On Tables

The Twenty-First Sunday after Trinity

GRANT, we beseech thee, merciful Lord, to thy faithful people pardon and peace; that they may be cleansed from all their sins, and serve thee with a quiet mind; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen. Amen. 

Imagine a party held by a community association meant to bring the people together. All are welcome and signs outside invite everyone in, even non-members. At the door, unfamiliar faces are warmly greeted and told where to go. Yet halfway into the evening, the master of ceremony announces that food is to be served, but only members of the community association will be allowed to sit at the table and eat.

Would anyone feel welcomed in such a situation? That is the argument presented against the practice of closed communion, or versions of it, which deny the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper to any guests, in contrast to open communion in which it is offered to all, even non-Christians, who desire to receive.

Even within the Anglican Church of Canada, there are those who argue that the sacraments ought not to be denied to anyone. This argument has been advanced in relation to the recent discussion over the amendment of the marriage canon to allow same-sex persons to receive the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony, saying that the Anglican Church of Canada will never be truly welcoming and accepting until sacraments are open to all.

The perspective of the community association makes complete sense in the secular sense. It is downright rude and nonsensical to invite others in and, without warning them until the food is presented, tell them that they must be a member before they will be invited to eat. And yet, with the Eucharist, it is not at all the same. The Church is not offering physical or carnal nourishment, but the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ which nourishes us spiritually by God’s grace.

To understand the difference, first look to Scripture and this famous exhortation from St Paul:

Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgement on himself. (I Cor 11. 27-29)

Here, St Paul calls on those who are about the receive to do two things. First, to repent and approach in purity as opposed to approaching in an unworthy manner. Second, to discern the body. This passage has been taken by many to refer to the need to understand the sacramental nature of the body and blood before receiving. To understand the Real Presence which is presented in the sacrament. The Fathers speak to this as well.

St Ambrose of Milan, in his On the Mysteries, speaks to the sacramental nature of the Eucharist when he says:

The Lord Jesus Himself proclaims: “This is My Body.” Before the blessing of the heavenly words another nature is spoken of, after the consecration the Body is signified. He Himself speaks of His Blood. Before the consecration it has another name, after it is called Blood. And you say, Amen, that is, It is true. Let the heart within confess what the mouth utters, let the soul feel what the voice speaks… Christ, then, feeds His Church with these sacraments, by means of which the substance of the soul is strengthened, and seeing the continual progress of her grace… He signifies that the mystery ought to remain sealed up with you, that it be not violated by the deeds of an evil life, and pollution of chastity, that it be not made known to thou, for whom it is not fitting, nor by garrulous talkativeness it be spread abroad amongst unbelievers.

St Ambrose’s views of the efficacy of the sacraments are mirrored in the works of many others of the Fathers. Perhaps the most notable work of which are the catechetical lectures of St Cyril of Jerusalem. St Cyril’s teaching itself begins by referring specifically to St Paul’s teachings previously cited (as opposed to St Ambrose’s emphasis on Christ’s institution in the gospels and the broader Biblical narrative of God’s grace), and then to begin a discussion of the Real Presence asks if a Christian accepts the transformation of water into wine at Cana, why not wine into Blood in the Eucharist? He goes on to explore Christ’s words in St John’s gospel where he says, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you,” (St Jn 6. 53).

These interpretations leave little to the imagination. The Fathers believed in the Real Presence, and so to in Anglicanism are we reminded in Article XXV of the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion that the:

Sacraments ordained of Christ be not only badges or tokens of Christian men’s profession, but rather they be certain sure witnesses, and effectual signs of grace, and God’s good will towards us, by the which he doth work invisibly in us, and doth not only quicken, but also strengthen and confirm our Faith in him.

And again in Article XXVIII, where it says, “insomuch that to such as rightly, worthily, and with faith, receive the same, the Bread which we break is a partaking of the Body of Christ; and likewise the Cup of Blessing is a partaking of the Blood of Christ.” The emphasis here again shows that there is true grace transmitted through the Body and Blood and that it must be rightly, worthily and with faith received.

The Anglican Communion as a whole actually practices a form of open communion, in that you are not required to be a member of the Anglican tradition, but rather just that you be baptised. Most protestant denominations practice some form of open communion, generally without requirement of baptism because communion is viewed as being merely symbolic.

We must never forget that in being welcoming we must be mindful of showing both love and truth, and the truth is that it is not loving to invite someone to their condemnation if they ignore St Paul’s warnings about receiving the Eucharist.

While the limitation of reception only by baptised Christians is good, it sometimes seems insufficient. St Paul’s first warning was against receiving while impure. This is why the confession is said prior to reception of the Eucharist. However for someone who does not believe, they do not approach the confession in faith. They cannot truly confess their sins for they do not believe that they are sins, nor do they believe that by the blood of Christ their sins may be forgiven.

The second point, however, that they must discern the body, is more problematic. Many Christians do not discern the body, contrary to the teachings of the Fathers. Indeed, many Anglicans do not either. By the practice of closed communion, the Roman Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodox Church ensure that those who receive do not receive to their condemnation. While it is possible that someone outside their tradition could receive, it is for the protection of all that they not receive.

A happy compromise might be to make clear as a policy of the Church that when others are invited to receive, those Baptised Christians who have examined their conscience and who believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist be invited to come forward and receive, and for others to be limited to a blessing.

Wisdom of Saints: St Cyril of Jerusalem

The Feast of Cyril, Doctor and Bishop of Jerusalem, 386

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 Cyril, and we pray that thy Church may never be destitute of the same; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

St Cyril of Jerusalem is another of the saints of whom little is known of his early life. He was born around 315 AD in or near Jerusalem, and died in 386 AD. He was trained in the Church fathers and seems to have had a secular education in the pagan philosophers as well. He was ordained as a deacon in 335 AD, a priest in 343 AD and as Bishop of Jerusalem in 350 AD.

St Cyril was a Nicene Christian and developed an animosity with the Arian bishop of Caesarea. While some scholars have argued the dispute was over issues of precedence, most seem to believe it ultimately was rooted in their opposing Christologies and the general Arian Controversy which had divided Christianity in the 4th century. Bishop Acacius ultimately caused St Cyril to be exiled briefly in 359. Restored in 360, he was then again driven out by the Emperor before finally being restored by the succession of a new Emperor in 361. In 367, his restoration was revoked, along with all other Bishops who had been restored by Emperor Julian in 361, and he lived in exile until the death of Emperor Valens in 378. He remained as Bishop of Jerusalem for the rest of his days, and attended the Second Ecumenical Council held in Constantinople in 381, which affirmed the Nicene Creed and finally put to rest the Arian controversy.

While the details of St Cyril’s life are relatively unknown, several important writings of his survive, the most prominent of which are his Catechetical Lectures, which includes 18 lessons presented to catechumens in Lent prior to Baptism, and five more lessons on the Holy Mysteries presented in Easter after they had been baptised.

The complete work survives, and gives keen insight into the minds of the Early Church, on numerous Christian topics. His lessons include discussions of the understanding of the forgiveness of sin, the nature of Christ, his resurrection and ascension, while the final five discuss issues related to Baptism, Confirmation, Holy Communion and the Sacred Liturgy.

In his lectures are a number of important points about Christianity. This quote from his lesson IV On the Ten Points of Doctrine, in which St Cyril examines a number of doctrines from the Nicene Creed as well as other Christian doctrines more generally:

Have thou ever in thy mind this seal [the Nicene Creed], which for the present has been lightly touched in my discourse, by way of summary, but shall be stated, should the Lord permit, to the best of my power with the proof from the Scriptures.  For concerning the divine and holy mysteries of the Faith, not even a casual statement must be delivered without the Holy Scriptures; nor must we be drawn aside by mere plausibility and artifices of speech.  Even to me, who tell thee these things, give not absolute credence, unless thou receive the proof of the things which I announce from the Divine Scriptures.  For this salvation which we believe depends not on ingenious reasoning, but on demonstration of the Holy Scriptures.

Here, St Cyril lays out that these catechumens must test all he teaches them against Holy Scripture, for the Christian is to believe nothing which cannot be proved by Holy Scripture. Later in that same chapter he discusses at length the canon of Scripture, and exhorts the catachumens not be taken in by false teachings:

Then of the New Testament there are the four Gospels only, for the rest have false titles and are mischievous. The Manichæans also wrote a Gospel according to Thomas, which being tinctured with the fragrance of the evangelic title corrupts the souls of the simple sort.  Receive also the Acts of the Twelve Apostles; and in addition to these the seven Catholic Epistles of James, Peter, John, and Jude; and as a seal upon them all, and the last work of the disciples, the fourteen Epistles of Paul.

Here, St Cyril identifies all the canonical books of the New Testament, aside from the Apocalypse of John which was one of the final books to be recognized in the Canon, and which would not be fixed among Christians for another ten years after St Cyril’s death. An important point here, is his denunciation of the apocryphal gospels which were then being promoted and which have, in modern times, become popular to write about again, particularly by secular authors. The Da Vinci Code and similar works use the gnostic gospels as bases for speaking of secret knowledge that Christians should know, but these so-called gospels have been known of, and have been known to be false since the time of the Early Church. Unlike the canonincal gospels which were written in the Apostolic Age, the apocryphal gospels were forged in the early 4th century, so it is not shocking that St Cyril would mention them as they were new, the canon was not fully fixed, and many Christians would not have known they were false teachings.

St Cyril’s lecture on the Holy Spirit was able to address a number of pressing issues, both in exploring the description of the Holy Spirit in the Creed as well as in addressing a number of heresies surrounding the Holy Spirit and related aspects of Christian faith:

Spiritual in truth is the grace we need, in order to discourse concerning the Holy Spirit; not that we may speak what is worthy of Him, for this is impossible, but that by speaking the words of the divine Scriptures, we may run our course without danger.  For a truly fearful thing is written in the Gospels, where Christ has plainly said, Whosoever shall speak a word against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, nor in that which is to come. And there is often fear, lest a man should receive this condemnation, through speaking what he ought not concerning Him, either from ignorance, or from supposed reverence.  The Judge of quick and dead, Jesus Christ, declared that he hath no forgiveness; if therefore any man offend, what hope has he?
It must therefore belong to Jesus Christ’s grace itself to grant both to us to speak without deficiency, and to you to hear with discretion; for discretion is needful not to them only who speak, but also to them that hear, lest they hear one thing, and misconceive another in their mind.  Let us then speak concerning the Holy Ghost nothing but what is written; and whatsoever is not written, let us not busy ourselves about it. The Holy Ghost Himself spoke the Scriptures; He has also spoken concerning Himself as much as He pleased, or as much as we could receive.  Let us therefore speak those things which He has said; for whatsoever He has not said, we dare not say.

Here, St Cyril discusses how we are commanded to speak truthfully about the Spirit, lest our ill-speech not be forgiven. He goes on to describe how the only way thus to speak truthfully, and to have discerning ears, is to speak and listen through the Scriptures. While he again examines a number of heresies concerning the Holy Spirit, once he finishes, he concludes saying, “Let then thus much suffice concerning those outcasts; and now let us return to the divine Scriptures,” and does just that, spending the remainder of the lecture examining what the Scriptures have to say about the Holy Spirit.

St Cyril, and his Catechetical Lectures are a treasure of the early Church, which give us insight into the doctrines, teachings and practices of early Christians. It is a work well-worth reading today as the truths St Cyril teaches are timeless.

On Via Media

The Twentieth Sunday after Trinity

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

Feast of All Saints in the Octave

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

Commemoration of the Faithful Departed

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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