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 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 XXI

The Sixth Sunday after Trinity

O GOD, who hast prepared for them that love thee such good things as pass man’s understanding: Pour into our hearts such love toward thee, that we, loving thee above all things, may obtain thy promises, which exceed all that we can desire; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

The Octave of the Feast of Saint Peter and Saint Paul

O GOD, who didst give such grace unto thy holy Apostles Saint Peter and Saint Paul, that they were enabled to bear witness to the truth by their death: Grant unto thy Church that, as in the beginning it was enlightened by their teaching, so it may continue in the same unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ; who liveth and reigneth with thee and the Holy Spirit, one God, world without end. Amen.

XXI. Of the Authority of General Councils
General Councils may not be gathered together without the commandment and will of Princes. And when they be gathered together, (forasmuch as they be an assembly of men, whereof all be not governed with the Spirit and Word of God,) they may err, and sometimes have erred, even in things pertaining unto God. Wherefore things ordained by them as necessary to salvation have neither strength nor authority, unless it may be declared that they be taken out of holy Scripture.

Article XXI builds on the work of Articles XIX and XX in defining ecclesiology, by speaking not directly of the Church, but of councils of the Church. The general councils here refer in fact to the ecumenical councils of the Church held between the 4th and 8th centuries after Christianity was legalized to resolve some of the controversies that had arisen but which had been unable to be resolved at more than a local level due to persecution.

While the ecumenical councils are held to have great weight in understanding the faith, this Article makes clear that no council can contravene Holy Scripture, and its authority is derived from Scripture itself. The authority of the Nicene Creed, for instance, is that it is an explanation of various doctrines contained in Holy Scripture, not that the gathering of bishops held any special authority or charism to proclaim anything apart from the Scriptures.

This is a fundamental principle of Anglican understanding of the faith, and puts it in firm opposition to the Roman Catholic Church, particularly as following the seven Ecumenical Councils, Rome began saying that it solely had authority to declare additional authoritative councils, which only more recently, in an ecumenical gesture to the East, have been referred to as General Councils of the Western Church. At any rate many of these councils have been rejected by Anglicans as their doctrines do not proceed from Holy Scripture, even if the English Church at the time participated in those councils due to being in communion with Rome. The East has always refused to accept the authority of those Western Councils due to the Great Schism during which they were excommunicated by Rome for refusing to accept the newly claimed juridical authority of the Bishop of Rome.

This affirmation of the role of Holy Scripture over councils is again an important clarification of English understanding compared to Rome which gave itself authority equal to Holy Scripture to teach. The Article, however, reinforces this by the remainder that Holy Scripture is God’s inerrant and authoritative Word, while Councils are simply the assembly of Men and therefore may err, even when the Holy Spirit may work through a Council. That is why Councils are to be tested against Holy Scripture, as the Holy Spirit will never move a Council to profess something contrary to Holy Scripture.

This Article also proclaims that councils may not be gathered, “without the commandment and will of Princes.” What this is essentially describing is the fact that many of the pronouncements of councils have impact on secular society, and so the Councils must be accepted by secular rulers in order to be implemented. A council could decree a penalty to be imposed on heretics, for instance, but apart from excommunication the Church itself has no authority to impose civil penalties—no civil ruler would allow the Church to establish civil laws and for Anglicans it would be inconsistent with Article VII’s commentary on the imposition of Christian values on civil authorities. The Church cannot, through Council or any other means, impose rules contrary to those of the state. It can be more circumscribed in what is permitted, for instance the Church must not bless same-sex marriages through the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony even where the secular law permits same-sex people to marry. This Article thus reaffirms important principles of Church-state relations.

The publication of the Articles also coincided with a more recently turbulent period in the life of the Western Church in which there had been conflicts between, for instance, Pope Paul III and the Holy Roman Emperor, Charles V, over the summoning of a Council to respond to the Protestant Reformation (what would eventually be the Council of Trent). Cranmer responds by clarifying the Anglican position not simply on the authority of Councils (again supporting previous statements that the institution of the Church has no doctrinal authority apart from Scripture and thus neither does a Council constituted of it), but also on how they are to be summoned.

It should be noted that the possibility of allowing the state to call a general council is an artefact of this era as well, in which the Princes referred to were Christian rulers. It was not a case simply of the Church authority versus secular authority, but the division of responsibility between the Christian Church and the Christian state. Because the state is no longer Christian, this clause is often now viewed as being no longer validly applied. The Church would never require the secular state, even in the United Kingdom where the Church of England is established and Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, a strong Anglican, remains Head of State, to call a council of the Church.

Despite these changing circumstances, the Article still shows important considerations on Church-state relations and also the authority of Councils themselves, whether called by the Christian state leader or solely by the Church.

On Burdens

The Feast of All Saints

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

The Twenty-Second Sunday after Trinity

LORD, we beseech thee to keep thy houseahold the Church in continual godliness; that through thy protection it may be free from all adversities, and devoutly given to serve thee in good works, to the glory of thy Name; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

For several weeks now, I have often been attending Great Vespers at a local Eastern Orthodox Church. This past Saturday in particular, I drove past a Roman Catholic parish on my way to grab a friend who was joining me for Great Vespers, and saw their parking lot packed to the brim with cars for a Saturday evening mass. Arriving for Great Vespers, I was again struck by the number of people I saw there week after week, most of whom also attend Divine Liturgy the next morning.

The final blow came in that the Eastern Orthodox parish I attend recently moved and began meeting in an Anglican Parish as their old building had become too small and was becoming run down. The Anglican Church could easily accommodate them because their congregating had been declining for some time and they did not offer any Evening Prayer services, and were able to fit Divine Liturgy between their two Sunday morning services of Holy Communion.

My own experience in Anglicanism suggests there is much more of a culture of viewing Church as a burden on one’s time. Fitting Church in between the more important events. It’s too much to ask someone to come for Holy Communion on Sunday morning, let alone something on an evening as well. It’s too much of an imposition to suggest we attend an evening service. Especially if it’s on a Saturday or Sunday. And forget asking people to spend a minute more than two hours on Church on a Sunday. In and out.

To some, this almost becomes a burden on their time and their lives. These days we are all busy as the pace of the modern world continues to increase and more and more pressures are placed on our time, particularly on families who have children who all are interested in being participants in various after school teams and activities.

Where does the Church fit into all of this? How much time should be made for faith? The answer to that question is ultimately personal. St Paul recognized that different Christians at different times in their lives required different things in order to nurture their faith (I Cor 3. 2). For someone who is new to Christianity and faith, it could be overly burdensome to ask them to give up significant portions of their time when they’re still trying to figure out what everything means. For those who are more mature in their faith, however, more might be expected.

So if the expectation is not too much for all Christians, why is it that week after week Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox Christians will attend multiple services a week, whereas in Anglican parishes it seems the congregation will get antsy if the homily is a minute longer than normal.

Records exist of similar complaints throughout the history of the Church. In the fourth century, St John Chrysostom wrote in response to those who were failing to come for the Eucharist on Sundays, saying:

I hear of their saying things of this kind, “the present stifling heat is excessive, the scorching sun is intolerable, we cannot bear being trampled and crushed in the crowd, and to be steaming all over with perspiration and oppressed by the heat and confined space...” What then am I to say to those who advance these pretexts? I would remind them of the three children in the furnace and the flame, who when they saw the fire encircling them on all sides, enveloping their mouth and their eyes and even their breath, did not cease singing that sacred and mystical hymn to God, in company with the universe, but standing in the midst to the pyre sent up their song of praise to the common Lord of all with greater cheerfulness than they who abide in some flowery field: and together with these three children I should think it proper to remind them also of the lions which were in Babylon, and of Daniel and the den: and not of this one only but also of another den, and the prophet Jeremiah, and the mire in which he was smothered up to the neck. And emerging from these dens, I would conduct these per sons who put forward heat as an excuse into the prison and exhibit Paul to them there, and Silas bound fast in the stocks, covered with bruises and wounds lacerated all over their body with a mass of stripes, yet singing praises to God at midnight and celebrating their holy vigil. For is it not a monstrous thing that those holy men, both in the furnace and the fire, and the den, and amongst wild beasts, and mire, and in a prison and the stocks, and amidst stripes and gaolers, and intolerable sufferings, never complained of any of these things, but were continually uttering prayers and sacred songs with much energy and fervent zeal, whilst we who have not undergone any of their innumerable sufferings small or great, neglect our own salvation on account of a scorching sun?

These words are particularly appropriate to refer to given that it is All Saints’ Day, when we recall the lives, joys and sufferings of countless saints throughout the years who have lived and died in the love of Christ. As St John Chrysostom puts it, who are we to complain of the heat of the sun when Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego were thrown into the fiery furnace but did no more than continue to praise God.

Could it be, to a degree, that the answer is cultural? Anglicanism is ultimately the cultural incarnation of Catholic Christianity within the Anglosphere, whereas Roman Catholicism is more culturally representative of continental Western Europe and Eastern Orthodoxy of Greek in particular and Eastern European in general Christianity. As their cultural backgrounds are foreign to North America and the United Kingdom, it is easier for them to turn to their church community as a cultural enclave, and further to see themselves are remaining in some ways outside of mainstream culture of those countries in which they live. To that degree, it becomes easier to avoid the Church being influenced by secular society in the way in which Anglicanism seems to be.

This ought to be cause for concern. Anyone who accepts the truth of Christianity, ought to recognize its importance. When we gather, it is to be nourished in our faith, either directly by God’s grace through the Eucharist or encouraged through teaching or simply to show our love of God in worship together. To be unwilling to accept the importance of gathering in community for these purposes, particularly when other traditions show it remains an entirely viable possibility within our society, shows another sign of our unwillingness to submit completely to God, the desire only to commit on our own terms and to withhold, knowingly or unknowingly, parts of our lives from him.

All Saints’ Day is a day in which we commemorate all those saints that came before us, and it is a time in which we ought to consider and reflect upon their lives and the examples of faith they gave to us. If St Paul could endure torture and persecution and rejoice in his suffering, perhaps it’s not such a burden to ask modern Anglicans to endure an extra minute or two of teaching without complaint. If the New Martyrs of Libya can be executed while confessing their faith in Christ Jesus as Lord, perhaps it is not too much of a burden in our society to ask of us to give up a few hours of our Saturday evening to turn our hearts to God in praise and thanksgiving?

On Artillery

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.

While there aren't really any cannons in the Anglican Church, there are multiple canons. Canon is an honorary title awarded to both clergy and laity for recognition of service to the church. Canons may also refer to rules of the Church. In the Anglican Church of Canada, there is currently a great deal of debate over proposed amendments to Canon XXI of the Church which governs the rules for the sacrament of Holy Matrimony. Canons of this type exist dating back to the earliest days of the Church. When the Ecumenical Councils gathered, the decisions they reached were released in the form of Canons, lists of numbered rules that had been agreed upon.

There is a third form of canon, however, which is the Canon of Scripture. The Canon of Scripture refers to the list of accepted books of the Bible in both the old and new testaments. To be canonical is to be accepted as authoritative, while being non-canonical indicates that the book is not authoritative as Scripture, though it does not necessarily mean that the rejected text contains false teachings.

The Canon of Scripture speaks to a seemingly simple question: where does the Bible come from, and how do we know it is the authoritative word of God?

We have two testaments, so the answer to these questions becomes two-fold.

In the time of Christ, references are made to the Scriptures, but of course these would have been to what we now consider the Old Testament. The Scriptures given to the Jews over the centuries. While the early heresy of Marcionism sought to reject the Old Testament, suggesting it described another god, separate from God the Father revealed by Jesus Christ, all Christians accepted the authority of the Old Testament books of the Bible, in continuity and interpreted through the lens of revelation in Jesus Christ.

While in general the Old Testament was universally accepted by orthodox Christians, there are a few points of division. The most substantive change comes from the two histories of the texts, the Septuagint Greek Old Testament and the Masoretic Hebrew Old Testament. By the time of Christ, the majority of Jews were Jews of Diaspora living outside of ancient Israel and most often speaking the lingua franca of the ancient world, Greek. Because they spoke and read Greek, the Scriptures were written down in Greek and read in Greek. It would not have been unusual for many Jewish communities to not contain a single person capable of reading the Hebrew texts.

For the first few decades after the Resurrection, Christianity was viewed by many as being simply a subset of Judaism. Over time, however, and especially after the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem by the Romans in 70 AD, they became viewed as separate. Partly because of the fact that Christians were using the Septuagint text and that they wanted to distinguish themselves as “proper” Jews, the Jewish authorities developed the Masoretic Hebrew text of the Hebrew Scriptures. In doing this, they adjusted their canon of Scripture, removing a few books which had previously been considered canonical and authoritative. The organization of some books was also adjusted.

This initially had a limited impact on Christianity and the Canon of the Old Testament until the time of Continental Reformation in the 16th century.  Between that time, Christian translations of the Bible would sometimes use both the Masoretic and Septuagint sources, with the canon remaining fixed by the Septuagint tradition. By the time of the Reformation, however, a number of reformers suggested that because the Jews had removed some of the books of the Old Testament from their canon, we ought to as well. Today, most Protestant Bibles continue to exclude those books.

The Eastern Orthodox Church, which has tended to stick to the Septuagint only as the source of its Old Testament books maintains the original numbering and order.

In the West, the Roman Catholic Church determined that the books removed from the Hebrew text would be deemed deuterocanonical, which means secondary canon. They still hold some form of authority, but they tend to be organized into a separate section either at the end of the Bible or between the Old and New Testaments, and held to a lower level of authority (in contrast to the East where no distinction is made between them and other accepted books of the Old Testament).

In Anglicanism, the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion follow the Roman practice of organizing these books into a secondary canon called either the deuterocanon or Apocrypha, saying, “And the other Books (as Hierome saith) the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners; but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine.” The term deuterocanonical is often preferred to avoid misunderstandings with apocryphal books of the New Testament which contain false teachings. The deuterocanonical books are variously viewed as being the lowest level of Scripture, or by some as being the highest and most authoritative non-Scriptural books of the Bible.

The Canon of the New Testament is a bit more of an interesting story, though obviously parallels earlier developments in the canon of the Old Testament as it was assembled over the centuries by the Jews. The books of the New Testament were written roughly twenty to sixty years after Christ’s crucifixion and resurrection. Over the course of the next few hundred years, the exact Canon of Scripture was not fixed and in different places you might have a smaller Canon of Scripture, set by the local bishop, which rejected some books which are now canonical, while other bishops might have a more expansive Canon, which might include books such as I Clement, which was extremely popular in the early Church.

St Athanasius the Great writing in the mid fourth century has the honour of writing the first canon of Scripture which articulates the Canon as we hold it today, more than three hundred years after the time of Christ. The reality is that until the legalization of Christianity in the 4th century, many of these matters were not resolved because they simply weren’t of sufficiently pressing concern.

When they were resolved, the general test for whether or not a book would be accepted in the Canon was whether or not it was Apostolic, meaning written either by an Apostle or in their name. This rule would account for the rejection of I Clement from the Canon, despite the fact that it remains to this day well-regarded and expounds no theological error and was written in the Apostolic Age (c. 95AD), but Clement was writing in his own name and was not an Apostle, but only a Bishop or Priest.

By the end of the fourth century in the West and the fifth century in the East (there remained there controversy over the book of Revelation, not because its authority was in question but because of concerns that it might be misinterpreted by future Christians), the Canon of the New Testament was universally accepted by councils of the Church, and fixed for all time as it remains to this day.

While there may not be cannons in Anglicanism, surely the authority and teachings of Holy Scripture represent an invaluable armoury to the Christian against the snares of the devil.

On Power

The Seventh Sunday after Trinity

LORD of all power and might, who art the author and giver of all good things: Graft in our hearts the love of thy Name, increase in us true religion, nourish us with all goodness, and of thy great mercy keep us in the same; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

In the study of international relations, power is generally divided into two categories, that of hard power and soft power. The simplest definition of these two is that hard power is the ability to make others do what you want, while soft power is the ability to get others to want what you want.

An example of hard power would be the use of military or economic force. Forcing a neighbouring country to make territorial concessions by military invasion and conquest or just the threat of it. The imposition of economic sanctions on a state to compel them to do what you want is another exercise of hard power. Soft power is a somewhat more nebulous concept which was only articulated in the post Cold War era as a defined doctrine, though the use of soft power has been characteristic of international affairs in the 20th century in the aftermath of the Second World War and the formation of the United Nations, as well as the more rigid discipline enforced on the exercise of power in international affairs during the Cold War itself.

The concepts of hard and soft power are somewhat useful in examining the idea of power and authority within the Church. In this case, hard power—the ability to get people to do what you want—resides with ecclesiastical authorities. Bishops are those charged with enforcing the canons of the church, and have a wide latitude in how they do so. For instance, in the Diocese of Calgary, every priest before they are ordained is required by Canon law to subscribe to the Solemn Declaration 1893, the Book of Common Prayer and Ordinal, as well as the diocesan and provincial canons. The canons themselves, however, do not exercise hard power. Thomas Hobbes, the English philosopher, once wrote in his seminal work Leviathan, that, “covenants, without the sword, are but words and of no strength to secure a man at all.” While Christ may have said that the Christian’s yes ought to be yes, and their no, no (St Mt 5. 37), the reality remains that in our fallen nature, we fall short of Christ’s command. As Hobbes points out, without swords—enforcement—agreements and oaths are just words. It is the bishop that enforces the oath and exercises the power to compel a priest to maintain it. They may sanction the priest with the removal of their license or even further sanctions if their actions so merit.

Similarly, priests hold some elements of hard power over their parishioners. While in general these powers are not used, they still exist. If a parishioner were to make it known to a priest that they had sinned and were unrepentant, priests have the power to deny the Eucharist to such a person until such time as they do repent.

What of soft power? The Rev. Dr Ellen Wondra likens soft power in the Church to its moral authority, and thus its ability to influence others both inside and outside the Church. This applies both in its ecumenical relations and its relations to secular and civil society. When the American Conference of Catholic Bishops issues a statement deploring gun violence and calling for the acceptance of new measures for American legislators to control gun violence, they are calling on their moral authority which relies on the Roman Catholic Church’s clearly articulated stance on the sanctity of human life to lend power to their statement in order to influence opinions.

In the Anglican Communion, which uses synodical governance, often times particular priests, bishops or laity rely on their soft power authority to sway opinion during debates at synods.

Or it would in theory. In practice, it seems soft power has all but disappeared from the Anglican Church of Canada, and perhaps Anglicanism more broadly, at least in the West. The Roman Catholic Church has a clear, cogent and consistent position on the sanctity of life. Their position is not tied to secular politics of the left or of the right, neither libertarian nor collectivist. It is rooted in Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition: man is made in the image and likeness of God, and therefore has inherent value. Life is therefore sacred and must be preserved. The Roman Catholic Church therefore opposes abortion, a position associated with right-wing politics, and capital punishment, left-wing politics, and oppose physician assisted suicide and euthanasia (again positions which tend to be associated with right-wing politics).

The Anglican Church in Canada has in recent months made statements which suggest that the recent Supreme Court of Canada ruling which has opened the door to physician assisted suicide and euthanasia requires renewed consideration of a response. Why would the Supreme Court’s opinion change the Church’s view? If it is to be rooted in Scripture and Tradition, should it not remain constant regardless of the legality in civil law? There hasn’t yet been an official response, but the unofficial response has seen broad endorsement from many bishops, while others have expressed more scepticism, mainly at the ambiguity of the court’s ruling.

When the response, albeit unofficial, is that mixed, what broader authority will any official statement from the Church hold? Will the Church be able to hold a clear, consistent and cogent position vis a vis assisted suicide and other issues relating to life and the person? The Anglican Church of Canada’s current Primate Fred Hiltz has marched in favour of the worldwide abolition of the death penalty, and although many Anglicans do not agree, the stance of the Church remains somewhat pro-life, it has taken significant efforts to avoid mentioning that fact, and many priests and bishops and lay members in the public spotlight (such as current Green Party of Canada leader Elizabeth May) hold pro-choice positions that oppose any conception of abortion as in some way being the ending of a life as the Anglican Church of Canada once held.

With a fairly clearly intentional silence in recent years on the issue of abortion, it ought to be taken as tacit approval of the secular legal status quo of legalized abortion in Canada. This view cannot be reconciled with opposition to capital punishment from a Christian perspective. Does the Anglican Church of Canada’s opposition to the death penalty stem from the inherent value of the person, or does it stem from some of the practical secular arguments against capital punishment (ineffectiveness, error, etc).

With an ambiguous position, the credibility of the Anglican Church of Canada on this issue is limited. Its ambiguous position hinders its moral clarity and thus eliminates its ability to project soft power. With hard power working internally, is it any wonder that Anglicanism seems to be losing its relevance outside of Church walls? When the Bishop of Rome speaks, his pronouncements tend to carry in the news. It is not because the secular media give weight to Roman Catholicism that they do not give to other Christian groups because they believe Rome to be correct, but rather by virtue of its moral authority, pronouncements from Rome are backed by soft power.

On the Anglican Communion

The Fifth Sunday in Lent commonly called Passion Sunday

WE beseech thee, Almighty God, mercifully to look upon thy people; that by thy great goodness they may be governed and preserved evermore, both in body and soul; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

Lent

ALMIGHTY and everlasting God, who hatest nothing that thou hast made, and dost forgive the sins of all them that are penitent: Create and make in us new and contrite hearts, that we worthily lamenting our sins, and acknowledging our wretchedness, may obtain of thee, the God of all mercy, perfect remission and forgiveness; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

For someone who was neither raised Anglican, nor raised in a Commonwealth country, the Anglican Communion may take a word of explanation. This is particularly true for someone who is not familiar with Anglicanism at all, but has some basic knowledge of the Roman Catholic Church. Due to the many outward similarities—vestments, liturgies, etc—someone might think of the Anglican Communion as being a very similar structure to the Roman Catholic Church, with its leadership vested simply in the Archbishop of Canterbury rather than the Bishop of Rome.

This, however, is not the case. The Anglican Communion is in fact an association of 38 autonomous national Anglican churches, called provinces, which are in full communion with the Church of England. While the Archbishop of Canterbury is first among equals, his position is more akin to the Patriarch of Constantinople in the early Christian East or the Bishop of Rome in the early Western Church. The Archbishop has precedence of honour, but does not directly exercise authority outside of the Church of England as the Bishop of Rome does today.

While in certain ways, this organization more closely resembles both the organization of the Early Church as well as in certain ways the continued organization of the Eastern Orthodox Church, much like Anglicanism itself, the Anglican Communion is a product of its history.

With England spreading its political power throughout the world in the form of the British Empire, religion was sure to follow. The Church of England held services in Canada in 1578 and the first permanent Anglican parish established in North America was in Jamestown, Virginia in 1607.

Following the American war for independence, the Episcopal Church was founded, borrowing its naming convention from the Scottish Episcopal Church. With the ordination of William White and Samuel Provoost in 1787, there was a direct tie to the Church of England by an autonomous national Anglican church, foreshadowing the nature of the Anglican Communion.

Shortly afterwards, Charles Inglish was consecrated as the Bishop of Nova Scotia, and given episcopal oversight over all of British territories in North America. Over the next hundred years, many more colonial bishops would be consecrated as a result of various English missionary societies. Missionaries had established Anglican churches throughout the British Empire, and it was in 1840 that Bishop Blomfeld of London published a letter asking the Archbishop of Canterbury extend the episcopate, as by this time there were millions of practicing Anglicans in the colonies, thus far only ten colonial bishops had been consecrated. As a result of his advocacy, the Colonial Bishoprics Council was created, and many new colonial sees and bishops were created.

While these first bishops were originally quite tied to England—they were de facto extra-territorial suffragan bishops in practice—they would ultimately gain greater autonomy over time, both personally and legislatively. After a series of legal decision relating to the stipends of colonial bishops in the 1850s and 1860s, colonial churches were given the ability to appoint and consecrate their own bishops.

This autonomy in the appointment of bishops led in 1867 led to the first Lambeth Conference, which was attended by 76 bishops from around the world. While in many ways modelled on the ecumenical councils of the Early Church, the Lambeth Conference was not designed to be authoritative, due in large part to the desires of colonial bishops to maintain their autonomy with respect to local circumstances, and instead the Lambeth Conferences were designed to be consultative in nature, helping bishops to from different parts of the world to connect with one another and in particular in the early days of the conferences, to help English bishops in the Church of England to understand the challenges and struggles of the colonial bishops.

In Canada in particular, the first Canadian synods were established in the 1850s, the first Canadian synods were established at the local level, and in 1861 the Church of England in Canada (a name that would be retained until the 1970s when it became the Anglican Church of Canada) became somewhat self-governing, though again largely this meant greater local autonomy rather than a colony wide organization for Anglicans in British North America. It took until 1893 for the first General Synod to be called in Canada, and one of its first acts was to promulgate the Solemn Declaration of 1893. This document laid out the relationship between the Church of England in Canada and the Church of England, as well as the limits on the autonomy of the Canadian General Synod.

Of particular importance, the Solemn Declaration declared that the Church in Canada would be in full communion with the Church of England, that it received the catholicity of the Church of England, described as:

one Faith revealed in Holy Writ, and defined in the Creeds as maintained by the undivided primitive Church in the undisputed Ecumenical Councils; receive the same Canonical Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, as containing all things necessary to salvation; teach the same Word of God; partake of the same Divinely ordained Sacraments, through the ministry of the same Apostolic Orders…

This description incorporates the four tenets of the early Church: one canon of Holy Scripture, one faith defined by the three creeds and seven Ecumenical Councils of the early Church, the one sacramental life and the threefold order of apostolic ministry.

The solemn declaration goes on to incorporate the three Anglican formularies of the Book of Common Prayer, Ordinal and the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion.

This model would become fairly standard for the way in which the relationship between the Church of England and her daughter churches around the world would be viewed. It should be noted that while there is an emphasis on full communion with the Church of England, doctrine comes from the formularies and the early Church, not the Church of England itself.

In modern times, the Anglican Communion has added two more “Instruments of Communion” to the decennial Lambeth Conferences, namely the standing Anglican Consultative Council and the Primate’s Meetings. All three of these instruments work together to help provide a venue for dialogue and discussion, but unlike, for instance, the Roman Catholic Church, it is not the Archbishop of Canterbury that provides doctrinal leadership for all worldwide Anglicans, but in theory the inheritance of the Book of Common Prayer, the Ordinal and Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion, along with Anglican catholicity, the Scriptures, the creeds and councils, the sacraments and the order of ministry.

On the Sacrament of Confirmation

The Sunday called Quinquagesima

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On Via Media

The Twentieth Sunday after Trinity

O ALMIGHTY and most merciful God, of thy bountiful goodness keep us, we beseech thee, from all things that may hurt us; that we, being ready both in body and soul, may cheerfully accomplish those things that thou wouldest have done; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

Feast of All Saints in the Octave

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

Commemoration of the Faithful Departed

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On Catholicism

The Nineteenth Sunday after Trinity

O GOD, forasmuch as without thee we are not able to please thee: Mercifully grant, that thy Holy Spirit may in all things direct and rule our hearts; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

Feast of Dedication

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

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

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

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

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

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

So what is the Catholic Church?

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

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

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

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

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

More recently, Archbishop Jeffrey Fisher, Archbishop of Canterbury from 1945 to 1961, said, “The Anglican Communion has no peculiar thought, practice, creed or confession of its own. It has only the Catholic faith of the ancient Catholic Church, as preserved in the Catholic creeds and maintained in the Catholic and Apostolic constitution of Christ's Church from the beginning.” Article XIX, when unpacked, further affirms this view of the Catholicity of the Anglican Communion, speaking of faithful preaching of Scripture, the faith of which is articulated in the creeds, and administration of the sacraments, through the historic episcopate. All sources confirm a view of the Anglican Communion as being Catholic.

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

On the Church of England

The Eighth Sunday after Trinity

O GOD, whose never-failing providence ordereth all things both in heaven and earth: We humbly beseech thee to put away from us all hurtful things, and to give us those things which be profitable for us; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

Whereas last week’s entry spoke to the origins of the Ecclesia Anglicana, the English Church, this week’s entry takes place in the 16th century, discussing the ending of communion between the English Church and Rome and the origin of the modern Church of England.

While the history of the English Church is relatively unknown in popular terms, particularly among non-Anglicans who focus purely on the idea of King Henry VIII replacing the pope as the head of the church in order to grant himself a divorce, it is at least relatively straight forward. The same cannot be said for the true history behind the English Church’s break with Rome and subsequent development into the modern Church of England and Anglican Communion. One of the reasons for this is that this portion of the Church of England’s history mixes together influences of both theology and politics.

The history of Christianity is replete with politics interfering with the governance of the Church, dating back to the early 4th century when the legalization of Christianity allowed early Christians, and their leaders, to focus on more than merely their own survival. Emperor Constantine the Great himself called the Council of Nicaea as a way of hopefully resolving some of the debates which had sprung up among the bishops throughout the Empire, and in doing so established the beginning of a precedent of civil interference in religious matters, a precedent which was not lost on many of the bishops who attended the council. In following years, the pro-Arian Bishop Eusebius of Nicomedia used his influence with Emperor Constantine to attack various anti-Arian bishops including Saint Athanasius and have them exiled. He further exerted influence with the Emperor to appoint Arian clergy and promote Arian doctrines in the Church in opposition to the Nicene Creed and Trinitarian formula that had been adopted by the Council of Nicaea.

The political influence of the Pope has a long history that dates back to the 4th century when the Roman Empire began to be split. Rome, Antioch and Alexandria were among the foremost cities in the Empire (to which was later added Constantinople). While Rome was originally the capital, under Constantine and subsequent Emperors, the capital was moved and the Empire often split between the leadership of a number of co-leaders. For many years, then, the Bishop of Rome was the senior most authority in Rome, and the Roman people looked to him not simply for spiritual leadership, but civic leadership as well. With the fall of the Roman Empire, the Bishop’s authority grew even greater as civic authority was disbanded. The powerful Roman Bishop easily moved into the vacuum created by the fall of the Western Empire, and over the centuries the religious and civic authority of the Pope was solidified to the point where in the 16th century the Pope was not just the leader of Western Christianity, but his own state and quite often a well-heeded advisor of numerous European monarchs.

Other examples are found of political influence in every era of the church. By the 16th century, however, perhaps the best example of this confluence of religion and politics was the Pope himself, who was not merely the head of the Catholic Church, but also the Head of State of the Papal States and an important political player in European statecraft. Pope Leo X had allied himself with King Henry and his allies a number of times over the years. Notably, perhaps, in exchange for a sum of money to support Leo’s ambitions of obtaining political authority for his relatives in the tumultuous Italian peninsula, Leo joined the Papal forces in an alliance with Spain and England against France. Ultimately, with Henry’s financial support for a military campaign, Leo’s nephew was confirmed as the Duke of Urbino.

It was under Pope Leo X that Martin Luther initiated what would become the Protestant Reformation. While the Reformation is perhaps best remembered today for opening the way to major theological expansion, Luther’s original goals were more limited to the reform of abuses being perpetrated by the Roman Church and by various clerics under Roman authority, most notably concerning the practice of indulgences. Indulgences were a form of remission of temporal punishment associated with an already forgiven sin. It was associated with alms during the early church, but as the practice grew in popularity during the medieval period, it became little more than a tax used to support various projects including the rebuilding of St Peter’s Basilica by Pope Leo X, which ultimately prompted Luther’s opposition.

Luther published his famous Ninety-Five Theses protesting various abuses of the Roman Church, sparking the Protestant Reformation. Pope Leo X’s response was to reject Luther’s demands for reform, and in this he was supported by his political ally King Henry VIII who, for his support of the Pope, was awarded the title Fidei Defensor (Defender of the Faith) by Pope Leo X just prior to his death in December 1521.

It was under Pope Clement VII that communion between Rome and England ended. By 1527 Henry was becoming so concerned with the failure of his wife, Catherine of Aragon, to bear him a male heir that he took the matter to Pope Clement VII asking for an annulment on the basis of Leviticus 20. 21. At the time, however, Rome was besieged by Charles V, the Holy Roman Emperor and nephew of Catherine of Aragon. Faced with the political pressure of Charles’ sacking of Rome in May 1527, Clement VII refused Henry’s request and a number of subsequent requests for an annulment. Over the course of the next three years it became clear to Henry and his advisors that no annulment would be forthcoming.

The politics of Pope Clement VII were making him an unreliable ally to the still staunchly Catholic Henry VIII. Papal supremacy was looking less like the spiritual primacy of the Bishop of Rome, and more like the political supremacy of a foreign and not necessarily friendly or reliable European state leader. In 1532, with the political support of King Francis I of France, Henry married Anne Boleyn and by the next year had his marriage and annulment of his marriage Catherine of Aragon recognized by the Archbishop of Canterbury, Thomas Cranmer. When news of the marriage reached Pope Clement VII, he excommunicated both Henry VIII and Thomas Cranmer from the Roman Catholic Church. Over the next few years and with Henry’s support, the English Parliament passed a number of laws that redefined the relationship between the Pope and the English crown and state, curbing the Pope’s political authority in England.

The 1534 Act of Supremacy marks the full break of the English Church with Rome, declaring the King to be the supreme head of the Church of England. Supremacists argued that the Pope’s actions were being dictated by civil and political considerations rather than religion, and thus if the Church of England was to have a civil authority over it, it should rightly be an English, and not foreign, one. It should be noted that while there had been a political divorce from Roman authority, Henry VIII remained dogmatically inclined to Rome and following a visit by a number of Lutheran theologians in 1538, Henry had Parliament pass the Act of Six Articles, a precursor to the current Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion, which maintained complete orthodoxy with Roman Catholic belief.

The Church of England’s independence from Rome stemmed from Reformation issues, but rather than being based in theology, it dealt primarily with abuses of political authority rather than religious authority. The Roman Catholic Church, in its counter-reformation Council of Trent in the mid-16th century, recognized these issues explicitly with respect to indulgences, defending the theological value of indulgences while condemning the temporal abuses through the sale of indulgences. The Act of Supremacy is often cited as the start of the English Reformation, a period of significant instability in England. Not everyone accepted the King’s actions, and not everyone supported Henry’s retention of Roman Catholic doctrine. To this day, Henry VIII is not commemorated in the Anglican Communion. It would take until the Restoration in the 1660s before the issues of doctrine had been finally settled to the point where they would be able to remain intact to the present day and the current formulation of the Church of England would become recognizable with the 1662 Book of Common Prayer and the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion published therein.

On the English Church

The Seventh Sunday after Trinity

LORD of all power and might, who art the author and giver of all good things: Graft in our hearts the love of thy Name, increase in us true religion, nourish us with all goodness, and of thy great mercy keep us in the same; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

Where should a blog like this begin? There are so many issues in Anglicanism that are in the news, either in the Anglican Journal or even in secular newspapers, that it's difficult to know what to comment on first. The reality is that this blog is not simply a mouthpiece for commentary on topical controversies. Any opinion that could be expressed here has probably been expressed elsewhere, and in a more eloquent and theologically grounded way to boot.

Rather, this blog will seek to express something of a journey of understanding of the Anglican tradition from the perspective of a Calgarian of the Anglo-Catholic persuasion. In that sense, the best place to start is not with what is in the news, but rather with the beginning. What is the English Church?

To many an outsider, the Church of England was formed by Henry VIII who wanted to make himself an English Pope so he could divorce and remarry (a few times). The reality of the English Church is much more complex, and far older. The entire history of the Church of England cannot be detailed in one post, so in this first part, the history of the English Church from the 3rd century through to the start of the 16th century will be detailed. The 16th century and the formation of the modern Church of England will be dealt with next week.

The origin of the English Church dates much further back than the early 16th century, and is fact noted to have existed in the 3rd and 4th centuries. St Alban's martyrdom in the 3rd century is recorded in St Bede's Ecclesiastical History of the English People. Records of the Council of Arles in 314 held in France list the names of the Bishop of York, the Bishop of London and the Bishop of Cærleon-on-Usk all in attendance from the British Province. Three more British bishops were also noted to have attended the Council of Ariminum in 360, and although they didn't attend the Council of Nicaea, the Nicene Creed's anti-Arian position was accepted by the British bishops, speaking to reasonably strong organization and contact with the rest of Western Christianity. A number of Celtic missionaries, notably St Patrick in Ireland and St Ninian in Scotland, were also active in the 4th and 5th centuries, establishing what would become the Celtic Christian tradition in Ireland, Scotland and Wales, which itself would have a significant influence on the English Church. It wasn't until 597 that a missionary arrived from Rome under the authority of the Pope.

As a Roman province, Britain was not exempt from the political turmoil unfolding on the continent. The Roman armies were withdrawn from Britain in the late 4th and early 5th centuries in order to defend the Empire on the continent from increasing barbarian activity. This had the effect of leaving the Roman province defenceless to barbarians arriving from northern Germany. Britain faced attacks from the Germanic Angles, Saxons and Jutes who largely destroyed the organization of the early Roman-English church in England as these three tribes carved out their own kingdoms in England. Contact between Britain and the continental church was largely lost during this period of strife and was not re-established until the arrival of St Augustine of Canterbury in 597.

As a result of the invasions, generally in south-eastern and central England, Roman Britons fled west to Wales and the Celtic lands where a distinctive brand of Christianity formed as British Christian traditions were fused with pagan Welsh practices, creating its own distinctive Welsh Christianity. While there was initially no effort to evangelize the Germanic invaders, that would change under evangelical monastic influence. Born to British parents, St Patrick eventually studied the monastic life in France before coming to Ireland where he evangelized the Irish people, establishing a number of monasteries and bishoprics throughout Ireland. Because of St Patrick's own monastic origins and due to the lack of previous contact with the continent where civil organization was strongly related to ecclesiastical organization of bishoprics, monasteries and abbots where the fundamental units of Celtic Christianity in Ireland. The evangelical nature of the monasteries led eventually to waves of missions to the mainland. St Columba arrived in Scotland in 563, and began a wave of conversions starting in the north of Britain and working south, such that when St Augustine arrived in 597 and began a second wave of conversions, there existed already many Christians in Britain.

St Augustine had been sent by the Pope, St Gregory the Great, to re-establish contact with Britain and convert the locals, particularly the Jute King of Kent, to Christianity. When St Augustine met with King Æthelbert, he found that the Queen was already Christian, and the King welcomed and supported St Augustine after his own conversion. In addition to his missional work, St Gregory is remembered for his liturgical revisions and standardizations. In acknowledgement of the existing status of Christianity in Britain, however, St Augustine was allowed to simply maintain a modified local liturgy, which was based primarily on the liturgy of St John, rather than of St Peter which was used in Rome. St Augustine founded a monastery at Canterbury which would become the eventual seat of British Christianity. Over the next century the waves of Christianizing influence would largely cover all of Britain to the point that conflicts between Christians and pagans soon began to be supplanted by conflicts between the northern Celtic Christians and the southern Roman Christians.

In 664 the Synod of Whitby was held in Northumbria to resolve some of the local differences between the Celtic and Roman traditions. A major consequence of the Synod was the establishment of the secondary seat of power of the Archbishop of York. While the Roman tradition had essentially won out at the Synod, the Celtic monastic tradition was allowed to continue.

The three streams of Christian history in England (the early Romano-British Church, preserved to a degree in Welsh Christianity, the Celtic monastic tradition and the later Roman tradition) had been fused to create what became termed the Ecclesia Anglicana, the English Church.

While the Church remained in full communion with the Pope and recognized his authority up until the 16th century, the English Church never lost its unique identity. Following the Great Schism in 1054, it would be common for English Christians to identify, as did other Western Christians, as being Catholic or Roman as opposed to Eastern Orthodox, but at no point did this change the reality of a distinctive English Church in communion with Rome, as opposed to what one might today think of as the Roman Catholic Church in England.