On Tables

The Twenty-First Sunday after Trinity

GRANT, we beseech thee, merciful Lord, to thy faithful people pardon and peace; that they may be cleansed from all their sins, and serve thee with a quiet mind; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen. Amen. 

Imagine a party held by a community association meant to bring the people together. All are welcome and signs outside invite everyone in, even non-members. At the door, unfamiliar faces are warmly greeted and told where to go. Yet halfway into the evening, the master of ceremony announces that food is to be served, but only members of the community association will be allowed to sit at the table and eat.

Would anyone feel welcomed in such a situation? That is the argument presented against the practice of closed communion, or versions of it, which deny the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper to any guests, in contrast to open communion in which it is offered to all, even non-Christians, who desire to receive.

Even within the Anglican Church of Canada, there are those who argue that the sacraments ought not to be denied to anyone. This argument has been advanced in relation to the recent discussion over the amendment of the marriage canon to allow same-sex persons to receive the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony, saying that the Anglican Church of Canada will never be truly welcoming and accepting until sacraments are open to all.

The perspective of the community association makes complete sense in the secular sense. It is downright rude and nonsensical to invite others in and, without warning them until the food is presented, tell them that they must be a member before they will be invited to eat. And yet, with the Eucharist, it is not at all the same. The Church is not offering physical or carnal nourishment, but the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ which nourishes us spiritually by God’s grace.

To understand the difference, first look to Scripture and this famous exhortation from St Paul:

Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgement on himself. (I Cor 11. 27-29)

Here, St Paul calls on those who are about the receive to do two things. First, to repent and approach in purity as opposed to approaching in an unworthy manner. Second, to discern the body. This passage has been taken by many to refer to the need to understand the sacramental nature of the body and blood before receiving. To understand the Real Presence which is presented in the sacrament. The Fathers speak to this as well.

St Ambrose of Milan, in his On the Mysteries, speaks to the sacramental nature of the Eucharist when he says:

The Lord Jesus Himself proclaims: “This is My Body.” Before the blessing of the heavenly words another nature is spoken of, after the consecration the Body is signified. He Himself speaks of His Blood. Before the consecration it has another name, after it is called Blood. And you say, Amen, that is, It is true. Let the heart within confess what the mouth utters, let the soul feel what the voice speaks… Christ, then, feeds His Church with these sacraments, by means of which the substance of the soul is strengthened, and seeing the continual progress of her grace… He signifies that the mystery ought to remain sealed up with you, that it be not violated by the deeds of an evil life, and pollution of chastity, that it be not made known to thou, for whom it is not fitting, nor by garrulous talkativeness it be spread abroad amongst unbelievers.

St Ambrose’s views of the efficacy of the sacraments are mirrored in the works of many others of the Fathers. Perhaps the most notable work of which are the catechetical lectures of St Cyril of Jerusalem. St Cyril’s teaching itself begins by referring specifically to St Paul’s teachings previously cited (as opposed to St Ambrose’s emphasis on Christ’s institution in the gospels and the broader Biblical narrative of God’s grace), and then to begin a discussion of the Real Presence asks if a Christian accepts the transformation of water into wine at Cana, why not wine into Blood in the Eucharist? He goes on to explore Christ’s words in St John’s gospel where he says, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you,” (St Jn 6. 53).

These interpretations leave little to the imagination. The Fathers believed in the Real Presence, and so to in Anglicanism are we reminded in Article XXV of the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion that the:

Sacraments ordained of Christ be not only badges or tokens of Christian men’s profession, but rather they be certain sure witnesses, and effectual signs of grace, and God’s good will towards us, by the which he doth work invisibly in us, and doth not only quicken, but also strengthen and confirm our Faith in him.

And again in Article XXVIII, where it says, “insomuch that to such as rightly, worthily, and with faith, receive the same, the Bread which we break is a partaking of the Body of Christ; and likewise the Cup of Blessing is a partaking of the Blood of Christ.” The emphasis here again shows that there is true grace transmitted through the Body and Blood and that it must be rightly, worthily and with faith received.

The Anglican Communion as a whole actually practices a form of open communion, in that you are not required to be a member of the Anglican tradition, but rather just that you be baptised. Most protestant denominations practice some form of open communion, generally without requirement of baptism because communion is viewed as being merely symbolic.

We must never forget that in being welcoming we must be mindful of showing both love and truth, and the truth is that it is not loving to invite someone to their condemnation if they ignore St Paul’s warnings about receiving the Eucharist.

While the limitation of reception only by baptised Christians is good, it sometimes seems insufficient. St Paul’s first warning was against receiving while impure. This is why the confession is said prior to reception of the Eucharist. However for someone who does not believe, they do not approach the confession in faith. They cannot truly confess their sins for they do not believe that they are sins, nor do they believe that by the blood of Christ their sins may be forgiven.

The second point, however, that they must discern the body, is more problematic. Many Christians do not discern the body, contrary to the teachings of the Fathers. Indeed, many Anglicans do not either. By the practice of closed communion, the Roman Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodox Church ensure that those who receive do not receive to their condemnation. While it is possible that someone outside their tradition could receive, it is for the protection of all that they not receive.

A happy compromise might be to make clear as a policy of the Church that when others are invited to receive, those Baptised Christians who have examined their conscience and who believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist be invited to come forward and receive, and for others to be limited to a blessing.

On Pudding

Feast of St Luke the Evangelist

ALMIGHTY God, who calledst Luke the Physician, whose praise is in the Gospel, to be an Evangelist, and Physician of the soul: May it please thee that, by the wholesome medicines of the doctrine delivered by him, all the diseases of our souls may be healed; through the merits of thy Son Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

The Twentieth Sunday after Trinity

O ALMIGHTY and most merciful God, of thy bountiful goodness keep us, we beseech thee, from all things that may hurt us; that we,being ready both in body and soul, may cheerfully accomplish those things that thou wouldest have done; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

Last month, the lectionary took us through the Epistle of James. James contains a number of verses many Christians are familiar with. One that really strikes me is Jas 2. 17: “So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.” This verse, and the broader discussion of faith, works and salvation from Jas 2. 14-26, was mentioned in a homily by my priest who suggested the way to view this is that St James is saying, so far as faith is concerned, the proof is in the pudding.

This verse in itself leads to a number of interesting discussion topics on the nature of justification, saving faith or true faith versus the profession of faith and whether works proceed from true faith or play some role in salvation, justification and sanctification.

A perhaps more interesting question is can this verse be applied more generally to the Church or just to the individual? If the proof is in the pudding for the individual, how might that apply to the Church?

To begin, what specifically does St James suggest? “If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacking in daily food, and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and filled”, without giving them the things needed for the body, what good is that?” (Jas 2. 15, 16). Here St James suggests that our faith and deeds must connect, but to break that down a bit more, what is he saying? The faith is to be rooted in Christ’s teachings.

The fact that you would be concerned for a brother or sister who is lacking in basic necessities is related to the faith imparted by Christ. So it is not enough to have some kind of faith, it must be true faith, rooted in Christ’s teachings. Next, it is insufficient to simply teach or preach Christ’s teachings, they are to be lived out if they are to be truly taught.

The real key is not simply that something should happen based on our faith, but that part of that faith is doing something. If you truly believe in Christ Jesus then you will want to do these things. This is perhaps made clear further on in the chapter, where he writes, “You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by his works,” (Jas 2. 22). Here he introduces the discussion of Abraham and the sacrifice of Isaac to show the connection between Abraham’s faith in God and his willingness to act on that faith by sacrificing his son Isaac.

So to conclude, there are really three things being discussed here. Christ’s teachings, belief in them, and willingness to act upon them based on that faith.

How might this be seen to apply to the Church?

Christ’s teachings are simple enough. It is clear the Church cannot teach what is contrary to Christ. Article XX of the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion says, “it is not lawful for the Church to ordain any thing that is contrary to God’s Word written, neither may it so expound one place of Scripture, that it be repugnant to another.” That is simple enough, until you realise that God’s Word written is not always clear.

Just as the term true faith was used previously to describe the type of faith which reflects the teachings of Christ and moves the individual to good works to live out that faith, so to must there be good doctrine.

Luckily, there is a way of deciding whether or not an interpretation of Scripture is good or not and that is to test it against the understanding of the Church Fathers. If you look back and since the patristic age it has been taught that a given verse means A and you suggest it means B, it is likely that your interpretation is somehow in error. While it is true that not all of the fathers were always correct—some fell into error quite often, St Augustine of Hippo even revised many of his early views as he matured in faith—the greater body of their work is an accepted standard by which Christians today can judge the interpretation of Scripture. The Creeds are another great example of something by which we can test interpretation of Scripture. For centuries, the Nicene Creed has been the sufficient Christian statement of faith accepted East and West. If a doctrine similarly runs counter to the Nicene Creed it is incorrect.

It is important to remember this grounding in Scripture. In modern times, arguments for innovation are often presented in the form of “I sense it is the movement of the Spirit that we do X.” This view seeks to ground doctrine not in God’s word, but in personal revelation. For those who have a background in some charismatic protestant denominations, this can actually be a common occurrence leading to discord within a local church community. When you claim authority directly from the Spirit, you are claiming it cannot be tested simply against Scripture because it is a new revelation.  However, Scripture itself points in some cases to this being untrue.

In St John’s Gospel, Christ offers a prayer for the Church: “And I am no longer in the world, but they are in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, keep them in your name, which you have given me, that they may be one, even as we are one,” (St Jn 17. 11). This is Christ’s singular prayer, that the Church be one, be united. Also here, he reaffirms the previous teaching that he and the Father speak as one. It suggests that when the Holy Spirit comes, the helper Christ spoke of when he had just said:

When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you. All that the Father has is mine; therefore I said that he will take what is mine and declare it to you. (St Jn 16. 13-15)

Here, Christ again says that there will be unity between what he has said and what the Spirit has said. Just as he says in Chapter 17 that he and the Father are one, here he had said that he and the Spirit are one. What the Spirit reveals will not contradict what Christ has taught. Similarly, Christ’s prayer was that the Church would be one, and if that is the case, God would not send the Holy Spirit to grant new revelation only to small subsets of Christians, but to all Christians.

So if doctrine is to be rooted in the teachings of Christ that is held in accord with orthodox faith and understanding of those teachings, what then is works? The work of the Church is found in the liturgy, which encourages and nurtures the body to do good works.

Doctrine of the Church ought to be reflected in the words said each week, and ought to inspire the people to fulfil those doctrines throughout the week. As St Teresa of Avila once said, “Christ has no body on earth but yours, no hands but yours, no feet but yours. Yours are the eyes through which Christ’s compassion is to look out; yours are the feet with which He is to go about doing good; and yours are the hands with which He is to bless us now.” The liturgy is when we gather each week to be nourished in God’s grace and then go forth to do what he teaches. To evangelize, to comfort the sick and afflicted and to care for the poor.

Doctrines of the Church, and our understanding of them, ought to be rooted in the same understanding of our personal faith that sees the need for true faith to give birth to good works. Perhaps the most important consideration here then becomes, if faith without works is dead, what might that imply for the Church if it strays from the model which St James provides with respect to true faith?

Wisdom of Saints: Nicholas Ridley

Feast of Nicholas Ridley Bishop, Martyr, 1555

ALMIGHTY God, by whose grace and power thy Martyr Cyprian was enabled to witness to the truth and to be faithful unto death: Grant that we, who now remember him before thee, may likewise so bear witness unto thee in this world, that we may receive with him the crown of glory that fadeth not away; through Jesus Christ our Lord, who with thee and the Holy Spirit liveth and reigneth, one God, for ever and ever. Amen.

Nicholas Ridley is a great example of one of the Anglican Reformers and martyrs, and also highlights the fact that just because someone is venerated by the Church it doesn't mean that absolutely everything they said was true and that we are not called to test their teachings to ensure orthodoxy.

Born in the early 16th century to a wealthy Christian family, Nicholas received an excellent education. At college, he likely met many of his contemporary reformers such as Thomas Cranmer and Hugh Latimer. The early 16th century, even before the Continental Reformation began, was building towards it, particularly among academic theological circles, and Ridley was among the reform-minded students of his day. He was ordained a priest in 1525 after obtaining his Master’s degree from Cambridge. He spent some time furthering his education in Parish and returned to Cambridge in 1530 where he began to teach, also becoming the Chaplain of Cambridge University in 1534.

With some measure of seniority and authority, in 1534 he wrote against Papal Supremacy, declaring that the Bishop of Rome had no more authority in the realm of England than any other foreign bishop. His reform-mindedness and possibly having earlier caught the eye of Thomas Cranmer, now Archbishop of Canterbury, Ridley was appointed by Cranmer as one of his chaplains. His career advanced more rapidly and after a number of additional appointments he was made chaplain to King Henry VIII.

This in fact caused him some problems. Ridley’s reform-mindedness brought him into some degree of contention with King Henry VIII who, while rejecting the Bishop of Rome’s jurisdiction over England, did not reject the Catholic faith as it had been received, nor did he accept arguments of any errors in doctrine being promoted by the Church of the West. In 1543 he was accused of heresy, in particular that while vicar of Herne Church he had called for the Te Deum to be sung in English rather than Latin, that he had spoken against the efficacy of private confession and also that he had condemned some of the Church’s ceremonies. Ridley had already by this point obtained a reputation for oratory and when he was examined by the King’s royal commissioners, he managed to defend and acquit himself of the charges.

Cranmer continued to defend Ridley and offered him promotion until his eventual appointment as Bishop of Rochester. By this point in 1547 Henry VIII had died and Edward VI had been crowned king. During his regency, reform of the Church was the order of the day and Ridley’s views found favour. When he was installed as Bishop, he ordered that all the altars in his diocese be removed and replaced with simple tables. In 1548 he began helping Thomas Cranmer with assembling and editing the Book of Common Prayer.

He was translated to the see of London in 1550 after the previous year having been part of the commission that had removed the previous Bishop of London, Edmund Bonner, who had come into conflict with the Crown over the question of supremacy and jurisdiction due to growing concerns over the effect of Royal Supremacy.

Ridley similarly made his own mistake when in 1553 he supported the succesion of Lady Jane Grey to the throne over princesses Mary or Elizabeth. When Queen Mary took the throne, he sought her out to beg her pardon but was promptly arrested and imprisoned. In 1554 he, along with Hugh Latimer and Thomas Cranmer, were sent to Oxford to stand trial for heresy and were convicted, and sentenced to continued incarceration.

New laws were passed making heresy a capital offence, and Latimer and Ridley were both again summoned for trials under this new crime. Both were convicted and sentenced to death. October 16th 1555, alongside Hugh Latimer, another of the English Reformers, he was put to death by burning at the stake in Oxford. Many others were put to death in this period, which is known as the Marian Persecutions.

He is notable for his contribution to the Book of Common Prayer, the 42 Articles of Religion which would later be edited into the 39 Articles of Religion during the reign of Queen Elizabeth I. While his works are not without error, there can be found no fault in his traditional use of Anglican theology. He looked to Holy Scripture and he looked to the Fathers for interpretation.

When questioned in his final heresy trial on his views towards the Real Presence, his response was to cite a ninth century monk, whom he said, “pulled me by the ear, and that first brought me from the common error of the Romish church, and caused me to search more diligently and exactly both the Scriptures and the writings of the old ecclesiastical fathers in this matter.” In that same heresy trial he would later quote St Augustine of Hippo saying, “For Christ to be corporally here on earth, when corporally he is resident in heaven, is clean contrary to the holy Scriptures, as Augustine saith: ‘The body of Christ is in heaven: but his truth is dispersed in every place.’”

His refusal to recant showed a conviction of his faith, rooted in the Scriptures and writings of the Fathers, which influences many traditionalist Anglicans today and which was, in his day, at the very heart of the English Reformation. When it is claimed that the goal of the English Reformation was to restore the Church in the realm of England to the faith, order and tradition of the Early Church under the authority of Holy Scripture, it is to the works of men like Ridley that we can point and show proof of the point.

On Welcome

The Nineteenth Sunday after Trinity

O GOD, forasmuch as without thee we are not able to please thee: Mercifully grant, that thy Holy Spirit may in all things direct and rule our hearts; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

Harvest Thanksgiving

O ALMIGHTY and everlasting God, who crownest the year with thy goodness, and hast given unto us the fruits of the earth in their season: Give us grateful hearts, that we may unfeignedly thank thee for all thy loving-kindness, and worthily magnify thy holy Name; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

Harvest thanksgiving is an opportunity for Canadian Christians to give thanks to God for the way in which he shaped creation in order to provide for us. Bountiful harvests mean we in Canada rarely suffer for lack of food—something which in the history of the world and even in contemporary times is not necessarily the norm for the majority of the people on Earth.

Harvest Thanksgiving is also one of those holy days which in Canada has become a holiday in secular society. A time for families to gather and give thanks, not necessarily to God, but to each other and to the circumstances of their lives. With such family gatherings, it means there is also a tendency to see more strangers in Church on Sunday. Not to the degree of Easter and Christmas, but it is a time in which travelling family members may deem to grace the doors of Church. They could be Christians from another tradition, lapsed Christians who only enter parish church when forced to by virtue of visiting their parents or other relatives, or they could be lifelong unbelievers who only ever attend with Christian relatives when gathered with them.

Having a larger number of guests attending highlights an important question within the Church of how we are to respond to guests, particularly those who are not believers and whose views of the Church are shaped not by knowledge of Christ, but by secular representations and popular culture. For them, sin may well simply be a contrivance of organized religion created to keep the people controlled.

Someone recently spoke of how we are to be accepting of others as Christians, and it made me ask the question, is that truly what God asks us to do? Does God accept all of us as we are? To some Christians today, it seems the answer must be yes. God welcomes all to his table, and how can one be welcoming without acceptance? This, however, is not the Biblical norm God has revealed to us.

In the Old Testament, it seems quite clear that God welcomes his people to return, but he does not accept when they turn from him. The lectionary reading from Amos for today reminds us of who God does not accept, those whose way is evil:

Seek good, and not evil, that you may live; and so the Lord, the God of hosts, will be with you, as you have said, Hate evil, and love good, and establish justice in the gate; it may be that the Lord, the God of hosts, will be gracious to the remnant of Joseph. (Am 5. 14, 15)

There are many more examples of God calling out his chosen people, through the prophets, for falling away from him. Jeremiah, for instance, was given the task of warning Israel that God had turned from them after they had rejected him and would allow them to be taken into exile.

This reality that God does not accept us as we are sounds harsh, and indeed God calling the Jews to repentance by allowing them to be overrun and put into exile is well beyond the Christian experience, and thus harder to comprehend.

In the New Testament, we are shown a new paradigm. Jesus ate and drank with outcasts and sinners, something that greatly offended the Jews of his time for they followed the example they had been shown to shun those who are sinners, in order to themselves avoid falling into sin.

Jesus, however, draws a distinction between welcoming and accepting. He did not tell them they were not to change, not to seek forgiveness of their sins and to sin no more. Jesus did not stone the adulterous woman, and indeed his words caused her accusers to leave. The end of the Biblical account has the woman and Jesus alone, and Jesus then asks the woman who accuses her. She replies no one, and he then concludes the account saying, “Neither do I condemn you; go, and from now on sin no more,” (St Jn 8. 11b). Jesus welcomed her, not condemning her, and called her to turn from sin in repentance.

In a contemporary context, we can see this welcoming and love shown, while still refraining from granting acceptance. Children often rebel against their parents in some ways, even to the point of leaving home. Sometimes, these children will return. Their parents will often welcome them back into their home in love, but this action shows no acceptance for their rebellious behaviour, but rather is a display of grace and mercy. In the case of behaviour such as drug or alcohol abuse, this welcome might be conditioned on reform which is supported by the parents. Their love means they will support the child through their change. It is no different with God. Just as parents love their child too much not to want them to change when they do wrong, God offers us sanctifying and transformative grace to change, to avoid the harm we would otherwise do ourselves and others were we to be accepted just the way we were.

Christ’s paradigm is one of grace and truth. The grace to welcome sinners, to show them, in love, the truth of God. St John Chrysostom’s commentaries on the New Testament often noted this duality of Christ’s mission. In his commentaries on Galatians and I Corinthians, he notes how whenever St Paul used harsh words to rebuke—to show truth to those to whom he was writing—he would then soothe them with mild words. It is only when truth and grace are held together that Christ’s teachings are found.

It is simple enough to say then, welcome the sinner and teach them the truth with grace. The danger, however, is in forgetting that we ourselves all fall short and sin as well. We are to welcome others because Christ continues to welcome us each week. He does not accept us, but every week continues to call us to repentance and offers us his grace to encourage, sustain and strengthen us as we seek to live the life he calls us to. The only different between a committed Christian and a guest who is seeking to know God is the length of time they have each been on the journey.

Welcome the guest, the sinner. Encourage them and extend God’s grace to them, and do that not from a position of judgement, but in recognition of the fact that Christ Jesus continues to do that for you as well.

On the Sufficiency of Catholicism

The Eighteenth Sunday after Trinity

LORD, we beseech thee, grant thy people grace to withstand the temptations of the world, the flesh, and the devil, and with pure hearts and minds to follow thee the only God; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

Catholicism has previously been defined as those fellowships of Christians which maintain the one canon of Scripture, one Apostolic ministry of bishops, priests and deacons, one faith articulated in the creeds and councils of the early church and one sacramental life lived primarily through the sacraments of Holy Baptism and the Holy Eucharist.

Anglicanism at its core rests in that Catholicity, as Archbishop of Canterbury Jeffrey Fisher once wrote, “the Anglican Communion has no peculiar thought, practice, creed or confession of its own. It has only the Catholic Faith of the ancient Catholic Church, as preserved in the Catholic Creeds and maintained in the Catholic and Apostolic constitution of Christ's Church from the beginning.” Put another way, there is no such thing as an Anglican Priest, but rather a Catholic Priest who has been called to serve out his Orders in the Anglican tradition. This is why when priests within the Apostolic ministry, for instance those ordained in the Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox traditions convert to Anglicanism they are not “re-ordained” but are simply received and their Orders recognized.

This distinction is extremely important to draw when discussing issues about changing core doctrines of the Church, particularly when it involves one of these key points. No particular Anglican province, nor even the Anglican Communion as a whole, has the authority on its own to make unilateral changes to this Catholic inheritance. We have no more authority to altar the Apostolic ministry than we do to altar the canon of Holy Scripture!

A clear example of this can be made through the question of the ordination of women. When in the 1970s the Anglican Church of Canada and Episcopal Church of the United States decided to authorize the ordination of women in their respective jurisdictions. Setting aside for the moment the question of the legitimacy of their reasons for doing so, does General Synod, to use Canada as an example, have the authority to unilaterally change the Apostolic ministry?

The answer, plainly, is no. Even looking into the history of General Synod, its Declaration of Principles (adopted in 1934) consolidated the founding documents of the General Synod from 1893 and contains the provision that General Synod’s authority is limited to, “the definition of the doctrines of the Church in harmony with the Solemn Declaration.” Speaking to the issue of ministry and the ordination of women, what does the Solemn Declaration say?

We declare this Church to be, and desire that it shall continue, in full communion with the
Church of England throughout the world, as an integral portion of the one Body of Christ
composed of Churches which, united under the One Divine Head and in the fellowship of
the one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, hold… the ministry of the same Apostolic Orders…

In order words, General Synod has no jurisdiction to define any doctrine that innovates beyond what is accepted by the Catholic Church! That being the case, then, the question becomes how does the Catholic Church change its doctrine? The answer is, very slowly, if at all.

One could argue that it would require changes to be made by the leadership of the various fellowships of the Catholic Church, but that ignores that it is by reception of Christians that doctrines are affirmed.

In the 15th century the Eastern Bishops, fearing Muslim invasion, turned to Rome and asked for assistance. The Pope invited them to a Council where he effectively made it a precondition for Western military aid that they accept his jurisdiction and a number of other Roman innovations that the East had previously rejected. The majority of the Eastern representatives acceded and in the West to this day, Rome continues to use the results of the Council of Florence to support claims of universal papal jurisdiction. When the Eastern bishops and representatives returned to the East, however, the Christians there rejected the Council. It was never received, and was therefore never Catholic.

Again, ignoring the legitimacy of arguments for or against the ordination of women, assuming all the Catholic Church were to attend an ecumenical council and agreed that women should be included in the Catholic Apostolic ministry, if this decision were not received, it still could not be considered Catholic.

This brings to mind the question then of what happens in such a situation? What happens if even in the case of changes which ought to be made, they cannot be (given that it seems unlikely for the possibility of an ecumenical council which would be universally attended to ever exist even if its results would be received by the people)?

Article VI of the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion is titled, “Of the Sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures for Salvation” and to mirror that, the doctrines of the Catholic Church, as they exist today, are sufficient for our salvation. If nothing changes, what do we have?

We have the one canon of Holy Scripture which, as mentioned, “containeth all things necessary to salvation.”

We have the one Apostolic faith, articulated in the ecumenical creeds and councils, which aid us in the interpretation and application of Holy Scripture.

We have the one Sacramental life, lived out chiefly through initiation in Holy Baptism and are nourished spiritually through Holy Eucharist.

Finally, we have the Apostolic ministry of bishops, priests and deacons by which the Church is ordered.

If nothing changes, we have everything we need already.  Christ himself prayed, “Holy Father, keep them in your name, which you have given me, that they may be one, even as we are one,” (St Jn 17. 11b). His prayer will never be answered while his one Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church seeks to innovate separately rather than maintaining this ancient principles of unity. Christianity is rarely something which we ought to be satisfied with sufficiency. Christians should never seek only to receive sufficient gifts and graces from God; we should never be afraid to constantly be asking God for more. In the case of what has been received, however, it seems that until unity is achieved, we ought to satisfy ourselves in the sufficiency of what we have already.