Random musings for August

Episcopal rings are an ancient sign and symbol of the pontifical office and authority and have been used since patristic times: the ring was a fixed part of the episcopal regalia by the fifth century. Saint Isidore of Seville wrote in AD 637 - 'To the Bishop at his consecration is given a staff; a ring likewise is given him to signify pontifical honour and as a seal for secrets.' Episcopal rings signify the marriage of the Bishop to the Church and his spiritual paternity over the faithful of his Diocese as paterfamilias. The ring is meant to bind the clergy and people of the Diocese to the Bishop, whose authority and teaching in the Faith is central. For this reason, in Western tradition priests have not worn special ecclesial rings. In fact, such rings for priests were banned in the Middle Ages because they were seen as worldly and secular jewellery, not befitting the dignity and simplicity of the priesthood. I remember reading that in the medieval era, most rings aside from wedding bands bore pagan or secular images and were considered a form of vanity and worldly indulgence. In the Latin Communion up until 1983, the Code of Canon Law forbade the use of rings by priests except for religious priests in vows, who wear rings as symbols of vow and profession, not jurisdiction. I like this quote from an RC source: 'Although modern influences now permit certain exceptions, it is best not to assume a ring, for the ring represents the fundamental authority of the bishops.' The wearing of special rings by priests, I think, would be similar to the wearing of pectoral crosses by priests - it is simply not Anglican or Western tradition. Having said that, many Anglo-Catholic priests proudly sport a Nashotah House ring. Many other Anglican priests wear different seminary rings. I have a signet ring from Duke, but I never wear it. I suppose today it is really a matter of personal choice and taste.

But something inside me likes seeing rings reserved to Bishops...

I finally had a chance to look over C. B. Moss and here are some remarks from your amateur correspondent:

1. On Original Sin. It appears Moss is heavily influenced by the modern historical-critical method of biblical interpretation and intends to transfer the meaning of the scriptural language and theological categories of Original Sin into a sort of 'holy symbolism' or sanctified mythology. The concept of Original Sin, from what I can discern from Moss' writing style, seems to be for him a sort of divine syllogism explaining the state of man in his current dilemma. Original Sin is then more an aetiology, an explanation of how we got where we are, than a theological truth in and of itself. Oddly enough, he sounds very Eastern here, almost reducing Original Sin to the Eastern Orthodox view (much milder than the Pauline/Augustinian form) of 'ancestral sin' or 'fallen condition.' While still certainly within the bounds of orthodoxy, Moss in places comes terribly close to sounding like a modern liberal theologian. I believe what saves him, as what saves us too, is his uncompromised belief in the supernatural character of divine revelation and of the Church and Sacraments. Had Moss not really believed in the objective nature of the Incarnation and its sacramental extension via Catholic Church, he would no doubt have been tempted to jump off the precipice into that morass of modernism in which the Anglican Communion now finds itself. Prayer Book Catholicism to the rescue once again...

2. On the Filioque. Here I must confess I sympathise with Moss' position far more than my Augustinian-minded brethren would. Moss certainly appears to be philorthodox and wants to reconcile Anglicanism to the Eastern Churches, and is willing to give up the filioque to do so. To that degree so am I! In my estimation he rightly distinguishes between A. the theological issues implied by a double procession of the Holy Ghost and B. the canonical question of the legality and universality/ecumenicity of the filioque clause qua clause. The filioque is not heretical doctrinally but is uncanonical, illegal, lacking the consensus fidelium of an undisputed ecumenical council. Moss also asserts that the Orthodox are right about the intrinsic papalism of the filioque - it was imposed on the Symbol of Constantinople, not by the action of a general council, but by the unilateral authority of the Bishop of Rome. The clause would then be objectionable as an early instalment in history of that usurpation of authority from the conciliar nature of the Church eventually aggregated to the Pope. Again I am compelled to agree with him. The Old Catholics removed the filioque in the 19th century to appease the Orthodox; if given the opportunity, I would (blush) do the same.

I am afraid I am one for one on these important points raised by the good Dr Moss - I am hopelessly Eastern-minded myself.