The Holy Trinity - the Foundation of Christian Doctrine

I have been putting off this posting for quite some time, but a sermon I'm writing on Christian Unity has brought this to mind again. I was asked to fill in for the Junior High Sunday School teachers ones Sunday this summer. Not really having any ideas for a session pertaining to the curriculum, I had been reading the Episcopal Church website (remember this?) and was dismayed by the heretical descriptions of the Trinity. The Persons were referred to as merely "aspects" of God, which is indicative of Modalism. Anyway, I marched into the classroom and drew the above diagram on the whiteboard, before waiting 12-14 year olds.

"What is this?" I asked.

"The Trinity," they said.

"Very good. What if I were to say that the Son is the Father?"

"That would be wrong," they said.

"What if I were to say that the Father died on a Cross?" At this point some of them were puzzled, but one kid spoke up. "That would also be wrong - the Father is not the Son."

"Exactly," I said. "You see, this is all very important." I went on to describe the heresy of Patripassionism, which they got a kick out of saying. We went into all the heresies, based on the diagram - Macedonianism, Arianism, etc. Then we had a great discussion of the Two Natures in Christ.

At one point, a girl spoke up - "But two of those are boy's names!"

"Exactly," I said. "In fact, all three of them are boy's names. We speak of the Holy Spirit as He, for He is a Person of the Trinity, as well. Do you remember Baal?" They said that was a nasty god they had heard of in Sunday School before. "Well Baal had a wife, Asherah. He was the God, and she was the Goddess. They had sex and she gave birth to the world. Girls, this is important. What happens when a woman gives birth? Is her baby like her?" They said yes. "Right, the child shares in her nature. Thus, for them, if there is a Goddess, she gives birth to the world, and the world is divine."

At this point, I didn't mention fertility cults or temple prostitutes, they seemed to understand why it was important that God be the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. It is amazing what simply teaching the doctrines of the Faith can do. Our Faith makes reasonable and intellectual sense. A couple kids said their heads hurt, but most of them thought it was really neat. I left believing that now, if they heard heresy, they would reject it. Thanks be to God.

The Complementarity of the Masculine God and the Feminine Church

"However, to refuse to speak of God as masculine (out of whatever motives) is necessarily to lose these models and their understanding of the God/man relationship. It is for our sake that God has deigned to reveal himself to us as “masculine,” to aid us in coming “feminine” in response. Yet we would reject that approach, choosing rather to treat him as “beyond gender.” And why? The mentality of the age would indicate that we resent the intimacy and self-giving that “femininity” would require of us."

Taken from a great article at Pontifications.

Nigerian President to the African Bishop's Meeting

"Please be steadfast and maintain this path of righteousness. Do not succumb to intimidation, blackmail, isolation or even barefaced persecution. Stand firm for the gospel and the word of God once delivered to the saints."

Great article posted here.

The Difference Being...

"People who use the argument that being a woman is not a sin, but homosexuality is, are, in fact, playing into the hands of the homosexual lobby. It is the supporters of same-sex “unions” who insist on equating homosexual acts with homosexual orientation, thereby rendering (they claim) homosexual acts per se morally neutral. They argue that if it is perfectly natural to be a homosexual (ontology), then it is perfectly natural to have homosexual relations if one so desires (volition). The supporters of the ordination of women argue that if it is perfectly natural to be a woman (ontology), then it is perfectly natural for a woman to carry out priestly functions if one so desires. By centering the argument on what is or is not “natural,” supporters of the ordination of women who oppose same-sex “unions” have moved the game onto precisely the field where homosexuals want to play."

From the article Of Apples and Oranges..., by Professor Rather Not Say.

On this Feast of Saints Simon and Jude:

From the Epistle of Saint Jude:

"To those who are called, beloved in God the Father and kept for Jesus Christ: May mercy, peace, and love be multiplied to you. Beloved, being very eager to write to you of our common salvation, I found it necessary to write appealing to you to contend for the faith once delivered to the saints. For admission has been secretly gained by some who long ago were designated for condemnation, ungodly persons who pervert the grace of our God into licentiousness and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ.

Now I desire to remind you , though you were once for all fully informed, that he who saved a people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe. And the angels that did not keep their own position but left their proper dwelling have been kept by him in eternal chains in the nether gloom until the judgment of the great day; just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise acted immorally and indulged in unnatural lust, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.

Yet in like manner these men in their dreamings defile the flesh, reject authority, and revile the glorious ones. But when the archangel Michael, contending with the devil, disputed about the body of Moses, he did not presume to pronounce a reviling judgment upon him, but said, "The Lord rebuke you."

...But you must remember, beloved, the predictions of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ; they said to you, "In the last time there will be scoffers, following their own ungodly passions." It is these who set up division, worldly people devoid of the Spirit. But you, beloved, build yourselves up on your most holy faith; pray in the Holy Spirit; keep yourselves in the love of God; wait for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life. And convince some who doubt; save some, by snatching them out of the fire; on some have mercy with fear, hating even the garment spotted by the flesh."

If there were ever words I needed to read today, well, these did the trick.

There is only one Faith. It is the one delivered to us by the saints. Anyone who follows another faith is completely lost. But, admission has been gained to those who care nothing for the Faith. Sound applicable today?

Jude's response? Hell is real. Hell is for those who do not believe the Faith, even thought they may be among you. And what does He intend our response to be? That of Michael - "The Lord rebuke you."

What are we to do? Build ourselves up in our Faith, that one true Faith, the Faith once delivered to the Saints. We are to keep ourselves in the love of God and to wait for Christ's mercy to lead us to eternal life with Him. If we can convert a few, then fine. But, we are to hate all that is not holy. This offers a wonderful reflection upon why I am still, even though I may not believe it myself, an Anglican in the U.S. God will have His judgment. My role is to be as holy as He wants me, which means totally holy. If I can convince some, then fine. But, I am to be holy and wait for His mercy.

New Roman Catholic Section in Links

I have decided to add a Roman Catholic section to the links. I highly recommend "fiat mihi" Hilary has been posting on our blogs for a while now, and she's POD.

Jeremy Taylor on the Eucharist

“All Christian people must come to this sacrament. They indeed who are in a state of sin must not come in that condition, but they must come. First they must quit their state of death and then partake of the Bread of Life. Those who are at enmity with their neighbors must come – that is no excuse for their not coming – but they must not bring their enmity along with them. They who have a variety of secular employments must come – but they must leave behind their secular thoughts and affections behind them. If any man is grown in grace, he must come because he is well disposed to so holy a feast, and he who is but in the infancy of piety needs to come so that he may grow in grace. The strong must come lest they grow weak, and the weak, that they may become strong. The sick must come to be cured, the healthful to be preserved. They who have leisure must come because they have no excuse, and they who have no leisure must come to sanctify their busyness. The penitent sinners must come that they may be justified, and they who are justified, that they may remain justified. They who have fears and great reverence for these mysteries and think that no preparation is sufficient must receive in order to learn how to receive more worthily, and they who have less reverence must come often to have their reverence heightened. As those creatures who live among the snows of the mountains turn white by eating and living with such perpetual whiteness, so our souls may be transformed into the likeness and union with Christ by perpetually feeding on Him, and by our abiding, not only in His courts but in His very heart, His most secret affections and His incomparable purities.”

Who's Dressing Like Whom?

This is the design for a bumper sticker for people who just don't get it. See, the problem is that it is priestesses who are dressing like men, not men dressing like women. The clerical collar? That's a man's collar. The cassock? Only men wore cassocks from their inception. What about stoles? Stoles are menswear. Chasubles? Same thing. Just goes to show you that you can believe anything you want to just so long as you silence the opposition.

I have decided to upgrade Conjectures to be a bit more aesthetically pleasing. The green was getting old, and I wanted to add trackback, plus the cool picture behind the title. It was taken at a series of prayer workshops I did with my parish youth group. Hope you enjoy it!

A Post Just for Ugh
Enter from stage left a frumpy middle-aged divorcee holding home-baked raisin cakes in Longaberger basket.
"Mother God, our ancient sisters called you Queen of Heaven and baked these cakes in your honor in defiance of their brothers and husbands who would not see your feminine face. We offer you these cakes, made with our own hands; filled with the grain of life—scattered and gathered into one loaf, then broken and shared among many. We offer these cakes and enjoy them too. They are rich with the sweetness of fruit, fertile with the ripeness of grain, sweetened with the power of love. May we also be signs of your love and abundance."
(Taken from recently released Women's Liturgies by the Episcopal Church.)

Ugh, this is where your feminist insistence upon "equality" (feminine wacko subjugation of the Faith) and dismissal of serious theology as irrelevant (detestable minimalism leading to detestable heresy) leads. It leads to wholesale rejection of the Christian Faith in exchange for neo-paganism. It is completely nonsensical and has no relation to Christian teaching whatsoever. It is simply wackiness. Face it - the Episcopal Church has become a shameful joke as it blasphemes and whittles away each day finding new means for wickedness.

Disclaimer: I rarely single out posters on my comments section for the sake of charity, but every now and then a reality check is fitting.

Which Orthodoxy is Orthodox?

Recently I have been hearing two versions of orthodoxy, one which is self-styled "Biblical Orthodoxy" and the other simply "orthodoxy." The first should be immediately disturbing to us, for it is based on individualistic interpretation. In the words of Bishop John Broadhurst, "just because you say you're orthodox, doesn't mean you are orthodox."

So, let me begin by elaborating upon what is meant by "biblical orthodoxy." David Virtue, the American Anglican Council, many evangelicals, and especially those who have no affinity whatsoever with Catholic Christianity have styled themselves in this manner. What they mean is essentially this: that they follow the Bible in terms of homosexuality. Usually it is little more. They virtually ignore biblical and New Testament prohibitions against divorce and remarriage. They ignore the Scriptures with regards to the ordination of women, and if they do not ignore the texts, they come up with creative interpretations suited to meet what they personally think. In this sense, they do no better than revisionists who simply interpret the Scriptures according to their own desires and tastes. Either way, each proposes a distinct turn.

"Turns" are not allowed by true orthodoxy and true catholicism. I am reminded of Jesus's statement in Luke, Chapter 9, verse 46:

"No one who puts his hand to the plow and looks back is fit for the kingdom of God."

Although this is usually interpreted along individualistic lines, I think it can rightly be applied to the whole Church. The reason the plowman does not look back is that if he fails to concentrate on keeping his line straight, it will surely become crooked. It is not that he is a rigid traditionalist, but that he desires his whole life to be straight on to the goal of eternal life in the Kingdom of God. Does he look back? No. He knows where he has been. He must continue to drive the plow straightly. The very word orthodox means "straight teaching" (ortho- straight and doxa - to teach). It means that we continue on the path which has lead us to where we are, without diversion and without turning. The true orthodox Christian has no need to look back because the tradition is a part of him. The Church Fathers need not be seen as old sources of authority, but as living witnesses, equally as applicable today as yesterday. We believe in the eternal nature of God in Christ. God cannot be against himself. The teaching of the Church as His teaching must remain constant. Is there a need for further clarity? Of course, the orthodox Christian wants the line He takes to be straighter than ever. All doctrines are interrelated. Surely, the Scriptures are truly revelatory of the Nature and Character of God, and the teaching of Christ and the Apostles, but they must be interpreted in the light of the Faith as we have received it. Look seriously at what ignorance of the Tradition has given us. It has given us little more than schism. In Anglicanism, this is happening today, and it is quite a dangerous Orthodoxy which limits itself to Scripture as it is interpreted in the mind of the reader. What the Church teaches and has taught is terribly important and we cannot confront the grave heresies which abound in this world with any sort of clarity unless we conform ourselves to the Christian Faith, both as it is Orthodox and as it is Catholic.

Lancelot Andrewes

"One Canon (of Scripture) reduced to unity by God Himself, two Testaments, three Creeds, four General Councils, (over) five centuries."

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!

Monks Taste Victory
The Black Monks of Nashotah won a hard fought battle in Evanston today, with a final score of 22-21 and a closing seconds interception to seal the victory. The Lavabo Bowl will remain in Nashotah for one more year.

Update: Pictures from the game have been posted here.

Disappointment of Another Sort at Seabury
We are learning all about broken communion today. Walking into the Seabury chapel, the sight was clear - a priestess, all ready to go - stole and all. So, the Fort Worth delegation, and one member each of the Dioceses of Dallas and Qunicy are now sitting in the lobby, enjoying discussions about the problem of broken communion. This is a real shame.

The Black Monks Take the Field
The Nashotah House Black Monks will be taking on the Seabury Saints today at about 11:00am. Pray an Ave for the Monks. Nolilte Illegitimus Contrere Vos, translation - "Suffer not the Philistines trample thee underfoot!"

Go MONKS!!!

A New Blog Which All of You Should Enjoy
A good friend of mine, Father Ron Drummond has just released his new blog to the world, "musings of a young priest," found at http://biblicalanglican.blogspot.com/. This should be really great, knowing Ron, so I commend it to your daily reading.

Religious Practices Banned in French Schools
This article in the New York Times discusses recent application of a law in France which bars students in French public schools from wearing religious symbols - symbols like Muslim girls covering their heads (even with berets), Christians wearing crosses, or Jewish students wearing yarmulkes. This is a good case of liberalism quickly leading to fascism. They have even gone so far as to keep priests from wearing clericals when visiting the schools. These priests now have to wear business suits. A good warning for America. If in our attempt to create a "safe" environment for students, ie a secular environment, we remove the very goodness of our schools - that a diversity of ideas and thought bring serious academic work. The opponents of this law are quite correct - that it is an attempt to break the will (specifically the religious will) of students to make them into servants of the French atheist state. The French government has been, of course, talking about "dialogue." But, this is no dialogue at all. It is fascist oppression of anything other than pure atheism.

This has gotten me thinking about the oppressive nature of "dialogue" in the Episcopal Church, which essentially means talking true Christians to death, so that they either leave or give in to revisionist demands. I take great comfort, however, in the fact that fascism of this sort nearly always ends in revolution. The oppression of the will to know God by authorities is met with severe violence and outrage.

The Heresy of Paul Zahl
I don't usually name out heresy outright, but I saw this today from Paul Zahl, the dean at Trinity Episcopal School for Ministry, the other "orthodox" seminary in the Episcopal Church, or at least so it is said. If this is the general tenor of theology at Trinity, I am not impressed. This sort of thinking is far more damaging to the faith than a whole lot of other things I can think of. Zahl writes:

"All this means that we have to steer, in matters of the sacrament, between the Scylla of pure memorialism and the Charybdis of transubstantiation. All the Protestant churches of the Reformation retained formal-liturgical worship, officially at least, and all the Reformation churches without exception rejected transubstantiation. What is required is unconditional reverence for that which the Supper represents and for that which it continues to proclaim. Yet the sign is not the thing signified. The thing signified is spiritual, invisible, intangible, elusive even. It cannot be pinned down. If it is to be objectified in any form of any kind, it can be discovered in the preaching of the one thing, the re-creating forgiveness of sins through the man-God Christ Jesus. That Word gives life to the sacrament. Without the Word of the Gospel, the sacrament is sterile and entirely empty.

So Word creates sacrament, but not the opposite. And a Christian “priest” is a contradiction in terms, for there is only One priest (Hebrews 5:4; 7:3, 22-28). And a Christian minister is steward of the Word that makes all things new, including the believer who discerns the Word under the bread and wine in the evangelically-grounded celebration of the Holy Communion.

Right views of the Holy Communion keep the community of faith from extremes, or better, from errors that have gross consequences for us. Right views of the Communion restrain the clergy and people from misplaced reverence. They keep the bead on the one creative entity of human transformation: the Word of God’s grace."

So Zahl, in ignorance of history, misses the point on transubstantiation. Regardless of what we might say, regardless of what may be the Anglican way on this subject, Luther believed in the doctrine as did many other early protestants. He writes that the thing signified is invisible, spiritual, and elusive. The thing signified is Christ himself, a real Person. It is He who without which the Sacrament is sterile, not the word of the Gospel. The overall case is that worship must be Biblical, and Zahl's exegesis of the Scripture, is of course, highly restrictive, dismissing Christian liturgy far into the patristic age, worship that is Catholic, Orthodox and in continuity with the Church of the Scirptures.

Further, he misses the etymology of the word "priest," in a highly typical evangelical fashion. What he misses is that the word "priest" is derived from the Greek word "presbyteros," not "hieros." He is quite simply wrong. The Catholic Faith teaches that yes, there is only one priest, that priest being Jesus. But, it further teaches that the Christian priest is a priest by participation in that priesthood. One could further say that the Eucharist is brought about by participation, the participation of elements in the person of Christ.

Zahl's receptionism is shocking, and I find in it a great heresy, not only against the teaching of the Church through the ages, but also against the teaching that Christ is not merely God, but also man. Therefore, He is not merely spiritual and invisible, but the Incarnate Word, which is seen and is heard. In short, Jesus Christ is the sacrament, par excellence. It seems that Zahl has fallen into his own trap. In attempting to restore the vertical of worship, he throws out the horizontal. He decries the maxim lex orandi, lex credendi, saying it should be the other way round. But, the Church teaches that it works BOTH ways. What he shows is a typically Protestant over-reaction, throwing the baby out with the bathwater. In attempting to correct the extremism of his enemies, he unwittingly becomes just as extreme in opposition, and therefore falls into heresy that is just as dangerous. If this is the general tone at Trinity, then we are in a lot more trouble than I had thought.

The entire text of Zahl's essay may be found here.

Bishop John Broadhurst on What Forward In Faith Needs in the Case of Bishopesses

The Right Rev. John Broadhurst recently gave a wonderful address to the National Assembly of Forward In Faith. It was really a brilliant instance of positivity and the sort of expectation which characterizes the Catholic Movement in England. Having met Bishop Broadhurst personally, he is a man who defends the truth with great force.

He relates a discussion which he had with Rowan Williams about what would be needed were the Church of England to allow for women to be in the Episcopate. He said that Forward in Faith would need, firstly, Bishops with jurisdiction who could freely associate with the rest of the Church. They would have freedom to negotiate ecumenically, and they would need to be free of the control of the General Synod. +Williams seemed to think that was a quite attractive option. Bishop Broadhurst outlined a church body, paid for by the people, a sleek, traveling, gospel-powered outfit that grows, that preaches, that is Catholic. I was struck by the power of this sort of group. Say that the C of E goes immediately downhill, which is to be presupposed if they are to have women among the ranks of Bishops. What sort of draw would a group like this have? It would be immediately impressive, a C of E in exile. Broadhurst believes quite strongly that such a body would be about the work of the conversion of England, and would someday be able to go back into Canterbury, go back to St. Paul's and take over what was once lost. He envisions this new province consecrating missionaries, bishops in other provinces, etc. - all without any sort of intervention from Parliament, because to Parliament and English Canon Law, the Church of England only exists in England.

The best part of the speech, however, was when he said this:

"The very fact that you say something, or even believe something does not make it so... We live in a world where people think they are priests because the say they are priests. They think they are about this issue of justice because they say they are about the issue of justice. They think they are Catholics because they say they are Catholics. They think they are orthodox because they say they are orthodox. But all of those concepts and many others which you and I trouble ourselves with, work with, are dependent upon something external and objective. They are not simply about the assertion of words, the false claims to reality. I must say that I find that really quite troubling. Someone said from the platform today they have a woman priest from their parish. No you haven't. You have not got a woman priest in your parish. As far as I'm concerned, you have somebody who is canonically ordained in the Church of England in your parish, but she's not a priest. We need to be quite clear that we will stand out against false assertions, falsehoods that people want to make truths because they simply want to believe them. Catholicism which is local, sectarian, separated in principle, contemporary, is not Catholicism... And an Orthodoxy which allows the individual's assertions to be the judge of Orthodoxy is not Orthodoxy at all. Because Orthodoxy is clearly about us conforming ourselves to the Scriptures, to the Tradition, to the Creeds. It isn't about what I happen to think."

The audio of the speech is posted here. I highly recommend listening to it.

NT Wright Interview on the Windsor Report
NT Wright gave a great interview to Christianity Today, including the following bit of greatness:

"Another thing that's central to the report is the question of what is known in the trade as adiaphora, things indifferent. It has been a principle of Anglicanism, from the very beginnings in the 16th century, that there are some things which Anglican Christians can agree to differ about. The real question at the heart of much of this is, which of the things we can agree to differ about and which of the things we can't agree to differ about.

Again and again I hear people on both sides of the argument simply begging that question and assuming that they know without argument that this is something that we can agree to differ about, or assuming that they know without argument this is one of the things we can't agree to differ about. What we all have to do is to say about any issue—whether it's lay celebration [of Communion], whether it's episcopal intervention, whether it's homosexual practice—How do we know, and who says which differences make a difference and which differences don't make a difference? [Presiding Bishop] Frank Griswold and his colleagues make a great song and dance about difference and about accepting difference and respecting difference. That's almost the only moral category that is left within postmodernity, welcoming the other, which is actually a very difficult moral standard to implement right across the board."

Full text here.

John Keble on Commitment to the Truth
"The truth, Keble had taught the clergy, will not be popular. We must not expect more than a remnant of faithful men. We must expect criticism and even abuse; that is always the way of truth. And we must go about our parishes quietly, diligently, unassertively, but faithful to our commission, leading our people into the community of Christ which is the Church, and therefore keeping from them nothing of that body of truth which the Church declares to us authoritatively, in such a manner as they are each able, in their moral and spiritual condition, to receive it."
From Owen Chadwick's The Spirit of the Oxford Movement - Tractarian Essays, page 26.

The Heresy of Hats
There is a great posting on a blog I found today about the heresy of hats. (read it here.) I've always wondered about this, for in my youth I wore baseball caps. Inevitably, I would be admonished to remove it when the time for prayer came, or upon entering a church. Old habits die hard. I'm still obsessive about taking my hat off. In terms of youth ministers, most of the time, they look like this:

This guy is about as stereotypical a youth minister as I have ever seen. He is frowned upon for his hat-wearing, but to expose the hypocrisy, what about this guy?

Of course, I'm being facetious, but isn't the college baseball cap the same as the biretta in many ways? Maybe I should dust off my A&M cap and wear it to evensong. But, to be fair, this is my greatest reservation against headgear in the Church - it's just plain tacky and as a man, I was created to give glory and honor to God, as 1st Corinthians 11 says. Of course, the article disagrees with me, saying that God doesn't care about hats. But, I beg to differ. When, as a lad, I was reminded to remove my hat, it was because the mass or the office was important - it was sacred. Just as the National Anthem is sacred, so is the worship of God. Of course, most gnostics wouldn't understand this. Escapists - from the body (so wearing a hat is indifferent) or the Epicurean type (do whatever you want) don't care about hats. Not saying that Anglo-Catholics are Gnostics, not at all, but they are vain and haberdashery is infinitely more important than worship.

A Good Explanation of the Windsor Report
Someone has gotten out a pen and done a quite brilliant job of explaining the Windsor Report. Read the whole thing.

Highly POD Stuff going on in the Czech Republic.

Conjectures on the Windsor Report
The Windsor Report offers us some very promising conclusions.

First, it suggests the adoption, by all provinces, of an "Anglican Covenant." (Section 118) The draft is contained in the report, and it essentially affirms the right exercise of autonomy, the commitments of communion, and the management of inter-communion disputes. This would essentially mean that all provinces of the communion would have to enter into this covenant in order to be Anglican, thus submitting themselves to the authority of it. The Report states (section 119):

"The solemn act of entering a Covenant carries the weight of an international obligation so that, in the event of a church changing its ming about covenantal commitments, that church could not proceed internally and unilaterally. The process becomes public and multilateral, whereas unilateralism would involve breach of obligations owed to forty-three other churches. The formality of ratification by the primates publicly assembled also affords a unique opportunity for worldwide witness."

Secondly, it acknowledges, in Section 129, that the ECUSA House of Bishops acted in full knowledge of the results of their actions, where the elector of the Diocese of New Hampshire may not have. This means that it is Bishops who are responsible, and to be held responsible for their actions.

Also, the report calls the communion to keep the "acceptability [of Robinson's consecration] under close review." There is to be discretion in invitations to the Lambeth Conferences. This is dangerous, that this even be possible. It is a full fact that this would bring the outrage of hundreds of bishops worldwide. So, its being kept under review is terribly important. The Report calls the consecrators to express their regret. But, it further does one more thing.

It calls them to "withdraw themselves from representative functions in the Anglican Communion." Reading between the lines, this is asking Griswold to resign his functions internationally.

It also calls for a moratorium on the consecration of any more homosexual bishops in the US. It does stipulate that a consensus is being called for, but it is quite clear that further consecrations will bring the ire of whatever authority structures emerge.

On the question of same-sex unions, the report states that it is a clear breach of communion. (Section 143). It also acknowledges that ECUSA has, indeed, taken this action. It means quite clearly, that this action was a breach of communion, and that this will have to be resolved.

In terms of Alternative Episcopal Oversight, the report is inadequate. It recommends the use of the HOB resolution on DEPO, which is not Alternative Oversight, but rather a system of delegation by diocesan bishops for which amounts to their gracious delegation of alternative episcopal services for their disaffected parishes. This is totally inadequate. But, it is clear that many bishops, including Bennison will not follow DEPO, and to them the report says: (section 155)

"We further call upon those diocesan bishops of the Episcopal Church (USA) who have refused to countenance the proposals set out by their House of Bishops to reconsider their own stance on this matter. If they refuse to do so, in our view, they will be making a profoundly dismissive statement about their adherence to the polity of their own church."

Initially, my reaction was that this was a very typical communion report. But, on a second reading, it does have teeth, even though those teeth are very small. The endgame is that the Episcopal Church, and especially Frank Griswold, who was typically unapologetic in his response, will wind up ejecting themselves from the communion. Further arrogant actions will be the signals of that ejection. My guess is that they will not submit to any sort of covenant. They will not express regret for the consecration. Frank Griswold will not say that this report really changes anything. Parishes will push the boundaries of Alternative Oversight, and in the case the DEPO is refused, the Communion will have to simply ignore the diocesan bishop and act. In many ways, these things have already happened. Probably, a majority of provinces will sign such a covenant, and this is promising. It would be all the more promising if the Bishops of the Network could sign such a document.

But, difficulties still stand. Women are parading around in chasubles and homosexual priests thumb their noses at the Gospel. They have removed themselves from communion with the Church. Heresy always brings about schism like this, and continued actions not in accord with the Catholic Faith will need to be regarded as schismatic. So probably, the Episcopal Church will be allowed to become more and more sectarian. This document allows them to become that of their own accord.

For your convenience, a link to the Windsor Report.

Can Orthodox Bishops Ordain in Heterodox Dioceses?
The new Bishop-Elect of the Diocese of the Rio Grande, Jeffrey Steenson, offered a paper (link here) in 1991 in Oxford on the question of whether or not Athanasius of Alexandria ordained men to the priesthood while in exile during the Arian controversy. He writes:

"The character of the Arian controversy was changing during the decade of the 340s. The emergence of the Neo-Arian party shattered the uneasy peace that existed in the Church. According to Socrates, doctrinal opponents by and large had remained in communion with each other until the Council of Sardica. People were tiring of endless dialogue; the rules of engagement were changing. Athanasius himself gave clear signal to this by invoking Isaiah 52:11 as the precept for separating from heretics - "Depart ye, depart ye, go ye out from thence, touch no unclean thing; go ye out of the midst of her; be ye clean, that bear the vessels of the Lord." What does this mean? This conviction, assuming that it is more than merely rhetorical, has the effect of overturning many institutional customs and prerogatives. Its limited application is not a prelude to schism. But diocesan boundaries do become lines in the sand, lines which the orthodox might very well feel an obligation to cross, for there is no higher principle than to seek out and pastor those who have been left without true shepherds. To recognize this willingness to suspend temporarily the normal conventions of church order helps us, I believe, better understand the distinctive character of Athanasius’ leadership, particularly why it possessed such extraordinary power to reshape the ecclesiastical landscape."

I have been trying desperately to find out where he is now on both this issue and whether or not he will ordain women to the presbyterate. Does anyone know?

Matriculation at Nashotah House

Matriculation is an annual event at the House in which new students (juniors) officially enroll at the seminary. They take the matriculation oath and afterwards they individually sign the matriculus, which contains the names of students dating back to the mid-1800s. Having your name in the book allows you to be buried in the Nashotah cemetery. Above is one of our new students from Fort Worth, Chuck Hough, signing the matriculus.

Music From Last Night's Matriculation Dinner
Some have asked where they can get music from the Nashotah matriculation dinner last night. The answer is the iTunes Music Store. I have created an iMix of the event, and have posted it here. (iTunes is required.)

Papal Cab
This is really funny stuff. Thanks to Shrine of the Holy Whapping for pointing it out.

Listen to the Bible on your iPod.

Rough Draft of Paper on Anglicanism and Contraception
I have been kept to twelve pages on this one, but I wanted to see what you think. Basically, I have outlined the struggle in Anglicanism for finding balance in dealing with the question, either focusing on sex or marriage to the detriment of the other. The bulk of it is committed to arguing for fulness in the sacrament of marriage. Read it here.

The Great Sadness of Sin
I read the following today in the comments section of titusonenine, left by a gay man:

"I’m not a saint, and don’t want to be one. And I am no more or less “attached to the ways of the world” than anyone else; but God gave me a life to live, and I intend to do my best to live it. I don’t look to the church to teach me how to live, either; I look to God. The church is only the conduit, and I will leave when it ceases to fulfill this function."

Alexander Schmemann loved to quote "there is but one sadness, that of not being a saint." I take great pity on this man, his hedonism will some day get the better of him.

Will the Real Donatists Please Stand Up?
Here is a great article written by two excellent priests, Canon John Heidt (Canon Theologian of the Diocese of Fort Worth), and Father Michael Heidt.

"Donatists thought it was wrong to make bishops out of those who handed over their bibles to be burned by the civil authority and called them traditores or traitors. Traditionalists oppose those who keep their bibles but insist that the scriptures don’t mean what they say. Donatists opposed all sinners even after they repented. Traditionalists oppose all sinners who claim that they need no repentance because their sins are normal and even virtuous. Donatists said that the true catholic church consisted only of people already perfected. Traditionalists say that the church consists mostly of sinners who need repentance. Donatists claimed that the sacraments of unworthy priests were invalid. Traditionalists claim that the unworthiness of the priest does not affect the validity of the sacraments, “which be effectual, because of Christ’s institution and promise, although they be ministered by evil men.” (Article XXVI) The heretical Donatists wanted their small autonomous sect in Northern Africa to be the whole catholic church. Traditionalists want to be in communion with the entire Anglican Communion and by intent with the whole catholic church throughout the world rather than just be part of a small autonomous sect in the USA."

Priestly Vestments, Old and New
I found this cool site today, prompted by a discussion of clerical vestments further down this page. I stated that the Christian priesthood wears the vesture of its past because it is the same priesthood. But, I failed to make the connection to the Old Testament temple priesthood. Acts 6:7 tells us that a great number of priests were obedient to the faith. We forget that many of the Apostles were Levites. This site shows in very good detail how closely tradition Christian vestments mirror that of the Levitic Priesthood. So when vestments are downgraded through revision and looked at along utilitarian principles, pardon me for saying that this isn't creative anachronism we're talking about - it's the priesthood.

Amices, anyone?

Looks like an alb to me!

Woohoo, nice surplice!

This is from another source, but does this High Priest look Orthodox or what? Lets not forget, while we're at it - incense, stone altars, candles, fine fabrics, etc. Admittedly this is from an old source, but a Protestant one!

Statue of Blessed Virgin Survives Church Explosion
At a Ukrainian Catholic Parish in Hartford, Connecticut, parishioners believe the survival of their statue of the Virgin to be a miracle after a propane tank exploded - demolishing the church. Full article here.

Richard John Neuhaus on Heresy and Schism
“If you must make a choice between heresy and schism, always choose heresy.” In fact, we are never in a position of having to make that choice, since heresy is by definition schismatic. Choosing heresy in order to avoid schism is a guaranteed formula for ending up with both.”

–Richard John Neuhaus

Magnatune is Awesome!!!
If you want to download some great Russian Orthodox Chant, the place to do it is magnatune.com. You can pay what you want - and half of the money goes directly to the artist, in this case the monks and seminary choir in Kiev.

The Russian Orthodox Speak Out On Contraception
"The Russian Orthodox Church condemned abortion, contraception, pre- and extra-marital sexual activity for their role in Russia’s “moral degradation”.

An Assembly of Hierarchs, meeting in the Kremlin with President Vladimir Putin Wednesday, said the pervasive use of “family planning is a pernicious practice that leads not only to the reduction of the country’s population but also to its moral degradation,” an Itar-Tass news agency report said."

Read the whole thing.

This Is Why I Love My Bishop

The Rt. Rev. Jack L. Iker blessing children in our companion diocese of Northern Malawi.

More from the Serbian Orthodox Cathedral.

I remain unsure as to what to think about this site.

We Really DO Need Bishops
an open response to Canon Kevin Martin and his essay Do We Really Need Bishops?

I read on Monday, to my dismay, the above posted essay by Canon Kevin Martin of Vital Church Ministries. In all fairness, Canon Martin does, indeed support the Episcopate, regardless of the title of the essay. Found in such disillusion with the Episcopate, especially that of the Episcopal Church, Martin favors a "radical restructuring" of the Episcopate. He discusses at length the abuses of "prelacy" and the inadequate nature of the Christendom model. The discussion is fairly misleading, for he is describing the Episcopate of 1600+ years, an Episcopate which has upheld the Church quite well, through thick and thin. The following quote is about the only point in which he shows the intended solution:

"I am advocating a radical restructuring of the Episcopate. Actually, our present crisis allows just such a restructuring to occur. Perhaps given our serious polarization, congregations and clergy should be allowed to select Bishops who they feel best represent a connection with the teachings of the Apostles and who best exemplify the character of Christ and the moral authority of the church to be “their” bishop."

Canon Martin calls, essentially, for an end to diocesan boundaries and the beginning of individual parishes "choosing" their own bishops. This may sound nice, but hidden behind it is a very dangerous sort of congregationalism. Even more, however, the individual parish is responsible for perceiving which bishop patterns most closely the teachings of the Apostles. This is a restructuring in which not only do parishes decide, but they decide what the prevailing teaching of the Church will be. Can you imagine whom liberal parishes in ECUSA would choose? Further, in this model, how is one made a Bishop in the first place?

Above all however, the requirements which Martin outlines do not assure that the Bishop will be a holy man, if a man at all. They do not ensure that he will fit the requirements of the Pastoral Epistles (1Tim3:2, Tit 1:7). In a Catholic view, the Bishop is charged to not only teach the teaching of the Church but to be the teaching of the Church and of Christ - one seamless garment. The problem with the Episcopate of American Anglicanism is not the autocratic rule of bishops, in short, it is that they do not uphold the teaching of the Church or the Scriptures, nor are they holy men. How many bishops have been elected who have had multiple marriages and divorces? How many bishops have been elected who have directly refuted the Faith? How many, even worse, are quick-tempered, arrogant, or violent?

The problem which Canon Martin so desperately fails to see is that the real crisis in Anglicanism is one of authority. The bishop is responsible to no one - we do not have metropolitan authority, no manner of enforcing against bishops who abandon their apostolic duty. Coming to mind, of course, is the case of Stanton v. Righter, an ecclesiastical trial against a bishop (Righter), who ordained an openly gay man to the episcopate. Even further back, the proceedings against James Pike as well as the first bishop to ordain women to the priesthood in the Episcopal Church. Each time, efforts were found to be fruitless, in the Righter case only one guilty vote. In each system, one autonomous bishop or a group of them had to initiate proceedings against the violating bishop, with the mechanisms entirely set up by the national church. From the beginning of the Episcopal Church with its constitution in 1789, the Presiding Bishop has had no authority to remove a bishop from office, or take any disciplinary measures whatsoever. As it turns out, Frank Griswold is quite correct - he had no power to remove Gene Robinson, or to halt the consecration.

What is called for, I believe, is a magisterial system. In fact, this system is currently emerging among the bishops of the Network. The Convener (currently Bishop Duncan of Pittsburgh), is responsible for calling meetings and being the official spokesman for his brothers. But, what might be emerging is rather a sort of magisterial authority. If the bishops of the Network were to elect one of their number to take metropolitan authority, and to submit to his rulings in a spirit of brotherhood and cooperation for the sake of the Gospel, proceedings would take place much more quickly, and with far more focus on restoration, rather than drawn out and fruitless legal battles.

Of course, diocesan boundaries would still need to be kept. This is in keeping with not merely what Canon Martin thinks should be antiquated, but with Catholic order. But what about elections? Elections would take place by the diocesan authorities or search committee (whatever they decide), coming up with a slate of four (or so) acceptable candidates. From these candidates, the bishops would meet and select one of them. It is highly possible that they could consecrate immediately, especially if such a meeting took place within the diocese. These colleges of bishops would have to be small, perhaps 15 at the most, with a Primate in authority over them. But, in this case, the Bishop would have allegiance, not only to his diocese, but also to his brethren. In this case, he is under authority, but collegial authority - with teeth.

Do we need bishops? Yes! Bishops are a gift from our Lord, to teach us, to give us the sacraments, to guide the Church in mission. They are to rule, even autocratically, but in humility and love and obedience.

Cool Article About St. Sava Cathedral in Belgrade and Its Bells

The article is posted here. How many American churches care this much about bells, and why not? These people are so POD. Note the great white beard on the patriarch.

A Welcome Addition to My Room

I've been thinking lately that I really ought to begin to prepare to have an office, and therefore ought to have some decor for it. While at a rummage sale (I know, I go a lot!), I found these two wonderful mid-1800s reproduction prints of the Sacred Heart of Jesus and the Immaculate Heart of Mary. Now the concern is that parishioners may find me eccentric (and they'd be right) or they might be a bit offended by POD matching portraits and think of me as a papist (being quite wrong). I think the better way to put it is that if anyone is concerned about their young curate's devotion to Our Blessed Mother, or Her Most Blessed Son, then frankly I don't care.

Get your Mother Teresa t-shirts.

The Prayers of Saint Francis to the Holy Theotokos

For this, the Commemoration of Saint Francis of Assisi:

"Hail Lady, Holy Queen, Holy Mary Theotokos, who are the Virgin made church · and the one chosen by the Most Holy Father of Heaven, whom He consecrated with His Most Holy Beloved Son and with the Holy Spirit, the Paraclete; in whom there was and is all fullness of grace and every good. Hail His Palace; Hail His Tabernacle; Hail His Home. Hail His Vestment; Hail His Handmaid; Hail His Mother and hail all you holy virtues, which through the grace and illumination of the Holy Spirit are infused into the hearts of the faithful, so that from those unfaithful you make them faithful to God."

"Hail, Queen Wisdom, the Lord salute thee with thy sister Holy-Pure Simplicity. Lady Holy Poverty, the Lord salute thee with thy sister Holy Humility. Lady Holy Charity, the Lord salute thee with thy sister Holy Obedience. Most holy virtues, the Lord salute all of you, He from whom you come and proceed.

There is scarcely no man in the whole world, who can have one of you, before he dies. He who has one and offends not the others, has all. And he who offends one, has none and offends all. And any one whatever confounds vices and sins.

Holy Wisdom confounds Satan and all his wickednesses. Pure Holy Simplicity confounds all the wisdom of this world and the wisdom of the body. Holy Poverty confounds cupidity and avarice and the cares of this age. Holy Humility confounds pride and all the men, who are in the world, and likewise all the things, which are in the world. Holy Charity confounds all the diabolic and carnal temptations and all carnal fears. · Holy Obedience confounds all things corporal, both carnal and one's own willings · and holds the body mortified in obedience of spirit and in obedience to one's brother and is subject and submissive to all the men, who are in the world and not to men alone, but even to all the beasts and wildlife, so that they may do with him, whatever they will, as much as has been given them from above by the Lord."

The Pill and Abortion
After a conversation regarding the abortive nature of the Birth Control Pill, I found this site which has a great scientific overview of the evils of the Pill, and is especially interesting when the multiplication begins. This is scary stuff, folks, and it deserves our attention.

(Pseudo) - Dionysius the Areopagite (Bishop of Athens)
Since the Orthodox have rejected all this business of calling the writer of the writings of Dionysius the Areopagite "Pseudo-Denis," and have instead called him the Bishop of Athens, presumably the first Bishop of Athens, I thought this would be a fun post for today. The Orthodox celebrate his feast on October 3rd, while many in the west celebrate Dionysius on the 9th, if at all, even though they are two totally different people in actuality, one not known to have written anything at all during the Apostolic Era, and the other writing volumes in the late-Patristic era, simply a clever man using a very clever nom de plume. The writings of the Areopagite were influential upon many in the Scholastic period, including most notably Peter Abelard and St. Thomas Aquinas. Among his great contributions are the ordering of ranks of angels.

Making sense? I've included the following if your mind is still boggled.

Pseudo-Dionysius is the name modern Scholars use to identify a late 5th century mystic who throughout the Middle Ages was believed to be Dionysius the Areopagite converted to Christianity by the Apostle Paul during his visit to Athens (see Acts 17). In his speech on the Areopagus (Mars Hill) Paul made reference to the Athenian statue "To an Unknown God." It was this "Unknown God" in whom "we live and move and have our being" that Paul said he was making known to the Athenians.

The 5th century Dionysius speaks not only of the "Unknown God" but of God as "Unknowable." God hides himself in blinding darkness through which man's mind is utterly incapable of penetrating. And yet God's image is indelibly stamped on all of creation. This paradox is at the heart of Dionysius' description of the soul's ascent to union with God. Through the via positiva, what can be known of God by way of experience and insight are affirmed of Him and then denied in the via negativa as not truly representing God as He is in Himself--for nothing created can accurately represent the Uncreated;nothing temporal truly communicates the Eternal.

It is in a similar spirit the essays found here are offered. The world abounds with experiences that promise ultimate fulfillment. Yet these experiences, when seen as ultimate in themselves, leave one empty. It is the meaning to be found in this paradox that these essays explore. You might say these are the work of Pseudo-Pseudo-Dionysius.

A sermon for the 19th Sunday after Pentecost.

Thoughts on Mount Saint Helens

The recent activity of Mount Saint Helens has brought back, well not memories, but to mind childhood memories. In 1980, I was an infant, and my parents lived in the Seattle area. We went camping regularly, and on the night of the May 17, 1980, we just so happened to be camping not far from the summit. Mom and Dad thought it would be a good idea to break camp early that morning. So they did, and when the eruption took place they could hear it. During breakfast at a small diner, two cops came in and said St. Helens had erupted. As we left, they were closing the roads. As much as we may try to suppress the power inherent in God's creation, it is events like this which forever keep us in awe.

More POD Stuff at Nashotah House
Ok, I've waited long enough to reveal this bit of PODness which an unnamed accomplice and I have been working on to foster Marian devotion at the House. Far back on one of the trails, we have placed a Shrine to Our Lady of Perpetual Succour. Since placing this shrine in the woods, the intercessions of the Virgin have been made manifest indeed. It is truly amazing what a bit of cash (maybe $50 total) spent at Home Depot and the Holy Hill Giftshop and some know-how can get you in terms of a truly POD shrine. Plans will be forthcoming in PDF format.

Nonetheless, the Shrine still needs to be blessed properly, but rosaries are added daily, as well as other things, such as votive candles. The icon, however, was blessed by the Discalced Carmelite friar at the front desk of Holy Hill, through the plastic wrapper. The complete gallery is posted here.

A.M.D.G.

The Protection of our Most-Holy Lady the Mother of God and Ever-Virgin Mary - October First
Troparion in tone 4
Today the faithful celebrate the feast with joy
Illumined by your coming, O Mother of God
Beholding your pure image we fervently cry to you:
Encompass us beneath the precious veil of your protection
And deliver us from every form of evil
By entreating Christ, your Son and our God
That He may save our souls.
Kontakion in tone 3
Today the Virgin stands in the midst of the Church
And with choirs of Saints she invisibly prays to God for us.
Angels and Bishops worship Her,
Apostles and prophets rejoice together,
Since for our sake she prays to the Eternal God!

This is so cool. We should celebrate this feast.