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.

On the Articles: Article XXVIII

The Thirteenth Sunday after Trinity

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On Roads

The Sunday called Septuagesima

O LORD, we beseech thee favourably to hear the prayers of thy people; that we, who are justly punished for our offences, may be mercifully delivered by thy goodness, for the glory ofthy Name; through Jesus Christ our Saviour, who liveth and reigneth with thee and the Holy Spirit, ever one God, world without end. Amen.

Christianity is often presented as a journey in Scripture. Whether navigating wide or narrow roads or gates (St Mt 7. 13, 14), we are travelling. St Paul’s conversion occurred on the road to Damascus, a phrase which itself has become synonymous with significant change in a person’s life course, and which will be celebrated tomorrow during the Feast of the Conversion of St Paul.

On the Road to Emmaus is an important journey in Scripture that takes place on a road, but tells a slightly different story. Told in St Luke’s Gospel (24. 13-32) and later referred to in St Mark’s Gospel (16. 12, 13), it tells the story of two disciples travelling from Jerusalem to the town of Emmaus who encounter Christ on that road. But looking more closely at the story, it shows us the unfolding of the mass, the service of Holy Communion, and is an important reminder of why we do what we do in our Sunday liturgy.

The story begins, “That very day two of them were going to a village named Emmaus, about seven miles from Jerusalem, and they were talking with each other about all these things that had happened.” As with many stories in Scripture, it begins without the necessary context and the beginning of the chapter must be reviewed. That very day refers to the day of the Resurrection, Sunday. Two of Christ’s disciples are gathered on Sunday discussing him.

As Christ says in St Matthew’s Gospel, “For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them,” (18. 20). So it is and Christ comes among them. He joins them on the road. While the gospel account does not record the disciples inviting Christ specifically to join them, the fact that he is immediately included in the conversation suggests he was invited and welcomed to continue the journey with them. This mirrors the entrance rites, and particularly the Collect for Purity in which God is asked to come among his people as they gather.

Next the disciples, one of whom is identified as Cleopas, begins explaining, at Christ’s question, what had happened with Christ’s death and the early reports of his resurrection. These verses parallel another important part of the mass, that of community announcements! This simple view ignores more of what can be gleaned from a closer examination of these passages, however, which tie these verses to the penitential rite.

The two disciples are having an animated discussion, and Scripture tells us, “And he said to them, “What is this conversation that you are holding with each other as you walk?” And they stood still, looking sad.” (17) Christ calls his people to unburden themselves before him, just as we are called to unburden ourselves before him in the confession. Their response to Christ makes this clearer as they express their disappointed belief that Christ was not who they thought he was, and their scepticism over earlier reports in the day that Christ had risen.

Christ responds to their concerns in a bridge between the end of the penitential rite in which he gives absolution and comfort to them where he says:

“O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer these things and enter into his glory?” And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself. (v 26, 27)

When Christ says it was necessary for these things to happen, he is directly responding to the sadness in their hearts where they were distressed that Christ was not the Messiah they believed him to be. This also forms a bridge to the Liturgy of the Word, as the then goes on to recount and explain the Scriptures to them. This also serves to highlight the importance of the lectionary. He began at the beginning and moved on through the Prophets; he did not simply teach a 15 part series on his topic of choice, but the Word in its fullness was proclaimed and explained in his sermon.

As he finished explaining the Word to them, the next verse tells us they drew near to where they were going. This is a reference to the village of Emmaus, but in the context of this exploration of parallels, it also holds true that  following the Liturgy of the Word is the Liturgy of the Table, that place which truly represents the destination of the mass itself.

When they come to the table, Christ, “took the bread and blessed and broke it and gave it to them. And their eyes were opened, and they recognized him.” (30, 31) Here he mirrors the four actions of the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, he takes it, blesses it, breaks it and distributes it. The next verse says that upon receiving it, their eyes were opened and they recognized him. It was not when he first appeared, not when he explained the Scriptures to them but in the sacrament that they came to truly know him. Just as Christ is present with us always, abiding within us, and as well comes among us when two or three are gathered, it is through the Eucharist that he comes in a particular and special way.

In the Litugy of the Table the eyes of the disciples are opened in faith, while during the Liturgy of the Word, their hearts began to burn within them as the Scriptures were opened to them. Mirroring the dismissal, in which the people gathered are sent forth, the disciples hurry back to Jerusalem to find the Apostles. “Then they told what had happened on the road, and how he was known to them in the breaking of the bread,” (35)

At the end of the mass, the priest dismisses the people saying, “The peace of God, which passeth all understanding, keep your hearts and minds in the knowledge and love of God, and of his Son Jesus Christ our Lord,” and in the Book of Alternative Services the dismissal is made even more clear where it says something to the effect of, “Go in peace to love and serve the Lord.” In both cases it is clear, the people are being commissioned to go forth, like apostles, and share the love of God they have received with others.

The account of the encounter with Christ on the Road to Emmaus is one of many roads in the Scriptures. It is one of many events and encounters which hints at how Christ wants us to act, and how we are to love and serve the Lord. It is also a reminder that the way we worship on Sundays is not just an accident of history, but is the clear teaching of not just Scripture but Christ himself.

On Anticipation

The Third Sunday in Advent

O LORD Jesu Christ, who at thy first coming didst send thy messenger to prepare thy way before thee: Grant that the ministers and stewards of thy mysteries may likewise so prepare and make ready thy way, by turning the hearts of the disobedient to the wisdom of the just, that at thy second coming to judge the world we may be found an acceptable people in thy sight; who livest and reignest with the Father and the Holy Spirit, ever one God, world without end. Amen.

Advent

ALMIGHTY God, give us grace that we may cast away the works of darkness, and put upon us the armour of light, now in the time of this mortal life, in which thy Son Jesus Christ came to visit us in great humility; that in the last day, when he shall come again in his glorious Majesty, to judge both the quick and the dead, we may rise to the life immortal; through him who liveth and reigneth with thee and the Holy Spirit, now and ever. Amen.

 For many people, even Christians, this is not the season of Advent, but rather Christmas. This is a cultural rather than Christian influence. It is a season of peace and joy. That peace and joy are often found not in reflecting upon Holy Scripture, but rather in the gathering of family, sharing veritable feats with friends and family and the exchange of gifts. This is understandable, because even those who try to oppose the secularization and commercialization of the Christmas do so from the perspective that, “the reason for the season,” is exclusively found in the birth of Christ.

If you ask most Christians why that is important, they would probably focus on the atonement. The logic effectively becomes we celebrate Christ’s birth so that he can die for our sins and bring us repentance. This is entirely understandable.  In the Nicene Creed, it describes the incarnation thus, “For us men and for our salvation he came down from heaven...” There is nothing untrue in the logic that the reason for the incarnation is salvation, though it perhaps misses the point. “The reason for the season,” argument doesn’t fully express the issue because it points to the wrong season. We aren’t yet in the season of Christmas, but in Advent.

Advent is derived from Latin and means coming. It is the season prior to Christmas in which we anticipate Christ’s coming. That can be a confusing statement and leads to another issue. It is simple for many people to say they are anticipating Christmas, but that is not really what we are meant to anticipate, even though the fact that we think of the Nativity in terms of a past historical event, which is therefore hard to anticipate. This leads to the anticipation of Christmas as a holiday rather than Christmas as a holy day.

When we say Christ’s coming, though, there is a three-fold meaning to it. It means first and foremost his coming in history, celebrated at Christ’s mass, the feast of the Nativity. It also refers to our anticipation of how he continues to come in the sacrament of the Eucharist. Finally, it reminds us to anticipate his coming again on the last day.

When looking at Advent in this traditional three-fold lens, it is much easier to see how we are called to anticipate Christ’s coming. It still is not the complete picture, however!

We anticipate his coming in history in and of itself, and not simply for its final victory in Christ’s crucifixion. His incarnation in and of itself is worthy to be recognized for the change it brought to our understanding of God.

St Athanasius the Great wrote, “For the Son of God became man so that we might become God.”   This statement requires a little bit of unpacking. Perhaps a bit lengthier way of expressing this sentiment, that more clearly articulates its meaning, would be to say, “The Son of God, fully God, became Man, fully man apart from sin, in order to make clear the nature of God to Man, that Man might become more God-like.” In other words, St Athanasius is not referring to some kind of apotheosis but rather is suggesting that it is through the incarnation that we become more like we were meant to be, having been created originally in the image and likeness  of God.

Anyone who is familiar with the Old Testament would recognize the biographical elements of it. Through different authors, we are given a picture of God’s nature. His mercy, his judgement, his love for mankind and particularly for his chosen people. We see times in which God was close to particular people. Great saints of the Old Testament like Abraham and Moses were counted as friends of God. In Exodus, Moses spends so much time conversing with God that his face glows (Ex 34. 29) and yet through this friendship, Moses continues to refer to God using the same style as any other Jew would. God also tells Moses that no man may see God’s face for they would die (Ex 33. 20). Moses was a friend to God but there were limits to how well Moses could know God.

Yet today, almost every Christian recites the Lord’s Prayer in which God is given the far more intimate address of Father. It is through Christ’s incarnation that we have come to know God. Colossians tells us that Christ, “is the image of the invisible God,” (Col 1. 15) and through him we can now see not just the Lord, but our Father. Whereas the Old Testament might be an objective historical account of God’s nature, the New Testament presents us with an intimate and personal portrait of who God is and his love for us. Indeed, to paraphrase CS Lewis, it is through the incarnation that we go from being creatures of God, looking upon him from afar, to being children of God, adopted into his family.

This concept that we have become adopted into God’s family is at the heart of the connection between Christ’s historic coming and how he continues to come. It is in that adoption that we now do not simply look into God from afar, but intimately participate in life with God. In his first epistle, St John tells us that he testifies to Christ’s life, in which the Father was made manifest, so that we might share in this intimate fellowship and participation with our fellow believers and with the Father (I St Jn 1. 1-3)! St Paul then uses the same language of intimate fellowship, communion and participation when he asks of the Eucharist, “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?” (I Cor 10. 16).

We continue to anticipate his coming because just as the incarnation was a sign promised by the Father (Isa 7. 14) for Christ’s incarnation, the sign of his grace reminds us that he continues to love and support us and he seeks to prepare us for his coming again on the last day. It is by grace that we will be judged righteous on that last day, and so again that same sign which he gives to us in the Eucharist is a reminder of is coming for us in the future. Joy in advent is reflection that by his continued coming, by the grace he imparts, we are able to anticipate his coming again with joy and not with dread.

That is the true reason for the season.

On Tables

The Twenty-First Sunday after Trinity

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Wisdom of Saints: St Justin Martyr

Feast of Justin Martyr, Doctor, 165

ALMIGHTY God, by whose grace and power thy Martyr Justin 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 Justin Martyr stands out among the saints of the second century in that many of the details of his life are recorded. He was born in the first years of the second century to pagan parents in the city of Flavia Neapolis in Judea. The city had been established by the Romans in AD 72 shortly after the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem. In some of his writings, St Justin records that his father and grandfather were also of Flavia Neapolis, which further suggests a pagan origin.

He was given an excellent education in all the classics of philosophy, poetry, rhetoric and history. His education was completed at Alexandria and Ephesus where he engaged with the various philosophies of the day seeking both to complete his education and to find God. At Ephesus, while studying under a Platonist, he had his first broad exposure to Christianity where he was impressed by the Christian martyrs being killed there.

His conversion to Christianity occurred around AD 130, and in his own words he converted due to his desire for both beauty and truth, both of which he found in Christianity. Using his background in philosophy and rhetoric, he began to engage in debates with non-Christians and eventually opened a school for Christian philosophy, first in Ephesus and then eventually in Rome after he moved there later in life.

While in Rome he continued in his debates and defence of Christianity to non-Christians, while continuing to run his school and teach his students. He debated and beat a philosopher named Cresens who later denounced him to the authorities for practising an unauthorized religion. He was tried before the Roman authorities, where he refused to renounce his faith. The Roman prefect Rusticus pronounced a sentence of death on St Justin and he and six of his students were beheaded.

St Justin Martyr, beyond his martyrdom, is remembered for his apologetics which survive to this day. In the earliest days of the church, there was some level of secrecy around Christians and Christian rites. Justin Martyr’s apology, beyond simply helping to defend the merits of Christian doctrine, helped to dispel some of the terrible rumours which had been spread, and largely believed, about what went on between Christians.

St Justin’s first apology was addressed to the Emperor and his sons in the Senate. The introduction explains that the apology is a petion to the Emperor, “on behalf of those of all nations who are unjustly hated and wantonly abused, myself being one of them.” Namely, he was writing on behalf of Christians who were being accused of gross acts without merit, and faced persecution for it.

St Justin sets the tone of his apology, which speaks to the virtues of truth and beauty that had drawn him to Christianity in the first place, when he writes:
Reason directs those who are truly pious and philosophical to honour and love only what is true, declining to follow traditional opinions, if these be worthless. For not only does sound reason direct us to refuse the guidance of those who did or taught anything wrong, but it is incumbent on the lover of truth, by all means, and if death be threatened, even before his own life, to choose to do and say what is right.
He then goes on to conclude his introduction with words that speak to his own eventual end at the hands of Rusticus:

For we have come, not to flatter you by this writing, nor please you by our address, but to beg that you pass judgment, after an accurate and searching investigation, not flattered by prejudice or by a desire of pleasing superstitious men, nor induced by irrational impulse or evil rumours which have long been prevalent, to give a decision which will prove to be against yourselves. For as for us, we reckon that no evil can be done us, unless we be convicted as evil-doers or be proved to be wicked men; and you, you can kill, but not hurt us.

From the very beginning of his apology, it is clear that St Justin truly believed in everything he wrote. He was not so blunt as St Jerome, but it was clear his heart was for God’s truth and he saw no need to compromise that truth in an effort to please the Roman leaders he was addressing.

Much of the rest of the apology focuses on addressing accusations and rumours being levelled against Christians. He begins by suggesting that Christians are being persecuted on the basis of their name, and not any facts:

But as we do not think it just to beg to be acquitted on account of the name, if we be convicted as evil-doers, so, on the other hand, if we be found to have committed no offence, either in the matter of thus naming ourselves, or of our conduct as citizens, it is your part very earnestly to guard against incurring just punishment, by unjustly punishing those who are not convicted. For from a name neither praise nor punishment could reasonably spring, unless something excellent or base in action be proved.

Here St Justin not only begins to make an argument about the need to follow standard jurisprudence and actually prove guilt before Roman citizens are punished for something, a theme he develops more fully later in his apology, he introduces something of a clever wordplay on the basis of the similarity between the Greek word for Christ and the Greek word for excellent and good.

The thrust of his argument is that accusations are being levelled without proof and that no punishment should be incurred without proof (and he indeed suggests that if anything like what Christians were accused of was actually being done by any Christians, the other Christians would justly support the punishment of those individuals), and he then proceeds to spend a significant amount of time discussing some of these rumours.

While today the Eucharist is administered only to those who have received the sacrament of Baptism, in the days of the early church, non-Baptised persons were not permitted to even participate in the liturgy surrounding the Eucharist. This seeming secrecy surrounding the sacraments helped contribute to some of the rumours being spread about Christians. Accusations of cannibalism were not uncommon due to rumours surrounding the Eucharist. St Justin addresses these issues head on by describing the liturgy that takes place when Christians gathered:

But we, after we have thus washed him who has been convinced and has assented to our teaching, bring him to the place where those who are called brethren are assembled, in order that we may offer hearty prayers in common for ourselves and for the baptised person, and for all others in every place, that we may be counted worthy, now that we have learned the truth, by our works also to be found good citizens and keepers of the commandments, so that we may be saved with an everlasting salvation. Having ended the prayers, we salute one another with a kiss. There is then brought to the president of the brethren bread and a cup of wine mixed with water; and he taking them, gives praise and glory to the Father of the universe, through the name of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, and offers thanks at considerable length for our being counted worthy to receive these things at His hands. And when he has concluded the prayers and thanksgivings, all the people present express their assent by saying Amen. This word Amen answers in the Hebrew language to γένοιτο [so be it]. And when the president has given thanks, and all the people have expressed their assent, those who are called by us deacons give to each of those present to partake of the bread and wine mixed with water over which the thanksgiving was pronounced, and to those who are absent they carry away a portion.

This description of the liturgy itself should be extremely familiar to all Anglicans, but in that day would have been a revelation to pagans who would never have had an opportunity to read about it or witness it. He then goes on to conclude this section by discussing the Eucharist specifically with a passage that highlights a number of features of modern apologetics, including the use of Scripture to help explain Christian belief:

And this food is called among us Εὐχαριστία [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh. For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, “This do ye in remembrance of Me, this is My body;” and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, “This is My blood;” and gave it to them alone.

St Justin Martyr lived as someone who sought the truth, and when he found it in Christianity, he sought to share that truth with others, and to help explain it to them in a rational way that a reasoned mind could not reject. The great modern apologists—Chesterton and Lewis—owe much to St Justin, who proved his adherence to the truth he wrote when he professed Christ unto martyrdom.

On the Resurrection

Easter Day

ALMIGHTY God, who through thine only-begotten Son Jesus Christ hast overcome death, and opened unto us the gate of everlasting life: We humbly beseech thee, that as by thy special grace thou dost put into our minds good desires, so by thy continual help we may bring the same to good effect; through Jesus Christ our Lord, who liveth and reigneth with thee and the Holy Spirit, ever one God, world without end. Amen.

Easter

O GOD, who makest us glad with the yearly remembrance of the resurrection from the dead of thy only Son Jesus Christ: Grant that we who celebrate this Paschal feast may die daily unto sin, and live with him evermore in the glory of his endless life; through the same Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

Alleluia, Christ is risen!

Last Easter, the Church of England engaged in a social media campaign in which they engaged the public to trend the twitter tag #EverythingChanges and explain how Christ’s resurrection on Easter Sunday changes everything for us. Social media isn’t always the best tool of evangelism, but regardless, it was a great opportunity to see the views of many Christians on the revolution Christ offers us.

While the focus of Holy Week is on our Lord Jesus Christ, it is also a time to reflect on the Apostles and disciples, and how they responded to our Lord’s death and resurrection. In this, we can more easily relate and see how indeed everything does change.

On Palm Sunday, we see them boldly following in Christ’s triumphal procession as he enters Jerusalem. It evokes, albeit briefly, a literal reminder of 2 Cor 2. 14 and Christ leading us always in triumphal procession. Yet that is not the whole story. On Maundy Thursday, the striking words of Christ as he washes the feet of the Apostles, “What I am doing you do not understand now, but afterwards you will understand.” At the last supper, when one of God’s greatest gifts to humanity, the Holy Eucharist, was instituted, those closest to Christ on Earth still did not understand.

At the end of Maundy Thursday mass, St Matthew’s Gospel is read, recounting Jesus foretelling Peter’s denial of him. Peter is shocked and responds, “Even if I must die with you, I will not deny you!” (Mt 26. 36). These again are bold words, but already in Christ’s forewarning that they would scatter, we see that 2 Cor 2. 14 is not yet fulfilled. Judas had already betrayed Christ, and later after Christ’s arrest, Peter himself denies Christ three times as Christ had foretold.

While they professed strong devotion—even to follow Christ to their deaths—it took little to prove their faith and devotion in him hollow. The full quotation of 2 Cor 2. 14 is actually, “thanks be to God, who in Christ always leads us in triumphal procession, and through us spreads the fragrance of the knowledge of him everywhere.” It is only in Christ, and in his sacrifice, that we are now able to follow God in this triumphal procession.

Compare the actions of the Apostles in Holy Week to the Apostles and Disciples as they are described in the Acts of the Apostles after the resurrection.

All the disciples are set alive in the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost. They were living in the light of his resurrection, and in the fire of the Spirit. They lived in a Christian fellowship inspired by an irresistible calling of God:

And they devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers. And awe came upon every soul, and many wonders and signs were being done through the apostles. And all who believed were together and had all things in common. And they were selling their possessions and belongings and distributing the proceeds to all, as any had need. And day by day, attending the temple together and breaking bread in their homes, they received their food with glad and generous hearts, praising God and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to their number day by day those who were being saved. (Acts 2. 42-47)

What a change, a change further testified to throughout the Acts of the Apostles. Whereas the Apostles had once all affirmed the oath of Peter to follow Christ to their deaths, then abandoned him as he had predicated, yet after the resurrection, all but one of the Apostles were martyred, and St John, who died at an old age, lived the martyr’s life, exiled, persecuted and tortured for Christ, but surviving all the same.

In Christ’s passion, death and resurrection, everything changes for his Apostles and disciples. As it does for the rest of us.

Christ’s resurrection is freedom from all that would separate us from God, and the reaction of the disciples in the early church should be an aspiration to what the modern church should seek in revival. It is the image of Christians not simply living in fellowship, but truly living in discipleship to Christ.

The life of faith is not about making promises to serve him to the end. It’s not about doing particular things and try hard. He suffered death on the cross for our redemption, a full, perfect and sufficient sacrifice, oblation and satisfaction for the sins of the whole world. He then returned in his resurrection to empower us to live the life we were called to live. A life in which we continue to receive God’s love and blessing. It is one of the reasons why Holy Baptism is so fitting for Easter. As Christ died and was resurrected for us, so to do we accept the gift he has offered to allow our old selves to die and be resurrected in a new life, filled with the Holy Spirit, from the waters of baptism.

Easter is the reminder that the Gospels don’t end with Christ’s death but with the fulfilment of his call to new life as he returns to fulfil God’s promises. They are a call to the Christian life, and a call to accept God's offered gifts. In Easter, everything changes.

Alleluia, Christ is risen!

On the Sacrament of the Supper of our Lord

The Sunday called Septuagesima

O LORD, we beseech thee favourably to hear the prayers of thy people; that we, who are justly punished for our offences, may be mercifully delivered by thy goodness, for the glory of thy Name; through Jesus Christ our Saviour, who liveth and reigneth with thee and the Holy Spirit, ever one God, world without end. 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.

The Sacrament of the Supper of our Lord, also known as the Eucharist is one of the sacraments which comes from the Gospel of Christ. The words of institution, the words by which Christ introduced his disciples to the sacrament at the last supper, are recorded four places in the Bible. Someone unfamiliar with this would guess the four Gospels, however, Christ’s words in this case are in fact recorded in only the three synoptic Gospels, and then referred to by St Paul in his first epistle to the Corinthians, showing that even within the Apostolic Age, the sacrament of the Eucharist had already formed, in tandem with Baptism, the core sacramental life of the early Christian community.

It is a sacrament of many names. In the Book of Common Prayer alone, it is referred to as the Supper of our Lord, the Holy Eucharist, the Holy communion, the Sacrament of the Body and Blood, the heavenly feast and the holy mysteries. Each of these names emphasizes a different aspect of the sacrament.

The Supper of our Lord highlights both the last supper at which the sacrament was given to the disciples by Christ, and also is a reminder that through this sacrament we are being fed by him. The same is true when we speak to the heavenly feast, though perhaps with more emphasis on the reminder that the food and drink that we eat and drink are not simply bread and wine, but are a heavenly gift of Christ’s Body and Blood.

Eucharist comes from Greek and means thanksgiving; when we refer to the sacrament as the Eucharist, we are referring to giving thanks for the means by which we receive his spiritual nourishment.

Holy Communion refers to the Greek word κοινωνία which is generally transliterated as koinonia. In his Epistle to the Corinthians, St Paul uses it when he describes the Eucharist:

The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation [koinonia] in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation [koinonia] in the body of Christ? Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread. (1 Cor 10. 16-17).

In Speaking of the Sacrament of the Body and Blood, it emphasizes again how, as St Paul says, the cup of blessing which we bless is a participation in the Blood of Christ, and the bread we break is a participation in his Body. It is again a reminder that the sacrament is not mere symbol, but a sacramental sign; a grace given by God and in this case a participation in his sacrifice.

Finally, when it is acknowledged as a holy mystery, there is a reminder that Anglicanism rejects the Scholasticism of the Roman Catholic Church which sought to demystify and explain in human terms some of the holy mysteries. This drive towards scholasticism is what led to the Roman Catholic definition of transubstantiation at the Council of Trent in the 16th century. Anglicanism, much like Eastern Christianity, was perfectly happy to accept that God acts through holy mysteries that cannot always be understood or explained, nor do they need to be to have faith. Applying human understanding to God’s mysteries and miracles seeks to have limited humanity explain an unlimited God, which can lead to theological error.

This rejection of Roman doctrine can be seen in the 39 Articles of Religion, which provides in Article XXVIII that:

The Supper of the Lord is not only a sign of the love that Christians ought to have among themselves one to another, but rather it is a Sacrament of our Redemption by Christ's death: insomuch that to such as rightly, worthily, and with faith, receive the same, the Bread which we break is a partaking of the Body of Christ; and likewise the Cup of Blessing is a partaking of the Blood of Christ.
Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of Bread and Wine) in the Supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by Holy Writ; but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions.
The Body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten, in the Supper, only after an heavenly and spiritual manner. And the mean whereby the Body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper, is Faith.
The Sacrament of the Lord's Supper was not by Christ's ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshipped.

It should be noted here that the Article does not, for instance, suggest absolutely that Transubstantiation is wrong. It merely says first that it cannot be proved through the Holy Scriptures, and that a plain reading does not clearly spell out the doctrine of transubstantiation in respect of substance and elements and the metaphysical terms used to describe what it retains as a holy mystery.

The Article goes on to declare that Anglicans view the Real Presence through a spiritual rather than carnal or physical sense, and that it is consumed by faith. This doctrine stands in opposition both to the doctrine of Transubstantiation upheld by the Roman Catholic Church and the doctrines held by Lutheran Protestants. For a clearer explanation of the Anglican view, Richard Hooker wrote in his Of the Lawes of Ecclesiastical Politie:

The real presence of Christ’s most blessed body and blood is not therefore to be sought for in the sacrament, but in the worthy receiver of the sacrament…  I see not which way it should be gathered by the words of Christ [Mk 14. 22-24], when and where the bread is His body or the cup His blood, but only in the very heart and soul of him which receiveth them. As for the sacraments, they really exhibit, but for aught we can gather out of that which is written of them, they are not really nor do really contain in themselves that grace which with them or by them it pleaseth God to bestow.

Here, Hooker phrases his commentary in sacramental terms. Where is the grace? In the person who receives it. Therefore his Body and Blood are similarly to be found in the person who receives the sacrament, and not in the elements of the sacrament itself. Elsewhere, Hooker explores the necessity of regular nourishment in the new life in Christ received through Baptism.

In his An Exposition of the Thirty-nine Articles: Historical and Doctrinal, Edward Herald Browne writes:

The doctrine of a real, spiritual presence is the doctrine of the English Church… It teaches that Christ is really received by faithful communicants in the Lord’s Supper; but that there is no gross or carnal, but only a spiritual and heavenly presence there; not the less real, however, for being spiritual. It teaches, therefore, that the bread and the wine are received naturally; but the Body and Blood of Christ are received spiritually.

More than any other point, Hooker sums up an orthodox Anglican view of the sacrament when he says, “All things considered and compared with that success which truth hath hitherto had by so bitter conflicts with errors in this point, shall I wish that men would more give themselves to meditate with silence what we have by the sacrament, and less to dispute of the manner how?” More plainly put, it is more beneficial to contemplate what grace we receive through the Eucharist, and far less important to debate how the mystery of this sacrament works.

The Wisdom of Saints: St John Chrysostom

The Feast of John Chrysostom, Doctor, Bishop of Constantinople, 407

O GOD, who by thy Holy Spirit hast given unto one man a word of wisdom, and to another a word of knowledge, and to another the gift of tongues: We praise thy Name for the gifts of grace manifested in thy servant John, and we pray that thy Church may never be destitute of the same; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

St John Chrysostom is one of the most well-known of the early Church fathers and is considered one of the eight Great Fathers of the Church. Chrysostom is actually not his family name, but rather an epithet derived from Greek meaning Golden-mouthed or Golden-tongued. Chrysostom was well-known for his public speaking, but is also important in modern times because unlike some of the Church Fathers, he wrote prolifically and his writings survive to this day. Dozens of his homilies on the books of the Bible survive and continue to be analysed and referenced in modern times, along with his other treatises on Christianity and letters to other Christians.

St John Chrysostom was born to Christian parents in the city of Antioch in 344, then under the control of the Roman Empire, and one of the chief centres of the early Christian Church. His father, an officer in the Syrian army, died when Chrysostom was still young and Chrysostom and his elder sister were ultimately raised by his mother who was still only twenty years old at the time of her husband’s death. Chrysostom was tutored by Libanius, one of the most famous orators of his age, and a staunch Roman pagan. He was given a classical Greek education, though his mother instilled in him Christian piety.

In 367, when Chrysostom was in his early twenties, he met Bishop Meletius of Antioch, whose personal charm and charisma focused Chrysostom towards a life of piety. He became a lector for the Church in Antioch where he spent time in prayer and studying the Scriptures and in manual labour. His earliest surviving writing that survive are from this period. In 374, he was drawn to the ascetic life of the monastics living in the mountains outside of Antioch. There he lived a life of solitude, fasting over-zealously to the point that his health was ruined and he was forced to return to Antioch where he resumed his life as a lector.

In 381, just a few years before his death, Bishop Meletius ordained Chrysostom as a deacon. He fulfilled his priestly duties and a few years later was ordained a priest by Meletius’s successor, Bishop Flavian. It was during this period that he wrote one of his most famous works, On the Priesthood. In 398, he was made Bishop of Constantinople, in an era when there was considerable political turmoil in the Empire, much of it related to Christianity.

Chrysostom had numerous supporters and was by this point becoming relatively well-known, particularly as Bishop of Constantinople. His chief political opponent, however, was the Empress Eudoxia, consort of Emperor Arcadius. Her hatred of Chrysostom and her husband’s weak rule allowed her to force Chrysostom into exile at multiple points in his later history. He ultimately died in exile in 407.

As a Doctor of the Church, St John Chrysostom is well-respected as a theologian in both Eastern and Western Christianity. Perhaps even more influential is his liturgy. A revision of the liturgies of the church used in those days which is today known as the Divine Liturgy of St John Chrysostom and is the standard liturgy used by the Eastern Orthodox and Eastern Catholic Churches of the Byzantine Rite.

In his Treatise on the Priesthood, St John Chrysostom laid out over six books both the history of his early life leading up to his own ordination, and then in the later books his own thoughts on the priesthood itself.

St John Chrysostom’s treatise speaks at lengths to the responsibilities of the priesthood, both for shepherding the flock and the teaching of right doctrine—issues of paramount importance in Chrysostom’s day giving the continuing conflicts over the Arian controversy—and the administration of the sacraments.

In Book 3 of his treatise, he makes a number of observations that highlight both the beauty of his prose, and his deep and significant understanding of Christian faith:

Picture Elijah and the vast multitude standing around him, and the sacrifice laid upon the altar of stones, and all the rest of the people hushed into a deep silence while the prophet alone offers up prayer: then the sudden rush of fire from Heaven upon the sacrifice: -- these are marvellous things, charged with terror. Now then pass from this scene to the rites which are celebrated in the present day; they are not only marvellous to behold, but transcendent in terror. There stands the priest, not bringing down fire from Heaven, but the Holy Spirit: and he makes prolonged supplication, not that some flame sent down from on high may consume the offerings, but that grace descending on the sacrifice may thereby enlighten the souls of all, and render them more refulgent than silver purified by fire.

In this eloquent passage, Chrysostom draws parallels and distinctions between familiar stories and images of the Old Testament—which Jewish raised Christians would have been familiar with and which all Christians would have some passing familiarity with as well—and the modern role of the Christian priest.

After referencing the Gospels of St Matthew and St John, he speaks to the inherent dignity of the priesthood, owed on account of the authority bestowed on priests by God, saying:

if a king should bestow this honor upon any of his subjects, authorizing him to cast into prison whom he pleased and to release them again, he becomes an object of envy and respect to all men; but he who has received from God an authority as much greater as heaven is more precious than earth, and souls more precious than bodies, seems to some to have received so small an honor that they are actually able to imagine that one of those who have been entrusted with these things will despise the gift. Away with such madness! For transparent madness it is to despise so great a dignity, without which it is not possible to obtain either our own salvation, or the good things which have been promised to us. For if no one can enter into the kingdom of Heaven except he be regenerate through water and the Spirit, and he who does not eat the flesh of the Lord and drink His blood is excluded from eternal life, and if all these things are accomplished only by means of those holy hands, I mean the hands of the priest, how will any one, without these, be able to escape the fire of hell, or to win those crowns which are reserved for the victorious?

In this section, Chrysostom synthesizes the Gospel writings on the priesthood and their authority and speaks to a Catholic understanding of the sacraments, and in particular that of Holy Baptism and the Supper of our Lord as they relate to salvation.

The awesome dignity Chrysostom ascribes to the priesthood is commensurate in his mind with their sacramental importance. They have been charged with an authority, and thus responsibility, of immense weight in relation to the salvation of mankind, and that authority, charged by God through the Holy Spirit, should be recognized and respected. The priesthood to Chrysostom is no small thing.

Even in his early books, he could not help but justify his thoughts by Scripture. It is perhaps his eloquence which brought him to fame, and the sheer breadth of his writings that maintained it, particularly among Eastern Christians, but as Anglicans who view Christianity not through the lens of the ancient Eastern Patriarchs or the See of Rome, but through the Holy Scriptures, could how could Chrysostom not become a revered saint and teacher? With so many of his writings surviving to this day and translated into English, we all have much to learn from the golden-tongued saint!