Over the last two years I have studied confessional Lutheranism when time has allowed. For me, steeped as I am in the Catholic Movement of Anglicanism, Lutheranism of the confessional kind (as opposed to the modernist mainline variety) has proven to be a fascinating and compelling adventure. However, I am somewhat confused by some of the theological claims I have discovered. The following is how I would describe my findings, and I hope someone far more knowledgable than I will correct my errors. Here we go...
Are confessional Lutherans, in essence, 'rivals' to the Holy Catholic Church?
1. I am fascinated by the confessional Lutheran position on the Real Objective Presence in the Blessed Sacrament. Missouri Synod Lutherans, for example, are absolutely emphatic that the True Body and Blood of Our Lord are 'in, with, and under' the species of bread and wine after consecration. They absolutely insist on the unique power and efficacy of the Verba, or Words of Institution, which alone consecrate the sacred species into the Body and Blood of Christ. They insist again that only those who hold to the Lutheran confessional doctrine may receive the Holy Communion, and thus they practice the two-pronged principle of necessity of dogmatic unity before Eucharistic hospitality, and of 'closed communion' for only those that fully subscribe to the Lutheran doctrinal formulae. What is most perplexing about this position from my perspective is the absolute rejection on their part of the apostolic sacramental or ministerial priesthood and of the necessity of episcopal ordination and apostolic succession, upon which, of course, Catholics believe the Eucharistic Mystery is utterly dependent. I am led to believe that Lutherans therefore believe any baptised Christian can preside at the Eucharist and recite the formula of the Verba, thus bringing about the Real Presence. But they vehemently deny this and require the 'Office of the Holy Ministry,' as transmitted by some form of succession within the Lutheran community, for a valid celebration of the Eucharist. They appear to deny that other protestants, such as Baptists, Methodists, and Presbyterians, possess a valid offering of the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper. Again, confessional Lutherans abhor the Eucharistic Prayer or Canon, which they say, quoting Luther, 'stinks of oblation.' They claim that the Prayer of Consecration, or Canon, with anamnesis and epiclesis, renders the action of the Eucharistic celebration a man-centred work, works-righteousness, an act of the Church towards God in an effort to propitiate God, rather than the reception of the unmerited and unearned grace of Jesus Christ in the Sacrament. Thus, they divorce the traditional elements of the Canon from the Verba, which stand alone as the central and independent act of consecration. In the administration of the Lord's Supper, they call the elements the 'true Body' and 'true Blood' of the Saviour. Some of them even speak of the 'Mass;' they certainly all refer to the Holy Communion as being the Body and Blood of Christ. Yet, they do not practise Reservation of the Blessed Sacrament and do not seem to believe in a permanent Presence in the sacred species after their liturgical use.
2. Along these same lines, confessional Lutherans also claim to be THE One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, a genuine recovery of the True Church on earth. It is maintained that confessional Lutheranism is the full resourcement, the complete restoration of New Testament Christianity. In the Book of Concord, they claim to possess a higher magisterial authority for the interpretation and transmission of dogma than the Roman See or the consensus patricum of the early Fathers. They appear to claim that the Lutheran confessions correct the Church Fathers, while handing-on what is true and faithful in the original doctrine of the same. They claim to be the Church of the Apostles, the Fathers, and the Councils of the Undivided Church - and they assert that those bodies which refuse their position are essentially heretical and have abandoned the true Gospel. In practice, as I see it, this assertion seems to contradict the fundamental Lutheran axiom of sola scriptura, for it is only Scripture as rightly interpreted by the Lutheran confessions which alone possesses truth in faith and morals. To be painfully honest, I cannot help but see the Lutheran confessional position as analogous to the Donatist schism of the fourth century. The confessional Lutherans appear to hold themselves above the consentient witness and tradition of Catholicism as the 'Church of the pure,' the 'Church of the holy.' As far as I can tell, they present themselves as being the only true Church, uniquely possessing the purity and apostolic deposit of the Gospel - based on justification by faith alone, that on which the 'Church stands or falls.' Unity in the Church Catholic can thus only be had on the terms of the Lutheran confessions. Is adherence to the Book of Concord and the Augsburg Confession adherence to the mind of Christ, in a unique sense? All non-Lutheran bodies seem to be regarded as heretical. Do Lutherans really see themselves as the Holy Catholic Church, nothing less? Are all other Christians, Catholics or protestants, truly beyond the pale?
Please correct me if I am mistaken. Have I erred in my attempt to grasp this profoundly interesting position?
Friday, February 24, 2006
The Shrine of Saint Chad Discovered
- From the Diocese of Lichfield website
24th February 2006
Archaeologists discover Saint Chad's Burial Place and Shrine-
Major discovery re-writes Lichfield's history-
Shrine to be reunited with illuminated Gospels after 1,000 years
In a discovery hailed as being of “European significance” and the “foundation of English art”, archaeologists working at Lichfield Cathedral have uncovered the church built to house the grave of St Chad; together with the “Lichfield Angel” - part of the shrine created around AD700 by Bishop Hedda to mark the resting place of Lichfield’s first Bishop. And now the remains of the shrine are to be reunited for the first time in more than 1,000 years with the Lichfield Gospels – an illuminated manuscript commissioned in the eighth century to adorn the shrine. And, thanks to collaboration between the Cathedral, the British Library and the Parish of Llandeilo, members of the public will be able to ‘turn the pages’ of the precious Lichfield Gospels as they have been digitised – digital versions of the St Chad Gospels will be on display in the Cathedral and also available to tour across the diocese.When Chad became the fifth Bishop of the Mercians in AD 669 he moved the bishopric from Repton to Lichfield. The noted church historian, the Venerable Bede, reported that Chad “came to dwell by St Mary’s Church”. Chad died on 2nd March AD672 and Bede reported that he was buried: “close by” the Church of St Mary, but that his body was later transferred to the new church of St Peter. The exact locations of these churches have never been known; and there has been much speculation that St Chad’s Church in Lichfield is located on the site of one of the original churches. But now, archaeologists can reveal that the remains of both St Peter’s Church and St Mary’s Church lie under the floor of the present cathedral – and that both have been found during recent archaeological investigations.The latest finds – St Peter’s Church, the shrine, and a number of high-status later burials around the shrine – were discovered as archaeologists conducted a dig in the nave of the Cathedral to prepare the way for a new motorised retractable nave platform. The remains of St Mary’s Church was discovered in the 1990s during a major programme to replace broken limestone flooring flags. It wasn’t until the remains of St Peter’s Church was found that it was possible to identify the remains found in the 1990s as St Mary’s Church – the church where Chad worshipped and preached.
The “Lichfield Angel” is three adjoining fragments of an Anglo-Saxon sculptured panel made of cream shelly limestone. It is believed that this formed part of a shrine in which the bones of St Chad were housed.Leading ecclesiastical archaeologist, Dr Warwick Rodwell, is Consultant Archaeologist at Lichfield Cathedral, and led the dig. He said: “The remarkable state of preservation of the panel fragments is due to several factors. First, the sculpture had a short life span before being broken and buried. Second, the fragments were deposited inside the church and have therefore not been subject to outside weathering. Third, at least two of the three pieces were placed face-down in a pit, thereby trapping air pockets against some areas of the sculptured surface. Hence, parts of the painted decoration have never had soil in contact with them.”Professor Rosemary Cramp, a trustee of the British Museum and past president of the Council for British Archaeology is a senior expert in Anglo-Saxon archaeology, described the “Lichfield Angel” as being of “European importance”. She added: “This carving is crucially important for the light it throws on the chronology of Anglo Saxon sculpture. Only a handful of sites have produced sculptures which are archaeologically stratified as belonging to the pre-conquest period. This piece is unusual in that an almost complete panel of a casket has been carefully reburied, some time before the Norman Conquest. This can be paralleled only in the reburied sarcophagus at Alkmund’s, Derby.“This piece provides something of a missing link between England and the continent in the revival of late antique styles, a revival which on the continent is demonstrated in manuscripts and ivories, not large scale carvings. The conservation of the Lichfield Angel and its formal, stylistic and iconographic analysis is obviously of crucial importance.”
Emily Howe, a conservator of wall paintings and sculptural polychromy, has been given the task of co-ordinating the recording, examination and analysis of the Angel prior to its conservation, and is receiving generous technical support from Birmingham Museum and Art Gallery and a substantial grant from the Pilgrim Trust. She said: “Initial documentation of the panel components, including high resolution digital imaging and close range 3-D laser scanning, has now been completed. Not only will these records serve as an important resource for monitoring the condition of the panel over time, but they will enable a better understanding of the way the panel was made and assist in the provision of interpretative material showing how the fragments might originally have fitted into the St Chad shrine chest.“Following the Angel’s temporary display in the Cathedral during the month of March, a detailed condition assessment will be undertaken and further research instigated into the object’s physical history. Findings from these non-invasive investigations will inform the need for scientific analysis of the Angel’s stone support and extensive remaining paint layer, and examination of the ways in which the materials were used. Such analyses will not only provide further information on the panel’s current condition, but will also serve to illuminate its considerable technological significance among Britain’s early medieval sculpture.”Recommendations for the long-term conservation of the Lichfield Angel and suitable conditions for the panel’s display in the Cathedral will be considered by a panel of experts based on the findings of these informative preliminary investigations.
Saint Chad, pray for us!
24th February 2006
Archaeologists discover Saint Chad's Burial Place and Shrine-
Major discovery re-writes Lichfield's history-
Shrine to be reunited with illuminated Gospels after 1,000 years
In a discovery hailed as being of “European significance” and the “foundation of English art”, archaeologists working at Lichfield Cathedral have uncovered the church built to house the grave of St Chad; together with the “Lichfield Angel” - part of the shrine created around AD700 by Bishop Hedda to mark the resting place of Lichfield’s first Bishop. And now the remains of the shrine are to be reunited for the first time in more than 1,000 years with the Lichfield Gospels – an illuminated manuscript commissioned in the eighth century to adorn the shrine. And, thanks to collaboration between the Cathedral, the British Library and the Parish of Llandeilo, members of the public will be able to ‘turn the pages’ of the precious Lichfield Gospels as they have been digitised – digital versions of the St Chad Gospels will be on display in the Cathedral and also available to tour across the diocese.When Chad became the fifth Bishop of the Mercians in AD 669 he moved the bishopric from Repton to Lichfield. The noted church historian, the Venerable Bede, reported that Chad “came to dwell by St Mary’s Church”. Chad died on 2nd March AD672 and Bede reported that he was buried: “close by” the Church of St Mary, but that his body was later transferred to the new church of St Peter. The exact locations of these churches have never been known; and there has been much speculation that St Chad’s Church in Lichfield is located on the site of one of the original churches. But now, archaeologists can reveal that the remains of both St Peter’s Church and St Mary’s Church lie under the floor of the present cathedral – and that both have been found during recent archaeological investigations.The latest finds – St Peter’s Church, the shrine, and a number of high-status later burials around the shrine – were discovered as archaeologists conducted a dig in the nave of the Cathedral to prepare the way for a new motorised retractable nave platform. The remains of St Mary’s Church was discovered in the 1990s during a major programme to replace broken limestone flooring flags. It wasn’t until the remains of St Peter’s Church was found that it was possible to identify the remains found in the 1990s as St Mary’s Church – the church where Chad worshipped and preached.
The “Lichfield Angel” is three adjoining fragments of an Anglo-Saxon sculptured panel made of cream shelly limestone. It is believed that this formed part of a shrine in which the bones of St Chad were housed.Leading ecclesiastical archaeologist, Dr Warwick Rodwell, is Consultant Archaeologist at Lichfield Cathedral, and led the dig. He said: “The remarkable state of preservation of the panel fragments is due to several factors. First, the sculpture had a short life span before being broken and buried. Second, the fragments were deposited inside the church and have therefore not been subject to outside weathering. Third, at least two of the three pieces were placed face-down in a pit, thereby trapping air pockets against some areas of the sculptured surface. Hence, parts of the painted decoration have never had soil in contact with them.”Professor Rosemary Cramp, a trustee of the British Museum and past president of the Council for British Archaeology is a senior expert in Anglo-Saxon archaeology, described the “Lichfield Angel” as being of “European importance”. She added: “This carving is crucially important for the light it throws on the chronology of Anglo Saxon sculpture. Only a handful of sites have produced sculptures which are archaeologically stratified as belonging to the pre-conquest period. This piece is unusual in that an almost complete panel of a casket has been carefully reburied, some time before the Norman Conquest. This can be paralleled only in the reburied sarcophagus at Alkmund’s, Derby.“This piece provides something of a missing link between England and the continent in the revival of late antique styles, a revival which on the continent is demonstrated in manuscripts and ivories, not large scale carvings. The conservation of the Lichfield Angel and its formal, stylistic and iconographic analysis is obviously of crucial importance.”
Emily Howe, a conservator of wall paintings and sculptural polychromy, has been given the task of co-ordinating the recording, examination and analysis of the Angel prior to its conservation, and is receiving generous technical support from Birmingham Museum and Art Gallery and a substantial grant from the Pilgrim Trust. She said: “Initial documentation of the panel components, including high resolution digital imaging and close range 3-D laser scanning, has now been completed. Not only will these records serve as an important resource for monitoring the condition of the panel over time, but they will enable a better understanding of the way the panel was made and assist in the provision of interpretative material showing how the fragments might originally have fitted into the St Chad shrine chest.“Following the Angel’s temporary display in the Cathedral during the month of March, a detailed condition assessment will be undertaken and further research instigated into the object’s physical history. Findings from these non-invasive investigations will inform the need for scientific analysis of the Angel’s stone support and extensive remaining paint layer, and examination of the ways in which the materials were used. Such analyses will not only provide further information on the panel’s current condition, but will also serve to illuminate its considerable technological significance among Britain’s early medieval sculpture.”Recommendations for the long-term conservation of the Lichfield Angel and suitable conditions for the panel’s display in the Cathedral will be considered by a panel of experts based on the findings of these informative preliminary investigations.
Saint Chad, pray for us!
The 1928 English Proposed Canon
Recently I have been re-reading the works of Bishop Walter H. Frere, CR of Truro, a staunch defender of the Eucharistic Canon of the 1928 'Deposited Prayer Book' of the C of E. Bishop Frere desired a restoration of the Eucharistic Anaphora based on Eastern theological and structural lines. It is fascinating to learn that Bishop Frere was one of the very, very few Anglo-Catholics who supported the 1928 Proposed Book and especially its Canon: most Anglo-Catholics in England despised the epiklesis in the new liturgy (holding to the Latin view that the Very Words of Christ alone consecrate) and forged a strange alliance with the Evangelical party to see the Deposited Book defeated. Walterus Truron loved the Eastern tradition and rightly saw the Ecclesia Anglicana as the western expression of that orthodoxy so magnificently manifested in the Eastern rite. He was truly 'philorthodox.' See how closely the 1928 American and English Prayers of Consecration agree...
ALL glory be to thee, Almighty God, our heavenly Father, for that thou of thy tender mercy didst give thine only Son Jesus Christ to suffer death upon the Cross for our redemption; who made there (by his one oblation of himself once offered) a full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice, oblation, and satisfaction for the sins of the whole world; and did institute, and in his Holy Gospel command us to continue, a perpetual memory of that his precious death until his coming again;
Who, in the same night that he was betrayed, took Bread, and when he had given thanks, he brake it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, Take, eat, this is my Body which is given for you; Do this in remembrance of me. Likewise after supper he took the Cup; and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of this ; for this is my Blood of the New Covenant, which is shed for you and for many for the remission of sins ; Do this, as oft as ye shall drink it, in remembrance of me.
Wherefore, O Lord and heavenly Father, we thy humble servants, having in remembrance the precious death and passion of thy dear Son, his mighty resurrection and glorious ascension, according to his holy institution do celebrate and set forth before thy divine Majesty with these thy holy gifts, the memorial which he hath willed us to make, rendering unto thee most hearty thanks for the innumerable benefits which he hath procured unto us.
Hear us, O Merciful Father, we most humbly beseech thee, and with thy Holy and Life-giving Spirit vouchsafe to bless and sanctify both us and these thy gifts of Bread and Wine, that they may be unto us the Body and Blood of thy Son, our Saviour, Jesus Christ, to the end that, receiving the same, we may be strengthened and refreshed both in body and soul. And we entirely desire thy Fatherly goodness mercifully to accept this our sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving; most humbly beseeching thee to grant, that by the merits and death of thy Son Jesus Christ, and through faith in his blood, we and all thy whole Church may obtain remission of our sins, and all other benefits of his passion.
And here we offer and present unto thee, O Lord, ourselves, our souls and bodies, to be a reasonable, holy, and living sacrifice unto thee humbly beseeching thee, that all we, who are partakers of this Holy Communion, may be fulfilled with thy grace and heavenly benediction. And although we be unworthy, through our manifold sins, to offer unto thee any sacrifice, yet we beseech thee to accept this our bounden duty and service; not weighing our merits, but pardoning our offences; Through Jesus Christ our Lord, by whom, and with whom, in the unity of the Holy Ghost, all honour and glory be unto thee, O Father Almighty, world without end.
And all the people shall answer, Amen.
ALL glory be to thee, Almighty God, our heavenly Father, for that thou of thy tender mercy didst give thine only Son Jesus Christ to suffer death upon the Cross for our redemption; who made there (by his one oblation of himself once offered) a full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice, oblation, and satisfaction for the sins of the whole world; and did institute, and in his Holy Gospel command us to continue, a perpetual memory of that his precious death until his coming again;
Who, in the same night that he was betrayed, took Bread, and when he had given thanks, he brake it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, Take, eat, this is my Body which is given for you; Do this in remembrance of me. Likewise after supper he took the Cup; and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of this ; for this is my Blood of the New Covenant, which is shed for you and for many for the remission of sins ; Do this, as oft as ye shall drink it, in remembrance of me.
Wherefore, O Lord and heavenly Father, we thy humble servants, having in remembrance the precious death and passion of thy dear Son, his mighty resurrection and glorious ascension, according to his holy institution do celebrate and set forth before thy divine Majesty with these thy holy gifts, the memorial which he hath willed us to make, rendering unto thee most hearty thanks for the innumerable benefits which he hath procured unto us.
Hear us, O Merciful Father, we most humbly beseech thee, and with thy Holy and Life-giving Spirit vouchsafe to bless and sanctify both us and these thy gifts of Bread and Wine, that they may be unto us the Body and Blood of thy Son, our Saviour, Jesus Christ, to the end that, receiving the same, we may be strengthened and refreshed both in body and soul. And we entirely desire thy Fatherly goodness mercifully to accept this our sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving; most humbly beseeching thee to grant, that by the merits and death of thy Son Jesus Christ, and through faith in his blood, we and all thy whole Church may obtain remission of our sins, and all other benefits of his passion.
And here we offer and present unto thee, O Lord, ourselves, our souls and bodies, to be a reasonable, holy, and living sacrifice unto thee humbly beseeching thee, that all we, who are partakers of this Holy Communion, may be fulfilled with thy grace and heavenly benediction. And although we be unworthy, through our manifold sins, to offer unto thee any sacrifice, yet we beseech thee to accept this our bounden duty and service; not weighing our merits, but pardoning our offences; Through Jesus Christ our Lord, by whom, and with whom, in the unity of the Holy Ghost, all honour and glory be unto thee, O Father Almighty, world without end.
And all the people shall answer, Amen.
1928 American Prayer Book Canon
Here's the 1928 BCP Canon in the vernacular of the ancient Western Church...
Cum Sacerdos, stans ante Mensam, ita Panem et Vinum disposuit ut promptius et decentius coram populo Panem frangere, et in manus suas Calicem accipere possit, dicat Orationem Consecrationis, ut sequitur.
OMNIS gloria tibi Deus omnipotens, Pater noster caelestis, quia ex immensa tua misericordia dedisti nobis unicum Filium tuum Iesum Christum, pro nostra redemptione mortem in cruce pati, ibique unica illa oblatione qua sese semel obtulit, perfectum, plenum, et sufficiens sacrificium, hostiam et satisfactionem integram faceret pro peccatis totius mundi: quique instituit, ac in suo sacrosancto Evangelio praecepit perpetuam memoriam pretiosae suae mortis ac sacrificii celebrare, usque dum rediret.
Ad verba sequentia de pane, Celebrans eum in manus accipiat, vel ei manum imponat; et ad verba de calice, eum in manum accipiat, etiam quidque vasum quo insit vini aliquod consecrandi, vel eis manum imponat.
Qui eadem nocte qua tradebatur, accepit panem et gratias agens fregit, deditque discipulis suis dicens:
Accipite et manducate, HOC EST ENIM CORPUS MEUM, quod pro vobis datur: hoc facite in meam commemorationem.
Simili modo, postquam cenatum est, accepit calicem, et gratias agens dedit illis, dicens:
Bibite ex eo omnes: HIC EST ENIM SANGUIS MEUS NOVI TESTAMENTI, qui pro vobis et pro multis effunditur, in remissionem peccatorum: hoc facite, quotiescunque biberitis, in meam commemorationem.
Unde, Domine caelestis Pater, secundum institutionem dilectissimi Filii tui Salvatoris nostri Iesu Christi, nos humiles servi tui celebramus et hic facimus coram divina Maiestate tua, de his tuis sanctis donis, quae nunc tibi offerimus, illam quam Filius tuus celebrare nos praecepit memoriam; memores et eius tam beatae passionis et pretiosae mortis, necnon et mirabilis resurrectionis, sed et gloriosae ascensionis; tibi gratias agentes ex animo propter innumerabilia beneficia nobis inde collata.
Exaudi nos quaesumus, misericors Pater, et pro tua bonitate omnipotente benedicere ac sanctificare digneris, per Verbum tuum et Spiritum Sanctum, haec tua dona ac creaturas panis et vini; ut nos haec sumentes, iuxta sacrosanctam institutionem Filii tui, Salvatoris nostri Iesu Christi, in memoriam eius dirae mortis et passionis, participes simus sanctissimi Corporis et Sanguinis eius.
Supplices rogamus paternam tuam bonitatem, ut hoc nostrum sacrificium laudis et gratiarum actionis, benigne accipias: humiliter supplicantes, ut propter merita et mortem Filii tui Iesu Christi, et per fidem in illius sanguinem, concedas, ut nos cum universa Ecclesia remissionem peccatorum ceteraque beneficia passionis illius consequamur.
Atque hic etiam offerimus et praesentamus tibi, Domine, nos ipsos, animas nostras, et corpora nostra, hostiam rationalem, sanctam, et vivam: humiliter obsecrantes ut quotquot participes sumus huius sacrosanctae communionis, sacrosanctum Filii tui Iesu Christi Corpus et Sanguinem digne sumpserimus, tua gratia et caelesti benedictione repleamur, et unum corpus cum ipso fiamus, ut in nobis maneat, et nos in illo.
Et quanquam indigni sumus, propter multitudinem peccatorum nostrorum, qui tibi ullum sacrificium offeramus, hanc tamen debitam oblationem servitutis nostrae, non aestimator meriti sed veniae, quaesumus, largitor accipias, per Iesum Christum Dominum nostrum;
Per quem, et cum quo, sit tibi Deo Patri omnipotenti, in unitate Spiritus Sancti, omnis honor et gloria, per omnia saecula saeculorum. AMEN.
Cum Sacerdos, stans ante Mensam, ita Panem et Vinum disposuit ut promptius et decentius coram populo Panem frangere, et in manus suas Calicem accipere possit, dicat Orationem Consecrationis, ut sequitur.
OMNIS gloria tibi Deus omnipotens, Pater noster caelestis, quia ex immensa tua misericordia dedisti nobis unicum Filium tuum Iesum Christum, pro nostra redemptione mortem in cruce pati, ibique unica illa oblatione qua sese semel obtulit, perfectum, plenum, et sufficiens sacrificium, hostiam et satisfactionem integram faceret pro peccatis totius mundi: quique instituit, ac in suo sacrosancto Evangelio praecepit perpetuam memoriam pretiosae suae mortis ac sacrificii celebrare, usque dum rediret.
Ad verba sequentia de pane, Celebrans eum in manus accipiat, vel ei manum imponat; et ad verba de calice, eum in manum accipiat, etiam quidque vasum quo insit vini aliquod consecrandi, vel eis manum imponat.
Qui eadem nocte qua tradebatur, accepit panem et gratias agens fregit, deditque discipulis suis dicens:
Accipite et manducate, HOC EST ENIM CORPUS MEUM, quod pro vobis datur: hoc facite in meam commemorationem.
Simili modo, postquam cenatum est, accepit calicem, et gratias agens dedit illis, dicens:
Bibite ex eo omnes: HIC EST ENIM SANGUIS MEUS NOVI TESTAMENTI, qui pro vobis et pro multis effunditur, in remissionem peccatorum: hoc facite, quotiescunque biberitis, in meam commemorationem.
Unde, Domine caelestis Pater, secundum institutionem dilectissimi Filii tui Salvatoris nostri Iesu Christi, nos humiles servi tui celebramus et hic facimus coram divina Maiestate tua, de his tuis sanctis donis, quae nunc tibi offerimus, illam quam Filius tuus celebrare nos praecepit memoriam; memores et eius tam beatae passionis et pretiosae mortis, necnon et mirabilis resurrectionis, sed et gloriosae ascensionis; tibi gratias agentes ex animo propter innumerabilia beneficia nobis inde collata.
Exaudi nos quaesumus, misericors Pater, et pro tua bonitate omnipotente benedicere ac sanctificare digneris, per Verbum tuum et Spiritum Sanctum, haec tua dona ac creaturas panis et vini; ut nos haec sumentes, iuxta sacrosanctam institutionem Filii tui, Salvatoris nostri Iesu Christi, in memoriam eius dirae mortis et passionis, participes simus sanctissimi Corporis et Sanguinis eius.
Supplices rogamus paternam tuam bonitatem, ut hoc nostrum sacrificium laudis et gratiarum actionis, benigne accipias: humiliter supplicantes, ut propter merita et mortem Filii tui Iesu Christi, et per fidem in illius sanguinem, concedas, ut nos cum universa Ecclesia remissionem peccatorum ceteraque beneficia passionis illius consequamur.
Atque hic etiam offerimus et praesentamus tibi, Domine, nos ipsos, animas nostras, et corpora nostra, hostiam rationalem, sanctam, et vivam: humiliter obsecrantes ut quotquot participes sumus huius sacrosanctae communionis, sacrosanctum Filii tui Iesu Christi Corpus et Sanguinem digne sumpserimus, tua gratia et caelesti benedictione repleamur, et unum corpus cum ipso fiamus, ut in nobis maneat, et nos in illo.
Et quanquam indigni sumus, propter multitudinem peccatorum nostrorum, qui tibi ullum sacrificium offeramus, hanc tamen debitam oblationem servitutis nostrae, non aestimator meriti sed veniae, quaesumus, largitor accipias, per Iesum Christum Dominum nostrum;
Per quem, et cum quo, sit tibi Deo Patri omnipotenti, in unitate Spiritus Sancti, omnis honor et gloria, per omnia saecula saeculorum. AMEN.
Tuesday, February 21, 2006
Witness for the Catholic Faith
An amazing testimony to Catholic truth at one of my favourite blogs...
http://catholica.pontifications.net/?p=1425#comments
http://catholica.pontifications.net/?p=1425#comments
Eucharistic Ecclesiology in a nutshell
From The Tablet, 18 February 2006 -
'The Eucharist is the sacrament of the Church, the sacrament of sacraments – wherever it’s celebrated by a legitimately consecrated priest, the Church is present and it’s possible to live the fullness of the church experience. No primacy can be exercised at the expense of this catholic fullness of the local Church. Yet in the [Roman] Catholic Church, the Pope projects his ecclesiastical power over the whole earth. This complicates relations with Orthodox sister Churches.'
-Metropolitan Filaret of Minsk, president of the theological commission of the Russian Church’s governing Holy Synod.
'The Eucharist is the sacrament of the Church, the sacrament of sacraments – wherever it’s celebrated by a legitimately consecrated priest, the Church is present and it’s possible to live the fullness of the church experience. No primacy can be exercised at the expense of this catholic fullness of the local Church. Yet in the [Roman] Catholic Church, the Pope projects his ecclesiastical power over the whole earth. This complicates relations with Orthodox sister Churches.'
-Metropolitan Filaret of Minsk, president of the theological commission of the Russian Church’s governing Holy Synod.
Saintly Intercession and Paedocommunion Again
Thank you for your thought-provoking response. I am the first to admit that Saint Thomas is not always the most perspicuous of Church Fathers and theologians! Indeed, I would much rather cling to the musterion than fall prey to the temptation to scholasticise and overcompartmentalise the Faith. I see the Intercession and Invocation of Saints more in the light of received Tradition, of lex orandi, lex credendi, than on any dogmatic and systematic principle: that is, the Communion of Saints, including its concomitant belief in the value of saintly intercessory prayer, lies at the heart of the Church's mystery, her inner doxological life. For the Eastern Churches, for example, the theological belief regarding the Dormition of the Mother of God is not a matter of dogmatic pronouncement or of a salvific article of faith (de fide) to be believed as a matter of saving faith, but is rather considered part of the interior life of prayer and worship to which only orthodox Christians have access by virtue of their inheritance of the Apostolic Tradition - that is, such beliefs do not form part of the Church's kerygmatic proclamation of the Gospel, but remain in the collective memory and experience of the Church, which in turn is expressed liturgically. So Invocation of Saints becomes part of the living Tradition, or consensus fidelium, which is handed down in prayer, liturgy, custom, and devotion from the earliest Church. The Invocation of Saints, I submit, passes the test of the Vincentian Canon quite nicely, as it is clear that the Churches that stem from antiquity, the Latin, Eastern Chalcedonian, Eastern Monophysite, Assyrian, 3/4ths of the world's Christian population, have always so prayed and pray still. Only the reformation bodies formed in the 16th century repudiate the practice.
Regarding paedocommunion - I should be happy if the Western Church would restore paedocommunion, which undoubtedly existed in the West for at least the first seven centuries of the Church, if we would restore with it the practice of paedochrismation, or infant Confirmation. As practiced in the Roman, ECUSA, and RE Churches, paedocommunion admits children to the Blessed Sacrament without the benefit of receiving the perfection and completion of baptismal grace in Confirmation, which thing I believe to be a tremendous loss. Not only could that approach be construed as bad theology, but on a pastoral level it deprives these children of their full participation in the life of sacramental grace which is conveyed in Confirmation. The question raised is a difficult one, as it itself raises many, many more questions about the relationship of Baptism to Confirmation, of the Holy Communion to both, of the proper minister of Confirmation, and of the exact nature of the gift conferred in Confirmation. The Eastern Church retained the ancient form of 'Christian initiation,' maintaining the proper sequence of Baptism, Confirmation, and the Holy Eucharist - extending such full sacramental union with Our Lord and His Church to little children. If novus ordo Churches insist on reintroducing paedocommunion to the Western Church, then I think we have seriously to consider the wisdom of also reintroducing (or perhaps introducing de novo) the Confirmation of infants, as it would be a tragedy to separate Baptism from its completion in Confirmation and first Holy Communion. Would then priests, as opposed to bishops only, be authorised to administer chrismation, as is the practice in the East? It would seem that presbyteral paedochrismation would be the only viable option for us, if the proper sequence of the Sacraments is to be preserved.
Regarding paedocommunion - I should be happy if the Western Church would restore paedocommunion, which undoubtedly existed in the West for at least the first seven centuries of the Church, if we would restore with it the practice of paedochrismation, or infant Confirmation. As practiced in the Roman, ECUSA, and RE Churches, paedocommunion admits children to the Blessed Sacrament without the benefit of receiving the perfection and completion of baptismal grace in Confirmation, which thing I believe to be a tremendous loss. Not only could that approach be construed as bad theology, but on a pastoral level it deprives these children of their full participation in the life of sacramental grace which is conveyed in Confirmation. The question raised is a difficult one, as it itself raises many, many more questions about the relationship of Baptism to Confirmation, of the Holy Communion to both, of the proper minister of Confirmation, and of the exact nature of the gift conferred in Confirmation. The Eastern Church retained the ancient form of 'Christian initiation,' maintaining the proper sequence of Baptism, Confirmation, and the Holy Eucharist - extending such full sacramental union with Our Lord and His Church to little children. If novus ordo Churches insist on reintroducing paedocommunion to the Western Church, then I think we have seriously to consider the wisdom of also reintroducing (or perhaps introducing de novo) the Confirmation of infants, as it would be a tragedy to separate Baptism from its completion in Confirmation and first Holy Communion. Would then priests, as opposed to bishops only, be authorised to administer chrismation, as is the practice in the East? It would seem that presbyteral paedochrismation would be the only viable option for us, if the proper sequence of the Sacraments is to be preserved.
Paedochrismation and Paedocommunion
I think if we were simply to plug the traditional prayer for the sevenfold gift of the Holy Ghost from the confirmation rite(page 297) and with it the traditional prayer of anointing with chrism as imported from either the western or eastern rites (see below) into the baptismal office, we would have sufficient grounds for establishing universal paedocommunion in the Anglican Rite: for such children would not only be baptized but confirmed/chrismated as well, so long as the cleric administering the baptism and its following anointing with chrism and prayer for the gift of the Spirit were a validly ordained priest. The chrism would naturally be consecrated by a bishop. We would not have to change the baptismal office as it stands at all, but in order to bring the rite to a point of reuniting baptism, confirmation, and first Eucharist, we would have to include a historically-recognised prayer and chrismal anointing which demonstrate the proper intention of conferring the Seal of confirmation. The actual formula used at the chrismation could be either eastern or western, or as in the Antiochian Orthodox Church's western vicariate, a combination of both ancient sacramental forms:
Western -'I sign thee with the Sign of the Cross and I Confirm thee with the chrism of salvation: In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.'
and/or
Eastern - 'The Seal of the Gift of the Holy Ghost.'
When I was confirmed, my confirming bishop used the former of the two at the chrismal anointing - it has Anglican precedent. Our beloved bishop today uses the latter form at the anointing with chrism. And, were this suggestion to be officially introduced, adolescent confirmation as we now approach it would be eliminated (for it would be already administered at baptism), to be replaced with an 'affirmation of faith' for adolescents at the appropriate time. Adult converts to the Church would still be confirmed in the usual western manner. This alteration would seem radical to some, but it is the ancient practice of the Church from the fifth-sixth centuries or earlier - and it would enable those of us with scruples about maintaining the dignity and role of the sacrament of confirmation freely to re-admit the practice of paedocommunion.
But we should not allow paedocommunion without the restoration of paedochrismation.
Western -'I sign thee with the Sign of the Cross and I Confirm thee with the chrism of salvation: In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.'
and/or
Eastern - 'The Seal of the Gift of the Holy Ghost.'
When I was confirmed, my confirming bishop used the former of the two at the chrismal anointing - it has Anglican precedent. Our beloved bishop today uses the latter form at the anointing with chrism. And, were this suggestion to be officially introduced, adolescent confirmation as we now approach it would be eliminated (for it would be already administered at baptism), to be replaced with an 'affirmation of faith' for adolescents at the appropriate time. Adult converts to the Church would still be confirmed in the usual western manner. This alteration would seem radical to some, but it is the ancient practice of the Church from the fifth-sixth centuries or earlier - and it would enable those of us with scruples about maintaining the dignity and role of the sacrament of confirmation freely to re-admit the practice of paedocommunion.
But we should not allow paedocommunion without the restoration of paedochrismation.
One Sacrament, Two Parts
Regarding the connexion of baptism to confirmation, I think you hit the proverbial nail on the head: strictly speaking, baptism and confirmation are two integral parts of one sacramental mystery, and thus our challenge is somehow to bring them back together in a closer unity. The rite of 'Christian initiation' (for lack of a better phrase) as described by all of the early fathers, and especially S. Ambrose and S. Augustine, is presented as one rite consisting of a prebaptismal anointing with exorcism, a triple immersion, a postbaptismal anointing, and a final consignation and anointing with chrism, which corresponds to our modern chrismation. Indeed, the crux of the question is the development in the Western Church in which the baptismal and chrismal mysteries were ultimately separated. You raise a vital point about the priest's postbaptismal anointing of the baptizand with chrism in the rite of baptism itself -- in the ancient liturgies, such an anointing would correspond, not to the final sacramental chrismation (with its prayer for the sevenfold gift of the Spirit as read in Isaiah 11), but to a postbaptismal anointing then used to symbolise the descent of the Holy Ghost in baptism. Again, it would be arbitrary, however, to separate any these anointings and rites because they originally formed an organic whole. In ECUSA, during the trial Prayer Book period in the 1970's, a draft rite of baptism actually included within it the rite of confirmation for newly baptised children, replete with an appropriate prayer for the actual conferral of the gifts of the Spirit with anointing with chrism. The historic rite of separate 'western' confirmation for older children was also retained. This, naturally, led to complete confusion amongst both the clergy and laity, as they could not figure out which rite actually conveyed the sacrament of confirmation, and the innovation was struck out of the 1979 book. I do know of a case in which an ECUSA priest confirmed children at their baptisms using the new-fangled (but actually more ancient) rite, and thebishop of the diocese insisted that they subsequently NOT be 'reconfirmed' in adolescence, because they had, according to his judgment, already received the indelible character of confirmation. Perhaps we should go the Eastern route and fully initiate children as infants, only to have them attend a confirmation class and make an affirmation of faith at a later stage of life. Not a bad idea - it seems to have worked for the Eastern Churches for, well, millennia!
Confirmation and Baptism
Our conversation reminds me of the quip of an Anglican theologian of the20th century who wrote, whimsically -'Confirmation is a Sacrament in search of a theology.' How true it is - One way to describe it is perhaps to say that Holy Baptism, which is in itself the perfect entrance into the life of grace and the plenary conferral of the remission of sins and divine sonship, is the Sacrament of the Holy Ghost for regeneration; Confirmation is the Sacrament of the Holy Ghost for strengthening. Thus the Holy Ghost is given in each Sacrament in His fullness, but in each for a different operation and purpose. At least, that is how it has been characterised in some theological teaching. Some Anglican theologians, like Fr Puller, actually want to say that Baptism does not make us full members of the Church - which is protesting too much. But we must indeed clarify these subjects in order to make our praxis understandable. Again, what brain-twisting it is to attempt to define indefinable mysteries...
Monday, February 20, 2006
Adoration and Presence
Your concerns regarding the use of the Blessed Sacrament are very important and most legitimate. The Eastern Orthodox Church as a whole agrees with your position to a great degree. The extra-liturgical use of the Blessed Sacrament for the purpose of adoration and devotion is admittedly medieval and uniquely Western in origin, introduced both to encourage faith in the Real Presence and to fill the spiritual vacuum created by infrequent communion. Although extra-liturgical devotions to Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament are an excellent audio-visual aid for teaching the doctrine of the Real Presence, they are not part and parcel of the substance of Catholic Eucharistic belief. The Orthodox prove this beyond question. While the Orthodox indeed offer divine worship, latria, to the consecrated Elements of the Holy Sacrament as to the True Body and Blood of Christ, which They are, Orthodox generally do so only within the confines of the Eucharistic Liturgy itself. The Eastern celebrant prostrates before the Sacrament at the epiklesis and the people bow in adoration at the presentation of the Holy Gifts, but otherwise they demonstrate no particular acts of adoration outside of the Mass. The only exception to this rule in the Eastern Rite is the Lenten Liturgy of the Pre-Sanctified, in which the people prostrate on the ground before the Blessed Sacrament as It processes at the Great Entrance before the communion of the faithful. Even here, however, the adoration of the Elements takes place within the Liturgy, never outside of it. I believe it helps to distinguish the question of adoration of the Sacrament into two categories:
1. Is the Holy Eucharist the True Body and Blood of Christ under the species of bread and wine, and therefore is It to be adored at all?
The universal Catholic answer, Eastern and Western, is an emphatic 'yes' to both questions.
2. Is the Eucharistic Lord Jesus Christ to be adored in a special service apart from the use of the Blessed Sacrament in the Mass?
Here the answers differ according to rite and culture - the Latin or Roman Church says 'yes;' the Eastern Orthodox say 'no;' the Anglican Church says in typical comprehensive style, 'it depends where you are.'
In these questions what we want to avoid is raising doubt about belief in the Real Objective Presence. If Our Lord is really, truly, and essentially present in the Holy Eucharist under the form of bread and wine, then He must in some fashion be adored in It. To paraphrase Blessed John Keble, 'wherever Our Lord is, there we must adore Him.' If Christ is in the Eucharist objectively, we cannot help but offer Him divine adoration in It. Such adoration has always been rendered by the Church Catholic in the context of the Eucharistic Liturgy. The secondary question of extra-liturgical devotion is of lesser importance, and the Church's approach to this subject has differed with place, time, and ethos. The first point is the crucial one, from an historic Catholic perspective. I personally respect the view that the Blessed Sacrament should not be used outside of the Mass for adoration, so long as those who object to the extra-liturgical practices do not fail to adore the Lord's Eucharistic Presence in the Liturgy, where such adoration rightly belongs if no where else. As Saint Augustine famously writes:
It was in His flesh that Christ walked among us and it is His flesh that He has
given us to eat for our salvation. No one, however, eats of this flesh without
having first adored it ... and not only do we not sin in thus adoring it, but we
would sin if we did not do so.
1. Is the Holy Eucharist the True Body and Blood of Christ under the species of bread and wine, and therefore is It to be adored at all?
The universal Catholic answer, Eastern and Western, is an emphatic 'yes' to both questions.
2. Is the Eucharistic Lord Jesus Christ to be adored in a special service apart from the use of the Blessed Sacrament in the Mass?
Here the answers differ according to rite and culture - the Latin or Roman Church says 'yes;' the Eastern Orthodox say 'no;' the Anglican Church says in typical comprehensive style, 'it depends where you are.'
In these questions what we want to avoid is raising doubt about belief in the Real Objective Presence. If Our Lord is really, truly, and essentially present in the Holy Eucharist under the form of bread and wine, then He must in some fashion be adored in It. To paraphrase Blessed John Keble, 'wherever Our Lord is, there we must adore Him.' If Christ is in the Eucharist objectively, we cannot help but offer Him divine adoration in It. Such adoration has always been rendered by the Church Catholic in the context of the Eucharistic Liturgy. The secondary question of extra-liturgical devotion is of lesser importance, and the Church's approach to this subject has differed with place, time, and ethos. The first point is the crucial one, from an historic Catholic perspective. I personally respect the view that the Blessed Sacrament should not be used outside of the Mass for adoration, so long as those who object to the extra-liturgical practices do not fail to adore the Lord's Eucharistic Presence in the Liturgy, where such adoration rightly belongs if no where else. As Saint Augustine famously writes:
It was in His flesh that Christ walked among us and it is His flesh that He has
given us to eat for our salvation. No one, however, eats of this flesh without
having first adored it ... and not only do we not sin in thus adoring it, but we
would sin if we did not do so.
Saturday, February 18, 2006
Episcopi Vagantes
The phrase 'episcopi vagantes' was sadly developed out of necessity by Anglicans in the nineteenth century to describe the phenomenon of bishops uncanonically consecrated without flocks to serve or parishes to govern: bishops made by bishops whose orders are schismatic. The phrase simply means 'wandering' or 'vagrant' bishops, that is, bishops without jurisdiction or apostolic authority, bishops who do not serve as the officers of any legitimate Church. Vagantes are defined, technically, as bishops who lack communion with any historic see in Christendom or who lack any connection to any authentic catholic Church. They are also defined as bishops whose 'churches' are so small as to seem to exist only for the sake of prelate concerned - many 'continuing church' bodies are vagans, for they have no process for the election and accountability of real bishops in communion with other real bishops. Vagantes' sacramental orders may or may not be valid, depending on the succession involved, but they are all, as Dr CB Moss interestingly describes them, ecclesiastical freaks. They are bishops outside the Church. The most famous examples of vagans bishops are the quasi-Old Catholics AH Matthew and Joseph Rene Villate, from whom sprang countless sects claiming apostolic succession in a vacuum, but having no living communion with any historical catholic body. Today, in North America, all bodies aside from the PNCC describing themselves as 'Old Catholic' are in fact vagans sects, having no origin from or relationship with the Union of Utrecht. Only the Polish National Catholic Church can claim a genuine Utrechtine ancestry.
Rome and Eastern Orthodoxy
Pope Benedict XVI has certainly given orthodox Anglo-Catholics mixed signals in recent years, but his very recent pronouncements, in which he has recommitted himself and the Church of Rome irrevocably to the work of ecumenism, should give us great hope. For example, in 1998 Cardinal Ratzinger promulgated the official commentary of Pope John Paul II's revision of canonical principles entitled Ad Tuendam Fidem, in which it is expressly asserted that Pope Leo XIII's condemnation of the validity of Anglican Orders is a judgement to be believed as supernaturally revealed by God. Roman Catholic theologians who contend for the validity of Anglican Orders, even as private opinion, are thus adjudged heretics by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. In that respect, Benedict XVI could not be more anti-Anglican. But, more recently, in several essays and books, he has expressed a more genteel approach to the Anglican question, remarking that 'Anglicanism retains many essential elements of the Catholic Tradition,' and that 'Catholic Anglicanism' as he happily calls it, continues to persevere in preserving important aspects of catholic faith and life. It would appear that Ratzinger is quite tolerant of orthodox Anglo-Catholicism on a personal level, and sees it as tending towards reconciliation with Rome, which he, of course, heartily approves. I believe he will be quite firm with +Rowan Williams and other heretical Anglican bishops regarding the question of women's ordination, and that he will also reach out, in a way more decidedly than his predecessor, to real bona fide Catholic Anglicans like ourselves. Time will tell, but it seems the new Pope may be willing to move a bit closer to the creation of Anglican uniatism. We shall see indeed.
You raise a wonderful question regarding the recognition of Anglican Orders by the Orthodox Churches of the East. Amen, amen - the Orthodox Church provisionally recognised the validity of Anglican Orders beginning in 1922 with an official pronouncement by the Patriarch of Constantinople. The Ecumenical Patriarchate declared in that year that the Anglican Church had retained the Apostolic Succession and the requisite elements necessary for valid episcopal consecration, laying on of hands and the invocation of the Holy Ghost. Constantinople also declared that the line of episcopal succession had never been broken in the Church of England and that Archbishop Matthew Parker was made a true bishop in 1559. The Orthodox definitely stated that the Priesthood of the Anglican Church was a musterion, the true Sacrament of Holy Orders. In 1923, the Churches of Jerusalem and Cyprus affirmed the validity of Anglican Orders. The Patriarch of Alexandria declared the validity of the Anglican Priesthood in 1930. In 1936, the Church of Romania affirmed not only the validity of Anglican Orders but also the Anglican doctrine of the Eucharistic Sacrifice and the Real Presence. Finally, in 1939, the Church of Greece declared the validity of Anglican Orders. All these Churches at the time stated that Anglicans should never be rebaptised, and that Anglican Priests should not be reordained, if admitted to Orthodoxy. In effect, the Orthodox accepted the validity of all Anglican Sacraments, and in particular Baptism and Orders. From the time the members of Orthodox Churches began to immigrate to North America in the 19th century until well after the First World War, the Orthodox episcopate directly instructed its people to receive the Sacraments in Anglican Churches if Orthodox Churches could not be found. For decades, the new immigrant Orthodox were baptised, confirmed, shriven, communicated, married, and buried in Anglican Churches. They frequented the Blessed Sacrament at Anglican Altars without hesitation. More rarely, Anglicans were afforded the same courtesy from Orthodox Churches in Europe when away from English chaplaincies. Sadly, before the Orthodox Church could act upon the decision of the Bishop of New Rome and his colleagues concerning the validity of Anglican Orders, World War II erupted and the opportunity for complete restoration of full communion was lost indefinitely. After WWII, the cultural climate had changed too dramatically - the Russian Church turned against the Anglican Communion, while the Anglican world pursued its cataclysmic course into modernism - and the rest is, as they say, history. Theoretically, the earlier Orthodox rulings on Anglican Orders have never been rescinded, but with the introduction of the priestess heresy, they have severed any real relationship with Anglicanism for the foreseeable future. I hope this information will be useful.
You raise a wonderful question regarding the recognition of Anglican Orders by the Orthodox Churches of the East. Amen, amen - the Orthodox Church provisionally recognised the validity of Anglican Orders beginning in 1922 with an official pronouncement by the Patriarch of Constantinople. The Ecumenical Patriarchate declared in that year that the Anglican Church had retained the Apostolic Succession and the requisite elements necessary for valid episcopal consecration, laying on of hands and the invocation of the Holy Ghost. Constantinople also declared that the line of episcopal succession had never been broken in the Church of England and that Archbishop Matthew Parker was made a true bishop in 1559. The Orthodox definitely stated that the Priesthood of the Anglican Church was a musterion, the true Sacrament of Holy Orders. In 1923, the Churches of Jerusalem and Cyprus affirmed the validity of Anglican Orders. The Patriarch of Alexandria declared the validity of the Anglican Priesthood in 1930. In 1936, the Church of Romania affirmed not only the validity of Anglican Orders but also the Anglican doctrine of the Eucharistic Sacrifice and the Real Presence. Finally, in 1939, the Church of Greece declared the validity of Anglican Orders. All these Churches at the time stated that Anglicans should never be rebaptised, and that Anglican Priests should not be reordained, if admitted to Orthodoxy. In effect, the Orthodox accepted the validity of all Anglican Sacraments, and in particular Baptism and Orders. From the time the members of Orthodox Churches began to immigrate to North America in the 19th century until well after the First World War, the Orthodox episcopate directly instructed its people to receive the Sacraments in Anglican Churches if Orthodox Churches could not be found. For decades, the new immigrant Orthodox were baptised, confirmed, shriven, communicated, married, and buried in Anglican Churches. They frequented the Blessed Sacrament at Anglican Altars without hesitation. More rarely, Anglicans were afforded the same courtesy from Orthodox Churches in Europe when away from English chaplaincies. Sadly, before the Orthodox Church could act upon the decision of the Bishop of New Rome and his colleagues concerning the validity of Anglican Orders, World War II erupted and the opportunity for complete restoration of full communion was lost indefinitely. After WWII, the cultural climate had changed too dramatically - the Russian Church turned against the Anglican Communion, while the Anglican world pursued its cataclysmic course into modernism - and the rest is, as they say, history. Theoretically, the earlier Orthodox rulings on Anglican Orders have never been rescinded, but with the introduction of the priestess heresy, they have severed any real relationship with Anglicanism for the foreseeable future. I hope this information will be useful.
Whose Tradition?
All of the recent discussion and debate about the role of Calvinism in the Anglican Church raises a point of supreme importance. What is the teaching office of the Church and how are its teachings to be received and applied? Much of our previous discussion presents an epistemological quandary. How do we know what is the right interpretation of the Christian Faith? The philosophical principle of non-contradiction, which says that two things which are opposite of one another cannot both be true, requires that there must be an objective means for discerning the orthodox Tradition of Jesus Christ. From all accounts previously read, it would appear that in the Calvinist system John Calvin, his followers, and the confessional statements arising from their beliefs constitute a teaching office of the Church - one analogous to that exercised by the See of Rome for the RC Church. My statement is not intended to be derogatory or pejorative, but factual. Holy Scripture is interpreted in the Calvinist system according to the Calvinist hermeneutic - in like manner, Holy Scripture is interpreted by the infallible teaching office of the Roman Pontiff in the Roman Church, which office is held to be absolute when dogma is proclaimed ex cathedra. The Eastern Orthodox believe that the Seven General Councils are infallible and that the Tradition of the Church is a necessary element in the right understanding of doctrine. Confessional Lutherans unabashedly affirm that the Book of Concord contains the truest exposition of the Christian Religion, to the exclusion of all others. All Scripture by nature demands a theological tradition, a means and office of interpretation in the Church.
Having these questions, I must say that, apart from its internal logical consistency and extremely well-formulated and well-organised systemic thought, it is difficult for me to determine why the Calvinist matrix is given moral or theological superiority to rival theological schools, apart from the simple choice to accept it on one's own volition as above others. For instance, the theological hermeneutic of Martin Luther never seems to be considered as valid or as 'pure' as that of Calvin by those who adhere to the Calvinist mentality. What makes Calvinism the teaching office? Why is Luther rejected in favour of Calvin? Are these competing schools of thought or are they complementary? It appears that the confessions of the Lutheran tradition are not given the power or authority of the Calvinist confessions by Calvinists. Lutherans in the main think Reformed teaching, particularly on the Holy Eucharist, is heretical. Does the Calvinist system, as opposed to the Lutheran or the Catholic, bear some stamp of divine authority, of inspiration or supernatural origin? If I accept the Book of Concord as the authentic tradition, and my brother takes the Westminster Confession, who or what can determine which one of us is right? In other words, apart from an arbitrary personal choice based on private judgement, it is difficult for one such as myself to discern the objective ecclesiastical criteria by which such judgements of interpretation are made. Where can I turn to find a Tradition which does not require for its authority the consent or the empowering of my own fiat? Is there a Tradition in which I can rest and under which I can obey without testing it according to my own pre-conceived ideas? And again, there is a difference between taking components, parts, or ideas of a system into one's own consideration of the Faith and taking a whole system in toto as the means by which we live and understand the Gospel. There is 'cafeteria confessionalism' and there is the 'whole-hog' variety. Which is right? Who is right?
We require, it seems to me, some objective instrument of Scriptural interpretation which is universally acceptable and accessible, but more than that, one which bears the unquestioned weight and authority of an authority higher than our own individual wills or theological tastes and preferences. There must be for the preservation of the Gospel a Holy Spirit-led Divine Society, an organic and living Church, given by Christ with a Tradition which authentically interprets Scripture. Mercifully, this philosophical and theological gap was bridged by the Lord Himself in the divine institution of the Holy Catholic Church as the Body of Christ and the Sphere of the Holy Spirit. We can have certainty of hermeneutic in the transmission of the saving Gospel by a divine and Apostolic Tradition which has been handed-down in the Apostolic Churches. For the Anglican, who is a member of the One Catholic Church, the Apostolic Tradition is expressed and encapsulated, universally, in the Creeds and Seven Ecumenical Councils of the undivided Church, and locally, in the Book of Common Prayer, the Ordinal, and the XXXIX Articles of Religion. And the local must be subject to the authority of the universal. I contend there really is a definitive and unambiguous Anglican tradition to which we must hold, faithful as it is to the doctrine of the Apostles and Fathers, which does not admit of extremes in either the protestant or Romanist direction. Although our history admits necessarily of the 'great muddle' or mix of varying and opposing theological views, I submit it is still possible to locate within the complexity of Anglicanism an authoritative central or Via Media tradition - smack dab in the morass. For it, such men as Andrewes and Taylor lived and such men as Blessed Charles I and Blessed William Laud died. It will be necessary, in the pursuit of Christian unity, to recover this sense of Anglican Tradition and live it to the full. We will inevitably have disagreements on adiaphora - but on the Great Tradition, on the means of interpreting the power of the Gospel, there must be consensus and communion, for all else depends upon it. Let us pray we can together recover our unity in the Tradition of the One Body. As Luther said, Here I stand...
Having these questions, I must say that, apart from its internal logical consistency and extremely well-formulated and well-organised systemic thought, it is difficult for me to determine why the Calvinist matrix is given moral or theological superiority to rival theological schools, apart from the simple choice to accept it on one's own volition as above others. For instance, the theological hermeneutic of Martin Luther never seems to be considered as valid or as 'pure' as that of Calvin by those who adhere to the Calvinist mentality. What makes Calvinism the teaching office? Why is Luther rejected in favour of Calvin? Are these competing schools of thought or are they complementary? It appears that the confessions of the Lutheran tradition are not given the power or authority of the Calvinist confessions by Calvinists. Lutherans in the main think Reformed teaching, particularly on the Holy Eucharist, is heretical. Does the Calvinist system, as opposed to the Lutheran or the Catholic, bear some stamp of divine authority, of inspiration or supernatural origin? If I accept the Book of Concord as the authentic tradition, and my brother takes the Westminster Confession, who or what can determine which one of us is right? In other words, apart from an arbitrary personal choice based on private judgement, it is difficult for one such as myself to discern the objective ecclesiastical criteria by which such judgements of interpretation are made. Where can I turn to find a Tradition which does not require for its authority the consent or the empowering of my own fiat? Is there a Tradition in which I can rest and under which I can obey without testing it according to my own pre-conceived ideas? And again, there is a difference between taking components, parts, or ideas of a system into one's own consideration of the Faith and taking a whole system in toto as the means by which we live and understand the Gospel. There is 'cafeteria confessionalism' and there is the 'whole-hog' variety. Which is right? Who is right?
We require, it seems to me, some objective instrument of Scriptural interpretation which is universally acceptable and accessible, but more than that, one which bears the unquestioned weight and authority of an authority higher than our own individual wills or theological tastes and preferences. There must be for the preservation of the Gospel a Holy Spirit-led Divine Society, an organic and living Church, given by Christ with a Tradition which authentically interprets Scripture. Mercifully, this philosophical and theological gap was bridged by the Lord Himself in the divine institution of the Holy Catholic Church as the Body of Christ and the Sphere of the Holy Spirit. We can have certainty of hermeneutic in the transmission of the saving Gospel by a divine and Apostolic Tradition which has been handed-down in the Apostolic Churches. For the Anglican, who is a member of the One Catholic Church, the Apostolic Tradition is expressed and encapsulated, universally, in the Creeds and Seven Ecumenical Councils of the undivided Church, and locally, in the Book of Common Prayer, the Ordinal, and the XXXIX Articles of Religion. And the local must be subject to the authority of the universal. I contend there really is a definitive and unambiguous Anglican tradition to which we must hold, faithful as it is to the doctrine of the Apostles and Fathers, which does not admit of extremes in either the protestant or Romanist direction. Although our history admits necessarily of the 'great muddle' or mix of varying and opposing theological views, I submit it is still possible to locate within the complexity of Anglicanism an authoritative central or Via Media tradition - smack dab in the morass. For it, such men as Andrewes and Taylor lived and such men as Blessed Charles I and Blessed William Laud died. It will be necessary, in the pursuit of Christian unity, to recover this sense of Anglican Tradition and live it to the full. We will inevitably have disagreements on adiaphora - but on the Great Tradition, on the means of interpreting the power of the Gospel, there must be consensus and communion, for all else depends upon it. Let us pray we can together recover our unity in the Tradition of the One Body. As Luther said, Here I stand...
Anglicanism: The 'American Catholic Church'
The title 'American Catholic Church' or its variant 'The Holy Catholic Church in America' was proposed as a name for the American branch of Anglicanism at the turn of the 20th century at the General Convention of the Episcopal Church. It was used unofficially in many pamphlets and books to describe the position of the Episcopal Church. It was particularly loved and promoted by Bishop Charles C. Grafton, the saintly Bishop of Fon du Lac, Wisconsin. The Diocese of Quincy, for example, is, in fact, not officially named 'Episcopal' or 'Anglican' at all: it is legally incorporated as the 'Catholic Diocese of Quincy.' The aforementioned title would make an excellent one because it possesses a precedence of historical use in the Anglican Communion - the Anglican Churches of Japan, China, and Southeast Asia use the title 'Holy Catholic Church' instead of 'Anglican' because they believe themselves, and rightly so, to be the authentic Apostolic Churches in those regions of the world. Additionally, some races and cultures no longer want to be identified strictly as 'Anglican' because of the colonial history of the past and theological and moral error presently found in the Communion. 'Reformed,' in the American setting at least, is definitely identified with Calvinism and is therefore, I believe, misleading to those unfamiliar with our tradition. Christians of strong Catholic ethos are unlikely to gravitate to a Church which bears the label of 'Reformed,' no matter how the term is defined. The Spanish Anglican Church, which bears the name of Reformed, is deeply evangelical in tone and origin, governed and organised by the Church of Ireland from its first days. Our Name, like everything else it seems, is going to be a very sensitive matter indeed.
The Sacred Host
Regarding the use of the sacred Host which is utilised as the focus of prayer, adoration, and meditation in Eucharistic devotion - It remains in the tabernacle or aumbry with the rest of the Blessed Sacrament reserved for the Holy Communion of the sick. Once a week or thereabout, It is reverently consumed at Mass by the celebrant and replaced by another consecrated priest's Host. The Host is always therefore available to be consumed by the sick or by other persons who are unable to attend Mass but desire to receive the Holy Communion apart from a Eucharistic celebration. It is never left unconsumed and It is never neglected - It is always ultimately used in Communion. A very good question.
The Brown Scapular
The devotion referred to by N. is, I believe, the Brown Scapular of Our Lady of Mount Carmel, which was, according to medieval legend, given to Saint Simon Stock (1165-1265) by the Blessed Virgin Mary. Saint Simon was the sixth Master General of the Carmelite Order and one of the first Englishmen to join the Carmelites upon their arrival in Britain. For Anglican Catholics, the devotion of the Brown Scapular, like all such other personal devotions to Our Lord's Mother, is solely pious opinion and not dogmatic or salvific in nature. Many Catholic Anglicans, like myself, firmly hold to the biblical, universal, and patristic doctrine of the Intermediate State or the Church Expectant in Paradise, which is concomitant with the Communion of Saints, while eschewing the particulars of the doctrina Romanensium de purgatorio condemned in Article XXII. One can strongly affirm the wonderful grace and virtue of Our Lady's intercession, as do all Western Catholics and Eastern Orthodox, without accepting the theological inferences implied by the Brown Scapular.
Paedocommunion
From the Anglican Rite of Baptism
Question: Why then are infants baptized, when by reason of their tender age they cannot perform them?
Answer: Because they promise them both by their Sureties (Sponsors); which promise, when they come to age, themselves are bound to perform.
Dost thou, therefore, in the name of this Child, renounce the devil...
Minister: Wilt thou be baptized in this Faith?
Answer: That is my desire.
Having now, in the name of this Child, made these promises...
From the Roman Rite of Baptism
Priest: N., what is it you are seeking from God's Church?
Sponsor: Faith.
Priest: And faith, that does that obtain for you?
Sponsor: Life everlasting.
Priest: If your desire is to enter into life, keep the commandments...
Priest: N., are you willing to be baptized?
Sponsor: I am.
X. presents a very compelling elucidation for why it would be permissible to administer the Blessed Sacrament to baptized children who have not yet attained to the age of reason. If the Sacraments are truly Means of Grace which confer grace to the soul ex opere operato, apart from the merits, workings, or deservings of the recipient, and if Baptism extends grace and regeneration to a child without the use of reason by virtue of the Faith of the Church into which the child is thus incorporated, it seems theologically correct to apply the same sacramental outworking to the Mystery of the Lord's Body and Blood in the Holy Communion. Those incorporated into Christ's Church, which is the extension of the Incarnation, are therefore rendered living members of the Lord in need of perpetual spiritual nourishment and sustenance. Children, like adults, have to eat to live, just as we have to be born to live. We are born to the Church in Baptism and fed in the Church by the Holy Eucharist. None of us, adult or child, can fully or rightly 'discern the Lord's Body' (I Corinthians 11) in the ultimate objective sense, for the mystery of the Real Presence escapes human knowledge and reason - for everyone. The Eastern Orthodox Church practices the Communion of infants and small children and bases the praxis on this underlying principle, that is, the Faith of the Church operates in the Sacraments in the objective conferral of grace to the recipient of the Sacraments. In any given sacramental ministration, it is the Faith of the Body of Christ of which we are members that supplies what we may lack in the relative or subjective exercise of our personal faith. For this reason the Liturgy itself always supplies for and compensates for any deficiencies in the celebrant, congregation, or in the performance of the same. Calvinist theologians argue, convincingly, that just as Baptism fulfils the Old Covenant rite of circumcision and the Holy Eucharist fulfils the Old Covenant rite of Passover (Exodus 16) so as the whole household of faith participated fully in both rites in the Old Testament so the New People of God as a whole, children included, should participate in the Sacraments of grace and salvation. This is a convincing and deeply-penetrating line of thought. In the end, I believe the Orthodox Eastern practice, which was our Western practice for centuries, in unanswerable in its legitimacy. The question is not so much about children receiving Holy Communion - as I see it, the only questions that remain are 'what do we do with Confirmation?' and 'how does the Blessed Sacrament relate to Baptism and Confirmation?'
That's the hard part, coming as we do from the Western tradition.
Question: Why then are infants baptized, when by reason of their tender age they cannot perform them?
Answer: Because they promise them both by their Sureties (Sponsors); which promise, when they come to age, themselves are bound to perform.
Dost thou, therefore, in the name of this Child, renounce the devil...
Minister: Wilt thou be baptized in this Faith?
Answer: That is my desire.
Having now, in the name of this Child, made these promises...
From the Roman Rite of Baptism
Priest: N., what is it you are seeking from God's Church?
Sponsor: Faith.
Priest: And faith, that does that obtain for you?
Sponsor: Life everlasting.
Priest: If your desire is to enter into life, keep the commandments...
Priest: N., are you willing to be baptized?
Sponsor: I am.
X. presents a very compelling elucidation for why it would be permissible to administer the Blessed Sacrament to baptized children who have not yet attained to the age of reason. If the Sacraments are truly Means of Grace which confer grace to the soul ex opere operato, apart from the merits, workings, or deservings of the recipient, and if Baptism extends grace and regeneration to a child without the use of reason by virtue of the Faith of the Church into which the child is thus incorporated, it seems theologically correct to apply the same sacramental outworking to the Mystery of the Lord's Body and Blood in the Holy Communion. Those incorporated into Christ's Church, which is the extension of the Incarnation, are therefore rendered living members of the Lord in need of perpetual spiritual nourishment and sustenance. Children, like adults, have to eat to live, just as we have to be born to live. We are born to the Church in Baptism and fed in the Church by the Holy Eucharist. None of us, adult or child, can fully or rightly 'discern the Lord's Body' (I Corinthians 11) in the ultimate objective sense, for the mystery of the Real Presence escapes human knowledge and reason - for everyone. The Eastern Orthodox Church practices the Communion of infants and small children and bases the praxis on this underlying principle, that is, the Faith of the Church operates in the Sacraments in the objective conferral of grace to the recipient of the Sacraments. In any given sacramental ministration, it is the Faith of the Body of Christ of which we are members that supplies what we may lack in the relative or subjective exercise of our personal faith. For this reason the Liturgy itself always supplies for and compensates for any deficiencies in the celebrant, congregation, or in the performance of the same. Calvinist theologians argue, convincingly, that just as Baptism fulfils the Old Covenant rite of circumcision and the Holy Eucharist fulfils the Old Covenant rite of Passover (Exodus 16) so as the whole household of faith participated fully in both rites in the Old Testament so the New People of God as a whole, children included, should participate in the Sacraments of grace and salvation. This is a convincing and deeply-penetrating line of thought. In the end, I believe the Orthodox Eastern practice, which was our Western practice for centuries, in unanswerable in its legitimacy. The question is not so much about children receiving Holy Communion - as I see it, the only questions that remain are 'what do we do with Confirmation?' and 'how does the Blessed Sacrament relate to Baptism and Confirmation?'
That's the hard part, coming as we do from the Western tradition.
The 'Sacrificing Priesthood'
The phrase 'sacrificing priesthood' is often misunderstood itself. A safe way of describing it is to say that the priest is one ordained to be ontologically in persona Christi capitis, in the Person of Christ the Head of the Church, in order to celebrate the Sacraments of the New Covenant. 'And be thou a faithful Dispenser of the Word of God and of His Holy Sacraments.' In this role as the living instrument of Christ, the living icon of Christ, the ordained priest offers the Eucharistic Sacrifice, which is no new Sacrifice, but the anamnetic re-presentation of the One Sacrifice once offered to the Father. The priest is Christ's sacramental representative, imaging or impersonating Christ at the Altar, pleading and making-present in a sacramental mode the One Perfect Sacrifice of Christ. As Saint Cyprian of Carthage puts it, the priest 'stands in Our Lord's place.' Through the sacerdotium or ministerial priesthood, Our Lord does in the Eucharistic offering on earth in the Church what He eternally does in Heaven - He exhibits Himself in His atoning death, sacrifice, and glorification as the full, perfect, sufficient Oblation for the sins of the whole world. Christ exercises His one and only Priesthood as the Great Eternal High Priest and Heavenly Intercessor, Mediator, and Advocate through the sacramental priesthood of His Body the Church. Sacramental priests have no priesthood of their own; they share in Christ's one Priesthood. The sacerdotium is the sacramental organ of His Body. Through this organ of ordained priesthood the whole Church, the priesthood of the baptised, is enabled to be the Church, united as members to the Head, to Christ's self-oblation to the Father through the Holy Ghost. That is what I mean by 'sacrificing priesthood.'
How wonderful it is to be a 'sacrificing' 'massing' priest!
How wonderful it is to be a 'sacrificing' 'massing' priest!
Sacerdotium
From N.: 'Of course, when I was ordained I certainly did NOT understand myself as being elevated to a sacerdotal priesthood either; in point of fact the Declaration of Principles of the REC made it quite clear that that was NOT happening...'
Dear N.:
Your incisive comment actually raises a fascinating and critical point of sacramentology, which is that the sacerdotium, or sacramental ministerial priesthood, is always validly conferred so long as the following necessary elements are present:
1. proper minister, a bishop in apostolic succession,
2. proper form, prayer by the bishop for the grace and office of the presbyterate,
3. proper matter, laying-on-of-hands by the bishop,
4. proper subject, a baptised male,
5. proper intention, to do generally what the Church does in ordination - that is, to intend to do what Our Lord and the true New Testament Church effect in ordination in conferring the sacred ministry.
It is not even necessary that the ordaining bishop and receiving ordinand intend to confer and receive the sacramental priesthood, so long as they intend seriously to perform the rite of presbyteral ordination according to mind of Christ and His Church, to wit, to do what the true Church does in ordination. They do not even have to intend what the Holy Catholic Church intends by ordination: they only have to intend to do what the Church (however understood by the parties involved) does. Thus, you see, you are a validly ordained priest, sacerdos, of the hierarchical sacerdotium whether you believe it or not. Thou art a Priest forever after the Order of Melchizedek, a Catholic priest in Apostolic Orders as the whole Church has always understood such. How wonderful is the grace and authority of Holy Orders.
Dear N.:
Your incisive comment actually raises a fascinating and critical point of sacramentology, which is that the sacerdotium, or sacramental ministerial priesthood, is always validly conferred so long as the following necessary elements are present:
1. proper minister, a bishop in apostolic succession,
2. proper form, prayer by the bishop for the grace and office of the presbyterate,
3. proper matter, laying-on-of-hands by the bishop,
4. proper subject, a baptised male,
5. proper intention, to do generally what the Church does in ordination - that is, to intend to do what Our Lord and the true New Testament Church effect in ordination in conferring the sacred ministry.
It is not even necessary that the ordaining bishop and receiving ordinand intend to confer and receive the sacramental priesthood, so long as they intend seriously to perform the rite of presbyteral ordination according to mind of Christ and His Church, to wit, to do what the true Church does in ordination. They do not even have to intend what the Holy Catholic Church intends by ordination: they only have to intend to do what the Church (however understood by the parties involved) does. Thus, you see, you are a validly ordained priest, sacerdos, of the hierarchical sacerdotium whether you believe it or not. Thou art a Priest forever after the Order of Melchizedek, a Catholic priest in Apostolic Orders as the whole Church has always understood such. How wonderful is the grace and authority of Holy Orders.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Comprovincial Newsletter and Video - September 2026
The Anglican Province of America Comprovincial Newsletter and Video - September 2026
-
MEDIA RELEASE FULL COMMUNION AGREEMENT (COMMUNIO IN SACRIS) BETWEEN THE ANGLICAN PROVINCE OF AME...
-
Pope Leo IX, Last of the Bishops of Rome in communion with the rest of Christendom. The Bishop of Rome is historically the first Bi...
-
Following on the intriguing discussion at The Continuum , below is the carefully-researched essay by Father John Jay Hughes found in his 197...
