THE ANONYMITY OF THE HOLY SPIRIT
(a small part of an address on "The Person of the Holy Spirit" given in Trinity College, University of Melbourne, August 24, at the Conference of the Prayer Book Society of Victoria, Australia)
Have you ever pondered why there are so few hymns and prayers addressed directly to the Holy Spirit in the Liturgy of the Orthodox Churches, the Roman Catholic Church, the Anglican Church and the Lutheran Church?
Have you ever pondered why the normal way of prayer in all the major jurisdictions and branches of the Church of God is "To the Father, through the Incarnate Son and in the Holy Spirit" ?
We recall that the Holy Spirit has a Name that can also be used of the First Person, the Father, and of the Second Person, the Son, in the Holy and Undivided Trinity. For the Father and the Son being God are truly HOLY SPIRIT and HOLY BEING and HOLY ESSENCE. Thus it is that theologians and mystics have spoken of the anonymity of the Third Person for His Name is not a Name of the same kind as the Names of the First and Second Persons. Their names are Proper Names unique to each of these Persons.
If we ponder the Revelation of the Trinity recorded in the words of the Hebrew and Greek Testaments of the one Bible, we notice the divine Order of the Trinity's self-revelation. It is FROM the Father through the Son and in/by the Holy Spirit [in creation, revelation, reconciliation, redemption etc.] and it is TO the Father through/with the Son and in/by the Holy Spirit [in sanctification, service, worship, prayer etc.].
The Holy Spirit is the PERSONAL presence and sphere IN which we are reached by the Father through the Son in order to be saved and sanctified. He is the Spirit of the Father and of the Son. And the same Spirit is also the PERSONAL presence IN whom we are united to the Incarnate Son as disciples for service and worship and final redemption. Thus we call upon the Father through the Son; and we call upon the Son and through him reach His Father; but we do not call upon the Holy Spirit (in the normal way of things) for He is the divine presence in which such relations with the Father and the Son are possible and real. Thus his anonymity is in the divine grace for us and for our salvation!
Let us ponder this anonymity further. With respect to the Person of the Holy Ghost, we note in the divine economy that his anonymity arises from the ordered relation (the taxis as the Greeks say) of the Three Persons within the Holy Trinity.
The Father, although totally unknowable to us by himself, is revealed to us by the Son, who is his perfect image and has assumed our human nature. "No man has seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has declared him" (John 1:18). Further, we can only recognize the deity of Jesus Christ and confess him as the Lord through the Holy Spirit, says St Paul (1 Corinthians 12:3) -- economy within the Church of the Spirit is to be the Interpreter [as Paraclete] of the Son (see John 14:26).
To quote from Gregory of Nyssa, "One does not think of the Father without the Son and one does not conceive of the Son without the Holy Spirit. For it is impossible to attain to the Father except by being raised by the Son, and it is impossible to call Jesus Lord save in the Holy Spirit" (P.G. LXIV,1316).
But there is no Fourth Person in the one Godhead to reveal and to interpret the Spirit. Thus the Holy Spirit is necessarily the Interpreter rather than the interpreted. And this is why there are so few hymns and prayers in the worship and liturgy of the Church that are directly addressed to the Person of the Holy Ghost. The Father and the Son are worshipped IN the Holy Ghost!
V.Lossky writes: "The third Hypostasis of the Trinity is the only one not having his image in another Person. The Holy Spirit as Person remains unmanifested, hidden, concealing himself in his very appearing..The doctrine of the Holy Spirit (in contrast to the dazzling manifestation of the Son, which the Church proclaims to the farthest confines of the universe) has the character of a secret, a partially revealed tradition.. We confess the Holy Trinity. But the very Person of the Holy Spirit who reveals these truths to us and who renders them inwardly luminous, manifest, almost tangible to us, neverthless remains himself undisclosed and hidden, concealed by the deity which he reveals to us, by the gift he imparts" Mystical Theology, p.160-161.
Now to practical application.
What I note in much of the modern charismatic & evangelical movement is public discourse - both addressed to humankind and to the Deity - that has two distinct tendencies (a) to exaggerate what God the Holy Spirit has done and is doing in the church and the world through stories that intend to honor God, and (b) to break out of the sacred anonymity that belongs to the Holy Spirit and to name Him and seek to identity His work in a way that is not in harmony with the divine economy of the relational order - From the Father through the Son and IN the Holy Spirit; to the Father through the Son and IN the Holy Spirit. That is, to make more of the Holy Spirit (and thus less of the Father and the Son) than does the Revelation written in Holy Scripture.
The Rev'd Dr Peter Toon, August 27, 2001
Sunday, August 26, 2001
Saturday, August 18, 2001
DO YOU THINK THAT JESUS CAME TO BRING PEACE ON EARTH?
(see ECUSA Lectionary, the Gospel for August 19th, 2001, Luke 12:49ff.)
Jesus of Nazareth asked the following question of his disciples: Do you think that I have come to give peace on earth?
Today, if this question were asked of Episcopalians I believe that most would answer, “Yes of course!” And if pressed as to why they answered in the affirmative they would probably refer to that most holy of all ECUSA documents, the “Baptismal Covenant,” where a purpose of the baptized Christian is said to be “striving for justice and peace among all people.” (Most people are probably not aware that the origins of these words is in the social revolution of the 1960s rather than in the teaching of Jesus.)
In fact Jesus answered the question himself with a resounding NO. “No I tell you, but rather division.” Jesus did not come to bring give peace on earth in this evil age but rather he came to cause division. What he meant by division he then explained in terms of divided families and divided communities. Those who refused his Gospel would be set against those who accepted it. So hostility would exist on earth in many homes and families and tribes and communities, and the division would be in terms of acceptance or rejection of the Gospel of the Kingdom of God centered on Jesus himself.
Before he asked this question about peace on earth, Jesus made two extraordinary statements and they cast light upon the question he posed, and the answer he gave.
One was, “I have a Baptism to be baptized with; and how I am constrained until it is accomplished!” Obviously we know now that Jesus was referring to his death which loomed before him as the culmination of his work on earth; of his being immersed in suffering, pain, separation from his disciples and moreso separation from his Father in heaven. By this Baptism would come the salvation of the world, the forgiveness of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit to the church.
The other was, “I came to cast fire on the earth and would that it were already kindled!” Here he refers to the coming of the refining fire of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, after his own ascension into heaven. Did not John the Baptist cry out: “He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire…”? The descent of the Holy Spirit from the Father through the Son, the Lord Jesus, is to burn up the dross of sin, to purify the souls of men, to convict people in the word of sin and righteousness and judgment, to inspire them to holiness and service for the kingdom, and to prepare the elect of God for their heavenly habitation. As a result of this work, there occurs hostility for the devil causes people to resist and to declare war upon the work of the kingdom of God. There will be no peace until after the Last Judgment!
Yet though Jesus did not come as the Incarnate Son to give peace to this earth, yet by the gift of the Holy Spirit, he does give that peace which passes understanding to the repentant, believing, and obedient soul! Let us receive that peace and with it face the hostility caused by the Gospel!
The Revd Dr Peter Toon
August 18,2001
(see ECUSA Lectionary, the Gospel for August 19th, 2001, Luke 12:49ff.)
Jesus of Nazareth asked the following question of his disciples: Do you think that I have come to give peace on earth?
Today, if this question were asked of Episcopalians I believe that most would answer, “Yes of course!” And if pressed as to why they answered in the affirmative they would probably refer to that most holy of all ECUSA documents, the “Baptismal Covenant,” where a purpose of the baptized Christian is said to be “striving for justice and peace among all people.” (Most people are probably not aware that the origins of these words is in the social revolution of the 1960s rather than in the teaching of Jesus.)
In fact Jesus answered the question himself with a resounding NO. “No I tell you, but rather division.” Jesus did not come to bring give peace on earth in this evil age but rather he came to cause division. What he meant by division he then explained in terms of divided families and divided communities. Those who refused his Gospel would be set against those who accepted it. So hostility would exist on earth in many homes and families and tribes and communities, and the division would be in terms of acceptance or rejection of the Gospel of the Kingdom of God centered on Jesus himself.
Before he asked this question about peace on earth, Jesus made two extraordinary statements and they cast light upon the question he posed, and the answer he gave.
One was, “I have a Baptism to be baptized with; and how I am constrained until it is accomplished!” Obviously we know now that Jesus was referring to his death which loomed before him as the culmination of his work on earth; of his being immersed in suffering, pain, separation from his disciples and moreso separation from his Father in heaven. By this Baptism would come the salvation of the world, the forgiveness of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit to the church.
The other was, “I came to cast fire on the earth and would that it were already kindled!” Here he refers to the coming of the refining fire of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, after his own ascension into heaven. Did not John the Baptist cry out: “He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire…”? The descent of the Holy Spirit from the Father through the Son, the Lord Jesus, is to burn up the dross of sin, to purify the souls of men, to convict people in the word of sin and righteousness and judgment, to inspire them to holiness and service for the kingdom, and to prepare the elect of God for their heavenly habitation. As a result of this work, there occurs hostility for the devil causes people to resist and to declare war upon the work of the kingdom of God. There will be no peace until after the Last Judgment!
Yet though Jesus did not come as the Incarnate Son to give peace to this earth, yet by the gift of the Holy Spirit, he does give that peace which passes understanding to the repentant, believing, and obedient soul! Let us receive that peace and with it face the hostility caused by the Gospel!
The Revd Dr Peter Toon
August 18,2001
THREE GREAT SACRAMENTS
Anglicans were used to speaking of the two dominical sacraments [Baptism & the Lord’s Supper] and five commonly called sacraments [Confirmation, Penance, Matrimony, Ordination, & Extreme Unction].
Modern Episcopalians in practice if not always with clarity in words seem to believe in three great sacraments and possibly five commonly called
sacraments [Confirmation etc]. The three great sacraments are Baptism,
Passing of the Peace, and Eucharist.
And belief in these Three is as strong with the charismatic-evangelicals as it is with the lesbigay activists. Naturally in a country where everyone has an opinion about everything there are different interpretations of the Three, but what unites the modern Episcopal Church is the commitment to the Three and the welcome to all members at the Three.
Since the 1970s, baptism has become for an increasing number an initiation into a “community” that works for “peace and justice” in this world. There is much talk of and frequent appeals to “the baptismal covenant” as the basis for social, political and economic action in the world. Also Baptism is seen as being the point of receiving in potential all the possible ministries that the Episcopal Church allows. Thus any baptized person is eligible to be everything from a church warden to the Presiding Bishop. This doctrine immediately opens the door of course to the ordination not only of women but also of lesbigay persons.
Since the 1970s, the Eucharist has become for an increasing number the badge and profession of loyalty to the local community (i.e., to the local Episcopal church or diocese). To be present and not receive the sacramental signs is seen as not only bad manners but also a rejection of community. Also the Eucharist is seen as a symbolic reference to “the pre-history and foundation of the Christian community.” There is little sense of transcendence in the modern service for the emphasis is upon the horizontal, the empirical and the present. Likewise there is little reference to the Atonement and bloody death of the Lord Jesus. God is present as the universal, affirming spirit and Jesus’ love is demonstrated in community care.
Seemingly and increasingly the [passing of ] the Peace has become the centerpiece of religious worship for ECUSA parishes of all kinds. Both charismatic and lesbigay people enjoy it immensely. It is the very long moment [from 5 – 15 mins] for affirming every person present and doing so through the use of human “flesh.” By hugs, kisses and handshakes and by walking about and often talking loudly, the community is affirmed and each person there present is made to feel that she or he belongs to this group of people, who have been baptized to work with God for peace and justice on earth. Regrettably the proximity of warm flesh also excites temptation and lust.
What has disappeared from Baptism and the Eucharist is the clear and unambiguous reference to the Lord Jesus Christ in heaven as the exalted Saviour who died for our sins and was raised for our justification and with whom we are united in the Holy Spirit. In Baptism we die, are buried and are raised with him in order to live in him and for him in this world in anticipation of the age to come. In the Lord’s Supper, as repentant, believing sinners, we are fed from the heavenly Banquet with the food of eternal life and energized by that food we are prepared for life of the age to come and for service in his kingdom in this world. And the food we receive is the Body of Blood of the crucified and now exalted Saviour. The primary reference of these dominical sacraments is not this world and its needs but the heavenly world and membership thereof through the merits of the one lord Jesus Christ.
The modern passing of the peace is as much like the “kiss of peace” in the early Church as a modern jetliner is like an ancient Roman chariot. In the ancient church men and women stood or sat at different sides of the church and the peace was part of the repentance for sins against the neighbor. It was a getting right with fellow believers before one dare approach the holy Table of the Lord.
Today the jolly, loud and busy passing of the peace at the middle of an Episcopal service speaks eloquently of the view people have of God. God is no longer – for many of us -- the One before whom we bow and prostrate ourselves in humble gratitude and penitence as The Holy Trinity who is glorious in holiness and mercy. Now Deity (he, she, it) has apparently become for many of us the embracing universal spirit or presence of warm affirmation and acceptance (a kind of panentheism).
In this world of sin, the purest of things can be made or become impure, and the holiest of things can be made or become unclean. It would appear that this common phenomenon can be observed in the sacramental life of the Episcopal Church USA. Not that all members are equally locked into the new uses and interpretations of the dominical sacraments but that a sufficient number are so that one can speak of this being a major denominational problem. It is difficult to envisage how there can be in the ECUSA a U-turn to something that is nearer to the Biblical and Patristic and Reformation norms for this Church has moved so far since the 1970s from its previous moorings.
The Rev’d Dr Peter Toon
August 17 2001
Anglicans were used to speaking of the two dominical sacraments [Baptism & the Lord’s Supper] and five commonly called sacraments [Confirmation, Penance, Matrimony, Ordination, & Extreme Unction].
Modern Episcopalians in practice if not always with clarity in words seem to believe in three great sacraments and possibly five commonly called
sacraments [Confirmation etc]. The three great sacraments are Baptism,
Passing of the Peace, and Eucharist.
And belief in these Three is as strong with the charismatic-evangelicals as it is with the lesbigay activists. Naturally in a country where everyone has an opinion about everything there are different interpretations of the Three, but what unites the modern Episcopal Church is the commitment to the Three and the welcome to all members at the Three.
Since the 1970s, baptism has become for an increasing number an initiation into a “community” that works for “peace and justice” in this world. There is much talk of and frequent appeals to “the baptismal covenant” as the basis for social, political and economic action in the world. Also Baptism is seen as being the point of receiving in potential all the possible ministries that the Episcopal Church allows. Thus any baptized person is eligible to be everything from a church warden to the Presiding Bishop. This doctrine immediately opens the door of course to the ordination not only of women but also of lesbigay persons.
Since the 1970s, the Eucharist has become for an increasing number the badge and profession of loyalty to the local community (i.e., to the local Episcopal church or diocese). To be present and not receive the sacramental signs is seen as not only bad manners but also a rejection of community. Also the Eucharist is seen as a symbolic reference to “the pre-history and foundation of the Christian community.” There is little sense of transcendence in the modern service for the emphasis is upon the horizontal, the empirical and the present. Likewise there is little reference to the Atonement and bloody death of the Lord Jesus. God is present as the universal, affirming spirit and Jesus’ love is demonstrated in community care.
Seemingly and increasingly the [passing of ] the Peace has become the centerpiece of religious worship for ECUSA parishes of all kinds. Both charismatic and lesbigay people enjoy it immensely. It is the very long moment [from 5 – 15 mins] for affirming every person present and doing so through the use of human “flesh.” By hugs, kisses and handshakes and by walking about and often talking loudly, the community is affirmed and each person there present is made to feel that she or he belongs to this group of people, who have been baptized to work with God for peace and justice on earth. Regrettably the proximity of warm flesh also excites temptation and lust.
What has disappeared from Baptism and the Eucharist is the clear and unambiguous reference to the Lord Jesus Christ in heaven as the exalted Saviour who died for our sins and was raised for our justification and with whom we are united in the Holy Spirit. In Baptism we die, are buried and are raised with him in order to live in him and for him in this world in anticipation of the age to come. In the Lord’s Supper, as repentant, believing sinners, we are fed from the heavenly Banquet with the food of eternal life and energized by that food we are prepared for life of the age to come and for service in his kingdom in this world. And the food we receive is the Body of Blood of the crucified and now exalted Saviour. The primary reference of these dominical sacraments is not this world and its needs but the heavenly world and membership thereof through the merits of the one lord Jesus Christ.
The modern passing of the peace is as much like the “kiss of peace” in the early Church as a modern jetliner is like an ancient Roman chariot. In the ancient church men and women stood or sat at different sides of the church and the peace was part of the repentance for sins against the neighbor. It was a getting right with fellow believers before one dare approach the holy Table of the Lord.
Today the jolly, loud and busy passing of the peace at the middle of an Episcopal service speaks eloquently of the view people have of God. God is no longer – for many of us -- the One before whom we bow and prostrate ourselves in humble gratitude and penitence as The Holy Trinity who is glorious in holiness and mercy. Now Deity (he, she, it) has apparently become for many of us the embracing universal spirit or presence of warm affirmation and acceptance (a kind of panentheism).
In this world of sin, the purest of things can be made or become impure, and the holiest of things can be made or become unclean. It would appear that this common phenomenon can be observed in the sacramental life of the Episcopal Church USA. Not that all members are equally locked into the new uses and interpretations of the dominical sacraments but that a sufficient number are so that one can speak of this being a major denominational problem. It is difficult to envisage how there can be in the ECUSA a U-turn to something that is nearer to the Biblical and Patristic and Reformation norms for this Church has moved so far since the 1970s from its previous moorings.
The Rev’d Dr Peter Toon
August 17 2001
Thursday, August 16, 2001
Singing Unto the Lord as Anglicans
by The Rev'd Dr Peter Toon
When “The Book of Common Prayer” of 1552 was made the official Prayer Book of the reign of Elizabeth I (thus BCP, 1559) a Royal Injunction accompanying that re-enactment stated:
“That in the beginning or at the end of Common Prayers, either at morning or evening, there may be sung a hymn or such like-song…in the best sort of melody or music that may be conveniently devised, having regard that the sense of the hymn may be understood and perceived.”
Of course it was also possible for the priest and parish clerks to sing instead of say parts of the service as written but this Injunction made possible genuinely hearty congregational singing.
Read the rest of this article...
by The Rev'd Dr Peter Toon
When “The Book of Common Prayer” of 1552 was made the official Prayer Book of the reign of Elizabeth I (thus BCP, 1559) a Royal Injunction accompanying that re-enactment stated:
“That in the beginning or at the end of Common Prayers, either at morning or evening, there may be sung a hymn or such like-song…in the best sort of melody or music that may be conveniently devised, having regard that the sense of the hymn may be understood and perceived.”
Of course it was also possible for the priest and parish clerks to sing instead of say parts of the service as written but this Injunction made possible genuinely hearty congregational singing.
Read the rest of this article...
Tuesday, August 14, 2001
HOLY MARY, THEOTOKOS
August 15 is the Festival of the Blessed Virgin Mary. Many Protestant-minded Anglicans on hearing this take a deep breath and change the subject. They have the sense that the honor of Mary has been more liable to exaggeration and deviation than any other doctrine or practice in the Church of God.
This admitted, let us also accept that she has never been added – officially – to the Blessed Three Persons of the Holy Trinity to make a foursome. And let us recall that she is specifically called by the Ecumenical Councils of Ephesus (431) and Chalcedon (451) the “Theotokos” (a word that has been usually translated into English as “Mother of God” [God the Son]).
Let us further agree that not only is Mary unique amongst women she is also, of all God’s creatures, angelic and human, the one with the greatest dignity and honor. She is above archangels, seraphim and cherubim, above the patriarchs and prophets of the old covenant and above the apostles of the new covenant in dignity and honor. And she is so because she was chosen by the LORD to be, and she readily accepted the vocation of, the Theotokos – the “birth giver of God”. She was the Temple of the Lord, the Son [see the Annunciation]. She carried in her womb for 9 months the Word of God incarnate, the eternal Son of God in human form, and then she gave birth to her son who is also the eternally begotten Son of the Father, whom she called “Jesus” [“the LORD is our salvation”].
Mary’s SON is her Savior and Lord but he is nevertheless her son, for his human nature was formed from her. Of course she did not give unto him his divine nature or his divine personhood for he is always the Second Person of the Blessed, Holy and Undivided Trinity from all eternity. Mary became the Temple in which the pre-existing divine Son received his human nature and began to live within his humanity. Mary’s conceiving him was His receiving [of human nature].
Jesus is thus God and Man, One Person made known in two natures, divine and human.
The original intent of the Mary Festival on August 15 in the fifth century in the eastern mediterranean was to celebrate her divine maternity, with no reference to the end of her life on earth. It may be regretted that it did not remain solely with this biblical and soteriological emphasis.
However, the emphasis later moved to what has been called her “Falling Asleep” or “Dormition” or “Koimesis” that is of her being exalted into heaven from the grave after her death in order to be with her Son – and not wait for the final resurrection of the body at the end of the age. Yet this emphasis – which some Protestants find difficult to accept since Scripture is silent on it – should not cause us to forget the original and basic theme of the Festival of August 15 -- her divine maternity, her being the “Theotokos.”
The Protestant Reformers of the 16th century accepted the title of “Theotokos” even if they rejected much of the late medieval devotion to “our Lady.” Hugh Latimer, who was burned at the stake in Oxford as a Protestant martyr, wanted his colleague, Archbishop Cranmer, to include in the BCP Gabriel’s acclamation to Mary, “Hail, Mary full of grace, the Lord is with thee…” but it never got in.
Let us as Protestants keep this Marian Festival in its original intent, let us admire the grace of God in Mary and her willing submission to the divine will, let us remember that without Mary's cooperation there would have been no Incarnate Word, no Saviour of mankind and no redemption of the world, and thus let us magnify and glorify the Father, through His Incarnate Son, with the Holy Ghost.
The Rev’d Dr. Peter Toon
August 14 2001
August 15 is the Festival of the Blessed Virgin Mary. Many Protestant-minded Anglicans on hearing this take a deep breath and change the subject. They have the sense that the honor of Mary has been more liable to exaggeration and deviation than any other doctrine or practice in the Church of God.
This admitted, let us also accept that she has never been added – officially – to the Blessed Three Persons of the Holy Trinity to make a foursome. And let us recall that she is specifically called by the Ecumenical Councils of Ephesus (431) and Chalcedon (451) the “Theotokos” (a word that has been usually translated into English as “Mother of God” [God the Son]).
Let us further agree that not only is Mary unique amongst women she is also, of all God’s creatures, angelic and human, the one with the greatest dignity and honor. She is above archangels, seraphim and cherubim, above the patriarchs and prophets of the old covenant and above the apostles of the new covenant in dignity and honor. And she is so because she was chosen by the LORD to be, and she readily accepted the vocation of, the Theotokos – the “birth giver of God”. She was the Temple of the Lord, the Son [see the Annunciation]. She carried in her womb for 9 months the Word of God incarnate, the eternal Son of God in human form, and then she gave birth to her son who is also the eternally begotten Son of the Father, whom she called “Jesus” [“the LORD is our salvation”].
Mary’s SON is her Savior and Lord but he is nevertheless her son, for his human nature was formed from her. Of course she did not give unto him his divine nature or his divine personhood for he is always the Second Person of the Blessed, Holy and Undivided Trinity from all eternity. Mary became the Temple in which the pre-existing divine Son received his human nature and began to live within his humanity. Mary’s conceiving him was His receiving [of human nature].
Jesus is thus God and Man, One Person made known in two natures, divine and human.
The original intent of the Mary Festival on August 15 in the fifth century in the eastern mediterranean was to celebrate her divine maternity, with no reference to the end of her life on earth. It may be regretted that it did not remain solely with this biblical and soteriological emphasis.
However, the emphasis later moved to what has been called her “Falling Asleep” or “Dormition” or “Koimesis” that is of her being exalted into heaven from the grave after her death in order to be with her Son – and not wait for the final resurrection of the body at the end of the age. Yet this emphasis – which some Protestants find difficult to accept since Scripture is silent on it – should not cause us to forget the original and basic theme of the Festival of August 15 -- her divine maternity, her being the “Theotokos.”
The Protestant Reformers of the 16th century accepted the title of “Theotokos” even if they rejected much of the late medieval devotion to “our Lady.” Hugh Latimer, who was burned at the stake in Oxford as a Protestant martyr, wanted his colleague, Archbishop Cranmer, to include in the BCP Gabriel’s acclamation to Mary, “Hail, Mary full of grace, the Lord is with thee…” but it never got in.
Let us as Protestants keep this Marian Festival in its original intent, let us admire the grace of God in Mary and her willing submission to the divine will, let us remember that without Mary's cooperation there would have been no Incarnate Word, no Saviour of mankind and no redemption of the world, and thus let us magnify and glorify the Father, through His Incarnate Son, with the Holy Ghost.
The Rev’d Dr. Peter Toon
August 14 2001
Monday, August 13, 2001
Lay Administration of the Lord’s Supper; or
Lay Celebration of the Eucharist; or
Lay Presidency at the Lord’s Supper/Eucharist
Since a lot of publicity has been given recently to the proposal that in the Anglican Way provision should be made for a layperson be the celebrant at the Eucharist, I thought it may be useful - despite the rejection of the practice by the Archbishop of Canterbury and others – to set out the reasons given by those who energetically commend it.
As far as I can tell those who commend are learned and godly persons, who have a very high view of the Scriptures as the Word of God written, are enthusiastic about the great doctrines and principles of the Protestant Reformation, put great weight on the authority that belongs to the historic Formularies of the Anglican Way, have a sense of pastoral concern for parishes without a resident pastor and do not believe in the ordination of women as presbyters/priests.
In particular, emphasis is placed by them upon the Reformation doctrine of justification by faith together with the doctrine of the priesthood of baptized believers for these together speak eloquently of the equality of all baptized Christians before God the Father and of their common access to him through His Son our Lord Jesus Christ in/by the Holy Spirit.
But before I begin I must say two things.
A. As far as members of the Forward in Faith movement are concerned this
Proposal is already in place in many of the Provinces of the Anglican Communion and is so wherever women act as ordained ministers.
B. This Proposal is not commended as the universal norm but as appropriate
in certain circumstances where there is no available resident pastor [priest] in a congregation. Further, this proposal also normally includes a call for ordained deacons to be able in appropriate situations to be the celebrant at the Lord’s Supper/Eucharist.
Now to the reasons:
1. Both a layman and a deacon are allowed to preach if they have a license
from the bishop. Why not extend this provision of a license at least to some lay Readers and some deacons to celebrate when necessity arises (e.g., in a country area where there is no resident pastor or in a situation where the resident priest is sick)?
2. Further, both a layman and a deacon are allowed to baptize under certain
circumstances, usually in an emergency where the child or adult to be baptized is dying. If they can baptize in an emergency why are they not allowed to celebrate also when necessity requires it?
3. Reserving the Celebration of the Lord’s Supper to priests and bishops
alone can give the impression that they are a superior caste to other Christians and that they have an unique ability to dispense grace.
4. Since the ministry of the Word and the ministry of the Sacrament belong
together why should one but not the other be open to the licensed layman and the licensed deacon? As things now stand the impression is made that an improper or illogical distinction is being made between both the means of grace, by Word and Sacrament.
5. The restricting of the celebration of the Lord’s Supper to priests and
bishops only leads to wrong ideas about this Sacrament, especially that its value as a means of grace depends upon the status of the person who prays “the Eucharistic Prayer” [Prayer of Consecration].
6. Further, the absolute requirement that a priest or bishop is the
celebrant leads to the idea that Jesus Christ is not the unique High Priest in heaven and not the only Mediator between God and man for he [Christ] needs the help of an earthly mediator as well.
7. In the New Testament there is no specific instruction as to who may
celebrate the Lord’s Supper and in the writings of the early Fathers it appears that the bishop could and did delegate the “presidency” to others, including laymen, on occasion.
8. While it is true that the classic BCP (with Ordinal) of 1662 and the
Canon Law of 1604 make no provision for a licensed layman or deacon to celebrate, neither does it make provision for them to do many other things that they have been allowed to do in public worship by Acts of Convocation and Synod and the like since 1604.
9. Allowing certain licensed persons to celebrate when necessity arises in
no way takes away from the vocation and role of the parish pastor/priest, who is to be seen as the Head of the parish Family, which is a unique calling. It is very odd that a priest will often travel many miles to a congregation to say the Eucharistic Prayer when there are in the congregation godly persons who could be candidates for a bishop’s license to celebrate when the local pastor is sick or away.
10. Good order in the Church, diocese, province, will be preserved in
allowing this development if it is carefully planned, if persons are carefully chosen and if the Bishop only gives licenses to godly and responsible men.
Those Anglicans who oppose the Innovation of Lay Celebration simply argue that over the long history of the Church from the time of the Council of Nicea in 325 to the Religious Settlement of Queen Elizabeth I in 1559 the Celebration of the Eucharist was reserved to the Bishop, who could and did delegate it to the priest, but never to the deacon and never to the layman (even though lay brothers preached much in medieval Europe). Since the 16th Century the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox on one side and major Protestant traditions on the other have maintained the practice of only allowing the bishop, priest, pastor to be the Celebrant. So it is a matter of Order, of what is appropriate and of tradition. Innovation would not be generally helpful.
The Rev'd Dr Peter Toon August 13, 2001
Lay Celebration of the Eucharist; or
Lay Presidency at the Lord’s Supper/Eucharist
Since a lot of publicity has been given recently to the proposal that in the Anglican Way provision should be made for a layperson be the celebrant at the Eucharist, I thought it may be useful - despite the rejection of the practice by the Archbishop of Canterbury and others – to set out the reasons given by those who energetically commend it.
As far as I can tell those who commend are learned and godly persons, who have a very high view of the Scriptures as the Word of God written, are enthusiastic about the great doctrines and principles of the Protestant Reformation, put great weight on the authority that belongs to the historic Formularies of the Anglican Way, have a sense of pastoral concern for parishes without a resident pastor and do not believe in the ordination of women as presbyters/priests.
In particular, emphasis is placed by them upon the Reformation doctrine of justification by faith together with the doctrine of the priesthood of baptized believers for these together speak eloquently of the equality of all baptized Christians before God the Father and of their common access to him through His Son our Lord Jesus Christ in/by the Holy Spirit.
But before I begin I must say two things.
A. As far as members of the Forward in Faith movement are concerned this
Proposal is already in place in many of the Provinces of the Anglican Communion and is so wherever women act as ordained ministers.
B. This Proposal is not commended as the universal norm but as appropriate
in certain circumstances where there is no available resident pastor [priest] in a congregation. Further, this proposal also normally includes a call for ordained deacons to be able in appropriate situations to be the celebrant at the Lord’s Supper/Eucharist.
Now to the reasons:
1. Both a layman and a deacon are allowed to preach if they have a license
from the bishop. Why not extend this provision of a license at least to some lay Readers and some deacons to celebrate when necessity arises (e.g., in a country area where there is no resident pastor or in a situation where the resident priest is sick)?
2. Further, both a layman and a deacon are allowed to baptize under certain
circumstances, usually in an emergency where the child or adult to be baptized is dying. If they can baptize in an emergency why are they not allowed to celebrate also when necessity requires it?
3. Reserving the Celebration of the Lord’s Supper to priests and bishops
alone can give the impression that they are a superior caste to other Christians and that they have an unique ability to dispense grace.
4. Since the ministry of the Word and the ministry of the Sacrament belong
together why should one but not the other be open to the licensed layman and the licensed deacon? As things now stand the impression is made that an improper or illogical distinction is being made between both the means of grace, by Word and Sacrament.
5. The restricting of the celebration of the Lord’s Supper to priests and
bishops only leads to wrong ideas about this Sacrament, especially that its value as a means of grace depends upon the status of the person who prays “the Eucharistic Prayer” [Prayer of Consecration].
6. Further, the absolute requirement that a priest or bishop is the
celebrant leads to the idea that Jesus Christ is not the unique High Priest in heaven and not the only Mediator between God and man for he [Christ] needs the help of an earthly mediator as well.
7. In the New Testament there is no specific instruction as to who may
celebrate the Lord’s Supper and in the writings of the early Fathers it appears that the bishop could and did delegate the “presidency” to others, including laymen, on occasion.
8. While it is true that the classic BCP (with Ordinal) of 1662 and the
Canon Law of 1604 make no provision for a licensed layman or deacon to celebrate, neither does it make provision for them to do many other things that they have been allowed to do in public worship by Acts of Convocation and Synod and the like since 1604.
9. Allowing certain licensed persons to celebrate when necessity arises in
no way takes away from the vocation and role of the parish pastor/priest, who is to be seen as the Head of the parish Family, which is a unique calling. It is very odd that a priest will often travel many miles to a congregation to say the Eucharistic Prayer when there are in the congregation godly persons who could be candidates for a bishop’s license to celebrate when the local pastor is sick or away.
10. Good order in the Church, diocese, province, will be preserved in
allowing this development if it is carefully planned, if persons are carefully chosen and if the Bishop only gives licenses to godly and responsible men.
Those Anglicans who oppose the Innovation of Lay Celebration simply argue that over the long history of the Church from the time of the Council of Nicea in 325 to the Religious Settlement of Queen Elizabeth I in 1559 the Celebration of the Eucharist was reserved to the Bishop, who could and did delegate it to the priest, but never to the deacon and never to the layman (even though lay brothers preached much in medieval Europe). Since the 16th Century the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox on one side and major Protestant traditions on the other have maintained the practice of only allowing the bishop, priest, pastor to be the Celebrant. So it is a matter of Order, of what is appropriate and of tradition. Innovation would not be generally helpful.
The Rev'd Dr Peter Toon August 13, 2001
Sunday, August 12, 2001
How frequently should I receive Holy Communion?
The wise St Augustine of Hippo wrote in one of his Epistles: “One person, honoring it [Holy Communion], dares not receive it daily, and the other person, honoring it, dares not forgo a single day.”
This statement presupposes that the Holy Communion is available daily in the place where one lives.
[We may note in passing that before the Middle Ages the normal practice, even in Benedictine monasticism, was to celebrate the Eucharist only on Sundays and feast days, with communion being made on other days from the reserved sacrament. And we recall that in Orthodoxy daily Celebration is rare and unusual. Thus Patristic Christianity did not require Daily Celebration of the Eucharist but only in the large city churches the availability daily of Holy Communion.]
But back to the frequency of celebration & reception. The words of the French Benedictine Adalbert de Vogue are worth pondering at length:
“In itself the daily repetition of an act enhances it no more than does its renewal once a week. Frequency is not without ambiguity. To introduce a Rite into the daily routine is both to pay homage to it and to make it commonplace (to mark its importance and to weaken its impact). Inversely, spacing out the sacred celebration may seem either a sign of less interest – it is not worth spending time on every day – or a token of high esteem: the action is too sublime to be regarded, it should be reserved for solemn occasions.”
The points made here apply not only to the question of the frequency of the Celebration of the Eucharist and the reception of Holy Communion, but also to the relation of the Daily Office to the Eucharist.
The Church of God is to offer both Daily Prayer (“pray without ceasing”) and the regular Eucharist (“do this in remembrance of me”) to the Father through the Son and with the Holy Spirit. Both are necessary but while one is absolutely necessary DAILY the other is not necessary but may be in some situations advisable daily. And one may rightly add that it is impossible for a local church to give full honor to the Eucharist unless there is committed involvement in Daily Prayer, Morning and Evening.
In recent decades a major loss in parish spirituality has been the demise of the daily offering of morning and evening prayer by a quorum of the people on behalf of the whole people. And in the same period the Eucharist, while it has been more frequently celebrated, that celebration has generally been with less spiritual preparation, solemnity and reverence.
St Augustine tells the Lord of his mother in the fourth century who omitted “on no day the oblation at Thy altar, coming to thy church twice a day, morning and evening, without any intermission, not for idle stories and useless chit-chat, but to hear Thee in Thy discourses, and that thou mightest hear her in her prayers.”
Not many parishes today can sustain a Daily Eucharist at which there is a reasonable attendance of people who are spiritually prepared, but all parishes should seek to make provision for Daily Prayer even if novel ways [e.g., a telephone hook up] have to be found to unite a quorum of parishioners daily in the prayer services, morning and evening.
The Rev’d Dr Peter Toon
August 9, 2001
The wise St Augustine of Hippo wrote in one of his Epistles: “One person, honoring it [Holy Communion], dares not receive it daily, and the other person, honoring it, dares not forgo a single day.”
This statement presupposes that the Holy Communion is available daily in the place where one lives.
[We may note in passing that before the Middle Ages the normal practice, even in Benedictine monasticism, was to celebrate the Eucharist only on Sundays and feast days, with communion being made on other days from the reserved sacrament. And we recall that in Orthodoxy daily Celebration is rare and unusual. Thus Patristic Christianity did not require Daily Celebration of the Eucharist but only in the large city churches the availability daily of Holy Communion.]
But back to the frequency of celebration & reception. The words of the French Benedictine Adalbert de Vogue are worth pondering at length:
“In itself the daily repetition of an act enhances it no more than does its renewal once a week. Frequency is not without ambiguity. To introduce a Rite into the daily routine is both to pay homage to it and to make it commonplace (to mark its importance and to weaken its impact). Inversely, spacing out the sacred celebration may seem either a sign of less interest – it is not worth spending time on every day – or a token of high esteem: the action is too sublime to be regarded, it should be reserved for solemn occasions.”
The points made here apply not only to the question of the frequency of the Celebration of the Eucharist and the reception of Holy Communion, but also to the relation of the Daily Office to the Eucharist.
The Church of God is to offer both Daily Prayer (“pray without ceasing”) and the regular Eucharist (“do this in remembrance of me”) to the Father through the Son and with the Holy Spirit. Both are necessary but while one is absolutely necessary DAILY the other is not necessary but may be in some situations advisable daily. And one may rightly add that it is impossible for a local church to give full honor to the Eucharist unless there is committed involvement in Daily Prayer, Morning and Evening.
In recent decades a major loss in parish spirituality has been the demise of the daily offering of morning and evening prayer by a quorum of the people on behalf of the whole people. And in the same period the Eucharist, while it has been more frequently celebrated, that celebration has generally been with less spiritual preparation, solemnity and reverence.
St Augustine tells the Lord of his mother in the fourth century who omitted “on no day the oblation at Thy altar, coming to thy church twice a day, morning and evening, without any intermission, not for idle stories and useless chit-chat, but to hear Thee in Thy discourses, and that thou mightest hear her in her prayers.”
Not many parishes today can sustain a Daily Eucharist at which there is a reasonable attendance of people who are spiritually prepared, but all parishes should seek to make provision for Daily Prayer even if novel ways [e.g., a telephone hook up] have to be found to unite a quorum of parishioners daily in the prayer services, morning and evening.
The Rev’d Dr Peter Toon
August 9, 2001
Wednesday, August 08, 2001
Mutual Indwelling, Circuminsession [Circumincession] & Perichoresis
[a meditation for those who are of a serious and devout mind]
In the history of the Christian Church, there has been a constant temptation for baptized believers to err in two opposite directions in terms of their understanding of God as The Trinity, who is the Father & the Son & the Holy Ghost [Spirit]. So it is not surprising that one of the three great Creeds of the Western Church, the Athanasian Creed [= Quicumque Vult] actually proclaims the orthodox doctrine of The Trinity and distinguishes it from the errors of both directions.
The errors are (a) Tritheism, where The Trinity is seen as three intimately related “Gods” who work together and who may be equal or not in their divinity; and (b) Modalism, where the Trinity is seen as three expressions or modes of existence of the One God, a form of Unitarianism where God has three Faces and Names.
The amazing truth of The Trinity is that there is one God and one God only, but that this one God is also simultaneously and eternally Three intimately related but yet distinct Persons, so that he is both Three in One and One in Three. Each of the Persons possesses in totality the one and the one only divine nature, but yet the Father is not the Son, the Son is not the Father, and the Holy Ghost is neither the Son nor the Father. As the Greeks put in --- Three Persons and one Godhead (Substance).
Within the One God and Deity, which is The Holy Trinity, the Father is in the Son and the Son is in the Father (as many texts from John’s Gospel proclaim – see e.g. 10:38 & 17:21) and the Holy Ghost is in the Father and in the Son. That is, there is a mutual indwelling of the Three Persons in each other and this indwelling is one of agape, the divine love.
“Because of the unity of nature, the Father is completely in the Son and completely in the Holy Ghost; the Son completely in the Father, completely in the Holy Ghost; the Holy Ghost completely in the Father, completely in the Son” – the Council of Florence.
The word used by St John of Damascus for this mutual indwelling of each other by the Persons of The Holy Trinity was PERICHORESIS and this was translated by St Bonaventure as CIRCUMINCESSIO but by St Thomas Aquinas and the Council of Florence as CIRCUMINSESSIO. In all these writers the use of these words points to what we may call the mystery of divine interpenetration, reciprocal immanence and intra-divine subjectivity within the One God, who is truly and really a Triad.
As human beings we can have some experience of an earthly and created form of mutual indwelling in two ways, and each by grace. (a) That form and depth of fellowship with God wherein he dwells in us and we in him; and (b) that form and depth of fellowship one with another in Jesus Christ through the presence of the Holy Ghost within the Body of Christ, the Household of God, the Church. (The First Epistle of John as well as Romans 8 and John 14-17 point to this indwelling on the human plane.) However, that which belongs to God internally and immanently as The Holy Trinity we can only imagine, worship and adore, even as we have fellowship one with another and with the Father through the Son and with the Holy Ghost.
If we rightly understand the nature of mutual indwelling of persons in koinonia [communion, fellowship] in the Body of Christ on earth in anticipation of the life of the age to come, then we can by divine illumination and help, contemplate the PERICHORESIS AND CIRCUMINSESSIO of the The Three Divine Persons who are One God.
And as we so contemplate and adore, we shall not only “know God” unto salvation, but we shall also by grace be saved from the two great errors in doctrine that persistently arise in the Church of God, tritheism and modalism. [An examination of many modern liturgies, hymns, choruses and sermons will reveal that they tend often to drift – because of the ignorance of their writers -- into one or other of these two errors.]
Let us all read again with care and devotion The Athanasian Creed (which is found in the BCP 1662 but not in the American BCP 1928. It is however found in the Appendix of the American ECUSA 1979 Prayer Book), and, “The Orthodox Faith”, by St John of Damascus and the precise doctrinal statements of the Council of Florence on this theme. But moreseo let us adore the Perichoresis of The Holy Triad.
Appendix.
1. Our normal existence in this world according to the Bible is that we are mutually indwelt by Satan and the world and it is only by grace that we are saved into the state of fellowship with The Holy Trinity and with one another in the Body of Christ.
2. Various Anglican and Ecumenical Commissions have used the theme of Circuminsessio as a kind of model for unity of churches on earth but in doing so they have usually politicized a very profound and holy concept that belongs to the realm of doxology rather than political ecumenism.
THE REV’D DR PETER TOON
August 8, 2001
[a meditation for those who are of a serious and devout mind]
In the history of the Christian Church, there has been a constant temptation for baptized believers to err in two opposite directions in terms of their understanding of God as The Trinity, who is the Father & the Son & the Holy Ghost [Spirit]. So it is not surprising that one of the three great Creeds of the Western Church, the Athanasian Creed [= Quicumque Vult] actually proclaims the orthodox doctrine of The Trinity and distinguishes it from the errors of both directions.
The errors are (a) Tritheism, where The Trinity is seen as three intimately related “Gods” who work together and who may be equal or not in their divinity; and (b) Modalism, where the Trinity is seen as three expressions or modes of existence of the One God, a form of Unitarianism where God has three Faces and Names.
The amazing truth of The Trinity is that there is one God and one God only, but that this one God is also simultaneously and eternally Three intimately related but yet distinct Persons, so that he is both Three in One and One in Three. Each of the Persons possesses in totality the one and the one only divine nature, but yet the Father is not the Son, the Son is not the Father, and the Holy Ghost is neither the Son nor the Father. As the Greeks put in --- Three Persons and one Godhead (Substance).
Within the One God and Deity, which is The Holy Trinity, the Father is in the Son and the Son is in the Father (as many texts from John’s Gospel proclaim – see e.g. 10:38 & 17:21) and the Holy Ghost is in the Father and in the Son. That is, there is a mutual indwelling of the Three Persons in each other and this indwelling is one of agape, the divine love.
“Because of the unity of nature, the Father is completely in the Son and completely in the Holy Ghost; the Son completely in the Father, completely in the Holy Ghost; the Holy Ghost completely in the Father, completely in the Son” – the Council of Florence.
The word used by St John of Damascus for this mutual indwelling of each other by the Persons of The Holy Trinity was PERICHORESIS and this was translated by St Bonaventure as CIRCUMINCESSIO but by St Thomas Aquinas and the Council of Florence as CIRCUMINSESSIO. In all these writers the use of these words points to what we may call the mystery of divine interpenetration, reciprocal immanence and intra-divine subjectivity within the One God, who is truly and really a Triad.
As human beings we can have some experience of an earthly and created form of mutual indwelling in two ways, and each by grace. (a) That form and depth of fellowship with God wherein he dwells in us and we in him; and (b) that form and depth of fellowship one with another in Jesus Christ through the presence of the Holy Ghost within the Body of Christ, the Household of God, the Church. (The First Epistle of John as well as Romans 8 and John 14-17 point to this indwelling on the human plane.) However, that which belongs to God internally and immanently as The Holy Trinity we can only imagine, worship and adore, even as we have fellowship one with another and with the Father through the Son and with the Holy Ghost.
If we rightly understand the nature of mutual indwelling of persons in koinonia [communion, fellowship] in the Body of Christ on earth in anticipation of the life of the age to come, then we can by divine illumination and help, contemplate the PERICHORESIS AND CIRCUMINSESSIO of the The Three Divine Persons who are One God.
And as we so contemplate and adore, we shall not only “know God” unto salvation, but we shall also by grace be saved from the two great errors in doctrine that persistently arise in the Church of God, tritheism and modalism. [An examination of many modern liturgies, hymns, choruses and sermons will reveal that they tend often to drift – because of the ignorance of their writers -- into one or other of these two errors.]
Let us all read again with care and devotion The Athanasian Creed (which is found in the BCP 1662 but not in the American BCP 1928. It is however found in the Appendix of the American ECUSA 1979 Prayer Book), and, “The Orthodox Faith”, by St John of Damascus and the precise doctrinal statements of the Council of Florence on this theme. But moreseo let us adore the Perichoresis of The Holy Triad.
Appendix.
1. Our normal existence in this world according to the Bible is that we are mutually indwelt by Satan and the world and it is only by grace that we are saved into the state of fellowship with The Holy Trinity and with one another in the Body of Christ.
2. Various Anglican and Ecumenical Commissions have used the theme of Circuminsessio as a kind of model for unity of churches on earth but in doing so they have usually politicized a very profound and holy concept that belongs to the realm of doxology rather than political ecumenism.
THE REV’D DR PETER TOON
August 8, 2001
Monday, August 06, 2001
Gloria Patri et Filio et Spiritui Sancto
On September 7, 374 St Basil “the Great”, Bishop of Caesarea, was praying
with his people and glorifying the Holy Trinity in two related but distinct
ways:
(1) “Glory to the Father together with the Son and together with the Holy
Ghost [Holy Spirit]; (compare “Glory to the Father and to the Son and to
the Holy Ghost [Holy Spirit].”)
(2) “Glory to the Father through the Son in the Holy Spirit.”
Some people there accused him of being illogical and contradictory in his
speech by using the two doxologies.
After pondering what they said and their reasons Basil decided to write a
treatise to explain that both doxologies are scriptural and orthodox and
necessary. Thus we have his book, “Treatise on the Holy Spirit.”
We may say that (1) is a coordinating doxology and is intimately connected
to the Great Commission of Jesus [Matthew 28] where he teaches that we are
to be baptized in “the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy
Spirit.” The use of the conjunction “with” or “and” places the Three
together on the same divine plane as Three Equals, related in a distinct
order, with the Father first in order. And each of the Three receives the
same glory as the other Two for each of the Three possesses the one and the
same identical Godhead/divine nature.
We may say that (2) is a statement of the logic of Christian worship,
prayer, service and consecration, which we find stated in many ways in the
New Testament and expressed in the great Liturgies of the Church. All is
offered to the Father through the one mediator, the Lord Jesus Christ who is
the Son of the Father, and in the Holy Spirit [in his presence and by his
power]. All is so offered because all [creation, redemption etc] has
previously come from the Father through the Son and in the Holy Spirit
Further we may say that (1) points to God as God is in Himself and unto
Himself as a Trinity of Persons in His own infinity and eternity (what
theologians have called “the Immanent Trinity’) while (2) points to God as
He has made Himself known in the work of creation, salvation, reconciliation
and redemption (what theologians have called “the Economic Trinity”).
Now the two forms of the doxology are needed in the one Church to be used by
all in order to preserve orthodox Christian understanding of God as The Holy
Trinity. If (1) stands alone then the Trinity can seem to be a doctrine
that has no practical application to Christian life on earth for God in his
Trinitarian bliss is remote. In contrast, if (2) stands alone then it may be
interpreted (as did the ancient Arians and Semi-Arians) as meaning that the
divinity of the Holy Spirit is an inferior kind to that of the Son and the
divinity of the Son is of an inferior kind to that of the Father.
In terms of the history of salvation [heilsgeschichte] as we find it set
forth in the Canon of the Old and New Testaments, we may say with Bishop
Gregory of Nazianzus, a friend of Bishop Basil, that the divinity of the
Father is revealed and recognized by the Old Testament, that the divinity of
the Son is revealed and recognized by the New Testament, and the divinity of
the Holy Ghost [Holy Spirit] while revealed in the New Testament is only
fully recognized when the same Spirit is present and active in the Church of
God. Thus the full confession of the Holy Trinity and the conscious and
systematic giving of glory to the Father and to the Son and to the Holy
Ghost [Holy Spirit] occurs after the period of the New Testament.
Perhaps modern charismatic Christians who rejoice in the presence of the
Holy Ghost (Holy Spirit) and in the gifts and assurance he brings to God’s
people would benefit from pondering, meditating, and contemplating the
relation of the Holy Ghost (Holy Spirit) to the Father and to the Son in
these two doxologies and the exposition of the same in “The Treatise on the
Holy Spirit” by St. Basil.
The Rev’d Dr. Peter Toon August 6, 2001
On September 7, 374 St Basil “the Great”, Bishop of Caesarea, was praying
with his people and glorifying the Holy Trinity in two related but distinct
ways:
(1) “Glory to the Father together with the Son and together with the Holy
Ghost [Holy Spirit]; (compare “Glory to the Father and to the Son and to
the Holy Ghost [Holy Spirit].”)
(2) “Glory to the Father through the Son in the Holy Spirit.”
Some people there accused him of being illogical and contradictory in his
speech by using the two doxologies.
After pondering what they said and their reasons Basil decided to write a
treatise to explain that both doxologies are scriptural and orthodox and
necessary. Thus we have his book, “Treatise on the Holy Spirit.”
We may say that (1) is a coordinating doxology and is intimately connected
to the Great Commission of Jesus [Matthew 28] where he teaches that we are
to be baptized in “the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy
Spirit.” The use of the conjunction “with” or “and” places the Three
together on the same divine plane as Three Equals, related in a distinct
order, with the Father first in order. And each of the Three receives the
same glory as the other Two for each of the Three possesses the one and the
same identical Godhead/divine nature.
We may say that (2) is a statement of the logic of Christian worship,
prayer, service and consecration, which we find stated in many ways in the
New Testament and expressed in the great Liturgies of the Church. All is
offered to the Father through the one mediator, the Lord Jesus Christ who is
the Son of the Father, and in the Holy Spirit [in his presence and by his
power]. All is so offered because all [creation, redemption etc] has
previously come from the Father through the Son and in the Holy Spirit
Further we may say that (1) points to God as God is in Himself and unto
Himself as a Trinity of Persons in His own infinity and eternity (what
theologians have called “the Immanent Trinity’) while (2) points to God as
He has made Himself known in the work of creation, salvation, reconciliation
and redemption (what theologians have called “the Economic Trinity”).
Now the two forms of the doxology are needed in the one Church to be used by
all in order to preserve orthodox Christian understanding of God as The Holy
Trinity. If (1) stands alone then the Trinity can seem to be a doctrine
that has no practical application to Christian life on earth for God in his
Trinitarian bliss is remote. In contrast, if (2) stands alone then it may be
interpreted (as did the ancient Arians and Semi-Arians) as meaning that the
divinity of the Holy Spirit is an inferior kind to that of the Son and the
divinity of the Son is of an inferior kind to that of the Father.
In terms of the history of salvation [heilsgeschichte] as we find it set
forth in the Canon of the Old and New Testaments, we may say with Bishop
Gregory of Nazianzus, a friend of Bishop Basil, that the divinity of the
Father is revealed and recognized by the Old Testament, that the divinity of
the Son is revealed and recognized by the New Testament, and the divinity of
the Holy Ghost [Holy Spirit] while revealed in the New Testament is only
fully recognized when the same Spirit is present and active in the Church of
God. Thus the full confession of the Holy Trinity and the conscious and
systematic giving of glory to the Father and to the Son and to the Holy
Ghost [Holy Spirit] occurs after the period of the New Testament.
Perhaps modern charismatic Christians who rejoice in the presence of the
Holy Ghost (Holy Spirit) and in the gifts and assurance he brings to God’s
people would benefit from pondering, meditating, and contemplating the
relation of the Holy Ghost (Holy Spirit) to the Father and to the Son in
these two doxologies and the exposition of the same in “The Treatise on the
Holy Spirit” by St. Basil.
The Rev’d Dr. Peter Toon August 6, 2001
Sunday, August 05, 2001
GEORGE of Canterbury, please take note
Orthodox leadership is painfully aware of overlapping jurisdictions in the USA
Recently I have written and sent out by e mail several pieces on what I have
called the cultural bishopric in contrast to the territorial bishopric. In
these I have argued that the political reality of the USA requires of
Churches that they make use of the ethnic and cultural bishopric alongside
the territorial bishopric.
The article below by the Greek Orthodox bishop in Detroit reveals that the
Orthodox leadership in the USA is very conscious that the Orthodox have
overlapping [ethnic] jurisdictions and that thereby they break their own
doctrine that there should be one and one only church with one bishop in
each city.
Yet the practice of cultural or ethnic dioceses is justified at least for
the time being by the practical reality of the United States with its
massive immigration.
What the Orthodox rarely concede is that alongside their overlapping
jurisdictions are those of the Roman Church, and then of course, the
Anglican, Lutheran and so on.
In the American competitive supermarket of religions it would seem that
overlapping dioceses and jurisdictions are with us until the end of time.
One day the Anglican family will recognize this fact and adjust to it!
Please read on.
Peter Toon
Orthodox leadership is painfully aware of overlapping jurisdictions in the USA
Recently I have written and sent out by e mail several pieces on what I have
called the cultural bishopric in contrast to the territorial bishopric. In
these I have argued that the political reality of the USA requires of
Churches that they make use of the ethnic and cultural bishopric alongside
the territorial bishopric.
The article below by the Greek Orthodox bishop in Detroit reveals that the
Orthodox leadership in the USA is very conscious that the Orthodox have
overlapping [ethnic] jurisdictions and that thereby they break their own
doctrine that there should be one and one only church with one bishop in
each city.
Yet the practice of cultural or ethnic dioceses is justified at least for
the time being by the practical reality of the United States with its
massive immigration.
What the Orthodox rarely concede is that alongside their overlapping
jurisdictions are those of the Roman Church, and then of course, the
Anglican, Lutheran and so on.
In the American competitive supermarket of religions it would seem that
overlapping dioceses and jurisdictions are with us until the end of time.
One day the Anglican family will recognize this fact and adjust to it!
Please read on.
Peter Toon
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)