Meet The Puritans: Puritans, Anglican? (What Is An Anglican?)

Yet more historical revisionism and special pleading from the Church Society crowd.  The fact is, the Church of England was done - DONE - with the Puritans by the Restoration Settlement, and, contra Mr. Gatiss, something called "Anglicanism" did take the place of the kind of theological radicalism that marked the short-lived Commonwealth era.  Reformed theology was no longer dominant and had to settle for "party" status as an established but unpopular theologoumenon in the Church of England.  Hooker and the Caroline Divines, the theologians of Anglicanism's "golden era" of theology, successfully resisted Puritanism and set Anglicanism on a trajectory toward an "Arminian" and patristic understanding of the faith.  The English Reformation did not end in 1552, but 1662, and the Oxford Movement would give fresh impetus to the Church of England's understanding of itself as the Catholic Church in England, and its prayer book as an example of the Benedictine way of prayer.

Fr. Rob Desics of St. Timothy's Church Hemlington nailed it in his response to Gatiss' article:

An interesting piece, but may I offer some comments? It is fair to say that the history of what we now term 'Anglicanism' is very complex, intertwining cultural, political and theological causes and effects. It is also fair to say that the English (or 'Anglican') church predates the Reformation of the 16th century as well as post-dating it. I wonder whether it is too simple a statement to deny that 'Anglicanism' is a via media between Medieval Romanism and more radical expressions of Protestantism (including Geneva). After all, the English church retained many of the received practices and doctrines of the catholic church (such as liturgy, the historic orders of ministry, the Creeds etc.) whilst also embracing the desire to return to a study of Holy Scripture and the Early Fathers.

I would question whether it is true to say that 'Anglicanism' is not Catholicism, after all Cranmer and his fellow reformers were firm in their conviction that they were restoring the English church to a purer form of Catholicism - the Catholicism set forth in the Scriptures and the early councils of the Catholic Church. Those bishops, such as Jewell (and theologians such as Hooker), who followed Cranmer in the late 16th and early 17th centuries, whilst firm in their adherence to the 39 Articles of Religion were clear that the English church was the true Catholic church of this land. This being the case, it is wholly inaccurate to label the view that the Anglican church is a 'church in continuity with the Catholic Church but reformed' to be a 19th century fabrication - a fair reading of the historical sources of the Reformation and immediate post-Reformation periods will not allow us to tale seriously such a polemical and unscholarly sweeping denial.

It is also unfair and historically inaccurate to believe that the Oxford Movement/Tractarian Movement was merely the expression of the whims and fancies of John Henry Newman. What of Keble? What of Pusey? Both these men were key players in the Oxford Movement, and both regarded Newman's secession to Rome as a great betrayal. For these men the Anglican church was the Catholic church in this land, expressed in doctrine of the Book of Common Prayer and the Articles.

Of those Puritans of the 17th Century, may it not be possible that they were not Anglican in any meaningful sense? For some advocated Presbyterianism (as some who claim the name of Anglican do today). Some advocated abolishing the Prayer Book and the Articles (just as some also do today). Then, as now, such persons could not truly be identified as Anglicans in any meaningful sense. After all, Richard Hooker, the great Anglican divine, was critical of puritans who sought to take the English in the direction of Geneva. We must be careful to remember that the peculiarity of the English church owes as much to its political entanglements with the State as it does academic theology.

The popular regard for the Church of England as Protestant owes perhaps more to the political machine which sought to preserve Elizabeth the First from Jesuit assassins than it does to reasoned theology! Anglicanism was certainly not invented in the 19th century, nor was it invented in the 16th century. It is the flowering of a rich, long and complex history of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church in this land. It is the church founded upon the Apostles; the church of Augustine, Anselm, Cranmer, Jewell, Andrewes; and so down to our day. Beware of simplistic polemics!

The Progressive Captivity of Orthodox Churches in America

And elsewhere in the West.

Continuing Anglican Leaders Set 2017 as Goal for Full Communion

I'm there.  Thanks be to God!

Per ACC priest Fr. Shaughn Casey: "Some nasty comments, of course, from the usual suspects."  So, ignore the comments, and rejoice over this happy development.  Hopefully the momentum here will eventually gather up the remaining Continuing miscellany into one movement marked by communio-in-sacris relationships or mergers and serve as a traditionalist counterweight to the Neo-Anglicans.  Pray that the Reformed Episcopal Church comes aboard.  (The Anglican Catholic Church and the REC are drawing closer, as evidenced by a commitment of certain dioceses in both jurisdictions to attend each other's synods.)   The Anglican Province of America, where I may end up after we move to North Carolina, also has working relationships with the Anglican Church of Nigeria, the REC and ACNA.  Know hope!

Rise and Fall of the Ottoman Empire

Thank God for the warriors, Catholic, Orthodox and Anglican, who helped speed its demise.

Music: Immediate Music - Crusade.

More On Our ACNA Friend John Kasich

Warlords

Currently reading this: The Rule of the Templars (Studies in the History of Medieval Religion)

The Templars were Cistercian warrior-monks, and that is all. Not the predecessors of the Freemasons or any of that New Age, secret society tommyrot. Faithful Catholic warrior-monks, orthodox Christians who were captive to the faulty theology of the day, but also bound to the chivalric Christian heroism of the day.

Their successors are arising in the Orthodox East and in Catholic and Anglican North Africa as they are forced to defend themselves from ISIS, Boko Haram and other genocidal Islamist armies, while the Christian West, along with well-to-do liberal-left "Orthodox" minimizers such as our friend Stefano living safely in Western enclaves such as the US and Australia, are still fumbling about trying to get a grip on some sort of convincing narrative.

When He's Wrong He's Really Wrong, But When He's Right He's Fantastic

"It's not racist to oppose refugees." - Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby

For the last several years I have been telling my liberal-lefty friends that calling us "racists" doesn't work anymore, hence why the editorial statement in this article resonates with me: "The fact is, I no longer give two hoots whether standing up for my country is seen as racist." Fewer and fewer people care when they are labelled as such, and that's largely because they view liberal-lefties along with their stupid PC opinions, and worse, policies, with increasing contempt. And now that we have Justin Welby++ saying it, we can be reasonably confident that the magnitude of that contempt is beginning to saturate even that part of Western society that isn't ideologically conservative. Know hope.

Too bad we can't discern the same degree of realism in neo-Anglican jurisdictions such as the Anglican Church in North America, which carries on with the shoddy "stranger" theology that underlies its Anglican Immigrant Initiative.  One of ACNA's sons, Governor John Kasich, is currently running for president.  If elected, here's the kind of said shoddy theology that would inform his immigration reform program:

Though it has transpired without much attention, Kasich has quietly amassed a string of bizarre, peculiar, and extreme statements on immigration that places him to the furthest leftward reaches of not just the Republican President field, but the Democratic Presidential field as well. This perhaps underscores an element of seriousness to Kasich’s previous declaration, which he had intended in jest: “I ought to be running in a Democrat primary.”

Below are just some of Kasich’s most bizarre and radical statements on immigration, which have flown under the radar.

1) “God Bless” Illegal Immigrants

Illegal immigrants are a “critical part of our society,” John Kasich told the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce last October. “For those that are here that have been law abiding, God bless them,” Kasich said—arguing that illegals “should have a path to legalization.”

2) “I couldn’t imagine” enforcing our current immigration laws: “That is not… the kind of values that we believe in.”

On the GOP debate stage in February, Kasich told millions of American voters that enforcing the nation’s immigration laws is not “the kind of values that we believe in.”

“I couldn’t even imagine how we would even begin to think about taking a mom or a dad out of a house when they have not committed a crime since they’ve been here, leaving their children in the house,” Kasich said. “That is not, in my opinion, the kind of values that we believe in.”

3) Kasich likened deporting the illegal population to Japanese internment camps

“To think that that we’re just going to put people on buses and ship them to the border—look at our World War II experience where we quarantined Japanese—I mean it’s a dark stain on America’s history,” Kasich said in November.

“We shouldn’t even think about it,” Kasich said of the “nutty” idea:

“I don’t know many people that believe we should deport 11 million people—just because people shout loud doesn’t mean they’re a majority. I think most Republicans would agree that you can’t deport 11 million people. We shouldn’t even think about it. What are you going to do? Break their families up?”

4) Illegal immigrants “are some of the hardest-working, God-fearing, family-oriented people you can ever meet.”

As Newsmax reported in August, when a New Hampshire town-hall attendee asked Kasich about illegal immigration and the burden illegal immigrants place upon the nation, Kasich dismissed the voter’s concern.

“A lot of these people who are here are some of the hardest-working, God-fearing, family-oriented people you can ever meet,” Kasich said referring to illegal immigrants. “These are people who are contributing significantly.”

Kasich made no mention of the fact that 87 percent of illegal immigrant households with children in 2012 were on welfare, according to a 2015 report based on Census Bureau data.

Kasich similarly made no mention of last year’s report from the liberal Migration Policy Institute which found that there are nearly one million illegal aliens in the United States with criminal convictions (820,000). This figure was not an estimation of total crimes committed by illegal immigrants—which would be a much higher number—but only those illegal aliens successfully identified, arrested, tried, and convicted.

5) Allowing ICE officers to do their jobs is not “humane” 

Kasich told CBS last year that he does not support deporting the illegal population: “I don’t think it’s right; I don’t think it’s humane.”

Kasich also compared illegal immigration to cutting in line at a Taylor Swift concert: “I don’t favor citizenship [for illegals] because as I tell my daughters, you don’t jump the line to go to a Taylor Swift concert, you just don’t do it,” Kasich said.

However, Kasich has made clear that he is open to giving illegal immigrants citizenship. Moreover, a report from Columbus Dispatch suggests that Kasich favors green cards for illegal immigrants, which is the main pathway to citizenship.

6) America can’t deport illegal immigrants because they are “made in the image of the Lord” 

In June, the Columbus Dispatch reported on a meeting that took place between John Kasich and an illegal immigrant and her son. After their meeting, Kasich said: “They’re just good people. They’re made in the image of the Lord, and you know, there’s a big element of compassion connected to how we treat people who are trying to find a way to a better life.”

If being “made in the image of the Lord” provides an exemption to America’s immigration law, then that would mean that all of the world’s seven billion people would be free to violate America’s immigration laws.

7) Kasich has called for implementing an open borders-style policy where workers can come and go as they please.

In July, Kasich told Fox News’ Sean Hannity that we need to “have a guest worker program so people can come in, work, and then leave. Our program is too narrow now.”

Kasich claim that the nation’s guest worker program, which admits an unprecedented number of foreign workers into the country, is “too narrow” is astonishing—and places him squarely in the tiny minority of the Republican electorate, only seven percent of whom want to increase immigration.

Moreover, Kasich’s call for a guest worker program that will allow workers to come and go as they please represents the central pillar of the open borders philosophy. Under this global one-world theory, any willing employer should be able to hire any willing worker regardless of the country in which they reside—thus removing any right that American workers be entitled to get American jobs. This is similar to the policy European countries have within the European Union—namely, people are entitled to move freely from one country to another. Kasich is essentially laying out how the same legal structure could be adopted for the United States and all the foreign countries of the world.

8) Kasich would enact amnesty within his first 100 days.

In last Thursday’s CNN debate, Kasich told voters that he would enact the largest amnesty in U.S. history within his first 100 days in office. “For the 11 and a half million who are here, then in my view if they have not committed a crime since they’ve been here, they get a path to legalization. Not to citizenship. I believe that program can pass the Congress in the first 100 days,” Kasich said.

9) America shouldn’t address ending birthright citizenship because it’s “dividing people”

Kasich has made clear that he does not want to discuss birthright citizenship as an issue. While Kasich previously supported ending birthright citizenship, he has since reversed his position—meaning he now supports giving citizenship to all children of illegal immigrants, or of tourists and guest-workers, who are born on U.S. soil.

“I don’t believe it should be a fundamental part of this whole thing because I think it remains dividing to people, to be honest with you,” Kasich said trying to take the issue off the table. “Let these people who are born here be citizens and that’s the end of it. I don’t want to dwell on it.”

“If you are born here, you’re a citizen. Period. End of story,” Kasich told the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce last October.

10) Illegal immigrants should be allowed to stay because “they’re here”

“With the 12 million—they’re here,” Kasich said explaining why he supports a path to legalization. “If they have been law-abiding, then I believe they should have a path to legalization… look, they have become a very important part of our society.”

When PBS’ Gwen Ifill pressed Kasich on how his position on the issue “rubs a lot of Republicans the wrong way,” Kasich said: “Well, what do you think we’re going to do? Go chasing them down? And put these big lights on top of cars? And go into neighborhoods hunting them down? That’s not—that’s not what America is.”

Kasich again repeated his talking point likening illegally entering the United States and residing here in violation of U.S. immigration law, to cutting in line at a Taylor Swift concert: “Look, nobody likes that they broke the law, they ditched the line. I have told my kids, as much as you love Taylor Swift, you don’t ditch the line to get into a concert.”

You'll notice that all these statements are emotional, platitudinous, and marked by an extremely superficial understanding of Holy Scripture as it pertains to the issue of illegal immigration.  As noted here, in the final analysis the Bible does not provide arguments for amnesty at all, but fully recognizes the God-ordained nature of sovereign national borders.  What's more, illegal immigrants are lawbreakers of laws that are legitimate not only from a divine point of view but one grounded in the kind of canons derived from rational and natural law on which political legitimacy is based.  The strict enforcement of immigration laws is well within the scope of what St. Paul infers in Romans 13:1-7, and for Anglicans or any other Christians to go against this biblical grain is to acquiesce in this lawlessness.

All of this is why it isn't "racist" to oppose either the onslaught of Muslim refugees into Europe or the onslaught of Latinos illegally entering the United States.  What's more, it is positively wrong from both a biblical point of view and a rational one NOT to oppose it. 

Kill Your Megachurch Worship

Do it now.  Get liturgical.  Best way to do that is join a church that has been worshipping liturgically for a long time.  Like a traditional Anglican one.

Greek Orthodox Liberal-Leftists Need to Repent of Their Liberal-Leftism

Would you agree with me, Stefano?

ACC Archbishop Mark Haverland: "What Is Anglicanism?" II

I have substantially revised this 2014 article.

From my "About" page: 

"Though I strive to argue from the standpoint of classical Anglicanism, the opinions, beliefs, viewpoints, mutterings and tirades I publish here do not necessarily reflect the beliefs of any orthodox Anglican church in North America or abroad.   Moreover, because I have been formally Anglican only for a mere four years (though I have been a de facto Anglican far longer), and because Anglican identity is an important focus of my writing, readers should understand the "in via" character of my opinions.  In other words, I reserve the right to change my mind based on further reflection on the facts."

From Thomas Sowell

Charles Featherstone on Trump and the United States

Great article.

Trump channels something — the rage and desperation of a people who know they don’t matter anymore. Whose lives and wellbeing have become a blight, an embarrassment, who are now disposable. Yes, they have may been a privileged people once, knowing the order of the world arising from the great struggles of the first half of the 20th century was arranged for them, and may be struggling for privilege again, but they also know politics has told them — economically and socially — “lie down and die.” That they are white, and crude, and prone to brutality and violence, frequently not very compassionate or empathetic, all-too-often confused by the world, and that their religion is simplistic and mostly idolatrous, all that makes it hard to sympathize with them. (I find it hard.) But you leave people behind at your peril. You can tell them to “lie down and die,” and some will. But many won’t.

And if there are enough of them, well…

I think Trump supporters get there is no longer a common social good which includes them. They no longer live in America that values them. (I know I don’t.) I’ve said before in this blog I do not believe in the common good. I don’t. Instead, what I see is a rhetorical trick on the part of the powerful to make the powerless pay the price for something they did not necessarily want or support while the powerful walk away with all the benefits, having made no sacrifices of their own. Common good is “watch the birdie” language. It’s empty and hollow, the calming words to disarm before the looting and the beating.

Trump says he can will us into a better world. I doubt that very much. Instead, his is the last gasp of a people losing their position and their place in a society where they will soon be only a plurality. And then just one more minority. Demographic change in America is a slow motion civil war, and Americans are trying to do something I’m not sure human beings have ever done without violent struggle — rewrite the rules of society to change who benefits, and elevate those who were and are on the wrong side of the rule. Maybe it can be done. That it hasn’t, though, suggests it cannot be done. Like any war between peoples over a slab of shared land, there will be little mercy shown and little magnanimity when the conflict is over.

“Lie down and die.” We will surely die. But we don’t have to be silent about it.

Good Queen Bess

International Women's Day.

I Say Let Them Try to Get Authoritarian On Us: We'll Be Waiting

Democrats Should Worry About Their Own Authoritarianism

Jim Kalb: How Bad Will Things Get?

¡Viva Cristo Rey!

                        

Classical Anglicanism and the Real Presence of Christ in Sacrament of Communion

Capping off my discussion with Roger du Barry here and here:

Classical Anglicanism and the Real Presence of Christ in Sacrament of Communion

An excerpt.  Emphases mine:

The kneeling rubric at the end of the Eucharistic liturgy in the 1662 Book of Common Prayer makes it clear that Anglican theology rejects the scholastic notion that the substance of the bread and wine are changed into the Body and Blood of Christ. The rubric says, "the Sacramental Bread and Wine remain still in their very natural substances..." And should anyone doubt the Catholicity of the 1662 Prayer Book, let me remind the reader that it was adopted after the Restoration and the final defeat of puritanism in England, is the product of the triumph of Caroline divinity, and marks the completion of the English Reformation that was begun in 1534.

No less an Anglican authority than the great Rev. Francis J. Hall, D.D., writes, "The assertion, that the consecrated elements have become the body and blood of Christ, is so frequently made by the ancients that it may be reckoned as a patristic commonplace. But...they perhaps represent nothing more than rhetorical emphasis upon the doctrine that the elements become the body and blood of Christ... There may be set against such language a number of clear assertions that the bread and wine continue in their proper nature after they have become the body and blood of Christ; and this appears to have been the ordinary patristic view.

"But the middle ages saw a widespread shifting of emphasis from the mystery of identification to that of conversion... In the West this development terminated in the scholastic doctrine of transubstantiation" (Dogmatic Theology, Vol. IX, originally published 1921, pp. 129-130).

Hall continues, "If the bread and wine truly become the body and blood of Christ, can they rightly be said to retain their former nature and still be bread and wine?...the ancients clearly took for granted an affirmative answer; and with a few exceptions they held, without being conscious of inconsistency, the doctrine that the consecrated elements are and have become the body and blood of Christ without ceasing to be real bread and wine. There were giants in those days, and we are not justified in explaining their position as either careless or stupid. They were, however, more alive to the supernatural aspects of the mystery than are the majority of those who deny that such things can be...We are taught that the divine logos became flesh; but that in becoming what He was not, He remained what He was, truly divine, is also taught in Scripture, and constitutes a stereotyped formula of catholic theology" (ibid, Hall, pp. 134-135).

"The Eucharistic sacrament is said to consist of two parts; but the phrase ought not to be taken as meaning that the inward res is separate or separable from the outward elements. A distinction of aspects and relations is involved, rather than a demarkation between mutually discrete substances. The sacrament is one and indivisible, although substantially representative of two worlds. From the standpoint of this world, it is natural bread and wine to which an extraordinary thing has happened, insusceptible of verification by our senses. From the standpoint of the spiritual world, the self-same thing is the body and blood of Christ, marvelously accommodated to, and identified with, the forms and figures of bread and wine" (ibid, Hall, p. 136).

In his classic work, A Theological Introduction to the Thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England, E. J. Bicknell, D.D., writes, "The Real Presence. On this view we hold that we receive through the bread and wine the Body and Blood of Christ, because in answer to the prayers of His Church and in fulfillment of His own promise, He has brought the elements into a mysterious union with Himself. He has, at it were, taken them up into the fulness of His ascended life and made them the vehicle of imparting that life to His members. Thus He is in a real sense present not only in the devout communicant but in the consecrated elements. Of the manner of this union we affirm nothing. The Presence is spiritual, not material.

"This in some form, is the teaching of the Roman and Eastern Churches, of Luther, of the Fathers and early liturgies... It would appear to be the most consistent with Scripture and the tradition of the Church, and also to be a safeguard of certain great Christian principles" (p. 492, first published 1919, quoted from the 1936 edition). Bicknell continues, "Again, if we turn to the Church as the interpreter of Scripture, the main stream of Christian teaching is quite clear. We find a singular absence of theological controversy about the Eucharist, but the general line of thought may be exemplified by these words of Irenaeus, ʻThe bread which is of the earth receiving the invocation of God is no longer common bread but Eucharist, made up of two things, an earthly and a heavenlyʼ" (Bicknell, ibid, p. 493).

The Protestant Reformation of which classical Anglicanism is an heir, was a movement to reform the Church and to return it to its primitive Catholic faith and practice. Dr. Martin Luther described the Real Presence of Christ in the Sacrament "in, with and under" the consecrated Bread and Wine as a "Sacramental union" (Latin: unio sacramentalis). John Calvin, who did not believe in the "real absence" of Christ like Zwingli or in receptionism like Bullinger, said the Body and Blood of Christ was "conjoined" with the Bread and Wine in the Sacrament of Holy Communion.

In his 1528, Confession Concerning Christʼs Supper, Martin Luther said, "Why then should we not much more say in the Supper, ʻThis is my body,ʼ even though bread and body are two distinct substances, and the word ʻthisʼ indicates the bread? Here, too, out of two kinds of objects a union has taken place, which I shall call a ʻsacramental union,ʼ because Christʼs body and the bread are given to us as a sacrament."

According to the Formula of Concord, the Consecration brings about this sacramental union whenever the Eucharist is celebrated. "Thus it is not our word or speaking but the command and ordinance of Christ that, from the beginning of the first Communion until the end of the world, make the bread the body and the wine the blood that are daily distributed through our ministry and office. Again, [Luther says] ʻHere, too, if I were to to say over all the bread there is, "This is the body of Christ," nothing would happen, but when we follow his institution and command in the Lordʼs Supper and say, "This is my body," then it is his body; not because of our speaking or of our efficacious word, but because of his command in which he has told us so to speak and to do and has attached his own command and deed to our speaking.ʼ"

In his mature doctrinal view, John Calvin also believed in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Because few contemporary Anglicans are really familiar with John Calvin or have studied his works, most Anglicans are completely unaware that much of what is called "Calvinist" sacramental theology by them is, in fact, Zwingliʼs sacramental theology rather than Calvinʼs. Indeed, much of what is called "Reformed" or "Calvinist" theology today really comes from Calvinʼs successor in Geneva, Theodore Beza, and from the Synod of Dort and the Westminister Assembly later still. The truth is that the mature John Calvin did not teach the "real absence" of Christ in the Sacrament of Holy Communion like Zwingli, or receptionism like Bullinger.

Leanne Van Dyk, Academic Dean and Professor of Reformed Theology at Western Theological Seminary in Holland, Michigan, writes, "He [Calvin] engaged in vigorous conversation with both Lutheran and Reformed leaders over the Lordʼs Supper, and in these polemical exchanges he developed his mature doctrine. There is discernible development in Calvinʼs understanding of the Lordʼs Supper from early to late in his ministry. One Calvin scholar [Thomas J. Davis] summarizes, ʻWe will see Calvin move from denying the Eucharist as an instrument of grace to affirming it as such. We will see Calvin develop a notion of substantial partaking of the true body and blood of Christ over his career; an emphasis that is practically absent, even denied, in his earliest teachingʼ" (The Lordʼs Supper, Five Views, edited by Gordon T. Smith, c. 2008, Intervarsity Press, pp. 74-75).

In his Institutes of the Christian Religion, Calvin writes [T]he Lordʼs Table should have been spread at least once a week for the Assembly of Christians,... All, like hungry men, should flock to such a bounteous repast."

And what is that "bounteous repast"? In his 1540, Short Treatise on the Holy Supper of our Lord Jesus Christ, Calvin writes, "It is a spiritual mystery which can neither be seen by the eye nor comprehended by the human understanding. It is therefore figured to us by visible signs, according as our weakness requires, in such manner, nevertheless, that it is not a bare figure but is combined with the reality and substance. It is with good reason then that the bread is called the body, since it not only represents it but also presents it to us. Hence we indeed infer that the name of the body of Jesus Christ is transferred to the bread, inasmuch as it is the sacrament and figure of it. But we likewise add, that the sacraments of the Lord should not and cannot be at all separated from their reality and substance. To distinguish, in order to guard against confounding them, is not only good and reasonable, but altogether necessary; but to divide them, so as to make them exist without the other, is absurd" (italics added).

In the same treatise Calvin continues, "We must confess, then, that if the representation which God gave us in the Supper is true, the internal substance of the sacrament is conjoined with the visible signs; and as the bread is distributed to us by the hand, so the body of Christ is communicated to us in order that we may be partakers of it. Though there should be nothing more, we have good cause to be satisfied, when we understand that Jesus Christ gives us in the supper the proper substance of his body and blood, in order that we may possess it fully, and possessing it have part in all blessings" (italics added).

Calvin signed the Augsburg Confession in 1539, and "Luther himself appreciated his theology even on his jealously guarded theory of the Sacrament of the Holy Supper" (A History of the Reformation, by Thomas M. Lindsay, D.D., LL.D.; Charles Scribnerʼs Sons; 1914; p. 112).

There were, of course, disagreements among the great Reformers regarding the Eucharist, but the disagreements were primarily over how the bread and the wine became the Body and Blood of Christ. Luther emphasized ubiquity; Calvin, basing his views on the sanctus in the liturgy and the so-called "ascending epiclesis" at the end of the canon in the Roman Rite, believed that we were caught up into heaven with Christ in the Eucharistic Liturgy. Others believed that the consecration was effected by the power of the Holy Ghost descending on the elements; or by the authority and power of Christʼs Words and command in the Words of Institution. All of these theories are helpful but not fully provable by Scripture, and should not divide Christians. Regarding the Anglican view, Bicknell has written, "Of the manner of this union we [Anglicans] affirm nothing." Had the leaders of the Reformation from across Europe been able to freely meet in synod to discuss these issues, as Archbishop Thomas Cranmer had hoped, unity and a unified teaching may have resulted, but because of the political turmoil and Roman Catholic persecution of the time, no such synod could be held. Unfortunately, as Anglican bishop Michael Marshall has said, while Luther won the battle against Zwingli at Marburg, Zwingliism went on to win the war. The Rev. John R. Stephenson, Professor of Historical Theology at Concordia Lutheran Theological Seminary in St. Catherines, Ontario, laments, "As painful though it is to concede this point, beginning in the seventeenth century, Luther increasingly lost the war for the real presence even in the Communion named after him" (ibid, The Lordʼs Supper, Five Views, p. 46).

Today, the Reformed and Presbyterian Churches do not hold Calvinist views regarding the Sacrament of Holy Communion. Like the Baptists, Methodists and other modern evangelicals, they have become completely Zwinglian in their approach, and believe that the Lordʼs Supper is a mere memorial of Christʼs sacrificial death. As Anglicans we must be careful not to describe these Zwinglian views as "Calvinism," which thy are not. Professor Van Dyk writes, "There is little doubt that the approach to the Lordʼs Supper expressed by Ulrich Zwingli was taken up in large part by the subsequent Reformed tradition. Many generations of Reformed believers have assumed that the Lordʼs Supper is a memorial act, a way to remember the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, an encouragement to gratitude and service" (ibid, The Lordʼs Supper, Five Views, p. 72).

In the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion, Anglican theology rejects both the errors of Transubstantiation and Zwinglian mere memorialism. Zwingliʼs ideas are rejected in Article XXV, "Sacraments ordained of Christ be not only badges or tokens of Christian menʼs profession, but rather they be certain sure witness, and effectual signs of grace (italics added). And Article XXVIII says, "The Supper of the Lord is not only a sign but rather it is a Sacrament...a partaking of the Body of Christ" (italics added). The Articles of Religion also reject the notion of "receptionism." Like "Calvinism" which is often confused with Zwingliism, receptionism is often misunderstood. The doctrine of receptionism comes not from John Calvin, but from Heinrich Bullinger. Bullinger was Zwingliʼs successor in Zurich, and served there for forty-four years, from 1531 to 1575. Bullingerʼs sacramental views matured over time, leaving behind Zwingliʼs teaching, but stopping short of the Real Presence of Christ in the Sacrament of Holy Communion.

For Bullinger, like his predecessor Ulrich Zwingli, the sacramental signs, the bread and the wine, are not connected to the thing signified, the Body and Blood of Christ. Heinrich Bullinger taught a sort of parallelism. The sacramental signs are not merely signs, but rather are analogies of Godʼs gracious actions. They do not confer grace. The sacramental action and the divine action are separate, but parallel. As the believer receives the bread and wine with his mouth, he receives Christ in his heart by faith. This view is called "receptionism", and it is rejected in the Thirty-nine Articles. Article XXVIII teaches: "The Body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten, in the Supper," (italics added). Despite the teachings of Scripture and of Article XXVIII, receptionism historically has had influence among Anglicans. This is for three reasons. First, many have mistakenly believed that Richard Hooker, one of Anglicanism's greatest theologians, believed in it. Second, because Anglicanism teaches that the Body and Blood of Christ are received "only after an heavenly and spiritual manner" (Article XXVIII). And finally, because of a misunderstanding of Article XXIX, Of the Wicked, which eat not the Body of Christ in the use of the Lordʼs Supper.

Richard Hooker is sometimes described as a receptionist because he wrote in his famous Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity, "The real presence of Christ is not therefore to be sought for in the Sacrament, but in the worthy receiver of the Sacrament." But Hooker was only echoing the important point made in Article XXV, "The Sacraments were not ordained of Christ to be gazed upon,...but we should duly use them" (italics added). The sacraments are not an end in themselves to be lifted up, carried about, and gazed upon, but a means to an end: the union of the believer with Christ, that as the Apostle Peter says, we may be partakers of the divine nature. Elsewhere, Hooker makes it very clear that he sees the sacraments as means, or vehicles, of grace. Hooker writes, "This bread hath in it more than the substance which our eyes behold"; and "The power of the ministry of God...by blessing visible elements...maketh them invisible grace." Likewise, some have misunderstood the words "only after an heavenly and spiritual manner" (Article XXVIII) regarding how the Body and Blood of Christ are received in Communion. "Spiritual" does not mean symbolic or representative; but rather not in a materialistic, carnal, corporeal way. This language is taken from John 6:63, "It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing."

The spiritual is anything but figurative. Spiritual things are as real, or more so, than physical or material things. In the Catechism of the 1928 Book of Common Prayer the question is asked, "What is the inward part, or thing signified [in the Sacrament of Holy Communion]?" And answers, "The Body and Blood of Christ, which are spiritually taken and received by the faithful in the Lordʼs Supper." Where it says "spiritually taken and received" in the 1928 Prayer Book, it says "The Body and Blood of Christ, which are verily [truly] and indeed taken and received by the faithful in the Lordʼs Supper" in the 1662 Book of Common Prayer. "Spiritually taken and received" and "verily [truly] taken and received" mean the same thing. It should also be noted that the words "taken and received" echo Article XXVIII, "The Body of Christ is "given [by the priest], taken [by the communicant], and eaten [by the communicant]", thus ruling out Bullingerʼs receptionism.

Finally, some Anglicans have been influenced historically by receptionism because of a misunderstanding of Article XXIX, Of the Wicked which eat not the Body of Christ in the use of the Lordʼs Supper. Receptionism teaches that unbelievers receive only bread and wine, but not its parallel, the Body and Blood of Christ, which are only received into the heart by faith; and that Christ is present at the Table rather than on the Table. But that is not what the Article is teaching. Bicknell writes, "This Article does not in any way deny the ʻreal presence,ʼ it only rules out any carnal view of it. To give an illustration: when our Lord was on earth He possessed healing power quite independently of the faith of men: but only those who possessed faith could get into touch with it. Many touched His garments, but only the woman who had faith was healed (Mk. 5:30). The healing power was there: the touch of faith did not create it, but faith as it were, opened the channel to the appropriate blessing. So in the Eucharist, Christ in all His saving power is present. The wicked are only capable of receiving the visible and material signs of His presence. But those who approach with faith can receive the inward grace and become partakers of Christ by feeding on His Body and Blood" (ibid, Bicknell, p. 503).

Unfortunately, in the middle to late 19th century, many Anglicans were driven toward receptionism in reaction to the excesses of the so-called Ritualists that had grown out of, and separated from, the Oxford Movement led by Pusey and Keble, and had increasingly adopted Roman ceremonial, doctrine and devotions. But the Tractarians of the Oxford Movement were loyal churchmen devoted to the Catholic faith according to the Anglican tradition. They were classical Anglicans. Regarding the Eucharist, they held to classical Anglican theology as found in the Book of Common Prayer. The Rev. Francis J. Hall writes, "Even the Tractarians of Oxford, while seeking to take our Lordʼs words literally, usually contended themselves with the affirmation of a real presence of the body and blood of Christ in, with and under the consecrated bread and wine" (ibid, Hall, p. 112).

The influence of receptionism seems to be a thing of the past in Anglicanism as there are no well known theologians or schools of thought within the Church that teach it today. The same cannot be said of Transubstantiation and Impanation. Those under the influence of Tridentine Roman Catholicism still hold to these unscriptural teachings or to something like them, despite the fact that Rome has been moving in the direction of Anglican Sacramental Theology in recent years. In his book, God Is Near Us (Ignatius Press, 2003), in his chapter entitled "The Presence of the Lord in the Sacrament", Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger (Pope Benedict XVI) writes, "Whenever the Body of Christ, that is the risen and bodily Christ, comes, he is greater than the bread, other, not of the same order. The transformation happens, which affects the gifts we bring by taking them up into a higher order and changes them, even if we cannot measure what happens...The Lord takes possession of the bread and wine; he lifts them up, as it were, out of the setting of their normal existence into a new order; even if, from a purely physical point of view, they remain the same, they have become profoundly different" (Italics added).

Civil War in America?

Two articles that highlight the trajectory we in the States seem to be on:

Spain had a civil war in 1936 when its leftists turned violent and starting killing Christians and rightists.   The American left is increasingly vile, censorious of Christian belief and practice, and violent.  Deju vu all over again?

Orthodox blogger George Michalopulous looks at the issue from a historical perspective.  There are those of us, myself included, who believe that the surrender at Appomattox didn't end the War Between the States.  Michalopulos shows the divisions have existed since the beginning of the English colonies' existence, and that those divisions continue to the present day.  As Jefferson Davis believed, "The principle for which we contend is bound to reassert it’s self, though it may be at another time and in another form. . . the contest is not over, the strife is not ended. It has only entered upon a new and enlarged arena.” 

I will post Part II of Michalopulos' article as it appears.

The Anglican Communion

A Couple of Intriguing Recent Articles on the Effects of Evensong

Looking for Britain’s future leaders? Try evensong

Why evensong offers something every student wants

May the Holy Spirit breathe new life on people through the Scripture-saturated prayers of the BCP.

A Discussion With the Anglo-Calvinists

I have several Anglican friends, mostly at Facebook, who belong to the Anglo-Calvinist party and do much kvetching about solving the Anglican identity problem by returning to a confessionalist understanding of the Anglican formumaries, which confessionalist understanding ought to be theologically Reformed since the framers of the formularies had come under the spell of early Reformed theology.  Some of them go as far as insisting on observing every jot and tittle of the Homilies, which means among other things an almost total prohibition on artwork in the church, and even things like the Advent wreath. 

A few days ago one of these friends posted something on his Facebook page about the ongoing discussions between the ACNA, the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod and the Lutheran Church - Canada's that might lead to some sort of communio in sacris down the line.  My friend lauded the talks but was also "troubled" by them because of the realist sacramentology of the Lutheran view of the Eucharist.  "Bring back the Black Rubric!" was the cry of some who participated in the Facebook discussion, along with aforesaid kvetching about the need for orthodox Anglo-Protestants to adhere strictly to the Reformed Way.  This touched off a discussion between me and one of the participants, my friend pastor Richard Lepage (he would not want me to call him "Father" ;>)),which I reproduce below.  I apologize in advance for its length, but I quote it here with a view toward giving my readers a glimpse into where I now stand on the matter, having spent some time in the Anglo-Calvinist camp myself before realizing both the ahistorical nature of that stance and its ultimate futility:

Embryo Parson:  The fact of the matter is that modern orthodox Anglicanism has largely moved past the Edwardian phase of the English Reformation. That will indeed be "troubling" to those of you who hanker for the Reformed heyday, but it is what it is, and there is little possibility that you all are going to be able to talk this more sacramentalist trajectory of orthodox Anglicanism back to the Reformed way. The Caroline Divines, and to a certain extent the Tractarians, have won the day. I would find a way to make peace with them via an appeal to historic Anglican comprehensiveness.  Not to mention historic Anglicanism's appeal to the Fathers.

Richard Lepage: If the historic standards remain legally the defining standards and have not been removed but only ignored or side-lined (even by a majority), they remain still the defining standards. The Carolines and Anglo-Catholics and Anglo-(insert whatever... presbyterian, pentecostal, 3-stream etc) have not won. They may have succeeded in misrepresenting/distorting what historically and officially defines Anglicanism ...in the popular mind (i.e. via media, 3 legged stool etc.) but they have not formally been able to change the standards. Subscription may be treated as a joke.... but it is still required (hence lip service is paid to it), discipline may be disdained.... but it is still required (hence in England when the rector of the church allowed a Muslim service to take place in the church, he received a token tap on the hand). The fact that oaths are still taken at ordination (even watered down) bear witness to the fact that Anglicanism was defined at a point in time and that definition remains in force so some token show must be made of observing it in order to be able to lay at least superficial claim to the title "Anglican". The formularies as established, written and intended (as so many of us argue for the interpretation of our U.S. Constitution) must be (with all their limitations and frustrations) what defines us if we are to be authentically Anglican. Not Westminster, not Augsburg, not Trent. If they do not, if we refuse to have the integrity to be truly and distinctly what we claim to be (Anglican) then we simply prove what so many already suspect , that Anglicanism is a joke, a meaningless term that means whatever you want it to mean depending on who you are and what your predilections and fancies lean towards. We have for too long been the denomination/expression that stands for nothing and falls for everything. That is not what our fathers, who died very real & horrible deaths, went to the stake for. And we mock them when we ignore what they intended. I may prefer 1552, another may prefer 1549, but it was 1662 that was established and settled on. The same goes for the 10 Articles vs. the 42 Articles.... 39 was what was established and settled on, and what we should have the integrity to accept and represent accurately in our ministries or have the integrity to depart to where we would better fit in. I will give Newman this, he may have been a disingenuous eisegete, but in the end he did the right and honest thing by going to the church where he most belonged and where he did not feel compelled to subvert what that church officially stood for. Anybody can look for loopholes thru which to drive the truck of their preferences thru. But I think Christian integrity demands we yield our preferences to the standards of the church we claim to be a part of. This is what I think is most admirable about Puritans and High Churchman... who conformed. Who chose to accept the surplice in place of the Genevan or the Alb/chasuble. Not because it was better or more holy or "right" but because it better expressed the identity of who they had chosen to be a part of.... despite their personal preferences.

Embryo Parson: Hi Richard. Allow me to touch on a few of these points:

First, the historic standards remain "legally" the defining standards only in the Church of England, unless you're using that term in a looser sense with reference to Anglican provinces outside of the CofE that require their clergy to subscribe to them.

Secondly, as to whether or not the non-Reformed parties of Anglicanism have "won." As I said earlier today in a reply to Sarah Hey, there are no data on the future, but my educated guess is that Reformed Anglicanism will not experience the kind of resurgence you hope to see, though it likely will, and should, remain a valid theologoumenon in our church.

Thirdly, while it is true that the Church of England's formularies received final legal imprimatur in 1662, it is equally true that 1662 marks the final defeat of Puritanism and Presbyterianism after a protracted struggle between those factions and the Anglicans that began with the accession of Elizabeth. The Reformed cause suffered an almost total defeat by degrees at the hands of both Tudor and Stuart monarchs, and at the hands of a string of mostly Arminian Anglican divinity beginning with Hooker. Reformed Anglicans, though they can correctly claim that early Reformed theology influenced the men responsible for drafting the formularies, must nevertheless admit with McCulloch and others that the Reformed cause was short-circuited, allowing later divinity to go on a different trajectory. While it is true that many if not most of the Caroline Divines called themselves "Protestants" and "conformed" to the formularies, they were nevertheless effectively taking Anglican theology in a patristic and Catholic direction. The Edwardian Reformers are even partly to blame for that, as they made much of the fact that their Reformation represented in large part a return to the Fathers, a claim that was echoed by Caroline and Tractarian alike. The problem is, the devil is in the details when we take up the agenda of returning to the Fathers. Or, as they all would likely put it, God, not the devil, is in those details, because God was with the Fathers long before He was with the Reformers.

I have argued at my blog and elsewhere, in response to Anglo-Catholics who desire to wash the Reformation right out of their hair, that we conservative Anglicans, who MUST hang together lest we hang separately, should aspire to demonstrate the same kind of "comprehensiveness" that marked the church of the first millennium. There we had both an Augustinian trajectory that stressed doctrines of immediate grace and non-Augustinian one that stressed the ecclesial and sacramental dimensions of salvation, which include both dynamic symbolist and more realist views of the Eucharist. Both theologies, I would submit, are right there in Holy Scripture, and thus should be viewed as complementary. That's why I recommended to Matt that maybe, instead of digging in your heels in support of the proposition that true Anglicanism is Calvinian Anglicanism, you might think about making the tent a little bigger, as the church of the first millennium did.

Richard Lepage: In a small town for the last 20 years the same town sheriff has eaten donuts, hung out with the good old boys, taken naps and done nothing to enforce the laws or keep the people safe. People gradually got used to lawlessness and doing whatever they want, to the point of regarding the situation as "normal". The old sheriff finally dies of a heart attack and a new Sheriff takes his place and begins enforcing the laws. A new generation tired of the lawlessness supports this return to law and order but the majority of the old generation says "this is not the way things are supposed to be, it is normal for us to get away with this and get away with that and do what ever we want." And story after story is told about this guy who broke this, and that guys who got away with that. So the new Sheriff asks "Have the laws been changed or replaced?" The answer comes back "No". So the Sheriff replies... "What's your point?"

The CofE is sick, corrupt but not dead and thus remains the original archetype of Anglicanism who defined Anglicanism and established its standards. Those have not been formally replaced and remain historically and legally the standard. Ignored, mocked, unpopular & sidelined… yes. But still the established definition and the official standard. Other national churches can choose to adhere closely or follow loosely those standards or make up their own. But whatever they choose to do, their actions do not change the definition of the original. They are only derivatives.

If the CofE formally changes/replaces those standards and redefines herself then this becomes another discussion altogether… but it hasn’t yet.

For better or worse the formularies stand. Not as Reformed or Lutheran or Catholic as some might like…. But cite and quote anybody you like of the factions, interpreters, re-interpreters or commentators who come after they are established (and yes I know there are many) and all can be measured by how close or how far their opinion is from the sensus literalis of the applicable formulary. This is why Newman’s Tract 90 is so laughable.

But that is the point. Reformed, Lutheran, Catholic, Eastern Orthodox or Pentecostal leaning…. They all remain merely “opinions after the fact”. Tell me story after story about how big this faction is or is not or how popular this theologian is or is not and it does not matter. The standard remains the standard until it is changed. Formally change or remove the formularies and we now have another discussion altogether. But until then…. Opinions are like arses, everybody has one. wink emoticon

Do I understand that standard cuts both ways? Yep. I really like the way Peter Robinson made his point below. He shows how it cuts both ways… these X are more Lutheran, but that Y is more Calvinistic. I personally can live with that. The formularies are not as tightly reformed as the Westminster Standards….

But they are certainly not the “Big Tent” - “every theological oxymoron is allowable and beautiful” that is what so much of American Anglicanism is. The idea that evangelism can be effective in a church that holds numerous diametrically opposed soteriologies, Christologies, is incoherent when it comes to expressing the relationship between Scripture and Tradition and shares common ground pretty much only in respect to homosexuality being a sin, is ludicrous. It is with good reason we are viewed from many quarters as fruitcakes.

The formularies will not please everybody on every point. When we come to them, most have to give up something, I like the WCF in some areas better than the 39 AOR, but I recognize I cannot impose WCF on the 39 AOR or I will be as guilty of illegitimate non-conformity as an Anglo-Catholic who completely ignores them, so I have to give up something that I prefer for the greater good of the whole. But the chaos we have now is not good for the whole. Thus the formulaires provide the best authoritative & legitimate definition of what Anglicanism is, they bring us back to center (which is a very strong, robust and evangelically effective center) it is a center that motivated men to spread the Gospel far more extensively throughout the world than any other Protestant denomination. And it can do that again. If we stop being the church of the 3 stooges who have a different answer for every question and act like that is a sane and reasonable option.

I know very well the convoluted histories of what Laud did or that Hooker said this and Andrewes said that and we can swap trivia all day long…. But at the end of the day, like it or not, the formularies are the heart and foundation of authentic Anglicanism. It is what I subscribed to when I was ordained, and I for one did not subscribe tongue in cheek or with my fingers crossed behind my back. This is what the Jerusalem Declaration confesses and what the Church of Nigeria and CANA adheres to formally. And it is to them I belong, and where I will stand unless they change those standards. Pax.

Embryo Parson: Richard, it doesn't seem to me that much of your long and passionate post is really responsive to what I wrote, but I will leave the matter be for now.

As an interesting and related aside, however, I have to tell you that there's a chance I will end up in the Anglo-Catholic-leaning Anglican Province of America, which is in communion with both the REC and the Church of Nigeria. An example of the kind of "little-bigger-tent" Anglicanism to which I argue you and I should aspire.

Richard Lepage: Let me make it simpler. The formularies stand until changed. Opinions offered until then are pretty much smoke and mirrors.

Embryo Parson: "Opinions offered until then are pretty much smoke and mirrors." Except that they clearly aren't, when the larger orthodox Anglican picture is in view.

Richard Lepage: In your opinion I suppose. Have a good night.

Embryo Parson: Yes, in my opinion, and for the reasons I set forth in my own lengthy response.

Gullibility, the Great Sin of the Charismatic Church

A notable article at Charisma by a writer who describes himself as "an unashamed Pentecostal/charismatic believer, a lifelong tongues speaker (since Jan. 24, 1972), one of the four principle (sic) leaders who served in the Brownsville Revival, the author of an in-depth, scholarly treatment of divine healing, the man who wrote Authentic Fire in response to Pastor John MacArthur's Strange Fire."  After detailing some instances that show the utter gullibility that has historically marked the charismatic movement, the author concludes:

I stated in my Authentic Fire book that noncharismatics are to be commended for being careful not to be duped and misled, but they often display a cynical, skeptical spirit, which is a weakness. Charismatics, on the flip side, are to be commended for being willing to step out in faith, but we often display an extreme gullibility.

It is high time for this nonsense to stop, beginning with each of us reading this article (me included) searching our own hearts and lives.

I'm totally for taking the leap of faith and diving into the deep waters of obedience, but by God's grace, I will do so with my eyes wide open and my feet planted firmly on the Word of God.

There is a vast difference between faith and foolishness.

Yes, well, apart from this author's own credibility problem (as to his involvement in the dubious "Brownsville Revival"), I have long felt that the glaring lack of discernment evidenced in the charismatic movement is the most telling clue as to the bogus nature of its claim to represent "Spirit-filled" Christianity. The New Testament is clear about this: to be truly "Spirit-filled" is to be able to exercise discernment as to spiritual matters, and the charismatic movement has failed abysmally here. Consequently, this casts doubt on the overall credibility of the movement.

It is disheartening in the extreme to observe, as I have, the same sort of gullibility in much of "Three Streams" Anglicanism.  All too often it is as though the charismatic stream has overflown its banks and inundated the other two, accounting for why one former AMiA Anglican priest speaks cynically of the tributaries of Three Stream Anglicanism as, "you know, the charismatic, the charismatic, and the charismatic."

Not long ago I argued the case for pressing on from this wild and wooly state of affairs to "Catholic maturity".   I argued that it isn't necessary for charismatics to cease being charismatics, but instead to enter the One River of biblical and Catholic belief and devotion, where they will find, as the ex-charismatic Orthodox priest cited in this article put it, "all . . . nascent Pentecostal longings matured and fulfilled in the timeless tradition."

When we're rooted in the "timeless tradition", which Orthodox theologian Vladimir Lossky saw as nothing less than "the life of the Holy Spirit in the Church", we will no longer be vexed by gullibility and every wind of doctrine.