An Anglo-Catholic's Comment About Communion in the Hand

There is a YouTube video being circulated by some kooky group that has its knickers in a twist about Roman Catholics receiving the host in the hand (allowed in that church), which purportedly supports the proposition that Pope Francis is against it (a conclusion that doesn't necessarily follow from the video's footage).  Overhead today on an Anglo-Catholic discussion board:

"Wonderful news. I've never entirely trusted laity who are willing to touch a host."

Apart from the fact that this statement is ugly, judgmental, and wholly unChristian, its author apparently doesn't realize that he's including a saint of the Catholic Church, Cyril of Jerusalem, among those he deems untrustworthy.  From the Catechetical Lectures:

In approaching therefore, come not with thy wrists extended, or thy fingers spread; but make thy left hand a throne for the right, as for that which is to receive a King. And having hollowed thy palm, receive the Body of Christ, saying over it, Amen. So then after having carefully hallowed thine eyes by the touch of the Holy Body, partake of it; giving heed lest thou lose any portion thereof; for whatever thou losest, is evidently a loss to thee as it were from one of thine own members. For tell me, if any one gave thee grains of gold, wouldest thou not hold them with all carefulness, being on thy guard against losing any of them, and suffering loss? Wilt thou not then much more carefully keep watch, that not a crumb fall from thee of what is more precious than gold and precious stones? - Catechetical Lecture 12

No matter.  Old traditions die hard.  Or rather, newer traditions (mandatory reception sub lingua) die hard.  And not only that, anyone who disagrees is not to be trusted.

Forgive me, my Anglo-Catholic and Roman Catholic brethren who agree with this fellow, but this betrays a pathological, clericalist mentality, and is yet another indication of the fact that so many Catholics have it so bass ackward on so many issues.

More From Rev. Salter on Justification By Faith: Alignment With James

Part 1.

Parts 2 and 3.

The Protestant Face of Anglicanism (I)

First of a series of quotations promised here.  In the introduction to the book, Fr. Zahl references the historic struggle between Reformational (Protestant) and reactionary (Catholic) parties in the Church of England and her daughters worldwide.  He also references, however, the revisionist attempt to synthesize the two into a tertium quid (bolded emphases mine):

The historic tension between the two traditions, Catholic and Protestant, that struggle for the Anglican Church's soul has more recently been resolved by a school of thought which favors the view that Anglicanism is a balance rather than a tension, a synthesis rather than an antithesis, a tertium quid or "third way" rather than an either/or.  This view tends to reduce the vital claims inherent to both distinct presentations of Christianity to a sort of combination of ideas:  "reformed Catholicism" or "catholic Evangelicalism" or the like.  This view draws down the distinctive strengths of the two competing traditions to the claim of a harmonious mix, one tradition broadening out or augmenting the other to create a distinct entity, "Anglicanism". . . .

How could we describe this third entity?  It is spoken of as moderation in all things; the virtue of Englishness, by which is meant an unsystematic, unaxiomatic approach to truth and a certain disposition to quietness and reserve over against affirmation and statement; and a deliberate ambiguity that reflects the world as it really is. . . .

But there is an important flaw in this way of viewing Anglicanism as the union of opposites resulting in a third, more valid way.  It tends to elevate aspects of Christianity that are of secondary importance in responding to the problem of being human.  The aspects of Christianity that are of primary importance in addressing the problem of being human are themes such as "redemption and grace" (Hymn 539, The Hymnal 1982), atonement and grace, freedom versus bondage, and the question, Who is Jesus Christ?  On the view of Anglicanism as a third way of seeing Christianity, these core themes subside to a lesser position of interest.  The passion and energy, according to the "third way" school of thought, relate to Anglican "distinctives" concerning worship and liturgy; so-called sacred time, sacred space, and sacred rhythm; "decency" and "orderliness"; and complicated arguments concerning the sources of religious authority.  The Anglican "distinctives" of the third way prove to be tepid and fairly low-octane appeals on the relative scale of response to the furious calls from the world for an antidote to its pain.  The third way sells short what we have to offer.

Dean E.A. Litton, in his massive 1882/1892 Introduction to Dogmatic Theology, one of the few attempts in the history of the Church of England to compose a systematic Christian theology, argued against the "Anglicanism as a third way" proposal.  He wrote, in high-flying prose typical of the period,

It has been matter of debate whether or not the Anglican Church is a Protestant Church, and whether or not she possesses a theology of her own, neither that of Rome nor yet of Geneva, but occupying a midway position between the two. . . . Whatever may be the character of the Anglican Church as a whole, the Thirty-Nine Articles, at any rate, admit of no doubt as to their parentage; at least as regards those points on which they differ from the Church of Rome. . . .  The Anglican Church, if she is to be judged by the statements of the Articles, must be ranked amongst the Protestant Churches of Europe. (xi)

Romanism (including its mutilated counterpart, Anglo-Catholicism) is a religion of the incarnation, the virtue of which is communicated by sacraments; Protestantism is a religion of the atonement, the virtue of which is appropriated by direct faith in Christ, His word and His work, not, however, to the exclusion of sacraments in their proper place. . . .  On neither side are these cardinal facts of revelation, or their connexion, denied; there could have been no atonement if there had not been an incarnation; but the stress laid on the one or the other, and particularly differences of view as regards the instrument of appropriation, may affect our whole conception of Christianity and lead to widely divergent theological systems. (xiv)

Independently of the difficulties attending an attempt to establish a special Anglican theology on such points, the writer must avow his conviction that, in a scientific point of view, all such attempts will probably end in failure; and that there are only two systems of Dogmatic Theology, the Romish and the Protestant. (xii; italics added)

Can the center hold?  I will have more to say on that question after I finish posting my series of quotations from Zahl's book.  What I want to emphasize now, however, are the portions above I highlighted above.  As I said in the post below, it is the Gospel that is of utmost importance.

Fr. Paul Zahl on The Protestant Face of Anglicanism

                               

Stay tuned.  I'm going to be posting a number of quotations from this book, which I just finished.  As could be expected, the negative reviews at Amazon are from Anglo-Catholics.  You'll soon see why.  Zahl's book is succinct (only 92 pages, plus two appendices containing the texts of the 39 Articles and a sermon preached by Fr. Zahl at Canterbury Cathedral), but it is accurate, hard-hitting and spot on.  The theme running through the book is that there is only one truly important thing for Anglicanism: the Gospel.  Everything else - smells and bells, "Englishness", sacramental life, etc. - while important, is secondary. Alas, Anglicans have been notorious, Zahl argues, for elevating secondary issues to primary importance and subordinating what is vitally important.   The English Reformers, along with their Continental counterparts, rediscovered that vitally important thing, which is why it is vitally important to return to them.  How different this is from the Anglo-Catholic mentality, which holds "that Continuing Anglican Churches like the ACC should develop the 'pre-Reformation' English patrimony. . . ."  (Fr. Anthony Chadwick, commenting here.)  Without getting the Gospel right, what you have is a whole lot of nothing, no matter how splendid your liturgy is, how culturally profound your "Englishness" is, or how "orthodox" and advanced your mysticism is.  You've got nothing.   Nothing whatsoever.                       

Anyone Up for a Good Laugh?

"The Secret to Preserving Anglicanism" -- become Orthodox.

UPDATE 5/31, 7:32 MST: Which led to a discussion regarding the Orthodox Western Rite at Fr. Chadwick's blog.  One commenter there, "Ad Orientem", who has also blogged on the VOL article, had this to say (among other things) at Chadwick's blog:

Long term I do not know what the future holds for the WR. But my instincts tell me it is too big to just dismantle as a failed experiment.

Ah. "Too big to fail."  We've heard that one before in another unpleasant context.

But as I've noted here previously, it probably will fail, and probably should fail.  The note of desperation in Ad Orientem's comment is likely warranted.  The fellow I quote in the linked OJC entry was a principal in American Western Rite Orthodoxy.  He threw in the towel and returned to the Roman Catholic Church of his youth.   When I asked him, " Do you think the Western Rite has a secured place in the Orthodox Church, or do you foresee eventual assimilation into the Eastern Rite?", he replied:

Frankly, I don't believe that WRO has much of a future at all. There is simply no common vision. I do foresee eventual ER assimilation, or mass defections to Rome or traditional Anglicanism (the latter, admittedly, has the advantage of a non-exceptional married clergy).

My feeling is that Orthodox ought to be Byzantine, Romans ought to be Roman, Anglicans ought to be Anglican. Uniate projects (and yes, I include here Greek Catholicism and Anglican Use Roman Catholicism) never seem to work out; they always produce a sort of bastardized "tertium quid".

Fr. Jonathan on the Atonement

Satisfaction’s Guarantee

Fr. Jonathan critiques both liberal Protestant and Eastern Orthodox models of the atonement, which share some interesting similarities.  With reference to their criticism of the Western "satisfaction" view of the atonement, he writes:

This picture of salvation may not be one that many people find appealing. Surely, we think, there must be a less bloody, less barbaric way. But hidden beneath the folds of such a noble and enlightened thought is a self-justification project. We rail against the implications of the doctrine of satisfaction because we rail against the very idea that God has a right to be intolerant of our sin. Indeed, we would much prefer to think about Christ as the great moral example or as the victor over death and the devil than as the priest who places His own sacrifice of Himself between God’s judgment and our souls on a daily basis. Of course, there is just enough truth in the lie to be dangerous. Christ is our great moral example and He is the victor over death and the devil. But He is none of those things if He is not first and foremost the one who sacrifices Himself to save us “miserable offenders.” And we hate that, because if it is true, then we have no business doing anything other than dropping dead and allowing Christ to pour new life into us. If it is true, then He really is the savior, and we, in fact, are not.

Indeed.  As Fr. Aidan Kavanaugh put it so eloquently with reference to the Eucharist:

However elegant the knowledge of the dining room may be, it begins in the soil, in the barnyard, and in the slaughterhouse—amidst strangled cries, congealing blood, and spitting fat in the pan. Table manners depend upon something’s having been grabbed the the throat. A knowledge ignorant of these dark and murderous ‘gestures charged with soul’ is sterile rather than elegant, science rather than wisdom, artifice rather than art. It is love without passion, the Church without a cross, a house with a dining room but no kitchen, a feast of frozen dinners, a heartless life. The pious (religious and secular) would have us dine on abstractions; but we are, in fact, carnivores — a bloody bunch. Sacrifice may have many facets, but it always has a victim.

Veith: Lutheran Anglicans

I met an Anglican priest the other day who, it turns out, was a big fan of Spirituality of the Cross and my other “Lutheran” books. As I talked with him, I was astonished at how much he was into Lutheranism. He explained that there is currently a strain in Anglicanism that is seeking to recover its Lutheran roots.

He said Anglicanism generally has had four theological strains: (1) The mainline Protestantism of the Episcopal Church in America; (2) Anglo-Catholicism; (3) low church evangelicalism, which is often distinctly Reformed; (4) the charismatic movement.

But now, he says, a number of Anglicans, especially young theologians, are rediscovering Luther, who was a major influence on the founders of Anglicanism, especially Thomas Cranmer. They are finding that it is possible to be both sacramental and evangelical, liturgical and Biblical. Above all, they are discovering that the Gospel as Luther understood it–radical, liberating–speaks powerfully to our own times and to the specific struggles of both Christians and non-Christians today.

I LIKE it!

(Read the entire article here.)

Archbishop Robinson on the Missal

Concluding sentence of his most recent blog article on the (English) Deposited Prayerbook of 1928:

One thing we do need to be careful about is that we remain loyal to our Anglican traditions, and do not allow the Missals - that familiar Tridentine-BCP hybrid - to become the norm for the Eucharist. Not only is it not a particularly elegant beast, but its theology is not always full consonant with the Ancient Fathers and Councils due to its way too vigorous assertion of Eucharist sacrifice and the cultus of the saints.

Evening Prayer at St. Mary's

First, an update.   While my readers are well aware that I have made my way out of the Anglican Catholic Church, I haven't mentioned where we ended up.   Turns out that there was a little AMiA mission sort of in our neck of the woods I didn't know about until fairly recently.  Well, long story short, we visited and immediately fell in love the with people there.  The service is quote low, but thank God there are no guitars or overheads used, or "praise choruses" sung, although there are a couple of "contemporary" flourishes thrown in (e.g., "Our God Is An Awesome God").  But for the most part it is a basic Anglican liturgy.  Not sure yet if the BCP sections used are from the 1979 prayerbook or the AMiA's contemporary version of the 1662.

I don't know at this point if we'll return to the Continuum or stay in the Realignment.  Praying for God's guidance on this.  I consider myself more of a classical Anglican Continuer than anything else, but perhaps God is showing me something new.  I take it a day at a time.

But last night I went back to Evening Prayer at St. Mary's.   I did so because I had come to miss it, and the two gentlemen with whom I pray, one a postulant and the other an aspirant, missed me.  It was good to see them again, and to pray there with them in St. Mary's beautiful little sanctuary:

I intend to pray Evening Prayer on Wednesdays as often as I can.  For some reason, I can't give this up.

And it got me to thinking last night.  When Kevin, Matt and I were there praying, we weren't two Anglo-Catholics and one Ango-Protestant.  We were simply three brothers in Christ, praying the matchless prose of Cranmer's prayerbook.  But it wasn't that prose which united us.  It was simply the flame of prayer.  The flame of the Holy Spirit.

I wondered last night if maybe Anglican unity, if it is to be achieved, will happen not because of the ecclesial machinations of bishops and other "movers and shakers", but because we all start recognizing Christ in the other.    If lay people can reach across "party" boundaries to find fellowship with the other -- something not unknown in Anglican history -- maybe the bishops and the "movers and shakers" will follow.

Deletions and Additions to the Blogroll

I've deleted two links to "spikier" and more ideological Anglo-Catholic blogs, because I really don't want newbies who look in here think that I endorse what they write.  I've left a couple of links to the blogs of staunch Anglo-Catholic bloggers, because not only do I consider them friends, they are both anything but idelogicial. 

I've added wyclif's blog, which somehow I've managed to miss all this time.

Then I've rearranged the order to have more Reformed and "Central" Church blogs listed first, although it's a long list.  Their particular order there doesn't necessarily reflect my preferences from favorite to less favorite.  I've just sort of jumbled them up there in no particular order.  But if you find your blog in that section of the list, know that this is because I find myself mostly or wholly in agreement with you.

David Virtue Interviews Susan Howatch (Touchstone)

 I find Howatch to be a very interesting Anglican thinker, though I'm pretty sure I don't track with her 100%.  Her novels on the Church of England and Anglican parties/churchmanships are not to be missed. 

A Novelist Looks at Faith & Fiction

Ad Fontes

Fr. Robert Hart's Quip on TEC's PB

"We may summarize the problem very simply: She is on the side of the demons."

Pentecost!

Fr. Hart's sermon.

Hail Thee, Festival Day!

Anti-Calvinists: The Rise of English Arminianism c.1590-1640

I read this book, Nicholas Tyacke's doctoral dissertation published by Oxford University Press, some months ago.  Tyacke presents an interesting thesis.  Tonight I found a chapter-by-chapter summary of the book, which I post here for those who might be interested in reading it:

Abstract

This is a study of the rise of English Arminianism and the growing religious division in the Church of England during the decades before the Civil War of the 1640s. The widely accepted view has been that the rise of Puritanism was a major cause of the war; this book argues that it was Arminianism — suspect not only because it sought the overthrow of Calvinism but also because it was embraced by, and imposed by, an increasingly absolutist Charles I — which heightened the religious and political tensions of the period. Almost all English Protestants were members of the established Church. Consequently, what was a theological dispute about rival views of the Christian faith assumed wider significance as a struggle for control of that Church. When Arminianism triumphed, Puritan opposition to the established Church was rekindled. Politically, Charles and his advisers also feared the consequences of Calvinist predestinarian teaching as being incompatible with ‘civil government in the commonwealth’.

Introduction

This chapter introduces an story of the rise of English Arminianism and the growing religious division in the Church of England during the few decades which preceeded the Civil War in the 1640s. This view, which is widely accepted, has been that the rise of Puritanism was a significant cause of the war; this book argues that it was Arminianism — under suspicion partly because it sought the overthrow of Calvinism and also because it was acccepted by, and imposed by, an ever increasing absolutist Charles I — which heightened the religious and political tensions of the period. Almost all English Protestants were members of the established Church. As a result, what was a theological dispute about rival views of the Christian faith assumed greater significance as a struggle for control of that Church. When Arminianism succeeded, Puritan opposition to the established Church was reignited. Politically, Charles and his advisers also feared the consequences of Calvinist predestinarian teaching as being incompatible with ‘civil government in the commonwealth’.

1 The Hampton Court Conference and Arminianism avant la lettre

The Hampton Court conference was held in 1604 to discuss the status of the English Church and Arminianism along with a discussion on doctrine of predestination. At this conference Calvinism was discussed for the first time and it was also the last time when the predestinarian question was handled by the English religious leaders under the influences of the continental Arminian. The English hierarchy and the Puritans were the two authorized parties expected to discuss the state of the English Church at the conference after Puritan reformers failed to obtain new religious settlement from James. At the conference the Puritan stated that the Lambeth Articles needed to be added to the existing English confession of faith — the Thirty-nine Articles.

2 Cambridge University and Arminianism

In the early 1590s English Calvinism was very much in ascendant and much obvious at Cambridge University. At Cambridge a direct confrontation between Calvinism and anti-Calvinist sentiment erupted in 1595 during a university sermon delivered by William Barrett. Barrett decided to protest against a public lecture delivered by William Whitaker, Regius Professor of Divinity, ‘against the advocates of universal grace’, as his reply against the Cambridge Calvinists. As expected Barrett was asked to appear at the Cambridge Consistory Court and forced to recant, but Barrett then appealed to the Archbishop Whitgift. Some modern historians also have raised question against the Calvinism of the Lambeth Articles.

3 Oxford University and Arminianism

Cambridge and Oxford University followed Calvinism, but during 1590 there was a huge clash between Calvinism orthodoxy and emergent Arminianism at Oxford. The difference between these was explained on the basis of fact that anti-Calvinism was checked at Oxford around ten years previously. This differences were explained by Anthony Corro, who was an ex monk from San Isidro near Seville and taught at Oxford from 1579 to 1586. Corro published ‘Tableau de l'awre de dieu’ in 1569 and expressed his views on the three heads of the religion, namely: predestination, free will, and justification by faith alone. Corro also applied for and was refused an Oxford doctorate of divinity.

4 The British delegation to the Synod of Dort

The official British delegation at the Synod of Dort played a critical role in the rise of English Arminianism. This was an international Calvinist gathering, which condemned the doctrines of the Dutch Arminians in 1619 and catalysed the English religious thought in the early 17th century. Soon news of the Arminian controversy spread to Holland, at the Synod of Dort, and the controversy was discussed far and wide. As a result of this gathering, differences among English theologians were brought out in the open. After this gathering, suspension of judgement on the nature of the relationship between grace and free will became harder, and scholars directed their studies to resolve this problems.

5 Bishop Neile and the Durham House group

During the 1620s there was a transformation in the official Church of England teachings. Bishop Neile became an important element in the religious transition during this decade by establishing the system of Arminian patronage and protection. The role of John Hacket contrasted with role of Neile in terms of his theological seniors, which pleased all sides by their touching opinions about predestination and converting grace; they made no discrimination about which or which propugners should be gratified in their advancements. He went through more bishoprics than any of his contemporaries such as Rochester, Coventry, and Lichfield, Lincoln, Durham, Winchester, and York.

6 Richard Montagu, the House of Commons, and Arminianism

The debates over Calvinism and the Lambeth Articles were provoked by the anti-Calvinist writings of Richard Montagu in the 1620s. His opponents tried to link his writings and books with a conspiracy to topple the established teachings of the English Church. The parliamentary case against Montagu involved his two works published in 1624 and 1625 titled ‘A new gagg for an old goose’ and ‘Appello Caesarem’. Montagu also countered both local missionary activities and the latest Catholic apologetic. He also tried to defend himself from attacks by fellow Protestants who considered his writings to be against Arminian teachings.

7 The York House Conference

The House of Commons failed to prosecute Richard Montagu before the House of Lords. In 1624, the Commons referred the Montagu case to the Archbishop Abbot and forwarded a complaint against Bishop Harsnett of Norwich to the House of Lords. A conference was held in February 1626 under the chairmanship of Buckingham and the second session of this conference was attended by Montagu, at Buckingham's residence, York House in the Strand. The subject of this conference was the published view of Montagu and according to Buckingham the conference had been arranged at the request of the Earl of Warwick. The York House conference was designed to defeat the prosecution of Montagu by the House of Commons.

8 Arminianism during the Personal Rule and after

The rise of anti-Calvinist sentiment became considerable in terms of both power and number. During the reign of Charles, the King decided to go against those who claimed to be on God's side, by favouring a clerical group prepared to preach monarchical authority in defence of its beliefs. Laud and Neile now actively sought to enforce Charles's religious declaration of 1628 throughout the dioceses of England and Wales, which meant in effect the proscription of Calvinism. Having the royal support Laud and Neile were now free to implement their ideas. The consequences of the rise of Arminianism were serious for the contemporary Puritanism, as it altered the doctrinal basis of English Church membership.

Conclusion

Along with various other issues, religion played a major contributory role in the English Civil War. The religious fears voiced in the late 1620s were given increasing substance during the 1630s. The term Arminian is the least misleading among the terms which can be used to describe the religious change of this time. The term Arminian denotes a coherent body of anti-Calvinist religious thought, which was gaining ground in various regions of early 17th-century Europe. Calvinism was also attacked as being unreasonable. The rise of English Arminianism challenged the Calvinist world picture, which envisaged the forces of good and evil involved in a struggle that would only end with the final overthrow of the Antichrist.

Gaelic Psalms at Back Free Church, Isle of Lewis

Otherworldly.

Quotable Quote from Fr. Barber

I am very happy to have found and downloaded Fr. Philip Barber's doctoral dissertation before it disappeared from the web.  It has turned out to be quite the read, and I plan to use various sections of it for future blog entries.  But this one stands out to me today.  With reference to all the classical Anglicans whom the Anglo-Catholics in the ACC and the Continuum hope to purge from the Continuum's ranks,

. . . if these other Anglicans, who in fact represent something closer to normative Anglicanism, are expelled from the ACC or the Continuing Church at large, then all that is left is a pathetic rump recognized by neither Catholics nor Orthodox nor Anglicans nor Protestants. This is not even in “Catholics’” best interests. The only option left is to become an uneasy satellite or auxiliary of the Roman Catholic Church or some smaller body with “Catholic” pretensions like those of the ACC.

Because someone of the stature of Fr. Barber was thinking in such terms several years before I was, I know that my recent similar conclusion probably has merit.  I have argued here that this is more or less what I see happening to the ACC down the road if they do not relent from their quest to destroy Anglican comprehensiveness in the interest of "keeping things tidy."  Do the Anglo-Catholics, having finally gotten "the church we want",  really want to exist as a small, and likely dying, "pathetic rump"?

Fr. Anthony Chadwick on Participation by Grace in the Life of God

I preface my remarks here by referring readers to my 5/14 update re: Fr. Chadwick.  Having read that, now read this, posted at Fr. Anthony's blog on 5/13:

I have always had the idea that comprehensiveness would be easier from a Catholic basis (conciliar ecclesiology, not Papal) rather than the Protestant basis that destroys the Platonic metaphysics forming the basis of the possibility of redeemed man to participate by grace in the life of God. In the Reformed type of thinking, God reveals himself to man only through the written Word of the Bible, nothing else.

Fascinating.  But not unheard of in the Anglo-Catholic world.  Push the envelope just a little here, however, and we end up with the Cambridge Platonists and then the likes of Dean Inge.  Push that envelope just a little and we fall off the Christian map altogether.  I find A.G. Dickens instructive here.  Referring in his book The English Reformation to medieval English religious manuscripts showing just how radically the Christianity of the time had veered from the apostolic faith,  he writes:

Manuscripts like these two are far from embracing the whole gamut of English devotional life on the eve of the Reformation. They nevertheless exemplify many important elements of the popular and conventional religion – its effort to attain salvation through devout observances, its fantastic emphasis on saints, relics and pilgrimages, its tendency to allow the personality and teaching of Jesus to recede from the focus of the picture. That the connection of such writings with the Christianity of the Gospel is rather tenuous could be demonstrated with almost mathematical precision. The point is reinforced by the testimony of Catholic reformers like Colet, More and Erasmus, for Catholicism as it then existed amongst real men and women was far from homogeneous. People who can sing the same creed together are not necessarily practising the same religion. There lay all the difference in the world between Thomas More and the friar whom More found at Coventry superstitiously preaching that a sinner could escape damnation by the simple expedient of saying the rosary every day. (pp. 4 – 5)

What Dickens says here of people singing the same creed but practicing different religions has application to what he writes a few pages later about mysticism (bolded emphasis mine): 

Our reflections upon the orthodox religion have omitted at least one ingredient of much significance and interest – that deepening of the spiritual life in the latter Middle Ages usually known as the devotio moderna. Though throughout Europe this movement tended to assume the form of a quiet pietism among lay people and secular clergymen, it derived from, and existed alongside, the more austere and exalted mysticism still prevalent within a small elite of the monastic orders. Its chief problem concerned the adaptation of these claustral techniques to life as lived in the rough world. Granting that the higher states of prayer remained difficult of attainment, even for cloistered contemplatives, the writers in the devotio tradition claimed that at least the lower steps of the spiritual ladder might, by the use of well-tried exercises, be ascended by men and women obliged to continue in the active life. At all its levels the new devotion aimed at a direct and personal sense of the presence of God. In general, such states of prayer were recognized to involve fleeting contacts with the Divine, though a few specially favoured practitioners might achieve long periods of union, sometimes expressed by the term ‘mystic marriage.’ Broadly speaking – and simplifying some far from uniform schemes of thought – three major phases of this spiritual journey were envisaged: the purgative way, pursued by means of self-mortification and good works; the illuminative way, a progressive series of ‘experiences’, often interrupted by periods of dryness and desolation; and the unitive way, begun by advanced contemplatives in this life, yet even by them completed only in the world to come.

From the viewpoint of the Church, the claims of mysticism have always presented problems. Many of its phenomena are not confined to Christians, since analogous techniques and states appear in the literature of Platonism, Buddhism, Taoism, Hinduism and Islam. Moreover in many instances, some of them Christian, a dangerous trend toward pantheism can be detected. This was especially true of the Neo-Platonist mysticism, to which the Christian school nevertheless owed profound debts. The notion that God is the whole of Being, that all things have their existence in God, naturally attracted some mystics since it expressed their awareness of absorption into the Divine Being. . . . Such tendencies often compelled institutional Christianity, both medieval and modern, to view the contemplative approach with caution. The timid saying, that mysticism begins with mist and ends in schism, enshrines a measure of ecclesiastical wisdom. (pp.14-15)

However, Fr. Chadwick wonders aloud how union with God can happen if Platonic metaphysics be not true, and in the same breath he condemns (yawn - again) "the Reformed type of thinking", according to which "God reveals himself to man only through the written Word of the Bible, nothing else."  Well, his argument is not so much with "the Reformed type of thinking" as it is with the apostolic authors themselves.  Take St. Peter (bolded emphases mine):

Grace and peace be multiplied to you in the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord,  as His divine power has given to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of Him who called us by glory and virtue,  by which have been given to us exceedingly great and precious promises, that through these you may be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust. But also for this very reason, giving all diligence, add to your faith virtue, to virtue knowledge,  to knowledge self-control, to self-control perseverance, to perseverance godliness, to godliness brotherly kindness, and to brotherly kindness love.  For if these things are yours and abound, you will be neither barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.   For he who lacks these things is shortsighted, even to blindness, and has forgotten that he was cleansed from his old sins.

Therefore, brethren, be even more diligent to make your call and election sure, for if you do these things you will never stumble;  for so an entrance will be supplied to you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

For this reason I will not be negligent to remind you always of these things, though you know and are established in the present truth. Yes, I think it is right, as long as I am in this tent, to stir you up by reminding you,  knowing that shortly I must put off my tent, just as our Lord Jesus Christ showed me.  Moreover I will be careful to ensure that you always have a reminder of these things after my decease.

For we did not follow cunningly devised fables when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of His majesty.  For He received from God the Father honor and glory when such a voice came to Him from the Excellent Glory: “This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.”  And we heard this voice which came from heaven when we were with Him on the holy mountain.

And so we have the prophetic word confirmed, which you do well to heed as a light that shines in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts; knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. (II Peter 1: 2-19)

Now, this narrative reflects the pattern that is seen all throughout the New Testament: there is a word, a message, and it is confirmed by the Holy Spirit with power, both objectively in signs and wonders and subjectively as it miraculously "takes" in the hearts of men and effects their union with God.  Not only is there no explicit mention whatsover in the Bible about Platonic metaphysics or its need for participation by grace on the life of God, there is nothing whatsoever in Holy Writ from which even an inference to that effect can be made.  What's more, the means of grace in the New Testament are Word -- then Sacrament -- in that order.  Chadwick can call all this "Reformed" until he's blue in the face.  We name it for what it actually is: apostolic.  And if apostolic, then truly Catholic.  Union with Christ (and hence with God) if effected by divinely-implanted faith, by the power of the Holy Spirit, resulting in justification, the initiatory sacrament of which is baptism.  Our participation in the life of God is further manifested in the sacrament of the Eucharist. 

The Platonic mystic, however, introduces a late and foreign way to union with God.  Dickens saw Christian mysticism's inherent dangers, and if memory serves it was either Jaroslav Pelikan or John Meyendorff, writing in the Orthodox context, who also spoke of its inherent dangers.   Better to stick with Peter and Paul, rather than Plato or Plotinus.  Even if that means agreeing with John Calvin.

TEC's Presiding Bishopette Claims Paul Was Wrong to Cast Out Slave Girl's Demon

Presiding bishop preaches in Curaçao, Diocese of Venezuela

Human beings have a long history of discounting and devaluing difference, finding it offensive or even evil. That kind of blindness is what leads to oppression, slavery, and often, war. Yet there remains a holier impulse in human life toward freedom, dignity, and the full flourishing of those who have been kept apart or on the margins of human communities. It’s a tendency that seems to emerge along a common timeline. Formal legal structures that permitted human slavery ended here and in many parts of the world within a relatively short span of time. It doesn’t mean that slavery is finished today, but at least it’s no longer legal in most places. Even so, slavery continues in the form of human trafficking and the kind of exploitation that killed so many garment workers in Bangladesh recently.

We live with the continuing tension between holier impulses that encourage us to see the image of God in all human beings and the reality that some of us choose not to see that glimpse of the divine, and instead use other people as means to an end. We’re seeing something similar right now in the changing attitudes and laws about same-sex relationships, as many people come to recognize that different is not the same thing as wrong. For many people, it can be difficult to see God at work in the world around us, particularly if God is doing something unexpected.

There are some remarkable examples of that kind of blindness in the readings we heard this morning, and slavery is wrapped up in a lot of it. Paul is annoyed at the slave girl who keeps pursuing him, telling the world that he and his companions are slaves of God. She is quite right. She’s telling the same truth Paul and others claim for themselves.[1] But Paul is annoyed, perhaps for being put in his place, and he responds by depriving her of her gift of spiritual awareness. Paul can’t abide something he won’t see as beautiful or holy, so he tries to destroy it. It gets him thrown in prison. That’s pretty much where he’s put himself by his own refusal to recognize that she, too, shares in God’s nature, just as much as he does – maybe more so! The amazing thing is that during that long night in jail he remembers that he might find God there – so he and his cellmates spend the night praying and singing hymns.

No further comment necessary.

Never