Twentieth Sunday after Trinity

Ephesians 5:15-21
Matthew 22:1-14

"For I am the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed." Malachi 3:6

The Gospel today brings up a very ancient doctrine of the Church, and the term for that doctrine is Divine Impassibility: It means that God does not change. In fact, as our own Anglican Article I teaches, he is "without passions." Some modern theologians object to this, and insist that the scriptures present to us an emotional God who makes up his mind by reacting to events. They see metaphorical language as literal, forgetting that God has revealed his word to our minds by use of our own language. Emotion includes motion, that is movement and change. But, God does not change.

The reaction to the king's kind invitation, bidding people to attend the wedding of his son, reminds me of the fifth seal in the Book of Revelation:

“And when he had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held: And they cried with a loud voice, saying, How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth? And white robes were given unto every one of them; and it was said unto them, that they should rest yet for a little season, until their fellow servants also and their brethren, that should be killed as they were, should be fulfilled.”- Rev. 6:9-11

When the guests who were invited snub him, and refuse his invitation, and then persecute the messengers of his gracious invitation to the death, the king becomes "wroth." His judgment falls on those murderers, and he sends his army to slay them. The word "wroth" is, of course, a form of the word "wrath." In many passages of scripture we read about the wrath of God. What is the wrath of God?

To answer that, we look at the image of God in this parable. The king represents God, and the invitation represents the proclamation of his mercy offered in the Gospel. The invitation is to attend "the marriage supper of the Lamb" (Rev.19:9), the marriage feast of the King's Son. The image in the parable includes the obvious implications of forgiveness of sin (purchased by that Son on the sacrificial altar of the cross, and his resurrection that destroys death), showing that the heart of the king is generous, benevolnet and gracious. "Taste and see that the Lord is good."

When the invited people refuse this kindness, and persecute his messengers, they incur his wrath. The king has not changed, the people have. His principles are solid and unmoving. His wrath comes from the same heart as his generosity. Of course, the wrath of God is not exactly like the wrath of this king, for the king is a man who changes due to emotion. The king in today's Gospel appears to be moved, sometimes by anger and sometimes by his own generosity. Unlike God, this king can be surprised, because he does not know all things before they happen. But, he is in the story only to represent God as an imperfect human illustration, a character who is metaphorical in nature. God's wrath is itself a metaphor. What it means is that you stand on one side of the line or the other, either accepting his kind and gracious offer in the Gospel of his Son, or you refuse that offer and side with the world, the flesh and the Devil. Because God never changes, you stand either on the side of "wrath" or on the side of mercy.

Look at the word that the king uses when he must have his "bouncers" kick out an impolite guest: "Friend, how camest thou in hither not having a wedding garment?" This word, "friend", seems rather odd. In fact, it means that this impolite guest, the one who refused the wedding garment (that is, refused the vestment handed out by the king's servants at the door) in a gesture of disrespect, was in some way beloved of the king. That is what it means that he was called "friend" (ἑταῖρος, hetairos). The same word is used later in this same Gospel (According to St. Matthew) when Jesus addresses the traitor Judas in the Garden of Gethsemane.

“And forthwith he came to Jesus, and said, Hail, master; and kissed him. And Jesus said unto him, Friend, wherefore art thou come? Then came they, and laid hands on Jesus, and took him.”-Matt. 26:50

What could better demonstrate that the Impassibility of God is consistent with the fact that God is love? (I John 4:8, 16) He does not change. Jesus loved Judas, even knowing that the man was a devil, the traitor, for whom it would have been good had he never been born. Jesus was not changed toward Judas, though Judas had renounced him, had abandoned his apostolic office to betray him to the death. "Friend, wherefore art thou come?"

The king casts the impolite and contemptuous guest out of his palace because that man had placed himself beyond the reach of the king's generous and gracious nature. The man did not need to buy some expensive garment, because it was the host of such a feast who provided these garments, outer garments or vestments, at the door. And, in polite society it was expected that a guest would put the garment on over his own clothes.

To quote Fr. Wells:

“The best explanation is a very ancient one. In those days for royal weddings, the host himself provided the garments for the guests to wear. So the man wearing improper clothing either was a party-crasher, who had entered without a proper invitation, or else he had treated the garments provided with disdain and contempt.”

Putting on the wedding garment should bring to mind certain passages by St. Paul, especially this where he uses the phrase “put on” twice:

“The night is far spent, the day is at hand: let us therefore cast off the works of darkness, and let us put on the armour of light. Let us walk honestly, as in the day; not in rioting and drunkenness, not in chambering and wantonness, not in strife and envying. But put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make not provision for the flesh, to fulfill the lusts thereof.” -Rom. 13:12-14

We are told to "put on Christ." But, first we are instructed to cast off the works of the flesh. Everything is provided for us. We put on Christ by hearing the word of God, remembering that in Hebrew the word for "hear" is the same word as "obey." We put on Christ by staying within his Church. We put on Christ by hearty repentance and true faith. We put on Christ by the sacraments that are generally necessary to salvation. We put on Christ by cooperating with the Holy Spirit who forms within us the virtues, above all charity.

These are gifts of God, provided like the wedding garment given to each guest. We are invited and granted mercy and grace, to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light, to be partakers of the divine nature having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust. (II Pet. 1:4) We are given everything we need so that we come behind in no gift; waiting for the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. As you are called in Christ, to become saints in Christ, so live in Christ, having been baptized into his death unto sin, and in whom you live unto righteousness.

If you refuse the invitation, or if you come to the feast but refuse the gracious provision of the king, it is your choice to come under wrath, never understanding the heart of one who calls you "friend." Above all, from the cross he has called you "friend." Do not turn from his love, and so place yourself under wrath, which could come only by your own stubborn willfulness.

Rather, "Put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ."

Fr. Wells' bulletin inserts

TRINITY XX

The passage from Matthew read as the liturgical Gospel for this Sunday is really not one parable, but three parables run together. Anyone who has had lunch with Fr. Wells knows his habit of rambling from one story into another, possibly without finishing any of them. The Apostle Matthew on occasion telescoped several parables together, expecting his readers to remember them from the oral tradition which circulated in the Church.

The first parable involves a feast with ungrateful guests who refuse the invitation at the last moment. The second involves a king whose ambassadors are physically abused. Both of these parables are found in Luke 14 and Luke 20, respectively. But what about the third parable, the man who appeared, but not properly attired in the prescribed marriage garment? It has no parallel in the other Gospels. In a time like ours, when people are extremely casual about clothing, it seems odd for the king to resort of such an extreme measure (“cast him into outer darkness”) over a mere social faux pas.

The best explanation is a very ancient one. In those days for royal weddings, the host himself provided the garments for the guests to wear. So the man wearing improper clothing either was a party-crasher, who had entered without a proper invitation, or else he had treated the garments provided with disdain and contempt.

Garments happen to be a powerful symbol throughout the Scriptures. When God drove Adam and Eve from the garden of Eden out into “this tough world,” He kindly provided them with garments made from animal skins, as a token of His unmerited grace. The prodigal son was welcomed by his father with a sumptuous robe. The book of Revelation speaks of those who have washed their robes in the blood of the Lamb (Rev 7:14). St Paul speaks more than once of “putting on Christ,” as if Christ Himself were a garment. Paul's imagery has been preserved in the custom of special garments sometimes worn at Baptism and Confirmation.

By our nature, we are sinful through and through. When we “put on” Christ, our sinfulness is covered and our inward nature begins to change. Like the animal skins given to Adam and Eve or the marriage garments provided to the king's guests, or the robe given to the prodigal son, Christ miraculously becomes our marriage garment which entitles us to stand before the the Father. Left to our own devices, we are naked at God's judgment bar. But He makes us to be clothed and covered with the righteousness of Christ. “When He shall come with trumpet sound, oh, may I then in Him be found, clothed in His righteousness alone, faultless to stand before the throne.” LKW

Serving their generation

Anglicanism is difficult to understand because people want to approach religion and theology in a manner that is simplistic. Therefore, inasmuch as understanding what Anglicanism is, in essence, begins with overcoming a neat and tidy categorization, namely that "Catholic" and "Protestant" mean opposite things, the lazy and easy option is to ignore its basic nature. It is too much to think about. Having already explained the matter (i.e., here), I do not wish to repeat my efforts.

Therefore, I would prefer to offer a very brief and direct summary of how we reconcile seeming contradictions, that are in truth not contradictory; they are complementary. To use the most extreme examples within our own history, how do we reconcile the teaching of the English Reformers with the Oxford Movement? Inasmuch as the real Anglo-Catholics, most of the men who wrote the Tracts, considered themselves children of the English Reformers as well as the children of the Universal Catholic Church, it behooves those who call themselves Anglo-Catholics not to dismiss the same English Reformers. It behooves those who call themselves Reformed catholics not to dismiss the Tractarians.

Each era, each generation, faces its own battles, and speaks to some degree in a language all its own. For example, parts of the Thirty-Nine Articles are hard for modern people to understand because they were written in a specific period of history in which various practices that are mentioned in parts of the Articles automatically come across to modern readers as something different from the religious practices and beliefs of that time. Instead, contemporary practices and beliefs, and then only as perceived, appear to be the target.

Emphasis is also a major factor, as we view theological issues in the light of the times in which they were discussed. To be very simple about it (but, not simplistic), it was necessary to emphasize doctrinal matters in the sixteenth century that freed people from a wrong approach, or rather lack of approach, to the sacrament of Holy Communion; and yet, in the nineteenth century, it was necessary to restore the dignity of the sacrament, and even to protect the doctrine of the Incarnation by doing so. The inheritance we have received is to own both of these emphases, which serve as an example for our present purposes, and to hold the truth of each in balance.

And so on.

Spanglish

The time has rolled around to re-publish something originally written for The Continuum almost three years ago. The specific propaganda being pushed at this time by the Hepworth contingent is readily available as a public spectacle on two blogs (The Spanglo-Catholic in Orlando, Florida and The Spanglish Catholic in France, of all places). After many substantial refutations and presentment of the facts, the time comes to laugh (though, with substantial facts to consider). Such laughter is necessary inasmuch as the utter insanity of their position would, if we did not laugh, make us tear out our own hair at the level of outrageous silliness they want everyone to swallow. So, from January 6, 2008, kick back and enjoy The Henry You Say.

Acts of God

"But lift thou up thy rod, and stretch out thine hand over the sea, and divide it: and the children of Israel shall go on dry ground through the midst of the sea."
Exodus 14:16

The prospect of walking into the midst of the sea, while the waters stood as a wall on their right and left, might have seemed more dangerous than simply waiting for the pillar and cloud of fire to die down or blow away. No one had ever walked into the midst of the sea on dry land before, and what guarantee could they have that the waters would stay in place once they got too far in? Did their insurance cover Acts of God? Would the presence of the Egyptian military forces make the whole venture fall under the war exclusion? No wonder some proposed to return to Egypt and slavery.

Sometimes, however far back in the past the story may seem, we face the same choice that the Children of Israel faced at the banks of the Red Sea. Behind us, if we are patient enough to get past the Presence of God, is the safety of what we know, yet with no better prospect than slavery. This is the way that seems safest.

Continuing Anglicans demonstrated true courage by leaving an intolerable situation, and establishing parishes with little or nothing to start up. After more than three decades many of the early leaders and visionaries have already joined the Faithful Departed, and in many cases what has been left behind are churches fully established, some with up and running properties and programs beyond anything the naysayers imagined. Others merely struggled, as long as they could, to the last person, but not because anyone failed. They simply did all they could.

For all the churches that have remained in this battle, the uncertain economic signals of this present time might create fear. Voices urge an easier path, such as joining with the ACNA, which carries the price of forfeiting the integrity and validity of Holy Orders and our whole Sacramental system. Other voices urge, and when possible coerce, the "safe" path of Ordinariates, with the price of forfeiting our theological integrity and the clear message of the Gospel.

The most wide spread problem, however, is the inner urge to do nothing more than survive the night. If we can just hold on to this Anglican way until we die, taking no risks, keeping the manner of worship we like and the validity of our sacraments, we have a chance to keep our churches the way we like them, at least for our own life times. There comes a time, however, when opting for safety is the most dangerous course, and when saving every penny can be a sure path to ruin.

If we look at the work of God, in both Testaments, we never see Him inactive and playing it safe. He is leading His chosen people to the Land of Promise, or bringing them from captivity to rebuild the House of the Lord despite the threats of their enemies. We see the Holy Family one step ahead of Herod's murderous thugs. We see Jesus teaching and healing while His enemies plotted His death. We see the Lord rising from the dead, and establishing His Church with the same Disciples who had fled in fear a few nights before. We see them, after the coming of the Holy Ghost, enduring persecution to spread the Word.

What we never see is God as inactive, or telling His people to play it safe.

We can have as our highest goal nothing more than the notion of maintaining what we have , and what we are comfortable having. That is easy, it is safe, though it requires some form of returning to Egypt, either by compromise or by surrender. Or, with faith in God and in what He has revealed, and the tools He has given to us, we can aspire to fulfill our portion of the Great Commission.

Unless we are faced with choices that are risky by mere human standards, it is unlikely that we are following God's lead and walking hand in hand with Him. He always requires faith, and such faith as takes us through the waters on dry ground, if not walking on it without losing sight of Him and sinking. For many of us, such a time as this has come. Let us go forward.

Nineteenth Sunday after Trinity

Ephesians 4:17-32
Matthew 9:1-8

But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (then saith he to the sick of the palsy,) Arise, take up thy bed, and go unto thine house.

It may appear strange that Jesus addressed the need of a sick man, in fact a completely paralyzed man, by speaking an ever so bold absolution: “Thy sins be forgiven thee.” The Pharisees thought he was blaspheming, because their religious system allowed no man to speak so boldly. They figured that we may hope for forgiveness of sins, but they were offended by the bold declaration that any particular individual’s sins actually have been forgiven. That much faith was more than they could swallow. Today people may find the words of Jesus to be an affront to their sensitivities, wondering how He could address a suffering person about sin. They might assume it is fine to feel empathy, to address the obvious visible needs of a man paralyzed, and no doubt would approve of words that were intended to establish the full equality of the man, perhaps with a phrase like, mobiley challenged.

But, Jesus addressed the man’s spiritual and moral need first and foremost, because that is most important. The highest priority of all is to have a fully restored and meaningful communion with God, to be reconciled to God and to be free from any hindrance in that fellowship that is the highest priority, that knowledge of God before which even the fear of death yields and retreats. Compared to that greatest need of all, mere paralysis is trivial. So is blindness, deafness, and even premature death, all of them among the many conditions that Jesus healed as “with power” He “went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil.” (Acts 10:38)

Right now, just like the offended Pharisees, many people would like very much to have a religion in which the subject of forgiveness never comes up, because the seriousness of sin is treated as either non-existent, or as trivial. They want a more “spiritual” religion, and they even use the word “spiritual” or “spirituality” because it is non-threatening. It has, in modern times, no moral significance whatsoever.

If that is the kind of religion you want, the kind that allows you to flatter yourself and convince yourself that you are righteous, wise and “spiritual”-whatever you imagine that the word is supposed to mean- then you are in the wrong church. The Book of Common Prayer has a General Confession of Sin in every major service, followed by Absolution that a priest declares (if one is present), and that is because we must approach God based on the truth, not based on our own feeling or our self-appraisal. Furthermore, if you want a religion that flatters you and makes you feel affirmed and tells you how wonderful you are, you should avoid the Book of Common Prayer, yes, but even more so never, ever, under any circumstances, read your Bible.

The wisdom of the Book of Common Prayer, all of which comes from the Bible (as anyone can see, anyone who actually knows the Bible), is that it approaches God always based on His revelation of himself, and of His Gospel, that He has given for all people for all times. If you must ask the origin of any portion of the Book of Common Prayer, or wonder where it came from, then it is clear that any knowledge you have of the Bible is poor, or shallow, or superficial. Otherwise, you would see the words in the Prayer Book, and know where they came from; they have all come right out of the Bible, ultimately, as the actual source (and that includes the content of the Creeds). And, among them you would recall the words of Jesus, quoted in Morning Prayer as we begin:

“The hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.” St. John iv. 23.

You cannot worship God in spirit by flattering yourself that you are “spiritual,” because the spirit that pleases God is one of humility. And, you cannot worship God in truth without acknowledging the truth He has revealed as he has revealed it. Once upon a time I was concerned about the spiritual malady called “self-righteousness” as merely a problem of hypocrisy. I have become aware of a deeper kind of self-righteousness, and that is the kind that is delusional. Some individuals, despite the clear words of Scripture in which God speaks to us even now, really believe in their own righteousness. That delusion is a sickness worse than paralysis, and one that will create a wall of division separating a person from communion with God, and from communion or fellowship within His Church among His people.

We see this delusion expressed as a doctrine among some Pentecostals and other Fundamentalists who openly say. “I was a sinner, but now I am a saint.” But, Saint Paul said, “This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.” (I Tim. 1:15) He was a saint, but he did not say, “Of whom I was chief,” past tense: He said, “Of whom I am chief,” Present tense. The Doctrinal formula for this is Simul Iustus Et Peccator. That is, "simultaneously just (righteous) and a sinner." At best, that is the condition we are in as we walk through this life.

Taking St. Paul’s words from I Corinthians 15:20-22, we see this in terms of our ultimate hope, the sure and certain hope of the resurrection on the Last Day:

“But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the first fruits of them that slept. For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.”

Ultimately, if we are in Christ and live in Him, we will live by Him, drawing our whole life from His immortal resurrected life, risen from the dead, and glorified with Him as “partakers of the Divine nature.” (II Peter 1:4) But, we are not there yet. Right now we are in two fathers. In Adam we die, and in Christ we live. That is, we live in the reality of Simul Iustus Et Peccator. There is, in this life in this world, no escaping the mortal condition we have in Adam, nor is there any escaping the need to pray as our Prayer Book guides us, confessing our sins as we approach the Holy God on His throne. But, because the other fact is also completely true for all who believe, we really do approach His throne with joy because we are “in Christ.” We may enter into His presence, and come before His throne, in the words of Scripture, “having boldness to enter in.” The Epistle to the Hebrews is where you will find these words:

“Now where remission of [sins] is, there is no more offering for sin. Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus, By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh; And having an high priest over the house of God; Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water. Let us hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering; (for he is faithful that promised).” Heb. 10:18-22

This is what Martin Luther meant when he said to sin boldly. He did not mean to be bold in how you sin, nor did he mean that you should presume to live in willful unrepentant sin (for, that is the way to eternal death); rather he meant that you should be bold about entering God’s presence with faith, because in Christ you are truly justified. You may enter just as the writer to the Hebrews says, with boldness, and that is not boldness for just any old reason. You do not enter with boldness into God’s presence because you see yourself as righteous, wise and spiritual. You enter in “with full assurance of faith,” only because you have been granted entrance into the most Holy Place before the throne of God “by the blood of Jesus.” That alone is how you have been granted entrance, and that alone is why you are accepted.

Our Confession of Sin is not morbid. It is not gloomy. It is not the Confession of people living in terror of the grave, unsure if they have enough merits for eternal life (which, you may be sure, no one has; not even the people with word “Saint” placed before their names). Our Confession of sin is based on our certain faith in God’s love and forgiveness, not because we feel that he is forgiving, but because, in fact, Jesus Christ died for our sins and reconciled us to the Father. And, in fact, He rose from the dead so that we may live in Him, now and forever, eventually, on that glorious Day, shedding what it means to be “in Adam” and taking on only what it means to be “in Christ.”

We worship God in spirit and in truth, if we grasp the meaning of today’s Collect:

O God, forasmuch as without thee we are not able to please thee; Mercifully grant that thy Holy Spirit may in all things direct and rule our hearts; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

That comes directly from the words of Jesus:

I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing. (John 15:5)

So, just as Jesus began by speaking words of Absolution, and healing the soul of the paralyzed man before meeting his physical need, I will continue to address, in my preaching, the true diagnosis of what ails us all. Along with that, I will continue to proclaim God’s revealed prognosis for everyone who takes the medicine He prescribes:

As in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

Fr. Wells' bulletin inserts

TRINITY XIX

Today's Gospel, taken from Matthew 9, is an account of a healing spliced with a dispute over the forgiveness of sins. This incident is found in similar words in all three of the Synoptic Gospels. Mark and Luke both give a detail omitted by Matthew, a feature which has delighted generations of children in Sunday School. The crowd around Jesus was so dense that the palsied man had to be lowered through a hole in the roof specially cut for the occasion. We wonder how the homeowner felt about this!

Notice how the three Synoptics conclude the incident in different ways. Matt. 9:8, "When the multitudes saw it they marvelled, and they glorified God, which had given such power to men." Mark 2:12, "they were all amazed and glorified God, saying, We never saw anything like this." Luke 5:26, "And they were all amazed, and they glorified God and were filled with fear, saying, We have seen strange things today."

It was not this miracle which shocked the crowd. By now they were accustomed to miracles, which explains the enormous size of the gathering. One the other hand, the mixed reaction of fear, surprise and adoration was provoked by the dialogue between Jesus and His critics.

It might seem, at first blush, that they objected to Our Lord claiming some special authority to forgive sins. But He had made no such claim. In all three accounts Jesus used a simple formula of absolution, very much like the absolution which our priests utter after the General Confession. He merely said, "Thy sins be forgiven thee." The passive voice indicates an act of God. Jesus claimed no special authority for Himself in these words.

What the scribes and Pharisees found so offensive was the twofold suggestion of Jesus that (1) sin, not sickness, was the more basic problem, and (2) sin may really be forgiven. The Gospel over-rules every suggestion that the human dilemma, our predicament, is anything less than sin. And it tells us boldly that God forgives sin absolutely. Pharisees both ancient and modern would prefer for Jesus to say, "Thy sins may be forgiven, upon such and such conditions. Try to live a better life and God will settle up with you at the Last Judgment." But that is not what Jesus said and it is not the Gospel in which we place our hope.

All three accounts bring different facets of the truth. Mark tells us that the Gospel of Jesus is an utterly unique message. Luke tells us that this Gospel is indeed strange, foreign and abrasive to our experience. Matthew tells us the very thing which aroused the scribes and Pharisees: truly God has given to His apostles the authority to pronounce the forgiveness of sins. LKW

Everybody must get stoned

Now that three ACA bishops, (Bishop Marsh, Bishop Williams and Bishop Strawn) have each announced the two fold decision to draw close to Presiding Bishop Grundorf and the Anglican Province in America (APA) and to decline the proposal Anglicanorum Coetibus, the TAC has announced that it has a new canonical structure. Archbishop Hepworth has sent a letter to the ACA House of Bishops (the text of which appears below), informing them that parishes in the those three dioceses, of what we may call the Loyal Opposition, may divorce themselves from their respective diocesan Ordinaries to come under the Patrimony of the Primate. Part of Hepworth's letter declares:

"In July, I made this proposal to the House of Bishops of the ACA:

1. The Primate of the Traditional Anglican Communion will accept into the Patrimony of the Primate those clergy and laity whose diocese or province has determined, through a declaration of its bishop or bishops, that it is not seeking corporate reunion under the terms of the Apostolic Constitution at this time."

The idea itself is not new. In the ACC-OP we allow a parish that considers itself in temporary need of alternative oversight to come under the Patrimony of the Metropolitan, for the purpose of remaining within the church while differences with the Bishop Ordinary of their geographical diocesan boundaries remain unresolved. This was passed properly as part of our Canon Law in a Provincial Synod (perhaps someone knows if the TAC canon was passed in the same manner, or if it was announced as if from On High. I really don't have the answer at the time of this writing). Such an arrangement is meant to be temporary. This idea works as a last resort, but only with a parish.

Hepworth's letter, however, creates confusion, because it allows an individual to enter the "Patrimony of the Primate" with or without the consent of his Parish.

"4. As soon as a person seeks membership of the Patrimony for this purpose, the Primate (acting where necessary through a delegate) will recognise reception into the Patrimony for the purposes of the formation of an Ordinariate."

A practical question is, how does one expect churches to function where the Rector's authority is divided up among the congregation?

Furthermore, how does the local Bishop keep peace in his diocese if he is forced to have his clergy divided up in the same way, as Hepworth allows?

"3. The clergy and laity who are admitted to the Patrimony for this purpose will remain incardinated in the diocese in which they presently serve, and will retain all entitlements arising from their present position, until the time at which they formally become part of the Ordinariate. No canonical or legal action will be taken in any way by a diocese or national body of a member church against those availing themselves of this facility, whether corporately or individually."

So, the local bishop cannot govern, and the local rector cannot even have a peaceful congregation. The possibilities for strife and discord are impossible to estimate. But, the raw power of the TAC Primate has been increased:

"It is my judgement that this is the appropriate time to establish the Patrimony of the Primate in the United States. With the consent of Archbishop Falk, I appoint Bishop David Moyer as my delegate for this purpose."

Party Line
Meanwhile, in reporting this newly declared polity, Mr. Campbell of the Former Anglican Blog, has sounded the hostile refrain heard these days from the Enthusiasts for converting to Rome en masse:

"...this new canonical structure may provide support to many TAC clergy and laity who find themselves now dispossessed by several disloyal ACA bishops..."

Of course, the "several disloyal ACA bishops" refers to the three whose consciences forbid them to take a course of action they do not believe in. The mantra that they are disloyal, or the accusation that they have broken some alleged oath, or the assertion that they owe obedience to Hepworth's agenda, comes from the Aussie Primate himself, as his letter of last week shows (concerning which Fr. Hollister had a few words for us).

In other words, men who are supposed to be Anglican bishops, whose stated promises were made according to the Anglican Ordinal in the Book of Common Prayer, and who have accepted the responsibility to lead dioceses of people who are committed to the Affirmation of St. Louis, are somehow guilty of a terrible sin because they have not been persuaded to convert to Roman Catholicism. Apparently, such a drastic decision is simply expected, despite all the obvious reasons why it makes no sense to expect such a thing of anyone.

I mentioned earlier that Mr. Campbell's padded cell awaits, or it should await. He would not be alone. It appears that the bully from Australia should also be joining him in the same room, dressed in the same attire: A jacket one must tie up in the back. Strait is the jacket, and padded the walls, for men who see this whole thing as if it were reasonable.
________

From the Primate of the Traditional Anglican Communion,
Archbishop John Hepworth.

For much of this year, I have taken part in a phone conference each week with the bishops of the Anglican Church in America, the United States part of the Traditional Anglican Communion. In a pastoral and collegial manner, we have sought to reach an understanding of the implication of the Apostolic Constitution "On the gathering of the Anglicans", and of issues concerning its implementation.

In July, I made this proposal to the House of Bishops of the ACA:

1. The Primate of the Traditional Anglican Communion will accept into the Patrimony of the Primate those clergy and laity whose diocese or province has determined, through a declaration of its bishop or bishops, that it is not seeking corporate reunion under the terms of the Apostolic Constitution at this time.

2. This facility is offered in every province of the Traditional Anglican Communion in which need is established in the terms of Paragraph 1.

3. The clergy and laity who are admitted to the Patrimony for this purpose will remain incardinated in the diocese in which they presently serve, and will retain all entitlements arising from their present position, until the time at which they formally become part of the Ordinariate. No canonical or legal action will be taken in any way by a diocese or national body of a member church against those availing themselves of this facility, whether corporately or individually.

4. As soon as a person seeks membership of the Patrimony for this purpose, the Primate (acting where necessary through a delegate) will recognise reception into the Patrimony for the purposes of the formation of an Ordinariate.

5. The bishop or priest delegated for this purpose will expedite the documentation and any other matter pertaining to the formation of the Ordinariate, and will report to the Primate as necessary.

It would be my intention, supported by Archbishop Falk, that I appoint Bishop Moyer as delegate for this purpose in the USA.

On 18th August, Archbishop Falk communicated with me in the following terms:

As just discussed with the Bishops of the ACA a few minutes ago, the action of our House of Bishops earlier this year in recommending an "interim status" situation for ACA clerics and/or congregations already determined to seek entry into an Ordinariate in the USA under the terms of Anglicanorum Coetibus is reaffirmed. It is our position that no impediment exists to your going ahead with the same at such time as you may choose.

It is my judgement that this is the appropriate time to establish the Patrimony of the Primate in the United States. With the consent of Archbishop Falk, I appoint Bishop David Moyer as my delegate for this purpose. All enquiries and applications are to be made to Bishop Moyer. With the unanimous consent of the House of Bishops of the ACA, all those entering the Patrimony will retain their present position within the ACA until the establishment of the Ordinariate in the United States.

Bishop Moyer has the documentation for clergy seeking entry to the Ordinariate that was provided to the Traditional Anglican Communion bishops and Secretary to the College of Bishops on our recent meeting with the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

I have informed Cardinal Levada of this development, which enables those members of our Communion seeking entry to the Ordinariate in the United States to make corporate preparations.

With my continued prayers and blessing for all those engaged in this time of discernment,

+John Hepworth

I should have added...

Diocesan bishops are not to intrude in churches beyond their own boundaries nor are they to confuse the churches. From Canon 2, First Council of Constantinople, 381 AD

(Anyone care to guess why this was passed before Canon 3?)

A Prayer from Bp. Grafton

A little something from a time long before the "alphabet soup" and when we didn't have to specify that we are "traditional" Anglicans:

O God, dearest and best, may the increase of Thy accidental glory be the chief end of my life! May Thy ever blessed making will be the law of my being and of all my actions and desires! May Thy transforming and uniting love be the permanent and imperative motive of all my actions, duties, labors, thoughts, and words! May the life of my blessed Lord be the model and mould of my own, that being melted by penitence, I may be recast and recreated in Thee! May the Holy Spirit so rule and govern my interior, all my emotions, fears, hopes, sorrows, and joys, that I may rest peacefully in Thee, and be an instrument for the conversion of others! Amen.

Shameless Nepotism

as practiced by me



The Yoke of Jesus: A School for the Soul in Solitude.

Author: Addison Hart.
Brief reviews include:

The Yoke of Jesus is an introduction to spiritual discipline, emphasizing the individual's devotion to Jesus. The thirteen chapters explore the meaning of faith, our need for stillness and solitude, how we should read, how we must engage nature, how we ought to pray the Psalms, and much more. The Yoke of Jesus: A School for the Soul in Solitude, by Addison Hodges Hart, Eerdmans Publishing, 2009. This is a gentle and poetic exploration of our spiritual formation, which Hart calls a "school for the soul in solitude." He explores the meaning of our faith, our need for stillness and solitude--something most of us crave more and more as we get older.

Hawking irrational arguments

Theoretical physicist takes leave of his senses

By Bruce L. Gordon-The Washington Times

Stephen Hawking's new book, "The Grand Design," co-authored with Leonard Mlodinow, contends that God is not necessary to create the universe because the laws of physics can do it alone. The "new atheist" crowd will cheer this message, but their credulity is a matter more of fiery sentiment than of coolheaded logic.

(You may read the rest here)

Trinity 18 Sermon Notes

“Thou art not far from the kingdom of God”+

Understanding of and reverence for these Two Great Commandments were obviously greatly esteemed by Jesus, but he did not consider them 'enough' in themselves. Why? Why are those two commandments so important? And why are they not enough?

These commandments summarise the whole duty of man, the whole Law. The Ten Commandments can be divided into two sections. The first few deal with honouring God directly. E.g.: Thou shalt have none other gods. Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain. Keep holy the sabbath day (in honour of God). The rest, including the prohibitions of murder, adultery, theft and lying, concern how we treat other people. So, if we love God and love our fellow man, we will naturally not do anything against them, and so the Ten Commandments are taken care of. More than that, while the Ten Commandments are largely though not exclusively about what not to do, the Two Great Commandments are essentially positive in content and imply a pro-active obedience to God. To refrain from stealing is good, to generously help the poor is even better.

However, the greatness of the Great Commandments lies even deeper. For these commandments get right to the core of virtue by addressing motivation. One can, theoretically, obey most of the Ten Commandments outwardly by fear of punishment alone, but this is clearly a lower form of virtue. It may keep society safe, but it will do little to transform proud, greedy, wrathful, lazy or lustful people into better people. But love is not the outwardly morally correct act itself, it is the inward source of the outward act, the mover of the will, and so is more fundamental. And true agape-love is the enemy of pride, greed, hate and so on, because it is the antithesis of selfishness, the desire and choice for the good of the other. (By the way, failure to see this radical truth of morality is the reason that so many modern philosophers of ethics are consequentialist utilitarians, who reduce moral analysis to weighing up the consequences of actions in terms of pleasure and pain. Their moral system cannot differentiate between the person who increases others' happiness or decreases their pain merely due to fear or desire for praise, and the one who acts out of love.)

So why is it not enough? Why does our Lord tell this wise scholar that he is not far from the kingdom of God, rather than telling him he is in it? I see three reasons. Firstly, genuinely appreciating the truth of these Commandments is not the same as obeying them, though it is a first step. Secondly, the problem of disobeying the Two Commandments is not a problem of occasional failures or “scoring less than 100%”, something we can and will remedy by increased effort, it is the presence of a deep fracture in human nature. Thirdly, God's entry into human history as Jesus forces obedience to the Two Great Commandments to take a very particular shape. Allow me to expand upon these points.

Jesus did tell another man that if he obeyed the Commandments he would enter eternal life (Matthew 19:17). But here the scribe is commended not for obeying them but for perceiving clearly how fundamental they are, how much more important than ceremonies (i.e., “better than all the burnt offerings and sacrifices”). How much the scribe had actually followed the way of love was not even in view at this point. Understanding and even loving this holy Law with the mind is necessary, but it is not the same as walking in the way of love. Indeed, in Romans chapter 7 St Paul speaks of the one who knows and even desires and loves the moral Law, wants to obey it, but persistently finds this escapes his grasp, eludes his human efforts. This brings us to the second issue described above.

What is the problem with the human race? It is not just about specific failures. All these moral failures spring from something ingrained and primordial. They spring from a kind of disintegration of human nature that began when we first rejected God. I will let you in on a little “secret”: we were never meant to be simply autonomous (i.e., auto-nomos, self-regulating or self-law-making). Human beings in their presently natural state are not as they were intended to be. Originally, we were designed to be naturally supernatural! That is, the healthy human being was meant to be one in close communion with God, dependent and drawing upon his grace. We were to have free will and make true choices, yet not be limited to merely bodily and instinctive impulsions or even limited to unaided conscience and reason as resources in making those choices. The need for continued access to the Tree of Life and the walks with God in the Garden of Eden in the early chapters of Genesis perhaps symbolise this. By breaking communion with God we unmoored ourselves and became lost. Worse, this disintegration of communion with God also led to inner disintegration, disharmony and degradation of the image of God within. We thus became independent in a negative sense, and addicted to this rebellious and unhealthy independence. This means that even the most sincere attempts to obey conscience and the law of love risk partaking of this fatal flaw. While they remain our attempts to be and do good, while they do not consciously acknowledge and draw upon the Source, while they do not admit our dependence upon God's mercy and goodness, they will always partake somewhat of self-deception. And they will leave us as broken vessels who cannot hold even the grace we have been given. This is what St Paul teaches about the Law and the Gospel in his letters to the Romans and the Galatians in particular (cp. Rom. 7, Ga. 3:21, 5:4, Ph. 3:9).

How, then, is the broken vessel to be healed? How are we to be reconciled to God? How are we to acknowledge our dependence upon and draw upon God's grace, His gift of Himself? The bad news is we cannot do this of ourselves. The good news (the gospel!) is that God has done this in Christ, and has opened the way back to Life. Which brings us to the third issue concerning the Two Great Commandments. A person might hear and agree with everything I have just said yet still ask, why is the person of Jesus so important? Why cannot a person not only love the Law, but acknowledge their dependence on God's grace without reference to Christ? The answer is that, once God has revealed himself to us and showed us the way back to Him, it is pure continuation of rebellion and rejection of Him to ignore the face he has shown us, or to attempt to bypass the path he has provided. It is no good saying that you wish to love God and rely upon Him in a general sense if you then act like you don't need Him when he comes knocking on your door (cp. Rev. 3:20). I said before that we need God's gift of himself to us. Well, we have to accept it on his terms and, more to the point, we have to accept it as it actually exists. St John's Gospel says, just after the famous verse read at every Mass in the Comfortable Words: “For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light” (John 3:17-19). The light has come. Our response to the light of Christ is in fact our response to God. To love God is to love and follow Christ. It is, therefore, not just a matter of an arbitrary rule God puts down. This is confirmed when we remember that it is what Jesus does for us through the Cross and Empty Tomb that actually reconciles us to his Father and repairs the broken vessel.

Today's Gospel shows that Christ is the missing piece of the puzzle of the Law by going straight from the discussion of the Two Great Commandments to a clever conundrum put forward by Christ. He simply asks an open question about a verse of the OT. How can the scribes say that the Messiah will be the son of David when David himself referred to the Messiah as his Lord in one of his Psalms? It was acknowledged by all in this context that the son could not be lord or master of the father. Notice that Jesus does not deny the Messiah will be the son of David, and at other times accepted being called himself Messiah as well as being called the son of David (e.g., Mark 10:47,48, 14:61,62). He just asks how the Christ or Messiah can be both his son and his lord. Now the passage had been interpreted messianically by a number of the Jewish scholars independently of Christ, so although it does not explicitly present itself as a Messianic prophecy, Jesus' use of it as such was not some manipulative peculiarity of his. The context of the Psalm means it can be interpreted as David writing a Psalm for use by others which refers to himself (as a lord) in the third person (a common enough literary device in Scripture). But the problem with this is that other parts of the Psalm seem mere hyperbole in this case. The reference to an eternal priest (“a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek”) is the key example. That is why both Jesus and the other Jews realised it had a deeper, prophetic meaning, along with a number of other Psalms laden with potent and mysterious images.

The answer to Jesus' pointed question is that the Messiah, which just happens to be him, can be both the son and the lord of David only if he is more than just a promised King, descending from David, who continues and re-establishes his authority. To be the Master of David the King (even from David's own time, as the Psalm shows) as well as his princely heir, he must have two aspects to his person, one of which pre-exists and is superior to David, the other of which derives from David. Thus we have Jesus hinting at his own Divine and Human Natures. At the same time he is challenging the Jewish people to understand the true identity, glory and authority of their Messiah. Only thus can they move from an approach to God's Law which is in reality unhealthy autonomy to an acceptance of the Gospel. For them and for us it is this movement, enabled by God's grace and sustained by faith in Christ, that allows us to live the Two Great Commandments. We must never forget both the necessity of these Commandments and their limitations. They are for us an instruction and inspiration which we would ignore to our peril. But they are also the effect and not the cause of our salvation. Christ is our salvation and our righteousness. He is even our Living Law (Rom. 8:2, Gal. 6:2). As we meditate upon that truth, we will come closer to the joy of what I will call “healthy autonomy”. This is where we have so imbibed the Spirit of Christ that his Law of Love has become truly ours, and we have discovered the “law of liberty” (James 1:25) and are in a sense self-regulated, impelled to goodness from within rather than being bound from without. Thanks be to God . +

Eighteenth Sunday after Trinity

I Corinthians 1:4-7
Matthew 22:34-46

The Scriptures today speak of two related but distinct themes. Those themes are our justification and our sanctification. These two great themes summarize the whole life of a Christian. In case you think Fr. Hart has become capable of over statement or platitudes, let me repeat: The two great themes of justification and sanctification summarize the whole life of a Christian. These two themes tell us who we are, and what we ought to become. Both of these themes teach us to depend and rely on the grace of God in Jesus Christ by the Holy Spirit.

Justification is the gift we have been given in the Risen Christ who died for our sins, and who, raised from the dead and glorified, forgives us and makes us children of His Father. Sanctification is the work of the Holy Spirit that transforms us into holy people, that is into saints. This requires our cooperation. But, both of these, justification and sanctification, come only by the grace of God.

We know part of the Gospel reading we heard today as “The Summary of the Law.” As we have covered several times, and as we teach in Confirmation classes, the Summary of the Law in the two Great Commandments of the Torah (Deuteronomy 6:5 and Leviticus 19:18) sums up what we call the two tables of the Law. Of the Ten Commandments the first four teach us to love God, and the remaining six teach us to love our neighbor. In case you need to have demonstrated to you just how Biblical the Book of Common Prayer is, look at how St. Paul speaks of the last six of the Ten Commandments:

For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. (Romans 13:9)

And, of course, we know that Jesus also gave us another version of that second Great Commandment.

Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets. (Matt. 7:12)

And, this has come to be called “the Golden Rule.” In fact, the Lord reversed the negative summary of Hillel, the great Rabbi who lived before Him. Hillel was asked by a Gentile to summarize the Torah while standing on one foot. He said, “Do not that which is odious to thy neighbor.” Jesus changed this into a positive summary, namely instead of telling us what not to do, which could be misinterpreted as allowing us to be passive or apathetic, He told us what to do. It takes effort to love thy neighbor; do to him what you would have him do to you. Love thy neighbor as thyself, as Moses had commanded, requires more than not offending your neighbor. It means doing what is good for him.

The Epistle reading we heard today seems, in this whole context, to be an ironic choice. It comes from St. Paul’s First Epistle to the Church in Corinth. A few months ago Touchstone published an article I wrote in which I highlighted the great theme of that Epistle, which is that St. Paul wrote a very firm rebuke to them for their lack of charity. He wrote to the Church in Corinth to correct the selfish disregard that they exhibited for each other. Whatever themes you find in that Epistle, throughout most of it, the key that unlocks it is their lack of love for one another. In that article I wrote this:

“The alarming fact we must glean from the Epistle is that neither mystical and supernatural gifts nor orthodox doctrine were enough to keep the Corinthian Christians from being carnal, childish, divisive and utterly selfish. And, indeed, selfishness is the most apparent symptom of their carnality, addressed over and over again in several places. And, by Providence, it is that very selfishness that gave the occasion for St. Paul to write his most famous passage, the chapter on charity (chapter 13)… That beautiful chapter was a rebuke, meant not to inspire but to correct. It was written not to move with poetic sublimity, but to admonish with prophetic indignation. It was a fire lit to melt their frozen unloving, selfish hearts. Those hearts had taken good and holy things, the very gifts of God, and used them for selfish ends.”

It sounds so poetic: “though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity…faith, hope, charity abide, these three. But, the greatest of these is charity.” Read in its context, however, it was not a gentle greeting card passage, but a knock over the head.

And, yet, he opens the very same Epistle by telling them that they are all called to be saints, and then tells them every good thing he can think of about their life as Christians, as we heard today:

I thank my God always on your behalf, for the grace of God which is given you by Jesus Christ; That in every thing ye are enriched by him, in all utterance, and in all knowledge; Even as the testimony of Christ was confirmed in you: So that ye come behind in no gift; waiting for the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ: Who shall also confirm you unto the end, that ye may be blameless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Can these be the same people he addresses in the rest of the Epistle? From this point on he lets them have it, rebuking them for being divisive, selfish, carnal, squabbling and infantile.

But, these are the same people. They have the grace of God as dear sons and daughters. The gifts they have demonstrate His work among them. But, they have not learned to love one another, and to put the needs of others above selfish interests. Even their practice of the faith is interwoven with utter selfishness, even the way they approach the Holy Sacrament of Christ’s Body and Blood. Read the Epistle. You would think he was writing to Continuing Anglicans.

Now, Paul is not denying their place in Christ. This is because of the reality of justification. But, he is not pleased with their conduct; and that is about sanctification. Ultimately, his hope is expressed as a bridge between the passage we heard today, and the painful verbal spanking that follows. In verse 9 he writes: “God is faithful, by whom ye were called unto the fellowship of his Son Jesus Christ our Lord.” Confident in God’s faithfulness to them, he begins in the very next verse to turn them over his Apostolic knee, where he applies the board of education to the seat of learning. He does so with hope that it is worth the effort, because he knows that “God is faithful.”

When you hear the Summary of the Law, or the Golden Rule, I hope you do not imagine that you, somehow, live up to it. I trust that most of you would not be content to be like those early believers in Corinth at the time of Paul’s writing. Nonetheless, the Summary of the Law does not teach you what a good person you are. It teaches you that you are a sinner in need of God’s mercy. Hear what St. Paul wrote to the Churches of Galatia:

But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe. But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed. Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. (Galatians 3:22-24)

If Paul could write to the Corinthians confident of God’s grace among them, then he must have had great confidence in God’s grace for these people, inasmuch as they sought to be faithful, but were troubled by false teachers discouraging them, and bringing them into a kind of bondage. In their case, he wanted to explain the purpose of the Law of Moses, the Torah, that is, the commandments of God.

First, the Law teaches you about justification. How does it do so? Because when you hear those words of the two Great Commandments of the Torah, you ought to realize that all your own delusions of self-righteousness have just melted away. Speaking for myself, I have never lived a day in which I have truly loved God to a point that meets that impossible standard. Nor have I loved my neighbor according to that high and impossible standard. I have done some good for some people, enough to feel holy, saintly and good; that is, until some so an’ so cut me off and made me miss my exit, about whom I may have breathed words that were not…liturgical.

The Law, when understood, teaches us that we need Christ and His cross, that we need the offering He made of Himself once for all, that we may be forgiven and justified. We come before God confessing our sins, and basing our faith on the cross of Christ where He offered Himself as the “full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice, oblation, and satisfaction, for the sins of the whole world;” and so we are justified.

This gets us to the second part of the Gospel reading we heard today:

While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them, saying, What think ye of Christ? whose son is he? They say unto him, The son of David. He saith unto them, How then doth David in spirit call him Lord, saying, The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool? If David then call him Lord, how is he his Son?

What was that about? Does not the opening of the same Gospel call Jesus Christ “the son of David, the son of Abraham” just before the list of names in His legally recognized noble genealogy? But, Jesus in this passage makes the Pharisees aware that Christ, or Messiah, is more than merely the inheritor of David’s throne. He is also David’s Lord.

The reason why Jesus alone has the power to save each of us to the uttermost, without need of anyone else’s alleged merits (which exist only in a blasphemous fantasy anyway), is because He is more than the Son of David-“Behold, a greater than Solomon is here.” (Matt.12:42) He is God of God, one with the Father, the only begotten Son, and He is with the Father in eternity, sent into the world as the One born of a virgin mother, fully human, like us in every respect, but without sin (see Hebrews 4:15).

Because of Who He is that died for us, justification is not a process. It is instant, given immediately because the price has been paid in full (John 19:30 τελέω) by the Only One Who was able to pay it. But, sanctification, on the other hand, is a process. It is the life in which we grow in the virtues that come from the grace of God as the Holy Spirit works within us.

We are in Christ as baptized Christian people, and we abide in Christ because we have faith. All of this has been given to us. If St. Paul could be confident that the Christians of Corinth would grow into saints, because they were in Christ, and because the grace of God was evident among them, and because God is faithful, might he not be confident if he saw us?

Whatever your reason for being present among the people of the Church, I hope your highest reason is to worship God and to allow His grace to transform you. Make every effort to avail yourself of every means of grace, including the sacraments we have here, especially feeding on the Bread of Life.

The Scriptures today speak of two related but distinct themes. Those themes are our justification and our sanctification. These two great themes summarize the whole life of a Christian. The life we have been given is possible only due to the fact of justification. The life we have before us, that we must live, ought to be a life of sanctification. This is what it means to be in Christ, and, breath by breath as you go throughout life, to receive the grace of God in Christ by the Holy Spirit.

A few more thoughts

"A bishop who cannot teach what the College has defined (and what is the universal teaching of the East and the West) has only one option, and that is to stand aside until he can teach in accord with the Church." From Archbishop Hepworth's Open Letter.

"Because it is new Rome, the bishop of Constantinople is to enjoy the privileges of honor after the bishop of Rome." First Council of Constantinople (381 AD), Canon 3.

It would seem that Abp. Hepworth has a peculiar notion of Universal Consensus. If he is going to berate and bully the three ACA bishops who, true to their consciences, cannot plunge into the Tiber under the terms of Anglicanorum Coetibus, he could at least abstain from fantasy. What he calls the universal teaching of East and West, in the context of his letter, does not exist. The bishops of the Orthodox Church could no more agree to the terms of the new Roman Constitution than could any knowledgeable Anglican. Of course, not the parts about Holy Orders and Absolute or Conditional Ordination which do not apply to them as individuals, but the underlying idea that the Papal Communion (i.e., the Roman Catholic denomination together with the "Uniate" churches under the Pope) is The Catholic Church, or that the Pope has Universal Primacy other than the purely honorary recognition given to Rome during the Post Constantine era of the Roman Empire (yes, Virginia, the empire was the issue), as expressed in the Councils of Constantinople [I], Ephesus and Chalcedon (but not in the Ecumenical Councils that followed, nor in Nicea I).

Neither could the Eastern bishops agree to some of the other doctrines in The Catechism of the Catholic Church that was released under the Papal imprimatur of John-Paul II, such as, for example, the Treasury. If Hepworth is going to imply that anyone is guilty of heresy for not agreeing with some College of Bishops that teaches "the universal teaching of the East and the West," he must stand accused himself. For, all he has done is choose the West over the East.

His reference to some universal teaching of East and West, however, cannot include distinctive doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church, inasmuch as Anglicans, and only Anglicans, teach "the universal teaching of the East and the West." That is because we know the boundary lines of what truly constitutes "universal" without having to insist on any later additions and partisan innovations. Helping both Rome and the Orthodox rediscover that universal teaching is our own gift to the wider Catholic Church, a gift that Hepworth's agenda would forever destroy (Are you reacting inside? If so, why do you hang your head in shame? Who told you, dear Continuing Anglican, that your place in the Church Catholic is inferior? What? Did you not believe that being an Anglican was worthwhile?).

In his Open Letter, Hepworth went on also to say: "The Traditional Anglican Communion is not a Protestant ecclesial body. In a television interview in Canada several years ago, I said that the most difficult thing that each of us would face in the pathway to unity would be shedding ourselves of the question 'What do I think?' and instead asking, 'What does the Church teach?'”

This, though worded ever so smoothly, is actually an out and out attack on Anglicanism itself, charging it with being a sectarian movement outside of the Church altogether. He has reworded the sentiments of Newman the convert, rehashing the old silliness about some thing called "private judgment." In fact, anyone who has no "private judgment" cannot be a Roman Catholic anymore than an Anglican, or for that matter any kind of believer, because he cannot have a functioning mind. That is because, without skepticism we can have no genuine faith, but only a robotic anti-intellectualism that faces no honest question, and that faces no question honestly.

Furthermore, discerning what the Church Catholic teaches requires that we discern what it taught from the beginning, and a willingness to discard innovations that contradict or obscure the genuine Apostolic witness of the ancient Church. This brings us to Hepworth's line, "The Traditional Anglican Communion is not a Protestant ecclesial body."

One anti-intellectual, anti-educational bit of prejudicial idiocy that I have addressed here several times (especially here and here), is a modern brand of "Anglo-Catholic" (as opposed to real Anglo-Catholic) knee-jerk reaction against the word "Protestant." Like most of his bullying pontificating, Hepworth's offensive and bigoted use of the word "Protestant" merely shows that he has no idea of what constitutes the ABCs of Anglicanism. No wonder he can dismiss it all, and try to find his way back to where he came from (but only on some terms that he finds agreeable to the life he has chosen).

For educated Anglicans, however, the kind of Protestantism we embrace is the truly Catholic kind, "more Catholic than the Pope." It is to return to the teaching that truly is Universal because it is ancient and Biblical, the true witness of the Apostolic and Patristic eras. And, it is truly Catholic, for it is genuinely According to the Whole revelation from Heaven.

For now, as long as Abp. Hepworth remains in a church that is western and non-papal, he is a Protestant himself. He may not like it, and if he does not like it, he needs to act on his convictions. But, his stated ignorance about Anglicanism, which ignorance has become offensive due to his repeated public misstatements, should cease to be an influence on people who got into this whole thing because they embraced The Affirmation of St. Louis. They do not need some ex-Roman Catholic priest beating up on the Anglicanism they Continue, and insisting that they all convert to the denomination he himself left decades ago--apparently to get married as a priest without laitization.* If he has buyer's remorse, let him go back where he came from, and accept his laiticized status gracefully, instead of beating up on people who have resolved to be Continuing Anglicans due to honest conviction.

Historical context
The quotation of Canon 3 from Constantinople I (above) is often taken out of its historical context. It sheds light on the whole idea of Rome being first in honor, which grew into the idea of Universal Primacy that was rejected by the Church in 1054, and clung to only by Rome.

The notion of "The See of Peter" is historically dubious inasmuch as his arrival there appears to have been a visit to a fully functioning Church, an established Church to which St. Paul had sent an authoritative Epistle (you will find it in the Bible), and to have constituted a brief visit before his martyrdom around the same time as Paul's martyrdom in the same city. Neither of these two Apostles founded the Church in Rome, and, obviously, somebody had been pastoring the Roman Christians before either Apostle showed up. There was no See of Peter in Rome, neither was there a "double Apostolic foundation" inasmuch as both men visited an established Church.

Canon 3 of Constantinople I, therefore, should be read in its historical context, and should also shed light on the whole idea of Rome's position as first in honor. What honor? The honor of the Church for spiritual reasons? If so, why was the new city of Constantinople, built by an Emperor and named after him, given a position of honor as "the new Rome" rather than for a spiritual reason? Only in the political context of the Empire was it the new Rome. The whole context and the wording of Canon 3 indicates a historical association in a political structure that no longer exists, not some eternal order established by God for His Church to be carried on until Christ comes. We have good reason to question the entire idea of Rome remaining first in honor as if the notion was a doctrine that had been revealed from Heaven, or as if it was any sort of doctrine at all. It seems quite clear that such an idea had nothing to do with the meaning of the bishops who met in Ecumenical Council.

* Earlier, in my haste, I had said "without going on unemployment." This was too harsh in how it came across. We should have no moral objection to a RC priest looking good and hard at Continuing Anglicanism because he is faced with the dilemma of choosing between marriage and a life of celibacy that he no longer believes he is obligated to. If the Anglican solution fits his conscience, in terms of what he has come to see about life, about himself and about God's commandments as opposed to man made traditions, then he ought to practice his ministry in a manner of life that can be lived righteously before God without undue temptations. This ought to include the conviction that Anglicanism is a valid way to be Catholic.

The problem in Abp. Hepworth's case is that this conviction appears to have been lacking all along. His public statements about Anglicanism demonstrate that he has no true understanding of it, which in turn means that he could not have had the necessary conviction from the start. His words are not those of a man who once learned (about Anglicanism) and forgot, but of a man who did not learn.