Eucharist: The Incarnation of the Memory of God

This afternoon I have been dabbling a bit in Alexander Schmemann's book on the Eucharist. I have specifically been looking at his chapter on Offering and Memory. It is often difficult for us to think about God remembering as if he has the capacity to forget. But memory in God does not work the way it does in humans though we do share some aspects of divine memory. The fact that God does remember is our salvation. Remembering is God's way of entering time on our behalf and overcoming time. God overcomes the destruction of life and the reign of death that memory puts us in mind of. The Incarnation is God's remembering man. It is the divine lifecreating love that God directs towards us. This is experienced anew every time Mass is offered. Why is Mass so necessary? Why is Eucharistic Adoration a devotion worthy of our time and effort to attend? Because the Eucharist is the incarnation of God's memory on our behalf where salvation is continually offered. Schmemann writes these beautiful words:

The incarnation of the memory of God: if man has forgotten God, God has not forgotten man, he has not "turned himself away" from him. He has transformed the fallen and mortal time of "this world" into the history of salvation. He has revealed its meaning as expectation of and preparation for salvation, the gradual restoration in man of memory of himself, and in this memory, knowledge and anticipation and love, so that at the coming of the fulness of time, i.e., at the accomplishment of this preparation, man could recognize God in the Saviour who had come, remember the forgotten, and in it find his lost life...Salvation consists in this: that in Christ--perfect God and perfect man--memory comes to reign and is restored as a lifecreating power, and, in remembering, man partakes not of the experience of the fall, mortality and death, but of the overcoming of this fall through "life everlasting."

This is what Mass is all about. When the Mass is happening, the distance between heaven and earth becomes no distance at all but where we begin to experience in our remembering the everlasting love of God in Christ. This is why the Mass is the incarnation of God's remembering us even when we forget God. Isn't it nice to be remembered!!

See this post for more on this topic.

German Homeschooling Family Granted Asylum in US

Remember the post I had up a while ago that looked at persecution of Homeschooling families in Germany? Well, thanks to Fr. Finigan for pointing us to the conclusion of this family's request in the US Courts, they have been given political asylum from Germany to remain in America so that they may homeschool their children. This is amazing that this is happening in the western world. I leave the reader to their own conclusions. Go to HSLDA to read this story.

In a case with international ramifications, Immigration Judge Lawrence O. Burman granted the political asylum application of a German homeschooling family. The Romeikes are Christians from Bissinggen, Germany, who fled persecution in August 2008 to seek political asylum in the United States. The request was granted January 26 after a hearing was held in Memphis, Tennessee, on January 21.“We can’t expect every country to follow our constitution,” said Judge Burman. “The world might be a better place if it did. However, the rights being violated here are basic human rights that no country has a right to violate.”

Burman added, “Homeschoolers are a particular social group that the German government is trying to suppress. This family has a well-founded fear of persecution…therefore, they are eligible for asylum…and the court will grant asylum.”

In his ruling, Burman said that the scariest thing about this case was the motivation of the government. He noted it appeared that rather than being concerned about the welfare of the children, the government was trying to stamp out parallel societies—something the judge called “odd” and just plain “silly.” In his order the judge expressed concern that while Germany is a democratic country and is an ally, he noted that this particular policy of persecuting homeschoolers is “repellent to everything we believe as Americans.”
‘Embarrassing for Germany’

“This decision finally recognizes that German homeschoolers are a specific social group that is being persecuted by a Western democracy,” said Mike Donnelly, staff attorney and director of international relations for Home School Legal Defense Association. “It is embarrassing for Germany, since a Western nation should uphold basic human rights, which include allowing parents to raise and educate their own children. This judge understood the case perfectly, and he called Germany out. We hope this decision will cause Germany to stop persecuting homeschoolers,” he added.

The persecution of homeschoolers in Germany has been intensifying over the past several years. They are regularly fined thousands of dollars, threatened with imprisonment, or have the custody of their children taken away simply because they choose to home educate.

The Romeikes expressed relief when they heard the decision.

“We are so grateful to the judge for his ruling,” said Uwe Romeike. “We know many people, especially other German homeschoolers, have been praying for us. Their prayers and ours have been answered. We greatly appreciate the freedom to homeschool we now have in America and will be building our new life here,” he added.

Donnelly testified at the hearing on January 21, telling the immigration Judge that homeschoolers are persecuted all over Germany.

‘Ignoring the Truth’

“There is no safety for homeschoolers in Germany,” Donnelly said. “The two highest courts in Germany have ruled that it is acceptable for the German government to ‘stamp out’ homeschoolers as some kind of ‘parallel society.’ The reasoning is flawed. The fact is that homeschoolers are not a parallel society. Valid research shows that homeschoolers excel academically and socially. German courts are simply ignoring the truth that exists all over the world where homeschooling is practiced. They need to look beyond their own borders.”

In 2003 the highest administrative court in Germany, which interprets its federal Constitution, ruled in the Konrad case that it was permissible for parents who have jobs that require them to travel—such as circus performers and musicians—to homeschool, but homeschooling was prohibited for parents who wanted to for reasons of conscience. The highest criminal court said in the Paul-Plett case in 2006 that the government was allowed to take custody of children whose parents want to homeschool for reasons of conscience.

Donnelly challenged the reasoning of the German courts.

“It is ridiculous for German courts to say that homeschooling is allowed if you have practical reasons but disallowed if you have conscientious reasons,” Donnelly said. “This is simply about the German state trying to coerce ideological uniformity in a way that is frighteningly reminiscent of past history. Homeschooling is a growing social movement all over the world, and the Germans want to stamp it out based on a fabricated notion that homeschoolers are a ‘parallel society.’ Germany’s treatment of homeschooling families is worthy of condemnation from the international community. I am proud that a United States immigration judge recognized the truth of what is happening in Germany and has rendered this favorable decision for the Romeike family.”

German homeschoolers have been organizing and trying to draw the attention of German politicians. It has been difficult. Juergen Dudek is a homeschooling father who had been sentenced to 90 days in jail for homeschooling, but whose sentence was reduced to a $300 fine. He noted that officials in Germany have no appreciation for homeschoolers who think differently than the state.

Vatican II and Dismantling Naïvety: A Discussion in the Catholic Herald

The below is from the response of Fr. Aidan Nichols to a fascinating discussion in the Catholic Herald that continues. Do read it all!!

Grace, so understood, is always at work, saving people from the worst consequences of the Fall; nudging them towards genuine, not merely putative, truth, goodness, beauty; preparing them for conversion to the Gospel; neutralising the efforts of the fallen angels to use man-devised religions, philosophies, institutions, moral codes for their own destructive ends. There may even be grace-enabled ways in which humanity not only preserves some of the goods with which it was created but is united, anonymously, with God in Christ in his saving work on the Cross and in the Resurrection, and so brought, without awareness of the fact, to evangelical holiness, although of these Revelation does not speak. They are, as the Council itself wisely puts it (in the Pastoral Constitution, in fact!), known to God alone.

The confusion engendered by cultural naïvety produced the "dismantling" of so much of the institutional life of the Church which - as, dear Moyra, you rightly say, so distressed many, undermining the confidence of traditional Catholics in the Council in the later Sixties and since.

I think not only of the consequences for preaching and, in some places, the spirit in which the Liturgy was conducted but also of the effective secularisation, in various countries, of so many Catholic universities, hospitals, schools, trades unions, political associations and even religious congregations and programmes of catechesis.

The "knock-on" effects have been truly horrendous. That is why, this time, we must get this right.

The Woman I Love: Archbishop Fulton Sheen

"When there is a decline in devotions to our Mother there is a decline in our love for the Church."

Liturgy and Church Music: Benedict XVI

I ran across this today and leave a portion of it with highlighted points in red!

At the same time, we can see just what Catholic Christianity is suffering from today. If the Church appears to be merely an institution, a bearer of power and thus an opponent of freedom and a hindrance to redemption, then the faith lives in contradiction to itself, because on the one hand faith cannot dispense with the Church, and on the other hand faith is fundamentally opposed to the Church. Therein lies the tragic paradox of this trend in liturgical reform. After all, liturgy without the Church is a contradiction in terms. Where all are active so that all become themselves the subject, the real agent in the liturgy disappears along with the common subject“Church.” People forget that the liturgy is supposed to be opus Dei, God’s work, in which He Himself acts first, and we become the redeemed precisely because He is at work. The group celebrates itself, and in so doing it celebrates absolutely nothing, because the group is no reason for celebrating. This is why universal activity leads to boredom. Nothing at all happens without Him Whom the whole world awaits. Only in light of this fact is the transition to more concrete purposes, as they are reflected in the Missa Nicaraguensis, a logical conclusion.

Hence, the representatives of this view must be asked with all firmness: Is the Church really just an institution, a cultic bureaucracy, a power apparatus? Is the spiritual office (of Holy Orders) merely the monopolization of sacred prerogatives? If it proves impossible to overcome these ideas at the level of the emotions as well, and to view the Church once again from the heart in a different light, then we will not be renewing liturgy, but the dead will be burying the dead and calling it “reform.” And then, of course, church music no longer exists either, because it has lost its subject, the Church. In fact, in such a case one could no longer correctly speak of liturgy at all, because liturgy presupposes the Church, and what would remain are mere group ritualswhich use musical means of expression more or less adroitly. If liturgy is to survive or indeed be renewed, it is essential that the Church be discovered anew. And I would add: if man’s alienation is to be overcome and if he is to rediscover his identity, then it is obligatory that man re-discover the Church, which is not an institution inimical to humanity, but that new We in which alone the individual can achieve his stability and his permanence.

In this connection it would be salutary indeed to re-study with all thoroughness the small book with which Romano Guardini, the great pioneer of the liturgical renewal concluded his literary activity in the year the council ended He himself stressed that he wrote this book out of concern and love for the Church whose human side—and its perilous state—he knew quite well But he had learned to discover in the Church’s human frailty the scandal of God’s Incarnation; he had learned to see in the Church the presence of the Lord Who had made the Church, His Body.

Only when that is accomplished does Jesus Christ synchronize or co-exist with us. Without this,there is no real liturgy, which is not a mere recalling of the paschal mystery but its true presence. And again, only when this is the case, is liturgy a sharing in the Trinitarian dialogue between Father, Son and Holy Ghost. Only in this way is liturgy not our “making” but the opus Dei—God’s action upon and with us. Therefore, Guardini emphatically stressed that in the liturgy, it was not a matter of doing something, but of being. The idea that general activity is the central value of the liturgy, is the most complete antithesis to Guardini’s liturgical conception which one could imagine. The truth is that the general activity of all is not simply not the liturgy’s basic value: it is as such no value at all.

Becoming Catholic Means, Being Catholic

There are numerous posts out there about Anglicanorum Coetibus and many commentators saying what will and what will not happen as the numerous interpretations of the document continue to be on display. One of the virtues of being Catholic is learning patience and it can be an arduous lesson at times. This is why the talk of conversion is so important for those who desire reunion with the Catholic Church. Conversion, unlike a Protestant view of it, is not something that happens once but is something that continues to take place each and every day as we look to the Church, not of self-realisation, but of Jesus Christ. Unlike any other part of the Christian faith, the Catholic Church is not something we make up as we go along to express what is unique about ourselves. There is a real sense of self-surrender that is taken up when leaving the Protestant world and entering fully into the Catholic ethos. That is at least the case of what goes on when conversion moves from the head to the heart.

I know it is acknowledged intellectually but what needs to become deeply rooted within the psyche of our conversions is that the Catholic Church, if it is the Church of Jesus Christ and it is, is not a democratic self-determination community. I think we all realise that there is a lot riding for people who are prayerfully considering their decisions on how best to proceed with the Apostolic Constitution and I join them in that prayer. This is not a time to judge people's actions or their patience in making those decisions but is a time to lift them up before the Lord. In so doing, it also seems to me that any Catholic-minded Anglican that sees the Catholic Church as the option to move to based upon the C of E doing the logical inevitable, i.e. "consecrating" women as bishops does not seem to be a conversion to the Catholic ethos. This is what the critics are concerned about and it is a valid concern if that issue alone is what moves people.

I believe that I can honestly say that becoming a Catholic was not so much about women in the priesthood or episcopacy at all. I came to believe in my heart that a church that bases itself on human resolutions 'becomes merely a human church.' (Benedict XVI) Simply an opinion on priesthood was not enough to move me. It is coming to see that a church that functions in self-realised way is a community that allows 'opinions to replace faith.' It was from that self-made formula of ecclesia that moved me to become a Catholic. I was not simply going to opine against the C of E's right to allow women to receive what I believed was a sacrament with symbols that communicated the reality of the thing it symbolised, i.e. Christ, to be the deciding factor of conversion. I could have waited and waited to see what was 'on offer.' Had I waited to see what was on offer, my indecisiveness would have continued to beg the question within my own mind and heart. Was I actually living in a church based on human resolutions and opinions that allowed me to live in a basic patrimony of freedom from an authority other than my own self choosing? Who would have authority over me? Is that living in Christ's Church? Pope Benedict XVI answered my own soul-searching question for me when he said, 'A self-made church is reduced to the empirical domain and thus, precisely as a dream, comes to nothing.' (Called to Communion)

So, when my Anglican friends hear concerns from Catholics who are hesitant about becoming Catholic by wanting to wait to see what is on offer, I believe charity might demand some understanding with regards to the fears. There is a context to which people make these statements and that cannot be erased from the comments. For the English context, I believe it should be understood that anyone who simply becomes Catholic as a last resort because something that happened in General Synod did not meet their demands ought to question and have a serious think about what it means to be Catholic. It seems to me that what Pope Benedict XVI is really responding to is his good faith that those who petitioned him for corporate reunion did so on the basis of understanding that becoming Catholic means, being Catholic, which is not determined by a decision of what the majority does or does not do.

Mary, Mother of the Church, Pray for us all!

Government Equality Bill Fails:Thanks Be To God!

The government has suffered a House of Lords defeat over a move churches said would prevent them denying jobs to gay people and transsexuals.

Ministers insisted their move was only to clarify the Equality Bill and that the status quo would stay, but churches said it would create confusion.

Peers voted by a majority of 38 to strike out the plans.

The current law allows religious organisations to rule out some applicants on conscientious grounds.

BBC News

Smeaton on Ed Balls' Interview

John Smeaton, SPUC director, comments on the Telegraph interview with Ed Balls. This makes for some interesting reading and good discussion material of how we protect the rights of faith schools to educate our children according to the Faith we embrace. Comments welcome. Below is Smeaton's blog post.

I hope the interview with Ed Balls, the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families, in yesterday's Telegraph, will persuade Catholic church leaders in England and Wales that they are wrong about British government policy on sex and relationships education policy.

The Telegraph interview says:

" ... Does he agree with Nick Clegg that faith schools should be forced to teach that homosexuality is normal and harmless? The answer is yes. 'If their faith has a view in scripture, they can inform pupils of that. What they must not do is teach discrimination. They must be absolutely clear about the importance of civil partnerships [and that] bullying of homosexuals is wrong ... '".

Now Archbishop Nichols reportedly says that British government policy means that Catholic schools have "retained their rights through the governing body that their sex and relationships education is delivered according to Catholic ethos and teaching".

So does that mean, in the light of Ed Balls's reported statement above, that Catholic schools can teach paragraphs 2357 - 2359 of Catechism the Catholic Church? These state:

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,140 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."141 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

And when teaching children about "the importance of civil partnerships", is it the British Government's policy that Catholic church schools can do so in accordance with Catholic teaching on the subject which has been so well explained by Fr Boyle in his blog, Caritas in Veritate?

The Holy Father Urges Priest to Use the Internet in a Priestly Way

Pope Benedict XVI on Saturday urged priests to use the Internet "astutely" in a message for this year's World Communications Day.

"Make astute use of the unique possibilities offered by modern communications," the pope said.

The Christian message "can traverse the many crossroads created by the intersection of all the different 'highways' that form cyberspace and show that God has his rightful place in every age, including our own," he said.

"Priests stand at the threshold of a new era," the 82-year-old pope said. "As new technologies create deeper forms of relationship across greater distances, they are called to respond pastorally by putting the media ever more effectively at the service of the Word."

Embracing the "almost limitless expressive capacity" of digital communication, Benedict said the technology "requires (priests) to become more focused, efficient and compelling in their efforts."

The head of the Roman Catholic Church urged priests nevertheless to stay true to their vocation.

"Priests present in the world of digital communications should be less notable for their media savvy than for their priestly heart, their closeness to Christ," he said. "This will not only enliven their pastoral outreach, but also will give a 'soul' to the fabric of communications that makes up the Web."

Eucharist and Eschatology: Benedict XVI

The Eucharist and Eschatology

The Eucharist: a gift to men and women on their journey

30. If it is true that the sacraments are part of the Church's pilgrimage through history (99) towards the full manifestation of the victory of the risen Christ, it is also true that, especially in the liturgy of the Eucharist, they give us a real foretaste of the eschatological fulfilment for which every human being and all creation are destined (cf. Rom 8:19ff.). Man is created for that true and eternal happiness which only God's love can give. But our wounded freedom would go astray were it not already able to experience something of that future fulfilment. Moreover, to move forward in the right direction, we all need to be guided towards our final goal. That goal is Christ himself, the Lord who conquered sin and death, and who makes himself present to us in a special way in the eucharistic celebration. Even though we remain "aliens and exiles" in this world (1 Pet 2:11), through faith we already share in the fullness of risen life. The eucharistic banquet, by disclosing its powerful eschatological dimension, comes to the aid of our freedom as we continue our journey.

The eschatological banquet

31. Reflecting on this mystery, we can say that Jesus' coming responded to an expectation present in the people of Israel, in the whole of humanity and ultimately in creation itself. By his self-gift, he objectively inaugurated the eschatological age. Christ came to gather together the scattered People of God (cf. Jn 11:52) and clearly manifested his intention to gather together the community of the covenant, in order to bring to fulfilment the promises made by God to the fathers of old (cf. Jer 23:3; Lk 1:55, 70). In the calling of the Twelve, which is to be understood in relation to the twelve tribes of Israel, and in the command he gave them at the Last Supper, before his redemptive passion, to celebrate his memorial, Jesus showed that he wished to transfer to the entire community which he had founded the task of being, within history, the sign and instrument of the eschatological gathering that had its origin in him. Consequently, every eucharistic celebration sacramentally accomplishes the eschatological gathering of the People of God. For us, the eucharistic banquet is a real foretaste of the final banquet foretold by the prophets (cf. Is 25:6-9) and described in the New Testament as "the marriage-feast of the Lamb" (Rev 19:7-9), to be celebrated in the joy of the communion of saints (100).

Prayer for the dead

32. The eucharistic celebration, in which we proclaim that Christ has died and risen, and will come again, is a pledge of the future glory in which our bodies too will be glorified. Celebrating the memorial of our salvation strengthens our hope in the resurrection of the body and in the possibility of meeting once again, face to face, those who have gone before us marked with the sign of faith. In this context, I wish, together with the Synod Fathers, to remind all the faithful of the importance of prayers for the dead, especially the offering of Mass for them, so that, once purified, they can come to the beatific vision of God. (101) A rediscovery of the eschatological dimension inherent in the Eucharist, celebrated and adored, will help sustain us on our journey and comfort us in the hope of glory (cf. Rom 5:2; Tit 2:13).

Apostolic Constitution and the Search for Ecclesia

Before beginning what I hope could be a fruitful discussion, I would like to make an opening statement about my intentions and personal remarks. My forthcoming thinking is not intended in any sort of a judgmental or inflated ego as to my own journey. I know people are looking very hard at the opportunity that our present "Pope of Christian Unity" is offering to Anglicans and praise God for Pope Benedict XVI and may God's Spirit guide decisions to be made! But, what I do want is an open and honest dialogue that I pray would make all of us reflect on our own ecclesial understanding of what it means to be in search of ecclesia.

There are comments and blog posts every day about what is on offer, including news coverage on major networks and in newspapers. That publicity in relationship to Catholic unity is wonderful! But, a serious question needs to be addressed with regards to the Apostolic Constitution. What I understand Anglicanorum Coetibus to be is a clear response to requests from bishops around the Anglican churches to come into full union with Rome and maintain some of their traditions. That request has been answered by the Holy Father with as much grace as anyone could have imagined. Understandably, it caused a lot of shock, not least from those who have bantered on about reunion with Rome within the "Catholic-minded" constituency within FIFUK etc for a long time.

It seems to me that the Holy Father responded in good faith to Anglicans who REALLY DO WANT REUNION. What this is all about is the search for ecclesia. What we can see through experience over the past 500 years is that autonomous established state churches (a.e.s.c.) have destroyed notions of the universal. Newman came to see this very clearly. Churches that are fundamentally political structures are not ecclesially sound and have no deep relationship with what it means to constitute ecclesia. But, are these a.e.s.c. more than merely administrative and institutional frameworks? If they are not ecclesia, then why would somebody seriously searching for Catholic ecclesia be looking for it in such a place as these political bodies? Because, all that will remain of the universal union with the church is swallowed up in the local community that creates nothing but an island mentality which is devoid of any long-lasting hopes for vegetation if, in the end, that is what is chosen.

Vatican II documents like Lumen Gentium established again the necessity for the local to be in communion with the universal in order for it to be ecclesia. Church is defined as Bishop as per the Fathers not something local in a geographical sense. This is why ANYTHING provided for by the General Synod of the Church of England for 'Catholic-minded' Anglicans is really irrelevant theologically when speaking in terms of ecclesia. Therefore, it is impossible to move from the local to anything other than the universal; if not, the result is merely an ideological local community if the Holy Father's option is merely taken as an escape hatch for some ideological mishap. So what does this have to say to us as we come to the end of the week of Prayer for Unity? I think Pope Benedict (Cardinal Ratzinger) said it in an almost prophetic way in 1982 when he said,

...we are in need of pioneers of the future--but it is not just by doing something different that one becomes a pioneer; it is by doing what is meaningful and right, a constitutive element of which is an innermost oneness with the universal Church as she is revealed in her fundamental traditions. We cannot say today where these pioneers will appear--pioneers, not of a unity that is arbitrarily manipulated and by that fact doomed to failure, but of a unity that touches upon these most interior depths of faith in which the true call of the Lord becomes audible to both sides. We cannot say what paths they must travel in order to make new unities possible. We can say only that they will achieve their goal, not by mitigation and destruction, but by a deeper penetration into the truth of Jesus Christ. We can say also that it is not by ordinance but by the ardor of a love that springs from faith that they will gain that effectiveness that, if God so wills, will in its turn lead to new ordinances, decrees of instructions. To make a reality of "local ecumenism" means, therefore, to work in the spirit of pioneers for the unity of faith and to hope that God will send it when he knows that his hour has come.(Principles of Catholic Theology)

Pope Benedict XVI has shown himself to be the first pioneer of the future with regards to the Apostolic Constitution. He has done something more than different and new, he has done something that is right and meaningful. He has provided the means for real universal oneness to be sought after and executed where the local comes into inner communion with the universal from which autonomous political church establishment cut her off. This unity has touched upon the interior depths of faith and the true call of the Lord is being heard but is it being listened to? Therefore, the Holy Father has not required Anglican Catholics to destroy their traditions but rather to allow them to penetrate deeper into the truth of Jesus Christ. God has willed that this will lead to new ordinances and decrees of instructions to bring about unity. God has sent it in THIS hour because God knows the hour HAS COME.

So, the gift is not something to be weighed against talks of a General Synod. This is something that God has done with his pioneer to bring about unity in the ardor of his love. Will they be meeting God in the hour of his day? We cannot predict what the result will be but one can only pray it will be, if the cafeteria-style approach to ecclesia is once and for all cut away.

Catholicity and Apostolicity: The Real Hope of Ecumenism

Here is a nice quotation from Pope Benedict XVI that I thought might bring about some discussion as we think about this week's theme of the Church in our praying for unity. Pope Benedict XVI said,

The condition of the Church's apostolicity is her Catholicty; the content of her Catholicity is her apostolicity.

Ponder that for a moment. I think issues in Eucharistic theology are rightly raised here for as the Holy Father would go on to discuss the interrelationship of Eucharist and Church warning of the abuse when Catholicity is removed or reduced in the concept of what it means to be Church. I think this present Pope of Christian Unity is calling all Christians to think seriously about the above quotation and his recent actions for unity only prove that he understands this and lives this out in his ministry. He goes on to say that

the essential sacramentality of the Eucharist is identical with its unity and its unsusceptibility to change from without. When this fact is not recognized, the Eucharist becomes just a meal in common, a self-fulfillment of the community, which finds in it the symbols of the interaction of its members.(Principles of Catholic Theology)

John Paul II on Eucharistic Sacrifice

When the Church celebrates the Eucharist, the memorial of her Lord's death and resurrection, this central event of salvation becomes really present and “the work of our redemption is carried out”.¹¹ This sacrifice is so decisive for the salvation of the human race that Jesus Christ offered it and returned to the Father only after he had left us a means of sharing in it as if we had been present there. Each member of the faithful can thus take part in it and inexhaustibly gain its fruits. This is the faith from which generations of Christians down the ages have lived. The Church's Magisterium has constantly reaffirmed this faith with joyful gratitude for its inestimable gift.¹² I wish once more to recall this truth and to join you, my dear brothers and sisters, in adoration before this mystery: a great mystery, a mystery of mercy. What more could Jesus have done for us? Truly, in the Eucharist, he shows us a love which goes “to the end” (cf. Jn 13:1), a love which knows no measure.

12. This aspect of the universal charity of the Eucharistic Sacrifice is based on the words of the Saviour himself. In instituting it, he did not merely say: “This is my body”, “this is my blood”, but went on to add: “which is given for you”, “which is poured out for you” (Lk 22:19-20). Jesus did not simply state that what he was giving them to eat and drink was his body and his blood; he also expressed its sacrificial meaning and made sacramentally present his sacrifice which would soon be offered on the Cross for the salvation of all. “The Mass is at the same time, and inseparably, the sacrificial memorial in which the sacrifice of the Cross is perpetuated and the sacred banquet of communion with the Lord's body and blood”.¹³

The Church constantly draws her life from the redeeming sacrifice; she approaches it not only through faith-filled remembrance, but also through a real contact, since this sacrifice is made present ever anew, sacramentally perpetuated, in every community which offers it at the hands of the consecrated minister. The Eucharist thus applies to men and women today the reconciliation won once for all by Christ for mankind in every age. “The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice”.¹⁴ Saint John Chrysostom put it well: “We always offer the same Lamb, not one today and another tomorrow, but always the same one. For this reason the sacrifice is always only one... Even now we offer that victim who was once offered and who will never be consumed”.¹⁵

The Mass makes present the sacrifice of the Cross; it does not add to that sacrifice nor does it multiply it.¹⁶ What is repeated is its memorial celebration, its “commemorative representation” (memorialis demonstratio),¹⁷ which makes Christ's one, definitive redemptive sacrifice always present in time. The sacrificial nature of the Eucharistic mystery cannot therefore be understood as something separate, independent of the Cross or only indirectly referring to the sacrifice of Calvary.

13. By virtue of its close relationship to the sacrifice of Golgotha, the Eucharist is a sacrifice in the strict sense, and not only in a general way, as if it were simply a matter of Christ's offering himself to the faithful as their spiritual food. The gift of his love and obedience to the point of giving his life (cf. Jn 10:17-18) is in the first place a gift to his Father. Certainly it is a gift given for our sake, and indeed that of all humanity (cf. Mt 26:28; Mk 14:24; Lk 22:20; Jn 10:15), yet it is first and foremost a gift to the Father: “a sacrifice that the Father accepted, giving, in return for this total self-giving by his Son, who 'became obedient unto death' (Phil 2:8), his own paternal gift, that is to say the grant of new immortal life in the resurrection”.¹⁸

In giving his sacrifice to the Church, Christ has also made his own the spiritual sacrifice of the Church, which is called to offer herself in union with the sacrifice of Christ. This is the teaching of the Second Vatican Council concerning all the faithful: “Taking part in the Eucharistic Sacrifice, which is the source and summit of the whole Christian life, they offer the divine victim to God, and offer themselves along with it”.¹⁹

14. Christ's passover includes not only his passion and death, but also his resurrection. This is recalled by the assembly's acclamation following the consecration: “We proclaim your resurrection”. The Eucharistic Sacrifice makes present not only the mystery of the Saviour's passion and death, but also the mystery of the resurrection which crowned his sacrifice. It is as the living and risen One that Christ can become in the Eucharist the “bread of life” (Jn 6:35, 48), the “living bread” (Jn 6:51). Saint Ambrose reminded the newly-initiated that the Eucharist applies the event of the resurrection to their lives: “Today Christ is yours, yet each day he rises again for you”.²⁰ Saint Cyril of Alexandria also makes clear that sharing in the sacred mysteries “is a true confession and a remembrance that the Lord died and returned to life for us and on our behalf”.²¹

15. The sacramental re-presentation of Christ's sacrifice, crowned by the resurrection, in the Mass involves a most special presence which—in the words of Paul VI—“is called 'real' not as a way of excluding all other types of presence as if they were 'not real', but because it is a presence in the fullest sense: a substantial presence whereby Christ, the God-Man, is wholly and entirely present”.²² This sets forth once more the perennially valid teaching of the Council of Trent: “the consecration of the bread and wine effects the change of the whole substance of the bead into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord, and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. And the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called this change transubstantiation”.²³ Truly the Eucharist is a mysterium fidei, a mystery which surpasses our understanding and can only be received in faith, as is often brought out in the catechesis of the Church Fathers regarding this divine sacrament: “Do not see—Saint Cyril of Jerusalem exhorts—in the bread and wine merely natural elements, because the Lord has expressly said that they are his body and his blood: faith assures you of this, though your senses suggest otherwise”.

ECCLESIA DE EUCHARISTIA

Anglo-Catholic Myth or Story: A Response to Robert Ian Williams

In the featured article in the Catholic Herald this week there is a response from Robert Ian Williams to an article that argued that Anglo-Catholicism is the authentic Anglicanism. As a convert from a tradition within Anglicanism that had indeed excised the tradition of Cranmer from its patrimony, particularly with regards to the Mass and Eucharistic theology, I believe Anglo-Catholicism is more than a myth, but actually a 'story' that is or should be coming to an end. It is a story that unfolded over time as it overcame laws of oppression imposed upon it by an Erastian parliament. As someone who is taking the ordinary road as a convert to the Catholic Church there are indeed aspects of Anglican patrimony within the Catholic realm of theology that has at the heart of its story, not the C19 church in England but the late C16 and early C17.

Williams rightly points out the excised Catholic theology with regards to the canon in the Eucharistic prayer of Cranmer. But that prayer also left a gap that was wide enough to allow men as theologically astute as Lancelot Andrewes (1555-1625) to see the Mass as a propitiatory offering for the forgiveness of sins, effectual to both the living and the dead. Andrewes also believed in a real change in the gifts of bread and wine whereas Christ was to be sought within them objectively and not merely 'spiritually;' what ever that may mean. The 'enemy' changed in the C17 from the Jesuit to the Puritan for the Establishment. This is no clearer seen than in the writings, sermons and worship set forth by Lancelot Andrewes.

Academic proof is required to justify the claims made in the above paragraph about Andrewes that are necessary to substantiate the claims. There is a clear tradition of High Church Anglican Divines in the C17 that cannot be written out of the story of Anglo-Catholicism even if we conclude that it does not maintain the fulness of Catholic faith and practice. That being acknowledged, there is a real patrimony within someone like Andrewes that makes something like the Apostolic Constitution worthy of the paper on which it is written for its historical acknowledgements dating further back than the C19.

For argument sake and theological logic, let's take the theology of the Eucharist in Andrewes' thought in a systematic order. We begin by looking at his doctrine of Eucharistic presence in comparison to Cranmer or even Hooker. There is a real conversion of the elements for Andrewes. He responds to Bellarmine by saying,

Now Ambrose says nature is changed: and indeed it is changed. For there is one nature of the element and another of the Sacrament (which the Cardinal is not ignorant); we ourselves do not deny that by the blessing the element is changed: that now bread having been consecrated may not be bread, which nature fashioned; but, that benediction consecrated it and even changed it by the act of consecration.

Much like the passage of time today allows us to ask meaningful questions about past dogmatic statements, so Andrewes was able to ask questions about the wording of the definitions immediately preceding him. Andrewes was unique in that he was able to find less controversial ways of interpreting prior dogmatic definitions in the context of the ecumenical visions of King James I. Andrewes did say that there was a transformation, transmutation, transelementation of the elements that allowed them to become for us the body and blood of Jesus. Andrewes embraces what John of Damascus described in echoing Gregory of Nyssa as a transelementation of the bread and wine. The realism is Andrewes’ theology of presence is seen clearly in the words that describe how we now find this Child at the Christmas Season.

The Sacrament we shall have besides, and of the Sacrament we may well say, Hoc erit signum. For a sign it is, and by it invenietis Puerum, ‘ye shall find this child.’ For finding His flesh and blood, ye cannot miss find Him too. And a sign, not much from this here. For Christ in the Sacrament is not altogether unlike Christ in the cratch. To the cratch we may well liken the husk or outward symbols of it. Outwardly it seems little worth but it is rich of contents, as was the crib this day with Christ in it. For what are they, but infirma et egena elementa, ‘weak and poor elements’ of themselves? Yet in them we find Christ. Even as they did this day in praesepi jumentorum panem Angelorum, ‘in the beasts’ crib the food of Angels; which very food our signs both represent, and present unto us.

We now turn to the question of the Eucharist as Sacrifice. It is here that we find the heart of C19 Anglo-Catholic theology that returned to the Catholic teaching of the Mass as the Christian offering that was more than merely thanksgiving, though thanksgiving is at the heart of the Mass even within Catholic theology. What Andrewes termed the ‘proper’ sacrifice was Christ’s suffering and death on the cross. The Eucharist is not a ‘proper’ sacrifice since there was no death or any sort of change in Christ as he now exists in his glorified state. That ‘proper’ sacrifice could only once ‘naturally’ be offered but the effects could be commemorated in the Eucharistic offering. Powers and McHugh both concluded that what Trent meant by a ‘proper’ sacrifice was that it must have ‘propitiatory’ value. That is, an offering presented before God to appease him for sins committed.

Andrewes responded to du Perron that there is no difference on sacrifice between Rome and what he believes the Church to hold. The difference between the two is a result of what Andrewes understood the Council of Trent to mean when it stated that the Eucharist is a proper sacrifice. Andrewes defines the sacrifice as an ‘application’ of the one offering and according to Powers and McHugh the Tridentine fathers came to the same conclusion. What is interesting is that du Perron defined the propitiatory sacrifice in exactly the same terms that Powers and McHugh stated as the intention of Trent. Du Perron, in his work Repliqe a la Response Du Roy, writes,

A Church which believed that the Eucharist was a true, full and complete sacrifice, the only successor to all the sacrifices of the law: the new oblation of the new testament, the external worship of the Christians: and not only Eucharistic sacrifice but also propitiatory sacrifice by applying that [sacrifice] of the Cross: and in this capacity offered it as much for those who were absent as for those present, as much for the living as for the dead.

In response to du Perron Andrewes agrees with the propitiatory value that applies the sacrifice of the cross.

The holy Eucharist being considered as a Sacrifice, (in the representation of the breaking of bread, and the pouring forth the cup,) the same is fitly called an Altar; which again is as fitly called a Table, the Eucharist being considered as a Sacrament, which is nothing else but a distribution and an application of the Sacrifice to the several receivers…So that the matter of Altars, makes no difference in the face of our Church.

Andrewes’ position of Altar is a result of his understanding of the twofold purpose of the Eucharist as Sacrifice and Sacrament. The Church offers Christ in the sacrifice and the benefits of his one offering are applied to the faithful in the present. What is essential for Andrewes is the application of forgiveness for sins actually committed. In his sermon on Isaiah 9:6, ‘A Son was given to and for us,’ Andrewes gives a description of the Eucharist as sacrifice that was contrary to the C16 reformers.

‘He [Jesus] was given for a price and all that he has given and offered is ours. Christ was given to us that we might give Him back.’ All that we have that is valuable before God was given to us in the Son. We have nothing to offer for retribution so Christ wilfully offered himself who unites us to his very own offering.

Andrewes spoke of this ‘giving’ as an offering that was made at a great price. The price was the offering of his flesh for our sins. Nothing that we possessed in and of ourselves was worthy of God. As a response to God, Andrewes says, ‘Let us then offer Him, and in the act of offering ask of Him what is meet; for we shall find Him no less bounteous than Herod, to grant what is duly asked upon His birth-day.’ This view is completely inconceivable with Calvin. Calvin comments that the sacrifice of the Church ‘has nothing to do with appeasing God’s wrath, with obtaining forgiveness of sins, or with meriting righteousness; but is concerned solely with magnifying and exalting God.’ Andrewes presents us with an illustration of his theology of the Eucharistic sacrifice in relation to the sacrificial giving of the Son. For Andrewes, the ‘re-enactment’ or ‘re-actualisation’ of the sacrifice of Christ in the Eucharist is the rendering present (repraesentatio) of Christ’s eternal sacrifice which was acceptable to the Father.

Christ gives himself to us and we give back to him the offering of the sacrifice in the sacrament that the sacrifice of Christ may be applied to us for the forgiveness of sins. He is given us, as Himself saith, as ‘living Bread from Heaven,’ which Bread is His ‘flesh’ born this day, and after ‘given for the life of the world.’ For look how we do give back that He gave us, even so doth He give back to us that which we gave Him, that which He had of us. This He gave for us in Sacrifice, and this He giveth us in the Sacrament, that the Sacrifice may by the Sacrament be truly applied to us. And let me comment this to you; He never bade, accipite, plainly ‘take,’ but in this only; and that, because the effect of this day’s union is no way more lively represented, no way more effectually wrought, than by this use.

If this is all that Trent really meant about the Eucharist being a ‘proper’ sacrifice, then what I have seen in Andrewes’s theology up to this point would confirm that quality within his understanding of the Eucharistic offering. In light of the evidence above from the C17 Andrewes, I find it too simplistic to dismiss the Anglican patrimony worthy of enriching the Catholic Church to be something dismissed as a myth. Instead, I believe this is something more akin to a story that is still unfolding and promises a 'happily ever after' ending. Perhaps it is Williams' Low Church past that blocks out some historical points within Anglo-Catholic theology that cannot be denied but as a part of the story of the C19. Please God, helps us to tell your story of how you will use the Anglo-Catholic story to unite your Church into one visible reality!

In an added note to Andrewes' realistic language concerning adoration of the consecrated sacrament and manducation he writes,

We ourselves also truly adore the flesh of Christ in the mysteries, with Ambrose: but we worship not it but who is praised on the altar. Namely the Cardinal wrongly asks what should be worshipped there he ought to ask who should be worshipped: with Nazianzus, he [the king] says him, not it. Nor do we chew the flesh, unless we have previously adored, in line with Augustine. And yet none of us adores the Sacrament.

Pope Benedict XVI: Priority of Unity

Participants in the annual plenary assembly of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the president of which is Cardinal William Joseph Levada, were received this morning by the Holy Father. In his address to them he highlighted the fact that their dicastery "participates in the ministry of unity" which is primarily entrusted to the Pope through his "commitment to doctrinal fidelity.

"Unity", he added, "is first and foremost unity of faith, upheld by the sacred tradition of which Peter's Successor is the primary custodian and defender. ... This is an indispensable service upon which depends the effectiveness of the Church's evangelising activity unto the end of time.

"The Bishop of Rome", the Pope explained, "must constantly proclaim that ... Jesus is Lord". The Roman Pontiff's "potestas docendi" requires "obedience to the faith, so that the Truth that is Christ may continue to shine forth in all its grandeur, ... and that there may be a single flock gathered around a single Shepherd".

The goal of a shared witness of faith among all Christians "represents, then, a priority for the Church in all periods of history. ... In this spirit, I trust particularly in your dicastery's commitment to overcoming the doctrinal problems that still persist in achieving the full communion of the Society of St. Pius X with the Church".

Benedict XVI then went on to thank the members of the congregation for their efforts towards "the full integration of groups and individuals of former Anglican faithful into the life of the Catholic Church, in accordance with the provisions of the Apostolic Constitution 'Anglicanorum coetibus'. The faithful adherence of these groups to the truth received from Christ and presented in the Magisterium of the Church is in no way contrary to the ecumenical movement", he said, "rather, it reveals the ultimate aim thereof, which is the realisation of the full and visible communion of the disciples of the Lord".

The Pope then turned his attention to the Instruction "Dignitas Personae" concerning certain bioethical questions, which was published by the congregation in 2008. "It represents", he said, "a new milestone in the announcement of the Gospel, in full continuity with the Instruction 'Donum vitae' published by the dicastery in 1987. In such delicate and pressing questions as those that concern procreation and the new therapeutic advances involving the manipulation of the embryo and the human genetic patrimony, ... the Magisterium of the Church seeks to offer its own contribution to the formation of consciences, not only the consciences of believers but of everyone who seeks the truth and is willing to listen to arguments that arise not only from the faith, but also from reason itself".

"Christian faith also makes its truthful contribution in the field of ethics and philosophy, not supplying prefabricated solutions to real problems such as biomedical research and experimentation, put presenting moral standpoints within which human reason can seek and find appropriate solutions", said the Pope.

And he went on: "There are, in fact, certain aspects of Christian revelation that throw light on the problems of bioethics. ... These aspects, inscribed in the heart of man, are also understandable in rational terms as elements of natural moral law, and may find acceptance even among people who do not recognise themselves in the Christian faith".

"Rooted in human nature and accessible to all creatures possessing reason, natural moral law constitutes the foundation for opening a dialogue with all men and women who seek the truth and, more generally, with civil and secular society", said Pope Benedict. And he concluded: "This law, inscribed in the heart of all human beings, touches an essential aspect of legal theory and appeals to legislators' consciences and sense of responsibility".

Vatican website

Anglicanorum Coetibus: Papal Infallibility from the Anglo-Catholic

I am publishing the response of the Anglo-Catholic as requested to further the discussion. The complete post can be found at tbe blog.

This solemn oath of the TAC bishops is irrevocable. And from October 2007, the Catechism of the Catholic Church has been, at least, the de facto official doctrine of the Traditional Anglican Communion.

As in Fr. Pinnock’s Church of England congregation, there are not a few of our people in the TAC who look forward to union with Rome and ask, “How much of this will I have to believe?” Let us be clear. Whatever happens in the coming months, the decisions to be made are essentially ecclesiastical politics; the doctrinal questions have long been decided. Our bishops have not confessed the Catechism of the Catholic Church with reservations; the Catechism, in its entirety, is commended to the faithful of the TAC by our whole episcopate. This is faith that we “aspire to hold” and that our bishops are pledged to teach.

For those communicants of the TAC who are yet reluctant to accept unfamiliar or difficult doctrines on the authority of the Roman Pontiff, what of your own bishops? You believe them to be the successors to the Apostles and you have a duty to heed the call of your shepherds. These same bishops believe themselves to be led by the Holy Ghost, now to set aside the contentions of the past and to sacrifice for the unity of Christ’s One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. You may not be persuaded by the Bishop of Rome, but will you reject even your own shepherds? Heed the voice of the Spirit speaking through them “ut omnes unum sint.”

Papal Infallibility: A Stumbling Block for Anglicanorum Coetibus?

Over at the National Catholic Register, there is a brief story on what could prove to be a stumbling block for Anglicans in coming over to the Pope's initiative to help unify the wounded divisions in the Church. The hermeneutic is a difficult thing to have transformed as one's cognitive grid is moved into seeing the Catholic hermeneutic as opposed to the Protestant. A real injection of grace is needed for this shake-up to happen. I will post the story below for discussion for any who would be interested in having a discussion on this...It is indeed a worthy topic and one which I have heard from 'Anglo-Catholics' myself saying that Papal Infallibility is truly a difficult teaching for them.

We all have our own hermeneutic, a lens through which we view the world, which can either serve to distort or clarify. The impression that I have is that William Lind may be wearing bifocals. He sees certain things with clarity while other things are distorted.

Lind writes at The American Conservative about the disintegration of the Anglican Communion and how Pope Benedict’s offer to Anglicans might be the first step in a “counter-reformation.”

With delightfully witty tone, he decries the abandonment of orthodoxy in favor of a wholly new religion of its own invention.

Starting sometime in the 1960s, God’s frozen people melted, generating the mother of all theological mud puddles. From the abandonment of Thomas Cranmer’s Book of Common Prayer to the introduction of priestesses in the 1970s and the ongoing election of homosexual bishops, the Episcopal Church forsook traditional Christian doctrine in favor of its own invented religion.

He excitedly details the Pope’s offer to Anglicans and acknowledges the Pope’s shrewdness in creating separate ordinariates to shield them from the whims of liberal bishops and the bad taste of the “snakebelly-low post-Vatican II vernacular Roman Mass.”

While Lind is delighted with much of what is in Anglicanorum Coetibus, he worries about one giant fly in the ointment that might doom the entire enterprise to failure, the Catholic Faith.

One problem is likely to be the doctrine of papal infallibility, a 19th-century Roman innovation. The Apostolic Constitution stipulates that Anglicans would have to accept “The Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church as the authoritative expression of the Catholic faith professed by members of the ordinariate.” This could mean accepting papal infallibility as expressed in the catechism, and if Rome remains inflexible on that point, Pope Benedict’s initiative seems likely to fail.

Leaving aside his ahistorical assertions, Lind sees papal infallibility as an obstacle to unity. Apparently lost on Lind is that papal infallibility as exercised by the Pope is the source of unity. Without the office of the Pope and the necessity of visible communion with it, all of Christianity would be the giant “theological mud puddle” that he rightly derides in his own Communion. The difference then would be that there would be nowhere to turn to achieve the unity and orthodoxy that he desires.

With no wish to sound harsh (I don’t mind being harsh I just don’t want to sound that way), we don’t want any Anglican that is hung up on Papal infallibility. If you desire the full faith, the faith as taught by the Apostles and protected by the Holy Spirit, come on over. If you wish to remain a de-facto Protestant, stay put. We have enough de-facto Protestants in the Catholic Church as it is.

Anglicanorum Coetibus Conferences: Oxford and Reading

A day conference examining elements of Anglican Patrimony in the light of the Apostolic Constitution of Pope Benedict XVI, Anglicanorum Coetibus.

Speakers include:

Anglican Patrimony: A Catholic historian’s perspective
Professor Eamon Duffy, Professor of the History of Christianity, Fellow, Director of Studies, Magdalene College, Cambridge

The Anglican Tradition of Moral Theology
The Revd Canon Dr Robin Ward, Principal, St Stephen’s House, Oxford

The Church of England: Parochial and Pastoral
The Revd Philip North, Rector, Old St Pancras Team Ministry, London

Oxford
Canon Law: A comparative study
The Revd David Ackerman, Priest in Charge Sherborne, Windrush, the Barringtons and Aldsworth, Gloucester

Conference Fee: £20 (includes coffee on arrival and buffet lunch).

Booking: Father William Davage either by telephone 01865 288024 or by e mail william.davage@stx.ox.ac.uk

Places are limited and will be allocated on a first come first served basis. Early booking is advised. When booking you should make any dietary requirements known.

The Conference will end with Sung Evening Prayer at 5.00 p.m.

Reading
Fr David Elliott, Priest-in-charge of the Church of the Most Holy Trinity in Reading, is holding a meeting at his church on Wednesday 20 January at 7.30pm to discuss the Apostolic Constitution Anglicanorum Coetibus. Further details at his blog. He also has a post with links to the key texts and will be making hard copies available for his people this Sunday.

Fr Elliott has made it clear that the meeting is open to people who are outside of his parish. I pray that the meeting goes well and that Fr Elliott and many other like him will be able to take advantage of Pope Benedict's generous provision and be received into full communion with the Holy See.

Eucharist and Sacrifice: Being Changed Via the Mass

Well, I need to begin this post asking for many prayers as I am working hard to close out this PhD on Eucharist and Ecumenism in the Theology of Lancelot Andrewes: Then and Now. I am writing my final chapter and then will need to go back and look at everything again. Having come into the fullness of the Catholic Church via my studies in Eucharistic theology, I am reminded through my own writing the journey I was on though fully unaware in many ways.

The Mass as the Christian Sacrifice was the main influence that further moved me along on this journey. I am sitting here tonight being reminded that I wrote the first 70,000 words of my thesis as an Anglican priest. How I adjust any of that is yet to be decided as I am at 91,000 plus now and really energised about finishing.

What is most important to me now is writing this final chapter. What will make it even more contemporary than ARCIC is the recent Apostolic Constitution for Anglicans given by Pope Benedict XVI. It is hard for me to believe that without some of the work of Andrewes in sacramental theology and holding fast to a Catholic view of the sacrificial nature of the Mass no such thing as the generosity of Pope JP II or the gift from the present reigning Pontiff would exist. I recall reading somewhere that the Holy Father even had a copy of Andrewes' Private Prayers within arms length of his bed. What might become fascinating for this final chapter on Eucharistic Sacrifice and Ecumenical Hope may indeed be the very spark that moves this final chapter to a closing point as I see real sacramental hope in the Apostolic Constitution. This will only leave room for a new welcomed history to continue as this move of the Spirit unfolds. Where I personally fit into it is not really important but what is crucial is to see the possibilities of reunion in the Western Church this gift could potentially be.

But here again is the point within the thesis that I came to deeply embrace and that is that the Eucharistic Sacrifice gives the Church the grace from which she draws her life. The Sacrifice of the Cross and the Sacrifice of the Mass are not two sacrifices but one and the same offered anew having been made present for us on the altar. This is how St. John Chrysostom put it to the Church. What is so misunderstood by those who cannot get their heads around the Mass as the Christian sacrifice is that so many have such a narrow notion of sacrifice where it only refers to the killing, and offering up of blood. But, that is not how scripture speaks of sacrifice in its fullness. There are numerous stages of sacrifice and it is all of those stages which define the Mass as the sacrifice. The death happened once and for all but that death, pleading, blood, offering upon the altar on earth and heaven, communion etc, is all part of the ONE sacrifice. Each stage moves us to the next. But it must be remembered, lest we fall off the boat again in misunderstanding, that it is we who are changed by the Mass, not Jesus.

The Absent Blogger

Sorry to have not written too much lately as I have been away since Friday. I went down to St. John's Seminary in Wonersh to see my spiritual director and some time for reflection. I was also able to see a friend and meet some for the first time who were only knowable via the blog or emails. So, the weekend proved very fruitful as it always is when I spend some time in the seminary praying and talking to a number of the men and my SD. Now, it is time to get back to work but I hope to write some this evening when I get home.

Ignatius of Antioch & Polycarp of Smyrna by Dr. Kenneth Howell

Early Christian Father series has put out a new publication from Dr. Kenneth Howell. The book is entitled, Ignatius of Antioch & Polycarp of Smyrna: A New Translation and Theological Commentary. I received the book in order that I might give it a review, which I intend to do here forthcoming. It arrived in the post today and I wanted to flag the readers to its publication and arrival. Dr. Howell holds a Ph.D. in Linguistics from Indiana University and a Ph.D. in the History of Christianity and Science from the University of Lancaster (U.K.).

A Presbyterian minister for eighteen years and a theological professor for seven years in a Protestant seminary, Dr. Howell was confirmed and received into the Catholic Church in 1996.

Fr. Benedict J. Groeschel, CFR writes a comment on the back cover saying,

As a life long admirer of Ignatius and Polycarp, I welcome Dr. Howell's new translation and commentary. For all serious Christians interested in the early church, this book is a must, but especially for Evangelical Protestants who are now discovering the post apostolic Church. This new edition will open many doors for true ecumenical dialogue between Evangelical, Catholic and Orthodox serious disciples of Christ. It is also powerful spiritual reading.

So, if you are looking to spend some book money or tokens from Christmas, why not give Dr. Howell's book a read and when you do, please come and leave your thoughts. He will undoubtedly check comments here on the book and perhaps have some dialogue with us about it.

Development of Doctrine and Former Evangelicals Converting To The Catholic Church

David Cassidy gave a lecture this week at a Pastor's Conference in Louisiana USA entitled, Newman Rising: Vatican II and the New Faces of Roman Catholicism. David is a pretty fair guy though he misrepresents us Catholics in numerous places and when listening to the lecture I found it more polemical than what may be interepreted by merely reading it. But, what is important is to have some real dialogue. One of the many things I found interesting about his lecture was his reference to the open policy of Vat. II that invited non-Catholics to participate but there were not any Catholics invited to participate in this conference. I would like to see some good dialogue on a number of issues in his lecture and invite that to take place here. Readers can go to David's site to read the entire lecture. The "lecture" (or rather the rant presented by Mr. Jeff Meyers) on Mary as an Idol 'demi-god' of Catholics was so frustrating to listen to over the first 15 minutes that it's not even worth discussing. So, here are David Cassidy's notes.

That modern Catholicism should have as its philosophical fountainhead a former Evangelical Calvinist-turned Anglican-turned Catholic is not insignificant for the phenomenon of conversions that we witness today.

How could the Church ‘defend’ a dogma - Papal Infallibility - which had no historical precedence?

“Development”!

I first read Newman’s Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine some 31 years ago sitting at a table in the Pusey House Library of St Cross College in Oxford. I did not get past the introduction, not because it was too difficult but because it was too frightening. At 19 I simply didn’t have the muscles to do battle with this intellectual heavyweight. I would come back to Newman a year later, not with more muscle but certainly with less fear. I found his arguments for development compelling, though his argument in favor of an infallible Church far less so.

Newman was a convert - and a militant one at that. We should not imagine that his Calvinistic-Evangelical conversion and youth and subsequent years as an Anglican made him an ecumenist; on the contrary. His story however, especially given his view of keeping what he had gained while adding what he regarded was fully his inheritance has provided an apologetic for those who seek to bring others to Rome. His story is very much the narrative offered by many today. His characteristic militancy is as well.

Why was his work on ‘development in doctrine’ so vital? This is because the very concept is one of three central themes at the core of the Council.

Three words summarize the Council’s purpose:

1. Past: resourcement (return to the sources; ad fontes)
2. Present: aggiornamento (updating; used instead of ‘reform’, and meaning an adaptation of the Church to the new learning and new world situation)
3. Future: development (history teaches us that living things evolve; realizing that something like the Immaculate Conception of Mary was not part of the Patristic Tradition, how would RC theologians account for it as dogma? How does development happen? Enter Newman).

• “What I do, you cannot understand now, but you will understand later.” - John 13
• “These things Mary treasured in her heart.” - Luke 2
• “First the blade, then the head, then the mature grain in the head.” - Mark 4

Newman proposed that development was not out of accord with the ‘sources’, but a continuation - a flourishing - of what is in the sources, a revealing in time of what could be seen as ‘an antecedent probability’.

“Mary pondered these things in her heart” is the text in which Newman most saw this principle. Mary did not grasp all the revelation she was given, but she kept it, and it grew in her as did her grasp of that revelation. Thus development is a cumulative process and must be embraced to avoid the twin traps of becoming the prisoner of the past (a danger with resourcement) and the prisoner of the present (the danger of adaptation, aggiornamento). In development there is nothing fully new but a more fruitful unfolding of what has always been present - the seed becomes not just an apple but an orchard.

The V2 Apostolic Constitution Dei Verbum strikes a very Newman like note when it says, “The Church is always advancing towards the plenitude of divine truth.’

Tradition is thus never static but dynamic. This is why the late Raymond Brown could define the Catholic handling of ‘change’ by asserting that “the RCC does not change her official stance in a blunt way. Past statements are not rejected but re-quoted and praised, and then reinterpreted...”.

That’s not exactly how Newman would put it, but its how modern RC’s use Newman.

In fact, Newman’s proposal doesn’t really solve the problem of how we measure doctrinal development; like him, we can’t see how the model of Vincent of Lerins would account for all that has taken place, and unlike him we don’t see how his ‘rules’ for judging change to be legitimate can be easily applied, even by a Council. Nevertheless, Newman’s thesis offered Vatican II fathers a way to reform without calling it a reformation, a way to change while carefully defining what ‘change’ meant.

Newman of course lived at the time of Vatican I, and there is no way to grasp the place of Vatican II without understanding the basic background issues that led to Vatican I. Why did John XXIII believe a new Council was needed? The answer lies with Vatican I.

Apostolic Constitution: Stephen Trott Weighs In

Discuss!!!!!!

THE recent announcement of an Apostolic Constitution for Anglicans, Anglicanorum Coetibus, raises the question what exactly constitutes the “Anglican patrimony” that those who decide to accept the papal invitation might be able to carry with them into their new life and ministry in the Roman Catholic Church. The Anglican liturgical tradition was at the forefront of the pastoral provision that was made by the late Pope John Paul II for former Anglican parishes in the United States, resulting in the publication in 2003 of The Book of Divine Worship, based on the American Prayer Books of 1928 and 1979, and given the imprimatur of Cardinal Bernard Law.

The beauty of the English liturgy has long been admired outside the Church of England, and the new text made it possible for it to be used within the Roman Catholic Church, by means of a number of amendments that make it conform more closely with the Roman Missal. In England, however, many of the clergy and parishes that might be thought most likely to seek to join a new Ordinariate for former Anglicans already use the Roman Missal, in part or in full, rather than the English Missal of previous generations. What kind of liturgy would they use, or wish to use, or be permitted to use, within the new arrangements being made for them within the Roman Catholic Church in England? The Constitution is predicated on an expressed desire for former Anglicans to retain something of their liturgical identity, but detail is noticeably lacking, given that retention of an identifiable rite of their own is something of a raison d’être for the new Ordinariates.

ARRANGEMENTS for the reception and ordination of married Anglican clergy are not new: they have enabled numbers of English clergy to continue their ministry as Roman Catholics in recent years. The Constitution also maintains the express requirement for unconditional fresh ordination for those who are to serve as clergy in the Ordinariate, along with an absolute bar on the ordination of married men as bishops (although, after ordination to the priesthood, those who are currently Anglican bishops may be permitted to serve as priests, as Ordinaries, and to retain their episcopal insignia and be treated as retired bishops). Other aspects of our Anglican patrimony may not be, however, as readily transferable into the Ordinariate as the clergy themselves. While the clergy will be able to take with them their existing pension entitlements, including their hous­ing, if they are already retired, those who are in service will not receive further contributions to their pension fund. They will depend on the local Conference of Roman catholic bishops for any stipend and housing which they may receive as serving ministers, and for retirement provision once they reach the age of 75.

WHAT kind of ministry will former Anglican clergy exercise once the process of reception, retraining, and ordination has taken place? The very pastoral and evangelistic ministry that they will leave behind in the Church of England is surely the most significant of all aspects of their Anglican patrimony, and it remains to be seen how this can be continued by the Ordinariate. Many Anglican clergy who are contemplating secession will not wish to be parted from their existing pastorate. For many, having to accept the force of Apostolicae Curae, which formally denies the sacramental efficacy of their ministry as Anglican priests, will be a considerable struggle of conscience. THE architectural and cultural heritage of the Church of England is unique and outstanding, and, while it is, of course, not essential in the same way as the Bible, the creeds, and the sacraments, it forms a very significant portion of what it is to be an Anglican in England.

Clergy and congregations work hard to maintain and improve their church buildings and churchyards. Where we worship can be as important as how we worship: holy places carry resonances that affect us, no matter how we try to protest otherwise. Our church buildings are hallowed by our prayers and by the rites of passage which we mark within them, and those whom we love are buried in the churchyards surrounding them. All sort of guesstimates have been put forward, but it seems likely that the number of lay people taking part in the new Ordinariate will be very modest, and that there will be very few congregations prepared to leave en bloc for the new Ordinariate with their Anglican priest, not least because this will necessitate leaving behind a greatly loved place of worship. English law very firmly roots ownership of our churches in the benefice concerned. They do not belong to the congregation, and, although they are vested in the incumbent for the time being, it is not personal ownership but trusteeship for the parish concerned. It is possible for the ownership of a church to be changed or shared, but it is a cumbersome procedure, and requires the consent of a number of parties, including those who remain as members of the Church of England in the parish concerned. Sharing experiments took place in London in the 1990s, but were ultimately abandoned as unhelpful.

LESS tangible but equally important is the very particular pastoral tradition of the Church of England, which rightly understands itself to be at the service of the whole com­munity, including all who live in every parish. Its identification with the long history of the national Church opens many doors to its ministry and mission, as well as opening wide its own doors in welcome to those who are not committed churchgoers, those who are not in the pews every Sunday, not on the electoral roll, and not subscribers to a stewardship scheme. The occasional offices — baptisms, weddings, and funerals — form a vital bridge to the wider community, which in turn values its connection with the Church to which it acknowledges it belongs. Within the Church of England’s parish churches there are many people who have responded to this openness and generosity of ministry, drawn gently to consider more deeply their need for faith and to find it in a Church that does not immediately ask hard questions or require formal membership as a precondition of receiving its ministry. There are considerable numbers who have been divorced and later married again, who would not be eligible to receive holy communion in other churches, including those who have become Anglicans for this very reason, having found them­selves excom­municated in their own church community. Equally, there can be very few who would accept the requirements of Humanae Vitae concerning birth control, or who would consent to private confession as a compulsory requirement of membership.

THE Apostolic Constitution has no doubt been designed with generosity of spirit as a response to the expressions of need being received from Anglicans, but Anglicanorum Coetibus is not the Uniate-style solution for which many had hoped — a Church with its own jurisdiction and its own rite, capable of maintaining the very identity that enriches our Christian faith as Anglicans. Those who embrace it must face a hard decision: to leave behind the very things that have sustained them in their Christian pilgrimage thus far, for assimilation into an unknown future in an Ordinariate that is neither Anglican nor fully part of mainstream Roman Catholicism.

Church Times HT Titusonenine.