tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post7079000857284772602..comments2024-03-24T15:19:06.377-04:00Comments on The Continuum: Much ado about much adoFr. Robert Harthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comBlogger62125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-90178832892538922422010-03-26T09:44:20.612-04:002010-03-26T09:44:20.612-04:00Our friend Bill Tighe (and I love Bill more even w...Our friend Bill Tighe (and I love Bill more even when he is wrong than some other people when they are right) brings forth a "gotcha" quote from a theologian I admire greatly, Alister McGrath. Well, in the very same book McGrath also wrote:<br /><br />The doctrine of justification "constitutes the real centre of the theological system of the Christian church, encapsulating the direct and normative consequences of the historical revelation of God to mankind in Jesus Christ. There never was, and never can be, any true Christian church without the doctrine of justification, for the community of faith cannot exist without proclaiming in word and sacrament, the truth of what God has done for man in Christ."<br /><br />It is surely an overstatement for Bill's part when he writes, "the Reformed doctrine of Justification Sola Fide cannot claim the support of a single Church Father, and so runs manifestly contrary to the "Vincentian Canon."<br /><br />Jack Miller gives us some real money quotes to the contrary, and Thomas Oden ("A Justification Reader") gives plenty more. It would be more accurate to say that the Tridentine confusion of justification and sanctification (the sinner's status before a forgiving God and his internal condition) also lacks ecumenical consensus, probably to a greater degree than the Reformed doctrine.<br /><br />The Vincentian canon is worthless in grappling with this very central problem, which raises questions for me about the value of that overused theological cliche. <br /><br />On the general topic of Justificaation, I would recommend J. V. Fesko's "Justification, Understanding the Classic Reformed Doctrine." Thanks, Jack, or the suggestion of Ashley Null's book. I'll get right on it.<br />LKWAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-86383587824687819212010-03-25T13:41:41.851-04:002010-03-25T13:41:41.851-04:00William Tighe wrote:
"...No support from eve...William Tighe wrote:<br /><br />"...No support from even a single Church Father, and certainly not St. Augustine..." <br /><br />I don't think it is nearly that clear cut. And I think McGrath overstates his case.<br /><br />I referenced Ashley Null's work on Cranmer's theology in a comment above which is where one should begin. Cranmer went to scholarly pains to show that sola fide was both Scriptural and consistent with the early fathers. The issue of justification by faith in Christ alone apart from works had not been a burning debate in the early church era, thus there weren't in depth writings on it. And doctrine often isn't clarified emphatically until it becomes a burning issue in the church, as was the case that led to the Nicene Creed. Due to the innovations of medieval Rome, the question of how one is justified came to a head within the church. Nonetheless many of the church fathers lend more than a little support to the sola fide doctrine; which by the way doesn't mean faith alone - i.e. no works need ever need be done. Sole fide - justified (declared righteous) by faith alone in what Christ alone has done through his death and resurrection (his merit imputed), apart from any merit or works of mine. This theme is repeated throughout the BCP. <br /><br />“Indeed, this is the perfect and complete glorification of God, when one does not exult in his own righteousness, but recognizing oneself as lacking true righteousness to be justified by faith alone in Christ.” -St. Basil the Great (Homily on Humility)<br /><br />“They said that he who adhered to faith alone was cursed; but he, Paul, shows that he who adhered to faith alone is blessed.” -St. John Chrysostom (First Corinthians, Homily 20)<br /><br />“For you believe the faith; why then do you add other things, as if faith were not sufficient to justify? You make yourselves captive, and you subject yourself to the law.” -St. John Chrysostom (Epistle to Titus, Homily 3)<br /><br />“What is the principle of faith? This is salvation by grace. Here Paul shows Godʼs power in that He has not only saved, He has also justified and led them to boast in a different way - not relying on works but glorying only in their faith.” -St. John Chrysostom (Homilies on Romans 7)<br /><br />“Paul shows clearly that righteousness depends not on the merit of man but on the grace of God, who accepts the faith of those who believe without the works of the law.” -St. Jerome (Against the Pelagians)<br /><br />“How should the law be upheld if not by righteousness? By a righteousness, moreover, which is of faith, for what could not be fulfilled through the law is fulfilled through faith.” -St. Augustine of Hippo (Augustine on Romans)<br /><br />"Wages cannot be considered as a gift, because they are due to work, but God has given free grace to all men by the justification of faith." -Hilary of Poitiers (c. 315-67)<br /><br /><br />"God has decreed that a person who believes in Christ can be saved without works. By faith alone he receives the forgiveness of sins." -Ambrosiaster (c. 366-384)<br /><br />"They are justified freely because they have not done anything nor given anything in return, but by faith alone they have been made holy by the gift of God." -Ambrosiaster, on Rom. 3:24<br /><br />"If Abraham was not justified by works, how was he justified? . . . Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness (Rom. 4:3; Gen. 15:6). Abraham, then, was justified by faith. Paul and James do not contradict each other: good works follow justification." -Augustine (354-430)<br /><br />When someone believes in him who justifies the impious, that faith is reckoned as justice to the believer, as David too declares that person blessed whom God has accepted and endowed with righteousness, independently of any righteous actions (Rom 4:5-6). What righteousness is this? The righteousness of faith, preceded by no good works, but with good works as its consequence. -Augustine<br /><br />sorry for the length... with respect - JackJack Millerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18281378425270530573noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-87074836740320868962010-03-25T11:48:47.252-04:002010-03-25T11:48:47.252-04:00LKW wrote:
"But usually when people trot out...LKW wrote:<br /><br />"But usually when people trot out poor old St Vincent Lerinum, they have a very different agenda. When I hear someone say "Vincentian Canon," I reach for my Greek NT."<br /><br />No argument from me, Fr. Wells. I was simply making the point you nail down here:<br /><br />"... the Reformational view of both Atonement and Justification was well attested in the Fathers both Western and especially Eastern."<br /><br />A most helpful and excellent book to read that establishes this very thing concerning the English Reformation is Ashley Null's (said to be the foremost scholar on Cranmer's theology) "Thomas Cranmer's Doctrine of Repentance." It's a bit pricey but well worth it. There's a link to it on my blog.<br /><br />Thanks for your insights.<br /><br />JackJack Millerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18281378425270530573noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-3340260279659193042010-03-24T22:01:24.377-04:002010-03-24T22:01:24.377-04:00Jack,
Yes and No. (Or as Abelard would say, Sic ...Jack,<br /><br />Yes and No. (Or as Abelard would say, Sic et Non).<br /><br />Thomas Oden, in his splendid little book "A Justification Reader," has made a smashing case that the Reformational view of both Atonement and Justification was well attested in the Fathers both Western and especially Eastern. That gives the heave-ho to the Anglo-papalist teaching that the doctrines of grace were new strange inventions of 16th century schismatics in Wittenburg and Geneva.<br /><br />But sad to say, this never attained the universality of the Church's Christological affirmations. <br /><br />Now if we manage to agree that ultimately the Scriptures meet the "semper, ubique, et apud omnes" test, your statement is correct. But usually when people trot out poor old St Vincent Lerinum, they have a very different agenda. When I hear someone say "Vincentian Canon," I reach for my Greek NT.<br />LKWAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-3407593768038601452010-03-24T15:19:06.772-04:002010-03-24T15:19:06.772-04:00On the contrary, and as Fr. Wells tacitly recogniz...On the contrary, and as Fr. Wells tacitly recognizes, the Reformed doctrine of Justification Sola Fide cannot claim the support of a single Church Father, and so runs manifestly contrary to the "Vincentian Canon."<br /><br />No support from even a single Church Father, and certainly not St. Augustine, who wrote in his "On Faith and Good Works:"<br /><br />"Let us now consider the question of faith. In the first place, we feel that we should advise the faithful that they would endanger the salvation of their souls if they acted on the false assurance that faith alone is sufficient for the salvation of souls or that they need not perform good works in order to be saved." <br /><br />Evangelical Anglican scholar Alister McGrath writes at the conclusion of his book IUSTITIA DEI: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification (Cambridge Univ Press, 1986), Volume 1, Chapter 5, Section 19:<br /><br />"However, it will be clear that the medieval period was astonishingly FAITHFUL to the teaching of Augustine on the question of the nature of justification, WHERE THE REFORMERS DEPARTED FROM IT."<br /><br />"The essential feature of the Reformation doctrines of justification is that a deliberate and systematic distinction is made between JUSTIFICATION and REGENERATION. Although it must be emphasised that this distinction is purely notional, in that it is impossible to separate the two within the context of the ordo salutis, the essential point is that a notional distinction is made WHERE NONE HAD BEEN ACKNOWLEDGED BEFORE IN THE HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE."<br /><br />"A fundamental discontinuity was introduced into the western theological tradition WHERE NONE HAD EVER EXISTED, OR EVER BEEN CONTEMPLATED, BEFORE. The Reformation understanding of the NATURE of justification -- as opposed to its mode -- must therefore be regarded as a genuine theological NOVUM."<br /><br />The emphasis by capitalization is mine.<br /><br />Mr. Miller has some proving to do, if he expects informed readers to believe his claims.William Tighehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16634494183165592707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-77160079815564174582010-03-24T14:51:34.927-04:002010-03-24T14:51:34.927-04:00Fr. Wells, your wrote:
"And of course this c...Fr. Wells, your wrote:<br /><br />"And of course this concept of justification as a synergistic process has a strong claim to being the majority position over the years; the Reformation doctrine of justification will never satisfy a literal application of the Vincentian canon."<br /><br />The Reformed doctrine of justification, although more clearly expressed during the 16th century was indeed consistent with the Vincentian canon which was written in the 400's AD. The reformers were diligent to show the teaching of justification (by faith in Christ alone by grace) was not only the Scriptural doctrine, but also that it was consistent with that of the early church fathers to which the V.C. referred.<br /><br />cheers...Jack Millerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18281378425270530573noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-80821032432440408212010-03-24T09:06:21.820-04:002010-03-24T09:06:21.820-04:00In my haste I wrote:
"And of course this con...In my haste I wrote:<br /><br />"And of course this concept has a strong claim to being the majority position over the years; it will never satisfy a literal application of the Vincentian canon."<br /><br />I meant to say:<br /><br />"And of course this concept of justification as a synergistic process has a strong claim to being the majority position over the years; the Reformation doctrine of justification will never satisfy a literal application of the Vincentian canon."<br /><br />(Thgat's why I take such a jaundiced view of that little shibboleth.)<br /><br />LKWAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-17453247368899126042010-03-23T22:49:27.016-04:002010-03-23T22:49:27.016-04:00Charles:
Clavier's AEC never claimed to recei...Charles:<br /><br />Clavier's AEC never claimed to received Orders through Dees and his Ukrainian consecrator, so don't waste time barking up that tree. A group of priests seceded from Dees. They sought consecration from an episcopus vagans by the name of K. C. Pillai, an Indian who sometimes used the name of Ryan. He was of the Arnold Harris Mathew succession. THAT, not the Ukrainian business, is what you must evaluate when you consider the orders of Clavier, Grundorf and their progeny.<br />Did the 1991 Deerfield Beach consecration cure the defects? That is very much an open question.<br />LKWAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-33875473648520644332010-03-23T22:41:33.350-04:002010-03-23T22:41:33.350-04:00Thank you again,Jack.
The notion of justification...Thank you again,Jack.<br /><br />The notion of justification by infused grace through a cooperative (synergistic) process is highly appealing. It flatters our vanity, leading us to feel that we are responding actively to the Gospel offer. It opens the door to boasting: "let me tell you about how I made a decision for Christ," or "let me recite all I have done for the kingdom." And of course this concept has a strong claim to being the majority position over the years; it will never satisfy a literal application of the Vincentian canon.<br /><br />But it brings no comfort to a sinner on his deathbed. Righteousness may have been infused by mega-tons, but we know it will not be enough to enable us to stand before a holy God. When we face God in our last hour, infused righteousness will do us no good. We will have to say:<br />"Nothing in my hand I bring,<br />simply to the cross I cling."<br /><br />RC piety, at its best, expressed something of the same thought:<br /><br />"What shall I, frail man, be pleading?<br />Who for me be interceding,<br />When the just are mercy needing?<br /><br />King of majesty tremendous,<br />Who dost free salvation send us,<br />Fount of pity, then befriend us!"<br /><br />The difference, however, between that the Reformation expresses confidence and joy, "a sure and certain hope," while the Dies irae shows only anxiety, fear and little faith. Even if I am on the wrong side of the Vincentian Canon, I will go with the Reformation option.<br /><br />"When He shall come with trumpet sound,<br />O may I then in Him be found,<br />clothed with His righteousness alone,<br />faultless to stand before the throne."<br />LKWAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-20970775493746603712010-03-23T15:20:53.325-04:002010-03-23T15:20:53.325-04:00Some of my thoughts in response to some of the abo...Some of my thoughts in response to some of the above...<br /><br />Fr. Hart referred to this earlier - the problem is in the Roman Catholic teaching regarding justification, in that they teach it as a synergistic work and not a sole work of Christ on our behalf. They combine both justification and sanctification under "justification". The decree “Concerning Justification” in the Council of Trent spells out in no uncertain terms (specifically Canons 9, 11, 12, 24, 30, and 32) that men and women are accepted before God on the basis of their cooperation with God’s grace over the course of their lives, rather than on the basis of Christ’s finished work alone, received through faith alone, to the glory of God alone. The R.C. view is an infused-synergistic view of gradually being made righteous in order to be finally justified and is at odds with the gospel. The protestant-catholic (monergistic) view is being declared righteous by God through faith in Christ apart from any works or merit of the believer (Rom 3:26-28, Rom 4:5-6). Our subsequent works by which we cooperate through grace with a renewed will and heart born of the Holy Spirit is the life long process (sanctification) of becoming more like Him. It is a life of faith and works, the grateful response to the good news of what has already been accomplished and of which we are only recipients. It flows from the gift freely given, not just of sins forgiven but being imputed/declared righteous in Christ through faith by grace; the grace wherein we now stand. (Rom 5:1-4). <br /><br />Referring back to my first post let me say that The Council of Trent with its anathemas against the heart of the gospel is the core obstacle to unity. Everything else is secondary. Interesting enough, in the early 1980’s when discussing the possibility of unity with Bishop Lohse of the German Protestant Church, Pope Benedict himself (when he was then Cardinal Ratzinger of Munich) made a point of bringing up the fact that “a corresponding reexamination of the doctrinal decisions of the Council of Trent was also necessary.” Trent is currently infallible R.C. doctrine. <br /><br />So, for there to be a unity based on truth would necessitate Rome adjusting its position on infallibility (tradition and Papal) and removing the anathemas against the gospel. Medieval Rome innovated in its response to the Reformers (including Cranmer & Jewel) and thus departed from earlier catholic church teachings on justification. The fact that Anglicans would be considering unity with Rome in its present innovative state speaks of a lack of understanding on this issue.Jack Millerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18281378425270530573noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-49801703980795621582010-03-23T08:47:39.871-04:002010-03-23T08:47:39.871-04:00Fr Wells,
The EO do have a magisterium, but only ...Fr Wells,<br /><br />The EO do have a magisterium, but only to the same extent the early Church did and we do. That is, they have reference to the bishops and their consensus and conciliar decisions through the ages.<br /><br />But where their bishops and theologians do not agree, and consensus is lacking, there is no dogma and various opinions are permitted. Where local councils have spoken, there is some degree of authority, but there is still room for discussion. Again, this is just like the early Church.<br /><br />Nevertheless, given their adhesion to the Sacred Scriptures, Patristic Consensus, Seven Sacraments, Seven Ecumenical Councils and their rich liturgical tradition (which is very much seen as a doctrinal repository), the essence of the Catholic Faith is clearly maintained successfully among them. Their magisterium exists and works, despite imperfections.Fr Matthew Kirbyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14386951752314314095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-53067728688201717712010-03-22T22:05:41.477-04:002010-03-22T22:05:41.477-04:00thank you Dr. Tighe and Fr. Hollister. Your inform...thank you Dr. Tighe and Fr. Hollister. Your information really helped.charleshttp://www.anglicanrose.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-50912723372987999642010-03-22T15:00:16.058-04:002010-03-22T15:00:16.058-04:00Thank-you Fr. Hollister and Dr. William Tighe.
D...Thank-you Fr. Hollister and Dr. William Tighe. <br /><br />Dr. Tighe, <br />So, I guess, basically, Wesyl was a "dead-hand" bishop? Or, is this something that deserves verification? If so, I guess AEC was not receive a valid line of succession until sometime after the 1978 Denver consecrations. <br /><br />Interesting, nonetheless... thanks.charleshttp://www.anglicanrose.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-74856565454734234302010-03-21T07:55:34.344-04:002010-03-21T07:55:34.344-04:00"The main problem I have with your analysis a..."The main problem I have with your analysis and comparison of the Eastern Orthodox and RC criticisms of Anglican Eucharists is that you do not distinguish between what is official and, in some sense, binding teaching and what is merely common opinion or practice."<br /><br />You have simply reminded us of the well-known fact that while Rome has a magisterium, EO has none, rendering its theology incoherent. (I almost feel that Rome in her errors is better than EO in her truths. Better to be sometimes wrong consistently than occasionally right inconsistently.)<br /><br />The "all-over-the-map" posture of EO is why I will have no part of it. We have enough problems of our own and do not need to get mixed up with theirs.<br />LKWAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-51923231654636467122010-03-21T05:13:25.826-04:002010-03-21T05:13:25.826-04:00Jack, Fr Wells,
The part you quote from Trent nee...Jack, Fr Wells,<br /><br />The part you quote from Trent needs to be read as carefully as the 39 Articles are.<br /><br />"If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema."<br /><br />The words, attended to carefully, do not deny any legitimate sense of "justification by faith alone". They make it clear that what is denied is justification by a faith that is alone, with "nothing else". That would obviously include repentance, as Fr Hart notes. Given that even Evangelicals deny that faith that includes "nothing else" but bare belief, with no repentance or seed of charity, justifies the sinner. There is no necessary contradiction here. <br /><br />The affirmation that the human will is involved in the act of saving faith is not problematic either, once it is realised that elsewhere Trent teaches that the prevenient grace of God is required for this to happen, for the will to so move. In fact it even says that the sinner is "disposed through His <b>quickening</b> ... grace" (Sixth Session, Chapter V), that is, made alive. Similarly, the unregenerate are said to be "children of wrath ... the servants of sin and under the power of the devil and of death" (Chapter I). Original Sin is said to be the "death of the soul" (Decree concerning Original Sin). In other words, the official Roman teaching is that the choice to believe is a real human choice, but one that is and must be enabled by God first giving new life to a will formerly spiritually dead. Sounds pretty evangelical to me.<br /><br />Finally, Trent does not deny imputational justification, since it affirms forgiveness of sins, this forgiveness being entirely unmerited (Chapter IX), except by Christ's merits. And forgiveness is by definition treating someone as better than they really are, as if they had not committed the sins. What Trent denies is that Justification must be interpreted as <b>solely</b> imputational, as the 11th Canon concerning Justification makes explicit. While I agree that in many places St Paul is thinking primarily or solely imputationally in his use of the <i>dikaio-</i> words, I do not believe this is absolutely exclusively the case throughout the NT, and most Protestant and Catholic exegetes agree that some uses of righteousness/justification refer to an effect of grace on the Christian inwardly and in his choices, i.e., imparted righteousness. <br /><br />So, while the Tridentine emphasis could be more balanced, with a greater appreciation of the imputational aspects of salvation, no heresy is present here. The will that is said to cooperate with grace or assent to God is only the already quickened and graced will, the ungraced will being free in a sense, but dead to God's righteousness. The freedom from guilt that is caused by justification's remissory aspect is explicitly said to be unmerited and not based on internal sanctification but on "Divine mercy for Christ's sake" (Chapters VIII, IX). None of this is opposed to the Gospel, the Scriptures, or the consensus of Fathers and the Church through the ages.Fr Matthew Kirbyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14386951752314314095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-49178744214617481562010-03-21T04:08:45.875-04:002010-03-21T04:08:45.875-04:00Fr Wells,
The main problem I have with your analy...Fr Wells,<br /><br />The main problem I have with your analysis and comparison of the Eastern Orthodox and RC criticisms of Anglican Eucharists is that you do not distinguish between what is official and, in some sense, binding teaching and what is merely common opinion or practice.<br /><br />Many EO theologians teach as you indicate, thus rejecting both RC and our Eucharists as invalid. Others do not and would agree with you, as they should, that it is ridiculous to pretend there were no valid Masses in the West for the centuries the East was still in communion with it despite the Western use of azymes and less explicit versions of the epiclesis! When making allowance for Western rites within their jurisdictions, however, they take the "safer" route and insert Eastern invocations into Western liturgies: safer for their internal unity, for a start. This does not mean that there is in any sense an official, consensual or obligatory teaching of the EOC that Western Masses are invalid as they stand. However, since they believe that the absence of a more explicit epiclesis is, even if not invalidating, a significant weakness, they choose to modify such Western rites as they allow.<br /><br />It also must be noted that there has been a long history of Anglican opinion (among Caroline Divines, Non-Jurors and American Episcopalians) agreeing that the 1552-style invocation (and similar ones afterwards) can do with serious improvement and a more clear reference to the transformation of the Elements themselves, to bring it into line either with the 1549 wording or one of the Eastern liturgies. And this opinion has been acted upon in the past in Laud's liturgy, and in various other Scottish and Non-Juror liturgies.<br /><br />This is quite different to our issue with Rome, where the rejection of our Eucharists is based on an unambiguously authoritative teaching which is binding to some degree, though their theologians (including quite orthodox ones) are still debating to what degree, and how it relates to the contemporaneous Anglican situation.<br /><br />In other words, it is certain that the RCC has in the past denied the validity of our Eucharists outright. It is clear that the EOC has not done this, and the fact that some of them once allowed their people access to our altars in particular circumstances makes any attempt to claim that they have made such an outright denial rather silly.<br /><br />The symmetry you perceive is not really present, though I agree with you we must not proceed with any move to re-union that involves the dishonest denial of the validity of our historic liturgies.Fr Matthew Kirbyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14386951752314314095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-66139648305236623432010-03-20T19:51:25.683-04:002010-03-20T19:51:25.683-04:00True, Fr. Wells, but I recall that some sort of Mo...True, Fr. Wells, but I recall that some sort of Moscow Patriarchate theological commission declared a couple of years ago that the Roman Canon was as it stands a valid anaphora, and needs no alteration, and particularly no eastern-style inserted epiclesis, to make it acceptable for Orthodox use.William Tighehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16634494183165592707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-81749088276899134662010-03-20T19:50:06.248-04:002010-03-20T19:50:06.248-04:00True, Fr. Wells, but I recall that some sort of Mo...True, Fr. Wells, but I recall that some sort of Moscow Patriarchate theological commission declared a couple of years ago that the Roman Canon was as it stands a valid anaphora, and needs no alteration, and particularly no eastern-style inserted epiclesis, to make it acceptable for Orthodox use.William Tighehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16634494183165592707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-27038339112077628572010-03-20T19:04:17.391-04:002010-03-20T19:04:17.391-04:00Thanks, Bill.
Nota bene:
"as Bishop of the ...Thanks, Bill.<br /><br />Nota bene:<br /><br />"as Bishop of the Orthodox diocese of America he forwarded a copy of the 1892 BCP to Moscow, and received back from there comments from a group of Russian theologians about what would have to be done to it to make it acceptable for Orthodox use."<br /><br />For those not familiar with this fairly recondite little debate, over many centuries the EO Churches have settled on a theology of consecration in the Eucharist in which the "epiclesis" (Invocation of the Holy Ghost on the elements of bread and wine) is the sine qua non. The Western Church, using the Gregorian Canon, considered the Epiclesis non-essential and regarded the Dominical Words as the sacramental center of gravity.<br /><br />Thomas Cranmer, to his eternal credit, cut the Gordian knot in 1549 with an Invocation of the Holy Spirit prior to the Institution narrative, making explicit what had already been implicit in the Gregorian "Quam oblationem."<br /><br />Thus, Anglican worship was not committed to either theory of consecration, making room for both (although the balance was slightly tilted by the 1764 Nonjuror revision, which I personally regard as a mistake).<br /><br />I find the Muscovite surgery unacceptable in the extreme, as it would inflict on us a theory of consecration which Anglicans have never found necessary.<br /><br />This may seem like "Much ado about Very Little," but I have a funny notion that theologians should be as precise as brain surgeons or structural engineers.<br />I could never be a homoiousian.<br />LKWAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-7032353647743341162010-03-20T17:19:14.297-04:002010-03-20T17:19:14.297-04:00Bill:
I appreciate your suggestion by email that ...Bill:<br /><br />I appreciate your suggestion by email that we might take up the subject here. I do plan to do so when I return from a brief trip to Maryland to see my new grandson.Fr. Robert Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-13393112717924041432010-03-20T16:14:25.426-04:002010-03-20T16:14:25.426-04:00Umm, if I may briefly make two points, and a sugge...Umm, if I may briefly make two points, and a suggestion.<br /><br />First, the "Liturgy of St. Tikhon" has nothing whatsoever to do with the saint of that name. True, as Bishop of the Orthodox diocese of America he forwarded a copy of the 1892 BCP to Moscow, and received back from there comments from a group of Russian theologians about what would have to be done to it to make it acceptable for Orthodox use -- comments which were translated into English and subsequently edited by Walter Howard Frere and published by the Alcuin Club -- but the Liturgy itself was put together by certain Antiochian Orthodox in 1976 in response to the desire of the PECUSA Church of the holy Incarnation in Detroit, Michigan, to become Orthodox, which it did in 1977, and was based primarily on the 1928 BCP.<br /><br />Secondly, there are curious differences between the Prayer of Consecration as it appears in a version of that liturgy that was published in 1977 and that in the 2009 Lancelot Andrewes Press version -- the former seems to follow the Scottish 1764 version in some ways, while the latter sticks more closely to the American 1928 one.<br /><br />My suggestion is that those who are interested in the subject might glance at the article on it that will most likely appear at *The Anglo-Catholic* next week.William Tighehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16634494183165592707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-7001210767012127952010-03-20T15:27:40.634-04:002010-03-20T15:27:40.634-04:00Shaughn:
Let me break this down.
Rome says our E...Shaughn:<br /><br />Let me break this down.<br /><br />Rome says our Eucharist is invalid.<br /><br />EO also says our Eucharist is invalid.<br /><br />Rome says our Eucharist is invalid because our priest is not a real priest.<br /><br />EO says our Eucharist is invalid because our Prayer of Consecration does not really consecrate.<br /><br />What is the difference? Why do some folks go into paroxyms of indignation over one, and shrug shoulders over the other? If you are tolerant of one, fairness requires tolerance of the other.<br /><br />If one position is right, both are right. If one is wrong, both are wrong.<br />I only plead for consistency.<br /><br />As we all know, the Roman Canon, universal in the West from the time of Pope Gregory I if not earlier in this detail, has never had an Epiclesis which specifically invokes the Holy Ghost. EO has not been timid in declaring the Roman Eucharist invalid because of this defect. The Western Rite Orthodox "Mass of St Gregory" has suffered similar surgery. Take it from me, the EO's are very serious people on this point. The Epiclesis is not just literary haberdashery for them.<br /><br />Come to think of it, the Vincentian Canon might be helpful here (hearty har-har). The Epiclesis, which the EO's are so insistent about, does not meet the test of semper, ubique, et apud omnes. <br />LKWAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-28228039628357275852010-03-20T08:35:16.565-04:002010-03-20T08:35:16.565-04:00Fr. Wells,
First, the bread:
That's just sil...Fr. Wells,<br /><br />First, the bread:<br /><br />That's just silly nonsense which needs to be corrected by patient argument, not heresy. If Christ instituted the sacrament during the Passover, he <i>used unleavened bread</i>. Thus the wafers we use are in fact more representative of it than the misguided folks who use a loaf of Sunbeam or worse. The same logic applies to the (in?)temperate folks who insist on grape juice instead of fermented wine.<br /><br />Second, the epiclesis:<br /><br />Given that we're dealing with what is ultimately a completely artificial service, I expect them to want to preserve some Eastern trappings. I'd want to read up on just why they decided to change it. If it were because of deep seated theological convictions concerning the inadequacy of our own prayers, I would be more concerned. If it's because 'ol Tikhon just wanted a little extra Orthodox flavor in there, I would shrug my shoulders and let them carry on.<br /><br />For the outside reader, we're ultimately discussing a difference of this: "AND we most humbly beseech thee, O merciful Father, to hear us; and, of thy almighty goodness, vouchsafe to bless and sanctify, with thy Word and Holy Spirit, these thy gifts and creatures of bread and wine that we, receiving them according to thy Son our Saviour Jesus Christ’s holy institution, in remembrance of his death and passion, may be partakers of his most blessed Body and Blood."<br /><br />And this: "And we most humbly beseech thee, O merciful Father, to hear us; and of thy almighty goodness, vouchsafe to send down thy Holy Ghost upon these thy gifts and creatures of bread and wine, that <i>they may be changed into the Body and Blood</i> of thy most dearly beloved Son."<br /><br />You and I cordially disagree about the importance of the epiclesis, its position, &c. I find myself more with Seabury on matters concerning epicleses anyhow. He said, re: the 1662 canon, "Frankly, it doesn't seem to consecrate anything." The Epiclesis (unlike insisting on leavened bread) makes perfect logical sense. We say prayers at Confirmation. We say what we're doing in Baptism. We rely on prayers in most every other sacrament. A narrative, however, doesn't logically consecrate and doesn't satisfy sacramental requirements. It would be like splashing people with water while reading the story of Jesus' baptism and expecting them to have received the sacrament.<br /><br />Comparing my stance to the folks wriggling over Rome's offer is hardly fair. They're attempting to read all manner of things into the offer and the complementary norms <i>which are not there</i> and failing to accept the full implications of becoming Roman Catholic.<br /><br />Me? I'm simply pointing out that Tikhon's liturgical surgery needn't have nefarious intentions behind it. But, again, I don't <i>know</i> the intent behind it. If it <i>is</i> because he thought our canon was actually inadequate, I would likely be more annoyed at the whole endeavor.<br /><br />Frankly, I'm not sure why you're upset about Tikhon changing something in the liturgy which you yourself have said might not even be necessary for the sacrament to be consecrated.RSC+https://www.blogger.com/profile/00639369749327986414noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-67019989211957822822010-03-20T08:28:12.696-04:002010-03-20T08:28:12.696-04:00".... how would you handle their claim that o...".... how would you handle their claim that our unleavened wafers are something less than bread and therefore "illicit matter?" <br /><br />Many commentators are of the opinion that leavened bread *was* used in the western Church, up to the sixth or eighth centuries, perhaps in some places even up to the time of the Gregorian reforms. One can look this up in the Catholic Encyclopedia, New Advent etc...<br /><br />In any event, the claims - such as they are - that unleavened bread is inappropriate, wrong, and an innovation, are a push-back from the Roman claims that the easterners had it all wrong with leavened bread. Until Rome attempted to interfere in the life of the eastern churches the subject did not excite much interest.<br /><br />AA in Mrwmorbeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01683253565302481557noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-90895776717213642892010-03-20T01:43:40.494-04:002010-03-20T01:43:40.494-04:00David Gould:
Fr. Hart, in relation to apostasy, d...David Gould:<br /><br /><i>Fr. Hart, in relation to apostasy, do you support the view that the Canterbury Communion Churches that ordain women priests, or are in communion with them are in a state of apostasy from the Catholic and Apostolic Faith?</i><br /><br />Yes.<br /><br /><i>That much of the continuum have Pro-cathedrals must reflect also the view that the rightful cathedral of that Diocese is the one held by the ECUSA/Anglican Church of Australia etc.</i><br /><br />No, it does not. It is because, although we archbishops, we do not have archdioceses, and because our bishops are all, of necessity, rectors at the time of their election. We simply can't take them away from that because we don't have the manpower.<br /><br /><i>The ACNA is a case in point...</i><br /><br />They have begun in a state of impaired communion, not even in communion with each other. They have left behind "same-sex" blessings and homosexualism, but have made no advance. We must pray for them.Fr. Robert Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.com