On the Articles: Article XIX

The Fourth Sunday after Trinity

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On Identity

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.

This post marks the 100th post since Canterbury Calgarian began back in August 2014. The first post explored the history of the English Church, and began a brief series that traced the history of Anglicanism through the centuries. One hundred posts later, it seems fitting to spend a bit of time exploring Anglican identity today in light of the myriad of other subjects that have been explored since that original historical overview.

What makes an Anglican today an Anglican? What distinguishes us from other Christian traditions and denominations?

Anglicanism is Evangelical. From the outset of the English Reformation, this was one of the goals—to suggest that the ultimate authority in the Christian faith was God’s word written. That although other things could be held to be required to be believed, none could be required to be believed as necessary for salvation. Article VI of the Articles of Religion states as much in plain words, and indeed throughout the prayer book are references to the sufficiency of Holy Scripture.

It becomes clear that Anglicanism as an identity is evangelical: it finds salvation in Christ through his gospels. This establishes Scriptures as the ultimate canon of orthodox belief, and also leads to the desire to evangelize and spread the word, both because it is the only way others may be saved and because it is Christ that commands us to do so in Scripture.

ALMIGHTY God, who by thy blessed Apostle it hast taught us that there is none other name given among men whereby we must be saved, but only the Name of our Lord Jesus Christ: Grant, we beseech thee, that we may ever glory in this Name, and strive to make thy salvation known unto all mankind; through the same Jesus Christ our Lord, who liveth and reigneth with thee and the Holy Spirit, one God, for ever and ever. Amen. (Collect for the Name of Jesus, 320)

So Anglicanism is at its heart evangelical. It is also charismatic.

Anglicanism is trinitarian and in so being remains open to the activity and presence of the Holy Spirit. Many collects refer to the activity of the Holy Spirit, and the sacrament of Confirmation is maintained to promote the reception, as is Biblically taught, of the Holy Spirit in order that he may indwell a Christian’s life and support and strengthen them. It is not a requirement or character of the Anglican identity to see manifested charisms of the Holy Spirit as somehow being necessary demonstrations of faith, but rather it speaks to a willingness to be open in all situations to the activity of the Holy Spirit, even when there is no direct perception of the intercession of the Spirit.

The Holy Spirit’s place is deeply tied to the Anglican Church of Canada in particular, in that the Solemn Declaration of 1893 which declares that we continue to receive the guidance of the Holy Spirit who was given by Christ to those who believe, and that it is through the Spirit that we are empowered in right worship of God the Father.

The Solemn Declaration itself also defines our Catholicity when it notes that we hold to the Catholic faith received and interpreted by way of the Book of Common Prayer, Ordinal and 39 Articles of Religion, and that we are, “to transmit the same unimpaired to our posterity.” In order words, to maintain that Catholicity.

Even in the Book of Alternative Services, that Catholicity is maintained and referred to quite explicitly in the preface to the ordination rites where it says, “It is also recognized and affirmed that the threefold ministry is not the exclusive property of this portion of Christ’s catholic Church, but is a gift from God for the nurture of his people and the proclamation of his gospel everywhere.” Put simply, there is no such thing as an Anglican priest, but rather a Catholic priest living out their orders in Anglican tradition.

That Catholicity is similarly affirmed in the Creeds and the sacraments which are maintained. While the Thirty-Nine Articles draw a distinction between the two great dominical sacraments instituted by Christ, the remaining five remain clearly Biblical and received by the whole Catholic Church, east and west.

Even there is a clear distinction, however, that our Catholicity is Anglican, which is to say, it is subject to Anglican distinctives. We receive what was accepted by the Catholic Church, the canon of Scripture and the Sacraments, the threefold order of ministry, but yet we maintain our Anglican Formularies to help interpret and apply what has been received, just as we accept the role of the Fathers in informing our interpretation of Scripture.

The Anglican Formularies particularly speak to some differences between Anglican Catholicism and Roman Catholicism, which is an understandable historical development given that Roman Catholicism was the only competing form of Christianity for the English Church in the time of the English Reformation. While the English Church had largely always maintained distinctives from Rome itself, these had begun to diminish in the 13th century through to the 16th century when the authority of the Pope was removed from England.

It makes sense, then, that the 39 Articles are the nearest thing Anglicanism has to a confessional statement. Rather than needing to assert the authority of Scripture behind a confessional statement, as continental Protestants were doing, the 39 Articles of Religion served to articulate how Anglican Catholicism differed from Roman Catholicism. We believed in the real presence, but not Transubstantiation. We believe in tradition, but it is subservient to Holy Scripture (Article XX) and there are limits on the authority of the Church to teach tradition, which contrasts with Rome in which Tradition and Holy Scripture are held to be equal in authority.

As a whole, these clear a clear identity, centred in God, in fellowship with other Christians, but practising the Christian faith in both an ancient and modern way. Rooted in the Holy Scriptures and the practices and teachings of the Early Church and the Fathers, articulated in the ancient Creeds and Councils and finally in the Anglican formularies, but also locally adapted to the needs of our modern society (for instance, the Canadian Book of Common Prayer includes prayers for our Canadian forms of Government and additional prayers relating to agriculture). Anglicans are evangelical, charismatic and Catholic.

While this description and identity helps us to understand our relationship to other Christians, it is also important to understand that first and foremost, we are not evangelical, or charismatic or Catholic or even Anglican. Our foremost identity must always be as children of God, adopted into his family through Christ, and in fellowship with all other brothers and sisters in Christ who make up the body.

On the Sufficiency of Catholicism

The Eighteenth Sunday after Trinity

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On Theology

The Fifth Sunday after Trinity

GRANT O Lord, we beseech thee, that the course of this world may be so peaceably ordered by thy governance, that thy Church may joyfully serve thee in all godly quietness; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

The issue of Anglicanism and Same-Sex Marriage is once again front and centre. The US Supreme Court, in a civil ruling affecting the civil laws on marriage in the United States, and at the same time The Episcopal Church, the primary Anglican church in the United States had its triennial General Convention, which included a debate over the authorization of a revised rite for same-sex marriage. All of this has spilled over into Canada and elsewhere, including it must be noted non-Anglican traditions who have been compelled to respond to the development.

Metropolitan Tikhon of the Orthodox Church in America has perhaps had the best and most succinct response, in which he affirmed that the OCA has made, “issued a number of statements outlining, detailing and clarifying the teaching of our Holy Faith on this matter in light of challenges from our American society,” over the years, and:

The ruling does not change the teaching of the Church, but it does remind us of the need to be Christ-like in our dealings with everyone. The state has the responsibility to enact laws that protect the rights of each individual.  The Church, while it does not bless “same-sex marriages” or view them as sacramental, does see the image of Christ in every individual, and his or her worth in the eyes of the Lord Who died upon the Cross for our salvation.

This shows two important points. First, the statement reiterates the point that Church doctrine is not, and ought not to be, based on civil laws, such that this ruling (or the passage of the Marriage Act in 2004 in Canada) does not demand that the Church similarly make a change to its understanding of the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony. The second point is that while it does not mean doctrines or theologies of the Church must change, it may require that those same doctrines and theologies be applied in new ways that are adapted to the new realities of the society in which the Church exists.

This statement could well have been written by Archbishop of Canterbury Michael Ramsay a few decades ago, but is contrasted heavily with more recent responses. Retired TEC bishop Gene Robinson suggested that, “all religions will be under more pressure now to get in lockstep with society.”

The idea that the Church must, at least in part, base its theology and doctrines on civil developments is completely alien to traditional Anglicanism and the Anglican way of “doing” theology.

The three-legged stool is one way Anglicans have traditionally viewed as the model by which we do theology. First, Holy Scripture, then reason, embodied in the writings of the Fathers and saints throughout the ages, and finally tradition, embodied in the Anglican formularies of the Book of Common Prayer, Ordinal and Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion. For Canadian Anglicans, the Solemn Declaration of 1893, which clergy subscribe to prior to ordination, explicitly requires that they submit to the formularies and Holy Scripture, so it is a canonical requirement in addition to simply being part of the Anglican tradition used by Anglicans everywhere.

In the Articles themselves, we are reminded of the primacy of Scripture. Article VI states, “Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation.” They are the inspired word of God, and there is no better or more reliable source of information for us to turn to when seeking to establish or modify our theology or doctrines. For Anglicans, unlike Roman Catholics and the Orthodox, nothing can be taught as a requirement of the faith that cannot be proved by Holy Scripture.

Not all Scripture can be plainly interpreted, however. That is where the faculty of reason comes into play. Throughout the centuries, countless Christians have written and handed down homilies on the Scriptures and great works on theology. These works help us to understand the meaning behind Scripture as it has been understood by the Church throughout the centuries, and similarly how different doctrines of the church have been understood.

When we test a doctrine against Scripture, it can sometimes be simple enough to pick a few verses and claim they support the doctrine we are proposing, by virtue of presenting a skewed interpretation of Scripture. When we test against Scripture and then the view of the Church Fathers, this type of skewed interpretation is no longer possible, because we do not simply test it against the plain words of Holy Scripture itself, but also the accepted orthodox interpretations of Holy Scripture held throughout the centuries.

Finally, there is the tradition of the Church. The reality of Christianity is that there are many practices and views which have been held only in particular times and in particular places. When Anglicans do theology, therefore, it is essential that doctrines also be tested against the Anglican formularies. One might be able to find an understanding of the Eucharist that does not contradict Holy Scripture, and may even find support with one or more of the Church Fathers, or at least does not conflict with their writing, but if it remains in conflict with the Book of Common Prayer, Ordinal or Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion then it remains outside the parameters of acceptable Anglican Doctrine.

An example of this might be the doctrine of transubstantiation as held by the Roman Catholic Church. One can argue in favour of it from Scripture, and a number of saints throughout history have held to doctrines consistent with transubstantiation, but Article XXVIII argues that, “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,” and that transubstantiation, “hath given occasion to many superstitions.”

As we face increasing pressure for the Church to modernise her doctrines, to try to get in lockstep with society, as Bishop Gene Robinson put it, it is an important reminder that Church doctrine is based on God’s will and God’s law, not on the rules of society.

On the Anglican Communion

The Fifth Sunday in Lent commonly called Passion Sunday

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

Lent

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On the Sacrament of 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 Revision of the Prayer Book

The Sunday After Christmas Day

ALMIGHTY God, who hast given us thy only-begotten Son to take our nature upon him, and as at this time to be born of a pure Virgin: Grant that we being regenerate, and made thy children by adoption and grace, may daily be renewed by thy Holy Spirit; through the same our Lord Jesus Christ, who liveth and reigneth with thee and the same Spirit, ever one God, world without end. Amen.

In 2010, the General Synod of the Anglican Church of Canada mandated that the Faith, Worship and Ministry department create a Liturgy Task Force to further review and modify authorized liturgies for the Anglican Church of Canada. Recently, the Task Force released its first Trial Use liturgy for the Daily Offices, and it speaks to a very particular vision of liturgy and liturgical reform that is rooted in a  view that sees the language of, not simply the Prayer Book, but even the Book of Alternative Services as no longer being both ‘faithful and fair’. While the rationale for the proposed daily offices does not particularly define what is meant by faithful and fair, or how the Prayer Book or BAS are not faithful or fair, the notes on the revised Psalter written by the Rev Dr Richard Geoffrey Leggett provides in his words an explanation that the meaning is to provide language that is:

(i) faithful to the intent of the writers of the psalms as poems expressing the relationship between God and the people of Israel and (ii) fair to current users of the psalms who have found the predominately masculine language a barrier to the integration of the psalms into the life of prayer and worship.

In essence, the Liturgy Task Force is saying that language that refers to God as Father creates a barrier to praise of God, as does the use of language such as referring to humanity simply as ‘man’ as has been the case in many Bible translations, and is the case in the text of the Prayer Book, though generally not in the Book of Alternative Services.

While the rationale provides for two other practical reasons for this proposed revision—namely that in the current form you must flip back and forth between pages as you work through the liturgy rather than being able to simply read through it linearly and also that the lectionary and selection of canticles and prayers is limited—it seems that language is the driving force behind this revision, as these more practical concerns could be addressed without any actual change to the liturgy itself, simply through the publication of a revised lectionary for the daily offices or in the case of the former issue, through the use of technology similar to the Church of England’s Daily Prayer app which allows Apple and Android users to have an electronic prayer book which automatically inserts the daily readings into the Matins, Vespers and Compline services and allows the user to linearly read through the entire service.

The Liturgy Task Force has suggested that the language of the BAS, and by extension the Prayer Book, is deficient in either faithfulness or more likely fairness. If this is the primary revision of the text, then it suggests the Task Force views this as the primary hindrance to the use of currently authorized liturgical texts on the Daily Offices. It then seems the appropriate response is a comparison of how the revised proposed Daily Offices read as compared to, for instance, the Offices of the Prayer Book. While in the context of the Psalter faithfulness would be held up against the Psalms of the Bible, in the context of the Daily Offices, the Solemn Declaration states that our faithfulness is to be found in the Anglican Formularies: the Book of Common Prayer, the Ordinal and the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion. In this case, then, the Prayer Book should be the standard for faithfulness.

The Daily Offices begin with a penitential rite. In the Prayer Book, it reads as follows for Morning Prayer:

DEARLY beloved brethren, the Scripture moveth us in sundry places to acknowledge and confess our manifold sins and wickedness; and that we should not dissemble nor cloke them before the face of Almighty God our heavenly Father; but confess them with an humble, lowly, penitent, and obedient heart; to the end that we may obtain forgiveness of the same, by his infinite goodness and mercy.
And although we ought at all times humbly to acknowledge our sins before God; yet ought we most chiefly so to do, when we assemble and meet together to render thanks for the great benefits that we have received at his hands, to set forth his most worthy praise, to hear his most holy Word, and to ask those things which are requisite and necessary, as well for the body as the soul.
Wherefore I pray and beseech you, as many as are here present, to accompany me with a pure heart and humble voice unto the throne of the heavenly grace.

In order to be faithful and fair, the revised Daily Office proposes the following substitute: “Let us confess our sins against God and our neighbour.” This is the alternate invitation to confession in the BAS. Can it be said to be fully faithful to the Prayer Book? In the Prayer Book, the invitation to confession reminds us that Scripture commands us to confess in order to obtain forgiveness of those sins by virtue of God’s infinite mercy. The proposed new liturgy provides no rationale for confession. It fails to inform us of God’s infinite mercy and compassion for us. It fails to inform us of that Scriptural mandate to confess our sins.

Some similar problems arise in the confession as well. The confession of the Prayer Book:

ALMIGHTY and most merciful Father, We have erred and strayed from thy ways like lost sheep, We have followed too much the devices and desires of our own hearts, We have offended against thy holy laws, We have left undone those things which we ought to have one, And we have done those things which we ought not to have done; And there is no health in us. But thou, O Lord, have mercy upon us, miserable offenders. Spare thou them, O God, which confess their faults. Restore thou them that are penitent; According to thy promises declared unto mankind in Christ Jesu our Lord. And grant, O most merciful Father, for his sake, That we may hereafter live a godly, righteous, and sober life, To the glory of thy holy Name. Amen.

Contrast that with the proposed revised confession:

God of all mercy, we confess that we have sinned against you, opposing your will in our lives. We have denied your goodness in each other, in ourselves and in the world you have created. We repent of the evil that enslaves us, the evil we have done and the evil done on our behalf. Forgive, restore and strengthen us through our Saviour Jesus Christ, so that we may abide in your love and serve only your will. Amen.

The Prayer Book begins with poetic imagery: we are lost sheep who have strayed from the Father. It then lists ways in which we sin: following our own desires rather than God’s, offending against God’s laws, failing to do what we ought to and doing what ought not to be doing. In essence this can be further broken down into two parts. The first two list ways in which we offend against the Law which was made obvious in the confession for the BAS which very clearly referenced the summary of the Law: love God and love your neighbour as yourself. The same intent holds here, while the second two points show the ways we make these offences, either by failing to do something we ought to do (passive) or doing what we should not (active).

The confession used in the revised rite follows something of a similar pattern, but again in the quest for ‘fair language’ it has lost its faithfulness. We sin by opposing God’s will in our lives, denying God’s goodness in each other, ourselves and the created world. While the Law, the ten commandments, previously served in the Prayer Book as the ultimate definition of sin, and Christ’s summary of the Law in the BAS, this proposed rite goes further by making its own summary which is just to say opposing God’s will. The problem with such a definition, is that while the Law and Christ’s Summary of the Law are defined in Scripture, God’s will can mean many things. The Law is a part of God’s will, and part of his will which applies to all mankind. Yet at the same time, God’s will is also individual in that he has purposes and designs for every single person. The discernment of God’s will in our lives is a personal responsibility, and by framing sin in terms of God’s will, the Liturgy Task Force has framed sin in terms that are thus discerned individually as well. This is neither faithful—in the sense that it again loses the fullness of the Prayer Book—and neither is it fair in that it lacks clarity. Doubtless the Liturgy Task Force did not include this confession, which is actually from a TEC resource called Enriching our Worship I published in 1998, with the intended desire that these should be the results, but ultimately that is the first concern that must be raised. A similar problem exists with the confession’s definition of how we sin. While the Prayer Book says it involves acts and omissions, the revised rite suggests sin is caused when we deny God’s goodness in each other, ourselves and the world. We can turn to Scripture to define the Law; we cannot turn to Scripture to define God’s goodness in a single place; it is in the fullness of Scripture that God’s goodness is found.

Interestingly enough, this confession lacks the criteria identified by the Liturgy Task Force in terms of language which they sought to change, namely gendered language. This holds true in the confession of the BAS (p. 46). So the question then is why is it even being changed? Whenever a liturgical text is opened up for specific purposes, it can be very tempting to make additional changes, whether they be for reasons of literary preference, theological preference or otherwise.

The Prayer Book remains the standard of our faith and will continue to. The fullness of Anglicanism is found within it, and the ultimate expression of Anglican Doctrine as well. As it says in the Solemn Declaration:

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 as the Church of England hath received and set forth the same in ‘The Book of Common Prayer and Administration of the Sacraments and other Rites and Ceremonies of the Church, according to the use of the Church of England; together with the Psalter or Psalms of David, pointed as they are to be sung or said in Churches; and the Form and Manner of Making, Ordaining, and Consecrating of Bishops, Priests, and Deacons’; and in the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion; and to transmit the same unimpaired to our posterity.