May I begin by saying that the prose of Cranmer and his associates was written to be spoken and no doubt they tested it out in speech before they sent the copy to the printer. Though it was not identical with any specific form of spoken and written English of the time it was such as to be understandable and usuable by all! And herein was its (as later was recognized) genius and it stood the test of time as the language of prayer/worship for ALL the English speaking peoples from 1550-1950 - a long time. It is still the preferred form of language for a sizeable minority and could be for more if the powers that be would allow or encourage experimental use.
(On Cranmer's prose I heartily encourage members of this Listserve to read the excellent study of the origins of English prose in the book from Cambridge University Press -- Ian Robinson, The Establishment of Modern English Prose in the Reformation & Enlightenment, 1998. There is much valuable material on the BCP etc in here. So many people have half-baked ideas as to what kind of language is that of the BCP and this book is the very best to set the record straight!)
Now some thoughts I glean from a friend concerning what is usually called "traditional" and "contemporary" language for worship. Here what is in mind is both RC and Anglican use of so called contemporary language
The form of English used for common prayer is probably best described from a linguistic standpoint as 'English liturgical idiom.' It isn't really a 'dialect': a dialect covers all the specific or general uses of language for a given group of people who speak that dialect. A form of language used for specific purposes, such as technical language, is referred to by linguists as an idiom. Such idiom is 'contemporary' in so far as it is in current use. I would use the term 'liturgical idiom' to denote the language of Christian worship; though I note that non-Christian English-speakers also use idioms similar to the Christian liturgical idiom for their own common prayer, e.g. the English used to translate the Hebrew prayers in Jewish worship.
What the revisers in the 1960s-1980s and since did was, in fact, was not to use contemporary English but to attempt to invent a new idiom. This was 'artificial' in so far as it was not part of a process of growth or development of an existing idiom, but a linguistic device, based on certain ideological assumptions---demonstrably false assumptions from a scientific linguistic point of view---about what the liturgical idiom ought to be. For one thing, they fail to recognize the distinction between various idioms in a language, and assumed that 'contemporary' English was all one idiom. On the assumption that 'contemporary English'---in fact a collection of other idioms---would be more intelligible, they then attempted to take language from those other idioms (which were tailored for other purposes, some more specific, some more general) and bring them into use for common prayer. The result is an ineffective liturgical idiom, confusing, since the forms it employs already have meanings and, to use a metaphor, overtones, which are at variance with the purpose of common prayer, and in fact less intelligible or, in so far as they are intelligible, false and misleading. The results, confusion about Christian doctrine and a loss of a sense of worship, are evident for all who have eyes to see.
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
Thursday, May 30, 2002
MODERNISATION OF LANGUAGE AND DOCTRINAL CHANGE
I have made the point elsewhere that the shift in the 1960s & 1970s from the traditional English dialect of prayer to so-called "contemporary English" involved - wittingly and/or unwittingly - doctrinal change.
Here are three examples of what I have in mind - in response to requests.
1. "AND WITH THY SPIRIT" is rendered "AND ALSO WITH YOU."
These words are addressed to the Minister of the Sacrament (in modern jargon "the President of the Eucharistic Assembly) by the congregation after he has said to the gathered people, "The Lord be with you."
Translators & liturgists could have given us "and with your spirit" which would have been perfectly good English and also meaningful (if we believe that the human being is composed of body, soul and spirit).
In fact there is a long tradition of understanding with regard to the "and with thy spirit" [Latin = et cum spiritu tuo] that focuses on this response as a short prayer asking God to quicken within the Minister that spiritual gift given to him in ordination so that he will rightly celebrate and administrate the Sacrament. The gift of the Holy Spirit is linked to his spirit and thus the et cum spiritu tuo.
If "and also with you" is used then he is merely being recognized as one of the circle and as distinct simply because of his function, not because of his gift.
This is not heresy as such but a change in doctrine.
2. "WE BELIEVE" instead of "I BELIEVE"
In the Divine Liturgy of the Orthodox Churches and in the Latin Mass of the Roman Catholic Church, the Creed is in the first person singular. The reason for this is that it entered the Liturgy as a Baptismal Creed not as a Confession of Faith by Bishops at an Ecumenical Council, which is where it was composed and where it was in the "We" form. (The Nicene Creed was always "I believe" as a Baptismal Creed before it entered the liturgy in the late 5th century.)
The use of the "I" has been taken to have two meanings - first, it is the voice of the Bride responding to her Bridegroom with her confession of faith; it is the one Person, as it were, of the Church (the one Body & One
Household) speaking to the Lord Jesus in love and gratitude. Secondly, within the one "I" of the Church of God there are many individual persons, united in the Holy Spirit in the One Body of Christ. So it is the word also of each member, but each member in unison.
Thus "I believe" was in use everywhere and always until the 1970s when in a few European languages (a minority) the "we believe" was used to translate "credo." Why? To counteract supposed individualism and so have the eucharistic assembly united together and saying "we believe."
What is clear is that the original Greek and Latin in the official Liturgies have the first person singular and all musical settings until the 1970s were for the first person singular. Credo does not mean "we believe" and Pisteuo does not mean "we believe".
"We believe." changes the meaning of the Creed for it loses the Unity of the Body as one "I" and it loses the Baptismal reference and in place of this it imposes a modern form of confession in order to combat modern aggressive individualism.
This is not heresy as such but a change of doctrine.
3. PRAYER: The Adjectival Mode or the Declarative Mode.
Are modern language versions of the traditional Collects acceptable forms of godly Prayer? Specifically, by way of example, that for the Sunday after Ascension Day?
For the first Book of the Common Prayer (1549) Archbishop Cranmer composed a new Collect for the Sunday after the Feast of the Ascension of our Lord. The Collect begins: "O God, the King of glory, who has exalted thine only Son Jesus Christ with great triumph unto thy kingdom in heaven: we beseech thee, leave us not comfortless.."
The modern rendering in the 1979 prayer book of ECUSA begins: "O God, the King of glory, you have exalted your only Son Jesus Christ to your kingdom in heaven, do not leave us comfortless.
Here we have one example of a common tendency amongst modern liturgists to set aside the adjectival relative clause and to move to the declarative statement. That is from the "who hast exalted" to the "you have exalted."
[Note that the question being raised here has nothing to do with the use of thee and thine instead of you and your.]
To those who are not skilled in grammar [and let us be honest it is little taught in modern schools] and see no relation between grammatical form and doctrine/piety then the change may seem harmless.
However, it may be argued that the relation of man to God, and of man to God 's revealed Truth, is altered by the change in grammatical structure. The adjectival mode necessarily expresses a sort of humility and dependence on revelation; whereas the declarative mode necessarily asserts a sort of parity with God and a power over the details of revelation.
To reflect upon this in more detail we need to be aware of the importance of the rhetorical device of Apostrophe in liturgical prayer.
"Apostrophe is a rhetorical figure used to signify vocative address.It is characteristic of dramatic and exclamatory styles of discourse and is supremely vocal and emotive. And whilst it constitutes a calling to be heard by that which is absent, it is also in the context of liturgical enactment, a communal figure: it is both heard and overhead."
Good liturgy uses this device to pray about God in the context of addressing God. See the Cantate Domine in the traditional translation:
"O Sing unto the LORD a new song; for he hath done marvellous things With his own right hand and with his holy arm, hath he gotten himself the victory.."
God's people sing of God and do so in his presence and within his hearing.
When it comes to prayers and collects the use of the device enables worshippers to speak about God, without reminding God of who he is and what he has promised, and without engaging in a kind of flattery of the Almighty.
Take the Absolution. "Almighty God, our heavenly Father, who of his great mercy hath promised the forgiveness of sins." This style enables worshippers to be in a right relation of humility before God and not claiming anything by right.
The same point can be made by comparing the Collect for Purity at the beginning of the Order for Holy Communion. The traditional addresses "Almighty God [the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ]" and then proceeds, "unto whom all hearts are open and from whom no secrets are hid." In contrast the modern has: "Almighty God, to you all hearts are open, all desires known."
Here the traditional form recognizes that God knows all about us and serves as a reminder of the same in his presence. In contrast the modern seems to be reminding God of the fact that he is all-knowing!
One of the worst examples of modern translation is that of the Te Deum, where the worshippers tell God who he is: "You are God; we praise you; You are the Lord; we acclaim you." God does not need to know who he is and we need to be humble before him. The traditional has: "We praise thee, O God; we acknowledge thee to be the Lord." which is much better.
This tendency to abandon the device of APOSTROPHE can be seen on many pages in the 1979 prayer book and other Anglican texts and is even more clearly exhibited in the further publication of the Liturgical Commission , as the study of the various texts will show.
Here, while we may not have heresy,we have a major change in attitude towards God, the Holy One. He is reduced to the level of a friend with whom we speak in familiar terms! Perhaps worse then some heresies!!!!
Trinity Sunday Week, 2002
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
Here are three examples of what I have in mind - in response to requests.
1. "AND WITH THY SPIRIT" is rendered "AND ALSO WITH YOU."
These words are addressed to the Minister of the Sacrament (in modern jargon "the President of the Eucharistic Assembly) by the congregation after he has said to the gathered people, "The Lord be with you."
Translators & liturgists could have given us "and with your spirit" which would have been perfectly good English and also meaningful (if we believe that the human being is composed of body, soul and spirit).
In fact there is a long tradition of understanding with regard to the "and with thy spirit" [Latin = et cum spiritu tuo] that focuses on this response as a short prayer asking God to quicken within the Minister that spiritual gift given to him in ordination so that he will rightly celebrate and administrate the Sacrament. The gift of the Holy Spirit is linked to his spirit and thus the et cum spiritu tuo.
If "and also with you" is used then he is merely being recognized as one of the circle and as distinct simply because of his function, not because of his gift.
This is not heresy as such but a change in doctrine.
2. "WE BELIEVE" instead of "I BELIEVE"
In the Divine Liturgy of the Orthodox Churches and in the Latin Mass of the Roman Catholic Church, the Creed is in the first person singular. The reason for this is that it entered the Liturgy as a Baptismal Creed not as a Confession of Faith by Bishops at an Ecumenical Council, which is where it was composed and where it was in the "We" form. (The Nicene Creed was always "I believe" as a Baptismal Creed before it entered the liturgy in the late 5th century.)
The use of the "I" has been taken to have two meanings - first, it is the voice of the Bride responding to her Bridegroom with her confession of faith; it is the one Person, as it were, of the Church (the one Body & One
Household) speaking to the Lord Jesus in love and gratitude. Secondly, within the one "I" of the Church of God there are many individual persons, united in the Holy Spirit in the One Body of Christ. So it is the word also of each member, but each member in unison.
Thus "I believe" was in use everywhere and always until the 1970s when in a few European languages (a minority) the "we believe" was used to translate "credo." Why? To counteract supposed individualism and so have the eucharistic assembly united together and saying "we believe."
What is clear is that the original Greek and Latin in the official Liturgies have the first person singular and all musical settings until the 1970s were for the first person singular. Credo does not mean "we believe" and Pisteuo does not mean "we believe".
"We believe." changes the meaning of the Creed for it loses the Unity of the Body as one "I" and it loses the Baptismal reference and in place of this it imposes a modern form of confession in order to combat modern aggressive individualism.
This is not heresy as such but a change of doctrine.
3. PRAYER: The Adjectival Mode or the Declarative Mode.
Are modern language versions of the traditional Collects acceptable forms of godly Prayer? Specifically, by way of example, that for the Sunday after Ascension Day?
For the first Book of the Common Prayer (1549) Archbishop Cranmer composed a new Collect for the Sunday after the Feast of the Ascension of our Lord. The Collect begins: "O God, the King of glory, who has exalted thine only Son Jesus Christ with great triumph unto thy kingdom in heaven: we beseech thee, leave us not comfortless.."
The modern rendering in the 1979 prayer book of ECUSA begins: "O God, the King of glory, you have exalted your only Son Jesus Christ to your kingdom in heaven, do not leave us comfortless.
Here we have one example of a common tendency amongst modern liturgists to set aside the adjectival relative clause and to move to the declarative statement. That is from the "who hast exalted" to the "you have exalted."
[Note that the question being raised here has nothing to do with the use of thee and thine instead of you and your.]
To those who are not skilled in grammar [and let us be honest it is little taught in modern schools] and see no relation between grammatical form and doctrine/piety then the change may seem harmless.
However, it may be argued that the relation of man to God, and of man to God 's revealed Truth, is altered by the change in grammatical structure. The adjectival mode necessarily expresses a sort of humility and dependence on revelation; whereas the declarative mode necessarily asserts a sort of parity with God and a power over the details of revelation.
To reflect upon this in more detail we need to be aware of the importance of the rhetorical device of Apostrophe in liturgical prayer.
"Apostrophe is a rhetorical figure used to signify vocative address.It is characteristic of dramatic and exclamatory styles of discourse and is supremely vocal and emotive. And whilst it constitutes a calling to be heard by that which is absent, it is also in the context of liturgical enactment, a communal figure: it is both heard and overhead."
Good liturgy uses this device to pray about God in the context of addressing God. See the Cantate Domine in the traditional translation:
"O Sing unto the LORD a new song; for he hath done marvellous things With his own right hand and with his holy arm, hath he gotten himself the victory.."
God's people sing of God and do so in his presence and within his hearing.
When it comes to prayers and collects the use of the device enables worshippers to speak about God, without reminding God of who he is and what he has promised, and without engaging in a kind of flattery of the Almighty.
Take the Absolution. "Almighty God, our heavenly Father, who of his great mercy hath promised the forgiveness of sins." This style enables worshippers to be in a right relation of humility before God and not claiming anything by right.
The same point can be made by comparing the Collect for Purity at the beginning of the Order for Holy Communion. The traditional addresses "Almighty God [the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ]" and then proceeds, "unto whom all hearts are open and from whom no secrets are hid." In contrast the modern has: "Almighty God, to you all hearts are open, all desires known."
Here the traditional form recognizes that God knows all about us and serves as a reminder of the same in his presence. In contrast the modern seems to be reminding God of the fact that he is all-knowing!
One of the worst examples of modern translation is that of the Te Deum, where the worshippers tell God who he is: "You are God; we praise you; You are the Lord; we acclaim you." God does not need to know who he is and we need to be humble before him. The traditional has: "We praise thee, O God; we acknowledge thee to be the Lord." which is much better.
This tendency to abandon the device of APOSTROPHE can be seen on many pages in the 1979 prayer book and other Anglican texts and is even more clearly exhibited in the further publication of the Liturgical Commission , as the study of the various texts will show.
Here, while we may not have heresy,we have a major change in attitude towards God, the Holy One. He is reduced to the level of a friend with whom we speak in familiar terms! Perhaps worse then some heresies!!!!
Trinity Sunday Week, 2002
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
Wednesday, May 29, 2002
MODERNISATION OF LANGUAGE AND DOCTRINAL CHANGE
I have made the point elsewhere that the shift in the 1960s & 1970s from the traditional English dialect of prayer to so-called "contemporary English" involved - wittingly and/or unwittingly - doctrinal change.
Here are three examples of what I have in mind - in response to requests.
1. "AND WITH THY SPIRIT" is rendered "AND ALSO WITH YOU."
These words are addressed to the Minister of the Sacrament (in modern jargon "the President of the Eucharistic Assembly) by the congregation after he has said to the gathered people, "The Lord be with you."
Translators & liturgists could have given us "and with your spirit" which would have been perfectly good English and also meaningful (if we believe that the human being is composed of body, soul and spirit).
In fact there is a long tradition of understanding with regard to the "and with thy spirit" [Latin = et cum spiritu tuo] that focuses on this response as a short prayer asking God to quicken within the Minister that spiritual gift given to him in ordination so that he will rightly celebrate and administrate the Sacrament. The gift of the Holy Spirit is linked to his spirit and thus the et cum spiritu tuo.
If "and also with you" is used then he is merely being recognized as one of the circle and as distinct simply because of his function, not because of his gift.
This is not heresy as such but a change in doctrine.
2. "WE BELIEVE" instead of "I BELIEVE"
In the Divine Liturgy of the Orthodox Churches and in the Latin Mass of the Roman Catholic Church, the Creed is in the first person singular. The reason for this is that it entered the Liturgy as a Baptismal Creed not as a Confession of Faith by Bishops at an Ecumenical Council, which is where it was composed and where it was in the "We" form. (The Nicene Creed was always "I believe" as a Baptismal Creed before it entered the liturgy in the late 5th century.)
The use of the "I" has been taken to have two meanings - first, it is the voice of the Bride responding to her Bridegroom with her confession of faith; it is the one Person, as it were, of the Church (the one Body & One
Household) speaking to the Lord Jesus in love and gratitude. Secondly, within the one "I" of the Church of God there are many individual persons, united in the Holy Spirit in the One Body of Christ. So it is the word also of each member, but each member in unison.
Thus "I believe" was in use everywhere and always until the 1970s when in a few European languages (a minority) the "we believe" was used to translate "credo." Why? To counteract supposed individualism and so have the eucharistic assembly united together and saying "we believe."
What is clear is that the original Greek and Latin in the official Liturgies have the first person singular and all musical settings until the 1970s were for the first person singular. Credo does not mean "we believe" and Pisteuo does not mean "we believe".
"We believe." changes the meaning of the Creed for it loses the Unity of the Body as one "I" and it loses the Baptismal reference and in place of this it imposes a modern form of confession in order to combat modern aggressive individualism.
This is not heresy as such but a change of doctrine.
3. PRAYER: The Adjectival Mode or the Declarative Mode.
Are modern language versions of the traditional Collects acceptable forms of godly Prayer? Specifically, by way of example, that for the Sunday after Ascension Day?
For the first Book of the Common Prayer (1549) Archbishop Cranmer composed a new Collect for the Sunday after the Feast of the Ascension of our Lord. The Collect begins: "O God, the King of glory, who has exalted thine only Son Jesus Christ with great triumph unto thy kingdom in heaven: we beseech thee, leave us not comfortless.."
The modern rendering in the 1979 prayer book of ECUSA begins: "O God, the King of glory, you have exalted your only Son Jesus Christ to your kingdom in heaven, do not leave us comfortless.
Here we have one example of a common tendency amongst modern liturgists to set aside the adjectival relative clause and to move to the declarative statement. That is from the "who hast exalted" to the "you have exalted."
[Note that the question being raised here has nothing to do with the use of thee and thine instead of you and your.]
To those who are not skilled in grammar [and let us be honest it is little taught in modern schools] and see no relation between grammatical form and doctrine/piety then the change may seem harmless.
However, it may be argued that the relation of man to God, and of man to God 's revealed Truth, is altered by the change in grammatical structure. The adjectival mode necessarily expresses a sort of humility and dependence on revelation; whereas the declarative mode necessarily asserts a sort of parity with God and a power over the details of revelation.
To reflect upon this in more detail we need to be aware of the importance of the rhetorical device of Apostrophe in liturgical prayer.
"Apostrophe is a rhetorical figure used to signify vocative address.It is characteristic of dramatic and exclamatory styles of discourse and is supremely vocal and emotive. And whilst it constitutes a calling to be heard by that which is absent, it is also in the context of liturgical enactment, a communal figure: it is both heard and overhead."
Good liturgy uses this device to pray about God in the context of addressing God. See the Cantate Domine in the traditional translation:
"O Sing unto the LORD a new song; for he hath done marvellous things With his own right hand and with his holy arm, hath he gotten himself the victory.."
God's people sing of God and do so in his presence and within his hearing.
When it comes to prayers and collects the use of the device enables worshippers to speak about God, without reminding God of who he is and what he has promised, and without engaging in a kind of flattery of the Almighty.
Take the Absolution. "Almighty God, our heavenly Father, who of his great mercy hath promised the forgiveness of sins." This style enables worshippers to be in a right relation of humility before God and not claiming anything by right.
The same point can be made by comparing the Collect for Purity at the beginning of the Order for Holy Communion. The traditional addresses "Almighty God [the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ]" and then proceeds, "unto whom all hearts are open and from whom no secrets are hid." In contrast the modern has: "Almighty God, to you all hearts are open, all desires known."
Here the traditional form recognizes that God knows all about us and serves as a reminder of the same in his presence. In contrast the modern seems to be reminding God of the fact that he is all-knowing!
One of the worst examples of modern translation is that of the Te Deum, where the worshippers tell God who he is: "You are God; we praise you; You are the Lord; we acclaim you." God does not need to know who he is and we need to be humble before him. The traditional has: "We praise thee, O God; we acknowledge thee to be the Lord." which is much better.
This tendency to abandon the device of APOSTROPHE can be seen on many pages in the 1979 prayer book and other Anglican texts and is even more clearly exhibited in the further publication of the Liturgical Commission , as the study of the various texts will show.
Here, while we may not have heresy,we have a major change in attitude towards God, the Holy One. He is reduced to the level of a friend with whom we speak in familiar terms! Perhaps worse then some heresies!!!!
Trinity Sunday Week, 2002
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
Here are three examples of what I have in mind - in response to requests.
1. "AND WITH THY SPIRIT" is rendered "AND ALSO WITH YOU."
These words are addressed to the Minister of the Sacrament (in modern jargon "the President of the Eucharistic Assembly) by the congregation after he has said to the gathered people, "The Lord be with you."
Translators & liturgists could have given us "and with your spirit" which would have been perfectly good English and also meaningful (if we believe that the human being is composed of body, soul and spirit).
In fact there is a long tradition of understanding with regard to the "and with thy spirit" [Latin = et cum spiritu tuo] that focuses on this response as a short prayer asking God to quicken within the Minister that spiritual gift given to him in ordination so that he will rightly celebrate and administrate the Sacrament. The gift of the Holy Spirit is linked to his spirit and thus the et cum spiritu tuo.
If "and also with you" is used then he is merely being recognized as one of the circle and as distinct simply because of his function, not because of his gift.
This is not heresy as such but a change in doctrine.
2. "WE BELIEVE" instead of "I BELIEVE"
In the Divine Liturgy of the Orthodox Churches and in the Latin Mass of the Roman Catholic Church, the Creed is in the first person singular. The reason for this is that it entered the Liturgy as a Baptismal Creed not as a Confession of Faith by Bishops at an Ecumenical Council, which is where it was composed and where it was in the "We" form. (The Nicene Creed was always "I believe" as a Baptismal Creed before it entered the liturgy in the late 5th century.)
The use of the "I" has been taken to have two meanings - first, it is the voice of the Bride responding to her Bridegroom with her confession of faith; it is the one Person, as it were, of the Church (the one Body & One
Household) speaking to the Lord Jesus in love and gratitude. Secondly, within the one "I" of the Church of God there are many individual persons, united in the Holy Spirit in the One Body of Christ. So it is the word also of each member, but each member in unison.
Thus "I believe" was in use everywhere and always until the 1970s when in a few European languages (a minority) the "we believe" was used to translate "credo." Why? To counteract supposed individualism and so have the eucharistic assembly united together and saying "we believe."
What is clear is that the original Greek and Latin in the official Liturgies have the first person singular and all musical settings until the 1970s were for the first person singular. Credo does not mean "we believe" and Pisteuo does not mean "we believe".
"We believe." changes the meaning of the Creed for it loses the Unity of the Body as one "I" and it loses the Baptismal reference and in place of this it imposes a modern form of confession in order to combat modern aggressive individualism.
This is not heresy as such but a change of doctrine.
3. PRAYER: The Adjectival Mode or the Declarative Mode.
Are modern language versions of the traditional Collects acceptable forms of godly Prayer? Specifically, by way of example, that for the Sunday after Ascension Day?
For the first Book of the Common Prayer (1549) Archbishop Cranmer composed a new Collect for the Sunday after the Feast of the Ascension of our Lord. The Collect begins: "O God, the King of glory, who has exalted thine only Son Jesus Christ with great triumph unto thy kingdom in heaven: we beseech thee, leave us not comfortless.."
The modern rendering in the 1979 prayer book of ECUSA begins: "O God, the King of glory, you have exalted your only Son Jesus Christ to your kingdom in heaven, do not leave us comfortless.
Here we have one example of a common tendency amongst modern liturgists to set aside the adjectival relative clause and to move to the declarative statement. That is from the "who hast exalted" to the "you have exalted."
[Note that the question being raised here has nothing to do with the use of thee and thine instead of you and your.]
To those who are not skilled in grammar [and let us be honest it is little taught in modern schools] and see no relation between grammatical form and doctrine/piety then the change may seem harmless.
However, it may be argued that the relation of man to God, and of man to God 's revealed Truth, is altered by the change in grammatical structure. The adjectival mode necessarily expresses a sort of humility and dependence on revelation; whereas the declarative mode necessarily asserts a sort of parity with God and a power over the details of revelation.
To reflect upon this in more detail we need to be aware of the importance of the rhetorical device of Apostrophe in liturgical prayer.
"Apostrophe is a rhetorical figure used to signify vocative address.It is characteristic of dramatic and exclamatory styles of discourse and is supremely vocal and emotive. And whilst it constitutes a calling to be heard by that which is absent, it is also in the context of liturgical enactment, a communal figure: it is both heard and overhead."
Good liturgy uses this device to pray about God in the context of addressing God. See the Cantate Domine in the traditional translation:
"O Sing unto the LORD a new song; for he hath done marvellous things With his own right hand and with his holy arm, hath he gotten himself the victory.."
God's people sing of God and do so in his presence and within his hearing.
When it comes to prayers and collects the use of the device enables worshippers to speak about God, without reminding God of who he is and what he has promised, and without engaging in a kind of flattery of the Almighty.
Take the Absolution. "Almighty God, our heavenly Father, who of his great mercy hath promised the forgiveness of sins." This style enables worshippers to be in a right relation of humility before God and not claiming anything by right.
The same point can be made by comparing the Collect for Purity at the beginning of the Order for Holy Communion. The traditional addresses "Almighty God [the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ]" and then proceeds, "unto whom all hearts are open and from whom no secrets are hid." In contrast the modern has: "Almighty God, to you all hearts are open, all desires known."
Here the traditional form recognizes that God knows all about us and serves as a reminder of the same in his presence. In contrast the modern seems to be reminding God of the fact that he is all-knowing!
One of the worst examples of modern translation is that of the Te Deum, where the worshippers tell God who he is: "You are God; we praise you; You are the Lord; we acclaim you." God does not need to know who he is and we need to be humble before him. The traditional has: "We praise thee, O God; we acknowledge thee to be the Lord." which is much better.
This tendency to abandon the device of APOSTROPHE can be seen on many pages in the 1979 prayer book and other Anglican texts and is even more clearly exhibited in the further publication of the Liturgical Commission , as the study of the various texts will show.
Here, while we may not have heresy,we have a major change in attitude towards God, the Holy One. He is reduced to the level of a friend with whom we speak in familiar terms! Perhaps worse then some heresies!!!!
Trinity Sunday Week, 2002
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
Tuesday, May 28, 2002
Does changing Language inevitably create Doctrinal Change?
There is no doubt but that the 1960s into the 1970s witnessed a major revolution in the way in which the English-speaking people in the West (North) addressed and referred to the Deity, GOD. The evidence for this abounds in terms of the new Bible translations, new Prayer Books, new hymnody and new Sunday School and devotional material of this period.
But was this revolution neutral in terms of doctrinal change. Was it simply and only a linguistic change, a move (as is said) from "traditional" [or "Elizabethan"] English to "contemporary" English?
This question makes us ask the further one: "Is it possible - living in a revolutionary social and cultural period -- to move from a long established form of language for prayer into a new (experimental) one without at the same time causing or creating or absorbing (wittingly or unwittingly) some doctrinal change?"
Theoretically, one has to state, that it should be possible as an academic exercise to translate the New Testament or a Canticle from the 4th Century AD into modern or contemporary English and to do so accurately. Yet were some of the paraphrases of the 1960s/1970s so committed to being relevant as to become inaccurate?
Turning to Liturgy, I note that when the modern liturgist is faced with a piece of Cranmerian prose from the mid-16th century, then the rendering into "contemporary" English of this or that part of The Book of Common Prayer is even more open to the possibility of changing the meaning in the effort to be "modern" and relevant! I can say this because of the evidence provided by, for example, (a) Recent "Evangelical" & official English & Australian attempts to put parts of the BCP (1662) into contemporary English; (b) the products of the several International Commissions on English for the Liturgy from the 1970s; and (c) the way in which the Rite I material in the American Episcopal 1979 Prayer Book (though in traditional language) is modified doctrinally and structurally to conform to the doctrine and structure of the Rite II (modern and contemporary) texts.
What seems to have happened both in the Roman Church and in the Anglican Churches, as well as in most of Protestantism, is that the ethos of relevance involved in the translation project of the 1960s/1970s actually ensured that inevitably doctrinal change, minor or major depending on various conditions, occurred. Relevance as a powerful motion of the soul caused change towards an understanding that fitted well with relevance. And this change did not involve mere secondary matters but ways of speaking of
and describing the Three Persons of the Holy Trinity, the nature of man before God as sinful creature, the redemption and salvation of God for man, and the nature of the Sacraments. Further, it involved the absorption into God-language of the language of human rights and liberation.
So if one compares the traditional Texts and Rites, Catechisms and Creeds, in Latin and English with the contemporary Texts and Rites one can see, if one is patient and careful, changes in doctrine because of changes in words, changes that go well beyond the change of Thee to You! Of course 99% of those using the modern texts would not be aware of the doctrinal changes but some would sense that something is wrong, even if they cannot precisely identify that wrongness! (Thus, young people keep on joining the Prayer Book Society of the USA and of England!)
It is possible that the Orthodox Churches which have gone for renderings (often lacking in quality, I think) of the Divine Liturgy into contemporary rather than traditional language have escaped most of this problem simply because they have retained the identical ceremonial and drama which is a powerful means of establishing meaning. But in Western Liturgies and services changes in structure and ceremonial have gone with changes in language and so retaining old meaning is the more difficult.
It seems to me that the motivation of the liturgists and the general ethos in which they do their work of "updating" affects profoundly their products and this is the more obvious when the work is done by a committee! This observation applies to the whole of Christendom I think. Perhaps I ought to try to write a book to set all this out in more detail!
This said, it maybe suggested that one good reason for retaining the use of the traditional English form of prayer is to preserve both orthodoxy in doctrine and morals and another is to retain a sense of holy awe and reverence in the worship of the Blessed, Holy and Undivided Trinity.
Trinity 2002.
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
But was this revolution neutral in terms of doctrinal change. Was it simply and only a linguistic change, a move (as is said) from "traditional" [or "Elizabethan"] English to "contemporary" English?
This question makes us ask the further one: "Is it possible - living in a revolutionary social and cultural period -- to move from a long established form of language for prayer into a new (experimental) one without at the same time causing or creating or absorbing (wittingly or unwittingly) some doctrinal change?"
Theoretically, one has to state, that it should be possible as an academic exercise to translate the New Testament or a Canticle from the 4th Century AD into modern or contemporary English and to do so accurately. Yet were some of the paraphrases of the 1960s/1970s so committed to being relevant as to become inaccurate?
Turning to Liturgy, I note that when the modern liturgist is faced with a piece of Cranmerian prose from the mid-16th century, then the rendering into "contemporary" English of this or that part of The Book of Common Prayer is even more open to the possibility of changing the meaning in the effort to be "modern" and relevant! I can say this because of the evidence provided by, for example, (a) Recent "Evangelical" & official English & Australian attempts to put parts of the BCP (1662) into contemporary English; (b) the products of the several International Commissions on English for the Liturgy from the 1970s; and (c) the way in which the Rite I material in the American Episcopal 1979 Prayer Book (though in traditional language) is modified doctrinally and structurally to conform to the doctrine and structure of the Rite II (modern and contemporary) texts.
What seems to have happened both in the Roman Church and in the Anglican Churches, as well as in most of Protestantism, is that the ethos of relevance involved in the translation project of the 1960s/1970s actually ensured that inevitably doctrinal change, minor or major depending on various conditions, occurred. Relevance as a powerful motion of the soul caused change towards an understanding that fitted well with relevance. And this change did not involve mere secondary matters but ways of speaking of
and describing the Three Persons of the Holy Trinity, the nature of man before God as sinful creature, the redemption and salvation of God for man, and the nature of the Sacraments. Further, it involved the absorption into God-language of the language of human rights and liberation.
So if one compares the traditional Texts and Rites, Catechisms and Creeds, in Latin and English with the contemporary Texts and Rites one can see, if one is patient and careful, changes in doctrine because of changes in words, changes that go well beyond the change of Thee to You! Of course 99% of those using the modern texts would not be aware of the doctrinal changes but some would sense that something is wrong, even if they cannot precisely identify that wrongness! (Thus, young people keep on joining the Prayer Book Society of the USA and of England!)
It is possible that the Orthodox Churches which have gone for renderings (often lacking in quality, I think) of the Divine Liturgy into contemporary rather than traditional language have escaped most of this problem simply because they have retained the identical ceremonial and drama which is a powerful means of establishing meaning. But in Western Liturgies and services changes in structure and ceremonial have gone with changes in language and so retaining old meaning is the more difficult.
It seems to me that the motivation of the liturgists and the general ethos in which they do their work of "updating" affects profoundly their products and this is the more obvious when the work is done by a committee! This observation applies to the whole of Christendom I think. Perhaps I ought to try to write a book to set all this out in more detail!
This said, it maybe suggested that one good reason for retaining the use of the traditional English form of prayer is to preserve both orthodoxy in doctrine and morals and another is to retain a sense of holy awe and reverence in the worship of the Blessed, Holy and Undivided Trinity.
Trinity 2002.
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
On THEE and THOU and intimacy of relation to the Trinity.
Here I seek to answer a question/problem that has been posed to me. Here it is in the form I received it:
In response:
What generally is found in the KJV and the BCP is a careful distinction between the singular and the plural in terms of addressing persons and speaking of persons. So if there is one person it is "thou art" and if there are several it is "you are". In this the original texts are followed for they themselves so distinguish. By the time we get to the 20th century and the RSV this rule is only adhered to when the Person is God. When the person is a human being the rule is to follow the standard English of the 1950s and use "You." The problem then becomes (for those who have not Greek or Hebrew) of knowing when the "you" is one person or more than one person - and exegetically this is often important.
It will be recalled that most European languages to this day in their standard forms distinguish the second person singular from the second person plural. In English the trend not to distinguish them actually began before the KJV was translated and thus we can say that the KJV & BCP tradition of translation of carefully distinguishing the singular and plural was deliberate and against the trend.
I do not think that the matter of intimacy or formality arises in either the KJV or the BCP use of "Thee/Thou." These words are used strictly speaking to translate what in other languages is the second person singular. Thus both God and man are so addressed. It may be that the idea of intimacy comes to mind because of the use of the
second person singular in modern French as a way of expressing intimacy in family and between lovers. The Quakers as I understand were simply speaking the language of the KJV and in doing so they were not alone. My father's generation of coal-miners and agricultural workers from Yorkshire also spoke in that way amongst themselves. They wanted to be direct in speech and thus be clear when they spoke to one and when they spoke to "you-all"!
But the fact is that the language of the KJV & the BCP created the English way of prayer and thus God was addressed by each and all as "Thou art." from the late medieval period through to the 1960s; and so strong was this that the RSV kept to it in the 1950s, even though it used "you" of human beings. So did hymnwriters of that period.
Intimacy with the Father through the Son and by the Holy Ghost is relational and a gift and I do not think that it has anything to do essentially with the second person singular. After all those in this holy relation cry out "Abba, Father" and were taught by our Lord to pray "Our Father."
God as the THOU both is transcendent and also immanent and even as his pure holiness drives us away his love and the shed blood of Jesus draws us near.
Thus I say again that there was a major revolution in the 1960s when the accumulated experience and wisdom of addressing God was discarded in favour of new forms that were supposed to be relevant. In fact in the 1970s at an interview for a senior position I was asked, "When you pray alone how do you address God?" I knew that when I said "In the second person singular" I was ruling myself out of consideration! I still pray in the form I did in the 1970s and I see no reason to change. However, I do not claim that people who use the "you" form are inferior or heretical. I think that they are missing out in terms of inclusion in a great tradition!
The idea of intimacy or of formality never occurs to me with respect to the second person usage. It may be that the cosiness of some modern choruses and ditties used in some churches is intended to bring God near to us and we to God. Certainly he/she is addressed in familiar terms as if she/he were just like one of us! I am afraid that this approach worried me theologically rather than linguistically.
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
It is my understanding that "thee," "thy," and "thou" are second person, singular and "ye" and "your" are second person plural. That is to say they are the familiar forms and thus connote intimacy. The quakers, for example, insisted on continuing to use them when addressing each other for that very reason. And Cranmer and the translators of the King James version used the "thee" forms for that same reason.
When, however, the "thee" form is used today it is taken to connote formality, the very opposite of intimacy. Although I know the "thee" forms connotes intimacy, I don't feel that connotation, and I have used that language all my life. It feels formal. And yet I prefer the traditional language in general for all those reasons you spelled out. But I want to be intimate in my prayer to our heavenly Abba, and "you" [in the singular] feels intimate and, in fact, in modern usage it is. Subjectively, I am in a dilemma.
In response:
What generally is found in the KJV and the BCP is a careful distinction between the singular and the plural in terms of addressing persons and speaking of persons. So if there is one person it is "thou art" and if there are several it is "you are". In this the original texts are followed for they themselves so distinguish. By the time we get to the 20th century and the RSV this rule is only adhered to when the Person is God. When the person is a human being the rule is to follow the standard English of the 1950s and use "You." The problem then becomes (for those who have not Greek or Hebrew) of knowing when the "you" is one person or more than one person - and exegetically this is often important.
It will be recalled that most European languages to this day in their standard forms distinguish the second person singular from the second person plural. In English the trend not to distinguish them actually began before the KJV was translated and thus we can say that the KJV & BCP tradition of translation of carefully distinguishing the singular and plural was deliberate and against the trend.
I do not think that the matter of intimacy or formality arises in either the KJV or the BCP use of "Thee/Thou." These words are used strictly speaking to translate what in other languages is the second person singular. Thus both God and man are so addressed. It may be that the idea of intimacy comes to mind because of the use of the
second person singular in modern French as a way of expressing intimacy in family and between lovers. The Quakers as I understand were simply speaking the language of the KJV and in doing so they were not alone. My father's generation of coal-miners and agricultural workers from Yorkshire also spoke in that way amongst themselves. They wanted to be direct in speech and thus be clear when they spoke to one and when they spoke to "you-all"!
But the fact is that the language of the KJV & the BCP created the English way of prayer and thus God was addressed by each and all as "Thou art." from the late medieval period through to the 1960s; and so strong was this that the RSV kept to it in the 1950s, even though it used "you" of human beings. So did hymnwriters of that period.
Intimacy with the Father through the Son and by the Holy Ghost is relational and a gift and I do not think that it has anything to do essentially with the second person singular. After all those in this holy relation cry out "Abba, Father" and were taught by our Lord to pray "Our Father."
God as the THOU both is transcendent and also immanent and even as his pure holiness drives us away his love and the shed blood of Jesus draws us near.
Thus I say again that there was a major revolution in the 1960s when the accumulated experience and wisdom of addressing God was discarded in favour of new forms that were supposed to be relevant. In fact in the 1970s at an interview for a senior position I was asked, "When you pray alone how do you address God?" I knew that when I said "In the second person singular" I was ruling myself out of consideration! I still pray in the form I did in the 1970s and I see no reason to change. However, I do not claim that people who use the "you" form are inferior or heretical. I think that they are missing out in terms of inclusion in a great tradition!
The idea of intimacy or of formality never occurs to me with respect to the second person usage. It may be that the cosiness of some modern choruses and ditties used in some churches is intended to bring God near to us and we to God. Certainly he/she is addressed in familiar terms as if she/he were just like one of us! I am afraid that this approach worried me theologically rather than linguistically.
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
Monday, May 27, 2002
"Contemporary" or "traditional" language in prayer?
A discussion starter.
It is possible to take the period of the 1960s and to state that (a) before that date in the English speaking world the traditional English dialect of prayer was everywhere dominant (from Roman Catholic to Protestant fundamentalist), and (b) after that date there began a massive movement towards what is called "contemporary" English.
The amazing thing - 40 years later - is that there is still a sizeable minority which uses the traditional dialect of prayer. Why?
Before answering, let us remind ourselves of the situation.
In the 1960s the Roman Catholics abandoned Latin and began to use the vernacular. After Vatican II it was decided from Rome that the modern vernacular was to be used, and used it was by translators who had little experience of doing such work. So, in rendering the Mass and Offices into English, a contemporary English created by the translators was used rather than the form of English (similar to that of the classic Book of Common
Prayer) that RC's had used for centuries in semi-official translations of the Liturgy. This meant that virtually overnight in the USA some 30 or more millions began to address God as "YOU" in liturgy and devotional exercises. And all the familiar and long used translations of the Creed, Canticles and Psalms were forsaken. (To this day there is massive controversy in English-speaking Catholicism about translations being used and prepared - and not a few people are reverting to Latin!)
But not only the RC's. The 1960s saw a passion for relevance overwhelming Protestants of all kinds. New translations of the Bible to replace the KJV, the ASV and the RSV (a 1950s translation) were embarked upon and one basic rule was that they were to be in modern "contemporary" language. So we had the TEV, Living Bible, New International Version and so on. Millions who had heard God addressed as "Thou art our God" now heard "You are our God." Evangelicals were virtually wholly committed to this movement for relevance for it was seen as the way to win the masses for Christ. They agreed with Roman Catholics on this point!
And as the translations presented the revealed Word of God in the language of the ordinary person (as it was claimed) so preachers began the new adventure of praying in the pulpits in a new way - addressing God as "You." (Many of them found this difficult and for years mixed their language and reverted to "Thou" on occasion out of habit rather than design.)
As the 12 million or so Southern Baptists, together with millions of other Protestants, engaged in this change of the language of prayer (ditching centuries of practice and experience) the liturgically based Protestants, especially Episcopalians, began to produce contemporary language liturgies. These went through various trial forms until they became the dominant forms in the new prayer books of the 1970s and 1980s. Now they are seeking to push out of the books to come any traces of the traditional form.
So the revolution of the 1960s succeeded right across the spectrum. Relevance, and being up to date, and being with it, triumphed in a very short period. The practice and experience of five or more centuries was ditched in a mere decade.
Then Why is it that so called traditional language is still around? Why do the older Bible translations - KJV, ASV and RSV - still command interest and use? Why do many still use the traditional Book of Common Prayer? And why do many Roman Catholics go to the Latin Mass? And why are so many hymns still sung in their "Thee-Thou" form?
There are many reasons and here are a few,
1. The traditional language is seen to have a dignity that carries with it the faith and devotion of the centuries. When we use these words we are joined to the heritage of prayer of the English-speaking people. 2. The contemporary language is seen to be lacking in power to raise the affections, to thrill the heart and to inspire the mind. Further, no-one is really sure what is contemporary! 3. The use of the contemporary has not proved that it has a relevance that is truly an evangelistic tool; in fact, there is something attractive to many seekers in using a language for addressing God that is different from that of the street or the media. 4. The use of the contemporary has been an opportunity for modern church leaders to dumb down the Gospel and the Doctrine of Christianity and thereby to open the door for the revival of ancient heresies. The traditional translations and forms of prayer preserve the biblical Catholic Faith. 5. The problems in adapting to the classic English vernacular of prayer are much less than adapting to the language of computer use or other modern technical forms of modern jargon. 6. No-one seems to be able to tell us all exactly and precisely what is contemporary English and which form of it is truly suitable for addressing the CREATOR, JUDGE and REDEEMER of humankind!
And so on.
Trinity Sunday 2002.
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
It is possible to take the period of the 1960s and to state that (a) before that date in the English speaking world the traditional English dialect of prayer was everywhere dominant (from Roman Catholic to Protestant fundamentalist), and (b) after that date there began a massive movement towards what is called "contemporary" English.
The amazing thing - 40 years later - is that there is still a sizeable minority which uses the traditional dialect of prayer. Why?
Before answering, let us remind ourselves of the situation.
In the 1960s the Roman Catholics abandoned Latin and began to use the vernacular. After Vatican II it was decided from Rome that the modern vernacular was to be used, and used it was by translators who had little experience of doing such work. So, in rendering the Mass and Offices into English, a contemporary English created by the translators was used rather than the form of English (similar to that of the classic Book of Common
Prayer) that RC's had used for centuries in semi-official translations of the Liturgy. This meant that virtually overnight in the USA some 30 or more millions began to address God as "YOU" in liturgy and devotional exercises. And all the familiar and long used translations of the Creed, Canticles and Psalms were forsaken. (To this day there is massive controversy in English-speaking Catholicism about translations being used and prepared - and not a few people are reverting to Latin!)
But not only the RC's. The 1960s saw a passion for relevance overwhelming Protestants of all kinds. New translations of the Bible to replace the KJV, the ASV and the RSV (a 1950s translation) were embarked upon and one basic rule was that they were to be in modern "contemporary" language. So we had the TEV, Living Bible, New International Version and so on. Millions who had heard God addressed as "Thou art our God" now heard "You are our God." Evangelicals were virtually wholly committed to this movement for relevance for it was seen as the way to win the masses for Christ. They agreed with Roman Catholics on this point!
And as the translations presented the revealed Word of God in the language of the ordinary person (as it was claimed) so preachers began the new adventure of praying in the pulpits in a new way - addressing God as "You." (Many of them found this difficult and for years mixed their language and reverted to "Thou" on occasion out of habit rather than design.)
As the 12 million or so Southern Baptists, together with millions of other Protestants, engaged in this change of the language of prayer (ditching centuries of practice and experience) the liturgically based Protestants, especially Episcopalians, began to produce contemporary language liturgies. These went through various trial forms until they became the dominant forms in the new prayer books of the 1970s and 1980s. Now they are seeking to push out of the books to come any traces of the traditional form.
So the revolution of the 1960s succeeded right across the spectrum. Relevance, and being up to date, and being with it, triumphed in a very short period. The practice and experience of five or more centuries was ditched in a mere decade.
Then Why is it that so called traditional language is still around? Why do the older Bible translations - KJV, ASV and RSV - still command interest and use? Why do many still use the traditional Book of Common Prayer? And why do many Roman Catholics go to the Latin Mass? And why are so many hymns still sung in their "Thee-Thou" form?
There are many reasons and here are a few,
1. The traditional language is seen to have a dignity that carries with it the faith and devotion of the centuries. When we use these words we are joined to the heritage of prayer of the English-speaking people. 2. The contemporary language is seen to be lacking in power to raise the affections, to thrill the heart and to inspire the mind. Further, no-one is really sure what is contemporary! 3. The use of the contemporary has not proved that it has a relevance that is truly an evangelistic tool; in fact, there is something attractive to many seekers in using a language for addressing God that is different from that of the street or the media. 4. The use of the contemporary has been an opportunity for modern church leaders to dumb down the Gospel and the Doctrine of Christianity and thereby to open the door for the revival of ancient heresies. The traditional translations and forms of prayer preserve the biblical Catholic Faith. 5. The problems in adapting to the classic English vernacular of prayer are much less than adapting to the language of computer use or other modern technical forms of modern jargon. 6. No-one seems to be able to tell us all exactly and precisely what is contemporary English and which form of it is truly suitable for addressing the CREATOR, JUDGE and REDEEMER of humankind!
And so on.
Trinity Sunday 2002.
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
Friday, May 24, 2002
THE TRINITARIAN BLESSING & TRINITY SUNDAY
To Ponder BEFORE Trinity Sunday!!!!
We are all familiar with the Blessing given by the Bishop or the Presbyter (Priest) at the end of the Order for Holy Communion. On Trinity Sunday we are very much aware of it!
In the Latin of the old Roman Rite as well as in the Post Vatican II Rite it is as follows:
BENEDICAT VOS OMNIPOTENS DEUS, PATER, ET FILIUS, ET SPIRITUS SANCTUS.
This is officially translated by Roman Catholics as: "May almighty God bless you, the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit." In French it is rendered as: "Que Dieu tout-puissant vous benisse, le Pere, le Fils et le Saint-Esprit." (One notices here that the first "et" is not translated.)
When we turn to The Book of Common Prayer (1549-1662-1928) we find that the Blessing in English is given as follows: "The Blessing of God Almighty, the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost, be amongst you.. " (One notices here again that the first "et" [and] is not present)
Perhaps the omission of the first "et" is without significance and was for Cranmer a matter of style only. Yet, as a contrast we may note that in the German it is rendered by the R C Church as " der Vater und der Sohn und der Heilige Geist." Here the "and" occurs twice. OR perhaps Cranmer was not as vigilant as he ought to have been with regard to a right statement of the classic biblical, patristic and orthodox doctrine of the Trinity.
Let me explain.
It is possible that (1) "the blessing of God Almighty, the Father, and the Son and the Holy Ghost" does not mean the same as (2) "the blessing of God Almighty, the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost."
Since the Nicene Creed refers to the First Person of the Holy Trinity as "God the Father Almighty" (1) above may be taken to mean THAT "God Almighty, the Father" is the First Person, AND the Son is the Second, And the Holy Ghost is the Third. In this way of reading the first "et" [and] is crucial. Here then we have ONLY the Names of the Three Persons of the Trinity and no word for "Godhead" as such.
In contrast (2) may be taken to mean that there is One Deity/Godhead/God who is Almighty and He is a Trinity: this Trinity is the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost. Here the first "et" is not needed, for style only requires the second one.
I would myself go for (1) because the Service begins with "In nomine Patris, ET Filii, et Spiritus Sancti" and because the Nicene Creed is used in the service where the First Person is called the God the Father Almighty.
Yet against going for (1) there is the modern R.C. translation that I have given above: "May Almighty God bless you, the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit." Here "Almighty God" seems to refer to the One God/Deity/Godhead who is a Trinity and then this Trinity is spelled out with the three Names.
The Athanasian Creed, the Quicunque Vult, tells us that "the Father is Almighty, the Son Almighty and the Holy Ghost Almighty, and yet there are not three Almighties but one Almighty." From this statement one can argue that "Almighty God" refers to the "one Almighty" of this Creed, that is to the Godhead which each of the Persons possesses wholly and undivided. Or one can argue that "Almighty God" is a description that belongs equally to the Father and to the Son and to the Holy Ghost.
One way or another I do think that the Blessing is intended to be the Blessing of the One, Holy, Blessed and Undivided Trinity of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost.
One final word. Beginning a Blessing with "May" ( as do modern R C translations and some renderings in the English "Common Worship") reduces its strength and quality. The old "The Blessing of God.." is more likely to give and convey assurance! (see further on this matter, "The Real Common Worship" ed Peter Mullen, Edgeways Books, 2000, pp.108ff.)
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
We are all familiar with the Blessing given by the Bishop or the Presbyter (Priest) at the end of the Order for Holy Communion. On Trinity Sunday we are very much aware of it!
In the Latin of the old Roman Rite as well as in the Post Vatican II Rite it is as follows:
BENEDICAT VOS OMNIPOTENS DEUS, PATER, ET FILIUS, ET SPIRITUS SANCTUS.
This is officially translated by Roman Catholics as: "May almighty God bless you, the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit." In French it is rendered as: "Que Dieu tout-puissant vous benisse, le Pere, le Fils et le Saint-Esprit." (One notices here that the first "et" is not translated.)
When we turn to The Book of Common Prayer (1549-1662-1928) we find that the Blessing in English is given as follows: "The Blessing of God Almighty, the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost, be amongst you.. " (One notices here again that the first "et" [and] is not present)
Perhaps the omission of the first "et" is without significance and was for Cranmer a matter of style only. Yet, as a contrast we may note that in the German it is rendered by the R C Church as " der Vater und der Sohn und der Heilige Geist." Here the "and" occurs twice. OR perhaps Cranmer was not as vigilant as he ought to have been with regard to a right statement of the classic biblical, patristic and orthodox doctrine of the Trinity.
Let me explain.
It is possible that (1) "the blessing of God Almighty, the Father, and the Son and the Holy Ghost" does not mean the same as (2) "the blessing of God Almighty, the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost."
Since the Nicene Creed refers to the First Person of the Holy Trinity as "God the Father Almighty" (1) above may be taken to mean THAT "God Almighty, the Father" is the First Person, AND the Son is the Second, And the Holy Ghost is the Third. In this way of reading the first "et" [and] is crucial. Here then we have ONLY the Names of the Three Persons of the Trinity and no word for "Godhead" as such.
In contrast (2) may be taken to mean that there is One Deity/Godhead/God who is Almighty and He is a Trinity: this Trinity is the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost. Here the first "et" is not needed, for style only requires the second one.
I would myself go for (1) because the Service begins with "In nomine Patris, ET Filii, et Spiritus Sancti" and because the Nicene Creed is used in the service where the First Person is called the God the Father Almighty.
Yet against going for (1) there is the modern R.C. translation that I have given above: "May Almighty God bless you, the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit." Here "Almighty God" seems to refer to the One God/Deity/Godhead who is a Trinity and then this Trinity is spelled out with the three Names.
The Athanasian Creed, the Quicunque Vult, tells us that "the Father is Almighty, the Son Almighty and the Holy Ghost Almighty, and yet there are not three Almighties but one Almighty." From this statement one can argue that "Almighty God" refers to the "one Almighty" of this Creed, that is to the Godhead which each of the Persons possesses wholly and undivided. Or one can argue that "Almighty God" is a description that belongs equally to the Father and to the Son and to the Holy Ghost.
One way or another I do think that the Blessing is intended to be the Blessing of the One, Holy, Blessed and Undivided Trinity of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost.
One final word. Beginning a Blessing with "May" ( as do modern R C translations and some renderings in the English "Common Worship") reduces its strength and quality. The old "The Blessing of God.." is more likely to give and convey assurance! (see further on this matter, "The Real Common Worship" ed Peter Mullen, Edgeways Books, 2000, pp.108ff.)
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
Thursday, May 23, 2002
Worship -- Relevance or Glory
Worshipping the Lord in popular mode - is this right and good? Are we falling prey to Satanic temptation in our attempts to worship the Holy Trinity?
Everyday casual clothing, everyday casual speech, popular music and a generally informal attitude seem to characterise many church services in 2002. And it seems to matter little what is the denominational affiliation of the local church. To be relevant and acceptable and accessible are deemed appropriate virtues.
In Roman Catholic Churches one sees the lay ministers of the Blessed Sacrament holding the Chalice, dressed in tea-shirts and shorts; and in Protestant churches one sees men and women wearing jeans as they take up the offering/collection or go forward to read a lesson or give a testimony. And in both situations, the organ has usually given way to the music group.
Before the service there is usually incessant chatter and laughter and this is often resumed in the walkabout, chatabout and hugabout that is called the passing of the peace.
And with this easy-come and easy-go attitude and action, there usually goes a similar attitude towards that which is offered to God by way of words, music and deeds. The kind of speech that casual dress supports (if not creates) is thought to be appropriate to use in speaking of and addressing God. Is not the Deity our great Friend and Therapist and does not this Deity want us to feel comfortable in our worship services? And the kind of music that is generally popular within the general culture is thought the best kind to offer to this Deity in church.
Let us be honest. Many Americans of varying backgrounds and economic circumstances actually like this situation where "church" is different from ordinary life only in certain, limited respects. They feel happy within the experiential and casual atmosphere and are willing to pay their tithe to keep it going. They want "church" to be a place where they are affirmed and accepted and where they are made to feel that God is on their side and watching out for them. And they are willing to shop around to find what is for them the best form of "church." The clergy and staff of such churches work hard to ascertain where people are and what is their felt need so that they can trim the Gospel to sail in these waters and be accepted. They are as much therapists and managers as pastors/teachers. [In Britain, where attendance at church is so much less than in the USA, much of the popular evangelical & charismatic growth - which by US standards is very small -- is very similar to the experiential situation in the USA and is much influenced by it. Ancient churches once with fine oak pews now have cheap movable seating.and so on.]
The LORD our God is full of lovingkindness to his people and Christ the High Priest is magnanimous in mercy towards us; and thus our second class offerings of worship and service become acceptable to the Father Almighty because they are purified and completed in the intercession of the One Mediator and High Priest, the same Jesus Christ.
BUT should we allow the DIVINE MERCY and GRACE, given to undeserving sinners, to cause us to offer less than the very best that we are and have to the Blessed, Holy and Undivided Trinity of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. Should not we dress for worship on the basis that we are to meet with the King of kings, the Lord of lords, and be in the company of the archangels and cherubim and seraphim? Should we not use a form of words and music that is the most excellent we can find and use and does not bring with it the spirit of the world around us? Should not our general attitude in divine service be one of great reverence and awe as we stand, bow and kneel before the LORD our God? Is anything less than the best good enough for worship of the sovereign Majesty?
Of course, what is the best varies from culture to culture and time to time and from economic group to economic group. And God does most certainly look on the heart - but not without noting the outward form.The point is that God the LORD, Creator, Redeemer and Judge, is worthy of absolute glory and praise and adoration and service. Why are we content to give to this Deity less than our best?
We recall:
"Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God and him only shalt thou serve."
"Worship the Father in spirit and in truth."
The most difficult and yet the most glorious thing that we are called to do in this world - in anticipation of the next - is to worship the LORD our God, the Blessed, Holy and Undivided Trinity. As the congregation of Christ's flock, we are called "to enjoy and glorify God, the Holy Trinity, for ever and ever, even unto the ages of ages and world without end."
I see four major temptations arising within western culture which both undermine the true purpose of Christian WORSHIP and reduce IT or change IT into something else. Professional and amateur liturgists, clergy and worship committees face these temptations and, regrettably, seem not always to resist them.
I close with a description of what awed Russian diplomats saw and felt when they first experienced the Divine Liturgy at Byzantium.
In the Anglican Way the celebration (in spirit and in truth and in the beauty of holiness) of the historic Liturgy for the Lord's Day -- Matins, the Litany, the Order for Holy Communion and finally Evensong -- also has no ulterior purpose for it is celebrated for God and not for man. No doubt man is blessed by rightly celebrating, but this does not change the basic purpose of the [Divine] Liturgy, celebrated for the glory of the One, Holy, Blessed and Undivided Trinity.
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
Everyday casual clothing, everyday casual speech, popular music and a generally informal attitude seem to characterise many church services in 2002. And it seems to matter little what is the denominational affiliation of the local church. To be relevant and acceptable and accessible are deemed appropriate virtues.
In Roman Catholic Churches one sees the lay ministers of the Blessed Sacrament holding the Chalice, dressed in tea-shirts and shorts; and in Protestant churches one sees men and women wearing jeans as they take up the offering/collection or go forward to read a lesson or give a testimony. And in both situations, the organ has usually given way to the music group.
Before the service there is usually incessant chatter and laughter and this is often resumed in the walkabout, chatabout and hugabout that is called the passing of the peace.
And with this easy-come and easy-go attitude and action, there usually goes a similar attitude towards that which is offered to God by way of words, music and deeds. The kind of speech that casual dress supports (if not creates) is thought to be appropriate to use in speaking of and addressing God. Is not the Deity our great Friend and Therapist and does not this Deity want us to feel comfortable in our worship services? And the kind of music that is generally popular within the general culture is thought the best kind to offer to this Deity in church.
Let us be honest. Many Americans of varying backgrounds and economic circumstances actually like this situation where "church" is different from ordinary life only in certain, limited respects. They feel happy within the experiential and casual atmosphere and are willing to pay their tithe to keep it going. They want "church" to be a place where they are affirmed and accepted and where they are made to feel that God is on their side and watching out for them. And they are willing to shop around to find what is for them the best form of "church." The clergy and staff of such churches work hard to ascertain where people are and what is their felt need so that they can trim the Gospel to sail in these waters and be accepted. They are as much therapists and managers as pastors/teachers. [In Britain, where attendance at church is so much less than in the USA, much of the popular evangelical & charismatic growth - which by US standards is very small -- is very similar to the experiential situation in the USA and is much influenced by it. Ancient churches once with fine oak pews now have cheap movable seating.and so on.]
The LORD our God is full of lovingkindness to his people and Christ the High Priest is magnanimous in mercy towards us; and thus our second class offerings of worship and service become acceptable to the Father Almighty because they are purified and completed in the intercession of the One Mediator and High Priest, the same Jesus Christ.
BUT should we allow the DIVINE MERCY and GRACE, given to undeserving sinners, to cause us to offer less than the very best that we are and have to the Blessed, Holy and Undivided Trinity of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. Should not we dress for worship on the basis that we are to meet with the King of kings, the Lord of lords, and be in the company of the archangels and cherubim and seraphim? Should we not use a form of words and music that is the most excellent we can find and use and does not bring with it the spirit of the world around us? Should not our general attitude in divine service be one of great reverence and awe as we stand, bow and kneel before the LORD our God? Is anything less than the best good enough for worship of the sovereign Majesty?
Of course, what is the best varies from culture to culture and time to time and from economic group to economic group. And God does most certainly look on the heart - but not without noting the outward form.The point is that God the LORD, Creator, Redeemer and Judge, is worthy of absolute glory and praise and adoration and service. Why are we content to give to this Deity less than our best?
We recall:
"Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God and him only shalt thou serve."
"Worship the Father in spirit and in truth."
The most difficult and yet the most glorious thing that we are called to do in this world - in anticipation of the next - is to worship the LORD our God, the Blessed, Holy and Undivided Trinity. As the congregation of Christ's flock, we are called "to enjoy and glorify God, the Holy Trinity, for ever and ever, even unto the ages of ages and world without end."
I see four major temptations arising within western culture which both undermine the true purpose of Christian WORSHIP and reduce IT or change IT into something else. Professional and amateur liturgists, clergy and worship committees face these temptations and, regrettably, seem not always to resist them.
1. Satan comes along and, with excellent examples and/or stories, presents the thesis: that "a worship service" is (at least in part) to keep people interested and in an acceptable and dignified way to entertain them. So the people sit as the audience and the performers are at the front FACING the audience. God is assumed to be the friendly, non-judgmental Onlooker who blesses the occasion for the people are sincere in their desire for religious activity, performance and entertainment. Satan's aim as the tempter is to make the people feel welcome, happy and emotionally satisfied/fulfilled. What he wants to cause them to avoid is to fear God the Father, to bow before His Majesty and to seek His Face through and in His Son, the Lord Jesus Christ.
2. Satan comes along and using telling phrases and ideas created by the modern therapeutic culture suggests that how people feel and their sense ofself-worth are of major importance in true and vital religion. So he presents the thesis: that "a worship service" and all other church activities must have as a major aim the purpose of making people feel good about themselves. Folks need to know that God actually loves everyone unconditionally and wants each one to feel affirmed as His child, and this despite whatever they have done and whatever be their position or state in life. What Satan wants to avoid is the idea that it is much more important to be obedient to the Lord of glory and to seek His holiness through bowing before His Majesty than to be nice and to feel good about one's individual faith.
3. Satan comes along and with moving illustrations suggests that people are alienated from one another and even from themselves in modern society and thus they need a real human community to which to belong. So he presents the thesis: that is it necessary to make the church of God in this place into a "community of faith" where the "worship service" is truly a community celebration. Alienated and lonely souls need to find soul-mates and soul-companions so that they feel they belong and that they existence is meaningful. So each person's "faith and feelings about God, Jesus and religion" is affirmed and the church is seen primarily to exist as the place and sphere of affirmation one of another and each one by all. Satan wants to make sure that the idea of belonging to the local group and affirming each other rather than belonging to the communion of saints of earth and heaven is the ethos here. He is most happy when a lot of emphasis and time is spent on the "passing of the peace" with its walkabout to embrace as many people as possible.
4. Satan comes along and demonstrates that many people are ignorant of the basics of religion and of the meaning of the liturgy. So he presents the thesis: that "a worship service" is basically a teaching opportunity for instruction (they may not stay for Sunday School but they are here as a captive audience). Instead of the liturgy flowing naturally according to its own inherent ethos and logic, it is interrupted often in order for the "worship leader" or the clergyperson to use the opportunity to add
comments to whatever is being sung or said or prayed in order to further the education of the people. The service is treated as an evangelistic or missionary opportunity. Satan is most happy when a congregation is engaged in learning about religion rather than involved in knowing God as GOD, the LORD, and experiencing communion with the Father through the Son and with the Holy Spirit.
I close with a description of what awed Russian diplomats saw and felt when they first experienced the Divine Liturgy at Byzantium.
"The Byzantine Liturgy was not a way of teaching doctrine and not intended to be. It was not a display of the Christian faith in a way acceptable or attractive to onlookers. What impressed them as onlookers about the Liturgy was precisely ITS UTTER LACK OF AN ULTERIOR PURPOSE, the fact that it was celebrated for GOD and not for spectators, that it sole intent was to be before God and for God, pleasing and acceptable to God.."
In the Anglican Way the celebration (in spirit and in truth and in the beauty of holiness) of the historic Liturgy for the Lord's Day -- Matins, the Litany, the Order for Holy Communion and finally Evensong -- also has no ulterior purpose for it is celebrated for God and not for man. No doubt man is blessed by rightly celebrating, but this does not change the basic purpose of the [Divine] Liturgy, celebrated for the glory of the One, Holy, Blessed and Undivided Trinity.
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
Fr. Edwards Not Downcast By Court's Decision
By Robert Stowe England
May 22, 2002
CLINTON, Maryland -- Fr. Samuel Edwards, rector-elect of Christ Church, Accokeek, said he was "not downcast" by the decision of the Fourth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to reject his appeal of his ouster by a federal district court in Maryland last November 30.
Fr. Edwards acknowledged that aside from some minor irrelevant points, the ruling "was a complete defeat" for his appeal. Even so, no decision has yet been made on whether or not Fr. Edwards and the vestry of Christ Church will appeal the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court.
"Nothing has been decided, "Fr. Edwards said. "We are still digesting the decision."
The court's ruling was based on its conclusion that the Episcopal Church is hierarchical and that, as such, a bishop is the final authority. The court noted that the Episcopal Church has done nothing to challenge Dixon's decision to reject Fr. Edwards as rector in March 2001, long after the 30-day review given bishops under the canons and constitution of ECUSA. The court also noted that the church's Review Panel's decision last September, if it had gone against Dixon, may not have been binding.
Referring to revisionists who have the reins of power in the diocese, the national office of the Episcopal Church, and its House of Bishops, Fr. Edwards says, "After today, their position has gained considerable strength. I will not be surprised to see them take this and run with it." The Diocese of Washington posted the decision on its web site shortly after Nalls learned of the decision from the Associated Press.
The usual protocol for court decisions is that attorneys for both sides are informed of a decision before it is made public.
Fr. Edwards said the decision was beneficial it one sense. "It provides a greater deal of clarity" about the authority of bishops, essentially confirming that bishops can interpret the canons as they wish and pretty much "do any thing they please."
Fr. Edwards said he was surprised by the court's decision, which was unanimous. "I thought we had a case that was very, very strong." He points out that the court itself raised the question of whether or not there was diversity of jurisdiction sufficient to allow the case to be brought in the federal courts.
Fr. Edwards says he "has no idea about the potential fallout, noting that God can write straight lines with a crooked stick."
"In some ways if this is a federal precedent defining the nature of the Episcopal Church, it should probably cause all traditionalist types on the Episcopal Church to think how much longer they can endure under such a regime."
He says the decision potentially sets ECUSA bishops up as infallible popes. "It is hardly progress to exchange one infallible pope for another pope, or rather hundreds of infallible popes who contradict each other," Fr. Edwards.
It is unclear how the injunction prohibiting Fr. Edwards from conducting religious services will apply after June 1, when Acting Bishop Jane Dixon is no longer ecclesiastical authority in the Diocese of Washington.
"It was awarded to her in her role as Ecclesiastical Authority," notes Fr. Edwards, and not as an individual. Thus, her rights under the injunction that was upheld expire June 1. This also suggests, says Fr. Edwards, that perhaps the rights are transferable to Bishop-elect John Chane, who will be consecrated on June 1 and installed as the eighth bishop of Washington on June 2, although this is by no means clear.
The court's ruling noted that federal district Judge Peter Messitte's original decision last November 30 ousting Fr. Edwards and barring him from the property at Christ Church Accokeek, either by omission or intention, did not and does not apply to St. John's Pomonkey, a chapel under the jurisdiction of Christ Church, Accokeek.
The court remanded the case to Judge Messitte to determine if his decisions prohibiting Fr. Edwards from holding services 300 feet from Christ Church was meant to be interpreted as 300 feet from the church building itself, or 300 feet from the Christ Church boundary line.
When asked why the decision did not make Fr. Edwards downcast he replied,
"I've read the end of the book and we won."
May 22, 2002
CLINTON, Maryland -- Fr. Samuel Edwards, rector-elect of Christ Church, Accokeek, said he was "not downcast" by the decision of the Fourth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to reject his appeal of his ouster by a federal district court in Maryland last November 30.
Fr. Edwards acknowledged that aside from some minor irrelevant points, the ruling "was a complete defeat" for his appeal. Even so, no decision has yet been made on whether or not Fr. Edwards and the vestry of Christ Church will appeal the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court.
"Nothing has been decided, "Fr. Edwards said. "We are still digesting the decision."
The court's ruling was based on its conclusion that the Episcopal Church is hierarchical and that, as such, a bishop is the final authority. The court noted that the Episcopal Church has done nothing to challenge Dixon's decision to reject Fr. Edwards as rector in March 2001, long after the 30-day review given bishops under the canons and constitution of ECUSA. The court also noted that the church's Review Panel's decision last September, if it had gone against Dixon, may not have been binding.
Referring to revisionists who have the reins of power in the diocese, the national office of the Episcopal Church, and its House of Bishops, Fr. Edwards says, "After today, their position has gained considerable strength. I will not be surprised to see them take this and run with it." The Diocese of Washington posted the decision on its web site shortly after Nalls learned of the decision from the Associated Press.
The usual protocol for court decisions is that attorneys for both sides are informed of a decision before it is made public.
Fr. Edwards said the decision was beneficial it one sense. "It provides a greater deal of clarity" about the authority of bishops, essentially confirming that bishops can interpret the canons as they wish and pretty much "do any thing they please."
Fr. Edwards said he was surprised by the court's decision, which was unanimous. "I thought we had a case that was very, very strong." He points out that the court itself raised the question of whether or not there was diversity of jurisdiction sufficient to allow the case to be brought in the federal courts.
Fr. Edwards says he "has no idea about the potential fallout, noting that God can write straight lines with a crooked stick."
"In some ways if this is a federal precedent defining the nature of the Episcopal Church, it should probably cause all traditionalist types on the Episcopal Church to think how much longer they can endure under such a regime."
He says the decision potentially sets ECUSA bishops up as infallible popes. "It is hardly progress to exchange one infallible pope for another pope, or rather hundreds of infallible popes who contradict each other," Fr. Edwards.
It is unclear how the injunction prohibiting Fr. Edwards from conducting religious services will apply after June 1, when Acting Bishop Jane Dixon is no longer ecclesiastical authority in the Diocese of Washington.
"It was awarded to her in her role as Ecclesiastical Authority," notes Fr. Edwards, and not as an individual. Thus, her rights under the injunction that was upheld expire June 1. This also suggests, says Fr. Edwards, that perhaps the rights are transferable to Bishop-elect John Chane, who will be consecrated on June 1 and installed as the eighth bishop of Washington on June 2, although this is by no means clear.
The court's ruling noted that federal district Judge Peter Messitte's original decision last November 30 ousting Fr. Edwards and barring him from the property at Christ Church Accokeek, either by omission or intention, did not and does not apply to St. John's Pomonkey, a chapel under the jurisdiction of Christ Church, Accokeek.
The court remanded the case to Judge Messitte to determine if his decisions prohibiting Fr. Edwards from holding services 300 feet from Christ Church was meant to be interpreted as 300 feet from the church building itself, or 300 feet from the Christ Church boundary line.
When asked why the decision did not make Fr. Edwards downcast he replied,
"I've read the end of the book and we won."
Wednesday, May 22, 2002
No longer Bridge Church but Ecumenical Crisis Zone
Until the 1960s, even the 1970s, the Anglican Communion was thought of by many as a bridge Church between the Protestant denominations and the Roman Catholic & Orthodox Churches. Because of the ordination of women, especially to the Episcopate, in a minority of the 38 provinces, the Anglican Communion has become an Ecumenical Crisis Zone!
Gone forever is the vocation to be a Bridge Church!
Why? Because She is seeking to contain within herself as a Communion two (hitherto) different and irreconcilable traditions of church order. First of all, that of the so-called traditional historic episcopate that claims to be in genuine apostolic succession of faith and order, and secondly that of the episcopate of men and women “being led by the Spirit” to innovate within new circumstances.
Until the 1970s it was the Anglican claim that each one of the bishops in the Communion was in full communion with all the rest and that each local bishop was a bishop of the one, holy, catholic & apostolic Church as well as of his own diocese. From the time that women were ordained to the episcopate, there was immediate impaired communion within the Anglican Family of Churches. Of no woman bishop can it yet be said that she is accepted by all the other bishops as an authentic bishop in the Church of God. The very fact of having women bishops, however competent and holy they are, means that there can never be a united Episcopate and thus never a united Family of Churches/dioceses.
The ESSE of the Church which is unity cannot be!
Thus instead of being a genuine united Anglican Communion, seeking unity with other Jurisdictions, the Anglican Church in the world exhibits an Ecumenical Crisis Zone, reflecting in herself the tensions of modern Christianity. Her bishops certainly meet but they cannot be said to be united in anything other than general terms.
And this Crisis Zone has grown even wider in recent years as into it has entered the whole question of human sexuality. Thus impaired communion made a necessity by the ordaining of women as bishops has much increased by the choice of some western dioceses and provinces not only to ordain active homosexual persons and bless same-sex partnerships but also to seek to get others to accept this innovation.
Is there an escape from this Crisis Zone? Yes, but only into different forms of ecclesial, moral and doctrinal crisis zones. Roman Catholicism in most parts of the western world is in real crisis as continuing media exposures reveal. It is certainly no safe haven for those who wish a peaceful church environment. Likewise the various jurisdictions of Eastern Orthodoxy are going through very obvious growing and adapting pains and pressures in the USA and these are in their own contexts painful and real crises. Further, the small Continuing Anglican Churches have exhibited since the 1970s a total inability to offer an alternative to the official Anglican Communion as they have multiplied schism and disorder, even if they have not ordained women.
In a local parish, where there is much activism and excitement, it may seem possible to forget the crisis zone but it will sooner or later rear its ugly head and cause us to take note of it! The Christianity we preach and teach and seek to live is deeply affected by the reality of the Crisis Zones and thus we all are affected.
We cannot escape entering Crisis Zones if we wish to be responsibly engaged in the life of the divided and distorted catholic Church of God in the West today. We have to live in these Zones and work through them seeking to be both as charitable and as orthodox, as gentle and as firm, as gracious and as discerning as we possibly can be. It may well be that this form of existence is to last a long time as the Crisis Zones are enlarged by ever more occasions of impaired communion.
Thinking of our own souls, we can only seek to be peacemakers, pray for the Parousia of the Lord Jesus & hope that we do belong to the elect of God and are truly, by grace upon grace, members of the “invisible” Church of God that shall be raised unto everlasting life as the redeemed people of God for the life of the age to come.
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
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)