Thursday, September 29, 2005

Andrewes and impanation cont.

*** This is in response to a request for a definition of impanation: Here it is.

The term ‘impanation’ does not appear until the controversy of Berengarius of Tours at the end of the eleventh century. Impanation teaches that Christ is really present in the Eucharist, but rejects the idea of Transubstantiation. Rather there is a presence by a kind of impanation (Christum quodammodo impanari). It is akin to Consubstantiation but focuses more on a sort of ‘hypostatic’ union of the bread and wine with the Body and Blood of Christ. Impanation teaches that in the Eucharist, Christ, through his human body is substantially united with the substances of bread and wine, and thus really present as God, made bread: Deus panis factus. Impanation is a word that was coined to imitate the language of the Incarnation. There is an ‘interchange’ that takes place between the Son of God and the substance of bread, though only through the mediation of the body of Christ.

Let me begin by stating that I am merely putting these quotations out for discussion more so than my being convinced that Andrewes could be classified as one who held to impanation. It is a term that is used negatively by Roman Catholics and Reformers alike to deny the manner of presence of Christ in the Eucharistic elements of bread and wine. Impanation is defined to be a view that is akin to consubstantiation and it is a presence by a kind of Christum quodammodo impanari. It focuses more on a sort of 'hypostatic' union of the bread and wine and the body and blood of Christ. This view describes an interchange that takes place between the Son of God and the substance of bread, though only through the mediation of the body of Christ. It is argued that Luther denied the hypostatic union of the unchanged substance of bread but did teach that the body of Christ penetrated it. Below are some quotations with periodic interactions.

Please feel free to leave some thoughts:

I particularly found what could be some evidence of impanation in Andrewes’ Nativity sermon on Ephesians 1.10 preached in 1623. This sermon, like many others of Andrewes’, often speaks of the Eucharist as the means by which we pre-eminently partake of the Incarnation. So a reference to the ‘hypostatic’ union would not be too surprising of a theme within that context. The sermon is devoted to making sure that the hearer understands that all things are to be summed up in the heavenlies and on earth in Christ. Throughout the sermon Andrewes is keen to focus on the two realities of heaven and earth being united in Christ. After focusing on this Christological doctrine in the Incarnation he turns that doctrine into an opportunity to discuss the Eucharist. He unites it to the Church’s celebration of this recapitulation of Christmas Day and Andrewes develops his thought by showing how the elements of bread and wine are brought together in Heaven where he says, “Both these issuing out of this day’s recapitulation, both in corpus autem aptasti Mihi of this day.” He related the coming together of these two realities (heaven and earth) as a sort of hypostatical union of the elements and what is actually received in the elements; namely the body and blood of Christ. He stated that, “And the gathering or vintage of these two in the blessed Eucharist, is as I may say a kind of hypostatical union of the sign and the thing signified, so united together as are the two natures of Christ.” He went on to defend his sacramental theology of union of signs and things signified from the Fathers. Particularly he uses Irenaeus, Theodoret from the East and Gelasius from the West. This position was used against Eutyches. From the writings of Irenaeus, Andrewes claims he is gleaning these insights. He echoes this quotation from Book IV. 18 adv. heres. It reads,
But our opinion is in accordance with the Eucharist, and the Eucharist in turn establishes our opinion. For we offer to Him His own, announcing consistently the fellowship and union of the flesh and Spirit. For as the bread, which is produced from the earth, when it receives the invocation of God, is no longer common bread, but the Eucharist, consisting of two realities, earthly and heavenly; so also our bodies, when they receive the Eucharist, are no longer corruptible, having the hope of the resurrection to eternity.
. He echoes Theodoret at this point who writes:
For even after the consecration the mystic symbols are not deprived of their own nature; they remain in their former substance figure and form; they are visible and tangible as they were before. But they are regarded as what they are become, and believed so to be, and are worshipped as being what they are believed to be. Compare then the image with the archetype, and you will see the likeness, for the type must be like the reality. For that body preserves its former form, figure, and limitation and in a word the substance of the body; but after the resurrection it has become immortal and superior to corruption; it has become worthy of a seat on the righthand; it is adored by every creature as being called the natural body of the Lord.
It was in the following remarks that we acquire a grasp on Andrewes’ theology of Eucharistic presence and his view of the doctrine of Transubstantiation. He said,
That even as in the Eucharist neither part is evacuate or turned into the other, but abide each still in his former nature and substance, no more is either of Christ’s natures annulled, or one of the converted into the other, as Eutyches held, but each nature remaineth still full and whole in his own kind. And backwards; as the two natures in Christ, so the signum and signatum in the Sacrament, e converse. And this latter device, of the substance of the bread and wine to be flown away and gone, and in the room of it a remainder of nothing else but accidents to stay behind, was to them not known, and had it been true, had made for Eutyches and against them. And this for the likeness of union in both.
Andrewes rejected this opinion as an issue de fide but did not see it as a heresy. He did not take the Eucharistic celebration to be a transformation of the elements so much, though he clearly held to a sacramental presence via a sacramental change; rather he saw the Eucharist as the meal of recapitulation and as the principal gathering of the Church. His focal point was on the Synaxis rather than trying to figure out how we receive the body and blood in bread and wine. He merely accepted the reality that we do. He illustrated this by referring to the Eucharist as its name in antiquity and described the purpose of it.
Now for the word “gathering together in one.” It is well known the holy Eucharist itself is called Synaxis, by no name more usual in all antiquity, that is, a ‘collection or gathering.’ For so it is in itself; for at the celebration of it, though we gather to prayer and to preaching, yet that is the principal gathering the Church hath, which is itself called a “collection” too by the same name from the chief; for “where the body is there the eagles will be gathered,” and so one Synaxis begets another.

Andrewes quite pointedly focused on the relationship of our union with the Person Jesus and His being offered to us in participation of the Sacrament.
For there we do not gather to Christ or of Christ, but we gather Christ Himself; and gathering Him we shall gather the tree and fruit and all upon it. For as there is a recapitulation of all in Heaven and earth in Christ, so there is a recapitulation of all in Christ in the holy Sacrament. You may see it clearly: there is in Christ the Word eternal for things in Heaven; there is also flesh for things on earth. Semblably, the Sacrament consisteth of a Heavenly and of a terrene part, (it is Irenaeus’ own words); the Heavenly—there the word too, the abstract of the other; the earthly—the element.
I found similar statements from Andrewes in a few other sermons on the Nativity. For example he writes,
Now the bread which we break, is it not the partaking of the body, of the flesh, of Jesus Christ? It is surely, and by it and by nothing more are we made partakers of this most blessed union…Because He [Christ] hath so done, taken ours of us, and that, to no other end, but that he might make the receiving of it by us a means whereby He might dwell in us and we in him; he taking our flesh and we receiving his Spirit, by his flesh which he took of us receiving his Spirit which he imparteth to us; that, as he is by ours became consors humanae naturae, so we by his might become consortes divinae naturae “partakers of the divine nature.” Verily, it is the most straight and perfect ‘taking hold’ that is. No union so knitteth as it. Not consanguinity; brethren fall out. Not marriage; man and wife are severed. But that which is nourished and the nourishment wherewith--they never are, never can be severed, but remain one forever. With this act then of mutual 'taking' taking of his flesh as he hath taken ours, let us seal our duty to him this day, for taking not Angels but the seed of Abraham.
It was a day that Andrewes believed that what we celebrate in the Eucharist unites us to all that the Incarnation offers and we receive the fullness of it in the Sacrament. Andrewes rhetorically asks,
How is that? How shall we receive Him? Who shall give Him us? That shall One That will say unto us within a while, Accipite, “Take, this is My Body,” “by the offering whereof ye are sanctified [Matt. 26.26, 28].” “Take, this is My Blood;” by the shedding whereof ye are saved.” Both in the holy mysteries ordained by God as pledges to assure us, and as conduit pipes to convey into us this and all other the benefits that come by this our Saviour. Verily, upon His memorable days, of which this is the first, we are bound to do something in memory, or remembrance of Him. What is that? Will ye know what it is? Hoc facite, “Do this in remembrance of Me.”
In his Isaiah 7.14 sermon He speaks of God’s special way of being cum ‘with’ us in prayer and praises etc. These are all well, says Andrewes, but they are not all the ways God is with us.
That hath a special Cum of itself, peculiar to it. Namely, that we be so with Him, as He this day was ‘with us;’ that was in flesh, not in spirit only. That flesh that was conceived and this day born, (Corpus aptasti Mihi,) that body that was this day fitted to Him. And if we be not with Him thus, if this His flesh be not “with us,” if we partake it not, which was soever else we be with Him, we come short of the Im of this day. Im otherwise it may be, but not that way which is proper to this feast. This, as it is most proper, so it is the most straight and near that can be—the surest being withall that can be. Nihil tam nobiscum, tam nostrum, quam alimentum nostrum, ‘nothing so with us, so ours, as that we eat and drink down,’ which goeth, and growth one with us. For alimentum et alitum do coalescere in unum, ‘grow into an union;’ that union is inseperable ever after.
The doctrine of the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist is communicated in the shadows of the Incarnation of what it means for God to be with us in this rite.
This then I commend to you, even the being with Him in the Sacrament of His Body—that Body that was conceived and born, as for other ends so for this specially, to be “with you;” and this day, as for other intents, so even for this, for the Holy Eucharist. This, as the kindliest for the time, as the surest for the manner of being with.
This sign is how we find Him and it is this same sign of humility in us when we are found by Him. Therefore in the Sacrament of the Eucharist we find the Christ-child. As the cratch carried the Christ-child who humbled himself in that state to give of Himself to us, so He is also humbling Himself in His being given to us in the cradle of Bread and Wine the glorified Christ who was praised by the Host of Angels at the cratch in the manger.
You say well, for that we have heard we may, but not for any sign we. Yes, for that too. 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 but find Him too. And a sign, not so 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 præsepi jumentorum panem Angelorum, ‘in the beasts’ crib the food of Angels;’ which very food our signs both represent, and present to us.

Andrewes did not use the word ‘impanation’ to describe his position of Eucharistic presence and why would he since Rome declared it a heresy? (I must say that it is true that Andrewes did all he could to make clear that he did not pretend to know how Christ was present in the Eucharist and did not probe too far into the mystery of it.) Not only would Andrewes refrain from using Osiander’s name for his view against Rome neither would he use it since other Reformers on the Continent had their turn with Osiander as well, including Calvin. Actually, the word ‘impanation’ does not come up until later in Church history and is used negatively to refute any sort of Consubstantationist position of presence. But the doctrine that the word sets forth to describe a view of how Christ is present in the Eucharist surely seems quite close to Andrewes’ own position on Eucharistic presence. If Andrewes is not holding to a view of impanation via a hypostatical union of the elements (bread and wine) ‘earthly’ and (Christ) ‘heavenly’ then it becomes painstakingly obvious that he comes very close to this opinion. It is questioned whether or not Berengarius held to this position of the hypostatic union of Jesus’ flesh and the elements. It is argued that what Berengarius held to was more of a Lutheran view of in, cum et sub pane. If impanation is not Andrewes’ unqualified position, there at least seems to be some sort of an amalgamation of the doctrine of impanation within the use of Christological language that seems to shape Andrewes’ theology of Eucharistic presence. But, I may be wrong and it's something mysteriously Patristic!

St Michael and All Angels

Now war arose in heaven, Michael and his angels fighting against the dragon; and the dragon and his angels fought, but they were defeated and there was no longer any place for them in heaven. And the great dragon was thrown down, that ancient serpent who is called the Devil and Satan, the deceiver of the whole world -- he was thrown down to the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him.

-- Revelation 12:7-9 [RSV]

God our Father,
in a wonderful way you guide the work of angels and men.
May those who serve you constantly in heaven
keep our lives safe from all harm on earth.
Grant this through our Lord Jesus Christ, Your Son,
who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit. Amen.

Everlasting God,
you have ordained and constituted the ministries
of angels and mortals in a wonderful order:
grant that as your holy angels
always serve you in heaven,
so, at your command,
they may help and defend us on earth;
through Jesus Christ your Son our Lord,
who is alive and reigns with you,
in the unity of teh Holy Spirit,
one God, now and for ever. Amen

Wednesday, September 28, 2005

Andrewes and Impanation

It should be no secret that many scholars have struggled to determine where Lancelot Andrewes stood concerning the presence of Christ in the Eucharist. It is do doubt that he denied transubstantiation though some have said he held something as close to it as possible but due to the climate was not able to embrace it. That is debateable for sure. What is interesting is something that I have been thinking since yesterday after running across something on impanation in the theology of Osiander. I will be writing something up briefly here soon that hopefully the readers will engage with me a bit. I especially would like to hear from Dr. Marianne Dorman, Prof. William Tighe and Fr. Al Kimel. My reasons for thinking that Andrewes may have held this position is his discussing presence within the context of the hypostatic union and describing that presence within that Christological framework. Interestingly, he references Irenaeus, Theodoret, and Gelasius for this position. Of course, this position was rejected by Rome as well as Calvin in his writings. I am only trying to understand where it is that Andrewes actually is in view of this mystery. Impanation just may be the answer. I leave you with Theodoret's writing in Dialogue II where Andrewes seems to be drawing his ideas from;

Eran.—One ought “to stir every stone,” as the proverb says, to get at the truth; above all when it is a question of divine doctrines.
Orth.—Tell me now; the mystic symbols which are offered to God by them who perform priestly rites, of what are they symbols?
Eran.—Of the body and blood of the Lord.
Orth.—Of the real body or not?
Eran.—The real.
Orth.—Good. For there must be the archetype of the image. So painters imitate nature and paint the images of visible objects.
Orth.—If, then, the divine mysteries are antitypes of the real body, therefore even now the body of the Lord is a body, not changed into nature of Godhead, but filled with divine glory.
Eran.—You have opportunely introduced the subject of the divine mysteries for from it I shall be able to show you the change of the Lord’s body into another nature. Answer now to my questions.
Orth.—I will answer.
Eran.—What do you call the gift which is offered before the priestly invocation?
Orth.—It were wrong to say openly; perhaps some uninitiated are present.
Eran.—Let your answer be put enigmatically.
Orth.—Food of grain of such a sort.
Eran.—And how name we the other symbol?
Orth.—This name too is common, signifying species of drink.
Eran.—And after the consecration how do you name these?
Orth.—Christ’s body and Christ’s blood.
Eran.—And do yon believe that you partake of Christ’s body and blood?
Orth.—I do.
Eran.—As, then, the symbols of the Lord’s body and blood are one thing before the priestly invocation, and after the invocation are changed and become another thing; so the Lord’s body after the assumption is changed into the divine substance.
Orth.—You are caught in the net you have woven yourself. For even after the consecration the mystic symbols are not deprived of their own nature; they remain in their former substance figure and form; they are visible and tangible as they were before. But they are regarded as what they are become, and believed so to be, and are worshipped as being what they are believed to be. Compare then the image with the archetype, and you will see the likeness, for the type must be like the reality. For that body preserves its former form, figure, and limitation and in a word the substance of the body; but after the resurrection it has become immortal and superior to corruption; it has become worthy of a seat on the righthand; it is adored by every creature as being called the natural body of the Lord.
Eran.—Yes; and the mystic symbol changes its former appellation; it is no longer called by the name it went by before, but is styled body. So must the reality be called God, and not body.
Orth.—You seem to me to be ignorant—for He is called not only body but even bread of life. So the Lord Himself used this name’ and that very body we call divine body, and giver of life, and of the Master and of the Lord, teaching that it is not common to every man but belongs to our Lord Jesus Christ Who is God and Man. “For Jesus Christ” is “the same yesterday, to-day, and forever.”
Eran.—You have said a great deal about this, but I follow the saints who have shone of old in the Church; show me then, if you can, these in their writings dividing the natures after the union.
Andrewes was not a Lutheran holding the position that taught that the presence is in with and under the bread—in, cum et sub pane; really present though only at the moment of reception by the faithful—in usu, non extra usum. But there was a Lutheran who held to a view of what is known as impanation. He is the controversial Lutheran, Andreas Osiander (d. 1552). Impanation teaches that in the eucharist Christ, through his human body is substantially united with the substances of bread and wine, and thus really present as God, made bread: Deus panis factus. Impanation is a word that was coined to imitate the language of the incarnation. There is an ‘interchange’ that takes place between the Son of God and the substance of bread, though only through the mediation of the body of Christ. Luther denied the hypostatic union of the unchanged substance of bread but did teach that the body of Christ penetrated it. Andrewes did teach the hypostatic union view in a sermon in 1623 on the Nativity that will be referenced in another post. Is this merely the influence of the Cappadocians?

Tuesday, September 27, 2005

St. Vincent dePaul

Saint Vincent dePaul was born in France. He was a priest who dedicated himself to ministering spiritually and materially to the poor, the unfortunate, and the suffering. He also focused his energies toward bettering the formation of priests. Together with Louise de Marillac, he founded the Congregation of the Daughters of Charity. He also founded the Congregation of the Mission, known as the Vincentians or Lazarists. His life remained deeply rooted in humility in spite of his worldwide fame.

God our Father,
you gave Vincent de Paul
the courage and holiness of an apostle
for the well-being of the poor
and the formation of the clergy,
help us to be zealous in continuing his work.
Grant this through our Lord Jesus Christ, your Son,
who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit,
one God, for ever and ever. Amen.

Monday, September 26, 2005

Ecclesia de Eucharistia

I was reading Pope John Paul's Encyclical letter Ecclesia de Eucharistia and came across these words on the Sacrifice of the Mass. I was utterly amazed at how similar the language was crafted by the Pope and the C17 Anglican Theologian, Lancelot Andrewes. This is particularly true in relationship to the Eucharist as the Christian Sacrifice. Let me say that Andrewes was not in favour of Transubstantiation and saw it as something that should not have been made an element of the faith but was an opinion of the Schoolmen. But, so much of what is said here on Eucharistic Sacrifice is also found in the writings of Andrewes; both in his sermons and his polemical works in response to Bellarmine and Perron. Andrewes went on to say in the Responsio that if Rome was to take away Transubstantiation there would be no difference in the Sacrifice between the English Church and the teaching of Rome. What Andrewes did in his writings was not to draw from Calvin, Luther, or any other continental reformer or any before him for that matter; rather, Andrewes went back to the sources of the fathers and particularly one will find very close similarities with Chrysostom and the other Eastern fathers in his writings. This is not to de-contextualise Andrewes but he was a rare individual who poured himself into the writings of the fathers concerning the mysteries of the faith. What I think this proves for me is that Andrewes can, to some degree, be a catalyst for ecumenism. My hopes that my final chapter or two would focus on this thesis. I leave you with a portion of the Encyclical.

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.
Andrewes used this same quotation and in the same way when he defended that the Eucharistic Sacrifice was not a new sacrifice of Christ but a making present that One Sacrifice anew.
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”.
I meant to ask before so I am bringing this question in now: Is the language of theologians post-Vat II that much different from pre-Vat II or is it the case that we have not looked closely enough at one another's writings to try to better understand each other that makes this Pope and a 17C Anglican so very close in their discussing the Eucharistic Sacrifice? What I need to look at closely is a leading Roman scholar of pre-Vat II (one who is accepted by the Vat; not one considered neo-orthodox by the Vat) and compare them. Any readers have any suggestions of pre-Vat II eucharistic scholars to read?

Sunday, September 25, 2005

Lancelot Andrewes 1555-1626

Bishop Lancelot Andrewes was undoubtedly one of the most influential and learned prelates that the Church of England has produced in her history. Today would have been the day that we celebrate his life and works but it fell on a Sunday and sadly it appears to have fallen out of the English calendar this year. A pity to say the least! Of Andrewes' place in the Church Ottley writes,
by the prominent position he assigns in his preaching to the fundamental mysteries of the catholic faith, he restores them to the true place of honour they should occupy in Christian thought and consciousness. On the other hand, he deprecates the inquisitive temper that is ever asking for authoritative decisions on points of speculation or practice; he protests against the tendency to invest such decisions with undue significance. 196

It was the work of Andrewes—and no slight service it was—to lead men back from the maze of fruitless controversy to the revealed " paths of peace"; to insist on the infinite greatness and importance of what the Church decisively teaches as to God's Being and His relations to mankind; on the power of clearly revealed truths to satisfy legitimate cravings, and to educate spiritual character. What he persistently deprecates is the readiness to multiply definitions; the temper, whether displayed by churchman or puritan, which intrudes into the secret things of God, and for the sake of intellectual satisfaction rounds off a system by unproved speculations or confident dogmatism.

Andrewes' biographer Isaacson describes Andrewes' last days as follows:
As his fidelity in his health was great, so increased the strength of his faith in his sickness; his gratitude to men was now changed into his thankfulness to God, his affability, to incessant and devout prayers and speech -with his Creator, Redeemer, and Sanctifier. His laborious studies, to his restless groans, sighs, cries, and tears, his hands labouring, his eyes lifted up, and his heart beating and panting to see the living God, even to the last of his breath. And Him, no doubt, lie sees face to face, his works preceding and following him, and he now following the Lamb, crowned with that immortality which is reserved for every one who lives such a life as he lived. He departed this life September 25, 1626, in the seventy-first year of his age and lieth buried in the upper aisle of the parish church of St. Saviour's in Southwark". xxix, xxx

Dr. Marianne Dorman writes:
As a preacher Andrewes was highly esteemed by contemporaries and later generations. In modern times Eliot referred to Andrewes as "the first great preacher of the English Catholic Church" who always spoke as "a man who had a formed visible Church behind him, who speaks with the old authority and the new culture, whilst his sermons "rank with the finest English prose of their time, of any time." As well as teaching the Catholic faith according to the Fathers his sermons also reflected an appreciation of beauty as well as knowledge of commerce, trade, art, theatre, navigation, husbandry, science, astronomy, cosmography, fishing, nature, shipping, and even the new discoveries of the world.
There is no doubt therefore that Andrewes saw himself as standing in that long line of Christian tradition embedded in antiquity, and a part of the wonder and loveliness of creation. As Dean Church said of him: "He ... felt himself, even in private prayer, one of the great body of God's creation and God's Church. He reminded himself of it, as he did of the Object of his worship, in the profession of his faith. He acted on it in his detailed and minute intercessions." Indeed Andrewes was a man of prayer and learning whose preaching and piety was noted as far away as Venice. Each day of his life, from 4.am to noon was spent in prayer and study. It is a shame that very few Anglicans know anything about this most important divine during the Reformation period in England, or of their heritage. The period in which Andrewes lived was perhaps "the golden years" of what became known as Anglicanism.

One of Andrewes' greatest concerns was the lack of unity in the Church and his desire to see both East and West together again. He prays for this unity in Preces Privitae with these words:

Give light to them that sit in darkness
and in the shadow of death:
guide our feet into the way of peace;
that so we be likeminded one toward another:
and, if in anything we be otherwise minded,
to walk by the same rule whereto we
have already attained:
to maintain order,
decency, stedfastness:
rightly to divide,
to walk uprightly,
to edify:
with one mind and one mouth to glorify God. Amen.

Saturday, September 24, 2005

Augustine on Infant Baptism

"What the universal Church holds, not as instituted [invented] by councils but as something always held, is most correctly believed to have been handed down by apostolic authority. Since others respond for children, so that the celebration of the sacrament may be complete for them, it is certainly availing to them for their consecration, because they themselves are not able to respond" (On Baptism, Against the Donatists 4:24:31 [A.D. 400]).

"The custom of Mother Church in baptizing infants is certainly not to be scorned, nor is it to be regarded in any way as superfluous, nor is it to be believed that its tradition is anything except apostolic" (The Literal Interpretation of Genesis 10:23:39 [A.D. 408]).

"Cyprian was not issuing a new decree but was keeping to the most solid belief of the Church in order to correct some who thought that infants ought not be baptized before the eighth day after their birth. . . . He agreed with certain of his fellow bishops that a child is able to be duly baptized as soon as he is born" (Letters 166:8:23 [A.D. 412]).

"By this grace baptized infants too are ingrafted into his [Christ’s] body, infants who certainly are not yet able to imitate anyone. Christ, in whom all are made alive . . . gives also the most hidden grace of his Spirit to believers, grace which he secretly infuses even into infants. . . . It is an excellent thing that the Punic [North African] Christians call baptism salvation and the sacrament of Christ’s Body nothing else than life. Whence does this derive, except from an ancient and, as I suppose, apostolic tradition, by which the churches of Christ hold inherently that without baptism and participation at the table of the Lord it is impossible for any man to attain either to the kingdom of God or to salvation and life eternal? This is the witness of Scripture, too. . . . If anyone wonders why children born of the baptized should themselves be baptized, let him attend briefly to this. . . . The sacrament of baptism is most assuredly the sacrament of regeneration" (Forgiveness and the Just Deserts of Sin, and the Baptism of Infants 1:9:10; 1:24:34; 2:27:43 [A.D. 412]).

The Duty of Christian parents is to nourish this grace given to infants at their baptism. When signs of faith are displayed in numerous ways or in crisis that may arise in a child's life, Christian parents bring them again to the grace given to them in baptism. Parents remind their children to always call upon the name of the Lord who loved them and bought them at Calvary. This is the process of growing in that grace given to us in baptism that will happen throughout the child's life and continues into adulthood. All of our experiences are different but these crisis or experiences that move us into a deeper sense of our love for God and gaining a fuller sense of his love for us are not what many Christians emotionally come to conclude as their "real" conversions. Conversion is something that happens continually throughout the Christian's life that begins at baptism. Augustine recognises this grace. We should all be thankful when we see it in our children's lives and continue to experience it in our own.

In the liturgy of baptism in the Book of Common Prayer the priest receives the child after baptising him and signs him with the sign of the cross in token that he shall not be ashamed to confess the faith of Christ crucified, and manfully to fight under his banner, against sin, the world, and the devil; and to continue Christ's faithful soldier and servant unto his life's end. Following thisdeclaration, the priest speaks these words of grace:

"Seeing now, dearly beloved brethren, that this Child is regenerate, and grafted into the body of Christ's Church, let us give thanks unto Almighty God for these benefits; and with one accord make our prayers unto him, that this Child may lead the rest of his life according to this beginning."

The Church leads her children to fight sin under this banner all the days of their life unto the end. God graciously sees parents and the Church through these days as we faithfully entrust our children to him and keep covenant by training up our children in the grace of God's word and the Eucharist. May God keep our children who have been buried with Christ in his death, that they may also be partakers of his resurrection; so with the entire Church, our children may be inheritors of God's everlasting kingdom; through Christ our Lord.

Friday, September 23, 2005

The Christian Life

From A Devotional Anthology by Canon Arthur Middleton
Canon Middleton is a friend of mine here in Durham who is a retired priest and theologian in the greatest of the English tradition; the Caroline Divines. He is presently working on a book on devotions and has sent me a quote that I might use in a sermon this evening I am preaching at a Harvest Mass celebration. I put it here with his permission.

The Christian Life

But remember said Bishop Frank Weston the great bishop of Zanzibar in 1923.You cannot claim to worship Jesus in this Sacrament of the Eucharist if you do not pity Jesus in the slum. You must walk with Christ, mystically present in you, through the streets of this country, and find the same Christ in the peoples of your cities and villages.
... go out into the highways and hedges, and look for Jesus in the ragged and the naked, in the oppressed and the sweated, in those who have lost hope, and in those who are struggling to make good. Look for Jesus in them; and, when you have found Him, gird yourself with his towel of fellowship and wash His feet in the person of his brethren.

Of course, John Chrysostom was saying the same thing in the 5th century. He repeated continually that the 'sacrament of the altar' is reflected and extended in 'the sacrament of our brother'. To be a Eucharistic person means to become a Theophoros, a Godbearer, or a Christophoros, a Christbearer. No one can receive God's pardon and peace in the Eucharist without also becoming a person of pardon and peace. No one can take part in the Eucharistic feast without becoming a person prepared to share. Isn't this what inspired the communism of the early Church? As Chrysostom says 'Wouldest thou do honour to Christ's body? Neglect him not when naked. Do not, while here thou honourest him with silken garments, neglect him perishing without of cold and nakedness. For he that said "This is my body," and by his word confirmed the fact, "this same said "Ye saw me an hungered , and fed me not. For this indeed needs not coverings , but a pure soul ; but that requires much attention.' (Nicene and post Nicene Fathers First Series, Vol. X, Homily on Matthew 50.4. p. )

Thursday, September 22, 2005

Changes in the Church of England

It is notably addressed by historical scholars and theologians that there were significant changes going on in England from the Elizabethan Church and that of James I and Charles I. Under the latter's reign we have what is often referred to as the Laudian period. It is AB Laud who is also credited with provoking the puritan revolution in the 1640's. Obviously there was much going on before Laud and within the political and theological minds of the Indpendents that added to the revolution. But that is a separate topic altogether. The fact that there were significant changes in English theology from the late C16 to C17 has become a topic of debate for a number of modern historical scholars. One such scholar is Nicholas Tyacke who writes the opening chapter in the book Conformity and Orthodoxy in the English Church, c. 1560-1660 (ed.) Peter Lake and Michael Questier. His article, 'Lancelot Andrewes and the Myth of Anglicanism,' argues that the via media or the middle way between Geneva and Rome is a myth. He particularly uses the writings of Andrewes and his evolving as a theologian to support this thesis. What I find unhelpful about the article is that it really doesn't take a close enough look at Andrewes as a theologian in his own right or his education that shaped his theology and praxis in the English Church. It is documented that there was a growing emphasis on the early Church Fathers at Cambridge during Andrewes' time there and he was very much a part of that movement.

Prof. Tyacke's acceptance of M.M. Knappen's views in his article, 'The Early Puritanism of Lancelot Andrewes,' found in Church History 2 (1933) does not weigh all the historical evidence. Nor does it consider Andrewes' works carefully enough to make such a claim that Andrewes fell out with puritanism early in his life. This will be covered more in the opening of my thesis on Andrewes' Eucharistic theology that a post on a blog simply does not have the time or space to argue the case and give it its justified time. That being said, Andrewes' association with someone of the ilk of Sir Francis Walsingham, who was known for his puritan sympathies and who secured Andrewes in a string of ecclesiastical appointments in the late 1580's, does not prove Andrewes had puritan convictions. Tyacke mentions that they had a falling out. The story of that falling out was Walsingham's asking Andrewes to help push the cause of the puritan agenda. His response angered Walsingham as he told him that "this would be not only against my learning but my conscience." Yet, Walsingham came to respect Andrewes for his integrity and this did not hinder Andrewes from earned advancements in the Church of England.

What becomes apparent in putting such puritan labels on someone like Andrewes is the absence of an agreed definition of what a puritan is. The puritans were, of course, a diverse bunch (and later 16th century puritans were rather different from mid-17th century ones), but there are some commonalities running through the movement. Defining what a puritan is really comes down to questions of ceremony, signing of the cross, liturgical practice, application of the regulative principle, polity, conscience, and the like. A high view of the Sabbath, which Andrewes held, does not make him a puritan. This view was held prior to the Reformation by churchmen. Welsby notes in his book on Andrewes that,
There were many in the Anglican Church who, in their desire to improve the moral state of the country, wished for a stricter observance of Sunday, but who had no desire whatever to change the government, discipline, or worship of the Church. Andrewes appears to have been one of these, with the added distinction of being the first to formulate a theological justification for Sabbath observance. But to call him a Puritan because of this and thus to give the impression that he is to be classed among those who, in addition to desiring a Sunday observance more rigid than even Andrewes advocated, demanded also Presbyterian government for the Church and a reformed way of worship, is to do violence to the known facts. 28, 29
Puritans typically objected to things such as kneeling for communion. Andrewes insisted on it. While there are occasionally puritans who would see kneeling as adiaphora, they still objected to it being imposed upon the consciences of those who did object to it. They also did away with things such as the post-baptismal anointing and were minimalists when it came to liturgical garb (though they didn't reject all distinctive ministerial garb, but only "vestments", e.g. the surplice controversy) and use of ceremony. Andrewes' articles on visitation of parishes as a bishop shows that he insisted that these be in order. Andrewes' own chapel and his notes on the Prayer Book prove contrary to the puritans' views here as well. Going to a Bible study group with four known puritans in Andrewes' early days at Cambridge and observations that he moved in such circles does not prove puritan sympathies. Welsby also tells us that
In this sermon Andrewes forcibly expressed his view of Puritanism. Here is no sympathy or toleration. He spoke of the "many fond imaginations which now are stamped daily" on our Church, because every man upon his own single bond is trusted to deliver the meaning of any Scripture, which is many times naught else but his own imagination. This is the disease of our age ". But most sustained was his attack upon Presbyterianism. 51
Andrewes was such a learned scholar that he proved himself quite capable of handling himself in the midst of such circles. We have no record of those discussions so I do not see the evidence or purpose in bringing up such a claim to prove early puritan sensitivities. He studied issues in the Church very carefully and in reflective ways concerning what the Fathers had said in their writings. My theory is that he went to these studies to learn more about what the Church was facing as these 'novel' views arose (as he often referred to them) and were beginning to take hold of those at Cambridge and in the Church of England. It is against the changes going on in the Church that Andrewes enters into the fray and begins to produce what he considers the Catholic position of the Church of England. Andrews understood what his Church was defending herself against along with the Roman Catholics who questioned the English Church's existence. This is also noted as well with the puritans who were treading in new waters unknown to the history of the Church in ceremony (or lack thereof) and polity. It is here that I provide the conclusion of Tyacke's thesis. He writes:
As we have seen, the thinking of Andrewes had altered during his career; yet it will not do to portray him as simply rediscovering 'Anglicanism' in the 1590s after a youthful alliance with puritanism. For by then he was already in the process of abandoning more generally the Protestantism established in England from the mid-sixteenth century; hence the hesitancy with which he sometimes voiced his novel views and even more the tentativeness of his translating them into practice. Younger 'Arminian' contemporaries, among them William Laud, were to travel a similar path away from Calvinism; if, however, they came afterwards to act more boldly, it was partly thanks to the fugleman who had one before. Which is not, of course, to say that Andrewes and his Laudian successors lacked a constituency among those unhappy with various facets of the Reformation. Rather it recognises that the English Church of Elizabeth I differed in some very important respects from its namesake under Charles I. Moreover to deny the pioneering nature of the religious enterprise in which Andrewes and his allies were engaged diminishes their stature in a manner not justified by the historical record. The idea of an Anglican via media is a myth, exposed as such particularly clearly by the wealth of documentation which survives for someone traditionally regarded as a leading representative. Not only did the position of Andrewes evolve away from that adumbrated at the time of the Elizabethan settlement of religion, but he also proved highly influential as regards the subsequent Laudian remodelling of the Church of England during the early seventeenth century. Those opponents who then raised the cry of 'Popery' bore witness to the fact that Ecclesia Anglicana was in the process of slipping her sixteenth-century Protestant moorings. For conformity and orthodoxy are not necessarily religious constants, even in ostensibly the same institution; instead they remain malleable, tending to vary according to the outlook of the people in power. Certainly that was the experience of the first century of the English Reformation. 33
Andrewes' views were not novel and he shows this in his responses to Bellarmine, du Perron and very often within his sermons both at St. Giles early in his career and later at Whitehall before King James I. R.L.Ottley in his book on Andrewes is quoting from this bishop in response to his Roman opponents and says,
"Our religion," says Andrewes, "you miscall modern sectarian opinions. I tell you if they are modern, they are not ours; our appeal is to antiquity yea, even to the most extreme antiquity. We do not innovate; it may be we renovate what was customary with those same ancients, but with you has disappeared in novelties. Nor have you a right to throw Gregory in our teeth as if we failed to give him due reverence; as if we did not cordially embrace all that his writings contain of the sense of old councils and Fathers. It is in your eyes that Gregory the Great is small. The seventh Gregory suits your interest better than the first. . . . Subjection to Rome, dependence on Rome—this is the sum of your religion." 158
Andrewes was not abandoning anything that came a generation before him but was rather returning to the teaching of the Catholic Faith that existed long before the C16 Reformation. It is to that Church that Andrewes is committed.

Wednesday, September 21, 2005

Still Praying in thy Sleep

Andrewes was known mostly for his Devotions, Preces Privitae, and the life of prayer that he led is clearly seen within this book. It is also known that he was often not seen without it. Ottley points us to a place in Isaac Williams' work The Cathedral p. 183 referencing Andrewes that were worth posting.

"Still praying in thy sleep with lifted hands and face supine!
Meet attitude of calm and reverence deep,
Keeping thy marble watch in hallowed shrine.
'Thus in thy Church's need,
Enshrined in ancient liturgies,
thy spirit shall keep watch and with us plead,
while from our secret cells thy prayers arise.
Still downward to decay Our Church
is hastening more and more;
But what else need we but with thee to pray
that God may yet her treasures lost restore?"

From the Devotions "For the British Church, that what is wanting in her may be supplied, that what remains in her may be strengthened."

Tuesday, September 20, 2005

Celebrating the Year of the Eucharist

This Thursday I am going to a conference at Ushaw College, two miles from my home, to attend a conference at the Catholic College that is celebrating the Year of the Eucharist declared by Pope John Paul II. One of the speakers at the conference will be our own Bishop N.T. Wright. One of the areas I will focus on in my dissertation will be understanding our eucharistic differences and using Andrewes as a catalyst for ecumenism. I offer the quotation below from a Catholic site on the Year of the Eucharist in comparison with the language from Andrewes to see similarities and differences.

All of it can be read here:
The Sacrifice of the Cross: Personal offering and sharing of resources are important elements of the Mass. For the Mass is the sacrifice of Jesus on the Cross, relived as if we were present on the hill of Calvary. The Eucharist is also our sacrifice, for Jesus awaits our response–our offering our lives to Him. (See Catechism of the Catholic Church, nos. 1330, 1340, 1351, 1356-57, 1362-1372) Thus the bread and wine present us, and their presentation signifies the assembly’s offering of themselves in union with the sacrifice of Christ. The Eucharist unites the past and present: the sacrifice of the Cross and the Passover Meal with our sacrificial meal.

At the Last Supper Christ instituted the paschal sacrifice and meal. Through this meal, the sacrifice of the cross is continuously made present in the Church… For Christ took the bread and the cup and gave thanks; he broke the bread and gave it to his disciples, saying: "Take, eat, and drink: this is my Body; this is the cup of my Blood. Do this in memory of me." (GIRM 72)

In Ecclesia de Eucharistia, Pope John Paul wrote:

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 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" (Lumen Gentium, 11). (EE, 13)

In addition to the sacrificial nature of the Eucharist, it is also a banquet. The bread and wine suggest to us food and drink–nourishment. The unique quality of the Eucharist is that the consecrated bread and wine is the gift of Jesus Himself for our spiritual nourishment. The image of a banquet also suggests to us that "we eat this bread and drink this cup, until you come in glory," Lord Jesus (see EE, 16-18).

A Sermon preached before the King’s Majesty at Whitehall, on the Twelfth of April, A.D. MDCXII, Being Easter-Day.

Text: 1 Corinthians v. 7, 8

Andrewes begins this sermon by drawing out two points of view: 1. the news that we Christians have a Passover: 2. That in memory of it we keep a feast. Despite the fact that there was a controversy in the early Church about when to keep this feast there was not a controversy of whether a feast ought to be kept. Christ is our Passover for Andrewes but He is not that until He is offered Et oblatus est. Christ was immolatus offered in sacrifice. Christ is the Lamb slain, said Andrewes, “and the sprinkling of His blood in Baptism, maketh the destroyer pass over us.” As there are many offerings in scripture, Andrewes sees Christ as the peace-offering upon whom we must feast. Bringing this to the essence of sacrifice in the Eucharist Andrewes said, “Christ’s blood not only in the basin for Baptism, but in the cup for the other Sacrament. A sacrifice—so, to be slain; a propitiatory sacrifice—so, to be eaten.” Does Andrewes see Christ in this light as a Passover? He is this Passover for us. All of this was for the quitting us of our sins. That is passing our sins over and transferring them to Christ, (transferendo abstulit). The action of the passing of our sins to Christ and the wrath of God over us makes this feast-day a memorial. Therefore we are called to celebrate. The feast is celebrated with joy for two particular reasons. One Christ passed from life to death for our sins and two, He rose for our justification. He says that the word e`orta,zw is used two ways: 1. celebremus, or 2. epulemur. The Greek word here refers to a Jewish festival that is celebrated is its general meaning but particularly here it is in reference to the Passover. The point is that the feast is not celebrated without the solemn banquet of eating sine hoc epulo. In linking this with the Euchrarist he explains the nature of the connection of the celebration to the feasting or eating.

If Christ be a propitiatory sacrifice, a peace-offering, I see not how we can avoid but the flesh of our peace-offering must be eaten in this feast by us, or else we evacuate the offering utterly, and lose the fruit of it. And was there a Passover heard of and the lamb not eaten? Time was when He was thought no good Christian, that thought he might do one without the other. No celebremus without epulemur in it.

This shows how much emphasis Andrewes laid on the Eucharist as the central act of our celebration of the feast of the Resurrection. There can be no celebration without the eating of the flesh and blood of Christ. Andrewes explains the Sacrament or New Testament Passover as our Sacrifice that is propitiatory in its nature.
Again, will we lay immolatus to epulemur? That the Passover doth not conclude in the sacrifice, the taking away of sin only, that is, in a pardon, and there an end, but in a feast, which is a sign, not of forgiveness alone, but of perfect amity, full propitiation. Ye may propius ire, “draw near unto Him;” [Heb. 10:22] ye are restored to full grace and favour, to eat and drink at His table. Besides, there was an offering in immolatus, and here is another, a new one, in epulemur. Offered for us there, offered to us here. There per modum victimæ, here per modum epuli. To make an offering of, to make a refreshing of. For us in the Sacrifice, to us in the Sacrament. This makes a perfect Passover. We read both in the Gospel, pa,sca qu,ein “to sacrifice the Passover,” and pa,sca fagei/n, “to eat” it. It was eaten, the Paschal Lamb, and it was “a sacrifice;” it cannot be denied, there is a flat text for it. Both propounded here in the terms of the text: 1. the Sacrifice in immolatus, 2. the Supper in epulemur.

It is obvious here in Andrewes’ comparison of the Old Testament Passover that looked towards our redemption in Christ and the New Testament Passover that looks back to Calvary has a twofold offering within it. The one is the immolatus where the Church offers Christ the Passover Lamb and two the epulemur feast where Christ offers himself to us in Bread and Wine. The immolatus and the epulemur make for the true Passover and define the celebremus.

What did Christ give us to do at this celebration? Andrewes goes on to define what the action of the Eucharist is. Christ has given the Church a charge in the Sacrament to 1. avvvna,mnhsij, “remembering,” and 2. lh,yij “receiving.” For Andrewes the celebremus is in the sacrifice and the Epulemur is in the Sacrament. What we remember is Mortem Domini, His death. It is here that Andrewes becomes perfectly clear about what he means when he understands the Sacrament of the Eucharist to be a Sacrifice. First, he speaks of the celebremus.
Remember Him? That we will and stay at home, think of Him there? Nay, shew Him forth ye must. That we will by a sermon of Him. Nay, it must be hoc facite [this do]. It is not mental thinking, or verbal speaking, there must be actually somewhat done to celebrate this memory. That done to the holy symbols that was done to Him, to His body and His blood in the Passover; break the one, pour out the other, to represent klw,menon, how His sacred body was “broken,” and evkcuno,menon how His precious blood was “shed.” And in Corpus fractum, and Sanguis fusus there is immolatus. This is it in the Eucharist that answereth to the sacrifice in the Passover, the memorial to the figure. To them it was, Hoc facite in Mei præfigurationem, ‘do this in prefiguration of Me:’ to us it is, “Do this in commemoration of Me. [1 Cor. 11.26] To them prenuntiare, to us annuntiare; there is the difference. By the same rules that theirs was, by the same may ours be termed a sacrifice. In rigour of speech, neither of them; for to speak after the exact manner of Divinity [Heb. 10.4] there is but one only sacrifice, vere nominis, ‘properly so called,’ that is Christ’s death. And that sacrifice but once actually performed at His death, but ever before represented in figure, from the beginning; and ever since repeated in memory(memorial offering), to the world’s end. That only absolute, all else relative to it, representative of it, operative by it….So it was the will of God, that so there might be with them a continual foreshewing, and with us a continual shewing forth, the “Lord’s death till He come again….” The Apostle in the tenth chapter [of 1 Corinthians] compareth this of ours to the immolate of the heathen; and to the Hebrews, habemus aram, matcheth it with the sacrifice of the Jews. And we know the rule of comparisons, they must be ejusdem generis.

Andrewes has made reference of the celebremus with clear sacrificial overtones and now speaks of the epulemur. The celebration is not where it ends. One has to go to the next part that makes the offering complete and that is the feast.
From the Sacrament is the applying the Sacrifice. The Sacrifice in general, pro omnibus. That Sacrament in particular, to each several receiver, pro singulis. Wherein that is offered to us that was offered for us; that which is common to all, made proper to each one, while each taketh his part of it; and made proper by communion and union, like that of meat and drink, which is most nearly and inwardly made ours, and is inseparable for ever. There, celebremus passeth with the representation; but here epulemur, as a nourishment, abideth with us still. In that we “see,” and in this “we taste, how gracious the Lord is,” and hath been to us. Will ye mark one thing more, that epulemur doth here refer to immolatus? To Christ, not every way considered, but as when He was offered. Christ’s body that now is. True; but not Christ’s body as now it is, but as then it was, when it was offered, rent, and slain, and sacrificed for us. Not, as now He is glorified, for so He is not, so He cannot be immolatus, for He is immortal and impassible. But as then He was when He suffered death, that is, passible and mortal. Then, in His passible estate did He institute this of ours, to be a memorial of His passible and Passio both. And we are in this action not only carried up to Christ, (Sursum corda) but we are also carried back to Christ as he was at the very instant, and in the very act of His offering. So, and no otherwise, do we represent Him. By the incomprehensible power of His eternal Spirit, not He alone, but He,as at the very act of His offering, is made present to us, and we incorporate into His death, and invested in the benefits of it.


Monday, September 19, 2005

Origen and the Safety of Water Baptism

Chapter I.—Introduction. Origen of the Treatise.
"Happy is our sacrament Of water, in that, by washing away the sins of our early blindness, we are set free and admitted into eternal life! A treatise on this matter will not be superfluous; instructing not only such as are just becoming formed (in the faith), but them who, content with having simply believed, without full examination of the grounds of the traditions, carry (in mind), through ignorance, an untried though probable faith. The consequence is, that a viper of the Cainite heresy, lately conversant in this quarter, has carried away a great number with her most venomous doctrine, making it her first aim to destroy baptism. Which is quite in accordance with nature; for vipers and asps and basilisks themselves generally do affect arid and waterless places. But we, little fishes, after the example of our Icqus Jesus Christ, are born in water, nor have we safety in any other way than by permanently abiding in water; so that most monstrous creature, who had no right to teach even sound doctrine, knew full well how to kill the little fishes, by taking them away from the water!"

This is a helpful way of looking at the waters of baptism and the life that they offer us as they carry us into the protective and nurturing arms of the Church. When we cross ourselves it is the physical sign of our continuing to abide in the water that makes us alive in Christ. The sign of the cross memorialises the everlasting life given in the waters of baptism. Not through the sprinkling of water but through the means of God's Spirit being united to that water and hence uniting us to the risen Christ and hence making effectual all that was offered for us and secured through the death, burial, resurrection and ascension of Christ to God's right hand. Let us rejoice in the Happy waters of life that have washed away our sins of blindness!

Ouch! Bad headache

I have been quite busy this weekend as my children had four football matches on Saturday and I preached on Sunday and led quite a bit of the service at our parish church since we are looking for a new priest. I will also be preaching this Friday at a Harvest Mass followed by a supper. So, I have not had a lot of time to post anything exciting or new. Plus, today I had a terrible headache that made me sick to my stomach for about 6 hours. Finally it went away after a couple of very hot showers and a few hours of sleep. At about 1 pm and I could start reading again. I am presently finishing Ottley's book on Andrewes, which is much better than Welsby's book since Ottley understands Andrewes as a theologian and a patristic scholar where Welsby reported a lot of good facts about Andrewes but his judgment on Andrewes as a man was a bit skewed. I need to get back to reading but here is a quick report.

Friday, September 16, 2005

Ritual and Chaos

Dr. Peter Leithart has a short piece on his blog on Ritual and Chaos that the readers here would find interesting. A portion of it is here.

Why then ritual? Society does order, but it is not an order imposed on chaos. More often then not, it is a chaos projected against the cosmic order. For Christianity, society and ritual is an order that is analogical to the order of God's kingdom, which creates a humanenvironment within the divinely created environment. It is man's fulfllment of the Adamic commission to subdue and rule the earth and construct from the materials of the creation a city and a civilization. Christian ritual claims to be made "according to the tabnit," the pattern, which was revealed to Moses on Sinai, to Ezekiel by the river Chebar, to John on Patmos.

God is the original ritualist: Genesis 1 has a ritual pattern. God speaks, acts, judges, repeats the process over a period of six days. This ritual activity produces the order of creation, but it's not an order brought out of chaos. The TOHU is a protological but not a chaotic condition, as a fetus is a protological but not a chaotic human.

Man is set in the world not to order someting that is disordered, to bring control onto something that is out of control. Rather, his task is one of glorification, to build on the order of the world and to move it from glory to glory. Ritual glorifies the created order, enhances it, not by making it orderly, but by adorning the order.

Read the rest.

Thursday, September 15, 2005

St. Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage, Martyr 258

Collect for the Feast of Cyprian in the Anglican Calendar:

Holy God,
who brought Cyprian to faith in Christ,
made him a bishop in the Church
and crowned his witness with a martyr's death:
grant that, after his example,
we may love the Church and her teachings,
find your forgiveness within her fellowship
and so come to share the heavenly banquet
you have prepared for us;
through Jesus Christ your Son our Lord,
who is alive and reigns with you,
in the unity of the Holy Spirit,
one God, now and for ever. Amen.

In the Roman Calendar today the Church focuses on what became the Feast of our Lady of Sorrows and celebrates the Feast of St. Cyprian tomorrow. For joint prayers together as the Body of Christ I provide the collect and readings here to help us focus on the sacrificial calling of the Church by Christ to follow Him on the path of suffering and sorrows where true joy is found being united in Him.

as Your Son was raised on the cross,
His mother Mary stood by Him, sharing His sufferings.
May Your Church be united with Christ
in His suffering and death
and so come to share in His rising to new life,
where He lives and reigns with You and the Holy Spirit,
one God, for ever and ever. Amen.

First Reading: Hebrews 5:7-9
In the days of His flesh, Jesus offered up prayers and supplications, with loud cries and tears, to Him who was able to save Him from death, and He was heard for His godly fear. Although He was a Son, He learned obedience through what He suffered; and being made perfect He became the source of eternal salvation to all who obey Him.

Gospel Reading: John 19:25-27
Standing by the cross of Jesus were His mother, and His mother's sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. When Jesus saw His mother, and the disciple whom He loved standing near, He said to His mother, "Woman, behold, your son!" Then He said to the disciple, "Behold, your mother!" And from that hour the disciple took her to his own home.

Wednesday, September 14, 2005

Bacon and Andrewes and the exaltation of the Holy Cross

On this day of the exaltation of the Holy Cross I am reminded of the call of those who lead the Church to be such a beacon of light for what the Cross means for our faith. One of the things about the crucifix that is so telling of the Christian life, is not an undermining of the glorious resurrection of Christ, but rather the call to follow Jesus in the life of cross-bearing for the sake of the world and particularly those in the Church of whom priests and bishops have the cure of souls. In my reading today of Ottley's work on Lancelot Andrewes, I came across a quotation from Francis Bacon's Advertisement that speaks to us as today as it spoke to those in the late C16. One is struck by the tone of what Bacon says along with the sermon preached by Andrewes on James 1.22 at St. Paul's 20 Feb 1593. The two of them remained good friends. Andrewes speaks with great moral courage in that sermon calling upon bishops and priests to return to the faith once delivered that will be made manifest in their lives and in their teaching and caring for the Church. Bacon had some humbling words:

"Concerning the occasion of controversies, it cannot be denied but that the imperfections in the conversation and government of those which have chief place in the Church, have ever been principal causes and motives of schisms and divisions. For, whilst the bishops and governors of the Church continue to full of knowledge and good works; whilst they feed the flock, indeed; whilst they deal with the secular states in all liberty and resolution, according to the majesty of their calling, and the precious care of souls imposed upon them; so long the Church is situate as it were upon a hill; no man maketh question of it, or seeketh to depart from it. But when these virtues in the fathers and leaders of the Church have lost their light, and that they wax worldly, lovers of themselves, and pleasers of men, then men begin to grope for the Church as in the dark; they are in doubt whether they be the successors of the apostles or of the Pharisees; yea, howsoever they sit in Moses' chair, yet they can never speak tanquam auctoritatem habentes, as having authority, because they have lost their reputation in the consciences of men, by declining their steps from the way which they trace out to others." quotation found in Ottley, Lancelot Andrewes page 35, 36.

The collect for the day tells us what the Christian life is all about. It especially speaks to those in Holy Vocations. So we pray:

God our Father,
in obedience to you your only Son
accepted death on the Cross for the
salvation of mankind.

We acknowledge the mystery
of the Cross on earth.
May we receive the gift
of redemption in heaven.
We ask this through our Lord Jesus Christ,
your Son, who lives and reigns with you
and the Holy Spirit, one God,
for ever and ever. Amen.

Tuesday, September 13, 2005

Andrewes, Chemnitz and spatial presence

It was another busy day in the library today getting me up to page 248 in G.L.C. Frank’ thesis “The Theory of Eucharistic Presence in the Early Caroline Divines Examined in its European Theological Setting.” I have missed a few days having to look at other things and do some much needed Latin work. I have been taking this thesis pretty slowly and taking extensive notes and quotations down. Over all, it is a great thesis. Today I was made to think about what Frank said about Andrewes and his connection to early Lutheran teaching on his Eucharistic views; particularly his views of presence. Frank writes:

“Andrewes' way of speaking about the conversion, like that of Saravia, has features in common with that strand of sixteenth-century Lutheran thinking following Luther. While he did not explicitly appeal to Lutheran sources (and what seventeenth-century Anglican divine setting out publicly to defend the teaching of the Church of England would:), a similarity of thought with the teaching of Chemnitz is discernible.
There is no positive evidence that Andrewes knew Chemnitz' writings in 1610, but there is some evidence which suggests that by 1629 he was familiar with the Examinis. If Andrewes did in fact know this work, he could have been familiar with, and influenced by, Chemnitz' thinking already in 1610. This may help to explain why he did not develop the idea of eucharistic change in terms of use, as some of his sixteenth-century English forbears had done.” (145)

This is an interesting thought but I am not sure that the evidence points to a Lutheran view though there are obvious similarities due to Andrewes arguing somewhat for a ‘spatial’ presence of Christ in the elements. Now, this does not mean that Andrewes approved of any form of destruction of the nature of the elements because it is clear that he denied that this took place in consecration. Nevertheless ‘spatial’ presence can be seen throughout his sermons where he used language of place to describe the presence of the Body and Blood of Christ. One finds this particularly in his Nativity sermons. There are similarities of expression between Andrewes and Chemnitz’ view but both authors seem to be drawing from St. John Chrysostom and his liturgy for their theology here. This makes me think that the connection of Chemnitz and Andrewes is more of an affinity of the Eastern fathers than it is that Andrewes is looking to Chemnitz for a Lutheran view of the Eucharist. There are many things that overlap but the evidence seems to point to the fact that both authors had a great love for the Eastern liturgies and this is quite obvious in Andrewes’ Preces Privatae.

Another place that this ‘spatial’ presence idea can be found is in Andrewes’ answer to Cardinal du Perron to the question on the reservation of the sacrament. Andrewes was sympathetic with it for the purpose taking communion to the sick but not for Eucharistic devotions of benediction. What is obvious is that there is a major shift in Eucharistic theology from the C16 that taught no presence outside of use to a presence outside of use. The Caroline divines had different ways of expressing this but it is obvious that the shift was present in England. Now the question that is racking my brain is whether or not Andrewes is holding to a C16 Lutheran view at all. If I recall and it has been a while since I’ve read any Lutheran sacramental theology that Luther did not like the reservation of the Sacrament no matter how much time was between the communion and delivery of the Sacrament to the sick. So, I question whether or not this is where Andrewes is getting his theology. I suspect it is more from the liturgy of St. John Chrysostom and an illustration of this ‘spatial’ view is found in the blog entry before this one below concerning his writing on the priesthood where he mentions Christ being on the altar. Andrewes used this ‘spatial’ language both in his sermons and his writings. Interestingly though, there is another scholar, Dr. Peter McCullough at Lincoln College at Oxford who dialogues with me on these things, who also thinks Andrewes was influenced by a Lutheran theology of the sacraments. Interesting question to answer!

I find this explanation by Frank more plausible concerning the 1549 BCP and a desire to return to it. This is definitely true of Andrewes who held to a more ‘Godward’ view of the memorial sacrifice. I conclude with Frank:

“In several cases, we pointed to similarities with Lutheran teaching and possible Lutheran influence on this Caroline understanding of the presence of Christ in the eucharist. This tendency to locate the eucharistic presence in the elements may be harking back to the 1549 Prayer Book, which, as we saw in the first chapter, taught that the whole body of Christ is present in each part of the bread (supra, p. 34 ) The seventeenth century witnessed what Cuming has described as a "back to 1549" liturgical "movement, championed in the early years by Andrewes and John Overall.
The preference for altars at the east end of the chancel rather than free-standing tables was part of this movement. In the eucharistic theology of the Caroline divines, then, we may find a reflection of this desire to return to the 1549 rite,…”(222).

St. John Chrysostom Bishop and Doctor 407

the strength of all who trust in you,
you made John Chrysostom
renowned for his eloquence
and heroic in his sufferings.
May we learn from his teaching
and gain courage from his patient endurance.

We ask this through our Lord Jesus Christ, your Son,
who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit,
one God, for ever and ever. Amen.

On the Priesthood: Note the use of sacrificial language of the Eucharist below:

For the priestly office is indeed discharged on earth, but it ranks amongst heavenly ordinances; and very naturally so: for neither man, nor angel, nor archangel, nor any other created power, but the Paraclete Himself, instituted this vocation, and persuaded men while still abiding in the flesh to represent the ministry of angels. Wherefore the consecrated priest ought to be as pure as if he were standing in the heavens themselves in the midst of those powers. Fearful, indeed, and of most awful import, were the things which were used before the dispensation of grace, as the bells, the pomegranates, the stones on the breastplate and on the ephod, the girdle, the mitre, the long robe, the plate of gold, the holy of holies, the deep silence within.1 But if any one should examine the things which belong to the dispensation of grace, he will find that, small as they are, yet are they fearful and full of awe, and that what was spoken concerning the law is true in this case also, that "what has been made glorious hath no glory in this respect by reason of the glory which excelleth."2 For when thou seest the Lord sacrificed, and laid upon the altar,3 and the priest standing and praying over the victim, and all the worshippers empurpled with that precious blood,4 canst thou then think that thou art still amongst men, and standing upon the earth? Art thou not, on the contrary, straightway translated to Heaven, and casting out every carnal thought from the soul, dost thou not with disembodied spirit and pure reason contemplate the things which are in Heaven? Oh! what a marvel! what love of God to man! He who sitteth on high with the Father is at that hour held in the hands of all,5 and gives Himself to those who are willing to embrace and grasp Him. And this all do through the eyes of faith!6 Do these things seem to you fit to be despised, or such as to make it possible for any one to be uplifted against them?

Saturday, September 10, 2005

St. Clement for today

Chapter LIV.—He Who is Full of Love Will Incur Every Loss, that Peace May Be Restored to the Church.
"Who then among you is noble-minded? who compassionate? who full of love? Let him declare, “If on my account sedition and disagreement and schisms have arisen, I will depart, I will go away whithersoever ye desire, and I will do whatever the majority commands; only let the flock of Christ live on terms of peace with the presbyters set over it.” He that acts thus shall procure to himself great glory in the Lord; and every place will welcome him. For “the earth is the Lord’s, and the fulness thereof.” These things they who live a godly life, that is never to be repented of, both have done and always will do."

Chapter XLVI.—Let Us Cleave to the Righteous: Your Strife is Pernicious.
"Such examples, therefore, brethren, it is right that we should follow; since it is written, “Cleave to the holy, for those that cleave to them shall [themselves] be made holy.” And again, in another place, [the Scripture] saith, “With a harmless man thou shalt prove thyself harmless, and with an elect man thou shalt be elect, and with a perverse man thou shalt show thyself perverse.” Let us cleave, therefore, to the innocent and righteous, since these are the elect of God. Why are there strifes, and tumults, and divisions, and schisms, and wars among you? Have we not [all] one God and one Christ? Is there not one Spirit of grace poured out upon us? And have we not one calling in Christ? Why do we divide and tear to pieces the members of Christ, and raise up strife against our own body, and have reached such a height of madness as to forget that “we are members one of another? ” Remember the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, how He said, “Woe to that man [by whom offences come]! It were better for him that he had never been born, than that he should cast a stumbling-block before one of my elect. Yea, it were better for him that a millstone should be hung about [his neck], and he should be sunk in the depths of the sea, than that he should cast a stumbling-block before one of my little ones. Your schism has subverted [the faith of] many, has discouraged many, has given rise to doubt in many, and has caused grief to us all. And still your sedition continueth."

Chapter XLVIII.—Let Us Return to the Practice of Brotherly Love.
"Let us therefore, with all haste, put an end to this [state of things]; and let us fall down before the Lord, and beseech Him with tears, that He would mercifully be reconciled to us, and restore us to our former seemly and holy practice of brotherly love. For [such conduct] is the gate of righteousness, which is set open for the attainment of life, as it is written, “Open to me the gates of righteousness; I will go in by them, and will praise the Lord: this is the gate of the Lord: the righteous shall enter in by it.” Although, therefore, many gates have been set open, yet this gate of righteousness is that gate in Christ by which blessed are all they that have entered in and have directed their way in holiness and righteousness, doing all things without disorder. Let a man be faithful: let him be powerful in the utterance of knowledge; let him be wise in judging of words; let him be pure in all his deeds; yet the more he seems to be superior to others [in these respects], the more humble-minded ought he to be, and to seek the common good of all, and not merely his own advantage."

Who Vexes the Righteous?

Clement of Rome:
Chapter XLV.—It is the Part of the Wicked to Vex the Righteous.

"Ye are fond of contention, brethren, and full of zeal about things which do not pertain to salvation. Look carefully into the Scriptures, which are the true utterances of the Holy Spirit. Observe that nothing of an unjust or counterfeit character is written in them. There you will not find that the righteous were cast off by men who themselves were holy. The righteous were indeed persecuted, but only by the wicked. They were cast into prison, but only by the unholy; they were stoned, but only by transgressors; they were slain, but only by the accursed, and such as had conceived an unrighteous envy against them. Exposed to such sufferings, they endured them gloriously. For what shall we say, brethren? Was Daniel cast into the den of lions by such as feared God? Were Ananias, and Azarias, and Mishael shut up in a furnace of fire by those who observed the great and glorious worship of the Most High? Far from us be such a thought! Who, then, were they that did such things? The hateful, and those full of all wickedness, were roused to such a pitch of fury, that they inflicted torture on those who served God with a holy and blameless purpose [of heart], not knowing that the Most High is the Defender and Protector of all such as with a pure conscience venerate His all-excellent name; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen. But they who with confidence endured [these things] are now heirs of glory and honour, and have been exalted and made illustrious by God in their memorial for ever and ever. Amen."

'Holiness and Love': A Hypostatic Union

I heard a sermon this week from a Bishop who united the virtues of love and holiness. That sermon gave me the following thoughts:

These two go together like the divinity and humanity of Christ in the hypostatic union. I have been thinking a lot about the recurring phrase that "we need to be an inclusive Church." This phrase has come to mean that we need to be a Church that has little to no standards besides social welfare issues. Now, that may be an over generalisation, but one does get the impression when reading what precedes and what follows within a paragraph where the phrase is used that this is what it means. I think it is clear that the Church is filled, not with perceived sinners, but those who ARE sinners in need of and searching for the acceptance of God. We have His acceptance and it is in His Son, Jesus Christ, the Lord of the world. There can be no greater acceptance that we can obtain through any other, save Jesus our Christ. He does invite us into the doors of the Church in an inclusive way and welcomes us with open arms; all who have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, the chief sinner being myself. For that I am most grateful. But in His inclusive invitation, He does not tell me to go and keep on living in my sins. He says, come to me and I will feed you my Body and Blood and forgive you all of your sins. He then says, "Go and sin no more." Here we have what is described for us in the Gospel story as love and holiness and the necessity of the two being united.

I read the following in the Church Fathers this morning. It is from Chapter 30 of Clement of Rome to the Corinthians.

Chapter XXX.Let Us Do Those Things that Please God, and Flee from Those [things] He Hates, that We May Be Blessed.

"Seeing, therefore, that we are the portion of the Holy One, let us do all those things which pertain to holiness, avoiding all evil-speaking, all abominable and impure embraces, together with all drunkenness, seeking after change; all abominable lusts, detestable adultery, and execrable pride. For God, saith [the Scripture], resisteth the proud, but giveth grace to the humble; Let us cleave, then, to those to whom grace has been given by God. Let us clothe ourselves with concord and humility, ever exercising self-control, standing far off from all whispering and evil-speaking, being justified by our works, and not our words. For [the Scripture] saith, "He that speaketh much, shall also hear much in answer. And does he that is ready in speech deem himself righteous? Blessed is he that is born of woman, who liveth but a short time: be not given to much speaking; Let our praise be in God, and not of ourselves; for God hateth those that commend themselves. Let testimony to our good deeds be borne by others, as it was in the case of our righteous forefathers. Boldness, and arrogance, and audacity belong to those that are accursed of God; but moderation, humility, and meekness to such as are blessed by Him."

Here again is an illustration of the inclusive love of God and the demand of a holy life. Note how the above quotation applies the fulfillment of the command to love our neighbour as ourself. This is not a resurrection of "Puritanism" but a call to "unite" love and holiness. The above paragraph shows that this call cannot come nor be given in arrogance. One may not sin or struggle with temptation in the area of sexual impurity and the list does not only cover sexual sins but others as well. Yet, it does no good to say that when those in the Church believe that sexual activity outside the parameters of the marriage bed between a man and woman (who have always been either a man or a woman) are forbidden are merely trying to resurrect "Puritanism." One, this statement shows the ignorance of what a Puritan is and two, it proves the truthfulness of what Chesterton said in one of his many insightful moments that "we quarrel so much because we do not know how to argue." Recently I have read throughout the Internet that what it means to be "inclusive" is now being defined as what it means to be a more civilised society. But I am becoming convinced through the decline of all of western society that we are so civilised that we are living like barbarians. Advertisements on TV that say "we will not let one healthy animal be put to sleep;" yet, in the western world we "put down" millions of babies a year through abortion. We have little regard for the elderly who drain our time and resources so we give "civilised" terms to murder and call it euthanasia. Civilisation? I am all in favour of limiting and seeking to rid the third world of its poverty as well as those in our own neighbouring cities but this should not be at the expense of a society where I need to raise my own children to learn to unite love and holiness.

Therefore, I pray that we in the Church will place our energies into learning and living what it means to be a soldier of Christ. St. Clement describes this in his letter to the Corinthians.

"Let us then, men and brethren, with all energy act the part of soldiers, in accordance with His holy commandments. Let us consider those who serve under our generals, with what order, obedience, and submissiveness they perform the things which are commanded them. All are not prefects, nor commanders of a thousand, nor of a hundred, nor of fifty, nor the like, but each one in his own rank performs the things commanded by the king and the generals. The great cannot subsist without the small, nor the small without the great. There is a kind of mixture in all things, and thence arises mutual advantage. Let us take our body for an example. The head is nothing without the feet, and the feet are nothing without the head; yea, the very smallest members of our body are necessary and useful to the whole body. But all work; harmoniously together, and are under one common rule; for the preservation of the whole body."

Uniting and, keeping united, the virtues of holiness and love and worshipping the Holy Trinity in the 'beauty of holiness' will preserve both the Body of Christ and society. The "inclusive" love of Christ's seen on Calvary calls us to this unity of love and holiness again.

Thursday, September 08, 2005

The Nativity of the Blessed Virgin Mary

Today the Church pauses to give thanks for the birth of the BVM.

Thy birth, O Virgin Mother of God,
heralded joy to all the world.
For from thou hast risen the Sun of justice,
Christ our God.

Destroying the curse, He gave blessing;
and damning death, He bestowed on us
life everlasting.

Blessed art thou among women
and blessed is the fruit of thy womb.
For from thou hast risen of Sun of justice,
Christ our God.
(From the Divine Office: Matins)

Collect: Almighty and everlasting God,
who stooped to raise fallen humanity
through the child-bearing of blessed Mary:
grant that we, who have seen your glory
revealed in our human nature
and your love made perfect in our weakness,
may daily be renewed in your image
and conformed to the pattern of your Son,
Jesus Christ our Lord,
who is alive and reigns with you,
in the unity of the Holy Spirit,
one God, now and for ever. Amen.

Busy and Silent and a little eucharistic theology

Well, for the past few days I have not been able to blog anything due to being very busy. I have been reading a dissertation I received on ILL of almost 500 pages written by G.L.C. Frank The theology of Eucharistic presence in the early Caroline divines,examined in its European theological setting’, University of St. Andrews, PhD, 1985.It has been very enlightening and the obvious move from the Edwardian views of presence in the early Reformation in England and where the Church returned in the following generation goes to show where the Caroline divines stood in nature of the presence of Christ in the Eucharist. I have not (as yet!) read much of Thorndike but Frank makes a statement that was quite interesting and backed it up with Thorndike's writings. He says the following:

"Thorndike's attack on transubstantiation, however, contained a limitation. If the Tridentine decree "could possibly be expounded to signify only the sacramental presence of the Body and Blood" effected by the consecration, then what need would there be to condemn those who believe the substance of bread to remain, he asked. Scripture, tradition and reason, Thorndike argued in his Epilogue, do not make the bodily presence of the bread to be inconsistent with the sacramental presence of the flesh and blood. Here one sees what seems to be a willingness on the part of Thorndike to accept the term "transubstantiation" if it is explicated without the corollary of abolishing the substance of the elements. Moreover, transubstantiation might be an error, he stated, but it is a "flea-bite" in comparison with the various errors of the "Congregations and Presbyteries". The Roman Christian, "afraid to think that the elements remain", is not rendered incapable of the "Spirit of God conveyed by the Body and Blood of our Lord in the sacrament". It is evident, then, that while Thorndike did not accept the Roman explanation of the manner of eucharistic presence, he did not regard this teaching as destroying or inhibiting the presence of Christ's flesh in the eucharistic celebration, such as he at times regarded memorialism as doing (supra, p. gg). page. 139

The Caroline divines, and notably, Lancelot Andrewes, understood presence in terms of the mysterium tremendum. What was obvious about these divines as well Puritans like, Perkins who said, "We hold and beleeve a presence of Christ's bodie and blood in the sacrament of the Lords Supper: and that no fained, but a true and reall presence...", was that the issue of Christ's presence was not the same as what was being discussed earlier in the Edwardian period but had moved well beyond that. The Caroline divines went on to say that there is in fact Christ's presence substantially but the modus is not known to us. Whether or not there is a Eucharistic presence is not the concern of these divines; not treading too deeply into this mystery is. For Andrewes, questions concerning the "mode" of presence should not be placed on the level of de fide. The Caroline divines, Frank argues, held to what he called a "unifying change". Frank rightly points out that Andrewes accused "Bellarmine of breaking off abruptly the words of pseudo-Cyprian which compared this change to the union of humanity and divinity in Christ. The union between the visible sacrament and the invisible res of the sacrament is like the union which occurred between the humanity and divinity in Christ. This must be admitted, Andrewes argued, unless one wished to be accused of Eutychianism." (page 144)

What Andrewes does with this "unifying change" is to speak of it in comparison to the hypostatic union of Christ when he discusses the nature of unity of our Lord with the elements. This theme is defined most clearly in his sermons on the Nativity. All of these divines, (Andrewes, Cosin, Laud, Buckeridge, Montague, Thorndike, Taylor, Forbes, Bramhall) believed in a sacramental change of the creatures of bread and wine that becomes for us the Body and Blood of Christ. To conclude this, I think Frank is correct that, Andrewes' "point was that the nature of the eucharistic bread is changed by virtue of its conjunction with the body of Christ, just as human nature was changed by virtue of its conjunction with the divinity of Christ in the incarnation. His discussion of sacramental conversion concerned what happens to the elements of bread and wine themselves, rather than the use in which they are employed. They are changed inasmuch as they are no longer only bread and wine, but are also Christ's body and blood. One might call this a "unifying" understanding of sacramental change." (144 145 )

Enough for now.

Added note: A fellow Andrewes scholar wrote me wondering how I could use Andrewes and Perkins in the same sentence [laughing]. I must admit, it was painful! My point in bringing up one such as Perkins was not to communicate that Andrewes and Perkins agreed on presence because they didn't. My point is to show that even Puritans like Perkins were against this bare memorialist position that destroyed or inhibited Christ's presence. Lest any think that I believe that Perkins and Andrewes are on the same theological page sacramentally, mea culpa mea culpa mea maxima culpa.

Monday, September 05, 2005

Durham Cathedral name change

I just returned from the Durham Cathedral this evening after a wonderful service that celebrated the translation of the relics of St. Cuthbert from Holy Island Lindisfarne to the Durham Cathedral. Yesterday the Dean declared the name change of the Cathedral adding Cuthbert's name that was removed by Henry VIII at the Reformation when he began tearing down shrines and closing monasteries. The BBC reported it yesterday on the news and you can read it here.

"But Henry VIII had Cuthbert removed from the dedication - or name - of the cathedral to read, The Cathedral Church of Christ and Blessed Mary the Virgin of Durham.

The saint's shrine was stripped during the dissolution of the cathedral, but Cuthbert's body remained untouched.

Now the dean of the cathedral says it is time acknowledge the debt owed to Cuthbert.

The Very Reverend Michael Sadgrove said: "North East England is Cuthbert's land and Durham Cathedral is an icon of the region.

"For over 900 years the cathedral has been privileged and proud to be the final resting place of one of England's best-loved saints.

"To restore Cuthbert to the cathedral's name and title is to honour all that he means not only to the north-east but to people across the English-speaking world.

"It's a small but significant piece of history that we are glad to be making."
    O God, most glorious, most bountiful, accept, we humbly beseech thee, our praises and thanksgivings for thy holy Catholic Church, the mother of us all who bear the name of Christ; for the faith which it hath conveyed in safety to our time, and the mercies by which it hath enlarged and comforted the souls of men; for the virtues which it hath established upon earth, and the holy lives by which it glorifieth both the world and thee; to whom, O blessed Trinity (+), be ascribed all honour, might, majesty and dominion, now and for ever. Amen.
    --Bishop Lancelot Andrewes

Societas Sanctae Crucis

About Me

My Profile


  • To the Theotokos
  • My Parish Church
  • Taking Jesus to the Streets
  • The Angelus
  • Steel Family News
  • Anglicans For Life
  • My PHD Supervisor
  • Diocese of Durham
  • N.T. Wright Bishop of Durham
  • Bishop of Beverley FiF PEV
  • Forward in Faith
  • Religious of orthodox Tradition
  • Our Lady of Walsingham
  • Church of England
  • Church Times
  • C of E News
  • New Directions
  • Anglican Comm News Service
  • CaNN Classical Anglican News
  • Anglican Mainstream
  • Catholic World News
  • Zenit News
  • First Things
  • University of Durham
  • St. John's College
  • Touchstone: Mere Comments
  • American Chesterton Society
  • G.K. Chesterton
  • The "Colossal Genius"
  • C.S. Lewis
  • Dr. Marianne Dorman
  • Bishop Lancelot Andrewes
  • Theologia
  • The Paul Page
  • Renaissance Music
  • Wodehouse
  • Project Canterbury
  • Rosemary Pugh Books
  • Pusey House Oxford
  • Comm of the Resurrection
  • Anglicanism
  • Alexander Schmemann
  • Traditional-Anglican
  • Trushare Great Links
  • Books and Books
  • Paedocommunion
  • Summa Theologica
  • Didache
  • N.A.Patristics Society
  • Visit Olde World Family Heritage
  • Cardinal Newman Writings
  • EWTN
  • Vatican Library
  • Tune in to Ancient Faith Radio
  • Anglo-Catholic Central
  • Women for Faith and Family
  • Catholic Culture
  • Being better Dads.org
  • Anglicana Ecclesia
  • Catholic Societies

  • Mary:Grace and Hope in Christ
  • SSC England and Scotland
  • King Charles the Martyr
  • Catholic League Unitas
  • Catholic Union
  • Conf of the Blessed Sacrament
  • Society of Mary
  • Priests for Life
  • Anglican Blogs

  • TitusOneNine
  • Anthropax
  • Sacristan
  • Curate Repose
  • Whitehall
  • Apostolicity
  • The Patristic Anglican
  • All Too Common
  • Prydain
  • Thinking Anglicans
  • Drell's Descants
  • A-C Ruminations
  • emergent like slime
  • Open Thou our Lips
  • Haligweorc
  • The Confessing Reader
  • Dr. Leander Harding
  • Tex Anglican
  • St. George the Martyr
  • The Oxford Movement
  • Continuing Anglican
  • Wyclif.net
  • Third Mill. Catholic
  • Anglican Eucharistic Theol
  • Fr. Brian Douglas
  • RatherNot Blog
  • Full Homely Divinity
  • St.Peters London Docks Blog
  • In Hoc Signo Vinces
  • Anglican Wanderings
  • Timotheos Prologizes
  • Global South Anglican
  • Deaconess
  • Liturgical Links

  • 1549 Book of Common Prayer
  • 1550 Merbecke
  • 1559 Book of Common Prayer
  • 1570 Roman Mass
  • 1637 Scottish Prayer Book
  • 1662 English Prayer Book
  • 1718 Nonjurors Communion
  • 1928 Book of Common Prayer
  • 1962 Roman Mass
  • 1962 Roman Propers
  • 1969 Roman Mass
  • 1987 Anglican Use Mass
  • Pearcy Dearmer Everyman's History of the Prayer Book
  • The Liturgy of St. James
  • The Liturgy of St. Chrysostom
  • The Liturgy of St. Basil
  • Lectionary Central
  • Catholic Calendar
  • Common Prayer Calendar
  • The Roman Breviary
  • Anglican Breviary
  • Cantica Nova
  • The Music Makers
  • Catholic Liturgy Site
  • Directorium Anglicanum
  • Catholic Blogs

  • Numerous British Catholic Blogs
  • Carpe canum
  • Ignatius Insights
  • Ancient and Future Catholics
  • Catholic Pontificator
  • Random Thoughts
  • Fr. Newman's Web page
  • fides et ardor
  • St Paul Centre for Theology
  • Canterbury Tales
  • The Shrine of Holy Whapping
  • Sacramentum Vitae
  • Cardinal Schonborn
  • Pertinacious Papist
  • Ratzinger Online
  • The New Liturgical Movement
  • Scripture and Tradition
  • Against the Grain
  • Mark Shea
  • ad limina apostolorum
  • Dappled Things
  • Amy Welborn Old Blog
  • Amy Welborn New Blog
  • Catholic Catechism
  • Benedict Blog
  • Mike Aquilina
  • Libertas et Memoria
  • Video melior
  • Orthodox Blogs

  • Energies of the Trinity
  • Orthodoxy Today
  • Monachos
  • Onion Dome
  • This Is Life
  • Orthodoxie
  • Chrysostom Web Page
  • Society of Chrysostom
  • Cathedra Unitatis
  • Our Life in Christ
  • Orthodox Way
  • Exploring Orthodoxy
  • Everything Orthodox
  • Parish Web Sites

  • Durham Cathedral
  • St. Peters London Docks
  • St. Silas London
  • St. Mary Mag Middlesex
  • St. Augustine London
  • St. John the Evanglelist Berks
  • St. Pancras London
  • St. James the Great Darlington
  • St. Mary Bletchingley
  • St. James Paddington London
  • St. George Hanworth
  • St. Helens Auckland
  • St. Mary Magdalene Sunderland
  • Archives