Q & A on Apostolic Succession

I was sent a behind the scenes email with questions about Apostolic Succession. Upon considering my answers, I thought it may be helpful for some if I post here a summary of the questions, and my answers. This may be read in connection with an essay about Apostolic Succession and Scripture posted back on August 8, last year.

Questions

I have read your articles about the apostolic succession, and I think that I have grasped your argument. Paul ordained Timothy and Titus by the laying on of hands, something was transmitted to them by the imposition of hands, and we have no other biblical model for ordination, so we must stick to it. The early church did it this way, and this way the Apostolic Succession (AS) has been transmitted to the present day.

1. The Ordinal makes the Bishop say that the Holy Spirit is transmitted to the priest by the imposition of his hands, and that he thereby receives authority to forgive or retain sins. My difficulty is that I do not see that this necessarily results in the conclusion that AS is in the Book of Common Prayer (BCP).

2.So the Bishop ordains, and in so doing the transmits the Holy Spirit for a particular purpose. How do we conclude that it must always be a bishop in the line of AS? Is it not also reasonable to think that this happens in any ordination, such as the Presbyterians practice? I am thinking of continental Presbyterians like a Laski (?) who came to England with Presbyterian orders and were received into English orders without re-ordination. I have in mind the letters between Cranmer and Calvin, in which the necessity of episcopal ordination for the purpose of transmitting the AS is not mentioned. Surely something so necessary for a valid sacrament, which sacrament is generally necessary for salvation, would be boldly and plainly stated, instead of being inferred? Why is the AS not mentioned in the articles?

Please believe that I am not trying to change your mind, or to have an argument, but to rightly understand this issue.

My Answer

(Before getting into the meat of the answers, let me say this: About Laski: The fact is, if any man who had never been episodically ordained was allowed to minister as if he had been, the bishop who knew this would have been in violation of the Law, and both men in danger of imprisonment. The official records of the Church of England simply do not bear out the Laski story; and, on the other hand, the records of English Law are indisputable. As for Cranmer's letters to Calvin, they were intended for an ecumenical purpose, and the practices of the Church of England were well-known, making any difference fairly obvious and perhaps not worth discussing in that context. One generation later, however, answering domestic matters, Hooker had much to say against "Calvin's Geneva Discipline" when defending the unbroken practice of the English Church.)

It is evident that only disputed matters get enough attention to receive clarification. The answer to why the BCP, including as it does the Articles and Ordinal, does not explicitly speak of Apostolic Succession in the clearest of terms is covered by answering your other question at the same time, namely: "Is it not also reasonable to think that this happens in any ordination, such as the Presbyterians practice?" For, neither the Calvinists nor the Lutherans have ever rejected Apostolic Succession to this day. True many of them do not know this fact; but, it is known to their more astute theologians.

What the Presbyterians and Puritans in England rejected was the episcopate. They believed that the Apostolic Succession was passed on well enough through their presbyters. They would emphasize I Tim. 4:14: "Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery." Our side has always replied that this verse does not stand alone, and must be read along with II Tim. 1:6: "Wherefore I put thee in remembrance that thou stir up the gift of God, which is in thee by the putting on of my hands." So, the Apostolic hands of Paul were essential somehow, since the gift came by his hands. The hands of the presbytery seem not have the same efficacy, as what happened was merely with their laying on of hands, not by it. Therefore, we believe that we must make sure that what is passed on is truly Apostolic and not merely ecclesiastical, and why this requires bishops will be clear in what follows. Moreover, II Tim. 1:6 speaks in expressly charismatic terms, not merely institutional terms; what we see in scriptural references to ordination bears witness to supernatural grace, not merely a formal procedure of licensing ministry.

It is evident from the Epistles to Titus and to Timothy that each of these men was placed in the position of what we call these days the Ordinary-they ordained. They needed to exercise sound judgment concerning who they should ordain, and who not to ordain. Clearly, their authority was greater than that of the Presbytery. It is evident that they were left in Crete and in Ephesus respectively in place of the Apostle himself. Whether or not the word ἐπίσκοπος (episkopos, bishop) was synonymous with the word πρεσβύτερος (presbyteros, elder) in the usage of the Church, at the time of Paul's writing, within one generation the word episkopos (bishop) was set apart to refer only to those men like Titus and Timothy who succeeded the Apostles (most evident in the Epistles of St. Ignatius of Antioch, who knew Paul, Peter and John). And, as noted, this succession, drawing from what we read in scripture is not only authoritative but charismatic. Furthermore, our reading of scripture also happens to coincide with the only practice of the ancient Church for which we have evidence. Non-episcopal ordination simply has no historic witness. The closest we come is mention of laying on of hands with the presbytery in Alexandria; but, on examination it is evident that, there too, this was not without the laying on of a bishop's hands as well.

I hope this answers your questions.

Sincerely,
RH+

When the train left the station

We are working out some internet wrinkle to let Fr. Nalls do his own posting. For now I am posting this one for him. - Fr. Hart

When the train left the station

Rev. Canon Charles Nalls

The internet has proven to be a goldmine of information. Where else can one learn about the latest “Church” of Scientology scandal or check in on that all-important British tabloid coverage of Carmen Electra? Idle surfing (particularly when deadlines loom) brings all manner of interesting news. So was the case today when the latest story on the Apostolic Constitution popped up on Catholic News Service and was picked up on several other services and blogs.

It seems that Cardinal Walter Kasper, president of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, said the visit Nov. 19-22 of Archbishop Rowan Williams to the Vatican “demonstrates that there has been no rupture and reaffirms our common desire to talk to one another at a historically important moment.” Heaven forbid! Might cut into the Cardinal’s London theatre weekends.

Kasper, who is no friend of the traditional Anglican (or Roman Catholic, for that matter), was hot to maintain that the Apostolic Constitution establishing special structures for Anglicans who want to enter into full communion with the Roman Catholic Church “absolutely is not a signal of the end of ecumenical dialogue with the Anglican Communion.” One can only uncharitably speculate whether the cardinal has been making ecumenical visits to peyote-based faith communities to make such a claim, but no matter.

In an interview published in the Nov. 15 edition of L'Osservatore Romano, the Vatican newspaper, Kasper assailed commentators who have said that the pope made this decision just to “expand his empire” as “ridiculous.” “Let's stick to the facts.” Said Kasper, no stranger to the Vatican-mandated press retraction. “A group of Anglicans freely and legitimately asked to enter the Catholic Church. It was not our initiative/” Rather, the whole thing is based on “the Second Vatican Council and of 40 years of Catholic-Anglican dialogue.” Now for the interesting bit.

Cardinal Kasper also spoke about the Traditional Anglican Communion-“a group that claims more than 400,000 members and describes itself as ‘a worldwide association of orthodox Anglican churches, working to maintain the catholic faith and resist the secularization of the church.’” The cardinal bluntly said that while “TAC leaders asked the Vatican two years ago to find a way for them to join the Catholic Church, they did not participate in the conversations that led to the pope’s recent provision.” This would seem to directly contradict the center-stage taken by the TAC since signing and transmitting a Catechism of the Catholic Church and accompanying letters in Portsmouth, England two years past.

The good cardinal didn’t let it lie there. He went on to note, “Now, however, they [TAC] are jumping on a train that already has left the station. If they are sincere, OK, the doors are open. But we cannot close our eyes to the fact that they have not been in communion with Canterbury since 1992” and therefore are not technically leaving the Anglican Communion to join the Roman Catholic Church, he said.

Again, the Cardinal has been known to have to down healthy servings of crow from time to time. Nevertheless, as chief ecumenical officer of the Roman Catholic Church and having been entangled with the CofE for some time, he must know a little something. It lends weight to the idea that the Apostolic Constitution is an instrument directed to departing “mainstream” Anglicans in the U.K. and elsewhere, (you know, folks who already have the altars in the nave and use the Novus Ordo liturgy) rather than continuing church Anglicans who may not be up to scratch in any number of areas specified in the plain language of the document. Perhaps the answer lies in the “special secret Apostolic Constitution” that is alleged to be manifesting itself shortly.

At least it is cause to ask, “When did the train leave the station?” There is much at stake in the answer.

Today Nov. 18

This morning (EST) I logged in and saw that we have, so far today, three new posts for you. Scrolling down you will find an edifying piece by Ed Pacht that can serve as an excellent devotion before attending Holy Communion. Fr. Kirby has addressed the ecumencial relations of Anglicanism with the RCC and the EOC. Scrolling down below both of these, you will see that I have presented teaching about the Anglican expression of Eucharistic Sacrifice.

We have not forgotten the current events issue discussed so much in recent days, and both Fr. Kirby and I have written in light of that and with relevance to it. We have, however, done a good day's work so far in putting the issues in terms of what we value most about our blog, The Continuum, namely edification and education.

One Sacrifice Once Offered

Article XXXI makes negative reference to "the sacrifices of Masses", to the impression that had been given that each Mass is a new and distinct sacrifice. The Prayer of Consecration rightly speaks of "one sacrifice once offered". And yet we do stand at the Altar to offer sacrifice. How can this be? Perhaps it is because we transcend time, and join with Christ, actually present with at that one oblation of Calvary. A few years ago I wrote the following after an experience of imaginings that seemed very real, and that helped me to grasp, in part, just what "Eucharistic Sacrifice" may mean.

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

Wednesday, May 11, 2005, at Mass. We have just said the angels' song, 'Holy, Holy, Holy' . There is a hush. Father pauses, lifts his hands and his eyes toward heaven, and begins the great Prayer of Consecration, "All glory be to thee . . .". Suddenly I have a sense of the timelessness of what we are doing. I seem to hear not only the words of our Prayer Book, but also ‘Te igitur clementissime Pater…’ and ‘…Holy and all-holy…’ and the many other ways that prayer begins in other places. I seem to see not only our own little New Hampshire church, but also an ancient Saxon chapel, an Irish Culdee praying, a pompous solemn cathedral Mass, a . . .

Time is irrelevant. There is (in the eternal scheme of things) only one Mass, and we are there . . .

A Hole in Time

. . . and hands raise up,
and eyes lift up,
and a voice speaks up,
and a voice speaks up,
and a voice . . .

. . . and a voice, and a voice, and a voice . . .

. . . and in a wattled shrine of Saxon days,
and on a lonely Celtic isle,
and in cathedrals great and granite,
newly built in days gone by,
and in the ancient, aging piles of stone,
that still remain today,
and in a hidden persecuted room,
where faith, attacked, costs dear
and at the altar of His rising up,
where glorious pomp prevails,
and as the trumpet sounds for His return,
while the last of Masses here below is said,

. . . the countless hands lift up,
unnumbered eyes are raised,
and multitudes of voices speak,
a sound like rushing mighty waters flowing,
flowing through the streams of time,
rushing o'er the many rapids
of the clamoring strifes of men,
and in a world with sin's pollution
deeply filled,
the river runs, the voices speak,
and yet are speaking . . .
. . . voices numberless beyond all counting
(yet the voices are but one),
and hands that lift up,
holding sacred things,
though many, are likewise here but one,
and eyes that now towards heaven are turned,
are one with those that now look down,
for many priests there are, but only one,
and many Masses offered, yet but one,
for at the altar time and space are vanquished,
and here He offers once the one oblation,
and many priests and many altars
there may be,
but here . . .

. . . His hands raise up,
His eyes lift up
His voice speaks up,
and He is here,
and we are there,
and . . .

Anglican Catholic Ecclesiology

In the following essay I will use the term "Anglican Catholic" with an inclusive range, rather than in reference only to the Anglican Catholic Church. Canon Hollister has recently stated that the more general term should be "Anglo-Catholic", with the former term restricted to the Church to which we both belong. However, since the term "Anglican Catholic" is found in the 1830s in William Palmer's classic High Church writings, whereas "Anglo-Catholic" was invented later, and often to refer to a particular party within the High Church tradition, I maintain my preference for the former.

Recent comments by a number of our readers have implied that the reason we are not in full communion with either the Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox Churches (RCC and EOC henceforth, respectively) is that we have separated from them both. A correlative assertion is that we have done so for reasons of incompatible dogma in one area or another, such that this self-imposed isolation was obligatory. Deriving from this position is a syllogism such as that following, and a claim that we cannot accept reunion with either the RCC or EOC until they are restored to an orthodoxy which we, almost alone apparently, represent.

1. The only justifiable reason for a particular Church or Churches separating from another portion of the Catholic Church (especially if that included the Primatial See) would be certainty that that other portion had committed itself serious doctrinal error or heresy. Only then would separation not be the sin of schism.

2. The Church of England did so separate from the Roman communion, being followed in this by its daughter churches. It also rejected communion with the EOC.

3. Therefore, Anglicanism's state of separation from Rome and the EOC was and is sinful unless it can point to definitive heresies in Roman and Eastern dogmatic teaching that constitutes a barrier to reconciliation until rescinded by them. As a corollary, it would be wrong to remain Anglican unless asserting such a heresy in the RCC and EOC.

The problem with this argument is not that the conclusion does not follow from the premises. It does. The problem is that the major, ecclesiological premise is disputable and the minor, historical premise is false.

As I noted in "Necessary Admissions", there have been cases where churches have broken communion for perceived gross derelictions in other churches or bishops that did not rise to the level of binding teaching being manifest heterodoxy. So a suspension of communion with a church or bishop for their toleration of gross error in faith or morals, for example, does not seem to be absolutely unthinkable on Catholic principles. Thus the first premise is dubious.

However, even if the first premise was granted, it has little purchase on Anglicans for the simple reason that the separation or break in communion between us and Rome was made definitive from their side, not ours. The fact that we in the ACC are willing to accept RCs at our altars in practice and that neither we nor our forebears in the faith ever excommunicated or declared outside the Church any part of the RCC makes the nature of the separation clear. Its origin and continuance are primarily the result of a unilateral Roman act. Many Anglican divines have no doubt reciprocated in their expressed opinions, but none of that has ever obliged the Church.

In the 16th Century Queen Elizabeth I was willing for her bishops to attend and participate in the Council of Trent under certain conditions which were not met. In the 17th Century the 1604 Canons rejected the notion that the C of E had rejected outright the Continental Catholic churches, the Archbishop of Spalato was received into the C of E without renunciation, and Abp Laud declared the RCC was within the Church depsite its deficiencies. In the 18th Century Abp Wake negotiated for restoring communion with the Church of France without simply treating it as heretical or schismatic. The Tractarian apologetics of the 19th Century made it clear that the "schism" was not the result of an intention to separate by us but a decision by Rome to repudiate us unless we simply submitted to it and pretended that all fault for the separation lay with us. The 20th and 21st Century Anglo-Catholics have likewise stressed the unilaterally Roman nature of the separation. Absent a binding and authoritative ecclesial declaration of separation from communion on our side, the facts listed are sufficient to show that the C of E and its daughter churches could not be guilty of formal schism, having never broken communion definitively for their part. Indeed, before the Twentieth Century Ecumenical Movement, Anglicans had made suggestions for reconciliatory steps and been rebuffed. King James I was one of the earliest of those.

So, the reason we are not in communion with Rome is their decision to have it so. We never excommunicated them. And we have always had divines, at least since the 17th Century, who have made this point and whose eirenic attempts to interpret Roman dogma in a patristically consistent fashion have been mirrored by similar interpretations permitted within the RCC. In other words, it is not certain that there are insuperable doctrinal barriers.

As for our historical relations with the EOC, these are even less characteristic of schism. The reason we are not in communion with the East is their non-decision to normalise relations with us despite the fact we reject no dogma, properly speaking, of theirs, nor they of ours, and despite the fact we have since the Reformation rejected the Roman position on the purportedly schismatic position of the EOC. We are not intentionally separate from the Orthodox. The following facts all support this.

In the 17^th Century a string of Caroline Divines such as Archbishop Laud disputed the ecumenicity of the Council of Trent on the basis that the EOC bishops were not included, rejected the Roman argument that the East was in schism and heresy and specifically included them as part of the wider Catholic Church, and even carried on friendly correspondence and relations with them in some cases. In the 18^th Century the Non-Jurors carried on ecumenical dialogue with the EOC with a view to reunion, a dialogue that was ended by, among other things, a letter from the then Archbishop of Canterbury stating that the Non-Jurors were a schismatic group trying to lure the East away from communion with the Church of England. In other words, he assumed inter-communion as the default position from his side. The Church of England also invited Greek Orthodox candidates for the priesthood to be educated at Oxford as a fraternal act, and some were in fact sent to do this. In the 19^th Century, while the Church of England set up a bishopric in Jerusalem in order to minister to their own people (who were not accepted at Eastern altars) and evangelise Jews, they were careful to disavow any prosyletising intent and recognise Eastern jurisdiction, though this original intent was not always followed. The Oxford Movement and its “children” had a great number of divines who not only recognised the EOC as a sister church, truly and fully Catholic, but pursued reunion in earnest. This renewed effort began in the 19^th Century and continued on afterwards, always with the premise that it was the East that needed to be convinced of our Catholicity, since we already accepted theirs.

If one really believes that neither the RCC nor the EOC have kept the Faith, and that only Continuing Anglicans or a segment of them have kept it, then one has implicitly denied the infallibility of the Church during the centuries before the Reformation and reduced the scope of "True Catholicism" today to Continuing Anglicanism or a portion thereof. This, I'm afraid, is a reductio ad absurdum. It appears to be self-refuting Anglican Sectarianism, not Anglican Catholicism, if taken to its logical conclusion. Let me make this clearer.

If it is claimed that our state of non-communion with both the EOC and RCC since the Reformation is due to our perception of certain long-standing doctrinal error on both their parts, then the following implications are unavoidable. One, since Christendom was almost entirely composed of the RCC and EOC before the Reformation, then the ascription of heresy to both, or at least of an error that justifies withdrawal from their communion, is a denial of the existence of the Orthodox Catholic Church as a visible body in the centuries before the Reformation and so a denial of the infallibility of the Universal Church. It contradicts Scriptures like Matthew 16:18, John 16:13 and 1 Timothy 3:15b. This is especially the case if it is being claimed that any of the errors purportedly identified are common to both. Then it is implicitly but unavoidably an assertion that the whole church can fall into fundamental error doctrinally. This is a an absolute denial of an essential Biblical and Catholic ecclesiological teaching. It is precisely along this fault-line that the epistemological division of Catholic vs. Non-Catholic ecclesiology lies. The former says that the Catholic Church as a whole cannot fall into fundamental or binding error, so that its consensus is divinely guaranteed to be a safe guide to the interpretation of Scripture and the understanding of the Faith for believers wanting to know what to believe. The latter rejects this and says that orthodoxy can and has disappeared (or virtually disappeared by being limited to an almost invisible “faithful remnant” or succession of isolated communities) for centuries during Church history. The main difference among the various sub-species of non-catholic ecclesiologies is how long they say orthodoxy was lost, who restored it, and when. Many protestants would “write off” the entire mediaeval period, at least since the invocation of saints, for example, became widely practised, and give Luther and/or Calvin the honour of “restoring the Gospel” supposedly lost till then. Other sectarians would include these Reformers among the deceived and point to their own sect's denial of the Trinity or of worship on Sunday as the point when “real” Christianity came back to light. Once a person accepts that the whole Church can go wrong for centuries, the slippery slope risks leading, logically at least, all the way to denial that the Creeds are any more certain than any other inference of that person from Scripture, or to a denial of the Creeds themselves. It is strictly impossible for this kind of ecclesiology and epistemology to be objectively consistent with any claim to Catholicity, as it is its exact contradiction. It is ruled out on Anglican principles by, among other things, the 1662 Book of Common Prayer's Preface which describes as “of dangerous consequence” and to be “rejected” that which opposes a doctrine “of the whole Catholic Church”.

Therefore, there are only three coherent and traditional opinions on the pre-Reformation Church admissible for Anglican Catholics. One, neither the RCC nor the EOC were committed absolutely to any heresy, whatever their flaws in common teaching, and the separation between us and them is due to choices on their side, including a desire for uncanonical and unbiblical domination by Rome and a refusal by it to accept that our particular Church had a right and responsibility to correct abuses and errors (including that domination) itself. Two, the RCC had fallen away from Catholic Orthodoxy, but not the EOC, and our Reformation was, in its ideals, a return to the patristic consensus still shared with the East. Three, while neither the RCC nor the EOC maintained Catholic Orthodoxy perfectly, in what they held in common nothing heretical could possibly be found, such that any problematic idiosyncrasies they each possessed were never truly binding (despite appearances) because they were never truly a Catholic consensus. Hence, their errors did not unchurch them or oblige withdrawal from them, as that would mean an obligation of complete withdrawal from the Church, an impossibility. The last of these opinions seems the least persuasive and probable.

Given that the RCC and EOC together make up the vast majority of Christians in episcopally ordered Churches even now, a similar argument can be made, mutatis mutandis, for what is permissible for Anglican Catholics to posit regarding those Churches' catholicity and orthodoxy in the present day.

What, then, are the remaining barriers between us and the RCC and EOC? Why is the present Roman offer flawed? Why are we not obliged to commit to reunion with either the RCC or EOC on whatever terms they offer, for the sake of precious unity?

Between us and the RCC there are outstanding doctrinal issues, all of which I believe are able to be resolved without renunciation by either side. However, the theological work required to manifest underlying doctrinal unity has not been completed yet and would require significant clarifications and qualifications by Rome of its teaching. No doubt we also would have some duties in this regard.

Additionally, even assuming the aforementioned work was done, any subsequent agreement that effectively required of us an “admission” that we were outside the Catholic Church until Rome chose to “take us in” would be asking us to be dishonest about our historical ecclesiology and thus to mislead our people and others in the Church. If it obliged a straightforward denial of the validity of our Orders or an adherence to Apostolicae Curae as practically infallible it would force us to be dishonest about our identity as a particular Church and to commit sacrilege at every absolute reordination. It appears that this, unfortunately, is exactly what the Apostolic Constitution involves.

At present, one major barrier between us and the EOC is that they have been wary of all Anglicans since the defections from Apostolic Order and other heterodoxies of the Anglican Communion derailed progress towards unity that had been previously attained. Another barrier is that a significant minority in the EOC are opposed to all such ecumenical dialogue and reconciliation except on the premise that to be presently outside the canonical boundaries of the EOC is to be certainly outside the Catholic Church and heterodox, such that any reunion would require renunciations and submission by the non-EO interlocutors. Yet, there is no binding doctrine of the EOC we have rejected. There is no binding doctrine of ours they have rejected. We both stand on the Scriptures as interpreted by Holy Tradition, the Seven Ecumenical Councils, adhere to Apostolic Order and use the Seven Sacraments. We both accept the Creeds, affirm both both the unmerited forgiveness of sins and the inner renewal that is given by God's grace, and exhort our people that they must strive for holiness and grow in that grace and theosis in order to “make [their] calling and election sure” (cf. Hebrews 12:14, 2 Peter 1:3-11 & 3:18). While our recitation of the Creed usually includes the filioque clause presently, it has been common for Anglican theologians to note that per filium (“through the Son”) properly and sufficiently expresses the equivalent orthodox intention of this insertion, and for Orthodox theologians to accept the per filium and the fact that such an explanation acquits us of the error of denying the unique Monarchy of the Father. Also, it is normally agreed by Anglican theologians that the insertion and maintenance of the clause against persistent Eastern protests, in what was always intended to be an ecumenical Creed containing essential and agreed dogma, was wrong and should be reversed. Therefore, this barrier could be overcome by our omission of the clause without rejecting all related theological reflection. (Indeed, omission of the clause has been and still is practised in the Anglican Catholic Church (ACC) by episcopal permission based on a plausible interpretation of the Affirmation of St Louis and its attendant obligations.) So, the main element missing in the Anglican Catholic / Eastern Orthodox relationship is confidence in the East concerning our genuine Western Orthodoxy. Again, this is a largely unilateral separation, but unlike the Anglican/Roman separation requires little to repair in objective terms, however long it may take due to subjective doubts on the other side.

It might be replied that, if there is already substantial doctrinal unity between us and either or both the RCC and the EOC, then we are obliged to accept any offer they make to reconcile us to themselves, for the sake of unity. However, this is easily seen to be a flimsy assumption by a quick analogy. If, say, the Serbian Orthodox Church was declared heterodox and excommunicated by the Russian Orthodox Church tomorrow, but for inadequate or incorrect reasons and without the Serbs reciprocating, would the Serbian Orthodox Church be obliged to meet all Russian demands to restore communion later? If the Russians said the Serbs must henceforth dissolve their church structure (as having previously been a non-entity) and be absorbed into the Russian Orthodox Church, would this too be obligatory? The answer is an obvious no. Therefore, since the Anglican Catholic Church, for example, is a true particular Church that has not committed either schism from its side or heresy, and has valid continuity of jurisdiction as well as Orders, it can be under no obligation to accept offers amounting to renunciation of identity and absorption. (As explained above, to accept such an offer might very well involve grievous sin.) Given the haphazard way the Western patriarchy came to be defined and grow, the fact that regional consent was relevant even in ancient times to how patriarchal boundaries shifted, and that the Archbishop of Canterbury was once treated as having a quasi-patriarchal status pre-Reformationally, I do not see us as even necessarily obliged to assume a distinct identity jurisdictionally within the Patriarchy of the West in a re-united Church. This is especially the case since, as Canon Hollister has noted, it was Rome that rejected us from communion and maintained the exclusion rigidly, and centuries of separate development have occurred since then.

(However, while I believe the ACC et al., are the legitimate continuation of Anglican jurisdiction, which I take to be the native and natural Catholic jurisdiction of Britain and its former colonies and mission fields, I also recognise the EOC's and RCC's proper Patriarchal jurisdictions. So, if I were an Italian or Spaniard, for example, the RCC would be my Church. If I were Greek or Russian, the EOC would be. If we don't believe this, then we should have been proselytising these nations and deliberately establishing explicitly competing hierarchies in order to restore Catholicism to these nations. That we have not and will not speaks volumes and shows that we do in fact accept the essential orthodoxy and catholicity of the sister Communions. This is a "dogmatic fact" for Anglicans, and thus must provide definite limits and parameters for our ecumenical and doctrinal claims.)

To sum up then, any reunion which clearly implied a denial of our present Catholicity and jurisdictional validity, would seem to involve necessarily the sins of sacrilege, lying and scandal. Since it is a basic principle of moral theology that intrinsically evil means are never justified or permitted even for good ends, then such reunion would be prohibited. Nevertheless, we are clearly impelled by our own principles to seek reunion on an honest basis, firstly with the EOC and secondly with the RCC, and we cannot falsify and misrepresent our traditional ecclesiology by positing that a barrier to communio in sacris has been erected and maintained by us as a chosen act of separation from both the EOC and RCC.

Eucharistic Sacrifice in Anglicanism

From time to time it is asked what Anglicans mean by Eucharistic Sacrifice. To begin this essay, I will quote an older essay of mine:

"Writing in 1624, speaking for the Anglican position, a Church of England priest named William Bedell wrote about Eucharistic Sacrifice:

'[If by it you mean] a memory and representation of the true Sacrifice and holy immolation made on the altar of the cross...we do offer the sacrifice for the quick and the dead, by which all their sins are meritoriously expiated, and desiring that by the same, we and all the Church may obtain remission of sins, and all other benefits of Christ's Passion.'"

"The Eucharistic sacrifice is the complete sacrifice. It takes us to Calvary. It is our bounden duty and service, the sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving, and of ourselves as living sacrifices (following Romans 12:1,2); as the English Mass also says: 'And here wee offre and present unto thee (O Lorde) oure selfe, oure soules, and bodies, to be a reasonable, holy, and lively sacrifice unto thee...' Nothing is omitted, nothing neglected, in this highest act of Christian worship.

"The second thing they wanted to teach is that the people were supposed to receive the sacrament. For this reason they came up with yet another name for this ancient service, one taken directly from St. Paul's First Epistle to the Corinthians: Holy Communion. It was not enough to 'hear the Mass' of a priest. This offering of the whole Church (led by a priest) made the sacrament available so that each Christian could feed on the bread of life. 'Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.'(John 6:54, 55)"

The question of Anglican Orders (again)

On Virtue Online a poster attempted to debate with me about the Anglican position with a series of hypothetical questions, such questions as we have dealt with many times over many years in friendly debates. I have answered him there in appropriate terms. It is worthwhile to answer these questions here for the edification of our readers . The subject matter is relevant to the current news about Anglicanorum Coetibus, but also able to move us back into teaching mode, sticking to our first and best priority.

The comment contained these words:

"I have indeed read Saepius Officio, and had come, a while ago, to a conclusion not very different from yours as explained in The Continuum blog. Not very different, but not altogether identical.

"I agree [not with me] that the real argument that could remain to support Apostolicae Curae is the doubt on the intent. To make it short, the deliberate omission of all reference of a sacrificing power in the Ordinals (for bishops and priests) does raise some doubts. Therefore, the fundamental question that remains is: Why such an omission?"

- For Leo XIII, this deliberate omission meant to deny an important element of the priesthood.

- For Bicknell refuting Apostolicae Curae, this deliberate omission was a mere wish to return to the primitive Church practice. Far from being a denial of sacrificing power, it was meant to “re-balance” the functions of a priest between sacrifice and the ministry of the Word.

"Will you agree with me that much depends on which answer is the correct one?"

"Had such an omission been decided at any time other than the Reformation, Bicknell’s position could easily be supported. But the very circumstances of this omission (associated with protestant reformation) are, at best, suspect." (Addition of links - mine)

I agree with this man that much does depend on which answer is correct, and say that after we establish that point, the commenter has it all wrong. It is precisely because the omission was during the Reformation period that we can be sure of the correct Intention of the Church of England, and therefore of Bicknell's interpetation. 1

And, even if it seems to make my immediate task appear more difficult, I will quote Article XXXI. "Of the one oblation of Christ finished upon the Cross.

The offering of Christ once made is the perfect redemption, propitiation, and satisfaction for all the sins of the whole world, both original and actual, and there is none other satisfaction for sin but that alone. Wherefore the sacrifices of Masses, in the which it was commonly said that the priests did offer Christ for the quick and the dead to have remission of pain or guilt, were blasphemous fables and dangerous deceits."

Here are certain facts that we need to have in mind, or we will not have a true focus.

1. The Reformation period was a time in which illiteracy and ignorance had prevailed for centuries.

2. This created in the popular mind superstitions and false doctrines that were in conflict with true religion.

3. The need for correct teaching and reformation of abuses was a pastoral need, and the English bishops rose to the challenge.

4. Public ceremonies needed to have more than sacramental validity. These ceremonies had to teach also the true faith so as not to confuse, but rather aid the people along the right path to salvation through faith in Christ.

Now that the ceremonies were in "a tongue understanded by the people," it was all the more necessary to send a clear message. Evangelism within the very Church itself, and therefore true teaching in line with the salvation of souls as the highest priority, required reformation of ceremonies themselves. Therefore, if the emphasis of past generations had become so warped as to hide the truth of the Gospel, or to obscure it, then it was best to clean up all such abuses in order to restore right doctrine, and to do so with the edification and salvation of the common people in mind.

The English Reformers were very much aware of the common misunderstanding of their own era, and of the need for a pastoral and teaching role that did not separate preaching from liturgy, so as to avoid confusion and further ignorance. The ceremonies must, themselves, be both valid and instructive. The people must receive true sacramental grace and hear the truth of the Gospel without unnecessary conflicts that would appear to indicate internal contradiction. They had restored the truth that we are saved by grace through faith, and that the grace that operates through faith includes, in the life of the average believer who lives within the Church, the very same sacramental grace that comes through those two sacraments, Baptism and Lord's Supper, that are "generally necessary to salvation."

Therefore, the Ordinal placed exactly the right amount of emphasis on the priest as "a faithful Dispenser of the Word of God, and of his holy Sacraments." To give the impression that a man is ordained to the priesthood almost exclusively in order to make sacrifices for the living and the dead would perpetuate two errors that the English Reformers knew they had to correct. The first is the mistaken idea of Eucharistic Sacrifice itself, as opposed to its true meaning; the second is that the presbyter has only a sacerdotal role, and is not responsible to be a pastor and teacher to God's family, the Church. But, the emphasis on sacrifice was sufficiently stated in the service of Holy Communion itself, and needed no greater reference than what we see in the Ordinal.

The nature of sacrifice

Let us look again at Article XXXI, and ask if these words are not the only correct interpretation of the Epistle to the Hebrews, of the Suffering Servant passage in Isaiah, and of I John 2:2, that "He [Jesus Christ] is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world." Here again is that opening line of the Article: "The offering of Christ once made is the perfect redemption, propitiation, and satisfaction for all the sins of the whole world, both original and actual, and there is none other satisfaction for sin but that alone." We live in a time when the Church of Rome, even in its current Catechism, affirms this truth of the Gospel, that was restored by the Reformation, in short this Catholic truth restored by Protestant-Catholics, i.e. the English Reformers.

Let us look also at the rest of the Article, and pay careful attention to what it really says: "Wherefore the sacrifices of Masses, in the which it was commonly said that the priests did offer Christ for the quick and the dead to have remission of pain or guilt, were blasphemous fables and dangerous deceits." Let us notice that this Article has said nothing, per say, about the Church of Rome, but about a commonly held error.

Notice too, the carefully placed double plural: The "sacrifices of Masses." Polemicists who attack Anglicanism invariably, and perhaps deliberately, quote this wrong, saying that the English Church rejected the "sacrifice of the Mass." Indeed, just the opposite. They restored its true meaning. They did not allow the pressure of Puritans at home, or of other Reformed churches on the continent, to make them move the pulpit to the central place and reduce the altar to a little table 2 trotted out occasionally. They took to heart the words of the Epistle to the Hebrews: "We have an altar, whereof they have no right to eat which serve the tabernacle." (13:10)

As E.J. Bicknell wrote:

"The sacrifice of the Eucharist is not something additional; it is the Eucharist itself in one of its chief aspects. Whatever it means, it is included in our Lord's words of institution. Hence, in conferring authority to minister the Sacraments, she [the Church] confers authority to offer the Eucharistic sacrifice." 3

Indeed, whatever one may think when reading carelessly the Book of Common Prayer service of Holy Communion, it is not possible to be in church with a priest at the altar, the Words of Institution spoken by him reverently while the people worship, without realizing the sacrificial nature of what has just happened.

In the service of Holy Communion itself, Christ's sacrifice correctly gives the Eucharistic Sacrifice its only true context and meaning.

"God, our heavenly Father, who of thy tender mercy didst give thine only Son Jesus Christ to suffer death upon the Cross for our redemption; who made there (by his one oblation of himself once offered) a full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice, oblation, and satisfaction, for the sins of the whole world; and did institute, and in his holy Gospel command us to continue, a perpetual memory of that his precious death, until his coming again."

The service takes us to the cross, the time and place of the "once for all" (Heb. 10:10) sacrifice of Christ.

Furthermore, this service summarizes the entire meaning of sacrifice and offering, words that speak clearly of our Atonement wrought by Christ alone, and no other than the One Man who is truly Priest and Sacrifice, and also of the offerings and sacrifices of worship, praise and thanksgiving that we are thus able to make only because we are now reconciled to God through His Son. By way of the cross, therefore (and only by way of the cross) our service speaks of the "sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving," and says also "here we offer and present unto thee, O Lord, ourselves, our souls and bodies, to be a reasonable, holy, and lively sacrifice unto thee." (from Romans 12:1,2). Through Christ's full, perfect and sufficient sacrifice of himself on the cross we offer true Eucharistic Sacrifice on many levels, the offering made by all Christian people for all time. We are reminded of the words of St. Paul: "That I should be the minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, ministering the gospel of God, that the offering up (Greek: προσφορά, prosphora) of the Gentiles might be acceptable, being sanctified by the Holy Ghost." (Rom. 15:16)

Conclusion

In a time of ecumenical gains, it is a shame that instead of appreciation for the restoration of Eucharistic Sacrifice as understood by the Fathers of the ancient Church, in line with Scripture, the Anglican expression of this truth should continue to suffer distortion in an attempt to deny the validity of our church and its sacraments. The Church of Rome has much to thank the English Reformers for, inasmuch as their teaching has undergone a certain amount of like reformation due to the Anglican influence. Nonetheless, I suppose this is a thing they cannot admit; and considering the state of affairs in the such venues as the Episcopal Church or the Church of England, who would blame them for being wary of making any positive gestures or remarks? As a priest in the Anglican Catholic Church, however, I remain very happy to carry on the teaching and practice of authentic Anglican Christianity. We have never claimed to be perfect or to be the One True Church. But, we do know how to offer Eucharistic Sacrifice, and that is because of Biblical truth in the Book of Common Prayer.

__________
1 He is mistaken also as to the one argument that Rome continues to make about "defect of Intention." The real reason they give is very weak indeed, and was answered in a past essay of mine:

"Even though the Rites in the Ordinal make very clear which office it is that a man is ordained to, Rome has clung to its position that the Imperative lines have failed to identify the Orders of bishop and priest (whereas the word "deacon" is in the Imperative of that Rite) until the 1662 revision. That is not true. The use of the Scriptures that were quoted most certainly (and clearly to those who know Scripture) identified the episcopate with the words from II Timothy 1:6, and the priesthood with words from John 20: 22, 23. This was not only commonly understood, but also it was already traditional, translated out of a Latin Ordinal that had been used for centuries. Simply put, there was no defect in Intention, and the whole argument by Rome in 1896 was completely bogus."

In effect, Rome, having reduced its argument to this one last point, has lost the debate in any honest way of thinking.

2. In places the BCP rubrics call the altar the "holy table." This is in keeping with Old Testament use of the word "table" for the altar of sacrifice, such as Malachi 1:7-12.

3. Bicknell, E.J. A Theological Introduction to The Thirty-Nine Articles of the Church of England, 1919, 1955, London

Elder brothers

Following up on my earlier essay about unspinning the new constitution, it is time now to focus on the most egregious interpretation of scripture I have seen in a very long time, outside of reported teaching from the cults. Confusion has been caused by sloppy reporting on the Traditional Anglican Communion's (TAC) own website, inasmuch as they put these words in the mouth of Abp. John Hepworth; but, in fact, they were really commentary by one Brother Stephen, who calls himself a former Anglican, a convert who is now a Catholic:

"To Catholics and to especially [sic] my fellow converts, since we often carry the biggest chips on our shoulders, who want to rage about the evils of Anglicanism and want people to come crawling, chastened, and cowed, remember that it is the Holy Father himself who has chosen to kill the fatted calf. It seems that the least we can all do is make merry. Reviewing the parable of the wages of the laborers in the vineyard might do us all some good."

That former Anglican has made, frankly, a terrible admission. The rage he describes, and the desire to punish, seem to come from self-loathing that reminds me of Frank Schaeffer's never ending adolescent tirade against his parents. Aside from that, I feel inclined to take this unfortunate commentary as an opportunity to teach. The first reference is to the Parable of the Prodigal Son, in Luke 15:11-32. *

The obvious meaning of the parable is that a sinner who comes home to God is forgiven, and "there is joy in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner that repenteth." (v.10) The prodigal's life of sin is described in the words, "wasted his substance with riotous living." He goes as far as working with unclean animals, pigs. This indicates that he disobeyed the Law of God very openly. The father in this story clearly represents God the Father; and if the slain fatted calf represents anyone it is no one less than God the Son in his role as the sacrifice and atonement.

Brother Stephen has so interpreted the parable as to make of our Anglican affiliation a life of sin, a waste and uncleanness. He has identified the father as the pope, sneaking that in gently with the term "the Holy Father." Confusing the language of Scripture with "lingo" that has grown up in various customs, is a very subtle trick indeed, making a certain kind of deception all the easier to perpetrate. He writes, "it is the Holy Father himself who has chosen to kill the fatted calf. " And, he has ignored the true meaning of the parable.

Sadly, there seems to be a host of Brother Stephens out there, ready to twist the scriptures, ready to treat former Anglicans as repentant sinners coming back to the father's house-not God the Father, but "the Holy Father" in Rome. They will make merry when they see Anglicans repenting of their "sinful" sacraments, and admitting that the elder brother has been right. Such elder brothers will have won an argument.

I am sure this is not what Pope Benedict XVI had in mind when creating the new constitution. I believe he is too gracious for that. On the other hand, the new constitution was an idea first created by Pope John Paul II in response to a request for help from Forward in Faith United Kingdom, back in the 1990s. In those days the Pope encountered obstruction from the British Roman Catholic bishops themselves, and complained to then Cardinal Ratzinger, "Why are the English [RC] bishops so unapostolic?" Overcoming obstruction is what delayed this constitution.

This should indicate that the people who plan to take it as an opportunity to swim the Tiber, by fooling themselves into thinking they get to remain Anglican somehow, are swimming into danger. The levels of bureaucracy that will remain between them and the Pope are occupied by men hostile to a traditionalist invasion (and we have said enough already about Rome's unfortunate choice of Cardinal Levada). And, many who will cheer the swimmers on constitute an army of Brother Stephens, gleeful at winning the argument against their own past, and watching Anglicans "repent" of wasting their living on false sacraments in a heretical church.

I do not consider any one denomination to be, exclusively, the Father's house, and that includes my own. The Universal Church is the earthly expression of the Father's House, and it contains many weird and strange people, relatives we may find embarrassing even though "He [Christ] is not ashamed to call them brethren." (Heb. 2:11) Even so, life for the Tiber Swimmers will be very difficult with so many elder brothers around.
_____________

* A certain man had two sons: and the younger of them said to his father, Father, give me the portion of goods that falleth to me. And he divided unto them his living. And not many days after the younger son gathered all together, and took his journey into a far country, and there wasted his substance with riotous living. And when he had spent all, there arose a mighty famine in that land; and he began to be in want. And he went and joined himself to a citizen of that country; and he sent him into his fields to feed swine. And he would fain have filled his belly with the husks that the swine did eat: and no man gave unto him. And when he came to himself, he said, How many hired servants of my father's have bread enough and to spare, and I perish with hunger ! I will arise and go to my father, and will say unto him, Father, I have sinned against heaven, and before thee, and am no more worthy to be called thy son: make me as one of thy hired servants. And he arose, and came to his father. But when he was yet a great way off, his father saw him, and had compassion, and ran, and fell on his neck, and kissed him. And the son said unto him, Father, I have sinned against heaven, and in thy sight, and am no more worthy to be called thy son. But the father said to his servants, Bring forth the best robe, and put it on him; and put a ring on his hand, and shoes on his feet: and bring hither the fatted calf, and kill it; and let us eat, and be merry: for this my son was dead, and is alive again; he was lost, and is found. And they began to be merry. Now his elder son was in the field: and as he came and drew nigh to the house, he heard musick and dancing. And he called one of the servants, and asked what these things meant. And he said unto him, Thy brother is come; and thy father hath killed the fatted calf, because he hath received him safe and sound. And he was angry, and would not go in: therefore came his father out, and intreated him. And he answering said to his father, Lo, these many years do I serve thee, neither transgressed I at any time thy commandment: and yet thou never gavest me a kid, that I might make merry with my friends: but as soon as this thy son was come, which hath devoured thy living with harlots, thou hast killed for him the fatted calf. And he said unto him, Son, thou art ever with me, and all that I have is thine. It was meet that we should make merry, and be glad: for this thy brother was dead, and is alive again; and was lost, and is found.

Twenty-third Sunday afterTrinity

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

The Gospel for today sometimes makes me think of Gary Cooper as Sgt. York, sitting on the mountainside with his Bible, looking for answers. The words “Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s” solved, for him, the question of conscience about taking up arms for his country. Some may want to debate whether or not this particular verse of scripture was written to address his specific question; but, he was right to inform his conscience with the word of God.

Often people want to render unto Caesar the things that are God’s, and that includes the conscience. We are taught by Saint Paul to be subject to the authorities, in modern terminology, to be model citizens (Romans 13:1f). In every way we obey the law, pay taxes, and respect the offices of those in government. In this way we render unto Caesar what is his due. However, the fact is that within a short time Saint Paul would be a prisoner, and all Christians living in the Roman empire would be fugitives and criminals, according to the state. In the Roman Empire, from Nero until Constantine (about 250 years), the crime of being a Christian was punishable by death. Is there a built in flaw in Saint Paul’s words? Why would law-breakers hold to a doctrine that requires them to be law abiding, model citizens?

To answer that question, we need to understand the boundary line, and that boundary line is the conscience. Furthermore, for a Christian, the conscience cannot be simply a matter of taste, or of feelings. We are required to inform the conscience by the word of God. When I see a “keep off the grass” sign I want to walk on the grass simply because of the sign: but that is not a matter of conscience. When I think the speed limit is too slow I want to break it, but that is not a matter of conscience either. This applies to all authority, even in the Church. When I was in Maryland years ago, my bishop then made it a matter of obedience that I was to go on a diet and lose weight; I thought long and hard searching for a reason why a diet would violate my conscience; but I could not find one.

The conscience of the Christian is supposed to be informed by the word of God, and so it is the duty of every Christian to learn the scriptures and to learn the meaning of the scriptures from the Tradition of the Church. When the conscience finds itself pitted against authority, it ought to be for a very clear and very real reason. When Saint Peter was before the Sanhedrin, they ordered him and his fellow apostles not to preach the Gospel. But, the risen Christ to whom was given all authority in Heaven and Earth, had commanded them to preach His Gospel to all Judea, and then to Samaria, and to the uttermost parts of the earth. Therefore, speaking with respect and humility, they made it clear that they were determined to obey the Higher Authority.

“And when they had brought them, they set them before the council: and the high priest asked them, saying, Did not we straitly command you that ye should not teach in this name? and, behold, ye have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and intend to bring this man's blood upon us. Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.” (Acts 5: 27-29)

This was not rebellion; it was men under authority clarifying why they must obey God. When we speak of the role of the conscience, it must be based upon this very thing; obeying God, even if it must be “rather than men.”

Totalitarian regimes want to take the place of God. Tyrants want to displace the conscience. In the last Century Christians were subjected to more injustices than during the Roman persecution (and we see no sign that things are getting any better). In the 20th century more Christians died as martyrs than in all previous centuries of the Church combined. Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, etc, all wanted to be obeyed absolutely, to dominate the conscience of their subjects, to be in the place of God. And, so it remains in this century. The Christians who have been killed for their faith knew something we need to know: We ought to obey God rather than men. When Jesus gave this answer, it was to a hostile question. The question was meant as a weapon, a clever no win scenario. But, the answer teaches us the priorities by which we order our lives as men under authority.

Your first obedience is to God. Your conscience was designed by the Creator to be the voice inside of you where his Law is written, the inner voice that resonates with the Holy Spirit, and with the word of God. Therefore, the Book of Exodus praises the midwives who refused to murder the male children at Pharaoh’s command. The Bible praises the faith of Rahab who hid the spies, and of Esther who entered the king’s chamber unbidden to plead for the lives of her people. The same Bible condemns the obedience that Doeg the Edomite rendered to Saul when he murdered the priests at Nob as commanded by the mad king. Moral priorities must never be set aside to obey Caesar. "I was only obeying orders," is no true defense, not only in a court room, but also before the throne of God.

In the Epistle we see the very high standard set for the clergy, that we are supposed to live as examples to be followed, just as Saint Paul said in another place, “Be followers of me, as I am of Christ (I Cor. 11:1)”- a tall order, and one that we cannot disregard. We all know about the scandal a few years ago in that other denomination, in which a man was elected to become a bishop even though he was living in “that kind of relationship” with another man. As I pointed out in the pages of Touchstone, before it ever got to that point, he ought to have been defrocked simply for leaving his wife, and abandoning his child. The priesthood has at its very core the sacraments, and also the ministry of the word of God. How can a man represent the sacraments and the word of God by his life, when he becomes notorious for violating and despising the sacrament of marriage, and thereby the whole sacramental ministry and life of the Church, and also thereby lives in open disobedience to the word of God in scripture?

But, understand that he was elected not in spite of these sins, but because of them. He ran as if it was a political election, campaigning on the basis of something called “gay rights.” Why did these allegedly Christian people vote for him? Because of what Saint Paul speaks of here: they are enemies of the cross of Christ. They are not enemies of Christ, but of His cross. Just as those words seemed to be so kind- “far be it from thee Lord; this shall not happen unto thee”- it is Satan who expresses a false love for a weak Christ with a lesser mission. Saint Paul warned the Church in Corinth of those who preach another gospel, another Jesus, and have a different spirit. A false version of Christianity exists, one in which there is no cross. In fact, some churches want to remove the cross from their buildings because it causes offense.

Of course it causes offense. It is supposed to! “The offense of the cross” was very real to the Apostle Paul, because he made the meaning of the cross very clear by his preaching. We must take up the cross in order to follow Jesus Christ; we must die every day to our own desires whenever they are against God’s revealed will. Also, the cross tells everyone, even the most self-righteous person, just how displeased God is with his sins. It forces him to face the truth about himself, from which he would rather shield his eyes. It gives us the objective standard of divine judgment that each of us deserves. I see Jesus Christ suffering and bleeding, and I see the just punishment I deserve. All pride is gone at the foot of the cross, as is all self-deception.

But, just as we see the sentence of divine judgment, it is only in the cross that we see mercy. It is there that we see the love of God fully revealed. In all human history, there is one event in which God has shown His love more than in any other time and place. A few years ago a young couple was in my office, in Arizona, because they wanted to find a church that, as they put it, matched their own values and beliefs, and where they could bring up children accordingly. But, they had come to me thinking, for some reason, we had something to do with the Episcopal Church; they were looking for a place that blessed “gay” unions, has women priests, and affirmed everybody in his chosen life style. They wanted “feel good” religion, with no cross at its core. Their definition of “love” was not from the thirteenth chapter of First Corinthians, but rather seemed to be all about physical satisfaction and gratification of desire. I asked them to tell me where, in the whole history of the world, we see the love of God more than in any other? They had no answer, so I had to provide the answer for them (even though a crucifix was hanging on the wall right before their eyes). I hope the Holy Spirit will use the words I spoke to trouble their hearts and lead them to the truth. The idea that “God commendeth His love toward us in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us (Romans 5:8)” was brand new to them, a completely strange idea as if from another world.

The love of God in the cross tells us that His love is not an easy kind of love, filled with unconditional acceptance. Instead, it is a very demanding love. It not only forgives, but calls us to a higher and better place, giving every believer the vocation to become a saint. Love that is spoken through pain and suffering, scourging and spear, thorn and nails, shakes our world to its very foundation, making us start over and implore Him to make all things new. This is the love that is the offense of the cross. And, when we see this, we may begin to render unto God the things that are God’s.

When bishops roar

The Rev. Canon Charles H. Nalls, SSM

“I shall feel rather nervous about meeting a lion.”

- Susan from C.S. Lewis’ The Lion Witch and the Wardrobe.

Several weeks ago, I began a series of essays with text liberally “borrowed” from The Works of the Rt. Rev. Charles C. Grafton,1 the Anglo-Catholic bishop of Eau Claire, Wisconsin, at the turn of the last century. The occasion for the essays was the then-forthcoming, now-issued Apostolic Constitution Anglicanorum Coetibus which, as we all know, is directed to “reconciling” Anglicans, Anglo-Catholics in particular, to the Roman catholic Church, The Encyclical has evoked a maelstrom of comment from Roman Catholic triumphalists and self-identified Anglican enthusiasts effusing over the “generosity” of the offer, raging denouncements from folks I like to call “Angricans”, curious expressions from folks involved in the transaction claiming, inter alia, that there are additional “terms” to be negotiated that will mitigate all concerns, and all manners of inquiries from people who take the Encyclical at face value. These essays have been an attempt to juxtapose the writings of a saintly bishop against the storm of comment and the exact words of what I will call in shorthand “the deal.”

It has all proven to be an occasion for surprise and no small amount of reflection. I find myself almost dumbfounded by the level of vehemence in the correspondence I have received from those who would uncritically toss away their faith of years in favor of the deal whatever the end result might be. Indeed, Roman Catholic colleagues have, for the most part, proven far more charitable toward the issues raised and more objective in their assessment of the Encyclical.

No matter. We owe ourselves, our faith and the generations to come after us a critical review of the issues posed by “the deal”. The questions involved are precisely those which have been presented in the past, and we do well to rely upon the considered thought and work of Anglican bishops and theologians who have treated with these matters. We do even better to heed the concerns of these men when they have been provoked to raise their voices to a roar.

For, bishops and theologians occasionally do roar. They do so to protect their flocks against sin, or evil, or impending disaster. Such behavior is not popular now in the land of “nice”, where all must be correct, happy and deserving of respect. It is not appropriate to raise one’s voice at a time when bumper sticker mentality exhorts us to “Choose Civility.” (Of course, one must not be at cross-purposes with the “civility set” or risk losing life and limb for starters.)

The truly good bishops of the church, from time to time, have had to lay aside parlor manners and palliative statements throughout the life of the Christ’s Church. St. Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria for almost 47 years, was driven into exile not once, but five times, by four different Roman emperors. In his First Letter to Serapion, the saint set forth orthodox teaching in plain, unvarnished language: “It will not be out of place to consider the ancient tradition, teaching and faith of the Catholic Church, which was revealed by the Lord, proclaimed by the Apostles and guarded by the Fathers. For upon this faith the Church is built, and if anyone were to lapse from it, he would no longer be a Christian, either in fact or in name . . .” That is not only not nice, but downright “exclusivist”, to borrow from the spiritually-correct crowd.

Similarly, in his work Against All Heresies, St. Irenaeus of Lyons had less than genteel words when he called the faithful “to avoid their doctrines, and to take careful heed lest we suffer any injury from them…” Or, in addressing false teachers, the saint bluntly called them, “heretics of perverse minds, or as schismatics puffed up and self-pleasing, or again as hypocrites, acting thus for the sake of lucre and vainglory.”

St. Nicholas took a more direct approach, It is disputed whether he slapped him on the mouth, fed him a knuckle-sandwich, or boxed him on the ear, but one thing seems clear: Saint Nicholas most likely hit the heretic, Arius of Alexandria, during the Council of Nicea in 325 A.D. Arius attacked the ancient and Apostolic tradition that the Logos (translated "Word" in John 1:1) was eternal and naturally equal with the Father who eternally begot him; that the Word was one in being with the Father. Essentially, this was a denial of the very divinity of Christ. Saint Nicholas, the model for “Jolly Old St. Nick”, full of righteous indignation over false teaching and having spent years in a dungeon during the Diocletian persecution for his faith in Christ, was not about to tolerate blasphemy from an arrogant presbyter. He was not about to stand idly by while Arius denied the full divinity of Christ and forced his false interpretation of Scripture upon a Church newly freed from persecution. So it was that Saint Nicholas’ zeal for Christ was felt by directly by Arius, probably accompanied by a roar.

The history of the Church is filled with such stories of the “episcopate rampant” and roaring like lions of Christ, and occasionally pouncing where necessary. It is a reason why we stand today as orthodox Anglican Christians, and why those parts of the Church where the Godly roar is no longer even an echo have lapsed into error or worse. So, we do well to pay heed when our bishops roar out to warn us of impending danger, even when that roar is across the years.

So we come to a point on which Grafton, in leonine persona, roared forth in plainly and clearly. Article 5 §1 of the the Apostolic Constitution provides: “The lay faithful originally of the Anglican tradition who wish to belong to the Ordinariate, after having made their Profession of Faith and received the Sacraments of Initiation …are to be entered in the apposite register of the Ordinariate.” Any way those who would spin the language of the Encyclical care to gloss plain words, “former Anglicans” will have to receive the Sacrament of Initiation, make profession and receive “First Communion”. That is as straightforward as it gets, and, to be sure, it has been the consistent position of the Roman Catholic Church.

Bp. Grafton, in his “Letter to the Oneidas” was similarly straightforward on these points in the following section which I have simply quoted with some emphasis:

My dear Sons and Daughters in Christ, it is a very great sin for any Churchmen to leave their own Church, where they have the true Faith and Sacraments, and join the Roman Church. Let me tell you why.

If one joins the Roman Church he has to be confirmed again. He has to receive the Communion as if it were his first Communion. Now see what that means. When you were confirmed by the Bishop, you received the gifts of the Holy Spirit.

You cannot be confirmed again, any more than you can be baptized again. To be confirmed again is to deny that you have already been confirmed. It is to be a traitor to the Holy Spirit. It is to turn on the Holy Spirit and to deny Him. It is to say to Him, I have never received You in Confirmation. This is to sin against the Holy Ghost, and if we sin against the Holy Ghost, Christ warned us that such a sin, persisted in, could not be forgiven in this world nor in the next. This should make us careful not to commit such.

So, too, about the Blessed Sacrament. Christ the dear Lord has fed you with His own Body and Blood. To go over to Rome, and to receive your first Communion, is to say, in act, to our Lord, “I have never sacramentally received You.” It is like Peter's denial of our Lord. How it must pain His sacred heart! What a stab it gives Him! Those who go over to Rome thus run great risks of their final salvation. Be true to your Church, and you are safe. In it you have found Christ and been united to Him. Abiding in Him you are safe. Love your Church. Love each other. Stand together. Try and bring back the wanderers, and God will protect and bless you and yours.

To paraphrase Winston Churchill, blessed Bp. Charles Grafton was not the lion, but it fell to him to give the lion’s roar. These are the warning words of a godly bishop striking at very real questions that must be answered. Let us consider them charitably, seriously and make prayerful answer.

1. Based upon The Works of the Rt. Rev. Charles C. Grafton (Volume VII), edited by B. Talbot Rogers, New York: Longmans, Green, 1914, pp. 344-345. This is the third reflection based on Blessed Charles Grafton’s works. These essays are dedicated to the Reverend Canon David F.T. Rodier, SSM. Si Deus pro nobis quis contra nos?

Fr. Wells' Bulletin Inserts

TRINITY XXIII (1)

For the most part, our Prayer Book Epistles and Gospels are given in the “King James Version,” more accurately called the Authorized Version. We would not have it otherwise, since that version remains a great literary monument. But very occasionally the 1928 editors of the Prayer Book corrected a word, here or there. We have such an example in today's Epistle from Philippians. Where the KJV reads “Our conversation is in heaven,” the Prayer Book reads “Our citizenship is in heaven.”

Here we have a Greek word politeuma which is founds nowhere else in the New Testament. How the KJV got “conversation” out of this word is a long story which need not detain us here. But politeuma (a word related to “politics”) can be translated correctly either as “citizenship” or as “commonwealth.”

Within the Roman empire a politeuma referred to a colony of foreigners or relocated veterans. Think of a community of people with the same background, living together in a foreign country. Frequently the Roman emperors paid off their soldiers by given them grants of land in the conquered territories, which led to the creation of such communities. These “commonwealths” enjoyed special prestige and privilege in the Roman empire. Philippi itself was a politeuma.

If the Philippian Christians were tempted to take excessive pride in their political status or to find their security in an important earthly city, Paul was warning them and us that such gloating was a false hope.

Today's Gospel reminds us bluntly that Christians have a real obligation to support our earthly political systems, “Render unto Caesar...” But ultimately we belong to no earthly nation but to the Kingdom of God. When earthly political systems crumble (as the Roman empire surely did, as our own system may crumble before our very eyes), His reign remains secure.

To be a citizen is a great privilege. This was as true in St. Paul's time as in ours. A citizen has certain rights and can look to his government for protection. Paul's message in the use of this word is that we Christians enjoy amazing privileges as citizens of the Kingdom of God. We may trust in the protection of the King who has subdued us to Himself and now reigns over us and defends us. With sure confidence we may pray, in the words of St Thomas Aquinas, “And grant us life that shall not end, in our true native land with thee.” LKW

TRINITY XXIII (2)

In today's reading from Matthew 22, we again see Our Divine Lord in contro-versy with His opponents. Running true to form, they attempted to entrap Him with a loaded question, “Is it lawful to give tribute to Caesar, or not?” If Jesus said “yes,” He could jeopardize His popularity with His Jewish following. If He

said “no,” He would become a marked man with the Romans. It was a sneaky question, designed to make trouble. The Pharisees made sure some of the Herodians, a faction deeply sympathetic to the Romans, were on hand as witnesses.

The answer of Jesus was brilliant. “Render therefore under Caesar the thing's which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's.” Generally we take this simply as a commandment to obey our lawful government and pay its taxes. This text gets bandied around each year around April 15. It is a text widely known and quoted among people who know little about the Bible.

But there is more here than meets the eye. Whereas we pay our taxes to a government we acknowledge (perhaps grudgingly) as legitimate, the audience and followers of Jesus regarded the Roman government as conquerors, usurpers, tyrants holding no just authority. Many longed and prayed for a military strong-man who would lead a revolutionary war and drive the Romans out of their land. Many expected Jesus to become that leader. These folk paid their taxes grudgingly, but they did not consider it morally “lawful.”

So the question thrust upon Jesus by His opponents boils down to this: To what extent may a godly man obey an illegitimate or unjust government? This was reminiscent of the strange advice which Jeremiah gave his countrymen about 600 years earlier. “Submit to your Babylonian conquerors, even when they drag you off into exile, for they are God's just judgment on your sins.” A sound theology of judgment made Jeremiah into a political traitor to his people. Jesus shared virtually in the same dilemma.

For the time being, the people of God (now I am talking about us) live in two kingdoms: the reign of God in our hearts and in our personal behavior, and the political structures (which may be hellishly horrible and are never perfect) which Divine Judgment has placed over us. The first is the anticipation of eternity, the second is already passing away. We look forward to the time when “the kingdoms of this world have become the Kingdom of our God, and of His Christ, and He shall reign for ever and ever” (Rev. 11.15). But that is not yet.

The whole Biblical teaching is larger than what we have in this brief reading. The people of God may emphatically not “render unto Caesar” that which is not His. But Our Lord does teach us that “Caesar” even at His worst has legitimate demands upon us. The more urgent question here and now is whether we render unto God what truly belongs to God. LKW