David Virtue has posted an insightful commentary on VOL.
The feisty Australian ecclesiastical cowboy of The Traditional Anglican Communion John Hepworth is doing his best to corral the Roman Catholic Church into accepting his herd of Anglo-Catholic cows. The only problem is the Vatican Bull is not exactly pawing the ground as he looks over the thinly educated herd.
This week the vicar-general of Torres Strait TACites, the largest of the TAC herd, wrote to VOL asking for a copy of Hepworth's infamous letter to confirm for himself that the things I wrote were what Hepworth actually said. The cowboy ripped Canadian Catholic (Archbishop Thomas Collins) bull for duplicity and much more. Is the vicar-general planning a coup d'état of his own like the US and the Canadians by announcing that Torres Strait Anglo-Catholics are likewise not interested in being corralled by Hepworth into the Vatican pen?
The rest of the piece can be found here.
Friday, May 20, 2011
Thursday, May 19, 2011
A false problem
A question came up recently about the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary (IC). To Anglicans this is no dogma, but it is considered "a pious belief" that some Christians hold. "Pious" does not mean true, but that Anglicans are willing to tolerate it.
I do not have any intention of arguing the doctrine one way or the other; but, I offer critical thought about the underlying idea that it serves any purpose. To begin with, it is not a doctrine of Universal Church, even though the See of Rome, a single diocese, asserts its own ideas as "universal." The Eastern Orthodox do not teach it. Rome itself did not dogmatize the idea until the middle of the 19th century. Saints, including Thomas Aquinas, did not believe it, despite all sorts of sophistry employed to rewrite his position. The Fathers of the Church never mentioned it, and more so, seem never to have imagined a need for it. They never even discussed the alleged problem that it allegedly solves.
And, that itself is why IC cannot be a dogma. A doctrine that is wholly unnecessary cannot be a dogma (not to mention the fact that no such revelation appears in Holy Scripture). IC is the fruit of human speculation concerning an academic question. And, the question itself, especially when posited as a problem, presents a deeper problem still, and exposes a seriously flawed state of mind.
The same flawed state of mind is discernible in the "big rock question." You have all heard it: "Can God make a stone so heavy that He cannot lift it?" This is supposed to make us cringe, and feel deeply challenged. The same people who consider it profound are the kind who think that the El Greco Fallacy should be taken seriously. The El Greco Fallacy was used by a professor of psychology at Harvard as an intelligence test, to weed out students who lacked sufficient intelligence.
This is well described on the HSFP Journal website:
In his book Advice to a Young Scientist, Peter Medawar gives a test in logic based on the paintings of El Greco (Medawar, 1979). A striking feature of many of El Greco’s pictures is the way figures and faces often appear to be excessively elongated. In trying to account for this idiosyncratic style, an ophthalmologist proposed in 1913 that El Greco may have had a form of astigmatism, which distorted his vision and led to elongated images forming on his retina (Trevor-Roper, 1970). Although such an explanation may initially seem reasonable, it does not stand up to logical scrutiny. This is because even if El Greco did see the world through a distorting lens, the same distortion would apply to what he saw on his canvas. These two distortions would cancel each other out, and the proportions in pictures would remain realistic. Thus “if some of El Greco’s figures seem unnaturally tall and thin, they appear so because this was El Greco’s intention” (Medawar, 1979).
The Big Rock Question is flawed because it subjects the infinity of God, and His therefore infinite power, to the terms we know from the finite universe. The question itself does not represent a valid philosophical problem. The context in which it is asked, and in which an answer could be attempted, is insufficient to cover the subject itself.
This is one fallacy of treating IC as a dogma. Supposedly, IC answers a real question and solves a real problem. The question is, "How can God the Son be incarnate as a sinless man?" The answer, according to the Roman Catholic Church (as of 1850) is that the Church has always taught (retroactively, apparently) that Mary was born free of Original Sin. Therefore, her Son could be free of it.
The problem here is twofold. First, it has not been established that the Son would be tainted by Original Sin even if His mother was. That is simply a conclusion reached by the worst kind of scholasticisim. The larger problem is the question itself.
In Christian theology we have no room for any question that includes the words, "How can God...?" We have one answer for every such presumptuous inquiry: "With God, all things are possible." (Matt. 19:26 Mark 10:27) Any question that includes the words, "How can God...?" takes us back to the fallacy of the Big Rock Question: As I said above, "it subjects the infinity of God, and His therefore infinite power, to the terms we know from the finite universe. The question itself does not represent a valid philosophical problem. The context in which it is asked, and in which an answer could be attempted, is insufficient to cover the subject itself."
If people want to believe in the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary, well, I suppose we can live with that. What matters above all else is our shared conviction that her ability to conceive the sinless Son of God was by grace, and only by grace. It was entirely supernatural and charismatic, not due to her own merits.
The question, however, represents a false problem. It came about because men could not understand the infinite power of God, and the smallness of their own minds. Believe in IC all you want; but, know that it solves no real problem. At best, the whole subject is a waste of time.
Tuesday, May 17, 2011
Part II, Articles IX – XIII: Personal Religion
Article IX
Of Original or Birth Sin
Original sin standeth not in the following of Adam (as the Pelagians do vainly talk), but it is the fault and corruption of the nature of every man that naturally is engendered of the offspring of Adam, whereby man is very far gone from original righteousness, and is of his own nature inclined to evil, so that the flesh lusteth always contrary to the spirit; and therefore in every person born into this world, it deserveth God's wrath and damnation. And this infection of nature doth remain, yea, in them that are regenerated, whereby the lust of the flesh, called in Greek phronema sarkos (which some do expound the wisdom, some sensuality, some the affection, some the desire of the flesh), is not subject to the law of God. And although there is no condemnation for them that believe and are baptized, yet the Apostle doth confess that concupiscence and lust hath itself the nature of sin.
Peccatum originis non est (ut fabulantur Pelagiani) in imitatione Adami situm, sed est vitium et depravatio naturae eiuslibet hominis ex Adamo naturaliter propagati, qua fit ut ab originali iustitia quam longissime distet, ad malum sua natura propendeat, et caro semper adversus spiritum concupiscat; unde in unoquoque nascentium iram Dei atque damnationem meretur. Manet etiam in renatis haec naturae depravatio, qua fit ut affectus carnis, Graece phronema sarcos (quod alii sapientiam, alii sensum, alii affectum, alii studium carnis interpretantur), legi Dei non subiiciatur. Et quanquam renatis et credentibus, nulla propter Christum est condemnatio, peccati tamen in sese rationem habere concupiscentiam fatetur Apostolus.
Composed in 1553 by English reformers.
Fr. Laurence Wells
At this point in the progression of the Articles, we move from the area of doctrine which was more or less agreed on by all sides in the 16th century, into the area which was then under dispute. Without a doubt, we will be reminded shortly that those disputes have not gone away. Therefore it may be helpful to review the purpose of this series. Our goal is quite simple: not to debate but to explicate. We wish to unfold in simple terms what the Articles actually say and to establish their place in the great mainstream of the Christian faith.
In Genesis 3, we encounter a haunting story of a man and a woman, presented as the earliest ancestors of the human family, who lived in moral innocence and in close fellowship with the generous loving God who had created them. They were, however, seduced by a malign power into a simple but fatal act of defiance of their Creator. That act almost (this adverb is important) destroyed the happy and intimate relationship they had enjoyed with the Creator. But even so, it had drastic and disastrous consequences. Not only was their moral innocence spoiled, but they were driven out of their original home into a hostile world. Exiled from God's presence, their simple but fatal act of defiance was quickly expanded by their offspring in hideous ways too numerous to list. It is important that the offspring of this archetypal couple do not begin life in the same happy circumstances, but must take their very origin as exiles in the harsh thorny world outside the Garden.
Somewhat oddly, this story was never mentioned again in the Old Testament (save one obscure passage in the Book of Hosea). But it still seemed to haunt the Hebrew Scriptures like a dark shadow, with the unrelenting themes of disobedience, judgment and exile. Genesis 3 served as a silent paradigm for the Law, the Prophets and the Writings. It remained an undeveloped theme, until St Paul
Each of us must make up his mind what to do with the woeful tale in Genesis 3. Many earnest believers have long since dismissed it as primitive folklore, having no relevance to anything, and consequently they have packed away the doctrine of Original Sin into their theological attic, no longer finding it useful but not quite ready to throw it away. Many others have decided that Genesis 3 is a moral fable. "Let's not be like Adam and Eve, we can get things right and stay in the Garden." That was the essence of the Pelagian heresy, which Article IX alludes to as "the following of Adam." That heresy maintained that as Adam fell from his original innocence, so each of us begins life in an innocent state and suffers his own fall. "Every man is his own Adam" is the familiar Pelagian slogan, and we have a thousand pieces of modern literature devoted to the "loss of innocence" theme.
And then there are many who believe that the story of Adam is a fine bit of fiction which does not point up a real Fall within clock-time history, but simply serves to illustrate an unfortunate tendency which we all share. They tell us we are prone to disease, but not really sick. That point of view damaged our Prayer Book in the 1928 revision. From 1549 and in every revision until 1928, the Baptismal Office contained the clear language, "Dearly beloved, forasmuche as all men bee conceived and borne in sinne, and that no manne borne in sinne, can enter into the kingdom of God except be be regenerate, and borne anewe of water and of the holy ghost..." As moralistic theology undermined the doctrines of grace in the Anglican Churches, the robust language of the first Prayer Book proved embarrassing. The Proposed English Book of 1928 softened the language, "seeing that all men are from their birth prone to sin, but God willeth all men to be saved, for God is love." The American revision that same year, our hallowed "1928 BCP," was more forthright in simply deleting the Biblical language altogether.
If our trust in Genesis 3 has been undermined by a skeptical view of Holy Scripture and by the incurable virus of Pelagianism, the doctrine of Original Sin can be strongly argued from the New Testament. We have a series of texts asserting the sinlessness of Christ which indirectly assert the universality of the human sinful condition. Sin, let us recall, is more than a generic name for a certain category of behaviors; it is our plight, our condition, our predicament. What person can doubt that Psalm 51:5 ("Behold, I was shapen in wickedness, and in sin hath my mother conceived me") describes a deadly universal problem which has no human solution? We did not become sinners by committing some particular sinful act. We began to sin because of a fatal defect in our soul's DNA.
In two key passages (Romans 5 and I Corinthians 15) St Paul sets up a contrast between Adam and Christ. In Romans he wrote,
"Just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, death spread to all men because all sinned....for if many died through one man's trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift by the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for man... For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation, but the free gift following many trespasses brought justification...." Paul argues this principle with relentless logic in a passage too long to quote, Romans 5:12--21. He hammers home by the repetition of the word "one." One man, one trespass, one man's disobedience, with dire consequences for all the human race. This is contrasted with "one man's obedience" which makes many righteous.
Paul also develops this antinomy in 1 Corinthians 15:21-22, "For as by man came death, by a man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive."
Here we have a picture of two human families. First, the family of Adam, born into exile and guilt, thanks to the first ancestor's unique disobedience, living from the moment of conception under his curse, sharing his ultimate doom. Second, the new humanity of Jesus the second Adam, salvaged by His unique act of obedience, blessed with an undeserved gift of new life, ultimately sharing His glory.
It will not do to say that "Adam is Every-man." Paul's logic stands or falls with his perception that Adam was a historical figure and his "one trespass" was an event which took place in clock time. The parallel between Adam and Christ is absolutely precise. If "Adam is every-man," then Christ is equally every-man. If "every man is his own Adam," then every human can be his own Christ.
At this point permit me to retract, slightly, my statement above that the Old Testament never mentioned again the sorrowful tale of Genesis 3. The arguments of Paul in Romans and I Corinthians, which eventually became labeled Original Sin, were not original with him. In II Esdras we read:
"The same fate befell all of them: just as death came upon Adam, so the flood upon them [of Noah's generation]. .... For the first Adam, burdened with an evil heart, transgressed and was overcome, as were also all who were descended from him, as were also all who descended from him. Thus the disease became permanent.... (II Esdras 3:10, 21). It would be difficult to argue that Paul was influenced by this text, since II Esdras was actually written after the Fall of Jerusalem, and is therefore less ancient than Paul's Epistles. But this little known passage shows that such theological ideas were not peculiar to Paul. Some of the strongest statements concerning human depravity come from the mouth of Our Lord Himself. "For out of the heart comes evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false witness, slander" (Matt. 15:19).
Before summarizing, let me offer two final comments. As noted above in the history of some unfortunate revisions in our Prayer Book Baptismal Office, Anglicans have shown a certain hesitation with and resistance toward the doctrine of Original Sin. C. B. Moss objects to the theory of Our Lady's Immaculate Conception because it would have the effect of dogmatizing Original Sin. Frequently it is claimed that the language of Article IX, "very far gone from original righteousness" softens the more thunderous pronouncements of the Calvinists. It should be pointed out that the underlying Latin expression is "longissime quam," an idiom which really means "as far gone as possible," a hyperbole which Calvinist Confessions guarded against.
Also we sometimes encounter a curious distinction between "Original Sin" (understood as a mere tendency toward sin, a congenital weakness in the constitution of a moral neutral creature) and "Original Guilt" (an unpopular notion that Adam's guilt is shared by all the human family and each human being is born into his guilty status). The latter concept does not commend itself to a mind saturated with notions of democracy, equality, and human autonomy. It is difficult to comprehend by those whose world-view is shaped by nominalism. But the attempted disjunction of sin and guilt will not work, unless one wishes to make sin trivial. While there may be guilt-free ice cream, there is no guilt-free sin. Adam's sons were not only excluded from the Garden, but moreover labored under his curse. As hard a doctrine as this may be, it is both a realistic description of the human predicament and a faithful restatement of the faith of the ancient Church. In the Easter liturgy, in the Blessing of the Paschal candle, we find at the very beginning, "through Jesus Christ our Lord, who for us paid the debt of Adam to the Father eternal, and blotted out the handwriting of the olden trespass with his precious Blood."
To sum up and to initiate discussion:
At the outset of human history there was a primeval act of rebellion by our earliest ancestors, a mutiny of the creature against the Creator, which catapulted the entire human race into a situation of estrangement, alienation, hostility and consequently elicited the Divine wrath. This is a desperate and hopeless predicament, from which no human being can extricate himself. The rescue was aptly described by J. H. Newman:
O loving wisdom of our God,
When all was sin and shame,
A second Adam to the fight,
And to the rescue came.
O wisest love! That flesh and blood,
Which did in Adam fail,
Should strive afresh against the foe,
Should strive and should prevail.
Fr. Robert Hart
"Behold, I was shapen in wickedness, and in sin hath my mother conceived me." Psalm 51:5
Fr. Wells has defended the understanding of Original Sin that always has prevailed, though some may insist “in the west.” In this Article we still find no theological disagreement with the Church of Rome, the Lutherans or the Calvinists. However, the doctrine of Original Sin itself, like the authority of Scripture, was never a subject of dispute within the Church. The doctrine of Original Sin was considered by St. Augustine
The language of Article IX should not be considered disputable at all. It describes Original Sin as a fault we all inherit, not the loss of innocence by “following” Adam’s example of disobedience. That is, it is not that we followed Adam’s behavior, but that we inherited his sinfulness. Someone may object that anyone who is old enough to learn about the doctrine must already be aware of his own personal sins; and, so why should it matter whether we teach that sin is an inherited state?
First of all, Original Sin, like Creatio ex nihilo, is a revealed doctrine. It did not arise from men reasoning about the Scriptures, but from the very words of Scripture. Second, we need to know that our nature itself has been affected by sin to the point where we all are helpless if left to our own devices, and in need of the grace of God. The words in the confession from Daily Morning and Evening Prayer, “there is no health in us,” mean that we do not have in ourselves the power to heal this fatal disease.
It has been argued that the East and the West have very different beliefs about Original Sin. How truly authentic that point of view is I would rather not debate. Essentially, we are told, the western point of view places sin as the cause and death as the effect, and the eastern point of view sees it as the opposite. The words of St. Paul
We are told also that the western view emphasizes guilt, and the eastern view emphasizes the tragic state of man. Again, just how accurate these dichotomies between “eastern” and “western” Christianity are, I do not care at this point to debate (let us just say that blaming the “Eastern Church” for modern ideas, is hardly justified). What really seems to be the problem has more to do with modern people and their sensibilities, so easily offended. “How could God accuse a cute little newborn baby of being a sinner?” (No one brings this up about the “terrible twos.”) That hypothetical question is more to the point than a supposed theological dichotomy; and, as we can see, it has no place in serious discussion- or it should not.
The other question is, does everyone inherit Adam’s guilt, or merely his consequential weakness? Is everyone being “punished” for what some ancient ancestor did? Again, we have the words of Scripture that teach clearly that every human being has sinned (except for Jesus Christ). St. Paul
The words, “All have sinned” are, properly understood, so inclusive that we may say, with certainty, that even every human being not yet conceived, but who will be conceived, has sinned. If Levi paid tithes in Abraham, because Abraham paid tithes to Melchizedek (as taught in Hebrews 7:9), then it is right to say that every human being sinned in Adam. That is, because the human race has sinned, all have sinned.
Fr. Wells has emphasized that Adam is not “every man.” However, Adam is in every man, and every human being is also in Adam. In Adam we are sinners, mortal, unable to escape death. The inheritance of guilt comes because we are in Adam; that is, we were in the human race when the Fall took place, “and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned.” Here we see the Biblical meaning of the One and the many.
The One and the many
When St. Paul
“But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.” (Isaiah 53:5,6)
Everywhere in that chapter we see that “He” (Hebrew-Hu, meaning a man, a male individual. The word is singular, not plural) took the weight of the sins of “the many.” St. Paul
“For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ. Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous. Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound: That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord.” (vs.17-21)
The difference between the one, Adam, and the many is contrasted against the One, Christ, and the many. As St. John
Before we get to what it means to be “in Christ” we need to see the condition from which we are saved. We begin our earthly life in Adam. Of course, the Gospel takes us to the remedy, to be born again of water and the Spirit, so as to be in the Everlasting Father (Isaiah 9:6) of the redeemed and new humanity. “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.” (I Cor. 15:21,22) Here too, we see Adam as the one, and “all” or the many; then we see Christ as the One, and “all” as the many.
If your modern sensitivities are offended, therefore, by the sentence of death upon all as sinners, how can you appreciate the justification and salvation that comes by the One, that is, Christ? The revelation of Scripture ties these two things together: “For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.” Do you appreciate that by baptism you were taken out of the domain of darkness, and translated into the kingdom of Christ
The state of sin
The question may be asked, how are all human beings sinners? Has a “sinful nature” been added to human nature as it was created? The way that some people use that expression, it can come across that way. However, what really happened is revealed to be something taken away. We see in Genesis that fallen man is forbidden access to the fruit of the tree of life, and is driven out of the garden. In fact, that is the sentence of death. We see also, “for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.” (Gen. 2:17) yet, Adam lived on outside the garden for a very long time.
Therefore, we see that the condition of sin is a kind of death, more than mortality. It is not simply that this life will end, but that outside of Christ we do not have anything good enough and real enough to be called “life.” The state of sinful mankind outside of Christ is one of walking death (Eph. 2:1). The condition is a grave defect, the lack of righteousness, the lack of life in the spirit. What we call “sinful nature” is man made in the image of God, but lacking grace to be that image, to live up to what he was created to be. It is subtraction, not addition; for death is the subtraction of life, not the addition of corruption.
Even the saints, those who are in Christ by baptism, and even those who abide in Him by faith and obedience, are, at one and the same time, yet in Adam. As the German Reformer, Martin Luther phrased it, the Christian is simul justus et peccator (“Righteous and at the same time a sinner”). This is, by no means, debatable. It is the best we can hope for in this life, even as we cooperate in every way with the grace of God that is active in our lives by the Holy Spirit. Until the Last Day, when Christ will come to raise from the dead all who are His, we are, at best, in both fathers of humanity, the first Adam and the Last Adam.
Anyone who rejects the dogma of Original Sin simply refuses to accept the self-evident reality of his own life, as well as the revelation of God in Scripture.
_______________________
* Calvin himself never taught the so-called “five points.” Concerning the doctrine itself, it does not follow that rejection of “Limited Atonement” must lead to Universalism. Christ “paid in full” the price of human sin (John 19:30, I John 2:2) . But, not everyone believes.
Monday, May 16, 2011
What is over? you may ask
Last week, the angry letter of Abp. Hepworth to Bp. Peter Elliot, concerning the situation in Canada, was the silent explosion inside the great dam. In Force Ten from Navarone, Robert Shaw (playing Gregory Peck-sort of) becomes quickly agitated when nothing appears to have happened, after risking his life to plant explosions in a dam. He demands to know, from Edward Fox (playing David Niven-sort of), why the damn dam did not blow up. "Wait for it," replies the calm explosive expert. As they watch, bit by bit, the dam leaks until it falls apart, and the flood breaks loose on a bridge down river (their intended target), destroying it entirely. The explosion was not noticeable from a distance, but after a few minutes it did its work.
Such an explosion ocurred with the Hepworth letter. The proverbial it is over.
A comment was posted by one of our Continuum readers (who uses the handle AFS1970), part of which says: "Well it seems at the very least that the situation here in the US and the situation in Canada are different...Where the problem lies, and it appears that this is a big part of the Canada issue is that there are some who heard about Anglicanorum Coetibus, let others read it for them, then took those others at their word as to the contents of Rome's generous offer. For their part Rome seems quite surprised at what some folks think is in this offer."
I believe that diagnosis is right; but I would not apply it only to Canada. The same problem of misinformation about Anglicanourm Coetibus exists everywhere that the Hepworth spin has been sounded, and it is still fueled by those who will not stop repeating it. The problem, however, is not and never was the Roman offer of Ordinariates in and of itself. And, although we who write for The Continuum have made it clear over and over that the target of our criticism was the misinformation rather than the Roman constitution, it seems that the spin meisters and their trusting followers have yet to understand what we have been writing and posting since September 2009.
What the Hepworth letter reveals is the true meaning of Anglicanorum Coetibus, and the fact that Hepworth is only now admitting something of the reality. His pretense, that he is surprised and angry, does not outweigh the revelation that Anglicanorum Coetibus actually means what it says. Simply put, it is just as Archbishop Haverland (Metropolitan of the ACC-OP) said:
"This Constitution, as best one can judge from the Note, mainly will do two new things: First, it will extend internationally terms offered already to some in North America by the Pastoral Provision and by the Book of Divine Worship. The Pastoral Provision permits ordination as Roman Catholic priests for some married, formerly Anglican clergy who join the Roman Catholic Church, and this despite the general Roman demand for clerical celibacy. The Book of Divine Worship contains some liturgical forms which have sources in the Anglican tradition: the so-called Anglican Use."
On The Continuum we began to explain the details of what the new Roman Constitution actually says; and, it is exactly what Archbishop Haverland described. The reaction to our work was cries and howls of protest from Orlando, that is, from the Former Anglican blog (so dishonestly named The Anglo-Catholic), at the time used by Hepworth, and ACA bishops such as Falk and Campese when it suited them, and denounced by some when it did not suit them.
How could we say that this new constitution offered no new terms for Anglicans seeking to be "reunited" with Rome? How could we argue that the Hepworth-Falk-Campese spin is wrong, and that all that the new constitution describes is simply the same old Pastoral Provisions established by Pope John-Paul II years earlier, with nothing other than an ordinariate to take away the option of diocesan bishops to block those provisions? How could we dare to argue that Hepworth et al's promises were the product of their own fevered imaginations?
We made our argument because the language of that new constitution is perfectly clear to the educated reader. Furthermore, the references to Roman Catholic Canon Law contained within it remove any possibility of an alternative interpretation. The problem is that while Rome has simply made a little more room for their existing provisions, the Hepworth-Falk-Campese-Orlando bloggers version was as "creative" as a Rasil Bathrobe Sherlock Holmes movie (or was that Basil Rathbone?) or the Walt Disney version of Alice In Wonderland - that is, a version so corrupt that the author would never recognize it. The problem may be further complicated by any person, no matter how impressive his office, who claims to represent the Church of Rome by making his own personal promises of things that exceed the clear language in Anglicanorum Coetibus.
Singin' the One Trues Blues
Now, will some effort at establishing an Ordinariate in the United States come to a screeching halt? Will it even come to a screeching halt in Canada? Probably not. For some time to come the meetings and discussions will go on, inasmuch as the Roman Catholic denomination treats all other Christians as a mission field, to be converted to the Onest and Truest of the Two One True Churches - and more's the pity since that basic misunderstanding of who we are blocks any potential progress to genuine unity in God's One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.
The tragedy is that some modern Anglicans, who fancy themselves "Anglo-Catholic" in sort of the same way some mental patients may fancy themselves to be Napoleon, also think we should all surrender to Rome's enormous claims, and accept both its good points and its bad points (including a few theological errors) as infallible. In fact, as long as Rome and Orthodoxy treat us like a mission field, that is as people who need to be converted to one or the other of the Two One Trues, they forestall any serious discussion.
We do not need conversion to either of them. We would like for them both to discuss theology with us on a serious level, to lay down their outrageous exclusive claims, and join with us and with each other humbly, and to do so with a desire to know the truth of the Gospel. Until then, we are not interested in seeking communion with either of them on their unacceptable terms. The need for clear communication still exists, not a headlong rush to some poor substitute for real unity.
The big mismatch
One irony is that Anglicanorum Coetibus is not about unity at all, despite the Hepworth-Falk-Campese-Former Anglican hype, but about terms of conversion to Roman Catholicism. People convert to their church all the time, while people from their church join our church all the time too. None of that movement is the great grand Unity that allegedly fulfills the Lord's words in John 17 ("that they may all be one"). Some Anglicans go for the Pastoral Provisions and "Anglican" Use, namely Novus Ordo in Elizabethan English - which hardly amounts to "Anglican Patrimony."
Another very big irony is the huge mismatch. The whole idea of Roman gestures to Anglicans, which includes the entire Pastoral Provisions and Elizabethan Lingo Use (to be more accurate), along with its extension through Anglicanorum Cioetibus, was because of the apostasy and heresy of churches in the official Canterbury HQ'ed Anglican Communion. They have women clergy, same-sex blessings, unrecognizable "liturgy" and every wind of doctrine.
But, just what does any of that have to do with any church that professes the Affirmation of St. Louis? Continuing Anglicans do not need to flee anything. We did that in 1977. Application of Anglicanorum Coetibus to any church that claims, as the Traditional Anglican Communion (TAC) has always claimed, independence from that apostasy based on the stand taken at St. Louis in 1977, is an obvious mismatch. At best, it is like addressing the problem of slavery in Egypt to those who are already settling in the Promised Land.
If people want to go on with the Ordinariate idea, they are free to do so. But, it should not be about their muddled notion of "Anglican Patrimony." It should not be with unrealistic notions that Rome will compromise its position on sacraments (even though their official notion about Anglican Orders is flawed), or that the new "Apostolic Constitution" promises all sorts of goodies that exceed its provisions. It should be with an accurate view based on individual belief in the doctrines of Roman Catholicism. And, it is entirely immoral for any bishop or rector to pressure people into joining the RCC through an ordinariate on the utterly false claim that it is necessary, somehow, for unity.
Married former Anglican clergy will, after each waits a while, continue to be "ordained" as Roman Catholic priests. Yes, some of the RCC representatives probably do intend to protect the real estate currently owned by TAC parishes; but, once the real estate becomes the property of the dioceses, neither the parishes nor the ordinaries (excluding Diocesan Ordinaries) will be able to control their fate. Guarantees have been made, we are told, by people who simply will not have the power to keep their promises. But, they very well may want to do what they promise. Yes, a bit of ordinariate stuff will go on.
Nonetheless, Rome itself has laid its cards on the table all along. Hepworth claims that he is only now finding out how that applies to Canada. More revelations will "shock, shock" the spin meisters and upset the heretofore gullible; but, what actually can happen is simply the extension Rome meant to provide for. That is all. It is not worth all the shouting down under. The dam has suffered a terminal explosion, a mortal wound. The spin is what cannot go on once the water floods the bridge.
Sunday, May 15, 2011
Easter 3 Sermon Notes
“Your joy no one shall take from you.”+
What kind of joy is this, so indestructible, so invulnerable even to the violent grasp of persecutors and maligners? While Jesus does not guarantee that this joy cannot be thrown away by us once possessed, the promise that it cannot be taken from us by another is a sign that it is something ingrained and persistent, something independent of temporary circumstances of life. From where does this joy proceed? How do we come to possess it in the first place, and what is it nature?
It seems that Jesus teaches of three stages of such joy in this chapter (16) of St John's Gospel. To see this we must look both before and beyond the limits of the passage assigned for today.
The first joy is that attached to the vision of Christ as the Resurrected One. Since verses 21 and 22 compare the Disciples' joy to that of a woman giving birth, and Revelation 1.5 refers to Christ as “the firstborn of the dead”, we may safely say that this is the primary joy our Lord is speaking of. This is also the most natural understanding of the statement regarding the timingof the joy : “a short time later you will see me again ... I shall see you again, and your hearts will be full of joy”.
The second joy is mentioned after the end of today's passage. Jesus said “Ask and you will receive, so your joy shall be complete.” Answered prayer is the next stage, then, and completes, perfects or fulfills the first stage.
The third joy is not so obviously referred to, but it is difficult to deny its implicit presence in this teaching. When Jesus talks about the disciples' joy at seeing him again after an absence, this could also refer to His Second Coming. After all, the earlier verse 10 of this chapter connects the seeing him no more with Him “going to the Father”, which more easily fits the absence due to His Ascension than his absence between Good Friday and Easter Day. (Nevertheless, even though Jesus' body was then in the tomb and his soul “harrowing hell”, so to speak, even this period involved a journey towards the Father -- and His purposes.) Additionally, the later verse 28 Jesus says “I leave the world and go to the Father”, which also more naturally fits the Ascension and what followed than the period between Crucifixion and Resurrection. So, the third stage of joy is the unending joy of the eternal vision of God.
Of course, this is all one joy with each stage intrinsically interconnected. Now, while the joy of the first Disciples was due to a literal vision of the Risen Christ, and the accompanying realisation of his Lordship over death and life, we too can have this joy. For we are meant to “see” and know His Resurrection glory by faith (cf. 2 Co. 3.18), by inner vision. More than that, we are meant to gaze lovingly upon Him in heart and mind, trusting His incomparable power to save. Without this Resurrection-faith and reflection, our joy can hardly begin. Unless we believe and know that we have a Risen, Victorious Lord, that he really does have power to heal and to save us, we cannot rejoice. But as we increasingly grasp onto that truth of grace and glory, we grow in the joy that cannot be touched by our environment because it is grounded in a transcendent and eternal reality, a promise that cannot fail. This is not to say we will always be “happy” in the conventional sense, which depends on “happenstance”, what happens. But beneath the fluctuating emotions and despite the times of suffering, all unavoidable, we will have an anchor of peace and hope that brings joy in the depths perpetually and erupts into “felt” joy as well at various times. This is an important element in being “filled with the Holy Spirit”, which naturally includes joy, as we are frequently reminded in the New Testament (e.g., Ac. 13.52, Ro. 15.13).
And this Resurrection-faith and joy will also lead to empowered prayer that is rightly offered and affirmatively answered, this harmony with God's will and works completing our joy in this world. (Stage 2.)
Thus, as we pray for final salvation and perseverance for ourselves and others, we will move irrepressibly toward that final joy (the “third stage”), when we see Him “face to face” (1 Co. 13.12 cf. 1 Jo. 3.2).
So, what is the common link? The essence of the one joy? Christ, the Risen Lord of life, has conquered sin and death, and shares that victory with us now and unto eternity. He is alive, he lives for us, and his life is ours, forever. Rejoice! +
Saturday, May 14, 2011
Third Sunday after Easter
1 St. Pet. ii. 11-17 * St. John
A little while, and ye shall not see me: and again, a little while, and ye shall see me, because I go to the Father.
These words must be taken quite literally, for they were fulfilled literally. For a brief while they did not see him, and then they saw him. We must hear in these words their blunt, literal, objective meaning. They are echoed in words we say every morning and evening: He suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead and buried. The third day he rose again from the dead.
In my younger days I was among people who wanted to be very spiritual, and some who wanted to appear to be very spiritual. The words I have quoted above were treated all too mystically by some people. They wanted to interpret them in terms of spiritual or religious experience. I want to be careful not to rob anyone of the significance of real experience of that kind, nor of a spiritual sense in which these words describe it for them:
A little while, and ye shall not see me: and again, a little while, and ye shall see me, because I go to the Father.
However, I recall the words of G.K. Chesterton writing about the thirteenth century, and the prevailing mysticism of that era. In his biographical sketch of St. Thomas Aquinas, Chesterton wrote: “When Religion would have maddened men, theology kept them sane.”1 So, these words of Jesus, “A little while, and ye shall not see me; and again, a little, and ye shall see me,” must be treated first and foremost by the “Queen of the Sciences” – by which I do mean theology. It is a science, based on facts, facts that amount to revelation. And, if I may intrude upon the religious nature of a church service with the science of theology, let me encourage everyone here to examine the facts.
The scientific approach
Within a few days after the Lord spoke these words, the situation was this: Their Lord was dead. Several times He told them how it would be. He said several times that He would be handed over to the Gentiles and be crucified, and die; and that He would rise again the third day. But their minds blocked out what He told them until they went through the worst of it. That is understandable. Their hope was shattered. They mourned and wept while the world rejoiced.
But, after three days He appeared to them alive again. He had not conquered Rome
Those are the facts, as witnessed by His disciples. That is theology as science, based on facts of revelation. And, indeed, Jesus encouraged the scientific approach:
 |
| Painting of St. Thomas by Michelangelo Merisi da Caravaggio; 1573-1610 |
Then saith he to Thomas, “reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing.” And Thomas answered and said unto him, “My Lord and my God.”3
The Lord encouraged faith too; but He also made known His will that they should accept the proofs He showed them, that He was alive. As I said on Easter, this was not about some mystery called “the empty tomb.” It was about the facts declared by eyewitnesses; and not just any eyewitnesses, but those witnesses who gave the word martyr (witness) its new meaning. They stared down death as the only people in the world who could now laugh at the terror of the grave – or, rather, the former terror; for they feared death no longer.
The other thing we may be moved to do with these words of Jesus is to apply them to our own emotional ups and downs, or to our own fears and the comforts that come by God’s grace in this life. That is fair enough, as long as we see all that as a mere shadow of their true meaning. And, when we consider the implications of the resurrection of Christ for us, the literal meaning of His words is far greater.
Because He rose again from the dead the third day, your hope is not in this world only, but in the world to come when God makes everything new. St. Paul wrote to the Church in Rome
But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.4
We do not believe merely in a symbolic resurrection, something to help us feel good about worldly things, about transient emotional turmoil or desires. Our hope is not about this world that passes away, or the things of this world that so easily draw away our love from God to carnal affections. Besides, it is not always the will of God to deliver us from our perceived problems or to give us what we think we want for ourselves. Frankly, some of our desires are petty, some are sinful and selfish, and some are simply irrelevant to the things that God would have us pay attention to.
Easter past and future
Easter is a fact of history; but it is also the sure and certain hope of the resurrection to come. The resurrection is a fact that was accomplished on the Third Day, and a promise that will be fulfilled on the Last Day. “Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.”5
For "we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is," wrote St. John St. Paul , writing to the Church in Corinth
But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits 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. But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.7
The imagery is from the harvest. In the Spring we have the firstfruits, that first growth of the field; it is a foretaste of what comes later in the harvest. It fulfilled the meaning of the feast of the first fruits in the Book of Leviticus.8 The feast of the firstfruits was directly after the first Sabbath that followed the Passover. No coincidence that.
After the Sabbath they were to present the firstfruits, just as Christ would rise and appear to witnesses after the Sabbath, on the first (and eighth) day of the week. The firstfruits are a pledge of the future, a promise of what is to come. As Christ rose from the dead in the Springtime of the world, He will come again at the time of harvest. As He rose from the dead never to die again, so shall those who love God and look for his appearing also rise again at his coming, and enter into His Easter life, His resurrected and eternal life, His immortality, never to die again. St. Paul in his Epistle to the Church in Rome
Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him. For in that he died, he died unto sin once: but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God.9
You see, "when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is." Easter is history and future. It happened and will happen. The third day, the day after the Sabbath, was Christ's Easter. The day when He comes again shall be our Easter; and like Him, all who have looked for His appearing again, all who love God, will enter into His immortality. Though we will have died, we will die no more; Death shall have no more dominion over us; for it has no more dominion over Him. This is our future if we remain In Christ.
Paul also wrote, "If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable."10 Modern religion all too often is about feeling good in this life, or being successful in this world, or even about health and prosperity; all of which things, though, they may be good for a time, are ultimately worthless; for this life ends. "Here we have no abiding place." These words that Jesus spoke mean so much more. They mean everything.
Without this hope of the Gospel, the Epistle reading we heard today would come across as moral platitudes. But, in the context of Christianity, of the Gospel and our Risen Living Lord, they take on lively and powerful meaning:
Dearly beloved, I beseech you as strangers and pilgrims, abstain from fleshly lusts, which war against the soul; having your conversation honest among the Gentiles… For so is the will of God, that with well doing ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men: as free, and not using your liberty for a cloak of maliciousness, but as the servants of God.
In the context of eternal life, every commandment takes on new meaning. That meaning is,
Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins. Beloved, if God so loved us, we ought also to love one another… We love him, because he first loved us.11
Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins. Beloved, if God so loved us, we ought also to love one another… We love him, because he first loved us.11
For a brief while they did not see him, and then they saw him.
A little while, and ye shall not see me: and again, a little while, and ye shall see me, because I go to the Father.
____________________
1. Chesterton, G.K., Saint Thomas Aquinas: The Dumb Ox, 1933, London
2. Luke 24:39
3. John 20:27,28
4. Rom. 8:11
5. John 6:54
6. I John 3:2
7. I Cor. 15:20-23
8. Lev. 23:15-17
9. Rom. 6:9, 10
10. I Cor. 15:19
11. I John 4:10,11,19
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)