Eucharistic Sacrifice in Anglicanism

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

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

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

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

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

The question of Anglican Orders (again)

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

The comment contained these words:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The nature of sacrifice

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

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

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

As E.J. Bicknell wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

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

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

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

Elder brothers

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Twenty-third Sunday afterTrinity

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

When bishops roar

The Rev. Canon Charles H. Nalls, SSM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fr. Wells' Bulletin Inserts

TRINITY XXIII (1)

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

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

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

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

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

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

TRINITY XXIII (2)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Welcome (finally) Rev. Canon Charles Nalls

Father Nalls has had a long standing invitation to join us on The Continuum, issued by Albion Land when he was starting this blog and asking for co-bloggers in early 2006. To many of you Fr. Nalls needs no introduction, and most of you have read his recent essays published here. You may read his profile any time by clicking on his picture. Nonetheless, here is the bio anyway.

The Reverend Canon CHARLES HART NALLS is a Priest of the Anglican-Catholic Church . He currently serves the Church of the Ascension, Centreville, Virginia, and is Canon to the ordinary for his diocese. A Colonel, Chaplain Corps, Canon Nalls’ current military service is as Chief of Chaplains in the Maryland Defense Force and Regimental Chaplain to the 70th Regt. (LDR), Maryland Army National Guard. He also is lead chaplain for the 32nd Civil Support Team (Weapons of Mass Destruction) at Ft. Meade, Maryland. Canon Nalls is also an attorney with more than twenty-five years at bar and expertise in canon, religious and ecclesiastical law. He is the Executive Director of the Canon Law Institute® in Washington, D.C. and CEO of ELG, a Baltimore-based charity. His academic degrees include a Master of Theology and S.T.B. (both with honors) from Dominican House of Studies in Washington DC, where he currently is an S.T.L. candidate. He also holds a Juris Doctorate from the Georgetown University Law Center, and Bachelors of Arts degrees (Magna Cum Laude) in Political Science and History, respectively, from DePauw University in Greencastle, Indiana. Canon Nalls is the author of the book PRAYER: A Field Guide and a number of legal and religious articles, guides and pamphlets. He married Elizabeth F. Carroll in 1985, and together they have a daughter Laura Bayly Nalls.

Baiticum et Switchorum

Unspinning the new constitution.

On a website of the Traditional Anglican Communion (TAC) we find this report of Archbishop John Hepworth's address to the Forward in Faith people (with analysis):

The Primate of the Traditional Anglican Communion addresses Forward in Faith. Here's a recap of what he said.

Archbishop Hepworth made a very successful speech praising the Holy Father's generosity, assuaging doubts and taking naysayers. He actively put the best possible face on the future for the delegates saying that they had be [sic] assured that they would be treated as Anglican Catholics, just as there are Roman, Ukranian, and Maronite Catholics--that while the ordinariates were not a rite, they looked an awfully lot like one. He said that they had been offered an ecclesial body for Anglicans that protects those crucial elements of spirituality, liturgy, theology, history, and discipline, that are part of the distinctive Anglican patrimony. He says that TAC national synods will be asked to begin voting their acceptance of the Holy Father's offer immediately.

Most importantly, Archbishop Hepworth assured the assembly that they would continue to be able to have married priests by way of dispensations which would be given generously. The early statements on this point were less clear than this. Obviously, this is a bombshell, not just for those gathered but for the entire Latin Rite. Progressive analysts had already seized on this point after the initial announcement of the apostolic constitution and we can count on much, much more being said in days to come.

Archbishop Hepworth had to reassure the assembly and those listening that this was what they had asked and prayed for for decades and now it had been generously given to them. To Catholics and to especially my fellow converts, since we often carry the biggest chips on our shoulders, who want to rage about the evils of Anglicanism and want people to come crawling, chastened, and cowed, remember that it is the Holy Father himself who has chosen to kill the fatted calf. It seems that the least we can all do is make merry. Reviewing the parable of the wages of the laborers in the vineyard might do us all some good.

___________

Analysis

Just how successful the TAC Archbishop' speech may have been in actually "assuaging doubts and taking [sic] naysayers" remains to be seen . This naysayer's doubts have been intensified by the spectacle of such bold spin. Let us examine this bit:

"He actively put the best possible face on the future for the delegates saying that they had been assured that they would be treated as Anglican Catholics, just as there are Roman, Ukranian, and Maronite Catholics--that while the ordinariates were not a rite, they looked an awfully lot like one."

Really? Do they indeed? The actual text of The Apostolic Constitution Anglicanorum Coetibus has been released for everyone's observation, and the most obvious fact is that nothing whatsoever is guaranteed; the same old rules of the Pastoral Provisions and "Anglican" Use will be applied on a wider geographical scale, mainly in response to the longstanding request of the Forward in Faith United Kingdom (FiF/UK) people, with the additional strength of Ordinariates after the model of military Ordinariates for chaplaincies.

"In the light of these ecclesiological principles, this Apostolic Constitution provides the general normative structure for regulating the institution and life of Personal Ordinariates for those Anglican faithful who desire to enter into the full communion of the Catholic Church in a corporate manner. This Constitution is completed by Complementary Norms issued by the Apostolic See.

"[Article]I. §1 Personal Ordinariates for Anglicans entering into full communion with the Catholic Church are erected by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith within the confines of the territorial boundaries of a particular Conference of Bishops in consultation with that same Conference.

"§2 Within the territory of a particular Conference of Bishops, one or more Ordinariates may be erected as needed."

"§3 Each Ordinariate possesses public juridic personality by the law itself (ipso iure); it is juridically comparable to a diocese.^"

Overlooking the unintended offense of saying that Anglicans do not already belong to the Catholic Church (assuming they mean the Church mentioned in the same Creeds we say), these Personal Ordinariates, as described, do not in fact possess anything that comes from the ethos and principles of Anglicanism, and they do not allow for any of the distinctive elements of Anglicanism beyond one generation.

Getting back to Hepworth's speech, let us focus on these words:

"He said that they had been offered an ecclesial body for Anglicans that protects those crucial elements of spirituality, liturgy, theology, history, and discipline, that are part of the distinctive Anglican patrimony."

A comment on The Continuum by a reader identifying himself as Alan, summed up the reality of what may be expected, and I cannot improve on his summary:

"What this means for the average small parish thinking of accepting the offer is that the entire parish will no longer have autonomy.

*will begin Roman catechism for 2 years, their clergy will step down and become laymen and will have to complete their education if lacking before being able to serve anyone; your buildings, if any, will need to be disposed of.

*you will be directed to a local RC Diocese since ours are far flung and overlapping many RC dioceses in between.

*you will likely be directed to a local RC parish (100 families is the minimum standard for a RC parish) for worship in the early am.

* you will be somewhat segregated from the RC congregation.

* your priest if he can past muster will be counted on to do Vatican II services as directed by the local Bishop (so don't count on the level of pastoral care you had before.)

*your children will learn Roman Catholicism, you will die, the Roman Church will go on as before and that will be the end of that.

Evangelism ends with this offer. We have a charism that is distinct and we reach people Rome cannot. We also reach people the Protestant churches lose as well (sorry for the generic use of 'protestant')."

Let us be clear. Unlike the "uniates" and "rites," former Anglicans will not have their own church within the Church. They will will be absorbed, but with permission to use something different, but as of yet undefined.

Clerical celibacy

Let us focus on Archbishop Hepworth's own assurance about clerical celibacy:

"Most importantly, Archbishop Hepworth assured the assembly that they would continue to be able to have married priests by way of dispensations which would be given generously. The early statements on this point were less clear than this."

Why this is "most" important will have to remain a mystery. That it is utter hogwash is no mystery.

Some writers have zeroed in on Article VI §2.

"The Ordinary, in full observance of the discipline of celibate clergy in the Latin Church, as a rule (pro regula) will admit only celibate men to the order of presbyter. He may also petition the Roman Pontiff, as a derogation from can. 277, §1, for the admission of married men to the order of presbyter on a case by case basis, according to objective criteria approved by the Holy See."

Archbishop Hepworth promises that dispensations will be "given generously." Frankly, anyone familiar with the existing Pastoral Provisions (for example, this writer whose brother has served in the Roman Catholic Church under those very same Pastoral Provisions since 1996) sees nothing new. Furthermore, the language of Section One of Article VI is so clear that no excuse may be made for the spin by Hepworth and others:

"VI. §1 Those who ministered as Anglican deacons, priests, or bishops, and who fulfill the requisites established by canon law and are not impeded by irregularities or other impediments may be accepted by the Ordinary as candidates for Holy Orders in the Catholic Church. In the case of married ministers, the norms established in the Encyclical Letter of Pope Paul VI Sacerdotalis coelibatus, n. 42 and in the Statement In June are to be observed. Unmarried ministers must submit to the norm of clerical celibacy of CIC can. 277, §1.(emphasis mine)"

Any man raised in a church that belongs to one of these Personal Ordinariates will be under the same rules as any man in the Latin Rite, i.e. the Roman Catholic Church. What part of "In the case of married ministers, the norms established in the Encyclical Letter of Pope Paul VI Sacerdotalis coelibatus, n. 42 and in the Statement In June are to be observed. Unmarried ministers must submit to the norm of clerical celibacy of CIC can. 277, §1." does Archbishop Hepworth not understand?

His words, "Obviously, this is a bombshell, not just for those gathered but for the entire Latin Rite," are empty. To some degree the Pastoral Provisions were a bombshell; but this is not.

I was surprised by Hepworth's words: (Correction: We now know that the TAC website misreported this: These words were added by a blogger named Brother Stephen. whose opinions are a manifestation of poor education among former Anglicans. We blame the TAC website for the confusion, as they were supposedly reporting the words of their own Archbishop.) "To Catholics and to especially my fellow converts, since we often carry the biggest chips on our shoulders, who want to rage about the evils of Anglicanism and want people to come crawling, chastened, and cowed, remember that it is the Holy Father himself who has chosen to kill the fatted calf."

This is a telling admission by someone to whom only a Roman Catholic is a Catholic. He is admitting to a chip on the shoulder, and some notion he calls "the evils of Anglicanism."

The time will come for questions to be raised about why Abp. Hepworth, a former RC priest, twice-married, having no chance of functioning in the ordained ministry under the terms of this constitution, is selling a package that will require his retirement. Questions about financial accountability in the TAC will also rise to the surface. For now, it is simply time to stop the spin.

Interview with Bishop Wilson Garang of the Sudan

This link is to a recorded radio show that included an interview with the ACC Bishop of the Sudan.

I won't say "I told you so"

In the two posts, as you scroll immediately down, you will see the response of Archbishop Haverland of the Anglican Catholic Church, as well as very direct analysis from Rev. Canon Charles Nalls, concerning the Constitution that was promised on October 20. and released on Monday November 9. Looking at the actual words of the Constitution in Fr. Nalls' post, we see that Rome has actually offered nothing at all, that is, nothing except the long standing offer that has always existed: You may "convert" and join their church. You will have to renounce much, start over, and trust fully that their leadership will do right by you, and your children. In short, it is clear from the accuracy of our foresight (or perhaps, our information), that The Continuum blog has guided you well. This is where you read it back in October.

Generally, I am known for writing on issues of theology; but, we have from Monday's news also the real life consequences of good or bad polity to consider. Earlier, I pointed out that Rome has not earned the right to expect trust. I have been criticized heavily as meaner than Mean Mr. Mustard himself (who "always shouts out something obscene"). I would have preferred to see evidence that my critics know how to think rather than merely reacting with undue emotion. Warning my fellow Anglicans of the danger has brought on my head the charge often leveled at watchmen on the wall; but this is not about who can be nice and sound sweet (if not sugar-coated), and appeal to warm and fuzzy emotions. This is about the life or death of what we have sought to Continue since the big 1977 meeting in St. Louis. What kind of Christianity will we provide for our children, and, in general, to the next generation?

Polity dangers

In matters of simple polity, Rome's very thick bureaucracy stands between all Tiber Swimmers and the kind intentions of the Pope himself; and that bureaucracy shows no signs of mortality, let alone a speedy demise. The new Constitution reaffirms it on every level, and offers nothing to Anglicans who are accustomed to having a voice in the administration of parish business affairs, election of bishops, and matters that pertain to the pastoral care and education of their own children.

The sight of Cardinal William Levada presenting the news, on October 20, would have been ironic in a humorous way, if only this whole thing were not so very serious. His reputation in the United States is very bad, inasmuch as he shielded and reassigned priests who sexually abused boys; as did Cardinal Bernard Law. We have many reasons for saying to Anglicans who are Purgatory-bent on the Tiber, you are trusting a huge bureaucracy that has yet to set its own house in order. But, the most glaring reason of all, as to why such trust is misplaced, is that some of the same people who let the wolves loose on Catholic children (children who were Catholic by any proper standard), are still active in the system. Furthermore, even after the enablers are dead and gone, in spite of the Pope's most sincere desire to clean up the system, there remains evidence that Rome's inner corruption is yet unreformed, rather than signs of a better day ahead. The bureaucracy with all of its secrecy and corruption is, in many practical ways, unchanged.

Archbishop John Hepworth of the Traditional Anglican Communion (TAC) claimed that the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) in Rome, has promised that married men from among the Roman Catholics in the "Ordinariate churches" may be ordained in the future. The Constitution says the opposite. About the issue of married clergy, we see now that nothing other than the same old Pastoral Provisions will be offered. Anglican Church in America (ACA) websites have been telling their people that what Rome offers is inter-communion: But the Constitution offers no such thing; rather, it lays down the conditions for "conversion." Those conditions are unacceptable to to anyone who has true Anglican convictions. And, will the Traditional Anglican Church (the TAC church) in England now have to vote to back out of their recent vote to accept whatever this Constitution was going to say? Do they even now grasp what it does, in fact, say?

We, on this blog, saw clearly from the first day of the announcement on October 20. I feel like John Wayne in McClintock.

Someone ought to say, I told'ya so; but I won't; I won't...Like hell I won't.

With a bullet

The Rev. Canon Charles H. Nalls, SSM

“Trust in the LORD with all your heart, and do not rely on your own insight. In all your ways acknowledge him, and he will make straight your paths.”

-Proverbs 3:5, 6

The waiting and speculation are over at last. The Roman Catholic Church has promulgated the Apostolic Constitution Anglicanorum coetibus aimed at “groups of Anglican clergy and faithful in different parts of the world who wish to enter into full visible communion with the Catholic Church.” Over the last few weeks, I have written several essays incorporating the work of the great Anglo-Catholic Bishop Charles Grafton to discuss the thorny doctrinal issues likely to arise in the awaited Apostolic Constitution.

As expected, claims that this document would be only an inter-communion arrangement in which Anglo-Catholics will share communion with the Roman Catholic Church have proven false. Indeed, Anglicans “swimming the Tiber ” will be a part of the Latin Church and will have to assent to the dogma, doctrine and discipline of that body. In fact, they will have to undergo the Sacrament of Initiation in which they will give public assent to such. As well, clergy will be reduced to the status of “candidates for ordination” subject to absolute ordination, if they pass muster.

Rather than interpret the text, we should let the document stand for itself. I urge a thorough reading of the Constitution and the Norms that follow to obtain a full understanding. By way of summary, I have set forth some “bullets” which reach to the fundamental issues, questions that may prove intractable for many.

The Constitution

This single Church of Christ , which we profess in the Creed as one, holy, catholic and apostolic “subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him. Nevertheless, many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside her visible confines. Since these are gifts properly belonging to the Church of Christ , they are forces impelling towards Catholic unity.”

Comment: The very definition of Church in the document includes the principle of Papal Supremacy.

· I. §§1-3 One or more Personal Ordinariates comparable to a diocese are to be within the confines of the territorial boundaries of a particular Conference of Bishops in consultation with that same Conference on an as needed basis.

Comment: There is a serious question as to how “need is to be established”. If there are insufficient numbers of former Anglicans, there will be an issue as to whether an Ordinariate will even be established.

· §5 The Catechism of the Catholic Church is the authoritative expression of the Catholic faith professed by members of the Ordinariate.

Comment: This is the statement of dogma to which all will have to give their full assent. It is not a cafeteria menu permitting a “pick and choose” approach.

· II. The Personal Ordinariate is governed according to the norms of universal law and the present Apostolic Constitution and is subject to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and the other Dicasteries of the Roman Curia in accordance with their competencies. It is also governed by the Complementary Norms as well as any other specific Norms given for each Ordinariate.

Comment: Among other things, the Code of Canon Law of 1983 will apply, and governance will be in accordance with it and the structure of the Roman Catholic Church.

· III. Without excluding liturgical celebrations according to the Roman Rite, the Ordinariate has the faculty to celebrate the Holy Eucharist and the other Sacraments, the Liturgy of the Hours and other liturgical celebrations according to the liturgical books proper to the Anglican tradition, which have been approved by the Holy See, so as to maintain the liturgical, spiritual and pastoral traditions of the Anglican Communion within the Catholic Church, as a precious gift nourishing the faith of the members of the Ordinariate and as a treasure to be shared.

Comment: This must be read in the inverse. While there will be Anglican liturgy to be approved by Rome , this is not to the exclusion of the Roman Rite. Thus, clergy may expect that they will be directed to perform Roman Rite liturgy as needed within the geographical diocese in which they are located.

· While Ordinary appointed by the Roman Pontiff will exercise power that ordinary, vicarious and personal: this power is to be exercised jointly with that of the local Diocesan Bishop, in those cases provided for in the Complementary Norms.

Comment: The local diocesan bishop will not, therefore, be wholly precluded from interfering in the operation of the Ordinariate. The potential for mischief is obvious.

· VI. §1 Those who ministered as Anglican deacons, priests, or bishops, and who fulfill the requisites established by canon law and are not impeded by irregularities or other impediments may be accepted by the Ordinary as candidates for Holy Orders in the Catholic Church.

Comment: This is fleshed out in the norms (see below), but those who have irregularities, were formerly ordained Roman Catholic Priests, have marriage issues and/or do not meet the age and educational standards of the Canons, are not getting in the “clergy club”. As well, if you are over retirement age, you shouldn’t hold out much hope of ordination.

· §2. The Ordinary, in full observance of the discipline of celibate clergy in the Latin Church, as a rule (pro regula) will admit only celibate men to the order of presbyter. He may also petition the Roman Pontiff, as a derogation from can. 277, §1, for the admission of married men to the order of presbyter on a case by case basis, according to objective criteria approved by the Holy See.

Comment: Apparently, only celibate candidates for “new” priests will be admitted to Holy Orders. Married men may be admitted on roughly the same basis as those under the current Pastoral Provision. Thus, the document ultimately envisions a return to the celibate priesthood as normative, which is consonant with the recent comments of Cardinal Levada. So, farewell to a married priesthood over time.

· VIII. §1. The Ordinary, according to the norm of law, after having heard the opinion of the Diocesan Bishop of the place, may erect, with the consent of the Holy See, personal parishes for the faithful who belong to the Ordinariate.

Comment: Former Anglicans will not necessarily receive their own parish buildings. Offering services at existing Roman Catholic facilities would satisfy the requirements. Once again, those who anticipated a big, gothic stage on which to say Mass will be sadly disappointed.

The Norms

· Article 3The Ordinary, in the exercise of this office, must maintain close ties of communion with the Bishop of the Diocese in which the Ordinariate is present in order to coordinate its pastoral activity with the pastoral program of the Diocese.

Comment: To reiterate, there will be a direct influence of the local bishop upon the Ordinariate.

· Article 5 §1. The lay faithful originally of the Anglican tradition who wish to belong to the Ordinariate, after having made their Profession of Faith and received theSacraments of Initiation, with due regard for Canon 845, are to be entered in the apposite register of the Ordinariate. Those baptized previously as Catholics outside the Ordinariate are not ordinarily eligible for membership, unless they are members of a family belonging to the Ordinariate.

Comment: This clearly states that Anglicans will have to receive the Sacrament of Initiation and make profession—that’s absorption plainly stated.

· §1. In order to admit candidates to Holy Orders the Ordinary must obtain the consent of the Governing Council. In consideration of Anglican ecclesial tradition and practice, the Ordinary may present to the Holy Father a request for the admission of married men to the presbyterate in the Ordinariate, after a process of discernment based on objective criteria and the needs of the Ordinariate. These objective criteria are determined by the Ordinary in consultation with the local Episcopal Conference and must be approved by the Holy See.

Comment: Again, admission of married men to the presbyterate is not a foregone conclusion. It will be case-by-case, presumably on the criteria available in the United States or something similar.

· §2. Those who have been previously ordained in the Catholic Church and subsequently have become Anglicans, may not exercise sacred ministry in the Ordinariate. Anglican clergy who are in irregular marriage situations may not be accepted for Holy Orders in the Ordinariate. (emphasis added)

Comment: As noted above, if you have been a Roman Catholic priest or you have multiple living spouses, forget about it. You are not going to be a priest or deacon. This single clause poses a great barrier for those in many continuing churches as well as not a few in the Anglican Communion Churches.

· §1. The Ordinary must ensure that adequate remuneration be provided to the clergy incardinated in the Ordinariate, and must provide for their needs in the event of sickness, disability, and old age. §3. When necessary, priests, with the permission of the Ordinary, may engage in a secular profession compatible with the exercise of priestly ministry (cf. CIC, can. 286).

Comment: Non-stipendiary priests and working priests should not count on a “living”.

· §1. The clerics incardinated in the Ordinariate should be available to assist the Diocese in which they have a domicile or quasi-domicile, where it is deemed suitable for the pastoral care of the faithful. In such cases they are subject to the Diocesan Bishop in respect to that which pertains to the pastoral charge or office they receive.

Comment: Clergy will not be used solely in an “Anglican” setting. Given the priest shortages, clergy can pretty well expect to be used as the diocesan bishop in their geographic locale deems necessary.

· Former Anglican Bishops-Article 11 §§1-4. A married former Anglican Bishop is eligible to be appointed Ordinary. In such a case he is to be ordained a priest in the Catholic Church and then exercises pastoral and sacramental ministry within the Ordinariate with full jurisdictional authority. A former Anglican Bishop who belongs to the Ordinariate may be called upon to assist the Ordinary in the administration of the Ordinariate. A former Anglican Bishop who belongs to the Ordinariate may be invited to participate in the meetings of the Bishops’ Conference of the respective territory, with the equivalent status of a retired bishop. A former Anglican Bishop who belongs to the Ordinariate and who has not been ordained as a bishop in the Catholic Church, may request permission from the Holy See to use the insignia of the episcopal office.

Comment: Here is the sop to former Anglican bishops: they are able to keep their vestments and a modicum of dignity. This presupposes that these former bishops will pass the test to be admitted as clergy: i.e., can they pass the marriage test and do they meet the educational standards?