Wisdom of Saints: St Aidan of Lindisfarne

The Feast of Aidan, Missionary, Bishop of Lindisfarne, 651

O GOD, our heavenly Father, who by thy Son Jesus Christ didst call thy blessed Apostles and send them forth to preach thy Gospel of salvation unto all the nations: We bless thy holy Name for thy servant Aidan, whose labours we commemorate this day, and we pray thee, according to thy holy Word, to send forth many labourers into thy harvest; through the same Jesus Christ our Lord, who liveth and reigneth with thee and the Holy Spirit, one God, for ever and ever. Amen.

St Aidan of Lindisfarne was born in Ireland, but little else is known of the details of his early life, though St Bede later recorded in significant detail much of his later life. Whatever the exact details and when and where he was born, he ultimately became a Christian monk living in St Columba of Iona’s monastery at Iona. He would later go on to become a great missionary to Northern England, helping to bring the kingdom of Northumbria to faith.

The history of Christianity in England plays a significant role in St Aidan’s life. It had likely arrived within the first century brought by Roman soldiers who had been converted to Christianity. Over the next centuries, however, despite initially flourishing in Britain, as the Western Roman Empire suffered collapse and Roman troops were pulled out of Britain, pagan invaders began to de-Christianize Britain. While Christianity was never fully stamped out, many of the Christians in Britain lost contact with the Christians of the rest of the world, including the Celtic Christians of Scotland and Ireland.

When St Aidan was still a younger man, in 597, St Augustine of Canterbury landed in Kent on a mission from the Bishop of Rome to restore the connections with the Western Catholic Church on the continent. St Augustine began sending missionaries north from his base in Canterbury, while Iona and the Celtic Christians had been making some efforts to send missionaries into the north. The King of Northumbria, Edwin, was converted to Christianity by one of the southern missions, however after only a few years he was killed. His nephew, Oswald, had been exiled. Fortuitously, Oswald had gone to Iona to stay with the monks during his exile, before eventually returning to Northumbria to reclaim the kingdom from the pagans who had killed King Edmund.

Upon regaining the kingdom, King Oswald sought to re-Christianize it, but rather than turning to the southern missionaries from Rome who had originally brought the Gospel to his uncle, Oswald turned to the monks with whom he had resided during his exile. The first missionary sent from Iona returned in failure, though St Aidan commented that the other monk’s methods had perhaps been too strict. Citing St Paul, St Aidan argued that the English people needed milk and not just solid food (I Cor 3. 2) and sought to try a gentler approach. St Aidan replaced him and, rather than seeking to establish himself at York, as his predecessor had, St Aidan established a new monastery at Lindisfarne off the NE coast of England.

Over the years, St Aidan was able to restore Christianity in Northumbria, and eventually his missionary journeys took him as far south in England as London. He established missions all over the North, and St Bede recorded numerous stories of his works, commending his piety, humility and love of the Gospel, and commending him as model for other missionary Bishops in England.

St Bede writes:

Among other lessons in holy living, Aidan left the clergy a most salutary example of abstinence and continence; it was the highest commendation of his doctrine with all men, that he taught nothing that he did not practice in his life among his brethren; for he neither sought nor loved anything of this world, but delighted in distributing immediately among the poor whom he met whatsoever was given him by the kings or rich men of the world. He was wont to traverse both town and country on foot, never on horseback, unless compelled by some urgent necessity; to the end that, as he went, he might turn aside to any whomsoever he saw, whether rich or poor, and call upon them, if infidels, to receive the mystery of the faith, or, if they were believers, strengthen them in the faith, and stir them up by words and actions to giving of alms and the performance of good works. [Bede’s Ecclesiastical History of England III:V]

Bede commended St Aidan for his study of the Scriptures, and his encouragement to all those who followed him to do the same. He also regularly fasted on Wednesdays and Fridays. Whenever he received gifts from wealthy visitors he would distribute them to the poor and needy. St Bede also records that he would use money he received as gift to ransom slaves taken by pagans, many of whom after receiving their freedom he converted to Christianity, and in many cases instructed them and ultimately ordained them into Holy Orders.

St Aidan maintained a close relationship with King Oswald, who was himself sainted, feast day of August 5th, who was himself a holy man upon his conversion and under St Aidan’s continued influence. One story recorded by St Bede says that as they sat down to eat, a servant came and told the king that a great number of needy were outside begging for alms. King Oswald, ordered his meal to be served to the poor on its silver platter and then for the platter to be broken up and distributed to the poor as alms.

King Oswald was killed in battle a few years later, and recognizes as a martyr, and succeeded by St Oswin, another man who followed St Aidan’s teachings, though not without some need for correction. In another story told by St Bede, St Oswin gifted St Aidan with a horse and cart, which St Aidan gave to a beggar. St Oswin, upon hearing this, chastised him saying that had he known St Aidan was going to give the gift away there were plenty of more common horses in the stable suited for a beggar. St Aidan chastised the King, asking him if he considered the foal of a mare more highly than a son of God. King Oswin wept tears of repentance and promised never again to criticize St Aidan’s acts of charity.

His faith, piety, gentleness, charity and earnestness is living out the Gospel that he so cherished and preached throughout his missionary journeys made him an extremely successful missionary, helping to establish Christianity throughout England.

On the Articles: Article XXIX

The Fourteenth Sunday after TrinityALMIGHTY and everlasting God, give unto us the increase of faith, hope, and charity; and, that we may obtain that which thou dost promise, make us to love that which thou dost command; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

XXIX. Of the Wicked which eat not the Body of Christ in the use of the Lord’s Supper
The Wicked, and such as be void of a lively faith, although they do carnally and visibly press with their teeth (as Saint Augustine saith) the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ, yet in no wise are they partakers of Christ: but rather, to their condemnation, do eat and drink the sign or Sacrament of so great a thing.

In the era of the Reformation, there were many doctrines of the Eucharist being put forth, generally from the extreme on the one end of some of the more radical Reformers who proposed a form of memorialism that proclaimed a ‘real absence’ of Christ in the Eucharist (that it was merely an ordinance of eating bread and drinking wine in memorial of Christ as he commanded) to the Roman doctrine of Transubstantiation. Article XXV laid out general principles of the sacraments, Article XXVI expressed the issue of an unworthy minister, Article XXVIII addressed the nature of the Eucharist itself, and Article XXIX concludes this section of the Articles by addressing the question of the unworthiness of a communicant.

The Article establishes two criteria for those to whom it applies. First, the wicked, that is to say those who have failed to truthfully repent of their sins, and second those who lack a lively faith. These criteria would be entirely consistent with St Paul’s warnings in his epistle to the Corinthians where he establishes the criteria of discerning the Body (something which requires faith) and examining oneself before approaching to receive, which is to say examining your conscience in order to repent of any sins.

The Article continues that those who do not meet those criteria may visibly chew and consume, press their teeth, the Sacrament, but rather than being partakers of Christ, they are eating and drinking to their condemnation. This part of the Article bears closer scrutiny as it has, among other things, led to the development of a doctrine of receptionism that claims that there is no objective change in the elements during the Consecration, but rather when you receive it determines whether or not you will receive, in faith, Christ, or receive condemnation.

The receptionism understanding of the Sacrament is drawn from a reading of the Article which focuses on the first part of this sentence. “Yet in no wise are [the wicked] partakers of Christ.” But this is not actually the whole section. There are specific wordings to the conclusion of the full sentence in the Article that establish a clear and objective presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Christ presence in the Eucharist is not dependent on how the communicant, Christ is always present.

The full conclusion of the sentence says that the wicket receive condemnation as they eat and drink the, “sign or Sacrament of so great a thing.” If Christ is not present in the Eucharist itself and is only received in faith, the Eucharist itself could not be described as a sign or sacrament. A sacrament is defined in the Book of Common Prayer as an, “outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace, given to us by Christ himself, as a means whereby we receive this grace, and a pledge to assure us thereof,” (550). Much like transubstantiation, this view of receptionism, “overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament.” It is clear from the Articles overall and even this specific Article, however, that the Eucharist is explicitly viewed as a sacrament, meaning that any such interpretation of this Article or the nature of the Eucharist would necessarily be in error.

The clear alternative is that Anglicanism receives a Scriptural and Catholic doctrine of the Eucharist. Christ is truly present in it, but the effect can be either positive, when we receive in faith, or negative, when as St Paul writes, we receive unwarily.  Christ’s presence is objective, but the effect of his presence depends entirely on how his presence is approached or received, as the Scriptures say.

This Article is a good example of the way in which one of the Articles of Religion might seem at first to be overtly Protestant in origin, like several of the earlier Articles which mirror language from some Protestant confessions, but which on a closer examination can be nothing other than an effort to explain the English Reformers goals of bringing the Catholic Church in the Realm of England back to the doctrines of the undivided Catholic Church under the authority of Holy Scripture.

On the Articles: Article XXVIII

The Thirteenth Sunday after Trinity

ALMIGHTY and merciful God, of whose only gift it cometh that thy faithful people do unto thee true and laudable service: Grant, we beseech thee, that we may so faithfully serve thee in this life, that we fail not finally to attain thy heavenly promises; through the merits of Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

XXVIII. Of the Lord’s Supper
The Supper of the Lord is not only a sign of the love that Christians ought to have among themselves one to another; but rather is a Sacrament of our Redemption by Christ’s death: 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.
Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of Bread and Wine) in the Supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by holy Writ; but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions.
The Body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten, in the Supper, only after an heavenly and spiritual manner. And the mean whereby the Body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper is Faith.
The Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper was not by Christ’s ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshipped.

 The nature of the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist, also called the Lord’s Supper, is one which has caused massive divisions among Christians and even been a cause for the shedding of blood during the Reformation and years subsequent to it. Article XXVIII continues in the series of Articles defining the sacraments by laying out some basic Anglican understandings of the Eucharist. Even among Anglicans, however, these Articles have found themselves open to interpretation.

This Article is divided into three main clauses. The first section defines what the Eucharist is. The Second explains the error of the Roman doctrine of Transubstantiation. The Third provides two clarifications relating to questions arising specifically during the times in which the Article was written.

The first section begins with the affirmation that, “the Supper of the Lord is not only a sign of the love that Christians ought to have among themselves to one another.” At the time of the Reformation, several different groups had sprung up on the Continent who began to argue that the Sacrament was not a sacrament, but simply an ordinance. Christ had ordered us to memorialize the actions, and so the Supper of the Lord was nothing more than a shared agape meal that symbolized unity between Christians. This Article makes it clear that to Anglicans, in the Catholic tradition, we recognize it as more than just a symbolic memorial of unity, “but rather is a Sacrament of our Redemption by Christ’s death.” The Sacrament is Christ’s Body by which we are granted eternal life. It is not simply a symbol, but God actually does something (conferring grace) through the Sacrament. There is a limit on this, though, with the final part of this section stating that it is only those that, “rightly, worthily, and with faith, receive the same” in which case the receiving becomes an anamnesis, a participation in or, as the Article states, “partaking of,” the Body and Blood of Christ in his perfect sacrifice for our sins.

The second section deals with the Roman Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation. In brief, Thomas Aquinas attempted to reconcile Christian doctrines with the recently re-discovered works of the Greek philosopher Aristotle. In particular he sought to use Aristotle’s hylomorphic theory to describe the nature of Christ’s presence in the Eucharist. In the hylamorphic dualism, everything has a substance and an accident. Most generally, the substance refers to inherently what its nature is, while the accidents are its characteristics. For instance, the substance of a tree is wood while its accidents are that it is tall, has branches, a rough bark and so on. To Artistotle, something’s accidents could change but its substance would not. So again, in the case of the tree, one could take the tree, cut it down and turn it into a desk. Its accidents have changed—it no longer maintains the same characteristics—but its substance remains wood. To St Thomas Aquinas, the explanation of the Eucharist was found in this: the accidents of the bread and wine remain, but in the Eucharist, its substance changes from bread and wine to the Body and Blood of Christ.

Article XXVIII provides several objections. First, it cannot be proven by “holy Writ,” which is to say it is not clear from Scripture that is what happens, therefore the Church cannot compel someone to believe it by virtue of Article XX. Second, it says that the doctrine of Transubstantiation “overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament,” by which it means it is contrary to the definition of a Sacrament. The basis for that claim is the incarnational nature of sacraments. If a Sacrament is the grace of God working in and through creation, in a way similar to Christ himself being fully God and fully man, apart from sin, then transubstantiation cannot allow for that because the change in substance means that the created order is being eradicated and replaced by Christ’s divinity. Finally, it notes that this doctrine has led to several superstitions throughout the medieval Church.

This leads directly into the last two paragraphs which stem from this rejection of Roman Eucharistic doctrine. Firs it states that by faith, the Eucharist nourishes us in a spiritual manner, it is a meal of grace. Because this section does not explicitly deal with the issue of Real Presence, some have argued that it denies a Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, however, really what it affirms is the Sacramental nature of the Eucharist. That, by faith, as St Paul warns in I Corinthians, those who have worthily prepared themselves and discern the Body of Christ will receive God’s spiritual grace. This section is ultimately affirming that even if the doctrine of Transubstantiation is rejected, it does not mean that you do not receive grace. This was the doctrine of the early Church and even of Rome up until St Thomas Aquinas defined the doctrine of Transubstantiation in the 13th century.

The final section deals with the question of veneration of the Blessed Sacrament. In medieval times, a number of practices became normative in the Western Church as its teachings diverged from the teaching of the united Catholic Church of the first millennium. There were often good intentions with many of these. As a result of the seriousness with which the Eucharist was held, the practice of Eucharistic Adoration or Veneration arose, in which a consecrated host would be lifted up and displayed for all to see. Over time, there arose a common understanding that the veneration was a sufficient replacement for the grace received when actually partaking the Eucharist, only it did not bear the threat of penalty for those who received unwarily. Many Christians began no longer receiving the Eucharist and substituted the veneration instead. The stress in this Article suggests that Christ did not order the Eucharist to be venerated in this manner, a reminder that Christ instituted it for us to partake in it!

All told, the Article outlines a high view of the Sacrament that runs rather counter both to Roman Catholic doctrine as well as later protestant doctrines, though is relatively consistent with some of the earlier views of Reformers like John Calvin and Martin Luther along with that of the Eastern Churches.

On the Articles: Article XXVII

The Twelfth Sunday after Trinity

ALMIGHTY and everlasting God, who art always more ready to hear than we to pray, and art wont to give more than either we desire or deserve: Pour down upon us the abundance of thy mercy; forgiving us those things whereof our conscience is afraid, and giving us those good things which we are not worthy to ask, but through the merits and mediation of Jesus Christ, thy Son, our Lord. Amen.

XXVII. Of Baptism
BAPTISM is not only a sign of profession, and mark of difference, whereby Christian men are discerned from others that be not christened, but it is also a sign of Regeneration or new Birth, whereby, as by an instrument, they that receive Baptism rightly are grafted into the Church; the promises of forgiveness of sin, and of our adoption to be the sons of God by the Holy Ghost, are visibly signed and sealed; Faith is confirmed, and Grace increased by virtue of prayer unto God. The Baptism of young Children is in any wise to be retained in the Church, as most agreeable with the institution of Christ.

After addressing the general nature of the sacraments and their administration, the Articles highlight the importance placed on Holy Baptism by describing it next, before going on to elaborate on the Holy Eucharist. This Article’s formulation again shows its opposition to protestant doctrines adopted, somewhat ironically, by the Baptists which argued that Holy Baptism was merely symbolic and unnecessary to adoption in Christ, and that rather than acting through the Sacrament’s God simply works through an individual’s belief.

This Article affirms the traditional view held by the Patristic Church and maintained also in Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism, as well as some protestant traditions to lesser and varying degrees, that God acts through Baptism. In addition to being a sign of membership into the Christian fellowship, “it is also a sign of Regeneration or new Birth.” It is interesting that on the heels of Article XXVI, this Article also specifies that this applies to those who “receive Baptism rightly.” By rightly, it refers to the use of water and receiving the Baptism in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit according to the formula provided by Christ in the Great Commission (St Mt 28. 19).

The Article continues to discuss important features of Baptism. The Article states that those who receive it, do so for, “the promises of forgiveness of sin, and of our adoption to be the sons of God by the Holy Ghost.” This makes explicit the meaning of the previous statement of what Regeneration and grafting into the Church means. In Baptism our sins are washed away. As St Paul puts it, our old selves are crucified with Christ, put to death, and we put on our new selves, adopted into Christ’s relationship with the Father.

The Article continues by mentioning the visible action of chrismation, being signed and sealed by the Spirit. This section conveys a two-fold meaning. First, much like earlier when it referred to the formula of the Great Commission, here it refers to another visible part of the ceremonial that occurs in Baptism: we are visibly signed by oil as a sign of the Spiritual sealing which occurs as we are sealed as Christ’s own forever. The second point made here relates to permanency. There are some sacraments, for instance the Holy Eucharist, which may be received repeatedly. Indeed, with the Eucharist and Reconciliation it is encouraged! Others, however, such as Holy Baptism, are permanent and only to be received once.

The Article concludes by addressing another controversy of the Reformation era, and one which continues today, that of infant Baptism. Many different Protestant denominations felt that infant Baptism was illegitimate, because of their altered conception of Baptism itself. Yet the Article here claims that nothing in the Gospels with Christ’s institution of Holy Baptism, nor indeed in the Acts of the Apostles where Baptism is first demonstrated or anywhere else in the New Testament where Baptism is sometimes referred to does it ever suggest that children are not to receive Baptism. In fact, some argue that the witness of the Apostles in the Acts of the Apostles includes infant Baptism when it makes reference to whole households, which would have included infants, as well as references to how every single person in a crowd comes forward to be Baptised after accepting the Gospel.

While this controversy is specifically mentioned in the Article, there are numerous other controversies surrounding Baptism. Whether or not, for instance, Baptism requires full immersion or if it is sufficient to have water poured or sprinkled on the candidate. While these matters aren’t addressed explicitly here, the previous phrase which refers to rightly receiving Baptism does suggest that the Article is recognizing that there are certain requirements which must be met for Baptism to be effective. These requirements, however, by the Anglican tradition, would be matters explicitly referred to in the Scriptures. As nature of the use of water in Baptism is not referred to, it would generally be considered acceptable simply to use water in some manner. The Didache notes that the preference is for full immersion but where that is not possible, for instance in the Early Church as they went further north the water became too cold for immersion Baptism during long parts of the year.

The majority of the controversies surrounding Baptism are of a similar nature, being ones that deal with form and manner of the Baptism. Those issues have been addressed throughout the history of the Church from the earliest ages of the Church. This Article omits them because they had already been resolved, and instead focuses only on those new controversies that had largely arisen as a result of the Protestant Reformation which had developed new understandings and doctrines of what Baptism itself meant.

In staying true to the received understanding of Baptism, the Article highlights the antiquity of Anglicanism’s sacramental theology.

On the Articles: Article XXVI

The Eleventh Sunday after Trinity

O GOD, who declarest thy almighty power most chiefly in showing mercy and pity: Mercifully grant unto us such a measure of thy grace, that we, running the way of thy commandments, may obtain thy gracious promises, and be made partakers of thy heavenly treasure; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

XXVI. Of the Unworthiness of the Ministers, which hinders not the effect of the SacramentsAlthough in the visible Church the evil be ever mingled with the good, and sometimes the evil have chief authority in the Ministration of the Word and Sacraments, yet forasmuch as they do not the same in their own name, but in Christ’s, and do minister by his commission and authority, we may use their Ministry, both in hearing the Word of God, and in receiving of the Sacraments. Neither is the effect of Christ’s ordinance taken away by their wickedness, nor the grace of God’s gifts diminished from such as by faith and rightly do receive the Sacraments ministered unto them; which be effectual, because of Christ’ s institution and promise, although they be ministered by evil men.
Nevertheless, it appertaineth to the discipline of the Church, that inquiry be made of evil Ministers, and that they be accused by those that have knowledge of their offences; and finally being found guilty, by just judgement be deposed.

After having previously addressed the issue of who may minister to the congregation, in Article XXIII, it makes sense that the converse issue might be addressed: what happens when your priest is leading a sinful life? As the Article notes, “evil be ever mingled with the good,” meaning that this is not a new issue. Even in Biblical times there is the example of Eli’s two sons who led sinful lives despite following in his footsteps as priests, leading to their deaths, and Samuel’s ascension as God’s chosen priest and prophet.

The question here becomes more focused, though. If only priests may minister to the people through Word and Sacrament, what happens when that priest is sinful? The Article begins by noting that they do not minister in their own names or in the names of the people, but rather in Christ’s name, by his commission and authority. This is an interesting point to make as it runs counter to many theological arguments underpinning ministry in the Book of Alternative Services and in the modern Anglican Church of Canada, which argues that the priest ministers in the name of the assembled people, not in Christ’s name. There is a diminished view of the priesthood, no longer viewing it through the lens of anointing, calling and equipping, as the Article does. And yet, this is the standard of Anglicanism. In resolving this broader issue of whether or not one can receive the Eucharist from a sinful priest, the answer is absolutely going to change if one argues that the priest is operating in persona Christi, and in Christ’s authority versus someone who views the priest as ministering in nominae ecclesia.

The Article points out that when the priest ministers in Christ’s name, God’s grace is working through them whether or not they are wicked. This is an important thing to remember, as the reality is that all priests are sinners, just as all other humans are sinners. St Paul is explicit: all fall short (Rm 3. 23).

This is furthermore and interesting statement on the sacraments themselves. It is again reminding us that the sacraments are an objective reality: their grace does not depend upon the state of the person administering them neither upon the state of the person receiving (though future articles will address how the recipients state can affect the impact of the reception of the sacrament upon them). The Eucharist is effective, “because of Christ’s institution and promise,” not the status of the minister.

This again reinforces Article XXIII when you consider the question of why there would need to be priests if their presence doesn’t seem to matter. There it speaks of the importance of order in the Church. St Paul emphasized the in I Corinthians especially the importance of order, and so do the Articles of Religion.

To conclude Article XXVI, it says that even though God can work through the sinfulness of the minister, that is still not to be desired, and for the good ordering of the Church, where a minister is believed to be engaged in unrepentant sinful conduct, the matter should be investigated, as a matter of “the discipline of the Church.” Where their conduct is proven, it argues that the priest ought to be deposed.

This is an interesting statement in that today, it takes an extremely severe act to cause a priest to be defrocked. Most priests today that are defrocked, a relatively rare occurrence to begin with, suffer their fate not as a result of being found to have led a sinful life, but rather after criminal sanctions have been applied in the civil sphere. Where a priest admits to sinful living, famously the consecration of Gene Robinson who was in allowed to be consecrated bishop in the Episcopal Church of the United States despite being engaged in a relationship which, at least at the time, was regarded as sinful by the Church.

There are likely many less publicized examples of priests unrepentant of the sins and who, at most, receive a written rebuke.

The Articles of Religion make clear that this is not a matter of debate. When a priest, like any Christian, falls short, they are to repent of their sins. When they instead harden their hearts and say, “this is not sin and I have no need to repent,” they are placing themselves in the place of God and turning fully from him to live in their sin. There must be consequences in order to maintain the good order of the Church.

Anglicanism today, particularly in the Anglican Church of Canada, likes to congratulate itself on allowing for greater and greater diversity of opinions, but at no point should this tolerance for diversity of opinions include allowing private judgements on what is sin: that is a matter for God. Nowhere is leadership on this issue more important than in the priesthood: how can any lay people be expected to submit to God’s judgement when clergy themselves ignore it?