Wednesday marks the third anniversary of the creation of this blog, a medium that has gone from strength to strength and from glory to glory, now drawing an average of more than 100,000 visits a year.
When I sat down one evening to create The Continuum, I had left the membership and ministry of the Canterbury Communion several months before that and had little more than the vaguest of ideas about what I wanted to achieve. What little I could say was a reflection of where I found myself. I summed it up in the words of what has become our famous masthead. The Continuum would be “a place where those who live in the Anglican Continuum, or who are thinking of moving there, might share in robust, if polite, discussion of matters theological and ecclesiological.”
And so it has become. It is a place of very robust and very serious discussion of theology in all its many facets, if not always as polite as I would have liked it to be. It has become a strong defender and very able proponent not only of the continuing Anglican tradition but of the very essence of the Anglican Way.
If I have made any contribution to this blog, it has been one of discovering the talents of three very special men and bringing them together to work toward a common goal of defending orthodox Anglicanism and promoting greater unity among its disparate practitioners – Fr Robert Hart, Fr Matthew Kirby and our beloved poet, Ed Pacht.
The time has come for me to move aside and for them to carry this work forward. From tomorrow, I will cease to be the owner and host of this blog, a responsibility that I have asked them to exercise jointly and one that they have accepted.
The reason for my departure is simple: My soul is much in need of healing, and my vocation as a Christian much in need of rediscovery. In my splendid isolation here on Cyprus, I have found it impossible to live the life of continuing Anglicanism effectively and sacramentally. I cannot continue to live this way.
As a consequence, I have resolved to seek instruction in the Orthodox faith with a view to eventually being received into the Church of Cyprus.
A little more than a decade ago, during my last sojourn in England, I found myself called to become a member of the The Fellowship of St Alban and St Sergius. This is an organisation founded by members of the Orthodox and Western Christian Churches. It exists to pray and work for Christian unity, and provides opportunities for Orthodox Christians and Christians of Western traditions to meet and get to know one another, and so to deepen their understanding of each other's spirituality, theology and worship.
How ironic it is that, having joined the fellowship as an Anglican, I now look ahead to continuing my membership in it as an Orthodox Christian.
In the final analysis, though, I have but one goal – one of being a humble foot soldier in the army of Christ. I bid your prayers that I might serve honourably and bravely.
To all you many readers of The Continuum, both old and new, I thank you for your presence and participation here, and ask you support and prayers for those men who now carry its work forward.
As for myself and blogging, fate would have it that I created a second one nearly two years ago. φιλοκαλειν (Filokalein) has been dormant ever since, but I shall probably activate it now. Anyone interested can reach it by clicking on the link in the sidebar.
May God bless us all and grant that, one day, we might all be one.
Albion Land
Monday, November 10, 2008
Saturday, November 08, 2008
Partial Birth Abortion
I knew during the third and final debate that John McCain would lose the election. His responses were just not strong enough to turn the tide his way. When the subject of Partial Birth Abortion came up, both men claimed to be against it. Nonetheless, Barak Obama made the pro-abortion argument anyway, saying that he had been against banning the procedure unless the language of the ban would include exceptions for "the health of the mother." John McCain pointed out that this phrase, "health of the mother," lacked definition, and is used to mean just about anything. His answer was true, but not quite true enough to make the lights come on for most people.
Every resistance to a ban on Partial Birth Abortion claims to be about "the health of the mother." Sometimes, even a supposed psychological need to kill her child, a "need" that would never justify any other kind of murder, is considered sufficient grounds (we call such people sociopaths. Due to a psychological need, Lizzy Borden took an axe, and gave her mother forty whacks). Somehow, a "health need" supposedly makes this entire matter into one of medical practice, we are told. But, it is never a medical issue, and is always only murder pure and simple, even if the issue is the life of the mother. The true argument against Partial Birth Abortion is much more simple, and it should be glaringly obvious to everyone. But, for some reason, the obvious truth has evaded almost everybody who debates the issue in public.
If a pregnancy ought to be terminated in a late term, there is no reason why the baby has to die. For several years doctors have been able to induce early labor and birth without killing the child. Hospitals have a neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) for premature births. Partial Birth Abortion is a procedure that comes after such an induced early labor, only the baby is not placed in a NICU. Instead, scissors are inserted into the back of the helpless child's head, and a tube sucks out the brain. This is what the pro-abortion people call a "medical procedure."
Inasmuch as there is no medical reason to kill the baby instead of making use of a NICU, it is painfully obvious that the only reason for Partial Birth Abortion is to complete a contract killing. There is never a medical reason to kill the child. Even though this is painfully obvious, a debate about it continues anyway in political circles. There is no justification for the debate itself. The "conservatives" seem unable to put this obvious fact into words, and the "liberals" do not see it at all. This is clearly a spiritual blindness, since no one could fail to see it otherwise.
And, since it is spiritual, and the President-Elect of the United States is among the blind, it is obvious that he needs our prayers that God will convert him, and that the Holy Spirit will change his heart and mind.
Every resistance to a ban on Partial Birth Abortion claims to be about "the health of the mother." Sometimes, even a supposed psychological need to kill her child, a "need" that would never justify any other kind of murder, is considered sufficient grounds (we call such people sociopaths. Due to a psychological need, Lizzy Borden took an axe, and gave her mother forty whacks). Somehow, a "health need" supposedly makes this entire matter into one of medical practice, we are told. But, it is never a medical issue, and is always only murder pure and simple, even if the issue is the life of the mother. The true argument against Partial Birth Abortion is much more simple, and it should be glaringly obvious to everyone. But, for some reason, the obvious truth has evaded almost everybody who debates the issue in public.
If a pregnancy ought to be terminated in a late term, there is no reason why the baby has to die. For several years doctors have been able to induce early labor and birth without killing the child. Hospitals have a neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) for premature births. Partial Birth Abortion is a procedure that comes after such an induced early labor, only the baby is not placed in a NICU. Instead, scissors are inserted into the back of the helpless child's head, and a tube sucks out the brain. This is what the pro-abortion people call a "medical procedure."
Inasmuch as there is no medical reason to kill the baby instead of making use of a NICU, it is painfully obvious that the only reason for Partial Birth Abortion is to complete a contract killing. There is never a medical reason to kill the child. Even though this is painfully obvious, a debate about it continues anyway in political circles. There is no justification for the debate itself. The "conservatives" seem unable to put this obvious fact into words, and the "liberals" do not see it at all. This is clearly a spiritual blindness, since no one could fail to see it otherwise.
And, since it is spiritual, and the President-Elect of the United States is among the blind, it is obvious that he needs our prayers that God will convert him, and that the Holy Spirit will change his heart and mind.
The voice of infallibility
E.J. Bicknell explains Article XIX* as follows: "The latter section justifies the breach with Rome by denying her infallibility. As she has erred in the past, so she may err again at the Council of Trent. The allusion is to such events as the acceptance of by Pope Liberius of an Arian creed, the acquittal of Pelagius by Pope Zosimus and the lapse of Pope Honorius into Monothelitism."
We have been told that this is wrong due to the Roman Catholic doctrine of the papacy, one which we must call a theory. The theory goes like this: If a pope commits heresy he is not really the pope. It has never been explained whether or not this means that he is not bishop of Rome, but apparently not (according to the theory), since to be bishop of Rome a man is also the successor of Peter, and therefore the pope. Nonetheless, who decides if a teaching disqualifies a man as a true pope? The answer is the Universal Church. Therefore, according to the theory, it is the Church that is infallible, and not any given man who happens to occupy the chair in the See of Peter. We must conclude from this that the Roman Catholic doctrine of the papacy is incoherent and self-contradictory.
*The visible Church of Christ is a congregation of faithful men, in the which the pure word of God is preached and the sacraments be duly ministered according to Christ's ordinance in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same. As the Church of Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Antioch have erred: so also the Church of Rome hath erred, not only in their living and manner of ceremonies, but also in matters of faith.
We have been told that this is wrong due to the Roman Catholic doctrine of the papacy, one which we must call a theory. The theory goes like this: If a pope commits heresy he is not really the pope. It has never been explained whether or not this means that he is not bishop of Rome, but apparently not (according to the theory), since to be bishop of Rome a man is also the successor of Peter, and therefore the pope. Nonetheless, who decides if a teaching disqualifies a man as a true pope? The answer is the Universal Church. Therefore, according to the theory, it is the Church that is infallible, and not any given man who happens to occupy the chair in the See of Peter. We must conclude from this that the Roman Catholic doctrine of the papacy is incoherent and self-contradictory.
*The visible Church of Christ is a congregation of faithful men, in the which the pure word of God is preached and the sacraments be duly ministered according to Christ's ordinance in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same. As the Church of Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Antioch have erred: so also the Church of Rome hath erred, not only in their living and manner of ceremonies, but also in matters of faith.
Thursday, November 06, 2008
25th Sunday after Trinity
¶ If in any year there be twenty-six Sundays after Trinity, the service for the Sixth Sunday after the Epiphany shall be used on the Twenty-fifth Sunday. If there be twenty-seven, the service for the Sixth Sunday after the Epiphany shall be used on the Twenty-sixth, and the service for the Fifth Sunday after the Epiphany on the Twenty-fifth. If there be fewer than twenty-five Sundays, the overplus shall be omitted.
Matt. 13: 24-30
Any sermon on today’s Gospel really ought to include the Lord’s interpretation of His own parable:
Then Jesus sent the multitude away, and went into the house: and his disciples came unto him, saying, Declare unto us the parable of the tares of the field. He answered and said unto them, He that soweth the good seed is the Son of man; The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one; The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels. As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world. The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity; And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth. Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Who hath ears to hear, let him hear. (vs. 36-43)
The plants that are called tares are very much like wheat in appearance, but they lack the nutritional properties of wheat. You can’t eat from these weeds. However, it is very difficult to distinguish with the eye between the tares and true wheat. Their appearance is of no help.
When the oldest of my sons was only about six or seven years old, he created his own superhero, one who fought against crime. He told me that his superhero would see the bad guys and kill them. I decided that I ought to teach him principles of law and justice, so I asked a hypothetical question: “Tell me, David. How does he know who is a bad guy just by looking at him?” I saw that he was thinking very hard, as his forehead became wrinkled and his eyes half closed in a squint. Finally, he answered: “He has really good eyesight.” I saw that my attempt to teach a lesson about "the presumption of innocence" until proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, was possibly not getting through
And, as we know, the destruction of the ungodly was not the reason why Christ came; He came to call sinners to repentance, as a physician comes to heal the sick. He came not to judge the world, but to save it. He would, as the Lamb of God, take away the sins of the world by going to His cross to pour out His one oblation of Himself once offered; the full, perfect and sufficient sacrifice, oblation and satisfaction for the sins of the whole world. Before that time, He would go about “doing good and healing all who were oppressed of the Devil.” He did not call down fire from heaven upon the Samaritan village that refused Him, as the sons of thunder bade Him to do; He told them they knew not what spirit they were of, for the Son of Man had come to save men’s lives not to destroy them.
In the Old Testament, the worst of the kings of Judah was Manasseh. He practiced idolatry, even the offering of children to Baal, filling Jerusalem with innocent blood, which the Lord would not pardon two generations later. Now, here was a tare that deserved to be uprooted. It is safe to judge, even within the limits of our own human understanding, we can be certain that he was beyond all hope of redemption-can't we?
He was captured and taken into captivity. But, while being held captive, he humbled himself and repented of his sins, and besought God. The Bible says that God forgave him, and restored him to his throne in Jerusalem. here is how we read it, in II Chronicles 33:12, 13.
And when he was in affliction, he besought the LORD his God, and humbled himself greatly before the God of his fathers, And prayed unto him: and he was intreated of him, and heard his supplication, and brought him again to Jerusalem into his kingdom. Then Manasseh knew that the LORD he was God.
No, the Lord does not uproot the wheat in order to destroy the tares. Consider what it would mean if He did. Look at Saint Paul. If ever there was a tare that deserved uprooting, it was the persecutor of the Church, Saul of Tarsus. He had been so sure of his own righteousness as a Hebrew of Hebrews, a Pharisee who was, as touching the Law of Moses, blameless. And, the crowning virtue of his righteousness was his zeal that he demonstrated by persecuting the Church. When the Lord Jesus appeared to him, as he approached the Damascus Gate, and was knocked to the ground, Saul learned that his crowning achievement of righteousness was actually the great sin of persecuting none other than Messiah Himself by persecuting His people. What had been in Saul’s mind the seal and mark of his own righteousness, was in reality a filthy rag, a grievous sin. And, at the same moment that he was being made aware of the enormity of his guilt, he was being shown mercy, called from the darkness of ignorance and sin into the light of Christ, and to the righteousness that comes by faith in Him. It is no wonder that this whole theme would dominate the message of what, today, we call Pauline theology. And so it is, this one-time enemy of the Church became Saint Paul the Apostle.
Ah, but if the tares were to be so soon uprooted, then we would have had no Saint Paul.
In the sixties, that tarnished era that was fool’s gold for a golden age, a certain young doctor, an obstetrician named Bernard Nathanson, performed thousands of abortions. Furthermore, he was one of the people who started the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL). But, his mind began to resist his own propaganda as his conscience caught up with him. Later he would write, “I came to realize that what I had presided over was thousands of deaths.” Eventually, he wrote Aborting America, and became one of the greatest advocates for the pro-life cause, a defender of the rights of unborn children to be spared, to be allowed to live. Bernard Nathanson was an Atheist, and a mass murderer of unborn children, all in the name of “safe and legal” abortion, hired assassination under the guise of medicine. If ever there was a tare that deserved to be uprooted, this was the man. We would be safe to judge him so, would we not?
But Christ does not deal with us as our sins deserve. Today Bernard Nathanson is a believing and devout Catholic, and he has saved countless lives by speaking out against abortion, adding a voice that contains thorough authoritative knowledge.
You see, we cannot tell the tares from the wheat, because every saint is a redeemed sinner. If the tares were to be uprooted, none of us would live to repent; the Great Physician would have no sinners to call to repentance. God’s world would be clean and neat and orderly again, and His righteousness vindicated. But, His love did not allow this. Instead He did the very messy thing of coming into the world in the Person of His Son. The Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, took our created nature into His uncreated Person, our temporal nature into His eternity. “The Word became flesh and dwelt among us,” “going about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the Devil,” using His power on earth to forgive sins and giving this power unto men, not dealing with us as our sins deserve, not breaking a bruised reed or quenching a smoking flax. He removed our guilt by removing our sins, and that by bearing them in His own body on the tree of the cross, the Lamb of God slaughtered as our Passover. And, having released us from sin, He freed us from death by rising on the Third day and making Himself seen by witnesses, his chosen martyrs of the resurrection. They, in turn, yielded up their lives to give us the assurance of hope, that we might know of their certainty that they saw Him alive again after His resurrection.
He does not root up the tares lest he root up the wheat with them; for we must come to the knowledge of Christ in order to be freed from sin and death.
Those who believe are “the elect of God, holy and beloved” (as Saint Paul wrote in the Epistle for today). Is there - if I may dare use the word - discrimination to be made between wheat and tares? Yes. We should have a holy fear of God, for on the Last Day at the final judgment, the wheat will be divided from the tares, and the judgment will be rendered. Those who have refused to believe and have clung to their sins will be sent away.
But for now, thank God for His wisdom. For only with His foreknowledge could we know the wheat from the tares; and that foreknowledge is His alone; we cannot share it. He knows a repentant Manasseh, a Saint Paul the Apostle, a Bernard Nathanson champion of the unborn. He alone knows the wheat from the tares. This is something that even the eyes of angels may not see.
Any sermon on today’s Gospel really ought to include the Lord’s interpretation of His own parable:
Then Jesus sent the multitude away, and went into the house: and his disciples came unto him, saying, Declare unto us the parable of the tares of the field. He answered and said unto them, He that soweth the good seed is the Son of man; The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one; The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels. As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world. The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity; And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth. Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Who hath ears to hear, let him hear. (vs. 36-43)
The plants that are called tares are very much like wheat in appearance, but they lack the nutritional properties of wheat. You can’t eat from these weeds. However, it is very difficult to distinguish with the eye between the tares and true wheat. Their appearance is of no help.
When the oldest of my sons was only about six or seven years old, he created his own superhero, one who fought against crime. He told me that his superhero would see the bad guys and kill them. I decided that I ought to teach him principles of law and justice, so I asked a hypothetical question: “Tell me, David. How does he know who is a bad guy just by looking at him?” I saw that he was thinking very hard, as his forehead became wrinkled and his eyes half closed in a squint. Finally, he answered: “He has really good eyesight.” I saw that my attempt to teach a lesson about "the presumption of innocence" until proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, was possibly not getting through
And, as we know, the destruction of the ungodly was not the reason why Christ came; He came to call sinners to repentance, as a physician comes to heal the sick. He came not to judge the world, but to save it. He would, as the Lamb of God, take away the sins of the world by going to His cross to pour out His one oblation of Himself once offered; the full, perfect and sufficient sacrifice, oblation and satisfaction for the sins of the whole world. Before that time, He would go about “doing good and healing all who were oppressed of the Devil.” He did not call down fire from heaven upon the Samaritan village that refused Him, as the sons of thunder bade Him to do; He told them they knew not what spirit they were of, for the Son of Man had come to save men’s lives not to destroy them.
In the Old Testament, the worst of the kings of Judah was Manasseh. He practiced idolatry, even the offering of children to Baal, filling Jerusalem with innocent blood, which the Lord would not pardon two generations later. Now, here was a tare that deserved to be uprooted. It is safe to judge, even within the limits of our own human understanding, we can be certain that he was beyond all hope of redemption-can't we?
He was captured and taken into captivity. But, while being held captive, he humbled himself and repented of his sins, and besought God. The Bible says that God forgave him, and restored him to his throne in Jerusalem. here is how we read it, in II Chronicles 33:12, 13.
And when he was in affliction, he besought the LORD his God, and humbled himself greatly before the God of his fathers, And prayed unto him: and he was intreated of him, and heard his supplication, and brought him again to Jerusalem into his kingdom. Then Manasseh knew that the LORD he was God.
No, the Lord does not uproot the wheat in order to destroy the tares. Consider what it would mean if He did. Look at Saint Paul. If ever there was a tare that deserved uprooting, it was the persecutor of the Church, Saul of Tarsus. He had been so sure of his own righteousness as a Hebrew of Hebrews, a Pharisee who was, as touching the Law of Moses, blameless. And, the crowning virtue of his righteousness was his zeal that he demonstrated by persecuting the Church. When the Lord Jesus appeared to him, as he approached the Damascus Gate, and was knocked to the ground, Saul learned that his crowning achievement of righteousness was actually the great sin of persecuting none other than Messiah Himself by persecuting His people. What had been in Saul’s mind the seal and mark of his own righteousness, was in reality a filthy rag, a grievous sin. And, at the same moment that he was being made aware of the enormity of his guilt, he was being shown mercy, called from the darkness of ignorance and sin into the light of Christ, and to the righteousness that comes by faith in Him. It is no wonder that this whole theme would dominate the message of what, today, we call Pauline theology. And so it is, this one-time enemy of the Church became Saint Paul the Apostle.
Ah, but if the tares were to be so soon uprooted, then we would have had no Saint Paul.
In the sixties, that tarnished era that was fool’s gold for a golden age, a certain young doctor, an obstetrician named Bernard Nathanson, performed thousands of abortions. Furthermore, he was one of the people who started the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL). But, his mind began to resist his own propaganda as his conscience caught up with him. Later he would write, “I came to realize that what I had presided over was thousands of deaths.” Eventually, he wrote Aborting America, and became one of the greatest advocates for the pro-life cause, a defender of the rights of unborn children to be spared, to be allowed to live. Bernard Nathanson was an Atheist, and a mass murderer of unborn children, all in the name of “safe and legal” abortion, hired assassination under the guise of medicine. If ever there was a tare that deserved to be uprooted, this was the man. We would be safe to judge him so, would we not?
But Christ does not deal with us as our sins deserve. Today Bernard Nathanson is a believing and devout Catholic, and he has saved countless lives by speaking out against abortion, adding a voice that contains thorough authoritative knowledge.
You see, we cannot tell the tares from the wheat, because every saint is a redeemed sinner. If the tares were to be uprooted, none of us would live to repent; the Great Physician would have no sinners to call to repentance. God’s world would be clean and neat and orderly again, and His righteousness vindicated. But, His love did not allow this. Instead He did the very messy thing of coming into the world in the Person of His Son. The Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, took our created nature into His uncreated Person, our temporal nature into His eternity. “The Word became flesh and dwelt among us,” “going about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the Devil,” using His power on earth to forgive sins and giving this power unto men, not dealing with us as our sins deserve, not breaking a bruised reed or quenching a smoking flax. He removed our guilt by removing our sins, and that by bearing them in His own body on the tree of the cross, the Lamb of God slaughtered as our Passover. And, having released us from sin, He freed us from death by rising on the Third day and making Himself seen by witnesses, his chosen martyrs of the resurrection. They, in turn, yielded up their lives to give us the assurance of hope, that we might know of their certainty that they saw Him alive again after His resurrection.
He does not root up the tares lest he root up the wheat with them; for we must come to the knowledge of Christ in order to be freed from sin and death.
Those who believe are “the elect of God, holy and beloved” (as Saint Paul wrote in the Epistle for today). Is there - if I may dare use the word - discrimination to be made between wheat and tares? Yes. We should have a holy fear of God, for on the Last Day at the final judgment, the wheat will be divided from the tares, and the judgment will be rendered. Those who have refused to believe and have clung to their sins will be sent away.
But for now, thank God for His wisdom. For only with His foreknowledge could we know the wheat from the tares; and that foreknowledge is His alone; we cannot share it. He knows a repentant Manasseh, a Saint Paul the Apostle, a Bernard Nathanson champion of the unborn. He alone knows the wheat from the tares. This is something that even the eyes of angels may not see.
Tuesday, November 04, 2008
In persona Christi
Unless someone informs me of their shenanigans, I will not know what takes place on the Stand Firm blog, having no interest in adolescent theology, erroneous history, poorly reported "news" (and then by copy and paste), and the sight of bullies who censor dissent in the most heavy-handed way.
I was informed of a comment of the sort they will not delete, the theology and history of the comment having no merit, and exemplifying the kind of sophistry that makes banality seem profound. Unfortunately, like the famous El Greco Fallacy, the comment has the danger of creating an idea that will catch on unless it is nipped in the bud. Therefore, not to pick on a man who flew too close to the Sun, but simply to prevent a dangerous bit of Gnostic "reasoning" from catching on, I post here the comment and some very good responses that refute it well (which are, in addition, educational). Professor William Witt, answering another commenter, wrote his own unfortunate and novel idea:
I was informed of a comment of the sort they will not delete, the theology and history of the comment having no merit, and exemplifying the kind of sophistry that makes banality seem profound. Unfortunately, like the famous El Greco Fallacy, the comment has the danger of creating an idea that will catch on unless it is nipped in the bud. Therefore, not to pick on a man who flew too close to the Sun, but simply to prevent a dangerous bit of Gnostic "reasoning" from catching on, I post here the comment and some very good responses that refute it well (which are, in addition, educational). Professor William Witt, answering another commenter, wrote his own unfortunate and novel idea:
Phil, I’m not sure what the point of this is, which really had nothing to do with my original argument. Historically, Orthodoxy has held that the priest acts in persona ecclesiae (in the person of the church), and that consecration takes place through the epiclesis. Historically, the Western Church has held that the priest acts in persona christi, and that consecration takes place at the words of institution. In ecumenical discussions/debates, this difference has long been a point of contention between East and West, with the East insisting that their position is correct, and that the West’s position is seriously mistaken. In ecumenically agreed statements, the eucharistic model that has come to dominate in the last half century is the epicletic one, without explicit acknowledgment that this is a move toward the Eastern position. During the second half of the twentieth century (and, to my knowledge, not before), Roman Catholic theologians began arguing that women could not be ordained because they could not represent Christ, i.e., could not act in persona christi. Shortly afterward, Eastern Orthodox theologians who were opposed to WO , suddenly began adopting the Latin argument about women being unable to represent Christ, without acknowledging that this was yielding to a Latin understanding of consecration that they had fiercely resisted previously. AFAIK, no one has ever argued that men cannot be ordained because a man cannot represent the female church when the priest acts in persona ecclesiae. So, when arguing for ecumenical unity, Western theologians have increasingly adopted the Eastern model, with an endorsement of the epiclesis, and, by implication, an endorsement of the Easern position that the priest acts in persona ecclesiae. When arguing against WO , the same theologians (and now Eastern theologians) have insisted that women cannot be ordained because they cannot represent Christ, with an implied (or rather explicit) endorsement instead of the Western position, that the priest acts in persona christi. But, then, logical consistency is not always a strong suit when people are trying to find new justifications for a committed position when the old one clearly will not do any more. As they say, any stick will do to beat a horse.
The bad news for William Witt is that the old argument still holds.
An entire forum of e-mail responses from learned theologians have answered one person's question, "how do we respond?" Well, here are some responses from that e-mail forum, responses that have no chance of being posted at SFIF any longer than it would take for the censors to delete them and ban the person who dared to write something intelligent.
First up, Dr. Timothy Teeter wrote:
Somewhere long ago--I think it was on Pontifications, but if not there, then on TitusOneNine--I dealt specifically and at length with this in a back and forth with Bill Witt. If anyone wants to find it, happy hunting. Let me know. Bill Witt has written a paper on the idea of in persona ecclesiae. I've read it, and it's interesting, but the reply re: women priests is simple--at times in the eucharist, the priest does indeed represent the church; he is a member of the congregation, speaking for us. But at other times, he specifically represents Christ, as Christ in the incarnation represents all of humanity, which requires that he be male. See Romans 5. Anyone, male or female, can represent Christ--but only men can represent Christ *as he represents all of humanity to the Father*. Otherwise Genesis and St Paul make no sense, and we are reduced to a gnostic conception of human nature in which sex (or gender if you prefer) is of no ultimate significance. Or to put it another way: in the eucharist, the priest stands in persona Christi totius humanitatis repraesentantis, something that encompasses both in persona Christi and in persona ecclesiae. The incarnation requires no less--otherwise Genesis 2, Romans 5 and I Cor 11make no sense.
Timothy M. Teeter
Georgia Southern University
Department of History
Next, Anthony Esolen wrote:
Nowhere in the tradition that I'm aware of is the priest said to act "in persona ecclesiae." To say that he does shows already that we have lost the full sense of persona -- we have turned it into a functional role, or a legalism. In a functional or legalistic sense, I can, at the attorney's office, act -- I suppose -- in persona uxoris. Actually, though, I believe the more proper term would be "in loco uxoris," just as schools once upon a time were said to act "in loco parentis," not "in persona parentis." The priest does not act in persona ecclesiae, because he does not represent, iconically, in his personal and therefore sexed humanity, the figure of the Bride of Christ, the mystical body which is the Church. He speaks pro ecclesia, on behalf of the Church, as a delegate or ambassador of the church appealing to the Father on her behalf. That was the old idea behind the priest's standing before the congregation, facing the altar, as one of us, but one of us delegated to speak on our behalf. Catholics believe that the magisterium is the magisterium; and evangelicals ought to believe that the plain sense of Scripture is the plain sense of Scripture, not just in one thorny place but across the whole of the New Testament, from which I glean the exaltation of woman to her just position as equal with man in dignity before God, but NOT sexual indifferentism, and not the dissolution of order within marriage and within the Church. To believe that the denial of the ordained ministry to women constitutes an offense to them is rather strange coming from people who are otherwise supposed to accept Christ's dictum that the last shall be first, and to model themselves after the humility of Christ and of Mary, and to remember that God has chosen things of naught to overcome those things that are. It seems that what the WO proponents really believe is that IF God indeed has limited ordination to men,that would be an offense to reason -- we would have to revert to a voluntarist conception of God. I'm not buying that. Nor am I buying the underlying assumption that the ordained ministry is some kind of plum reserved for the favored few, rather than a dread burden and responsibility. All of this reminds me of Screwtape's advice to Wormwood, letting us in on the secrets of how Hell operates. You distract a nation from its real sins by getting it to focus on the last thing in the world it needs to worry about. The last thing in our fatherless society we need to worry about is whether we aren't placing enough women in charge of teaching men and everybody else. I know it's not an argument exactly. It's more of an observation. Your foot hurts, then, does it? You might consider not shooting yourself in it all the time.
William Tighe had this to say:
Stuart wrote: "As you may know, the Montanists did ordain women to the presbyterate (and had a unique order of "prophetesses" as well), but when an agreement was reached to reincorporate them into the Catholic Orthodox Church, Montanist priests were allowed retain their orders upon making an orthodox profession of faith, while priestesses were laicized (it is not clear whether any were allowed to enter the order of Deaconesses)." In this context, I recall the fascinating essay by Nicholas Afanassiev (d. 1966) that was reprinted in both editions of *Women and the Priesthood* ed. Thomas Hopko (St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1983, 1999) on those presbytides mentioned by the Council of Laodicea (a local council of bishops that met at an unknown date in the middle years of the Fourth Century) whose office was to be discontinued and abolished. After considering the various possibilities (senior deaconesses, priest's widows, elderly widows) he concludes that they were probably derived from those "female presbyters" of the late Second/Third centuries who either returned to the church from Montanism or were a Catholic copying of the Montanists. He goes on to speculate that since bishops were thick on the ground in Asia minor, every village in which there were Christians having its own bishop, and sometimes a Montanist bishop and/or a Marcionite one as well, presbyters would seldom, if ever, have celebrated the Eucharist or any other sacrament, and so would have remained the elders and rulers of the church, who sat in a "place of honor" in the assembly (much like the Jewish zaquen/zeqenim who were the prototype of the presbyters appointed by the apostles in the churches that they founded, along with the deacons) -- and that, this being the case, "presbytides" were their female equivalents, who sat with the presbyters in such a "place of honor" or more likely had a "place of honor" of their own. This is all speculation, of course, but what is not speculation, but fact, is that these "presbytides" appear to have existed only in that heartland of Montanism, interior Anatolia. Bill
Stuart Koehl reminded us:
On the rapprochement between the Old Catholics and the Orthodox, the matter seems to be in the same place the Orthodox-Anglican rapprochement was in 1977, when Protopresbyter Alexcander Schmemann wrote to an Anglican friend, "The ordination of women means the end of dialogue". For the Orthodox, as a practical matter, the ordination of women is such a fundamental violation of Tradition as to end any possibility of communion.
Timothy Teeter writing again, said:
This, by the way, also explains the difference between the idea that May representing the Church is somehow the equivalent of the priest representing Christ. Mary is a metaphor; she stands in loco ecclesiae. A priest is Christ in the eucharistic celebration as the elements are His body and blood; he (and they) are in persona Christi.
Again, Anthony Esolen weighed in:
Mary does not represent, iconically, the Church, in the same way that the priest at Mass. Catholics call Mary the mother of the Church, and so it would seem absurd to them to refer to Mary in persona ecclesiae; she is the mother of the Church because she is the mother of Christ, Mater ecclesiae et Mater Dei. The closest you come to an iconic identification of Mary with church is in the old medieval paintings of the Coronation of Mary as Regina Coeli; there is a kind of bridal imagery in those paintings, but it would feel downright bizarre to press it. Even in those paintings Mary does not represent the whole Church as she stands at the forefront of the Church, as, in a different and less significant way, does John the Baptist. See Dante's formulation of all of this in the mystic Rose in the Paradiso.
Inevitably the egalitarians "prove" more than they wish. If it is an offense against reason that God should command that only men be ordained priests, then it must also be an offense against reason that God should call John and not Ed, or that he should choose the Hebrews rather than the Egyptians. I am not assuming a voluntarist God, who wills because he wills. But even in the calling of SOME people to the ordained ministry, we have discrimination: drawing a line between some people who are called, and some people who are not. The offense then is not the discrimination but the criterion. And that leads us back to sexual indifferentism. Jesus was pointedly NOT indifferent to sex: he often treated women with a chivalry that the world would not see until its colorful appearance in the romances of the Middle Ages; yet at other times he treated them with an abruptness that now shocks. "Woman, what is that to me?" I've heard it said that in that case, "Woman" was an honorific address -- but I don't see that in Hebrew. "My daughter," that I see, and "My mother," but not the vocative "Woman." Jesus has, however, nothing critical to say about women-in-general -- it having already been said, and said again, in Proverbs and Sirach and elsewhere. The villains in his parables are all male. So too are his apostles. It should occur to somebody that there might be a connection there.
On the villains all being male: it isn't as if you couldn't find cultural villainesses aplenty, in the ancient world. You have Clytemnestra, the daughter of King Servius (who is said to have ridden her chariot over her father's mangled body), Jezebel, Athaliah, Vashti, the goddess Ishtar, the implacable Juno ... Jesus avails himself of none of that. On the contrary, he seems to assume that "man" in his parables will quite naturally stand for males and for men-in-general. It is an embarrassment to the indifferentists, or it should be, that the word for "man" in Jesus' parables is not aner but anthropos -- AND then Jesus tells parables in which it is perfectly natural to assume that anthropos means the ordinary man, as it apparently did in the Greek common to his time. I know this brings up the linguistic-anthropological issue (dealt with very nicely by Fr. Mankowski in his old Touchstone article), but man is to woman as the general is to the specific.... There isn't anything SPECIAL about being a man, in that sense.
William Tighe passed on this observation from Fr. Jeffrey Steele:
From Fr. J. Steele of Notre Dame:
Prof. Tighe. Here is my response to Witt. It will be interesting to read the ideas of others.
There is a clear coupling in the West of the concepts of in persona christi and the words of institution as the central act. The Western understanding binds these two because the consecration refers to "my" body, "my" blood. That is, the priest speaks in the divine first person. This is also true in absolution. "I absolve you..." Again, the divine first person, thus in persona christi.
The Eastern position does not have a corollary necesity between emphasis on the epiclesis and the priest functioning in persona ecclesiae.
The differences between Eastern and Western traditions on Eucharistic theology are matters of emphasis and are not mutually exclusive. Prior to the schism, the differences in emphasis between East and West were well known and were accepted as different but valid. This is clear in that the comprehensive discussions of between East and West currently under way do not include these particularities of Eastern and Western conceptions of Eucharistic theology.
Differences over the formulation of transubstantiation notwithstanding, both systems are recognized by both East and West as valid. Furthermore, they are essentially differences of emphasis. Can not a priest function both in persona christi and in persona ecclesiaeepiclesis and the consecration?
There are two poor assumptions that Witt makes here:
1. That any shift in emphasis on the part of the West from the words of institution toward epiclesis implies a shift from in persona christi toward in persona ecclesiae. While Rome's system links the two issues, the East does not.
2. If a shift toward an emphasis on in persona ecclesia is occuring at all officially (an I havent seen evidence for that), it is not in any case a denial of in persona christi, as these are complimentary conceptions, not mutually exclusive ones.
In short, my problem with Witt's argument is the phrase "by implication:"
So, when arguing for ecumenical unity, Western theologians have increasingly adopted the Eastern model, with an endorsement of the epiclesis, and, by implication, an endorsement of the Easern position that the priest acts in persona ecclesiae.
The argument from in persona christi against WO, still stands as it absolutely must.
I see here now attached Prof. Witt's summary of the history of Eucharistic Theology.
It seems to be de rigeur to continue some of the errors of the polemicists into modern theology by making sharp distinctions between Eastern theology and Western theology on every point and presuming a facile pre schism harmony. There are so many points to be made here, I will try to limit myself to the central ones.
Witt performs a slight of hand by making all his Eucharistic references to meal rather than to sacrifice. This is a convenient way to avoid all sacerdotal arguments against WO. The "Holy Table" is in both East and West an altar of sacrifice. Some liturgists who play fast and loose with the facts have suggested that the emphasis on sacrifice is a Western preoccupation. This is not born out in the prayers of preparation nor the Eucharistic prayers of the East, nor the imagery of the altar itself which is dominated not be a Last Supper but by an icon of the crucifixion. The loaf of bread is cut with a lance and the prayers of preparation make several references to the lamb of sacrifice.
So the paterfamilias is perhaps a bit of a type for the presiding priest or bishop. But the presidency of Bishop or priest over an assembly was the least part of what they do. No, they do not merely preside (stand over) at Eucharist, but they are priests of the sacrifice of Calvary who offer this sacrifice to God. This is true in both East and West, where West excludes many Anglicans and the rest of the protestant world.
Similarly, the idea that the words of institution are somehow unimportant in Eastern liturgies is not born out in the gestures that accompany them. In some Eastern rites all the chants of the people cease during the words of institution so the congregation can hear them when apparently it is not crucial that they hear any other parts of the Eucharistic prayers. The Greeks actually kneel for the words of institution and in other rights the priest makes a solemn bow, touches the floor and crosses himself after the words are spoken over each of the elements, a progression of gestures which is found in no other part of the liturgy.
Thus, we have to look at the priestly antecedents of Christ, the apostles and their successors. These would be the Levitical priesthood of the Temple.
Thus, it is not the liturgical tradition which sets up absolute distinctions between East and West but the polemical tradition--a tradition of contradistinction which is a reflection of the post Imperial East rather than the East of the undivided Church. Witt tries to play divide and conquer between East and West over WO. But, East and West will withstand his assaults because in reality they are not two opposing systems, but two complimentary ones.
...I think Witt is mistaken about the East copying the West's position of in persona Christi when in fact the Eastern position of the multi-dimensional theology of icons is at the basis of their argument that we find in the writings of many early eastern Fathers particularly St. John of Damascus. I think he's blowing smoke here!
Fr. J.
Stuart Koehl wrote:
Witt's problem is more fundamental. The Eastern Christian argument that the epiclesis is the decisive moment of consecration is relatively new, dating to the counter-reformation, and represents nothing except a reflexive mirroring of the Latin position regarding the Institution the Orthodox Church. Modern liturgical theology has recovered the patristic view that the entire anaphora is a consecratory prayer, in which it is impossible to point to a single consecratory moment (in fact, the oldest liturgies lack either an explicit Institution, or an excplict Epiclesis, or both). This view has been accepted in both the Eastern and Western Churches. Thus Witt's "implication" is lacking foundation. Even worse, he does nothing to address the continuing strong opposition to women's ordination in the Eastern Churches, unless, of course, he wants to chalk it up to cultural backwardness.
Finally, I weighed in, having little to add:
The only things I can think to add are simply these two thoughts.I see here now attached Prof. Witt's summary of the history of Eucharistic Theology.
It seems to be de rigeur to continue some of the errors of the polemicists into modern theology by making sharp distinctions between Eastern theology and Western theology on every point and presuming a facile pre schism harmony. There are so many points to be made here, I will try to limit myself to the central ones.
Witt performs a slight of hand by making all his Eucharistic references to meal rather than to sacrifice. This is a convenient way to avoid all sacerdotal arguments against WO. The "Holy Table" is in both East and West an altar of sacrifice. Some liturgists who play fast and loose with the facts have suggested that the emphasis on sacrifice is a Western preoccupation. This is not born out in the prayers of preparation nor the Eucharistic prayers of the East, nor the imagery of the altar itself which is dominated not be a Last Supper but by an icon of the crucifixion. The loaf of bread is cut with a lance and the prayers of preparation make several references to the lamb of sacrifice.
So the paterfamilias is perhaps a bit of a type for the presiding priest or bishop. But the presidency of Bishop or priest over an assembly was the least part of what they do. No, they do not merely preside (stand over) at Eucharist, but they are priests of the sacrifice of Calvary who offer this sacrifice to God. This is true in both East and West, where West excludes many Anglicans and the rest of the protestant world.
Similarly, the idea that the words of institution are somehow unimportant in Eastern liturgies is not born out in the gestures that accompany them. In some Eastern rites all the chants of the people cease during the words of institution so the congregation can hear them when apparently it is not crucial that they hear any other parts of the Eucharistic prayers. The Greeks actually kneel for the words of institution and in other rights the priest makes a solemn bow, touches the floor and crosses himself after the words are spoken over each of the elements, a progression of gestures which is found in no other part of the liturgy.
Thus, we have to look at the priestly antecedents of Christ, the apostles and their successors. These would be the Levitical priesthood of the Temple.
Thus, it is not the liturgical tradition which sets up absolute distinctions between East and West but the polemical tradition--a tradition of contradistinction which is a reflection of the post Imperial East rather than the East of the undivided Church. Witt tries to play divide and conquer between East and West over WO. But, East and West will withstand his assaults because in reality they are not two opposing systems, but two complimentary ones.
...I think Witt is mistaken about the East copying the West's position of in persona Christi when in fact the Eastern position of the multi-dimensional theology of icons is at the basis of their argument that we find in the writings of many early eastern Fathers particularly St. John of Damascus. I think he's blowing smoke here!
Fr. J.
Stuart Koehl wrote:
Witt's problem is more fundamental. The Eastern Christian argument that the epiclesis is the decisive moment of consecration is relatively new, dating to the counter-reformation, and represents nothing except a reflexive mirroring of the Latin position regarding the Institution the Orthodox Church. Modern liturgical theology has recovered the patristic view that the entire anaphora is a consecratory prayer, in which it is impossible to point to a single consecratory moment (in fact, the oldest liturgies lack either an explicit Institution, or an excplict Epiclesis, or both). This view has been accepted in both the Eastern and Western Churches. Thus Witt's "implication" is lacking foundation. Even worse, he does nothing to address the continuing strong opposition to women's ordination in the Eastern Churches, unless, of course, he wants to chalk it up to cultural backwardness.
Finally, I weighed in, having little to add:
1. Witt has invented a novelty with his idea of in persona ecclesiae. There is nothing about this in the Tradition, and even so there would be no reason to connect it to the modern (equal and opposite reaction) of making the Epiclesis the central part of the Liturgy.
2. Witt can go on all he wants about in persona Christi as a "western" idea, but the Orthodox have always laid great stress on the priest as the icon of Christ.
Witt reduces himself by half with his argument.
RH+
Thursday, October 30, 2008
All Saints November 1st
Rev. 7
Matt. 5: 1-12
Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God.
I recall my very first solar eclipse, probably about 1961 or 1962, when I could not have been more than four years old. I remember it well. My mother was very careful to tell me not to look directly at the sun, because it was very possible that I could go blind if I did. During a solar eclipse, we can look at the sun, not realizing that the infrared rays are every bit as destructive to the optic nerve as ever. Our eyes cannot take those rays in their full strength. So, I was told not to look up when the sky would darken, but to look down and so preserve my eyesight.
A cousin, who lived across the street, came over with a cardboard box, that, if worn like a helmet over the head, due to a hole cut in the back and a white sheet of paper as a viewing screen placed in front, could be used to see the reflection of the eclipse. It was a partial eclipse, and I recall that on the white screen I saw the sun with a dark round shadow in front of it, causing the reflection of the sun to appear like the moon, when it is only partly visible. The sun appeared shaped like a quarter moon, reflected inside the box-helmet. Even more strange, when I removed the box from my head, on the ground a thousand such reflections appeared, little quarter-moon images of the sun. We could not look directly at the brightness of the sun with any safety, but we could look at the endless reflections all over the ground. I have never seen that particular effect from an eclipse on any other occasion in all the decades since. But, I cannot forget what it looked like.
That is an illustration for us. In our condition as fallen creatures, subject in this world to sin and death, we cannot not look upon the undiluted glory of God in its perfection. It is not a danger, because it cannot happen; for if it happened we would be unable to endure it. It is true that Christ said, “Whoever has seen Me has seen the Father.” But, this was accomplished by His coming to us as a man. Even on the Mount of Transfiguration it was His glorified humanity that shined with the brightness of the sun in its strength. He made known His divine presence by everything He said and did, especially by defeating death when in His resurrection He ushered in immortality. But, never did He unleash on anyone a perfect glimpse of His divine nature, for to do so would not have been merciful, but rather terrifying. So, He took human nature in its fullness, and this became a part of Him forever by a loving and gracious act of His will. Human nature served as His icon, a perfect image of the Father for us to see. Similarly, His Presence here today is very real, but made food for us under “these shadows mean” of bread and wine.
We do hope to see God some day, and not only in the human nature taken by the Son, though never will it be set aside; And whenever we see God we cannot do so without seeing Christ Jesus, for the Trinity cannot be divided or dissected. The goal and hope of Christians is to see God as our Lord Jesus said: "Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God." This one little line is the reason why this passage that opens the Sermon on the Mount is the Gospel for the Feast of all Saints. The Church long has used the word “saints” to speak of those we believe to have entered already into the perfect state that allows them to be granted the Beatific Vision. That is, to see God as God, the final perfect destiny of the human creature by grace.
Because we are not ready for the Beatific Vision, we must, for now, see God the way I saw the sun during the solar eclipse in my childhood. What we see, that is the sight of God in Jesus Christ, is real. And, real also is what you see when I hold the Sacrament up and tell you to Behold the Lamb of God. We see that reality in a way that is given to us by God’s love, because He saves us by showing Himself. Jesus said to Nicodemus:
And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. (John 3:15-17)
We see Him in His human nature, lifted up on the cross. We see Him as the Lamb of God, ourselves not worthy that he should come under our roof, but asking that He speak the word only, and our souls shall be healed. Yes, what we see is real. And, what we see is granted to us in a way that saves us rather than destroying us, for He came to save us. Our sinfulness, our weakness and our foolishness is all taken into account by the Father, and what we do not see is due to His mercy. The fullness of Godhead dwells in Christ bodily, and the Holy Spirit is really and truly present within the Church- within us with all His gifts. But, our destiny is to behold the sun in its strength when our eyes are made able to endure the brightness, able to endure seeing God as God. We are meant to know Him as He is, to behold throughout eternity the Beatific Vision, a vision not stagnant because He is infinite, and our knowledge of Him once made perfect will be ever perfected more and more, endless knowledge, joy and love.
Yet, we must never presume on God’s grace. Hell is the eternal denial of this joy; not that God denies it to us, but that we deny it to ourselves if we do not make it our aim to know Him.
Think of the words we call the Summary of the Law. The first and great commandment is the impossible call to be saints, to love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul and all your mind, and then to love your neighbor as yourself. When you look at the Epistles of Saint Paul, in the opening of the Epistle to the Romans and the first Epistle to the Corinthians, you see that all of the people who belong to the Church are “called to be saints.”
I like the King James Bible, with that accurate translation “called to be saints.” That “called to be” part is missing from the understanding of a good many Protestant revivalists, fundamentalists and Pentecostals. They teach that every Christian is a saint just by, as they like to say, “accepting Jesus.” Meanwhile, the opposite error belongs to those who seem to think of saints as if they were comic book superheroes, people with special abilities like Superman born on Krypton, or Spiderman with his radioactive bug bite that enables him to do amazing things. We mere mortals cannot be like them, and it’s best just to be normal.
Well, the truth is that a saint is a holy person. That is what the word means. And, the truth is that everyone who belongs to Christ has the vocation to be a saint. We have not yet arrived at being perfected as saints, but neither are we supposed to leave that to a special class of superheroes. The scripture commands us to “follow on to know the Lord (Hosea 6:3).”
Let me quote one of my own sermons for the eighteenth Sunday after Trinity:
“Everyone who belongs to the Church is called to be a saint. You, whether you like it or not, are called to be a saint. Your vocation is holiness, without which no one shall see the Lord. That is what the first and great commandment means. And, the problem is, if you don’t like the first product the Church has for you, namely to become a saint, we have nothing else to offer. Real Christianity is radical, and calls for total commitment in every area of life. That is why we need the Holy Spirit.”
The most important thing that we Anglicans focus on during the Feast of All Saints is not the issue of devotions to the saints. Sure, it is possible, I suppose, to slip into idolatry and to worship saints and angels- and some people have. But, that is not a likely error for most Anglicans. I think we all know that only God is to be worshiped as God. The ancient practice of asking the saints to pray for us is not idolatry, and should not be condemned as if it were. There is no reason to object to someone saying “Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners…” If someone were to speak to her as if to a goddess, that would be wrong; but asking for prayer from a person who now sees God face to face, unhindered by the world, the flesh and the devil, is not idolatry.
But, as I say, the subject of devotions to saints is not our focus on the feast of All Saints. Our focus has always been the call that God has given to all of us, the call to become, by grace, saints ourselves. That is, we are called to be holy, to be faithful in every area of our lives, to press on to know the Lord, to confess the sins we fall into and repent of them in order to be forgiven, and also to be cleansed and delivered from the power of sin. We are called to develop the virtues, faith, hope, charity, fortitude, justice, prudence and temperance. Above all of the others charity, the bond of perfection.
In order to begin to answer the call to holiness, we must be thankful. And, that is the best reason to look at the Lord Jesus as the Lamb of God, lifted up on the cross as Moses lifted the serpent on the pole in the wilderness. It is in thanksgiving that our hearts begin to render for Christ’s great act of love, that our souls are healed, not treating us our sins deserve, but rather dying as our atonement. In that love we begin to see the reflection of Divine glory. Like that reflection I saw as a child, wearing a box as a helmet on my head, we see the glory of God the way I saw a projection of the sun. And like the innumerable reflections of the partial sun that I saw across the ground, we see radiant glory in the great company of saints who have gone before, and who now, with hearts made pure by grace, behold the glory of God.
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Lessons from the Proto-Council of Jerusalem
In order to justify their own brand of Doctrinal Development, modern (or post-modern) revisionists have invented a story that is not in the Bible at all, even though they insist that they find it there.
The story goes like this: During the early years of the Church a great controversy raged about how to include Gentile converts. The Church was not sure whether or not they needed to be circumcised and keep the Law of Moses, or if they could be admitted simply by baptism. The two parties in the controversy were represented by St. Paul for the baptism party and his opponent, St. James for the circumcision party. This division, disagreement and controversy was settled after many years at the Council of Jerusalem, where the Apostles finally came to some agreement. Furthermore, the years of controversy are a precedent for contemporary Christians to struggle through a "period of reception" about new leadings of the Holy Spirit, for example, women's ordination and Blessings for same sex unions. Just as God did a new thing with the Gentiles, while Peter and James learned to adjust, so he is doing now with priestesses and with conjugal blessings for Adam and Steve, Frankie and Johnnie, etc. We see from the controversy that raged in the Book of Acts that this is normal, just the way the Spirit works.
But, as a matter of fact, there was no controversy about what to do with Gentiles. There was, rather, a settled doctrine, and it was the only Tradition of the Church regarding Gentile converts. When this settled Tradition and dogma of the Church was challenged, the challengers were not treated as equals whose opinion deserved consideration. Rather they were seen to be heretics (the first heretics), and were told, frankly, to shut up, sit down and accept the authority of the Apostles. They were told to stop, and those who persisted were labeled false teachers, and warnings were sent to the churches not to heed them. The Council of Jerusalem is the prototype for the Ecumenical Councils, presenting defense of the Faith against heretical innovation that was contrary to the received doctrine of the Church as based on revelation.
Let us look at the record of Scripture.
And the apostles and brethren that were in Judaea heard that the Gentiles had also received the word of God. And when Peter was come up to Jerusalem, they that were of the circumcision contended with him, Saying, Thou wentest in to men uncircumcised, and didst eat with them. But Peter rehearsed the matter from the beginning, and expounded it by order unto them, saying, I was in the city of Joppa praying: and in a trance I saw a vision, A certain vessel descend, as it had been a great sheet, let down from heaven by four corners; and it came even to me: Upon the which when I had fastened mine eyes, I considered, and saw fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air. And I heard a voice saying unto me, Arise, Peter; slay and eat. But I said, Not so, Lord: for nothing common or unclean hath at any time entered into my mouth. But the voice answered me again from heaven, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common. And this was done three times: and all were drawn up again into heaven. And, behold, immediately there were three men already come unto the house where I was, sent from Caesarea unto me. And the spirit bade me go with them, nothing doubting. Moreover these six brethren accompanied me, and we entered into the man's house: And he shewed us how he had seen an angel in his house, which stood and said unto him, Send men to Joppa, and call for Simon, whose surname is Peter; Who shall tell thee words, whereby thou and all thy house shall be saved. 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 11:1-18)
Certain things must be noticed in this account. Peter likened the outpouring of the Holy Spirit in the house of Cornelius to the Day of Pentecost ("...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..."). Unlike the usual laying on of the Apostle's hands, these Gentiles were Confirmed directly from heaven, even before Baptism. The message was clear; the Pentecost experience was exactly duplcated, or rather, extended to Gentiles. Later, Peter would say, "And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us; And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith" (Acts 15:8,9). The words "no difference" were because of the Divine action that repeated what happened on Pentecost itself.
Established doctrine
The other thing we must note from the discussion between Peter and the other Apostles and brethren is how quickly they accepted his words. There was no controversy at all once they heard what happened from Peter's own mouth: "When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life." There it is: The unanimous declaration by the Apostles that they received this revelation from God about how the Gospel would be received by believers among the nations of the earth. They knew that it would be done, and now God revealed how. This was now the teaching of the Church, the doctrine of the Apostles.
Later, during a brief episode Peter would lapse into his old way of treating Gentiles, giving in to some embarrassment at Antioch (Gal. 2:11f), and receiving a rebuke from his brother Apostle, St. Paul, for failing to live by the very doctrine that he, Peter, had himself first proclaimed, and which he still professed. This episode mentioned in the Epistle to the Galatians bears no resemblance to what followed. The sudden appearance of the "Judaizers" comes as a shock in the Book of Acts, a disruption of the Church's teaching and order. "And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved. When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question." (Acts 15:1,2)
The Council of Apostles and Presbyters in Jerusalem were not there to reconsider the revelation given to Peter all those years earlier; they did not come with an open mind considering some possibility that they may have been mistaken in their recognition that God had poured out his Spirit on the Gentiles. Neither did James come there holding out after many years and resisting the new movement of the Spirit during a "period of reception." James, as the local Apostle (bishop) appears to be presiding over this Council as its host, joining his voice to that of the all the other Apostles in defending the teaching that the Church received on that day, years earlier, when Peter was given the revelation. As for Peter (based on the part I quoted above from this same 15th chapter), it seems he must have read Paul's Epistle to the Romans, or perhaps, simply had always taught the same doctrine (imagine that).
The lesson of Acts chapter 15 is not that the Church is slow to catch on when the Spirit moves, and that we need a "period of reception" on those occasions when "time makes ancient good uncouth." There was no controversy or misunderstanding on the part of the men who held the offices of authority to teach in the Church.
And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me: Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name...Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God. (14, 19)
The clearest language is employed to describe the authority with which these men sent out their unanimous defense of the revelation that had been unanimously received years earlier, which Tradition they now asserted once more.
"For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things." (v.28)
The revisionists will have to come up with something better to defend their innovations. Their tale of a long drawn-out controversy over "a new thing" simply is not what the Bible says.
The story goes like this: During the early years of the Church a great controversy raged about how to include Gentile converts. The Church was not sure whether or not they needed to be circumcised and keep the Law of Moses, or if they could be admitted simply by baptism. The two parties in the controversy were represented by St. Paul for the baptism party and his opponent, St. James for the circumcision party. This division, disagreement and controversy was settled after many years at the Council of Jerusalem, where the Apostles finally came to some agreement. Furthermore, the years of controversy are a precedent for contemporary Christians to struggle through a "period of reception" about new leadings of the Holy Spirit, for example, women's ordination and Blessings for same sex unions. Just as God did a new thing with the Gentiles, while Peter and James learned to adjust, so he is doing now with priestesses and with conjugal blessings for Adam and Steve, Frankie and Johnnie, etc. We see from the controversy that raged in the Book of Acts that this is normal, just the way the Spirit works.
But, as a matter of fact, there was no controversy about what to do with Gentiles. There was, rather, a settled doctrine, and it was the only Tradition of the Church regarding Gentile converts. When this settled Tradition and dogma of the Church was challenged, the challengers were not treated as equals whose opinion deserved consideration. Rather they were seen to be heretics (the first heretics), and were told, frankly, to shut up, sit down and accept the authority of the Apostles. They were told to stop, and those who persisted were labeled false teachers, and warnings were sent to the churches not to heed them. The Council of Jerusalem is the prototype for the Ecumenical Councils, presenting defense of the Faith against heretical innovation that was contrary to the received doctrine of the Church as based on revelation.
Let us look at the record of Scripture.
And the apostles and brethren that were in Judaea heard that the Gentiles had also received the word of God. And when Peter was come up to Jerusalem, they that were of the circumcision contended with him, Saying, Thou wentest in to men uncircumcised, and didst eat with them. But Peter rehearsed the matter from the beginning, and expounded it by order unto them, saying, I was in the city of Joppa praying: and in a trance I saw a vision, A certain vessel descend, as it had been a great sheet, let down from heaven by four corners; and it came even to me: Upon the which when I had fastened mine eyes, I considered, and saw fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air. And I heard a voice saying unto me, Arise, Peter; slay and eat. But I said, Not so, Lord: for nothing common or unclean hath at any time entered into my mouth. But the voice answered me again from heaven, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common. And this was done three times: and all were drawn up again into heaven. And, behold, immediately there were three men already come unto the house where I was, sent from Caesarea unto me. And the spirit bade me go with them, nothing doubting. Moreover these six brethren accompanied me, and we entered into the man's house: And he shewed us how he had seen an angel in his house, which stood and said unto him, Send men to Joppa, and call for Simon, whose surname is Peter; Who shall tell thee words, whereby thou and all thy house shall be saved. 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 11:1-18)
Certain things must be noticed in this account. Peter likened the outpouring of the Holy Spirit in the house of Cornelius to the Day of Pentecost ("...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..."). Unlike the usual laying on of the Apostle's hands, these Gentiles were Confirmed directly from heaven, even before Baptism. The message was clear; the Pentecost experience was exactly duplcated, or rather, extended to Gentiles. Later, Peter would say, "And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us; And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith" (Acts 15:8,9). The words "no difference" were because of the Divine action that repeated what happened on Pentecost itself.
Established doctrine
The other thing we must note from the discussion between Peter and the other Apostles and brethren is how quickly they accepted his words. There was no controversy at all once they heard what happened from Peter's own mouth: "When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life." There it is: The unanimous declaration by the Apostles that they received this revelation from God about how the Gospel would be received by believers among the nations of the earth. They knew that it would be done, and now God revealed how. This was now the teaching of the Church, the doctrine of the Apostles.
Later, during a brief episode Peter would lapse into his old way of treating Gentiles, giving in to some embarrassment at Antioch (Gal. 2:11f), and receiving a rebuke from his brother Apostle, St. Paul, for failing to live by the very doctrine that he, Peter, had himself first proclaimed, and which he still professed. This episode mentioned in the Epistle to the Galatians bears no resemblance to what followed. The sudden appearance of the "Judaizers" comes as a shock in the Book of Acts, a disruption of the Church's teaching and order. "And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved. When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question." (Acts 15:1,2)
The Council of Apostles and Presbyters in Jerusalem were not there to reconsider the revelation given to Peter all those years earlier; they did not come with an open mind considering some possibility that they may have been mistaken in their recognition that God had poured out his Spirit on the Gentiles. Neither did James come there holding out after many years and resisting the new movement of the Spirit during a "period of reception." James, as the local Apostle (bishop) appears to be presiding over this Council as its host, joining his voice to that of the all the other Apostles in defending the teaching that the Church received on that day, years earlier, when Peter was given the revelation. As for Peter (based on the part I quoted above from this same 15th chapter), it seems he must have read Paul's Epistle to the Romans, or perhaps, simply had always taught the same doctrine (imagine that).
The lesson of Acts chapter 15 is not that the Church is slow to catch on when the Spirit moves, and that we need a "period of reception" on those occasions when "time makes ancient good uncouth." There was no controversy or misunderstanding on the part of the men who held the offices of authority to teach in the Church.
And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me: Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name...Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God. (14, 19)
The clearest language is employed to describe the authority with which these men sent out their unanimous defense of the revelation that had been unanimously received years earlier, which Tradition they now asserted once more.
"For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things." (v.28)
The revisionists will have to come up with something better to defend their innovations. Their tale of a long drawn-out controversy over "a new thing" simply is not what the Bible says.
Monday, October 27, 2008
Bicknell on Development of Doctrine
The following is an excerpt from The Thirty-Nine Articles by E.J. Bicknell. It comes from a chapter about Article XX* in a section called the "Church's authority in doctrine."
So we refuse to accept such doctrines as those of the Treasury of Merit or the Immaculate Conception or Papal Infallibility as true developments of Christian truth. They cannot be proved from Scripture. There is no evidence that they formed part of the beliefs of the Church in early times. Nor can they be logically deduced from apostolic teaching. Human logic is only valid when it has a complete and adequate knowledge of the facts from which it argues, but when it deals with Divine truths about which our knowledge is limited, its conclusions are at best precarious. Logic is most triumphant in dealing with abstract or mathematical statements, in the form of 'all A is B.' When we know the symbols A and B, we know at once all that there is to be known about them. They are the pure creation of the human mind. But we cannot detect in advance by logic the course of human history or the conduct of our friends. So to argue that our Lord's sinlessness and the holiness of the Blessed Virgin imply that she must have been conceived free from all taint of original sin, and to state this as a new dogma, that of 'the Immaculate Conception' is to strain logic. Such an argument would only be valid if we knew all about original sin and heredity and the manner of the Incarnation. Further, since the Blessed Virgin is a historical person we are justified in asking for historical evidence that she either claimed to be sinless or made the impression of sinlessness on others. In Scripture there are indications that at times she lacked the complete and immediate sympathy with our Lord's purposes which would be evidence of entire sinlessness. She is rebuked by Him once (John 2:4) and even takes part in an attempt to restrain Him from His ministry (MK 3:21 and 31ff). In the Acts, after the first chapter, she disappears. The whole idea of 'Immaculate Conception' is the natural outcome of the place she has come to hold in modern Roman devotions, not of the place that she held during her life on earth. Logic cannot create new facts, and the Roman doctrine needs such for its defence. We claim, then, that Roman developments of doctrine are not on the same level as the earlier developments of doctrine, such as we admit in the case of the formal statement of the doctrines of the Incarnation and the Trinity. They imply an addition from outside to the deposit of faith, and so demand in the last resort a fresh revelation. At best they are but pious opinions which grew up in the Church as the private beliefs of individuals and schools, and afterward were exalted into dogmas. We fall back upon the test of Scripture as interpreted by the Universal Church and by such a test they stand condemned.
* Article XX. Of the Authority of the Church. The Church hath power to decree rites or ceremonies and authority in controversies of faith; and yet it is not lawful for the Church to ordain anything contrary to God's word written, neither may it so expound one place of Scripture, that it be repugnant to another. Wherefore, although the Church be a witness and a keeper of Holy Writ: yet, as it ought not to decree anything against the same, so besides the same ought it not to enforce anything to be believed for necessity of salvation.
* Article XX. Of the Authority of the Church. The Church hath power to decree rites or ceremonies and authority in controversies of faith; and yet it is not lawful for the Church to ordain anything contrary to God's word written, neither may it so expound one place of Scripture, that it be repugnant to another. Wherefore, although the Church be a witness and a keeper of Holy Writ: yet, as it ought not to decree anything against the same, so besides the same ought it not to enforce anything to be believed for necessity of salvation.
Friday, October 24, 2008
Christ the King final Sunday in October
I am busy in Roanoke today, but I want to post a link to my sermon for Christ the King Sunday from 2006.
Thursday, October 23, 2008
The Name of God - Revelation and Imagination
From New Directions, March 2002
Robert Hart on inclusive language
Lex Orandi Lex Credendi, ‘The law of prayer is the law of belief.’ New forms and versions of Christian liturgy become a danger to right belief to the extent that the language of such prayer is a departure from the language of revelation. Setting aside ‘what has been believed everywhere, always and by all’ (St Vincent of Lerins), creative liturgists have set about giving us new services and prayers that reach even beyond ‘inclusive language’ to call God by the unrevealed name of ‘Mother.’ This equates mere imagination with what the Church believes by revelation. The message is that God has revealed a new thing contradicting the previous revelation, making him arbitrary, confused or capricious; or, that the Christian religion is not revealed. If not revealed, then we must conclude it to be a product of that same capacity of imagination which has created religions throughout the history of man. We must conclude that all religion is merely idolatry.
‘Inclusive Language’ about God and God as ‘Mother’
‘Inclusive language’ is nothing but an ideology, based upon the false notion that ‘Man’, adam, anthropos, homo, has lost any meaning inclusive of the entire human race, making it and all related words – him, his or he – into exclusive language.1 Hence, the promise of salvation given to each individual in John 6.40 (‘I will raise him up on the last day’) becomes subject to ideological imposition of a plural to replace the singular. There is no substitute for the individual use of ‘him’, and so the Lord is misquoted as saying, ‘I will raise them up on the last day.’(1982 Hymnal) The havoc that is wrought on theology is this: the promise now appears to be made to a group, in which group not every individual, even though a faithful believer, is given any assurance of the resurrection. Or, when men are spoken of in a genuinely exclusive sense, we lose, as in the NRSV, the very much needed use of ‘fathers’ in Malachi 4.6, at a time when society’s need for men to take their paternal role has become a crisis. This unjustified rendering of av’yot as ‘parents’ instead of ‘fathers’ is just one example of many.
We can no longer speak of God as ‘Father,’ or ‘Lord.’ ‘Son’ is also unacceptable. The argument is that a God who is Father, or Son, or Lord must be inaccessible to women. The logical answer to this problem is to meet the needs of women by the elimination of ‘the Father,’ or, more boldly, by introducing ‘God the Mother’. And why not? Is it not helpful to fashion a new image of God based upon a perceived need? And, besides, we are told, the Bible gives us feminine names for God and images of God. This ideology requires a misunderstanding of the concept of names in Biblical literature, as well as a complete ignorance of the scriptural prohibition against attempting to make images of the Divine Nature. It denies revealed religion, preferring an image.
Feminist writers have ‘discovered’ a feminine meaning to such words as ruach, shadai, or shekinah, etc. Never mind the fact that there is no factual basis for these assertions, they fit the need of the ideology even despite their being fictitious. Fraudulent translations have been invoked, such as a ‘translation’ of the Hebrew word rawchem as ‘motherly compassion’, even though the ‘motherly’ part was dishonestly inserted. Be warned: this is not what it appears to be. They are not looking for authority in the revelation of scripture, but only to market their idea. Their entire system has nothing to do with revelation, and in the end must negate it.
The Revelation: what is in a name?
To the ancient Hebrews, a name represented the very person. After Israel returned to their land from Babylon, they ceased to pronounce the holy ineffable Name of God. In place of the mysterious YHVH they would say the word Adonai, which was translated into Greek as Kyrios, and into English as ‘Lord.’ From this we see that the New Testament proclaims Jesus as God by calling him Lord (and also the Holy Spirit 2 Corinthians 3. 17). Also, we see that the Tetragrammaton (YHVH) pronunciation has been lost, perhaps providentially. We do not need the ineffable Name; a far greater revelation shines in the brilliant light of the New Covenant.
The first mention of prayer is ‘Then began men to call upon the Name of the Lord (Genesis 4.26).’ In the greater glory of the New Covenant revelation, he teaches us: ‘In this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father Who art in Heaven, hallowed be Thy Name’ (Matthew 6.9). When uttering what is called the High Priestly Prayer, he addresses God with that same Name, ‘Father.’ He says: ‘I have manifested Thy Name unto the men whom Thou gavest Me out of the world’ (John 17.6). Whether we ever again can say the ineffable Name, we have this greater revelation by which we call God ‘our Father’ – the gift of the Father’s love.
After rising from the dead, the Lord fully revealed the Divine Name by commanding us to baptize ‘in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost’ (Matthew 28.19). We see that ‘The Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost’ is the Name of God. The revelation of the Trinity did not come as an abstract proposition; it came in the life of Jesus Christ, intricately bound up in his salvation. So it is that the Creeds teach us the truth of the Trinity and also of our redemption in Christ; for the revelation of one is intimately tied up in the revelation of the other. And, only in this Person, our salvation himself, is God revealed and known (John 17.3). This is not an image created by human imagination, but rather the saving revelation.
The Idolatry
At the end of the First Epistle of St John, is a very simple commandment: ‘Little children, keep yourselves from idols’ (1 John 5.21). It would have been very unlikely that people once enlightened by Christ, possessing knowledge of the true God, would be so easily deceived as to bow down before images made of wood or stone. The context of the Epistle is that it contrasts the truth of the Gospel against heresy, false teachings by which people are drawn to worship images of God that, though not ‘graven’, are nonetheless idols of the mind and heart.
One major characteristic of the feminist theology by which God’s Fatherhood is denied, and in which God is called ‘Mother’, is that the apologists for this sort of religion never use the word revelation. It is not in their vocabulary. Instead, they endorse their view of God by telling us of our need to have new and improved ‘images’ of the Divine; in this way, and by this method, they regard the revelation of God in Christ as though it is nothing but an ‘image’ as well.
Two kinds of images exist in religion: idols and icons. These two are opposites. Christ himself is called the Icon (εἰκών) of the Father in the Greek New Testament, for in his Incarnation we see that iconography exists by God’s own initiative, and is an echo of the revelation. And it is the very fact that it stems from the revelation of God that makes a written picture an icon instead of an idol. In a sense, the first icon of God was Adam; the perfect such icon is the Incarnate Christ (2 Corinthians 4.4, Colossians 1.15). We are transformed into the icons of Christ by the Holy Spirit (Romans 8.29, 2 Corinthians 3.18). ‘The Word was made flesh … and we beheld his glory’ (John 1.14). Therefore, the Church regards iconoclasm as a heresy; it was not the destruction of idols, but rather a subtle denial of Christ’s having taken human nature into his Person, and thus into the Godhead. So, the difference between iconography and idolatry is, above all else, the source; it is also the intention. Icons are based upon divine revelation, and are themselves sacramentals.
But, idols are not based upon God’s revelation. The English word image is related to the word imagination; and only understood as a product of imagination do we see religious images as idols. The human imagination, I believe, with the aid of the demons creates images as it creates gods and goddesses. People who would not worship the work of their own hands will nonetheless worship the work of their minds. The feminist theologians actually are saying that their image of a Mother God is at least equal (and I think they believe it is superior) to the revelation of the Father in Christ. Put another way, they are saying that Christianity is a form of idolatry; in fact that is their view of all religion. By this construct, there was no difference between worshiping the Lord and sacrificing to the golden calf. One was as much a mere image as the other. They want to worship their goddess, and call this pagan idolatry a form of Christianity.
But all in stages, like any strategy. First comes the ‘inclusive language’ stage. The baptismal formula has been substituted at times with ‘In the name of the Creator and the Redeemer and the Sanctifier’ – such is no true baptism. It is in three designations instead of the one Name of the Undivided Trinity. At this first stage we are told that our faith is simply the worship of an image, the product of human imagination (I would suggest that human imagination can only tend to shy away from such a mystery as the Trinity, and could not, therefore, have created it. But, that is a subject for another day). The second stage is the introduction of the new image: Mother God, the goddess, the Ashteroth, an image from the fallen mind for pagan adoration. And so, the revelation of God in Christ is rejected by being denied; the message is that it was no revelation, just an image of the divine which is outdated as a relic of the age of male dominance.
This is subtraction by addition. Christianity is based upon belief that the revelation is real and therefore true. The attempt to join a religion of human imagination to revealed religion causes not only a denial of the truth of revelation, but also of the fact of revelation. As a result there is nothing left in which to believe. The equation is simple. Idolatry plus revealed religion equals zero. Pagan idolatry can exist on its own, and revealed truth on its own. To wed the two is impossible as they must cancel each other out. Finally, it produces atheism.
Holding fast
St Paul told the Corinthian Church that they were being saved if they remembered the Gospel he taught them, lest they believed in vain (1 Corinthians 15.1f). We are commanded in scripture to ‘earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered to the saints’ (Jude 3). Our liturgies must not be the latest fad, the newest style, but the Tradition in which we pray to the God who revealed himself in Christ. Our Creeds must be the Apostle’s Creed and the Nicene (Constantinopolitan) Creed, by which we rehearse the truths of our God and his salvation. We must baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, and worship only this One undivided God who has, for our salvation, revealed himself to all men only in Christ. We must worship him only as he has made himself known by revelation, and never worship the images fashioned in our own minds. We must keep ourselves from idols.
1 See Jesus, Son of Humankind? By Paul Mankowski, S.J. in Touchstone, A Journal of Mere Christianity, vol. 14, num. 8, October, 2001.
Robert Hart on inclusive language
Lex Orandi Lex Credendi, ‘The law of prayer is the law of belief.’ New forms and versions of Christian liturgy become a danger to right belief to the extent that the language of such prayer is a departure from the language of revelation. Setting aside ‘what has been believed everywhere, always and by all’ (St Vincent of Lerins), creative liturgists have set about giving us new services and prayers that reach even beyond ‘inclusive language’ to call God by the unrevealed name of ‘Mother.’ This equates mere imagination with what the Church believes by revelation. The message is that God has revealed a new thing contradicting the previous revelation, making him arbitrary, confused or capricious; or, that the Christian religion is not revealed. If not revealed, then we must conclude it to be a product of that same capacity of imagination which has created religions throughout the history of man. We must conclude that all religion is merely idolatry.
‘Inclusive Language’ about God and God as ‘Mother’
‘Inclusive language’ is nothing but an ideology, based upon the false notion that ‘Man’, adam, anthropos, homo, has lost any meaning inclusive of the entire human race, making it and all related words – him, his or he – into exclusive language.1 Hence, the promise of salvation given to each individual in John 6.40 (‘I will raise him up on the last day’) becomes subject to ideological imposition of a plural to replace the singular. There is no substitute for the individual use of ‘him’, and so the Lord is misquoted as saying, ‘I will raise them up on the last day.’(1982 Hymnal) The havoc that is wrought on theology is this: the promise now appears to be made to a group, in which group not every individual, even though a faithful believer, is given any assurance of the resurrection. Or, when men are spoken of in a genuinely exclusive sense, we lose, as in the NRSV, the very much needed use of ‘fathers’ in Malachi 4.6, at a time when society’s need for men to take their paternal role has become a crisis. This unjustified rendering of av’yot as ‘parents’ instead of ‘fathers’ is just one example of many.
We can no longer speak of God as ‘Father,’ or ‘Lord.’ ‘Son’ is also unacceptable. The argument is that a God who is Father, or Son, or Lord must be inaccessible to women. The logical answer to this problem is to meet the needs of women by the elimination of ‘the Father,’ or, more boldly, by introducing ‘God the Mother’. And why not? Is it not helpful to fashion a new image of God based upon a perceived need? And, besides, we are told, the Bible gives us feminine names for God and images of God. This ideology requires a misunderstanding of the concept of names in Biblical literature, as well as a complete ignorance of the scriptural prohibition against attempting to make images of the Divine Nature. It denies revealed religion, preferring an image.
Feminist writers have ‘discovered’ a feminine meaning to such words as ruach, shadai, or shekinah, etc. Never mind the fact that there is no factual basis for these assertions, they fit the need of the ideology even despite their being fictitious. Fraudulent translations have been invoked, such as a ‘translation’ of the Hebrew word rawchem as ‘motherly compassion’, even though the ‘motherly’ part was dishonestly inserted. Be warned: this is not what it appears to be. They are not looking for authority in the revelation of scripture, but only to market their idea. Their entire system has nothing to do with revelation, and in the end must negate it.
The Revelation: what is in a name?
To the ancient Hebrews, a name represented the very person. After Israel returned to their land from Babylon, they ceased to pronounce the holy ineffable Name of God. In place of the mysterious YHVH they would say the word Adonai, which was translated into Greek as Kyrios, and into English as ‘Lord.’ From this we see that the New Testament proclaims Jesus as God by calling him Lord (and also the Holy Spirit 2 Corinthians 3. 17). Also, we see that the Tetragrammaton (YHVH) pronunciation has been lost, perhaps providentially. We do not need the ineffable Name; a far greater revelation shines in the brilliant light of the New Covenant.
The first mention of prayer is ‘Then began men to call upon the Name of the Lord (Genesis 4.26).’ In the greater glory of the New Covenant revelation, he teaches us: ‘In this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father Who art in Heaven, hallowed be Thy Name’ (Matthew 6.9). When uttering what is called the High Priestly Prayer, he addresses God with that same Name, ‘Father.’ He says: ‘I have manifested Thy Name unto the men whom Thou gavest Me out of the world’ (John 17.6). Whether we ever again can say the ineffable Name, we have this greater revelation by which we call God ‘our Father’ – the gift of the Father’s love.
After rising from the dead, the Lord fully revealed the Divine Name by commanding us to baptize ‘in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost’ (Matthew 28.19). We see that ‘The Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost’ is the Name of God. The revelation of the Trinity did not come as an abstract proposition; it came in the life of Jesus Christ, intricately bound up in his salvation. So it is that the Creeds teach us the truth of the Trinity and also of our redemption in Christ; for the revelation of one is intimately tied up in the revelation of the other. And, only in this Person, our salvation himself, is God revealed and known (John 17.3). This is not an image created by human imagination, but rather the saving revelation.
The Idolatry
At the end of the First Epistle of St John, is a very simple commandment: ‘Little children, keep yourselves from idols’ (1 John 5.21). It would have been very unlikely that people once enlightened by Christ, possessing knowledge of the true God, would be so easily deceived as to bow down before images made of wood or stone. The context of the Epistle is that it contrasts the truth of the Gospel against heresy, false teachings by which people are drawn to worship images of God that, though not ‘graven’, are nonetheless idols of the mind and heart.
One major characteristic of the feminist theology by which God’s Fatherhood is denied, and in which God is called ‘Mother’, is that the apologists for this sort of religion never use the word revelation. It is not in their vocabulary. Instead, they endorse their view of God by telling us of our need to have new and improved ‘images’ of the Divine; in this way, and by this method, they regard the revelation of God in Christ as though it is nothing but an ‘image’ as well.
Two kinds of images exist in religion: idols and icons. These two are opposites. Christ himself is called the Icon (εἰκών) of the Father in the Greek New Testament, for in his Incarnation we see that iconography exists by God’s own initiative, and is an echo of the revelation. And it is the very fact that it stems from the revelation of God that makes a written picture an icon instead of an idol. In a sense, the first icon of God was Adam; the perfect such icon is the Incarnate Christ (2 Corinthians 4.4, Colossians 1.15). We are transformed into the icons of Christ by the Holy Spirit (Romans 8.29, 2 Corinthians 3.18). ‘The Word was made flesh … and we beheld his glory’ (John 1.14). Therefore, the Church regards iconoclasm as a heresy; it was not the destruction of idols, but rather a subtle denial of Christ’s having taken human nature into his Person, and thus into the Godhead. So, the difference between iconography and idolatry is, above all else, the source; it is also the intention. Icons are based upon divine revelation, and are themselves sacramentals.
But, idols are not based upon God’s revelation. The English word image is related to the word imagination; and only understood as a product of imagination do we see religious images as idols. The human imagination, I believe, with the aid of the demons creates images as it creates gods and goddesses. People who would not worship the work of their own hands will nonetheless worship the work of their minds. The feminist theologians actually are saying that their image of a Mother God is at least equal (and I think they believe it is superior) to the revelation of the Father in Christ. Put another way, they are saying that Christianity is a form of idolatry; in fact that is their view of all religion. By this construct, there was no difference between worshiping the Lord and sacrificing to the golden calf. One was as much a mere image as the other. They want to worship their goddess, and call this pagan idolatry a form of Christianity.
But all in stages, like any strategy. First comes the ‘inclusive language’ stage. The baptismal formula has been substituted at times with ‘In the name of the Creator and the Redeemer and the Sanctifier’ – such is no true baptism. It is in three designations instead of the one Name of the Undivided Trinity. At this first stage we are told that our faith is simply the worship of an image, the product of human imagination (I would suggest that human imagination can only tend to shy away from such a mystery as the Trinity, and could not, therefore, have created it. But, that is a subject for another day). The second stage is the introduction of the new image: Mother God, the goddess, the Ashteroth, an image from the fallen mind for pagan adoration. And so, the revelation of God in Christ is rejected by being denied; the message is that it was no revelation, just an image of the divine which is outdated as a relic of the age of male dominance.
This is subtraction by addition. Christianity is based upon belief that the revelation is real and therefore true. The attempt to join a religion of human imagination to revealed religion causes not only a denial of the truth of revelation, but also of the fact of revelation. As a result there is nothing left in which to believe. The equation is simple. Idolatry plus revealed religion equals zero. Pagan idolatry can exist on its own, and revealed truth on its own. To wed the two is impossible as they must cancel each other out. Finally, it produces atheism.
Holding fast
St Paul told the Corinthian Church that they were being saved if they remembered the Gospel he taught them, lest they believed in vain (1 Corinthians 15.1f). We are commanded in scripture to ‘earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered to the saints’ (Jude 3). Our liturgies must not be the latest fad, the newest style, but the Tradition in which we pray to the God who revealed himself in Christ. Our Creeds must be the Apostle’s Creed and the Nicene (Constantinopolitan) Creed, by which we rehearse the truths of our God and his salvation. We must baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, and worship only this One undivided God who has, for our salvation, revealed himself to all men only in Christ. We must worship him only as he has made himself known by revelation, and never worship the images fashioned in our own minds. We must keep ourselves from idols.
1 See Jesus, Son of Humankind? By Paul Mankowski, S.J. in Touchstone, A Journal of Mere Christianity, vol. 14, num. 8, October, 2001.
Mommy Dearest
This month's Maggot Gagger Award goes to "Women's Ministries working for gender justice in the Church & the world" for their liturgies for trial use in the Episcopal "Church" in America.
Here are a few excerpts for the strong of stomach. This is real, not satire.
Morning Prayers to the Lady*
The Officiant (O) and the people (P) begin by saying
O: Dear Lady, open our lips
P: And our mouth shall proclaim your praise...
Confession of Sin
Silence may be kept. All kneel.
O&P: Most merciful Lady, we confess that we have
separated ourselves from you in thought, word and
deed, by what we have done and by what we have
left undone. We have not loved you with our whole
heart; we have not loved our neighbors
as ourselves; and we have even failed to love
ourselves. We are truly sorry, and we humbley
repent. Have mercy on us and forgive us; by your
love, lead us forward in a new direction that we
may delight in your vision for us and walk in your
ways to bring honor to your name. Amen.
...
A Collect for Guidance
Blessed Lady, walk with us this day and guide us in all the tasks we undertake. Open our hearts to hear and acknowledge the thoughts and feelings of others, especially those of children. Help us to nurture ourselves and one another without engaging in enabling behaviors. Empower us with patience, Wisdom, and joy, that at the close of day we may rest in the assurance that we, like your beautiful Son, Jesus Christ, are in right relationship with you. Amen.
A Collect for Service
Holy Lady who sent your Son Jesus Christ among us as one who serves, draw us into service this day. Give grace to those who serve others through their occupations or volunteer work. Give us grateful hearts to joyfully receive the assistance of others. Lead us to the knowledge that all challenges and relief come from your hand. Amen.
...
A Collect for Peace
Gentle Lady, who desires all of creation to live in perfect harmony, assist us in our search for peace...
They even created a Eucharist.
The people ( P) standing, the celebrant (C) says
Blessed be the Lady who births, redeems and
sanctifies us.
P: And blessed be all of her creation forever. Amen
C: Nurturing Mother, our hearts are open to you. You
know our yearnings and our deepest fears. Purify
our hearts with your burning love, that we may
learn to love you more and more. Amen.
C: Loving Lady, have mercy.
P: Mother Jesus, have mercy.
C: Loving Lady, have mercy.
The Collect (see Proper 5, p 229, BCP)
C&P: Mother of all mercies, all good things proceed from you. Inspire us to think right thoughts and empower us to act on them; through your beautiful Son, Jesus Christ, who with you and the Holy Spirit perpetually watches over us. Amen
This is about as much as I can stand to post. I hope I have not soured anyone's stomach.
Here are a few excerpts for the strong of stomach. This is real, not satire.
Morning Prayers to the Lady*
The Officiant (O) and the people (P) begin by saying
O: Dear Lady, open our lips
P: And our mouth shall proclaim your praise...
Confession of Sin
Silence may be kept. All kneel.
O&P: Most merciful Lady, we confess that we have
separated ourselves from you in thought, word and
deed, by what we have done and by what we have
left undone. We have not loved you with our whole
heart; we have not loved our neighbors
as ourselves; and we have even failed to love
ourselves. We are truly sorry, and we humbley
repent. Have mercy on us and forgive us; by your
love, lead us forward in a new direction that we
may delight in your vision for us and walk in your
ways to bring honor to your name. Amen.
...
A Collect for Guidance
Blessed Lady, walk with us this day and guide us in all the tasks we undertake. Open our hearts to hear and acknowledge the thoughts and feelings of others, especially those of children. Help us to nurture ourselves and one another without engaging in enabling behaviors. Empower us with patience, Wisdom, and joy, that at the close of day we may rest in the assurance that we, like your beautiful Son, Jesus Christ, are in right relationship with you. Amen.
A Collect for Service
Holy Lady who sent your Son Jesus Christ among us as one who serves, draw us into service this day. Give grace to those who serve others through their occupations or volunteer work. Give us grateful hearts to joyfully receive the assistance of others. Lead us to the knowledge that all challenges and relief come from your hand. Amen.
...
A Collect for Peace
Gentle Lady, who desires all of creation to live in perfect harmony, assist us in our search for peace...
They even created a Eucharist.
The people ( P) standing, the celebrant (C) says
Blessed be the Lady who births, redeems and
sanctifies us.
P: And blessed be all of her creation forever. Amen
C: Nurturing Mother, our hearts are open to you. You
know our yearnings and our deepest fears. Purify
our hearts with your burning love, that we may
learn to love you more and more. Amen.
C: Loving Lady, have mercy.
P: Mother Jesus, have mercy.
C: Loving Lady, have mercy.
The Collect (see Proper 5, p 229, BCP)
C&P: Mother of all mercies, all good things proceed from you. Inspire us to think right thoughts and empower us to act on them; through your beautiful Son, Jesus Christ, who with you and the Holy Spirit perpetually watches over us. Amen
This is about as much as I can stand to post. I hope I have not soured anyone's stomach.
Muslim persecution of Christians
A reader, Millow Shaw, sent me this link to a report about persecution of Christians in Egypt. I have met the kind of exiled Egyptian Copts mentioned here, who have asylum in the United States, and I know that this report is accurate.
And then you may want to read about this report from Afghanistan about a Christian woman, a "charity worker" from the the U.K.,who was assassinated, gunned down in the streets by the Taliban.
And then you may want to read about this report from Afghanistan about a Christian woman, a "charity worker" from the the U.K.,who was assassinated, gunned down in the streets by the Taliban.
Monday, October 20, 2008
Tongues and interpretation of tongues
Understanding the times in which the English Reformers lived is necessary for an intelligent discussion of Anglicanism. Nothing better demonstrates this fact than the effort of Roman Catholic readers, of late, who have sought to straighten us out. What becomes clear in a hurry is that they cannot understand the perspective of the 16th and 17th century Church of England, and that is partly because their own people have taught them to look back at history knowing only modern definitions and concepts. (Neither does it help when an Anglican bishop, alas a Continuing Church bishop, displays the same ignorance while dismissing his own patrimony as a failed experiment of 450 years. With all due respect and with sadness, I find that statement appalling.)
When the polemicists and self-appointed apologists for Rome seek to straighten us out, they sometimes begin by revealing a fascinating presumption that we are uninformed; that we are ignorant and, in the words of one of their wordiest writers with the least to say, "don't get it." They presume that if only we understood, we would leap into the Tiber and swim merrily. They think that their church believes and practices everything exactly the same today as they did in the 16th century with the exception of vernacular vs. Latin. They believe that where Anglicanism deviates from the practices of Rome it is the Anglicans who came up with something new. How little they realize that we are the ones who have preserved many older Catholic practices that they have abandoned. In fact, our own Fr. Matthew Kirby wrote an excellent article that shows the many ways in which Anglicanism has been in the lead, and Rome has followed our example, and come around to our beliefs or practices on various matters. Is that because the Infallible Church realized the heretics were right? It is more likely that they recognized the truth, the Catholic truth, of our practices and teaching.
It is even more troubling that some Anglicans often learn from the RC apologists, and so abandon their Anglican patrimony due to ignorance and misinformation. Afterward, they testify about their wonderful conversion, and begin to argue against Anglican teaching based on a completely flawed understanding of what it is. They appear to have authority as ex-Anglicans, but in fact reveal that they never had an Anglican mind in the first place.
Let us take our Article XIX as an example, once again, of flawed understanding on the part of some modern readers who cannot appreciate the perspective of those who wrote this, originally in 1553.
XIX. Of the Church.
The visible Church of Christ is a congregation of faithful men, in the which the pure word of God is preached and the sacraments be duly ministered according to Christ's ordinance in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same. As the Church of Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Antioch have erred: so also the Church of Rome hath erred, not only in their living and manner of ceremonies, but also in matters of faith.
So too, they misunderstand Article XXI:
XXI. Of the authority of General Councils. General Councils may not be gathered together without the commandment and will of princes. And when they be gathered together, forasmuch as they be an assembly of men, whereof all be not governed with the Spirit and word of God, they may err and sometime have erred, even in things pertaining to God. Wherefore things ordained by them as necessary to salvation have neither strength nor authority, unless it may be declared that they be taken out of Holy Scripture
The most common mistake is failing to recall what was in the works when these Articles were being written (and forgetting that several ancient councils were rejected by the Universal Church). They forget that Rome was at that time holding the Council of Trent, and that the Church of England had no idea what would emerge. The reason these two Articles appeared was to remind the people of England that their Faith need not be shaken by any error that could come from a council limited only to the west, lacking the consent of the Universal Church, run by fallible men.
In their view the Church of Rome had erred, not only in a few ancient examples such as E.J. Bicknell recorded ("The latter section justifies the breach with Rome by denying her infallibility. As she has erred in the past, so she may err again at the Council of Trent. The allusion is to such events as the acceptance of by Pope Liberius of an Arian creed, the acquittal of Pelagius by Pope Zosimus and the lapse of Pope Honorius into Monothelitism."1) Also, she had erred in more recent times by allowing the false doctrines that caused the famous heresy of Indulgences being sold for money, offering salvation by means that even Simon Magus had never imagined. No hearty repentance and true faith was required, just the sound made when the coin in the coffer rings. These included the following:
XXII. Of Purgatory. The Romish doctrine concerning Purgatory, Pardons, worshipping and adoration as well of Images as of Relics, and also Invocation of Saint, is a fond thing vainly invented, and grounded upon no warranty of Scripture; but rather repugnant to the word of God.
Frankly, the errors of more recent times included the requirment of celibacy in the priesthood, which thing contradicts scripture (I Timothy 3:2,12, Titus 1:6).
The programmed response even of many Anglicans is this: "That's probably unwise, but not error. It is not a matter of teaching." True enough, the Church of Rome has no doctrine of clerical celibacy. Nonetheless, this error of polity evolved from a larger error: That any idea could be good for the Church even if it flies in the face of Scripture; that the "Apostolic See" could have greater wisdom than the Apostles. This cannot be a proper exercise of Right Reason. The compounded problems that come from requiring celibacy of priests cannot be hidden; they are obvious to everyone who is willing to see facts.
XXXII. Of the Marriage of Priests. Bishops, Priests, and Deacons are not commanded by God's laws either to vow the estate of single life or to abstain from marriage. Therefore it is lawful also for them, as for all other Christian men, to marry at their own discretion, as they shall judge the same to serve better to godliness.
The Reformers were rather clear in why they saw the Church of Rome as having erred in the past.
But, to the modern polemicists Article XIX automatically appears to deny the Infallibility of the Church. The Article does not deny the Infalliblity of the Church at all, but rather states facts of history. Neither does it say the churches are any less the Church for having erred. What is clear is that they saw the Church of Rome, that is the Church in Rome itself, as a particlular church that needed to submit, like everyone else, to the mind of the Universal Church. It was the practice of Archbishop of Canterbury, Michael Ramsey, (the last real ABC) to use the word "antiquity" where others use "Tradition." Indeed, the Scriptures and the Tradition are ancient, and the mind of the Universal Church as expressed in Antiquity carries authority to which every later generation must bow. When there was only One visible Church able to meet in Ecumenical Council (during the first millennium) it established doctrine and polity against which Rome was creating innovations and new doctrines, making a claim to have the power to create dogmas unknown to the Fathers (considering that no one had yet imagined the 1870 doctrine of Papal Infallibility, it is irrelevant to anything that was intended by writers in the Elizabethan era).
From the perspective of the Reformers in the Elizabethan era Rome was no longer fully Catholic in doctrine and practice, having abandoned Antiquity and the mind of the Universal Church, and was transgressing by its new and innovative doctrines, no matter how logically deduced. It fell to Hooker to do in greater detail what the writers of the various Articles did simply and briefly. That was to explain why Protestantism (as they used the word) was the only way to restore the Catholic Faith corrupted by Rome, and at the same time to defend the Church of England against other Protestantisms that also created new doctrines with innovations every bit as troublesome as those of Rome. For this reason the Articles imitate a Lutheran format, and show in the process a strong contrast and disagreement with the extremes of Lutheranism; and also the Articles make use of the vocabulary employed by Calvinists in order to correct the extremes and outright errors of Calvinism.
What is also misunderstood in modern times is that the theological terminology of the English Reformers, and the issues raised in their works, makes use of langauge and arguments that had been generally considered within the boundaries of acceptable thoughts and beliefs by many Catholics for centuries. For example, the opening of Article VI has caused some to make the accusation Sola Scriptura!
It is not clear what they think sola scriptura means, except that they presume it is a rejection of the authority of Tradition (as indeed it does mean to some fundamentalists these days). But, as Fr. Laurence Wells has pointed out, the problem with the phrase is that no one ever explains what they mean by "Scripture alone." That is, alone for what exactly? In the Article we see that, assuming they had the phrase in mind at all (since they never actually used it), it would have been that the "scriptures [alone] containeth all things necessary to salvation."
And, though they never used the phrase sola scritpura or "scripture alone," if they had used it they would have considered it to be a very Catholic concept. As I have demonstrated before, it was not the Continental Reformers who came up with the phrase, but St. Thomas Aquinas.2 And, that alone indicates that they would have meant the phrase, had they used it, to be understood in a manner wholly consistent with the Tradition.3
The problem our critics have, and that some of our own who are weak in the faith have, is that they read every olde thing with the a modern mind. They cannot even understand what was meant by the words "Catholic" and "Protestant." How much less can they begin to put themselves into the world of the 16th century. If they want to read and understand the formularies of Anglicanism they may need the gift of tongues and of the interpretation of tongues.
At least they might allow Anglican teachers to interpret.
When the polemicists and self-appointed apologists for Rome seek to straighten us out, they sometimes begin by revealing a fascinating presumption that we are uninformed; that we are ignorant and, in the words of one of their wordiest writers with the least to say, "don't get it." They presume that if only we understood, we would leap into the Tiber and swim merrily. They think that their church believes and practices everything exactly the same today as they did in the 16th century with the exception of vernacular vs. Latin. They believe that where Anglicanism deviates from the practices of Rome it is the Anglicans who came up with something new. How little they realize that we are the ones who have preserved many older Catholic practices that they have abandoned. In fact, our own Fr. Matthew Kirby wrote an excellent article that shows the many ways in which Anglicanism has been in the lead, and Rome has followed our example, and come around to our beliefs or practices on various matters. Is that because the Infallible Church realized the heretics were right? It is more likely that they recognized the truth, the Catholic truth, of our practices and teaching.
It is even more troubling that some Anglicans often learn from the RC apologists, and so abandon their Anglican patrimony due to ignorance and misinformation. Afterward, they testify about their wonderful conversion, and begin to argue against Anglican teaching based on a completely flawed understanding of what it is. They appear to have authority as ex-Anglicans, but in fact reveal that they never had an Anglican mind in the first place.
Let us take our Article XIX as an example, once again, of flawed understanding on the part of some modern readers who cannot appreciate the perspective of those who wrote this, originally in 1553.
So too, they misunderstand Article XXI:
The most common mistake is failing to recall what was in the works when these Articles were being written (and forgetting that several ancient councils were rejected by the Universal Church). They forget that Rome was at that time holding the Council of Trent, and that the Church of England had no idea what would emerge. The reason these two Articles appeared was to remind the people of England that their Faith need not be shaken by any error that could come from a council limited only to the west, lacking the consent of the Universal Church, run by fallible men.
In their view the Church of Rome had erred, not only in a few ancient examples such as E.J. Bicknell recorded ("The latter section justifies the breach with Rome by denying her infallibility. As she has erred in the past, so she may err again at the Council of Trent. The allusion is to such events as the acceptance of by Pope Liberius of an Arian creed, the acquittal of Pelagius by Pope Zosimus and the lapse of Pope Honorius into Monothelitism."1) Also, she had erred in more recent times by allowing the false doctrines that caused the famous heresy of Indulgences being sold for money, offering salvation by means that even Simon Magus had never imagined. No hearty repentance and true faith was required, just the sound made when the coin in the coffer rings. These included the following:
Frankly, the errors of more recent times included the requirment of celibacy in the priesthood, which thing contradicts scripture (I Timothy 3:2,12, Titus 1:6).
The programmed response even of many Anglicans is this: "That's probably unwise, but not error. It is not a matter of teaching." True enough, the Church of Rome has no doctrine of clerical celibacy. Nonetheless, this error of polity evolved from a larger error: That any idea could be good for the Church even if it flies in the face of Scripture; that the "Apostolic See" could have greater wisdom than the Apostles. This cannot be a proper exercise of Right Reason. The compounded problems that come from requiring celibacy of priests cannot be hidden; they are obvious to everyone who is willing to see facts.
The Reformers were rather clear in why they saw the Church of Rome as having erred in the past.
But, to the modern polemicists Article XIX automatically appears to deny the Infallibility of the Church. The Article does not deny the Infalliblity of the Church at all, but rather states facts of history. Neither does it say the churches are any less the Church for having erred. What is clear is that they saw the Church of Rome, that is the Church in Rome itself, as a particlular church that needed to submit, like everyone else, to the mind of the Universal Church. It was the practice of Archbishop of Canterbury, Michael Ramsey, (the last real ABC) to use the word "antiquity" where others use "Tradition." Indeed, the Scriptures and the Tradition are ancient, and the mind of the Universal Church as expressed in Antiquity carries authority to which every later generation must bow. When there was only One visible Church able to meet in Ecumenical Council (during the first millennium) it established doctrine and polity against which Rome was creating innovations and new doctrines, making a claim to have the power to create dogmas unknown to the Fathers (considering that no one had yet imagined the 1870 doctrine of Papal Infallibility, it is irrelevant to anything that was intended by writers in the Elizabethan era).
From the perspective of the Reformers in the Elizabethan era Rome was no longer fully Catholic in doctrine and practice, having abandoned Antiquity and the mind of the Universal Church, and was transgressing by its new and innovative doctrines, no matter how logically deduced. It fell to Hooker to do in greater detail what the writers of the various Articles did simply and briefly. That was to explain why Protestantism (as they used the word) was the only way to restore the Catholic Faith corrupted by Rome, and at the same time to defend the Church of England against other Protestantisms that also created new doctrines with innovations every bit as troublesome as those of Rome. For this reason the Articles imitate a Lutheran format, and show in the process a strong contrast and disagreement with the extremes of Lutheranism; and also the Articles make use of the vocabulary employed by Calvinists in order to correct the extremes and outright errors of Calvinism.
What is also misunderstood in modern times is that the theological terminology of the English Reformers, and the issues raised in their works, makes use of langauge and arguments that had been generally considered within the boundaries of acceptable thoughts and beliefs by many Catholics for centuries. For example, the opening of Article VI has caused some to make the accusation Sola Scriptura!
VI. Of the sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures for Salvation.
Holy Scriptures containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation.
Holy Scriptures containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation.
It is not clear what they think sola scriptura means, except that they presume it is a rejection of the authority of Tradition (as indeed it does mean to some fundamentalists these days). But, as Fr. Laurence Wells has pointed out, the problem with the phrase is that no one ever explains what they mean by "Scripture alone." That is, alone for what exactly? In the Article we see that, assuming they had the phrase in mind at all (since they never actually used it), it would have been that the "scriptures [alone] containeth all things necessary to salvation."
And, though they never used the phrase sola scritpura or "scripture alone," if they had used it they would have considered it to be a very Catholic concept. As I have demonstrated before, it was not the Continental Reformers who came up with the phrase, but St. Thomas Aquinas.2 And, that alone indicates that they would have meant the phrase, had they used it, to be understood in a manner wholly consistent with the Tradition.3
The problem our critics have, and that some of our own who are weak in the faith have, is that they read every olde thing with the a modern mind. They cannot even understand what was meant by the words "Catholic" and "Protestant." How much less can they begin to put themselves into the world of the 16th century. If they want to read and understand the formularies of Anglicanism they may need the gift of tongues and of the interpretation of tongues.
At least they might allow Anglican teachers to interpret.
1) E.J. Bicknell, The Thirty-Nine Articles of the Church of England.
2) St. Thomas Aquinas wrote: Notandum autem, quod cum multi scriberent de catholica veritate, haec est differentia, quia illi, qui scripserunt canonicam Scripturam, sicut Evangelistic et Apostoli, et alii huiusmodi, ita constanter eam asserunt quod nihil dubitandum relinquunt. Et ideo dicit Et scimus quia verum est testimonium eius; Gal. I, 9: Si quis vobis evangelizaverit praeter id quod accepistis, anathema sit. Cuius ratio est, quia sola canonica scriptura est regula fidei. Alii autem sic edisserunt de veritate, quod nolunt sibi credi nisi in his quae ver dicunt. Thomas's commentary on John's Gospel, Super Evangelium S. Ioannis Lectura, ed. P. Raphaelis Cai, O.P., Editio V revisa (Romae: Marietti E ditori Ltd., 1952) n. 2656, p. 488.
Translated into English: ""It should be noted that though many might write concerning Catholic truth, there is this difference that those who wrote the canonical Scripture, the Evangelists and Apostles, and the like, so constantly assert it that they leave no room for doubt. That is what he means when he says 'we know his witness is true.' Galatians 1:9, "If anyone preach a gospel to you other than that which you have received, let him be anathema!" The reason is that canonical Scripture alone is a measure of faith. Others however so wrote of the truth that they should not be believed save insofar as they say true things." (St. Thomas Aquinas, Commentary on the Gospel of John 21)
3) Most likey they avoided the phrase so as not to promote the excesses of Lutherans and Calvinists.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)