Lent 2 - Layreader Homilies

Having been asked to write homilies on the Sunday Lessons at Morning and Evening Prayer for the use of layreaders has caused me to spend a lot of time meditating on these reading. I'm not as far ahead as I intended, partly because the lessons for lent have so challenged me personally as I've been writing. They are currently posted from the First Sunday of Advent up through the Second of Lent (this week coming), at

http://public.box.net/pastored59658

This week I felt impressed to post the text of one of the four messages below.

Lent 2, second set for Morning Prayer
First Lesson: Ezek 18:1-4, 25-32
Second Lesson: Matt 5:27-37

Whatever became of sin?
Didn't it used to be that there were certain things
that God Himself had forbidden?
Wasn't there a limit to what mankind could do?
Wasn't there a thing called "guilt"?
Weren't there actions to be ashamed of?
Weren't there consequences of committing sin?
Didn't we get ourselves into such trouble
that we needed a Savior?
That was the reason for the Cross, wasn't it?,
and yet . . .

The idea of sin isn't fashionable anymore.
Personal responsibility has gone out of style,
as has the whole idea of objective right and wrong.
There's a saying
that has become the guiding principle
for certain foolish people
that call themselves Satanists:

"Do what you will, and it hurt none,
is the whole of the law."

The Christian conscience knows, deep within,
that there is something terribly, even frighteningly,
wrong with that,
something that makes it fitting
for the worshipers of evil,
but the current secular world has embraced it.
We hear a lot of talk about "choice"
as if that were the guiding principle of the universe,
and for those whose choices are seen as hurtful,
well, there is the therapeutic model --

"The devil made me do it"

Or, as we moderns would read "devil':
some kind of mental illness, chemical imbalance,
or societal inequity
(poverty, oppression, whatever)
makes it inevitable that such things happen.

"Mistakes were made," say the politicians,
but no one admits to making them

So sin is not sin and doesn't need to be forgiven.
It's just illness and only needs treatment.

But there is sin.
God has spoken,
and what He has declared to be right is right,
and what He has declared to be wrong is wrong.
Righteousness is not defined
by what we figure out,
but by what God has said,
and sin,
regardless of how we come to be tempted by it,
is the responsibility of the sinner and none other,
and sin has consequences.

As Ezekiel said in our Old Testament Lesson:
"The soul that sinneth, it shall die"
and as St. Paul wrote to the Roman Christians:
"The wages of sin is death..."
Note the words of Our Lord in St. Matthew's Gospel.
We heard them read today.
Our loving Jesus who came to give His life for us
did not consider sin to be a small thing.
Which of us has not looked lustfully on another?
How many do we know who have been divorced
for just such reasons as our Lord condemns?
And can we all be trusted to speak truth
without the assurance of an oath or guarantee?
Our Lord speaks strongly.
Pluck out your eye,
cut off your hand,
do whatever it takes to avoid the pains of hell.
Hell, there's another unfashionable idea.
We won't go into that now, but suffice it to say
that sin does indeed have terrible consequences.

but hear what Ezekiel had to say:
"When a righteous man
turneth away from his righteousness,
and committeth iniquity, and dieth in them;
for his iniquity that he hath done shall he die.
Again, when the wicked man turneth away
from his wickedness that he hath committed,
and doeth that which is lawful and right,
he shall save his soul alive.
... he shall surely live, he shall not die."

and what Our Lord said in John 3, verse 16:
"God so loved the world,
that he gave his only begotten Son,
that whosoever believeth in Him
should not perish,
but have everlasting life."
Lent is about sin.
It is about repentance.
It is about amendment of life.
But, above all, it is about forgiveness,
the forgiveness won by His Cross and Resurrection,
given to those who repent and follow.

Let us pray.

Almighty God, Father of all mercies,
grant that we may have knowledge of our sins
and wickedness,
that we may turn from them unto thy divine mercy,
and that, by the power of Thy Holy Spirit,
we may know thy forgiveness,
through the Cross of Our Lord Jesus Christ,
who liveth and reigneth with thee
and the same Spirit,
ever one God, world without end. Amen.

Off to Jerusalem

I leave this evening for an assignment of nearly three weeks in Jerusalem, my third trip is as many years.

Pray for the peace of Jerusalem.

Rowan Williams and Sharia

A lecture on Thursday by the Archbishop of Canterbury, suggesting that Islamic law, or sharia, might need to be introduced in England in some degree, has sparked outrage, and calls for his resignation.

I heard snippets of the lecture on television the other night, and it did not initially strike me as that remarkable. He seemed to be saying that, in cases where issues unique to Muslim faith arise, where both parties are in agreement, and where there is no violation of fundamental human rights, then it might be worthwhile, even desirable, to allow sharia to be applied.

In light of the scandal, I have resolved to sit down today and read the transcript of the lecture, and I invite you to do so as well. For some reason, the hyperlink is not working, so you will need to cut and paste: http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/1575.

You might also be interested in reading some of the commentary that has ensued, which you will find here.

Once we have read the lecture, and only then, I would welcome discussion.

Toward the beginning of his lecture, the archbishop raises the issue:

"(T)here remains a great deal of uncertainty about what degree of accommodation the law of the land can and should give to minority communities with their own strongly entrenched legal and moral codes. As such, this is not only an issue about Islam but about other faith groups, including Orthodox Judaism; and indeed it spills over into some of the questions which have surfaced sharply in the last twelve months about the right of religious believers in general to opt out of certain legal provisions -–as in the problems around Roman Catholic adoption agencies which emerged in relation to the Sexual Orientation Regulations last spring."

Further on, he lays out a precondition for such accomodation taking place, a precondition that it would seem his detractors have overlooked:

"If any kind of plural jurisdiction is recognised, it would presumably have to be under the rubric that no 'supplementary' jurisdiction could have the power to deny access to the rights granted to other citizens or to punish its members for claiming those rights."

Hesychia and Lent

St. Basil the Great, in a letter to his friend St. Gregory , writes about hesychia as the beginning of purity of soul, and about hesychia of the body, that is, restriction of the tongue, sight, hearing and words.

For example, he says: "The very beginning of the soul's purgation is tranquility, in which the tongue is not given to discussing the affairs of men, nor the eyes to contemplating rosy cheeks or comely bodies, nor the ears to lowering the tone of the soul by listening to songs whose sole object is to amuse, or to words spoken by wits and buffoons -- a practice which above all things tends to relax the tone of the soul".

Metropolitan Hierotheos of Nafpaktos in Orthodox Psychotherapy

What means this word Catholic?

"Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is is necessary that he hold the Catholic Faith. Which Faith except everyone do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. And the Catholic Faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity, neither confounding the Persons, nor dividing the Substance." -Opening of the Athanasian Creed

"I believe in the Holy Ghost: The holy Catholic Church; The Communion of Saints: The Forgiveness of sins: The Resurrection of the body: And the Life everlasting. Amen." -From the Apostle's Creed

"And I believe one Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church." -From the Creed called Nicene (i.e. Nicene-Constantinopolitan).

From the usage of the word "Catholic" in ancient times we see that it speaks, above all, of the Church and of the Faith of that Church (namely, its doctrine). This word is used by everybody in Christianity, and is the property of no one denomination. The churches under the Pope, the Roman Catholic and the Byzantine (Eastern Rite) Catholic Churches, have been associated with this word in a denominational sense, which causes some confusion. It leads to the bad argument of Cardinal Newman, that if, in any town you asked to be taken to the Catholic Church, you would be taken to the Roman Catholic Church, which makes it, alone, the real thing. Actually, it means the cab driver reads the signs on the front of church buildings, and it proves only that he is literate, at least to that degree. Beyond that, it proves nothing.

It offends some Roman Catholics that others, Anglicans, the Orthodox, the Polish National Catholic Church, sometimes even the Byzantine Catholic Churches, openly use the word "Catholic" as their own property. But, the use of this word by others is not intended as a gesture of disrespect for Roman Catholics, and neither is it used to seduce the naive of their flock into a wolf's lair- the old "bait and switch." It is, rather, respect for what we know ourselves to be, and for what we believe and teach (and the capital "C" is used in the Book of Common Prayer because, by usage, "Catholic" is a name of the Church. We need not use the lower case).

We believe in the Catholic Church, and furthermore, we believe the One, Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church (i.e. we believe what it teaches and the Truth to which it testifies). Each of us says these words in the first person: "I believe." This is not a denominational word, but a credal word. It is a word that lives in the persuasion of the mind, the depth of the heart and the power of conscience. It is theological, not cultural. And, as each person says it liturgically, by the rule of Lex Orandi Lex Credendi, each one rightly takes it as his own. We do not say we believe it as someone else's property, removed from us. We do not claim to believe a church that we do not belong to. We do not confess a Faith that we cannot own. We intend no offense or disrespect, and certainly no deception; but, we will not give up this word or what it means, for it belongs to us just as surely as Christ himself is our Lord.

When we speak of branches of the Church, we do not intend even so much as to imply, let alone assert, that outward and apparent division among God's people is the plan and purpose of God. It is not of the nature of the Church that it exists in divided branches, rather it is symptomatic of the current state of all mankind this side of our promised immortality. Partly, divisions are due to the sin and foolishness of fallen man, and the problem of division was addressed long ago by St. Paul, writing to the Church in Corinth.

"For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them which are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you. Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ."1 He did not say, "the true Church among you are those who say 'I am of Cephas.' " Neither did he say, "the true Church among you are both those who say 'I am of Cephas' and 'I am of Paul'- the double foundation o' foolish Corinthians." Even those who saw themselves as separate because they were better than the others, those who said "I am of Christ," were rebuked by the Apostle for their divisiveness. Paul attributed all of this to childishness and carnality. 2 The idea that these divisions were God's plan, or that one party should be favored as right, and the others condemned as wrong, was not considered by the Apostle. Nor would he consider it today.

But, current divisions into which the Church has been driven are historical, not the fault of anyone living, and they are beyond the power of anyone simply to remedy (therefore I said "partly" above). The Anglican view is that both Rome and Orthodoxy are the One True Church, and so are we. In fact, we agree with The Catechism of the Catholic Church where it says that everyone who is baptized belongs to the Church.3 Division is not the plan of God, but he has provided what is needed for the salvation of each soul through the Church, nonetheless. Furthermore, the divisions exist even among members of the same Communions. In the United States each major city has Orthodox Churches of various jurisdictions, answering to different bishops under different Patriarchates. And, before anyone begins to crow triumphantly, let it be remembered that in addition to the Roman (as in Latin Rite) Catholic bishop, in any given city we find any number of Byzantine Catholic bishops (and often feelings of strife exist between the Byzantine Catholics and the Latin Rite, or Roman, Catholics). Nonetheless, people in these outwardly divided bodies, none of whom created this work of history, are part of the Body of Christ and belong to one Church. The Church Militant is visible, and, for the present, visibly divided.

Common Property

It was never possible, really, for the Gospel to be preached in all nations without the Church having within it differences of culture and language. Therefore, unity has had obstacles, some of them very sad. The division of the Coptic Christians from the rest of the Church as early as the Council of Chalcedon was not about real heresy, but about perceived heresy due to a simple, or rather complicated, misunderstanding of the Greek word, ὑπόστᾰσις (hypostasis). Differences of culture have also caused problems of misunderstanding. But, for the most part, the Church was unified for a thousand years, and only in recent decades (beginning in the 1960s) have the ancient Patriarchates of Rome and Constantinople approached each other in charity with a view to reconciliation. But, they remain divided.

Our common property, nonetheless, is the Apostolic Succession, both as an unbroken line of orthodox teaching, and as a sacramental link through our bishops to the Apostles and the Incarnate Christ, the Risen Christ Who breathed on them the Holy Spirit. This is the Tradition that includes all of our Scriptures with the key that unlocks their true meaning, the gift of the Holy Spirit. Our fathers died and were imprisoned during the persecution by the Empire, and they fought for the Faith once delivered to the saints 4 by defending and clarifying that Faith, seen most obviously in the Ecumenical Councils. They preached in times and places of peril to pagans of many tongues and strange customs, overcame opposition, and established the Church of Christ in many lands where demonic spirits demanded sacrifice to false gods, tearing down those shrines to build new holy places for the preaching of the Gospel and the administration of the sacraments.

The mark of the Holy Spirit is the revelation of Jesus Christ that we find as their collective teaching, and the Gospel that was the testimony of the Apostles and other martyred eyewitnesses. The teaching has its universal and complete uniformity of meaning because of the Holy Spirit, who creates unity of mind that cuts through all the chaos of human fallenness, across times and across continents. This is "what has been believed always, everywhere and by all" clearly and obviously in a way that defies the apparent disunity of temporary polities.

This is what we mean by "the Catholic Church" and "the Catholic Faith." This supernatural and visible heritage among mankind is our common possession.

__

1. I Corinthians 1:11, 12
2. 3:3,4
3. 12:13
4. Jude 3

Beyond the Dust

February 6, 2008. Ash Wednesday. Lent began today. I drove up the hill through the cold rain to the solemn, yet joy-filled Mass of the day, and emerged with a dirty face, marked with ashes and the words, "Remember, O Man, that dust thou art, and unto dust thou shalt return."

Beyond the Dust

Dust,
ashes,
mortality,
an ending deserved,
an outcome worked for,
by denial of life,
by rejection of Him,
who is Life,
who makes life,
who breathes Life into life,
and loves whom He has made,
and grieves at the death
I have chosen.

Dust and ashes have I chosen,
Love and peace I have rejected.
From the dust my life was formed,
and to the dust I shall return it,
for I have spurned the One who made me,
daily have His loving will denied,
and by my choices choose
the sin,
the dust,
the ashes,
and the dread mortality,
and by my choices hope has faded from me,
and I die
and shall not live,
unless ...
unless ...
unless I hear the loving call,
of Him who came into creation,
and, ruling in a reign of love,
a reign begun in pains upon a torture tree,
a reign that passed into the realms of death,
and dying broke those fearsome gates,
rose,
and calls,
and summons me to live,
and leads me past those grey dim ashes
into everlasting life.

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

The Dust of Adam

For Ash Wednesday
By my friend, the editor of Touchstone, David Mills.

“When you fast,” Jesus says to us in the Sermon on the Mount, “do not be like the hypocrites, with a sad countenance. For they disfigure their faces, that they may appear to men to be fasting. Truly, I say unto you, they have their reward. But you, when you fast, anoint your head and wash your face; that you appear not to men to be fasting, but to your Father who is in the secret place.”

So much, you might think, for the traditional imposition of ashes on Ash Wednesday, as practiced by many Western Christians since the early Middle Ages. In liturgical churches, the priest or pastor marks a small cross on your forehead with ashes, traditionally made by burning the palms from the previous year’s Palm Sunday. As he does so, he tells you that you are dust, and to dust you shall return.

This seems to be exactly the sort of thing Jesus rejected. After all, the point of smearing ashes on your forehead is to disfigure it in a way everyone else is bound to notice...

Yes, this is what we call a teaser, but you may read the whole article here.

Sayers on Learning

Our good friend and frequent commenter, Alice Linsley, has called my attention to a long and thoughtful essay by Dorothy Sayers, which she has posted on her writing website:

http://teachgoodwriting.blogspot.com/2008/01/dorothy-sayers-lost-tools-of-learning.html

and to her very lucidly written response to that article at:

http://teachgoodwriting.blogspot.com/2008/02/response-to-dorothy-l-sayers-lost-tools.html

Sayers is eloquent in advocating a return to or revival of the medieval approach to education which made the teaching of Grammar, Dialectic, and Rhetoric, known as the Trivium, and constituting a training in how to think and study, a priority before venturing to teach subject matter. The lack of this kind of understructure is a source of much of the confusion and apparent ignorance that infests our society and makes it so very difficult to have intelligent discourse on any matter. Witness, for example, our own comment boards. Though we seem to have attracted a brighter-and-more-thoughful-than-average readership, even here there is a lot of argumentation that illustrates exactly the kinds of problems Sayers discusses. I agree with Alice that this essay and her response make for worthwhile reading for those facing the issues we face.

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

Anglo-Papalism and Coherence

There has been much discussion recently on this blog of Anglo-Papalism, a tradition within Anglo-Catholicism, and whether it makes any consistent sense. This discussion has been prompted by the news that the Traditional Anglican Communion (TAC) is seeking full sacramental communion with Rome and has signalled, by its College of Bishops signing the Catechism of the Catholic Church, that the TAC has no doctrinal disagreement with the Roman Catholic Church (RCC). This action has caused a certain degree of consternation amongst many contributors to the blog, including members of the TAC, and defence of the action and the principles behind it by others.

The first thing I wish to suggest is that the TAC hierarchy has been unwise to restrict the substantive discussion of this move and the reasoning and planning behind it largely to its episcopal College. There is an undeniable “disconnect” between what the College is doing and what much of the laity and lower clergy are thinking. While the general intention of the bishops had been made abundantly clear, there appears to have been little or no attempt to explain the details or address through patient theological education and dialogue the inevitable and serious reservations or objections of many within the TAC. It is not enough for their Primate simply to state, as he has done in the past, that there are no differences in doctrine, especially when differences had appeared to exist in the past. It was incumbent upon the bishops either to explain precisely what had changed in the doctrine of the TAC or RCC, or to show that previously identified divergences in doctrine were in fact only apparently divergent, and that further theological clarification had achieved reconciliation. I think it is manifestly the case that this has not been done, and so an unfortunate impression has been created that the TAC hierarchy has acted more out of unreflective expedience than considered principle.

Now, I do not say this to attack the TAC or its ecumenical goals. Indeed, I happen to believe that the explanations necessary to address the abovementioned concerns can be made successfully. To make clear why I believe this I must deal more generally with the theology of Anglo-Papalism.

What is Anglo-Papalism? Simply put, it is the belief that all the (definitively held) doctrines of the RCC are true, including those affirming the Supreme Jurisdiction and conditional Infallibility of the Pope, and that it should therefore be the goal of Anglican Churches to acknowledge this and submit corporately to Papal Jurisdiction. Obviously, since Anglo-Papalists are by definition still Anglicans, the belief I have outlined is combined with the assertion that the Anglo Papalist is either obliged or at least permitted to remain Anglican and work for corporate re-union from that “side”.

But there are a variety of possible nuances and interpretations of the facts within such a theological position. And this is especially the case when it comes to the justification of the second element, continued Anglican membership. For example, an Anglo-Papalist might simply depict Anglican churches as schismatic or even heretical particular churches, but argue that he stays Anglican because the schism began corporately and so should be healed corporately, such that he is not obliged to leave a church he acknowledges as outside the One True Church (OTC) and join what he identifies instead as the OTC. Or he might instead see (still orthodox) Anglican churches in a more positive but ambiguous light, arguing that, despite their effectively embracing Protestant errors at the popular level of common teaching and belief, they did not actually initiate the breaking of communion, definitively embrace any heresy, or reject Papal Primacy as it is officially defined and understood by the best theologians, but that they rejected a Papal Supremacy that was (wrongly?) perceived to be claiming absolute temporal and spiritual authority. In the latter case an Anglo-Papalist could say that the Anglican churches were materially but not formally (or fully) schismatic, that the fault for this schism was not entirely their own, and so that his and his church’s present separation from the Pope was not a wholly accurate representation of the spiritual reality but at least partly an historical accident. Therefore, he might justify his continued Anglicanism as being not properly schismatic. Indeed, he could see himself as a papally obedient Catholic whose role was to help others in his church “become what they already are”, to quote a popular soteriological phrase.

Similarly, even the primary belief, that Rome has not erred in dogma (and can not do so) and the Pope has universal jurisdiction, admits of variations that affect the implications for Anglicans searching for re-union. An Anglo-Papalist could simply take the triumphalist, ultramontanist view and say, “The RCC’s right, everybody else is wrong, and the pope’s the boss and that’s that.” Or he might say that the dogmatic trustworthiness of the RCC would not mean all its common teaching was correct, or that the common interpretation of its dogmas is always correct. Indeed, he might posit that many such problems are compatible with asserting that Rome has not erred in dogma. He might even note that some of these problem areas for the RCC compared unfavourably with better theology or practice in “separated” Churches. Such an Anglo-Papalist might also note the many qualifications, some of which are not well known, made by RC theologians when discussing Papal infallibility, universal jurisdiction, and the obligation of obedience. And then, if he reasoned that his present lack of communion with and outward, objective submission to the Pope were at least partly the result of past papal excommunications or other decrees that were fallible in theory and flawed in fact, he could happily point to his subjective submission and ask that Rome would dismantle the unnecessary barriers erected from its side.

When pressed about his church’s (rather than just his own) acceptance or rejection of the Papal claims, an Anglo-Papalist could say that his church had erroneously rejected the Catholic doctrine. Or he could say that past disagreements were based partly on Rome and its apologists claiming and pushing for more than its dogma really justified or required, and that his church had not officially declared the Papal claims heretical and intended to follow the doctrines of Holy Tradition on this point, but needed time to receive the dogmas as properly understood.

The possibilities explored above are not exhaustive, of course, but they do give a considerable range of potential views within one school of thought. Some of these interpretations of Anglo-Papalism are disloyal (both to the RC and the Anglican tradition) and incoherent. Others are not.

What about the insistence of the RCC that those who recognise it as the Catholic Church must join it? It is not as simple as it looks. The RCC deliberately seeks corporate reunion with separated churches and what it calls “ecclesial communities” based on theological dialogue meant to result in doctrinal convergence. Does anybody really think that the RCC is saying that if such dialogue was successful in any particular case, unless it was accompanied exactly simultaneously by corporate reunion, all members of the other body would be obliged under pain of mortal sin to immediately abandon and dismantle their church and be simply absorbed into the RCC? This is clearly not what is intended by the RCC, so it would seem that there is implicit allowance for a transitional period once doctrinal convergence is reached when members of the other body my remain in it, waiting for corporate re-union to be finalised. But what if the doctrinal agreement is perceived by a member of that body to be actually present but not yet made completely manifest and explicit through the process of dialogue? Is that person obliged to repudiate his church even if he agrees with all the RCC and his own church teaches? What about the analogous situation where somebody is wrongly excommunicated and told they must repudiate something they have said as heretical or rebellious when they know it is not? Are they obliged to lie so as to ensure their restored membership to the RCC, with which they have no intentional or true material doctrinal disagreement? The RCC has not said that such situations are impossible, so it is clearly not true (absolutely and without exception) that a person recognising the Papal claims is thus necessarily obliged to do whatever is necessary to be a part of the RCC.

What is my position? I think that most readers will have detected that my sympathies lie more with the more “nuanced” versions of Anglo-Papalism outlined above than those that see the RCC as simply “in” and Anglican Catholics as simply “out”. Roman critics might see my position as a kind of dishonest and disrespectfully Minimalist Anglo-Papalism. Anglican critics are likely to think I am granting too much to Rome and fooling myself about the possibilities for complete convergence at the level of dogma. However, I have good reasons for thinking as I do, most of which I have outlined on this blog before.

Why, fundamentally, do I trust the RCC not to have erred in dogma? Because I don’t believe that God would allow the prime Successor of Peter and all those in communion with him to abandon the OTC either through utterly definitive and binding denial of any Catholic truth or through dogmatic affirmation of what is heretical. This “disbelief” is one of head and heart and is based on my understanding of Scripture and the Consensus of the Fathers.

Yet, on the other hand, I also don’t believe that the Bishop of Rome is the only Petrine successor, given the Petrine roots (acknowledged by ancient Popes) of Antioch and Alexandria, the fact that Jerusalem, “the mother of us all”, once contained the whole Church, with Peter as its Primate, and the fact that Constantinople was founded as “New Rome” and recognised as such by the Church. Nor do I believe that God would have or did allow the Eastern half of the Church (and its Petrine sees!) to leave the OTC in the middle ages. Or that the E-W schism was primarily the result of Eastern error or rebellion. Or that the said schism was complete or definitive. Or that Rome’s excommunications or condemnations in general, whether towards individuals or bodies, have always been fair. Or, thus, that the resultant schisms are proof that whoever is not in communion with Rome at any point in time must be outside the OTC. Or that the Church of England committed itself definitively to heresy or intended to be out of communion with the rest of the Church (E and W) in 1559 or since then until the defection over the ordination of women. Or that it rejected, then or since, Papal Primacy properly understood. Or that such primacy has often been fittingly understood on either side. Nor do I believe this set of “disbeliefs” is inconsistent with the pro-Papal one or dogmatically excluded by the RCC.

And so, I say once more, I remain a (coherently!) philo-Orthodox Anglo-Papalist.

QUINQUAGESIMA

I Cor. 13, Luke 18:31-43

I am glad that we use the old English, the Authorized, that is King James Bible. I prefer the use of the word “charity” to the word “love” for the Greek word, agape. Our use of language follows certain traditions that predated the Bible in English. The word “charity” speaks very specifically of the highest kind of love, and cannot be used properly for anything lower. The English word, “charity” is from another old language, one into which the Bible was translated by Saint Jerome, namely Latin. Agape was translated into the Latin caritas. The most famous line using that word is the one by Saint Augustine: In Omnibus Caritas- “In all things charity.”

The word “love” is used in modern translations, but I am glad that more and more writers are rediscovering the word “charity.” It cannot be used in a way that confuses its meaning. You can say, “I love a big juicy steak.” But, you cannot say, “I have charity for a big juicy steak.” The possibility of selfishness disappears if we understand agape, or caritas, that is, charity. The modern world has been infected by theories of human psychology that no well balanced person can accept. By these theories every action, every feeling, every thought is always selfish all the time. By these theories, every human thought, word and deed is predetermined by the psychological condition of a person; and everything is really completely selfish. These theories destroy all notions of courage, and of giving, and of everything that comes from the virtue we call charity. And, these theories come, ultimately, from the pit of Hell.

The highest of the virtues is charity, and the scriptures tell us that this kind of love is “shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost.” That is from Saint Paul’s Epistle to the Romans. And, in his Epistle to the Galatians he tells us that this love, agape, is the first of “the fruit of the Spirit.” In every way we are dependent on the Holy Spirit in order to have this virtue, because charity is no mere ordinary love, but rather it is the love of God Himself. And, this love can be planted and grown within us, but not simply from our efforts. We need the Spirit of God.

To understand it, we must first know a bit of theology. We need to know God as He reveals Himself by His Word and by His Spirit. You see, to know this love we must first know that God is “Wholly Other”- that is, His nature is distinct from every created nature, visible and invisible. The angels do not share God’s nature, because they, like us, are creatures. God is Other. And, this must be followed by knowing the words of Saint Paul, that God “hath need of nothing.” The reason that agape never seeks anything for itself, that it has no selfish element, is because God is completely without need of anything. God did not make the human race because He needed us. The love of God is satisfied in eternity within the Trinity of Persons, so that God is never alone. Man does not bring comfort, solace or companionship to the Trinity, because God “hath need of nothing.”

My younger brother, David, made a big splash with his first book, The Beauty of the Infinite. The most important point he made in it is that God made everything as gratuity; that is a gift. Creation is not necessary. The universe did not have to be. You did not have to be born. Our very existence is completely arbitrary and unnecessary. Why, then, are we here? Not as objects that can give God anything, but as objects of His love.

Knowing this, we can again value the reality of every good thing that comes from the virtue called charity. Selflessness does exist, existing first in God’s gracious giving of life itself. The heroic sacrifice, the selfless pouring out of the heart, all comes first and foremost, and only, from the One Who is Love. The world is safe for romantics, or at least well balanced individuals, after all; the most cold-hearted forms of clinical theory that would take away from us everything beautiful and noble, will be done away with when the heavens are rolled up as a scroll, and we see the Lord in His glory face to face.

Knowing this, we can look again at today’s Gospel, and see it for what it is. Hear the words of the prophet Isaiah [from chapter 53]:

“Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all. He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth. He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken. And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth. Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.”

This ought to bring to life the words we heard from Saint Luke:

“ Then he took unto him the twelve, and said unto them, Behold, we go up to Jerusalem, and all things that are written by the prophets concerning the Son of man shall be accomplished. For he shall be delivered unto the Gentiles, and shall be mocked, and spitefully entreated, and spitted on: And they shall scourge him, and put him to death: and the third day he shall rise again.”

Isaiah foretold that simple phrase, “Christ died for our sins, according to the scriptures.”- that is, fulfilling the scriptures. And the words “and He rose the third day, according to the scriptures”- again, fulfilling the scriptures. That He rose again fulfills the words of Isaiah, that after He was dead and buried “He shall prolong His days.” And, Saint Paul tells us that the love of God was commended toward us because, “while we were yet sinners Christ died for us.” I want to make this clear: In order to know the love of God for you, you must look at Jesus on His cross, dying in your place. You must take it personally. Once knowing that love, you can be given the strength to have such love for others, even for those who respond to it with hostility. This love is true freedom having no obligation to respond in kind to abuse; soaring above malice and bitterness, spreading mercy like wings.

Our creation itself is a gift, something God gave to us. Our redemption from sin and death is a gift as well. In the healing of the blind man we see that God does not deal with us as our sins deserve. The blind man, in today’s Gospel, did not deserve to be healed, because, like everyone of us, he was a sinner. But, he was healed; he was given back the gift of eyesight. The healing of the blind man signifies that God forgives sin; every miracle of healing signifies this, because “with His stripes we are healed.” The healing of the blind man was a gift, given by the One Who earned that forgiveness for him, which he could not do for himself. The question that we must ask is not: Why are so many people not healed of their illnesses? The question that we must ask is: What does it mean that Christ heals anyone ever at all? Saint Anselm tells us that all of the benefits of Christ’s suffering and death have been given to us, for He had no need of anything for Himself. So, when I see Christ showing mercy to the blind man, I understand better what will happen later in the story; I understand better what His cross has done for me.

In that we see love that is completely selfless and giving.

Feast of the Purification February 2nd

This is a Marian feast and a Prayer Book feast. The Blessed mother is called by the Church, the Fighter against heresy. How so? She never wrote a book of theology or apologetics. She is the fighter against heresy because she alone sheared the greatest miracle of all with God the Son. No one else shared in His Incarnation. Only the Blessed Virgin Mother. So, too, she shared the pain of His humiliation and death, suffering in His crucifixion a special agony, sword through her own soul. The reality of the Incarnation meant the reality of a human mother, whose own pain was inevitable.

Feast of the Purification

Malachi 3:1-5 Luke 2:22-40

We learn from the Book of Leviticus, the twelfth chapter, that after the days appointed for the mother’s purification, the child is to be brought together with a sacrifice of a lamb of the first year for a burnt offering, and also a young pigeon or a turtle dove for a sin offering. We see in the last verse of that chapter:

“And if she be not able to bring a lamb, then she shall bring two turtle [doves], or two young pigeons; the one for the burnt offering, and the other for a sin offering...Lev. 12: 8)”

Remembering that, let us look again at the words from today’s Gospel reading:

“And when the days of her purification according to the Law of Moses were accomplished, they brought him to Jerusalem, to present Him to the Lord; (as it is written in the Law of the Lord, Every male that openeth the womb shall be called holy to the Lord;) And to offer a sacrifice according to that which is said in the Law of the Lord, A pair of turtledoves, or two young pigeons. (Luke 2: 22-24).”

We need to understand the theology of what is happening in these verses. To begin with, St Luke is very clearly telling us that the family into which God became manifested, in our own human nature, was not a family of wealth, but of poverty; for they were not able to bring a lamb. The royal line of David, the line of the Jewish kings, had been reduced to poverty by the process of history, of wars and of subjugation to the Roman empire, And so it is that Joseph, in the line of those ancient kings, was a poor carpenter. Into his house of nobility, but of poverty, was our Lord born; this same Lord of glory, who had only a month before been laid in a manger because there was no place else for Him.

Remember the words of St. Paul:

“For ye know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that, though He was rich, yet for your sakes He became poor, that ye through His poverty might be rich (II Cor. 8:9).”

The implications of this are very deep, and very profound. It is a picture of the mystery of the Incarnation itself, that the One Who did not grasp onto His own equality with God, but became a man, Who humbled Himself in obedience as a servant unto the death of the cross, is the One to Whom every knee shall rightly bow, and Who shall be called Lord on every tongue, at the mention of His human name, the name of Jesus. Here He was, noble and the heir to the throne of David, yet poor. Here He was, true man yet very God. Here He was, the Lord Who had suddenly come to His temple, yet a new born babe, without power, and without wealth.

To see Him as He truly was required the eyes of faith, a certain faith which is knowledge, and that comes only by the revelation of God. Eyes that see, ears that hear and a heart that understands are the gift of the Holy Ghost. So it is that the true wisdom which comes from above is given to an old man, who wears the mantle of a prophet, seeing the Lord by the revelation given to Him from the Lord’s Holy Spirit. This is expressed in the words which live on in the Church every evening at prayer:

“Lord, now lettest thou thy servant depart in peace, according to thy word; For mine eyes have seen thy salvation, which thou hast prepared before the face of all people; a light to lighten the Gentiles, and the glory of thy people Israel.”

The wisdom of God contradicts everything that a fallen and sinful world holds dear. It contradicts the wisdom of the wise, the might of the powerful, the haughtiness of kings, the wealth of riches. “He hath put down the mighty from their seat, and hath exalted the humble and meek; He hath filled the hungry with good things; and the rich He hath sent empty away.”

An old man takes in his arms an infant from a poor man’s house, and declares that He is the salvation of God for all the world. An elderly widow, also given the true wisdom from above, the gift of the Holy Spirit, speaks of Him to all who looked for redemption in Jerusalem. The prophet Amos wrote that, in the understanding of sinful man, “the prophet is a fool, the spiritual man is mad.” How could this poor son of a poor carpenter, bring salvation to the world? Let alone, to Israel? And what light could He give to the Gentiles, light that would overturn the pagan religions, the ignorance of idolaters in every land, including the powerful empire of Rome with its many gods? How could this child born into a carpenter’s house, restore the glory of Israel, as if the throne of David could replace the rule of the cruel gentile tyrant, Herod, and banish the powerful legions of Rome? What did these two foolish and mad old folks have in mind, speaking such non-sense? What might was wrought by a young mother, by the willing obedient faith expressed in her words, "Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word." A woman, "the weaker vessel," welcomed the Word of God to the world in her womb, giving Him human nature, accomplishing in her weakness what no army, in its strength, could do.

Let me allude to a fantasy story: Perhaps some of you have seen the movie The Return of the King, or, better yet, have read J.R.R. Tolkien’s The Lord of the Rings. If so, you recall that the world is saved from the power of the evil Sauron by two very little, and completely powerless people. Two hobbits of the shire, Frodo and Sam, accomplish what the warriors of Middle Earth, even under the leadership of King Aragorn, could not do themselves. In the climax of the story, the armies of Middle Earth can only fight their battle to serve as a distraction, while the two little hobbits, both under four feet tall, and without any strength of arms, manage to take the One Ring to its destruction, thus toppling the power of Sauron, and freeing the world from his grasp. Tolkien wrote his story with a Christian mind, as a very devout Catholic; and he made it obvious that the victory was wrought by Providence through the hobbits.

Gods has chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are powerful, and the foolish things of the world to confound the things which are wise; so wrote St. Paul. The true victory that banishes oppression from the world, and overturns all of the power of evil, was accomplished by a naked and wounded, beaten and humiliated man, breathing His last breath nailed to cross, as a spectacle of all that appears to be weak and powerless. In His humility and obedience to the Father, His submission to the will of God in giving His life, he is the One true hero Who breaks all of the power of Satan, and liberates the whole world from sin and death.

But, the world saw Him in His weakness and foolishness. It saw Him in His poverty and want of all things, having His garments parted among the gambling soldiers, being given nothing to quench His thirst, but only vinegar as if by a cruel joke. By all the wisdom known to sinful men, this was no conquering hero, no victorious king. The words of Simeon and Anna must have seemed a hundred times more mad and foolish than when they had spoken of Him in the time of His infancy. Anyone old enough to have remembered them, who may have recalled hearing them about thirty three years earlier, surely thought that they must have been no true prophets.

Of course all of this brings me to my second theological point from today’s Gospel reading. Here we see Jesus being presented in the temple, and an offering being made for Him as if He were a sinner. His mother, the Blessed Virgin, is obeying the Law of Purification, as if this child had been born in uncleanness, that is, as if tainted with original sin: As if, in the prayer of David: “in sin hath my mother conceived me (from Psalm 51).” You and I can pray those words, for we were born in original sin, subject to powers over which we could not prevail; for we could never have made ourselves pure. But, Jesus needed no such offering, and His mother needed no purification. Yet, Mary and Joseph obey the Law; and this foreshadows for us the fact that Jesus would fulfill the Law.

The scriptures say that “He was tempted in every point as we are, yet without sin (Heb. 4:15).” And, that “God made Him to be sin for us, Who knew no sin, that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him (II Cor. 5: 21).” Isaiah had written, “And He made His grave with the wicked, and with the rich in His death, because he had done no violence; neither was any deceit in His mouth...He bare the sin of [the] many, and made intercession for the transgressors (from Isaiah 53).” The offerings that day, in the temple, foreshadow the life of Christ as one of perfect obedience to the Father’s will, in this case specifically by adhering to the Law of God given through Moses. It foreshadows the words he spoke to John the Baptist at His own baptism in the Jordan River: “Suffer it to be so, for thus it becometh us to fulfill all righteousness.” For in His baptism He let Himself be identified with sinful humanity, and began then to take upon Himself the sins of the world, remaining Himself pure from all sin; as John said that day, “Behold the lamb of God, which taketh away the sins of the world.” He bore them all the way to the cross; for “surely He hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows.”

Yes, He needed no offering, and His mother needed no purification since Her Son was borne in complete purity. But the offerings that day, in the temple, teach us that He was taking our sins on Himself. As the only pure Man ever to live, His death would be the only death that is completely undeserved. He did not merit death. Death came into the world through sin, and it is our penalty because of sin. When the sinless One died, death was undone. The power of Satan was destroyed, and with it the values and principles of a sinful world were turned upside down. On the day of his death, certified by His resurrection on the third day, all that was powerful was shown to be weak, all that was rich was shown to be poverty, all that was mighty was shown to be feeble. “He hath put down the mighty from their seat; and hath exalted the humble and meek.” The two old prophets, who seemed foolish and mad, had spoken wisdom and reason when they spoke of this child as the One Who would bring redemption in Jerusalem.

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

A few details on the TAC and Rome

A reader who is giving up commenting as a pre-Lenten/ Lenten observance wrote something to me. I am going to quote it here. He may allow me to use his name if he will. This is deserving of its own post so that it will be more visible. The video in question can be found here. Having seen it, I have more questions rather fewer. Furthermore, the silence will continue to result in speculation, for that is human nature. I am not against the TAC at all. Very much the reverse. I want to know what is going on in the mind of the Archbishop in Australia. I am hoping for discussions between Anglicans and Romans that are meaningful, and such discussions as work toward unity without the loss of beliefs and practices Anglicans hold dear.

I enjoy your articles and sermons on the Continuum blog, and have a few comments and questions.

...you mention a few things about the TAC, particularly about +Hepworth's comments in the BC Catholic newspaper . Archbishop Hepworth's comments were indeed part of a larger interview, that took place in Ottawa in January 2007, at the consecration of two suffragans for the ACCC. Other interviews were given by the other bishops and the episcopal candidates. Some of this material appears in the short video that Salt and Light TV (the Catholic TV channel in Canada) produced.

In that, I think that Archbishop Hepworth makes it clear that the purpose of this isn't just submission. He mentions that the previous efforts of individuals to become Roman Catholic haven't always worked well "because at heart they were still Anglicans". Comments from other TAC members in the video, such as Bp. Robert Mercer (who had the advantage of being an Anglican Communion bishop, and heavily involved in RC/Anglican dialogue), are most helpful, I think. He talks about the "Anglican ethos", and also explains about our request for married clergy - even a married episcopate ("like the first pope!" - Bp. Mercer pointed out).

My own feeling is that the larger ecumenical context is extremely important here as well.

Rome is currently very concerned to define the Papal ministry in terms that are acceptable to Eastern Orthodox churches. This cannot but help us as well. Also, I've had the privilege to do a small part of my studies with Ukrainian Catholic theologians, who have been working hard to create an Eastern Catholic ecclesiology that is faithful to the unity of the Church, but also makes clear that there are differences in how the Eastern tradition "receives" the Ecumenical
Councils, and dogmas about the Papal office. It is a very subtle articulation, but when they bring up the doctrine of the Trinity, and point out that both East and West believe in the Trinity, but the East understands it somewhat differently, it provides a good example. They don't feel that the filioque should remain an obstacle to unity.

Traditional Anglicans can, I think, articulate a theology where Catholic doctrine is subscribed to, with the understanding that it has been "received" differently, within a different theological tradition. To do so requires arguing forcefully that Anglican practice is not simply a deviant expression of the Roman rite, but has, in fact, developed into a rite of its own. Even if it takes a long time, I think the ultimate dream should be a recognized autonomous/autocephalous Anglican church (or in Latin terms, an ecclesia sui juris). That is, of course, only my own opinion.

What is most necessary, though, for us to develop the theological depth to properly articulate our case in ecumenical relations (whether with Rome, Orthodoxy, or anyone else), is to find a way of jump starting the path towards traditional Anglican unity. Moreover, we badly need to produce more theologians and writers. We need a university, methinks.

(I would have responded to the comment on the TAC via the combox, but I have decided to give that up until after Easter.)

Layreader Sermons

Quinquagesima, Ash Wednesday, and Lent 1 are now posted at

http://public.box.net/pastored59658

ed pacht

Distinctive Anglican theology

I have not written anti-Roman tracts on this blog; I have written pro-Anglican tracts. The problem is, some Roman Catholics treat any defense of our position as an attack on theirs. Furthermore, due to the nature of that communion's teaching, they are in the position of having to defend their attacks on our claims to full Catholic validity against counter-attacks, since anything less does not give sufficient weight to their understanding of Infallibility. Like the extreme Low Church parties in modern Anglicanism, the ones who define their Anglicanism by every wind of doctrine that blows from the mouth of the zeitgeist, as well as those who imagine that their heritage is either Calvinist, or even Anabaptist (such as the confused bleating of Mr. Kennedy's unfortunate sermons), these Roman Catholic apologists are eager to portray Anglicanism as no different from Continental Protestantism of the other Reformations. They are eager to assert that our Ordinal and every principle established by law in the Church of England that preserved Apostolic Succession and Catholic order was a mere accident of history, imposed by Parliament on a group of "wannabe" Geneva Calvinists or Lutherans, or even Zwinglians. This is easy to do as long as one ignores the very deliberate and conservative writings of the bishops and theologians of the second wave of secession under Elizabeth I.

When it suits them , they speak of the "Elizabethan Settlement," but on every other occasion insist there was no settlement; that all were of like mind as Calvinists, with a few exceptions who were more Lutheran (and even fewer who were Zwinglian). Yet, somehow, the Church of England produced a Book of Common Prayer based on the Rule of St. Benedict, a service of Holy Communion that was a simple but dignified Catholic Mass, and an Ordinal that retained the three Orders of ministry (by declared intention in the Preface) combined with laws that required the Apostolic Succession. To prove that this was all an accident, done by mistake against their deepest convictions, quotations from the most radical to the most inquisitive individuals are trotted out, displayed, and triumphantly quoted as if they speak for the Church of England that, in all its laws, acted somehow quite to the contrary. The logic of this exercise has been repeated so often as to have become fact in the minds of these apologists, be they modern Evangelicals of the Anglican Communion, or Roman Catholics- strange bedfellows in a common cause.

This leads me to yet another problem caused by this misinformation: The problem of my fellow High Churchmen who are troubled by the sound and fury of this tale told by...well, others. Since my recent posts have led to questions about my own speculations or "inside information" about the TAC (which I simply don't have), I was not writing in direct response to what has been reported about that jurisdiction. Mainly, this is due to everything we do not know, and to the fact that from Archbishop Hepworth on down, the bishops (at his request) do not grant interviews. The entire episode is, at the present time, a mystery wrapped in an enigma, with all cards held tightly to the chest. The result, surprise, surprise, is an abundance of speculation. At this point I cannot even confirm the reported signing of the RC Catechism in Portsmouth, let alone try to explain to anybody what such an act would have been intended to convey.

Nonetheless, as an Anglican outside the TAC who has been a friend to that jurisdiction, and whose clerical friends are, almost all of them, in it, I have concerns. This report, all the way back in October, tells us as much as we are allowed to know about the thinking of Archbishop Hepworth. As reported in the B.C. Catholic Newspaper on October 29, last year:

When Archbishop Hepworth was in Ottawa last January for the ordination of two auxiliary bishops, he told Salt and Light Television that while many Anglicans have decided to become Catholics as individuals, "we would prefer to approach Rome as a community."

Archbishop Hepworth said he did not underestimate the difficulty of coming into union with the Holy See. "The saying of Anglicans is that if you don't have one Pope, everybody is a Pope, because everybody can make up their minds what is infallible."1

"What is important, and we are having to learn as a community, is to ask not what we think, but what the Church says, and five centuries of bad habits are going to die hard," he said, "but if you ask us if we accept the Magisterium of the Church, yes, and we all have the Catechism of the Catholic Church on our desks and many of us preach from it."

This does not sound like a desire to open discussions, but to submit. For those of us who believe that some of the bad habits of the last five centuries are just as much Roman habits as Anglican habits, and who believe furthermore, that we also have some very good habits of thought that should not be killed off, these words send up a red flag. If this announces a goal of submission, then he has a very big selling job to do among the people of the TAC, which cannot be accomplished by holding cards close to the chest in secrecy; otherwise, if prodded to move, the largest jurisdiction of Continuing Anglicans will not move together, but will simply break apart.

Nonetheless, it may be that the archbishop was saying something different, along the lines that follow.

Bad Habits

Bad habits exist among all of the major branches of Christianity, whether it is the sloppy customs of modern Roman Catholics or the libertine indulgence of Anglicans. One bad habit is acquiescence to disunity among Catholic Christians, and the refusal to enter into meaningful dialogue. However, dialogue requires a defense of important doctrines, and charity compels to honesty about theological differences in essential matters. Reunion can happen only when the conscience of every party is respected, and if a good defense is made of those truths we cannot abandon.

One bad habit we do not have, that the Roman Catholics and Orthodox have, is the delusion of self-sufficiency. Here is where the Branch Fact (that the Church is divided by human weakness, though one in Christ by the Spirit) lends us humility. We, Anglicans, know that we cannot say to other members of the Body of Christ, "I have no need of thee." In the case of the Magisterium in Rome, we need the moral clarity of their teaching. They alone have had the courage and diligence to study the changes of the modern world and its ethical challenges in a thorough manner, and their teaching about morality for this confused age is a goldmine we need to draw from. And, they in turn can learn from our wisdom about the central features of the Gospel, centering more on God's grace and a bit less on complicated religious legislation.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church

Unlike most Roman Catholics, I have read, and highly value, The Catechism of the Catholic Church that bears Papal Imprimatur from the days of Pope John Paul II. I agree with most of it, and find it a useful theological work for summarizing important doctrines of the Gospel, the sacraments and Church. But, that little word, "most" is a stumbling block for Roman Catholics who consider any deviation from the teaching of the Magisterium to be not only wrong, but a sinful gesture of license, granting oneself "Private judgment" in place of receiving what the Church has taught, what Peter has spoken.

And, they are wrong. I have already refuted the myth of "Private Judgment" for the Red Herring it is. Basing one's beliefs on the highest authority of Scripture as it has been received "always, everywhere and by all," with the clarity of doctrine consistent with the "Undivided Church of the First Millennium" is the very distinctive Anglican theology that we often forget, or claim not to possess. It is a paradox, because the only distinctive Anglican theology that exists is not distinctively Anglican; it is simply Catholic, and as such Evangelical. And, as I have argued before, it is more pure than the doctrine of Rome and of the Protestants because it is free from the innovations of both. The real via media gives no more room for a luxury of "private judgment" than does adherence to the Magisterium in Rome. It leaves the conscience no wiggle room in moral issues. So, to dismiss our stand on conscience as "private judgment" is just plain wrong.

The word "most" is significant. For, one of the things we cannot accept is the full blown theory of the Petrine See as that doctrine has developed after the largely symbolic, but very significant, date of 1054. This, all by itself, means that as a matter of conscience we cannot swim the Tiber as long as this teaching remains defined as is. This is not an anti-Roman position. It is the position that Anglicans have in common with the Orthodox, and with Protestants howbeit with a difference of kind.

I urge those who want to enter into Communion with Rome to value their Anglicanism for what it is. Do not despise it for what it is misrepresented to be, which is an easy and lazy way to shed both its challenges and its light. If discussion takes place, I pray that the best of the via media will be presented, and the pastoral love to save souls in both communions will be examined by the light of all that is best in each. That includes what is best in ours.
__________
1. I have never heard an Anglican say this in my almost 50 years.

King Charles the Martyr January 30th

(Courtesy of Project Canterbury)

KING CHARLS
HIS
SPEECH

Made upon the
SCAFFOLD
At Whitehall-Gate,

Immediately before his Execution,
On Tuesday the 30 of Ian. 1648

VVith a Relation of the maner of
his going to Execution

Published by Special Authority.

London:
Printed by Peter Cole, at the sign of the
Printing-Press in Cornhil, near the
Royal Exchange. 1649.

About ten in the Morning the King was brought from St. James's, walking on foot through the Park, with a Regiment of Foot, part before and part behind him, with Colours flying, Drums beating, his private Guard of Partizans with some of his Gentlemen before and some behind bareheaded, D. J U X O N next behind him and Col. Thomlinson (who had the charge of him) talking with the King bareheaded from the Park, up the stairs into the Gallery, and so into the Cabinet-Chamber where he used to lie, where he continued at his Devotion, refusing to dine, (having before taken the Sacrament) only about an hour before he came forth, he drank a glass of Claret wine, and eat a piece of bread about twelve at noon.

(It is observed the King desired to have the use of the cabinet and the little room next it where there was a trap door.)

From thence he was accompanied by Dr. Juxon, Col. Thomlinson and other officers formerly appointed to attend him and the private guard of partizans, with musketeers on each side, through the Banqueting house adjoining to which the scaffold was erected between Whitehall Gate and the Gate leading into the gallery from St. James's: The Scaffold was hung round with black and the floor covered with black and the Ax and Block laid in the middle of the Scaffold. There were divers companies of Foot, and Troops of Horse placed on the one side of the Scaffold towards Kings-Street and on the other side towards Charing Cross, and the multitudes of people that came to be Spectators, very great.

The King being come upon the Scaffold, look'd very earnestly upon the Block and ask'd Col. Hacker if there were no higher; and then spake thus (directing his speech chiefly to Col: Thomlinson).

King. I shall be very little heard of anybody here, I shall therefore speak a word unto you here. Indeed I could hold my peace very well, if I did not think that holding my peace would make some men think that I did submit to the guilt as well as to the punishment. But I think it is my duty to God first and to my country for to clear myself both as an honest man and a good King, and a good Christian. I shall begin first with my innocence. In troth I think it not very needful for me to insist long upon this, for all the world knows that I never did begin a War with the two Houses of Parliament. And I call God to witness, to whom I must shortly make an account, that I never did intend for to encroach upon their privileges. They began upon me, it is the Militia they began upon, they confest that the Militia was mine, but they thought it fit for to have it from me. And, to be short, if any body will look to the dates of Commissions, of their commissions and mine, and likewise to the Declarations, will see clearly that they began these unhappy troubles, not I. So that as the guilt of these enormous crimes that are laid against me I hope in God that God will clear me of it, I will not, I am in charity. God forbid that I should lay it upon the two Houses of Parliament; there is no necessity of either, I hope that they are free of this guilt; for I do believe that ill instruments between them and me has been the chief cause of all this bloodshed; so that by way of speaking, as I finde my self clear of this, I hope (and pray God) that they may too; yet for all this, God forbid that I should be so ill a Christian as not to say that Gods Judgments are just upon me. Many times he does pay Justice by an unjust Sentence, that is ordinary; I will onely say this, That an unjust [6/7] Sentence (Strafford) that I suffered for to take effect, is punished now by an unjust Sentence upon me; that is, so far as I have said, to shew you that I am an innocent man.

Now for to shew you that I am a good Christian; I hope there is (pointing to D. Juxon) a good man that will bear me witness that I have forgiven all the world, and even those in particular that have been the chief causes of my death. Who they are, God knows, I do not desire to know, God forgive them. But this is not all, my charity must go further. I wish that they may repent, for indeed they have committed a great sin in that particular. I pray God, with St. Stephen, that this be not laid to their charge. Nay, not only so, but that they may take the right way to the peace of the kingdom, for my charity commands me not only to forgive particular men, but my charity commands me to endeavour to the last gasp the Peace of the Kingdom. So, Sirs, I do wish with all my soul, and I do hope there is some here (turning to some gentlemen that wrote) that will carry it further, that they may endeavour the peace of the Kingdom. Now, (Sirs) I must show you both how you are out of the way and will put you in a way; first, you are out of the way, for certainly all the way you have ever had yet, as I could find by anything, is by way of conquest. Certainly this is an ill way, for Conquest, (Sir) in my opinion, is never just, except that there be a good just Cause, either for matter of wrong or just Title, and then if you go beyond it, the first quarrel that you have to it, that makes it unjust at the end that was just at the first: But if it be only matter of Conquest, there is a great Robbery; as a Pirat said to Alexander, that He was the great Robber, he was but a petty Robber: and so, Sir, I do think the way that you are in, is much out of the way. Now Sir, for to put you in the way, believe it you will never do right, nor God will never prosper you, until you give God his due, the King his due (that is, my Successors) and the People their due; I am as much for them as any of you: You must give God his due by regulating rightly His Church (according to the Scripture) which is now out of order. For to set you in a way particularly now I cannot, but onely this. A national synod freely called, freely debating among themselves, must settle this, when that every opinion is freely and clearly heard.

For the King, indeed I will not, (then turning to a Gentlemen that touched the Ax, said, Hurt not the Ax, that may hurt me) [meaning if he did blunt the edg] For the King:) The Laws of the Land will clearly instruct you for that; therefore, because it concerns My Own particular, I onely give you a touch of it.

For the people. And truly I desire their Liberty and Freedom as much as any Body whomsoever. But I must tell you, That their Liberty and Freedom, consists in having of Government; those Laws, by which their Life and their gGods may be most their own. It is not for having share in government (Sir) that [9/10] is nothing pertaining to them. A subject and a soveraign are clean different things, and therefore until they do that, I mean, that you do put the people in that liberty as I say, certainly they will never enjoy themselves.

Sirs, It was for this that now I Am come here. If I would have given way to an Arbitrary way, for to have all Laws changed according to the power of the Sword, I needed not to have come here; and therefore, I tell you, (and I pray God it be not laid to your charge) That I Am the Martyr of the People.

Introth, Sirs, I shall not hold you much longer, for I will only say thus to you. That in truth I could have desired some little time longer, because I would have put then that I have said in a little more order, and a little better digested than I have done. And, therefore, I hope that you will excuse Me. [10/11]

I have delivered my Conscience. I pray God, that you do take those courses that are best for the good of the Kingdom and your own Salvations.

Dr. Juxon.

Will Your Majesty (though it may be very well known Your Majesties Affections to Religion, yet it may be expected, that You should) say somewhat for the Worlds satisfaction.

King,

I thank you very heartily (my Lord) for that, I had almost forgotten it. Introth, Sirs, My Conscience in Religion, I think, is very well knowne to all the World; and, therefore, I declare before you all that I die a Christian, according to the profession of the Church of ENGLAND, as I found it left me by my father. And this honest man [pointing to Dr. Juxon] I think will witness it. Then turning to the Officers said, Sirs, excuse me for this same. I have a good Cause, and I have a gracious God; I will say no more. Then turning to Colonel Hacker, he said, Take care that they do not put Me to pain, and Sir this, and it please you: But then a Gentleman coming near the Ax, the King said, Take heed of the Ax. Pray take heed of the Ax.

Then the King, speaking to the Executioner said, I shall say but very short Prayers, and when I thrust out my hands„„. Then the King called to Dr. Juxon for His Night-Cap, and having put it on said to the Executioner, Does My Hair trouble you? Who desired Him to put it all under His Cap, which the King did accordingly, by the help of the Executioner and the Bishop: then the King turning to Dr. Juxon said, I have a good Cause, and a gracious GOD on my side.

Doctor Juxon.

There is but one Stage more. This Stage is turbulent and troublesome; it is a short one: But You may consider it will soon carry You a very great way; it will carry You from Earth to Heaven; and there you shall finde a great deal of Cordial, Joy, and Comfort.

King

I go from a corruptible, to an incorruptible Crown; where no disturbance can be, no disturbance in the World.

Doctor Juxon.

You are exchanged from a Temporal to an eternal Crown; a good exchange.

The King then said to the Executioner, is My Hair well: Then the King took off His Cloak and His George, giving His George to Dr. Juxon, saying, Remember„. (It is thought for to give it to the Prince.) Then the King put off His Dublet and being in His Wastecoat, put His Cloak on again; then looking upon the block, said to the Executioner, You must set it fast.

Executioner. It is fast Sir.

King. It might have been a little higher.

Executioner. It can be no higher Sir.

King. When I put out my hands this way (Stretching them out) then„

After having said two or three words (as he stood) to Himself with hands and eyes lift up. Immediately stooping down, laid His Neck on the Block: And then the Executioner again putting his Hair under his Cap, the King said, Stay for the signe. (Thinking he had been going to strike)

Executioner. Yes, I will, and it please Your Majesty.

And after a very little pawse, the King stretching forth his hands, The Executioner at one blow, severed his head from his Body.

That when the Kings head was cut off, the Executioner held it up, and shewed it to the Spectators.

And his Body was put in a Coffin, covered with black Velvet, for that purpose.

The Kings body now lies in His Lodging Chamber at Whitehall.

Sic transit gloria mundi.

Putting the “P” back in “Anglican”

I know that you’re thinking, well some of you: “This Fr. Hart wants to make Protestants out of us. After all, since he does not want to swim the Tiber he must have descended to some sort of Low Churchmanship. We all know that the opposite of 'Catholic' must be 'Protestant,' mustn’t it? The opposite of 'Papalist' must be 'Puritan.'” Ah, but what if I am really so Catholic that I believe that the opposite of "Tridentine" must be "Patristic?"

Perhaps, just perhaps, some of the self-proclaimed Anglo-Papalists need to think about something. Maybe the definition of “Catholic” should be based on its Credal use, as we use it in the Book of Common Prayer where either the Apostle’s Creed or the Creed called Nicene are part of all the major services (Article VIII). Combined with that other Creed, Quicunque Vult, or the Creed of St. Athanasius, we say we believe the Catholic Church and the Catholic Faith.

Frankly, the effort to embrace and continue the Catholic Faith was the motivation for embracing Protestantism in the time of the Reformation- or, rather, the Reformations. We believe that the efforts on the Continent of Europe threw away the baby with the bathwater, which is why Anglicans early on debated with Calvinists and Lutherans, sometimes more vigorously than with Rome. Anglicans debated as well with Puritans in England and Scottish Presbyterians.

What we find in the second wave of English secession was a very conservative and anti-innovative mind prevailing against new ideas that had formed only in recent centuries, during which their fathers had lost sight of the Patristic and Scriptural teaching of the ancient Church. It prevailed, as well, against the innovations of Puritans and other inventive Protestantisms. This via media was always a true course that avoided the errors of many extremes, not just two. It rejected the innovations of Rome, and strove against such a Reformation as Mr. Knox had up in Scotland. This was not a compromise in the modern sense. It was not simply the legislation of Parliament either. It was the result of what the bishops of the Church of England contended for throughout the times of monarchs stretching from Elizabeth I to Charles II, especially strong after the Restoration.

This effort, and what was achieved, is not appreciated by too many people calling themselves Anglo-Papalists. All too often I find that such people are quite sincere, but only know their own Anglican heritage based on the opinions presented to them by Roman Catholic polemicists instead of having actually read and learned from old Anglican sources. They take a position not due to deeply held Catholic convictions, but due to a combination of ignorance about Anglican doctrine and history with superficially held Tridentine affectations. For, when Tridentine sentiments become genuine conviction, the conscience impels one to the only logical course of action without delay.

What is truly Catholic in content was not defined at so recent and innovative a Council as Trent, and certainly not in later councils at the Vatican. It was defined in seven Ecumenical Councils (Affirmation of St. Louis), and more so in the Scriptures as embraced in every time and place where the Church was built upon the foundation of Apostles and Prophets, Christ Jesus Himself the chief cornerstone.

I would indeed place the “P” of Protestantism back in “Anglicanism” to the via media degree required to make it truly Patristic, and so truly Scriptural and truly Catholic.

Sexagesima

II Cor. 11:19-31 Luke 8:4-15

Among the many books by C.S. Lewis, the one it seemed to Lewis himself that everybody had read was The Screwtape Letters. He said that he had more difficulty writing that book than any other, because he kept having to think opposite his convictions. For example, because Screwtape is a senior devil writing to a junior devil about subverting and damning the soul under his charge- his patient- he refers to God always as “the Enemy.” To help us with the parable in today’s Gospel we should look at part of the first of these letters. Writes Screwtape to his nephew, Wormwood:

Remember, [your patient] is not, like you, a pure spirit. Never having been a human (oh, that abominable advantage of the Enemy's!) you don't realise how enslaved they are to the pressure of the ordinary. I once had a patient, a sound atheist, who used to read in the British Museum. One day, as he sat reading, I saw a train of thought in his mind beginning to go the wrong way. The Enemy, of course, was at his elbow in a moment. Before I knew where I was I saw my twenty years' work beginning to totter. If I had lost my head and begun to attempt a defence by argument, I should have been undone. But I was not such a fool. I struck instantly at the part of the man which I had best under my control, and suggested that it was just about time he had some lunch. The Enemy presumably made the counter-suggestion (you know how one can never quite overhear what He says to them?) that this was more important than lunch. At least I think that must have been His line, for when I said, "Quite. In fact much too important to tackle at the end of a morning," the patient brightened up considerably; and by the time I had added "Much better come back after lunch and go into it with a fresh mind," he was already halfway to the door. Once he was in the street the battle was won. I showed him a newsboy shouting the midday paper, and a No. 73 bus going past, and before he reached the bottom of the steps I had got into him an unalterable conviction that, whatever odd ideas might come into a man's head when he was shut up alone with his books, a healthy dose of "real life" (by which he meant the bus and the newsboy) was enough to show him that all "that sort of thing" just couldn't be true. He knew he'd had a narrow escape, and in later years was fond of talking about "that inarticulate sense for actuality which is our ultimate safe guard against the aberrations of mere logic." He is now safe in Our Father's house.

This is, of course the seed by the wayside. In fact, it is not quite on that level. Screwtape’s atheist at the British museum has only had a mere course of thought removed from his mind; but the ground by the wayside loses the seed of the word of God as it has been preached by a messenger. It does not require always a lie as intricate, or as ridiculous, as The DaVinci Code; it can be something as simple as perceiving lunch to be reality, and perceiving God to be a fantasy. Today’s Old Testament lesson covers this ground, so to speak (from the 50^thchapter of the book of Isaiah the prophet):

The Lord GOD hath given me the tongue of the learned, that I should know how to speak a word in season to him that is weary: he wakeneth morning by morning, he wakeneth mine ear to hear as the learned. The Lord GOD hath opened mine ear, and I was not rebellious, neither turned away back. I gave my back to the smiters, and my cheeks to them that plucked off the hair: I hid not my face from shame and spitting. For the Lord GOD will help me; therefore shall I not be confounded: therefore have I set my face like a flint, and I know that I shall not be ashamed. He is near that justifieth me; who will contend with me? let us stand together: who is mine adversary? let him come near to me. Behold, the Lord GOD will help me; who is he that shall condemn me? lo, they all shall wax old as a garment; the moth shall eat them up. Who is among you that feareth the LORD, that obeyeth the voice of his servant, that walketh in darkness, and hath no light? let him trust in the name of the LORD, and stay upon his God.

The sufferings of Christ are foretold here, in part. And, His true followers have suffered often the same persecution. In the midst of his own sufferings as a genuine servant of the Lord Jesus Christ, Saint Paul addressed the Corinthian Church with an expression of the kind of love a good father always has for his children. He knew that false teachers were allowed into their services, presenting strange ideas, and always bad-mouthing Paul. That he himself was spoken evil of, did not bother the saint and apostle. What bothered him was that the Christians at Corinth chose to believe some of the strange doctrines that could lead them away from pure and simple devotion to Christ.

That is always the issue. If you wonder why some of us among the clergy are very dogmatic and even strict at times, why we don’t change with the times, why we don’t accommodate allegedly new ideas about morality, or about God, it is because the care of the churches is upon us. We are responsible for the cure of your souls. We are here to present the word of his Servant, His Suffering Servant who went to the cross for the sins of mankind; we must be the servant of that Suffering Servant, and so we must present His words. And, we know that just like Screwtape’s atheist at the British museum, even as you sit here in a pew as members of the Church, the devil can steal the word out of your hearts.

It is easy to see this happening. One trick is to make you think of yourself as a preaching critic. While you ought to be hearing, you are thinking instead about all sorts of irrelevant things, like how well you think the delivery is going. The best advice I can give you is this: During a sermon, listen, pay attention and learn. That may sound brazen and self-confident; but take the advice anyway. Another trick is for a little devil to sit on your shoulder and whisper in your ear about how long this is taking, and about how hungry you are.

You see, the people who need to hear are not only those outside the Church, yet to become believers. Everyone needs to hear the word of God. It is the seed that has that power we call life; that power that alone can grow and bear fruit. If conversion were as simple as a one-time decision (to use the favored phrase of Billy Graham), this parable would have a very limited application. But, conversion (though often including a major life changing epiphany), involves for most of us a lifetime of turning every day away from sin and darkness to God and His light.

The words that our Lord Jesus spoke, in concert with all His prophets who had come before Him, had more to do with hearing than with listening. Without the grace of God, we cannot hear His word.

The Lord said to the prophet Isaiah: “Make the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and convert, and be healed (Isa. 6:10).” The very ability to know the truth is a gift of the Holy Spirit. The Lord Jesus, after His resurrection, gave the Apostles the gift of understanding the scriptures: “Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures (Luke 24:45).” He did not give them an “open mind.” An open mind is a bad thing, because it leaks its contents all over the place. It is quite messy really. Rather, He opened their understanding. This takes humility to receive, and so receive it if you can. Without this gift, no matter how clever or enlightened you may seem to be, you cannot see, hear or understand. Saint Paul spoke of those who are “ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth (II Tim. 3:7).” How telling it is that some of the modern advocates of Gnostic ideas see this kind of busy and perpetual ignorance as virtuous. Virtuous it is not: it is the mark of someone who has yet to meet the risen Lord.

It takes humility to believe that the Church in its Tradition, in its Scripture, has the mind of Christ and the authority to teach; it takes humility to grasp the fact that the Church is smarter than I am. It takes humility to see that only by a gift from the Risen Christ can my understanding be opened and unlocked. It takes humility to look at the words that God spoke to Isaiah, and then to pray that the Lord, in His mercy, will give us eyes that see, ears that hear and a heart that understands, that we may convert to Him and be healed. Only by the Holy Ghost and His gift can we hear the word, let it take root in us and bring forth its fruit to perfection.