of open questions are based on this part of his statement:

"From the inception of CANA we have made it very clear that we are committed to the full participation of women in the life and leadership of the church. We recognize that among biblically faithful members of the Anglican Communion there are differing theological positions as to whether women should serve in ordained ministry. There are, as have been described, two integrities: those who believe that women should not be ordained at all and those who do believe that women can serve in ordained ministry– although within the latter group there are differing understandings as to whether this includes priesthood and extends to congregational oversight and serving as bishops."

And also from this part:

"We will keep our promise to honor both integrities within CANA and fulfill our commitment to the full participation of women, in the life and leadership of the church. We will seek to do so in such a manner that both those who are unable to support the ordination of women and those who embrace it will know that their position has been honored."

1. Where did this expression "two integrities" come from?
2. Exactly how will two conflicting beliefs be honored?

Again, with all due respect, I have no intention of making this easy. I protest that the plural use of "integrity" takes the meaning out of the word "integrity." I believe this word has been chosen in Screwtape fashion (unwittingly) to prevent thought. This is an example of a word employed for the opposite of communication, a scrambling device to silence the mind from objecting. His Grace could not say: "There are, as has been described, two traditions." In fact, the Church has no tradition of "ordaining" women at all. Even the office of deaconess was, from ancient times until 1976, a lay ministry. This is historic fact, and we are not discussing the definition of a word, but its usage from the earliest times of the Church. His Grace could have said: "There are, as has been described, two doctrines." But, since doctrine can be either true or false, this would not serve the purpose of making the two positions appear equal in weight, or due equal consideration. So, the language has been tortured and mangled in modern ECUSAN fashion (like Frank Griswold's "pluriform truths") in order to pass something completely illegal through customs, hoping that it would not be detected.

As I said, I am not making this easy for the bishop; and I hope he will realize that my purpose is not hostile at all. In many ways I am very much on his side in his fight with TEC. It is simply the case that these matters are important.

My last set of questions is from this part of Bishop Minns' statement:

"We will continue to accept applications from qualified congregations and female clergy with the expectation that women clergy will be licensed to continue their ministry within CANA. We will request permission of the Church of Nigeria to ordain appropriately qualified women candidates to the diaconate within CANA as soon as possible."

I expect the Church of Nigeria not to create provisions for women "priests" in its Canon Law. Such a provision would have a direct effect on the Nigerian Anglicans themselves, and the people of that church seem unwilling to adopt this modern innovation.

1. Does this mean that women are encouraged to apply for "ordination" to the priesthood?
2. If the Church of Nigeria makes no provision in its Canon Law for an exception to be granted the CANA churches, what responsible steps will be taken to prevent women from incurring loss by pursuing a dream with expectations that was never really possible for them?

I hope his Grace, if he takes time to read this, will know that he has our love and our prayers. I hope he would be willing to reply. This is not written out of opposition, but out of charity and with a sense of responsibility for the good of the Church and for its mission to save souls as the Body of Christ, the agent of Jesus Christ our Lord in the world. In this purpose that we share, I am asking these difficult questions.

Schori still at it

Presiding B--er, um--"Bishop" Katherine Jefferts Schori

Sometimes it helps to look back at the Egypt from which our fathers were delivered.

TEC further demonstrated disdain for the Windsor Report and the Communiqué from Dar es Salaam. Both documents called for an end to legal wrangling. As we know, each of the bishops of TEC, including the bishop formerly of TEC, who have looked to the Southern Cone for primatial oversight, received thinly veiled threats of legal action from the Presiding Bishop, Katherine Jefferts Schori back in October and November.

Further legal action appears to be forthcoming, since TEC will oppose the actions of each bishop and diocese seeking to realign with the Province of the Southern Cone. In the words of Rev. Dr. Charles Robertson, Canon to the Presiding "Bishop," "In this way the Presiding Bishop is reaching out with open arms once more to those bishops contemplating realignments for their dioceses, while also warning them of the consequences should they choose to follow through with their proposed actions."

In the course of this “reaching out with open arms,” Schori has written threatening and bullying letters to each of the bishops looking to the Southern Cone.

Demonstrating even further how she “reaches out with open arms,” in a series of hostile maneuvers beginning shortly after the Epiphany, Schori attempted to inhibit both Bishop Schofield and Bishop Duncan, and proceeded to threaten Bishop Iker with an ecclesiastical trial.

Her first shot was aimed at Bishop Schofield, and had the necessary support of the three senior bishops of TEC if one of their bishops is to be inhibited. It reads in part: "I hereby inhibit the said Bishop Schofield and order that from and after 5:00 p.m. PST, Friday, January 11, 2008, he cease from exercising the gifts of ordination in the ordained ministry of this Church; and pursuant to Canon IV.15 I order him from and after that time to cease all 'episcopal, ministerial, and canonical acts, except as relate to the administration of the temporal affairs of the Diocese of San Joaquin,' until this Inhibition is terminated pursuant to Canon IV.9(2) or superseded by decision of the House of Bishops."

This produced a quick replay in support of Bishop Schofield from his archbishop. "As of December the 8th, 2007 Bishop John-David Schofield is not under the authority or jurisdiction of The Episcopal Church or the Presiding Bishop. He is, therefore, not answerable to their national canon law but is a member of the House of Bishops of the Southern Cone and under our authority. Un fuerte abrazo. ++Greg.” The Diocese of San Joaquin stated on its website: “The Episcopal Church's assertion that Bishop Schofield has abandoned the communion of this Church is an admission that The Episcopal Church rejects the historical Anglican faith. This is why the Diocese of San Joaquin appealed to the Anglican Province of the Southern Cone of South America for emergency and temporary protection.”

Taking their stand with the Anglican Communion against the innovations of TEC, the San Joaquin statement continues, “How is it that over 60 million Anglicans worldwide can be wrong and a few hundred thousand in the American Church can claim to be right?” In response to a misleading announcement by a public relations firm, the Diocesan statement continues: “There is no confusion on the part of the Bishop of San Joaquin or the clergy, people, leadership, and convention of the Diocese of San Joaquin of their status.”

Also, on January 11, Schori attempted to inhibit Bishop Duncan for, as ENS, the official organ of TEC “reported,” having “abandoned communion of Episcopal Church” according a “Title IV Review Committee.” Bishop Duncan responded: “Few bishops have been more loyal to the doctrine, discipline and worship of The Episcopal Church. I have not abandoned the Communion of this Church. I will continue to serve and minister as the Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh." This attempt to inhibit Bishop Duncan failed, since Schori was unable to obtain the support of the three senior TEC bishops. But, it could mean that instead of having to answer to the HOB in March, he may be facing his trial in September, before the scheduled Diocesan Convention of 2008. Bishop Jack Iker said it is “tragic and deeply disturbing’ that Bishop Schori would move against Bishop Duncan before Pittsburgh took ‘any final decision’ to separate from the Episcopal Church.”

Bishop Iker informed The Living Church on Jan. 15 that he received a letter from Schori threatening him with disciplinary action. “Unlike her November letter, it did not imply a charge of ‘abandonment of the communion of this church’, but it said that I would be liable for charges of violation of my ordination vows if I continue ‘any encouragement of such a belief’ (i.e. that parishes and dioceses can leave The Episcopal Church).” In other words, because Bishop Iker does not consider a line from an old memo (by a staffer for former Presiding Bishop Griswold) as equal to the Canon Law of TEC, he is being accused of spreading a false belief. “I lament your belief,” Schori wrote, that those “with your theological position are being systematically eliminated from positions of leadership and influence. If they are disappearing, it is by their own decision and at their own hands.” About Bishop Iker’s concern that TEC would file lawsuits, Schori claimed that such a fate would be self-inflicted. “Depositions and lawsuits have no substance if there has been no violation. Fear of same is probably not rational if there is no basis for same.” In other words, in clear violation of the Windsor Report, Schori further risks schism from the most of the Anglican churches in the world by using legal action to enforce her version of Christianity. Also, she calls any deviation from her opinion a “violation.”

Well, we Continuers know why we are not in TEC and other post-Anglican sects (like the Church of England). This is no time for "I told you so" to those who took a little longer to see the truly hopeless state of that cult. They are trying to break free, and we ought to pray for their full deliverance. We must pray that all of them will see the truth about Holy Orders, and about the full inheritance of the Catholic Tradition.

And, we must pray that after the smoke clears, they will persevere along with us, and that attention will be turned to our mission as the Church.

Requiem for a Priest

January 12, 2008. I go to Concord for the funeral Mass of Father Szala, a retired priest of our diocese. There are three bishops present and presiding as Father Christian celebrates the Requiem Mass with all due solemnity. There is sadness, but yet there is joy, as we gather with our departed brother priest for one more Mass . . . January 16, a poem emerges . . .

Father Szala

In an urn before the throne
the earthly remnants lie,
as smoke of incense fills the air,
and candles cast a gentle gleam,
and bishops lay their pointed hats aside,
while, at their bidding Father says the words,
and takes the bread and lifts the cup,
and leads us all across the veil,
to kneel before the awesome sacrifice,
where at the Cross all time is joined,
and distance makes a bar no more,
but where, before the Lamb once slain that lives,
we who walk the earth are one
with angels and with saints now gone before,
and, though we bid our brother priest farewell,
there is no truly final separation,
for at the Cross the veil is thin,
and at this Mass, though sadness is upon us,
there is joy because we know it.

-------------------ed pacht, Rochester NH

Gesimas - Layreader Homilies

A bit later than promised, the next two weeks (Septuagesima and Sexagesima) of the layreader homilies are posted at

http://public.box.net/pastored59658

ed pacht

Wisdom. Stand Upright!

Σοφια. Ορθοι! Ακουσωμεν του αγιου Ευαγγελιου.

Wisdom. Stand upright. Listen to the Holy Gospel.

How strange it was, after so many times over the years having heard the priest, in Greek, calling the people to order to hear the reading of the Holy Gospel, this morning to hear the bidding in English.

I finally made it today to my first-ever celebration in English of the Liturgy of St John Chrysostom, something I have been trying to get myself to do for more than a month now. It hasn't been made any easier by the fact that it is only offered every other Sunday, and then only at the unsociable hour of 8 o'clock in the morning.

The liturgy was held in Old St Nicholas Church in the village of Pano Lakatamia, near to where we lived during our first four years in Cyprus, and now still only a leisurely 15 minute drive from my new home on the sadly un-congested Sunday morning roadways.

Taking the orthopraxis in as laid-back a fashion as I expected of the Orthodox, I had already decided not to arrive on time, heaven forbid arriving early, for the start. I walked in about 20 minutes past to find the church virtually empty -- an elderly man here, a scarf-covered woman there and three female cantors making up the entire congregation -- as the young Texas-born priest, Fr Joseph Coleman, stood at the altar.

I noticed when I walked in that there was a small portable gas heater on the far side of the church, but there was no way it had any hope of warming the space. After about 15 minutes of holding out with T-shirt, long-sleeve dress shirt, a sleeveless woolen sweater and a heavy tweed jacket, I could take it no longer. I went out to my car and got my oilskin jacket and thermal gloves.

As time passed, more and more people began to arrive, including parents with infants, toddlers and young children. In the end, I would imagine there must have been 25 or 30 of us there. I later discovered the old man whom I had first seen on coming in was English, and I also met a man from San Antonio, Texas. For the most part, though, it was an assortment of Greek Cypriots who had returned to their homeland from such places as Australia, England and South Africa, and for many of whom English was their first language.

I had brought with me the English translation of the liturgy (with the Greek on facing pages) that I bought at a meeting of the Fellowship of St Alban and St Sergius in St Albans, England back in 1997, just after it had been issued by the Greek Orthodox Church there. I was pleased to find that I could actually follow along, though Fr Coleman was using a slightly different -- and better translation.

And I was deeply moved to find that without the "mystery" of hearing the liturgy in Greek, but in very clear yet eloquent English, the words had lost none of their awesome power.

As an Anglican, I dearly love the Prayer of Humble Access, but this prayer of those who are about to receive the Sacrament is equally powerful, if not even more so:


"I believe and confess, Lord, that You are truly the Christ, the Son of the living God, who came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am the first. I also believe that this is truly Your pure Body and that this is truly Your precious Blood. Therefore, I pray to You, have mercy upon me, and forgive my transgressions, voluntary and involuntary, in word and deed, known and unknown. And make me worthy without condemnation to partake of Your pure Mysteries for the forgiveness of sins and for life eternal. Amen.

"How shall I, who am unworthy, enter into the splendor of Your saints? If I dare to enter into the bridal chamber, my clothing will accuse me, since it is not a wedding garment;and being bound up, I shall be cast out by the angels. In Your love, Lord, cleanse my soul and save me.

"Loving Master, Lord Jesus Christ, my God, let not these holy Gifts be to my condemnation because of my unworthiness, but for the cleansing and sanctification of soul and body and the pledge of the future life and kingdom. It is good for me to cling to God and to place in Him the hope of my salvation.

"Receive me today, Son of God, as a partaker of Your mystical Supper. I will not reveal Your mystery to Your adversaries. Nor will I give You a kiss as did Judas. But as the thief I confess to You: Lord, remember me in Your kingdom."

First Sunday after Epiphany

Romans 12:1-5
Luke 2: 41-52

What brings all of these scriptures together for this day is the collect, asking for perception and knowledge of God’s will, and for the grace and power to be faithful to it. The collect reminds me very much of what St. Paul said was his prayer for the Church of the Colossian Christians:

“For this cause also, since the day we heard of 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 according to His glorious power...” (Col. 1: 9-11)

The passages we have heard this day all speak of the mystical charism, the gift, of wisdom by which we know the will of God, and of the grace God gives us to carry it out. The wisdom that we receive is, in a very mysterious way, coming to us from the Person of Christ our Lord, mediated to us by the Holy Ghost. It is the wisdom that the world does not know, for it does not know God. By this wisdom we know God, and we know His will for us.

Now, that sounds pretty heady and possibly not even very sober. Yet it is very practical.

Before talking about the practical side however, let us look very seriously at what we see in the twelve-year old Jesus, as Luke tells the story. To begin with, He knew Who He was, and He knew the Father. For some reason contemporary commentators have imagined, since some time about the middle of the 20th Century, that Jesus suddenly became aware of His identity when He was baptized, and the heavens opened, the Spirit came upon Him, and the Father spoke. How they come up with this I cannot understand, for the manifestation of each Person of the Trinity was a revelation given to John the Baptist, and to all who stood by at the banks of the Jordan. But, nothing new was revealed that day to Jesus.

No indeed, for here we see Him quite aware of Who He is at the tender age of twelve. His wisdom is greater than that of all of the Doctors of the Law, and all they can do is marvel at Him. I have heard preachers get this all wrong too, and think that He was getting ahead of Himself, and needed to be “put in His place” by Mary and Joseph. Again, not so. This is a revelation given to us in scripture of the simple fact that this human child, this boy, was at the same time God, One with the Father. He had taken human nature, alien as every created nature is to His Divine Uncreated Person, so that He could become Man, while yet, as St Athanasius tells us, filling the heavens as the Eternal Son of the Father. He did not “empty Himself” of Divine Nature, as some bad theologians have twisted the marvelous Christological passage from Philippians chapter two to mean, but rather, as it says in Psalm 113:5:

“Who is like unto the LORD our God, that hath His dwelling so high, and yet humbleth Himself to behold the things that are in heaven and earth!”

Yes, He would go back to Nazareth and be obedient to Mary and to Joseph, for He came in the form of a servant, and was obedient, obedient even to the death of the cross. He came in humility, laying aside His glory. The self-emptying spoken of by St. Paul meant just this very thing, that while always equal to the Father, He humbled Himself and did the Father’s will.

To do the Father’s will required knowledge of that will, and it required wisdom that cannot come from human origin, especially not from fallen and sinful men. The phrase “about My Father’s business” is also translated “in My Father’s house.” In other words, “why were you looking anywhere but here? Did you not know that I must be in My Father’s house?” Both being in the temple, and then going back with them to be obedient, were all part of His journey to the cross, as He came to do the Father’s will, not His own.

I want to be very careful at this point not to fall into Palagian heresy, and teach as many moderns do, that Jesus is our example, and that if He could do it so can we; the old “pull yourself up by your bootstrap.” This is not the message. No we cannot do it, we cannot pull ourselves up by our bootstrap, and we cannot even follow His example. If we could, we would not be miserable offenders as the Prayer Book has us confess, and that the Bible certifies us indeed to be. Our first father sinned, and we are born with all three strikes already called. True religion does not teach that life is a test. It teaches that life is a shipwreck. We need a Saviour, and no one less than God will do, while also our Saviour must be a Man like us to pull us out of the curse of sin and death. No. That Jesus did it perfectly does not mean that we can do the same. It means, in fact, that we cannot. For though fully Man from the nature of His Virgin Mother, He never ceased to be God, eternally begotten of the Father. This is the Gospel: That God himself came to save us.

So then, am I saying to give up and live in sin? Admit defeat and then “eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow we shall die?” As St. Paul answered this question, God forbid. Well, here is the punch line to all that I just said, and it was written by St. Athanasius: “God became man that man might become Divine.” In case that sounds scarey, St Peter said the same in his Second Epistle, by God’s promises “...that ye might be partakers of the Divine Nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust (II Pet. 1: 4).” The doctrine of Deification, which is the Catholic doctrine common to the Church Universal, is not that people can be gods in a any literal sense; but, rather, that because God has become human, He gives grace for us to be adopted as children of God. The destiny of those who know God is to be transformed, and to be glorified, to be given true life and immortality. As C. S. Lewis put it, to be changed into a creature so glorious, that if you were to behold such a one now, you would be tempted to fall down and worship.

But, all of this is grace, that is, a gift. It is given because we are in Christ, and He is the True Son of the Father. “Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be; but we know that, when He shall appear, we shall be like Him; for we shall see Him as He is (I John 3: 2).” Because He has come into the world, and taken our nature, and taken our death which He did not deserve, and has passed through death into life, we can live. And the life we are given is not of this world, but is the life of Christ Who is One with the Father and the Holy Ghost. This is the change we are given, and our partaking of the Divine Nature.

Now are we the sons of God. So then, how shall we live? We have not the power to live like sons of God within ourselves, or by our own effort. What we have is the Holy Ghost Who is given to us, Who abides in us. Now, what is the practical side which I have promised to speak about? Indeed, I seem to have gotten as far away from practicality as possible- or have I? Is it not practical to learn to depend upon God, upon His Spirit Who abides with us? How? By what steps?

By the steps given to us in the Epistle of St. Paul to the Romans just as we have heard it this day. In light of God’s mercies, we must know that we no longer belong to ourselves, but to the One Who paid for us by His very life-blood, the pouring out of His soul upon the cross of death. In light of that unspeakable mercy, we give ourselves as living sacrifices to God. No, we will not be perfect. Anyone who has had a heady conversion experience, no matter how mystical and indeed real, soon learns that he is still a sinner. No, we cannot be perfect, but we can humble ourselves and practice obedience. That is what a living sacrifice does: He carries his own cross daily and follows the Son of Man. Jesus did not carry the cross only on that one Friday, but every day; for He lived always to do the will of the Father Who sent Him. Unlike Him, we will not be perfect, we will not be a sinless sacrifice. All we can do is practice obedience, however imperfectly we practice it. But, the sins of a living sacrifice are those which he discovers within himself; that is, they are not done willfully and deliberately. If we choose to do wrong, we are not living sacrifices- something to consider before saying “amen” to the Eucharistic prayer in which “we offer our selves, our souls and bodies...”

This offering of ourselves to God is our “reasonable service.” In the original Greek it is our logika latre’ia (λογικv λατρεία). Literally, our “logical liturgy.” That is, a liturgy, a service, and one that is logical, reasonable, quite in keeping with wisdom. The Liturgy we offer to God this day must be in the proper sense a very real collect of our lives; for the whole life of each one of us should be itself a liturgy, with every part having its place as an offering of worship to God. Is all that we do done to the glory of God? In the last chapter of Zechariah, we see that even the washing bowls will be inscribed with the words “Holiness unto the LORD.”

Lastly, this means that our minds must be renewed, so that we are not conformed to this world. “He was in the world, and the world was made by Him, and the world knew Him not.” Remember this definition of how the expression “the world” is often used in the New Testament. It does not know Christ, and so to it we must not conform. Christians are supposed to be non-conformists. The renewing of our minds transforms us so that we are able to do His will. This is practical. If we are too lazy to employ our minds, to read, mark, learn and inwardly digest the scriptures in light of the teaching of the Church, we will not be thinking of doing God’s will.

And, I would suggest that God’s will, for most of us, is not a mystery veiled in thick darkness. Rather, faced with the realities of life, if we are thinking about what it means to live a life that is offered to God, and are thus renewing our minds by His word, the way to do His will should be clear to us. Sometimes it will require effort to recognize that each moment of life has its own calling and purpose; other times a path opens before us that we must choose, not because it is easy, or because it is a way to find what we imagine to be happiness. No. It will be because it is the way that we know, in light of our Christian minds and our consciences, to be the way that is right.

It is not for us to choose the times in which we live, but, as Gandalf said to Frodo: “All we can do is decide what to do with the time that is given to us.” It may be quite hard for us to see the time and place in which we find ourselves as the place of God’s call upon us; and yet, often it is that when life is most ordinary and even mundane, we are faced with those choices, opportunities and even inconveniences that are, in fact, the time and place to know and do the will of the Father.

What we can do is possible not because of our cleverness in knowing His will, but because we are in Christ, and given His wisdom. The same wisdom of the twelve-year old Boy Who knew Who He was, where He belonged, and what was the will of His Father.

Now unto God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Ghost be ascribed, as is most justly due, all might, majesty, dominion, power and glory, now and forever. Amen.

Schori: "You can't quit! I fire you!"

The official TEC Tass-style propaganda organ, namely Episcopal Life Online News, has reported the following:

"[Episcopal News Service] Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori on January 11 inhibited Diocese of San Joaquin Bishop John-David Schofield.

"In the text of the inhibition, Jefferts Schori wrote: "I hereby inhibit the said Bishop Schofield and order that from and after 5:00 p.m. PST, Friday, January 11, 2008, he cease from exercising the gifts of ordination in the ordained ministry of this Church; and pursuant to Canon IV.15 I order him from and after that time to cease all 'episcopal, ministerial, and canonical acts, except as relate to the administration of the temporal affairs of the Diocese of San Joaquin,' until this Inhibition is terminated pursuant to Canon IV.9(2) or superseded by decision of the House of Bishops."

So, she is saying, "You can't quit! I fire you!" She is also saying that the majority vote of the people in San Joaquin means nothing. Her "church" is a dictatorship. The threat of lawsuits has been repeated, once again showing the TEC disdain for the Windsor Report and the communiqué from Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. I am sure that the new Southern Cone diocese of San Joaquin, and their bishop, have no plans to treat Ms. Schori as if she has any authority over them.

The writer of the article did not ask for any response from the Diocese of San Joaquin, nor from the Province of the Southern Cone. Even the appearance of objectivity does not matter to the official party paper.

Deaconesses

Michael sent this as a comment on the San Joaquin thread, but I decided not to publish it as such. I think it is worthy of a separate thread. I know for a fact that the Anglican Catholic Church has lay deaconesses, but know nothing of the ministry as such. Perhaps, as a starter, someone there could brief us on just how that ministry is perceived and practiced. At the same time, it would be interesting to know if the ACC, or any of the other continuing jurisdictions, provide for permanent deacons.

I believe that it's time for the traditional Anglican movement to undertake a comprehensive historical and theological study on the diaconate, the order of deaconesses, and the role of laity in the liturgy.

The goal of such a study should be to develop a policy on the ministry of women that is at once wholely orthodox and catholic, and also designed to utilize the gifts and callings of women in the fullest and most effective way within that orthodox context.

It should seek to develop a theology of diaconal service, explain the differences between deacons and deaconesses, and also outline various proposals for how deaconesses can minister within the Anglican context. The work of other orders for women (both traditional monastic orders and contemporary "secular" orders) should also be considered.

The end result of this should be to preserve, completely and without fault, the orthodox character of the church, but also to provide maximum support, without reservation, to those women called by God to various ministries within the church. This should include programs for theological education and credentialing, with the understanding that although ordination to Holy Orders is a unique type of vocation that is male in character, the Church badly needs the vocations of women.

Women's "Ordination" a major factor in San Joaquin and Ft. Worth votes

Please, let us not be snobs. We turn our attention to a few points about current events in the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion-those other Anglicans out there.

Earlier I reported how out of touch one blogger has proven to be in his declaration that women's "ordination" is a dead issue, and that "nobody cares" about it-to clean up the unacceptable language of Greg Griffith at Stand Firm. I know that a whole army of "conservative Episcopalians" believes that the realignment of one TEC diocese into the Province of the Southern Cone, and the move to do the same in Ft. Worth, is all about the TEC rejection of the Windsor Report, that is, all about the homosexual thing. In Pittsburgh, that is mostly true (though a deeper conviction about more than just one issue is involved there as well).

In the diocese of Quincy (which has delayed its first vote until their Diocesan Convention in 2008), where the leader of Forward in Faith North America (FiFNA), Bishop Keith Ackerman is the Ordinary, in the Diocese of Ft. Worth, and in the already (as of December 8th) realigned Diocese of San Joaquin, the foremost consideration that got the realignment ball rolling was their commitment to the principles of FiF, that is, to the all male priesthood of the Catholic Tradition as a theological belief, a conviction and matter of conscience. Because the rules of the Episcopal Church would make it impossible for any orthodox successor of these current bishops to be consecrated by the bishops of the Episcopal Church, it was necessary to leave TEC and seek realignment, in the words of Jack Iker, "with a Province that does not ordain women to the priesthood, or receive women priests." By "orthodox," Bishop Iker meant, specifically, someone who shares the theological conviction of FiF that only men can be ordained to the priesthood.

I will include more details about this and many other things in the upcoming issue of The Christian Challenge.

As much as it may grieve some of the people who think that only their one issue, the homosexual issue, has been driving realignment, the facts show that an orthodox understanding of the priesthood (and let us pray that a better understanding across the board of the Diaconate is forthcoming) was first and foremost in Quincy, Ft. Worth and San Joaquin, each of them committed to the principles we of the Continuum share with Forward in Faith. For now, anyone who chooses to doubt what I have written here can listen to the speech given by Bishop Jack Iker back in October, in England. I posted a link at the time in a piece called, "To Whom it May Concern."

Sorry G.G. You are simply out of touch. Women's "ordination" does matter to quite a lot of people, and right in your backyard where you fail to look.

The Henry you say

My mother-in-law, a Roman Catholic, was at it again. Just before Christmas, I was informed that the Church of England was started by Henry VIII because he wanted a divorce, and that the reason that the Episcopal Church has its homosexual problem is all due to married clergy. Thank God for monogamy, because one mother-in-law is quite enough. The saddest man in the Bible had to have been King Solomon with about a thousand of them to deal with. It should have been enough to put a king off of sex, since each bride probably had a mother. But, enough about my mother-in-law; we have enough Anglicans to worry about who believe this same stuff.

The second point is easy to answer, since the Orthodox have had married clergy for two thousand years, and their married clergy can beat up Rome's celibate clergy any day of the week (they might just prove this at the Church of the Nativity next Boxing Day). Try to find just one child molester or Vickie Gene imitator among those bearded fathers of the EOC. They did find one-once- and they threw him overboard immediately; they even burned his vestments as defiled. My mother-in-law should not be expected to know that Rome's all celibate clergy rule, not married clergy, is the experiment (and a failed experiment it is too). But, Anglicans should know it. No, the Henry thing is what takes more time to answer.

The ancient Celtic British Christians and the Anglo-Saxon Christians unified into one Ecclesia Anglicana (Church of England) at the Council of Hertford in 673 AD. Many centuries later Henry VIII did his thing, and it died shortly after his son did. Then Queen Mary (after whom a mixed drink is named) lit up England by burning Protestants at the stake, executing so many people in her brief reign that it took her sister, Queen Elisabeth, fifty years just to catch up on the executions, showing that sibling rivalry takes patience and perseverance. It is this second sister that must take center stage.

My mother-in-law is a hopeless case when it comes to setting the record straight, because her warped version of history was taught to her as if it was religious dogma (which I suspect it was). Bloody Mary has been removed from the picture Orwell style, the same way Bobby Kennedy never shows up in the films or photographs from his time as Joe McCarthy's right hand man. But, for Anglicans themselves, it is time to set the record straight once and for all.

The king of Spain saw England as a blossoming rival empire, and so he gave in to his rage about the fate of Queen Catherine of Aragon, the little Spanish lady who got ditched by King Henry for the sexy Anne Boleyn with her green sleeves and six fingers on each hand (Henry must have been turned on by strange things- twelve fingers in all- wow!). Using the unhappy treatment of Catherine as an excuse, or else as a reason many years after the fact, the unhappy Hapsborg brought all his pressure to bear on the pope, insisting that the Church stand up to the English for letting the daughter of six fingered Annie reign after Mary died. The pope issued a decree that the Faithful in England were to rise up, start a civil war, and murder their monarch. It was their Christian duty, damn it, to weaken their own kingdom so that the king of Spain could sail over and conquer them in the chaos. As a result, when the people of England rebelled against this, their Christian duty to take up the sword against friends and neighbors, and to destroy themselves in the process, that the pope excommunicated the Church of England. For a whole generation it was treason to be loyal to the pope- it really was treason too. Think about it.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls, dogs and cats, Jews and Greeks, is how Anglicanism was born.

Now, if you need a little more to think about, just remember that God sunk the Armada, and that shows whose side HE was on.

Put that in your thurible and smoke it.

Κυριε Ελεησον - The Ηealing of Ελαιολαδο

I was wandering this morning through the Wikipedia article on the Jesus Prayer, and found a piece written by Metropolitan Anthony Bloom, in which I learned something that I had never known.

Eleison (ελεησον) is of the same root as elaion (ελαιον), which means olive tree and the oil from it.

Here is what he has to say about our plea for mercy:

These words 'have mercy' are used in all the Christian Churches and, in Orthodoxy, they are the response of the people to all the petitions suggested by the priest. Our modern translation 'have mercy' is a limited and insufficient one. The Greek word which we find in the gospel and in the early liturgies is eleison. Eleison is of the same root as elaion, which means olive tree and the oil from it. If we look up the Old and New Testament in search of the passages connected with this basic idea, we will find it described in a variety of parables and events which allow us to form a complete idea of the meaning of the word. We find the image of the olive tree in Genesis. After the flood Noah sends birds, one after the other, to find out whether there is any dry land or not, and one of them, a dove - and it is significant that it is a dove - brings back a small twig of olive. This twig conveys to Noah and to all with him in the ark the news that the wrath of God has ceased, that God is now offering man a fresh opportunity. All those who are in the ark will be able to settle again on firm ground and make an attempt to live, and never more perhaps, if they can help it, undergo the wrath of God.

In the New Testament, in the parable of the good Samaritan, olive oil is poured to soothe and to heal. In the anointing of kings and priests in the Old Testament, it is again oil that is poured on the head as an image of the grace of God that comes down and flows on them (Ps 133:2) giving them new power to fulfil what is beyond human capabilities. The king is to stand on the threshold, between the will of men and the will of God, and he is called to lead his people to the fulfilment of God's will; the priest also stands on that threshold, to proclaim the will of God and to do even more: to act for God, to pronounce God's decrees and to apply God's decision.

The oil speaks first of all of the end of the wrath of God, of the peace which God offers to the people who have offended against him; further it speaks of God healing us in order that we should be able to live and become what we are called to be; and as he knows that we are not capable with our own strength of fulfilling either his will or the laws of our own created nature, he pours his grace abundantly on us (Rom 5:20). He gives us power to do what we could not otherwise do.

The words milost and pomiluy (помилѹй) in Slavonic have the same root as those which express tenderness, endearing, and when we use the words eleison, 'have mercy on us', pomiluy, we are not just asking God to save us from His wrath - we are asking for love.

Folding Chairs at the Crucifixion

Ah, if only the Romans had thought of setting up folding chairs around the cross so that people could comfortably watch the Crucifixion and not have to get their knees dusty or scratched on the rocky ground.

A bit of spiritually poisoning sarcasm by way of delayed reaction to the midnight Christmas mass I attended at the Canterbury Club parish where I served as a Reader for nearly four years.

I just made this comment in a posting over at anglican@stsams.org, a discussion list to which I have belonged for more than a decade.

I am the only member of the Anglican Catholic Church in Cyprus, so there was no ACC midnight or any other Christmas mass for me to attend. I debated for awhile attending the RCC service, but couldn't face the informality of it all. I would have gone to an Orthodox service, even though I would have been prohibited from receiving the Sacrament, but couldn't face getting up at 4 in the morning for the 5-8 am service. So I broke down and went back to St Paul's. At least the music will be edifying, I thought. Sadly, the regular organist was away, and the substitute, while minimally competent, was no source of joy.

After sitting through a very literary, highly intellectual "insiders" sermon from the new bishop (attired in a red cope!), which couldn't have been less appropriate for a congregation full of "Christmas Christians" and first-timers, the Liturgy of the Mass eventually got underway. The sermon was only one of many things that had already put me off, but by the time of the Prayer of Humble Access, I could take no more and walked out. The final straw was during the consecration, when I saw in the choir pews, just outside the altar rail, lay members of the parish staff sitting there with service booklet in hand, calmly reading along as if following the libretto at the opera.


It breaks my heart, but I think I am going to have to learn to go to bed earlier so that I can get up at four o'clock in the morning.