A discussion starter
Adelphoi,
We live in a culture where it is expected that each of us will have opinions on virtually all subjects. To have opinions and express them is seen as a basic human right, which right seems to be as much exercised inside as outside the churches.
It is often said that amongst the achievements of the Protestant Reformation were making the Bible in the vernacular available to all who could read, and, further, letting them read it for themselves both as a means of grace and of gaining knowledge of saving knowledge and doctrine.
But did the leaders of the various Protestant Churches really trust the laity to read the Bible for themselves and come up with the right knowledge and experience from this exercise? Maybe they did and maybe they did not.
Several important factors suggest that the leaders believed that the laity needed to be given a structured mind or way of thinking (a mental paradigm) in order to benefit from reading the Bible. I suggest that we are to understand their teaching on sola scriptura and the availability of the vernacular Bible in this context.
In the 16th and on into the 17th century there were very many Catechisms produced, both officially and by individual pastors. There was a tremendous emphasis on catechising the people - on teaching them the Creed, the Commandments, the Lord's Prayer, the doctrines of God, of Christ, of Salvation and so on. Times were appointed on the Lord's Day for this exercise and often catechists went from home to home.
All the churches produced Confessions of Faith or Articles of Religion/Faith.
Then, the Evangelicals [Lutherans] and the Anglicans [C of E] retained formal Liturgies wherein much doctrine was communicated by Canticle & Creed & Collects and there were long readings from both the OT and NT. Here the very context of worship provides a context for the hearing and receiving of the content of the Scriptures.
Further, the State often intervened to punish heretics [those who taught contrary to the Catholic Creeds!] and so the people knew what was forbidden.
And then we must not forget the existence of such Bibles as the Geneva Bible which contained explanatory notes to guide the reader into safe Reformed orthodoxy.
So it seems that the general intention of all the major leaders of reform was to make sure that when the people read the Bible they read it so as to find in It the teaching that was being given officially by the leadership. Of course, there is the further dimension of Bible reading/meditation which comes to the prayerful, faithful reader and hearer, which is the growth in insight, devotion and holiness. And this applies whether the reader is finding Catholic, Reformed, Lutheran, Anglican or Anabaptist teaching in the Bible.
In modern times, when there are versions and paraphrases of the Bible galore, it seems also to be the case that few leaders really trust people to read the Bible for themselves, without supervision. This is evidenced by the multitude of books available on how to read the Bible, on Alpha courses and the like which tell people what is in the Bible, on the Bible studies weekly in many churches where specific interpretations are pushed, in the long sermons by the charismatic preacher on Sundays (often via TV & radio) to tell people what is in the Bible, and so on.
Further, the very short (or the deliberate shortening of) readings from the Bible in public worship suggests that few leaders - of any kind - really believe that the public reading of the Scriptures in a reverent and godly way is, in and of itself and without comments, a true means of grace. (Since Paul intended at least some of his letters to be read aloud to the congregation, why do we not see this done today as a means of grace? Reading some of them would take much less time that a sermon or the period given over to singing choruses!)
Again, many people today in all kinds of different contexts read the Bible meditatively and grow in spiritual union with the Father through the Son, whatever type of doctrine they "find" in the Bible.
In other words, it is usually the case today that people find in the Bible as doctrine that which is taught by the leader or group to which they belong, and this is especially so if they were "converted" by this leader. If by reading books or hearing someone else or by their own ingenuity people get to think that what their leaders teach is not right then they either plot revolution or they move on to join another group. The abundance of provision in the American supermarket of religions makes this moving possible for most people.
Maybe this picture makes more attractive to some the traditional Protestant doctrine of the Church as Invisible, with God's elect being known only to him and on earth found scattered in all or most churches & denominations. In this context, having an opinion is neither here not there for if one is saved one is saved!
Or maybe it makes more attractive the traditional Catholic/Orthodox position that the Church and the Bible belong together and that it is in the bosom of Mother Church that the baptized believer reads the Bible within the Christian Year, within the Daily Offices, and within the teaching of the Church in her Liturgy, Creeds and Catechisms. In this context having an opinion is heresy (which of course is what opinion literally is in Biblical Greek!).
I follow the Middle Way and accept as a basis for the Church the classical Anglican position as expressed in the formula 1,2,3,4,5 - One Canon of Scripture, with Two Testaments as the Word of God written, along with Three Creeds to summarise and highlight the central themes & facts of Scripture, along with the dogma and decrees of at least the first Four Ecumenical Councils to provide doctrinal and liturgical direction and provide the mindset wherewith to receive Scripture, and at least Five Centuries of experience to indicate how divine providence led the Church in the development of the Ministry, the Liturgy and so on. Then with this mindset underlying the Anglican Formularies, the worshipping of God through the two Daily Offices & the weekly Litany and Holy Communion & Sermon of the Lord's Day. Here the Bible is read within the Offices, within the context of worship, within the Faith of the Creed and within the Christian Year and not in isolation but in the Communion of Saints. Of course for the Anglican Way to work well we all must be doing this in one way or another and not creating novel form of being Anglican!
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon
Monday, November 04, 2002
Saturday, November 02, 2002
Anglican Calendar. November 3rd. RICHARD HOOKER (d.1600)
"O God, who has enlightened thy Church by the teaching of thy servant Richard Hooker: Enrich us evermore, we beseech thee, with thy heavenly grace, and raise up faithful witnesses who by their life and doctrine will set forth the truth of thy salvation; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen."
Richard Hooker (d.1600) is best known as the Apologist for the Anglican Way of Reformed Catholicism & as the Defender of the episcopal and liturgical Church of England against the Elizabethan Puritans, who wished to make the English National Church into a Presbyterian Church, modelled on Geneva. He wrote "The Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity" in eight books. Book V, with 81 short chapters, is the longest and deals primarily with the worship of the Church. After discussing the public reading of Holy Scripture and the place of sermons in worship, he turned in chapter xxiii to the subject of Prayer and then on to Public Prayer/Worship.
To appreciate what he writes we need to realize that we come out of a religious culture where it is taken for granted that prayer is first individual and then if we choose corporate. He is arguing for the superiority of corporate, public and common prayer.
I have ventured to put into a more accessible English what he wrote.
Chapter XXIV Of Public Prayer
(1) This holy and religious duty of service towards God concerns us one way in that we are human beings, and another way in that we are joined as parts to that visible, mystical Body which is his Church. As human beings we make our own choice of time, place and form for prayer, according to our own private, pressing needs (see Psalm 55:17; Daniel 9:3 & Acts 10:9); but the service, which we do as members of a public body, is public and for that cause must necessarily be judged so much worthier than the private service, even as a whole society exceeds the worth of any one of its members. Therefore, it is to be noted that most special promises are made unto Christian assemblies in the New Testament (e.g., Matthew 18:20).
Though St Paul was as likely to prevail with God in prayer as any mortal, nevertheless he thought it much more for God's glory and his own good, if prayers might be made and thanks offered on his behalf by a number of people (see 2 Corinthians 1:11). When the prince and people of Nineveh assembled themselves as a principal army of supplicants, it was not in the power of God to withstand them (see Jonah 3-4).
What I write concerning the power of public prayer in the Church of God agrees with what Tertullian (c 160- c 225) wrote [Apology c.39 ]: "We come by troops to the place of assembly, that being formed into a congregation, we may be supplicants to besiege God with our prayers. Such petitions are acceptable to him."
(2) When we pray together in public we do so with much more satisfaction than we do individually in private, because what we ask for in public is the request of all of us, approved as needful and good in the judgment of all. Further, in public prayer, if the zeal and devotion towards God of some is slack, then the alacrity and fervour of others serve as a horseman's spur. St Basil the Great (d.379) says: "For even prayer itself when it does not have the company of many voices to strengthen it, is not itself (Epistle 68)." Finally, the good which we do by public prayer is more than can be done in private. For besides the benefit which each of us gains for himself, the whole church is much edified by his good example; and, consequently, whereas secret neglect by any of us of our duty in public prayer is but only our own hurt, it is also true that one person's contempt of the common prayer of the Church of God may be and often is more hurtful unto many. It is with such thoughts that the Prophet David so often vows unto God the sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving in the congregation (see Psalms 26:12 & 34:1); so earnestly urges others to sing praises unto the Lord in his courts, in his sanctuary before the memorial of his holiness (Psalms 30:4 & 96:9); and so much complains of his own uncomfortable exile, wherein, although he sustained many most grievous indignities, and endured the absence of pleasures and honours previously enjoyed, yet as if this one were his only grief and the rest not felt, his speeches are all of the heavenly benefit of public assemblies, and the happiness of such as had free access unto them (Psalms 27:4; 42:4 & 84:1).
Chapter xxv Of the Form of Common Prayer
1. One major reason why religious persons find from experience that their souls are inflamed with the love of public devotion is this. The reverend and solemn order of common prayer has such virtue, force and efficacy that it helps overcome that spiritual impotence and weakness which is naturally in us. Without the order of common prayer we are the less able to offer unto God that heavenly service, with such affection of heart and disposition of the powers of the soul, as he requires.
To this end, therefore, it has always been thought in the Church that all things concerning public worship should be done with the most solemnity and majesty that the wisest could devise. Public and private prayer are of course different. In private prayer secrecy rather than outward show is commended, whereas in public prayer, which involves a whole congregation, more care has to be taken of external appearance. Thus the assembling of people for public worship has always been regarded as a solemn matter.
2. Although the place of assembly [e.g., the parish church] serves for a variety of public uses, its primary purpose is for the saying of Common Prayer. Our Lord confirms this primary purpose of the sanctuary by his sanctifying the Temple in Jerusalem and calling it "the House of Prayer" even though he was aware that the Temple was appointed by God's favour and providence for a variety of other, special uses and services.
To develop this theme further. If, as the gravest of the ancient Fathers were persuaded and often plainly teach, it be the case that the house of prayer is a Court beautified with the presence of celestial powers, that there we stand, we pray, we sing hymns unto God, joining our voices with those of the angels; and if it be that with reference to the house of God the Apostle Paul requires (1 Cor.11:10) so great care to be taken of decency for the Angels' sake; how can we come to the house of prayer, and not be moved with the very glory of the place itself so as to frame our [thoughts and] affections in an appropriate spirit of prayer, whose petitions the Almighty sits there to hear, and his Angels are present to attend to? When this way of thinking was grafted in the minds of men centuries ago, no penal statutes were needed to draw them unto public prayer. The warning bell was no sooner heard, than the churches were immediately filled and the pavements covered with prostrate bodies and washed with their tears of devout joy.
3. Even as the place of public prayer, though belonging to the external context of worship, has the potential and power to help devotion; so much more does the Minister with whom the people of God join themselves in this action, for he is the one that stands and speaks in the presence of God for them. The authority of his place, the fervour of his zeal, the piety and gravity of his whole behaviour must of necessity exceedingly both grace and set forward the service that he leads therein.
The authority of his calling also serves to promote public prayer. If God has so far received him into favour, as to impose upon him by the hands of men that office of blessing the people in his name, and making intercession to him in theirs, is not his very ordination a seal as it were to us, that the self-same divine love, which has chosen the instrument to work with, will by that same instrument effect the thing whereunto he ordained it, in blessing his people and accepting the prayers which his servant offers up unto God for them? This office, we recall, God has sanctified with his own most gracious promise and also has ratified that promise in the ministries of those who have fulfilled this calling. In the light of their ordination and vocation, the ancient Christians usually gave God's ministers the title of "God's most beloved" [theophilestatous], since they were ordained to procure by their prayers his love and favour towards all.
Again, if there is not zeal and fervency in the Minister that offers for the rest those petitions and supplications which they, by their joyful acclamations [of Amen], must ratify; if he does not praise God with all his might; if he does not pour out his soul in prayer; if he does not take their causes to heart, or if he does not speak as Moses, Daniel and Ezra did for their people; then how should there be in them anything other than frozen coldness, since the one from whom their affections should take fire, seems himself not to be on fire?
Virtue and godliness of life are required at the hands of the minister of God, not only in that he is to teach and to instruct the people (who for the most part are rather led away by the ill example, than directed aright by the wholesome instruction of them, whose life swerves from the rule of their own doctrine), but also much more in regard of this other part of his function, to be a godly example of holy living. In this regard, whether we respect the weakness of the people, who are apt to hate and despise the sanctuary when they which minister within it are of such wickedness as the sons of Eli were (see 1 Samuel 2-3); or else whether we consider the inclination of God himself, who requires the lifting up of pure hands in prayer, and has given the world plainly to understand that the wicked, although they cry, shall not be heard (see John 9:31; Jeremiah 11:11; Ezekiel 8:18); they are no fit supplicants to seek his mercy on behalf of others, whose own unrepented sins provoke his just indignation. "Let thy Priests therefore, O Lord, be evermore clothed with righteousness, that thy saints may thereby with more devotion rejoice and sing (Psalm132:9)."
4. But of all helps for due performance of this service of public prayer the greatest is the very existence and availability of, The Book of Common Prayer, which framed with common advice, has both for matter and form prescribed whatsoever is publicly done in worship. No doubt from God it has proceeded; and by us it must be acknowledged a work of his singular care and providence, that the Church has always through the centuries held a prescribed form of common prayer, although not in all things everywhere the same, yet for the most part retaining much the same shape and content. So that if the liturgies of all ancient churches throughout the world are compared amongst themselves, it may be easily perceived that they had all one original mould, and that the public prayers of the people of God in well-established churches were never dependent on day-to-day inspiration and ex tempore prayer.
5. To him who considers (i) the grievous and scandalous inconveniences to which they make themselves daily subject, with whom any blind and secret corner is judged a fit house of common prayer; (ii) the manifold confusions which they fall into where every man's private spirit and gift (as they term it) is the only Bishop who ordains him to this ministry; (iii) the irksome deformities whereby through endless and senseless effusions of undigested prayers they often disgrace in a most insufferable manner the worthiest part of Christian duty towards God - that is, those who are subject to no certain order in public worship, but pray both what and how they please: I say to him, who duly weighs all these things, the reasons cannot be obscure, why God in public prayer so much respects the solemnity of places where, the authority and calling of persons by whom, and the precise appointment even with what words or sentences, his name should be called upon amongst his people.
Chapter xxvi Of them that do not like to have any set form of Common Prayer
1.To the present time no man has ever been so impious as plainly and directly to condemn prayer. The best strategy possessed by Satan, who knows that his kingdom is shaken more by the public devout prayers of God's Church than anything else, is to slander their form and manner so as both to bring them into contempt and to undermine the power of people's devotion towards them. From this strategy, and no other forge, a strange conceit has proceeded, that to serve God with any set form of common prayer is superstitious.
2. It is as though God himself did not provide for his Priests the very speech with which they were charged to bless the people (Numbers 6:23); or as if our Lord, in order to prevent this enthusiasm for extempore and voluntary prayers, had not left us of his own framing one prayer [The Lord's Prayer], which might both remain as a part of the Church liturgy, and also serve as a pattern by which to construct all other prayers with efficacy, yet without excess of words.
If prayers are only accepted by God if they are always newly conceived, according to the needs of present occasions; if it is right to judge God by our own bellies, and to imagine that he hates to have the selfsame supplications often repeated, even as we do to be fed every day without alteration or change of diet; if prayers are actions which ought to waste away in the making; if being retained and used again as prayers, they become but instruments of superstition: then surely we cannot excuse Moses, who gave occasion of scandal to the world, by not being content to praise the name of Almighty God according to the usual naked simplicity of God's Spirit for that admirable victory given them against Pharaoh (Exodus 15). But, in the Song of Moses unto the Lord after the deliverance, a precedent was set for forming prayers as poetry, and for a prayer which might be repeated often, in circumstances different from what caused its first appearance. For that very hymn of Moses became later a part of the ordinary Jewish liturgy; as also did other such prayers composed later.
The Jewish books of common prayer contained partly hymns taken out of the holy Scripture, partly benedictions, thanksgivings, supplications, penned by such as have been from time to time the governors of that synagogue. These they sorted into their several times and places, some to begin the service of God with, and some to end, some to go before and some to follow, and some to be placed between the divine readings of the Law and the Prophets. The Evangelist Matthew evidently alludes to their custom of finishing the Passover with certain Psalms (113-118), when he says that after the cup delivered by our Saviour unto his apostles "they sung" (Matthew 26:30) and went forth to the mount of Olives.
3.As the Jews had their songs of Moses and David and the rest, so the Church of Christ from the very beginning has both used the same and besides them other of like nature, the song of the Virgin Mary, the song of Zechariah, the song of Simeon, and such hymns as the Apostle doth often speak of saying, "I will pray and sing with the Spirit (1 Corinthians 14:15):" again "in psalms, hymns and songs making melody unto the Lord and that heartily" (Ephesians 5:19). Hymns and psalms are such kinds of prayer as are not usually conceived suddenly, but are framed by meditation beforehand, or else are inspired by prophetic illumination, as at that time it appears they were when God, by extraordinary gifts of the Spirit, enabled men to fulfil all parts of service necessary for the edifying of his Church.
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon
Richard Hooker (d.1600) is best known as the Apologist for the Anglican Way of Reformed Catholicism & as the Defender of the episcopal and liturgical Church of England against the Elizabethan Puritans, who wished to make the English National Church into a Presbyterian Church, modelled on Geneva. He wrote "The Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity" in eight books. Book V, with 81 short chapters, is the longest and deals primarily with the worship of the Church. After discussing the public reading of Holy Scripture and the place of sermons in worship, he turned in chapter xxiii to the subject of Prayer and then on to Public Prayer/Worship.
To appreciate what he writes we need to realize that we come out of a religious culture where it is taken for granted that prayer is first individual and then if we choose corporate. He is arguing for the superiority of corporate, public and common prayer.
I have ventured to put into a more accessible English what he wrote.
Chapter XXIV Of Public Prayer
(1) This holy and religious duty of service towards God concerns us one way in that we are human beings, and another way in that we are joined as parts to that visible, mystical Body which is his Church. As human beings we make our own choice of time, place and form for prayer, according to our own private, pressing needs (see Psalm 55:17; Daniel 9:3 & Acts 10:9); but the service, which we do as members of a public body, is public and for that cause must necessarily be judged so much worthier than the private service, even as a whole society exceeds the worth of any one of its members. Therefore, it is to be noted that most special promises are made unto Christian assemblies in the New Testament (e.g., Matthew 18:20).
Though St Paul was as likely to prevail with God in prayer as any mortal, nevertheless he thought it much more for God's glory and his own good, if prayers might be made and thanks offered on his behalf by a number of people (see 2 Corinthians 1:11). When the prince and people of Nineveh assembled themselves as a principal army of supplicants, it was not in the power of God to withstand them (see Jonah 3-4).
What I write concerning the power of public prayer in the Church of God agrees with what Tertullian (c 160- c 225) wrote [Apology c.39 ]: "We come by troops to the place of assembly, that being formed into a congregation, we may be supplicants to besiege God with our prayers. Such petitions are acceptable to him."
(2) When we pray together in public we do so with much more satisfaction than we do individually in private, because what we ask for in public is the request of all of us, approved as needful and good in the judgment of all. Further, in public prayer, if the zeal and devotion towards God of some is slack, then the alacrity and fervour of others serve as a horseman's spur. St Basil the Great (d.379) says: "For even prayer itself when it does not have the company of many voices to strengthen it, is not itself (Epistle 68)." Finally, the good which we do by public prayer is more than can be done in private. For besides the benefit which each of us gains for himself, the whole church is much edified by his good example; and, consequently, whereas secret neglect by any of us of our duty in public prayer is but only our own hurt, it is also true that one person's contempt of the common prayer of the Church of God may be and often is more hurtful unto many. It is with such thoughts that the Prophet David so often vows unto God the sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving in the congregation (see Psalms 26:12 & 34:1); so earnestly urges others to sing praises unto the Lord in his courts, in his sanctuary before the memorial of his holiness (Psalms 30:4 & 96:9); and so much complains of his own uncomfortable exile, wherein, although he sustained many most grievous indignities, and endured the absence of pleasures and honours previously enjoyed, yet as if this one were his only grief and the rest not felt, his speeches are all of the heavenly benefit of public assemblies, and the happiness of such as had free access unto them (Psalms 27:4; 42:4 & 84:1).
Chapter xxv Of the Form of Common Prayer
1. One major reason why religious persons find from experience that their souls are inflamed with the love of public devotion is this. The reverend and solemn order of common prayer has such virtue, force and efficacy that it helps overcome that spiritual impotence and weakness which is naturally in us. Without the order of common prayer we are the less able to offer unto God that heavenly service, with such affection of heart and disposition of the powers of the soul, as he requires.
To this end, therefore, it has always been thought in the Church that all things concerning public worship should be done with the most solemnity and majesty that the wisest could devise. Public and private prayer are of course different. In private prayer secrecy rather than outward show is commended, whereas in public prayer, which involves a whole congregation, more care has to be taken of external appearance. Thus the assembling of people for public worship has always been regarded as a solemn matter.
2. Although the place of assembly [e.g., the parish church] serves for a variety of public uses, its primary purpose is for the saying of Common Prayer. Our Lord confirms this primary purpose of the sanctuary by his sanctifying the Temple in Jerusalem and calling it "the House of Prayer" even though he was aware that the Temple was appointed by God's favour and providence for a variety of other, special uses and services.
To develop this theme further. If, as the gravest of the ancient Fathers were persuaded and often plainly teach, it be the case that the house of prayer is a Court beautified with the presence of celestial powers, that there we stand, we pray, we sing hymns unto God, joining our voices with those of the angels; and if it be that with reference to the house of God the Apostle Paul requires (1 Cor.11:10) so great care to be taken of decency for the Angels' sake; how can we come to the house of prayer, and not be moved with the very glory of the place itself so as to frame our [thoughts and] affections in an appropriate spirit of prayer, whose petitions the Almighty sits there to hear, and his Angels are present to attend to? When this way of thinking was grafted in the minds of men centuries ago, no penal statutes were needed to draw them unto public prayer. The warning bell was no sooner heard, than the churches were immediately filled and the pavements covered with prostrate bodies and washed with their tears of devout joy.
3. Even as the place of public prayer, though belonging to the external context of worship, has the potential and power to help devotion; so much more does the Minister with whom the people of God join themselves in this action, for he is the one that stands and speaks in the presence of God for them. The authority of his place, the fervour of his zeal, the piety and gravity of his whole behaviour must of necessity exceedingly both grace and set forward the service that he leads therein.
The authority of his calling also serves to promote public prayer. If God has so far received him into favour, as to impose upon him by the hands of men that office of blessing the people in his name, and making intercession to him in theirs, is not his very ordination a seal as it were to us, that the self-same divine love, which has chosen the instrument to work with, will by that same instrument effect the thing whereunto he ordained it, in blessing his people and accepting the prayers which his servant offers up unto God for them? This office, we recall, God has sanctified with his own most gracious promise and also has ratified that promise in the ministries of those who have fulfilled this calling. In the light of their ordination and vocation, the ancient Christians usually gave God's ministers the title of "God's most beloved" [theophilestatous], since they were ordained to procure by their prayers his love and favour towards all.
Again, if there is not zeal and fervency in the Minister that offers for the rest those petitions and supplications which they, by their joyful acclamations [of Amen], must ratify; if he does not praise God with all his might; if he does not pour out his soul in prayer; if he does not take their causes to heart, or if he does not speak as Moses, Daniel and Ezra did for their people; then how should there be in them anything other than frozen coldness, since the one from whom their affections should take fire, seems himself not to be on fire?
Virtue and godliness of life are required at the hands of the minister of God, not only in that he is to teach and to instruct the people (who for the most part are rather led away by the ill example, than directed aright by the wholesome instruction of them, whose life swerves from the rule of their own doctrine), but also much more in regard of this other part of his function, to be a godly example of holy living. In this regard, whether we respect the weakness of the people, who are apt to hate and despise the sanctuary when they which minister within it are of such wickedness as the sons of Eli were (see 1 Samuel 2-3); or else whether we consider the inclination of God himself, who requires the lifting up of pure hands in prayer, and has given the world plainly to understand that the wicked, although they cry, shall not be heard (see John 9:31; Jeremiah 11:11; Ezekiel 8:18); they are no fit supplicants to seek his mercy on behalf of others, whose own unrepented sins provoke his just indignation. "Let thy Priests therefore, O Lord, be evermore clothed with righteousness, that thy saints may thereby with more devotion rejoice and sing (Psalm132:9)."
4. But of all helps for due performance of this service of public prayer the greatest is the very existence and availability of, The Book of Common Prayer, which framed with common advice, has both for matter and form prescribed whatsoever is publicly done in worship. No doubt from God it has proceeded; and by us it must be acknowledged a work of his singular care and providence, that the Church has always through the centuries held a prescribed form of common prayer, although not in all things everywhere the same, yet for the most part retaining much the same shape and content. So that if the liturgies of all ancient churches throughout the world are compared amongst themselves, it may be easily perceived that they had all one original mould, and that the public prayers of the people of God in well-established churches were never dependent on day-to-day inspiration and ex tempore prayer.
5. To him who considers (i) the grievous and scandalous inconveniences to which they make themselves daily subject, with whom any blind and secret corner is judged a fit house of common prayer; (ii) the manifold confusions which they fall into where every man's private spirit and gift (as they term it) is the only Bishop who ordains him to this ministry; (iii) the irksome deformities whereby through endless and senseless effusions of undigested prayers they often disgrace in a most insufferable manner the worthiest part of Christian duty towards God - that is, those who are subject to no certain order in public worship, but pray both what and how they please: I say to him, who duly weighs all these things, the reasons cannot be obscure, why God in public prayer so much respects the solemnity of places where, the authority and calling of persons by whom, and the precise appointment even with what words or sentences, his name should be called upon amongst his people.
Chapter xxvi Of them that do not like to have any set form of Common Prayer
1.To the present time no man has ever been so impious as plainly and directly to condemn prayer. The best strategy possessed by Satan, who knows that his kingdom is shaken more by the public devout prayers of God's Church than anything else, is to slander their form and manner so as both to bring them into contempt and to undermine the power of people's devotion towards them. From this strategy, and no other forge, a strange conceit has proceeded, that to serve God with any set form of common prayer is superstitious.
2. It is as though God himself did not provide for his Priests the very speech with which they were charged to bless the people (Numbers 6:23); or as if our Lord, in order to prevent this enthusiasm for extempore and voluntary prayers, had not left us of his own framing one prayer [The Lord's Prayer], which might both remain as a part of the Church liturgy, and also serve as a pattern by which to construct all other prayers with efficacy, yet without excess of words.
If prayers are only accepted by God if they are always newly conceived, according to the needs of present occasions; if it is right to judge God by our own bellies, and to imagine that he hates to have the selfsame supplications often repeated, even as we do to be fed every day without alteration or change of diet; if prayers are actions which ought to waste away in the making; if being retained and used again as prayers, they become but instruments of superstition: then surely we cannot excuse Moses, who gave occasion of scandal to the world, by not being content to praise the name of Almighty God according to the usual naked simplicity of God's Spirit for that admirable victory given them against Pharaoh (Exodus 15). But, in the Song of Moses unto the Lord after the deliverance, a precedent was set for forming prayers as poetry, and for a prayer which might be repeated often, in circumstances different from what caused its first appearance. For that very hymn of Moses became later a part of the ordinary Jewish liturgy; as also did other such prayers composed later.
The Jewish books of common prayer contained partly hymns taken out of the holy Scripture, partly benedictions, thanksgivings, supplications, penned by such as have been from time to time the governors of that synagogue. These they sorted into their several times and places, some to begin the service of God with, and some to end, some to go before and some to follow, and some to be placed between the divine readings of the Law and the Prophets. The Evangelist Matthew evidently alludes to their custom of finishing the Passover with certain Psalms (113-118), when he says that after the cup delivered by our Saviour unto his apostles "they sung" (Matthew 26:30) and went forth to the mount of Olives.
3.As the Jews had their songs of Moses and David and the rest, so the Church of Christ from the very beginning has both used the same and besides them other of like nature, the song of the Virgin Mary, the song of Zechariah, the song of Simeon, and such hymns as the Apostle doth often speak of saying, "I will pray and sing with the Spirit (1 Corinthians 14:15):" again "in psalms, hymns and songs making melody unto the Lord and that heartily" (Ephesians 5:19). Hymns and psalms are such kinds of prayer as are not usually conceived suddenly, but are framed by meditation beforehand, or else are inspired by prophetic illumination, as at that time it appears they were when God, by extraordinary gifts of the Spirit, enabled men to fulfil all parts of service necessary for the edifying of his Church.
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon
All Souls' Day
Adelphoi,
Today is November 2 & All Souls' Day! In modern prayer books it is the day for "the commemoration of the faithful departed".
I think that I understand All Saints' Day, its Collect & its Preface and the reason for keeping the Octave of All Saints (as required by the BCP 1928 of PECUSA). In fact I rejoice with exceeding great joy as I contemplate the saints of God in glory serving the Holy Trinity and the saints of God on earth doing battle against the world, the flesh and the devil.
But when it comes to All Souls' Day, November 2, I have mixed thoughts and feelings. I am familiar with its origins and its basic history in the Western Church and I recognize that pastorally it still has great appeal to many Christian people, who feel a sense of loyalty and kinship with departed loved ones. But I do not know what to do with it.
The Protestant Reformers sought to eradicate all traces of the doctrine of purgatory, of prayers & masses for the dead, of All Souls' Day and the like from the life of the Church. But All Souls' Day is back on the Anglican Calendar with Collects & Prefaces being created for its modern celebration in the new prayer books of the last thirty or so years.
So much, of course, depends on what we think happens at the death of a baptized Christian.
If we believe, as solid Protestants, that the effects of justification and sanctification are such that his soul, when leaving the body, is immediately, miraculously & totally sanctified, perfected and fully graced and enters into the very presence of Christ, there to bask in his glory until the full redemption, when his perfected soul unites with his resurrected, immortal and supernaturalized body, then all talk of purgation is an abomination.
Yet there may be talk of the intermediate state as the period when the purified soul awaits its glorified, spiritual body.
If we believe, as [reformed] Catholics, that the effects of justification and sanctification are such that his soul, when leaving the body, remains united with God in Christ but yet imperfect in itself and with the need to be perfected, and that this process includes the ready cooperation of the Christian soul with the work of the Spirit, as he moves closer to the very presence of Christ, then we are led to think of the intermediate state as one of purging, cleansing & purification and to give it a name like "purgatory."
The only exit from such an intermediate state of cleansing is into the glory of heaven, there to join others who have passed through purgatory or been taken at death (because they were martyrs or exceptionally holy Christians) immediately into heaven.
If there is no purgation after death and before full entry into heaven, then there is no need to pray for those who have died into Christ. Yet we may judge (as did the Church of the Fathers) there is good reason to ask the saints in heaven to pray for us on earth as we fight valiantly for Christ against the world, the flesh and the devil.
Certainly the Church of God, the "Catholikos" as the Fathers called her, belongs to heaven and earth. She is one Church, visible and invisible, and her Head is in heaven while his Spirit is with his members on earth, bringing his presence, gifts and graces to them.
As One Church do we think of her as Militant here on earth, Expectant there in purgation and Triumphant in heaven? Thus do we pray for our brethren in purgation in such words as "Rest eternal grant unto them, O Lord: and let light perpetual shine upon them"? We are certainly all members of one and the same Body of Christ, Household of God and Temple of the Holy Spirit.
Let us note that to believe in the need for purgation of the soul (that is of the person that each of us is) does not commit one to believe in the whole late medieval apparatus associated with masses for the dead and the like. It does, however, require one to believe that sanctification is as important as justification and that without positive holiness no man shall see the Lord.
Today the official prayer (not obligatory) of the Church of England is:
"Everlasting God, our maker and redeemer, grant us with all the faithful departed, the sure benefits of thy Son's saving passion and glorious resurrection, that, in the last day, when thou dost gather up all things in Christ, we may with them enjoy the fullness of thy promises, through Jesus Christ thy Son our Lord, who liveth and reigneth with thee, in the unity of the Holy Spirit, one God, now and for ever. Amen."
I can pray this prayer for it is sufficiently vague as to allow a breadth of interpretations. In fact it could be prayed also on All Saints' Day and during the Octave of All Saints.
P.S. the Nov/Dec issue of Mandate is now on the Web Site of the PBS -- www.episcopalian.org/pbs1928 --- and it features the theme of Advent and has an article on the new St Andrew's Church of Savannah, where Dr Lou Tarsitano is the Rector. Pay a visit please.
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon
Today is November 2 & All Souls' Day! In modern prayer books it is the day for "the commemoration of the faithful departed".
I think that I understand All Saints' Day, its Collect & its Preface and the reason for keeping the Octave of All Saints (as required by the BCP 1928 of PECUSA). In fact I rejoice with exceeding great joy as I contemplate the saints of God in glory serving the Holy Trinity and the saints of God on earth doing battle against the world, the flesh and the devil.
But when it comes to All Souls' Day, November 2, I have mixed thoughts and feelings. I am familiar with its origins and its basic history in the Western Church and I recognize that pastorally it still has great appeal to many Christian people, who feel a sense of loyalty and kinship with departed loved ones. But I do not know what to do with it.
The Protestant Reformers sought to eradicate all traces of the doctrine of purgatory, of prayers & masses for the dead, of All Souls' Day and the like from the life of the Church. But All Souls' Day is back on the Anglican Calendar with Collects & Prefaces being created for its modern celebration in the new prayer books of the last thirty or so years.
So much, of course, depends on what we think happens at the death of a baptized Christian.
If we believe, as solid Protestants, that the effects of justification and sanctification are such that his soul, when leaving the body, is immediately, miraculously & totally sanctified, perfected and fully graced and enters into the very presence of Christ, there to bask in his glory until the full redemption, when his perfected soul unites with his resurrected, immortal and supernaturalized body, then all talk of purgation is an abomination.
Yet there may be talk of the intermediate state as the period when the purified soul awaits its glorified, spiritual body.
If we believe, as [reformed] Catholics, that the effects of justification and sanctification are such that his soul, when leaving the body, remains united with God in Christ but yet imperfect in itself and with the need to be perfected, and that this process includes the ready cooperation of the Christian soul with the work of the Spirit, as he moves closer to the very presence of Christ, then we are led to think of the intermediate state as one of purging, cleansing & purification and to give it a name like "purgatory."
The only exit from such an intermediate state of cleansing is into the glory of heaven, there to join others who have passed through purgatory or been taken at death (because they were martyrs or exceptionally holy Christians) immediately into heaven.
If there is no purgation after death and before full entry into heaven, then there is no need to pray for those who have died into Christ. Yet we may judge (as did the Church of the Fathers) there is good reason to ask the saints in heaven to pray for us on earth as we fight valiantly for Christ against the world, the flesh and the devil.
Certainly the Church of God, the "Catholikos" as the Fathers called her, belongs to heaven and earth. She is one Church, visible and invisible, and her Head is in heaven while his Spirit is with his members on earth, bringing his presence, gifts and graces to them.
As One Church do we think of her as Militant here on earth, Expectant there in purgation and Triumphant in heaven? Thus do we pray for our brethren in purgation in such words as "Rest eternal grant unto them, O Lord: and let light perpetual shine upon them"? We are certainly all members of one and the same Body of Christ, Household of God and Temple of the Holy Spirit.
Let us note that to believe in the need for purgation of the soul (that is of the person that each of us is) does not commit one to believe in the whole late medieval apparatus associated with masses for the dead and the like. It does, however, require one to believe that sanctification is as important as justification and that without positive holiness no man shall see the Lord.
Today the official prayer (not obligatory) of the Church of England is:
"Everlasting God, our maker and redeemer, grant us with all the faithful departed, the sure benefits of thy Son's saving passion and glorious resurrection, that, in the last day, when thou dost gather up all things in Christ, we may with them enjoy the fullness of thy promises, through Jesus Christ thy Son our Lord, who liveth and reigneth with thee, in the unity of the Holy Spirit, one God, now and for ever. Amen."
I can pray this prayer for it is sufficiently vague as to allow a breadth of interpretations. In fact it could be prayed also on All Saints' Day and during the Octave of All Saints.
P.S. the Nov/Dec issue of Mandate is now on the Web Site of the PBS -- www.episcopalian.org/pbs1928 --- and it features the theme of Advent and has an article on the new St Andrew's Church of Savannah, where Dr Lou Tarsitano is the Rector. Pay a visit please.
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon
Friday, November 01, 2002
Today is All Saints' Day.
Aldephoi,
Today is All Saints' Day.
Let us sing, rejoice and pray.
The Church triumphant in thy love,
Their mighty joys we know;
They sing the Lamb in hymns above,
And we in hymns below.
Thee in thy glorious realm they praise,
And bow before thy throne;
We in the kingdom of thy grace:
The kingdoms are but one.
The holy to the holiest leads,
From hence our spirits rise,
And he that in thy statutes treads
Shall meet thee in the skies.
[And do move on to Bishop How's hymn, "For all the Saints who from their labours rest..."]
O Almighty God who has knit together thine elect in one communion and fellowship, in the mystical body of thy Son Christ our Lord: Grant us grace so to follow thy blessed Saints in all virtuous and godly living, that we may come to those unspeakable joys, which thou hast prepared for them that unfeignedly love thee; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon
Today is All Saints' Day.
Let us sing, rejoice and pray.
The Church triumphant in thy love,
Their mighty joys we know;
They sing the Lamb in hymns above,
And we in hymns below.
Thee in thy glorious realm they praise,
And bow before thy throne;
We in the kingdom of thy grace:
The kingdoms are but one.
The holy to the holiest leads,
From hence our spirits rise,
And he that in thy statutes treads
Shall meet thee in the skies.
[And do move on to Bishop How's hymn, "For all the Saints who from their labours rest..."]
O Almighty God who has knit together thine elect in one communion and fellowship, in the mystical body of thy Son Christ our Lord: Grant us grace so to follow thy blessed Saints in all virtuous and godly living, that we may come to those unspeakable joys, which thou hast prepared for them that unfeignedly love thee; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon
Thursday, October 31, 2002
On Sacraments, Hooker & ourselves
A word to fellow evangelical Anglicans & reformed catholics of the Anglican Way
A discussion starter
One thing I think is certain. It is impossible in 2002 to work out a satisfactory doctrine of the two Sacraments, Baptism and the Lord's Supper [Eucharist], simply by reference to the Sacred Scripture. It was ALSO impossible in the 1590's when Richard Hooker penned his "Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity" (in debate with the Puritans who wanted to bring revolutionary change into the Church of England) to work out such a doctrine simply by recourse to the Bible.
Why?
Because the Bible has to be interpreted now, and because it has been interpreted in the past, and because from the past we receive Tradition and traditions which affect the way we read the Bible and receive its contents. This is so in all situations but is particularly so with reference to the establishing of the reality of Sacraments and then of their meaning and purpose. Further, insulated, privatised judgment in the reading and interpretation of the Bible is the origin of heresies!
The central Anglican [reformed catholic] method of approaching the doctrine of the Sacraments was identified and then given solidity by Hooker in Book V of the Laws. He taught that the Sacraments are related to the Incarnation of the Son of God, who gave them, and that only in the light of the Incarnation can they be understood, appreciated and received and become effectual.
Thus before he addresses the nature and purpose of the two Sacraments, Hooker engages in a most careful and engaging statement of the doctrine of the Incarnation of the Son of God as that doctrine was formulated (after much discussion and debate) by the early Fathers and in the dogma of ecumenical councils. Anyone who wishes to read a succinct & brilliant statement of the Church dogma of the Incarnation will find such in Bk V, 51-57.
Of course in going to the Early Church (which after all was the Church that collected the books of, and decided the content of, the Canon of the New Testament) Hooker was following the Anglican method, often summarised since then by the use of the 1,2,3,4,5. Anglicans base doctrine, worship and church order on One Canon of Scripture with Two Testaments, doctrine summarised in Three Creeds, the dogma of Four General Councils and the developments of Five centuries of growth & experience (1-500). They seek to teach nothing contrary to the central doctrines of this formative period.
In the light of the Patristic Evidence, Hooker was able to dismiss the Roman doctrine of transubstantiation & the Lutheran doctrine of consubstantiation as not faithful to Scripture as received in the Early Church, and to propose a doctrine to which, he believed, the early Fathers testified. He proposed that "this is my body" meant Christ saying to the faithful receivers:
"This hallowed food, through concurrence of divine power, is in verity and in truth, unto faithful receivers, instrumentally a cause of that mystical participation, whereby as I make myself wholly theirs, so I give them in hand an actual possession of all such saving grace as my sacrificed body can yield, and as their souls do presently need, this is to them and in them my body."
This became the central Anglican doctrine (cf. Article XXV) of the presence of Christ in the Eucharist. It was the basis for the teaching on the Sacraments in the extension of the Catechism of the Prayer Book (done in 1604 and added to the BCP in 1662).
In historical terms, it is similar to that taught by John Calvin and the high Presbyterian divines and known as "Virtualism" - from virtus = strength/force/power (i.e., while the bread and wine continue to exist unchanged after consecration, the faithful communicant receives with the sacramental bread and wine the virtue/power/grace of the real Body and Blood of the crucified and exalted Saviour).
Another related approach to the presence of Christ in the Eucharist and developed by 17th century writers such as Jeremy Taylor is often termed "Receptionism" - that along with the actual bread and wine the faithful communicant receives the true Body of Blood of the crucified and now exalted Saviour.
These reformed Catholic or Anglican doctrines of the real presence were meant to avoid the literal identification of the bread and wine with the actual body and blood of Jesus and also to insist on the need for worthy, faithful reception. (In the 19th century Tractarians and then Anglo-Catholics adopted doctrines of the real presence that were derived not from the Reformed Catholic & Caroline traditions of the C of E but from Roman and Lutheran divines - see my Evangelical Theology, 1833-1856, A Response to Tractarianism, 1979.)
Hooker & the BCP Catechism do not deal with modern questions such as what kind of a sacrifice is offered at the Eucharist, but rather with what is received from Christ therein.
The point I am making is that there are TODAY no short cuts to the establishing of a sound doctrine of the Eucharist upon which we can create new liturgies and also officiate at and plan eucharistic liturgies today.
I would suggest that unless we are very familiar with the classic, patristic doctrine of the Incarnation and with the development of the structure & content of the Eucharist n the first five and more centuries, and thus in a position to judge the worth of the new shapes, contents and doctrines of the Anglican liturgies developed since the 1960s by appeal to the 3rd and 4th centuries, it is perhaps best for us to stay with the traditional BCP service in its 1662 C of E or its 1928 ECUSA form, whether we use the same in the traditional language of prayer (the "Thou-God") or the post 1960s attempts at "contemporary liturgical language" (the "You-God" as in the Common Worship, 2000, of the C of E). And further to stay with doctrines of "Virtualism" or "Receptionism" and to adjust our piety and communal sense of "Celebration" to fit these ends.
[Please note that at my church website the two latest recordings I made are available - in the Collects for Peace and on Advent. www.christchurch.biddulph.fsnet.co.uk ]
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon
A discussion starter
One thing I think is certain. It is impossible in 2002 to work out a satisfactory doctrine of the two Sacraments, Baptism and the Lord's Supper [Eucharist], simply by reference to the Sacred Scripture. It was ALSO impossible in the 1590's when Richard Hooker penned his "Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity" (in debate with the Puritans who wanted to bring revolutionary change into the Church of England) to work out such a doctrine simply by recourse to the Bible.
Why?
Because the Bible has to be interpreted now, and because it has been interpreted in the past, and because from the past we receive Tradition and traditions which affect the way we read the Bible and receive its contents. This is so in all situations but is particularly so with reference to the establishing of the reality of Sacraments and then of their meaning and purpose. Further, insulated, privatised judgment in the reading and interpretation of the Bible is the origin of heresies!
The central Anglican [reformed catholic] method of approaching the doctrine of the Sacraments was identified and then given solidity by Hooker in Book V of the Laws. He taught that the Sacraments are related to the Incarnation of the Son of God, who gave them, and that only in the light of the Incarnation can they be understood, appreciated and received and become effectual.
Thus before he addresses the nature and purpose of the two Sacraments, Hooker engages in a most careful and engaging statement of the doctrine of the Incarnation of the Son of God as that doctrine was formulated (after much discussion and debate) by the early Fathers and in the dogma of ecumenical councils. Anyone who wishes to read a succinct & brilliant statement of the Church dogma of the Incarnation will find such in Bk V, 51-57.
Of course in going to the Early Church (which after all was the Church that collected the books of, and decided the content of, the Canon of the New Testament) Hooker was following the Anglican method, often summarised since then by the use of the 1,2,3,4,5. Anglicans base doctrine, worship and church order on One Canon of Scripture with Two Testaments, doctrine summarised in Three Creeds, the dogma of Four General Councils and the developments of Five centuries of growth & experience (1-500). They seek to teach nothing contrary to the central doctrines of this formative period.
In the light of the Patristic Evidence, Hooker was able to dismiss the Roman doctrine of transubstantiation & the Lutheran doctrine of consubstantiation as not faithful to Scripture as received in the Early Church, and to propose a doctrine to which, he believed, the early Fathers testified. He proposed that "this is my body" meant Christ saying to the faithful receivers:
"This hallowed food, through concurrence of divine power, is in verity and in truth, unto faithful receivers, instrumentally a cause of that mystical participation, whereby as I make myself wholly theirs, so I give them in hand an actual possession of all such saving grace as my sacrificed body can yield, and as their souls do presently need, this is to them and in them my body."
This became the central Anglican doctrine (cf. Article XXV) of the presence of Christ in the Eucharist. It was the basis for the teaching on the Sacraments in the extension of the Catechism of the Prayer Book (done in 1604 and added to the BCP in 1662).
In historical terms, it is similar to that taught by John Calvin and the high Presbyterian divines and known as "Virtualism" - from virtus = strength/force/power (i.e., while the bread and wine continue to exist unchanged after consecration, the faithful communicant receives with the sacramental bread and wine the virtue/power/grace of the real Body and Blood of the crucified and exalted Saviour).
Another related approach to the presence of Christ in the Eucharist and developed by 17th century writers such as Jeremy Taylor is often termed "Receptionism" - that along with the actual bread and wine the faithful communicant receives the true Body of Blood of the crucified and now exalted Saviour.
These reformed Catholic or Anglican doctrines of the real presence were meant to avoid the literal identification of the bread and wine with the actual body and blood of Jesus and also to insist on the need for worthy, faithful reception. (In the 19th century Tractarians and then Anglo-Catholics adopted doctrines of the real presence that were derived not from the Reformed Catholic & Caroline traditions of the C of E but from Roman and Lutheran divines - see my Evangelical Theology, 1833-1856, A Response to Tractarianism, 1979.)
Hooker & the BCP Catechism do not deal with modern questions such as what kind of a sacrifice is offered at the Eucharist, but rather with what is received from Christ therein.
The point I am making is that there are TODAY no short cuts to the establishing of a sound doctrine of the Eucharist upon which we can create new liturgies and also officiate at and plan eucharistic liturgies today.
I would suggest that unless we are very familiar with the classic, patristic doctrine of the Incarnation and with the development of the structure & content of the Eucharist n the first five and more centuries, and thus in a position to judge the worth of the new shapes, contents and doctrines of the Anglican liturgies developed since the 1960s by appeal to the 3rd and 4th centuries, it is perhaps best for us to stay with the traditional BCP service in its 1662 C of E or its 1928 ECUSA form, whether we use the same in the traditional language of prayer (the "Thou-God") or the post 1960s attempts at "contemporary liturgical language" (the "You-God" as in the Common Worship, 2000, of the C of E). And further to stay with doctrines of "Virtualism" or "Receptionism" and to adjust our piety and communal sense of "Celebration" to fit these ends.
[Please note that at my church website the two latest recordings I made are available - in the Collects for Peace and on Advent. www.christchurch.biddulph.fsnet.co.uk ]
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon
Wednesday, October 30, 2002
Preaching & Reading Scripture
On recovering the Anglican Way
Today in the worship of most evangelical & charismatic congregations (as well as in liberal and latitudinarian ones) the readings from the Bible are usually short, taking only a minute or two, while the sermon/homily/address is much longer, taking usually five or even ten times as much time. Yet it is believed that the Bible is the written Word of God (or the written witness to the Word of God [Jesus the Christ]) while the sermon/homily/address is [at least sociologically] the word of a man or woman speaking of God in relation to humankind.
But is the sermon merely a human word? Many preachers have claimed and do claim that what they say is nothing less than the declared or preached or explained Word of God, and that it is designed to be God's special (if not unique) means of saving and edifying God's assembled people. It possesses greater efficacy than the public reading of the written Word of God.
Certainly the Puritans of Elizabethan England [who wished to model the Church of England after the church in the Canton of Geneva] were totally committed to the act of preaching as central not only to the act of Christian worship but also to the receiving of the Word of God by the congregation. The reading of the Bible was seen as preparatory to and as included within the act of preaching, which was ex tempore, even though notes were usually used. Psalms were sung before and after the sermon and prayer was offered, but the Sermon was central and supreme. The public reading of Scripture did not exist in and of itself as a separate entity but only in service of the sermon.
In contrast, Christian worship for the regular Churchmen of the Church of England consisted of four services on the Lord's Day and a sermon or homily was only included in one of them. Public reading of the Bible was absolutely central. Morning Prayer contained a long OT and a long NT reading and the praying of biblical canticles and several biblical psalms. The Litany was wholly an act of prayer but filled with biblical phraseology. The Order for Holy Communion contained an Epistle and a Gospel, together with a required homily, which could be read or preached ex tempore. Then Evening Prayer had a long OT and a long NT reading and the praying of biblical canticles and several psalms. So the sermon at H C was the only one required for the Lord' s Day.
The Anglican position (as so well stated by Richard Hooker in his LAWS, book V) was that the public reading of the Word of God is proclamation and preaching and is a definite means of grace in the congregation of the faithful. Likewise the meditatory use of the Psalter in worship is a means of grace. Thus there was no need for a sermon in or at the end of Morning or Evening Prayer since the Word of God was clearly proclaimed therein by the clear and effectual and careful reading of the Word of God unto the people. A sermon or homily was delivered after the Creed in the Order for Holy Communion and Catechising was appointed to be done publicly in the congregation regularly on the Lord's Day after services.
Thus while the Anglican highly valued the sermon (and thus the C of E provided official written ones to be read by those who could not compose good ones themselves) he also highly valued the public reading of the Scripture, in and of itself, in and by itself, as a direct means of grace. In contrast the Puritan only valued the public reading of the Bible if, and only if, it was closely connected with an exposition or sermon by the pastor.
In 2002, we find that the Scripture Lessons for MP & EP in the new lectionaries are much shorter than they were a century and more ago. Further, a sermon is added to MP & EP if these stand alone.
What seems to have been lost within the Anglican ethos is that strong sense that the public reading of a [long] portion of Scripture is proclamation and preaching - the unedited, undiluted word of God to man - and that the meditatory praying of the psalter is the most apostolic form of prayer and praise. There is a tendency today to allow any volunteer to read the Bible even though the person is not a good reader and has little sense of the meaning of the sacred text.
Apparently we hear less Scripture today in public worship then in 1902, 1802, 1702, 1601 and in its place we sing more choruses & hear more talks/notices/sermons, which rarely rise to being genuine expositions of the sacred Scripture.
Do we need to recover the sense that the public reading of whole chapters of the Bible is a definite means of grace and a public form of proclamation of the Word of God?
Please note that there are two new Homilettes on the Web site of my little parish. One is on the two Collects for Peace in MP & EP and the other is on Advent. If you have speakers please make a visit... WWW.christchurch-biddulph.fsnet.co.uk
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon
Today in the worship of most evangelical & charismatic congregations (as well as in liberal and latitudinarian ones) the readings from the Bible are usually short, taking only a minute or two, while the sermon/homily/address is much longer, taking usually five or even ten times as much time. Yet it is believed that the Bible is the written Word of God (or the written witness to the Word of God [Jesus the Christ]) while the sermon/homily/address is [at least sociologically] the word of a man or woman speaking of God in relation to humankind.
But is the sermon merely a human word? Many preachers have claimed and do claim that what they say is nothing less than the declared or preached or explained Word of God, and that it is designed to be God's special (if not unique) means of saving and edifying God's assembled people. It possesses greater efficacy than the public reading of the written Word of God.
Certainly the Puritans of Elizabethan England [who wished to model the Church of England after the church in the Canton of Geneva] were totally committed to the act of preaching as central not only to the act of Christian worship but also to the receiving of the Word of God by the congregation. The reading of the Bible was seen as preparatory to and as included within the act of preaching, which was ex tempore, even though notes were usually used. Psalms were sung before and after the sermon and prayer was offered, but the Sermon was central and supreme. The public reading of Scripture did not exist in and of itself as a separate entity but only in service of the sermon.
In contrast, Christian worship for the regular Churchmen of the Church of England consisted of four services on the Lord's Day and a sermon or homily was only included in one of them. Public reading of the Bible was absolutely central. Morning Prayer contained a long OT and a long NT reading and the praying of biblical canticles and several biblical psalms. The Litany was wholly an act of prayer but filled with biblical phraseology. The Order for Holy Communion contained an Epistle and a Gospel, together with a required homily, which could be read or preached ex tempore. Then Evening Prayer had a long OT and a long NT reading and the praying of biblical canticles and several psalms. So the sermon at H C was the only one required for the Lord' s Day.
The Anglican position (as so well stated by Richard Hooker in his LAWS, book V) was that the public reading of the Word of God is proclamation and preaching and is a definite means of grace in the congregation of the faithful. Likewise the meditatory use of the Psalter in worship is a means of grace. Thus there was no need for a sermon in or at the end of Morning or Evening Prayer since the Word of God was clearly proclaimed therein by the clear and effectual and careful reading of the Word of God unto the people. A sermon or homily was delivered after the Creed in the Order for Holy Communion and Catechising was appointed to be done publicly in the congregation regularly on the Lord's Day after services.
Thus while the Anglican highly valued the sermon (and thus the C of E provided official written ones to be read by those who could not compose good ones themselves) he also highly valued the public reading of the Scripture, in and of itself, in and by itself, as a direct means of grace. In contrast the Puritan only valued the public reading of the Bible if, and only if, it was closely connected with an exposition or sermon by the pastor.
In 2002, we find that the Scripture Lessons for MP & EP in the new lectionaries are much shorter than they were a century and more ago. Further, a sermon is added to MP & EP if these stand alone.
What seems to have been lost within the Anglican ethos is that strong sense that the public reading of a [long] portion of Scripture is proclamation and preaching - the unedited, undiluted word of God to man - and that the meditatory praying of the psalter is the most apostolic form of prayer and praise. There is a tendency today to allow any volunteer to read the Bible even though the person is not a good reader and has little sense of the meaning of the sacred text.
Apparently we hear less Scripture today in public worship then in 1902, 1802, 1702, 1601 and in its place we sing more choruses & hear more talks/notices/sermons, which rarely rise to being genuine expositions of the sacred Scripture.
Do we need to recover the sense that the public reading of whole chapters of the Bible is a definite means of grace and a public form of proclamation of the Word of God?
Please note that there are two new Homilettes on the Web site of my little parish. One is on the two Collects for Peace in MP & EP and the other is on Advent. If you have speakers please make a visit... WWW.christchurch-biddulph.fsnet.co.uk
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon
Tuesday, October 29, 2002
Bishops issue statement on blessing same-sex unions
http://anglican.ca/news/ann/ann.html?annItem=2002-10-29_a.ann
A Message to the Church
MISSISSAUGA, ONT., Oct. 29, 2002 - In the name of God, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. The House of Bishops of the Anglican Church of Canada, meeting in Mississauga on October 28, 2002, issues the following statement in response to the decision of the Synod of the Diocese of New Westminster to bless same-sex unions.
We are called to be one in the Body of Christ. (John 17:21) We know that on the issue of same-sex unions differing convictions are deeply held in the House of Bishops, throughout our church and beyond. The decision of New Westminster has caused pain for some and joy in others. Over the past four years this Diocese undertook an extensive process of study that led them to their decision. We recognize that members of the diocese on every side of the issue have suffered pain. Eight parishes of the Diocese of New Westminster have requested alternative Episcopal oversight for themselves. Before the fracture widens we urge all involved to engage in a process of reconciliation (2 Corinthians 5:18) on the basis of the general principles passed by the Diocesan Synod in June 2002. Although the precise terms of the conversation will be established within the Diocese we propose that the following elements should be part of it.
The conversation should be enabled by a mutually agreed to facilitator. The process should provide 'safety' for all participants by setting at least these standards: Being respectful of each others' faith journey. Listening respectfully Asking 'inviting' questions Attempting to understand from the view points of others
We request that those outside the diocese respect the integrity of this process and allow it to proceed without intervention. In recent years some dioceses in the Anglican Church of Canada have made individual decisions to recognize or forbid, and in this one instance, to bless same-sex unions. We have spent much of our time at these meetings discussing our response to these situations. We are unable to speak with a unanimous voice on this issue of national concern especially with regard to the subject of homosexuality in the light of scripture. We are referring the matter of the blessing of same-sex unions to our national governing body, the General Synod (2004) for discussion and if possible, resolution.
We agree that we will not make individual decisions in any additional dioceses during the interim. Until the time of resolution all bishops are asked to uphold the 1997 Guidelines of the House of Bishops on Human Sexuality. We call the church to prayer in this difficult and demanding time in our life in Christ.
A Message to the Church
MISSISSAUGA, ONT., Oct. 29, 2002 - In the name of God, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. The House of Bishops of the Anglican Church of Canada, meeting in Mississauga on October 28, 2002, issues the following statement in response to the decision of the Synod of the Diocese of New Westminster to bless same-sex unions.
We are called to be one in the Body of Christ. (John 17:21) We know that on the issue of same-sex unions differing convictions are deeply held in the House of Bishops, throughout our church and beyond. The decision of New Westminster has caused pain for some and joy in others. Over the past four years this Diocese undertook an extensive process of study that led them to their decision. We recognize that members of the diocese on every side of the issue have suffered pain. Eight parishes of the Diocese of New Westminster have requested alternative Episcopal oversight for themselves. Before the fracture widens we urge all involved to engage in a process of reconciliation (2 Corinthians 5:18) on the basis of the general principles passed by the Diocesan Synod in June 2002. Although the precise terms of the conversation will be established within the Diocese we propose that the following elements should be part of it.
The conversation should be enabled by a mutually agreed to facilitator. The process should provide 'safety' for all participants by setting at least these standards: Being respectful of each others' faith journey. Listening respectfully Asking 'inviting' questions Attempting to understand from the view points of others
We request that those outside the diocese respect the integrity of this process and allow it to proceed without intervention. In recent years some dioceses in the Anglican Church of Canada have made individual decisions to recognize or forbid, and in this one instance, to bless same-sex unions. We have spent much of our time at these meetings discussing our response to these situations. We are unable to speak with a unanimous voice on this issue of national concern especially with regard to the subject of homosexuality in the light of scripture. We are referring the matter of the blessing of same-sex unions to our national governing body, the General Synod (2004) for discussion and if possible, resolution.
We agree that we will not make individual decisions in any additional dioceses during the interim. Until the time of resolution all bishops are asked to uphold the 1997 Guidelines of the House of Bishops on Human Sexuality. We call the church to prayer in this difficult and demanding time in our life in Christ.
On the meaning and maintenance of COMMUNION in the Anglican Family
ACNS 3175 - ACO - 23 OCTOBER 2002
Inter-Anglican Theological and Doctrinal Commission Communiqué
The initial meeting of the Inter-Anglican Theological and Doctrinal Commission had been disrupted by the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington, so this year's meeting was the first occasion for all members to come together. Assembled at Virginia Theological Seminary, and charged by the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Anglican Consultative Council to articulate 'the meaning and maintenance of communion', the Commission was once again vividly aware of the volatility of human communities. Dramatic preparations were being made for the anniversary of September 11, rhetoric for regime change in Iraq was gathering force, and during the meeting news was received of the murder of a Congolese priest as he was travelling to a meeting of the Anglican Consultative Council.
The Commission, twenty-two theologians and teachers from all parts of the Anglican Communion under the Chairmanship of the Rt Revd Professor Stephen Sykes, was also acutely aware of conflict and potential divisions within the church. Papers commissioned for the meeting and extensive correspondence with dioceses and centres of theological education around the world were discussed. Over 100 replies were received to questions about the nature of communion, threats to its integrity, and the degree to which 'moral teachings' define, but also at times divide, Christian identity. What has become clear is that alongside well-publicised differences over attitudes to homosexuality, questions of gender and ministry or the possibility of lay-presidency at the Eucharist, most Anglicans are even more concerned about the way appropriate expressions of fellowship could provide mutual support for churches living under the threats of poverty, ethnic tensions, violence and enormous human need. An underlying theology of communion (koinonia) will need to engage all these issues.
The Commission is committed to continuing its task in conversation with the Anglican Communion as a whole, and especially with churches of the global South. In a second stage of consultation, responses are being sought to a series of propositions about the nature of conflict in the church; the role of Scripture; the proper integration of doctrine and ethics; the way in which local, contextual questions are addressed and how far the interdependence of Anglican provinces can be a source of strength in this responsibility, along with the need to find structures of 'testing, reconciliation and restraint' which are appropriate to an Anglican understanding of authority in the Church.
The Commission greatly appreciated the generous hospitality of Virginia Theological Seminary and expects to meet next from 4-9 September 2003. A review of responses to the first phase of the Commission's work, The Communion Study, 2002: Four key questions for Anglicans, will be sent to dioceses along with an outline of the future course of its study. Additional details will be shown on the IATDC pages of the Anglican Communion web-site:
www.anglicancommunion.org.
Participants
The Rt Revd Prof Stephen Sykes, England, Chairman
Dr Jennie Te Paa, Aotearoa/NZ and Polynesia
The Revd Dr Stephen K Pickard, Australia
The Revd Dr Bruce Kaye, Australia
Dr Eileen Scully, Canada
The Rt Revd Dr Samuel Cutting, India (not able to attend)
The Rt Revd Paul Richardson, England
The Revd Prof Nicholas Sagovsky, England
The Revd Canon Dr Tom Wright, England
Dr Ester Mombo, Kenya
The Revd Joseph Denge Galgalo, Kenya
The Rt Revd Dr Matthew Owadayo, Nigeria
The Revd Canon Luke Pato, Southern Africa
The Rt Revd Héctor Zavala, Southern Cone
The Rt Revd Dr Lim Cheng Ean, South East Asia
The Revd Victor Atta-Bafoe, West Africa
The Very Revd Dr Paul Zahl, United States
The Revd Prof Kortwright Davis, United States
The Revd Dr Kathy Grieb, Observer, VTS
The Rt Revd Dr Mark Dyer, IASCER Cross Appointment
The Revd Dr Philip Thomas, England, Assistant to the Chairman
The Rt Revd John Baycroft, ACO, Secretary
Mrs Christine Codner, ACO, Administrative Assistant
Ms Frances Hiller, ACO, Administrative Assistant
Further information from:
The Rt Revd John Baycroft (Secretary)
Anglican Communion Office
Partnership House
157 Waterloo Rd
London
England
SE1 8UT
John.Baycroft@anglicancommunion.org
The Revd Dr Philip Thomas (Assistant to the Chairman)
The Vicarage
Heighington
Co Durham
England
DL5 6PP
Philip.Thomas@durham.anglican.org
Inter-Anglican Theological and Doctrinal Commission Communiqué
The initial meeting of the Inter-Anglican Theological and Doctrinal Commission had been disrupted by the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington, so this year's meeting was the first occasion for all members to come together. Assembled at Virginia Theological Seminary, and charged by the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Anglican Consultative Council to articulate 'the meaning and maintenance of communion', the Commission was once again vividly aware of the volatility of human communities. Dramatic preparations were being made for the anniversary of September 11, rhetoric for regime change in Iraq was gathering force, and during the meeting news was received of the murder of a Congolese priest as he was travelling to a meeting of the Anglican Consultative Council.
The Commission, twenty-two theologians and teachers from all parts of the Anglican Communion under the Chairmanship of the Rt Revd Professor Stephen Sykes, was also acutely aware of conflict and potential divisions within the church. Papers commissioned for the meeting and extensive correspondence with dioceses and centres of theological education around the world were discussed. Over 100 replies were received to questions about the nature of communion, threats to its integrity, and the degree to which 'moral teachings' define, but also at times divide, Christian identity. What has become clear is that alongside well-publicised differences over attitudes to homosexuality, questions of gender and ministry or the possibility of lay-presidency at the Eucharist, most Anglicans are even more concerned about the way appropriate expressions of fellowship could provide mutual support for churches living under the threats of poverty, ethnic tensions, violence and enormous human need. An underlying theology of communion (koinonia) will need to engage all these issues.
The Commission is committed to continuing its task in conversation with the Anglican Communion as a whole, and especially with churches of the global South. In a second stage of consultation, responses are being sought to a series of propositions about the nature of conflict in the church; the role of Scripture; the proper integration of doctrine and ethics; the way in which local, contextual questions are addressed and how far the interdependence of Anglican provinces can be a source of strength in this responsibility, along with the need to find structures of 'testing, reconciliation and restraint' which are appropriate to an Anglican understanding of authority in the Church.
The Commission greatly appreciated the generous hospitality of Virginia Theological Seminary and expects to meet next from 4-9 September 2003. A review of responses to the first phase of the Commission's work, The Communion Study, 2002: Four key questions for Anglicans, will be sent to dioceses along with an outline of the future course of its study. Additional details will be shown on the IATDC pages of the Anglican Communion web-site:
www.anglicancommunion.org.
Participants
The Rt Revd Prof Stephen Sykes, England, Chairman
Dr Jennie Te Paa, Aotearoa/NZ and Polynesia
The Revd Dr Stephen K Pickard, Australia
The Revd Dr Bruce Kaye, Australia
Dr Eileen Scully, Canada
The Rt Revd Dr Samuel Cutting, India (not able to attend)
The Rt Revd Paul Richardson, England
The Revd Prof Nicholas Sagovsky, England
The Revd Canon Dr Tom Wright, England
Dr Ester Mombo, Kenya
The Revd Joseph Denge Galgalo, Kenya
The Rt Revd Dr Matthew Owadayo, Nigeria
The Revd Canon Luke Pato, Southern Africa
The Rt Revd Héctor Zavala, Southern Cone
The Rt Revd Dr Lim Cheng Ean, South East Asia
The Revd Victor Atta-Bafoe, West Africa
The Very Revd Dr Paul Zahl, United States
The Revd Prof Kortwright Davis, United States
The Revd Dr Kathy Grieb, Observer, VTS
The Rt Revd Dr Mark Dyer, IASCER Cross Appointment
The Revd Dr Philip Thomas, England, Assistant to the Chairman
The Rt Revd John Baycroft, ACO, Secretary
Mrs Christine Codner, ACO, Administrative Assistant
Ms Frances Hiller, ACO, Administrative Assistant
Further information from:
The Rt Revd John Baycroft (Secretary)
Anglican Communion Office
Partnership House
157 Waterloo Rd
London
England
SE1 8UT
John.Baycroft@anglicancommunion.org
The Revd Dr Philip Thomas (Assistant to the Chairman)
The Vicarage
Heighington
Co Durham
England
DL5 6PP
Philip.Thomas@durham.anglican.org
Saturday, October 26, 2002
All Saints’ Day, November 1st
Collect: O Almighty God, who has knit together thine elect in one communion and fellowship, in the mystical body of thy Son, Christ our Lord: Grant us grace so to follow thy blessed Saints in all virtuous and godly living, that we may come to those unspeakable joys, which thou has prepared for them that unfeignedly love thee; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.
Epistle: Revelation 7:2-12 Gospel: St Matthew 5:1-12
Whatever may have been [historically] the origin of the festival, it has become one very dear to the hearts of Christians, and is made, both by the character of the Service for the day, and by the meaning of it, one of the most touching of all holydays; a day on which are gathered up the fragments of the “one bread” of Christ’s Mystical Body, that nothing be lost of the memory and example of His Saints.
First among the “cloud of witnesses” are they of the white-robed army of martyrs who are not otherwise commemorated, whose names are not noted in the diptychs of the Church, but are for ever written in the Lamb’s Book of Life.
Next are a multitude of those who were called to wait with St John, rather than to follow their Master with St Peter, but who are not less surely numbered among the children of God, and have their lot among the saints. Among that holy company are some who are dear to the memory of a whole Church; good bishops and priests, whose flocks are around them in the book of remembrance; saintly men and women, whose lives have been devoted to works of love, although not ministering at the altar; hidden saints of God, whose holiness was known within the narrowest circle on earth, but who will shine like stars in the firmament before the throne.
When the Church thanks God on this day for All Saints, many an one among them should be remembered by those who are left on earth. At the Holy Communion and in private devotions, their names should be used in memorial before God; and prayers should be offered by those to whom they are still dear, and with whom they are still in one fellowship, that all loved ones departed may have more and more the Light, Peace, and Refreshment which the Presence of Christ gives in Paradise.
[Comment by John Henry Blunt from his THE ANNOTATED BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER, 2nd edition, 1884, p.342 (lst edition 1866). Blunt was a moderate high churchman and his book was widely used both in Britain and in North America where it was printed and published. It is worthy of being reprinted in an edited & reduced form.]
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon
Minister of Christ Church, Biddulph Moor,
England & Vice-President and Emissary-at-Large
of The Prayer Book Society of America
Epistle: Revelation 7:2-12 Gospel: St Matthew 5:1-12
Whatever may have been [historically] the origin of the festival, it has become one very dear to the hearts of Christians, and is made, both by the character of the Service for the day, and by the meaning of it, one of the most touching of all holydays; a day on which are gathered up the fragments of the “one bread” of Christ’s Mystical Body, that nothing be lost of the memory and example of His Saints.
First among the “cloud of witnesses” are they of the white-robed army of martyrs who are not otherwise commemorated, whose names are not noted in the diptychs of the Church, but are for ever written in the Lamb’s Book of Life.
Next are a multitude of those who were called to wait with St John, rather than to follow their Master with St Peter, but who are not less surely numbered among the children of God, and have their lot among the saints. Among that holy company are some who are dear to the memory of a whole Church; good bishops and priests, whose flocks are around them in the book of remembrance; saintly men and women, whose lives have been devoted to works of love, although not ministering at the altar; hidden saints of God, whose holiness was known within the narrowest circle on earth, but who will shine like stars in the firmament before the throne.
When the Church thanks God on this day for All Saints, many an one among them should be remembered by those who are left on earth. At the Holy Communion and in private devotions, their names should be used in memorial before God; and prayers should be offered by those to whom they are still dear, and with whom they are still in one fellowship, that all loved ones departed may have more and more the Light, Peace, and Refreshment which the Presence of Christ gives in Paradise.
[Comment by John Henry Blunt from his THE ANNOTATED BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER, 2nd edition, 1884, p.342 (lst edition 1866). Blunt was a moderate high churchman and his book was widely used both in Britain and in North America where it was printed and published. It is worthy of being reprinted in an edited & reduced form.]
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon
Minister of Christ Church, Biddulph Moor,
England & Vice-President and Emissary-at-Large
of The Prayer Book Society of America
All Souls' Day
If Anglican parishes are going to keep All Souls' Day at the present time then I suggest that they need to have a persuasive doctrine to support the celebration. This does not seem to be the case with modern Anglican Churches, if the content of the specially created, modern Collects are taken as evidence.
In the BCP 1662 there is no Collect for All Souls' for the day is not named for celebration, as the western doctrine of Purgatory, which undergirded it, was rejected. However, in the Common Worship (2000) of the Church of England, the Collect for All Souls' in the 'traditional language' form is as
follows:
"Everlasting God, our maker and redeemer, grant us with all the faithful departed, the sure benefits of thy Son's saving passion and glorious resurrection, that, in the last day, when thou dost gather up all things in Christ, we may with them enjoy the fullness of thy promises; through Jesus Christ thy Son our Lord, who liveth with thee, in the unity of the Holy Spirit, one God, now and for ever. Amen."
And the Post Communion prayer is:
"O God of love, grant that the death and resurrection of Christ, which we have celebrated in this sacrament may bring us, with all the faithful departed, into the peace of thine eternal home; through Jesus Christ, our rock and our salvation, to whom be glory for time and eternity."
In these Prayers there is no specific presence of the crucial doctrine for the traditional keeping of All Souls' Day, the doctrine of the Church Expectant. That is of the souls of baptized Christians who are being purified, purged and sanctified by the grace of Christ in order that they can enter as perfected souls into the closer presence of Christ and for the redemption of their bodies [at the Last Day], and so that they have glorified souls and bodies for life everlasting and the enjoyment of the beatific vision.
In fact these Anglican prayers could be used on All Saints' Day, which celebrates both the numberless faithful Christians who have gone before us and the equally great number of faithful Christians now on earth as pilgrims and sojourners, and few would sense that they were inappropriate!
In the now discarded Alternative Service Book (1980) of the C of E the following is the appointed Collect:
"Merciful God, whose Son Jesus Christ is the resurrection and the life of all the faithful: raise us from the death of sin to the life of righteousness, that at the last we, with our brother/sister. may come to thy eternal joy;."
If we now look at traditional Western Collects for All Souls' we shall see that they presuppose the doctrine of the Church Expectant in Purgation and of the duty of the Church Militant on earth to pray for those in Purgation so that they will move on by grace into the fullness of forgiveness & redemption, and into the company of the Saints in glory.
"O God, the Creator and Redeemer of all them that believe: grant unto the souls of thy servants and handmaidens the remission of their sins; that as they have desired thy merciful pardon, so by the supplications of their brethren they may receive the same.."
"O God to whom alone belongeth the forgiveness of sins: grant, we pray thee, to the souls of thy servants and handmaidens, whose burial we now commemorate, to find a place of refreshing, and the blessedness of rest, and to enjoy the glory of everlasting light."
"O God, who desirest not the death of a sinner, but rather that all mankind should be saved, we beseech thee mercifully to grant that thy servants and handmaidens, who have passed out of this world, may ever by the intercession of the Blessed Mary ever Virgin and of all thy Saints come to enjoy with them everlasting blessedness.."
I am not here commending the use of these Collects; but, I am pointing out that if modern Anglicans are going to reject the doctrine of the classic BCP & Articles of Religion and treat All Souls' as a special day then they need to have some clear doctrine to support it. Mere sentimentality and/or vagueness will not do!
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon
In the BCP 1662 there is no Collect for All Souls' for the day is not named for celebration, as the western doctrine of Purgatory, which undergirded it, was rejected. However, in the Common Worship (2000) of the Church of England, the Collect for All Souls' in the 'traditional language' form is as
follows:
"Everlasting God, our maker and redeemer, grant us with all the faithful departed, the sure benefits of thy Son's saving passion and glorious resurrection, that, in the last day, when thou dost gather up all things in Christ, we may with them enjoy the fullness of thy promises; through Jesus Christ thy Son our Lord, who liveth with thee, in the unity of the Holy Spirit, one God, now and for ever. Amen."
And the Post Communion prayer is:
"O God of love, grant that the death and resurrection of Christ, which we have celebrated in this sacrament may bring us, with all the faithful departed, into the peace of thine eternal home; through Jesus Christ, our rock and our salvation, to whom be glory for time and eternity."
In these Prayers there is no specific presence of the crucial doctrine for the traditional keeping of All Souls' Day, the doctrine of the Church Expectant. That is of the souls of baptized Christians who are being purified, purged and sanctified by the grace of Christ in order that they can enter as perfected souls into the closer presence of Christ and for the redemption of their bodies [at the Last Day], and so that they have glorified souls and bodies for life everlasting and the enjoyment of the beatific vision.
In fact these Anglican prayers could be used on All Saints' Day, which celebrates both the numberless faithful Christians who have gone before us and the equally great number of faithful Christians now on earth as pilgrims and sojourners, and few would sense that they were inappropriate!
In the now discarded Alternative Service Book (1980) of the C of E the following is the appointed Collect:
"Merciful God, whose Son Jesus Christ is the resurrection and the life of all the faithful: raise us from the death of sin to the life of righteousness, that at the last we, with our brother/sister. may come to thy eternal joy;."
If we now look at traditional Western Collects for All Souls' we shall see that they presuppose the doctrine of the Church Expectant in Purgation and of the duty of the Church Militant on earth to pray for those in Purgation so that they will move on by grace into the fullness of forgiveness & redemption, and into the company of the Saints in glory.
"O God, the Creator and Redeemer of all them that believe: grant unto the souls of thy servants and handmaidens the remission of their sins; that as they have desired thy merciful pardon, so by the supplications of their brethren they may receive the same.."
"O God to whom alone belongeth the forgiveness of sins: grant, we pray thee, to the souls of thy servants and handmaidens, whose burial we now commemorate, to find a place of refreshing, and the blessedness of rest, and to enjoy the glory of everlasting light."
"O God, who desirest not the death of a sinner, but rather that all mankind should be saved, we beseech thee mercifully to grant that thy servants and handmaidens, who have passed out of this world, may ever by the intercession of the Blessed Mary ever Virgin and of all thy Saints come to enjoy with them everlasting blessedness.."
I am not here commending the use of these Collects; but, I am pointing out that if modern Anglicans are going to reject the doctrine of the classic BCP & Articles of Religion and treat All Souls' as a special day then they need to have some clear doctrine to support it. Mere sentimentality and/or vagueness will not do!
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)