From the "Western" Acolyte's Bible

It's only fair, after providing verses from the [Eastern] Acolyte's Bible, to provide quotations from the version of the Bible used by his Italian counterpart.

For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: the whole substance of the bread will be transubstantiated into the whole substance of my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, The whole substance of the wine will be transubstantiated into the whole substance of my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. For, only the accidents of the bread and wine will remain, and that only in appearance to your bodily senses, according to an Aristotelian paradigm that every first century Jewish fisherman, obviously, will appreciate. (Not I Corinthians 15:23-25)

And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, future Pope, and upon this rock, and all of thy successors in the See of Rome, I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. (Not Matthew 16:18)

But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed; even though he was my superior, the Pontiff, the Vicar of Christ with universal authority and the Petrine charism of infallibility. I then repented my presumption and begged his indulgence (in fact, I bought one). (Not Galatians 2:11)

A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife (until somebody gets an even better idea than I have, a mere Apostle writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit--what does He know anyway?), vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach. (Not I Timothy 3:2)

So, go get a sense of humor already! (Maybe it will be the Baptist "Acolyte's" turn next.)

Whose Erastianism is it anyway?

Erastianism: The doctrine stating that in ecclesiastical affairs the state rules over the church.

One of the arguments that our Roman Catholic detractors like to make, every now and again, is that Anglicanism was simply an Erastian sect created because of Henry's divorce problems. Therefore, they reason, we are supposed to concede that the English Reformation was a bastard child, completely illegitimate, and that, for that reason among their many wild claims, we should all go back to Mama Rome with our tails between our legs, and beseech their indulgence to be allowed back.

Well, of course, it had to be Erastian, right? It was called, after all, the Church of England. Never mind that it had always been called that, and the kings of England had always appointed the bishops, including the Archbishop of Canterbury. Never mind that every church in Europe had been a State Church since before anyone could remember. Never mind that the pope's power to intervene was almost never used throughout the centuries leading up to the Reformation era, since wise popes had no cause to be entangled with various national affairs.

Two important considerations need to be weighed against the importance that Roman Catholic polemicists place upon the alleged expanded role of the monarch in English Church affairs. The first is the pastoral responsibility of the English bishops during the reigns of Henry and of Edward, and then during the reign of Elizabeth after the death of Bloody Mary (a title earned by the zeal and volume of persecution).

Whatever one may think about Henry's sexual troubles, or about his attempted solution to the problem of having a male heir, or about the violence he inflicted on those unfortunate enough to serve in his court, he was not the father of the English Reformation. The bishops who survived him, and found themselves serving under the young King Edward, rose to the occasion both before and after Henry's death. Whatever the king's motives, and whatever his methods, the bishops took the opportunity to establish doctrine according to their convictions, and nothing less.

True, it was under Edward's brief reign that they felt liberated to teach fully according to their convictions, and to establish Reformed doctrine without abandoning Catholic Order, striking that balance unique to the English Church. But even before that, the work of the English bishops was not based on the king's divorce problems, nor were those concerns particularly relevant to their pastoral work to teach the way of salvation to the people of England. After the martyrdom of Thomas Cranmer (a man we ought be calling, at least, Blessed) and, of course, so many others, when Elizabeth restored the Catholick Reformation to England, it was the pastoral work of English bishops that restored sound doctrine, and of other English scholars and theologians such as Richard Hooker.

The other important consideration is the simple reality that the Church of England was no more Erastian than the Church of the so-called Holy Roman Emperor, Charles V beginning in 1519, also called Carlos I in his role as King of Spain, which had begun in 1516. He was heir to the Hapsburg dynasty, and in his role as Holy Roman Emperor, if only to demonstrate his absolute power, he briefly imprisoned the Pope himself. This show of power did not go unnoticed, and remained a symbol of the real status quo as a late as the reign of King Phillip (which began in 1556). The papacy was no more a free institution, governed strictly by religious rather than state concern, than the See of Canterbury may have been on Henry's worst day.

Indeed, about Henry's desire for a divorce, a historian may be hard pressed to explain any real difference between what he wanted from the pope, and what the King of France had been granted. Later, concerning the reign of Elizabeth I, the pope was simply a pawn in the power struggle between two empires and their competing commercial interests, interests that led to the pope, in effect, demanding that the people of England weaken themselves by a civil war, murder their Queen, and let themselves be conquered by Spain. Even the mere legalese of our modern insurance industry would label the storm that sank the Armada, an "Act of God." Or, as the scripture says, "Even the wind and sea obey Him." (Mark 4:41)

If we are supposed to be impressed by the logic of our Roman Catholic critics, and to see some Erastian menace as having bastardized our Anglican foundations (for the sake of argument, let us pretend to concede), then the subservience of the papacy, that is, the subjugation of the See of Rome to the Spanish Crown, could have been no less Erastian in practice. Indeed, that subservience was transparent; it was blatantly obvious to all.

So, how important is the charge of English Erastianism? Should it be a practical concern to us? Should it shake our confidence as Anglicans? What matters for us, given the harsh times in which they found themselves, in a historical context that saw no such concept as Religious freedom (not, in any genuine sense, before the Constitution of the United States over two centuries later), was the responsible approach of the English Reformers, as men of God who rose to the occasion. The teaching and pastoral guidance of the Church of England produced a way forward into true and Catholick doctrine, complete with the Gospel proclaimed from its pulpits, and the sacraments administered at its altars.

Fr. Wells bulletin inserts

A new one

EPIPHANY II

The Trinity is not mentioned directly in Mark's Gospel (from which we read today), today is not Trinity Sunday, and congregations never ask for a sermon on that difficult doctrine. But in our Gospel reading, the Threefold-ness of God's nature and being is forcefully exhibited. With events like the Baptism of Jesus in her corporate memory, the Church was compelled to come to grips with our Lord's teaching about baptizing "in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost."

Let us begin with that mysterious heavenly Voice, "Thou art my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." That Voice (the capital V is deliberate) spoke only two other times in the Gospel story. He was heard again at the Transfiguration of Jesus, saying much the same thing, and finally (at John 12:28) when Jesus prayed, "And what shall I say? Father, save me from this hour? But for this purpose I have come to this hour. Father, glorify thy Name." The Voice answered like thunder, "I have glorified it, and will glorify it again." This is the voice of the Father speaking to the Son. This was the voice of Him who had said in Psalm 2, "Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee," and in Psalm 110, "Sit thou on my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool."

Then we have the One who is baptised. What is He doing in this crowd of sinners, seeking a supernatural washing which will cleanse them of their sins, getting ready for God's reign to burst into their world? Matthew tells us that John raised quite a protest ("I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?") which resembled the howl of indignation released by Peter when Jesus told of His impending crucifixion, and again when Jesus made ready to wash Peter's feet. Not only is Jesus a sinless man, a second Adam as it were, but (as John and Peter grasped) this Man was God in the flesh, the Son of God, whom we confess as God the Son, the same in substance, equal in power and glory.

Finally we see the Spirit descending, "like a dove." All four Gospels mention that detail. Why a dove? Doves do not ordinarily light on humans; like all birds they are shy creatures which flee from us. The background surely lies in Genesis 1:2, "And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters."

The Jewish interpreters of that text compared the Spirit in that text to a dove nestling her young. We see here not only a Second Adam, but a New Creation.

This dove descending on Jesus manifested the same Spirit which had come over the Mother of the God-Man, enabling her to conceive. This is the same Spirit which He will soon give the Apostles at Easter and the Church at Pentecost.

So it is in our Baptism, "in the Name of" the Blessed Trinity, Christ's Baptism becomes our Baptism as we are united to Him, and the same Father's voice still thunders over us, "Thou art my beloved son, or daughter, in whom for His sake I am well pleased." LKW

Second Sunday after the Epiphany

Romans 12: 6f Mark 1:1f

In December 2005, Diane and I with three of our four grown children, saw the Grand Canyon for the first time. It has been said that no matter how well the Grand Canyon has been described, and no matter how many photographs one has seen, “no one expects it.” The canyon itself is grander than the pictures, and is beyond expectations, a surprise to everyone who sees it for the first time. No description and no photograph does it justice.

And, no matter how well the truth about God is taught, He will be a surprise when we see Him face to face on the Last Day. “Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him. But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God,” writes Saint Paul to the Corinthian Church. We know God by revelation, just as we know the Grand Canyon by descriptions and pictures. We could spend weeks exploring the canyon before we truly know it. We will spend eternity learning evermore the knowledge of God, never exhausting all that we can learn, for He is without end, without limit.

The pictures of the Grand Canyon are true; they are a genuine revelation of what really is there. What we see in them is no deception, but the truth. It is less than the reality itself, that we see once we arrive at the place and our eyes take it in; nonetheless, the pictures have been true and accurate. When Christ returns in glory and we rise from the slumber of our graves, whether to terror or joy- which depends on whether or not we prepare to meet Him in this life- and we see Him on the throne of His Father’s glory, we will see that God is more than we have been taught, but not different. The full majesty of Divine Glory will surprise us, because we cannot raise our minds to a level of expectation high enough in this time of mortal frailty. But, what has been revealed is true and no lie. God is greater than we understand; but He has, by revelation, made Himself known truly.

This is the meaning of this Sunday in Epiphany. God has made Himself known in our world. Unfortunately, many preachers this Sunday are telling their people that it was here, in the waters of Jordan, when the Father spoke, that Christ became aware of His true identity. This interpretation has been popular for about fifty years. But, it is dead wrong. Clearly, to anyone who knows the Gospels, and who knows the doctrine of Christian Faith, Christ was mysteriously aware in early childhood of His Divine Nature, and of being one with the Father. This is clear from the words He spoke to Mary and Joseph in the temple when He was but twelve years of age. No. On that day at the River Jordan, in the presence of John the Baptist and of the crowd gathered, the voice did not come for Christ’s sake, but for ours. It did not meet any need He had, but rather it meets our need. To try to analyze Christ in psychological terms is always a mistake. But, suffice to say, that He remains fully God, even while being fully human. And, on that day He had no need of assurance to boost His confidence. Neither did He need to be told His identity. He had need of none of these things, for “while He walked the earth as a man, He filled the heavens as God (On the Incarnation, Saint Athanasius).”

On that day, when our Lord was baptized, the most amazing revelation of God took place to human eyes and ears. Within the realm of our senses, God revealed Himself as Trinity, the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost. What did each manifestation of the Divine Persons signify, as we consider them respectively? Let us consider these manifestations of the Persons of the Trinity (who together are One God, world without end), and learn from them. Yes, what we learn will be less than the reality in its fullness, but it will be true.

Here is the scene: Jesus Christ is standing in the water having been baptized. The Holy Spirit appears in the form of a dove descending upon Him, and the voice of the Father is heard. First of all let us consider the Son. We see the Word made flesh; the One Who was in the beginning, Who was with God, Who was God, and Who was in the beginning with God (and that is not redundant), present as a man, sharing our world of matter and space and time, where He was seen and heard, and where He was touched by the hands of men. His presence in our form, His coming in our nature, is the greatest revelation of God, and the seal and proof of His love for us. Whatever it means that we are made in God’s image, clearly it means that our nature was such that the Word could assume it, that He could take it into His eternal uncreated Person without compromising His Divinity or His holiness. And, as He stood in the waters, Himself without sin, He objectively identified Himself with our weakness, and began to be the offering for our sin. This foreshadows the cross where He would die in our place the death of sin that we deserved. For John baptized sinners unto repentance, and here he baptizes the Holy One, who has no sins to repent of. Thus, Christ begins His ministry of redemption by letting the weight of our sin fall upon Him. Remember that it was from this experience that John the Baptist saw that Jesus is the Lamb of God Who takes away the sins of the world.

The Holy Spirit appears as a dove. Now, this is a different kind of manifestation than the physical presence of Jesus Christ, the Word made flesh. The Holy Spirit is appearing in a vision granted to everyone there; His appearing is in a symbolic way, that is to say, it is a Divine writing of iconography in the very heavens. The appearance of a dove is a symbol, and the message is that God’s wrath is over and done. This is the Christmas message of the angel who appeared and spoke to the shepherds of “peace on earth, goodwill towards men.” Not “among” men, but towards men. We are reminded of the story of Noah, who sent out the dove, which returned with an olive branch in its mouth to reveal that the waters of God’s wrath had abated from off the earth. Noah later offered a sacrifice after he left the ark, and God promised not to destroy man, and hung up His bow, His rainbow, as a pledge. The meaning is this: By appearing as a dove that descended upon Jesus, the Holy Spirit signified to us that Christ is the peace offering that reconciles us to God. This too, just like the very baptism itself, points to our redemption by Christ’s full and complete offering of Himself on the cross.

And, to the ear came the audible voice of the Father, telling us of His pleasure in the Son. This is more than simply His approval of Christ’s holy life. It is the eternal love within the Trinity, wherein God delights in being God, where each of the Persons delights in the perfection and worthiness of the other two Persons. Again, like those pictures of the Grand Canyon, we know this is true, but our speaking of it cannot do justice to the reality as we shall begin to know it when the risen Christ returns in glory. For now, we see the significance in the Father’s words, telling us not only of His Son’s worthiness and holiness, but speaking this in contrast to the pleasure He cannot take in the fallen state of every other human being who was there; because all of the others who were there, just like you and me, were sinners in need of forgiveness. Here too we understand why this voice was heard at the Lord’s baptism. As Jesus Christ identified Himself with sinful mankind, the other Persons of the Godhead told us Who He is, and why He is Himself without sin, but standing in for us to save us. The Father speaks of His Son Who always pleases Him, telling us not only that He remains holy and without spot or stain of sin, but even more, that He is the Son Who throughout eternity and before all worlds gives delight to the Father in that Divine love that is beyond our comprehension.

We see the Trinity in this report of the Lord’s baptism that day. The vision of the Holy Spirit was for our sake; the voice of the Father was for our sake. Here we see and hear the Trinity with eyes and ears, and we see also that only in Jesus Christ and His offering of Himself do we have salvation from sin and death. And, we can say, from all this, that the revelation of the Trinity tells us that, in the words of Saint John the Apostle, “God is love.”

Fr. Wells' bulletin inserts

EPIPHANY II

The Baptism of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, celebrated in today's liturgy, is the hinge event in the Gospel history which ties together the Good News of His coming and the Even Better News of His perfect sacrifice on the Cross and His victory over sin and death...(read the rest here).

Laymen's Guide to the Thirty-Nine Articles

ARTICLE V

Of the Holy Ghost

The Holy Ghost, proceeding from the Father and the Son, is of one substance, majesty and glory, with the Father and the Son, very and eternal God.

De Spiritu Sancto

Spiritus Sanctus, a Patre et Filio procedens, eiusdem est cum Patre et Filio essentiae, maiestatis, et gloriae, verus ac aeternus Deus.

****

Fr. Laurence Wells

Despite its brevity and terseness (one sentence of only 27 words), Article V is the point at which we move from doctrines generally agreed upon into a minefield of controversy. It is worth mentioning that this Article was not found in the earlier version of 1553 (the so-called "Forty-Two Articles"), but was added 1563, apparently for the sake of a more complete presentation of the doctrine of the Trinity. The general thrust is to assert that just as the Son is equal to the Father, so is the Holy Spirit equal to the Father.

It may be surprising to read that there has been a heresy which denies this. While the history is somewhat cloudy, during the time of the first and second Ecumenical Councils, there was a sect, called Macedonians or Pneumato-machoi (literally, “fighters against the Spirit”), who denied the full deity of the Holy Spirit. What the Arians denied for the Son, this obscure movement denied for the Spirit. This strange doctrine was anathematized at the Council of Constantinople and fell into the dustbin of history.

Or did it? We still encounter some odd and nontraditional notions regarding Who the Holy Spirit is and what He does. Some theorists of the "pastoral psychology" movement sometimes write and speak as if the psychological principle of homeostasis (our built-in emotional thermostat which regulates emotions and feelings) is identical with the Holy Spirit, as if He were less than the Third Person of the Trinity. And then some charismatics practically identify the Holy Spirit with religious excitement, using their level of enthusiasm as a measure of the Spirit's presence. So even if it was an afterthought, Article V makes a necessary and important affirmation.

Many people are troubled by the old English use of the word "Ghost." To them, it sounds creepy or spooky. The more familiar term "Spirit" may seem better, and we admit at once that "spirit" is more closely related to the Latin spiritus, the Greek pneuma, or the Hebrew ruach, all of which relate to breath and breathing. But the term "spirit" also has its disadvantages. As a word in common parlance, it is easily domesticated. We commonly say, "The patient is in good spirits this morning," or "There was a wonderful spirit in our family reunion," or "A good coach will strive to build team-spirit." The familiar use of the word "spirit" falls far short of the reality which we worship as the Third Person of the Blessed Trinity. Sometimes archaic or unfamiliar words have their own advantages. As C. S. Lewis wrote somewhere, it is easier to explain that charity means love than to explain that love means agape. I would argue that it is easier to explain that the Holy Ghost is the Breath of God which animates His people with eternal life, than to explain that the Holy Spirit is far more than religious enthusiasm or esprit de corps.

The great minefield in this Article is that it clearly affirms the Holy Ghost proceeds from both the Father and the Son, echoing the controversial Filioque in the liturgical version of the Nicene Creed. This places the Articles squarely in the tradition of Western Christianity, and makes them unpopular with those who yearn for rapprochement with Eastern Orthodoxy.

The Eastern Churches object strenuously to the phrase "and the Son" on two counts. The first is canonical and the second doctrinal. Canonically, they argue that the text of the Nicene Creed (as it was made final at the second Ecumenical Council) is not subject to alteration and therefore the addition is unacceptable. Doctrinally, they argue that the idea itself is false. Both of these objections can be answered.

To address the canonical issue, we would say that the dogmatic form of the Creed adopted at Nicaea and Constantinople does not have to be identical with its liturgical form. The Conciliar Creed begins "We believe," but in liturgical use, at least in the West, we say "I believe." More seriously, the Conciliar Creed reads "was incarnate by the Holy Ghost and the Virgin Mary," whereas we have always said "was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary, echoing the Roman rite, "incarnatus de Spiritu Sancto ex Maria Virgine." The Western liturgical form also inserts "God of God," not found in the Conciliar version. To my knowledge, the Byzantines have never objected to these adjustments, so we must observe that they are somewhat selective in their cavils.

Also, it must be pointed out that whereas the Pope is frequently blamed for tampering with the Creed, history shows that the change originated in Spain and was long resisted by the Bishop of Rome. The Filioque has been traced back as early as AD 400 to a local Synod in Spain, in refutation of an obscure heresy known as Priscillianism; but it was not adopted in Rome until AD 1014. So whatever we think of the Pope, he cannot justly be made the whipping boy in this dispute.

It is simply not true that the Western Church rudely and roughly laid violent hands on the sacrosanct text of the Conciliar Creed. The Filioque had already been part of the Athanasian Creed from its origin, which can be dated within the 4th or 5th centuries--well before the Conciliar Period had ended. The Western liturgical use evidently arose through a process of assimilation from one Creed into another. I would argue that the addition of Filioque to our liturgical Creed (well within the first millennium) was no revision of doctrine at all, but simply a clarification of what was already there. Adjustment is not alteration, amplification is not mutilation. We might ask which came first: the Western use of the Filioque in the Athanasian Creed, or the Eastern objection to it?

As a matter of doctrine, what we have at stake is two different ways of thinking of the Trinity. Wherein lies the unity of the Godhead? At considerable risk of oversimplifying the issue, the Western wing of the Church, following St Augustine of Hippo, sees the unity in terms of the common substance of three absolutely equal Persons. The East, however, thinks of the Father as the "Fons Deitatis," the "Archh" or Origin of Deity, from Whom the Son is begotten and the Spirit proceeds. The Western model tends toward Monarchianism, the Eastern toward tritheism and even toward subordination of the Son and Spirit to the Father. Both conceptions have strengths and weaknesses. Both have advocates and defenders in modern theology.

The major point here is that both ways of stating and teaching the Trinity have deep roots in the Conciliar period, not only in the First Millennium, but in the First Half-millennium of Christian history. So to me the Eastern cavil on the issue seem unacceptable and seems more than a trifle disingenuous.

Whereas the early centuries had never universally affirmed that the Spirit proceeds from both Father and Son, neither had the Church affirmed that the Spirit proceeds from the Father alone. Photios of Constantinople apparently introduced such an idea, a kind of "Patrimonism." To what extent this was truly a theological concern and to what extent it was a by-product of political scuffling between the Byzantine emperor and the Bishop of Rome remains unclear.

A compromise formula "proceeding from the Father through the Son" seems to resolve the issue, but this has never won general acceptance. If the distinction between the dogmatic and liturgical forms of the Creed is valid, then the Filioque might be defended as the form belonging to the Western liturgy. But dogmatically, Anglicans have a commitment to the Athanasian Creed as well:

"The Holy Ghost is of the Father and of the Son: neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding."

Fr. Robert Hart

Fr. Wells has written:

“The Western model tends toward Monarchianism, the Eastern toward tritheism and even toward subordination of the Son and Spirit to the Father.”

Before the comment can be made, alluding to or quoting Pope John-Paul II about the “two lungs” of the Church (i.e. East and West), we do better to find complementarity than contradiction. Obviously, the Eastern Orthodox version of the Constantinopolitan Creed (i.e. “the Creed called Nicene”) is acceptable inasmuch as it was universally agreed upon, and was based on Scripture. That is, it is clearly Biblical as we compare two quotations of Jesus in the Gospel According to John. The first says:

“Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me. ” (John 8:42)

The second quotation says:

“But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me.” (John 15:26)

In the first, Jesus speaks about His Person and Divine Nature (“for I proceeded forth and came from God”) and then about His Incarnation and His mission in the world (“neither came I of myself, but he sent me”). In the second quotation, Jesus speaks of the other Comforter, the Spirit of Truth, in terms that make clear that both in His Being (“which proceedeth from the Father”) and in His work (“he shall testify of me”), the Spirit is equal to the Son, and His mission in the world is consistent with the mission of the Son.

We gain something from the Eastern view that helps keep these things in balance, that both the Son and the Spirit proceed from the Father, the Son as eternally begotten and the Spirit as eternally proceeding. The Son and the Spirit have been sent (both quotations above) into the world, the Son sent by the Father through His Incarnation, and the Spirit sent by the Father and by the Son to gather various individuals from all nations into one Body of Christ, the Church. And, this double sending of the Spirit reminds us that the will of God is a unified and indivisible will. What the Father wills, the Son wills, and the same is what the Spirit wills.

But, left only with that picture, we can indeed come dangerously close to seeing the Trinity as three Gods, rather than as one God. The Western emphasis balances this out, and does so in accord with the opening of the Gospel of John, where God is spoken of three times, each time equally significant.1

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God.” (John 1:1,2)

God is named three times 2, in this opening. The emphasis is the Incarnation: “The Word was God,” and then “the Word was made flesh (v.14).” But, the context of the Incarnation is the Trinity and the relation of this one triune God to every created thing: “All things were made by (or through) him (i.e. the Word); and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life; and the life was the light of men.” (vs. 3,4 ).

In various dramatic and musical renditions of the opening of John's Gospel, the third mention of God, (“the same was in the beginning with God”) is omitted, indicating that certain people, who hold too low a view of Holy Scripture, mistake the third naming of God as redundant.

All too often the Holy Spirit is treated this way, as redundant, as less than the Father and the Son. To prevent this, the Constantinopolitan Creed (called Nicene) says about Him, “Who with the Father and the Son together is worshiped and glorified.” St. Paul wrote, “Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. (II Cor. 3:17)” Some have thought to contradict the Creed, and teach that the Holy Spirit is not to be worshiped; but this would make Him less than God as John calls Him, less than the Lord as St. Paul calls Him.

The danger of holding only the Eastern understanding before our eyes is that the Son and the Spirit can be seen as subordinate, as less Divine, or even as having an origin in time like creatures do. When some Eastern theologians say that only God the Father is God, they fall into Subordinationism. The danger of holding only the Western formula (I will not say view) is that some make the Holy Spirit “come in third” having third place. Then we also have been forced to defend the truth against a modern heresy that makes Him into a her, a completely false notion for which there is no justification whatsoever (though some imaginative minds have created methods to fool the unlearned about it); and others make Him into a mere “it”-- a power or energy (the heresy of the Pneumato-machoi that Fr. Wells mentioned above).

Therefore, to have both formulas is best, inasmuch as this safeguards the truth of the full equality of the Trinity, each Person possessing fully the uncreated, eternal Nature of God, each person worshiped and glorified together as one God. By recalling that the Son and the Spirit are from the Father, we remember that the Son and the Spirit are equal. By saying that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, we remember the unity and full equality of the Godhead, together worshiped and glorified as only God may be.

_______________________________

1. Some make too much of the distinction between Theos and Ho Theos, simply elevating a matter of Koine' Greek grammar into something meaningful, which it is not.
2. Naming God three times is a significant feature of the Old Testament in some very important places, including the Shemai: “Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God the LORD is one.” (Deut. 6:4) Even when told that God is one, we find God mentioned three times as 1. The Lord (YHVH), 2. our God (elehenu), and then for what might seem to be no reason (but that we know better), again as 3. the Lord (YHVH). The thrice invoked God is, however, One (echod).

First Sunday after Epiphany

Romans 12:1-5
Luke 2: 41-52

The focus in this season of the Epiphany is the revelation of the Word made flesh, and beholding his glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth (John 1:14). Each Sunday, for the first few weeks of this season, we will be told what can be seen, as in beheld, that reveals Divine glory in the man himself, the Lord Jesus. This Sunday is no exception.

Looking at Jesus at the age of twelve, I am reminded of something my friend, David Mills, once wrote in a large email discussion, commenting on the efforts by some writer named Ann Rice to create a biographical sketch of Jesus. About her efforts he wrote; "There is one Person whom we must not try to understand in terms of psychology,"-or words to that effect. How true. We are not in a position to analyze Jesus Christ, or to guess at motivation for his words and actions.

Once I heard the efforts of a priest to create a vivid picture, in some paper he wrote, about the Lord's time growing up and seeing suffering people, and wanting to do something about it, and so forth. He objected, after reading his paper, to my criticism that he had reversed the revelation of Scripture. I told him, "that is not the Word made flesh, but flesh becoming the Word. You have it all backwards." You see, Jesus did not acquire the motivation to become the Light of the World, rather He came into the world as its light. He did not undergo, as we must, a conversion. He came here to save us from sin and death.

"And he said unto them, Ye are from beneath; I am from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world." (John 8:23)

Remember what I have said to you before: Only Jesus came into the world. The rest of us have our origin here. In His Person the Word is with the Father and with the Holy Spirit, eternal, uncreated, beyond our comprehension, hidden from the sight of mortal eye, pure and separate from all sin and evil, unknowable as dwelling in the darkness of mystery and in the radiant light of Divine glory. Every other nature is created, all we can know is from the things that are created. God alone is not created, and therefore no creature shares his nature as without beginning, without end, having neither parts nor passions, utterly transcendent above all we can know or even imagine.

And, so it is that no one ever came into the world except the One who created it. The glory of God is now revealed, and though we cannot comprehend Him in His Divine glory, we can know Him through His Incarnation. "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth." So, we should not be surprised to find him as a boy, twelve years old, already possessing wisdom that astonishes the most learned rabbis and doctors of the Torah.

Once I heard a man preach from today's Gospel, and he commented on the bit near the end: "And he went down with them, and came to Nazareth, and was subject unto them." He preached, essentially, that his youth and inexperience had gotten the better of him, and he needed to go home and learn from the older wiser folks. That would be true concerning anyone of us, we who did not come into the world, but are from beneath. Not so the One who is from above, who is not of this world. The human nature he took was real, and was fully human. And, that human nature was able to grow in wisdom and in stature. But, the Person who took to himself fellowship with us by taking human nature, is, properly, God the Son One with the Father.

The human nature of Jesus was not subtraction (as some have misinterpreted self-emptying), but addition. Added to His eternal uncreated Person is the created nature we share. To fulfill the Law for us, yes he went back to Nazareth and was subject to his adopted father Joseph, and to his mother Mary. And, this he chose willingly, after demonstrating his wisdom by revealing just a little bit of it, and then choosing the way of obedience and humility. This was the choice he made from his internal strength, not dependence due to weakness. Because of His Divine Person, in his human nature he is at once like everyone else, and yet not like anyone else. And, that is what we must learn from today's selection of the Gospel According to St. Luke.

This humbling of himself, subjecting himself to parental authority, and remaining from that time out of public view, was all part of that perfect obedience to the Law by which he saved us from sin and death (that is, the Law of God given through Moses). For, in accepting a place of submission and humility, of obedience and even the role of a servant, he was already obedient, eventually unto death on the cross. This has everything to do with the fact that he, the one who had no sin of his own, identified with us, even with us sinners. In time he fulfilled this perfect obedience.

The curious phrase translated, "How is it that ye sought me? wist ye not that I must be about my Father's business?" is literally, "Why did you look for me? Did you not know I would be with my Father?" Some have rendered it, "in my Father's house?" This was not an enthusiastic youngster getting above himself. This was God the Son reminding them that He was here as the Son, eternally begotten of the Father. Yet, we see him descend, we see him go down from Jerusalem (for from Jerusalem, the Jews saw everything as descent). Today's Gospel reveals the path of descent which He journeyed for us. He went back with them, and was subject unto them, in perfect patience and obedience. This was not a person humbled by circumstance, but rather the Lord choosing to humble himself.

St. Paul writes:

”Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.” (Phil. 2:5-11)

His coming into the word to reveal the glory of God was for you and me. His death on the cross was for you and me, to save us from sin. His resurrection from the dead was for you and for me, to save us from death. And, now we offer ourselves, not as if we did some great thing. Rather it is the service we owe from gratitude.

Today's Epistle says: "I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service." Reasonable service in the Greek is logika latre’ia (λογικv λατρεία). It is logical, or reasonable, to respond with worship, with liturgy. We will respond even in words, saying in our Holy Communion liturgy, "And here we offer and present unto thee, O Lord, our selves, our souls and bodies, to be a reasonable, holy, and living sacrifice unto thee."

Today's Epistle also tells us, "And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God." So, part of this whole logical liturgy of offering our very selves to God is to love Him with all our mind, filling it with the word He has revealed in sacred Scripture, so as to follow the One who came into the world to choose us out of the world; in our minds transformed so as not to conform to the sinful world around us. For, unlike Jesus, we need conversion; we need to change, and we need to be saved from the sin and death of the Fallen world.

It may seem a big thing to give ourselves to God in a reasonable life of worship as living sacrifices; but, in so doing, as we are transformed with renewed minds, what we give back to God is gratitude by obedient cooperation with Him as He saves us from the darkness of sin and death. Even in giving ourselves to Him, we the are ones who receive a gift, the grace to be transformed as children of God unto eternal life.

This is why we focus in this season on who Jesus is. Soon we will focus on what he did for us and does for us. To understand that, we focus on the Word made flesh, and the glory he revealed from within Himself, the glory of His Divine Person.

Fr. Wells bulletin inserts

EPIPHANY I

Today's Gospel lesson from Luke is the charming story of the boy Jesus being found in the Temple by his frantic parents. This incident has more than a few dimensions, which makes the passage highly preachable. But let us reflect on the place where this private epiphany occurred, the Temple. (It was a private sort of manifestation, since only Mary, Joseph, and the Temple personnel were included.) The Temple was the most appropriate place for the boy Jesus, in whom we see "the strength of infant weakness, when the eternal is so young," making His first claim of deity: "I must be about my Father's business."

In Luke's Gospel the Temple looms over the landscape. The very first episode in the opening chapter, takes place there, when an angel announced to the elderly priest Zechariah that he was about to have a son. In the final chapter, the disciples after the Ascension "were continually in the Temple blessing God."

In the opening chapters, we read the incident, told only by Luke, in which Mary and Joseph brought Jesus to the Temple, on the 40th day of his earthly life, "to present Him to the Lord" and to purify His mother. There He was acclaimed and worshiped by old Simeon and Anna, who represent the faithful remnant ("a remnant shall return!") predicted by Isaiah.

The Temple again became significant in the final chapters. The Temple is the real destination of the Triumphal Entry. After Jesus wept over the entire city of Jerusalem, it was the Temple which received His cleansing and judgment. We must be quick to say that Jesus did not despise or condemn the Temple ("my Father's house"); His cleansing was an act of old Israelite piety. The place where He had enthralled the teachers in His boyhood became the place of His final teaching in Holy Week.

And so we read as today's Epistle, "I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, which is your reasonable service." While the first reading seems to be unrelated to the second, we may grasp the continuity in words like sacrifice and service. These are Temple words, the language of liturgy and worship. The Temple where Jesus worshiped and taught in His earthly ministry has long been destroyed. But now we, whom Peter calls "living stones," are God's new and greater temple, in Paul's words, "built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner-stone." We are "an holy temple, an habitation of God through the Spirit."

Christ's epiphany and self-revelation in this world began at His birth and continues to this very hour, taking place right here, in our temple. As He asked questions of the teacher of the Law, surely He will have some questions for us.

As He cleansed the Temple long ago, we pray that He will cleanse us as well.

LKW

From the archives

"That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life; ( For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us;) That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ. And these things write we unto you, that your joy may be full." (I John 1:1-4)

If God deceives the eyes and other senses by making something to appear as bread and wine that no longer has the substance thereof, both the Incarnation and eyewitness accounts of the Resurrection are called into question, and the Gospel is thereby renounced-no small matter.

Following my usual year-end wrap up new year look ahead essay, 2011, A comment by my older brother, Addison, created more of a stir than anything my younger brother has written all week (which is saying a lot). It included :

"Unless you know in your heart you can believe in such super-added dogmas as papal supremacy and infallibility (very late inventions), that Jesus did not need to possess 'faith' during his earthly years (to which I respond, was he or was he not fully human?), and that the bread and wine physically change into his body and blood during the Eucharist without any palpable evidence of it; unless you can believe in Mary's 'Immaculate Conception' (an unnecessary and unverifiable belief, if ever there was one), her bodily assumption, and so on, then I would urge you to stay put. You already have everything you need, and, what Rome would add to you, you not only do not need, but should positively avoid weighing yourselves down with. Anglicanism is doctrinally sound and blessed with great forms of worship. Rome is neither."

The question was raised again about Transubstantiation (the content of which you may perceive from the answer), to which he replied:

"I find this a curious question, since I never said that the doctrine of transubstantiation is an illusion. For one thing, 'doctrines' per se are never illusory, even if they are abstractions. They are merely right or wrong abstractions, based on right or wrong premises. The premises for the classical doctrine of transubstantiation are Aristotelian, and assume that 'substance' and 'accidents' are separate and separable aspects of physical realities. Not only is Aristotelianism no longer viable in today's world, but it was not the categories of thought used by Jesus, Paul, or the fathers of the church.

"In point of fact, classical transubstantiation does teach a sort of illusion -- the consecrated species look like bread and wine, but it's all appearances. If the same logic were applied to the doctrine of the Incarnation, we would inevitably end up with a form of Docetism. (Indeed, this has been done, with the bizarre Scholastic idea that Jesus didn't possess faith because he possessed the beatific vision throughout his earthly life instead. This, if it's actually believed, must invariably lead to a rather distorted picture of Jesus as either not fully human or else a sort of comic book superhuman.) So, yes, I'm not at all in favor of 'illusions'. I prefer sacraments, those mysteriously incarnational things that unite us to Christ spiritually, and in ways that Scholastic nonsense really can't categorize neatly."

Indeed, as we have seen before, the idea of a deceptive appearance of bread and wine leading to Docetism (i.e. a heresy which denies the reality of the Incarnation of Christ) was one of Cranmer's main objections to Transubstantiation. If God deceives the eyes and other senses by making something to appear as bread and wine that no longer has the substance thereof, both the Incarnation and eyewitness accounts of the Resurrection are called into question, and the Gospel is thereby renounced-no small matter. Cranmer was not the heretic, as too many late model Anglo-Catholics (cowering before Roman claims) have been foolish enough to allow. Transubstantiation, as understood at the time and refuted by Cranmer, was the heresy, and had the potential to lead to a complete rejection of the Gospel.

"The papastical doctrine is against all our outward senses called our five wits...Christ never made no such article of our faith. Our faith teacheth us to believe things that we see not, but it doth not bid us, that we shall not believe that we see daily with our eyes, and hear with our ears, and grope with our hands. For although our senses cannot reach so far as our faith doth, yet so far as the compass of our senses doth usually reach, our faith is not contrary to the same, but rather our senses do confirm our faith. Or else what availed it to St. Thomas, for the confirmation of Christ's resurrection, that he did put his hand into Christ's side, and felt his wounds, if he might not trust his senses, nor give no credit thereto?

"And what a wide door is here opened to Valentinianus, Marcion and other heretics which said that Christ was 'not crucified, but that Simon Cyrenaeus was crucified for him, although to the sight of the people it seemed that Christ was crucified?' or to such heretics as said, that 'Christ was no man, although to men's sights he appeared in the form of man, and seemed to be hungry, dry, weary, to weep, sleep, eat, drink, yea, and to die like as other men do.' For if we once admit this doctrine, that no credit is to be given to our senses, we open a large field, and give a great occasion unto an innumerable rabblement of most heinous heresies." (Archbishop Thomas Cranmer, A Defence of the True and Catholick Doctrine of the Sacrament)

It has been objected that too much (how to measure such a thing?) Reformed Theology can lead to accusations that the Papacy is, as an office, the Antichrist. Of course, we could make no such accusation, especially in light of Rome's solid belief in the Incarnation. But, the fourth chapter of St. John's First Epistle may have been why Cranmer, the sixty-ninth Archbishop of Canterbury, called the pope of his time by the very unflattering title, Antichrist. Cranmer had good reason to believe that Transubstantiation, as commonly understood during his lifetime, carried the potential to lead to a denial of the Incarnation.

"Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world." (I John 4:2,3)

Rome avoided this, thank God; but if anyone wants to know why Cranmer used the "A" word, at least give the man his due in the context of his own era.

All this talk about Transubstantiation led someone to ask about the Black Rubric. Well, I have never been afraid to face anything on this blog, not even the dreaded toilet monster or the other monster that hides under every child's bed, that hid under mine long, long ago. Therefore, unafraid of ghosts and goblins (even unafraid of the dreaded "P" word), I decided some time ago to write about the Black Rubric, not fearing that it might come to life from my English BCP and suck out all my blood when I was asleep.

Here then, from the archives of The Continuum, first posted on Nov. 27, 2008 :

Transubstantiation and the Black Rubric

a. Council of Trent, Session 13
CHAPTER IV.
On Transubstantiation.

And because that Christ, our Redeemer, declared that which He offered under the species of bread to be truly His own body, therefore has it ever been a firm belief in the Church of God, and this holy Synod doth now declare it anew, that, by the consecration of the bread and of the wine, a conversion is made of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord, and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of His blood; which conversion is, by the holy Catholic Church, suitably and properly called Transubstantiation.

b. Article XXVIII. Of the Lord's Supper.

HE Supper of the Lord is not only a sign of the love that Christians ought to have among themselves, one to another, but rather it is a sacrament of our redemption by Christ's death: insomuch that to such as rightly, worthily, and with faith receive the same, the bread which we break is a partaking of the body of Christ, and likewise the cup of blessing is a partaking of the blood of Christ.Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of bread and wine) in the Supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by Holy Writ, but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions. The body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten in the Supper, only after an heavenly and spiritual manner. And the mean whereby the body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper is Faith. The Sacrament of the Lord's Supper was not by Christ's ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshipped.

c. The "Black Rubric"

"Whereas it is ordained in this Office for the Administration of the Lord's Supper, that the Communicants should receive the same kneeling; (which order is well meant, for a signification of our humble and grateful acknowledgment of the benefits of Christ therein given to all worthy Receivers, and for the avoiding of such profanation and disorder in the holy Communion, as might otherwise ensue;) yet, lest the same kneeling should by any persons, either out of ignorance and infirmity, or out of malice and obstinacy, be misconstrued and depraved: It is hereby declared, That thereby no adoration is intended, or ought to be done, either unto the Sacramental Bread or Wine there bodily received, or unto any Corporal Presence of Christ's natural Flesh and Blood. For the Sacramental Bread and Wine remain still in their very natural substances, and therefore may not be adored; (for that were Idolatry, to be abhorred of all faithful Christians;) and the natural Body and Blood of our Saviour Christ are in Heaven, and not here; it being against the truth of Christ's natural Body to be at one time in more places than one."

d. From God is near Us, (2003, San Fransisco, Ignatius Press) by Pope Benedict XVI, (published initially under the name Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger)

The Lord takes possession of the bread and the wine; he lifts them up, as it were, out of the setting of their normal existence into a new order; even if, from a purely physical point of view, they remain the same, they have become profoundly different.

*****

Internet theology suffers from two defects: 1) Knee-jerk reaction and 2) Nominalism. Not that the internet is the cause of these problems, inasmuch as it is merely one very fast method of communication that displays the general working of human reason in both its glory and ugliness, its strength and its feebleness. Everyone knows that the Earth is flat; or, at least everyone knew this until until it was proved otherwise; but even then, everyone knew that the sun, moon and stars orbited the earth until that irksome troublemaker Copernicus came along, and demonstrated otherwise, as if we really needed to know about the Solar System. Well, he can't spoil this one: Everyone knows the clear dividing line between Protestants and Catholics, especially when it comes to all this stuff about the Eucharist and Christ's Real Presence. And, as everybody knows, there is certainly no mystery about the sacrament. It either is or it ain't. Knee-jerk reaction and Nominalism aren't dead yet. What could be more obvious than the fact that all of the above quotations cannot be reconciled? It is every bit as obvious as the fact that the Earth is flat as a pancake.

For centuries our Roman Catholic brethren have charged that Anglicans, by denying transubstantiation, have rejected any concept of the Real Presence of Christ in the sacrament. Adding to their voice has been the inferiority complex of some Anglo-Catholics who assume that this charge is true, since, like the flatness of the Earth, it is so damned obvious. There it is in black and red, especially in the "Black Rubric." This fact is safe and secure unless some theological Copernicus should happen to come along. Unfortunately, for knee-jerk Nominalists everywhere, that Copernicus has come along, thinking like an Anglican, reasoning like a Prayer-Book Catholic, Pope Benedict XVI has weighed in.

Using our heads

"Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy...mind." It is simply astounding that so many people insist on throwing around words without stopping to consider the basic problem of communication. Words require definition, especially in a science. And, that is exactly what theology is, in fact "the Queen of the sciences." It does no good to use a weighty word like "transubstantiation" without pausing to make sure we have a definition that is both acceptable and commonly known to all parties. Such has not been the case with this word. Furthermore, the definition given in the Council of Trent is not helpful at all, since it begs the philosophical craftsmanship that Rome's best minds have tackled only in modern times, especially Joseph Ratzinger who penned the homily from which the above quotation is taken. From the 16th century until the late 20th century, "transubstantiation" was a Nominalist buzz-word, and a superficial bone of contention.

When Anglicans rejected "transubstantiation" they were quite right. They were not rejecting the Real presence of Christ in the sacrament at all, especially inasmuch as they affirmed it clearly in the Holy Communion service of the Book of Common Prayer: "Grant us therefore, gracious Lord, so to eat the flesh of thy dear Son Jesus Christ, and to drink his blood..." Not symbols, not memorials, not metaphors; like St. Paul writing to the Corinthians, they simply affirmed the truth that the bread and wine were in fact the Body and Blood of Christ. In the words of Queen Elizabeth I: "'Twas God the word that spake it, He took the Bread and brake it; And what the word did make it, That I believe and take it."

So, why do I say the Anglicans were right? The answer to how the Anglicans were able to reject "transubstantiation" and yet not reject, as we mean the expression today, the Real Presence is in that very "Black Rubric" that far too many Anglo-Catholics find embarrassing. For heaven's sake-if they would only think about it, they would be glad that the offending passage clears them of the Roman-Polemicist charge. For, it demonstrates that the entire problem was simply one of definition.

Many times I have pointed out that when the Anglicans of past generations rejected "transubstantiation" it was not the same doctrine that modern Roman Catholics believe, and not the same doctrine that Pope Benedict XVI carefully laid out (as a corrective, I might add, in case any of his own people were still thinking along the early Medieval lines he so strongly denounced). They were rejecting, as Pope Benedict does, a "crude material understanding" by which the bread becomes flesh and the wine becomes blood physically, or materially. They were rejecting, as Pope Benedict felt compelled in modern times to teach his own people to reject, a definition of "transubstantiation" by which the conversion of "the whole substance" means that the appearance of bread and wine conceals the physical reality of Christ's flesh and blood. They were sure that what the Council of Trent was teaching actually did amount to cannibalism, an eating of human flesh and and drinking of human blood, which thing they saw as an abomination and superstition that overthrew the nature of a sacrament.

When I have pointed this out, Roman Catholic Polemicists have reacted instead of responding. "That's not what we ever believed." This answer is not at all useful, since the issue here is one of perception. Furthermore, then Archbishop, later Cardinal, Ratzinger-now the Pope-saw a need to teach this clearly to his own people:

"Jesus is not there like a piece of meat, not in the realm of what can be measured and quantified...How should we relate to reality? What is 'real'?...Concerning the Eucharist it is said to us: The substance is transformed, that is to say, the fundamental basis of its being...Whenever the Body of Christ, that is, the risen and bodily Christ, comes, he is greater than the bread, other, not of the same order. The transformation happens, which affects the gifts we bring by taking them up into a higher order and changes them, even if we cannot measure what happens...The Lord takes possession of the bread and the wine; he lifts them up, as it were, out of the setting of their normal existence into a new order; even if, from a purely physical point of view, they remain the same, they have become profoundly different."

Maybe this is what the Council of Trent meant, using unfortunate wording that lent itself to misunderstanding. Then again, considering the period, maybe not. Nonetheless, it is the fault of Rome, not of Canterbury, that this confusion was allowed to go unchecked until modern times. A few simple words could have clarified everything much sooner. Yet, even as late as my own childhood in the 1950s and 1960s, those words had not come.

Thinking philosophically

Pope Benedict gets to a very important issue, namely the nature of reality. Even a term as strong as "a conversion...of the whole substance" needed never to have caused such division and confusion, inasmuch as a spiritual reality is every bit as real as a physical one. "The body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten in the Supper, only after an heavenly and spiritual manner." In every way, these words are compatible with the teaching of Pope Benedict XVI, and the definition that has finally been given in our day of the word "transubstantiation." Even the "Black Rubric" is perfectly compatible with this. "For the Sacramental Bread and Wine remain still in their very natural substances...and the natural Body and Blood of our Saviour Christ are in Heaven, and not here; it being against the truth of Christ's natural Body to be at one time in more places than one." Or, as the Pope put it, "The Lord takes possession of the bread and the wine; he lifts them up, as it were, out of the setting of their normal existence into a new order; even if, from a purely physical point of view, they remain the same, they have become profoundly different."

Latreia

The real problem with the "Black Rubric" is not that it is wrong, but that it is no longer relevant, and no longer guards against any genuine danger of the mind slipping into idolatry, inasmuch as the old confusion has cleared away. This brings us to but one matter that requires clarification. The Anglican caution about adoration of the sacrament is not referring to veneration, but to worship, that specific worship (latreia, λατρεία) due only to God himself. Here it may be argued that if we believe in the Real Presence of Christ, then our adoration of the Blessed Sacrament is directed to God the Son, not to the physical elements. However, that kind of reasoning takes us to a different category than what the "Black Rubric" actually addressed. The sort of adoration it warned against would be quite wrong. For, it warned against adoration of a "Corporal Presence of Christ's natural Flesh and Blood." Such a corporal presence is not what the Church teaches, rendering such adoration misplaced. Not to be irreverent, but if we placed the sacramental body and blood of Christ under a microscope, we would see wheat and the blood of grapes. Neither could we find in them the DNA of Jesus of Nazareth; and yet He is in those elements, and is present in very truth, as real as reality can be, Present as the food and drink of eternal life. And, this is what Anglicans have always called "the nature of a sacrament."

So, it is past the time to throw away knee-jerk reaction and Nominalism, to follow the example of Pope Benedict XVI, and to both think and communicate with clarity. It may be less fun than a barn-yard scrap or a two-fisted saloon brawl, such as internet theology often is. But, that is simply the pain of growing up.