I have posted my sermon for Sunday, August 1st. It will be given at the 8:30 and 10:45 services at St. Laurence Church in Grapevine, Texas.

Opus Dei and the Latin Mass are getting some major attraction in Dallas, according to this article. Bring on the discipline, my friends!!!

These guys are completely and utterly POD.

Concelebration

Concelebration is one of those innovations of the Liturgical Movement with sketchy historical backgrounds. Firstly, it arises from the miserable scholarship of the Movement, as well as from a destruction of the longstanding tradition in the Church of ad orientem celebration. The practice of versus populum destroys the visible unity of a priest and his people, the people joining the priest in the piety of the whole universal Church. Concelebration takes this a step further, creating a void of space, the altar is now a buffer between priests and people. It should be no surprise that now the most progressive among liturgists are proposing that altars should be encircled. What really is required is a return to ad orientem.

Concelebration serves to increase a feeling of clericalism and it is no wonder that very often we have a contentious relationship between priests and people. Now we have "President's chairs" and other displays of division. The above image shows, I believe, that the practice of concelebration only increases the immense difficulties of versus populum.

A quote from Cardinal Ratzinger:

"The turning of the priest toward the people has turned the community into a self-enclosed circle. In its outward form, it no longer opens out on what lies ahead and above, but is closed in on itself. The common turning toward the east was not a ‘celebration toward the wall’; it did not mean that the priest ‘had his back to the people’: the priest himself was not regarded as so important. For just as the congregation in the synagogue looked toward Jerusalem, so in the Christian liturgy the congregation looked together ‘toward the Lord.’… It was much more a question of priest and people facing in the same direction, knowing that together they were in a procession toward the Lord. They did not close themselves into a circle; they did not gaze at one another; but as the pilgrim People of God they set off for the Oriens, for the Christ who comes to meet us."

The image above shows that what has been created is a sense of exclusivism, that the priests, being behind the altar, are now already in the heavenly realm. The priests gathered are now the heavenly host. We have attempted to devalue the nave and sanctuary as microcosm, but to no effect. Thus, we now have priestly vocations which come, not from a desire to serve and lead, but to be validated and saved.

William Wilberforce
William Wilberforce was born in 1759 in Hull. Converted to an Evangelical piety within the Church of England, Wilberforce decided to serve the faith in Parliament instead of being ordained, becoming a Member of Parliament at the age of twenty-one. He was a supporter of missionary initiatives and helped found The Bible Society. Settling in Clapham in London, he became a leader of the reforming group of Evangelicals known as the 'Clapham Sect'. Of all the causes for which he fought, he is remembered best for his crusade against slavery. After years of effort, the trade in slaves was made illegal in the British Empire in 1807 and Wilberforce lived to see the complete abolition of slavery, just before his death on this day in 1833.

This post on titusonenine has been extremely interesting to watch unfold.

Essentially, the argumentation revolves around a discussion of the need for the Network to befriend moderates who oppose homosexual "unions" and are not on the extreme begun by Fr. Don Armstrong, director of the Anglican Communion Institiute. The Pontificator, Al Kimel, is saying that this is a waste of time, that the moderate middle will always side with revisionism. I agree with Kimel. The Broad Chruch has always been problematic. It attempts to walk an impossible line.

Here's what that line looks like:
I want to have a sacramental church with priestesses.
I want to have the Gospel preached but not personal morality and holiness.
I want to have beautiful liturgy, but I want inclusive language.
I want a Church that changes lives, but I don't want to know how they are changed.
I want a Church that talks about Jesus, but no particular one.
I want a Church my kids can be married in, and even though I'm opposed to homosexual unions, I'm not going to be the one to bar them.
I want a Church that does social outreach by cutting a check.

The problem with all of this is that it displays a sort of emotivism. Even if the authority of Scripture is heeded, it may be simply because that is what the individual person wants. Liturgy may be beautiful - they can have the English Missal with Palestrina for all I care, but it is still an emotive preference. Little is spoken of abandonment to the will of God, let alone holding up the Blessed Virgin as a model for this obedience. Nothing is spoken of Apostolic Authority, or the Authority of the Fathers or the Councils. Very few, even at Network meetings, talk about the teaching of the undivided Church. We have major authority problems, namely because our people believe that they are better off in the faith working it out on their own, with a feeble, emotive, rationalism.

Kimel made reference to a lecture by Edward Norman entitled Authority in the Anglican Communion, and I think it is quite helpful.

Music for the Week
I've decided to use the power of the internet to link to great music I've been listening to on the iTunes Music Store. Perhaps this is shameless plugging, but in most cases you only pay ten bucks, sometimes less. They have a great selection of truly POD music, too. Stuff you can't buy in stores. If you don't have an iTunes account, you need one.

This is a recording of the St. Petersburg Kammechor performing Rachmaninoff's All-Night Vigil. So, these are the real deal Russians, not the King's College Choir pretending.
Buy it on iTunes.

The Daily Office
Attention turns today to the Daily Office, the particular genius of Anglican daily life, a life not reserved for religious and priests, but for all of the people. In the Oxford Movement, Keble and Pusey restored the practice before turning their attention to daily celebration. Today, parish priests are left lacking due to their innatention to Holy Scripture. This clearly must stem from a laxity in the reading of the Divine Office.

From the Book of Common Prayer (1662):
"All priests and deacons are to say daily the Morning and Evening Prayer, either privately or openly, not being let by sickness, or some other urgent cause. And the curate that ministereth in every parish-church or chapel, being at home, and not being otherwise reasonably hindered, shall say the same in the parish-church or chapel where he ministereth, and shall cause a bell to be tolled thereunto a convenient time before he begin, that the people may come to hear GOD'S word, and to pray with him."

Note there there is not an option to keep the office, it is the duty of every priest and deacon. The people are called also to prayer (by the bell), to share in the prayer of the clergy.

Also from the BCP (1662):
"The Old Testament is appointed for the first Lessons at Morning and Evening Prayer, so as the most part thereof all be read over every year once. The New Testament is appointed for the second Lessons at Morning and Evening Prayer, and shall be read over orderly every year thrice."

This is a practice, that sadly, with the 1979 American Book has been lost - namely that of two readings from the Old Testament daily. The solution is to read the OT reading from the opposite year in the Evening, thus the entire OT is covered yearly.

Restoration of the Divine Office is crucial if we are to restore appreciation and knowledge of the Holy Scriptures as well as a strong piety to Anglicanism.

I turn your attention also to Tract 84.

An Interesting Article

Aahhhhhh.... Much Better...

Crossroads

These people are POD. Walking across the country to save lives.

Here's their mission statement:
"Crossroads exists in order to help bring about a Culture of Life. Because any such culture of life must take root in the youth of our society to truly flourish, Crossroads especially looks to involve and challenge them to actively take part in bringing it about. By looking to Jesus and Mary as role models in prayer and sacrifice, and by understanding the value of suffering, we hope to convert hearts and minds and to save lives."

The Dormition Fast Begins August First
The Feast of the Dormition is August 15th, and that means that the Eastern Church will abstain from meat, fish, dairy, wine and oil on weakdays, adding wine and oil on Saturdays and Sundays. The fast is halted for the Feast of the Transfiguration on August 6th and Patronal Feasts.

I really wish we did this sort of thing in the West. In fact, I think I'm going to. Most people don't even know what day August 15th is, and what we remember and celebrate on that day. The Dormition is truly one of the most important feasts in the Church in which we look forward to, like Mary, being welcomed into the Heavenly glory and meeting our Lord face to face as heirs of His Kingdom.

Top Ten Methods for Celebrating 30 Years of Priestesses in the Episcopal Church
from: http://www.episcopalchurch.org/3577_44291_ENG_HTM.htm

1) Hold a forum on ordination for the girls in your congregation.
2) Send a note to a woman priest, deacon, or bishop-or all three-who has influenced your life, and a note of affirmation to a woman in seminary.
3) Put flowers on the altar one Sunday in thanksgiving for the ministries of ordained women.
4) Learn the names of the 11 women ordained in Philadelphia and the four ordained in Washington D.C. before the General Convention of 1976.
5) Send a donation to an organization that supports women's ministries or concerns and memo it in thanksgiving for women's ordained ministries.
6) Explain to people in your congregation why God is not a boy's name.
7) Work to make your congregation's language more inclusive and expansive.
8) Use the hymn "Blessed Is She."
9) Buy a copy of the new hymnal "Voices Found" for your church. All the words or tunes are written by women.
10) Have women as the subject for Vacation Bible School.
11) Buy or make a stole that celebrates women's ministry for your priest to wear.
12) Work to understand and dismantle patriarchy, being aware of how its oppression affects all minorities, not just women.
13) If you don't have an ordained woman on your staff or in your congregation, invite one to preach and celebrate.
14) Send a note to a non-ordaining male bishop and tell him how important women's ordained ministry is.
15) Find out about the history of women's ordination in your diocese.
16) Join the Episcopal Women's Caucus, the Episcopal Public Policy Network, and the Episcopal Women's History Project.
17) Celebrate the Feast of the Virgin of Guadalupe on December 12.
18) Read the Gospel of Mary by Karen King.
19) Find a way to celebrate your part in the priesthood of all believers.
20) If you are an ordained woman, make intentional efforts to reach out to laywomen as peers; if you are a lay woman, reach out to an ordained woman as a colleague in ministry.
21) Thank one of the people who made the ordination of women a possibility in your diocese.
22) Write a poem, prayer or hymn in thanksgiving for women's ministries.
23) Have a feast in your church and invite a woman who has been ordained twenty years or more to come and share her story.
24) Plant a tree in your church yard in honor of women's ordained ministries.
25) Add one or more mothers' names to the list of the fathers in Eucharistic Prayer C.
26) Decorate gingerbread cookies like women priests and serve at coffee hour.
27) Ask your vestry to find a way to celebrate the 30th anniversary in your congregation.
28) Celebrate the Feast of Mary Magdalene on July 22 and pass out red eggs. (Learn about this story if you do not know it.) Continue the octave in celebration of all women's ministries and end on the Feast Day of Mary and Martha, the anniversary of the Philadelphia 11 in 1974.

Paganism.

Brooke Foss Westcott

"The student of Christian doctrine, because he strives after exactness of phrase, because he is conscious of the inadequacy of any one human formula to exhaust the truth, will be filled with sympathy for every genuine endeavour towards the embodiment of right opinion. Partial views attract and exist in virtue of the fragment of truth--be it great or small--which they include; and it is the work of the theologian to seize this no less than to detect the first spring of error. It is easier and, in one sense, it is more impressive to make a peremptory and exclusive statement, and to refuse to allow any place beside it to divergent expositions; but this show of clearness and power is dearly purchased at the cost of the ennobling conviction that the whole truth is far greater than our individual minds. He who believes that every judgment on the highest matters different from his own is simply a heresy must have a mean idea of the faith; and while the qualifications, the reserve, the lingering sympathies of the real student make him in many cases a poor controversialist, it may be said that a mere controversialist cannot be a real theologian" (Lessons from Work, pp. 84-85).

Westcott was the great editor of Greek New Testament texts and biblical scholar, as well as Bishop of Durham from 1890 to his death on July 27th, 1901.

Always fun, however, to point to the naysayers.

Evelyn Underhill On Priestesses in the Church

"I am opposed to the giving of the priesthood to women, for many reasons. ... On the other hand, I greatly desire and also expect an immense extension and recognition of women’s ministry in other directions than this. ... I have known a few women in my life who have genuinely ministered to souls in a creative way. The question of status, scope and so forth has never, 1 should think, entered their minds at all. We notice in them a sort of beautiful informality and freedom in their proceedings; and something which we might call a maternal and domestic quality in their method, which seems on the whole to look more towards the prophetic than the priestly way of serving God and tending souls. As individuals surrendered to the Spirit, moving and working under his pressure, and yet with great freedom and originality, within the institutional frame. . . . Most of us, I think, are definitely at our best in a limited environment."

The Feast of St. Panteleimon (d.c. 305)
Saint Panteleimon (Pantaleon (all lion) in the West) was martyred under the Emperor Diocletian. He is the patron of bachelors. He was a physician and was known for offering free medical care to the poor. A member of the Emperor's inner-circle, the Emperor attempted to persuade him to apostasy, which he would not do. He made testimony to the faith instead, and to prove it true, healed a paralytic.
According to legend, Pantaleon's flesh was first burned with torches; upon this Christ appeared to all in the form of Hermolaus to strengthen and heal Pantaleon. The torches were extinguished. After this, when a bath of liquid lead was prepared, Christ in the same form stepped into the cauldron with him, the fire went out and the lead became cold. He was now thrown into the sea, but the stone with which he was loaded floated. He was thrown to the wild beasts but these fawned upon him and could not be forced away until he had blessed them. He was bound on the wheel, but the ropes snapped, and the wheel broke. An attempt was made to behead him, but the sword bent, and the executioners were converted. Pantaleon implored heaven to forgive them, for which reason he also received the name of Panteleimon (the all-compassionate). It was not until he himself desired it that it was possible to behead him.

His relics are at St. Denis in Paris, his head at Lyons. They were translated first to Constantinople, and taken from there to France by Charlemagne. His blood, contained in a vial, is said to be liquidating on this very day, his feast.

William Reed Huntington
"First presbyter of the Church" was the well-deserved, if unofficial, titles of the sixth rector of Grace Church, New York City. Huntington provided a leadership characterized by breadth, generosity, scholarship, and boldness. He was the acknowldeged leader in the House of Deputies of the Episcopal Church's General Convention during a period of intense stress and conflict within the Church. His reconciling spirit helped preserve the unity of the Episcopal Church in the painful days after the beginning of the schism, led by the Assistant Bishop of Kentucky, which resulted in the formation of the Reformed Episcopal Church.

In the House of Deputies, of which he was a member from 1871 until 1907, Huntington showed active and ioneering vision in making daring proposals. As early as 1871, his motion to revive the primitive order of "deaconesses" began a long struggle which culminated in 1889 in canonical authorization for the order. Huntington's parish immediately provided facilities for this new ministry, and the Huntington House became a training center for deaconesses and other women workers in the church.

Christian unity was Huntington's great passion throughout his ministry. In his book, The Church Idea (1870), he attempted to articulate the essential of Christian unity. The grounds he proposed as a basis for unity were presented to, and accepted by, the House of Bishop in Chicago in 1886, and, with some slight modification, were adopted by the Lambeth Conference in 1888. The Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral" has become a historic landmark for the Anglican Communion. It is included on pages 876-878 of the Book of Common Prayer, among the Historical Documents of the Church.

In addition to his roles as ecumenist and statesman, Huntington is significant as a liturgical scholar. It was his bold proposal to revise the Prayer Book that led to the revision of 1892, providing a hitherto unknown flexibility and significant enrichment. His Collect for Monday in Holy Week, now used also for Fridays at Morning Prayer, is itself an example of skillful revision. In it he takes two striking clauses from the exhortation to the sick in the 1662 Prayer Book, and uses them as part of a prayer for grace to follow the Lord in his sufferings.

I call your attention to a selection from the Tracts for the Times, Tract 91, which Huntington wrote in contribution to the Oxford Movement, sixty-six years after its beginning. It is written concerning the Articles of Religion and their place in the American Church. The following is quite important:

"The open Bible on our lecterns testifies to our respect for the authority of the Book, if it be a "Standard" Bible, and its table of contents will be a sufficient definition of what is held to be canonical Scripture. Similarly, it may be said of the two Creeds that their very presence in our manual of worship is ample enough proof of our thinking that they "ought thoroughly to be received and believed." This disposes of the trilogy of Articles concerned with the source of authority in religion."

Heresy at Nashotah House
"During the spring and summer of 2002, the group negotiated with a number of independent catholic bishops about the possibility of a member of the community being consecrated to the episcopate in order to further the group's sacramental aims. This effort did not bear fruit. Instead, one of the IMP members pursued pre-ordination studies in a mainline seminary, hoping to affiliate the project with an established denomination. The seminarian was investigated for heresy by seminary and denominational authorities upon discovery of the IMP website (February 2003), making it necessary to create an independent organization in which the members of the IMP could not be persecuted."

This is from the Society of Saints Barlaam and Josaphat, which is a syncretistic group based in Des Moines, Iowa. The seminary in question is, indeed, Nashotah House. But, the notion of persecution is ridiculous. The infiltrator was allowed to preach in the chapel during an event for perspective students as well as receive a degree this past May. The established organization in question is the Episcopal Church. Maybe the truth should be known, but there are no standards regarding faith and conduct of students at Nashotah House, and this shows that it is quite easy to infiltrate, even by syncretists who outrightly attempt to blend Buddhism and Christianity.

POD Picture of the Day

This picture comes from this article from the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review. Among the relics listed in this article are: 22 slivers of the cross on which Jesus Christ was crucified; two small pieces of table of the Last Supper; two thorns from Jesus's crown of thorns; a slice of the Virgin Mary's veil and many others. Too bad they all belong to the Patriarch of Constantinople and were heinously stolen in the Sack of Constantinople in 1204.

Saint Augustine On Sin

"No doubt all they imitate Adam who by disobedience transgress the commandment of God; but he is one thing as an example to those who sin because they choose; and another thing as the progenitor of all who are born with sin. All His saints, also, imitate Christ in the pursuit of righteousness; whence the same apostle, whom we have already quoted, says: "Be ye imitators of me, as I am also of Christ." But besides this imitation, His grace works within us our illumination and justification, by that operation concerning which the same preacher of His [name] says: "Neither is he that planteth anything, nor he that watereth, but God that giveth the increase." For by this grace He engrafts into His body even baptized infants, who certainly have not yet become able to imitate any one. As therefore He, in whom all are made alive, besides offering Himself as an example of righteousness to those who imitate Him, gives also to those who believe on Him the hidden grace of His Spirit, which He secretly infuses even into infants; so likewise he, in whom all die, besides being an example for imitation to those who wilfully transgress the commandment of the Lord, depraved also in his own person all who come of his stock by the hidden corruption of his own carnal concupiscence. It is entirely on this account, and for no other reason, that the apostle says: "By one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin, and so passed upon all men; in which all have sinned." Now if I were to say this, they would raise an objection, and loudly insist that I was incorrect both in expression and sense; for they would perceive no sense in these words when spoken by an ordinary man, except that sense which they refuse to see in the apostle. Since, however, these are the words of him to whose authority and doctrine they submit, they charge us with slowness of understanding, while they endeavour to wrest to some unintel ligible sense words which were written in a clear and obvious purport. "By one man," says he, "sin entered into the world, and death by sin." This indicates propagation, not imitation; for if imitation were meant, he would have said, "By the devil." But as no one doubts, he refers to that first man who is called Adam: "And so," says he, "it passed upon all men."

"Again, in the clause which follows, "In which all have sinned," how cautiously, rightly, and unambiguously is the statement expressed! For if yon understand that sin to be meant which by one man entered into the world, "In which [sin] all have sinned," it is surely clear enough, that the sins which are peculiar to every man, which they themselves commit and which belong simply to them, mean one thing; and that the one sin, in and by which all have sinned, means another thing; since all were that one man. If, however, it be not the sin, but that one man that is understood, "In which [one man] all have sinned," what again can be plainer than even this clear statement? We read, indeed, of those being justified in Christ who believe in Him, by reason of the secret communion and inspiration of that spiritual grace which makes every one who cleaves to the Lord "one spirit" with Him, although His saints also imitate His example; can I find, however, any similar statement made of those who have imitated His saints? Can any man be said to be justified in Paul or in Peter, or in any one whatever of those excellent men whose authority stands high among the people of God? We are no doubt said to be blessed in Abraham, according to the passage in which it was said to him, "In thee shall all nations be blessed" --for Christ's sake, who is his seed according to the flesh; which is still more clearly expressed in the parallel passage: "In thy seed shall all nations be blessed" I do not believe that any one can find it anywhere stated in the Holy Scriptures, that a man has ever sinned or still sins "in the devil," although all wicked and impious men "imitate" him. The apostle, however, has declared concerning the first man, that "in him all have sinned;" and yet there is still a contest about the propagation of sin, and men oppose to it I know not what nebulous theory of "imitation."

From On the Merits and Forgiveness of Sins, and on the Baptism of Infants: Chapters 10-11

The Catechism of the Catholic Church on Original Sin

"Although it is proper to each individual, original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam's descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin - an inclination to evil that is called concupiscence". Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ's grace, erases original sin and turns a man back towards God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle.

The Church's teaching on the transmission of original sin was articulated more precisely in the fifth century, especially under the impulse of St. Augustine's reflections against Pelagianism, and in the sixteenth century, in opposition to the Protestant Reformation. Pelagius held that man could, by the natural power of free will and without the necessary help of God's grace, lead a morally good life; he thus reduced the influence of Adam's fault to bad example. The first Protestant reformers, on the contrary, taught that original sin has radically perverted man and destroyed his freedom; they identified the sin inherited by each man with the tendency to evil (concupiscentia), which would be insurmountable. The Church pronounced on the meaning of the data of Revelation on original sin especially at the second Council of Orange (529) and at the Council of Trent (1546)."

Two things are concerning in this. The Doctrine of Original Sin affirms that Original Sin is erased in Baptism, but that the great battle between man and Satan continues due to his weakened nature. But, I thought a weakened nature was part and parcel with Original Sin. It seems that in this sense, Original Sin is simply a convenient manner of condemning the entire human race. Of course human nature is weak, no kidding. The second concern is that the doctrine arises within a specifically Western conflict in Pelagianism, but it does not give the Western Church license to draft new dogma foreign to the East. The Roman Church is certainly correct that the Protestant reformers were extreme in their estimation - that freedom is lost.

I think the better way to say it is that sin unequivocally brings death to the human race. Not only does Adam's sin bring death, but our personal sin does the same. Baptism brings us out of death into life (1 John 1:14, Romans 6:3). This isn't Pelagianism - it affirms Man's need for Grace. It is unnecessary to say that we inherit the guilt of Adam's sin. My personal sin and guilt are certainly enough to condemn me. We are simply brought into a fallen world. That ought to be enough.

Thomas Aquinas in Quotation of Bede
I thought this was interesting. Taylor Marshall had asked whether the Cardinal Virtues relate at all to Bede's Four Wounds (Weakness, Ignorance, Malice, and Concupiscence). He was quite right, and now certain proof. Thomas Aquinas, in Summa I-II 85.3, states:

Again, there are four of the soul's powers that can be subject of virtue, as stated above (61, 2), viz. the reason, where prudence resides, the will, where justice is, the irascible, the subject of fortitude, and the concupiscible, the subject of temperance. Therefore in so far as the reason is deprived of its order to the true, there is the wound of ignorance; in so far as the will is deprived of its order of good, there is the wound of malice; in so far as the irascible is deprived of its order to the arduous, there is the wound of weakness; and in so far as the concupiscible is deprived of its order to the delectable, moderated by reason, there is the wound of concupiscence.

Accordingly these are the four wounds inflicted on the whole of human nature as a result of our first parent's sin. But since the inclination to the good of virtue is diminished in each individual on account of actual sin, as was explained above (1, 2), these four wounds are also the result of other sins, in so far as, through sin, the reason is obscured, especially in practical matters, the will hardened to evil, good actions become more difficult and concupiscence more impetuous.

This is truly great, and I do believe that thus, we ought to teach the Four Wounds in relation to the Cardinal Virtues. This is ecumenical theology at its best! The Venerable Bede and Thomas Aquinas together!

In honor of the Feast of St. James, patron of Spain, I thought I would post this article concerning Jenna Bush, daughter of the president. She recently took a pilgrimage to Santiago de Compostela. She is POD in two ways. First, she took the pilgrimage. Second, she uses an iPod.

Archbishop Dimitri of the OCA

I finally met Archbishop Dimitri of the Orthodox Church in America tonight after vigil vespers at St. Seraphim's Cathedral in Dallas. With friends around a table and his wonderfully strong coffee, we discussed such matters as Original Sin, the Dormition of Mary, and an Orthodox conception of Marriage.

The following struck me. He spoke of marriage as being indissoluble, but that the Church has the power to bind and loose with regards to the sacraments, and therefore the Church (or rather he) could loose the bonds of marriage, acting for God. He talked about how cases are handled on an individual basis, as well as how difficult the process truly is. It was also interesting to hear his explanation in terms of the Old Testament Israel, which he turned to immediately in the discussion, how Israel goes a-whoring (Hosea) and must be brought back or released from the covenant. This was in response to a question about a Matthean expemption due to adultery (or porneia). It was amazing hearing all this from an 81 year old man. But, even more striking was the format of the marriage vows. First, they are marched around what he called a "mini-altar" in the center of the church three times, to the same hymns sung during an ordination. Then the crowns are held above their heads with the format , "O Lord our God, crown them with glory and honor." This is signaling a return to the perfection of creation, being crowned with glory and honor. In the same way, it is very clearly akin to priestly ordination and shows the vocational nature of the sacrament.

His explanation of Original Sin (in the Eastern mindset not original sin, but what else to call it) he referred to the inheritance from Adam being not the fault of sin, but death itself as a consequence. He also talked about variance in translation, which I had heard in seminary - that in Romans "all have sinned" not "in Adam all have sinned." Also, since it was the beginning of the Dormition Fast, he spoke of the Dormition - that Mary died as a member of the human race and was taken into Heaven in the sight of the Apostles and that the Immaculate Conception is only necessary with a western doctrine of original sin. If found myself in agreement with him continually. It was really great - a blessed moment.

As a disclaimer, I have no plans to convert to the Eastern Church.

St. Augustine Concerning Contraception
Strong words from the great Bishop of Hippo:

"You [Manicheans] make your Auditors adulterers of their wives when they take care lest the women with whom they copulate conceive. They take wives according to the laws of matrimony by tablets announcing that the marriage is contracted to procreate children; and then, fearing because of your law [against childbearing] . . . they copulate in a shameful union only to satisfy lust for their wives. They are unwilling to have children, on whose account alone marriages are made. How is it, then, that you are not those prohibiting marriage, as the Apostle predicted of you so long ago [1 Tim. 4:1-4], when you try to take from marriage what marriage is? When this is taken away, husbands are shameful lovers, wives are harlots, bridal chambers are brothels, fathers-in-law are pimps"
(Against Faustus 15:7 [A.D. 400]).

New Colors and Fonts for Conjectures
I'm trying these out for a while... let me know what you think!

Marriage and the Prayerbook

Some friends and I have noticed that the language of marriage in the prayerbook has been weakened over a considerable amount of time.

Consider the language of the 1662 BCP:

"With this ring I thee wed, with my body I thee worship, and with all my worldly goods I thee endow: In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen."

Note first the classic phrase "with my body I thee worship." What a wonderful blast of devotion, the man attributing all his worth to his wife, and vice versa. Worldly good are also endowed, whereas in later editions, possessions are simply used to honor the spouse.

From the 1928 Book:

"With this Ring, I thee wed: In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen."

What happened to the first part? I guess its gone.

Now from the 1979 Book:

"I give you this ring as a symbol of my vow, and with all that I am, and all that I have, I honor you, in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit."

Here we have the watered-down deadness of the 1979. Note also the individualism of the text. Marriage is something one does rather than something one is. I give you this ring. The ring is outright symbol, rather than being the lasting bond. As well, the personal posessions are still kept personal, rather than endowed.

The Battalion, the student newspaper at my alma mater Texas A&M, ran this article regarding students there entering religious life and ministry. There are many of them from A&M, three at my small seminary alone and many many more in other parts of the Church. Especially at A&M, this is quite a departure from the usual pursuit of the suburban, upper middle class home and a BMW, but it is happening more and more. It can only be attributed to the work of the Holy Spirit.

The Nature of Theological Virtue

I heard a priest teach in sunday school that the theological virtues are "infused."  He explained that "infused" means that you are born with theological virtue.  I must disagree.  The nature of the theological virtues is clearly that they are external to man, and come from God alone.  They are not a part of the created nature, as are imperfectly the cardinal virtues.  Aquinas says:

"Whatever is in man by nature is common to all men, and is not taken away by sin, since even in the demons natural gifts remain, as Dionysius states (Div. Nom. iv). But virtue is not in all men; and is cast out by sin. Therefore it is not in man by nature."

Thus, the nature of sin is so devastating that it casts out virtue, but theological virtue, in specific is entirely external.

Thomas continues:

"Such like principles are called "theological virtues": first, because their object is God, inasmuch as they direct us aright to God: secondly, because they are infused in us by God alone: thirdly, because these virtues are not made known to us, save by Divine revelation, contained in Holy Writ."

Thomas further says that virtue is acquired in Baptism, not enlivened or awoken, but given by God.  The distinction is an important one.  If we are led to believe that theological virtue is not given but a part of our own nature, even if created by God, then we begin to undertake the Pelagian enterprise of self-justification.  But, if theological virtue is infused, in that it is a gift of grace to the Baptized, then we are able to believe rightly regarding the habit of virtue and the nature of Faith, Hope, and Charity - that they are God's alone and external to us.  This does not assume a kind of quietism, for it is assumed that in order to be virtuous, one must do virtuous acts and further that apostacy and heresy make theological virtue null.

Further, theological virtues separate the sheep from the goats, so to speak.  They are not commonly held, but held by participation in the divine life.

From the Archives...

Normally I would consider putting newly-baptized babies in chasubles to be in the realm of tackiness, but this turned out to be a little foreshadowing of things to come - an unwitting proclamation from the Roman Church. Why? Because the kid in the middle is me.

The Sack of Constantinople (1204)

Upon the recommendation of Taylor Marshall I have been reading Umberto Eco's Baudolino, and I am quite impressed. Even in translation, the skill of this great author is obvious. The copy was obtained through abebooks.com for six dollars in hardcover.

It has led to quite a bit of thought about the Sack of Constantinople and how sad it is that many times our "unhappy division" arises from simple human desire. The Latins needed money to finance the Fourth Crusade, so they sack the riches of Byzantine Constantinople, leaving it to the Turks. This was no Holy War, it was the beginning of the power and cruelty of the Holy Roman Empire. No surprise that eleven years later, we have the "ecumenical" council in the Lateran which slights the Eastern Church repeatedly. How shameful, and indicative of a western mindset of superiority. Baudolino is truly an enjoyable read, mainly because of its disdain for this mindset and for the greatness of postmodern narrative.

Reviewing King Arthur

Sunday night, I went to see King Arthur and it turned out to be quite a satisfying movie, especially for one who loves braveheartesque battles. One point, however, was disturbing. The film portrayed the Roman Church at the time as being quite cruel and murderous of heretics such as Pelagius. It actually claims just that - that Pelagius was murdered rather than being lost in Syria. The simple facts are that the Roman Church was fairly withdrawn from Britain at the time, to re-enter only in 598 with St. Augustine of Canterbury. This is a case of making up a history to account for what should be kept a legend - the King Arthur fighting the heathen and uniting Britons to a common cause, sending the Saxons packing. When the attempt is made to forge an historic synthesis, the mistake is made of making Arthur a supporter of Pelagianism. This makes Arthur an unsettling character for Catholics especially, and I found myself rooting for his destruction. But, the Arthur of legend is painted in saintlike brushstrokes, and I for one prefer the legend.

I enjoyed reading this article, the work of the member of the faculty at Duke Divinity school on the subject of embryonic stem cell research.  No doubt she shares with Stanley Hauerwas on the subject.  Her greatest point is that utilitarianism can never be a controlling factor in our moral reasoning as Christians, that at some point we must have a certain "reflective distance" on the issue.

The Fourth Lateran Council vs. Trent on the Eucharist

So, now it becomes clear. The eucharistic doctrine of the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215 is contained in the first canon, which is largely a restatement of the creedal faith and christology. While the word transsubstantiatio is indeed used, the usage isn't exactly clear. I believe the greater issue is that the language of the Council of 1215 is doctrinal rather than dogmatic. Further, the usage of the term transsubstantiatio can be seen as speculative or poetic, in attempt to teach a doctrine of the Eucharist rather than a dogma requiring submission. Remember that in 1215 and thereafter, the doctrine is very much in dispute in Paris. Quoting the Fourth Lateran, Canon I:

There is one Universal Church of the faithful, outside of which there is absolutely no salvation. In which there is the same priest and sacrifice, Jesus Christ, whose body and blood are truly contained in the sacrament of the altar under the forms of bread and wine; the bread being changed (transsubstantiatio) by divine power into the body, and the wine into the blood, so that to realize the mystery of unity we may receive of Him what He has received of us. And this sacrament no one can effect except the priest who has been duly ordained in accordance with the keys of the Church, which Jesus Christ Himself gave to the Apostles and their successors.

Note that the keys are given to the Apostles in general, not merely Peter.

Now, Trent comes on the scene, and I will only quote the first three Eucharistic Canons. Full text here.

CANON I.-If any one denieth, that, in the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist, are contained truly, really, and substantially, the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently the whole Christ; but saith that He is only therein as in a sign, or in figure, or virtue; let him be anathema.

CANON lI.-If any one saith, that, in the sacred and holy sacrament of the Eucharist, the substance of the bread and wine remains conjointly with the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, and denieth that wonderful and singular conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the Body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the Blood-the species Only of the bread and wine remaining-which conversion indeed the Catholic Church most aptly calls Transubstantiation; let him be anathema.

CANON III.-If any one denieth, that, in the venerable sacrament of the Eucharist, the whole Christ is contained under each species, and under every part of each species, when separated; let him be anathema.

What we see is quite clearly that what was previously open to doctrinal speculation and mystery is now binding dogma. Anglicanism clearly falls outside of this shift and it is not, therefore, strange for Anlgican Eucharistic doctrine to seem undeveloped. Rather, the speculation remains.

St. Bonaventure 1221-1274

The great Franciscan Scholastic in Paris during the time of Thomas Aquinas, Bonaventure is credited (or discredited) with the reform of the Franciscans after the death of St. Francis. He became general of the order at 35 and is the earliest biographer of Francis. Where St. Thomas Aquinas is called the Angelic Doctor, Bonaventure is known as the Seraphic Doctor. He still retained much of the medievalism of the former age, with his fascination with numbers and his opposition to the new learning of Aristotelianism in Paris.

He wrote on the Eucharist: "O unheard of generosity and super-excelling love! Jesus has done for us everything that He could do. He gives us His Kingdom, He gives us Himself!

The Eucharist is the medicine of the sick. The daily Bread of travelers, the strength of the weak, the joy of the strong, and the health of the sick. By it man becomes more gentle under punishment, more patient in work, more earnest in love, more ready to obey, quicker to avoid danger, and more fervent in giving thanks to God."

The reason I'm asking all this about the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215 is that I have heard many say that Transubstantiation became dogma at the Council. Some say that it was simply defined. Others say that the simply the word was used. My own understanding is that Transubstantiation becomes Roman Dogma at the Council of Trent in 1563. Does anyone know conclusively?

Selden says "This opinion is only rhetoric turned into logic."

The Fourth Lateran Council on the Eucharist
I searched through the Canons of the Council, and this is all I found regarding the Eucharist:

CANON 20
SUMMARY: In all churches the Eucharist and the chrism must be kept under lock and .key. Those who neglect to do this, are to be suspended.

Text: We decree that in all churches the chrism and the Eucharist be kept in properly protected places provided with locks and keys, that they may not be reached by rash and indiscreet persons and used for impious and blasphemous purposes. But if he to whom such guardianship pertains should leave them unprotected, let him be suspended from office for a period of three months. And if through his negligence an execrable deed should result, let him be punished more severely.

CANON 21
SUMMARY Everyone who has attained the age of reason is bound to confess his sins at least once a year to his own parish pastor with his permission to another, and to receive the Eucharist at least at Easter. A priest who reveals a sin confided to him in confession is to be deposed and relegated to a monastery for the remainder of his life.

Text. All the faithful of both sexes shall after they have reached the age of discretion faithfully confess all their sins at least once a year to their own (parish) priest and perform to the best of their ability the penance imposed, receiving reverently at least at Easter the sacrament of the Eucharist, unless perchance at the advice of their own priest they may for a good reason abstain for a time from its reception; otherwise they shall be cut off from the Church (excommunicated) during life and deprived of Christian burial in death. Wherefore, let this salutary decree be published frequently in the churches, that no one may find in the plea of ignorance a shadow of excuse. But if anyone for a good reason should wish to confess his sins to another priest, let him first seek and obtain permission from his own (parish) priest, since otherwise he (the other priest) cannot loose or bind him.

Let the priest be discreet and cautious that he may pour wine and oil into the wounds of the one injured after the manner of a skilful physician, carefully inquiring into the circumstances of the sinner and the sin, from the nature of which he may understand what kind of advice to give and what remedy to apply, making use of different experiments to heal the sick one. But let him exercise the greatest precaution that he does not in any degree by word, sign, or any other manner make known the sinner, but should he need more prudent counsel, let him seek it cautiously without any mention of the person. He who dares to reveal a sin confided to him in the tribunal of penance, we decree that he be not only deposed from the sacerdotal office but also relegated to a monastery of strict observance to do penance for the remainder of his life.

From:Medieval Sourcebook: Twelfth Ecumenical Council: Lateran IV: 1215

Does anyone have the actual text from the Fourth Lateran Council which defines transubstantiation? I can't find it in the canons and am starting to think that it is simply made up.

Thomas Aquinas on the Local Presence of Christ in the Eucharist
As stated above (1, ad 3; 3), Christ's body is in this sacrament not after the proper manner of dimensive quantity, but rather after the manner of substance. But every body occupying a place is in the place according to the manner of dimensive quantity, namely, inasmuch as it is commensurate with the place according to its dimensive quantity. Hence it remains that Christ's body is not in this sacrament as in a place, but after the manner of substance, that is to say, in that way in which substance is contained by dimensions; because the substance of Christ's body succeeds the substance of bread in this sacrament: hence as the substance of bread was not locally under its dimensions, but after the manner of substance, so neither is the substance of Christ's body. Nevertheless the substance of Christ's body is not the subject of those dimensions, as was the substance of the bread: and therefore the substance of the bread was there locally by reason of its dimensions, because it was compared with that place through the medium of its own dimensions; but the substance of Christ's body is compared with that place through the medium of foreign dimensions, so that, on the contrary, the proper dimensions of Christ's body are compared with that place through the medium of substance; which is contrary to the notion of a located body.

Hence in no way is Christ's body locally in this sacrament.
Thomas Aquinas ST III. 76.5.

The Founding Fathers on Christianity

“The Doctrine of the divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity.”
- John Adams

“I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved — the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!” - John Adams

“The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as his father, in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter.” - Thomas Jefferson

George Washington was a devout Episcopalian, and a vestryman, but in Virginia of his day this was a political office. Let's face it, it is very difficult to associate Washington with a Moral Majority or the Religious Right.

Benjamin Franklin rejected the sermons of Whitfield and also constructed his own moral inventory, based upon Enlightenment principle more than anything else. He himself notes that he rejects Christian dogma.

So the writer of the Constitution, the first 4+ Presidents, and the main men of the Revolution - men like Franklin, all reject (or do not mention) basic Doctrines of the Faith.

Can You Say AOD?



So this is what some RC's call a "Youth Mass." This is terrible. All I can say is "Abomination of Desolation."

Richard Mammana has just posted Jeremy Taylor's work on the Real and Spiritual Presence of Christ in the Eucharist on Project Canterbury. Link here.

I dearly enjoyed reading this for the first time this past spring and it was an enlightening thing to begin to take in Anglican Eucharistic theology on my own, unfettered by opinion on the subject. Go for a few chapters and you'll no doubt see a man who is excellently learned.

The Myth of a "Christian Nation"



This image is absolute and utter propaganda for a conception of American history that is simply not true, and a fabrication. To claim that Deistic conceptions of God qualify as Christian is a sort of Romanticism which ignores the actual history of our nation. Should we pray for our President? Absolutely. But, it must be questioned when these sorts of images arrive. I have seen this before, in a Christian bookstore in Wisconsin in a great oak frame - price tag $100. The greatest farce however, is that this is propagated by people who don't even believe in the prayers of the faithful departed. Strange.

"Worship demands that man's work and everyday life be offered to God and integrated into the divine order; but man who comes to offer his work and life in the liturgy has sinned; he belongs to a race which has corporately sinned. Sin has cut him off from the divine order, his true home; and the way back is the way of Calvary. Worship demands a point of integration where Calvary is brought back as an ever-present reality, so that man can plead it in reparation for his own sins and the sins of mankind: where man's work and life, however imperfect they may be, are given purpose and direction by being joined to and made one with Christ's perfect offering on Calvary; where man can see a vision of that adoration which all life should be. This point of integration, the High Churchmen said, was to be found in the Eucharistic sacrfice; it is the centre on which the whole liturgy converges, integrating dogma and life in one whole and giving life its true meaning. Englishmen will never worship, will never recover wholeness of life, unless in the liturgy of the Church the Eucharistic sacrifice is given that emphasis and centrality which is its due."
G.W.O. Addleshaw - The High Church Tradition

Quote of the Day
"The ordination of women was a response to a secular hermeneutic that demanded women's rights and women's equality. The homosexual agenda is a response to an identical hermeneutic from the secular world. Both have involved the reinterpretation of biblical theology and traditional church teaching. The truth is they are a continuum, one inevitably flowing from the other; they are two sides of the one coin. They both involve filtering the bible, declaring that gender is not relevant for any serious purpose in human life. It was the mantra of Germaine Greer that gender is not relevant...women can do anything. Apply that to the ordination of women and say that gender is irrelevant for the priesthood and it becomes irrelevant for the incarnation. Women's ordination becomes a feminist construction."
- Archbishop John Hepworth, Primate of the Traditional Anglican Communion

This is completely great. There you have it - gender is relevant to the Christian faith. We believe Jesus was Incarnate as a male man - his maleness is not accidental, it is necessary for His redemptive power as priest and victim. He is not, nor can he be, androgynous. Our gender is not accidental to our nature, either. Attempts to become neuter beings is a denial of our very being, what it is to be made in the Imago Dei, which does not denote sameness despite gender, but that gender is a part of that Image. We have got to get this straight if we are to make any progress against the neutering trends in secular society.

POD to the Core



They're crazy, I know, but St. Clement's Philadelphia is a great example of just how POD Anglicans can be. But, this is also an example of an insane amount of preciousness. Note the lace nightie in the center. All in all, it shows a surprising amount of taste. Does my spiky heart good.

Just to show that no one communion has a monopoly on the POD world, here is the Episcopal Bishop of Pittsburgh blessing his city with the Blessed Sacrament.

This was the idea of my liturgics professor, Dr. Arnold Klukas while he was the Rector of Grace Church Mount Washington. Quite a spectacle, with canopies and everything.

Now I know that typically I don't stand for this sort of thing - the extra-eucharistic use of the Sacrament. But, in the original context, the Feast of Corpus Christi involved a procession of the reserved sacrament, done once per year. Benediction is really a short way of doing this. Besides, I have a secret "obsession for procession", especially when copes and thuribles are involved.

A Plan For Life - The Confraternity of the Annunciation

"Brethren, if a man is overtaken in any trespass, you who are spiritual should restore him in a spirit of gentleness. Look to yourself, lest you too be tempted. Bear one another's burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ." Galatians 6:1-2

It's very intriguing how effective devotional societies were at one time in the life of the Church, and how they are now waning. Perhaps this could best be attributed to a lack of action - that they became merely essential memberships to gain a certain status or reputation within the Church of being a good Anglo-Catholic or some other such type. In so many ways, these societies addressed specific needs of the times - the need for greater devotion to Mary, the need to live a more eucharistically ordered life which turned to the sacraments as means of receiving the grace of God.

Today, we have so many needs. We need men to be leaders. We need greater knowledge of the Scriptures. But, we also have a great need to revere the gift of Life. So many abortions are performed each year, and so many of them are consented to by members of the Church who believe there to be no other option. Shameful as well is the seeming hopelessness of unwed mothers in trying to lead redeemed lives. So many of them have been abused by men - we see the cruelty of premarital sex as well as contraception. We are called in this to look to the above scripture passage as well as others - to see that obedience to Christ consists of the bearing of burdens - the restoration of those gone astray. But we have no vehicle through which ministry of the sort may occur and we wind up feeling helpless in the face of a giant monster such as abortion.

The suggestion is this - the formation of groups of 5-6 men and women in parishes tasked with interceding for unwed mothers. Not only intercession (from the requests of the whole parish), but also the great work of charity which is normally contracted out to third parties. This would involve these groups going to the homes of these women, dinner in hand, asking to pray for her, promising to be a help to her. Do you need a place to live? We have an extra bedroom. Need money? We will care for you. Need food? We always have leftovers. We will adopt your child and love him. We will do it because we are to bear your burden. Considering the lillies, all we need to perform the acts of mercy to which we are called has been given, we always have extra.

The name of the group would be the Confraternity of the Annunciation. It would not print bumperstickers. It would not protest at Planned Parenthood. Instead, it would be a beacon of hope to women in need, who would otherwise in despair commit a terrible crime against life. Please leave your comments.

True Manhood
We had a great discussion Monday night at the Flying Saucer regarding the Christian perspective on Manhood. A number of interesting insights emerged. Our society and the Church have so downplayed the sexuality of Jesus that we have bordered on (if not dabbled in) Docetism. The natural effect of this is that men no longer have a model for their married or celibate lives. In the forfeit, the decision has been made to adopt a revision of manhood - the burly, hunting, machismo version. Either that, or the womanizing alcoholic version. If not one of those, then the homosexual version. Finally, we have all the hybrid forms. Point being that true manhood is to be found in the person of Jesus, and we need only look to him for a model for our lives as men, remembering that it is perfect manhood and perfect divinity - both natures - that make up the Incarnate Lord. Every miracle is the effect of both - not merely one or the other.

We begin to be men in the true sense when we have compassion, when we have strong filial relationships with other men, love for our mothers, and lives of prayer. The consummate goal is to love - to love our neighbors and to love God. It may be said that men may model this in a truly manly way. For women, the biblical model of submission makes most sense in the example of Mary - the Theotokos. She submits, and in this way bears God to the world. We may likewise envision a model for true womanhood.

This said, men are oppressed by all sorts of temptations to deny the love which we are called to have - pornography, magazines, immodesty in women's dress, even the most simple wandering eyes. The conqueror is the Holy Spirit working in us - calling us to pray for the women whom we have objectified and oppressed, and to act lovingly towards them. We may call this a new chivalry, but it is best described as the fulfillment of the calling which is made to every Christian man - to love, to have both charity and chastity.

Is the Pope Catholic?
First, a division. The distinction should be made as to just what we mean by "pope." There is the Pope himself, a man who upholds the faith and is a believing, baptized Christian. In fact, I would place him as a modern saint. His record on human rights, personal holiness, and unmatched use of diplomacy in his office speak for themselves. But, that is not all there is to the man. There is the office itself, which is the subject of this post - what does it mean to be Catholic, especially when regards not personal piety or belief, but institutions and doctrines?

The word Catholic emerges very early on in the Christian tradition, as a word meant to differentiate between heretics and orthodox Christians. It denotes what the wholeness of the Church believes, as well as what the wholeness of the Church, by its very nature is. We may note that there are developments within the Christian tradition regarding various doctrines. But, it should simultaneously be said that valid developments have deep roots - both in the Scriptures and in other doctrines. The Church in Rome is certainly not an heretical branch - it teaches the Faith of the Creeds, has roots to the apostolic Church, and administers the sacraments. The bias shows immediately that we are speaking of branches. But, is not that the plain meaning found in John 15? "I am the vine, ye are the branches." There is not one branch, but many. What brings unity to the various branches is Christ himself, making us one. So, we may find on a simple level that yes, the Church of Rome is Catholic.

But, what about the office of the Papacy itself? We ought to note that the question is not so much in regards to the office (the Episcopate at Rome) as it is to the nature of Papal authority. I will not touch on infallibility here, save that it is a limited doctrine insofar as the authority of statements ex cathedra is rarely invoked. Instead, we look to temporal power. The papal states have waned, and all that is left is the Vatican City itself. So, not there either. What about power and authority over civil states? This, too, has waned. Essentially, what I point to is the authority of the Pope as greater than that of any other Bishop, and over those Bishops.

Found throughout the Patristic Church is the concept of metropolitan authority, a practice which, it could be said, the Roman Church upholds. The distinction is that the Roman Pontiff yields authority over the creation of those sees and the selection of their bishops. Conciliar authority, which is clearly Catholic, and I hope at a later time to defend it, is not upheld by Vatican I, but is upheld by Vatican II.

Personally, I would argue that if Papal authority halted at administrative and spiritual authority over the Bishops, say, in Italy, then we may agree. But this is not the case. Claims to the "keys", and claims at supreme authority are found nowhere in the Patristic Church - the time when what is Catholic and what is not are truly sorted out - these ought to be rejected.

In review - #1, the Church is branched and branches can be called catholic, not merely one. #2, the pope may be the head of one branch, but claims at universal authority over all Christians are to be rejected, mainly because it is Christ who is head of the Church.

Is Gene Robinson a Bishop?

This question was raised last weekend as well. There are three things required for the right administration of a sacrament from the Thomistic perspective - form, matter, and intent. One could argue that, as to the first two, Gene Robinson measures up. Male candidates for consecration are always sinful, but are always correct matter so long as they are baptized. It could be said that matter may be lacking due to a corrupt lifestyle, but, let's face it - are we willing to set up a red-line of tolerance?

Intent, I think, is the better question. When the consecrators of Gene Robinson laid hands on him, using the same words used in the consecration of my Bishop, did they intend to make a Bishop for the Church? Bishops represent the whole Church throughout time - militant, expectant, and triumphant. Clearly, this Church would not accept the authority of a Bishop who lives with his boyfriend. But, let's be honest. Wasn't the consecration simply the commissioning of a poster-boy for a cause? Gene Robinson immediately appeared on the Today Show. He was all over the media, not teaching the Faith of the Church sustained by the Holy Spirit, but a secular message of power for homosexuals. The election, from the beginning, was clearly motivated towards making a political point and therefore lacks the intent necessary for consecration.

The other argument, which I use quite frequently, is one of linguistic idioms. Whom do we rightly call a Bishop? Throughout the Christian Era, the word "bishop" refers to a successor to the apostles, a teacher of the Faith, and guardian of the sacramental life of the Church. It is not simply a description of one who wears a mitre. We ought not have too much trust in apostolic succession by the laying on of hands, either. Here, TD Jakes could stake just as much claim to the term "bishop" as Gene Robinson, and he has monothelite leanings and is not in apostolic succession. This is not Donatism. Donatism is concerned with rival orthodox factions and overlapping jurisdiction - who has the right to elect a bishop. The resolution in Augustine further makes it clear that Bishops serve the whole Church and not merely one faction. So who are the Donatists today? I would argue that there are two groups who fit this description - the Diocese of New Hampshire and their supporters as well as, shock of all shocks, Forward in Faith North America, a group which has elected two men to be their Bishops. Not in a diocesan way, but in a decrepit conception of overlapping jurisdiction - "flying" bishops.

Another way of looking at this issue is that Bishops have two primary ministries - Sacramental and Apostolic. They administer the sacraments, uphold sacramental integrity. They actually are sacraments in this sense, Christ's agents in the world. Further, they teach the Apostolic teaching of the Church, as men sent to convert the lost and uphold the faithful. Here, Gene Robinson does not suffice. He does not hold, nor teach the Faith, even in a minimal sense - that of the Creeds. The distinction ought be made between ignorance and an informed conscience. Bishops who ordain women may be merely ignorant, this I must allow. But here is a man who has been confronted on every level, by the whole Church as an unrepentant sinner. He can't claim ignorance any more than I can claim to be a siamese cat.

What do you think?

Comprehensive Orthodoxy
I spent last weekend attending the proceedings of the annual convention of Forward in Faith North America, a group which is in a precaroius position, having to tow a line on one issue in union with those in total disagreement with them on another issue - priestesses. Many, including Geoffrey Kirk, pointed out the difficulty of these two positions coexisting. Essentially, the arguments are the same. Bishop Peter Beckwith of Springfield stated that he believes men and women to be ontologically the same - created in the same image of God (up to this point I agree) and that in light of this sexual gender should not be a bar to ordination. He also said that "It is not a sin to be a woman." What Beckwith and others are saying is that sexual gender is not inherent in humanity - a clear denial of any Catholic Doctrine of Creation. Further, there is implication that Our Lord does not need to have physical gender either - namely that a penis is not necessary. I would argue that this is inherent in his being incarnate - to hold a sexual gender and the indentity thereof. Essentially, bishops like Bishop Duncan and Bishop Beckwith have unwittingly become Docetists. We ought to remember that heresy does not only imply individualized belief separate from the received teaching of the Church, but also individualized and sectarian practice, especially sacramental practice.

Thus, we are looking at two different conceptions of what it means to be orthodox.

Many thanks should go to Father John Guernsey, who apologized for the terror inflicted upon members of Forward in Faith by the pro-priestess faction. He was holding up in his talk a liturgy created by the Diocese of Vermont for the blessing of Same-Sex Unions. This was essentially the Rite for Matrimony from the BCP with minor changes. He said that it was blasphemous. I would agree, but I would also say that it is blasphemy to have "him" and "he" in italics in the Ordination Rites. For the same reason - that it confuses sexual gender, breaking the unity between Christ and His Church in not merely a sociological and psychological way, but in a sacramental one. He spoke of being dismayed by the actions of the General Convention which approved priestesses when he was a seminarian. Well, I was dismayed as I personally attended General Convention 2003.

What was jettisoned in this Convention was not merely the Authority of Scripture, as those claiming to be "Biblically Orthodox" would claim. This had been done many times before. What was jettisoned instead was the entirety of the Christian Faith. The main point is this - we are in the position to recover not only the Authority of Scripture, but Catholic Teaching. If we hang on one issue - that of homosexuality, we show ourselves to be homophobic. This should have never been the deal-breaker issue. There are doctrines far more essential to Christian faith and teaching. In this sense, ordaining a homosexual to the priesthood is not disordered per se. It doesn't disrupt the sacramental order of the Church in the same way as ordaining a woman to the priesthood. Priestesses in the Church are a clear innovation and from the Catholic perspective and a biblical perspective, unallowable.

In essence, we cannot simply hang our hats on the Authority of Scripture. Scriptural Authority has not sustained the life of the Church by itself. Rather, the synthesis of the Church's teaching, sacramental life, and apostolic teaching - in the Scriptures, the Church Fathers, and the Councils - forms our Faith. Thus, we ought to recognize our defiance of our forebears and pray for the Holy Spirit to reform us along these lines. This will require scholarship of the Fathers and the Scriptures, clear systematic doctrinal formulation, and a desire to be fully orthodox, rather than taking our sides of one issue of medium importance.