On The End of All Things

The Sunday Next before Advent

STIR Up, we beseech thee, O Lord, the wills of thy faithful people; that they, plenteously bringing forth the fruit of good works, may of thee be plenteously rewarded; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

Two and a half years ago, I began the Canterbury Calgarian as an attempt to figure out where my home was. In 2013 and early 2014, I had spent time exploring some of the basic theologies of various Christian traditions. Even today, I continue to on occasion attend Great Vespers at a local Eastern Orthodox parish out of reverence and appreciation for that tradition, and hold significant respect for the theological depth of the Roman Catholic tradition. It was in that context, as a lay person, that the investigation into Anglicanism was undertaken in this blog.

Yet today, I find that context is no longer applicable. When I began, I was an Anglican lay person who had recently come to make his home there. Today, I am an Anglican seminarian who has discerned a call to Holy Orders and is preparing for ordination. I am serving in a parish within the Diocese of Calgary, and the concerns reflected in this exploration have largely been concluded.

I am no longer as concerned with uncovering the historic nature of Anglicanism as I once was. The goal of this blog was to establish a clear vision of a traditional Anglican ecclesiology, one rooted in Holy Scripture and the teachings of the undivided Catholic Church. Over the past two and a half years and one hundred and fifty articles, a wide range of issues have been addressed from history, to the Sacraments, to the Anglican formularies and dozens of issues in between. The Anglican ecclesiological foundation has been laid.

As the year ends, it seemed appropriate then to consider a shift. In Christianity, death is not the end. There is a Tolkienesque sentiment there that finds its roots in Christ’s gospel. While this project is at an end, it does not mean that I do not have planned future projects to explore other questions of the faith.

In particular is this: having established this ecclesiological foundation, what are the implications?

Since the advent of digital technology and their proliferation, something that really only occurred within my own lifetime (one of the final generations of children to grow up without the ubiquity of personal computers, let alone personal digital devices), the pace of social change has accelerated dramatically. New secular sociological concerns and practices within society have profound impacts on how Christians live out their faith.

The Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion are a product of 16th century British law and culture, and while they are still quite applicable today, what does that look like? What unperceived challenges do Christians face today that have not explicitly been addressed by these guidelines on how the Christian faith was to be lived out in English society of the day?

From falling rates of marriage to the loss of respect for the authority of Holy Scripture, to simple issues of international connectedness and the wider ranging impact of states upon one another, there are many issues that challenge us in how we are to live out our faith.

This is essentially a shift from academic understanding of theory towards praxis.

While this shift could be lived out in this blog, rather than do so I intend to start fresh with this new perspective and new goal on a new blog. That leaves nothing more than to close out this one.

I think as I reflect, perhaps the biggest conclusion that can be drawn is the great value to spiritual formation to considering the questions that have been considered here. Understanding the nature of these foundational elements of the Catholic faith and Anglican tradition. When someone asks me something about the Anglican tradition, I generally am able to answer. When questions come up today about where Anglicanism is heading or ought to be heading, I can argue from a foundation of Anglicanism actually meaning something—this is harsh reality that for many Christians who do not come from confessional traditions where subscription to a particular confession is a requirement for membership in a particular church, they may not know what their tradition actually professes and their own beliefs may ultimately be incompatible.

This experiment has reinforced in my mind the importance of catechesis and Bible study going forward. I, as an interested Christian, learned quite a bit, and while perhaps not all the details are necessary to know (I can’t really come up with any theological implications for failing to know about the participation of British bishops at the Council of Arles, for instance), overall it seems in many cases, Anglicans have failed to be taught the richness of our own tradition, nor do we even seem to realize how little we actually know about our history.

I’ll close this out with a favourite collect from the Book of Common Prayer:

GRANT, we beseech thee, Almighty God, that the words, which we have heard this day with our outward ears, may through thy grace be so grafted inwardly in our hearts, that they may bring forth in us the fruit of good living, to the honour and praise of thy Name; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

On the Marks of the Church

Remembrance Sunday

ALMIGHTY Lord and everlasting Father, who wouldest have the kingdoms of the world become the kingdom of thy Son Jesus Christ: Bestow thy blessing, we beseech thee, upon all who labour for peace and righteousness among the nations, that the day may be hastened when war shall be no more, and thou shalt take the nations for thine inheritance; through the same Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

The Octave Day of All Saints

O ALMIGHTY God, who hast knit together thine elect in one communion and fellowship, in the mystical body of thy Son Christ our Lord: Grant us grace so to follow thy blessed Saints in all virtuous and godly living, that we may come to those unspeakable joys, which thou hast prepared for them that unfeignedly love thee; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

The Twenty-Third Sunday after Trinity

O GOD, our refuge and strength, who art the author of all godliness: Be ready, we beseech thee, to hear the devout prayers of thy Church; and grant that those things which we ask faithfully we may obtain effectually; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

Each Sunday, the Nicene Creed is recited and contained within it is the line “And I believe One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.” This is known as the four marks of the Church, four characteristics which help to define what the church is. Some of these characteristics, such as what it means to be Catholic, have already been addressed in part previously, but taken together as the marks, they paint a particular picture of what we as Christians profess to believe in.

We profess belief in one church. There are a number of points that can be taken from this. First and foremost, it must be remembered that Christ ordained one visible Church. As Christ said, “on this rock I will build my Church.” St Paul describes it saying the Church is:

“built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, in whom the whole structure, being joined together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord. In him you also are being built together into a dwelling place for God by the Spirit,” (Eph 2. 20-22).

When we speak of the Church, it is a reference not just to the collection of all those who confess the name of Christ, but a reference to the institution Christ created by which his Apostles were sent out to the world. The goal of the Church is made clear in both Christ’s Great Commission (St Mt 28. 16-20) and his prayer that we be one (St Jn 17. 11). It is clear also that this distinguishes the Church from God’s people in the Old Testament. The Church is one for all people, as the words of the Nunc dimittis say, “my eyes have seen your salvation that you have prepared in the presence of all peoples, a light for revelation to the Gentiles, and for glory to your people Israel,” (St Lk 2. 30-32).  Christ invites all people to him and offers the graces invested in his Church to all people. One Church, created by Christ for all people.

The second mark of the Church is that it is Holy, and it presents an interesting duality. To be Holy is to be set apart. It is clear from Holy Scripture that all Christians are called to a life that is set apart, and it is also true that the Church itself is set apart because its doctrines come not from the world, but from the teachings of Christ handed down through the Apostles. In I Timothy, St Paul exhorts Timothy to guard the deposit of true teaching that has been entrusted to him (I Tim 6. 20). This establishes an interesting duality for the Church, in that it is both holy and set apart and that it is being transformed by God’s grace and made holy, just as those who are in Christ are  holy and are being made holy by his grace.

It is perhaps easier to look at this concept in the personal sense, in that it is easier to see how as Christians we are made holy, and yet that does not prevent us from sinning. Yet still, by God’s grace, we are continually transformed and sanctified (Heb 10. 14). It is no different when speaking of the Church which, while established by Christ, is lived in and maintained by those of us who fall short. It was set apart and made holy, yet it is by God’s grace that it is continually being made holy.

The third mark of the Church is that it is Catholic. Indeed, in the Apostle’s creed only the middle two marks (holy and Catholic) are mentioned. Catholicity here is sometimes, particularly among protestants, viewed as meaning universal, but it speaks to a greater truth relating to Christ’s foundation of the Church as being for all people, not that all people are universally the Church. This speaks to those teachings and doctrines which were received and held by Christ’s Church east and west when it truly was one in unity of faith, word, Sacrament and ministry.

These principles are an expanded core of Christian unity today and ought to be considered universal, though they are not. It remains in that sense that the mark of Catholicity of the Church is also a mark of universality. Holy Scripture was not made for any one person, but the canon of Scripture was made for all people, to draw them all to Christ. Similarly the Sacraments, chiefly speaking here of Holy Baptism and the Eucharist, initiate all people and feed all people in their faith.

The final mark of the Church is that it is Apostolic. The office of Apostle is now defunct, but the meaning of the word remains critical to all Christians. It again speaks to multiple meanings. First and foremost it informs the idea of maintaining that which is Catholic. Christ established his Church and that Church is the Catholic Church. He ordained his Apostles to pass on what they had received. Today bishops hold that role as guardians of the faith and Apostolic Succession refers more than to simply being able to trace a line of bishops back to the first century, but rather speaks to that maintenance of the faith, word, sacrament and ministry of that Church.

Fr Michael McKinnon summarizes this sentiment saying it refers to:

Those communions or fellowships of the once undivided Catholic church who have maintained the one canon of Scripture, the one faith, articulated in the creeds and councils of the Church, the one Sacramental life, emphasizing the sacraments of Baptism, and being born to new life, and the Supper of the Lord, and being nourished in new life, and the one apostolic ministry, with the threefold order of bishops, priests and deacons, and which taken together comprise the once undivided Catholic Church.

The emphasis in his statement is on the maintenance of those beliefs and practices, with an emphasis on the threefold order of ministry as the chief method of maintaining those beliefs.

These marks of the Church teach provide a valuable statement about our faith, and rightly so as an integral component of the Nicene Creed, itself and sufficient statement of Christian belief. When we recite the Creed, fully understanding what is meant by One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, and further when we seek to live out our faith in that Church, we are responding to and answering Christ’s prayer that we be one.

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.

On Cultural Incarnation

The Second Sunday after Easter

ALMIGHTY God, who hast given thine only Son to be unto us both a sacrifice for sin, and also an example of godly life: Give us grace that we may always most thankfully receive that his inestimable benefit, and also daily endeavour ourselves to follow the blessed steps of his most holy life; through the same Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

As we continue in the season of Eastertide, many of the readings focus on the life of the early church as depicted in the Acts of the Apostles. In these readings from Acts, we hear how the disciples lived a life of faith together, shared all things in common and supported one another. This unity is supported by Scripture, where St Paul exhorts Euodia and Syntyche from the church in Philippi to, “agree in the Lord,” (Phil 4. 2). David’s Psalm 133 describes with vivid imagery the blessings and joy of unity.

It is not too long, though, before we hear of the reaction against the perseverance of the Christian faithful, and the growth of Christianity in the early Jewish communities. The circumcision controversy begins. Jewish leaders say that belief in Christ is acceptable, but only so long as you continued to follow the Law. When Christianity spreads to the gentiles, the majority of Christians were previously Jewish and elements of their culture create disunity as the early Christians struggle over the question of whether or not gentiles must be circumcised, a matter settled by a Council at Jerusalem which set the model for later ecumenical councils to define and resolve doctrinal disputes within the Church.

The picture painted in Acts, is broadly speaking one of an incarnational faith. Christianity incarnated into the flesh in the person of Jesus Christ. And so too does it incarnate in the cultures in which its faithful operate. Modern psychology shows that the language we speak, and the culture we come from, shapes how we think and perceive the world.

Speaking historically, some doctrinal differences in the Christian East and Christian West were the result of differences in how theological concepts were rendered into Greek in the East and Latin in the West. In some cases, ultimately the same meaning was generally meant, but due to the language differences, the rendering and way the theology was perceived by the other culture was sufficiently different to cause disunity. While there are other issues at play, in many ways the filioque is the same understanding of God’s nature presented from two diametrically opposed cultural understandings. The nature of Christ as judge in the West and divine physician in the East, similarly highlights how both can hold orthodox understandings, but which have been shaped to different perspectives by the culture in which they are practiced.

It should come as no surprise, then, when division arises in the church. The extreme unity found in the earliest chapters of Acts is rooted in both cultural unity and in the physical witness of Christ Jesus. This was the age of the Apostles and disciples who had witnessed Christ’s miracles in person. And yet, division still came among them. If unity is to be found in Christ, then surely it is understandable that today, some manner of disunity would ultimately arise, at the very least because of the fact that Christianity has now spread to all cultures.

This should come as no shock. In the East, the Eastern Orthodox Church is divided by culture: Greek, Russian, Serbian, etc. In the West, there is obviously the divide between Canterbury and Rome, but also within the Roman Catholic Church some practices diverge rooted in culture, as much as some Roman Catholics might claim otherwise.

There is good reason for this. God calls us into relationship with him: oneness with him. Not sameness with him. Sameness is the preserve of equality, while oneness is the preserve of unity. We are not meant to be equal with God, nor are we equal with each other. St Paul illustrates this well in his first epistle to the Corinthians:

To each is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good. For to one is given through the Spirit the utterance of wisdom, and to another the utterance of knowledge according to the same Spirit, to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by the one Spirit, to another the working of miracles, to another prophecy, to another the ability to distinguish between spirits, to another various kinds of tongues, to another the interpretation of tongues. All these are empowered by one and the same Spirit, who apportions to each one individually as he wills. (1 Cor 7-11)

There are two key points to this passage. First, “each is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good.” This is unity. This is oneness. All receive gifts of the Spirit, for a unified purpose. Second, he lists how some receive the gift of wisdom, others knowledge, others healing, etc. There is not equality, each is given the gifts they need to fulfil God’s purpose.

In much the same way, the incarnational nature of the church in distinct cultures is not necessarily equal. One tradition of Christians may emphasize the healing power of the Holy Spirit, while others may focus on the atoning power of Christ’s passion and resurrection. There is not equality, necessarily, in these incarnations of the church, or even necessarily fullness, but there is some degree of unity.

True unity is to be found when the four marks of unity are followed: the canon of Holy Scripture; the authoritative transmission of God’s word for humanity; the faith of the early church as articulated in the creeds and councils of the church, the order of ministry, passed down in apostolic succession and finally the sacramental life of the church, found chiefly in the sacraments of Holy Baptism and the Eucharist.

Just like Euodia and Syntyche, where something, in this case, culture, divides the church, we must continue to follow St Paul’s advice to, “agree in the Lord,” for it is in God that our unity is found, not in compromise. Compromise is the road to equality, limiting and hemming in our faith in order to reduce the avenues for confrontation and conflict.

It is a great irony that if the sacraments are discarded (mere ordinances), as is the order of ministry (priesthood of all believers), the creeds and councils (generally in more anti-Catholic fuelled settings where anything of the historic church is viewed with suspicion) while retaining only the canon of Scripture (often with its own brand of sola scriptura and distinctive interpretation) there is some form of equality to be found (compare some of the constitutions and confessions of various protestant denominations) but in that, unity, oneness in Christ, has been lost.

Christianity incarnates differently in different cultures. Different rites or Churchmanships, different language to describe the same truths, and in some case a different emphasis on part of God’s nature. This does not detract from true unity, unity described in the Acts of the Apostles. What causes disunity is when the goal of sameness between humans is confused with oneness with God.

On the Sacrament of Confirmation

The Sunday called Quinquagesima

O LORD, who hast taught us that all our doings without charity are nothing worth: Send thy Holy Spirit, and pour into our hearts that most excellent gift of charity, the very bond of peace and of all virtues, without which whosoever liveth is counted dead before thee. Grant this for thine only Son Jesus Christ's sake. Amen.

One of the five sacraments of the church most often practiced outside of the Catholic tradition is that of Confirmation. Throughout its history it has been strongly associated with the Sacrament of Holy Baptism, and indeed it traces its origins to Holy Scripture. In Anglicanism, though not counted as one of the Sacraments of the Gospel, it is generally accepted and requires the administration of a Bishop, in contrast to some other traditions, such as the Roman Catholics, where under certain circumstances a priest may administer Confirmation.

It is a sacrament which requires its recipient to be both Baptised and not already Confirmed. As St Thomas Aquinas puts it in his Summa Theologica, “confirmation is to baptism what growth is to generation. Now it is clear that a man cannot advance to a perfect age unless he has first been born; in like manner, unless he has first been baptized he cannot receive the Sacrament of Confirmation.”

In discussing Holy Baptism previously, Acts 19 verses 1-5 were consulted, as they tell the story of Paul arriving in Ephesus and baptises the believers who had not heard of baptism by the Holy Spirit, and who had only been baptised into John’s baptism of repentance. In verse six, which wasn’t previously quoted, St Paul then lays hands on those who had been baptised and at that point, not in verse five when they are actually baptised, they receive the Holy Spirit:

And it happened that while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul passed through the inland country and came to Ephesus. There he found some disciples. And he said to them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” And they said, “No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.” And he said, “Into what then were you baptized?” They said, “Into John's baptism.” And Paul said, “John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in the one who was to come after him, that is, Jesus.” On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul had laid his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they began speaking in tongues and prophesying.

Earlier in the Acts of the Apostles, St Peter and St Paul had similarly prayed over Christians in Samaria in order that they receive the Holy Spirit:

Now when the apostles at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent to them Peter and John, who came down and prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit, for he had not yet fallen on any of them, but they had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Then they laid their hands on them and they received the Holy Spirit. (Acts 8. 14-17)

Confirmation has thus developed in a historical understanding as the process whereby baptised Christians receive the laying on of hands and are spiritually strengthened by the Holy Spirit. In this understanding, Baptism is the initial pouring out of the Spirit on an individual, the way in which they are reborn into new life, and Confirmation fills that Christian with the fullness of the Holy Spirit and is the gateway to the fullness of the gifts of the Spirit. Because of its depiction in the Acts of the Apostles, in the Christian East, confirmation has traditionally occurred immediately after Baptism, whereas in the West it has traditionally taken place at a different time, particularly in respect of Christians who are baptised as infants, and for whom confirmation is an opportunity to reaffirm their baptismal covenants on their own behalf.

In the early Church, baptism always occurred on the Easter Vigil, followed immediately by confirmation and then the first Eucharist for the newly baptised Christian. In this way, there was a single event with multiple sacraments involved that initiated catechumens into the full sacramental life of the Church.

In the West, a number of developments occurred which split confirmation and baptism from a single event into multiple events. After Emperor Constantine declared Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire, the number of catechumens increased significantly, as did the demand for Baptism and Confirmation. However, unlike in the East where populations tended remained relatively centralised in cities, in the West, many of these new Christians were in the countryside, and it became impossible for the bishop to visit all the locations where Baptisms were in demand. Over time, the practice developed whereby the local priest would administer Baptism, and Confirmation would be administered by the bishop on his next visit to the Parish. In the East, the problem was also resolved by delegating the entire procedure to priests. The bishop would bless the chrism, holy oil, used in the rites, but otherwise it was acceptable for the Priest to administer in order to maintain the traditional form of having Baptism, Confirmation and Eucharist all administered as a single event.

In Anglicanism in particular, the importance of confirmation comes in the decision on the part of the candidate to receive the strengthening fullness of the Holy Spirit. Because the conventional practice for Baptism is infant baptism, the candidate themselves has no opportunity to make their baptismal covenants on their own behalf, and instead the covenants are made for them by their parents and godparents. Because of this norm, when a baptised Anglican is brought before their bishop to receive confirmation, it is an opportunity for them to also affirm of their own desires and volition, their baptismal covenant.

Among non-Catholics, confirmation has different understandings. It is generally not viewed through a sacramental lens, and thus when a protestant converts to a Catholic tradition, they may still be Confirmed, as whatever ‘confirmation rite’ they received, it was not sacramentally valid. Protestants generally view the rite as a mere rite of passage in which Christians, generally teens, are instructed extensively in the Christian faith, and not that there is a divine strengthening by the Holy Spirit. In some protestant denominations, particularly where infant baptism is not practiced, there is no confirmation rite and the protestant equivalents for instruction are merely incorporated into preparation for Baptism.

Again, this practice seems to ignore the Scriptural teaching on the distinction between Baptism and Confirmation, the sacramental reality of Confirmation and the necessity of authority for those administering the sacrament.

On the Sacrament of Holy Orders

The Sunday called Sexagesima

O LORD God, who seest that we put not our trust in any thing that we do: Mercifully grant that by thy power we may be defended against all adversity; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

Of the five remaining Sacraments of the Church, Holy Orders, the sacrament of ordination to the Priesthood is perhaps one of the most important. It is so significant as to be difficult to know where to begin. One of the Catholic marks of the faith of the early church was the belief in one apostolic order of ministry, with the threefold order of bishops, priests and deacons.

In St John Chrysostom’s Treatise on the Priesthood, he describes the Patristic understanding of the Priesthood when he says:

For the priestly office is indeed discharged on earth, but it ranks amongst heavenly ordinances; and very naturally so: for neither man, nor angel, nor archangel, nor any other created power, but the Paraclete [i.e., Holy Spirit] Himself, instituted this vocation, and persuaded men while still abiding in the flesh to represent the ministry of angels.

It should be noted in this paragraph that Chrysostom refers through the Spirit to charisms, spiritual gifts being conferred upon individuals which enable them to fulfil their office. This view of the Priesthood is similarly reflected in the Preface to the Ordinal, which notes the threefold order of ministry which has existed since the time of the apostles, and states that no one, on their own private authority, may presume to execute the ordained office, and instead that they must be appointed to the office through the sacramental laying on of hands, after having been judged as properly called and qualified for the office:

IT is evident unto all men, diligently readinge holye scripture, and auncient aucthours, that from the Apostles tyme, there hathe bene these orders of Ministers in Christes church, Bisshoppes, Priestes, and Deacons, which Offices were evermore had in suche reverent estimacion, that no man by his own private aucthoritie, might presume to execute any of them, except he were first called, tried, examined, and knowen, to have such equalities, as were requisite for the same. And also by publique prayer, with imposicion of handes, approved, and admitted thereunto.

While the language is archaic (this version is from the 1559 ordinal), the message is clear. The Articles of Religion have several points similarly pertinent to the priesthood and its sacramental importance. Article XXXVI simply states that the form of sacramental ordination described in the ordinal is the only valid way to consecrate someone to ministry, and further proclaims of the Ordinal that, “neither hath it any thing that, of itself, is superstitious and ungodly.” This is a clear criticism and rejection of various continental doctrines being developed that rejected the ordained ministry as a form of superstition or corruption of the Christian faith.

Earlier on, Article XXIII had similarly spoken of the necessity of maintaining lawful order in ministering to a congregation, and that those who are not licensed should not preach or teach in church. The question, then, is why this is important? Is it simply a superstitious following of ancient practices which resulted from the cultural context in which Christianity was established or was the order of Ministry something from God?

The priesthood is thus viewed as something special. Ordination is a word that evokes feelings of God’s calling and ordering of things. The priesthood is not a mere job one selects, but a vocation to which God calls particular individuals. This is a sacrament that is rejected in particular among Protestants who view the Priesthood of All Believers as invalidating any sacramental appointment of only particular people to the Priesthood.

In this view, there is no priesthood in the sense of a distinction between laity and clergy. All Christians are called to act as priests. There are certain verses to which this doctrine is ascribed, notably 1 St Peter 2. 5-9 which makes multiple references to all Christians as forming a Royal Priesthood or being Royal Priests depending upon the particular translation. In Catholic traditions, the Priesthood of All Believers can be understood in the context of the changes brought by Christ in respect of the Jewish Priesthood.

In the Old Testament, the Priesthood was set apart (the Levites) and the Priesthood ministered only to the Jews. The priests held the responsibility of orienting the Jews towards God. In the New Testament, however, all people of the earth have access to salvation through Christ, and the priesthood no longer ministers to a particular people. The chosen are now not the Jews, but all Christians believers. All Christians have a responsibility of evangelism, as we were called to do by Christ in the Great Commission. In this way, all peoples are oriented towards God, but that does not preclude a subset of faithful Christians who are called to ministry of Christians in particular through the teaching of right doctrine and the administration of the Sacraments.

There are a number of verses of Scripture that refer to this priestly vocation. In Romans, St Paul speaks of the Holy Spirit sanctifying him, and God’s grace enabling him to carry out the priestly service of the gospel. In Acts, there are early descriptions of ordinations as new disciples who are committed to the Lord for the purpose of maintaining local Christian communities.

These were not simply practices which resulted from happenstance, but a clear desire by God to set apart those people chosen for the vocation of the priestly ministry. It is a task which is important, and speaks to the question of the role of priests. In the Book of Common Prayer, the Intercession sums up two of the chief roles of ordained priests when it says, “Give grace, O heavenly Father, to all Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, and specially to thy servant N. our Bishop, that they may both by their life and doctrine set forth thy true and living Word, and rightly and duly administer thy holy Sacraments…”

This line speaks to a number of verses which lay out the importance of the Priest’s role. As teachers, they first and foremost are responsible for doctrine. Doctrine and theology is based on Holy Scripture and must be tested against it. For many Christians, however, understanding the Bible can be difficult. Its words were written thousands of years in the past, in cultures alien to our own. Its interpretation and teaching therefore becomes an important part of the role of the Priest. There is a danger here, though, and a reason why this responsibility is vested in Priests and not simply anyone who reads the Scriptures.

The interpretation of the cultural context of Scripture, or our application of our own cultural context to its interpretation, cannot be seen as an exercise that seeks to shape God in the image and likeness of man. Rather, as St Paul says, Scripture is, “profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction and for training in righteousness,” (2 Tim 3. 16) and helps us to more fully reflect the image and likeness of God in which we were created. Elsewhere, St Paul exhorts Christians to, “stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter.” (2 Thess 2. 15). This mirrors the commitment made in the Solemn Declaration of 1893 which concludes saying, “And we are determined by the help of God to hold and maintain the Doctrine, Sacraments and Discipline of Christ as the Lord hath commanded in His Holy Word… and to transmit the same unimpaired to our posterity.”

The second part of the responsibility referenced there is the administration of the sacraments. A Catholic understanding of the sacraments sees them as conferring God’s grace. While Article XXVI notes that God’s grace can act through the Sacraments, even if the minister administering them is evil, the validity of the sacraments can be questioned. If you are not baptised in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, it is not a valid baptism; such practices are held for instance by Oneness Pentecostals. Regardless of the state of the minister, if they refuse to administer the bread and wine of the Eurcharist, you cannot receive. This is again the case in a number of non-sacramental protestant churches that reject the effectiveness of the sacraments, and therefore do not practice them at all or practice them only irregularly.

The priesthood is a vocation, appointed by God, by which he calls ordinary people to an extraordinary task, and is one of the more important Sacraments of the Church.

On the Sacrament of Holy Baptism

The Feast of the Conversion of St Paul

O GOD, who, through the preaching of the blessed Apostle Saint Paul, hast caused the light of the Gospel to shine throughout the world: Grant, we beseech thee, that we, having his wonderful conversion in remembrance, may show forth our thankfulness unto thee for the same, by following the holy doctrine which he taught; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

The Third Sunday in Epiphanytide

ALMIGHTY and everlasting God, mercifully look upon our infirmities, and in all our dangers and necessities stretch forth thy right hand to help and defend us; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

The Epiphany of our Lord

O GOD, who by the leading of a star didst manifest thy only-begotten Son to the Gentiles: Mercifully grant, that we, who know thee now by faith, may be led onward through this earthly life, until we see the vision of thy heavenly glory; through the same thy Son Jesus Christ, who with thee and the Holy Ghost liveth and reigneth, one God, world without end. Amen.

Of all the sacraments, Holy Baptism is the most important as it is the one which is the gatekeeper to the others. It is the means by which a person becomes a Christian and enters into the communion of saints.

In the Anglican tradition, Baptism is considered a Sacrament of the Gospel because it was explicitly ordained in the Holy Scriptures by Christ. In the Gospel of St Mark, Christ gives the Great Commission saying, “Go into all the world and proclaim the gospel to the whole creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned,” (Mk 16. 15-16). He did not say simply to believe, but that you must believe and be baptized. This was noted in Article XXV of the Articles of Religion which both recognized its place in the Gospel and provided a reminder of the efficacy of baptism.

Going further, Article XXVII speaks directly to the sacrament of Holy Baptism. It begins with a reminder that Baptism is, “a sign of profession, and mark of difference, whereby Christian men are discerned from others that be not christened,” which makes an important distinction. Holy Baptism might on its face be compared to the baptism of John which was given to the Jews. The Acts of the Apostles records St Paul’s journey to Ephesus where he meets with some disciples and the following exchange occurs:

And he said to them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” And they said, “No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.” And he said,“Into what then were you baptized?” They said, “Into John's baptism.” And Paul said, “John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in the one who was to come after him, that is, Jesus.” On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. (Acts 19. 2-5)

Here, while the disciples he met did not understand the difference initially, St Paul clearly draws home the point that Christian Baptism is not simply a matter of baptism with water. John’s baptism was a baptism of repentance, whereas Christian Baptism is a sign of membership in the community of believers, more akin to circumcision for the Jews than John’s baptism. This point is made clearer still by Christ’s words again:

“Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.” Nicodemus said to him, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born?” Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’ The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.” (Jn 3. 3-8)

Christ makes it very clear that Baptism is part of the required method of entry into Heaven. This is similarly made clear in the Articles of Religion as Article XXVII continues saying that Holy Baptism is not merely a distinction made to discern Christians from non-Christians, 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 the 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.

Again, it is a reminder that through the Sacrament of Holy Baptism, God’s grace is conferred.

This view of Baptism is accepted among Catholic Christians, however various protestant denominations take issue with the efficacy of sacraments in general and the role of various sacraments in particular. With Baptism, there are some denominations that do not view Baptism as more than a visible symbol of coming to Christ, but they do not see the Holy Spirit as being conferred through the sacrament. They reject the sacramental life of the Early Church that is one of the key components of Catholicism.

The purely symbolic understanding of Baptism is on its face a failure to express the fullness of the Bible’s teachings on the nature of Baptism. Indeed while there is some contention within Anglicanism on the status of the sacraments which will be discussed elsewhere, there is no such contention when it comes to Holy Baptism. Baptism is a Sacrament of the Gospel, defined clearly and fully in Scripture both in the Gospels from Christ’s mouth as well as recorded among early Christians in the Acts of the Apostles.

It is the way in which Christians sacramentally enter into the Christian faith, and it is, as Christ says, a requisite part of our salvation. This brings to mind a concern, reasonably held until explored, that such a view of Baptism confers on it the status of a work, and place this understanding of Baptism in contradiction of Article XI which states we are justified by the merit of Christ and by faith, not by our own works.

There is a simple response to this concern, however, to answer the question of who is truly acting in Baptism, or rather who is doing the work? The answer comes back to the Book of Common Prayer’s definition of a sacrament, an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace. The action in Baptism is therefore God conferring grace, Baptism is merely the means by which it is received and not a work.

Holy Baptism is the way in which we begin a new Christian life, and its relationship to the Supper of our Lord as the way in which we are subsequently nourished in our new life in Christ.

On Signs and Symbols

The Second Sunday in Epiphanytide

ALMIGHTY and everlasting God, who dost govern all things in heaven and earth: Mercifully hear the supplications of thy people, and grant us thy peace all the days of our life; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

The Epiphany of our Lord

O GOD, who by the leading of a star didst manifest thy only-begotten Son to the Gentiles: Mercifully grant, that we, who know thee now by faith, may be led onward through this earthly life, until we see the vision of thy heavenly glory; through the same thy Son Jesus Christ, who with thee and the Holy Ghost liveth and reigneth, one God, world without end. Amen.

While Christians today often speak of symbols, the Bible spoke to signs. When we read of signs in the Bible, it's easy to mistakenly interpret the use of the term sign as being equivalent to symbol. They aren't, however. When we speak of symbols, properly we are something that points beyond itself to that which it symbolizes. An example might be a cross which is processed to the Altar as a symbol of Christ’s presence. Christ is not present in the cross itself, but rather points outside itself and is a physical reminder of Christ's presence. This contrasts with a sign, which participates in the in the reality to which it points. In other words, signs are incarnational and come from God, while symbols are created and usually point to God.

In the example of a symbol, the processional cross was used. An example of sign would be the Supper of our Lord. Anglicans, and indeed all Catholics, believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, the idea that Christ is truly present in a special way in the bread and wine after they have been consecrated. St Paul in his epistle to the Corinthians addresses this issue directly when he asks, “The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?” (1 Cor 10. 16).

It should be noted that while all Catholic Christians agree to this view, many non-Catholic Christians do not all agree on this interpretation of Scripture, viewing the Eucharist instead as merely symbolic. The same could be said of all Sacraments. The Book of Common Prayer defines the sacraments 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.” Whether it is Baptism, Confirmation, Holy Matrimony or the Supper of the Lord, a sacrament is an incarnational sign and not merely a symbol.

There is some controversy in Anglicanism on the sacraments, but that will be discussed another week.

Signs were important in Christianity. Throughout the Old Testament, there are references to signs. Starting in Genesis, when God makes a covenant with Noah, he makes a sign as a reminder of his covenant. God continually participates in the life of his chosen people and offers that participation as a reminder of his covenants.

It is interesting that while there are over a hundred references to signs in the Old Testament, the word sign appears also in the New Testament, but often in a different way. Whereas in the Old Testament, signs were direct references to God’s direct acts upon the created word (creating a sign for Noah in Genesis of his covenant with humanity, creating a sign with Abraham, etc) in the New Testament, Jesus Christ, God incarnate, is the ultimate sign. He is the sign that fulfils many of God’s promises and is the ultimate display of God’s love. Many of the Jews did not believe Christ, and so as St Paul notes, the, “Jews demand signs,” (1 Cor 1. 22).

It is through the Holy Spirit that more signs are shown, however. In particular St Paul describes the gifts of the Spirit in his epistle to the Corinthians as signs. Throughout the New Testament, signs are no longer direct acts by God, but rather signs conducted by both Christ and by the Holy Spirit acting through the early Christians. In 1 Cor 14. 22, St Paul describes the gift of speaking in tongues as a sign meant for the unbeliever, and the gift of prophecy as a sign for the believer. In the Acts of the Apostles, St Stephen, “full of grace and power, was doing great wonders and signs among the people.”

In the Old Testament, signs were a tool of promise between God and man. In the New Testament, however, these promises were fulfilled. These incarnational signs instead became a tool of evangelism, an invitation to the ultimate promise and the ultimate gift: that of salvation through Jesus Christ.

As was mentioned previously, in Anglicanism, all of the sacraments are viewed as signs. This stems originally as noted from St Paul’s definition of the Eucharist as a sign. A participation in the body of Christ. Not everyone agrees with this stance, however.

Some protestant Christians believe the sacraments do not convey grace. They do not believe them to be signs, but rather symbols. They reject doctrines such as the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, and even go so far as to refuse to describe the sacraments as such, instead calling them ordinances of the Church.

As previously noted, there are seven sacraments noted in the Book of Common Prayer, and they are defined through the previously quoted phrase as outward and visible signs of an inward and spiritual grace. There are a few things to note in this definition which apply to each sacrament as we proceed.

First, they are holy mysteries, but there is nothing magical about them. The liturgies for the administration of these sacraments are not magical spells. As the catechism points out, they are given by God. He gives his grace as a gift and it is not compelled.

Second, this implies that grace is not conferred if our intentions are impure. Such a view is supported by Holy Scripture where St Paul warns, “For anyone who eats and drinks [the Eucharist] without discerning the body eats and drinks judgement on himself,” (1 Cor 11. 29).

While each sacrament is different in nature, these two points hold for each, as will be seen as each of the seven sacraments are explored in turn.

On Cultural Relevance

The Feast of the Reign of Christ

ALMIGHTY and everlasting God, whose will it is to restore all things in thy well-beloved Son, the King of kings and Lord of lords: Mercifully grant that the peoples of the earth, divided and enslaved by sin, may be freed and brought together under his most gracious rule; who liveth and reigneth with thee and the Holy Spirit, one God, now and for ever. Amen.

The Sunday Next before Advent

STIR Up, we beseech thee, O Lord, the wills of thy faithful people; that they, plenteously bringing forth the fruit of good works, may of thee be plenteously rewarded; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

On this last Sunday of the Christian Calendar, also known as the Feast of Christ the King and the Reign of Christ under the more recent revised Calendar, there is a reflection on some of the previous topics discussed this year.

A number of different topics have been discussed related particularly the subject of worship: what it means, how we pursue it on a Sunday, the way things like prayer and liturgy contribute--or indeed detract--from worship of God. Related to many of these is a question of doctrine, which was discussed primarily in the discussion of the Anglican maxim of lex orandi, lex credendi. What we pray reflects and informs what we believe as doctrines of faith, and therefore what we believe informs the ways in which we pray as much as what we pray.

In the West, the Church, whether it be Anglican or any other tradition, is in decline. Of great concern to many Christians is the way in which this overall trend can be reversed. Cynically, this leads to a view that places a great importance on filling pews and not on the transforming grace God offers us. In these situations, it is easy to see how doctrine can be sacrificed. Decline in Church attendance is ascribed to Christianity no longer being relevant to modern Western culture.

In this view, scientific advances of Western society, changing morality and social mores and generally a broader resistance to (real or perceived) antiquated, superstitious and discriminatory religious views, must be addressed by substantive revision of doctrines in order to return Christianity to the cultural mainstream, and thus again be relevant.

How much further from the truth could we be? JB Phillips, in his book Your God is Too Small, once noted that, “we can never have too big a conception of God, and the more scientific knowledge (in whatever field) advances, the greater becomes our idea of His vast and complicated wisdom.”

To quote the Anglican formularies, the ordinal describes the purpose of the priesthood as those called:

to be Messengers, Watchmen, and Stewards of the Lord; to teach, and to premonish, to feed and provide for the Lord's family; to seek for Christ's sheep that are dispersed abroad, and for his children who are in the midst of this naughty world, that they may be saved through Christ for ever.

As the Ven. Fr. Michal McKinnon paraphrases it, “the charge of the Church is to seek the lost who are in the midst of the world that they may be saved, not by us, but through us by Christ.” How much does this contrast with broad churchmen who argue that the Church ought to conform to society in order to bring people in?

The danger here is in false doctrine. We risk an approach which sees the application of the cultural context in which Holy Scripture was written and our own cultural context being applied to its interpretation in which which seeks to shape God in the image and likeness of God, rather than allowing it to be used as a tool to bring God's transforming grace to man in a way that allows us to become closer to the true image and likeness of God we were meant to be.

Does the Church maintain its relevance by changing the Church internally in order to meet people where they are, or does the Church meet people where they are by literally going out into the world to meet them and bring them into the Church?

It is St Paul in his epistle to the Romans who exhorts us to, “not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect,” (Rm 12. 2).

As St Teresa of Avila reminds us, the Church is Christ’s agent on earth:

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.

Being relevant requires many things, but it never requires us to change Church doctrines to conform to modern sensibilities. It requires the Church to truly teach the Gospel, wholly and completely, and then to practice it. It requires the Church to step outside of the walls of its physical buildings, to meet people where they are and respond to their needs in the way that Jesus not only preached the Father’s will, but worked it.

On Via Media

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.

Feast of All Saints in the Octave

O ALMIGHTY God, who hast knit together thine elect in one communion and fellowship, in the mystical body of thy Son Christ our Lord: Grant us grace so to follow thy blessed Saints in all virtuous and godly living, that we may come to those unspeakable joys, which thou hast prepared for them that unfeignedly love thee; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

Commemoration of the Faithful Departed

MOST merciful Father, who hast been pleased to take unto thyself our brethren departed: Grant to us who are still in our pilgrimage, and who walk as yet by faith, that having served thee faithfully in this world, we may, with all faithful Christian souls, be joined hereafter to the company of thy blessed Saints in glory; through Jesus Christ our Lord, who with thee and the Holy Spirit liveth and reigneth, one God, world without end. Amen.

Last week’s blog concluded with a brief discussion of the Catholicity of the Anglican Communion after discussing the nature of the term Catholic, as used in the Nicene Creed. This week seeks to explore further that concept while discussing the Anglican concept of via media.

Via media, is a Latin phrase which means, “the middle way,” and is a term that is commonly applied to Anglicanism. Like many things about Anglicanism, there is not one universally accepted definition to how the term applies to Anglicanism. The Oxford Movement made an effort to define it as a compromise position, reflected in the Elizabethan Settlement, between the extremes of Roman Catholicism  on one side and the Puritans and other extremist reformers on the other. In particular, in Tracts 38 and 41 of Tracts for the Times, John Henry Newman attributed this concept the Richard Hooker in his Of the Lawes of Ecclesiastical Politie.

While Newman was not the first to attribute this concept to Hooker, he did again popularize it in the modern context, despite the fact that Hooker himself never used the term. There is, however, is a problem with viewing via media through the lens of compromise. When the Church is dealing with doctrine, it is dealing with God’s truth; not merely some form of public policy like the Elizabethan Settlement where there is no absolute truth and compromise can help to serve the peace.

A more accurate description of via media sees it not as a policy of compromise, but as a description of the results of the English Reformation being directed by a policy of restoring the Catholic Church in the realm of England to the faith, order and practice of the patristic Catholic Church, under the authority of Holy Scripture. In doing so, the Church of England had to avoid the excessive deletions of the reformers, while seeking to themselves remove the superstitious additions of the medieval Roman Catholic Church. That is not to suggest that there were not elements of compromise involved—particularly in terms of language—but it should never be confused with the actual goal of the English Reformation.

Put another way, via media doesn’t describe the policy of the English Reformation, it was not a compromise between the extremes; but rather the result of the policy of the English Reformation, its policy created a specific course which ultimately led it between the two extremes. This policy can be seen quite clearly in the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion.

St Paul tells the Romans in Rom 1. 16, “For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.” This forms the Scriptural basis for the principle of Prima Scriptura and sufficiency of Scripture for salvation which was expounded in the Article VI for Anglicanism, and which was held to be true by the patristic Catholic Church. According to St Cyril of Jerusalem:

For concerning the divine and holy mysteries of the Faith, not even a casual statement must be delivered without the Holy Scriptures; nor must we be drawn aside by mere plausibility and artifices of speech. Even to me, who tell thee these things, give not absolute credence, unless thou receive the proof of the things which I announce from the Divine Scriptures. For this salvation which we believe depends not on ingenious reasoning, but on demonstration of the Holy Scriptures.

This doctrine was held to be untrue by the Roman Catholics, dogmatically defined in the Council of Trent in response to the Protestant Reformation in the 16th century. In modern times, the papal document Dei Verbum defines the equality of authority for Tradition and Scripture when it says, in Article 9, “both sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture are to be accepted and venerated with the same sense of loyalty and reverence.” This understanding clearly contradicts the primacy of Scripture understood by the fathers. Indeed, as was discussed last week, the authority and primacy of Scripture as God’s word was one of the defining characteristics of the Catholic Church. It was therefore held as essential to re-establish it in the Anglican practice.

As a whole, the Articles spell out in several places, a desire to maintain the characteristic four values of the patristic Catholic Church. Articles VI  and VII provide for the primacy of Scripture exactly as articulated by St Cyril, and then notes the full Canon of Scripture and the application of the Old and New Testaments. Article VIII affirms the value of the Creeds as an articulation of faith, while again confirming that they remain subject to Scripture by noting that everything expressed in the Creeds is in accordance with Scripture. Articles XXV, XXVII, XXVIII and XXX speak to the sacramental life of the Church, affirming Baptism and the Supper of the Lord effectual sacraments of the Gospel, commanded by Christ and administered in accordance with his words of institution. Articles XXIII and XXXVI speak to the one order of ministry of deacons, priests and bishops to administer the Church. These were the distinctives of the patristic Catholic Church!

This desire to return to a patristic understanding of Christianity ensured that the Church of England would reject some of the extreme deletions of the Protestants. For instance, some denominations rejected the validity of the Sacraments, suggesting that the Supper of the Lord was nothing more than a memorial, and rejecting the Real Presence. Whereas Article XXII of the Articles of Religion condemned Roman Catholic excesses, Article XXV condemned the Protestant view that the sacraments were mere pageantry. In the same manner, Article XXIII rejected the Protestant doctrine of the universal priesthood, noting that there remained an ordained priesthood of those called and commissioned by God, given the charism of teaching authority.

The Articles of Religion fairly clearly articulate a policy of seeking to navigate the excesses of religion that were occurring in the era, using language meant to sooth extremists on both sides, while directing a course towards a return to the understanding and practice of the fathers.

This understanding of via media is essential in avoiding criticisms of Anglican via media as an appeal to moderation, a logical fallacy which says that a compromise between extremes is always correct. Via media should not be viewed as a compromise, nor should the Anglican Church, for instance, be viewed as a compromise between the Roman Catholic Church and Protestantism. When the term via media is used, rather than seeing it as meaning the compromise or middle road, it should  be viewed for what it was: the patristic road.

On Catholicism

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.

Feast of Dedication

O MOST blessed Saviour, who didst vouchsafe thy gracious presence at the Feast of Dedication: Be present with us at this time by thy Holy Spirit, and so possess our souls by thy grace, that we may be living temples, holy and acceptable unto thee; who livest and reignest with the Father and the Holy Spirit, one God, world without end. Amen.

Every Sunday, when we read the words of the Nicene Creed we proclaim, “And I believe One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.” What exactly does the term Catholic mean there? It’s used in other contexts; does it always mean the same thing? In what sense is the Anglican Church Catholic? There are many meanings to the term, and it’s used differently by different fellowships and denominations of Christians in different contexts.

In modern times, you will often find the term ‘catholic’ used in the creed instead of ‘Catholic,’ and sometimes you’ll even see substituted for it the word universal, or the word universal added in parentheses afterwards. The meaning behind this is simple: catholic means the universal fellowship of all those who hold an orthodox profession of faith in Christ. All that is required is to believe that Christ is the only begotten son of God, that he was incarnate and died for our sins on the cross, and that through faith in Him, we can be saved. There is a truth to this use of the term, but at the same time it does not capture the fullness of the term Catholic. Catholic is more discrete than catholic. What’s more, the rise of the use of the term universal is in large part a result of the rise in the term Catholic in its second context.

One of the most common uses of the term Catholic is when it is used interchangeably with the term Roman Catholic. The term refers to one specific fellowship and tradition, that of the Roman Catholic Church, which has and continues to claim to be the Catholic Church. The problem is that the Eastern Orthodox Church also claims to be the Catholic Church exclusively, and the Anglican Communion and others claim to be a part of the Catholic Church. Because of the predominance of the Roman Catholic Church worldwide and its cultural influence, particularly in the Anglosphere when we’re discussing the context of the English language term ‘Catholic’ there is often an assumption, particularly by Protestants who may otherwise not be familiar with the terminology, that any reference to Catholic is a reference to the Roman Catholic. That is not the case, however.

The connection between Catholic, meaning Roman Catholic, and catholic is in an effort to reassure congregants that when they are professing belief in the catholic (universal) Church, they are not claiming to be a part of the Roman Catholic Church. Among Anglicans, this concern tends to stem from the historic antipathy between Anglicans and Roman Catholics in England during and subsequent to the English Reformation. While in modern times, most of this antipathy has disappeared, some historical mistrust remains, and for different reasons similar antipathy exists in different places between Roman Catholics and Protestants of different denominations. Setting aside the motivations behind a desire not to be confused with being Roman Catholic, the more important failure of this practice is to again conflate the terms Catholic and Roman Catholic, which do have separate meanings.

Related to the term Catholic being used to mean Roman Catholic, there is another somewhat decidedly Anglican use of the term. Some High Churchman and ritualists will refer to themselves as Catholic, in some manner or another, meaning it to refer to their preference towards Roman Catholic style ritualism, without reference to theology. In this, there might be Anglicans who refer to themselves as Anglo-Catholics or Anglican Catholics, or Catholic Anglicans, but who do not support the theology of the Oxford Movement, which is the more defining characteristic of Anglo-Catholicism. Another variation might be the term Liberal Catholics, who again primarily consist of Liberal Christians who term themselves Catholic due to their use of Roman Catholic rituals in their High Churchmanship. While this form of labelling, in reference to practice over theology, can be valid due to its long-term understanding, it still does not appreciate the fullness of the term. You can have a Liberal Catholic Anglican, but that is a representation of a person’s theology and Churchmanship, and doesn’t speak to the Catholic Church at all.

So what is the Catholic Church?

In its fullest sense, when the Nicene Creed says Catholic Church, it is in reference to the once undivided Catholic Church of the first Christian millennium, which encompassed all orthodox Christians from the Apostolic Age up to roughly the Great Schism of 1054. During this period, there were many controversies and in certain senses, the Church was never truly undivided, but what is referenced here is the unity that was found throughout the Christian world. You could enter into any Christian church or house of worship certain that you would be both welcome and it would be familiar to you in terms of the sacramental life, the faith and practice, and its reverence for Holy Scripture. This is the Catholic Church directly referenced by the Nicene Creed.

In modern times, there are successors to the Catholic Church that remain a part of it. No communion precisely holds to the exact same principles and practices of the early Catholic Church, but so long as they hold true to the four principles of unity, they maintain a claim to Catholicity. As the Ven. Fr. Michael McKinnon puts it:

Those communions or fellowships of the once undivided Catholic church who have maintained the one canon of Scripture, the one faith, articulated in the creeds and councils of the Church, the one Sacramental life, emphasizing the sacraments of Baptism, and being born to new life, and the Supper of the Lord, and being nourished in new life, and the one apostolic ministry, with the threefold order of bishops, priests and deacons, and which taken together comprise the once undivided Catholic Church.

Now, while there are some Anglicans who use the term Catholic in reference to Roman Catholic practice, there are many more who, when they claim to be some form of Catholic Anglican or Anglo-Catholic, mean as much in reference to this understanding of Anglicans as a fellowship in succession to the Catholic Church, and which continues to uphold the four principles which defined the Catholic Church.

During the English Reformation, many viewed the separation from Roman jurisdiction in the 1530s as an opportunity to split doctrinally with Rome not in favour of the continental Reformation, but in an effort to restore the purity of Christianity through the faith of the Catholic Church by removing certain Roman superstitious additions to the faith, introduced during the medieval period. Lancelot Andrewes, a Bishop of the Church of England in the early 17th century and considered one of the brightest Anglican scholars of his day famously wrote that, “One canon reduced to writing by God himself, two testaments, three creeds, four general councils, five centuries, and the series of Fathers in that period – the centuries that is, before Constantine, and two after, determine the boundary of our faith.”

More recently, Archbishop Jeffrey Fisher, Archbishop of Canterbury from 1945 to 1961, said, “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.” Article XIX, when unpacked, further affirms this view of the Catholicity of the Anglican Communion, speaking of faithful preaching of Scripture, the faith of which is articulated in the creeds, and administration of the sacraments, through the historic episcopate. All sources confirm a view of the Anglican Communion as being Catholic.

When the reciting the Nicene Creed, Anglicans do not profess merely to be part of the body of all Christian believers, nor does it speak of some kind of Roman Catholic heritage; in professing Catholicity, we hold to the Christian faith practiced by the early Catholic Church.

On the Essentials

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.

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.

There is a maxim, often mis-attributed to St Augustine of Hippo, which reads in its original Latin in necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas. It is usually rendered into English along these lines of, “in the essentials, unity; in the non-essentials, diversity; in all things, charity.” The question, then, becomes what is essential?

For Anglicans, it might be confusing. We have the Book of Common Prayer, ordinal and 39 Articles as our formularies. They define the practice of Anglican tradition, but are they essential to the Christian faith itself? Clearly not. The Lambeth Quadrilateral is in fact the document which defines the essentials for Anglicans, but in reference not merely to the Anglican tradition, but the Christian tradition as a whole.

The Lambeth Quadrilateral was a resolution of the 1888 Lambeth Conference, an international gathering of Bishops from throughout the Anglican Communion, made in response to the 1886 declaration of the House of Bishops of the Episcopal Church of the United States of America which included the following in its preamble:

we do hereby affirm that the Christian unity...can be restored only by the return of all Christian communions to the principles of unity exemplified by the undivided Catholic Church during the first ages of its existence; which principles we believe to be the substantial deposit of Christian Faith and Order committed by Christ and his Apostles to the Church unto the end of the world, and therefore incapable of compromise or surrender by those who have been ordained to be its stewards and trustees for the common and equal benefit of all men.

The full declaration of the American bishops was not adopted at the Lambeth Conference, however the four key points were adopted, declaring that the Anglican Communion would continue to affirm the historic faith of the undivided Catholic Church, and in doing so identified four specific areas.

First and foremost, the Lambeth Quadrilateral affirms the one canon of Holy Scripture as the ultimate standard of faith, and to quote Article VI of the Articles of Religion, the Quadrilateral affirms that Holy Scripture contains all things necessary to salvation. While the canon of Scripture was not fixed in the Apostolic Age, primarily because most of what would become the New Testament was not committed to writing until near the end of the Apostolic Age, yet still Scripture was recognized as containing the revealed Truth of God, and the New Testament faithfully reproduced the faith of the Apostles and the Truth revealed by Christ during his ministry. The placement of the Scripture in the Quadrilateral again itself affirms Prima Scriptura which demands that Holy Scripture be held as the standard by which the faith, order and practice of the Church is measured.

Next, the Lambeth Quadrilateral affirmed the Catholic creeds, specifically the Apostle's Creed and the Nicene Creed as faithfully articulating the doctrines of the Catholic Church, and to quote the Quadrilateral itself, "as the sufficient statement of the Christian faith." A key characteristic of the Catholic Church was that it held one faith, articulated in the Creeds and councils accepted both east and west. The Apostle's creed as the symbol of baptism, and the Nicene creed as a necessary articulation of orthodoxy in relation to the Christological controversies of the early Church. These creeds form the definition of orthodox Christianity precisely because they were accepted by the Catholic Church during the age of the fathers.

Third, the Quadrilateral affirms the two Sacraments of the Gospel. The sacramental life of the Catholic Church was universally held. One baptism, in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, and being born to new life, followed by the Supper of the Lord ministered, in the words of the Quadrilateral, with, "unfailing use of Christ's words of Institution," used to nourish Christians in their new lives in Christ. The Quadrilateral in no way rejects the Sacraments of the Church, but again merely reflects that the two Sacraments of the Gospel were the only two Sacraments universally received by the east and west, while other Sacraments of the Church have been received only in certain places and at certain times.

Finally, the Quadrilateral ends by affirming the importance of the Historic Episcopate and the three-fold order of ministry through bishops, priests and deacons. Implicit in this is the importance of Apostolic Succession, the idea that the authority of ordained ministers is derived from their following in the Apostolic commission. It is a further reminder that the Anglican Churches do not claim their own ministry. There is no such thing as an Anglican Priest, but rather a priest in the Catholic Church who ministers in the Anglican tradition.

Taken together, these are an affirmation of the faith, order and practice of the Catholic Church by which Christian unity may be affirmed. When any controversy arises in a given tradition, it must be reviewed in the context of these universal standards.

For instance, throughout history there have been controversies over issues such as how many altar candles may be present on the altar during Holy Communion. In order to determine if the issue is essential, the question asked is, first and foremost, is it addressed in Scripture? Then, is it addressed in the Creeds? Third, does it affect the administration of the Sacraments of the Gospel? Finally, does it affect the understanding of Apostolic Succession and the Apostolic ministry? If not, it is not an essential matter and there is room for diversity. In the case of altar candles, it is not a matter addressed in Scripture or the creeds. It doesn’t impact the Sacraments of the Gospel and neither does it impact the Apostolic ministry. Whether it be none, two or six, there is room for diversity on the number of altar candles as they are not essential to the faith.

This example may seem somewhat flippant, however it would equally apply to many of the controversies that cause major schisms these days, namely the ordination of women and proposed changes to the sacrament of Holy Matrimony to allow for the blessing of same-sex marriages.

The former Archbishop of Canterbury Michael Ramsay was a strong proponent of Quadrilateral as a model for ecumenical reunion, particularly with the Eastern Orthodox Church. He had made significant progress in developing understanding on the basis of the Quadrilateral and the idea of the Anglican Communion as maintaining the Catholic faith, order and practice of the patristic Church. He had made significant progress in clearing the way on major issues; however, as is recorded in his personal journal, he was woken up in the middle of the night in 1976 and informed that the General Convention of the Episcopal Church of the United States had authorized the ordination of women as priests. He immediately began to weep, recognizing that the Anglican Communion had surrendered its claim to Catholicity over the issue, and had ended the immediate prospects for ecumenical reunion with the Eastern Orthodox Church.

The official status of the Lambeth Quadrilateral has come into question in some national Provinces in the Anglican Communion, however in the traditional view of Anglicanism, the Lambeth Quadrilateral remains an important document which records a defining characteristic of Anglicanism, which is to say that it seeks a return to the faith, order and traditions of the patristic Catholic Church, and its authority to determine doctrine is derived from that formula.