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 XXIX

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On the Articles: Article XXVIII

The Thirteenth Sunday after Trinity

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On the Articles: Article XIX

The Fourth Sunday after Trinity

O GOD, the protector of all that trust in thee, without whom nothing is strong, nothing is holy: Increase and multiply upon us thy mercy; that, thou being our ruler and guide, we may so pass through things temporal, that we finally lose not the things eternal. Grant this, O heavenly Father, for Jesus Christ’s sake our Lord. Amen.

XIX. Of the Church
THE visible Church of Christ is a congregation of faithful men, in the which the pure Word of God is preached, and the Sacraments be duly ministered according to Christ’s ordinance in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same.
As the Church of Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Antioch, have erred; so also the Church of Rome hath erred, not only in their living and manner of Ceremonies, but also in matters of Faith.

After having spent a great deal of time arguing for the nature of God, the Trinity and Christ, and then our relation to God in terms of salvation, the Articles of Religion turn to the Church, beginning by setting out a clear ecclesiology of the meaning of the Church.

For some when they speak of the Church, they speak of an invisible Church, composed of the body of all believers. Yet there is a subset of that, the visible Church, the bride of Christ, which Christ ordained when he said to his Apostles “on this rock I will build my church,” (St Mt 16. 18b), and birthed at Pentecost by the Holy Spirit. To those for whom there is a visible Church, there is no problem with accepting also an invisible church, though for most the term body of believers would be preferred as ‘invisible church’ is for many a contradiction in terms. However, for many Protestants, they reject any notion of a visible Church instituted by Christ himself, and so their view finds the idea of a visible Church incompatible with their invisible church. This Article begins by clearly stating that for Anglicans, we believe in the visible Church, indeed as the thrust of the English Reformation was to maintain that the English Church is and has always been a part of Christ’s One, Holy, Apostolic and Catholic Church.

In making this claim, the Article goes further to define what distinguishes Christ’s Church from the invisible Church which includes the whole body of believers who profess a saving faith. It lists three general criteria for the Church: the congregation of the faithful, the teaching of God’s Word, and the administration of Christ’s sacraments.

The first criterion is that the Church is, “a congregation of faithful men.” This does not mean to suggest faithful to the Church itself as an institution, but rather faithfulness to Christ. These must be believers, and orthodox believers.

The second criterion is that the Church is a place, “in which the pure Word of God is preached.” Article VI placed a strong emphasis on the Holy Scriptures as containing all things necessary for salvation, in contrast with Rome which taught that the Church had authority outside of Scripture and equal to Scripture to require other dogmas to be accepted as necessary for salvation. It also carries with it the same connotation as faithful in the first criterion: the people cannot be faithful unless the Scriptures are faithfully explained to them. Here the term pure suggests that the Church can err by impurely teaching the Scriptures, something certainly in need of noting in modern times where attempts are made to justify secular practices and mores by twisting Scripture in ways in which it has never been understood and oftentimes contravenes its plain meaning.

The third criterion is that the Church is a place where, “the Sacraments be duly ministered according to Christ’s ordinances.” This makes reference to some later Articles which name Holy Baptism and the Holy Eucharist as the only two sacraments ordained by Christ.

While not a direct criterion, there is a fourth clause in the Article which says, “in all those things necessary and requisite of the same.” This is a reference to the three-fold order of ministry which Cranmer refers to in later articles where it makes clear that only ordained persons may administer the sacraments and preach God’s words.

Taking these four together, they establish a clear pattern. The Church is found where-ever the orthodox faith is professed, God’s Word is faithfully preached, Christ’s sacraments are administered, chiefly meaning Holy Baptism and the Holy Eucharist, and the threefold order of ministry of bishops, priests and deacons is maintained. If this sounds familiar, it is because it has previously been referred to several times on this blog, both as referring to the goal of the English Reformation as well as through later documents such as the Canadian Solemn Declaration of 1893 and the Lambeth Quadrilateral, each of which refer to those four points.

While these four goals can be seen as running throughout the Articles and throughout the writings of Cranmer, the Book of Common Prayer and the English Divines, this is certainly one place, in the Formularies, which the point can be made no more clearly.

The Article itself concludes by pointing out that the ancient patriarchates have erred in matters of faith and ceremonies. It is far easier to see what is meant by this in relation to Rome as several other Articles address Roman errors. Indeed, this also goes back to the reason why Protestants developed their view of the invisible Church, as prior to the disunion of East and West there was very clearly a united visible Church ordained by Christ, and even after that disunion, most people generally viewed the other as being schismatic and thus there was still only one Church. Protestants needed a way to justify their legitimacy in opposition to the visible Church which traced its lineage back to the time of the Apostles. This again reinforces their need to reject the concept of a visible Church and put forward the notion of an invisible Church.

While there is nowhere else in the Articles a clear list of which errors this Article is referring to, there are many known errors into which those sees had historically fallen. At various times, Eastern Sees were controlled by Arians, and in Rome Pope Honorius I had been anathematized for the heresy of Monothelitism in the 7th century. This Article was composed while the Roman Council of Trent was ongoing, and one important point at Trent was that its decrees were declared to not be infallible and dogmatic decrees of the past hundred years were also opened for question. This point may have been to reinforce the fallibility of the Church again primarily as a challenge to Rome’s more common claims to infallibility (though not Papal infallibility, a doctrine not yet proclaimed in the 16th century and which was not articulated until the 19th century).

While interpretation of this Article has varied over time, the stance of the visible Church and a willingness to accept the idea of an invisible Church claimed by Protestants now generally being accepted, it makes continued important statements about knowledge of where the visible Church is, and Anglicanism’s role in maintaining the purity of the Christ’s Catholic Church in the Realm of England (and lands subsequently reached by English missionaries).

On the Three Streams of Worship

The Second Sunday after Epiphany

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.

Anglicanism seems to love things in threes. That is entirely reasonable given the centrality of the Holy Trinity to the Christian faith. In terms of worship, there are three streams of worship which correspond to these three persons of the Trinity. The most familiar to most people would be the Mass or Holy Communion. Anglicans also worship through the Daily Offices regularly. Historically Morning Prayer was the normative form of Sunday worship for many years until the Eucharist was restored to prominence in the 19th century. Finally, there is a third stream of worship which exists that is far less regularized, which I call Devotional Reception.

The Mass or Holy Communion is the most commonly understood form of worship in Anglicanism. It includes a number of prayers and Scripture readings, many of which deal with God the Father, the son or the Holy Spirit in some combination, making this seem like a form of worship which emphasizes all three persons, but ultimately as the name implies it is the celebration of the Eucharist which forms the central focus of the service of Holy Communion. It is in the Eucharist that we focus the centrality of the worship on the second person of the Trinity. Christ Jesus was incarnate, died for our sins and rose again. He commanded at the last supper that we do this in remembrance of him, and the entire crescendo of Eucharistic worship is that act of re-membering his propitiatory sacrifice.

The second form of common worship is that of the Daily Office. Morning and Evening Prayer are a psalm-centric form of worship, and owing to that they are much more centrally focused on the revelation of God the Father’s nature. The Daily Office originates in Jewish prayer practice, which involved prayer throughout the day at particular times. As Christianity developed, these prayer times were retained and liturgies developed to formalize their use among Christians. The Daily Office represents the Anglican use of these prayers and combines a number of the hours into two simple services for morning and evening. Much like with the Eucharist, which thematically is focused on Christ himself but which includes reference and worship of the other members of the Trinity, the Daily Office maintains references to Christ and the Holy Spirit, most often through the collects and the New Testament readings. The centrality of the service, however, remains the worship of God through the Psalms, whether read or chanted.

It also distinguishes itself in that it is a daily office. The normative practice among Anglicans with respect to Holy Communion would be weekly only, though in some cases an additional service of Holy Communion might be sought during the week. With morning and evening prayer, it becomes a daily practice of honouring God and exploring who he is. While the Revised Common Lectionary of readings takes you through the Bible in a three year cycle, Morning and Evening Prayer cycle though the Psalter every month, and it is only through their daily use that the RCL will cycle through the whole of Scripture during those three years. It creates and enhances a much stronger rhythm of Scripture reading and prayer than does only a once-a-week communion, even whereby the grace imparted in the Eucharist is unique versus the grace that is usually received through simple prayer and Scripture reading.
Taken together, these two are the most familiar practices of Anglicanism, but they place their emphasis only on two of the three persons of the Trinity. The third person of the Trinity, the Holy Spirit, is in these places limited to references in prayers and in Scripture readings. There is need for a third type of service, which can go by many names, but ultimately the title Devotional Reception seems apt because it captures the two aspects of this service, particularly as it relates to the Holy Spirit.

In the Daily Office, it is a clear action of worship and praise of the Father. If there is reception, it is most clearly the imparting of revelation from God’s word. In the Holy Communion, there is an offering on the part of the people—“And here we offer and present unto thee, O Lord, ourselves, our souls and bodies, to be a reasonable, holy, and living sacrifice unto thee,”—but also there is the reception of the Blessed Sacrament. When we gather then to honour the third person of the Trinity, how ought that to look?

One concern often expressed over modern praise music is that it offers an emotional response to the people. At various times, Evangelicals have expressed concern over how worship interacts with their regular Sunday gatherings which themselves often involve simply a combination of praise music and preaching. Defenders of modern praise music suggest that there is no reason a parishioner could not get a similar emotional response from traditional Christian hymns, however there does seem to still be a difference.

Ultimately that emotional response is something received, and in the context of the mass, it does not seem to always be entirely appropriate. So what if that modern music were taken and repurposed? Devotional Reception is an idea for a non-Eucharistic service in which such music can be channelled specifically for the purpose of encouraging those in attendance to be open to receiving not simply directly from the music, but receiving the Holy Spirit himself. To be empowered, to be strengthened and to be enlightened. For many Christians, the response modern praise music evokes can be contemplative and meditative, for all the use of percussion and other similar instruments, in a way that a traditional organ accompanied solely by voice cannot.

That skips forward a bit to the reception, but what of the devotion? Due to the sometimes vague language of modern praise, a time of teaching would be needed as well. A time to explore concepts particularly relating to the Holy Spirit which might otherwise only receive the briefest of attention around Pentecost. It is an opportunity to orient hearts and minds towards the Holy Spirit before that reception begins.

Finally, one of the major works of the Holy Spirit is in healing. While many in North America have never had the awesome wonder of experiencing the power of the Holy Spirit in this way, it seems the works of the Spirit are far more common in parts of the world where people feel a much stronger need to rely not upon themselves or the conveniences of their society, but on God. A time of prayer would then be appropriate. Just as the people may receive something of a feeling of the presence through praise music, they can receive that more sacramental grace through the laying on of hands in prayer, as Scripture commands us. It is a time in which there can be far greater empowering through the Spirit.

Taken together, these three streams of worship offer opportunity for constant turning to God in praise and offering, and receiving from God, in the form of revelation and grace. As orthodox Christians, it should be our earnest desire to see some form of normative and regular worship of the Holy Spirit and reception from the Spirit as a part of our regular worship of God.