On the Articles: Article XXXI

The Sixteenth Sunday after Trinity

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On the Articles: Article 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 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.

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.

On Signs and Symbols

The Second Sunday in Epiphanytide

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

The Epiphany of our Lord

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

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

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

It should be noted that while all Catholic Christians agree to this view, many non-Catholic Christians do not all agree on this interpretation of Scripture, viewing the Eucharist instead as merely symbolic. The same could be said of all Sacraments. The Book of Common Prayer defines the sacraments as, “an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace, given to us by Christ himself, as a means whereby we receive this grace, and a pledge to assure us thereof.” Whether it is Baptism, Confirmation, Holy Matrimony or the Supper of the Lord, a sacrament is an incarnational sign and not merely a symbol.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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