Thirteenth Sunday after Trinity

Galatians 3:16-22

Luke 10:23-37

The Epistle and Gospel for today help to bring balance to a subject that has been confusing to Christians in the Western world for five centuries. Ever since the days of Martin Luther the question of Faith and Works, and the role they may or may not play in the salvation and justification of sinners, has dominated a great deal of theological discourse. As you may know, Luther built his German based Reformation on sola fide, which translates as “faith alone.” This view, taken to an extreme, can take all of the statements by Saint Paul about faith, and make it the only factor in the Christian life. And, indeed Saint Paul does speak often about faith that justifies and saves us. But, Saint Paul never added the word “alone.” The only verse in the whole Bible that contains these words, faith and alone, in close proximity is James 2: 17: “Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.” Because of Saint James’ teaching in his Epistle, Martin Luther called it “an Epistle of straw, compared to” most of the New Testament. What is the balance? What is the truth about faith and works, and the role of faith in our salvation?

Saint Paul never exactly said that by faith we are saved. Rather, he took it along a specific route that begins with grace. In Ephesians, the second chapter he wrote these words: “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.” In the very next verse he adds, “For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.” (This ought to remind you of the words in our prayer of thanksgiving after receiving Communion, about good works that God hath prepared for us to walk in.) So, if Saint James was full of straw for teaching that “faith without works is dead, being alone,” then Saint Paul was full of the exact same straw, because he taught the exact same thing.

In fact, today’s Epistle is speaking more directly to the problem of faith and works then either Paul’s Epistle to the Ephesians, or the Epistle of James. This is for two reasons. First of all, Paul never conceived of faith existing all by itself, cut off from the rest of the Christian life. In the most famous passage he ever wrote, the chapter about the love of God, the thirteenth chapter of First Corinthians, he lists the three most important virtues together: “And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity.” It is always at least somewhat misleading to speak of “faith alone” because faith never is alone. True faith that is planted in us by the Holy Spirit always has two other virtues at its side: hope and charity. It simply does not exist alone. Article XI says, "that we are justified by faith only is a most wholesome doctrine, and very full of comfort." The careful use of "only" as opposed to "alone" is no accident. Article XII affirms that faith cannot exist alone, at least not for very long: "Albeit that good works, which are the fruits of faith and follow after justification, cannot put away our sins and endure the severity of God's judgment, yet are they pleasing and acceptable to God in Christ, and do spring out necessarily of a true and lively faith, insomuch that by them a lively faith may be as evidently known as a tree discerned by the fruit." True faith will produce fruit (and, in all fairness,to Luther, he taught the same), indeed the fruit will "spring out necessarily." The New Testament holds this as a consistent pattern: Faith produces love, and love produces good works.

But, in today’s Epistle, Paul tells us of the distinction between the Law and the promise, specifically this promise that Abraham believed. And, Paul builds a lot of teaching on this promise and the faith of Abraham, basing it on these words from Genesis. “And He [God, that is] brought him [Abram] forth abroad, and said, Look now toward heaven, and tell the stars, if thou be able to number them: and he said unto him, So shall thy seed be. And he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness.” The Hebrew word for believed is the word “amen.” Amen (אמן) is a form of emet. Emet (אמת) means “truth” and so “amen” means true. Jesus, when He said “verily, verily” actually said, “Amen, amen, (ἀμήν ἀμήν) I say unto you.” When you say “amen” you are stating that you believe the words spoken to be true. When Abram (as his name was at that stage) believed God, what he believed, very specifically, was that God’s word is true. That is how Abram amened God, and so was accounted righteous. From this Paul teaches two things. First, believing in God’s revealed truth is essential to our being accounted as righteous, namely, that by God’s mercy our sins are not taken into account. He also taught that Abram, as yet uncircumcised, became the father not only of the Jewish people, but of all people who have faith, that is all who believe God’s word to be true, even Gentiles. All of this shows the absolute necessity of faith. The writer to the Hebrews teaches us that this faith in God’s promise was manifest when Abraham was ready to offer Isaac on the mountain. James, however, uses the same story to teach the importance of works. Again, this should not surprise us, because the issue never was faith versus works.

We are saved by grace through faith, not by our works. But, faith lives with hope and charity. You can separate faith from works only if you can separate it from charity. Your own good works cannot earn for you the forgiveness of your sins; but the faith that calls and empowers you to enter the whole sacramental life as a Christian is a faith that God’s word is true, and it is faith that lives with hope and charity. And, because it lives with charity, good works will be present in the life of faith. However, like the Samaritan in today’s Gospel, this charity can be quite spontaneous. The Samaritan saw a man who may very well have despised him were he not in dire straits. The Jews looked down on Samaritans as being a group of Gentiles pretending to be Jews. They were seen as being second class at best. This did not matter to the Samaritan in this parable, and why? The answer is that he was, as the Lord said, “moved with compassion.” He was not trying to balance out his sins with good works (which is impossible). The idea of trying to appease God by doing a good work is not indicated at all. Instead, the Samaritan simply has compassion, and acts without resentment against a Jewish man who, under other circumstances, he may have avoided. His charity is natural and spontaneous, not forced and contrived.

The other thing we learn from the Epistle is the true context of faith and works as a theological question. In the Western world, ever since the Reformation, the whole treatment of this subject has been misunderstood, recast as a difference between people within Christianity. But, this is not right. Paul was not teaching that God’s grace saves us through just any faith, rather through faith in something very specific. The faith that God’s word is true, the promise we must say our own “amen” to, is the Gospel of Jesus Christ as it is now revealed through the Word made flesh as proclaimed by his Apostles. Any effort to be saved by works meant, as used by Paul in his Epistles, the effort to be saved by the works, specifically, of the Law. The Law of commandments that came four hundred and thirty years after Abram believed God’s promise, does not make you righteous. It reveals that you are a sinner. It reveals that you need the Savior from sin and death, the One who has died as the Lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world, and rose again the third day to destroy death. Before his conversion, when he was Saul of Tarsus, he believed himself to be righteous, and his zeal to persecute the Church to have been the seal of his righteousness. But, when he saw the Risen Christ, and was blinded as he drew close to Damascus, he learned that this great crowning act of his own righteousness was actually the sin of persecuting the Messiah by persecuting His Church. At once he learned of his sin, and of God’s mercy in forgiving that sin. We was converted, and began to see only in his time of physical blindness.

So, the issue, at the time Saint Paul was writing, was never some quality called faith versus good works. These terms are used, rather, to speak of the difference between religion when it is without a specific faith in Jesus Christ, even the best religion (the truth of the Jewish religion based on the revelation of God to Patriarchs and Prophets) and a belief that God’s word, the Gospel of Jesus Christ, is true. It is the difference between trying to be saved by the Law of Commandments, through efforts of self-deception that you are somehow a good person, and the faith that embraces the entire new life of a Christian. I could say that it is the difference between Judaism and Christianity; however, I would say that only with respect. As Christians we do believe in Judaism, the Law and the Prophets. It is simply that we also believe in the promise, and we say the “amen” of faith that God’s word is true, specifically the word of the Gospel as preached by the apostles of the New Covenant, the word that is the foundation of the Church in every age and place about Jesus Christ.

Then, we must recall the words of James: “Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone. Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.” That is, this faith will grow in us by the work of the Holy Spirit within our hearts, and it will abide with hope and charity as we press on into the sacramental life by the grace of God, pursuing the goal and end of our belief, knowing God and His Son Jesus Christ whom He has sent (John 17:3).

Why I bother

I welcome the news that Bishop Jack Iker himself did not authorize the overtures to Rome by four of his priests; but, as I said in a comment, I am glad to have made my own remarks about what those priests wrote. It leads me to explain

WHY I BOTHER

The news about those members of the Diocese of Fort Worth (TEC) clergy who wish they were Romeward Bound, caused an e-mail list to be generated, and a great deal of e-ink to be wasted, about the wonderful process of conversion to the One True Church (well, one of the two that is). In some of these e-epistles well-meaning Roman Catholics openly addressed "the basic flaw of Anglican ecclesiology," and used other insulting phrases designed to put us in our place. Having had enough of this insensitive treatment I gave in to a gut reaction, an impulse to be equally offensive. I confess it: I have sinned. I hit "reply all" and wrote: "Why would anyone want to join the world's largest pederast conspiracy?" Someone pointed out that this communication was beneath me. True, it was. But, as Doctor Who (one of the real, original Doctors) said to Jo Grant: "What's wrong with being childish? I like being childish."

It really does get tiresome. In our churches we have people who possess varying levels of education, and unfortunately that can include members of the clergy. With bloggers and e-tome authors attacking Anglicanism itself--not the state of apostate bodies like the Episcopal Church, but Anglicanism dating back to the 16th century--it behooves some of us to come to the aid of those whose consciences are damaged by their words. Many of the fiercest attackers are Roman Catholics, and others are Calvinists who make the same arguments as the self-appointed Roman Catholic polemicists. The ignorance they demonstrate is cloaked by wordiness. They take thousands of words to prove that they don't know anything, and in the process look very clever to unsuspecting minds. Frankly, I prefer for banality to be served with brevity.

These writers use the same old worn-out talking points.

"Anglicanism is Protestant," they say. Of course, they have no idea what the word "Protestant" has always meant to Anglicans. The opposite of "Catholic" is not "Protestant" but rather, "unbeliever." As I have written before:

"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...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...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."

These polemicists argue that the Church of England was a confused mess with no clearly stated beliefs, filled with everything from High Churchmen to Puritans. This is a very popular bit of misinformation, too easily believed even by uneducated Anglicans themselves. How can they possibly imagine that the leaders of the English Church ever tolerated the excesses of the Puritans? Don't they know that Richard Hooker's famous Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity was written primarily to defend Anglicanism against Puritan sedition and heresy, and against Calvin's ecclesiology in general? Hooker wrote as an official representative of the Church, not as an individual with an opinion to be weighed equally among many others. The fact that Puritanism was always at odds with the Church authorities, always tried to overthrow each new version of The Articles of Religion as they were developing, and finally resorted to a revolution by civil war and the execution of a king, all seems to go right past them. The Puritans were the opponents of Anglicanism until after the Restoration, when they finally faced defeat and the rejection of the English population by and large.

The polemicists demonstrate that they cannot understand Anglican Formularies, trying to fit them into either a purely Calvinist or a purely Lutheran system, like a square into a round hole. They notice the same theological terminology in Anglican Articles that they see in the Continental Reformations, not appreciating two important facts: 1) This terminology was not new to anybody at the time, and 2) what matters in the Articles is not their similarity to either Calvinism or Lutheranism, but their divergence from them at just the point necessary to avoid the extremes of these systems.

For example, look at Article X:

X. Of Free Will.

HE condition of man after the fall of Adam is such, that he cannot turn and prepare himself, by his own natural strength and good works, to faith and calling upon God. Wherefore we have no power to do good works pleasant and acceptable to God, without the grace of God by Christ preventing us that we may have a good will, and working with us when we have that good will.

A Calvinist goes further than saying we need the grace of God; he denies that freewill exists at all. Anglicanism goes right up to that line, and refuses to cross it. The divergence shouts very loudly, but the polemicists notice only the similar terminology.

Look at how close Article XVII comes:

XVII. Of Predestination and Election.

REDESTINATION to life is the everlasting purpose of God, whereby, before the foundations of the world were laid, He hath constantly decreed by His counsel secret to us, to deliver from curse and damnation those whom He hath chosen in Christ out of mankind, and to bring them by Christ to everlasting salvation as vessels made to honour. Wherefore they which be endued with so excellent a benefit of God be called according to God's purpose by His Spirit working in due season; they through grace obey the calling; they be justified freely; they be made sons of God by adoption; they be made like the image of His only-begotten Son Jesus Christ; they walk religiously in good works; and at length by God's mercy they attain to everlasting felicity.

As the godly consideration of Predestination and our Election in Christ is full of sweet, pleasant, and unspeakable comfort to godly persons and such as feeling in themselves the working of the Spirit of Christ, mortifying the works of the flesh and their earthly members and drawing up their mind to high and heavenly things, as well because it doth greatly establish and confirm their faith of eternal salvation to be enjoyed through Christ, as because it doth fervently kindle their love towards God: so for curious and carnal persons, lacking the Spirit of Christ, to have continually before their eyes the sentence of God's Predestination is a most dangerous downfall, whereby the devil doth thrust them either into desperation or into wretchlessness of most unclean living no less perilous than desperation.

Furthermore, we must receive God's promises in such wise as they be generally set forth in Holy Scripture; and in our doings that will of God is to be followed which we have expressly declared unto us in the word of God.

This comes to the line, but again does not cross it. It may be at most somewhat Augustinian, but it is not Calvinist. It discourages the clergy from preaching Predestination. It does not allow for what is called the "perseverance of the saints," but rather teaches mortification and raising the mind to heaven, teaching the need to follow the expressed general will of God. This is not Calvinism, and the similar terminology makes the divergence all the more significant, if not the main point.

And so forth.

They say that Anglicans rejected the Real Presence. Article XXXV lists homilies that are to be considered Formularies. In the Homily Of the worthy receiving of the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ we find these words:

"But thus much we must be sure to hold, that in the Supper of the Lord, there is no vaine Ceremonie, no bare signe, no vntrue figure of a thing absent (Matthew 26.26)...Whereas by the aduice of the Councell of Nicene, we ought to lift vp our mindes by fayth, and leauing these inferiour and earthly things, there seeke it, where the sunne of righteousnesse euer shineth (Council of Nicene, Concilium). Take then this lesson (O thou that art desirous of this Table) of Emissenus a godly Father, that when thou goest vp to the reuerend Communion, to be satisfied with spirituall meates, thou looke vp with fayth vpon the holy body and blood of thy GOD, thou maruayle with reuerence, thou touch it with the minde, thou receiue it with the hand of thy heart, and thou take it fully with thy inward man (Eusebius Emissenus, Serm. de Euchar.)."

Nonetheless, they will provide theories about the personal views of Archbishop Thomas Cranmer near his life's end, saying that he must have rejected the Real Presence; as if any one man's private view was official, and alone what matters.

And so forth.

In the massive e-mailing was a link to an article by my friend David Mills, editor of Touchstone, A journal of mere Christianity. I have long been a contributing editor for this magazine of ecumenical orthodoxy, with several articles published over the years. David was one of the first to recognize my writing as having any worth, and to promote it. He had long been a fighter within the Episcopal Church, trying to call it back to Christ. In 2001 he became a Roman Catholic. The recent article (which was on a blog) contained superb news analysis about the official Anglican Communion (you know, those other Anglicans who don't recognize us), but then made this rather astonishing statement.

"The Anglo-Catholics can forget trying to move the new GAFCON body (if there ever is one) a quarter-inch closer to Catholicism. They will live in an ecclesial body less liberal but no more Catholic than their old one. The price of their being rescued from liberalism is a kind of dhimmitude.

"Which might not be a bad thing. It might help them see more clearly just what that 'Anglo' means, and accept that Anglicanism is a Protestant movement. Then they can see that the polarity they thought they'd transcended is marked by its two poles for a reason, forcing them to choose one or the other. I pray my former comrades choose Catholicism, but if they don't, I think they would be happier and more fruitful were they better Protestants. And thereby, oddly enough, closer to the Catholic Church than they are now."

I do not expect the average Roman Catholic to understand that to classic Anglicans like us, Protestantism and Catholicism are not opposites, and not at all two poles. But, David Mills understands it, though he clearly disagrees. Our kind of Protestantism is meant to be a pure and better form of Catholicism, and so David would be wrong if his words were applied to those of us in the Continuum (though they fit the Canterbury Communion in its current state). For us there is no choice to be made between these two things, Protestantism and Catholicism, for they do not conflict. But, we are spared the usual song and dance of the polemicists, because David is above all that sort of thing.

I bother to defend Anglicanism against polemical attacks because these attacks damage the consciences of sincere believers. The attacks usually boil down to an attempt to make Anglicans doubt the validity of our sacraments, which is quite proper for TEC, but not at all true for us. The arguments are based on half-truths that distort the history of Anglican doctrine and the meaning of Anglican Formularies. They create ignorance rather than knowledge. Eventually, they always attack the validity of our orders, so that the poor soul who is ensnared by these arguments fails to learn the truth, and gets confused trying to learn it. Because he comes to doubt the validity of the sacraments he has been receiving, and therefore fears that they have no efficacy, he begins to doubt that his soul can be saved unless he flees to Rome (or Orthodoxy). This is based on fear, not on faith and not on learning, since learning would disabuse him of doubt.

The troubled, less-learned Anglican, attacked by bullying polemicists, needs to be taught by those of us who care to take the time to write or speak the necessary apologetics, and provide the instruction that he needs. Hear me: Your priest does have the authority to forgive sins; and what you eat and drink at the altar rail of the church is truly, in the words of the Anglican Formulary, "the holy body and blood of thy God."

Update on Ft. Worth

This clarifies what was reported yesterday. The points of debate are, nonetheless, worth having made, and deserve continued discussion.

A Statement by Bishop Iker
on Roman Catholic Dialogues

I am aware of a meeting that four priests of the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth have had with Bishop Kevin Vann of the Catholic Diocese of Fort Worth on June 16, 2008. After a year of studying various agreed statements that have come out of ecumenical dialogues between Anglicans and Roman Catholics on the national and international level, these clergy expressed an interest in having a dialogue on the local level and asked my permission to make an appointment to talk with Bishop Vann. The stated goal of these official Anglican/Roman Catholic dialogues (which have been going on for over 40 years) has been full, visible unity between the two communions.

The priests who participated in this meeting with Bishop Vann have my trust and pastoral support. However, in their written and verbal reports, they have spoken only on their own behalf and out of their own concerns and perspective. They have not claimed to act or speak, nor have they been authorized to do so, either on behalf of the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth or on my own behalf as their Bishop.

Their discussion with Bishop Vann has no bearing upon matters coming before our Diocesan Convention in November, where a second vote will be taken on constitutional changes concerning our relationship with the General Convention of the Episcopal Church. There is no proposal under consideration, either publicly or privately, for the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth to become part of the Roman Catholic Church. Our only plan of action remains as it has been for the past year, as affirmed by our Diocesan Convention in November 2007. The Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth intends to realign with an orthodox Province as a constituent member of the worldwide Anglican Communion.

By God’s grace, we will continue to work and pray for the unity of the one holy catholic and apostolic church.

The Rt. Rev. Jack Leo Iker
Bishop of Fort Worth
August 12, 2008

Roaming Romeward

(See as well the update.)

I am by no means a fan of the Desert's Child blog; in fact I think the woman who runs it, Katie Sherrod, usually has nothing worthwhile to say. Nonetheless, she has recently reported that Bishop Jack Leo Iker of Ft. Worth has approached the Roman Catholic Church, seeking to move his diocese from TEC into an arrangement that would be part of Anglican Use with the Pastoral Provisions. (Update: It is not Bp.Iker who has done this; but some of his clergy.) Up until now it seemed that they wanted to seek refuge in the Province of the Southern Cone. Well, I can't blame them for findng it distasteful to be joined at the hip to a Canadian "Southern Coner" bishop who still "ordains"women. But, I must question what they are saying now, not to dissuade them, but rather to help Continuing Anglicans stay on a right path. Included in the Diocese of FW communications is a "Preamble" with what they call "Eight Useful Findings." I shall quote portions below, and add commentary (the reason this lengthy bit is not quoted in its entirety is because of redundancy).


I. We believe the See of Peter is essential not optional

Unity with the Holy See is esse that is, essential for Catholic Christians (not bene esse, merely beneficial.) This is a concept which the Catholic Clergy in the Anglican Tradition have always believed (indeed it is one of the stated purposes of the SSC) but the rapid deterioration of the Anglican Communion makes it even more apparent now. The Prayer for Unity (John 17, that they all may be one) also compels us to pursue the possibility of reunion with Rome.

This "finding" is simply an acceptance of what Rome teaches about itself, namley a controverted doctrine that developed over centuries. True, that eventual reunion would be a necessary part of Church unity; but without theological honesty and, when necessary debate, such a version of unity cannot help but involve compromise of truth and conscience. Has any "Uniat"- if I may use the vulgar phrase- ever produced unity? Does the joining of a larger communion produce unity, or simply a change of venue?

The very name of the first Pope, Peter, Petrus is the "rock" - and we have seen that it is the Petrine office which is important not the personality of an individual pontiff.

Again, this is simply acceptance of Rome's doctrine, not a theological "finding."

In April 2006 our Diocesan Bishop and several of the clergy made a pilgrimage to Rome. At that time we were blessed to have an informal visit with his Eminence, Bernard Cardinal Law. At that meeting, Cardinal Law indicated that the Catholic Church was aware of the current difficulties faced by Anglo Catholics (and particularly the Anglo Catholic Diocese of Fort Worth) at this time and said, in essence, for us to "make an offer" that is, make a Proposal on how we might respond to the crisis in our branch of Christendom. After this pilgrimage, we began meeting with the full knowledge and support of our Bishop.

Cardinal Law was the man who covered up the sexual abuse scandals of Roman Catholic clergy. He is no better than the Liberal Episcopalians, a man who should not have been allowed to remain in his position. Why would joining his denomination be attractive, when his very presence in that office is morally indefensible?

We came to realize that, like the Prodigal Son in the Gospel, it is up to us to make the initiative to return to the rock from whence we were hewn. In essence, that trip crystallized for us the need for perusing unity with the See of Peter now. Since that time we have studied, we have met, we have prayed, and now we come to the Church with our conclusions.

As an Anglican I am offended by any idea that Anglican separation from Rome requires "repentance" as if that separation were a sin. The church of the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, Bloody Mary and such heresies as the abuse of indulgences (a false gospel-Galatians 1:8) was not the father in that parable. In fact, that father represented God, not the pope. Rome drove our fathers out by its own false gospels, making it necessary to reform the Church of many corruptions.

As Anglicans we realize that Henry VIII, the monarch who wrote "Defense of Seven Sacraments" and who was granted the title "Defender of the Faith", never intended to make any substantive or permanent changes in the Catholic faith. Indeed, the Reformation itself was intended to be for a limited time only, "a season", as the book of Ecclesiastes would say.

We believe that it is now time for a new Season. It is perhaps, time for a church of Reformation to die and a new unification among Christ's people be born: Unification possible only under the Holy Father.

The problem faced by Fort Worth is not Anglicanism, but rather the very un-Anglican, post-Christian TEC. That "church" died long ago; but it is not time for Anglicanism to die.

II. We believe a magisterium is needed desperately

"In those days there was no king in Israel; every man did what was right in his own eyes." (Judges 21:25) This describes the day to day 'on the ground" reality in the Anglican Communion. Anglican "comprehensiveness" has no boundaries and no real center. For example, during the Reformation period under Elizabeth I, 1533-1603, there was an attempt to synthesize the Catholic and Protestant factions in the Church of England, resulting in the so-called "Elizabethan Settlement". Concerning the Eucharist, it was held that belief in the Real Presence of Christ was acceptable as well as the belief that the Eucharist was only a memorial or "remembrance" of something long ago. In essence the Anglican faith is what the parish priest says it is, and this varies widely with many contradictions. The Pentecostal/Evangelical/Charismatic expressions are just as valid as the Anglo-Catholic teaching. In most parts of the country, the parish priest is completely on his own.

First of all, that is simply bad history of doctrine, drawing hasty and inaccurate conclusions. They confuse Anglicanism with the modern state of TEC, and I pity all who have been blinded by that very problem. Every apostasy must first be apostasy from a specific communion; they confuse apostasy from Anglicanism with Anglicanism itself.

Formerly, a single prayer book (the 1662 Church of England Prayer Book was the pattern for all national prayer books) provided some glue, but with the proliferation of endless trial liturgies even that has disappeared.

This merely proves my point about apostasy. So, which is the problem; the Book of Common Prayer and that whole tradition, or the abandonment of it? If the latter, why blame that tradition?

The lack of a teaching office has resulted in communicating un-baptized persons, same-sex unions and liturgical chaos everywhere. There are no boundaries and it is all uncontrollable. This is not theory but day to day reality. Anglican "comprehensiveness" has no boundaries. Previously this absence of a center seemed to work when the various ecclesiastical parties (Low Church/Broad Church/High Church) largely worked within their own circles. Low Church people did not attend High Church parishes and vice versa.

Well, that last part is not true. Formerly, as in several decades ago, most of the division was between people of different tastes and style. But, most of this simply proves again my point about apostasy.

In looking at the disarray in the larger communion it is apparent that the Archbishop of Canterbury is incapable of providing decisive leadership. If there is a future, particularly for Catholic minded Anglicans, it is clear that a magisterium is absolutely essential.

Nonsense! "If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead." (Luke 16: 31) How much less a magisterium. Besides, do modern western Roman Catholics really heed their magisterium? Time for a reality check.

III. We believe the Catholic Faith is True

The Catholic Faith is given - it is true.

The Epistle to the Ephesians reminds us that as Christians we believe in "One Lord, One Faith, One Baptism". At the celebration of every Mass and in the recitation of any Daily Office we profess in the Creed "One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church". We have come to realize, to an extent even more fully than we had as Catholics in the Anglican Tradition, that our Blessed Lord has indeed founded only one true church: the Catholic Church.

I suppose that from within TEC Anglicanism looks hopeless. They can't see it from within the Anglicanism we know and practice, and that is too bad. But, to conclude that "the Catholic Church" means the Roman Catholic Church requires a leap in logic.

Unlike so many forms of Protestantism, Catholic teaching does not change on a whim to suit the transient issues of the day. In addition, the Catholic Faith is not just one option among many. Anglican comprehensiveness with Catholics, Evangelicals and Liberals, all following their own paths, leads to the disintegration and disunion which we in the Diocese of Fort Worth find ourselves. The Protestant/Low Church teachings, the Liberals experiential teachings are just not true. The Catholic faith, the Catholic practice, the Catholic teaching - is true.

Well, that's why we have the Affirmation of St. Louis. But, what they call "Anglican Comprehensiveness" is simply the desertion of Anglicanism as they already described it. Nonetheless, that is not the true meaning, but only how TEC and other apostate bodies have distorted it.

We know, and are living examples of the fact, that Catholic Witness has been present throughout the history of the Anglican Tradition. But it is now becoming weaker because of this idea, Catholic as one option among several. . . except here in Fort Worth, which is in so many ways unique (explored further in section VI).

And we are examples of that Catholic Witness, because we are the ones who maintain the Anglican Tradition.

IV. We believe the Anglican Communion shares the fatal flaws of The Episcopal Church

In our time of discernment, we have concluded that the difficulties we have faced in The Episcopal Church for the past thirty years will not be remedied by the Anglican Communion.

We believe that too. So, join us.

We know what happens in a church which lacks a magisterium and whose polity makes the continuing of a Catholic witness impossible. We have concluded the Anglican Communion provides not safe future for us. Our witness, rather than being honored, has been persecuted.

Again, "if they hear not Moses..." With Scripture, Right Reason and Tradition, there is no need of a magisterium. Without them, a magisterium is of no use. In the 16th century, at a time when our Fathers knew that "the Church of Rome hath also erred," the authority of the magisterium was an obstruction to the truth of the Gospel.

V. We believe our polity is in error

In the New Testament no congregation votes on its pastor! St. Paul would have been unelectable in all, except maybe Philippi! Without exception pastors are sent by higher authority.

This is an example of historical ignorance. In many places the ancient Church elected their bishops. That was not some new Protestant innovation.

In the United States, the democratic style of polity in The Episcopal Church, strongly resembling the legislative branch of the U.S. government (House of Bishops and House of Deputies, lay and ordained) has created doctrinal chaos. Samuel Seabury (1729-1796) the first American Episcopal bishop was fearful of having clergy and lay people voting on doctrinal matters. His fears were realized when an early General Convention put the Nicene and Athanasian Creeds up for grabs. The Nicene Creed was voted out, then back in; and then the Athanasian Creed lost the vote.

Anglican polity (read Hooker) does not allow the people to vote on doctrine. Bishop Seabury was able to quench the destructive fire, because he used his episcopal authority and taught. However, the idea of voting on doctrine has become the norm in the modern TEC; this is not a weakness of Anglican polity, but another manifestation of it having been abandoned.

In regard to the ordination of women, the 1976 General Convention changed the matter of a sacrament, established by Christ himself, simply by voting. Bishop Robert Terwilliger, formerly Suffragan of the Diocese of Dallas called it "voting our collective ignorance"!

No argument there.

We are in desperate need of a polity modeled on the New Testament and the early church.

So, why turn to Rome? Layers of Italian-style bureaucracy are not modeled on the New Testament and the early Church. Neither is the final rule of one man.

VI. We believe we are not the only ones

It has now become impossible for the Catholic minded people to exist and survive in the Episcopal Church. As a result of this, the Diocese of Fort Worth is working toward a realignment of itself into another Province of the Anglican Communion. We have chosen to join the Province of the Southern Cone in South America. We believe this arrangement is temporary. As the Anglican Communion attempts to reform itself, it is becoming more and more evident that this problematic at best.

I believe that Rome is a better option than the Episcopal Church, and, since Archbishop Venables allows Bishop Harvey to "ordain" women, a better option that the Southern Cone. But, Continuing Anglicanism is better at the present time than all of them.

VII. We believe Pope Benedict XVI understands our plight

Through his writings and his actions we believe that Pope Benedict XVI is sympathetic to our plight.

It is our belief that Pope Benedict XVI desires to uphold the Catholic faith whenever and wherever he finds it; especially in a world dominated by the super-dogma of relativism. It is this new dogma, this new denomination which motivates those who seek to remove the Catholic witness from The Episcopal Church.

On this, I have to agree. But, Pope Benedict XVI is not the whole RCC.

In October, 2003, members of the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth and other Episcopalians throughout the United States met in Plano, Texas for a conference titled, "A Place to Stand: A Call to Mission". That conference was called to unite further those who opposed the ordination of a partnered homosexual as a Bishop in The Episcopal Church. The highpoint of that conference was a letter from then Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger. It reads as follows:

From Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger
Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith
The Vatican, on behalf of Pope John Paul II

I hasten to assure you of my heartfelt prayers for all those taking part in this convocation. The significance of your meeting is sensed far beyond Plano, and even in this City from which Saint Augustine of Canterbury was sent to confirm and strengthen the preaching of Christ's Gospel in England. Nor can I fail to recall that barely 120 years later, Saint Boniface brought that same Christian faith to my own forebears in Germany.

The lives of these saints show us how in the Church of Christ there is an unity in truth and a communion of grace which transcends the borders of any nation. With this is mind, I pray in particular that God's will may be done by all those who seek that unity in the truth, the gift of Christ himself.

With fraternal regards, I remain
Sincerely yours in Christ
+Joseph Cardinal Ratszinger

Notice that phrase, "unity in the truth." Therein lies the rub.

VIII. We believe there is a charism which the Anglican ethos has to offer to the Universal Church

The Catholic Faith, as it has been lived in the Anglican Tradition, is a thing of great beauty. Why are we making a plea for it to continue? It is because the Catholic faith and practice, as lived out in the Anglican Tradition, is a unique charism well worth preserving...

Twentieth century Anglo Catholic authors like C.S. Lewis, T.S. Eliot and earlier Anglican theologians such as William Law ("Serious Call to a Devout and Holy Life") and George Herbert ("The Country Parson") have enriched and enlightened countless souls. The religious life, the devotional societies, the guilds, the priestly fraternities (like the Catholic Clerical Union and the SSC) all speak to an expression of Catholic piety which continues to be attractive to people in the twenty-first century and are worthy of preserving for future generations. To take but one (local) example: the large number of young men offering themselves for ordination in this Diocese speaks to this expression's ability to nurture vocations. Also the Catholic Liturgy in the Anglican Tradition is a thing of great elegance, holiness, of long antiquity and solemn reverence.

What is it that we can offer to the greater Church? We believe we can offer a Catholic expression which for too long has been separated from the Universal Church. This is a tradition of inspiring liturgy, devout spirituality, loving pastoral care and a living spirituality. We believe it has a special and unique witness to the Faith, which we humbly offer as a beautiful jewel in the Catholic crown.

I cannot help but notice that they value the Anglican ethos, but not the doctrines that have been drawn from an honest approach to Scripture, using Right Reason under the guidance of Tradition. The Anglican mind is either a restoration of the Biblical and Patristic mind, or it has been error all along. I say, that to abandon the genuine classic Anglican mind will not produce "unity in the truth."

If they must go to Rome, then let them go with our blessing. But, how sad that they cannot distinguish between modern TEC and the tradition we preserve.

The ACC in Haiti

Archbishop Mark Haverland sent me an account of a recent trip he took to Haiti. I am posting it for the following reasons:
1) to demonstrate what Continuing Anglicans are capable of.
2) To draw attention to the needs that still exist among the poor.
That second reason contains a hope that others will be inspired to similar efforts.

Too many people assume that Continuing Anglicans are just a bunch of eccentric old angry people, with tiny congregations, who have their heads buried in the sand. Not being Black or Jewish or left handed, I have only recently grown accustomed to being dismissed by prejudice and being stereo-typed. It's kind of a weird feeling. Gee, let's show them what we're made of.

HAITI 2008

In Michael O’Brien’s novel, Father Elijah, there is a scene on a bus in Rome in which an old woman puts down some loutish behavior. I paraphrase the reaction of the narrator or protagonist to this restoration of order: ‘Civilization is sustained by fierce old women.’ In a slightly different way this scene recalls Saint Augustine’s conversion, which he attributed to the prayers and tears of his patient and determined old mother, Saint Monica.

In October 2006 Canon Marvin Gardner and I encountered a namesake of Saint Monica, who had walked four or five hours from the rural community of Monnonville to meet us in Tapio. Tapio is another rural community, in the chalky hills above the town of Titanyen in the Department of Croix de Bouquets, Haiti. Monique, who clearly was also a determined old woman, had walked to meet us with another elderly woman and with their priest, Father Jean-Baptiste Beaudelet. Father Beaudelet wanted Canon Gardner and me to help them build a school in Monnonville. But the determined old women wanted a water system. In particular they wanted us to cap a ground water source, then to pipe it to five or six spots in their community, so that instead of 15,000 people having to gather water from a single spring - often almost an hour’s walk away - everyone would have water available from a pipe within a five minute walk. In 2007 the ACC and our Mission Society of Saint Paul put in that system.

In July of this year I made my first visit to Monnonville, which involved a jolting drive of one hour to Tapio, then another jolting drive of two hours from Tapio to Monnonville, including one spell stuck in the mud. These trips, by the way, were in the truck the ACC bought Father Bien-Aime last year. It is an incredibly sturdy, used vehicle, and I could not have made the trip otherwise. In Monnonville I was asked to bless the new water system. The blessing would be at the capped source, which Father Bien-Aime and I were told was a five minute walk from the parish. The parish at present consists of a lean-to church with a dirt floor and of a small building with several tiny rooms for the priest (and visiting bishops) and for everything else.

So off we went to do the blessing: ‘we’ including me, in vestments with miter and crozier, the other clergy in cassocks, and perhaps 120 or 140 people. Like Agag I trod delicately, or endeavored to do so, so as to avoid the mud and the litter from goats and chickens and donkeys. After the five minute walk had lasted for 20 or 25 minutes in the blazing sun, we came to a pump and Father Bien-Aime and I stopped. Monique quickly came up and told us that we were NOT at the place to be blessed. I objected that I was hot and tired and not used to hiking in the sun (in vestments) and that that pump would do as well as any part of the system for the blessing. ‘I will carry you,’ Monique offered bluntly in reply. That of course shamed me into completing the march, which happily really did only involve five or ten minutes more. We duly blessed the site, then returned to the parish singing hymns, one of which seemed to be to the tune of ‘Auld Lang Syne’. On the way back Monique had Father Bien-Aime and me peal off from the main procession to bless her house.

After the house blessing, as we completed the walk, Monique reminded me of something from our 2006 meeting that I had entirely forgotten. She said that she had told Canon Gardner and me then that she was old but that her dream was that before she died her village would have water. This year she said, ‘I am still alive, and you have given us water.’ I accepted her thanks on behalf of the Missionary Society of Saint Paul and of our small, poor, dear ACC, which has responded so amazingly to the needs of the people of Haiti and our other poor dioceses.

My six day visit to Haiti this year was timed to coincide with Monnonville’s patronal festival of Saint Vincent de Paul. So in addition to the water system blessing, we observed the feast and the following Sunday with two Masses, the confirmation of 37 children, first Holy Communions, and the reception of new members. 400 or 500 folk attended the Sunday Mass.

We did not do anything in Tapio this year but sleep. However, in Port-au-Prince I visited the orphanage of Ste. Therese, where Father Bien-Aime cares for 26 orphans on site, has a daily feeding program for over 200, and supports with school fees and other assistance some teenagers who have outgrown the orphanage itself. I also visited S. Jean’s school, another ACC institution, which was on summer break: the Haitian school calendar is about the same as that of the typical U.S. school. Later I met the country director for the World Food Program. The WFP had ignored Father Bien-Aime’s letters, but my presence got us a meeting at the top without an appointment. (Sometimes bishops have some uses.) I also helped arrange for a future meeting between Father Bien-Aime and an official from USAID, the humanitarian agency of the U.S. government.

On my final day, we had a meeting with Father Bien-Aime, Father Baudelet, and Father Jean Barnabe, and I saw the site of Father Barnabe’s congregation. Since my last visit the ACC has helped to provide Father Barnabe with a cement (rather than dirt) floor for his congregation’s site.

For the coming year I have two main hopes regarding our work in Haiti. First, we need to sustain what we have, including the school and parish in Tapio, Ste. Therese’s orphanage and S. Jean’s school in Port-au-Prince, and the work of Father Beaudelet in Monnonville. Father Bien-Aime would like to move the orphanage a bit further out of the center city, which would allow for a much larger building at not much more cost: $3,000 per year rather than the current $2,000. Squeezing 26 orphans and their care givers into the current space is a real crush.

Second, when land title questions are firmly settled, I hope we can enable Monnonville to get a cement foundation for their church and help Father Barnabe get walls and some kind of roof for his congregation’s site. Title has to be settled to the satisfaction of the Church and the Vicar General (Father Bien-Aime) as a matter of good stewardship, but Fathers Beaudelet and Barnabe assure me that this will not be a problem. We also might try to help Father Baudelet with transportation. I am considering the possibility of a motorcycle, which might be more practical, given the route to Monnonville, than a larger vehicle.

Haiti is not a physically comfortable place to visit. Once again, however, I return from my trip there with the belief that we are doing much absolutely certain good for many very poor and otherwise unbefriended people. Though on ultimate questions I have always felt great clarity, as I grow older the ambiguities of life and the law of unintended consequences perplex me more and more. Haiti has a way of providing relief from such ambiguities. Our fellow believers in the Caribbean give back to me - and to you too I hope in measure, since your generosity enables our work - as much as we give them. The gifts differ, but all are valuable and should be valued.

– The Most Reverend Mark Haverland
Archbishop & Metropolitan

Anglican Catholic Church

Confirmation and the Body of Christ

This post is meant to follow a previous post on Confirmation.

Alice Linsley wrote this in a comment:

"Numerous English church councils attempted to restore the connection between baptism and confirmation, but in reality few people were presented for confirmation. This led Archbishop Peckham to rule in 1281 that baptized persons who had not been confirmed could not receive communion. This was the rubric in the pre-Reformation Sarum rite in use at Salisbury Cathedral, considered the most significant influence on the first Book of Common Prayer (1549). This ruling was in effect in the American Prayer Books until the 1979 edition. The requirement was eliminated because it was regarded as a 'barrier to fellowship' with Christians of other denominations. This accommodation is now recognized as having a negative effect on the doctrinal and catechetical integrity of the Church."

What Alice Linsley has written is true, because such an accommodation was made alongside of sweeping changes to the substance of the Faith itself. Had it been considered in a previous era, say the 1920s, it may not have had "a negative effect on the doctrinal and catechetical integrity of the Church." That is, if as well, it had been considered for a better reason than merely to overcome a "barrier to fellowship." As it is, the ECUSAn sect now practices "open communion" in most places, which means that they let everybody receive, whether unbaptized, or even a Devil worshiper. But, does that mean that a decision dating back only to 1281is absolute and unalterable; or more to the point, that we can afford to let our people think that it is the main feature?

When I was growing up in the Episcopal Church, I remember that for several years I could receive only a blessing at the altar rail, until the day when I was confirmed at the age of 13. Because of the grace of God at work through his Church, my faith became very active during the time of instruction, despite the fact that it was done by an incompetent and Liberal, trendy 1960s priest. That is, the system worked in a sort of ex opere operato way. However, what I thought the whole time was that Confirmation was merely a ticket to Holy Communion. It meant a lot to me that I was now permitted to receive the Sacrament, but the Confirmation itself was something I failed to appreciate for its own sake. Several decades later, when I was a vicar in Arizona, serving as an APCK priest, I had a congregation mostly consisting of old former Episcopalians, who thought the same way about Confirmation that I had as a child.

The whole understanding of Confirmation needs to be taught more clearly among Continuing Anglicans, especially if we insist on keeping the Medieval rubric.

Most Protestants care little, if at all, about Confirmation, and it is treated as a "minor sacrament" even among Catholic Anglicans. Nonetheless, it is a sacrament that has very strong Biblical teaching behind it, with the scriptures supplying both demonstration and description, and thereby theological definition. In fact, nothing is more clearly presented in the Bible than Confirmation.

"Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John: Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost: (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.) Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost." Acts 8:14-17

We glean these facts:

1. It was important enough that Peter and John traveled to Samaria.
2. These Apostles demonstrate Form and Matter by praying with the Laying on of hands.
3. They demonstrate Intention: "That they might receive the Holy Ghost."
4. The connection to baptism is obvious from the text.
5. That this is Apostolic ministry, in terms of "proper minster," is obvious from the text.

"And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples, He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost. And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism. Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied." Acts 19:1-6

From this we glean a few more facts:

6. It was assumed that Christians were normally both baptized and confirmed.
7. As in Samaria, so here too, baptism comes first.
8. Confirmation is about receiving the Holy Spirit, specifically the gifts of the Holy Spirit.

In the Epistles of St. Paul we see lists provided of these gifts, but no two lists are identical.

First, let us look at what he wrote to the Church of Rome:

"Having then gifts differing according to the grace that is given to us, whether prophecy, let us prophesy according to the proportion of faith; Or ministry, let us wait on our ministering: or he that teacheth, on teaching; Or he that exhorteth, on exhortation: he that giveth, let him do it with simplicity; he that ruleth, with diligence; he that sheweth mercy, with cheerfulness." Romans 12:6-8

In this list we see a mixture of ministerial gifts and practical gifts, both of which are spiritual and equally charismatic.

Writing to the Ephesians, he gives a very different list of gifts, in which certain members of the Church become, by the Holy Spirit, gifts in and of themselves:

"He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things.) And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ." Eph. 4:10-12

Writing to the Galatians, he mentions gifts that are character and virtues formed within us:

"But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law. " Gal. 5:22, 23

By far, the most developed text, theologically speaking, that includes a list of the charisms, is in his First Epistle to the Corinthians:

"For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit; To another faith by the same Spirit; to another the gifts of healing by the same Spirit; To another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another divers kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues: But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will." I Cor. 12:8-11

The reason I consider this list to be the most developed is because of what follows, where he builds on the idea of spiritual gifts, dispersed throughout the Church, in terms of the Body of Christ. This means that the Church is the extension of Christ's Incarnation, making the mission of the whole Church nothing less than Christ's own ministry through us all, laity included. In fact, to use a term loosely for a good cause, Confirmation has been called the "ordination of the laity." Obviously, this is something of a loose usage, since "ordination"and "orders' come from the same word. But, it is correct to day that Confirmation is of a kind with Holy Orders; for the sacrament of Confirmation imparts charisms, that is gifts, that empower individuals to serve.

"For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ. For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit. For the body is not one member, but many." (12-14)

The gifts all seem to fall under the seven categories of gifts foretold by the Prophet Isaiah:

"And the spirit of the LORD shall rest upon him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the LORD; And shall make him of quick understanding in the fear of the LORD." Isaiah 11:2,3a

(In the Book of Acts we see only two places where the Holy Spirit was given without the laying on of hands by the Apostles. Those two occasions are the Day of Pentecost itself, in the second chapter, and then in the tenth chapter at the house of Cornelius. The Jewish believers might not have felt free to lay hands on these Gentiles, even if they were "God-fearers." The Divine action we see in the house of Cornelius was meant to be a replication of Pentecost, so that the Church would know that God accepts the uncircumcised. This is stated rather clearly:

"And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning. Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost. Forasmuch then as God gave them the like gift as he did unto us, who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ; what was I, that I could withstand God? When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life." Acts 11:15-18

When Peter said "as on us at the beginning," it was obvious that he was referring to the day of Pentecost. We learn from this that God acted in a special way at the house of Cornelius, and that we ought to consider the laying on of the Apostle's hands, with prayer, to be the valid way provided by God to receive the Holy Spirit.)

It may be wise to keep the 1281 Rubric as a general rule. Nonetheless, we must make clear this simple fact: Confirmation imparts its own grace as a sacrament. It is not simply a ticket to another sacrament, Communion; it is an essential part of living as a Christian and serving both God and his Church; and of being a witness to the fallen world.

Confirmation and Sacramental Intention

The following was written and posted on The Continuum on May 6, 2006. Because we have many new readers, since those early start up days, it seems wise to post it again now.

From the Book of Common Prayer, Second Office of Instruction, p. 291 in the 1928 (American) edition:

Question. What special means does the Church provide to help you to do all these things?
Answer. The Church provides the Laying on of Hands, or Confirmation, wherein, after renewing the promises and vows of my Baptism, and declaring my loyalty and devotion to Christ as my Master, I receive the strengthening gifts of the Holy Spirit.

From the Book of Common Prayer, The Order of Confirmation, selections from pages 296 and 297 in the 1928 edition:

REVEREND Father in God, I present unto you these persons to receive the Laying on of Hands.
¶ Then the Bishop, or some Minister appointed by him, may say,
Hear the words of the Evangelist Saint Luke, in the eighth Chapter of the Acts of the Apostles.
WHEN the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John: who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost: for as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost...
…Bishop. Let us pray.

ALMIGHTY and everliving God, who hast vouchsafed to regenerate these thy servants by Water and the Holy Ghost, and hast given unto them forgiveness of all their sins; Strengthen them, we beseech thee, O Lord, with the Holy Ghost, the Comforter, and daily increase in them thy manifold gifts of grace: the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and ghostly strength, the spirit of knowledge and true godliness; and fill them, O Lord, with the spirit of thy holy fear, now and for ever. Amen.

In comments on Al Kimmel’s Blog, Pontifications, I just happened to mention the problem of the Rite of Confirmation in the 1979 Book of Common Prayer (so-called). I recalled that when my brother, Addison, was in Seminary (during his wayward youth as an Episcopalian), one of the designers of the 1979 Book boasted to him that, concerning Confirmation, they had “changed the theology of the church, and no one noticed.” Specifically, the service called Confirmation does not contain the Sacramental Intention so clearly defined above in the selections from the Book of Common Prayer, and that maintained the Catholic understanding that dates back to the beginning, indeed, back to the time of the Apostles Peter and John. Instead of the Catholic understanding of the Sacrament, supported by the scriptures that reveal its meaning, a Lutheran concept was introduced. According to this view, all that takes place is a commitment on the part of a baptized person to live as a Christian. Now, that is certainly fine, as far as it goes. In fact, it is a very important element that really ought to be stated before Confirmation is administered by any Bishop. But, is it the true meaning? Does it state the Intention of the Sacrament?

The answer is easy to find. Just look at the selections from the Order of Confirmation above (remembering that the Office of Instruction, also quoted above, has informed the confirmand of what this sacrament is all about). Here we see the Apostles Peter and John administering Confirmation from the eighth chapter of Acts, as one account of this Apostolic ministry among others in Saint Luke’s narrative (such as the 19th chapter where Saint Paul confirms the Ephesian Christians after their Baptisms). Later, after this portion of scripture has been read, the Bishop must say a prayer that states the Sacramental Intention. That Intention is that the baptized person receives the Holy Ghost, and that His gifts will empower the Christian for service and for a holy life. It is supernatural, it is grace imparted through those three elements of a Sacrament: Form, Matter and Intention.

Though oil is generally used to anoint the Confirmand, the essential Matter of the sacrament is the Laying on of the Apostle's (Bishop's) Hands. In this the ’79 Book is not lacking. But, the Intention of Confirmation is stated both in the reading of scripture, and in the Bishop’s prayer. These elements of the Form are missing from the Rite in the 1979 Book. And, with their omission goes the Intention. Imagine a Mass without the words of Institution, or a Baptism without any words spoken. Similarly, just what is the meaning of the service called “Confirmation” in the ’79 Book? Without the Form that states the Intention, the whole ritual is meaningless. Should we regard it as valid?

Twelfth Sunday after Trinity

II Corinthians 3:4-9
Mark 7:31-37

He maketh both the deaf to hear, and the dumb to speak.

Have you ever doubted the kind intentions of spouse, brother, parent, or friend; given voice to that doubt, and then discovered how wrong you were? It is a fairly normal sort of embarrassment that most people have experienced at one time or other. What can we do but apologize, knowing that it probably caused more hurt than a direct insult, or just about any other kind of offense? We can all too easily let ourselves have this kind of doubt about not only people, but God. I know what it is to express frustration, even a bit of anger, thinking that God himself has let me down, only to feel very foolish when it was clear to me how much the opposite was true. He did provide and meet every need, even though I thought not, and doubted his very goodness, right up until a startling fact became clear: The need had been met by providential kindness before I thought to ask. God does not deal with us as we deserve; but, instead provides for our needs, forgives our sins, and bears us patiently.

Today's Epistle must seem quite enigmatic to modern ears. How can the ministration of death and condemnation be glorious? The Letter, that is the Letter of God's holy law, gives us no safe haven, but rather condemns everyone as a sinner. Indeed, it exposes the truth that we do not want to see.

Jesus said: "And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God." (John 3:19-21)

Look carefully at those words. Note the contrast between the One and the many, that same distinction we see in the Suffering Servant passage (Isaiah 53:12): "He bore the sin of many." The One and the many, from these words of the prophet, were given exegetical treatment by St. Paul, writing to the Church in Rome:

"But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many. And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification. For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ. Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous. Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound: That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord." (Romans 5:15-21)

When Jesus spoke of the many, that is, "everyone that doeth evil," he compared the many to the One, to Himself: "But he that doeth truth." Who else, in heaven and earth among all the children of Adam, can these words speak of? "But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God." This is why it is necessary to reject the false translation of Psalm One as it appears in the Episcopalian's 1979 Prayer Book. That version says "Happy are they who..." But, the correct translation is "Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor standeth in the way of sinners, nor sitteth in the seat of the scornful." From ancient times, the Church has taught that "the man" in that first Psalm is Jesus Christ our Lord, alone without sin.

By God's grace, we are able to do good works that he has prepared for us to walk in (Eph. 2:8-10, provides the basis for these words). But this is because we receive grace through faith, and by that grace are laborers together with God. This is only possible because of the Holy Spirit. Look at the astonishing words of Articles XII and XIII:

XII. Of Good Works.

Albeit that Good Works, which are the fruits of Faith, and follow after Justification, cannot put away our sins, and endure the severity of God's judgment; yet are they pleasing and acceptable to God in Christ, and do spring out necessarily of a true and lively Faith; insomuch that by them a lively Faith may be as evidently known as a tree discerned by the fruit.

XIII. Of Works before Justification.

Works done before the grace of Christ, and the Inspiration of the Spirit, are not pleasant to God, forasmuch as they spring not of faith in Jesus Christ; neither do they make men meet to receive grace, or (as the School-authors say) deserve grace of congruity: yea rather, for that they are not done as God hath willed and commanded them to be done, we doubt not but they have the nature of sin.

We fear to come to the light, because even our best works are not free of sin. Unless they are works of genuine charity, they profit us nothing. That famous chapter on love, the 13th chapter of I Corinthians, is often perceived with sentimentality as if it were a beautiful poem. But, the truth is, that chapter exposes the helplessness of our condition- that is, helpless unless God's grace is working within us. That chapter tells us that we must depend on the Holy Spirit to form within us the virtues that belong to the character of the Man, Jesus our Lord. It exposes our need for his grace.

"Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing. And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing."

I look at that, and see that I have no hope if I must justify myself. Remember the Pharisee we read about only last week? He stood in the temple and prayed, but nonetheless, he hid from the light; he feared to come to the light, and hated the light. He congratulated himself by comparing himself to notorious sinners- "even like this publican." This comparison is safe, and helps us hide from the light, that light that blinded another Pharisee who approached Damascus to persecute the Church; and gave him better vision as a new creature.

To approach the light is very painful, which is why the Church advises us to pray before making a confession of sin, that we will be able to make a bold and true confession. We fear to let the light of God's holiness, as he reveals it in his word, shine on us. We would rather feel righteous by our own efforts, comparing ourselves to others instead of measuring our sin by God's standard. Compared to the notorious sinners I might, on a good day, feel good about myself. But compared to Christ, the Man who is perfectly righteous, I cannot approve of my own thoughts, words and deeds.

This is quite normal really. But, we must overcome that fear, approach the painful, burning, blinding light by approaching it through the Man. This we can do, for we are "in Christ." And, he, the man Christ Jesus, comes into the light boldly because he is perfectly righteous. I have no strength in my flesh to endure the light, because I know that the glorious ministration of condemnation and death, by the Letter of the Law, will slay me. But, in Christ I have hope; "for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life...For if the ministration of condemnation be glory, much more doth the ministration of righteousness exceed in glory."

To understand these things we need the same Christ to touch us who healed the hearing of the deaf man, and his impediment of speech. Like that man, we are unable to hear the truth and to speak God's word, unless Christ heals us. The Good News is this: He forgives us and makes us into new creatures. He provided for our need, our greatest need, when we did not even know to ask for his salvation.

Apostolic Succession and Scripture

"Wherefore I put thee in remembrance that thou stir up the gift of God, which is in thee by the putting on of my hands. For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind." II Timothy 1:6,7

"Lay hands suddenly on no man." I Timothy 5:22a

"And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also." II Timothy 2:2

"For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee." Titus 1:5

Late last Summer we had a visitor to St. Andrew's, a young man with his wife and child. He informed me that he had been raised a Presbyterian, and was attending a Baptist Church that embraced "Reformed Theology," which means, in the usage of serious Protestants, Calvinism. He was better read than the average modern American Evangelical, and he knew that the classic Anglican position differed from "Calvin's Geneva Discipline." He was perhaps not quite familiar with Richard Hooker's chapter (in The Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity) by that title, in which the 16th century Church of England writer defended the polity of what would be called Anglicanism against innovations in Church government; but, our young visitor did know that Anglicans preserved the Catholic Tradition of Apostolic Succession.

Like many others, he assumed that Apostolic Succession was extra-Biblical. This is a common view among many Protestants, and therefore they reject our sacramental theology about Holy Orders. Others who make the same assumption include those in one school of thought among Roman Catholics, namely, the people who believe Newman's theory of Doctrinal Development. The Protestants who see Apostolic Succession as extra-Biblical believe (as the Puritans did in Hooker's day) that it serves no genuine purpose. Among these are Liberal Episcopalians, as we see by their preference of the term "historic episcopate" in place of the term "Apostolic Succession." It includes also the more serious believers, like the young man who visited us, who see nothing real or charismatic in the laying on of apostolic hands. The followers of Newman, on the other hand, assume it is extra-Biblical also; but, they assume as well that this does not matter. Their mistake is to believe that anything can be taught with authority as doctrine that does not come from revelation. Once again we take that famous Anglican Middle Road, or via media, between erring extremes.

I said to our young visitor, "The scriptural pattern shows that the gift (χάρισμα, charisma) of God is given through the laying on of apostolic hands 1. Furthermore, we see that the Apostle Paul left Timothy and Titus in his own place, Timothy in Ephesus and Titus in Crete, and that it was specifically their duty to select the right men, train them to teach others also, and ordain (καθίστημι, kathistēmi) them. The scriptures show this as supernatural and charismatic, teaching also that it involves the laying on of hands."

We know from the Canon Laws (which in England were also the Law of the land) that the Apostolic Succession of bishops, and the distinctly episcopal function of ordaining, seen as consistent with the scriptural pattern I have outlined, provides the only possible meaning of Article XXIII:

Of Ministering in the Congregation. It is not lawful for any man to take upon him the office of public preaching, or ministering the Sacraments in the Congregation, before he be lawfully called, and sent to execute the same. And those we ought to judge lawfully called and sent, which be chosen and called to this work by men who have public authority given unto them in the Congregation, to call and send Ministers into the Lord’s vineyard.

Since Anglicans have never deviated from the practice of Apostolic Succession and episcopal ordination (as a requirement) it is obvious how the Article was to be applied.

The young visitor gave a most interesting objection to my summary of what we find in scripture. "We would regard Timothy and Titus as special evangelists who served a unique function." I replied: "Whereas you must treat the actual pattern we see in scripture as something unique, which explains it away rather than dealing with it, we simply accept the pattern we see in the word of God, and continue to practice it to this very day. That is the difference between your Church Government and our polity, and it is a theological difference." I could add, it is a spiritual difference.

It is generally understood that the word "bishop" (ἐπίσκοπος, episkopos) and "elder" (πρεσβύτερος, presbyteros)2 meant the same thing in the earliest days of the Church, and that they were synonyms in the New Testament. Within a generation, as early as the days of Saint Ignatius of Antioch, bishop and martyr, the word episkopos was reserved for the successors of the Apostles, men like Titus and Timothy who were, as the Pastoral Epistles of St. Paul show clearly, Ordinaries (those who ordained).

The Church has kept records of Apostolic lines for two thousand years. From this fact we can see how Tradition interprets Scripture for us. Does the scripture actually say anywhere that the Apostolic Succession is necessary? That I cannot find, and it is useless to try to prove it. But, does the scripture give this as the pattern? Yes. Does it give or even suggest any alternative pattern? No, it does not. Since this is what we see in Scripture and Tradition, is it Reasonable to ignore it?

Update on Nov. 20, 2009: At this link some questions have been asked and answered.)
__________________________

1. I Tim. 4:14 gives a more detailed picture: "Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery." The difference is important. The charism comes by prophecy, a spoken word, not through the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery, but merely with it. Whereas II Tim. 1:6 teaches that the charism came "by" the laying on of Paul's hands, i.e. the hands of an Apostle. The prophecy, then, mentioned in I Timothy, could very well be what we would call today the "form." That is, words of Ordination spoken by St. Paul. This was written at a time when the Church seemed more readily to have spoken in terms of its own charismatic nature and ministry, all of which comes from the Holy Spirit.

2. It is from the word presbyteros that the English word "priest" evolved, just as the word "bishop" evolved from episkopos.

3. The preface to the Ordinal opens with these words: "It is evident unto all men diligently reading holy Scripture and ancient Authors, that from the Apostles' time there have been these Orders of Ministers in Christ's Church; Bishops, Priests, and Deacons. Which Offices were evermore had in such reverend Estimation, that no man might presume to execute any of them, except he were first called, tried, examined, and known to have such qualities as are requisite for the same; and also by publick Prayer, with Imposition of Hands, were approved and admitted thereunto by lawful Authority. And therefore, to the intent that these Orders may be continued, and reverently used and esteemed in the Church of England, no man shall be accounted or taken to be a lawful Bishop, Priest, or Deacon, in the Church of England, or suffered to execute any of the said Functions, except he be called, tried, examined, and admitted thereunto, according to the Form hereafter following, or hath had Episcopal Consecration, or Ordination." Notice the reliance on how Tradition interprets Scripture in those words: "It is evident unto all men diligently reading holy Scripture and ancient Authors..."