Showing posts with label Anglicanism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Anglicanism. Show all posts

Tuesday, July 05, 2016

Apostolic Church

The Nicene/ Constantinopolitan Creed says, "I believe One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church." Because of a printer's error the word "Holy" has not appeared in the Book of Common Prayer, but "I believe in the Holy Catholic Church" is said at least twice a day in the Daily Morning and Evening Prayer; so we profess all four of these facts about the Church. In this essay I want to focus on what it means to believe the Apostolic Church.

Before I undertake to write this, my recent interest in writing an apologetic for the polity that has always been Continued by us as the only polity known to orthodox Anglicanism, and the only kind consistent with all Canon Law of Anglican churches throughout history, and with the Church of England since its inception, is due to confusion regarding the origin of the episcopacy and the needless question of presbyteral ordinations. I say needless because only episcopal ordinations have been recognized in Anglicanism as conferring the authority to act as a member of the three orders of ministry mentioned in the Preface to the Ordinal. This leaves us only with ecumenical considerations about how far we may go in relations with Protestant churches such as the Presbyterians. That Anglicans have any other reason for asking such a question is contrary to all evidence from Canon Law, The idea of it as a pressing issue within our churches is a false issue. 

It may be that some of the readers of this will want to provide quotations from famous Anglicans who were willing to admit to the possibility of such ordinations among other churches. To that I say three things. Even if there has been varied opinion among Anglicans it does not change the rules, practice and even doctrine of Anglicanism. The Ordinal gives no room to any but episcopal ordinations. Second, any such quotations ought to be examined only in context and considered in limitation to the immediate reason for what was stated. Third, Anglicans have always understood that a line is to be drawn between validity and efficacy in this regard: We must act according to what is certainly valid, but for ecumanical relationships have no interest in declaring, as Rome does, other ministries to be "absolutely null and utterly void." God is free to work His grace without everything that we are bound to do, as He may will. But, at no time has any Anglican Canon allowed for violating the rule of recognizing, for us, only ministers with episcopal ordination in our churches. To presume that this is unrelated to theology makes no logical sense. 

The Greek word Apostolos (ἀπόστολος) is a very strong word, meaning that one is sent by a person in authority to act, where he is sent, with the authority of the sender himself. This is very important, and has everything to do with the authority Jesus gave to His Apostles. The Apostolic Jurisdiction is the whole world (Matthew 28:18-20). Among those who denounce our polity are voices that say, "there is no direct command from the Lord that gives the episcopal office its historic role and authority." In fact, this is an argument from silence. But, as we shall find from historical fact, we cannot say that the Lord is not the Author of the episcopal office with its specific authority and charisms. Bearing in mind the amount of authority in men called apostles of any ruler, especially Apostles of the Lord Jesus Christ, to act with the Lord's own authority in a worldwide jurisdiction, remember the following words.

"He that receiveth you receiveth me, and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me." (Matthew 10:40)

 "Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent (apostellō, ἀποστέλλω) me, even so send I you." (John 20:21)
(The second of those verses will be of great significance when we get to the writing of St. Ignatius of Antioch.) For those who question when and where the Lord Himself has spoken, and for noble Bereans who require biblical evidence, I proceed by building on those words of Christ from the Gospels.  

The questions of essence, bene esse, juro divino, etc. should all be answered by the historical evidence concerning what the Apostles did. The Church, instead of asking all sorts of academic questions about what is possible within the limitless sphere of God's direct working, ought to consider that whatever the Apostles taught, however they ordered, and whatever they ruled in their judgment, has been given to the Church as coming from Jesus Christ. We may be sure they were directed by the Holy Spirit. Passing judgment on others or trying to determine if they may have some validity in a wide sphere of unknowable possibilities, and without Roman arrogance and presumption of labeling ministries "absolutely null and utterly void" of God's grace, especially simply because "he followeth not with us," is not our burden to bear. But neither is it legitimate for us to disregard the clear teaching and practice that we trace to the ancient catholic doctors and bishops. Here I will use a phrase that no Anglican has business disputing, but that some have presumed to dispute, Apostolic Succession.

Ironically, the term is quite likely used for the first time in a famous letter by St. Jerome, writing of all bishops the following:

"It is not the case that there is one church at Rome and another in all the world beside. Gaul and Britain, Africa and Persia, India and the East worship one Christ and observe one rule of truth. If you ask for authority, the world outweighs its capital. Wherever there is a bishop, whether it be at Rome or at Engubium, whether it be at Constantinople or at Rhegium, whether it be at Alexandria or at Zoan, his dignity is one and his priesthood is one. Neither the command of wealth nor the lowliness of poverty makes him more a bishop or less a bishop. All alike are successors of the apostles." (Jerome's Letter to Evangelus)

Ironically, some have taken this letter to be an apologetic for Presbyterianism, and a careless reading with a few lines taken out of the context of the whole, can indeed give that false impression. The preceding sentence is what they quote.

"For even at Alexandria from the time of Mark the Evangelist until the episcopates of Heraclas and Dionysius the presbyters always named as bishop one of their own number chosen by themselves and set in a more exalted position, just as an army elects a general, or as deacons appoint one of themselves whom they know to be diligent and call him archdeacon. For what function, excepting ordination, belongs to a bishop that does not also belong to a presbyter?"

Because this paragraph deals with the origin of the episcopate, they argue that it was a creation of presbyters themselves, and they presume contrary to all the historical evidence about ecclesiastical praxis, that this election process was sufficient without any consecration from any bishop. But the quotation never even implies that an election held by the presbytery takes the place of consecration, and the hypothetical question, "For what function, etc.?" proves that Jerome meant to imply no such thing, as is quite obvious. Knowing the practice of the ancient Church, as recorded too many times to dismiss, we must conclude that the presbytery did not presume the power to themselves consecrate their fellow to the office of bishop simply by having elected him. We know from other sources that episcopal elections were quite normal throughout antiquity, but that a bishop elect could not act as a bishop prior to the laying on of hands by at least one other bishop, in time the norm being by three bishops. All the sentence speaks of is the election process itself, and why the office of bishop (ἐπίσκοπος, epískopos) was separated at that time in history from the office of Presbyter  (πρεσβύτερος, presbyteros). 

More importantly, when was this decided? To begin with, the sentence, so often abused and dragged out of context, is not even speaking of the Church beyond Alexandria. Furthermore, it is quite apparent that St. Mark, who, as we see in the Book of Acts, had been a companion of Paul and Barnabas, later with Barnabas and praised by Paul writing to Timothy, the author of the Gospel that bears his name, was alive and well, and present in Alexandria. And in the sentence that follows, Jerome says that all bishops are "successors of the Apostles." For anyone to drag this letter out, and dust it off, as some argument against the historic fact of Apostolic Succession, is indeed ironic and self-defeating.

The logical conclusion is that the Church catholic has gotten it right all along. Though in the earliest days, as is quite evident in the New Testament, the office of presbyter was one and the same as the office called, at the time, bishop (Acts 20:28, Titus 1:5,7),  which is something no one has ever denied, it was after a while the Apostles themselves who separated the office of presbyter from that of the episcopate. It became the rule in their time, and could not have been decided by any others. Indeed, it was the presbyterian office that developed rather than the episcopal office. To the episcopal office alone belongs the power to ordain, and the bishop has authority to command obedience from the presbyters and deacons. 

We come now to a very important figure in history, the martyr St. Ignatius of Antioch. He was the bishop of the Church where disciples were first called Christians, that is Antioch in Syria. On his way to Rome to be martyred in an arena, he wrote several epistles that are included in a collection called The Apostolic Fathers. Ignatius, like Polycarp, learned directly from the Apostles themselves, having learned firsthand from no less of an authoritative source than those whom Christ sent as He Himself had been sent by the Father, the men to whom Jesus had said that they would be guided by the Spirit of Truth into all truth (John 16:13), those in whose doctrine we must remain steadfast. It is of no small significance, therefore, the several things Ignatius wrote in those epistles concerning the office of bishop.

"See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid. Moreover, it is in accordance with reason that we should return to soberness [of conduct], and, while yet we have opportunity, exercise repentance towards God. It is well to reverence both God and the bishop. He who honours the bishop has been honoured by God; he who does anything without the knowledge of the bishop, does [in reality] serve the devil. Let all things, then, abound to you through grace, for you are worthy. You have refreshed me in all things, and Jesus Christ [shall refresh] you. You have loved me when absent as well as when present. May God recompense you, for whose sake, while you endure all things, you shall attain unto Him." (Epistle to the Smyrnaeans, chapters 8 and 9)

The words "so that everything that is done may be secure and valid" give Anglicanism its logical basis for insisting on episcopacy, and having always done so as the only Anglican polity ever or anywhere. Recently someone retorted to the very mention of the name of Ignatius, with some quotation by an obscure "scholar," to the effect that Ignatius never said anywhere that the episcopate was established by the Lord. In light of the above quotation (and others like it), and in light of the fact that Jesus sent His Apostles as the Father had sent Him, and in light of the very definition of Apostolos, I cannot take such a "scholarly" objection at all seriously, and neither should you. It is utterly meaningless at best.

I could call further witnesses, such as Polycarp, Clement of Rome, Justin Martyr, and later Irenaeus. Frankly, I could call as witness the whole Church catholic in antiquity and the most ancient catholic doctors and bishops. Recognition of presbyteral ordinations for our churches is neither secure nor valid, as it is done without the bishop. So taught the disciple of the Apostles. The Apostolic Succession of bishops, is unquestionable and indisputable.

Finally, it is not sufficient to speak of these things strictly in terms of laws and authority as men understand it. In recent years I see that apostate "churches," especially in America the Episcopal Church, have come to prefer the term "Historic Episcopate" to Apostolic Succession. I believe that this is clearly because the latter carries with it a weight of doctrine that they transgress shamelessly (Acts 2:42, II Timothy 2:2), and also the charismatic power that they have forfeited. They hold a form of godliness, denying the power thereof. From such turn away (II Timothy 3:5). For true believers, understand that we must believe the Apostolic Church, and in saying that realize that God uses the Bishop, when strange doctrines are banished and the truth is taught, and by his charism as bishop, in making the whole Church Apostolic.
Posted by at 10 comments:
Labels: ,

Wednesday, December 03, 2014

Who needs Canterbury?

Was there any doubt that the Church of England would vote to have women "bishops" from now on? How is the C of E really any different from the Episcopal "Church" here in the United States, other than certain particular cultural traits of the English and the C's Establishment (i.e., as the State Church)? Nonetheless, we see the phenomenon of some people in the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA) openly trumpeting communion with Canterbury as some sort of advantage, as if it provides a superior status of some kind, making them the authentic Anglicans. We see the phenomenon of the Reformed Episcopal Church (REC) apparently delighted finally, since its birth in the 1870s, to have a connection to the See of Canterbury. 

 Continuing Anglicans did initially seek to begin their venture hoping to be in communion with Canterbury. In the Affirmation of St. Louis, back in 1977, we find this:

"The Continuation of Communion with Canterbury
We affirm our continued relations of communion with the See of Canterbury and all faithful parts of the Anglican Communion. WHEREFORE, with a firm trust in Divine Providence, and before Almighty God and all the company of heaven, we solemnly affirm, covenant and declare that we, lawful and faithful members of the Anglican and Episcopal Churches, shall now and hereafter continue and be the unified continuing Anglican Church in North America, in true and valid succession thereto."

 Then Archbishop of Canterbury, Donald Coggan, strongly opposed the new Continuing Church, and gave it no recognition. As a result, the Continuers went ahead without any official status as part of the Anglican Communion. Frankly, forced to choose between orthodoxy and Anglican Communion membership, it was clear that genuine fidelity to Christ required the willingness to forego that membership. After a while, it became obvious that this estrangement was beneficial to the Continuing churches. The Anglican Catholic Church even went so far as to add this note to the original Affirmation of St. Louis:  

 "[Note: Because of the action of General Synod of the Church of England, Parliament, and the Royal Assent, the College of Bishops of the Anglican Catholic Church is obliged no longer to count the See of Canterbury as a faithful part of the Anglican Communion.]"

 The operative word is "faithful," both in the original and in the note. To preserve Church order and the validity of Holy Orders, the separation proved necessary. Perhaps there exists a failure of communication between us and the ACNA. You see, we are glad not to be in communion with Canterbury. If we were offered communion with Canterbury we would decline it, as in "Thanks, but no thanks."

 The ACNA, on the other hand (which still has Priestesses in the Church, though we hope, and pray, not for long), has held communion with Canterbury as worth having. And this comes at a time when the Anglican Communion is falling apart, due largely to the refusal of African churches to participate in future Lambeth Conferences. For most of those African Anglicans, the final straw has been the liberal acceptance of homosexual acts, something very clearly revealed to be sin in the Scriptures. 

 Perhaps, under political pressure, someday in the future, the Church of England will go the way of the Church of Sweden, where the clergy are required by law to perform same-sex "weddings." I have no doubt that right here, in my adopted state of North Carolina, the local Episcopalians will be performing same-sex "weddings" and feeling all warm and fuzzy about how liberal and advanced they have become. The See of Canterbury has watched for years the Episcopalians, trailing only slightly behind them into heresy and apostasy. 

 Back in the beginning, the Continuers saw that ordination of women was simply the latest symptom, and one that required separation to protect sacramental validity. The arguments that were used for women's ordination were not merely similar to the arguments for acceptance of homosexual acts, leading to same-sex "blessings" and now "weddings," but largely the very same arguments. Just substitute a word here and there, and it all boils down to the same reasoning. Where did it begin? By believing that a person's sex (not "gender"- the word is "sex"- as in male and female) was totally irrelevant to anything sacramental. So, it went from ordination to marriage. The confusion of seeing a woman "priest" at the altar, portraying the heavenly Bridegroom, and seeing two people of the same sex get "married" to each other, may be different in degree, but it is the same in kind. The C of E, with its priestesses and bishopettes, is just a little behind the Episcopalians here in America. It is only a matter of time, as always.

 What is the Anglican Communion anyway? Was the Episcopal Church part of something called the Anglican Communion in the late eighteenth century? How about during the War of 1812? Historically, the Anglican Communion is a very recent thing.

 I would urge my friends in the ACNA, including those in the REC, to cut themselves free from the weight of it. Of my charity, I wish they would take several pages from our book. One of those pages says we don't need communion with the See of Canterbury. No orthodox church body does. In fact, no orthodox church body can afford the price that comes with it.
Posted by at 4 comments:
Labels: , , ,

Tuesday, July 24, 2012

Not a mouthful

"Wherefore I put thee in remembrance that thou stir up the gift of God, which is in thee by the putting on of my hands."
II Timothy1:6

"Thou therefore, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus. And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also." 
II Timothy 2:2

Even as a child I knew that the Episcopal Church and the Anglican family to which it belonged was, along with the Anglican Communion as a whole, unique in identifying itself as Protestant and Catholic, with Catholic ministers and Protestant priests. I knew that one major thing that distinguished us from other Protestants was the Apostolic Succession of bishops. The phrase readily dripped off the tongue. For some it may have been simplistically understood or, at its worst, treated like some form of claim to nobility, placing our church in a higher class. But, in general, it was appreciated as a genuine link to Christ Himself and His Apostles. 

A few years ago I noticed, when writing for The Christian Challenge, that the Episcopal Church (TEC) of today has chosen a phrase they prefer: "The Historic Episcopate." As with so many phrases that cannot be disputed, it simply goes by unnoticed. It is sort of like their use of "God our Creator and Jesus Christ our Savior" that has become standard with them. It is true; but they use it to avoid saying "God our Father and Jesus Christ our Lord." So, to camouflage an ignoble intention, they hide it behind unassailable truth, but only in terms of unobjectionable accuracy masking something unacceptable.

So, by now you may be asking, "What is wrong with saying Historic Episcopate?" Well, in one sense, nothing at all. The episcopate is absolutely indisputable as a fact of history. Indeed, it is so indisputable that any atheist has to acknowledge it. But, that happens also to be the problem. 

When we say "Apostolic Succession," we say a mouthful. The expression carries with it truth deeper than  mere historical fact. It includes the history, but contains so much more. That truth is in a twofold and inseparable combination: Sacrament and Word. 

The sacrament is that of consecration. It is so important that the Church of England and Queen Elizabeth made extra sure that the first Archbishop of Canterbury to be consecrated during her reign, thus establishing Anglican orders for generations to come, was consecrated beyond doubt by men with unquestionably valid orders. This importance is further highlighted by the efforts of enemies to discredit those orders, all vain efforts that no scholar today takes seriously. 

But, those strained efforts at deceit against Anglican validity are a compliment to the care taken for the Consecration of Archbishop Matthew Parker. The sacrament, about which we read St. Paul's words to St. Timothy in the earliest of times, is consistent with the way Moses had ordained Joshua to take his place, and reminds us of Elijah and Elisha also. The laying on of Apostolic hands, for the purpose of handing on necessary gifts and authority, is charismatic, the work of the Holy Spirit in giving grace to fulfill the work and ministry of the office of bishop. 

But, it is possible that TEC has fallen into the trap of contenting itself with a merely Historic Episcopate partly because the sacramental element of Apostolic Succession had come to be nothing more, to some of them, than a relay race; a historical record of who laid hands on who, and nothing more. Also writing to Timothy, Paul warned of those "Having a form of godliness, but denying the power (dunamis) thereof: from such turn away (II Timothy 3:5)." 

"Apostolic Succession" speaks of the power of the Holy Spirit and His gifts. Anyone who knows both our Ordinal and its Preface knows how highly Anglicans have regarded the work of God the Holy Spirit as the true source for all ordained ministry: The words "Receive the Holy Ghost" have been essential in imparting His special grace to all bishops and priests. 

But, I am sure that even the most deluded and misleading of TEC clergy would love to be able to claim the gifts and power of the Holy Spirit; indeed, they blame Him for all their errors, insisting that they are His only true followers. Indeed, "only" because of the new "revelations" they claim as well. No, they haven't dropped the term "Apostolic Succession" from frequent usage because of that. They deny the power, of course, but they do so by denying the essential truth, the truth that His power is present in His Church to confirm.

The part of Apostolic Succession that bothers them is the continuity of Apostolic doctrine to which it commits the bishops, and under their care the work of establishing and defending that doctrine in Christ's Church. Frankly, TEC has not come down with a case of admiral honesty in stepping back from the term "Apostolic Succession." They are not admitting to failure in passing on the pure word of God as taught from the earliest times. Rather, they don't want to pass it on. They really believe they are smarter than the Apostles, and would be embarrassed to teach something as un-stylish as orthodoxy. The true Gospel is not in fashion. They see themselves as far more enlightened than the eyewitnesses of Christ's resurrection, those who had heard from His own mouth, those to Whom He gave clear teaching, clear direction, and an unchanging charge; those to whom he sent the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost.

But, Apostolic Succession remains, and it remains for word and sacrament. "The same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also" - for all generations to come.
Posted by at 14 comments:
Labels: , , ,

Thursday, July 28, 2011

Seven Oecumenical Councils

Identity as the Church
The Affirmation of St. Louis very clearly and directly binds Continuing Anglicans to the Seven Ecumenical (or Oecumenical) Councils that took place in the First Millennium. The number seven, rather than four, has more significance concerning our identity than it does our theology. Constantinople II (553 AD), Constantinople III (680-681 AD) and Nicea II (787 AD) do not receive and need not receive as much attention by students of theology as the first four Ecumenical Councils. 

That is not because the final three lack the same authority, nor because they were not necessary in their time to defend the truth. It is simply because all three of them defend, in essence, the work of the first four. For purposes of theology, most of the study that is done by potential clergy and teachers must focus on Nicea I (325 AD), Constantinople I (381 AD), Ephesus (431 AD) and Chalcedon (451 AD). What this boils down to is merely this: When we Affirm seven Ecumenical Councils, one major reason is to define who we are, to identify ourselves as the Church. The Affirmation of seven Councils, before what we call the Great Schism of east and west, says that we believe ourselves to be of that same One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church that goes all the way back to the beginning.

The Church of England, and the consequent Anglican Communion, always had so identified itself. Never did the Church of England present itself as having a sixteenth century origin. Never did Anglicans treat the Reformation as their birth. Never did any generation of Anglicans say, in the Creeds, "I believe in the Holy Catholic Church," or "Catholic and Apostolic Church" as if speaking of someone else instead of themselves. Always, in every generation, the Apostolic Succession of bishops - our bishops - was traced to the Apostles. 

Matthew Parker was not the first Archbishop of Canterbury in some new church, but rather the seventy-first Archbishop of Canterbury. The Church of England after the Reformation was the same church as before. This feature of Anglicanism made it unique among the reformed churches. It also makes the Affirmation of St. Louis quite correct in holding to our ancient identity. We do not merely aspire to be of the Holy Catholic Church. We need not fly either to Rome or to Constantinople to be in the Church established by Christ through the Apostles. The Affirmation, therefore, of all seven Councils is consistent with the belief Anglicans have always had in their own identity as belonging to the Church.

Seventh Council and the homily on the perils of idolatry
It is assumed that Anglicans cannot hold to the Homily "Against Peril of Idolatry" and also to Nicea II. That assumption is based on the fact that Nicea II, the Second Council of Nicea and seventh Ecumenical Council, condemned the Iconoclasts. The first in the list of Anathemas says, "If anyone does not confess that Christ our God can be represented in his humanity, let him be anathema."

The danger represented by the heresy of Iconoclasm was really aimed at the Incarnation. The Iconoclasts, had they succeeded, would have created a doctrine that cannot be reconciled to the ultimate revelation of our Faith: "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." (John 1:14)

But, the essence of the Anglican Homily was about something else. To say that the teaching in the Homily must contradict the essence of Nicea II is to equate icons with idols; in which case, it is the one who argues for their mutual exclusion, who thereby says that the Council and the Homily are irreconcilable, who discredits and rejects Nicea II. It is that person who treats the Council as favoring idolatry, and who calls it into question. 

Furthermore, the Homily recounts the little understood fact that "the Greeks" were scandalized by the images of "the Latins." What does that mean? The answer is found in Eastern Orthodox practice to this day. They find the western practice of three dimensional images, or statues, objectionable. Furthermore, icons, in addition to being flat, are written images, symbolic with recognized meaning much the way written words signify rather than depict. Western art and icons are, thus, very different in nature.

The other issue is λατρεία (latreia), the worship reserved only for God. At times, in the west, images were allowed to become the objects of such worship. The justification for this was seen by the Eastern Church as an exercise in sophistry, therefore unconvincing. And, it is the practice of allowing λατρεία to be used for statues and other images that is also the real target of the Anglican Homily.

Irony of final Councils - Rome's apparent loss of status
It is an irony that various Protestants often cut the number of Councils to four. That is because it is the second, third and fourth Councils that ascribe to the Patriarch of Rome the first place of honor. In the actual texts from these Councils no reason is given beyond the imperial and political realities of the era. 

But, the condemnation of Pope Honorius I (Pope from 625 to 638 AD) for heresy, more than half a century after his death, took place at  the Third Council of Constantinople in 680-681 AD. As such, it is part of the official record of the Church that one of the popes was a heretic (probably an very unfair judgment in light of all the facts). It is a remarkable fact that in these final Ecumenical Councils we no longer find any reference to the Patriarch of Rome holding a first place of honor. So, it seems ironic that these Councils are mostly overlooked by a majority of the few Reformed churches that still recall the Councils.

Conclusion
Continuing Anglicans have Affirmed all seven Ecumenical Councils of the first millennium. This may seem like an extra step to certain other Anglicans. But this affirmation is very important in our day and age for letting the Two One True Churches know that we do not look to them to give us validity, and more so, to reminding ourselves of that fact. We do not aspire to be part of the Holy Catholic Church; rather, we are part of it. This understanding is consistent with the practice of Anglicans going back to the Reformation era, when Matthew Parker became the seventy-first in a long line of Archbishops of Canterbury. What was affirmed in St. Louis in 1977 was a logical continuation of everything that particular succession meant. 
Posted by at 18 comments:
Labels: ,

Saturday, July 23, 2011

Self defeating

The question about why some Continuing Anglican churches seem doomed never to grow needs to be faced squarely. As I said in my recent post Three Assumptions, a significant proportion of the people, at least of the clergy, have allowed themselves to become "a very late model version of Anglo-Catholicism that has little in common with the real thing." Part of this inexplicable phenomenon is some crazy idea that Anglicans have no reason to be Anglicans at all (and yet they persist). After all, once they have dismissed their heritage with its formularies, presenting instead an open rejection of the very Anglicanism they claim to Continue, representing no conviction that endorses their own tradition, they are a pitiful sight. No wonder they cannot build anything, or attract a significant portion of new members.

The ignorance I have encountered from a frightening proportion of Anglican clergy (with frighteningly little to show for their efforts) concerning the writings of Anglican fathers and luminaries, is often compensated for by the propaganda they have swallowed from outspoken  proselytizers for one or the other of the Two One True Churches. In place of reading the English Reformers, they are very up to date on all the articles and blogs about English Reformers by those who treat all Anglicans as a mission field in need of conversion. Instead of knowing the works of genuine Anglican thinkers, they are very conversant on the works of open adversaries who labor tirelessly to distort, conceal, twist and otherwise deceive ignorant and gullible people to lead them away. 

One very liberating fact that such self-loathing Anglicans need to learn, and learn yesterday, is to stop swallowing everything dished up by the opposition. The Two One True Churches have their own Tokyo Roses broadcasting fear and defeatism over blogs, in books and in publications. Stop listening to it. If you want to know what Anglicanism is, learn it from Anglican sources - in fact, from primary sources. I do not care what some Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox blogger, author or editor has to say about the Anglican formularies, nor their own distorted version of history (besides, I have heard it all before). I have a really novel idea; why not study those formularies themselves? Why not read Anglican teaching from the great luminaries of our own tradition? 

Another liberating fact is that there is no such thing as a Roman-Orthodox consensus on Anglicanism. Not that I would care if both of the Two One True Churches did agree; but, their apparent agreement on anything, beyond a few basics, is mere fantasy. First of all, Rome and Orthodoxy have never agreed about Anglican orders. At one time, between 1922 and 1976, Orthodox bishops, with the full authority of their respective churches, allowed their people to receive the sacraments from Anglican clergy (i.e. until women's "ordination. "Yes, I know all about Kallistos Ware's endeavor to explain away the facts of history between 1922 and 1976. It was a noble effort, to the degree that denying facts can be noble. The simple reality is, his very, very scholastic and academic effort just does not hold water).

But, long before then and to this day, the Orthodox are forbidden to receive sacraments from Roman Catholic clergy. That is because any current denial of our orders, or argument against classic western theology, is simply an extension of their rejection of Roman Catholicism, and their tendency to condemn everything western. As such, it cannot amount to an agreement, unless someone says that the Orthodox rejection of Rome equals agreement with them about anything. It makes no sense.

If, however, you want to find the truth of genuine consensus that Continues the truth as received, believed and practiced by the Universal Church before the Great Schism, you need look no further than the Book of Common Prayer. There you have it. The Evangelical and Catholic Faith of the Universal Church has been preserved, including what few things Rome and Orthodoxy actually do agree about, namely ancient things we have never denied or rejected.

Or, if you prefer, you can tell everybody why you have no confidence in your own church's doctrine and practice. This method has been used for over thirty years, and it is obvious where it has been used consistently. It is obvious because nothing much remains to show for it. I prefer the contrast I see among churches where the people are happy to be Anglicans, and where they have made it clear that they are not a  mission field.
Posted by at 56 comments:
Labels: , ,

Thursday, July 21, 2011

Three assumptions

Three assumptions commonly made by a large number of Continuing Anglicans are simply wrong. Those assumptions concern the relative catholicity of Rome versus Protestantism, the term Lex Orandi Lex Credendi, and a so-called Three Legged Stool.

Catholicity
A lot of this is due to the emotional approach of a very late model version of Anglo-Catholicism that has little in common with the real thing (and if the pitch for Anglicanorum Coetibus proved nothing else, it proved the existence of this new superficial model). After all, agree or disagree with various points made by John Henry Newman in his famous Tract 90, one thing he made absolutely clear, and in which matter he spoke for his Tractarian colleagues, was their unwavering commitment to the Book of Common Prayer and the Thirty-Nine Articles. But, for some reason, the new version, or late model, Anglo-Catholics imagine some inconsistency or disagreement between their perception of Catholic Tradition and the classic Anglican Formularies (Book of Common Prayer, Thirty-Nine Articles and Ordinal).
          Now, as is no secret, I belong to a church that has Affirmed more than is crystal clear simply from those formularies alone. In the Constitution and Canons of the Anglican Catholic Church (ACC) we have the Affirmation of St. Louis, and therefore affirm seven Sacraments and the seven Ecumenical Councils. Furthermore, the Canons affirm a more detailed doctrinal tradition that has led to the use of the word “Henrican.” But, this is done by working backwards in time to 1543, to be in accord with “all other Anglican Laws Ecclesiastical in effect in part or parts of North America or elsewhere prior to 1967…” That is, no one has taken anything away.
Furthermore, the Reformers who came after Bloody Mary was dead and buried, when the Reformation again took hold in England, saw themselves as following in the footsteps of the earlier Reformers. Therefore, the "Henrican" idea says nothing to refute or reject the classic formularies that came a bit later. Rather, a deep rooting in something older and more thoroughly clarified protects the Church from eventually making innovations of the same kind that have destroyed modern Anglican churches of the official Canterbury Communion, such as the Episcopal Church in the United States.
          By setting the cut off at 1967, and the standard ecclesiastical laws of the Episcopal Church and Anglican Church of Canada until that time, our beliefs are safely protected. This is good, because my attitude to the Anglican tradition, which must include the classic formularies, is very much like a member of the National Rifle Association here in America regarding his Second Amendment rights. That is, no one can take my formularies away from me unless he pulls them from my cold dead fingers.
          So, getting back to the statement of John Henry Newman, before his much celebrated apostasy (and loss of judgment), the Anglo-Catholic position, historically, affirms the classic formularies. Therefore, when a couple of priests in the ACC write a series meant to educate the average layman (perhaps some clergy too) in the meaning of the Thirty-Nine Articles, it should be considered strange for anyone to object, or to question the value of the exercise (besides which, since everyone has the Articles at his fingertips, and because they are easily misunderstood, the education seems necessary).
          The purpose of the Reformation was to restore true catholic doctrine against the errors of Rome. Even a light and superficial reading of the English Reformers ought to make this clear; in fact, clear to even the most closed mind. The horrific expression “too catholic” – a phrase that can have no meaning to a real Anglican – would not have been used by the Reformers. To them the Church of Rome had erred and strayed from the catholic Tradition by inventing many new and strange innovations in doctrine. For some reason that is inexplicable to men of learning, the late model folks think it is Protestants who first created innovations. They project modern circumstances into the past.
But, to the mind of the English Reformers the deadly innovations of their time were Roman in origin, and the purpose of Protestantism was to testify in favor (hence the “pro” in the word, a meaning entirely turned around in corrupt modern usage), which happens to be the definition of the word; to testify in favor. They testified in favor of the Testaments of Scripture, and did so by affirming the overwhelming Patristic consensus of the “most ancient catholic doctors and bishops.” For example, when the Martyr, Archbishop Thomas Cranmer, wrote his book about the sacrament of Christ’s Body and Blood, he called it A Defence of the True and Catholick Doctrine of the Sacrament.  With excellent scholarship he filled its pages with long quotations from just about all of the great Fathers of the Church, such long quotations as to place every word in a context that was indisputably correct. He called on the witness not of his own private reading of Scripture (as some so wrongly suppose about the great Reformers), but of the Church through its ancient witnesses, the “most ancient catholic doctors and bishops,” whose words he quoted in abundance.
The Reformers in England sought to be thoroughly catholic, and did not confuse catholicity with something specifically Roman. The Church in Rome had ceased to be catholic to the degree that it had created new and strange doctrines contrary to the word of God. Furthermore, the English Reformers interpreted the Bible only through the collected witness and major consensus of the Fathers. How to be more catholic no one can say.

Lex Orandi Lex Credendi
The Latin term Lex Orandi Lex Credendi translates literally, "The law of prayer is the law of belief." It means, in practical terms, that as people pray, so they believe.
As I have written before,1 it is a terrible mistake to depend on this idea as a method of instruction. However, to a degree it is a true statement when applied to thinking people who pay attention to liturgy as they pray. But, it is more a statement of human psychology than an approved means by which the Church operates. Therefore, to the same degree that it may be useful it is also dangerous.
It was a slogan of the worst kind of liturgical revisionists, during the 1970s, in the self-destruction saga of the Episcopal Church in the United States.  It was a boast of the late Urban Holmes that the Standing Liturgical Commission of the Episcopal Church, by producing the 1979 work they labeled a “Book of Common Prayer,” had produced “a clear theological change.” In fact he privately boasted of this in the ears of my own brother, specifically referring to the form they created (by butchering the old form) for Confirmation.
The idea of changing theology by changing liturgy makes use of Lex Orandi Lex Credendi  in the worst way. In 2002 I argued, in New Directions (March issue), that this method is used to create Feminist theology so intensely that we can see the aim clearly, to replace the revealed religion of Christianity with an imagined religion that is pagan in nature. And, it is still true to this day. When coupled with deliberate inaccuracy in Bible translation (a subject to look at carefully) it is more effective still. 
Then we have the danger of using Lex Orandi Lex Credendi to make any and every liturgical resource into an authority equal to Scripture. Even a good and useful resource, as the Missal can be when used well, cannot be used to prove doctrine, or as if it had that kind of authority. The Book of Common Prayer is an exception, however, because it is drawn from Scripture so perfectly that it states a doctrinal position about every major truth of the Gospel and the Christian life that really is the revealed teaching of the Bible itself. It is an authoritative resource because it fits perfectly, in a subordinate role, with Scripture. Nonetheless, it should be our practice to teach and preach directly from Scripture; and when we do so we have the delight of demonstrating the excellence of the Book of Common Prayer by showing our people where their liturgy actually comes from and what it truly means.
Frankly, we should never fall back on Lex Orandi Lex Credendi. We ought to so know the Scriptures with the mind of the Church that we can turn it around. It ought to be Lex Credendi Lex Orandi: As we believe, so we pray. And, what do we believe? We say what we believe, each one of us saying it in every major service, “I believe.” And, what each of us believes is a summary of the truth revealed in Scripture, understood and received by the faithful throughout all ages.

The so-called Three Legged Stool
People associate the name of Richard Hooker with this :

“Be it in matter of the one kind or of the other, what Scripture doth plainly deliver, to that the first place both of credit and obedience is due; the next whereunto is whatsoever any man can necessarily conclude by force of reason; after this the Church succeedeth that which the Church by her ecclesiastical authority shall probably think and define to be true or good, must in congruity of reason overrule all other inferior judgments whatsoever.” (The Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity, Book 5.VIII.2)


At least, this has been misused greatly by revisionists of the modern Episcopalian variety for years. To begin with, the image of such a three legged stool suggests equality, and also separation into three things that can exist in isolation. It creates a system of checks and balances, weighing one “leg” against another. Modern three-leg-stoolers weigh Scripture against Tradition, or against Reason, etc., pretending this will lead to the truth. Among many problems, it lowers the “first place both of credit and obedience” which is Scripture itself, to mere human reason, and to some mysterious and easily manipulated canon of Tradition.
What Hooker was saying is really more simple. He is saying that the Bible communicates obvious and plain meaning that human reason cannot fail to perceive. This does not make each person a final arbiter, as he says:

“For when we know the whole Church of God hath that opinion of the Scripture, we judge it even at the first an impudent thing for any man bred and brought up in the Church to be of a contrary mind without cause.” (Book 3. Ch. viii. 14)

Also, this three legged stool equates the place of Scripture, publicly known books in a public canon for all to see, to the same level as some mysterious canon of the Tradition. In this enigmatic and dark world of some unknown canon of the Tradition we hear a lot about a present consensus between Rome and Orthodoxy – a fiction in most ways – as if that trumps all else. Because of a hidden and mysterious canon (supposedly) of the Tradition, theological bullies are able to sell all sorts of non-sense by appealing to councils that have never been universally recognized, to whatever suits their fancy portrayed as “the teaching of the Church,” and so on. This entire method of deceptive salesmanship was recently demonstrated for us by (TAC) Archbishop John Hepworth and his fellow marketers, in trying to draw away Anglicans into the Roman Catholic Church with dishonest promises based on wrong assumptions. They used this whole appeal to some mysterious canon of the Tradition to manipulate, or at times bully, the ignorant and gullible.  
Anglicanism has always held the genuine Catholic Tradition of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church in the highest esteem, and, furthermore, has made the essential practice and understanding of the Tradition publicly known and has placed it within the grasp and understanding of all who care to learn it. However, a simple lesson to learn about knowing truth from error is this: The truth is publicly recorded for all to see, and accessible to everybody. Why does the Church have a Canon of Scripture for all to read? It is so that no one can make up new doctrines by appealing to a hidden γνῶσις (gnosis) only for the initiated.
Now, this brings us to an important question: What about the misuse of Scripture (II Peter 3:16)? After all, many people believe false doctrines because some group abused the Bible, either by injecting it with private interpretation, or by creating a magisterium of their own making such as the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society (a clever publishing company with a sure-fire selling method, and religion).
This is where Hooker’s actual meaning gives us the best answer. It is in the words quoted above, “For when we know the whole Church of God hath that opinion of the Scripture, we judge it even at the first an impudent thing for any man bred and brought up in the Church to be of a contrary mind without cause.” The real meaning of the old phrase Sola Scriptura, which comes from St. Thomas Aquinas (“quia sola canonica scriptura est regula fidei”)3 never implied or justified private interpretation; but only that God Himself gave us a public record and that the Church has received it and continues to hand it down. And, that public record has always existed within a community we call the Church.
The Church has the mind of Christ, and an anointing of the Holy Spirit that teaches truth from error (cp. I Corinthians 2:16 and I John 2:19-21). The Church needs teachers to clarify and explain, yes; but the combination of this public record and the presence of the Holy Spirit creates a defence against the spirit of Antichrist, that is heresy or error. I use the old spelling deliberately, defence. Error must, to succeed, penetrate a point beyond the wall, both the public record of Scripture to which nothing may be added, and the Holy Spirit Himself.
When Hooker used the word “reason,” often he meant the collective Right Reason of “the Church with her authority.” It seems that what some people have split into two legs is, in Hooker’s writing, one thing. It is the collective Right Reason of the Church with her authority that is handed down in a publicly known Tradition. This Right Reason, ultimately, has subordinated itself to the first place both of credit and obedience, the word of the Lord as recorded in Scripture.
When people speak of Scripture and Tradition as two separate and equal things they part company with the Church that Christ established through His Apostles, and by the Holy Spirit. In the catholic Tradition of the Church, Scripture and Tradition cannot be dissected and  divorced from each other; and without the word of God Reason has nothing to offer, for it has nothing true to inform it.

Conclusion
Three assumptions commonly made by a large number of Continuing Anglicans are simply wrong. Those assumptions concern the relative catholicity of Rome versus Protestantism, the term Lex Orandi Lex Credendi, and a so-called Three Legged Stool. This is what I said upfront, and now you know why.


1.     Here
2.   Here and  Here
3.     Notandum autem, quod cum multi scriberent de catholica veritate, haec est differentia, quia illi, qui scripserunt canonicam Scripturam, sicut Evangelistic et Apostoli, et alii huiusmodi, ita constanter eam asserunt quod nihil dubitandum relinquunt. Et ideo dicit Et scimus quia verum est testimonium eius; Gal. I, 9: Si quis vobis evangelizaverit praeter id quod accepistis, anathema sit. Cuius ratio est, quia sola canonica scriptura est regula fidei. Alii autem sic edisserunt de veritate, quod nolunt sibi credi nisi in his quae ver dicunt. Thomas's commentary on John's Gospel, Super Evangelium S. Ioannis Lectura, ed. P. Raphaelis Cai, O.P., Editio V revisa (Romae: Marietti E ditori Ltd., 1952) n. 2656, p. 488.


"It should be noted that though many might write concerning Catholic truth, there is this difference that those who wrote the canonical Scripture, the Evangelists and Apostles, and the like, so constantly assert it that they leave no room for doubt. That is what he means when he says 'we know his witness is true.' Galatians 1:9, "If anyone preach a gospel to you other than that which you have received, let him be anathema!" The reason is that only canonical Scripture is a measure of faith.Others however so wrote of the truth that they should not be believed save insofar as they say true things." (St. Thomas Aquinas, Commentary on the Gospel of John 21)
Posted by at 17 comments:
Labels:

Thursday, July 07, 2011

What of Sydney?

The question of Sydney Anglicanism has come up in recent comments. Sadly, the extremists in that diocese are being allowed to redefine the meaning of "Evangelicalism" among Anglicans. We must not allow this to take hold, or it will further the confusion of Babel against the blessings of clarity. In 2009 I posted my thoughts on the subject. I have edited the original to fit this current moment of history more acutely than the original. Here it is, a bit updated.

Sydney "Anglicanism" - the other innovation 

Probably, most of our readers are aware of an innovation that had arisen in the Diocese of Sydney before the end of the last century. That innovation is called "Lay Administration," which means Lay Celebration of the Eucharist. It has never seemed necessary from my home in America to spend much time and effort combating the Sydney innovation, because until recently it has been unthinkable that it might spread (perhaps our Australian blogger, Fr.Kirby, has run into the problem directly). After all, in the official Anglican Communion with the heresy of women's "ordination," several women have come to feel empowered-finally!-having broken through the stained-glass ceiling; and, no doubt, they'll be damned if they are going to share the "power" with just anybody.
However, some of the Sydney "Anglicans" have begun showing up in other spots, including America. Furthermore, after GAFCON and its American child (having appropriated a name formerly taken), the Anglican Church in North America, the Sydney innovation may come to be tolerated, helping to make it seem mainstream, conservative or orthodox compared to the Same-Sex heresies. For, sadly, that is how the re-appraisers known as "Reasserters" think: They see error as a matter of priorities that they can number in terms of their importance, rather than as symptoms of revolt against God by rejection of His word, as received, understood and affirmed by the universal Church in Antiquity.

The Reapparaisers have no concept of Antiquity, and would have to look up the term "Universal Consensus." They have a Bible, and they have modern teachers through whom they see as much of the English Reformers as those modern teachers care to let them see. Their spiritual and doctrinal epistemology jumps from the close of the first century (just the Bible), to the 16th century with a very brief stay, lest they gather more than they want, directly to the modern era (and, in some ways they have picked up more from the Anabaptists than from the English Reformers). For absolute authority they have a new version of Sola Scriptura, and it is not the kind first mentioned by Thomas Aquinas, or trumpeted by 16th century Reformers. The new Sola Scriptura is an absolute sola, in the sense of something destitute. In that sense, the Reappraisers finally have no Bible, at least not the Bible recognized by the Church.

The Bible, in their view, is subject to a process of reduction to an original or autographa, an actual manuscript produced by the writers. That is because those who hold to what we shall call Scriptura Egenus (i.e. Destitute) cannot trust even so much as the scribes who copied Scripture, inasmuch as discovery of a better manuscript has, theoretically, the power to overthrow the Bible as we know it. If you doubt this, consider that Dr. Wayne Grudem actually wrote that if a book were found, and verified to be the work of an Apostle from the First Century, we would have to recognize it as Scripture (apparently, without regard to its content).1 The logic of this must lead, as well, to the opposite conclusion: If a book could be shown not to be the work of an Apostle (Grudem's own dubious standard, inasmuch as no one knows who wrote the Epistle to the Hebrews) it would have to be scratched from the Canon. An obvious problem with Grudem's view is that it places recognition of Scripture in the hands of modern day scientists and their methodologies, not in our trust that the Church has recognized the Master's voice as guided by the Holy Spirit with universal consensus in Antiquity (John 16:13, I Cor. 2:16).


Jensen vs. the Church

How does this relate to the Sydney innovation? In every way. To be fair, we may note that Archbishop Peter Jensen wrote a defense of his position favoring Lay Administration and posted in online. 2 In some ways it presents some good ideas that do not need to be disputed, but they always end with a twist that disregards the Reason of Anglican doctrine. At best, his good ideas are half-truths. That is not to accuse him of dishonesty, inasmuch as I cannot doubt that he really believes he is teaching the truth of God's word. The problem is not the direction he seems to be going, but rather, that he does not go far enough in that direction. Nor does he spend enough time paying attention along the way. In other words, he means to go in the same direction that the English Reformers traveled, towards the true meaning of Christian doctrine and practice, the truly Catholic way. However, he does not spend enough time with those English Reformers; he does not hear all that they say, and so he actually contradicts the very Formularies of Anglicanism that he professes to believe. So, in the end he summarizes his position "in a box," with five points. The first is "1 Scripture is silent on the question as who [sic] may administer the Lord’s Supper."     

Once again, this presents the difference between Sola Scriptura, and this new Scriptura Egenus or Destitute. We all know Article VI, which opens, "Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation." The Article lists the Scriptures with the words, "the Canonical Books." Here we run into the genuine Anglican doctrine, because only the Church could have determined the Canon. Anyone who even so much as uses the expression "the Canon of Scripture" has already acknowledged what we call, in Hooker's terms, the Church with her authority, in which both Right Reason and Tradition are, actually, one.3     
Here we see that by having a Canon of Scripture, rather than merely a Recommended Reading List, we may invoke the real meaning of the Vincentian Canon (in its original context, where it is perfectly harmonious with the correct meaning of sola scriptura): Quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum est ("That which has been believed always, everywhere and by all" – which, admittedly, requires poetic license). In determining doctrine, the teaching of the Church from earliest times and the Bible are interdependent and inseparable. To understand the Biblical doctrine on Eucharistic Celebration, we must see the apparent silence of Scripture on this one point as answered by the universal consensus of the community in which and to whom the New Testament was written; by whom it has been handed down with the rest of Scripture, and its various books recognized.        
Archbishop Jensen has named Cranmer, Hooker and others, and quoted from the Articles, to try to strengthen his case, which he sets forth clearly:  

"It is commonly suggested that the development of lay administration of the Holy Communion is contrary to the very being of Anglicanism. Certainly it would have to be agreed that non-priestly administration would be quite contrary to some expressions of Anglicanism. But the assertion that it is contrary to the ethos of the Anglican Church really speaks for one side of the Church only. It suggests that one particular view of priesthood and of communion, and one only, is of the essence of the Eucharistic theology. Without going into the question of whether there is only one valid opinion, it is empirically true that at least two views have been evident in the Church for a very long time. According to the thinking of one such view, lay administration is impossible. Accordingly to the other view it is possible, although opinions differ as to whether it is advisable."    


Whether or not what the Ordinal presents within "the ethos of the Anglican Church really speaks for one side of the Church only," must be weighed by the Rites of Ordination that have been a part of the Church of England and Anglicanism since 1550, with the clarifications of the later editions. 4 So, does he mean that only "one side" believes the Preface to the Ordinal?


"It is evident unto all men diligently reading holy Scripture and ancient Authors, that from the Apostles' time there have been these Orders of Ministers in Christ's Church; Bishops, Priests, and Deacons. Which Offices were evermore had in such reverend Estimation, that no man might presume to execute any of them, except he were first called, tried, examined, and known to have such qualities as are requisite for the same; and also by publick Prayer, with Imposition of Hands, were approved and admitted thereunto by lawful Authority. And therefore, to the intent that these Orders may be continued, and reverently used and esteemed in the Church of England, no man shall be accounted or taken to be a lawful Bishop, Priest, or Deacon, in the Church of England, or suffered to execute any of the said Functions, except he be called, tried, examined, and admitted thereunto, according to the Form hereafter following, or hath had Episcopal Consecration, or Ordination."        


About the Ordinal, does only “one side” accept what is clearly stated by the imperative Form (or Accipe Spiritum Sanctum) in the Ordering of Priests?  To "execute" the office of priest certainly includes Eucharistic celebration. But, to get around "which Offices were evermore had in such reverend Estimation, that no man might presume to execute any of them, except..." etc., Jensen makes this argument:



3 "The priestly role is above all that of pastor of the congregation and cannot be handed over to someone else. 
4 Delegation of the various elements of the role is possible, however, and given developments in ecclesiology, desirable.

"5 The retention of administration of the Lord’s Supper as the only element which cannot be delegated detaches word from sacrament and confuses the congregation about the nature of the sacrament and the priestly role."



Earlier, he had quoted a report by the Australian House of Bishops called Eucharistic Presidency:
"As far as the English Reformation was concerned, the Report says: ‘we find the same heavy stress on the Ministry of the Word in relation to ordination, in line with the continental reformers. In the pre-Reformation Sarum rite, the candidate for priesthood was handed the chalice and/or paten as symbols of priestly office with the words, 'Receive the power to offer sacrifice to God', whereas in the 1552 English Ordinal, the Bible alone is given, accompanied by the words, 'Take thou authority to preach the Word of God, and to minister the holy sacraments in the congregation.’ (para 4.42)"

On which he builds his case further:


        "That is to say the two dominical sacraments depend for their life upon the explicit word of Christ and upon the fact that they visibly proclaim the gospel. In particular, the Lord’s Supper focuses us on the death of Christ with the assurance of God’s favour towards us. It is a 'Sacrament of our Redemption by Christ’s death' (Article 28).

         “There is an indissoluble connection, therefore, between the word of God and the sacraments indicated by the necessity of the sermon in the service of Holy Communion. It is not 'Anglican' to equate word and sacrament. A non-preaching communion service is a contradiction in terms, where the taking of bread and wine is removed from the context of the preaching of God’s word. It is the word of God which warrants the sacrament and explains it. The communal eating of bread and wine is the outward and visible sign of an inward and invisible grace, namely the grace of God towards us in Christ and at work in our lives. Despite the current emphases of Eucharistic theology, the emphasis of the Book of Common Prayer (including the Catechism thereof) dwells on the Lord’s Supper as spiritual union with Christ (the refreshment of our souls by the bread and blood of Christ) and the faithful remembrance of what Christ has done on our behalf. What is required of those who come to the Lord’s Supper is that they 'examine themselves, whether they repent them truly of their former sins; steadfastly purposing to lead a new life; have a lively faith in God’s mercy through Christ, with a thankful remembrance of his death; and be in charity with all men' (Catechism of the Book of Common Prayer). Not surprisingly, the ordination service published with the Book of Common Prayer emphasises the priestly role of preaching and living the word of God rather than the administration of the sacraments"

       


The obvious, glaring problem with his reasoning is that he ignores what the bishop says in even the earliest Ordinal, when Ordering a man to the priesthood:


"Receive the holy goste, whose synnes thou doest forgeve, they are forgeven: and whose sinnes thou doest retaine, thei are retained: and be thou a faithful despensor of the word of god, and of his holy Sacramentes. In the name of the father, and of the sonne, and of the holy gost. Amen... Take thou aucthoritie to preache the word of god, and to minister the holy Sacramentes in thys congregacion[, where thou shalt be so appointed]."

  
      

In this earliest Ordinal it is sacramental ministry that identifies the specific Order of "priest" with the words of Scripture, "whose synnes thou doest forgeve, they are forgeven: and whose sinnes thou doest retaine, thei are retained."5

 

The later editions say the same thing, adding only these words to clarify, for those untrained in the use of Scripture, the specific Order , "... for the Office and Work of a Priest in the Church of God, now committed unto thee by the Imposition of our hands." The words, "be thou a faithful Dispenser of the Word of God, and of his holy Sacraments," and "Take thou Authority to preach the Word of God, and to minister the holy Sacraments in the Congregation, where thou shalt be lawfully appointed thereunto," suffer at the hands of extremists. Some modern people who fancy themselves to be Anglo-Catholics (but having very little in common with the Tractarians) seem only to hear the mention of sacraments, and Sydney "Anglicans" seem only to notice the part about preaching. But, the priest is a minister of both.

  

As has been stated on The Continuum, more than once, efforts by some Anglo-Catholics (following an alleged Roman Catholic lead) to reduce the priestly office to its sacramental role, and thereby to under-emphasize the pastoral and teaching responsibilities and gifts inherent in that Order, is quite wrong. This I have stated in clear terms more than once, summarizing my arguments with the words of E.J. Bicknell (from a footnote):

"As we have said, the English word priest by derivation simply means 'presbyter'. But it has acquired the meaning of 'sacerdos'. The Christian presbyter in virtue of his office is a 'priest'. Priesthood is one of his functions."6  


We must turn neither to the right hand nor to the left, but walk within a via media that avoids extremes, following the advice of St. John Chrysostom not to endorse by accident one error through the effort of refuting the opposite error.7 In this manner we must refute Jensen's view. Archbishop Jensen argues that the laity may preach, and that, of necessity, along with preaching is Eucharistic Celebration; if they may do one they may do the other. 8 We may explore the argument itself presently, but first we must note that he tries to pin Sydney's new and novel idea on Cranmer. What he fails to see is that we cannot interpret the English Reformers accurately by drawing our own conclusions from their writings, no matter how intact our logic, unless we face the facts of what polity they insisted on, both by the full body of their teachings and by Canon Law. In the words of Richard Hooker:

“Is it a small office to despise the Church of God? ‘My son, keep thy father’s commandment,’ saith Solomon, ‘and forget not thy mother’s instruction: Bind them both always about thine heart.’ It doth not stand with the duty we owe to our heavenly Father, that to the ordinances of our mother the Church we should show ourselves disobedient. Let us not say we keep the commandments of the one, when we break the law of the other: for unless we observe both we obey neither.” (Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity, 3.IX.3)


Hooker upholds not only the teaching of the Church, but also, what he calls “her ecclesiastical authority,” not to be redundant, but to extend the meaning to include all aspects of polity.

No one doubts that some sort of Lay Preaching is permissible under certain conditions, and certainly no one should silence a member of the laity who can, by writing and teaching, edify and instruct us in the ways of holiness and in theology, or who may be a very effective evangelist. Indeed, and without any dispute, Deacons may preach from the pulpit if licensed by the Bishop. But, the Anglican Ordinal, in the Ordering of Priests, lays specific and particular emphasis on the authority, responsibility and the gift through Ordination to be a minister of God's word in a new way that he had not been heretofore as a Deacon, and does so in a line that includes as well his sacramental role. Surely this teaches us something of substance. The priest has a duty and a charism to be that minister of Word and Sacrament, and this answers Jensen's argument on the connection between preaching and celebrating the Eucharist. Furthermore, it answers it according to the only practice ever permitted in the Church, both before and after the English Reformation.

       

Archbishop Jensen and the Sydney "Anglicans" quite rightly reject women's "ordination." But, they employ the same method of Scriptura Egenus used by its advocates. In so doing they reject both the particular teaching of Anglicanism, and how that teaching is one of fidelity to Scripture as understood since the beginning in Antiquity, through the Right Reason of Tradition by “the Church with her authority.” The result is, in the Diocese of Sydney, though they are for the moment free from the error of women’s “ordination,” they promote an innovation every bit as rebellious and heretical.
____________________________


1. Grudem, Wayne: Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine, Zondervan Publishers, 1995 Van Nuys.


3. “Be it in matter of the one kind or of the other, what Scripture doth plainly deliver, to that the first place both of credit and obedience is due; the next whereunto is whatsoever any man can necessarily conclude by force of reason; after this the Church succeedeth that which the Church by her ecclesiastical authority shall probably think and define to be true or good, must in congruity of reason overrule all other inferior judgments whatsoever.” (Richard Hooker, The Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity,Book 5.VIII.2)

4. That is, clarification of what the Rites always had meant.

5. From an earlier Latin Ordinal translated by Cranmer, the first English Ordinal used verses of Scripture to identify respectively the three Orders.

6. E.J.Bicknell, A Theological Introduction to The Thirty-Nine Articles of the Church of England. See Pastoral Priesthood, andThe Elders that Rule Well.

7. St. John Chrysostom: Six Little Books on the Priesthood.

8. What does he make, then, of Cranmer's rubric from the 1549 Book of Common Prayer? "When the holy Communion is celebrate on the workeday, or in private howses: Then may be omitted, the Gloria in excelsis, the Crede, the Homily, and the exhortacion, beginning..."

Posted by at 20 comments:
Labels: , , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)