Swedish Lutheran Orders and the Roman Tradition

Did a Society of Saint Pius X Bishop publicly preach the validity of Swedish Lutheran Orders?

According to the Society's own official newsletter, SSPX Bishop Tissier de Mallerais made an interesting statement during the July 30, 2006, SSPX Mass at St. Nicolas du Chardonnet Church in Paris, observing the conversion of a former Lutheran pastor.

During his sermon, Tissier remarked:

'You yourself, dear Pastor, were a priest. You were a priest for 31 years, following a ceremony of ordination. There is evidently a doubt on this ordination, since one doesn't know if the apostolic succession in the Swedish Church is valid or not. You celebrated during 31 years what you thought to be a valid Mass in Swedish language.'

After careful examination, the Church of England officially proposed intercommunion with the Swedish Church, based on the validity of Swedish Orders, at the Lambeth Conference 1920. Perhaps our traditional Roman Catholic friends have begun slowly to discern what Anglicanism realised many deacades ago.

The Orthodox, the Anglican Communion Network and the 'Ordination' of Women

The Letter of Metropolitan Kirill of Smolensk and Kaliningrad to Bishop Robert Duncan of Pittsburgh, Bishop Edward Salmon of South Carolina and Bishop John-David Schofield of San Joaquin, Episcopal Church in the USA:

'Dear Brothers in Christ, We have learnt from the mass media that you have decided to refrain from recognizing the Presiding Bishop Elect of the Episcopal Church in the USA, Ms. Catherine Jefferts-Shori. It follows from the released letter you signed that this step was motivated by your refusal to accept the election of a woman to the post of the head of a Church as a gross violation of the old church Tradition. I would like to assure you that I fully share the stand you have taken. In due time, the Russian Orthodox Church also took not an easy step by ceasing on December 26, 2003, her contacts with the Episcopal Church in the USA because of the "consecration" of Gene Robinson, an open homosexual, as bishop. Through this act, the sinful way of life strictly condemned by Holy Scriptures has been supported by church leaders - the fact that defies any reasonable explanation. It is my profound conviction that secular liberal political and philosophical ideas, however we may treat them, cannot and must not adjust the Apostolic Tradition and the understanding of New Testament texts guarded by this Tradition. Any attempt to adjust Christian morality and especially the church order to the political tastes of an external environment is dangerous as it threatens with a loss of Christian identity. There must be no fear in the efforts to keep faithful to Christ. Indeed, the Gospel calls us to take the narrow path that many believed to be impossible even during the earthly life of the Saviour: "When the disciples heard this they were greatly astonished, saying, "Who then can be saved?"". The example of the Russian Orthodox Church in the Soviet period is a vivid proof that Christians can stay faithful to Christ even in the hardest conditions. Despite the severe persecution and pressure from the Soviet power, our Church did not compromise with the spirit of this world. We continue to follow the situation in the Episcopal Church in the USA because we have always cherished good relations with her faithful. Dialogue between our two Churches was established over one hundred years ago, St. Tikhon the Patriarch of All Russia being one of its initiators. Since that time, our relations have been marked by sincerity, warmth, willingness to cooperate and mutual interest. Now we, regrettably, have been actually deprived of this rich heritage. However, as the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church stressed in its decision to break relations with the Episcopal Church in the USA, we are open to "contacts and cooperation with those American Episcopalians who remain faithful to the gospel's moral teaching". In this connection, I would like to inform you that the Russian Orthodox Church supports your act and expresses willingness to restore relations with your diocese. Using this opportunity, I wish you good health, God's help in your work, peace and prosperity.'

This truly remarkable, history-making epistle received the following unfortunate but necessary response:

'There is one matter, about which I must humbly advise you, that may impede the recognition you so graciously propose. Among the dioceses that Pittsburgh leads are dioceses that do ordain women to the diaconate and presbyterate, just as do many of the Provinces of the Anglican Communion. Under these circumstances would the Russian Orthodox Church still be willing to recognize those dioceses in our fellowship that share this practice, Pittsburgh being among them?'

- Bishop Robert Duncan in his reply letter, 25 August 2006

With all due and charitable respect to our beloved friends in the Anglican Communion Network and the Common Cause Federation, one must ask simply: can the Eastern Orthodox Churches realistically or honestly restore progressive ecumenical relations with ecclesial bodies, in this case several provinces and dioceses of the Canterbury Communion, or even go so far as to achieve theological consensus with such bodies, if the latter affirm and maintain doctrines and practices which are adjudged blatantly heterodox by historic Orthodoxy? Hasn't the purported ordination of women error ultimately imperiled or destroyed the official Anglican Communion-Eastern Orthodox dialogue?

The above-cited correspondence is to my mind proof positive that the Apostolic Churches of East and West, the Roman and the Eastern, should prophetically turn their ecumenical interests and investments toward the orthodox catholic Anglicans of the Continuing Church. Pope Benedict and Patriarch Bartholomew have been taking their official dialogues in a misplaced direction for a very long time now. When will they finally realise that the orthodox Anglicanism they seek to engage is utterly real, alive and well in places where they have yet refused to look? Let us pray for the restoration of authentic catholic ecumenism in our day, and let us pray for the restoration of catholic orthodoxy in those branches of the Church where such truth has been tragically neglected or abandoned. May we all come to see that the heart of genuine ecumenicity is the truth, the Apostolic Tradition.

'Mission'

'And we humbly beseech thee, O heavenly Father, so to assist us with thy grace, that we may continue in that holy fellowship, and do all such good works as thou hast prepared for us to walk in.' As we approach a new season in the calendar year, a season of renewal and change, we are often reminded of the priorities of life, the people and pursuits that really matter to us. Recently I had the great honour of participating in a local outreach ministry to children and families in need, the Summer Blast, which was for the second year in a row based at Community United Methodist Church in Casselberry. To my delight I was able to witness firsthand how financial and personal contributions from parishioners of Saint Alban's Cathedral went directly to the aid of people in serious crisis and need. Our efforts in this regard truly make a difference in people's lives. Our prayers matter. Our gifts matter. Our mission matters. We should never be tempted to believe falsely that our parish, although comparatively small in comparison to other churches of other traditions, does not make a difference or does not in some powerful way touch and transform lives for good. Rest assured, our parish makes all the difference, and has the capacity to transform and sanctify lives in ways we have not yet begun to imagine. All we have to do is freely unleash the supernatural gifts we have freely received. In the hot July sun, surrounded by hundreds of people of many races and languages, hungry for the Gospel, needful of the basics of life's necessities, gathered to receive the corporal alms of the community, Saint Alban's was present and made a difference. In the midst of a swirl of human energy and activity, our parish was duly represented, humbly but perceptibly, a sign of the Kingdom of God in the midst of a world unknowingly craving its Creator and Redeemer. Interestingly, that day's event proffered the opportunity for many guest speakers and musicians to present their several messages and visions of faith... centre stage. We were the only Christians of the Catholic and Apostolic Tradition present - we enjoyed the singular privilege of representing orthodox, sacramental and liturgical Christianity in a setting where the Great Tradition of the Holy Catholic Church has likely never before been seen or heard. There were many evangelical preachers gesticulating, many charismatic singers crooning, and many contemporary styles of both for all to absorb. I doubt that many of the listeners were accustomed to hearing an introduction to the Anglican and Catholic Faith from a man in clerical collar, a talk which referenced the Bible and the Creeds, and receiving a blessing in the Name of the Holy Trinity with the Sign of the Cross! I found doing that impishly fun!

I offer the recollection of this experience to you simply to reiterate what we all already know in our hearts and souls, that orthodox Christianity is the Life of the Holy Spirit, the genuine article, the real thing, and it belongs 'out there,' amongst the people who so desperately need it and perhaps do not even know they so need. Catholic Faith and Apostolic Order has the inherent power to transform society - in times past it transformed the ancient world, the Europe of the Middle Ages, and the Americas of new discovery and promise; it certainly has the power to convert in our own backyards and neighbourhoods. But it must convert us first, to a radical life of self-giving Gospel obedience and service, before we in turn can be used to change our surroundings. Traditional Anglicanism has been 'America's best kept secret' for far too long and it is high time to reverse that posture in our own personal lives of Christian commitment and in the life of our beloved parish as a whole. The more seriously we take our profession of Faith, the more effectively God will use us for His glory. May our heavenly Father grant us new opportunities in future for missionary outreach and greater graces to launch into the deep to make His Son known, loved and adored by all, in our own community and round the world. God desires us to be the unique instrument by which He reunites heaven and earth and restores communion between God and man. We are the Body of Christ. God has blessed our parish and has placed us where we are as we are for a time such as this.

Our Faith, the Faith once delivered unto the Saints, should continually remind us that Our Blessed Lord has not merely given a mission to the Church, but rather, God has constituted His Church a Mission in herself - a mission to transfigure the whole of creation and of mankind in love by the proclamation of Jesus Christ and the fullness of His Gospel to ends of the earth. Mission is of the nature of God Himself: mission is God's very essence, His very character. The Father in love sends or missions His Son and His Holy Ghost to us - God is the primeval missionary, the One Who gives and is given. God is Lover, Beloved and the Love shared. The Church is nothing else but the very Body and Bride of Christ, the totus Christus, the Head and Body of Christ united together as one corporate personality, Christ Himself in action, Christ in mission. Our mission is the Great Commission of Jesus Christ, which sacred charge and task is not an option but a commandment (Saint Matthew 28.18-20). As faithful disciples of Our Lord and Saviour, we seek to fulfil the commission in our place and circumstances according to that Providence which has placed us here today. Ultimately, as we devoutly and earnestly practise our Catholic Religion, which is nourished by Word and Sacrament, by Scripture and prayer and Eucharist, filled with the Holy Ghost, we are challenged to recall that mission, the high calling which is ours in Christ Jesus, is not about a mission's financial solvency or fundraising, not about worldly standards of success or failure, and not even about church growth: mission is about God Himself, for He is the One who has called us to mission and has promised to strengthen us by His life and power to accomplish that which He has commanded and desired. Christian mission is about proclaiming the Thrice-Holy God we love and know to others and manifesting His reconciling grace and salvific glory in the world and the age in which we live. There can be no authentic Christianity, no New Life in Christ, without mission. 'As the Father hath sent me, even so send I you.' The Lord Jesus Christ is the Divine Apostle of the Father, the One whom the Father sent into the world to save, sanctify and glorify it. In turn this Heavenly High Priest and Apostle calls every adopted son of God, every baptised and confirmed Christian, literally to go out; we are to be 'Godsends,' men and women of Apostolic calling and zeal who carry Christ to others, thus inaugurating in Christ the New Creation, a world redeemed and divinised by grace. Jesus reproduces His life and love, His mission in us. The Spirit bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God.

So the next time we hear someone utter the word 'mission' let us be mindful of all that that little word means and implies. That little word is our charter and the course to our glorious destiny in Christ. God bless you.

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.

Carol Grundorf - RIP

Dear friends:

I regret to return to my blog with terribly tragic news. It is with a heavy heart that I must report that Presiding Bishop Walter H. Grundorf’s wife, Carol, died suddenly Saturday night, 22 July. Please keep the Bishop and his four sons, Wally, Stephen, Jason, and Daniel and their families in your continual prayers, and pray for the repose of Carol's soul.

A family visitation will be held at the Family Funeral Care centre (also known as the National Cremation Society) on Red Bug Lake Road, Oviedo, Florida, Thursday 27 July, 6PM to 8PM. The Solemn High Mass of Requiem will be offered Friday 28 July at Saint Alban's Cathedral, 3348 West State Road 426, Oviedo, Florida at 11AM with a luncheon following.

In lieu of flowers, the family has requested donations to the Carol Grundorf Memorial Fund. Cheques can be made out to 'Saint Alban’s' with the note 'Carol Grundorf Memorial Fund' in the memo field.

Clergy attire for the procession is cassock, surplice and a purple or black stole.

Rest eternal grant unto her, O Lord, and let light perpetual shine upon her. My her soul, and the souls of all the faithful departed, through the mercy of God, rest in peace. Amen.

Holiday!

Philorthodox, your online source for musings and random thoughts from a traditional Prayer Book & Missal Anglican Catholic perspective, will be taking a holiday from 19 June to 19 July. Please keep reading previous posts. Please also keep in your daily prayers the Provincial Synod of the Anglican Province of America and the Synod of the Diocese of the Eastern United States, to be held in Merrillville, Indiana this week, and the Anglican Life Adventure Camp to be held in Ashe County, North Carolina at the end of June. God bless you!

Apostolicae Curae Fulfilled? Schori as PB

[Episcopal News Service] Katharine Jefferts Schori, bishop of the Diocese of Nevada, has been elected June 18 by the House of Bishops as the 26th Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church.

With the election of the Bishop of Nevada to the position of Presiding Bishop of The Episcopal Church, the Apostolic Succession of the TEC will, from this moment forward, be cast under an irreversible cloud of doubt and uncertainty. Some jurisdictions and individuals have logically maintained, and with very good theological reasons, that that cloud has existed since the innovation of purported women's priestly ordination in 1976, but I shall not address that question here. Where sacraments are uncertain or possibly invalid, orthodox moral theology always demands that the Church take the safest and surest course, which is the refusal to recognise such dubious sacraments as valid or efficacious. Otherwise sacrilege might occur. A woman who has received the rite of episcopal consecration is now the fons sacramentorum, the fount and origin of ministerial orders within The Episcopal Church. Every future episcopal consecration held within the TEC will, if prescribed canons are followed, be conferred by a chief consecrator whose priestly and episcopal orders the Holy Catholic Church has never recognised and cannot and will not recognise as sacramentally valid. No Bishop, no Priesthood, no Eucharist, no Church. The Apostolic Succession of a once-Catholic body is now in unmistakable jeopardy. The problem is strictly sacramentological, quite distinct from the personal beliefs and views of Mrs Schori. She could be perfectly orthodox, biblical, in her moral and doctrinal teaching (which sadly she is not) and the problem of her orders or lack thereof still exists. In point of fact, the Bishop of Nevada is an outspoken modernist and revisionist, but I should contend most emphatically that the problem of her purported ordination is actually more serious in consequence to the body to which she belongs than her personal religious beliefs, as deeply troubling and false as they are. Beliefs change and people convert, but invalid orders, in this case, cannot be rectified. By virtue of her position, she will inescapably introduce over time a plainly suspect sacramental system into every Diocese of the The Episcopal Church, including those which are currently Anglo-Catholic. To be in communion with the TEC is to face the inevitability of the loss of Catholic Faith and Apostolic Order.

Ironically, in The Episcopal Church it appears that the Papal Encyclical Apostolicae Curae of Pope Leo XIII (1896) will apply in future, not specifically because of a defect of form or a defect of intention, but because of a clear defect of minister. Pope Leo claimed the Anglican Succession died with Archbishop Matthew Parker in 1559 - that judgement was patently erroneous, from every conceivable objective theological examination. But now, curiously enough, a scenario described by Leo, the termination of Succession, has precisely emerged today in the body formerly known as ECUSA. This is a theological consideration, not a social or political one. Sacramental assurance, the very assurance of grace and supernatural life for which Our Blessed Lord Jesus Christ instituted the Sacraments, will eventually evaporate from the TEC, because the chief minister of episcopal consecrations, the Primate, will be one whose status casts doubt on the validity of all subsequent sacramental actions in her line. And this doubt regarding sacramental assurance will extend to all future episcopal consecrands, including male candidates for the episcopate, involved in any purported consecration in which Mrs Schori functions as consecrator. A break in the Succession may occur in years to come once male bishops purportedly consecrated by a woman attempt to pass on their ministerial line and orders to others. The end result could be the cessation of an undoubtedly valid sacramental structure. The Sacrament of Holy Orders as understood by the Church Catholic would then no longer subsist in the TEC. What will Forward in Faith North America do? What will the Anglican Communion Network do? What will the American Anglican Council do? The line has been drawn: let us see what the responses will be. The Episcopal Church has made its irrevocable decision - it has committed itself finally and completely to a form of liturgical unitarian modernism. Let us pray for our beloved ones who are still fighting the good fight in that strange land...

GENCON '06

Orthodox Continuing Churchmen nationwide continue to breathe a deep sigh of relief that they are no longer linked to the established body known as ECUSA as the 75th General Convention of TEC (The Episcopal Church) slowly churns and sputters towards its inevitable conclusion in Columbus, Ohio. For all of the debate over compliance or non-compliance with the Windsor Report, the resolutions so far have taken a predictably modernist direction.

The exception are two resolutions that have progressed through the Special Committee on Anglican Communion relations - A166 articulates the desire of the TEC to be involved in a new 'Anglican Covenant' envisioned by Archbishop Williams and the Windsor Report. A159 would commit the TEC to remaining a 'constituent member of the Anglican Communion.'

The Bishops passed C008, which affirms the right of workers to organize and form unions. C012 supports the Episcopal Network for Economic Justice. The Bishops approved the Millennium Development Goals of the United Nations as a priority for the TEC. The Bishops approved A077, changing the Lectionary of the 1979 Book for the Revised Common Lectionary. The Bishops also passed resolution C018 reaffirming environmentalism.

TEC Bishops voted to urge and encourage sex equality in D024. The Bishops passed another political resolution, A017, on immigration.

In COCU ecumenist fashion, the Bishops also passed a resolution approving what is described as interim eucharistic sharing with the United Methodist Church. The Episcopal Church is preparing to recognise the sacramental validity of Methodist ordinations and Methodist celebrations of the Eucharist. A055 encourages communicatio in sacris between the two bodies under certain loosely-defined circumstances. The move is identical to the communion agreement which existed between the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) and TEC prior to the adoption of the controversial Called to Common Mission, which established full sacramental communion between TEC and ELCA. Methodist ministers are now reckoned to be Catholic priests, and Methodist communion services are held to be proper Masses in which the True Body and Blood of Christ are consecrated. Similar agreements have been established with other mainline protestant bodies.

Fascinatingly, attendees report what appears to be the deliberate decision on the part of GenCon organisers to eliminate the abbreviation ECUSA and replace it with 'The Episcopal Church.' At the opening of Convention, the platform was covered with international flags representing the nations where The Episcopal Church has historically enjoyed a missionary presence. The slogan being used at Convention asserts that The Episcopal Church is an 'international family.' Suspicion is running high. Could it be that The Episcopal Church (now known as TEC) intends to declare itself its own denomination and communion entirely apart from the Anglican world? The possibility of that is very strong indeed. TEC may be gearing up to 'walk apart' any day now.

In all charity, I must say I feel immeasurably blessed and preserved not to be associated with the goings-on transpiring this week in Columbus. Regardless of the problems which undoubtedly exist in the Continuum, Continuing Anglo-Catholics have been set free from the seemingly endless mire of political debate over the essentials of the Faith found in the establishment to concentrate on what really matters - the Gospel and the mission of the Church Catholic. Let us pray our dearly beloved orthodox brethren still struggling in TEC (or ECUSA) may soon be able to join us in a new orthodox alignment within Anglicanism.

Roman Mass Translation Accepted... Sort Of

Yesterday the nation's Romanist bishops accepted 173-29, with many slight amendments, the new ICEL translation of the third typical edition of the Missale Romanum.

Additions to the official text are: a continued increased prominence for the rite of blessing and sprinkling of Holy Water; the maintenance of two alternative introductions for the penitential rite; seven additional formulae for the penitential rite; keeping the familiar four additional introductions to the Lord's Prayer; two alternate forms for the dismissal; the 'insertion of a prayer over already blessed water' for the sprinkling rite; and the maintenance of the phrase 'Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again,' which was not included in the ICEL text.

The word 'dew' was removed from the Eucharistic Prayers, 'chalice' remains. Several proposals to change the word to the current 'cup' were rejected by the Bishops' Committee on Liturgy, which expressed its preference for the rationale established by ICEL. Several bishops also requested striking 'precious' from the submitted rendering of 'precious chalice' in the Eucharistic Prayers, but the committee declined these on the grounds that to do so would not be faithful to the Latin use of the term praeclarum calicem. In Eucharistic Prayer IV, and at other instances in the text where ICEL rendered unigenitus as 'only-begotten' without adding 'Son' to it, several prelates sought a change to include 'Son,' which the bishops accepted. Two bishops sought to return the phrase 'for the many,' pro multis, to the consecration of the precious chalice. The BCL rejected the proposal given the purported overwhelming view of the USCCB membership in favor of 'for all.' Another bishop sought to have the Gloria's rendering of peace to 'all people of good will' changed to 'all men.' The Committee refused, saying that 'people' is the most accurate rendering of hominibus in English as spoken in the United States. In other areas, 'Look with favor on your church's offering' -- a 1970 translation in Eucharistic Prayer III -- is staying put, 'undefiled' in the Canon becomes 'unblemished,' the deacon's pre-Gospel request will not be the traditional Pray, Father, your blessing,' but the pedantic 'May I have your blessing, Father.' And the Mortem tuam has been proposed by the USCCB as reading 'We announce your death, O Lord, and proclaim your resurrection until you come in glory.' A proposal to change the words of the Nicene Creed from the odd 'one in being' to the proper 'consubstantial,' which is closer to the Latin, failed.

Rome may yet reject some of the American alterations to the ICEL text and require a return to the original translation. As for me and my house, we shall stand with the traditional Missals and the Book of Common Prayer, which are vastly superior liturgical texts, theologically and aesthetically...

Proposed Texts: Authentic Liturgy

The following are examples of the proposed new translation for the Roman New Order Mass in English. They are remarkably close to those used in the Prayer Book and the Anglican and Anglican Missals. It is hard to imagine that the liberal hierarchy of the Roman Church in the USA will accept these translations in their original unaltered form:

The Confiteor:

Priest: Brothers and sisters, let us acknowledge our sins, that we may be ready to celebrate the sacred mysteries.

All: I confess to almighty God, and to you my brothers and sisters, that I have sinned greatly in my thoughts and in my words, in what I have done and what I have failed to do,(striking their breast, they say) through my fault, through my fault, through my most grievous fault. (Then they continue)Therefore I ask blessed Mary ever-virgin, all the Angels and Saints, and you, my brothers and sisters, to pray for me to the Lord our God.

Priest: May almighty God have mercy on us and lead us, with our sins forgiven, into eternal life.

The Gloria:

Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace to people of good will. We praise you, we bless you, we adore you, we glorify you, we give you thanks for your great glory, Lord God, heavenly King, O God almighty Father. Lord, Jesus Christ, Only-begotten Son, Lord God, Lamb of God, Son of the Father, you take away the sins of the world, have mercy on us; you take away the sins of the world, receive our prayer; you are seated at the right hand of the Father, have mercy on us. For you alone are the Holy One, you alone are the Lord, you alone are the Most High, Jesus Christ, with the Holy Spirit, in the glory of God the Father. Amen.

The Nicene Creed:

I believe in one God,the Father almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Only-begotten Son of God, born of the Father before all ages. God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father; through him all things were made. For us men and for our salvation he came down from heaven, (At the following words, up to and including and became man, all bow.) and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary, and became man. Crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate, he suffered death and was buried, and rose again on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures. He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead. His kingdom will have no end. And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,who proceeds from the Father and the Son, who with the Father and the Son is adored and glorified, who has spoken through the prophets. And one holy, catholic and apostolic Church. I confess one baptism for the forgiveness of sins. I look forward to the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come. Amen.

From the Roman Canon:

Be pleased to look upon them with a serene and kindly gaze and to accept them, as you were pleased to accept the gifts of your just servant Abel, the sacrifice of Abraham, our father in faith, and the offering of your high priest Melchizedek, a holy sacrifice, a spotless victim.

Ecce Agnus Dei:

Behold the Lamb of God, behold him who takes away the sins of the world. Blessed are they who have been called to the banquet of the Lamb. Lord, I am not worthy that you should come under my roof, but only say the word, and my soul shall be healed.

The Salutation:

Priest: The Lord be with you.
All: And with your spirit.

Kairos: The Big Week in Romanism and ECUSA

This week the National Conference of [Roman] Catholic Bishops in Los Angeles votes to appove or alter the new much-improved English translation of the third typical edition of the Novus Ordo Missae and its Missale Romanum.

Simultaneously, the Episcopal Church USA will decide at its 75th General Convention in Columbus, Ohio whether or not to accede to the requests of the Windsor Report and thus remain within the Anglican Communion.

For the former, let us pray for a restoration of Catholic liturgical integrity and the doxological tradition of the Western Church; for the latter, let us pray for genuine conversion and a restoration of orthodox Christian moral and theological teaching...

http://www.usccb.org/index.shtml

http://www.ecusa.anglican.org/53785_ENG_HTM.htm

Roman Protestantism: Trautman on Liturgy

Here's another unsurprising and disturbing snippet from the recent goings-on in the Roman Communion regarding the translation of the new Missale Romanum into American English. The language vilified by the liturgical-revisionist Bishop of Erie is, of course, contained word-for word in the Anglican and English Missals and in the traditional Western liturgy. Once again Anglican Catholics are proven more Catholic than Rome...

http://www.losangelesmission.com/ed/articles/2006/0606as.htm

An estimated 41,000 [Roman] Catholic catechists and religious educators from throughout the United States and four other continents packed the Anaheim Convention Center for the Los Angeles archdiocese's 39th annual Religious Education Congress from Thursday, March 30 through Sunday, April 2.

On Friday, Bishop Donald Trautman of Erie, Pennsylvania, chairman of the U.S. bishops' liturgy committee, gave a talk, 'Contemporary Liturgical Issues.' Bishop Trautman expressed apprehension about the U.S. bishops' upcoming June vote on the new sacramentary (containing the order of Mass) translation, which reflects a more traditional style closer to the original Latin. He described the vote as a 'decisive and defining' moment and admitted that the conference is 'divided.'

'Liturgical language today must not just be faithful and accurate to the original, but also intelligible, proclaimable, dignified and reflective of a word order, vocabulary, expression from the contemporary mainstream of the English language as spoken in the United States,' said Trautman. 'If a translation, no matter how exact, does not communicate in the living language of the worshipping assembly, it fails as a translation. It fails to lead to full, conscious, and active participation.'
Trautman continued, 'in the proposed translation of the sacramentary, we meet words and expressions that many would consider not in the speech of the mainstream assembly.' For example, he said, the proposed translation of the Nicene Creed uses the phrase, 'consubstantial with the Father,' to replace the present wording, 'one in being with the Father.' Also, 'by the Holy Spirit, He was incarnate of the Virgin Mary' replaces 'He was born of the Virgin Mary.'
'Both words, "consubstantial" and "incarnate,"' said Trautman, 'are not readily intelligible to the vast majority of those in the assembly.'

Commenting on a proposed change to the first Eucharistic Prayer (the Roman Canon) -- 'grant them, O Lord, we pray, and all who sleep in Christ, a place of refreshment, light, and peace,' Trautman drew audience laughter when he quipped, 'the phrase, "a place of refreshment," is a literal translation that conveys the image of a heavenly spa or tap room at the heavenly hotel.'

Trautman addressed another proposed change to the first Eucharistic Prayer -- from 'cup' to 'precious chalice.' Said Trautman: '"precious chalice" -- when I hear those words, I think of a gold vessel with diamonds on it. Did Jesus, at the Last Supper, use a precious chalice or a cup? The gospels clearly say "cup," but even in the lectionary from Rome we have the word "chalice" imposed on the inspired text to carry out this"sacred language."'

Alluding apparently to defecation, the bishop garnered more audience guffaws when he recited the following proposed translation for Eucharistic Prayer II: 'make holy these gifts, we pray, by the dew of your Spirit -- D-E-W.'

Susan Larker, 37, of Long Beach, who attended Trautman's talk, said the bishop 'doesn't want to say that "Jesus took bread into His holy and venerable hands." He laughed at the Vatican wanting this translation and said that that the laity can't relate to this sort of language.'

Friday night's entertainment consisted of a 'Rockin' the "Rena"' concert, described as a 'rockin' musical festival of song, dance and ritual, including a musical quartet and contemporary artists....' Other Friday events included 'lunchtime entertainment' with Pedro Rubalcava and David Haas; Celtic, Justice and Peace, and Nigerian evening liturgies; and the Liturgy of the Hours with music provided by Jeanne Cotter and Tony Alonso.

Holy Relics - Sign of the Incarnation

Dear N.:

Irony of ironies, it seems modernist C of E Anglicans have in the last decade rediscovered, at Saint Alban's Shrine at least, that most anciently catholic and yet controverted practice of the enshrining of holy Relics. Now if only they could reappropriate to themselves the dogmatic tradition of the ancient Church! I hope I do not disappoint you by telling you that in fact I find the veneration of Relics, if done according to the strictest canons and traditions of the Church, to be a perfectly orthodox and spiritually salutary practice. Indeed the enshrinement of the Relics of the Saints and their veneration is older than the canonised New Testament, older than the original Creed of Nicea, older than the organisation of the undivided Church into Patriarchates. The practice harkens back to the earliest Fathers and Saints of the sub-apostolic period.

Authentic relics can be a wondrous treasure of catholic faith and liturgical tradition, if used correctly:

It is often the case in Apostolic Churches that the Altar dedicated in a chapel to a particular Saint contains at least one Relic of the Saint so commemorated, but, strictly speaking, Altar stones in the Catholic tradition must contain the Relic of a Martyr, one who died for Christ and the Church and who has been officially canonised as such. This tradition harkens back to the passion and commemoration of the second-century Saint Polycarp of Smyrna, whose bones were entombed and venerated in a Christian Altar, the first such recorded case of the use of a Martyr's Relics to hallow and consecrate the mensa on which the Holy Mysteries are offered. Christians 'gathered the bones of Saint Polycarp as a treasure more precious than precious stones and purer than gold, and placed them for the celebration of the day of his heavenly birth, and for the instruction and confirmation of future Christians.' In turn the ancient catholic practice echoes the Book of Revelation 6.9ff, in which we see the Martyrs under the heavenly Altar awaiting the judgement and the general resurrection. An Eucharistic Altar in a Catholic Church may contain many Relics, including those of a patron Saint, but always by tradition contain the relic of an holy Martyr. On the Altar of Saint Alban's Cathedral we use an antimension, a Byzantine Rite 'Altar,' which is actually a cloth into which the bone fragment of a Martyr is sown and which is used as a portable Altar. The cloth bears an iconic portrayal of Our Lord's Burial. Our particular antimension, very oddly, is Uniate and contains a Relic of Saint Josaphat, a seventeenth century papalist Greek Rite bishop martyred by the Orthodox. Some Anglo-Catholics restored the use of Relics in Altars for the celebration of Mass in the nineteenth century. The sale of Relics is forbidden canonically and morally. However, one may make a donation or financial gift to the church or person who possesses the Relic in order to compensate for the reliquary used in housing a Relic. Under no circumstances are Relics broken up, destroyed or discarded - that would be a sin of blasphemy. They must be treated with the greatest care and with the utmost reverence. In the Anglican Church they are displayed or processed liturgically only in the extremely rarest of circumstances, and their use is normally regulated by the Bishop of the local Diocese.

Anglicans are not obliged to venerate the Relics of the Saints, just as they are not obliged to solicit the gracious prayers of the Saints on our behalf, but, just as they are not compelled so to venerate or to request, so they would be wrong to say that such practices are contrary to Scripture and Tradition. For Anglicans, the practice of the invocation of the Saints is limited in the main to private devotions and extraliturgical services which are not part of the usual public Liturgy. However, I ever say veneration is certainly to be encouraged and has never been rejected by the Anglican Church, which counts herself a true Apostolic Church practicing the fullness of the Catholic Faith, of which the Communion of Saints is a supreme article. Please note that Article of Religion XXII does not condemn the ancient or patristic or biblical doctrine concerning the Invocation of Saints and the veneration of their Relics, but only the Romish, the Doctrina Romanensium, that is, the popularly-believed late medieval and thus erroneous view of the same. The Anglican teaching is the reformed Catholic view, anchored in the Holy Scriptures and the Tradition of the Primitive Church. Only that which is contained in Holy Scripture is reckoned by Anglicans to be necessary for salvation, and therefore only that doctrine of the state and prayers of the Saints which accords with Scripture is believed to be necessary for all Christians.

At the heart of the matter it is vital to maintain the doctrine of worship and honour presented by Saint John of Damascus and codified at the Seventh Ecumenical Council when dealing with Saints (and their Icons and Relics), which doctrine forcefully distinguishes adoration of God and the honour of the Saints. Latria, adoratio, adoration, is divine worship offered to the Godhead alone. Only God the Holy Trinity is worshipped and adored. The worship of God, the Divine Essence, is absolute, offered to God Himself because He is and the rewarder of them that seek Him. The honour given to the Saints is dulia, proskunesis, timeo, veneration, reverence, respect. It is not worship - for we do not worship the Saints, we only honour and revere them. Such honour is strictly relative and passes from the Saint to God, Who is blessed and glorified in His Saints, His human heavenly friends and children. The distinction between the Creator and His creatures is strenuously maintained and asserted. From later tradition, the Blessed Virgin Mary, because she is Mother of God, has been given the highest form of relative honour and reverence, called hyperdulia or super-veneration, the highest praise rendered to a creature. Our Lady and the Saints are, after all, creatures, human beings who have become by God's grace truly and ultimately human, for that is the very reality of Sainthood, to be restored to the fullest image and likeness of God, to once again become fully man. The Saints, by becoming by grace what God is by nature, by partaking of the divine nature (II Saint Peter 1.4), fulfil the human vocation and become, through theosis or divinisation, 'God-like.'

The veneration of the Relics of the Saints is actually based on the same theological principle on which the Holy Icons are venerated, and as are the honourable memories of the Saints themselves, the axiomatic principle of the Incarnation of the Word of God. In a nutshell, because God Himself was made Man for our sake and was incarnate of the Holy Ghost and the Virgin Mary to redeem and divinise human nature, and because the glorified human nature of the Risen Lord communicates the Holy Ghost to the members of the redeemed human family, the communio sanctorum, and thus makes the bodies of the Saints to be temples, dwelling-places of the Holy Spirit, the bodies of those who are acknowledged to have possessed heroic sanctity in this life are honoured, venerated as holy possessions of God and dwelling places of the Holy Spirit. A sober, healthy, balanced, sane, biblical theology of the Saints and of their earthly Relics is intensely incarnational and sacramental - the flesh is honoured as the vehicle of the Spirit. By honouring the bodies of the Saints, and by honouring their holy Images, we are taught to honour each other and to recognise in the human body, redeemed and sanctified in Christ, the locus of the Spirit of God.

Clearly, as any objective student will confess, the medieval western cult of the Saints and of their Relics was subject to the grossest abuse and perversion. But again here we have another case of 'baby and bathwater.' The later abuses connected to the Relics and veneration of the Saints do not of themselves render the original primitive and patristic tradition regarding Saints and Relics invalid. A practice of such Christian veneration, scrupulously governed and preserved from abuse, can be an overwhelmingly profound reminder of the sanctity of the whole creation itself, the sanctity of the human person incorporated into Christ, the intrinsic holiness of the human body as the sacrament of the Holy Spirit and the image and likeness of God, the power, grace and efficacy of the Sacraments, and of the ultimate future destiny of the redeemed human person in the New Man of the Resurrection, the second Man Who is the Lord from Heaven.

Historically the Holy Catholic Church, East and West, has honoured Relics in at least the following ways:

1. The preservation of the Saints' bodies and their places of burial.
2. The discovery and translation of Relics to Churches and Shrines.
3. The construction of Altars and Churches on the sites of Relics.
4. The canonisation of feast days in honour of Relic translations.
5. The making of pilgrimages to and the decoration of Relic Shrines.
6. The enshrining of Relics in Altars for the celebration of Mass.
7. The association of miraculous signs and wonders with Relics.

Anciently, the Catholic Church did not distinguish between venerating the souls of the Saints in heaven and the bodies of the Saints on earth. Both forms of veneration were (and are) given. The Old Testament people considered the bodies of the dead ritually unclean because their deliverance in the Incarnation had not yet arrived. The enfleshment of the Saviour would change everything. Man in Christ becomes holy, the body of man is restored as the temple of the Spirit. The Eternal Word forever united a human body to His Divinity in His Divine Person; the human bodies of Christians, regenerated by Holy Baptism, now become the receptacles of the Most Precious Body and Blood of Christ in the Blessed Sacrament, and thus become living temples of the Holy Ghost. By extension, the bodies of those acknowledged to have lived lives of supernatural charity and holiness, or who have died for the sake of Christ, are understood to be worthy of special honour.

We see from the Old Testament that the bodies of the Saints would, in Christ, possess a special sanctity. God used the bodies and property of the righteous in the Old Covenant to perform miracles of grace and healing. The miraculous mantle of the Prophet Elijah, who was assumed into heaven bodily without dying, parted the Jordan River when used by the Prophet Elisha to touch the water. The body of a dead man was raised to life again miraculously upon the touch of the Relics of the Prophet Elisha - II Kings 13.21. In the New Covenant, cloths and articles of clothing applied to the body of Saint Paul miraculously healed the sick and exorcised evil spirits from the possessed - Acts of the Apostles 19.11-12. The great Fathers of the golden conciliar age of the Church universally testify to the power and supernatural grace and influence of the Relics of the Saints. In the Western Church, both Saint Ambrose of Milan and Saint Augustine of Hippo deliver many homilies on the legitimacy of the cult of the Saints, and particularly on the importance of the Relics of Saint Gervasius and Saint Protasius. In the East, the Cappadocian Fathers dwell on the sanctity of the Relics of Saints frequently in their orations and sermons. The Relics of Saint Ignatius of Antioch (d. 107) were taken from Rome to Antioch and preserved as 'an invaluable treasure of the grace which dwelt in the martyr, a treasure left to the holy church.'

It should be vigorously emphasised as well that what is most important, to the Church of catholic history, about Relics is not some supposed inherent power or energy located in Relic itself as though such were separated from the person and life of the Saint - it is precisely from such an artificial and stilted separation of grace and person that abuses and errors arose in the medieval West - what is most important is that the Relics represent to our minds, hearts and souls the intercessions of the Saints, our heavenly brothers and sisters, before God for us. The Relics are, in this respect, very much like sacramentals: they stir up in us faith that we may more beneficially receive the grace of God. Orthodox Christians believe, not in any inherent power in a Relic like a talisman or charm, but in the prayers of the Saints in heaven for our sake. Relics bring us closer to the Saints and deepen our love, reverence and honour for those whose mortal remains continue to pledge the hope of our future resurrection.

We Anglicans tend to look at Relics from our deeply-conditioned western perspective, a viewpoint effected and affected by our common western ancestry of pre-reformation, reformation, and counter-reformation experiences. On the positive side, and on the other side of the historical divide, the Eastern Orthodox maintain a very natural, very earthy and organic reverence for the Relics of the Saints which has never been allowed entirely to fall into the sort of superstition and mistreatment prevalent in the pre-Reformation Latin Church. The Orthodox, and I think they are here indubitably correct, insist that the Relics of the Saints enforce the dogmas of the Incarnation and of human redemption and glorification, and, are therefore, as essential a component of orthodox Christology as are Icons. For them, as for the earliest Church, the two plainly go together.

I know someone who possesses Vatican-issued Relics of several Church Fathers, ossuary first-class Relics of Saints John Chrysostom, Basil the Great, Gregory Nazianzen, and the great Augustine of Hippo. His reliquary rests in a discreet place of prayer where, with Icons, they are used as aids to prayer and devotion. They are really no different from the cherished photographs of one's parents or beloved personal effects of family members long gone, physical reminders which stimulate the memory and reawaken the heart and soul. Icons and Relics, however, stimulate and reawaken on a far more profound and transformative level, the level of faith!

I hope this dreadfully long thesis is of some use to you, and I do hope and pray I have not frightened you senseless with my ramblings about a subject which confronts with horror most protestant sensibilities. Please keep asking these marvellous questions...

Anglican-Orthodox Agreed Statement on the Mass

Here follows the text of the only official Anglican-Orthodox agreement which has ever been accomplished on the subject of the Eucharistic Sacrifice, established in 1935 in Bucharest, Romania. The Anglican-Orthodox Dublin Agreed Statement of 1984 states, 'nor have we considered how far the Eucharist may be regarded as a sacrifice.' That is, 'we have not discussed [the Bucharest Statement of 1935] in detail, nor, acting as a Joint Commission, have we yet expressed our agreement or otherwise with the six points that it contains.' Because later dialogues at Moscow and Dublin did not address the subject, the 1935 agreement remains the only official agreement between the two Churches to date:

A Report of the Conference held from Saturday, June 1st, to Saturday, June 8th, 1935, in the Patriarchal Palace of Bucarest, between the Commission of the Rumanian Church upon Relations with the Anglican Communion and the Church of England Delegation appointed by the Archbishop of Canterbury to confer with the same.

We, the Members of the aforesaid Rumanian Commission and Church of England Delegation, report to the Holy Synod of the Church of Rumania, and to His Grace, the Archbishop of Canterbury, as follows:

THE HOLY EUCHARIST

A statement was submitted by the Rumanian Commission to the Anglican Delegation, concerning the Holy Eucharist and was accepted unanimously by the latter in the following form:

1. At the Last Supper, our Lord Jesus Christ anticipated the sacrifice of His death by giving Himself to the Apostles in the form of bread blessed by Him as meat and in the form of wine blessed by Him as drink.

2. The sacrifice offered (prosenechtheisa) by our Lord on Calvary was offered once for all, expiates the sins as well of the living as of the dead, and reconciles us with God. Our Lord Jesus Christ does not need to sacrifice Himself again.

3. The sacrifice on Calvary is perpetually presented in the Holy Eucharist in a bloodless fashion (anaimaktos) under the form (Rumanian, sub chipul) of bread and wine through the consecrating priest and through the work of the Holy Ghost in order that the fruits of the sacrifice of the Cross may be partaken of by those who offer the Eucharistic Sacrifice, by those for whom it is offered, and by those who receive worthily the Body and Blood of the Lord.

4. In the Eucharist the bread and wine become by consecration (metabole) the Body and Blood of our Lord. How? This is a mystery.

5. The Eucharistic bread and wine remain the Body and Blood of our Lord as long as these Eucharistic elements exist.

6. Those who receive the Eucharistic bread and wine truly partake of the Body and Blood of Our Lord.

It was stated by the Anglican Bishops that in the Sacrament of the Eucharist 'the Body and Blood of Christ are verily and indeed taken and received by the faithful in the Lord's Supper,' and that 'the Body of Christ is given, taken and eaten in the Supper only after an heavenly and spiritual manner,' and that after Communion the consecrated elements remaining are regarded sacramentally as the Body and Blood of Christ; further, that the Anglican Church teaches the doctrine of Eucharistic Sacrifice as explained in the Answer of the Archbishops of Canterbury and York to Pope Leo XIII on Anglican Ordinations; and also that in the offering of the Eucharistic Sacrifice the Anglican Church prays 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,' as including the whole company of faithful people, living and departed.

Again, we have the Catholic Faith of the Anglican Tradition on the Eucharist unambiguously asserted in an ecumenical agreement with the Eastern Orthodox Churches. In 1935, the Church of England and the Romanian Orthodox Church achieved substantial agreement on the sacrificial nature of the Eucharist.

Anglican-Roman Catholic Agreed Statement on the Mass

An extremely helpful and more clearly stated explanation of the sacrificial nature of the Eucharist is the 1971 Agreed Statement on the Eucharist from the Anglican-Roman Catholic International Commission, which was developed at Windsor. Personally, I would prefer the APA/REC Statement simply to borrow the following carefully-worded phraseology:

Eucharistic Doctrine, Windsor 1971

Christ's redeeming death and resurrection took place once and for all in history. Christ's death on the cross, the culmination of his whole life of obedience, was the one, perfect and sufficient sacrifice for the sins of the world. There can be no repetition of or addition to what was then accomplished once for all by Christ. Any attempt to express a nexus between the sacrifice of Christ and the eucharist must not obscure this fundamental fact of the Christian faith.(1) Yet God has given the eucharist to his Church as a means through which the atoning work of Christ on the cross is proclaimed and made effective in the life of the Church. The notion of memorial as understood in the passover celebration at the time of Christ - i.e. the making effective in the present of an event in the past - has opened the way to a clearer understanding of the relationship between Christ's sacrifice and the eucharist. The eucharistic memorial is no mere calling to mind of a past event or of its significance, but the Church's effectual proclamation of God's mighty acts. Christ instituted the eucharist as a memorial (anamnesis) of the totality of God's reconciling action in him. In the eucharistic prayer the church continues to make a perpetual memorial of Christ's death, and his members, united with God and one another, give thanks for all his mercies, entreat the benefits of his passion on behalf of the whole Church, participate in these benefits and enter into the movement of his self-offering.

(1.) The early Church in expressing the meaning of Christ's death and resurrection often used the language of sacrifice. For the Hebrew sacrifice was a traditional means of communication with God. The passover, for example, was a communal meal; the day of atonement was essentially expiatory; and the covenant established communion between God and man.

The 1979 Elucidation of ARCIC I again clarifies the meaning of the word anamnesis:

The Commission has been criticised for its use of the term anamnesis. It chose the word used in New Testament accounts of the institution of the eucharist at the last supper:
'Do this as a memorial (anamnesin) of me' (1 Corinthians 11.24-25; Saint Luke 22.19).

The word is also to be found in Justin Martyr in the second century. Recalling the last supper he writes: 'Jesus, taking bread and having given thanks said, "Do this for my memorial (anamnesin): This is my Body"; and likewise, taking the cup, and giving thanks, he said, "This is my blood"' (First Apology 66; Dialogue with Trypho 117).

From this time onwards the term is found at the very heart of the eucharistic prayers of both East and West, not only in the institution narrative but also in the prayer which follows and elsewhere: The Liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom; Eucharistic Prayer I - The Roman Missal; The Order of the Administration of the Lord's Supper or Holy Communion - The Book of Common Prayer (1662); and Rites A and B of the Church of England Alternative Service Book (1980).

The word is also found in patristic and later theology. The Council of Trent in explaining the relation between the sacrifice of the cross and the eucharist uses the words commemoratio and memoria (Session 22.1); and in the Book of Common Prayer (1662) the Catechism states that the sacrament of the Lord's Supper was ordained 'for the continual remembrance of the sacrifice of death of Christ, and of the benefits which we receive thereby'. The frequent use of the term in contemporary theology is illustrated by One Baptism One Eucharist and a Mutually Recognised Ministry (Faith and Order Commission Paper No. 73), as well as by the General Instruction on the Roman Missal (1970). The Commission believes that the traditional understanding of sacramental reality, in which the once-for-all event of salvation becomes effective in the present through the action of the Holy Spirit, is well expressed by the word anamnesis. We accept this use of the word which seems to do full justice to the semitic background. Furthermore it enables us to affirm a strong conviction of sacramental realism and to reject mere symbolism.

However the selection of this word by the Commission does not mean that our common eucharistic faith may not be expressed in other terms. In the exposition of the Christian doctrine of redemption the word sacrifice has been used in two intimately associated ways. In the New Testament, sacrificial language refers primarily to the historical events of Christ's saving work for us. The tradition of the Church, as evidenced for example in its liturgies, used similar language to designate in the eucharistic celebration the anamnesis of this historical event. Therefore it is possible to say at the same time that there is only one unrepeatable sacrifice in the historical sense, but that the eucharist is a sacrifice in the sacramental sense, provided that it is clear that this is not a repetition of the historical sacrifice.

There is therefore one historical, unrepeatable sacrifice, offered once for all by Christ and accepted once for all by the Father. In the celebration of the memorial, Christ in the Holy Spirit unites his people with himself in a sacramental way so that the Church enters into the movement of his self-offering. In consequence, even though the Church is active in this celebration, this adds nothing to the efficacy of Christ's sacrifice upon the cross, because the action is itself the fruit of this sacrifice. The Church in celebrating the eucharist gives thanks for the gift of Christ's sacrifice and identifies itself with the will of Christ who has offered himself to the Father on behalf of all mankind.

All I can say is 'Amen!'

Isn't it wonderful not to have to re-invent the theological wheel!

The Eucharistic Sacrifice: Old Catholic Style

What does our sister Church, the Old Catholic Church, say about the Eucharistic Sacrifice? The Declaration of Utrecht 1889 states the following:

'Considering that the Holy Eucharist has always been the true central point of Catholic worship, we consider it our duty to declare that we maintain with perfect fidelity the ancient Catholic doctrine concerning the Sacrament of the Altar, by believing that we receive the Body and Blood of our Saviour Jesus Christ under the species of bread and wine. The Eucharistic celebration in the Church is neither a continual repetition nor a renewal of the expiatory sacrifice which Jesus offered once for all upon the Cross; but it is a sacrifice because it is the perpetual commemoration of the sacrifice offered upon the Cross, and it is the act by which we represent on earth and appropriate to ourselves the one offering which Jesus Christ makes in heaven, according to the Epistle to the Hebrews (9.11-12), for the salvation of redeemed humanity, by appearing for us in the presence of God (Hebrews 9.24). The character of the Holy Eucharist being thus understood, it is, at the same time, a sacrificial feast, by means of which the faithful, in receiving the Body and Blood of our Saviour, enter into communion with one another (I Corinthians 10.17).'

The Old Catholics believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, but shun technical definitions of the Mystery. The celebration of the Eucharist is considered sacrificial insofar as it is an anamnesis, a re-presentation of the once for all time Sacrifice of Christ upon the Cross. The Mass, then, is central to the worship of the Old Catholic Communion.

It was on the basis of this doctrine that the Church of England (1931) and the Episcopal Church (1946) entered into communcatio in sacris with the Old Catholic Churches.

Thus I would say that the doctrine expressed above is word-for-word the doctrine of the Anglican Church!

The Sacrifice of the Mass

http://meam-commemorationem.blogspot.com/2006/05/aparec-joint-statement-on-eucharist.html

Jeff Steele's excellent and stimulating blog Meam Commemorationem proposes for our contemplation an essay on the Joint Reformed Episcopal/APA Statement on the Eucharist, which statement appears at first glance to deny a propitiatory nature to the Mass. I offer for you, the reader, a few meagre reflections of my own.

E.L. Mascall remarks in his many works that Anglican priests and theologians tend to teach their people the Eucharistic Real Presence to the neglect of instruction on the Eucharistic Sacrifice, because it is easier to convey the meaning of the Real Presence; the sacrificial aspect of the Mass is more difficult to grasp and is liable more easily to misunderstanding. No doubt Dr Mascall, a theological genius, was right, and so I tread cautiously with that which I here attempt feebly to articulate.

The Anglican Province of America, in accordance with the Book of Common Prayer Communion Office (see the Canon, pages 80-81, 1928 BCP) and Catechism (1928 BCP page 582) and the theological paradosis of Anglican divines, unquestionably believes the Eucharist to be a sacrifice. In the American Eucharistic rite, the Holy Gifts, elements of bread and wine consecrated into the Body and Blood of Christ, are plainly offered to the Father: 'with these thy holy gifts which we now offer unto thee.' In the official rite of Priestly Ordination used in our Diocese of the Eastern United States, the Bishop, after the formula of Ordination, delivers to the ordained a paten and chalice and addresses the neo-presbyter with the phrase 'Take thou authority to offer sacrifice to God and to celebrate the Eucharist for the living and the dead in the Name of the Lord. Amen.' This is the traditional porrectio instrumentorum taken directly from the Roman and Sarum Pontificals. Lex orandi, lex credendi. Whatever Eucharistic Sacrifice is intended by Our Lord, the New Testament and the ancient undivided Church is unswervingly intended by the Eucharistic Liturgy and Ordinal of the Anglican Church. The Joint REC/APA Statement must be interpreted through the lens of the praxis of the Churches involved, and clearly the APA understands the Eucharist to possess a fundamentally sacrificial character.

The Mass 'cannot be said to be a propitiatory sacrifice to God the Father' in the sense that the Eucharist is never an additional, supplemental or collaborative sacrifice independent of the One Sacrifice of Our Lord offered once for all upon the Cross. The Mass adds nothing to Calvary and has no value or merit independent of the self-oblation of Jesus Christ for our redemption. The Mass is propitiatory, that is, it achieves reconciliation with God the Father, insofar as it is the unique anamnetic and sacramental re-presentation of the Sacrifice offered on the Altar of the Cross once in space and time. Our Saviour's Death and Passion, to paraphrase Saint Cyprian of Carthage, are the Sacrifice pleaded in the Eucharist, and therefore in that sense alone one can affirm (and should) that the Mass is a propitiatory offering of Christ in His Church to God. The Mass is Christ's offering of Himself to His Father, not a work performed separately from Christ. The Eucharist is most certainly offered for both the living and the dead, an undeniably propitiatory act, as the Prayer Book makes clear. The Divine Liturgy is nothing else but Our Lord's own personal Eternal Heavenly High Priesthood exercised in a sacramental expression on earth. The Celebrant and Consecrator of every Eucharist is Our Lord. The One who offers and is offered is Jesus Christ, so in heaven after the Ascension, so on earth in the Mass, in and through His Mystical Body, of which He is the Head and Priest.

Or elucidated deductively...

The Sacrifice of Our Lord on the Cross is the one only propitiatory sacrifice for the sins of the whole world.

The Eucharist makes present under the sacramental signs of bread and wine the One Sacrifice of Calvary. 'Do this in anamnesin of me.'

Therefore, the Eucharist is a propitiatory Sacrifice, not because it is new, additional, or independent of the Cross, but specifically because it makes Calvary sacramentally present.

The Mass is an applicative, appropriative Sacrifice, for it applies and appropriates to the faithful the merits and benefits of Our Lord's One Offering of Himself once offered.

The language of the Statement on Anglican Belief and Practice carefully avoids any strict scholastic or rationalistic definition of the Eucharistic Sacrifice (as did the ancient Church) while reaffirming the historical Anglican critique of the popular medieval theology and practice corrected at the English Reformation. The Sacrifice of the Mass, just as in Article of Religion XXXI, is not here denied or impugned. The biblical and patristic teaching is affirmed; the liturgical abuses of the medieval Roman Church are roundly condemned.

Perhaps the following will be a helpful guide: the sacrificial character and nature of the Eucharist was, for the Eastern Orthodox, defined in an especial way by the Council of Constantinople, May 1157, which rejected the heretical teaching of the Patriarch-elect of Antioch, who at that time maintained that the oblation offered in the Eucharist was not a real sacrifice of the Body and Blood of Christ, but one that he described as 'fantastic and iconic.' By saying that that offering rendered to God in the Mass is not an actual re-presentation of the One Sacrifice Once Offered, but an image or a symbol of the One Sacrifice, he anticipated precisely the errors of the 16th century magisterial continental reformers. The Orthodox Church responded to this heretical teaching by asserting the following:

1. The Eucharistic Sacrifice is not a mere mental or psychological remembering, a bare memorial of a past event. The word anamnesis is not be interpreted in a weak, but a strong sense. The Eucharist is not just an empty symbol or a nude sign. We do not only remember a past event or person by eating bread and drinking wine.

2. The Eucharistic Sacrifice is not a repetition of the One Sacrifice of the Cross offered once for all. Calvary can never be repeated - and the Mass does not repeat the immolation or death of the Lord. Christ's death can never be repeated. There is no re-immolation or re-crucifixion in the Mass.

3. The Eucharistic Sacrifice is no new Sacrifice: the Mass is no supplemental or additional Sacrifice to the one offered by Our Lord on the Cross once for all. There can only be One Sacrifice in the Christian Mystery, and that is the Sacrifice of Golgotha. The Mass cannot be a separate thing or reality.

4. Therefore, the Eucharistic Sacrifice is identical to the Sacrifice of the Cross. It is the same One Sacrifice made present, re-presented to God the Father. Our Lord presents to the Father in the Eucharistic Sacrifice the same offering He made to the Father on the Cross. The Eucharist is the same Sacrifice, but offered in a sacramental mode and manner, an unbloody Sacrifice, supernatural and heavenly. Anamnesis means re-presentation as Real Objective Presence, not 'representation' in the modern sense of absence.

Our Lord does on earth in the Eucharist what he does forever in Heaven now as our Great High Priest. The Mass is the Action of Christ, the very Intercession of Jesus Christ our only Mediator and Advocate. It is Christ Himself, actualising and exercising His Priesthood in His Church on earth under sacramental form, according to His own institution and promise. For this cause He instituted the Eucharist at the Last Supper, to be celebrated on Apostolic Altars until the end of time.

The acceptable all-sufficient Sacrifice of Jesus Christ consists in His Body and Blood, His glorious human nature united to His divine nature in One Person. The same glorified Body and Blood which He presents to the Father in Heaven are the same glorified Body and Blood which he presents to the Father under the sacramental veils in the Holy Mysteries. Wherever the True Body and Blood of Christ are present, there His Sacrifice is to be found in all of its fullness and redemptive power: thus the Mass is THE Sacrifice. (It is this truth regarding the Real Presence which has always puzzled me when it comes to Lutheran teaching - if the Body and Blood are substantially present in the Eucharist, then Christ's Sacrifice is present, because Christ's Sacrifice is His Body and Blood. The Lutheran view, which denies any integral Sacrifice offered by Christ in the Eucharist, on these lines breaks down).

The one Sacrifice of the Cross is made present on the earthly Altar of the Eucharist exactly because Our Lord exhibits, pleads, presents, actualises Himself as Priest and Victim, crucified and risen, before the Father in Heaven. Ascended and glorified in his immortal divinised human nature, Our Lord offers for ever at the heavenly Altar the same Sacrifice he offered once on the Cross and continues to re-present in the Eucharist, Himself.

The 'missing' link between the efficaciously sacrificial character of the Eucharist and the Death and Passion of Christ two thousand years ago is the heavenly session and glorification of Our Lord. 'He ever liveth to make intercession for us.'

To quote the 19th century evangelical writer Thomas Carlyle:

'Christ's offering of Himself is the great central and all-determining act in heaven. For this reason, because the Church is His Body, she should manifest on earth the reflection of that heavenly act. But this reflection is no mere shadow, like the acts of worship of the Old Testament, neither is it a sort of dramatic representation, but it is a living action, wrought by Christ Himself through the Holy Ghost. The relation of this reflected act to its archetype in heaven is the same as the relation in which the Church herself stands to her Head, the Lord Jesus. As she is not the Lord Himself and yet is one with Him and filled with His life, ever so is her celebration of His offering one with it and filled with His energy. The offering in heaven is the personal act of Christ... the celebration of the memorial of the same on earth is the same act... fulfilled by the Church in whom the Holy Ghost dwells and Christ works' (Concerning the Right Order of Worship, 2-3).

And another quote:

'For that which by His minister He doeth on earth, He is engaged in fulfilling in heaven: and His Body and Blood, which after the manner of material substances are in the presence of God, where He Himself pleads His sacrifice on the Cross and offers His intercession, are also here... where we, in His Name, plead the same sacrifice, and seek acceptance only through His intercession.'

Whereas in the other Sacraments, the grace of Christ and the Holy Ghost is communicated and conferred to the recipients, in the Eucharist, Christ Himself is contained and is offered to us and for us. In essence, the Mass is Christ. Thanks to be God!

The Mother of God

Since I have most recently written about Walsingham in my travelogue, here is the Joint Orthodox-Old Catholic Theological Statement on, of all things, Our Lady... 27 August 1977.

The Church believes that the divine and human natures are hypostatically united in Jesus Christ. It accordingly believes also that the Blessed Virgin Mary gave birth not to a human being merely but to the God-Man Jesus Christ and that she is therefore truly Mother of God as the Third Ecumenical Council defined and the Fifth Ecumenical Coun­cil confirmed. According to Saint John of Damascus, the name Mother of God (Theotokos) 'embraces the whole mystery of the divine plan of salvation' (Orthodox Faith, 56).

1. In the Virgin Mary, the Son of God assumed human nature in its entirety, body and soul, in virtue of the divine omnipotence, for the power of the Most High overshadowed her and the Holy Spirit came upon her (Saint Luke 1.35). In this way the Word was made flesh (Saint John 1.14). By the true and real motherhood of the Virgin Mary, the Redeemer was united with the human race.

There is an intrinsic connection between the truth of the one Christ and the truth of the divine motherhood of Mary. '... for a union of two natures took place; therefore we confess one Christ, one Son, one Lord. According to this understanding of the unconfused union, we confess the Holy Virgin to be Theotokos because God the Word was made flesh and lived as a human being and from the very conception united to himself the temple taken from her' (Third Ecumenical Coun­cil, Formula of Union). '...we teach with one voice that the Son of God and our Lord, Jesus Christ, is to be confessed as one and the same person ... begotten of his Father before the worlds ac­cording to his Godhead but in these last days born for us and for our salvation of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, according to his hu­manity' (Fourth Ecumenical Council, Definition of Faith).

2. Venerating the Virgin Mary as Mother of God, whose child-bear­ing Saint Ignatius of Antioch called 'a mystery to be cried aloud' (Ephesians 19.1), the Church also glorifies her perpetual virginity. The Mother of God is ever-Virgin, since, while remaining a maiden, she bore Christ in an ineffable and inexplicable manner. In their address to the Emperor Marcian, the Fathers of the Fourth Ecumenical Council declared: '...the fathers ... have expounded the meaning of faith for all and proclaimed accurately the blessing of the incarnation: how the mystery of the plan of salvation was prepared from on high and from the maternal womb, how the Virgin was named Mother of God for the sake of him who granted her virginity even after her pregnancy and kept her body sealed in a glorious manner, and how she is truly called Mother because of the flesh of the Lord of all things, which came from her and which she gave to him'. And in its deci­sion the Seventh Ecumenical Council declared: 'We confess that he who was incarnate of the immaculate Mother of God and ever-Virgin Mary has two natures' (Definition). As Saint Augustine says: 'He was born of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary. And even the birth as human being is itself lowly and lofty. Why lowly? Because as human being he is born of a human being. Why lofty? Because he was born of a virgin. A virgin conceived, a virgin gave birth, and after the birth she remained a virgin' (Symbolus 1.3/6). (See also Saint Sophronius of Jerusalem, ep. syn.; Saint John of Damascus, Orthodox Faith 87 ; Saint Maximus the Confessor, ambig. 31 and others).

3. Accordingly the Church venerates in a very special way the Vir­gin Mother of God, though 'not as divine but as Mother of God ac­cording to the flesh' (Saint John of Damascus, On the Holy Icons 2.5). If, because of the redemption in Christ and its blessings, the Church glorifies God above all and offers him the worship of true adoration due to the divine nature alone, at the same time it venerates the Mother of God as chosen vessel of the work of salvation, as she who accepted the word of God in faith, humility and obedience, as the gate­way through which God entered the world. It calls her the Blessed One, the first of the Saints and the pure handmaid of the Lord, and thereby ascribes to her a relative sinlessness by grace, from the time the Holy Spirit descended upon her, for our Saviour Jesus Christ alone is sinless by nature and absolutely. The Church does not recognize the recent dogmas of an immaculate conception and bodily assumption of the Mother of God. But it cele­brates the entry of the Mother of God into eternal life and solemnly observes the festival of her dormition.

4. The Church venerates the Mother of God also in her role as inter­cessor for human beings before God, which is hers in particular be­cause of her outstanding place in the work of salvation. But it distin­guishes between the intercession of the Mother of God and the quite unique mediatorship of Jesus Christ: 'For there is one mediator be­tween God and men - the man Jesus Christ' (1 Timothy 2.5). 'O Merciful One, show your love to mankind; accept the Mother of God who bore you, who intercedes for us, and save your helpless people, O our Sav­iour' (Saturday Vespers, Tone 8, Theotokion). 'O God, grant us all to share the life of your Son in fellowship with the Virgin Mary, the Blessed Mother of our Lord and God and of all your saints. Look upon their life and death and answer their intercessions for your Church on earth' (Eucharistic Liturgy of the Old Catholic Church of Switzerland). Although the Mother of God is also called 'mediatrix' (mesitria) in the hymns of the Church, this is never anywhere in the sense of co-me­diatrix or co-redemptrix but only in the sense of intercessor.

The Most Blessed Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ

While on the subejct of salvation and the sacramental economy, I here publish the Joint Orthodox-Old Catholic Theological Commission Statement on the Holy Eucharist, 3 October 1985, a brilliant summation of catholic eucharistic doctrine and praxis. I particularly love the references to the Damascene and Nicea II, which teach that the Blessed Sacrament is not an icon of Christ because It is Christ Himself, His true Body and Blood...

1. The sacrament of Holy Eucharist is the focal point of the entire life of the Church. In this sacrament Christ is present in reality and essence: He offers himself in a bloodless way and shares himself with the faithful in an ever new and real representation of his bloody sacrifice on the cross offered once and for all. So the Eucharist is at the same time sacrament and real sacrifice. In this sacrament the faithful receive the Body and Blood of Christ and by it are united with him and through him with one another and take part in the power of his work of salvation that has its climax in his sacrifice on the cross and in his resurrection.

2. The Lord himself instituted the Eucharist. Before the Passover during the meal, the Lord took bread, gave thanks, broke it and gave it to the disciples saying: 'This is my body.' And he took the cup, gave thanks and gave it to them saying: 'Drink ye all of it; for this is my blood, the blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the forgiveness of sins. Do this in remembrance of me' (Saint Matthew 26.26-29; Saint Mark 14.22-25; Saint Luke 22.14-23; 1 Corinthians 11.23-25).

3. In bread and wine, which are consecrated and changed in the Eu­charist, the Lord himself is really and truly present in a supernatural way and imparts himself to the faithful. Bread and wine are, after the consecration, the Body and Blood of Christ and not mere symbols of his body and blood. 'The bread and the wine are not images of the Body and Blood of the Lord - certainly not! - but the deified Body of the Lord himself; the Lord himself said: "This is not the image of my body but 'my body' and not the image of my blood, but 'my blood'"'. (Saint John of Damascus, Orthodox Faith 86). According to the proclam­ation of the Seventh Ecumenical Synod 'neither the Lord nor the Apostles and Fathers have called the bloodless sacrifice offered by the priest an image, but the Body and the Blood themselves ... before the consecra­tion they were called images, after the consecration they are called, in an actual sense, Body and Blood of Christ; this is what they are and believed to be'.

4. The Eucharist represents the whole work of the divine economy in Christ that has its climax in his sacrifice on the cross and in his re­surrection. The eucharistic sacrifice stands in direct relationship to the sacrifice on the cross. The sacrifice of Calvary is certainly not repeatable. It happened once and for all (Hebrews 7.27). But the Eucharist is much more than a symbolic image or an image that reminds us of that sacrifice. It is the same sacrifice celebrated sacramentally. It is cele­brated as a commemoration of the Lord ('Do this in remembrance of me') and is not a mere, but a true and real commemoration and re­presentation of Christ's sacrifice. Before us are the Body and Blood of the Lord themselves. 'That sacrifice we now also offer, namely the one once offered, the inexhaustible one. This happens to commemo­rate that which once happened; for he says "Do this in remembrance of me". Not an ever different sacrifice as the Jewish high priest of those times, but we always offer the same one; or rather we effect a memorial of the sacrifice' (Saint John Chrysostom, Homily 17.3 in Hebrews). 'And as we commemorate his suffering in all our celebrations of the sacrifice - for the suffering of the Lord is the sacrifice that we offer - we may not do anything else than what he has done' (Saint Cyprian of Carthage, Epistle 63.17).

5. The priest officiating at each Eucharist is the Lord himself. 'You are the one who offers and is offered, who accepts and is imparted, Christ, our God' (Prayer of the Cherubic Hymn). 'He is the priest; it is he himself who offers, and he himself is the offered gift" (Saint Augus­tine, City of God 10.20; Saint Ambrose of Milan, enarr. 25 in Psalm 38; 9/38). The whole eucharistic community, clergy and people, has an organic part in the performance of the eucharistic celebration. The liturgists of the sacra­ment are bishop and priest. The practice of the Church and the canons forbid deacons 'to offer' (First Ecumenical Synod, Canon 18).

6. According to apostolic tradition and practice, leavened bread is used in the Eucharist. The use of unleavened bread in the West is a la­ter practice. In addition wine is used - 'the fruit of the vine' (Saint Mark 14. 25) - that from ancient times is mixed with water (Saint Irenaeus of Ly­ons, Against Heresies 5.2.3; Saint Cyprian of Carthage, Epistle 63).

7. The consecration of bread and wine in the Eucharist takes place through the entire eucharistic prayer. The words of the Lord 'Take, eat... drink ye all of it' in the eucharistic prayer, which has a consecratory character as a whole, do not themselves effect the transforma­tion of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ. The transformation is effected by the Holy Spirit whose descending is be­ing prayed for in the epiclesis.

8. After appropriate preparation all believers take part in the Eu­charist; for who does not take part at the table of the Lord does not take part in the life in Christ: 'unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you' (Saint John 6.53). Accord­ing to the practice of the Church prevailing since ancient times not even infants and much less children are kept away from the Eucharist. Only the unbaptized, heretics, those separated from the Church and those restrained by Church discipline for any reason are excluded from the partaking of the sacrament (Saint John of Damascus, Orthodox Faith 86). The faithful communicate under both kinds as was the case at the Last Supper.

9. In the Eucharist the faithful are united with their Lord and with one another by the communion in his Body and Blood and together form one body. 'Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread' (1 Corinthians 10.17). 'Because we partake in the one bread, we all become one body of Christ and one blood and members amongst each other and are thus united with Christ in one body' (Saint John of Damascus, Orthodox Faith 86). In union with Christ, the believer is filled with grace and with all spiri­tual gifts and blessings that union with Christ involves. He makes pro­gress in spiritual life, grows in perfection and thus has the hope of re­surrection to eternal life and the full participation in the glorious and blessed Kingdom of Christ.

How Is Man Saved?

Recently an evangelical enquirer, a member of the Episcopal Church/Anglican Communion Network, informed me that Holy Baptism is unnecessary to salvation and that all that is necessary for salvation is decisionism, 'trust and believe in the Lord as your Saviour and that is all that is needed.' The solafidanist comment was unsurprising, considering its origin, but flatly contradicts Anglicanism: the Book of Common Prayer Catechism, the Prayer Book Baptismal Office and the Anglican Tradition as a whole. So how is man saved, or more properly said, how are the Person and Work of Jesus Christ and the Life of the Holy Ghost appropriated to the Christian?

The consensus fidelium of the Catholic Church, the unanimous consent of the Fathers, is the doctrinal standard for Anglican, and therefore Catholic, belief and practice. Where the Apostolic Churches of East and West historically agree, there the deposit of Faith is found and the matter is settled dogmatically and practically: otherwise a profession of belief in the indefectibility of the ancient Undivided Church means virtually nothing. To go a step further, I sumbit that where traditional Western Catholics (Old Catholic and Anglican) and Eastern Orthodox agree, there we have the mind and teaching tradition, the consensus ecclesiae, of the First Millennium Church. To contravene that is to reject the authoritative teaching of the Body of Christ.

With that axiom working in the background, I present the Joint Orthodox-Old Catholic Theological Commission Statement entitled 'The Work of the Holy Spirit in the Church and the Appropriation of Salvation' 7 October 1983. This is an excellent and concise explanation of how man is saved...

Out of love for sinful man (Saint John 3.16), God our Lord sent his Son into the world, who reconciled all things in heaven and on earth (Colossians 1.20) and renewed creation by his resurrection (2 Corinthians 5. 15-18). Jesus Christ commanded his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations (Saint Matthew 28.19f) so that his salvation may give light to all who sit in darkness and in the shadow of death (Saint Luke 1.79). The appropriation of salvation by individual human beings takes place in the Church through the work of the Holy Spirit who grants his grace. The Holy Spirit, who proceeds from the Father and rests in the Son and is given and has appeared through the Son to the faithful (Saint John of Damascus, Orthodox Faith 8), always remains in the Church, fills it and builds it up, renews and sanctfies it and makes it into an 'ark of salvation' for the whole world. He is the Paraclete who is sent by the Lord to lead the Church into all truth (Saint John 16. 13). All that the Saviour brings about in the Church for the well-being of men is, according to the holy Fathers, 'fulfilled by the grace of the Spirit' (Saint Basil the Great, On the Holy Spirit 16/39). The Holy Spirit is as it were the soul of the Church, the life-giving, sanctifying and unify­ing power of its body. The Holy Spirit and the Church are insepar­able: 'for where the Church is, there the Spirit of God is also, and where the Spirit of God is, there the Church is and all grace' (Saint Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies 3.24.1). The Holy Spirit is fundamen­tal for the new existence of man in the Church whose rebirth occurs by water and the Spirit (Saint John 3.5). We humans receive the gift of the Holy Spirit in the Church through Christ, and thus become children of God and fellow heirs with Christ (Romans 8.15-17); we are brought back into communion with God, for which he has created us. The spirit of sonship lives in our hearts and cries: 'Abba, Father' (Romans 8.15; Galatians 4.6). He 'helps us in our weakness; for we do not know how to pray as we ought, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with sighs too deep for words' (Romans 8.26). The Spirit lives in the body of the faithful as in a temple (1 Corinthians 6.19). He unites them in the celebration of Holy Eucharist to the one body in the fellowship of the Church. He allows Christians to take part in his holiness; they become 'partakers of the divine nature' (2 Peter 1.4), i.e. 'deified through the partaking of the divine shining of the light and not changed into the divine being' (Saint John of Damascus, Orthodox Faith 26). He imparts to each individual his gift of grace for the building up of the Body of Christ: the gift of speaking wisdom, the gift of speaking knowledge, the gift of healing, the gift of discerning spirits, and especially the gift of ordained ministry as an organ for building up this Body (1 Corinthians 12:4-11).

God saves man without violating his free will. 'He wants all to be saved but he forces nobody. God is willing ... to save man not against his will and determination, but with his will and freely-made decision' (Saint John Chrysostom, Homily 3.6). The appropria­tion of salvation in Christ by man occurs by the cooperation of the Holy Spirit and man. The Holy Spirit effects the vocation, the illumi­nation, the conversion, the justification, the rebirth in Baptism and the sanctification in the Church; man, for his part, accepts the grace of­fered and participates freely by faith and his good works, in other words, by 'faith working through love' (Galatians 5.6). This cooperation is not to be understood as if God alone achieves one part of the work and man alone another; rather all things are achieved by God, without whose help man can do nothing for his salvation. But man also parti­cipates in all things, he is moved to act himself and not to remain inac­tive (Saint Augustine, corrept. 2/4: aguntur ut agant, non ut ipsi nihil agant). 'From the God of the universe, who works all in all, we must believe that he does it in the manner that he awakens, pro­tects and strengthens the free will which he himself once granted and not in such a way that he nullifies it' (Saint John Cassian, coll. 13.18; Saint Augustine, Spir. et litt 34/60). This cooperation of God and man embraces the entire new life in Christ. One cannot say that man behaves passively in any act of faith - and were it even the first one - and that God alone works in him. Correspondingly, the Church rejects any teaching according to which God alone grants his saving grace to some but not to others, thus by his decree predestinating some to salvation, others to damna­tion. God is not the originator of evil but the source of life and salva­tion. That is why he desires 'all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth' (1 Timothy 2.4). The rebirth and sanctification of men is the special work of the Holy Spirit. The outpouring of the Holy Spirit expected at the end of time has already occurred in the Church since the day of Pentecost (Acts 2.16-18). The glory of the end time is no longer merely a hope but already a present reality. The presence of the Holy Spirit in the Church offers certain guarantee for this. If we have in our hearts the part, which is the pledge of the Spirit, we will not doubt the whole, which is the perfection of the gift in the blessedness of eternal life (Romans 8.23; 2 Corinthians 1:22f; 5:5; Ephesians 1:13f; 4:30; Titus 3:6f; Saint John Chrysostom, res. mort. 8).