The Collect - Trinity 10

From the Tridentine Missal
Pateant aures misericordiae tuae, Domine, precibus supplicantium: et, ut petentibus desiderata concedas; fac eos, quae tibi sunt placita, postulare.

From The 1549 prayer book
LET thy merciful eares, O Lord, be open to the praiers of thy humble servauntes; and that they may obteine their peticions, make them to aske suche thinges as shal please thee; Through Jesus Christe our Lorde.

Commentary
Cranmer translates the Collect from the Gelasian Sacramentary which appears as the Collect for the Ninth Sunday after Pentecost. This notable collect has been set to music by the Tudor composers Thomas Weelkes and Thomas Mudd.

Reflection
According to the collect, we can only guarantee that our prayers will be answered if we only pray the prayers that God wants us to pray. This means that if we pray for a brand new Cadillac, a lottery win, or a giant ice-cream sundae, we're 100% guaranteed that we won't get it. Why not? Well, God doesn't want us to have a new car, lot of money, or indigestion, does he?

But does this mean that when we pray for our friend to be relieved of some painful or even terminal illness, and nothing happens, does this mean that God doesn't want our friend to get better? Does it not please Him to relieve our suffering? Do what we want, what we care about, mean nothing to of God?
It is here that we begin to walk into the unknown regions in trying to know the mind of God. But listen to Him through Jeremiah: "I know the plans I have for you, plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future." (Jer xxix.11) We can rest assured that He wants only our good.

However, this Collect is telling us something more than just how God gets around to answering prayer. We are being invited to pray for and to seek the things that please God, things that will not only please Him, but give us joy and pleasure as well. Our true happiness can be found only in the pleasure of God, and this excludes no-one. In the pleasure of God, all our illnesses, fears, troubles and sins pale into insignificance, even though they might not be removed. It is when we want what God wants that we find ourselves closest to Him, and surely that is true happiness.

------------------------Jonathan Munn

Once more, on the road

(Not for the likes of me to quote a Country Western title; hence my choice of words.)
Beginning Friday, Aug. 10, I will be helping my oldest son drive his car from Easton, Maryland to Arizona State University in Phoenix. I will fly back to Maryland on the 17th. Where ever possible, I will connect to the internet, and check in. Among other things, I want to continue the clergy education series after that.

Why I Want to be Left Behind

Fr. Robert Hart

Christian faith is based on the ultimate act of divine intervention in the world, the Incarnation. That it should, for some, produce “other worldly” systems of thought, ought to strike us as scandalous. It is the accepted view of the major traditions of Christianity that the Gospel is not compatible with a view of God that makes Him indifferent to human affairs. The mission of the Church is to spread the Gospel of the Kingdom of God to all peoples of the earth. Unless we believe that “the earth is the Lord’s, and the fullness thereof (Psalm 24:1)” nothing in the classic message of Christianity remains coherent. How then can we make sense of a popular view of eschatology in which the Church Militant becomes joined with the Church Triumphant at any time prior to the Eschaton, any time before the Last Day?

This is a problem with the Left Behind series of books by Tim Lahaye and Jerry B. Jenkins, and now movies, which continue to be produced. Being aware of the eschatology that is behind these novels, I cannot blame only the authors themselves for the banalities and deficiencies that underlie their work, nor for its moral short sightedness. The title comes from a very poorly written song that confuses eschatology with dystopia, recorded in the 1970s. The refrain was “the Son has come, and you’ve been left behind.” This refrain is loosely based upon a text of scripture:

For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, and knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. Then shall two be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left. Two women shall be grinding at the mill; the one shall be taken, and the other left. Watch therefore: for ye know not what hour your Lord doth come.

(Matt. 24: 38-42, emphasis mine.)

The problem with the meaning given by the Left Behind mentality is that it ignores the very context. Who is taken and who is left? The words about the Flood ought to clue us in to the proper interpretation. The Flood took away the sinners to their destruction-indeed, it “took them all away”- and left behind the family of Noah, who were safe in the Ark. This fits better the allusion to the 37th Psalm by our Lord: “Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth (Matt. 5:5).” The gathering of the eagles over the corpses, as repeated in the Book of Revelation in a summons to feast upon the flesh of the damned, comes from Old Testament prophecies of God’s judgment. The vision of Ezekiel, in which the angel marks the servants of God to be spared, should come to mind as well.

The obvious meaning of scripture, and how it is completely lost by the Left Behind version of eschatology, is only part of the problem. On a deeper level is a problem quite radical indeed, which is the nature of the Gospel and of the Church to which it is entrusted. The Church is the extension of the Incarnation of the Lord into human history, and it is through that Church that salvation is proclaimed and administered. Yet, what is the attitude, and the psychological disposition, created by the belief that prior to the actual Second Coming of Christ, all genuine Christians will be carried away and the earth left destitute? The Gospel and the sacraments would be taken away with the Church. This piece of quasi-science fiction replaces the Body of Christ, which received the Holy Spirit on the Day of Pentecost, with a confusing mixture of “completed” Jews and of angels.

Will Catholics be Left Behind? By Carl Olson (Ignatius Press, 2003), builds a hypothetical question into its title, and presents a good apologetic for Traditional eschatology. A second reasonable question is, “why would they wish to be left behind?” Or, for that matter, why would any serious Christian- Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican or Protestant- want the Church to be taken away from the earth while the mission is incomplete? And, from whence does this view arise? Is it compatible with the Incarnation, and everything that flows from it? The attitude produced by the Left Behind expectation – a problem far older than production of the series – is something less than fitting for Christians about the world in which we live, and in which the Son of God was born, lived and died, and rose again.

To begin with, the mission of the Church is universal. The many passages of scripture about the preaching of Gospel and its place in eschatology, reveal that the Body of Christ is on this earth in order to bear fruit in every nation. This is summarized in Revelation 5:9: "And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation…"

Aside from this, however, is a deeper problem of attitude. Is the desire to escape the world consistent with the virtue of charity? And, is the belief in the Rapture, as an event while human history is yet incomplete, something that destroys the Christian sense of responsibility? Does it make us more like Saint Paul who felt obligated to every man, or like Cain who asked, “Am I my brother’s keeper?” Do we feel the duty of being the Light of the world and the Salt of the earth, if our highest view of the future of the Church is expressed in a bumper sticker that says, “In case of Rapture the driver will disappear”? (Presumably, his disappearance will result in a collision that might kill a lost soul or two, and send them to Hell. But, to put it a bit crudely, no skin off the driver’s nose.)

Stunning indeed is the willful ignorance that this attitude creates concerning the persecution of the Church in history and in current events. Early in 2005, I met Coptic Christians seeking asylum in the United States. They had grown up in a country, Egypt, where the mass killing of Christians was a routine way of life. But, western Christians, living in safety and even luxury, can speculate endlessly about some future time called the “Great Tribulation." And, they presume that they are going to be spared this tribulation due to their faith in Christ. What is difficult to understand is why they seem either unaware of, or indifferent to, the cry of the persecuted Church in many lands. Do they imagine that the Christians who have not been spared persecution, who have lived in some cases for centuries enduring tribulation, are less favored than they?

And, is this attitude consistent with the belief that the material world has been invaded most graciously by the Word, through Whom it was made? Perhaps in a certain kind of Gnostic thinking, the abandonment of the world by God is only fitting. Taking away His saving presence, by His Spirit in the Church, makes perfect sense if the world is essentially evil, the creation of a lesser god who imprisons men in matter and time. At some point, it is not a very difficult idea to leave something that is less than pure because it is less than spirit, and fly away to Heaven. This Gnostic alternative to a firm belief in the Incarnation cannot help but entertain and please those itching ears that have never really heard the words of Genesis 1:31: “And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good.”

In history it is the Church that has proclaimed salvation in many nations, and that has created true civilization in the process. The advancement of every science, including medicine, and the greatest achievements in the arts, have been fostered and refined due to its influence. Without a belief in the goodness of creation, no matter how distorted by sin, and in the Incarnation as the central revelation of God to man, it is not likely that any of this would have taken place. Or, to put it positively, all of the great advances of civilization owe their origins to the work of faithful Christian missionaries. But, the world, without the Incarnation, is dystopian. And, such a world is fit only for destruction, and to be abandoned in some sort of spaceship, flying away to a better world. How fine if that spaceship is piloted by God, and every true believer can be beamed up.

But, as one who sees around me a world full of people lost in sin and death, who need the word of the Gospel so they can believe; who sees around me the glory of the Lord filling the earth in defiance of evil; as one who hopes that our presence as the Body of Christ, and Christ’s presence in us by His Spirit, and by His sacraments, makes the very ground we walk upon holy, I do not want Scotty to beam me up. And, when I consider that those who are “taken” are like the sinners destroyed in the Flood, and those who are left are, therefore, like the family of Noah that was saved by being in the Ark, only one conclusion makes sense: I want to be left behind.

Bran Muffins

The couple were 85 years old, and had been married for sixty years. Though they were far from rich, they managed to get by because they watched their pennies.

Though not young, they were both in very good health, largely due to the wife's insistence on healthy foods and exercise for the last decade.

One day, their good health didn't help when they went on a rare vacation and their plane crashed, sending them off to Heaven.

They reached the pearly gates, and St. Peter escorted them inside. He took them to a beautiful mansion, furnished in gold and fine silks, with a fully stocked kitchen and a waterfall in the master bath. A maid could be seen hanging their favorite clothes in the closet.

They gasped in astonishment when he said, "Welcome to Heaven. This will be your home now."

The old man asked Peter how much all this was going to cost. "Why, nothing," Peter replied, "remember, this is your reward in Heaven."

The old man looked out the window and right there he saw a championship golf course, finer and more beautiful than any ever built on Earth.

"What are the greens fees?", grumbled the old man.

"This is heaven," St. Peter replied. "You can play for free, every day."

Next they went to the clubhouse and saw the lavish buffet lunch, with every imaginable cuisine laid out before them, from seafood to steaks to exotic deserts, free flowing beverages.

"Don't even ask," said St. Peter to the man. "This is Heaven, it is all free for you to enjoy."

The old man looked around and glanced nervously at his wife.

"Well, where are the low fat and low cholesterol foods, and the decaffeinated tea?" he asked.

"That's the best part," St. Peter replied. "You can eat and drink as much as you like of whatever you like, and you will never get fat or sick.

This! is Heaven!"

The old man pushed, "No gym to work out at?"
"Not unless you want to," was the answer
"No testing my sugar or blood pressure or..."
"Never again. All you do here is enjoy yourself."

The old man glared at his wife and said, "You and your bran muffins. We could have been here ten years ago!
>

Sexual disorder and human nature, Clarification

“So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.” Genesis 1:27

“The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican.” Luke 18:11

A few months ago I found myself seated among people whose conversation transgressed against intellectual rigor. To my right was a certain deacon of the Episcopal Church who was still just beginning ECUSA withdraw (we call them “recovering ECUSAns”), and to my left was a layman who had yet to begin his own withdraw. Speaking of one of the bishops of the Episcopal Church, the layman said, “I think he’s really gay, but just doesn’t know it yet.” The recovering “deacon” answered, “I agree.” I tried to explain to both of these men that they had just invented a category of human being that does not exist. My words were wasted on them. Finally, the “deacon” said, “I don’t understand homosexuality.” Then he emitted a nervous chuckle.

I suppose he meant that he could not empathize with it. Neither can I; but I have considered it my duty to try to learn all that I can from genuine psychology, that is the rare and now censored kind that studied human behavior scientifically rather than attempting to fit everything into an overarching theory. How else can I, a priest, minister to “all sorts and conditions of men” in the real world? So, in terms of reading and study, as well as observations in the field when talking to real people of every stripe, both in my ministry and in my former work in hospitals and among discharged patients, I have come to understand the homosexual as well as I possibly can. And, I am not impressed by clergymen who fail to make it their business to study the real world in which sinners live and die. I have had to understand others too, such as drug addicts. The fact that I have never even used illegal drugs, and the fact that I have never had any sort of “same sex attraction,” does not stop me from doing the best I can to know the facts about the sins that enslave people. A real priest knows that the streets are always part of his parish.

These two men assumed that the man of whom they spoke could be “gay” and not know it. Their first mistake is in using the word “gay.” They mean that he is a homosexual. But, most such people are by no means gay, or happy in any way. The folks who have been using the word “gay” are the militant sinners who have “come out of the closet” to boldly proclaim their life of sin and to demand that the rest of us approve, if not applaud. Furthermore, the word “homosexual” is also a word that cannot fail to deceive. There is no such person as a homosexual, since “male and female created He them.” We will return to this point.

What the two men assumed only proved that they had fallen for the lie that pervades modern society. They assumed that a person could be what they call “gay” by nature. Modern people have been pondering the possibility of a “gay gene” for years. But, the idea that same sex attraction is the actual nature of any person remains a bit of fantasy that has no scientific basis, and for which there is no evidence. Much theory has been promulgated, but no facts have been established to support the idea. Far more plausible is the older belief that was based on the only kind of science available to the world of psychology, namely observation of human behavior. Simply put, the causes of this attraction can be explained scientifically only in terms that are psychological, not physical. Furthermore, if a man old enough to be a bishop in ECUSA felt this kind of attraction, he would have known it long ago (and maybe he does). To believe that this disorder is part of human nature denies the teaching of scripture. God made two sexes, not a multiplicity of “genders.”

Their shallow theology matched their shallow science. The major reason that one had left ECUSA, and the other was disgusted with it, was the open acceptance of homosexual sin. The “deacon” had spent years sending children into a Sunday School class taught by a woman who proudly and openly lived with her Lesbian lover and their adopted child. And, he spoke of the children returning every week from Sunday School in time to watch two men from the choir (the recipients of an ECUSAn blessing on their “same sex union”) walk up to the communion rail holding hands. The state of his mind puzzles me. He disapproved of something he thought to be an expression of their true natures, rather than willful sin. In the shallowness of this kind of theology, was he assuming that people are in danger of damnation due to their nature, instead of their sin? Did God make them to be this way, and furthermore in order to damn them, whether or not they committed the acts of sin that would be the fruit of such an alleged nature?

I have said there is no such thing as a homosexual (or Lesbian), because God has made only two sexes, male and female.* However, it certainly must seem to the person who experiences same sex attraction that the feelings come from nature. In one sense they do. The male who feels these things feels the same kind of attraction as all other men, and it is stimulated by what he sees or what he thinks, as with all other men. The female also feels the attraction according to the same impulses felt by other women. In both cases the feelings are natural to men and women; what is not natural, however, is the source of the attraction itself, the attraction to one’s own sex instead of the opposite sex. Furthermore, the psychological state that produces this disorder is not a sin in itself, but rather a temptation experienced by a minority of individuals. The temptation itself is never a sin.

Accordingly, the Church has never taught that individuals who experience such feelings and temptations are somehow special objects of God’s wrath, or that they cannot live by God’s grace in such a way as to rise above the temptation and overcome it. The moral consideration is always a question of behavior. Obviously, a person can acquire culpability by placing himself in a state of temptation rather than avoiding it, as is the case with everybody living about every kind of sin there is. The saint is the one who loves God and so overcomes temptation by resisting it, and often the saint has had to repent and be forgiven for past sins before learning to stand firm. In this sense, the person with same sex attraction is no different from the person who has to fight temptations to adultery or fornication, or perhaps pornography and self-abuse. But, it is here that everyone must consider the promise our Lord made repeatedly in the opening chapters of the Book of Revelation to the one who overcomes.

When we speak of homosexuals and heterosexuals, we abuse language and imply that different natures exist other than the two sexes. For this reason, modern people use the word “gender” incorrectly. This word applies to the use of language, specifically articles as they are in most languages other than English. It is not a word with biological, but rather linguistic definition. The purpose in using the word “gender” for human beings is to avoid the fact that we come in only two sexes. No man is a homosexual, but some men are sodomites; and this speaks to the only genuine issue of morality, namely behavior. The Bible does not speak of people in this category, but of acts. People are always “male and female.”

The fact is established that many people claim that their same sex attraction has been cured. For others, such an approach has not worked. From a moral perspective, if someone is cured of same sex attraction only to become an adulterer or fornicator, nothing good has come out of it. One sin is traded for another, one life of sin for another. On the other hand, if someone seeks such a cure and receives it in order to enter into a true and valid marriage, to have children and take a godly place in that vocation, then something good has been achieved. However, to treat such a cure as good in itself, without moral improvement, or without the grace of the marriage sacrament, is not acceptable and orthodox moral theology.

Finally, my colleague Fr. Matthew Kirby made a statement that seems to have been misunderstood. In recent comments he wrote: “all human sexuality is disordered from the Fall onwards, like everything else.” This was a theological statement, and a true one at that. When his position was criticized, I defended it with these words:

“When Fr. Kirby speaks of disordered sexuality as a universal condition of the Fall, his theology is completely correct. It was a theological statement, not a theory from psychology. If not for this general disorder, each man would have the grace to want only his own wife, and no other woman, even in the most random thoughts and the most involuntary and fleeting urge. So, too, the woman for her husband. The Fall was the Fall from Grace **, and without that grace our urges fell from the perfect goodness of the image of God to something more basic and more of the nature of the animal. Fr. Kirby is quite right, therefore, in what he wrote.”

* Rare cases of the biological androgyne, where both kinds of genitalia (one inside, hidden and very small) are present in the same person, do not qualify as an argument against this teaching, any more than a person born blind indicates that it is the nature of human beings not to see. Furthermore, the biological androgyne really is one sex or the other, with extra genitalia probably due to a twin that never separated into a distinct person, and it can be corrected surgically. There have been other findings of deceased embryonic twins inside of a person.

** In a future post, I mean to explain the word “grace” as the Church has always understood it (a bigger subject than many Protestants have understood.)

The Collect - Trinity IX

The Collect

Largire nobis, quaesumus, Domine, semper spiritum cogitandi quae recta sunt, propitius et agendi: ut qui sine te esse non possumus, secundum te vivere valeamus. (From the Leonine Sacramentary appointed for the 8th Sunday after Trinity)

GRAUNT to us Lorde we beseche thee, the spirite to thinke and doe alwayes suche thynges as be rightfull; that we, which cannot be without thee, may by thee be able to live accordyng to thy wyll; Through Jesus Christe our Lorde. (1549 BCP)

GRANT to us, Lord, we beseech thee, the spirit to think and do always such things as be rightful; that we, who cannot do any thing that is good without thee, may by thee be enabled to live according to thy will; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen. (1662 BCP)

The Commentary

This collect asks for the spirit of right thought and right action, which spirit reflects the will of the Triune God. I’m struck that the Latin is “spiritum cogitandi” and not “Spiritui Sancto” which would refer to the third Person of the Trinity. Are we asking for other than the Holy Spirit in this prayer? It appears so. The Scholasticism of the medieval church is apparent in this spiritum cogitandi, yet Cranmer refocuses the prayer on the Triune God by adding these words: “by thee”.

Perhaps Philippians 4:8, with emphasis on thinking virtuous thoughts, is the backdrop of “spiritum cogitandi” while Cranmer sees as a necessary backdrop Ephesians 1:3-14. By adding “by thee” Cranmer strengthens the allusion to the Trinitarian action described in Ephesians.

The 1662 wording: “cannot do any thing that is good without thee”, reflects the Enlightenment and the Philippians reference more than the Ephesians reference. The ECUSA 1979 prayer book follows Cranmer, with these words: “who cannot exist without thee.” (Here is a rare instance of the Standing Liturgical Commission getting it right!)


The Meditation

Right thoughts and actions, those that are according to God’s will, are prompted and empowered by grace. More than that, our very existence is by that same grace which fills all things. Paul teaches that those who have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ and our lives are hidden in Christ. This being so, every virtuous thought and every good thing is to the praise of Christ Jesus, our Lord.

We do well to remember this when we feel proud of being good, for only as we give credit fully to God’s grace at work in and through all things, do we as Christians have an authentic witness.

--------------------------Alice C. Linsley

Just for a laugh

I sing a song of the saints of God
From all faiths as equ'lly true
Regardless of race or color or creed
They're as worthy as me or you.
And one is a Muslim
And one is a Jew
And one is a Buddhist
And one a Hindu.
They are all of them saints of God, we presume
On God's grace for ourselves too.

Where Are Our Monks?

La Grande Chartreuse

I strongly commend to you a post on O Cuniculi, which is a most moving address given in 1977 by Dom Gerard, then prior of the Monastery of Sainte-Madeleine-a-Bedoin. Do read it all here, and then ask with me, where are our monks?

Here are some excerpts:

"A religion which is not contemplative is unworthy of God. So because he interests himself in God above all, the monk not only points to God, not only testifies to Him, he bear witness to the excellence of God. The God whom the majority of men forget - it is He whom the monk makes the centre of his life. The only thing that interests him, the only interesting thing in the world for him, is God. A monk is thus simply someone who has been ravished by the thought - by more than the thought of God; the monk has been caught up by the very sweetness of God, by the goodness of God, by the beauty of God. So he reaches out to seize hold immediately, in this present life, of what others lose sight of and end by encountering, sometimes too late, at the moment of death, on the threshold of eternity....

"(The monastic institution) reminded men that there is another world, the world of God. The sacred penetrated human institutions. It shaped the piety of Christians, because our West, however sick it is, however decadent because unfaithful to its vocation, has nevertheless received a seal, an impression that has marked it forever: it was the first monks sent out by the Benedictine Pope St. Gregory the Great who completed the evangelisation of Europe. He sent them to England, to the Friesians in Germany, to Spain and as far as Scandinavia. St. Maurus, the first disciple of our Father St. Benedict, had already planted the Benedictine monastic life among the Gauls. These missionary monks were sent not at first to preach, because at the beginning that was impossible, but to live their monastic life among the pagans. They founded monasteries, they lived the Rule of St. Benedict, they taught men how to work. It is good when a man works well, when he does a beautiful piece of work. They taught men to read in a beautiful book which the pagans did not know, the book of Holy Scripture. And, above all they taught them how to pray, thanks to the liturgical river which flows throughout the year and which is the best school of prayer.

"In this way, Western Christianity was moulded by the first Benedictine monks. And something of it remains, something not always found on other continents where Anglo-Saxon Protestantism has placed its mark, where temporal success is considered a blessing from God, where luck evidently has its place. With us, it is not the same pattern. In our West, sick as it is (it is perhaps stricken to death), despite our degradation, our surrenders, there is a sense of God, a spiritual quest. Why? Because it is in our blood. It was instilled into us in our cradle. Our civilisation was signed by the Benedictines in the early centuries. They laid stress on the gratuitousness of divine service on disinterested love. And I believe it is this which will save the world..."

The Power of Language

Authenticity and the Speech of Mordor

Fr. Robert Hart

I. Authenticity

In July of this year, Pope Benedict XVI issued the Apostolic Letter, Motu Proprio. The letter gives to all Roman Catholic priests direct permission to celebrate the latest edition of the Tridentine Mass (1962), namely, the traditional Latin Mass that was standard throughout the Roman Catholic Church for centuries. It is not required, but permitted. Reactions ranged from jubilant praise to expressions of sorrow. Bishop Luca Brandolini, called a “progressive bishop” by Inside the Vatican Magazine, mourned the decision: “I will obey the Pontiff, but it is a day of grief. The reform [of Vatican II] is canceled." His reaction does not take into account the fact that Pope Benedict has consistently rejected a picture of Vatican II as a dividing line that separates the flow of Catholic Tradition, teaching and practice.

Readers Of The Ratzinger Report (a series of interviews with then Cardinal Ratzinger by Vittorio Messori published in book form in 1985) should recall that the current pope has always rejected as false the idea of a pre-conciliar and post-conciliar Church. He himself attended the Council as a priest and theologian alongside of Henri de Lubac and has always insisted that Vatican II is not the actual cause of modern liturgical and doctrinal confusion. It was, in his view, simply misunderstood- some might say, abused. In this light, the recent Apostolic Letter should come as no surprise. Furthermore, its implications address a pattern that is larger than the Roman Catholic Church, visible among other western liturgical churches, notably among various kinds of Anglicans, where a common perception of Rome’s lead was imitated, but to a degree far more radical and extreme.

During the 1960s and 70s, after Vatican II, Catholic Church leaders began to transform liturgy into something deemed relevant to the changing times. With the advent of the Novus Ordo, Anglicans were moved to make changes as well, beginning with experimental services and then whole new versions of Holy Communion and the Daily Offices. When the Episcopal Church in the United States drew from these services to produce a new Prayer Book in 1979, traditional Episcopalians objected that it was not a new edition of the Book of Common Prayer, though bearing that title, but rather something new and different. Along with changes to the frequently used services, its Psalter is not a faithful translation of Hebrew (which I can judge for myself); neither are other parts faithful to Greek and Latin. And, the Confirmation Rite no longer contains the same meaning.

The opposite response of Bishop Brandolini, namely the sincerely grateful and joyful response to Motu Proprio, fits another pattern as well. Pope Benedict, in separate letter about Motu Proprio answers the desire of many Catholics, old and young alike, to be allowed a return to the Tridentine Mass, and also mentions the separatist movement led by Archbishop Lefebvre that broke from Rome over the issue of fidelity to the old Missal. Here, too, is a pattern, for it brings to mind the Continuing Church movement in Anglicanism that broke away from the Episcopal Church in the U.S. and the Anglican Church in Canada in 1977 over such issues as women’s “ordination” and foreboding about the new Prayer Book of ‘79 (the Continuing movement has spread to other countries). The issues in the Anglican churches were more radical and severe than in Roman Catholicism, and the Continuing Church movement therefore truly necessary. However, in both cases, the same question arises. What is it that people of various ages, old and young alike, are seeking in older forms of worship? What do traditionalists have in common?

To say they are seeking orthodoxy is misleading, because it requires evidence that newer forms are inherently unorthodox, an argument that is, at best, difficult to make. The burden of proof lies on those who condemn the Novus Ordo Mass, or the Rite II Holy Communion as “heterodox rites,” and I have seen no convincing argument for the charge. The answer is less extreme. What traditionalists are seeking is something authentic. New ideas and new forms may catch on, and endure; or, they may not. However, the Tridentine Mass, the Book of Common Prayer, and I will add, the Byzantine Liturgy, are among things known, tried and true. They are authentic. We can add that the Vulgate and the King James Bible, Gregorian Chants and Bach Cantatas, and a host of prayers, devotions and hymns, having stood the test of time as well, have an authenticity that gives them a superior place to all new and experimental forms.

Each of these authentic forms and usages was new once, and compared to ancient forms that were first in Aramaic (or very possibly older Hebrew, since Jews were comfortable with this as the language of scripture and of prayer), every liturgy has been through a process of reception by the people. For example, The Book of Common Prayer was met with violence in Cornwall when it was first introduced. But, in time authenticity is established due, in no small part, to orthodoxy of doctrine, a focus on the essentials, and uplifting sound combined with profound meaning that can be produced only by carefully chosen use of words.

By far, the most important element of liturgical and devotional authenticity is language, because language has power. To quote Pope Benedict’s letter that accompanies the actual Apostolic Letter:

"In the history of the liturgy there is growth and progress, but no rupture. What earlier generations held as sacred, remains sacred and great for us too, and it cannot be all of a sudden entirely forbidden or even considered harmful. It behooves all of us to preserve the riches which have developed in the Church's faith and prayer, and to give them their proper place."

However, the same cannot be said with certainty about experimental forms, especially since we must add translations of the Bible to liturgy, indeed as a necessary part of the liturgy. After all, these are things that go hand in hand; they cannot be separated. Therefore, we must think carefully about the power of language itself. This is the power to teach or to deceive.

II. The Speech of Mordor

To appreciate fully why people want to pray with authentic forms, we should consider how extreme the consequences may be when they cannot, which means looking at more problematic examples than we have considered until now. These include consequences of using language for scripture and prayer that misleads, distorts and confuses. And, it is this rather than simply a new approach, that is the true opposite of liturgical authenticity. Although I have said that traditional Christians are looking for authenticity, and to identify their quest as a desire for orthodoxy may be difficult to prove, it is not hard to prove when we turn to the harder case. The harder case is among some of the churches of the Anglican Communion, where the attempt to imitate post Vatican II Roman Catholicism, by putting a high premium on perceived relevance, developed into radical and consequential errors.

The Episcopal Church still uses the 1979 Prayer Book, and normally the New Revised Standard Version of the Bible. This new Prayer Book replaced the tradition of English Prayer, a simplified Regula by which the Anglican faithful were called to live, with a book of public services. Most of these services were not revised editions of the Book of Common Prayer, with a powerful and majestic language rooted in the entire Christian Tradition, often translated from Latin, always drawn from the scriptures according to the understanding of the saints of past ages. Instead, some of the new services were contrived to be relevant in their use of modern idioms and words. And, the Psalter was mistranslated into socially acceptable and new usages of language. As Dr. Peter Toon pointed out, speaking near Baltimore Maryland in or around 1990, with the use of the mistranslated Psalms “there can be no revival; because this is not the word of the Lord.” He pointed out that the first error was in Psalm 1, where “the Man” was now “they who.” The Man, as the Fathers of the Church taught, was Jesus Christ. But, “the Man” was thrown out in favor of Gender Inclusive Language, and replaced with a plural, “they,” for an individual of either sex (popular, but grammatically wrong, and in this case theologically empty).

In the 1982 Hymnal of the Episcopal Church a modern hymn changes the Lord’s own promise from the sixth chapter of John: “I will raise him up on the last day.” Using a rule common to all classical language, the Lord’s promise is to the individual who truly believes and partakes of the food of eternal life. The “Gender Inclusive” version, “I will raise them up on the Last day” gives no promise to the individual about his own soul- or even about her own soul. It speaks of a collective, and just how many of “them” will be raised cannot be known. The New Revised Standard Version of the Bible, is also riddled with mistranslation. For example, the Book of Malachi says “he will turn the hearts of the fathers to the children.” But, the NRSV arbitrarily mistranslates the Hebrew word for “fathers” as “parents.” There is simply no justification for this. 1

Language of contrived relevance and very modern usage, cannot be used for the Bible and liturgy without violence to the meaning and spirit. This new language, if used for prayer and scripture, is futile at best, and unavoidably deceptive in its effect. Feminism and Gender Inclusive Language combine into a tongue that defies interpretation. As Gandalf was hesitant to speak the language of Mordor in Rivendell, no one can proclaim the word of the Lord in “newspeak.” Saint Paul could speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but the new kind of socially acceptable language seems more like the tongue of demons; it has no word that is understood to mean agape or caritas, since “love,” is too general. Traditional believers are not comfortable praying in this new tongue, and do not want translations of the word of God into such dark and imprisoned language. For them it distorts truth and destroys beauty, muddles all true communication, and twists everything into a lie. It has no word for caritas, because it has no usage of “Father” as the One Who defines love by Himself.

We possess numerous translations, words that cannot exactly haunt us because they are always fresh and alive, though coming from generations long fallen asleep in the dust of the earth. Saint Jerome wrote about his time in the desert: “The flesh I might try to break with frequent fasting: but my mind was seething with imagination: so to tame it, I gave myself up for training to one of the brethren, a Hebrew who had come to the faith. And, so after the subtlety of Quintilian, the flowing of Cicero, the gravity of Fronto and the gentleness of Pliny, I began to learn another alphabet, and meditate on words that hissed and words that gasped.” As Helen Waddell reflected, “the final vintage was to be the Vulgate translation of the Old Testament: he was still working on Hebrew in his old age.”2 As in ancient times, the gift of the Holy Scriptures is only preserved by learning tongues of old, from before the times of our fathers.

The discipline used when translating the King James Bible, for example, flowed naturally from reverence that had motivated Christians of earlier generations to choose words carefully. “Translated out of the original tongues, and with the former translations diligently compared and revised.” In other words, the translators were quite able to make corrections, because they knew Hebrew and Greek. But, they did not take it upon themselves simply to disregard former translations, so when they made changes, it was never arbitrary. But, modern translations, to the extent that many of them can rightly be called translations, too often corrupt their work by contrived relevance. If there is one place above all where we must turn the issue of relevance around, and learn again to apply discipline to our minds so that it is we who become relevant to another’s instruction, it is hearing the word of the Lord. And, if there is one place where our words must be studied and based upon revealed truth, it is in bearing our souls before the throne of the Almighty as we pray.

I am not suggesting that a return to older forms, such as the Tridentine Mass, is the only way to avoid this problem. That would be simplistic and naïve, and require that we embrace a false assertion. But, one advantage to remaining true to authentic forms and translations, updating language and customs only with great care and fidelity and only when truly useful, is the safety of orthodoxy. Authenticity of language helps to avoid error and insure true instruction in the Faith.

To translate the first commandment literally, we are forbidden to have other gods in the Lord’s presence- that is before His face (al-Peni). The only true God, and Jesus Christ whom He has sent, along with the other Comfortable, are revealed in the Name spoken by the risen Christ: The Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. This is the Name into which we are baptized. But, this Name is regarded as offensive in the new language, and by invocation of contrived relevance we are bidden not to speak it. Changing the traditions, including the traditional use of language, may appear to make the message more relevant. But, the cost needs to be weighed. When things go too far, the cost is that of knowing God as He is revealed. Which means the cost of contrived relevance through distortion of language is life eternal (John 17:3), a cost that we must decline to pay.

1) The first mistranslation in the NRSV combines the first two verses of Genesis into one sentence, by adding wrongly the word "when," as if the world existed before God’s creation. “In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth, the earth was without form…” The Hebrew simply does not justify this “translation” either. The first two sentences are not joined in the original Hebrew. The older “And, the earth was without form and void...” is literally correct, and it cannot be used to suggest Pantheism.

2) Helen Waddell, The Desert Fathers, (New York, 1998), p.33

Even More on Marriage

The Most Rev. Mark Haverland, Metropolitan of the ACC, sent me a link to an old newsletter (April 2004) from St. Stephen's Anglican Catholic Church in Athens, Ga. Considering some of the discussion that has been going on in the More on Marriage and Annulments article I posted (which has included very good and stimulating insights from Canon John Hollister and Fr. Samuel Edwards), I am posting the link here to Archbishop Haverland's article. It is in PDF format, but PDF from Acrobat reader is free and easy to install. Furthermore, it is a newsletter that continues on with Parish information that is more than three years old. However, I am posting the link because the insights are well worth the little time it takes to read them. It addresses in quite frank terms the very real difference between what Christians know marriage to be, and what society in general has been doing to the whole meaning of the word.

I quote part of it here:

The claims of same-sex couples and polygamists to social and legal recognition as ‘married’ simply shows the incoherence that already is present. If marriage is simply a temporary arrangement for the mutual and private gratification of its participants, then its definition is entirely private and its redefinition is available to anyone who wants to use the term and claim the social benefits. Why should the rest of us subsidize such private and transitory arrangements?

In fact the deepest damage to marriage as traditionally understood has not been wrought by gay couples or by fringe Mormon groups. The deepest damage to marriage is the work of couples who want everything: the personal conveniences and enjoyments along with the legal and social advantages of marriage, but also freedom from any truly binding responsibilities, freedom to personal fulfilment above all other goals, freedom to drop a marriage that has become inconvenient or irksome, and even the freedom while married to break any and all of the promises and vows one made at its outset...

Again, you may read the rest here.

Taking This Bull by the Horns

Do your damndest

I have learned that at least one of the clergy of the Diocese of the Southwestern States, Anglican Province of Christ the King, has written to a correspondent of mine to say that, in addition to what I have reported about my dismissal from the Church of the Atonement, there are “other issues” about me. Furthermore, a priest in the Diocese of the Western States, to be exact in California (yes, you know who you are) told the former chancellor of the whole APCK that he knows “the real story” about me.

Well doggone fellas, don’t keep me in the dark. None of the priests of the APCK has anything of mine to keep under the seal, since my confessor was a Roman Catholic priest the whole time. So, you are all free to say anything and everything that you know. And remember, truth is the one valid defense in cases of slander or libel. But, if any one of you claims to be keeping anything under the seal, I give permission to make it all public. You can use the comments right here (just watch your language)- everyone from his Grace, Frederick the Bishop, to the most junior priest- or a layman- anybody. I really want to hear “the real story” and “other issues.” Was I ordained by the “Dead Hand”? Was I a bank robber? Do I kick dogs? Do I have a secret second wife and family hidden from the little woman? Am I really Baby Face Nelson, finally exposed after all these years? What, pray tell, is the juicy scandal?

Let ‘er rip! Do your damndest!

ON OTHER FRONTS

The Barking Toad is a blog that has been inactive for about two years, but is suddenly bursting with activity. The Toad himself has not revealed his identity; but it seems he knows a lot. I get the idea he was in on some sensitive information.

The Collect, Trinity VIII

The Latin Collect

(this collect is appointed in the Tridentine Missal for 7th after Pentecost)

Deus, cujus providentua in sui dispisitione non falitur: te supplices exoramus; ut noxia cincta submoveas, et omnia nobis profutura concedas.

The 1549 Collect

GOD, whose providence is never deceived, we humbly beseche thee that thou wilt put away from us al hurtfull thinges, and geve [us]* those thinges whiche be profitable for us; through Jesus Christe our Lorde.



The 1662 Collect

O GOD, whose never-failing providence ordereth all things both in heaven and earth; We humbly beseech thee to put away from us all hurtful things, and to give us those things which be profitable for us; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.



Meditation

The first clause of this collect reminds us of God's providence, which has a two-fold completeness. It is "never-failing", that is without limit in time (or ongoing effectiveness), and "ordereth all things both in heaven and earth", and so extends throughout the universe. Providence refers to God's ongoing care, preservation, and ordering (according to His overarching wisdom and plan) of Creation. It is seen as mainly expressed through everyday, natural causes rather than overtly supernatural miracles, which are often put in a different category. Because God sees the end from the beginning He has been able to do a great deal of "ordering" of what happens through setting up the natural conditions and laws in such a way as to achieve certain outcomes. It is good to know that our infinitely wise God is in final control, but there a number of things that we need to remember that Divine Providence does not mean.



It does not mean God directly causes or chooses everything, including evil. Instead, He allows room for angelic and human free will to choose and produce good or evil, and then is able to, in the long term, bring good even out of evil. It does not mean all justice is done within this universe. Divine Providence within this Creation does not "tie up all loose ends" because it never intended to. And providence does not mean we will get everything we want or even seem to need, though God does provide for us. We cannot see the bigger picture like He can, and we have trouble understanding (and believing) that what is best for eternal life may appear sub-standard here and now!



This brings us to the second part of the collect, the supplication. We ask God to "put away from us all hurtful things" and "give us those things which be profitable". Our first instinct is to see this as a prayer for avoidance of pain and provision of happiness. And I'm sure God doesn't mind us asking for that. But what is painful can sometimes be profitable, and outward happiness can in some circumstances be hurtful to the soul. "Be careful what you ask for" the saying goes! In the end, while God loves to bless people and does not willingly afflict us (Lam. 3.33), what He wants most for us is the eternal joy of union with Him. Sometimes that may involve difficult journeys. May we trust Him and His loving Providence throughout.

TRINITY VIII 2003 The Sunday after the Episcopal Church's General Convention of 2003, wherein Mr. Robinson's consecration was approved.

Wolf in Sheep's Clothing
(from fotosearch)

This week the sermon at St. Andrew's will be preached by another priest with whom I have the honor of serving. This seems like a good time to publish an "oldie but goodie." I consider it to be no coincidence what the Gospel was for the Sunday that followed the ECUSA (or TEC) General Convention of 2003. At that GC the Episcopal Church had approved Vickie Gene Robinson to become a bishop, and approved the "blessing of same sex unions." Normally, we could ignore that sect, but the news was screaming word to all the world right then, and new people were coming to us looking for answers.

TRINITY VIII 2003

Ecclus. 1:18-27
Psalm 119: 33-48
Rom. 8: 12-17
Matt. 7:15-21

If I were of the sort to mince words the scriptures appointed for this day, appointed long ago by remarkable providence it seems, would not give me that option. So, if I had a word mincer I would have to keep it unplugged; but you may rest assured that the priests of this diocese, under the leadership of our bishop, have no such appliance. The Gospel reading from St. Matthew tells us to “beware of false prophets,” not simply to consider the possibility of their existence. They do exist, and we must be on our guard, so our Lord warns us.

“Beware of false prophets which come to you in sheep’s clothing...” A con man with a dishonest face has no chance of success; neither does a wolf if he comes among sheep who possess reason, unless he looks as pleasant and harmless as they. Jesus has told us what to expect, of what to beware. The scriptures speak of false teachers, of doctrines of demons, of the spirit of Antichrist, and the spirit of error. But here the specific phrase is used, “false prophets.”

We must beware of those who claim a higher wisdom that teaches something different from what has been held everywhere, always and by all. To them the Tradition of the Church, what it has believed in every age and place, suffers from defects that require the better and higher way shown by some new prophet.

This is convenient for them, because a prophet is hearing the truth directly from God. Furthermore, a prophet can claim to be the one who enlightens with the new paradigm, God’s new epoch for all mankind. As such, he can claim that he is persecuted by the unenlightened bigots who hold to the past, and who act upon a need to remain secure within the old epoch.

He can claim that he follows the Lord and the apostles, as well as the Old Testament prophets, and that all criticism of his “new revelations” are in fact the cruelty and evil of those who persecute him. For so persecuted they the prophets that were before him. He is the messenger of that light that comes Once to Every Man and Nation: “New occasions teach new duties, and time makes ancient good uncouth.”

The use of this method allows him to appropriate Biblical phrases, adopt a Biblical persona, but completely reject the content of everything that the Bible actually teaches. He can contradict every true prophet, the apostles and the Lord, by denying everything for which every real martyr died; and then he can claim that his detractors are malicious. The fact that the Lord Jesus said that the ones who believed Moses and the prophets would be His own followers, and that we would recognize false prophets by the fruit of false teaching, does not make any difference to the apostate in prophetic disguise, in sheep’s clothing. He claims to be wearing the mantle of the same Elijah who would have had him beheaded at the brook Kishon.

What do we see in the scriptures appointed for this day, appointed long ago? (I say “long ago” because we use the lectionary of the 1928 Book of Common Prayer, which was not new at the time.) From Sirach, in Ecclesiasticus, we learn that wisdom is essentially a moral attribute, as we learn in all the Wisdom literature of the Bible. It is not in sophistication, the rich man’s sophistry, but rather it is found in humility; it begins with the fear of God. The same lesson is taught to us in the 119th Psalm, adding the simple fact that this wisdom comes only to those who love the truth, and who seek it in the word of God- in fact those who hunger for that word. And from St Paul’s Epistle to the Romans we learn that we must become the servants of righteousness, and turn away from self-destructive lusts; that we must live in and by the Spirit.

The true prophetic spirit can speak in only the same way. The idea that what is new is prophetic, and what is old is not, is a lie. Indeed, the reverse is true. As Isaiah said, “To the Law and to the testimony, if they speak not according to this word, they have no light in them.” As Jesus said, “if they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded though one rise from the dead.” “If you believed Moses’ words you would believe Me, for he wrote of Me.” Those who reject the Law and the prophets, yet claim to speak for Jesus, cannot be true prophets. Neither can those who reject the apostles, to whom He said, “He who receives you receives Me.”

The idea that the Holy Spirit is always leading us into some new thing hitherto unknown is a heresy, based upon a notion of a god who is using creation in order to grow and to fulfil his potential. But, our God, the Father of Jesus Christ, is perfect, complete and in need of nothing; He does not grow or change. He is not capricious; He does not adjust, or change with the times. He is the Ancient of Days, from Everlasting to everlasting He is God, Only Wise and blessed forever.

In the Incarnation of the Word, God entered time in the Person of Jesus Christ by taking His creation, the fulness of human nature, into His uncreated and eternal Person, by the Holy Ghost, of the Virgin Mary. There is nothing to add to His revelation of the Father, and certainly nothing to adjust. The truth was delivered once for all to the saints, and for it we must earnestly contend. The revelation of God is perfect in Jesus Christ.

Well, this brings me to the news of this past week- reluctantly I might add; for when I start speaking of the glorious Incarnation I hate to lower my sights to any other topic. I have been asked during the past week, as probably has every Anglican priest, to give my opinion. Simply put, you can change the rules of a country club, but not of the Church. I had a conversation with a young law student this past week, a sincere fellow who was telling me that we must take a view on this Gene Robinson issue somewhere “in the middle”- this is what we cannot do. I asked him the simple question: “Do you believe that your religion is revealed by God or fashioned by men?” He is a Lutheran, and answered “I believe the former.” Well, then, we cannot change it.

I look with sadness at the church in which I grew up, in which I was baptized into Christ in 1958, in which I was confirmed, in which all my children were baptized into Christ, and I see that many of them do not believe in God anymore; at least not in the eternal unchanging God Who has revealed Himself in Christ. I must conclude, based upon the words of Jesus which you have heard me quote, that those who will not hear Moses and the prophets, and who reject the apostles, do not believe Jesus Christ- they are not persuaded though One has risen from the dead.

I must digress a bit further. I heard some of the bishops who voted to allow the consecration of Gene Robinson as a bishop, on news programs. They showed their willingness to give Moses and the Law, to use a slang term from old gangster films, a “bum wrap.” They slung false accusations at the Torah. “After all, the Bible was used” they said “to justify slavery.” Was it now? That is fascinating, because Deuteronomy forbids the very idea of slavery, commanding that any servant fleeing from his master is not to be treated as property- he is not to be forcibly returned. There is no Hebrew word that means “slave”, despite some of the newer translations trying to squeeze such a word into the Old Testament where it does not fit. Or maybe they were referring to New Testament passages which treat the reality of slavery as a fact of life under the Pagan brutality of Rome, something the Christians had no power to change. Who knows which they meant? Either way they were wrong, and this was due to their eagerness to defame the Bible and the people who were involved in its writing.

And that was the point, grasping for straws to prove that ancient good is uncouth, that their god is realizing his potential, and that we are not as wise as they. They were presenting gnostic heresy, that is claiming a right to teach “secret knowledge” which only they, the sophisticated and initiated could possess. And they want us to know how much contempt we ought to have for the ancient scriptures; how much contempt they have for everyone who believes the scriptures.

Is charity, namely the love which comes from God and is the sign of His Spirit working in the human heart, served by affirming people in their sins? Did Jesus lack charity when He spoke the hard truth to the Pharisees, calling them a brood of vipers who would not escape the damnation of hell if they continued in their hardness of heart? Did St. Paul lack charity when he commanded the Corinthian Church to expel from its midst an immoral man, and then later commanded them to take him back because he had repented with genuine sorrow? All of this was the expression of charity, spoken in a kind of pain that very few are willing to understand.

To quote Dr. Mouneer Anis, the Bishop of Egypt:"We cannot comprehend a decision to elect as bishop a man who has forsaken his wife and the vows he made to her in order to live in a sexual relationship with another man outside the bonds of marriage." That is a good statement, for it makes the point that this man cannot, by his life, set forth the teaching of the Church about the sacrament of matrimony, which is vitally important.

Nonetheless, I must ask, is the real scandal simply the fact that Gene Robinson was, by this vote, approved to be made a bishop? No. Before this scandal there was another scandal, namely that he had no bishop who loved him as God loves; neither do the majority of bishops in his church have this love for him. As St. Paul describes it: “charity rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth”.

For true charity, the love of God, would have been expressed in calling him to repent of his sin, the sin of abandoning his wife and children. It would have extended whatever pastoral care is needed to help him recover and heal, instead of affirming a self-destructive, unnatural and immoral relationship. If necessary- meaning if still he would not repent- love, as God loves, would have brought about his unfrocking and even excommunication. How else can we make known the seriousness of eternal matters, of the value of a man’s soul, both to that man himself and to others under the Church’s pastoral care? The greatest harm done in this whole mess is not to the Anglican Communion, or to the Episcopal Church, but to the soul of an unrepentant sinner. And then, by extension, it is the harm done by telling others, by this example, that they need not repent of their sins either.

It is the harm done by those who, as enemies of the cross of Christ, are sending the message that to follow Christ means to feel good, and to affirm ourselves in this temporary and transitory life. It is done by those who encourage thirsty people to drink the seawater, so that their desire becomes intense, until they are dominated by insatiable cravings which are death to all who indulge them. It is, possibly, to blaspheme the Holy Ghost by calling good evil and evil good, until they cause not only themselves, but all their flock to perish. This is the great harm done by false prophets. Beware of them.

I can conclude only by promising you this: We, the clergy of the Anglican Diocese of the Chesapeake are committed to speaking the truth in love. We do not promise that we can affirm you or make you feel good. What comforts we can give we will give by the sacraments and by the Word of God. The challenges we may have to give in calling you to change, or to turn away from sin, will be in faithfulness to you and according to God’s word. We do not promise to be infallible or perfect; but, we do intend, by God’s grace, always to be faithful to the scriptures as understood by the Church in its Tradition. Jesus said that the Spirit of Truth would guide the Church into all truth; and we know also that the Spirit of Truth cannot contradict Himself, for truth is eternal and unchanging. We will endeavor always to hold to what has been held everywhere, always and by all.

And to this end we ask for your help, for your honesty if you believe we are failing you. And we ask above all for your prayers.

And now unto God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Ghost be ascribed, as is most justly due, all might, majesty, dominion, power and glory, now and forever. Amen.

Who is This Jesus?

I would say it is no coincidence that, after much discussion in recent days about the need to increase the focus on evangelism, I discovered that a series of practically oriented courses is being organised by the Anglican Communion Network.

I am having trouble with the overall link, but here is one to the first conference, to be held in Gainesville, Florida (home of my alma mater) on August 24.

Dr. Michael Green, renowned evangelist and author of over 50 books on evangelism and discipleship, is the lead speaker/trainer. The Good News Core Team of speakers also includes:

The Rt. Rev. Keith Ackerman, Bishop of Quincy and President of Forward-in-Faith North America
Mrs. Rosemary Green, wife and ministry partner of Dr. Green for over 50 years
Miss Carrie Boren, Missioner for Evangelism, Diocese of Dallas
The Rev. Cn. Daryl Fenton, Chief Operating Officer for the ACN
Mrs. Jenny Noyes, Coordinator for Evangelism for the ACN

Each conference is planned with a team of local clergy and lay volunteers so the conferences can be tailored to meet the specific needs of that region.

Following Gainesville, here are the other venues and dates:

Bluffton, SC - September 14–16, 2007
Akron, OH - September 28–30, 2007
Savannah, GA - October 5–7, 2007 (Registration open.)
Hamilton, MA - October 25–28, 2007
San Jose, CA - November 14–16, 2007 (Live videofeed available.)
Metro DC (Herndon, VA) - Feb. 8–10, 2008 (Live videofeed available.)

Some Apologetics

There have been a number of claims made over the past few years that modern neuroscience undermines the Christian faith. For those interested in this area, here are two papers I have written related to this controversy.

NEUROSCIENCE VS RELIGION?

Quantum Mechanics, the Mind and Free Will

An Imprimatur

Archbishop Mark Haverland, Metropolitan of the Original Province of the Anglican Catholic Church, has told me he fully supports the post below, More on Alleged Donatism, and has given permission to note this approval publicly.

Now It's Official

The following report was written by Auburn Faber Traycik. I have been sitting on this until it appeared on Virtue Online

JUST WEEKS after an Anglican Province of Christ the King (APCK) bishop voiced serious frustration with longstanding divisions in the mainstream Continuing Church, he and nearly all parishes and clergy of his diocese have left the APCK for the Anglican Church in America (ACA). In a July 23 letter lamenting the APCK's failure to advance dialogue begun with the ACA and another leading Continuing body, the Anglican Catholic Church (ACC), a few years ago, Eastern States Bishop Rocco Florenza told new APCK Archbishop James Provence that 12 of the 14 congregations in the eastern diocese are realigning with the ACA, and that he is going with them...

See the rest here.

Bishop Florenza's letter to the bishops of the Province of Christ the King:

Dear Archbishop Provence:

This letter is to advise you and bishops Wiygul and Morrison that I have received notification that the following parishes and missions within my diocese have elected to separate from the Province of Christ the King and have affiliated with the Anglican Church in America , a body of faithful, traditional Anglicans with whom we are in communion:

1. Anglican Church of the Resurrection, Ansonia, CT
2. Anglican Church of the Ascension, Manchester, CT
3. Holy Apostles Anglican Church, Peewaukee, WI
4. Saint Mary the Virgin Anglican Church, Liverpool, N.Y.
5. Saint Alban's Anglican Church, State College, PA
6. Saint Mark's Anglican Church, Benton, KY
7. Saint Anne's Anglican Church, Columbus, OH
8. Saint Paul's Anglican Mission, Crystal Lake, IL
9. Saint Matthew's Anglican Mission, Custer, WI
10. All Souls Anglican Mission, Schylerville, N.Y.
11. Saint Michael's Anglican Mission, Albany, N.Y.
12. Saint Therese Anglican Mission, Washington, N.J.

In charity and in accordance with the standing practice of the Province, I have exercised my authority as bishop ordinary to dispense them from the canons pertaining to the departure of parishes from this body. As well, I have issued letters dimissory to the clergy of those parishes and missions so that they may affiliate with the Anglican Church in America without interruption to their respective ministries and work for Christ

I have not granted these requests lightly, but after much prayer and reflection on the needs of the people and clergy under my pastoral care and on the future of Christ’s church as it is found in the traditional Anglican expression. I believe that I can do nothing less and remain true to Scripture, tradition and the foundational principles of our movement.

I have been a member of the clergy of this Province since its inception. Now, as a bishop. I must say that I no longer believe that it is possible to remain divided from those with whom we share the same Apostolic origins, the same theology and the same Sacraments. As stated in my recent pastoral letter to my diocese, such division stands in contradiction to the will of Christ, has been a stumbling block to our work for Him in the world, and has inflicted damage on the witness of the traditional Anglican expression. Our clergy recognize this, and, more importantly, our lay people well-know the cost of a fragmented witness. This was the reason for such great hope over our meetings in Fond du Lac two years past, and cause for such great disappointment when our Province, which had convened those meetings, did not move forward to build on that moment.

A community truly centered on Christ present in the Sacrament cannot be closed in upon itself, as though it were somehow self-sufficient; rather it must strive for harmony with other catholic communities. We cannot erect artificial barriers to the unity of the church based on old wounds and particularized views of communion based on those past events. We are called as the people of God to press forward together, to press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus.

Accordingly, I have requested that I be received into the Anglican Church in America, together with the people and clergy of the parishes and missions named above, to serve them as a pastor and bishop for such time as God allows me to so to do. This request has been granted and is effective this 23rd day of July, in the year of Our Lord 2007.

In Christ,

The Rt. Rev. Rocco A. Florenza

Two Perspectives, From Inside and Outside

Crow can be a healthy dish.

In previous postings I presented the subject of the 2004 pilgimage to Fond du Lac, knowing exactly and only what we were supposed to see from inside the Province of Christ the King. I have stated rather boldy that position as fact. Having received better information, I am aware that the ACC had made clear their position ahead of time to (now retired) Archbishop Morse, and that this information did not go further as it should have (I know that Bishop Florenza was not informed at all, and expected the ACC bishops to receive alongside the others). The picture is very clear, and what happened was a case of manipulation. Throughout the APCK, the whole affair was chalked up to having learned from experience the bitter lesson: There is no point in trying to unify the jurisdictions. I am sorry to say, I do not think that was an accident.

This does not mean that I have reversed my view that the ACA should be treated as a full partner in going forward to promote unity in the Continuing Church. Neither does it reverse my position that the ACC needs to beware of further manipulation in coming to the aid of the APCK for a temporary new relationship that is really meant to further isolate the ACA because of Bishop Rocco Florenza and his diocese. But, I know that progress will not be made without discussion that involves theological clarity, and goodwill from all concerned, both the ACC and the TAC-ACA. I have seen, very recently, a very different attitude in very significant men in the ACC. It is different from what has been presented locally by a few priests, and what was presented in rather harsh and rigid comments by one priest on this blog (very much the opposite of our own Fr. Kirby, who has consistently represented the ACC intelligently, and charitably).

However, with a new Archbishop in the APCK, that jurisdisdiciton should cease to be, to a very unfortunate degree, too much of a personality cult. But, will they become truly collegial? The exclusion of Bishop Florenza from the voting process is disturbing; however, that was done by the retired Archbishop. Again, it pains me to speak this way, because I have had only affection and respect for the retired Archbishop as well as for the new one, having enjoyed our few times when we met face to face, and when I spoke to Archbishop Morse over the phone on several occasions. And, I do not want to detract from the good things he has accomplished, including his very effective personal evangelism as a college chaplain on the very difficult Berkeley campus.


Bishop Florenza has not had an easy time making his decisions, and did not come to them rashly or quickly. Much will be made of his comments about unity, and I know in advance that people will write comments calling the whole matter into question. However, I believe that his conclusion is valid; he does not see any possible way to work toward unity strictly from within the APCK unless the habits of decades are unlearned. Furthermore, he must act as a shepherd to protect those under his care from harm, and this protection has proved, over and over, to be very difficult to give, sometimes impossible, strictly within the APCK.

More on Marriage and Annulments

Last week some very important questions were brought up about the whole issue of divorced and remarried clergy. This was due to a case involving a very important clergyman in the Continuing Anglican movement about which I had never been fully informed (and don't want to be), but about which I was aware that an annulment had been granted years ago. Therefore, I want to clarify some points.

An annulment is not something that a bishop has the power to effect. It is not sacramental, and is not a charismatic power granted to a bishop that enables him to render a valid marriage null. He does not have the power to unmarry people. If an annulment has been granted, we ought to have confidence that the bishop who had the case investigated and then granted the decree of nullity, did so with complete integrity. The whole idea is not that he can make the previous marriage null, but that, upon investigation, he is able to determine that no marriage had taken place as far as the Church is concerned, meaning that there was no marriage in the eyes of God.

The element of a sacrament that is most important in these cases is Intention. Most decrees of nullity are based on conclusive evidence that a previous marriage, even though it was legal according to the state (which means that the children of such marriages are legitimate, since that is a legal matter), lacked the necessary intention, by one of the parties, to be considered a sacrament. This does not mean that, for the marriage to be valid, they had to understand anything to do with sacramental theology at the time; what it does mean is that they intended to enter into a life long union and to practice fidelity. The grant of an annulment means that the Church considers a subsequent marriage to be the first marriage in any case where the former spouse (spouse in strictly legal terms) is still living, rather than a remarriage.

Here are two problems that must be faced honestly.

1) Bishops can abuse this authority, and if they do so, it is their annulment that is null in the eyes of God.

2) Among Continuing Anglicans, there are quite an alarming number of clergy who have been though the process.

The people have a need for examples of godly living by the clergy, and a very special need for clergy to represent in their persons the sacramental life, and our theology teaches us that marriage is a sacrament. If, however, the clergyman has had an annulment, and has since then married in good faith, we have no grounds to treat him as somehow notorious.

I have helped bishops in two investigations. One involved a husband who wanted his wife to commit adultery so he could watch, and to engage in perverted acts to satisfy him. I refer to the "Clinton Preference," named after an ex-President of the United States. The fact is, such acts are not permitted by God; they are not what He had in mind, and not what is meant when it says that God makes a man and wife into one flesh. Any man who wants his wife to perform the "Clinton Preference" is treating his wife disrespectfully and abusively. Any man who wants her to prostitute herself so he can watch, has shown that he was incapable of the sacramental intention to be a husband. The lady in question received her annulment and was able to marry in good conscience. The other case involved a woman who, shortly after a civil ceremony on a beach, began to pull away from her husband, and eventually left him, then divorced him, never giving any reason (no reason appears in the court documents). He never knew if she had another lover; but the abandonment is, in the eyes of the Church, a form of adultery even without another lover. The man received his annulment in this case, and could in good conscience marry his intended (a very good word for our purposes).

In my former work, dealing with legal/medical matters, I came across a heart broken young woman who discovered, after being married a short time, that she did not have any true information about her husband's identity. He disappeared completely; and, after investigation, she learned that he was not the man whose name appeared on their marriage certificate (Maryland had no marriage licenses in those days, but did keep a marriage certificate on file in the Department of Vital Records). She had no idea at all who he actually was. I informed her that, by law, they were never married, and that, as far as we know, he may have commited bigamy. In any case, as far as the Church is concerned, false identity is grounds for annulment.

For the record, I have been married only one time in the eyes of the state as well as of the Church, so I do not know the pain of divorce first hand at all. My marriage is and always has been quite happy. From what I have seen, however, in the lives of people who are going through divorce, is that in most cases there comes a point at which one party wants reconciliation, and the other does not. At this point, pastoral ministry must be done with the greatest of care and of urgency, if possible, to hold a family together. Sadly, sometimes what must be determined is if one party is in a state of mortal sin by refusing to honor the vows that were taken.

This may or may not put minds at rest. I post this to help your understanding, knowing full well that it may cause questions to arise. If so, do not be afraid to ask.

The Collect - Trinity VII

a little late. This is yesterday's collect

The Latin Collect
Deus virtutum, cujus est totum quod est optimum: insere pectoribus nostris amorem tui nominis, et praesta in nobis religionis augmentum; ut quae sunt bona, nutrias, ac pietatis studiom quae synt nutrita, custodias.

The Collect (1549)
LORDE of all power and might, whiche art the author and gever of all good thynges; graffe in our hartes the love of thy name, increase in us true religion, norishe us with all goodnes, and of thy great mercy kepe us in the same; Through Jesus Christe our Lorde.

The Collect (1662)
LORD of all power and might, who art the author and giver of all good things; Graft in our hearts the love of thy Name, increase in us true religion, nourish us with all goodness, and of thy great mercy keep us in the same; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

Commentary
Cranmer here translated the collect for this Sunday from the Sarum Missal (which appears in the Tridentine Missal for the Sixth after Pentecost). The Sarum Missal, in turn, received this prayer from the Gelasian Sacramentary of about AD 750.

Meditation
In today’s Gospel we remember the feeding of the hungry bodies of four thousand listeners. In this collect we are reminded that God is indeed the giver of all good things, but we are further reminded (in the words we ourselves pray) that these good things are not primarily things at all, but the love of God, the truth of the Christian faith and practice, and the living out of goodness, none of which can endure without His mercy. Without these things we cannot endure. Without these things we cannot enter into the Kingdom of Heaven. God grant them to us all.

--------------------ed pacht