Quinquagesima

or the next Sunday before Lent.


I Cor. 13
Luke 18:31-43

I am glad that we use the old English, the Authorized, that is King James Bible. I prefer the use of the word “charity” to the word “love” for the Greek word, ἀγάπη (agape). Our use of language follows certain traditions that predated the Bible in English. The word “charity” speaks very specifically of the highest kind of love, and cannot be used properly for anything lower. The English word, “charity” is from another old language, one into which the Bible was translated by Saint Jerome, namely Latin. Agape was translated into the Latin caritas. The most famous line using that word is the one by Saint Augustine: In Omnibus Caritas- “In all things charity.”

The word “love” is used in modern translations, but I am glad that more and more writers are rediscovering the word “charity.” It cannot be used in a way that confuses its meaning. You can say, “I love a big juicy steak.” But, you cannot say, “I have charity for a big juicy steak.” The possibility of interpreting the meaning of “love” in a selfish way disappears if we understand agape, or caritas, that is, charity.

The modern world has been infected by theories of human psychology that no well-balanced person can accept. By these theories every action, every feeling, every thought is always selfish all the time. By these theories, every human thought, word and deed is predetermined by someone's psychological condition; and everything is really completely selfish. These theories destroy all notions of courage, and of giving, and of everything that comes from the virtue we call charity. And, these theories come, ultimately, from the enemy of mankind, the adversary of every human soul.

The highest of the virtues is charity, and the scriptures tell us that this kind of love is “shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost.” That is from Saint Paul’s Epistle to the Romans. And, in his Epistle to the Galatians he tells us that this love, agape, is the first of “the fruit of the Spirit.” In every way we are dependent on the Holy Spirit in order to have this virtue, because charity is no mere ordinary love, but rather it is the love of God Himself. And, this love can be planted and grown within us, but not simply from our efforts. We need the Spirit of God.

To understand it, we must first know a bit of theology. We need to know God as He reveals Himself by His Word and by His Spirit. You see, to know this love we must first know that God is “Wholly Other”- that is, His nature is distinct from every created nature, visible and invisible. The angels do not share God’s nature, because they, like us, are creatures. God is Other. And, this must be followed by knowing the words of Saint Paul, that God “hath need of nothing.” The reason thatagape never seeks anything for itself, that it has no selfish element, is because God is completely without need of anything. God did not make the human race because He needed us. The love of God is satisfied in eternity within the Trinity of Persons, so that God is never alone. Man does not bring comfort, solace or companionship to the Trinity, because God “hath need of nothing.”

My younger brother, David, made a big splash with his first book, The Beauty of the Infinite. The most important point he made in it is that God made everything as gratuity; that is a gift. Creation is not necessary. The universe did not have to be. You did not have to be born. Our very existence is completely arbitrary and unnecessary, the result of extravagant Divine generosity. Why, then, are we here? Not as objects that can give God anything, but as objects of His love.

Knowing this, we can again value the reality of every good thing that comes from the virtue called charity. Selflessness does exist, existing first in God’s gracious giving of life itself. The heroic sacrifice, the selfless pouring out of the heart, all comes first and foremost, and only, from the One Who is Love. The world is safe for romantics, or at least well-balanced individuals, after all; the most cold-hearted forms of clinical theory that would take away from us everything beautiful and noble, will be done away with when the heavens are rolled up as a scroll, and we see the Lord in His glory face to face.

Knowing this, we can look again at today’s Gospel, and see it for what it is. Hear the words of the prophet Isaiah [from chapter 53]:

“Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all. He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth. He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken. And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth. Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.”

This ought to bring to life the words we heard from Saint Luke:

“Then he took unto him the twelve, and said unto them, Behold, we go up to Jerusalem, and all things that are written by the prophets concerning the Son of man shall be accomplished. For he shall be delivered unto the Gentiles, and shall be mocked, and spitefully entreated, and spitted on: And they shall scourge him, and put him to death: and the third day he shall rise again.”

Isaiah foretold that simple phrase, “Christ died for our sins, according to the scriptures.” (I Cor. 15:3)- that is, in fulfillment of the scriptures. And the words “and He rose the third day, according to the scriptures”- again, fulfilling the scriptures. That He rose again fulfills the words of Isaiah, that after He was dead and buried “He shall prolong His days.” And, Saint Paul tells us that the love of God was commended toward us because, “while we were yet sinners Christ died for us.” I want to make this clear: In order to know the love of God for you, you must look at Jesus on His cross, dying in your place. You need to take it personally.1 Once knowing that love, you can be given the strength to have such love for others, even for those who respond to it with hostility. This love is true freedom having no obligation to respond in kind to abuse; soaring above malice and bitterness, spreading mercy like wings.

Our creation itself is a gift, something God gave to us. Our redemption from sin and death is a gift as well. In the healing of the blind man (in today's Gospel) we see that God does not deal with us as our sins deserve. The blind man, did notdeserve to be healed, because, like everyone of us, he was a sinner. But, he was healed; he was given back the gift of eyesight. The healing of the blind man signifies that God forgives sin; every miracle of healing signifies this, because “with His stripes we are healed.” The healing of the blind man was a gift, given by the One Who earned that forgiveness for him, which he could not earn for himself. The question that we must ask is not: "Why are so many people not healed of their illnesses?" The question that we must ask is: "What does it mean that Christ healed anyone ever at all?" Saint Anselm tells us that all of the benefits of Christ’s suffering and death have been given to us, for He had no need of anything for Himself. So, when I see Christ showing mercy to the blind man, I understand better what will happen later in the story; I understand better what His cross has done for me.

In that we see love that is completely selfless and giving.
***
1. Consider the words of St. Paul: "I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me" Gal. 2:20

Fr. Wells' bulletin inserts

QUINQUAGESIMA

In today's Gospel, our dear Lord invites us to join Him on a journey, a journey which will end at the foot of His cross. This is an invitation to join Him once again for the forty day pilgrimage which we make together in His church in the holy season of Lent. As the Twelve “understood none of these things,” we might not understand the purpose or value of any special Lenten observance. When Lenten rules are outlined each Quinquagesima Sunday, for many of us “this saying was hid from them, neither knew they the things which were spoken.”

We find ourselves in today's Gospel as the blind man. His physical blindness echoes the spiritual blindness of the Twelve. He came to Jesus begging for a miracle: “And he said, Lord, that I may receive my sight.” Remember that Baptism, which in ancient times was the climax and conclusion of Lent, is presented in the NT and in the Church Fathers as an “enlightenment,” the gift of spiritual sight. Lent can be for us, if we use it holy season properly, a rescue and healing from spiritual blindness.

Here are some specific suggestions for things to do in Lent.

1. Be in church for every service, Wednesday and Friday.

2. Observe all Wednesdays and Fridays as days of abstinence (in plain language, keep all meals meatless those two days.)

3. Remember that Lent is no time for parties, concerts, movie-going, unnecessary restaurant meals and the like.

4. Make an extra effort to be diligent in private prayer, Bible reading, and cultivation of a deeper spiritual life.

5. Special almsgiving and works of corporal mercy. Like Advent, Lent is a fine time for a parish food drive.

Lent is not, emphatically not a “religious emphasis season” when we do things we can leave behind at the end of Holy Week. It is always sad to see the drop in attendance which seems inevitable after Easter Day. Lent is a time to develop new habits of spiritual discipline. It is a time to learn the value of keeping every Friday of the year (save those in Christmastide) meatless, as a weekly memorial of our Lord's death. The habits of Bible reading and keeping a personal prayer life should take root in our lives for the remainder of the year.

In our own spiritual poverty and blindness, we must come before Crucified and Risen Saviour and cry out, “Thou Son of David, have mercy upon me.” In keeping a good and holy Lent, we also may receive our sight. That's what He wants for each of us.

***

In our study of today's Epistle, we have been re-reading a fine little book by D. A. Carson with an unusual title: _The Difficult Doctrine of the Love of God_. The author points out the necessity for calling the love of God a “difficult” topic. Had he written “the difficult doctrine of the Trinity,” or “the difficult doctrine of predestination,” it would have caused no surprise, since everyone agrees those are challenging or controversial topics. But what is “difficult” about the love of God? Everyone assumes that God's love is an easy and self-explanatory matter.

Today's Epistle is St. Paul's great hymn on charity, an unusual poetic outburst on his part. Practically every modern translation replaces the grand old King James Version's word “charity” with the modern word “love.” While the term “charity” has its drawbacks, the word “love” has been so debased that it is almost misleading.

Whereas our English word “love” is used for a wide variety of things, ranging from God's mercy toward sinners to a child's delight in ice-cream, the language of the New Testament had a fairly large number of words for love. It is remarkable that the NT writers did not use any of the words familiar to their readers. They went out of their way to find an unusual word. This is the word agape, pronounced ah-gah-pay.

Agape refers to the unparalleled, unequaled, undeserved and unexpected love which God has for sinners. This is the word which the King James Version translates as “charity” in I Corinthians 13. In spite of our efforts to tame this word through slobbering sentimentality, it remains a unique kind of love, love like the world had never seen, love made visible in the cross of Jesus.

As we begin once again our annual journey “up to Jerusalem” to be with Jesus on Good Friday and Easter Day, today's Epistle reminds us that the whole purpose of keeping Lent is our personal renewal and increase in “faith hope, and charity, and the greatest of these is charity.” Lent, with its discipline and self-denial, should teach us that the charity of God is to be shown forth in the “love and charity with your neighbours” of “all who profess and call themselves Christians.”

The Christian life has no place for spitefulness, mean-spiritedness, unkindness, especially toward those who have wronged us. As we read I Corinthians 13, we see Paul's portrait of Jesus (“charity suffereth long, and is kind...”), the world's first truly charitable Man. But Paul's point, and the point of Lent, is that charity is the greatest of virtues, which we must implore God to pour into our hearts. LKW

Now for my next magic trick

...or what the sacrament of Absolution is not.

From the first English Holy Communon service in the Book of Common Prayer, 1549:

"First, that you be truly repentaunt of your former evill life, and that you confesse with an unfained hearte to almightie God, youre synnes and unkyndnes towardes his Majestie committed, either by will, worde or dede, infirmitie or ignoraunce: and that with inwarde sorowe and teares you bewaile your offences, and require of almightie God mercie and pardon, promising to him (from the botome of your hartes) thamendment of your former lyfe. And emonges all others, I am commaunded of God, especially to move and exhorte you to reconcile yourselfes to your neighbors, whom you have offended, or who hath offended you, putting out of your heartes al hatred and malice against them, and to be in love and charitie with all the worlde, and to forgeve other, as you woulde that god should forgeve you. And yf any man have doen wrong to any other: let him make satisfaccion, and due restitucion of all landes and goodes, wrongfully taken awaye or withholden, before he come to Goddes borde, or at the least be in ful minde and purpose so to do, as sone as he is able, or els let him not come to this holy table, thinking to deceyve God, who seeth all mennes hartes. For neither the absolucion of the priest, can any thing avayle them, nor the receivyng of this holy sacrament doth any thing but increase their damnacion. And yf there bee any of you, whose conscience is troubled and greved in any thing, lackyng comforte or counsaill, let him come to me, or to some other dyscrete and learned priest, taught in the law of God, and confesse and open his synne and griefe secretly, that he may receive suche ghostly counsaill, advyse, and comfort, that his conscience maye be releved, and that of us (as of the ministers of GOD and of the churche) he may receive comfort and absolucion, to the satisfaccion of his mynde, and avoyding of all scruple and doubtfulnes: requiryng suche as shalbe satisfied with a generall confession, not to be offended with them that doe use, to their further satisfiyng, the auriculer and secret confession to the Priest: nor those also whiche thinke nedefull or convenient, for the quietnes of their awne consciences, particuliarly to open their sinnes to the Priest: to bee offended with them that are satisfied, with their humble confession to GOD, and the generall confession to the churche. But in all thinges to folowe and kepe the rule of charitie, and every man to be satisfied with his owne conscience, not judgyng other mennes myndes or consciences; where as he hath no warrant of Goddes word to the same."

I admit that my recollection has been quite rusty concerning "Rite II" in the 1979 book of the Episcopal Church. I have used a copy of that book as a door stop, so I can't say it has ceased to be useful to me. Nonetheless, when people ask me about it I am hesitant to make damning accusations to the effect that it is "absolutely null and utterly void." That idea is, after all, quite Roman and not at all Catholic. I believe the Eucharist in that Rite contains the essentials to make it valid, unlike the Rite of Confirmation that does not. Nonetheless, even at its best it leaves much to be desired.

One of its worst properties is that the General Confession and Absolution in its Eucharistic Rite II trivialize both sin and sacrament. The only reason that it is worth the time to look at it, apart from the pastoral help we may give to people who are even now finally waking up and crossing the Red Sea, is to use the comparison to help us in our own understanding. The exact wording of the genuine Book of Common Prayer (BCP) tradition presents yet another example of what makes the classic Anglican mind a treasure to be cherished and preserved, to be defended against all attackers, and against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

For purposes of comparison, let us look at the Rite II service used by modern Episcopalians weighing it against the standard of the Book of Common Prayer.

First, the standard and authentic BCP form:

Then shall the Priest say to them that come to receive the holy Communion,

E that do truly and earnestly repent you of your sins, and are in love and charity with your neighbours, and intend to lead a new life, following the commandments of God, and walking from henceforth in his holy ways; Draw near with faith, and take this holy Sacrament to your comfort; and make your humble confession to Almighty God, meekly kneeling upon your knees.

Then shall this general Confession be made, in the name of all those that are minded to receive the holy Communion, by one of the Ministers; both he and all the people kneeling humbly upon their knees, and saying,

LMIGHTY God, Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, Maker of all things, judge of all men; We acknowledge and bewail our manifold sins and wickedness, Which we, from time to time, most grievously have committed, By thought, word, and deed, Against thy Divine Majesty, Provoking most justly thy wrath and indignation against us. We do earnestly repent, And are heartily sorry for these our misdoings; The remembrance of them is grievous unto us; The burden of them is intolerable. Have mercy upon us, Have mercy upon us, most merciful Father; For thy Son our Lord Jesus Christ's sake, Forgive us all that is past; And grant that we may ever hereafter Serve and please thee In newness of life, To the honour and glory of thy Name; Through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

Then shall the Priest (or the Bishop, being present,) standing up, and turning himself to the people, pronounce this Absolution.

LMIGHTY God, our heavenly Father, who of his great mercy hath promised forgiveness of sins to all them that with hearty repentance and true faith turn unto him; Have mercy upon you; pardon and deliver you from all your sins; confirm and strengthen you in all goodness; and bring you to everlasting life; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

Then shall the Priest say,Hear what comfortable words our Saviour Christ saith unto all that truly turn to him.

OME unto me all that travail and are heavy laden, and I will refresh you. St. Matth. xi. 28.

So God loved the world, that he gave his only-begotten Son, to the end that all that believe in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. St. John iii. 16

Hear also what Saint Paul saith.

This is a true saying, and worthy of all men to be received, That Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners. 1 Tim. i. 15.

Hear also what Saint John saith.

If any man sin, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous; and he is the propitiation for our sins. 1 St. John ii. 1.

And now compare it to the 1979 book's Rite II form:he Deacon or Celebrant says

Let us confess our sins against God and our neighbor.

Silence may be kept.

Minister and People

Most merciful God,

we confess that we have sinned against you

in thought, word, and deed,

by what we have done,

and by what we have left undone.

We have not loved you with our whole heart;

we have not loved our neighbors as ourselves.

We are truly sorry and we humbly repent.

For the sake of your Son Jesus Christ,

have mercy on us and forgive us;

that we may delight in your will,

and walk in your ways,

to the glory of your Name. Amen.

The Bishop, when present, or the Priest, stands and says

Almighty God have mercy on you, forgive you all your sins

through our Lord Jesus Christ, strengthen you in all

goodness, and by the power of the Holy Spirit keep you in

eternal life. Amen.

The Book of Common Prayer, in any proper edition (i.e., excluding the 1979 book), treats the General Confession with all seriousness, because it is a step to be taken before receiving the Holy Communion. One debate that has gone on in Anglican circles is about whether or not the General Confession and Absolution actually constitute a sacrament. Francis Hall believed it was not a sacrament, but simply part of the liturgy; and several people agree with him. I do not.

The spoken Absolution cannot be said by anyone but a priest. Only those to whom the following words were spoken by the bishop, with the laying on of his apostolic hands, may say the Absolution: "Receive the Holy Ghost for the Office and Work of a Priest in the Church of God, now committed unto thee by the Imposition of our hands. Whose sins thou dost forgive, they are forgiven; and whose sins thou dost retain, they are retained." Unless the Intention of the Church was sacramental, anyone (most certainly a deacon) could say those words.

Every proper BCP has equated the General Confession and private confession, and placed emphasis on the conscience of the individual believer. We have seen this from the 1549 (above). The same is found in the 1662 BCP, the 1962 Canadian BCP and in the 1928 American BCP, etc.

.

"And because it is requisite, that no man should come to the holy Communion, but with a full trust in God's mercy, and with a quiet conscience; therefore if there be any of you, who by this means cannot quiet his own conscience herein, but requireth further comfort or counsel, let him come to me, or to some other discreet and learned Minister of God's Word, and open his grief; that by the ministry of God's holy Word he may receive the benefit of absolution, together with ghostly counsel and advice, to the quieting of his conscience, and avoiding of all scruple and doubtfulness."

As we have seen, the 1549 BCP tells those who choose private confession and those who choose the General Confession not to despise one another. The advantage of private confession lies in what is added to the benefit of receiving the sacrament of Absolution: "...that by the ministry of God's holy Word he may receive the benefit of absolution, together with ghostly counsel and advice, to the quieting of his conscience, and avoiding of all scruple and doubtfulness." In other words, God's minister of both His holy word and sacraments has the advantage of adding pastoral guidance and teaching when a penitent comes to him privately and lays bare his heart. The added benefit, added to the sacramental Absolution, is that guidance and teaching.

The Book of Common Prayer, therefore, sets forth a sacramental teaching about its own form, that the General Confession and Absolution is, indeed, a sacrament. But, it encourages individuals to make use of the priest's gifts and ministry in private confession as well. Private confession takes a certain degree of humility because it is spoken before another man, and therefore is not easy to do. That difference alone gives it great value.

The sacramental nature of the General Confession explains why the Invitation ("Ye who do truly and earnestly, etc.") and Absolution are so carefully worded, and so loaded with conditions. But, the conditional nature of the form is entirely missing in the 1979 Rite II form. That form reduces the ministry of the priest to a mere trick, the worst kind of "priest-craft." No need to "truly and earnestly repent you of your sins," or to be "in love and charity" with your neighbor, and no need for "hearty repentance and true faith" is stated. The priest or priestess merely waves the wand and says the magic words. The whole exercise carries all the moral weight of gazing into a crystal.

Christ gave us the power to forgive sins, but He never gave us a form. The private form is very wisely constructed having evolved over centuries, and very beneficial. It consists of Confession of specific sins (all known sins), Act of Contrition, Absolution and Penance. And, as the BCP says, it gives the priest an opportunity to impart counsel and, where necessary, teaching. The benefits are so great that I advise everyone to make use of this form at least occasionally. One of the elements of orthodox teaching in the private form is that Absolution comes before penance. That is very important, because the Absolution is not earned by penance, but given freely because of Christ's fully sufficient once for all sacrifice of himself once offered. The purpose of penance, therefore, is pastoral, to redirect the soul to God.

In private confession the priest has to determine if the penitent is sincere. Only once have I withheld Absolution in all my years as a priest (in fact, for pastoral reasons, I called a halt to the charade before it proceeded very far--and that's as much as I can say). The purpose is always to reconcile a soul to God, even if that means refusing Absolution so as to induce genuine repentance. In other words, the priest must know how to require the necessary conditions based on what he hears and sees.

In the General Confession and Absolution the priest states the conditions in the liturgy itself. In other words, there is no wand, and there are no magic words. Those who do not truly and earnestly repent them of their sins, or who come without hearty (sincere) repentance and true faith, are not absolved. Even if they have gone through the form, they ought not to approach the altar rail and presume to eat and drink the Lord's Body and Blood (I Cor. 11). And, if there is a disadvantage in relying entirely on the General Confession and Absolution, it is that someone might wax careless or sloppy about it.

However, a private penitent may be equally insincere. One man who grew up in the Roman Catholic Church told me that when he was a boy he would make up sins so that he could say something to the priests, since he was required to make a confession every Saturday. Of course, that made the confession a lie, which would have (had he thought about it) provided for him a bi-weekly solution even if he had the problem of being quite as good a boy as he imagined. Well, that story opens up too troublesome a box for purposes of this essay.

As Lent approaches, I would advise everyone to think about making a private confession and the benefits of doing so. But, I would also suggest that everyone approach both the General Confession and any private confession he makes with all of the sober reality contained in the words of our General form, both the Invitation and the Absolution. For, whether private or general, "neither the absolucion of the priest, can any thing avayle them, nor the receivyng of this holy sacrament doth any thing but increase their damnacion," without "hearty repentance and true faith." There is neither magic wand nor words, but only God from Whom no secrets are hid.

Updated

The following is an updated version of one of my old essays, updated to fit the current times.

There is not much that was new in Anglicanorum Coetibus. Except for the manner in which it was announced and reported, the only new thing about it was that local RCC bishops lost the option to refuse to have the Pastoral Provisions affect their own dioceses. Back in the Summer of 2008 we saw news about clergy in the Diocese of Fort Worth, when it was still part of the Episcopal Church (TEC), who wished they were Romeward Bound. This caused an e-mail list to be generated, and a great deal of e-ink to be wasted, about the wonderful process of conversion to the One True Church (well, one of the two that is). In some of these e-epistles well-meaning Roman Catholics openly addressed "the basic flaw of Anglican ecclesiology," and used other insulting phrases designed to put us in our place.

It really does get tiresome. In our churches we have people who possess varying levels of education, and unfortunately that can include members of the clergy. With bloggers and e-tome authors attacking Anglicanism itself--not the state of apostate bodies like the Episcopal Church, but Anglicanism dating back to the 16th century--it behooves some of us to come to the aid of those whose consciences are damaged by their words. Many of the fiercest attackers are Roman Catholics, and others on the opposite end who believe in "the Geneva Discipline." From their opposite perspectives they make the same arguments. The ignorance they demonstrate is cloaked by wordiness. They take thousands of words to prove that they don't know anything, and in the process look very clever to unsuspecting minds.

These writers use the same old worn-out talking points.

"Anglicanism is Protestant," they say. Of course, they have no idea what the word "Protestant" has always meant to Anglicans. The opposite of "Catholic" is not "Protestant" but rather, "unbeliever." As I have written before:

"The effort to embrace and continue the Catholic Faith was the motivation for embracing Protestantism in the time of the Reformation- or, rather, the Reformations. We believe that the efforts on the Continent of Europe threw away the baby with the bathwater, which is why Anglicans early on debated with Calvinists and Lutherans, sometimes more vigorously than with Rome. Anglicans debated as well with Puritans in England and Scottish Presbyterians...the definition of 'Catholic' should be based on its Credal use, as we use it in the Book of Common Prayer where either the Apostle’s Creed or the Creed called Nicene are part of all the major services (Article VIII). Combined with that other Creed, Quicunque Vult, or the Creed of St. Athanasius, we say we believe the Catholic Church and the Catholic Faith...I would indeed place the 'P' of Protestantism back in 'Anglicanism' to the via media degree required to make it truly Patristic, and so truly Scriptural and truly Catholic."

These polemicists argue that the Church of England was a confused mess with no clearly stated beliefs, filled with everything from High Churchmen to Puritans. This is a very popular bit of misinformation, too easily believed even by many Anglicans themselves. How can they possibly imagine that the leaders of the English Church ever tolerated the excesses of the Puritans? Don't they know that Richard Hooker's famous Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity was written primarily to defend Anglicanism against Puritan sedition and heresy, and against Calvin's ecclesiology in general? Hooker wrote as an official representative of the Church, not as an individual with an opinion to be weighed equally among many others. The fact that Puritanism was always at odds with the Church authorities, always tried to overthrow each new version of The Articles of Religion as they were developing, and finally resorted to a revolution by civil war and the execution of a king, all seems to go right past them. The Puritans were the opponents of Anglicanism until after the Restoration, when they finally faced defeat and the rejection of the English population by and large.

The polemicists demonstrate that they cannot understand Anglican Formularies, trying to fit them into either a purely Calvinist (i.e. Genevan) or a purely Lutheran system, like a square peg into a round hole. They notice the same theological terminology in Anglican Articles that they see in the Continental Reformations, not appreciating two important facts: 1) This terminology was not new to anybody at the time, and 2) what matters in the Articles is not their similarity to either Calvinism or Lutheranism, but their divergence from them at just the point necessary to avoid the extremes inherent in those systems.

For example, look at Article X:

X. Of Free Will.

HE condition of man after the fall of Adam is such, that he cannot turn and prepare himself, by his own natural strength and good works, to faith and calling upon God. Wherefore we have no power to do good works pleasant and acceptable to God, without the grace of God by Christ preventing us that we may have a good will, and working with us when we have that good will.

This is, of course, standard catholic theology about the weakness of fallen man, and of sin as a devastating and helpless condition. Many go further than saying we need the grace of God; they deny that freewill exists at all. Anglicanism goes right up to that line, and refuses to cross it. The divergence shouts very loudly, but the polemicists notice only the similar terminology with Calvin. They fail to see that the terminology is equally Augustinian, Thomist and Dominican, all of which systems are essentially western, and constitute the very things they attribute to Calvin as if it was all new at the time.

Look at how close Article XVII comes:

XVII. Of Predestination and Election.

REDESTINATION to life is the everlasting purpose of God, whereby, before the foundations of the world were laid, He hath constantly decreed by His counsel secret to us, to deliver from curse and damnation those whom He hath chosen in Christ out of mankind, and to bring them by Christ to everlasting salvation as vessels made to honour. Wherefore they which be endued with so excellent a benefit of God be called according to God's purpose by His Spirit working in due season; they through grace obey the calling; they be justified freely; they be made sons of God by adoption; they be made like the image of His only-begotten Son Jesus Christ; they walk religiously in good works; and at length by God's mercy they attain to everlasting felicity.

As the godly consideration of Predestination and our Election in Christ is full of sweet, pleasant, and unspeakable comfort to godly persons and such as feeling in themselves the working of the Spirit of Christ, mortifying the works of the flesh and their earthly members and drawing up their mind to high and heavenly things, as well because it doth greatly establish and confirm their faith of eternal salvation to be enjoyed through Christ, as because it doth fervently kindle their love towards God: so for curious and carnal persons, lacking the Spirit of Christ, to have continually before their eyes the sentence of God's Predestination is a most dangerous downfall, whereby the devil doth thrust them either into desperation or into wretchlessness of most unclean living no less perilous than desperation.

Furthermore, we must receive God's promises in such wise as they be generally set forth in Holy Scripture; and in our doings that will of God is to be followed which we have expressly declared unto us in the word of God.

This comes to the line, but again does not cross it. It may encourage some of the clergy to preach Predestination only in terms of the "perseverance of the saints;" but more so, it teaches mortification and raising the mind to heaven, teaching the need to follow the expressed general will of God. It is not, strictly speaking, some innovation in a system called Calvinism (which, in reality, included no innovations except the Geneva Discipline). And, besides, the rule about similar terminology is that it makes divergence all the more significant, if not the main point.

They say that Anglicans rejected the Real Presence (as the term is used today). Article XXXV lists homilies that are to be considered Formularies. In the Homily Of the worthy receiving of the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ we find these words:

"But thus much we must be sure to hold, that in the Supper of the Lord, there is no vaine Ceremonie, no bare signe, no vntrue figure of a thing absent (Matthew 26.26)...Whereas by the aduice of the Councell of Nicene, we ought to lift vp our mindes by fayth, and leauing these inferiour and earthly things, there seeke it, where the sunne of righteousnesse euer shineth (Council of Nicene, Concilium). Take then this lesson (O thou that art desirous of this Table) of Emissenus a godly Father, that when thou goest vp to the reuerend Communion, to be satisfied with spirituall meates, thou looke vp with fayth vpon the holy body and blood of thy GOD, thou maruayle with reuerence, thou touch it with the minde, thou receiue it with the hand of thy heart, and thou take it fully with thy inward man (Eusebius Emissenus, Serm. de Euchar.)."

Nonetheless, they will provide theories about the personal views of Archbishop Thomas Cranmer near his life's end, saying that he must have rejected the Real Presence; as if any one man's private view was official, and alone what matters. Of course, they do not understand Cranmer anyway, nor credit him with the vast and superior knowledge of the Fathers that he so clearly demonstrated.

And so forth.

In the massive e-mailing was a link to an article by my friend David Mills, former editor of Touchstone, A journal of mere Christianity (now with First Things). I have long been a contributing editor for this magazine of ecumenical orthodoxy, with several articles published over the years. David was one of the first to recognize my writing and to promote it. He had long been a fighter within the Episcopal Church, trying to call it back to Christ. In 2001 he became a Roman Catholic. The linked article (which was on a blog) contained superb news analysis about the official Anglican Communion (you know, those otherAnglicans who don't recognize us), but then made this rather astonishing statement.

"The Anglo-Catholics can forget trying to move the new GAFCON body (if there ever is one) a quarter-inch closer to Catholicism. They will live in an ecclesial body less liberal but no more Catholic than their old one. The price of their being rescued from liberalism is a kind of dhimmitude.

"Which might not be a bad thing. It might help them see more clearly just what that 'Anglo' means, and accept that Anglicanism is a Protestant movement. Then they can see that the polarity they thought they'd transcended is marked by its two poles for a reason, forcing them to choose one or the other. I pray my former comrades choose Catholicism, but if they don't, I think they would be happier and more fruitful were they better Protestants. And thereby, oddly enough, closer to the Catholic Church than they are now."

I do not expect the average Roman Catholic to understand that to classic Anglicans like us, Protestantism and Catholicism are not opposites, and not at all two poles. But, David Mills understands it, though he clearly disagrees. Our kind of Protestantism is meant to be a pure and better form of Catholicism, and so David would be wrong if his words were applied to those of us in the Continuing churches of the Concordat (though they fit the Canterbury Communion in its current state). For us there is no choice to be made between these two things, Protestantism and Catholicism, for they do not conflict. But, we are spared the usual song and dance of the polemicists, because David is above all that sort of thing.

I bother to defend Anglicanism against polemical attacks because those attacks damage the consciences of sincere believers. The attacks usually boil down to an attempt to make Anglicans doubt the validity of our sacraments, which is quite proper for TEC, but not at all true for us. The arguments are based on half-truths that distort the history of Anglican doctrine and the meaning of Anglican Formularies. They create ignorance rather than knowledge. Eventually, they always attack the validity of our orders, so that the poor soul who is ensnared by these arguments fails to learn the truth, and gets confused trying to learn it. Because he comes to doubt the validity of the sacraments he has been receiving, and therefore fears that they have no efficacy, he begins to doubt that his soul can be saved unless he flees to Rome (or Orthodoxy). That is based on fear, not on faith and not on learning, since learning would disabuse him of doubt.

The troubled, less-learned Anglican, attacked by bullying polemicists, needs to be taught by those of us who care to take the time to write or speak the necessary apologetics, and provide the instruction that he needs. Hear me: Anglican priests always have had the authority to forgive sins; and what you eat and drink at the altar rail of the church is truly, in the words of the Anglican Formulary, "the holy body and blood of thy God."

Broken News

The following is not aimed at the RCC ... in fact...


The spread of unity
Orlando, March 2, 2011

The Most Rev. Marion Samuel, writing from his cathedral and "Quick fix" wedding chapel on Maryland's famous Route One, in his back yard, has announced that his church is seeking entrance into the new Ordinariate.

On behalf of the Ecumenical and International English Independent Old Catholic Church (EIEIO CC), we sent the following correspondence to Cardinal Kasper in 2009: "We eagerly seek Reunion with the One True Church established through Saint Peter and his successors in Rome. No doubt, by bringing all five of our church-wedding chapels, into the One Real honest to goodness Catholic Church, we will completely restore unity like it was before 1054. We await your reply, eager to grovel, if that's what it takes to be able to say with Jessie Jackson, "I am...someBODY!"

In February of 2011, Cardinal Kasper's office sent the following email to Archbishop Marion Samuel:

"As we proceed toward the erection of Ordinariates we would invite you to make contact directly with Archbishop Wuerl (and for God's sake give me a break) at the following address…" Humbly, the EIEIO CC responded with a resounding "YES", mailing a letter to Cardinal Wuerl in compliance with the correspondence received from the CDF, requesting to be a part of this wonderful reunification of the Church.

"The EIEIO CC was formed in 2008 when it broke away from...well some other outfit with a lot of letters," said Samuel. "Our website lists our full Apostolic Succession as recorded and carefully preserved on my own personal computer." On Sundays, Archbishop Marion Samuel's cathedral/ wedding chapel ($200.00 a wedding, no questions asked) holds services for the congregation consisting of his Grace's wife, three kids, next door neighbor, the family dog, and occasionally young couples about to enjoy a honeymoon.

Yes, the move towards the unity for which our Lord prayed is gaining momentum.

Sexagesima

II COR. 11:19-31

LUKE 8:4-15

The Gospel and the Epistle appointed for this day blend well together when we consider the patience of St. Paul. He endured all things that could come on anyone, and so brought forth fruit an hundredfold. When he began his walk he turned away from the cares and riches and pleasures of this life. In time of persecution he did not fall away; and in his case the time of persecution was lifelong until his death as a martyr. Instead of complaining that God was terribly unfair in leading him through fire and water, he gave thanks that he could suffer with Christ. Paul saw his own sufferings as leading to good, especially emphasizing how God used those very trials to further his evangelistic mission as an apostle. Through those sufferings Paul was able to reach people with the message of the Gospel of Jesus Christ and his salvation.

He said as much in another epistle, writing to the Church in Philipi these words:

"But I would ye should understand, brethren, that the things which happened unto me have fallen out rather unto the furtherance of the gospel; So that my bonds in Christ are manifest in all the palace, and in all other places; And many of the brethren in the Lord, waxing confident by my bonds, are much more bold to speak the word without fear." (Philippians 1:12-14)

In today's epistle, the long list of things he endured was not written down for the sake of boasting, but to establish that he had credentials that his critics did not have, namely certain false apostles and teachers who were troubling the Church in Corinth. That is, he was not waxing rich or gaining status in the world, and was not living in luxury. To choose to continue with his life of persecution and danger, and great discomfort, instead of going back to Tarsus and profiting from his family's tent-making business (no doubt as suppliers to the imperial army), was a proof that his service was genuine. For that reason, and that reason alone, he wrote those words to the Christians in Corinth, that they would hear him and turn away from the false teachers who taught what the Apostle condemned in the strongest terms, in this part of the same chapter from which today's Epistle was taken:

"But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him." (II Corinthians 11:3,4)

It really does matter who you allow to serve as your spiritual leader, teacher and guide. Our own separate existence as the Anglican Catholic Church in 1978, following the historic meetings in St. Louis and Denver, was due to this very problem: A false gospel, another Jesus, and another spirit which we did not receive (that is, not the Holy Spirit Who we received in our Confirmation). And our Continuing separation is due to the fact that those old errors have remained uncorrected, and have gone from bad to worse. St. Paul is telling the Corinthian Christians that some ministers are called into their vocation by Satan, not by God.

"For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works." (vs. 13-15)

In case anyone thinks this whole thing is all about merely what prayer Book we like better, or what kind of liturgy pleases us, let me make something very clear: The issues are of eternal consequence, not simply matters of taste. Furthermore, with eternity in mind, it is necessary to be in the Church where the true Gospel is taught, where the pure Word of God is preached and where the sacraments are duly administered. That is what matters, whether every detail is to our taste or not. It is not about satisfying our emotions (which satisfaction may come or not come) but about eternal life with Christ as opposed to being forever lost.

It is in the context of St. Paul telling those ancient Christians in the city of Corinth that they needed to follow him, and reject the false ministers of a false Gospel, that he reminds them of his own sufferings and persecutions. I have quoted a few parts of the same chapter that lead to the Epistle appointed for this day. Let me remind you of a little bit of it:

"Are they ministers of Christ? (I speak as a fool) I am more; in labours more abundant, in stripes above measure, in prisons more frequent, in deaths oft. Of the Jews five times received I forty stripes save one. Thrice was I beaten with rods, once was I stoned, thrice I suffered shipwreck, a night and a day I have been in the deep in journeyings often, in perils of waters, in perils of robbers, in perils by mine own countrymen, in perils by the heathen, in perils in the city, in perils in the wilderness, in perils in the sea, in perils among false brethren; in weariness and painfulness, in watchings often, in hunger and thirst, in fastings often, in cold and nakedness. Beside those things that are without, that which cometh upon me daily, the care of all the churches. Who is weak, and I am not weak? who is offended, and I burn not? If I must needs glory, I will glory of the things which concern mine infirmities. The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is blessed for evermore, knoweth that I lie not."

In light of that, once again I want to quote those words from another epistle, the Epistle to the Philippians:

"But I would ye should understand, brethren, that the things which happened unto me have fallen out rather unto the furtherance of the gospel."

"The furtherance of the gospel" means, of course, the mission of the Church, preaching the word of God to those who have not heard it. That is how the Apostles laid the foundation and built the Church. They built it by preaching the Gospel. I cannot help but be troubled by the thought that we are much too capable of presenting something less than the Gospel.

We must never allow our Faith to become so complicated that we cannot easily and briefly articulate the essential message of salvation that everyone needs to hear. Nor can we afford to be distracted by many pressing matters that, in the end, simply prevent us from serving God. If Satan has beguiled any of our people through his subtilty (and by "our people" I mean Anglicans who are trying to be faithful), it has been by distorting the message or hiding it under a pile of stuff, maybe rubble, or maybe under a pile of beautiful ornate treasures that simply distract us from the real priorities.

There are some places where people don't look forward to church anymore, because they are constantly pressured to join that whole unfortunate ordinariate business. We don't have that problem because the ACC will not allow it (thank God), but we have several members who just managed to avoid all that pressure and trouble by coming here and being welcomed into this parish just in the nick of time. We must not allow anything to so complicate our beliefs that we forget the Gospel, how to preach it with power, with the right kind of simplicity, and with conviction.

Who is the sower, and what does he sow? The answer is in the Gospel reading we have heard today: "The seed is the word of God." So, after Mark's account (4:14) of the same parable, the Lord explains simply, "The sower soweth the word." We all must sow the word. To whom do we sow the Word? Now, that is also important to get right.

What kind of farmer would sow the seed everywhere, on all kinds of ground, the shallow ground of the path, the rocky ground, and among the thorns? The sower in this parable does not seem to be very careful with that seed. He appears to be less than frugal. He seems extravagant, like a spendthrift. But, recall the parable of two weeks ago, the parable of the wheat and the tares. The landowner, representing God in the parable, did not send his servants to uproot the tares prematurely, lest they uproot the wheat as well.

Just as we cannot tell who will prove to be genuine wheat (that is who will actually hear the word of God by the Gospel, and truly repent and believe the message), so we cannot really know into what kind of ground we are sowing. We cannot see who will receive the seed into the good ground of an honest heart, for we cannot see as God sees. It is our task to sow the seed everywhere, as wasteful as that may appear to be.

I have seen parishes and their clergy fall into the trap of looking for P.L.U.--"people like us." Over the years in various churches I have met clergy, and even a few self-appointed lay-sheriffs, who mistake their position for that of a "gatekeeper." They treat potential new members the way insurance underwriters treat new applicants, looking them over to see if they should be approved or not. It is especially troubling when these underwriters and sheriffs purposely drive away people based on churchmanship, whether in the name of Anglo-Catholic High churchmanship, or in the name of pietist Low churchmanship. In truth, there must be room for everyone who is looking for a valid church, just as there must be an effort also to reach even people who are completely unchurched, and to introduce them first and foremost to Christ Himself. We have been commissioned to spread the word to "all sorts and conditions of men." It is not a commission exclusively to "people like us," but to everyone.

The message is simple: "Repent and believe the Gospel." The sacramental life of the Church follows, and we are supposed to bring people into that life; but, before we can do that, we must be willing and able to present the Gospel of Christ. On the Continuum blog we were given a section by the founder, Albion Land, called "words worth reading," with the intention of changing it from time to time. One day I posted these words by William Temple, the 98th Archbishop of Canterbury (1942–44):

"“Evangelism is to so present Jesus Christ in the power of the Holy Spirit that men might come to trust Him as Savior and serve Him as Lord in the fellowship of His church.”

I have never been able to replace those words. Maybe someday I will, or another blogger will; but for now I just can't remove them. That is what the sower sows.

The sower presents Jesus Christ as the Gospel reveals Him. He is One with the Father in eternity, born of a virgin to become fully human (while remaining One with the Father as God the Son), Who died on the cross as the spotless Lamb of God to take away all our sins, Who rose again from the dead on the third day, Who appeared to witnesses after His resurrection, and Who will come again in glory. Those who believe in Christ are welcomed into the fellowship of His Body, the Church, to live the sacramental life of disciples.

Now, the purpose of false apostles, and deceitful workers, the ministers of Satan, is to take away this Faith from our own hearts. Failing that, their purpose is to get us so distracted by other things (even things that may seem good or religious), so as to get us "off message," so that we never sow the word to others. The tactics I have seen include:

1. To distort our priorities so that we "major on the minors."

2. To sow discord among brethren, so that we fight each other and squabble about all manner of things (oh, and it's always about something important, in fact so important that people must divide, and maybe even ignore the clear commandment of God- in I Corinthians 5-so as to take each other to court with lawsuits).

3. To simply make us lazy, so that we neglect the House of God.*

4. Or to lead us astray with false doctrines.

All of these things I have seen in my many years, and so have some of you. And, why should we be surprised? St. Paul warns that Satan has his own minsters-indeed, the Devil really does call some people into the "ministry." They are called and appointed, by Satan, to stop the Church so that sowers cannot sow the word.

But the good news is God calls His own servants to lead the way. God has given us the word to sow, just as we are to believe it ourselves and live by it. And, knowing that we are weak, God gives us the Holy Spirit to put His own power within us, with gifts of service in every member of the Body (and I do mean you), so that together we may do His will in this fallen world. And, if we have the Faith that He plants in us by the seed of His word, and if we remain steadfast, anything that may come our way, whether good or bad, will fall out for "the furtherance of the Gospel."

__________

*Ye looked for much, and, lo, it came to little; and when ye brought it home, I did blow upon it. Why? saith the LORD of hosts. Because of mine house that is waste, and ye run every man unto his own house. Therefore the heaven over you is stayed from dew, and the earth is stayed from her fruit. Haggai 1:9, 10

Fr. Wells bulletin inserts

SEXAGESIMA

These Pre-Lenten Sundays have unusually distinctive Collects. And in case you are not familiar with the term Collect, this word is the name for brief prayers which sum up or “collect” the private petitions of God's people; that is why there is or should be a slight pause between “Let us pray” and the Collect itself, to allow for the people to pray silently for a moment.

On Septuagesima and Sexagesima, the proper collects strike a solemn, almost sad, tone. Today we pray to be “defended from all adversity.” Last Sunday, we acknowledged that such “adversity” sometimes comes as the “just punishment for our offences.” These two prayers (BCP pages 118 and 120) might well be read together as examples of authentic Christian prayer. Those who learn to pray this way are not instructing God, giving Him good advice, sharing information, or even telling Him how they feel or what they want. They are simply asking to be defended against all adversity and mercifully delivered by God's goodness.

These two collects are among the most ancient prayers in the Prayer Book. They seem to have been composed in the Sixth Century A. D., just after the fall of the Roman empire, at the time when heathen barbarians from northern Europe were moving aggressively into Italy, leaving disaster and destruction in their wake. Whereas the Church had enjoyed a measure of safety and security in the last days of the Roman empire, now the world seemed to be collapsing. It was a perilous time, marked by pestilence, famine and earthquake. “Adversity” was not just a word.

The parallels between that period and our own are striking. Like the Roman Christians of the Sixth Century, we also perceive that our inherited world order may well be slipping away. But here is the great difference: whereas the Christian community of the early Dark Ages understood matters in solidly Biblical terms of God's just judgment on a sinful world, modern Christians seem to have a knack for making excuses and finding others to blame. We point to the liberals (both religious and political), we denounce the secular culture, we find fault with almost everyone and everything other than ourselves.

The Scriptures tells us that Divine judgment begins with the house of God. We are not here to play; the service of God is serious business. We know what God will do with the wicked, but what is in store for the shallow and superficial? Are you ready for Lent?

***

Today's first reading begins with words of heavy sarcasm, “Ye suffer fools gladly, seeing ye yourselves are wise.” A modern translation is quite helpful here, “How gladly you put up with fools, being yourselves so wise.” Paul was not paying any compliment to his Corinthian readers. When he called them wise, he meant the very opposite.

These new Christians, not rooted and well-grounded in the Faith, were in danger of being seduced by a substitute Gospel, a false Christianity. In contrast to our easy-going tolerant sort of religion, this for Paul was no small matter. A few verses before our reading begins, Paul had compared them to Eve in the Garden of Eden. “But I am afraid that as the serpent deceived Eve by his cunning, your thoughts will be led astray from a sincere and pure devotion to Christ” (2 Cor 11:3). When the immature Christians in Corinth cheerfully put up with “fools” in the form of false teachers, they were like Eve, falling for the lies of the devil.

Our world, and along with it, the Christian community of our time, have listened to many false teachers. Like the Corinthians, we have “suffered fools gladly,” but we have only proved ourselves to be fools ourselves. We have not been wise.

The doctrinal and moral errors which trouble us are not simple mistakes which we can solve by debate, argument and controversy. They point to something deeply wrong in our fallen human nature. As Paul wrote elsewhere, “they became futile in their thinking and their senseless minds were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools....” (Rom 1:21-22).

Ash Wednesday is at hand, when we are solemnly reminded, “Remember, man, thou art dust, and unto dust thou shalt return.” Those terrifying words are reinforced with a grim ceremony, when our foreheads are disfigured with ashes. But almost always, someone will get the giggles seeing the entire congregation looking so funny. That is not altogether wrong or inappropriate. As we recall our mortality and the shortness of our earthly life, we should know ourselves to be the victims of a dirty trick, a horrible cosmic joke, in which we have been robbed by Satan of our original righteousness, our communion with our Creator, and the gift of eternal life. Our disfigured faces will remind us that the Image of God has been disfigured almost beyond recognition. Ash Wednesday sets us on the process of restoration for that Image.

Satan himself is the ultimate fool, because he wanted to be more powerful than God. In our unregenerate life we indeed put up with him and become foolish like him. May we turn more and more to Christ, who is our wisdom, our righteousness and our peace. LKW

Hep Speak

Those of you who have read 1984 by George Orwell may well remember "New Speak." It fit well with "double think" and the rewriting of history by "minitrue" (short for "the Ministry of Truth"), based on the Oceania government's position that "he who controls the past controls the future." "Hep Speak" combines all of these ideas into one nice package. Defending his best efforts at tyranny and at being a school yard bully, Archbishop Hepworth continues to rave like a drunken man who cannot establish a reasonable premise for his own brand of logic. Every time I see a statement by John Hepworth I see glaring errors of fact, superficial theology at best, and all with the clear intention of destroying the Continuing Church, at least any part of it that he can.

David Virtue, no doubt allowing the Ordinariate club to have just enough rope that they make their true colors visible, has created an "ordinariate" section on VirtueOnline. There, we see a statement by the Australian Primate, a statement in keeping with all that the word "primate" suggests.

Let's look at a few examples of Hep Speak. "It was agreed that those involved could stay in their own parishes, but under the episcopal jurisdiction of a bishop entering the Ordinariate." Right. So, now Hepworth proposes that local rectors and diocesan bishops should have to put up with members of respective parishes rebelling against the established church authority at home, answering instead to a foreign bishop in a foreign jurisdiction. They may thumb their noses at rectors and bishops, and create disorder in their own churches, all by pretending to have some legitimacy from some outside authority. Individuals in a parish have been given permission to create confusion and to be destructive. They may thus let all things be done indecently and out of order. In the same statement Hepworth has the temerity to say, "Christian Unity is not an option for the Church." Apparently, and ironically, he is saying that he has removed the "option" of allowing a parish to experience its own unity on a local level by asserting himself, in bully fashion. What "unity" is he for, considering that he has attempted in this same document to tear up and divide local parishes? And, what does he mean by unity? He means that a small number of former Anglicans convert to Roman Catholicism. In no way can that movement, from one denomination to another, unify the Church. And, what good is political unity anyway without charity? What kind of unity is it when it is simply forced on people by some legal status? "The tragedy of Continuing Anglicanism - and indeed of the Anglican Communion - is the absence of Eucharistic Communion with anyone but itself." What is that man smoking? That has never been true of the Anglican Communion, and neither is it true of Continuing Anglicanism. We have never forbidden non-Anglicans to receive the sacrament in our churches. But, it is most certainly true that both of the Two One True Churches forbid the sacrament to anyone but their own.

It is tragic that so many people who fled for refuge to a church body, in which they sought refuge according to the Affirmation of St. Louis, have found themselves bullied, lied to, and pressured to destroy their identity by assimilation. Hepworth continues to use his disguise as an Anglican Archbishop, a pretense if ever there was one, to heap insult upon insult to our carefully considered and most deeply held convictions. He continues to invoke the word "unity" in the most deceptive manner, meaning only that people should betray their own consciences and ignore their beliefs so that they may join another denomination. At the end of the day, when all of the people who plan to swim the Tiber have jumped in, the Church will not be any more unified than it was before. After all, individuals have always gone from one to the other, and that will not cease to be the case. The good news is, Hep Speak is failing, and his voice gets weaker every day, someday to be forgotten as we have forgotten the words of Alexander the Coppersmith. Soon, this latest threat to our mission as Continuing Anglicans will have passed, and we can concentrate on real unity among ourselves. Then we can get on with our mission, and allow no more idiotic distractions. That is, once we can actually say with St. Paul, "Lest Satan should get an advantage of us: for we are not ignorant of his devices." II Cor. 2:11