On the Articles: Article XXX

The Fifteenth Sunday after Trinity

KEEP, we beseech thee, O Lord, thy Church with thy perpetual mercy; and, because the frailty of man without thee cannot but fall, keep us ever by thy help from all things hurtful, and lead us to all things profitable to our salvation; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

XXX. Of both Kinds
The Cup of the Lord is not to be denied to the Lay-people: for both the parts of the Lord’s Sacrament, by Christ’s ordinance and commandment, ought to be ministered to all Christian men alike.

In his institution of the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist, Christ provided us with both the bread and the wine. In the earliest times of Christianity, communicants would receive both the bread and wine, often by intinction, the practice of dipping the bread in the wine. This practice has been used continuously in the Eastern Orthodox Church. However, over the course of history in the West, a practice arose whereby the people would only receive in one kind, only the bread. Only the priest would drink the wine. The exact causes of this are unclear but, but one common supposition is that it relates to early limited understanding of the transmission of germs through the common cup.

While modern medicine has shown that sharing the common cup due to its nature will not cause the transmission of germs or disease, in the medieval period, particular under times of extreme plague such as the Black Death, there may have been a significant reluctance on the part of many communicants to receive from the common cup. A response may have been to temporarily allow the people to receive only in one kind, however this extraordinary practice ultimately became the common practice, even in times when there were no threats of germs. As the rationale for why only receiving in one kind was forgotten, the practice became not one of simply allowing the people to receive only in one kind, but of prohibiting them from receiving in both kinds.

As it became a more common practice, a theological rationale was established to justify it. After the development of the doctrine of Transubstantiation, also rejected by the Articles, Roman Catholics added a simple addition, that in the change of substance, the wine does not merely become Christ’s Blood and the bread does not merely become Christ’s Body, but rather the Bread becomes Christ’s Body and Blood and the Wine similar becomes Christ’s Body and Blood. The rationale for this was that while Christ’s Body and Blood were separated in his original sacrifice on the Cross, in the Eucharist we participate through his risen Body whereby the Body and Blood are rejoined.

This Article was only added to the Articles of Religion by revisions in 1563, yet that wasn’t the first time someone had objected to the Roman practice in the West. Jan Hus, a pre-Reformation Roman Catholic who left Rome over objections to numerous Medieval doctrines, and who was eventually executed for heresy. Rome continued to harden its position on administration in one kind, as it in particular also affirmed Rome’s claim that the Church and Papacy had the right to adjust Biblical practices. This had originally been done with the imposition of clerical celibacy, however this was a discipline of the clergy and not a doctrine of the Church. Communion in one kind, however, was a quasi-doctrinal position. When the Council of Trent sought to respond to the Reformers, they reaffirmed their position on reception in one kind, and so when the Council concluded in 1563, the Articles of Religion were amended to reaffirm the Biblical position that Christ instituted the Eucharist for all to receive and in both kinds.

Rome’s position was maintained until the reforms of Vatican II at which point the restrictions on reception of both kinds, however it has never repudiated its theological rationale.

While Article XXX looks on its face merely to be a repudiation of a particular practice, or one could even argue a repudiation of the theological rationale for Rome’s practice of reception in one king, it ought chiefly to be viewed as an affirmation of the primacy of Holy Scripture, and the rejection of the authority of the Church to implement doctrines which contradict the Scriptural witness.

On the Articles: Article XXIX

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On the Articles: Article XXVIII

The Thirteenth Sunday after Trinity

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On the Articles: Article XXVI

The Eleventh Sunday after Trinity

O GOD, who declarest thy almighty power most chiefly in showing mercy and pity: Mercifully grant unto us such a measure of thy grace, that we, running the way of thy commandments, may obtain thy gracious promises, and be made partakers of thy heavenly treasure; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

XXVI. Of the Unworthiness of the Ministers, which hinders not the effect of the SacramentsAlthough in the visible Church the evil be ever mingled with the good, and sometimes the evil have chief authority in the Ministration of the Word and Sacraments, yet forasmuch as they do not the same in their own name, but in Christ’s, and do minister by his commission and authority, we may use their Ministry, both in hearing the Word of God, and in receiving of the Sacraments. Neither is the effect of Christ’s ordinance taken away by their wickedness, nor the grace of God’s gifts diminished from such as by faith and rightly do receive the Sacraments ministered unto them; which be effectual, because of Christ’ s institution and promise, although they be ministered by evil men.
Nevertheless, it appertaineth to the discipline of the Church, that inquiry be made of evil Ministers, and that they be accused by those that have knowledge of their offences; and finally being found guilty, by just judgement be deposed.

After having previously addressed the issue of who may minister to the congregation, in Article XXIII, it makes sense that the converse issue might be addressed: what happens when your priest is leading a sinful life? As the Article notes, “evil be ever mingled with the good,” meaning that this is not a new issue. Even in Biblical times there is the example of Eli’s two sons who led sinful lives despite following in his footsteps as priests, leading to their deaths, and Samuel’s ascension as God’s chosen priest and prophet.

The question here becomes more focused, though. If only priests may minister to the people through Word and Sacrament, what happens when that priest is sinful? The Article begins by noting that they do not minister in their own names or in the names of the people, but rather in Christ’s name, by his commission and authority. This is an interesting point to make as it runs counter to many theological arguments underpinning ministry in the Book of Alternative Services and in the modern Anglican Church of Canada, which argues that the priest ministers in the name of the assembled people, not in Christ’s name. There is a diminished view of the priesthood, no longer viewing it through the lens of anointing, calling and equipping, as the Article does. And yet, this is the standard of Anglicanism. In resolving this broader issue of whether or not one can receive the Eucharist from a sinful priest, the answer is absolutely going to change if one argues that the priest is operating in persona Christi, and in Christ’s authority versus someone who views the priest as ministering in nominae ecclesia.

The Article points out that when the priest ministers in Christ’s name, God’s grace is working through them whether or not they are wicked. This is an important thing to remember, as the reality is that all priests are sinners, just as all other humans are sinners. St Paul is explicit: all fall short (Rm 3. 23).

This is furthermore and interesting statement on the sacraments themselves. It is again reminding us that the sacraments are an objective reality: their grace does not depend upon the state of the person administering them neither upon the state of the person receiving (though future articles will address how the recipients state can affect the impact of the reception of the sacrament upon them). The Eucharist is effective, “because of Christ’s institution and promise,” not the status of the minister.

This again reinforces Article XXIII when you consider the question of why there would need to be priests if their presence doesn’t seem to matter. There it speaks of the importance of order in the Church. St Paul emphasized the in I Corinthians especially the importance of order, and so do the Articles of Religion.

To conclude Article XXVI, it says that even though God can work through the sinfulness of the minister, that is still not to be desired, and for the good ordering of the Church, where a minister is believed to be engaged in unrepentant sinful conduct, the matter should be investigated, as a matter of “the discipline of the Church.” Where their conduct is proven, it argues that the priest ought to be deposed.

This is an interesting statement in that today, it takes an extremely severe act to cause a priest to be defrocked. Most priests today that are defrocked, a relatively rare occurrence to begin with, suffer their fate not as a result of being found to have led a sinful life, but rather after criminal sanctions have been applied in the civil sphere. Where a priest admits to sinful living, famously the consecration of Gene Robinson who was in allowed to be consecrated bishop in the Episcopal Church of the United States despite being engaged in a relationship which, at least at the time, was regarded as sinful by the Church.

There are likely many less publicized examples of priests unrepentant of the sins and who, at most, receive a written rebuke.

The Articles of Religion make clear that this is not a matter of debate. When a priest, like any Christian, falls short, they are to repent of their sins. When they instead harden their hearts and say, “this is not sin and I have no need to repent,” they are placing themselves in the place of God and turning fully from him to live in their sin. There must be consequences in order to maintain the good order of the Church.

Anglicanism today, particularly in the Anglican Church of Canada, likes to congratulate itself on allowing for greater and greater diversity of opinions, but at no point should this tolerance for diversity of opinions include allowing private judgements on what is sin: that is a matter for God. Nowhere is leadership on this issue more important than in the priesthood: how can any lay people be expected to submit to God’s judgement when clergy themselves ignore it?

On the Articles: Article XXV

The Tenth Sunday after Trinity

LET thy merciful ears, O Lord, be open to the prayers of thy humble servants; and that they may obtain their petitions make them to ask such things as shall please thee; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

XXV. Of the Sacraments
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.
There are two Sacraments ordained of Christ our Lord in the Gospel, that is to say, Baptism, and the Supper of the Lord.
Those five commonly called Sacraments, that is to say, Confirmation, Penance, Orders, Matrimony, and extreme Unction, are not to be counted for Sacraments of the Gospel, being such as have grown partly of the corrupt following of the Apostles, partly are states of life allowed in the Scriptures; but yet have not like nature of Sacraments with Baptism, and the Lord’s Supper, for that they have not any visible sign or ceremony ordained of God.
The Sacraments were not ordained of Christ to be gazed upon, or to be carried about, but that we should duly use them. And in such only as worthily receive the same they have a wholesome effect or operation: but they that receive them unworthily purchase to themselves damnation, as Saint Paul saith.

Anglicans and the Sacraments have always had a mixed history, and this Article is for many the chief culprit in that. Depending upon how precisely it is interpreted, it might seem to suggest that the Church recognizes either only two or seven sacraments.

Before delving into that controversy, however, it is worth noting that this article addresses more than simply the number of the sacraments.

Chiefly it begins by saying that “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.” So, the Sacraments were not made by Christ to be symbols of Christians. Some protestants, for instance, saw absolutely no significance in the Eucharist, and saw it only as something that was done in fulfilment of Christ’s request. This Article makes it clear that in the Anglican tradition, this view has been thoroughly rejected. When it continues saying it is a sure means of grace, this again removes any possible doubt: the Sacraments are, as the BCP’s catechism says, “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.”

The Article continues on in this point by explaining the purpose of grace offered. In addition to being an effectual means of grace, the sacraments are: “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.” The sacraments strengthen and confirm our faith in God. Another way of putting this, especially in light of the Eucharist, is that we are nourished in our faith by the Body and Blood.

The next section is the more controversial in which it lays out the sacraments. The first two are the Sacraments ordained by Christ in the Gospel, that of the Eucharist and Baptism. The next sentence is what causes more controversy today. “Those five commonly called sacraments... are not to be counted for Sacraments of the Gospel, being such as have grown partly of the corrupt following of the Apostles, partly are states of life allowed in the Scriptures; but yet have not like nature of the Sacraments with Baptism, and the Lord’s Supper, for that they have not any visible sign or ceremony ordained of God.” The clearest message is to draw a distinction between these five and the two sacraments ordained by Christ because they were not specifically ordained by Christ himself, nor were their ceremonies specifically laid out in the Scriptures at Christ’s command. The phrase, “Commonly called Sacraments” today has a more negative connotation implying that they are in fact not Sacraments, just commonly so-called, yet at the time this Article was written no such negative connotation was implied.

It suffices to recognize that a distinction was drawn between those two clearly ordained by Christ in the Gospels, versus the others which were not necessarily as clearly articulated. This also is meant as potentially a rejection of the then recent Roman practice of naming and numbering the Sacraments. In the Christian East and going back to the early Church, there was much more hesitancy in naming and numbering the Sacraments in an exclusionary way. The principle of the Sacrament is that it is an objective and assured means of receiving God’s grace, and most Christians sought not, in recognition of God’s sovereignty, to limit God’s authority by suggesting there were only seven.

The fact that there is ambiguity leads to some Anglicans suggesting there are only two, some saying there are two of Christ and two of the Church and some saying there are seven. It should be noted that the Book of Common Prayer itself addresses the Sacrament of Pennance as a Sacrament in the invitation to confession: “Draw near in faith and take this Holy Sacrament to your comfort.” In allowing this ambiguity, however, it has reinforced the more early practice of refusing to exactly name and define all of the sacraments.

The final clause again speaks to the interesting nature of the Articles of Religion in that they are not exclusively laying our  clearly defined Anglican positions on matters so much as they are often clarifying how Anglicans have rejected particular notions of the Roman Catholic Church as well as those of Continental Protestant Reformers. The first says that the sacraments were not ordained by Christ to be gazed upon, or to be carried about, but that we should duly use them. This was a condemnation in particular of the Medieval practice of many Christians exclusively attending adoration of the Eucharist and not actually ever receiving the Eucharist. The chief purpose the Eucharist was ordained was so that we would receive. It should be noted that this does leave open the possibility of Eucharistic adoration being practiced so long as it is not the chief means by which the people interact with the Eucharist, and that they still regularly receive, as Christ intended and ordained. The second point again condemns, again, protestant positions and also ironically enough the doctrine of Receptionism promoted by a number of Anglicans over the centuries. It reaffirms St Paul’s teaching in I Corinthians that those who receive unworthily without examining themselves or discerning the body receive to their condemnation. This again affirms the objective reality of Christ in the Eucharist, rejecting the notion that nothing is happening and also the receptionist view that the elements of bread and wine remain until received in faith only.

On Roads

The Sunday called Septuagesima

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On Cultural Incarnation

The Second Sunday after Easter

ALMIGHTY God, who hast given thine only Son to be unto us both a sacrifice for sin, and also an example of godly life: Give us grace that we may always most thankfully receive that his inestimable benefit, and also daily endeavour ourselves to follow the blessed steps of his most holy life; through the same Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

As we continue in the season of Eastertide, many of the readings focus on the life of the early church as depicted in the Acts of the Apostles. In these readings from Acts, we hear how the disciples lived a life of faith together, shared all things in common and supported one another. This unity is supported by Scripture, where St Paul exhorts Euodia and Syntyche from the church in Philippi to, “agree in the Lord,” (Phil 4. 2). David’s Psalm 133 describes with vivid imagery the blessings and joy of unity.

It is not too long, though, before we hear of the reaction against the perseverance of the Christian faithful, and the growth of Christianity in the early Jewish communities. The circumcision controversy begins. Jewish leaders say that belief in Christ is acceptable, but only so long as you continued to follow the Law. When Christianity spreads to the gentiles, the majority of Christians were previously Jewish and elements of their culture create disunity as the early Christians struggle over the question of whether or not gentiles must be circumcised, a matter settled by a Council at Jerusalem which set the model for later ecumenical councils to define and resolve doctrinal disputes within the Church.

The picture painted in Acts, is broadly speaking one of an incarnational faith. Christianity incarnated into the flesh in the person of Jesus Christ. And so too does it incarnate in the cultures in which its faithful operate. Modern psychology shows that the language we speak, and the culture we come from, shapes how we think and perceive the world.

Speaking historically, some doctrinal differences in the Christian East and Christian West were the result of differences in how theological concepts were rendered into Greek in the East and Latin in the West. In some cases, ultimately the same meaning was generally meant, but due to the language differences, the rendering and way the theology was perceived by the other culture was sufficiently different to cause disunity. While there are other issues at play, in many ways the filioque is the same understanding of God’s nature presented from two diametrically opposed cultural understandings. The nature of Christ as judge in the West and divine physician in the East, similarly highlights how both can hold orthodox understandings, but which have been shaped to different perspectives by the culture in which they are practiced.

It should come as no surprise, then, when division arises in the church. The extreme unity found in the earliest chapters of Acts is rooted in both cultural unity and in the physical witness of Christ Jesus. This was the age of the Apostles and disciples who had witnessed Christ’s miracles in person. And yet, division still came among them. If unity is to be found in Christ, then surely it is understandable that today, some manner of disunity would ultimately arise, at the very least because of the fact that Christianity has now spread to all cultures.

This should come as no shock. In the East, the Eastern Orthodox Church is divided by culture: Greek, Russian, Serbian, etc. In the West, there is obviously the divide between Canterbury and Rome, but also within the Roman Catholic Church some practices diverge rooted in culture, as much as some Roman Catholics might claim otherwise.

There is good reason for this. God calls us into relationship with him: oneness with him. Not sameness with him. Sameness is the preserve of equality, while oneness is the preserve of unity. We are not meant to be equal with God, nor are we equal with each other. St Paul illustrates this well in his first epistle to the Corinthians:

To each is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good. For to one is given through the Spirit the utterance of wisdom, and to another the utterance of knowledge according to the same Spirit, to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by the one Spirit, to another the working of miracles, to another prophecy, to another the ability to distinguish between spirits, to another various kinds of tongues, to another the interpretation of tongues. All these are empowered by one and the same Spirit, who apportions to each one individually as he wills. (1 Cor 7-11)

There are two key points to this passage. First, “each is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good.” This is unity. This is oneness. All receive gifts of the Spirit, for a unified purpose. Second, he lists how some receive the gift of wisdom, others knowledge, others healing, etc. There is not equality, each is given the gifts they need to fulfil God’s purpose.

In much the same way, the incarnational nature of the church in distinct cultures is not necessarily equal. One tradition of Christians may emphasize the healing power of the Holy Spirit, while others may focus on the atoning power of Christ’s passion and resurrection. There is not equality, necessarily, in these incarnations of the church, or even necessarily fullness, but there is some degree of unity.

True unity is to be found when the four marks of unity are followed: the canon of Holy Scripture; the authoritative transmission of God’s word for humanity; the faith of the early church as articulated in the creeds and councils of the church, the order of ministry, passed down in apostolic succession and finally the sacramental life of the church, found chiefly in the sacraments of Holy Baptism and the Eucharist.

Just like Euodia and Syntyche, where something, in this case, culture, divides the church, we must continue to follow St Paul’s advice to, “agree in the Lord,” for it is in God that our unity is found, not in compromise. Compromise is the road to equality, limiting and hemming in our faith in order to reduce the avenues for confrontation and conflict.

It is a great irony that if the sacraments are discarded (mere ordinances), as is the order of ministry (priesthood of all believers), the creeds and councils (generally in more anti-Catholic fuelled settings where anything of the historic church is viewed with suspicion) while retaining only the canon of Scripture (often with its own brand of sola scriptura and distinctive interpretation) there is some form of equality to be found (compare some of the constitutions and confessions of various protestant denominations) but in that, unity, oneness in Christ, has been lost.

Christianity incarnates differently in different cultures. Different rites or Churchmanships, different language to describe the same truths, and in some case a different emphasis on part of God’s nature. This does not detract from true unity, unity described in the Acts of the Apostles. What causes disunity is when the goal of sameness between humans is confused with oneness with God.

On Evangelical Sacramentalism

The Fourth Sunday in Lent

GRANT, we beseech thee, Almighty God, that we, who for our evil deeds do worthily deserve to be punished, by the comfort of thy grace may mercifully be relieved; through our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. 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.

The seven sacraments recognized in Anglicanism are those which are commonly recognized, but throughout history there have been others, and other perspectives on sacramentalism. In Eastern Orthodoxy, for instance, all of life is viewed sacramentally. Life can be viewed sacramentally in that humans are vessels for God’s grace. Our physical bodies are an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace. If pressed to name the number of sacraments, though, they would still recognize the seven historic sacraments, the same as orthodox Anglicans.

That said, among Anglicans, particularly those of an evangelical Low Churchmanship, the importance of the seven sacraments is diminished. While the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist is accepted, evangelical Anglicans would tend to not place as much importance on the Eucharist as a method of transmission of God’s grace and power. While they would still tend to emphasize Holy Baptism, for many that would be something that occurs at a young age. Confirmation would not be viewed as necessary, Holy Orders are not taken by those who are not called to the Priesthood, Unction is unnecessary and simply gathering to pray for one another is sufficient, Reconciliation is unnecessary because confession can be made directly to God at any time and Holy Matrimony is perhaps the only other sacrament which is viewed as truly significant and common place in the Christian’s life, though even then the emphasis would be on Holy Matrimony as a covenant between husband and wife, more so than as a means again of transmission of grace and God’s indwelling of that relationship.

That does not mean, however, that evangelical Anglicans lack a true sacramental nature, though they would likely not describe it in such terms, nor would they be apt to necessarily accept such a definition. Not is it only those who place less importance on the recognized sacraments of the Church who can have a sacramental view of other aspects of Christian life.

Article VI of the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion, describes the sufficiency of Holy Scripture for salvation, saying that all that is necessary for salvation is recorded in Scripture, and nothing may be required of someone as necessary that cannot be proved by Scripture. In St Mark’s Gospel, Christ says that to be saved, one must believe and be baptised (Mk 16. 16). Nothing can be added to that requirement. Article VI informs the doctrine of Prima Scriptura, which itself is summarised by St Paul in his Epistle to the Romans when he describes the Gospel as, “for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek,” (Rm 1. 16).

It is this concept of Holy Scripture as the power of God that comes to the fore in evangelical thinking. The Bible is God’s word. It is the means by which we learn first and foremost of God’s creation of the universe, his covenants with the Jews and the laws he put down. We learn of the fulfilment of the law in Christ; his life, death, resurrection and ascension. We learn of God’s nature, his love for us and his desire to be in communion with us.

For evangelicals, though, there is more to God’s word than that; God’s word is the power through which we are released from sin, the power through which we overcome temptation and the power of salvation. In St Mark’s Gospel, just prior to saying that belief and baptism will lead to salvation, Christ had given the great commission, calling on all believers to, “Go into all the world and proclaim the gospel to the whole creation,” (Mk 16.15). Proclaiming the Gospel was considered an integral component of salvation, in that it is the means by which we believe, and the knowledge of what we are to believe.

Without the Scriptures, we would not know God. The Bible is God’s word, and the means through which he conveys his presence, his power, his nature and grace. Evangelicals, though they would not necessarily think it, view the Holy Scripture sacramentally.

To again look to the practices of the East, while Anglicanism defines a sacrament in the Book of Common Prayer as, “an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace,” the Eastern Orthodox Church views sacraments, also called Holy Mysteries because what we see is not the same as their spiritual effects, are defined generally the same way, though they can be more broadly viewed as vessels by which grace is transmitted to participate in our physical life. Also interestingly, in the Eastern Orthodox tradition, there is an emphasis on the personal nature of the sacraments, which is clearly mirrored in the evangelical sacramental view of Holy Scripture.

Holy Scripture is a vessel through which God’s grace and power are transmitted, and to the evangelical, while Holy Scripture is for all, it is also very personal. As a tool for release from sin and overcoming temptation, Holy Scripture can be extremely personal. A particular verse may aid one Christian in overcoming a particular temptation, while being of no use to another. I have always viewed the nature of Holy Scripture as being a mirror of Christ’s dual nature. He was both fully God and fully man, and in the same way, Holy Scripture is wholly universal and wholly personal.

This sacramental view of Scripture, is something that should be encouraged in Anglicanism. While the importance of Holy Scripture for the determination of doctrine and teaching is important, under this sacramental view of the Scriptures, their importance as a means for the transmission of God’s grace is reinforced. Reading Scripture is not merely a Christian obligation, it is a Christian joy. Not only do we learn of God’s love and grace, but it is a means by which it is transmitted to us; it is the power to be more Christlike in our own lives.

Recognizing sacramentalism in our Christian walk is not simply something restricted to evangelicals, nor should it be. Taking this Eastern Christian view of the sacramentality of life is something all Anglicans should consider. It is perhaps a distinct characteristic of someone who considers themselves to be an evangelical Catholic Anglican, and yet it is fully in keeping with the traditional Anglican doctrines and practices, and is truly just a different way of looking at our faith, and perhaps importantly, one which encourages certain evangelical practices and respect towards the Holy Scriptures among some Anglicans who hold themselves to some kind of Anglo-Catholic definition in which they limit the importance of Holy Scripture to simply something which is read in Church from the lectionary.

On the Sacrament of Extreme Unction

The Third Sunday in Lent

WE beseech thee, Almighty God, look upon the hearty desires of thy humble servants, and stretch forth the right hand of thy Majesty, to be our defence against all our enemies; 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.

The Sacrament of Unction, or Extreme Unction, is one which might initially sound confusing, but which most Christians, whether they are Catholic, sacramental or not, would recognize from Holy Scripture. "You prepare a table before me in the presence of my enemies; you anoint my head with oil; my cup overflows." The famous verse from Psalm 23 is one of the most well-known in the Bible, but the line, "you anoint my head with oil," often passes without much thought. Unction is from a Latin root which means to anoint. Extreme Unction is a sacrament which relates to the anointing with oil for the purpose of healing.

Anointing with oil was a common practice among the Jews of the old testament. Much like the distinction between St John's baptism of repentance and Christ's introduction of Baptism in the Spirit, the use of anointing with oil differed between Jews and early Christians.

Scripturally, the first place to look is the Gospel of St Mark. In chapter six, Christ sends out the Apostles, two by two. “So they went out and proclaimed that people should repent. And they cast out many demons and anointed with oil many who were sick and healed them,” (Mk 6. 12-13). In the Epistle of St James, this practice is again continued and presented to all Christians to practice, where it says, “Is anyone among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord,” (Jm 5. 14).

While there are differences in practice, particularly East to West, the use of holy oil for the purposes of healing is common to all Christianity. In the Western tradition, to which Anglicanism belongs, holy oil consecrated by a bishop is used. In the Eastern tradition, priests consecrate the oil, though generally it would be applied by a group of three or more priests rather than by a single priest as in the Western practice.

In all practices, it is a response to the Scriptural tradition of requesting God’s intercession for the miraculous healing of afflictions. In the Old Testament, most miracles were displays of God’s power over nature. For instance, the parting of the Red Sea. In the New Testament, however, God’s miracles were manifested through Christ’s miraculous healing, and healing done by the Apostles. It was this emphasis on Christ’s healing that earned him the name of the Great Physician in the Gospel of Mark.

Miraculous healing has been practiced continually since beginning of Christianity, and continues to this day. In the early church, it was noted as being an important tool of conversion in that it manifested God’s power as a gifts of the Holy Spirit, which St Paul had addressed in his letters of the Corinthians. St Gregory of Nyssa wrote in the third century that, “healing is the main door through which people come to the knowledge of the truth.”

Over time, healing ministry waned. While it continued to be practiced in the East in a similar fashion, in the West, healing was prohibited. Clergy were barred from providing more than spiritual counsel to the dying, and unction became known as Last Rites in the West. In Anglicanism, the full weight of the original ministry of healing was not restored until the 20th century. While the English Reformation and Book of Common Prayer 1662 had contained within it provisions for prayer and ministry yo the sick, the sacramental role of ministry to the sick remained somewhat limited. It was viewed as possibly leading to superstition. Extreme Unction comes from the Latin in extremis which refers to those close to death. The sacramental role of ministry to the sick thus remained generally tied to that period of near death. In the Christian East, this was also the case, though not to the same degree as in the West. By the 1920s, however, efforts at the Lambeth Conference sought to restore the full degree of ministry to the sick that was practiced in the Early Church.

With the restoration of the healing ministry in more recent times, there is an obvious question of what its role ought to be. In the days of Christ, human understanding of biology, disease and medicine were far more limited than today. Modern medical science has eliminated many diseases and afflictions, while countless others are treatable. John Macquarrie, the Anglican theologian, then asks the obvious question: is there still a role for the sacrament of unction in modern society?

Unction, writes Macquarrie, “is not an alternative, and should never be thought of as a rival to scientific medicine.” There are some sects of Christianity which decry modern medicine, viewing it as the resort of the faithless. Most Christians would recognize, however, that medicine is the fruit of God’s gift of reason to mankind and our continual effort to understand the physical world in which we have been created.

A fictional monk once noted that faith and reason are shoes on our feet. We can go further with both than just one. So it is with medical science and holy healing. In this sense, we should also be reminded that miraculous healing is not simply the final resort, to be pursued only once all medical avenues have been exhausted. In his Epistle, St James does not say, if there are sick among you, take them to the doctor; if that fails then lay hands upon them and anoint them with oil.

In the Book of Common Prayer, the rites provided for the ministry of the sick, and lays out provisions for how it is to be approached. Speaking to the sacramental nature of unction, Richard Foster wrote, “the laying on of hands in itself does not heal the sick – it is Christ who heals the sick. The laying on of hands is a simple act of obedience that quickens our faith.” As with the anointing with oil, the rite specifies that the priest say, “as with this holy oil thou art outwardly anointed, so may our heavenly Father grant that thou mayest be inwardly anointed with the Holy Spirit.” This rite makes clear the proper sacramental view and avoids the superstitious views that plague the topic of miraculous healing. During the rite, both passages from St Mark’s gospel and St James’ epistle are read to reinforce the scriptural basis of healing.

With such clear scriptural teaching, a long tradition in the church dating back to the time of Christ and proceeding largely uninterrupted, and evidence today of continued miraculous healing for those who have received prayer, the laying on of hands and anointing with oil, it is clear why Unction remains one of the seven sacraments of the Church.

On the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony

The Second Sunday in Lent

ALMIGHTY God, who seest that we have no power of ourselves to help ourselves: Keep us both outwardly in our bodies, and inwardly in our souls; that we may be defended from all adversities which may happen to the body, and from all evil thoughts which may assault and hurt the 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.

Unlike the Sacraments discussed so far, Matrimony is not a necessary sacrament for everyone. Some people are called to celibate lives of singleness. For those whom God calls into relationship, however, the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony is the means by which God’s grace and love are joined into the relationship, sanctifying it and strengthening it in holiness.

In Holy Scripture, God’s blessing of the unions between men and women play an important role throughout. In the Old Testament, the union between Adam and Eve is described in Genesis, and God’s blessing of other unions is mentioned with numerous other Biblical figures. In the New Testament, the Gospel of St John records Christ’s first miracle during the wedding at Cana. Today, the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony is one in which Anglicans, particularly in Canada and the United States, have recently devoted much debate and indeed controversy, namely over the amendment of canons concerning the Sacrament to allow for the marriage of same-sex couples. This piece will explore the sacramental and scriptural basis for Holy Matrimony, which finds no basis for conferring God's blessing on such partnerships, but will not seek to discuss the relationship of civil marriage to the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony, and what distinctions might be made with respect to civil marriage of same-sex couples.

Before delving into the question of the sacrament itself, a definition in terms might be useful. While the terms are often used interchangeably, in this article, the sacrament will be referred to as Matrimony or Holy Matrimony, while the civil institution, recognized by the state, will be referred to as marriage. While the two are entirely distinct, the failure to draw the distinction between one as a sacrament ordained by God to guard, hallow and protect the sacred gift of love he grants the couple, while the other is a civil institution granted by governments in order to provide a framework of legal benefits and rights intended to support families. One can be married, recognized by the civil government as such, and yet not receive God’s blessing. The criteria on which marriage is based are not in any way connected to God’s basis for estate of Holy Matrimony, and in discussing the subject, care should be taken not to confuse the two.

Matrimony, while not directly ordained by Christ, is mentioned several times in Holy Scripture, including by Christ himself. St Mark’s gospel has Christ responding to the Pharisees questioning him over marriage when he says:

But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.’ ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.” (Mk 10. 6-9)

In this passage, Christ quotes from Genesis and confirms the nature of the Holy Matrimony as being ordained by God from the start of creation. In the historic sense, the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony has been one practiced since the early days of the Church. First century Rome was not well known for its chastity, and the morals of the Christians were viewed as a unique curiosity. It is clear then the importance that the hallowing of a union would have in the early Church.

In Anglicanism, the Thirty-Nine Articles also mention much the same definition of Holy Matrimony in Article XXXV which lists the homilies in the Book of Homilies, one of which is On the Estate of Holy Matrimony. This homily lays out nearly the same reasons for the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony as does the Book of Common Prayer, 1662:

[Holy Matrimony] is an honourable estate, instituted of God in the time of man's innocency, signifying unto us the mystical union that is betwixt Christ and his Church; which holy estate Christ adorned and beautified with his presence, and first miracle that he wrought, in Cana of Galilee; and is commended of Saint Paul to be honourable among all men...

The Canadian Book of Common Prayer similarly outlines three reasons for Holy Matrimony:

Matrimony was ordained for the hallowing of the union betwixt man and woman; for the procreation of children to be brought up in the fear and nurture of the Lord; and for the mutual society, help, and comfort, that the one ought to have of the other, in both prosperity and adversity.

Both are generally in accord, though the 1662 Book of Common Prayer had one additional reason for Holy Matrimony, “and to avoide Fornication,” as the Book of Homilies puts it. While the Canadian BCP does not list this particular point, it remains implicit simply through the scriptural reason for this argument, which is laid out by St Paul in his epistle to the Corinthians.

The three primary reasons for Matrimony are laid out in the Book of Common Prayer as follows. The first is the hallowing of the union between man and woman. This first reason therefore is to set apart the union between a man and woman as sacred. The emphasis here is on God blessing the union. It contrasts with the third reason--which has to do with the mutual support of the man and woman--which could just as easily be argued to be present in secular relationships. This makes it the key distinction between Matrimony and marriage or other forms of relationships. The second reason for Matrimony is procreation and the raising of children in faith. Procreation has often been listed among reasons for marriage, but it is the key component of raising children in faith and knowledge of God that is specified in the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony.

These reasons, the traditional and scriptural basis for Matrimony, illustrate the ways in which God’s grace is extended to a relationship to promote a blessed union between man and woman, and further illustrate how Christian Matrimony is set apart from secular and civil marriage.

On the Sacrament of Reconcilliation

The First Sunday in Lent

O LORD, who for our sake didst fast forty days and forty nights: Give us grace to use such abstinence, that, our flesh being subdued to the Spirit, we may ever obey thy godly motions in righteousness and true holiness, to thy honour and glory; who livest and reignest with the Father and the Holy Spirit, one God, world without end. 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.

The season of Lent, which began Ash Wednesday is a period of preparation, examination and repentance prior to the solemnity of Holy Week and the joyous celebration of Christ’s resurrection Easter Sunday. It seems only appropriate to discuss the Sacrament of Reconciliation in this context.

One of the first things that ought to come to mind when asked to distinguish Judaism from Christianity is the manner in which we are reconciled to God. In Judaism, it is through adherence to the Law, and sacrifice and ritual purification as a form of penance when the law has been broken. In Christianity, however, through the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ we are, regardless of actions or merits, reconciled to God and our sins forgiven. It should be no surprise that reconciliation has been counted as a Sacrament since the early days of the Church.

The sacrament has many names. Confession, or confession and absolution, is probably the most common term and is also used in the Book of common Prayer, the Articles of Religion describe it as Penance, a term also common in Roman Catholic practice, and Reconciliation is another common term, and the term used here, because the confession is our own action in the sacrament, while the forgiveness of sins, and thus reconciliation with God, is the grace we receive through it.

The practice of confessing sins is both Scriptural and dates back to the early Church. In the Epistle of St James, it says, “the prayer of faith will save the one who is sick, and the Lord will raise him up. And if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven. Therefore, confess your sins to one another and pray for one another, that you may be healed,” (Jas 5. 15-16). There are other verses throughout the New Testament that exhort the value of the confession of sins and confirm God’s forgiveness upon those who confess their sins. Of particular note and parallel to James comes from St Matthew’s gospel:

And behold, some people brought to him a paralytic, lying on a bed. And when Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, “Take heart, my son; your sins are forgiven.” And behold, some of the scribes said to themselves, “This man is blaspheming.” But Jesus, knowing their thoughts, said, “Why do you think evil in your hearts? For which is easier, to say, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Rise and walk’? But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins”—he then said to the paralytic—“Rise, pick up your bed and go home.” And he rose and went home. (Mt 9. 2-7)

In this story, the paralytic is brought to Jesus for physical healing, but Jesus reminds us that spiritual healing through the forgiveness of sin is just as, if not far more, important.

Throughout history, however, there have been multiple practices of confession, namely the public confession and private confession. In Anglicanism, both forms can be found in the Book of Common Prayer. The confession and absolution comes in the liturgies for the Daily Offices as well as Holy Communion. These take the form of a public or general confession in which all profess to have sinned and ask for God’s forgiveness, followed by the priest announcing absolution, or the assurance of the forgiveness of sins. In addition, in Ministry to the Sick, the Book of Common Prayer also lays out, “A Form of Confession and Absolution” which is in fact a method for private, or auricular, confession. In this liturgy, the priest invites the penitent to confess their sins, and a form of confession is provided which allows the penitent to list their specific sins, rather than making a general confession.

In both cases, once the confession has been made, whether general or specific, the priest then pronounces the absolution, assuring us of forgiveness and echoing Christ’s words to the paralytic: “Take heart, my son; your sins are forgiven.”

As the rubric to the liturgy describes it, “If the sick person feel his conscience troubled with any weighty matter, he shall be moved to make a special confession of his sins.” It is this emphasis on troubled conscious rather than the necessity of being sick, which has seen this liturgy used at other times throughout the year for any parishioner who seeks to make particular private confessions to their priest. While it is not specifically offered in the way penance is offered year round and scheduled for specific times in a Roman Catholic parish, private confession is generally available in any Anglican parish simply by asking to schedule time for it with the Priest.

There are generally two ways it might be offered. First, in the Book of Common Prayer, a number of times before Holy Communion the priest is to read the exhortation, which includes a part which says:

And because it is requisite, that no man should come to the holy Communion, but with a full trust in God's mercy, and with a quiet conscience; therefore if there be any of you, who by this means cannot quiet his own conscience herein, but requireth further comfort or counsel, let him come to me, or to some other discreet Minister of God's Word, and open his grief; that by the ministry of God's holy Word, he may receive the benefit of absolution, together with spiritual counsel and advice, to the quieting of his conscience, and the avoiding of all scruple and doubtfulness.

In addition, in the season of Lent when Christians are called to examine themselves, a priest might specifically mention the availability of private confession.

Reconciliation with God and the forgiveness of sins is a true gift of God’s mercy, and one in which all Christians should rejoice. For many, confession is seen as something difficult and to be feared, but if anything, it is a comfort. As Thomas Becon, chaplain to Archbishop Thomas Cranmer, once wrote: “Confession bringeth high tranquillity to the troubled man… while the most comfortable words of absolution are rehearsed unto him by the priest.” Again, one of the reasons to view this as the Sacrament of Reconciliation, rather than Penance, which emphasizes what acts of penance might be called of us, or confession, which emphasizes the confession of sins, reconciliation emphasises God’s loving forgiveness and the assurance thereof.

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 the Sacrament of Holy Orders

The Sunday called Sexagesima

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On the Sacrament of the Supper of our Lord

The Sunday called Septuagesima

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

The Epiphany of our Lord

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Wisdom of Saints: St John Chrysostom

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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