On the Articles: Article XXXIII

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.

XXXIII. Of excommunicate Persons, how they are to be avoided
That person which by open denunciation of the Church is rightly cut off from the unity of the Church, and excommunicated, ought to be taken of the whole multitude of the faithful, as an Heathen and Publican, until he be openly reconciled by penance, and received into the Church by a judge that hath authority thereunto.

Excommunication is a process largely alien to the modern Church, and so this Article is somewhat difficult to understand in a modern context, however in the time it was written it served as an important and necessary clarification for Christians.

Excommunication was for some time in the medieval period used as a tool of political power by the Bishop of Rome over various foreign princes. In England, it was partly responsible for forcing the King to sign the Magna Carta in 1215 that, among other liberties, also guaranteed the freedom of the Church. This practice of using excommunication as a political tool was never adopted in England after the reformation, however it did have a much more common application through the judicial system.

In England, Ecclesiastical Courts would routinely apply excommunication as a penalty for those who were summoned before the court but did not appear. The Ecclesiastical Courts in England dealt with a number of matter which at the time were considered religious in nature but which today are generally viewed as secular matters. For instance, they handled most matters of family law such as inheritances and matrimonial disputes. Other matters now considered civil matters were in the past considered religious in nature and fell under the purview of the ecclesiastical courts, such as defamation which was viewed as an assault on the soul rather than on the person. The use of excommunication by the ecclesiastical court remains common until reforms in the early 19th century.

Excommunication was thus being used in an effort to encourage sinners to repent of their ways. In order to make it effective, the sanction had to carry a material component to it rather than just the spiritual component of sanction. While the first thought is often to see being cut off from the Eucharist as a punishment inherent in excommunication, rather being shut off from the Eucharist was done out of concern for the well-being of the excommunicated person who if they were to receive would do so to their condemnation for having failed to adequately examine their conscious before receiving (according to St Paul’s warnings in I Cor 11). By requiring all other Christians to avoid excommunicated persons—their social lives and even livelihoods would be impacted—it would more quickly compel them to amend their ways and seek repentance with the Church.

While the Biblical authority for the practice of excommunication has never been in question, for a number of reasons, including the fact that it was English Ecclesiastical courts that often imposed the sanction and that those courts did not always exist in the colonies outside of England where Anglicanism flourished, the practice of excommunication has largely died out in Anglicanism. It remains in various forms commonplace among other Christian traditions including to some degree Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox as well as various Protestant traditions, though they often do not use the term excommunication specifically given the history of having it applied to them during the time of the Reformation.

The Article can remain instructive, however, in that it recognizes that the purpose was one of reconciliation through penitence. When we consider who and what we as Christians associate ourselves with, do we consider why we might avoid something or otherwise boycott it, and what the purpose is in doing so. Does it serve to promote reconciliation with the Church? Does it serve to preserve our own faithfulness to God? Are we excluding others for the wrong reason, such as a desire to feel superior?

In the final series of the Articles of Religion, like Article XXXIII, they find themselves rooted in English law and culture, and particularly at the time of the English Reformation, and several of the particularities of the Articles are no longer applicable, however the general principles of how they instruct Anglicans to comport themselves remain timeless and as applicable as ever.

On the Articles: Article XXXII

The Seventeenth Sunday after Trinity

LORD we pray thee that thy grace may always prevent and follow us, and make us continually to be given to all good works; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

XXXII. Of the Marriage of Priests
Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, are not commanded by God’s Law, either to vow the estate of single life, or to abstain from marriage: therefore it is lawful for them, as for all other Christian men, to marry at their own discretion, as they shall judge the same to serve better to godliness.

The prohibition on the marriage of priests and bishops in the Roman Catholic Church was an innovation of the medieval period, much like the administration of the Lord’s Supper in one kind only. While in the case of the Eucharist the full reasons behind the decision are no longer entirely clear, the decision to prohibit the marriage of priests and bishops is known and relates to abuses among families where positions were being inherited.

In the Scriptures, as noted in the Article which says that celibacy is not commanded by God’s Law, while St Paul does commend celibacy for those who are able to practice it, it is not commanded, and indeed in I Tm 3. 2-12 when St Paul gives qualifications for bishops and deacons, he mentions that they may be married.

While in the early Church celibacy was sought as Godly by many, it was never particularly enforced, and often those who promoted it did so for all Christians, not simply for the religious or clergy. Pope St Gregory the Great was the first to truly advocate it, given his monastic origins, though he was unable to enforce this on clergy in his time.

The Council in Trullo in 691, almost a century after St Gregory’s attempts to enforce celibacy, established the rule that married Christians could become priests, but priests could no longer marry, meaning that even if your wife died you could not be remarried, nor could a celibate priest be married after ordination. In addition, bishops were required to come from monastics and celibate priests (including priests whose wife had died). These canons remain in force among the Eastern Orthodox today, however the council was never ratified in the West, and its practices were not adopted.

In the West, then, both priests and bishops were permitted to marry, and often did. This led to dynastic tenures in various offices, where fathers would ordain their sons and offer them plum positions only for the son to later inherit the bishopric. This led to particular families becoming rather wealthy. In the West the First Lateran Council of 1123 sought to impose clerical celibacy, however despite the Pope’s efforts to enforce it, it was never wholly received, for instance in Ireland where married priests remained the norm.

At the time of the Reformation, the practice fell under challenge in the West. Martin Luther, a monk, had broken his vow of celibacy and married a nun. To justify this position, he attacked the authority of enforced celibacy by pointing to the freedom for clergy to marry in Scripture. Among Protestants, the practice soon became normative.

In England, it took until 1549 for clerical celibacy to be abolished, however during the reign of Mary I, celibacy was again enforced and married clergy were defrocked. It took some time for the practice of married clergy to again become normative, but it had by the early 18th century.

It should be noted that the Article does note that it is lawful for priests to marry, the Article concludes by saying that each individual should judge how best to serve godliness by either marrying or not. This passage is reminiscent of St Paul’s exhortation in I Cor 6. 12 that, “all things are lawful for me, but not all things are helpful.”

Wisdom of Saints: St Cyprian of Carthage

The Feast of Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage, Martyr, 258

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.

 St Cyprian of Carthage was a bishop and martyr of the early and mid-third century, and an important early Church Father whose many writings continue to exist today. St Cyprian was born sometime around 200 AD in North Africa to pagan parents. He received a good education and became a lawyer and teacher of rhetoric. He was successful and well-known throughout Carthage, having become wealthy due to his legal and teaching success.

He converted to Christianity in the 240s and was likely baptised during the Easter Vigil of 246. He embraced asceticism and engaged in chastity and poverty during his catechesis and early years. He gave his income to the poor and sold his properties in Carthage for further revenues for the poor, and became chaste.

He was made Bishop of Carthage only two years later in 248, at the demand of the people despite his initial reluctance to take up the charge. Shortly after his consecration as Bishop of Carthage, Decius became Emperor and initiated a persecution of Christians in an effort to restore Roman paganism and, in his mind, the fortunes of the Roman Empire.

During the previous thirty-eight years of tolerance, the Church had become relatively prosperous with many bishops falling into worldliness and scandal. Many of them were, during the Decian persecution, put to death, while priests and lay Christians forced to recant their faith. Due to the deaths of so many bishops and the need to maintain the governance of the Church, rather than face death, St Cyprian want into hiding, recognizing that it would be impossible to elect and appoint new bishops during the ongoing persecution.

Many Christians apostatized rather than face rape, torture and death. They would go to the Pagan temples and offer sacrifice to receive their libelli, certificates that proved they had sacrificed to the pagan gods and were thus not Christians (though some Christians sought to buy forged libelli in order to avoid both persecution and needing to sacrifice to pagan gods).

By 251 the Decian persecution began to wane as political challenges to Emperor Decius turned his attention elsewhere. A Council was called in Carthage to address some of the issues that had arisen during the persecution, but Cyprian himself was challenged by some of the priests who had opposed his election, who schemed to keep him from participating in the Council. He famously composed a letter against one of them and also around this time published a number of works extolling the virtues of Christian unity and seeking to address some of the controversies that were dividing the Christians of the day.

He wrote several other famous works in this time, and his works were widely regarded.

In 258 a major plague broke out in Carthage, and while many of the government officials fled to avoid infection, St Cyprian remained and co-ordinated relief efforts for the city, including medical care for the sick who were being abandoned by family and friends. Despite this care for the dying, Christians were blamed for the plague by pagan Romans who felt it was the punishment of the Gods for the spread of Christianity and abandonment of Roman pagan religion. The Emperor Valerian began a persecution of Christians. This time, St Cyprian did not flee into hiding but stayed in Carthage. He was arrested, tried and beheaded on the 14th of September 258. A record of his trial and martyrdom exists along with many of his writings, the most famous of which concern the unity of the Church and the sacraments of Holy Baptism and the Holy Eucharist.

St Cyprian has extensive writings on the power and use of the Holy Eucharist, something he referred to many times in his collected epistles. In his Epistle 54, he wrote, “We may not arouse and exhort those to battle unarmed and naked, but may fortify them with the protection of Christ’s Body and Blood. The Eucharist is designate for this very purpose, that it may be a safeguard to those who receive it.” He continues in Epistle 63, outlining more of his high doctrine of the Eucharist and the role of the priest in ministering it:

If Christ Jesus, our Lord and God, is himself the high priest of God the Father; and if he offered himself as a sacrifice to the Father; and if he commanded that this be done in commemoration of himself, then certainly the priest, who imitates that which Christ did, truly functions in place of Christ.

Writing on Unity, St Cyprian addressed the issue of doctrinal disagreements and they way they should be resolved. In his 53rd Epistle he writes:

When truth is missing from practice and tradition, this is rather indicative of the longevity of falsehood. There is a very safe method for spiritual souls to discern between truth and falsehood: it suffices to return to the beginning of the divine teaching, there where the human falsehood ends. Let us return there, to the evangelical beginning, the original teaching given by our Lord; and to the apostolic tradi­tion, there where the word of our thoughts and actions emanates.

Here is a simple truth. When there is a doctrinal disagreement, first turn to the Evangelical witness, the primacy of Scripture. That is not enough, however, because there can be disagreements on the interpretation of Holy Scripture, so there he says to turn to the Apostolic Witness, the teachings of the Church Fathers, Christ’s Apostle’s and their successors to hear their interpretations of the Scriptures. Their viewpoints are not infallible, however they speak with some authority, particularly where they speak in unity, and what has traditionally been rejected by the Fathers can also speak to the limits of acceptable interpretation of the Holy Scriptures.

St Cyprian, one of the earliest writers, provides us with a wealth of writing on the understanding and early developments of Christian doctrine, reminding us that even from the earliest days the Church held a great reverence for the grace and value of the Holy Eucharist and also placed great importance on the unity of the Church and the role of priests and bishops in maintaining that unity and doctrinal orthodoxy, under the authority of Holy Scripture.

On the Articles: Article XXXI

The Sixteenth Sunday after Trinity

O LORD, we beseech thee, let thy continual pity cleanse and defend thy Church; and, because it cannot continue in safety without thy succour, preserve it evermore by thy help and goodness; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

XXXI. Of the one Oblation of Christ finished upon the Cross
The Offering of Christ once made is that perfect redemption, propitiation, and satisfaction, for all the sins of the whole world, both original and actual; and there is none other satisfaction for sin, but that alone. Wherefore the sacrifices of Masses, in the which it was commonly said, that the Priest did offer Christ for the quick and the dead, to have remission of pain or guilt, were blasphemous fables, and dangerous deceits.

This Article seeks to define the relationship between Christ’s sacrifice on the Cross and the sacrificial nature of Christ in the Mass and particularly in the Blessed Sacrament.

It begins with a statement which today would be rather uncontroversial for most Christians: Christ offered himself on the cross as a perfect sacrifice for the sins of the whole world (I St Jn 2. 2) and that there is no other way to satisfy our sins before God but through Christ’s sacrifice. Interestingly enough, this would be controversial to some post-Reformation Calvinists who began to view that Christ’s sacrifice was only for some and not for others, going so far as to suggest that Christ’s sacrifice was only intended and sufficient for the sins of the elect and those pre-destined to salvation (see Article XVII for Anglicanism’s position on those issues) and not for the sins of the whole world. This position is not Scripturally sound and is again by virtue of this Article rejected.

The second section of the Article becomes far more complicated. There are a number of critical points. First it addresses itself to sacrifices of Masses. The sacrificial nature of the mass is something accepted from the earliest days of the Church. From the Didache to many of the early fathers, but it is important to note the nature of this sacrifice. This was a reference to the sacrifice of the oblations placed on the altar, which then through the prayer of consecration became a participation with Christ’s one sacrifice. The Article notes that, “it was commonly said, that the Priest did offer4 Christ for the quick and the dead.” This here references the sacrificial nature of the mass which was condemned, though this view itself is one also condemned by the Roman Catholic Church, namely that the priest was re-sacrificing Christ every time in the mass rather than simply participating in Christ’s one sacrifice.

Fr Ken Ross argues that this section of the article was attacking:

the popular belief that in the Mass Christ was again offered or sacrificed, and rightly repudiates such an idea as blasphemous. From the plurals used, sacrifices and Masses, and from the latter part of the sentence, it is clear that it was private Masses of requiem which were felt to be the most objectionable. It is all bound up with the Romish doctrine of purgatory in Article XXII.

Here he points out part of the idea behind the Roman practice of the sacrifice on behalf of those who were dead and believed to be in purgatory. In this, then, as Fr Ken points out, this Article is simply reaffirming the condemnation of Article XXII. Additionally, though, it related to the idea of priestly control.

In the medieval period at the time of the Reformation, there was a popular conception that, regardless of whether or not the priest added anything to Christ’s sacrifice, that the priest was controlling access to the grace offered by Christ’s sacrifice. In this sense, it allowed the priest to control whether or not someone would be saved and would nullify the saving grace of Christ, as it was no longer accessible except through the ministry of the Priest. Again, that seems to be more the concept being condemned by this practice, not the sacrifice of Christ or participation in it through the bread and wine, which were views supported by the Patristic Church from the earliest times. In the early 2nd century, for instance, St Ignatius of Antioch wrote, “Make certain, therefore, that you all observe one common Eucharist; for there is but one Body of our Lord Jesus Christ, and but one cup of union with his Blood, and one single altar of sacrifice.”

This is a relatively simple Article, further points of clarification are made that make much more sense when taken in the context of the day, and particularly in the commonly held belief and practices of the day, rather than the doctrines of the Church which were both professed at that time and as they have later been ‘clarified’ to have been by the Roman Catholic Church.

On the Articles: Article XXX

The Fifteenth Sunday after Trinity

KEEP, we beseech thee, O Lord, thy Church with thy perpetual mercy; and, because the frailty of man without thee cannot but fall, keep us ever by thy help from all things hurtful, and lead us to all things profitable to our salvation; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

XXX. Of both Kinds
The Cup of the Lord is not to be denied to the Lay-people: for both the parts of the Lord’s Sacrament, by Christ’s ordinance and commandment, ought to be ministered to all Christian men alike.

In his institution of the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist, Christ provided us with both the bread and the wine. In the earliest times of Christianity, communicants would receive both the bread and wine, often by intinction, the practice of dipping the bread in the wine. This practice has been used continuously in the Eastern Orthodox Church. However, over the course of history in the West, a practice arose whereby the people would only receive in one kind, only the bread. Only the priest would drink the wine. The exact causes of this are unclear but, but one common supposition is that it relates to early limited understanding of the transmission of germs through the common cup.

While modern medicine has shown that sharing the common cup due to its nature will not cause the transmission of germs or disease, in the medieval period, particular under times of extreme plague such as the Black Death, there may have been a significant reluctance on the part of many communicants to receive from the common cup. A response may have been to temporarily allow the people to receive only in one kind, however this extraordinary practice ultimately became the common practice, even in times when there were no threats of germs. As the rationale for why only receiving in one kind was forgotten, the practice became not one of simply allowing the people to receive only in one kind, but of prohibiting them from receiving in both kinds.

As it became a more common practice, a theological rationale was established to justify it. After the development of the doctrine of Transubstantiation, also rejected by the Articles, Roman Catholics added a simple addition, that in the change of substance, the wine does not merely become Christ’s Blood and the bread does not merely become Christ’s Body, but rather the Bread becomes Christ’s Body and Blood and the Wine similar becomes Christ’s Body and Blood. The rationale for this was that while Christ’s Body and Blood were separated in his original sacrifice on the Cross, in the Eucharist we participate through his risen Body whereby the Body and Blood are rejoined.

This Article was only added to the Articles of Religion by revisions in 1563, yet that wasn’t the first time someone had objected to the Roman practice in the West. Jan Hus, a pre-Reformation Roman Catholic who left Rome over objections to numerous Medieval doctrines, and who was eventually executed for heresy. Rome continued to harden its position on administration in one kind, as it in particular also affirmed Rome’s claim that the Church and Papacy had the right to adjust Biblical practices. This had originally been done with the imposition of clerical celibacy, however this was a discipline of the clergy and not a doctrine of the Church. Communion in one kind, however, was a quasi-doctrinal position. When the Council of Trent sought to respond to the Reformers, they reaffirmed their position on reception in one kind, and so when the Council concluded in 1563, the Articles of Religion were amended to reaffirm the Biblical position that Christ instituted the Eucharist for all to receive and in both kinds.

Rome’s position was maintained until the reforms of Vatican II at which point the restrictions on reception of both kinds, however it has never repudiated its theological rationale.

While Article XXX looks on its face merely to be a repudiation of a particular practice, or one could even argue a repudiation of the theological rationale for Rome’s practice of reception in one king, it ought chiefly to be viewed as an affirmation of the primacy of Holy Scripture, and the rejection of the authority of the Church to implement doctrines which contradict the Scriptural witness.