On the Articles: Article XXXVI

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.

XXXVI. Of Consecration of Bishops and Ministers
The Book of Consecration of Archbishops and Bishops, and Ordering of Priests and Deacons, lately set forth in the time of Edward the Sixth, and confirmed at the same time by authority of Parliament, doth contain all things necessary to such Consecration and Ordering: neither hath it any thing, that of itself is superstitious and ungodly. And therefore whosoever are consecrated or ordered according to the Rites of that Book, since the second year of the forenamed King Edward unto this time, or hereafter shall be consecrated or ordered according to the same Rites; we decree all such to be rightly, orderly, and lawfully consecrated and ordered.

The final Articles of religion deal with a number of more practical matters primarily, while making less significant theological statements. While the Canadian Book of Common Prayer last revised in 1962 contains within it the rites of ordination for deacons, priests and bishops, the Ordinal, as it was commonly known, was originally published separate to the Book of Common Prayer. Similarly, the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion themselves are not published within the BCP but separately. When Anglicans refer to the three formularies, though, they mean the 1662 Book of Common Prayer, the Ordinal referred to in this Article, and the whole of the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion.

At the time of the English Reformation, the question of the right ordination of priests was one that became somewhat contentious. Especially as Mary assumed the throne and sought to restore Roman supremacy to England. This Article affirms the English rites that would be used to ordain priests to Christ’s priestly ministry.

The statement implicitly affirms the right of the English Church to exist as part of the Catholic Church apart from Roman jurisdictional authority, much as the Eastern Orthodox churches have since their inception (meaning since the time of the Apostles, not simply since the Schism in 1054).

This Article relates directly to Article XXIII which defined the need for a properly ordained priest to preside over the sacraments and to preach or teach. It is in this Article that it is clearly defined how we are to know who has properly called by God and consecrated by the Church for that task.

Just as there was an importance in defending the validity of English ordinations, it was also an article that was important in determining the invalidity of Protestant ministers to preside over English Catholics. At times, Protestants sought to take charge and preach and teach within English churches and due to the confusion of the day, this practice was allowed in some locales for a time. It was Article XXIII’s insistence on properly appointed ministers that clarified that it was not a congregational decision who would preach and teach, something that reflected the congregational polity of Presbyterians coming from Scotland, while it was this Article that clarified in perpetuity the importance of the Ordinal as establishing the means, qualifications and rites of ordination for deacons, priests and bishops.

It should be noted that this Article does not address lay ministers which have always existed as minor orders historically and today are viewed as laity with particular permission to act in a certain way. This includes licensed lay ministers who preach and officiate at services in parishes without permanent clergy as well as catechists and other particular forms of lay ministers who have permission to perform a specific function. These people are not considered to be a form of ordination to holy orders and therefore do not contravene this Article, and similarly find their practice in the authority of the Church to allow for local practices and customs as necessary.

On the Articles: Article XXXII

The Seventeenth Sunday after Trinity

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 Sufficiency of Catholicism

The Eighteenth Sunday after Trinity

LORD, we beseech thee, grant thy people grace to withstand the temptations of the world, the flesh, and the devil, and with pure hearts and minds to follow thee the only God; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

Catholicism has previously been defined as those fellowships of Christians which maintain the one canon of Scripture, one Apostolic ministry of bishops, priests and deacons, one faith articulated in the creeds and councils of the early church and one sacramental life lived primarily through the sacraments of Holy Baptism and the Holy Eucharist.

Anglicanism at its core rests in that Catholicity, as Archbishop of Canterbury Jeffrey Fisher once wrote, “the Anglican Communion has no peculiar thought, practice, creed or confession of its own. It has only the Catholic Faith of the ancient Catholic Church, as preserved in the Catholic Creeds and maintained in the Catholic and Apostolic constitution of Christ's Church from the beginning.” Put another way, there is no such thing as an Anglican Priest, but rather a Catholic Priest who has been called to serve out his Orders in the Anglican tradition. This is why when priests within the Apostolic ministry, for instance those ordained in the Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox traditions convert to Anglicanism they are not “re-ordained” but are simply received and their Orders recognized.

This distinction is extremely important to draw when discussing issues about changing core doctrines of the Church, particularly when it involves one of these key points. No particular Anglican province, nor even the Anglican Communion as a whole, has the authority on its own to make unilateral changes to this Catholic inheritance. We have no more authority to altar the Apostolic ministry than we do to altar the canon of Holy Scripture!

A clear example of this can be made through the question of the ordination of women. When in the 1970s the Anglican Church of Canada and Episcopal Church of the United States decided to authorize the ordination of women in their respective jurisdictions. Setting aside for the moment the question of the legitimacy of their reasons for doing so, does General Synod, to use Canada as an example, have the authority to unilaterally change the Apostolic ministry?

The answer, plainly, is no. Even looking into the history of General Synod, its Declaration of Principles (adopted in 1934) consolidated the founding documents of the General Synod from 1893 and contains the provision that General Synod’s authority is limited to, “the definition of the doctrines of the Church in harmony with the Solemn Declaration.” Speaking to the issue of ministry and the ordination of women, what does the Solemn Declaration say?

We declare this Church to be, and desire that it shall continue, in full communion with the
Church of England throughout the world, as an integral portion of the one Body of Christ
composed of Churches which, united under the One Divine Head and in the fellowship of
the one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, hold… the ministry of the same Apostolic Orders…

In order words, General Synod has no jurisdiction to define any doctrine that innovates beyond what is accepted by the Catholic Church! That being the case, then, the question becomes how does the Catholic Church change its doctrine? The answer is, very slowly, if at all.

One could argue that it would require changes to be made by the leadership of the various fellowships of the Catholic Church, but that ignores that it is by reception of Christians that doctrines are affirmed.

In the 15th century the Eastern Bishops, fearing Muslim invasion, turned to Rome and asked for assistance. The Pope invited them to a Council where he effectively made it a precondition for Western military aid that they accept his jurisdiction and a number of other Roman innovations that the East had previously rejected. The majority of the Eastern representatives acceded and in the West to this day, Rome continues to use the results of the Council of Florence to support claims of universal papal jurisdiction. When the Eastern bishops and representatives returned to the East, however, the Christians there rejected the Council. It was never received, and was therefore never Catholic.

Again, ignoring the legitimacy of arguments for or against the ordination of women, assuming all the Catholic Church were to attend an ecumenical council and agreed that women should be included in the Catholic Apostolic ministry, if this decision were not received, it still could not be considered Catholic.

This brings to mind the question then of what happens in such a situation? What happens if even in the case of changes which ought to be made, they cannot be (given that it seems unlikely for the possibility of an ecumenical council which would be universally attended to ever exist even if its results would be received by the people)?

Article VI of the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion is titled, “Of the Sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures for Salvation” and to mirror that, the doctrines of the Catholic Church, as they exist today, are sufficient for our salvation. If nothing changes, what do we have?

We have the one canon of Holy Scripture which, as mentioned, “containeth all things necessary to salvation.”

We have the one Apostolic faith, articulated in the ecumenical creeds and councils, which aid us in the interpretation and application of Holy Scripture.

We have the one Sacramental life, lived out chiefly through initiation in Holy Baptism and are nourished spiritually through Holy Eucharist.

Finally, we have the Apostolic ministry of bishops, priests and deacons by which the Church is ordered.

If nothing changes, we have everything we need already.  Christ himself prayed, “Holy Father, keep them in your name, which you have given me, that they may be one, even as we are one,” (St Jn 17. 11b). His prayer will never be answered while his one Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church seeks to innovate separately rather than maintaining this ancient principles of unity. Christianity is rarely something which we ought to be satisfied with sufficiency. Christians should never seek only to receive sufficient gifts and graces from God; we should never be afraid to constantly be asking God for more. In the case of what has been received, however, it seems that until unity is achieved, we ought to satisfy ourselves in the sufficiency of what we have already.

On the Sacrament of Holy Orders

The Sunday called Sexagesima

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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