Monday, December 09, 2019

Fr Knox on the Immaculate Conception

On this year's feast of the Immaculate Conception, here is an excerpt from a sermon of Father Ronald Knox who argued that not only are Anglicans permitted to believe in the Immaculate Conception, we are required to do so by the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion.  

Mary in the XXXIX Articles 
[Sermon preached at the Church of St James the Less, Plymouth, on the Feast of the Assumption before Fr. Knox's conversion to the Roman Church.]

Most of us, I take it, believe that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is not only God, but man. So at least we are told in the Creed, Quicumque vult. Now if you will look at the ninth of the XXXIX Articles of Religion, you will find that Original Sin, in every person born into the world, deserves God's wrath and damnation. Are we therefore to conclude that Jesus Christ, being a man, was born into the world deserving God's wrath and damnation? If not, then we must suppose that some special dispensation of the grace of God broke off the entail of Original Sin, and prevented its reaching him. 

And in the fifteenth Article it is laid down that Christ was void of sin, both in his flesh and in his spirit. At what point, then, was the entail of Original Sin broken off? Of course, it might be open to us to imagine that it was broken off at the precise moment of the conception of Jesus in the womb of his Mother. But that view would be unscriptural, because there is no reference to any such process in the promises made to Mary. It would also be untraditional, for it is not the view of the holy Fathers of the Church. It would also be contrary to reason. 

The Article tells us that Jesus was void of sin in his flesh as in his spirit. And in order that he might be void of sin in his flesh, he was not born by the ordinary process of nature, but of a virgin, who remained a virgin in her child-bearing. 

Now, is it not unreasonable and materialistic to suppose that Jesus would not allow his Mother to be impure in her flesh, but would allow her to be impure in her spirit? That he would insist on her abstaining from the lawful use of holy matrimony, and yet would not insist on that true purity in her, which is the purity of the heart? 

It seems, rather, that she was absolutely pure in her soul as in her body, that Mary, like Jesus, and because of Jesus, and in virtue of the foreseen merits of the Passion of Jesus, was void of original sin. And that, I suppose, is why our Prayer Book Collect for Christmas Day is careful to describe Jesus as born, not merely of a virgin, but of a pure virgin. 

And if Mary was without Original Sin, she was also without Actual Sin. For if she, born like Eve sinless, had sinned like Eve, then it would have been a second fall of man. By her disobedience she would have contracted the guilt of Original Sin afresh, and so Jesus would have been born in sin after all. 

Someone might still refuse to call her sinless, on the ground that she may have sinned after Jesus' birth. I only ask, is that likely? That she, who had refrained from sin in obedience to the God she had never seen, would have sinned when she had Jesus in her arms, Jesus at her breast, when she had seen him hang on the cross, and ascend into heaven?

Thursday, May 30, 2019

What's wrong with the 2019 Prayer Book?

To the Bishops and Delegates of the Anglican Church in North America:
In the third century, Tertullian wrote: “We feel pained should any wine or bread, even though our own, be cast upon the ground” (The Chaplet, or De Corona, ch. 3).

This Memorial Day, I was reminded of how grievous it is to those who served our country in the military to see the flag ever touch the ground (U.S. Flag Code, §8b). I am sure we would never want to allow something so much more than a mere symbol, the Holy Communion of the Body and Blood of Christ, to be treated in such a way.

I am writing to encourage you to return the rubric regarding the treatment of the consecrated Bread and Wine that remain after communion to the original draft at the upcoming Provincial Assembly.

Original 2019 BCP Draft: Apart from that which is to be reserved, the Priest or Deacon, and other communicants, shall reverently consume the remaining consecrated Bread and Wine either after the Ministration of Communion or after the Dismissal. 

At the very least, the underlined portion of the rubric as it currently appears (below) on page 141 of the proposed 2019 book could be removed.

Current 2019 BCP Draft: If any consecrated Bread or Wine remains after the Communion, it may be set aside in a safe place for future reception. Apart from that which is to be set aside, the Priest or Deacon, and other communicants, reverently consume the remaining consecrated Bread, either after the Ministration of Communion or after the Dismissal. The wine shall likewise be consumed or reverently poured in a place set aside for that purpose. 

In either case, such a change would return the rubric to conformity with the English Prayer Book of 1662 (which is the model for our edition and which we claim not to depart from in theology) and it would conform to all of the subsequent Anglican Prayer Books as well.

I outlined the argument for correcting this rubric in my Youtube video.

To summarize:

 ● The universal tradition of the Prayer Book, beginning with the English and continuing through the various editions of each province, has been for a rubric prescribing reverent consumption of the remaining elements of consecrated Bread and Wine (apart from that to be reserved). No rubric has ever authorized pouring the consecrated Wine on the ground or into the piscina/sacrarium.

 ● Such action is considered a sacrilege in the Eastern Orthodox tradition. For comparison, if any of the sacrament were to accidentally spill upon the carpet during the administration of communion, that carpet is removed and burned (much like a flag that has been desecrated). Imagine the action that would be taken against someone who poured it out intentionally.

 ● For Roman Catholics, pouring the consecrated Wine into the piscina/sacrarium is considered “throwing away” the Sacrament, according to Canon 1367 and incurs the penalty of an automatic excommunication reserved to the Holy See. If a cleric does this, he can also be defrocked. This interpretation of the canon was confirmed by the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith in paragraph 107 of the document Remptionis Sacramentum, issued to deal with common liturgical abuses.

It is true that mishandling the consecrated Wine is a common liturgical abuse, but the proper way to handle it is with awareness, training, and discipline, rather than by changing the liturgical law to accommodate the abuse. The piscina/sacrarium is only used for the disposal of ashes, salt, and water and never for the Precious Blood.

As St Leo the Great expressed it in his famous Ascension Day sermon, “Our Redeemer’s visible presence has passed into the sacraments” (Sermo 2 de Ascensione1-4: PL 54,397-399). It is no wonder that the Christians of the early centuries had a great love of our Lord in the Holy Eucharist. Some were even martyred to protect it, just as they laid down their lives to protect the holy Scriptures.

Consider the “Homily on the Worthy Receiving and Reverend Esteeming of the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ” in the Second Book of Homilies. Think of the devotional writings on the Holy Communion of our own great Anglican divines like Lancelot Andrewes, Jeremy Taylor, John Cosin, Herbert Thorndike, Richard Hooker, and more. I can’t imagine any one of them ever pouring the Precious Blood of Christ upon the ground.

I implore you to correct this rubric in the upcoming Provincial Assembly. We need to get it right this time, rather than wait another 50 to 100 years for the next revision. And frankly, if we can fix the typo in the table of contents, we can surely fix this.

Appendix:Frequently Asked Questions

Are you just trying to sabotage a Prayer Book you don't like?
No. I am in favor of the book, provided that this problem with the rubric is corrected. While not perfect, I believe it is a sound edition and there is much to admire and appreciate.

Why did you not send this feedback to the drafting committee via the proper channels?
I did submit feedback to the drafting committee on other items regarding the book that I thought could be improved. In considering feedback to offer about the Texts for Common Prayer, it never occurred to me that something would be proposed that would be detrimental to the faith and order of the Church. The original draft of this rubric was completely orthodox, and I did not realize it was changed in a subsequent draft in 2018 until after the final book was issued. In any case, there was no feedback solicited after that final version appeared in the Spring of 2019, which changed the rubric again.

Why did you not contact your bishop about this?
I did. I had an earlier version of the video I showed him. He offered encouragement and some tips to make the presentation better.

Why do you call this a sacrilege?
Sacrilege is the mistreatment of sacred things. It is a sin by thwarting the virtue of religion. Using holy things in a profane or common way is central to the act of sacrilege. Part of the way of determining how such holy things ought to be handled is to consider them teleologically, that it, with their end purpose in mind. The bread and wine are consecrated with the end purpose of eating and drinking them. The reservation of the Sacrament simply delays that end. To deliberately put them to another ultimate purpose would be mistreating them, that is, not using them in accordance with their end purpose. To call this action a sacrilege is merely a statement that such holy things are not being handled properly and does not necessarily mean that it was done with any malice.

Is this blasphemy?
No. Blasphemy is dishonoring God through a verbal assault (or some written or symbolic speech). To proclaim, "There is no God!", or to curse God would be examples. This is not the case here by the nature of the act; it is sacrilege rather than a blasphemy. Also, this is almost always done in ignorance rather than defiance, so there is typically no question of symbolic speech being involved.

Is the ground an appropriate place for the Communion elements?
No. Remember they were set apart as holy in order to ultimately be consumed. Also, the ground is often held to be a place of disrespect. Allowing the flag to touch the ground is against the flag code. We have seen people do just that in order to desecrate the flag in protest. Muslims are offended if the Quran touches the ground. In Christianity, the Holy Bible or other sacred objects cast upon the ground would be taken by most people as a sign of disrespect. Indeed, such tactics are often used by those who violently persecute the Church.

Isn't the piscina in the sacristy the place for excess Communion wine?
No. It is a drain leading to the ground for the disposal of ablutions (the water from cleaning the sacred vessels). It is also the place to pour out blessed salt, ashes, and holy water. Generally, older holy oils are burned, but if this is impractical, they could be put into the piscina.

Don't you realize how common it is to pour out excess Communion wine?
Yes, it is a very common problem, but still technically a liturgical abuse. Thankfully, it is almost always done out of ignorance, not from any impious motive. That is a positive sign because that means that increased awareness and training can help tremendously. It is one thing to have a rule that is routinely disobeyed. It is quite another to change the rule in order to bring the multitude into "obedience."

What if there is too much Communion wine left over to drink?
That is a problem that should occur rarely (such as at a funeral where it is thought that many would communicate, but very few do). In those cases, reverence requires toughing it out with as many people and as much time as it takes to get the job done. And of course, the remaining Sacrament was consumed after, rather than during the liturgy for most of the history of the Prayer Book. Personally, I once had to consume over a full flagon. It gave me a headache, but not a guilty conscience. If there is regularly too much wine being consecrated, the quantity should be lowered. There is a provision for consecrating more of either element if needed, and in fact that last bit remaining in the chalice can stretch far longer than most think when people are only taking the smallest sip.

Does the mandatory consumption of the Communion wine require belief in transubstantiation?
No. While the Church of England professes believe in the "true" and "real" Presence of Christ in the Sacrament, it does not specify a philosophical explanation. The ecumenical theological study Baptism, Eucharist, and Ministry recommends reverent consumption. And the Church of England’s Guidelines on the Ecumenical Canons argue that “This provision for reverent consumption dates back to the 1662 Book of Common Prayer and has helped to hold in unity worshippers with a variety of understandings of Christ’s presence in the Eucharist”.

If someone pours it out reverently, how can it still be a sacrilege?
Reverence is not just about feeling, nor even primarily about feeling. It is about the fittingness of our actions. The idea that the moral reality of a situation is governed by our feelings stems from the logical fallacy called solipsism. For example, when the Ark of the Covenant was being brought back from captivity by the Philistines to be returned to Jerusalem in 2 Samuel 6:6-7, the oxen stumbled along the road and to keep it from falling off the cart, Uzzah reached out his hand to steady the Ark. He was immediately struck dead by God. According to Numbers 4:15, whenever the Ark was being transported, the temple workers were instructed not to touch any of the sacred objects on pain of death. Undoubtedly, Uzzah reached out with love and devotion, not wanting any harm to come to the sacred vessel. However, he acted in defiance of the clear commandment given in the Bible. So while he may have felt reverent, his action was a sacrilege.

Do you think the Prayer Book can be voted down at Assembly?
Since the video, I have heard that the Prayer Book will not be put to a vote at the Provincial Assembly. I had assumed it would be adopted by canon (and canons are passed by the Provincial Council and ratified by the consent of the Provincial Assembly), but that may not be the case. If so, I don't think that procedure was related to this issue; more likely it goes back to the idea of the Prayer Book not being forced on anyone, which was part of the bad feelings over the 1979 Prayer Book. Either way, a change in the rubrics would have to come out of the House of Bishops. Since there are already at least six typos to change, it would be an opportunity to consider this rubric as well.

What will be the consequence if the rubric is not fixed?
That remains to be seen, and hopefully we will never find out. Surely some bishops will forbid the book entirely if it endorses handling the blessed Sacrament in a sacrilegious manner. That puts the whole province in a very awkward position. Having an official liturgy which is officially banned by some of its own bishops harms our ministry within the communion as well as our witness to outsiders, with whom we are to share the transforming love of Jesus Christ. It also casts doubt on the integrity of the whole book (i.e., if this bad rubric is in there, what other problems might be in the book?).

Appendix: Rubrics from Anglican Prayer Books 

1637 Book of Common Prayer (Scottish) And if any of the Bread and Wine remain, which is consecrated, it shall be reverently eaten and drunk by such of the communicants only as the Presbyter which celebrates shall take unto him, but it shall not be carried out of the Church. And to the end that there be little left, he that officiates is required to consecrate with the least, and then if there be want, the words of consecration may be repeated again, over more, either bread or wine: the Presbyter beginning at the words in the prayer of consecration (our Saviour in the night that he was betrayed, took, &c.) 

1662 Book of Common Prayer (Church of England) And if any of the Bread and Wine remain unconsecrated, the Curate shall have it to his own use: but if any remain of that which was consecrated, it shall not be carried out of the Church, but the Priest, and such other of the Communicants as he shall then call unto him, shall, immediately after the Blessing, reverently eat and drink the same. 

1789 Book of Common Prayer (American) And if any of the consecrated Bread and Wine remain after the Communion, it shall not be carried out of the Church; but the Minister and other Communicants shall, immediately after the Blessing, reverently eat and drink the same. 

1918 Book of Common Prayer (Canada) And if any of the Bread and Wine remain unconsecrated, the Curate shall have it to his own use: but if any remain of that which was consecrated, it shall not be carried out of the Church, but the Priest, and such other of the Communicants as he shall then call unto him, shall, immediately after the Blessing, reverently eat and drink the same.

1892 Book of Common Prayer (American) And if any of the consecrated Bread and Wine remain after the Communion it shall not be carried out of the Church; but the Minister and other Communicants shall, immediately after the Blessing, reverently eat and drink the same. 

1928 Book of Common Prayer (American) And if any of the consecrated Bread and Wine remain after the Communion, it shall not be carried out of the Church; but the Minister and other Communicants shall, immediately after the Blessing, reverently eat and drink the same. 

1962 Book of Common Prayer (Canada) If any of the consecrated Bread and Wine remain, the Priest and other Communicants shall reverently eat and drink the same, either when all have communicated, or immediately after the Blessing. In the latter case, immediately after the Communion the Priest shall reverently place the same upon the holy Table, and cover them with a fair linen cloth.

1979 Book of Common Prayer (American) If any of the consecrated Bread or Wine remain, apart from any which may be required for the Communion of the sick, or of others who for weighty cause could not be present at the celebration, or for the administration of Communion by a deacon to a congregation when no priest is available, the celebrant or deacon, and other communicants, reverently eat and drink it, either after the Communion of the people or after the Dismissal. 

2003 Book of Common Prayer (Reformed Episcopal Church) If any consecrated Bread or Wine remain, apart from that which may be required for the Communion of the sick, the Celebrant or
Deacon and other communicants shall reverently eat or drink it, either after the Communion of the people or immediately after the dismissal.

2019 Book of Common Prayer (Anglican Church in North America) If any consecrated Bread or Wine remains after the Communion, it may be set aside in a safe place for future reception. Apart from that which is to be set aside, the Priest or Deacon, and other communicants, reverently consume the remaining consecrated Bread, either after the Ministration of Communion or after the Dismissal. The wine shall likewise be consumed or reverently poured in a place set aside for that purpose.

Wednesday, May 09, 2018

Is Judas in hell?

The question came up during our lectionary Bible study for the Seventh Sunday of Easter, Year B since Judas and his betrayal and end is mentioned in both the first reading and the gospel. Here are the passages:

Acts 1:16-20 [Peter said,] "Brethren, the scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit spoke beforehand by the mouth of David, concerning Judas who was guide to those who arrested Jesus. For he was numbered among us, and was allotted his share in this ministry. (Now this man bought a field with the reward of his wickedness; and falling headlong he burst open in the middle and all his bowels gushed out. And it became known to all the inhabitants of Jerusalem, so that the field was called in their language Akeldama, that is, Field of Blood.)"

John 17:12 [Jesus said,] "While I was with them, I kept them in thy name, which thou hast given me; I have guarded them, and none of them is lost but the son of perdition, that the scripture might be fulfilled."

I asserted that the scriptures teach that Judas is in hell. Others were not so sure. It has become quite fashionable to postulate, along with Hans Urs von Balthasar, "Dare we hope that all men be saved?" There is a reluctance by some to fathom that there is anyone in hell. Somehow the teaching of Jesus in Luke 13:23-24 that the road to perdition is broad and many are lost on it gets lost itself.

The main objection to the idea of Judas in hell was the idea that we cannot know the inner life of an individual soul and we cannot therefore judge one's ultimate fate.

I would agree with this objection, accept that in this case, we are given that information via divine revelation. It is not a question of private discernment (judging the state of one's soul), but of receiving what the Word of God has to say to us. Similarly, we affirm that (contrary to Calvinism), God predestines no one to hell. But in this case, we are not talking about predestination and election, but about revelation and prophecy.

Another question was whether Judas repented. Matthew 27:3-4 records, "When Judas, his betrayer, saw that he was condemned, he repented and brought back the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and the elders, saying, 'I have sinned in betraying innocent blood.'" The word for repent here is μεταμέλομαι (metamelomai), which in Greek thought is a reorientation of mind. So clearly, Judas had remorse and regret for his action. Some alternative translations are: "he felt remorse" (NASB), "deeply regretted what he had done" (NAB), and "he was seized with remorse" (NIV). The Greek word which indicates a change of mind is less conclusive than the Hebrew precursor which is a change of physical direction. We can see from Judas' suicide that it did not become the Hebrew kind of repentance. His remorse led to despair rather than to reconciliation.

So here is my argument that the Bible teaches us that Judas is in hell:

Son of Perdition
"None of them is lost," Jesus said, "but the son of perdition" (Jn 17:12). "Perdition" is an old fashioned word we don't use much anymore. Some more modern translations render this as "son of destruction." The NIV elaborates slightly with "the one doomed to destruction" and the NRSV paraphrases with "the one destined to be lost."

The context is that Jesus is praying for his disciples before his crucifixion. He prays for their unity and their time alone in a hostile world full of temptations. Jesus praises the Father that he has protected them in the past and will do so in the future, assuring them that none of them will be lost except the son of perdition.

Perdition here is the Greek word ἀπώλεια (apōleia), which means "utter destruction" or "waste." It is also used in Matthew 26:8; Mark 14:4; Matthew 7:13; and Acts 8:20. Theologically, it has often been used as a synonym for damnation. It can also mean "ruin" or "loss." I would say that Jesus calling Judas an offspring of destruction here is tantamount to giving him the title "Child of Hell," and that's a pretty definitive statement (prophecy) about his ultimate fate.

The Calling of Matthias
When the Church chooses a new apostle to replace Judas, it is a dramatic statement about the fate of Judas. Not many people pick up on this connection.

We should observe that the word "apostle" is used in three senses in Christian writing. (A) The first sense is in a reference to one of the Twelve. These are to be the patriarchs of a renewed Israel. That's why the number is significant. Jesus explained in Matthew 19:28, "Truly I tell you, in the new world, when the Son of Man shall sit on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel." (B) The next sense is in the calling of additional apostles for the mission to the Gentiles. In almost every way, these have the same power and authority as the Twelve. They are simply not a part of that quorum. But they are witnesses to the risen Lord sent out to proclaim the gospel to all nations. They have the authority to teach and define doctrine, to plant churches, and to ordain bishops and other clergy to continue their work. Think of them as missionary bishops. Paul and Barnabas are examples. (C) The final sense is a metaphorical use of the term apostle. In this sense, Mary Magdalene is called the "First Apostle" or the "Apostle to the Apostles" since she first brought the news of the resurrection to the disciples. Likewise, Patrick is called the "Apostle to the Irish" and Cyril and Methodius are the "Apostles to the Slavs."

Matthias is chosen as an apostle in the first sense (A), to be one of the Twelve. Because there is a vacancy in the Twelve, Peter proposes replacing Judas in preparation for the birth of the Church at Pentecost. None of the other apostles were ever replaced. When the Apostle James the Great was killed by Herod in Acts 12:2, Peter did not call for his replacement. James was still an apostle. Even though dead, he was alive in Christ, and he had his reserved chair among the twelve thrones of judgment. The bishops were successors to the apostles, but not replacement apostles.

What's does this mean for the fate of Judas? The clear implication here is that Judas is not a dead apostle (otherwise he would not need to be replaced). Rather, Judas is in hell, so there is now a vacancy in the quorum of the Twelve Apostles which needs to be filled. Judas' throne is empty and it will be filled by a new apostle named Matthias. Notice how Peter put it in his prayer: "Show which one of these two thou hast chosen to take the place in this ministry and apostleship from which Judas turned aside, to go to his own place" (Acts 1:24-25). Surely the place to which Peter refers is not the Field of Blood, but the fires of hell. Otherwise, there would be no need to replace Judas.

The Universal Witness of Tradition
The Church Fathers do not comment very often on Judas' fate, focusing more attention on the awfulness of his betrayal. But whenever they do, their opinion is consistent.

Pope St Leo the Great taught, "The godless betrayer, shutting his mind to all these things [i.e., expressions of the Lord’s mercy], turned upon himself, not with a mind to repent, but in the madness of self-destruction: so that this man who had sold the Author of life to the executioners of his death, even in the act of dying sinned unto the increase of his own eternal punishment" (Sermon 62, De passione Domini XI).

St Augustine of Hippo observed, "Judas, when he killed himself, killed a wicked man, and passed from this life chargeable not only with the death of Christ, but also with his own: for though he killed himself on account of his crime, his killing himself was another crime" (The City of God, Bk. I, ch. 17).

St John Chrysostom noted, "For this reason also the wicked one dragged Judas out of this world lest he should make a fair beginning, and so return by means of repentance to the point from which he fell" (An Exhortation to Theodore After His Fall, Letter 1).

And in the Summa, Aquinas addressed the issue when he taught, "To save Judas would … be contrary to [God’s] foreknowledge and disposition, by which he prepared for him eternal punishment; hence it is not the order of justice [as such] that renders impossible Judas’s salvation, but the order of eternal foreknowledge and disposition" (In IV Sent., dist. 46, qu. 1, art. 2, qa. 2, ad 3).

We should also note that the liturgy is consistent in any reference to Judas in this regard. The collect for Maundy Thursday in the usus antiquitor of the Roman Rite expresses it this way:

O God, from whom Judas received the punishment of his guilt, and the thief the reward of his confession: Grant unto us the full fruit of thy clemency; that even as in his Passion our Lord Jesus Christ gave to each retribution according to his merits, so having cleared away our former guilt, he may bestow on us the grace of his resurrection; who liveth and reigneth . . . 

It is therefore no surprise that at the very bottom of the Inferno, Dante and Virgil place Judas in the Ninth Circle of Hell where all is ice, fanned frozen by the furious flapping of Satan’s wings. There, the devil gnaws on Judas’ head and claws at his back forever.

God desires all men to be saved, St Paul assures us. We know that Jesus must have loved Judas dearly. His betrayal surely broke the Lord's heart. He called Judas to great things, not to destruction. Knowing the damned state of Judas, the lament of Jesus in the gospel is all the more poignant. Jesus said, "For the Son of Man goes as it is written of him,but woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It would be better for that man if he had never been born" (Mark 14:21).

Tuesday, March 06, 2018

Defence of the Seven Sacraments: Week 3 - Baptism and Confirmation

Baptism is possibly the one sacrament where Catholic and Lutheran doctrine is closest. Luther’s chapter here is milder than some other parts of his treatise. Luther is far more vicious about baptism when confronting Anabaptists. (Luther advocated the death penalty for Anabaptists for being open blasphemers. His preferred method was drowning.) 

Luther says . . . 3.1 “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, Who according to the riches of His mercy has preserved in His Church this sacrament at least, untouched and untainted by the ordinances of men, and has made it free to all nations and every estate of mankind, nor suffered it to be oppressed by the filthy and godless monsters of greed and superstition.”

In contrast to all the “tearing down” with the Eucharist, Luther is more prone to praise baptism. But Henry begins his critique noting a lack of balance: “Nor does he praise any one of the Sacraments, unless to the Prejudice of another; for he so much extols Baptism, that he depresses Penance: Though he has treated of Baptism itself after such a Manner, that it had been better he had not touched it at all.” (pg 173)

St Jerome makes the analogy of penance as the "second" gangway plank to reboard the ship of the Church. Luther asserts that infant baptism was providential because adult baptism would be more prone to superstition. But since adults don’t remember their baptism, they also have a tendency to forget it.

3.2 “But Satan, though he could not quench the power of baptism in little children, nevertheless succeeded in quenching it in all adults, so that scarcely anyone calls to mind their baptism and still fewer glory in it. So many other ways have they discovered of ridding themselves of their sins and of reaching heaven. The source of these false opinions is that dangerous saying of St. Jerome's – either unhappily phrased or wrongly interpreted – which he terms penance 'the second plank' after the shipwreck, as if baptism were not penance. Accordingly, when men fall into sin, they despair of 'the first plank,' which is the ship, as though it had gone under, and fasten all their faith on the second plank, that is, penance. This has produced those endless burdens of vows, religious works, satisfactions, pilgrimages, indulgences, and sects, from this has arisen that flood of books, questions, opinions and human traditions, which the world cannot contain. So that this tyranny plays worse havoc with the Church of God than any tyrant ever did with the Jewish people or with any other nation under heaven.” What is the object of faith for Luther? Does Luther end up having faith in baptism more than faith in God?

3.4 “Now, the first thing in baptism to be considered is the divine promise, which says: 'He that believes and is baptized shall be saved.' This promise must be set far above all the glitter of works, vows, religious orders, and whatever man has added to it. For on it all our salvation depends. We must consider this promise, exercise our faith in it and never doubt that we are saved when we are baptized. For unless this faith be present or be conferred in baptism, we gain nothing from baptism. No, it becomes a hindrance to us, not only in the moment of its reception, but all the days of our life. For such lack of faith calls God's promise a lie, and this is the blackest of all sins. When we try to exercise this faith, we shall at once perceive how difficult it is to believe this promise of God. For our human weakness, conscious of its sins, finds nothing more difficult to believe than that it is saved or will be saved. Yet unless it does believe this, it cannot be saved, because it does not believe the truth of God that promises salvation.”

3.5 “This message should have been persistently impressed upon the people and this promise diligently repeated to them. Their baptism should have been called again and again to their mind, and faith constantly awakened and nourished.” 

3.7 "The children of Israel, whenever they repented of their sins, turned their thoughts first of all to the exodus from Egypt, and, remembering this, returned to God Who had brought them out. This memory and this refuge were many times impressed upon them by Moses, and afterward repeated by David. How much rather ought we to call to mind our exodus from Egypt, and, remembering, turn back again to Him Who led us forth through the washing of regeneration, which we are bidden remember for this very purpose. And this we can do most fittingly in the sacrament of bread and wine."

Henry’s response about faith and good works leads right into the once saved, always saved issue: “And having in many Words shown what this Faith is, he afterwards extols the Riches of Faith, to the End he may render us poor of good Works, without which (as St. James saith ) Faith is altogether dead. But Luther so much commends Faith to us, as not only to permit us to abstain from good Works; but also encourages us to commit any Kind of Action, how bad soever:”

3.8 "See, how rich therefore is a Christian, the one who is baptized! Even if he wants to, he cannot lose his salvation, however much he sin, unless he will not believe. For no sin can condemn him save unbelief alone. All other sins – so long as the faith in God's promise made in baptism returns or remains –all other sins, I say, are immediately blotted out through that same faith, or rather through the truth of God, because He cannot deny Himself. . . .

3.9 "Again, how perilous, no, how false it is to suppose that penance is the second plank after the shipwreck! How harmful an error it is to believe that the power of baptism is broken, and the ship has foundered, because we have sinned! . . . If one be able somehow to return to the ship, it is not on any plank but in the good ship herself that he is carried to life."

Henry answers that infidelity is no special sin compared with so many others: “What Christian Ears can with Patience hear the pestilentious hissing of this Serpent, by which he extols Baptism, for no other end, but to depress Penance, and establish the Grace of Baptism for a free Liberty of Sinning?” . . . “He denies sin to be the shipwreck of faith” 

Henry’s logic: “Therefore since Faith becomes dead by wicked Works, why can it not be said, that he suffers Ship-wreck who falls from the Grace of God, into the Hands of the Devil?” (p 174) . . . “Has St. Jerome written wickedly in this? Does the whole Church follow an impious Opinion, for not believing Luther, that Christians are safe enough by Faith alone, in the midst of their Sins, without Penance?” . . . “After this, he so magnifies Faith, that he seems almost to intimate, that Faith alone is sufficient without the Sacrament. For in the meanwhile, he deprives the Sacrament of Grace; he says, ‘that the Sacrament itself profits nothing;’ denies that the Sacraments confer any Grace; or that they are effectual Signs of Grace; or that the Sacraments of the Evangelical Law differ in any Kind from those of the Mosaical Law, as touching the Efficacy of Grace:” 

Luther had stated: 3.17 “. . . it is an error to hold that the sacraments of the New Law differ from those of the Old Law in the effectiveness of their signifying. The signifying of both is equally effective. The same God Who now saves me by baptism saved Abel by his sacrifice, Noah by the rainbow, Abraham by circumcision, and all the others by their respective signs."

3.19 "Even so it is not baptism that justifies or benefits anyone, but it is faith in the word of promise, to which baptism is added. This faith justifies, and fulfils that which baptism signifies."

Henry responded by quoting Hugo of St Victor and Augustine and the OT (p 175) Then Henry summarizes his critique. Luther asks for too much on the part of the recipient of baptism, almost making it a subjective work (the trap of wondering if one has believed enough). “He promised Remission of Sins, and Grace from the Sacrament itself, to all those who should but only present themselves, and desire it: For an undoubted and certain Faith, is a very great Thing, which happens not always, nor to every Body” (p 177).

Henry looks for balance: “But as I do not think, that Faith alone, without the Sacrament, is sufficient for him who may receive it; so neither can the Sacrament suffice him without Faith; but that both ought to concur and co-operate with their Power” (p 177).  Luther’s concentration on faith ends up being a cover for a life of wicked living.

Luther stated: 3.27 "This glorious liberty of ours, and this understanding of baptism have been carried captive in our day. And whom have we to thank for this but the Roman pontiff with his despotism? . . . 

3.28 “Therefore I say: neither the pope nor a bishop nor any other man has the right to impose a single syllable of law upon a Christian man without his consent. If he does, it is done in the spirit of tyranny. Therefore the prayers, fasts, donations, and whatever else the pope decrees and demands in all of his decretals, as numerous as they are evil, he demands and decrees without any right whatever. He sins against the liberty of the Church whenever he attempts any such thing.”

Henry responds: “I only ask this, That if none, either Man or Angel, can appoint any Law among Christians, why does the Apostle institute for us so many Laws . . . If the Apostles did, of themselves, beside the especial Command of our Lord, appoint so many Things to be observed by Christians, why may not those who succeed them, do the same for the Good of the People?” (p 178-9).

Luther stated: 3.31 “We must know and strongly affirm that the making of such laws is unjust, that we will bear and rejoice in this injustice. We will be careful neither to justify the tyrant nor complain against his tyranny.”

Henry sees hypocrisy in Luther, since Luther was quick to invoke the power of the state on the church’s behalf. “If Luther is of Opinion, that People ought not to obey; why does he say they must obey? If he thinks they ought to obey, why is not he himself obedient? Why does this Quack juggle thus? Why does he thus reproachfully raise himself against the Bishop of Rome, whom he says we ought to obey?” (p 179).

Luther’s infamous tirade: 3.31 “Nevertheless, since few know this glory of baptism and the blessedness of Christian liberty, and cannot know them because of the tyranny of the pope, I for one will walk away from it all and redeem my conscience by bringing this charge against the pope and all his papists: Unless they will abolish their laws and traditions, and restore to Christ's churches their liberty and have it taught among them, they are guilty of all the souls that perish under this miserable captivity, and the papacy is truly the kingdom of Babylon, yes, the kingdom of the real Antichrist! For who is  the man of sin and the son of perdition but he that with his doctrines and his laws increases sins and the perdition of souls in the Church, while he sits in the Church as if he were God? All this the papal tyranny has fulfilled, and more than fulfilled, these many centuries. It has extinguished faith, obscured the sacraments and oppressed the Gospel. But its own laws, which are not only impious and sacrilegious, but even barbarous and foolish, it has enjoined and multiplied world without end.” 

Luther on Confirmation: 5.2 “I do not say this because I condemn the seven sacraments, but because I deny that they can be proved from the Scriptures. . . . For, in order that there be a sacrament, there is required above all things a word of divine promise, whereby faith, may be trained. But we read nowhere that Christ ever gave a promise concerning confirmation, although He laid hands on many.” 

5.3 “Hence it is sufficient to regard confirmation as a certain churchly rite or sacramental ceremony, similar to other ceremonies, such as the blessing of holy water and the like. For if every other creature is sanctified by the word and by prayer, (1 Timothy 4:4 ff.) why should not much rather man be sanctified by the same means? Still, these things cannot be called sacraments of faith, because there is no divine promise connected with them, neither do they save; but sacraments do save those who believe the divine promise.”

Henry responds by opening his chapter with: “Luther is so far from admitting Confirmation to be a Sacrament, that, on the Contrary, he says, he admires what the Church’s Intention was in making it one.” Henry points out that not all words of Jesus were included in the New Testament, so Luther's argument is an argument from ignorance. Henry also returns to his oft repeated point that it's hard to believe the church, following ancient tradition, could be so wrong for so long, throughout the world until Luther came along.

Henry explained: "I do not think that any Person, who has the least Spark of Faith in him, can be persuaded, that Christ, who prayed for St. Peter, that his Faith should not fail; who placed his Church on a firm Rock; should suffer her, for so many Ages, to be bound by vain Signs of corporal Things, under an erroneous Confidence of their being divine Sacraments." (p 196).

Prayers from the Prayer Book rite of Baptism resemble Henry's quote from Pope Melchiades ("In Baptism we are regenerated to Life, after Baptism we are confirmed for the Combat; for Confirmation arms and instructs us against the Agonies of this World"):

ALMIGHTY and everlasting God, who of thy great mercy didst save Noah and his family in the ark from perishing by water; and also didst safely lead the children of Israel thy people through the Red Sea, figuring thereby thy holy Baptism; and by the Baptism of thy well-beloved Son Jesus Christ, in the river Jordan, didst sanctify Water to the mystical washing away of sin: We beseech thee, for thine infinite mercies, that thou wilt mercifully look upon this Child; wash him and sanctify him with the Holy Ghost; that he, being delivered from thy wrath, may be received into the ark of Christ's Church; and being steadfast in faith, joyful through hope, and rooted in charity, may so pass the waves of this troublesome world, that finally he may come to the land of everlasting life, there to reign with thee world without end, through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen. . . . 

WE receive this Child into the Congregation of Christ's flock, and do sign him with the sign of the Cross, in token that hereafter he shall not be ashamed to confess the faith of Christ crucified, and manfully to fight under his banner against sin, the world, and the devil, and to continue Christ's faithful soldier and servant unto his life's end. Amen.

Thursday, March 01, 2018

Defence of the Seven Sacraments: Week 2 - The Sacrament of the Altar

In his treatise The Babylonian Captivity of the Church, Martin Luther wrote:

“I now know for certain that the papacy is the kingdom of Babylon and the power of Nimrod, the mighty hunter (Gen 10:8-9).” 

“All three [sacraments] have been subjected to a miserable captivity by the Roman Curia, and the church has been robbed of her liberty.”

Luther on Communion in one kind: “2.21 The first captivity of this sacrament, therefore, concerns its substance or completeness, of which we have been deprived by the despotism of Rome. Not that they sin against Christ, who use the one kind, for Christ did not command the use of either kind, but left it to every one's free will, when He said: ‘As often as you do this, do it in remembrance of me.’ But they sin who forbid the giving of both kinds to such as desire to exercise this free will.”

Luther on Transubstantiation: “2.23 The second captivity of this sacrament is less grievous so far as the conscience is concerned, yet the very gravest danger threatens the man who would attack it, to say nothing of condemning it.”

He called the term “a monstrous word and a monstrous idea” and notes that it was not used by the fathers until the philosophy of Aristotle returned about 1200. For Luther, belief in the corporeal presence of Christ in the Sacrament is not the issue; the question was about whether the substance of the bread and wine do or do not remain. “For my part, if I cannot fathom how the bread is the body of Christ, I will take my reason captive to the obedience of Christ, and clinging simply to His word, firmly believe not only that the body of Christ is in the bread, but that the bread is the body of Christ.”

Luther took an incarnational approach to the Real Presence (later termed “consubstantiation” or Christ present “in, with, and under” the bread and wine). “2.36 Therefore it is with the sacrament even as it is with Christ. In order that divinity may dwell in Him, it is not necessary that the human nature be transubstantiated and divinity be contained under its accidents. But both natures are there in their entirety, and it is truly said, This man is God, and This God is man. . . . in order that the real body and the real blood of Christ may be present in the sacrament, it is not necessary that the bread and wine be transubstantiated and Christ be contained under their accidents. But both remain there together.” 

Luther on the Mass as Sacrifice and Work: “2.37 The third captivity of this sacrament is that most wicked abuse of all, in consequence of which there is today no more generally accepted and firmly believed opinion in the Church than this – that the mass is a good work and a sacrifice. This abuse has brought an endless host of others in its wake.”

Luther responds that instead of being a sacrifice and work, the Mass is a testament received by faith. It is a sacramental seal of a promise. The Words of institution are there to be meditated upon (not to be used in hushed reverence). Rome has perverted the sacrament into idolatry. “This misery of ours, what is it but a device of Satan to remove every trace of the mass out of the Church? although he is meanwhile at work filling every nook and corner on earth with masses, that is, abuses and mockeries of God's testament, and burdening the world more and more heavily with grievous sins of idolatry, to its deeper condemnation. For what worse idolatry can there be than to abuse God's promises with perverse opinions and to neglect or extinguish faith in them?” . . . “There is no doubt, therefore, that in our day all priests and monks, together with all their bishops and superiors, are idolaters and in a most perilous state, by reason of this ignorance, abuse and mockery of the mass, or sacrament, or testament of God.”

“We learn from this that in every promise of God two things are presented to us – the word and the sign – so that we are to understand the word to be the testament, but the sign to be the sacrament. Thus, in the mass, the word of Christ is the testament, and the bread and wine are the sacrament. And as there is greater power in the word than in the sign, so there is greater power in the testament than in the sacrament.” 

“What godless audacity is it, therefore, when we who are to receive the testament of God come as those who would perform a good work for Him! This ignorance of the testament, this captivity of the sacrament – are they not too sad for tears? When we ought to be grateful for benefits received, we come in our pride to give that which we ought to take, mocking with unheard-of perversity the mercy of the Giver by giving as a work the thing we receive as a gift. So the testator, instead of being the dispenser of His own goods, becomes the recipient of ours. What sacrilege!”

What is the Mass supposed to be about? Luther describes it thus:

Henry VIII responds in his Defence of the Seven Sacraments:

The Church Fathers were not just emphatic that it is Christ, they were also emphatic that it is no longer bread and wine.

Luther’s goal is to tear down and rebuild.

Development of Communion in one kind (by about 1200s): The main concern was reverence and spillage.

(1) private domestic Communion, a portion of Eucharistic bread brought home;

(2) in the Communion of the sick, which was usually the Host alone; 

(3) in the Communion of children, usually under the species of wine alone;

(4) in the Communion with the Host alone at the Mass of the Presanctified;

(5) the practice of the intinctio panis, i.e. the dipping of the Host in the Precious Blood and serving it on a spoon.

(6) Development of Communion outside of (High) Mass as normative

The Council of Lambeth (1281) directed that wine is to be received by the priest alone, and non-consecrated wine (an ablution cup) is to be received by the faithful.

Background on the Bohemian Schism: (Luther fled to Bohemia) The Bohemian Brethren are a link in a chain of sects beginning with Wyclif (1324-84) and coming down to the present day. The ideas of the Englishman found favour with Hus, and Bohemia proved a better soil for their growth than England. Both Wyclif and Hus were moved by a sincere desire to reform the Church of their times; both failed and, without intending it, became the fathers of new heretical bodies — the Lollards and the Hussites. These were forerunners of Protestantism. One of their tenants was insistence on communion under both kinds for salvation (from John 6:53-56 “He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me and I in him.”)

The Council of Basle granted (1433) the use of the chalice to the Calixtines of Bohemia under certain conditions, the chief of which was acknowledgment of Christ's integral presence under either kind. This concession, which had never been approved by any pope, was positively revoked in 1462 by the Nuncio Fantini on the order of Pius II. 

Theological issue involved in Communion under one Kind--Concomitance. The Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ form one indivisible Person, and must be found together. That virtue or force which unites the body to the blood, and vice versa, in the Eucharist, is known in Catholic theology under the term concomitance.

Common Sense Henry retorts: This is an effort for Luther to turn the laity against the clergy First Luther laments that a council did not authorize it, then he decries the bishops for not making the reform without a council. The Fathers and general Christian consent had no problem with it. Exposes Luther’s contradiction. He says Christ commands it, but then insists that it be a matter of personal liberty.

If we are supposed to do the Eucharist just like Jesus did it, why stop at insisting on Communion in both kinds. What about . . . children before first communion? Why not always communicate after supper? How can he add water to the wine when there only tradition to support it? Henry points out how practices evolve in the church under the guidance of the Holy Spirit and Christian consent (change to morning Mass, to fasting Mass, to communion in one kind). Luther’s insistence on personal liberty, even to the point of not having to receive communion at Easter, goes too far.

Transubstantiation—a change of substance? Or a new incarnation? Luther’s current view is consubstantiation. How do we know that will stay his view. Luther admits his thinking has changed three times already.

Interpretive Key: 

“. . . We confess he took Bread, and blessed it; But that he gave Bread to his Disciples, after he had made it his Body, we flatly deny; and the Evangelists do not say he did . . . [Institution narratives] . . . In all these Words of the Evangelists, I see none, where, after the Consecration, the Sacrament is called Bread and Wine; but only Body and Blood. They say, That Christ took Bread in his Hands., which we all confess; but when the Apostles received it, it was not called Bread, but Body. Yet Luther endeavours to rest the Words of the Gospel, by his own Interpretation. Take, eat; this, that is, this Bread, (says he, which he had taken and broken,) is my Body. This is Luther’s Interpretation; not Christ’s Words, nor the Sense of his Words.” (pg 151) 

“As for what Luther argues, or rather trifles, to shew the Simplicity of his own Faith; when of the Wine, Christ does not say, Hoc, est Sanguis meus, but, Hic, est Sanguis meus: I wonder why it should enter into any Man’s Mind to write thus: For who sees not that this makes Nothing at all for him, nay, rather, does it not make against him? It had seemed more for his Purpose, if Christ had said, Hoc est Sanguis meus: For then he might have had some Colour at least, whereby he might have referred the Article of Demonstrating to the Wine. But now, though Wine is of the neuter Gender; yet Christ did not say Hoc, but Hic est Sanguis meus. And though Bread is of the masculine Gender, yet, notwithstanding, he says, Hoc est Corpus meum, not Hic; that it may appear, by both Articles, that he did not mean to give either Bread or Wine, but his own Body and Blood. 

“. . . because Bread and Body are of different Genders in the Latin; he that translated it from the Greek should have joined the Article with Panis, if he had not found that the Evangelical Demonstration was made of the Body. Moreover, when Luther confesseth that the same Difference of Gender is in the Greek, he might easily know that when the Evangelists writ in Greek, they would have put in the Article relating to the Bread, if they had not known our Lord’s Mind; but they were willing to teach the Christians, by the Article relating to the Body, that, in the Communion, Christ did not give Bread to his Disciples, but his Body.” 

Wherefore, when Luther, to serve his own Turn, interprets the Words of Christ, ‘take, and eat, this is my Body,’ that is, this Bread he had taken; not I, but Christ himself teacheth us to understand the Contrary, to wit, That what was given them, and seemed to be Bread, was not Bread, but his own Body; if the Evangelists have rightly delivered us the Words of Christ: For otherwise he should say, not Hoc, that it might be expounded for Hic, but, more properly, Hic Panis est Corpus meum: By which Saying he might teach his Disciples, what Luther now teaches to the whole Church, to wit, That in the Eucharist the Body of Christ, and the Bread are together. But our Saviour spoke after that Manner, that he might plainly manifest, that only his Body is in the Sacrament, and no Bread.” (pg 152-153)

In other words, Jesus knew what he was talking about, and we have his plain words!

What is in a word? Luther says, ‘This Doctrine of Transubstantiation, is risen in the Church within these three Hundred Years; whereas before, for above twelve Hundred Years, from Christ’s Birth, the Church had true Faith: Yet all this while was there not any Mention made of this prodigious (as he calls it) Word Transubstantiation.’ 

If he strives thus only about the Word, I suppose none will trouble him to believe Transubstantiation; if he will but believe, that the Bread is changed into the Flesh, and the Wine into the Blood; and that Nothing remains of the Bread and Wine but the Species; which, in one Word, is the Meaning of those who put in the Word Transubstantiation. Henry goes into a series of proofs from the Fathers: Hugo of St Victor, Eusebius, Augustine, Gregory of Nyssa, Theophilus, Cyril of Jerusalem, Ambrose of Milan. Henry contends that no Fathers would have made use of the metaphor of the iron and fire for the Real Presence. Pg 158 “That Opinion of Luther is therefore false, as it is against the public Faith, not only of this Time, but also of all Ages: Nor does he free from Captivity those who believe him; but, drawing them from the Liberty of Faith, that is, from a safe Hold, (as he himself confesses) he captivates them, leading them into a Precipice, into inaccessible, uncertain, doubtful and dangerous Ways: And he that loves Danger, shall perish therein.” (pg 155)

Luther “examines the Lord’s Supper, and ponders the Words which Christ used in the Institution of the Sacrament of the Mass: And, having found in them the Word Testament, (as if a Thing very obscure,) he begins to triumph, as though he had conquered his Enemies” (pg 159).

On page 162, Henry educates us: Christ is our great high priest who offers the eternal sacrifice for us and he has given us this memorial to proclaim his death (i.e., sacrifice) until his return.

“If Luther should argue that the Priest cannot offer, because Christ did not offer in his Supper, let him remember his own Words, That a Testament involves in it the Death of the Testator; therefore has no Force or Power, nor is in its full Perfection; till the Testator be dead. Wherefore, not only those Things which Christ did first at his Supper, do belong to the Testament, but also his Oblation on the Cross: For on the Cross he consummated the Sacrifice which he began in the Supper: And therefore the Commemoration of the whole Thing, to wit, of the Consecration in the Supper, and the Oblation on the Cross, is celebrated, and represented together in the Sacrament of the Mass; so that it is, the Death that is more truly represented than the Supper. And therefore, the Apostle, when writing to the Corinthians, in these Words, As often as ye shall eat this Bread, and drink this Cup, adds, not the Supper of our Lord, but ye shall declare our Lord’s Death.” (Pg 163).

“And if Christ did any Work, I am certain none will doubt of its being a good Work: For if the Woman, who poured the Ointment upon his Head, wrought a good Work in that, who doubts of his performing a good Work, when he gave his Body for our Nourishment, and offered it in Sacrifice to God? If this cannot be denied, unless by him who intends to trifle in so serious a Matter, neither can it also be denied that the Priest worketh a good Work in the Mass; seeing that in the Mass he does nothing else but what Christ did in his last Supper, and on the Cross; for this is declared in Christ’s own Words, Do this in Commemoration of me.” (Pg 165)

Luther vs the Fathers “It is a Wonder that, of so many holy Fathers, of so many Eyes which have read the Gospel in the Church for so many Ages, none was ever so quick-sighted, as to perceive a Thing so apparent; and that at this present Time they are all so blind, as not to discern what Luther (though he points it out with his Finger,) brags so clearly to see himself! Is not Luther rather mistaken, and thinks himself to see something, which in Reality he sees not, or endeavours to shew us with his Finger, that which is no-where to be found? For pray what Sort of Proof is that where he undertakes to teach ‘that Mass is no Sacrifice, because it is a Promise;’ as if Promise and Sacrifice were as repugnant together as Heat and Cold?” Pg 169

“I suppose that none will believe him, unless he first shews that he has read another Gospel different from that the holy Fathers ever read, or that in reading the same, he has been more diligent than they, or has better understood it; or finally, that he is more careful about Faith, than ever any Man before him was.” 

Conclusion: if Luther has his way, the use of the Sacrament of the Altar will shrivel up in the common practice of the Lutheran faith, and that’s exactly what we saw in the rise of pietism—Word to the neglect of Sacrament. 

“These are the excellent Promises of Luther; this is that spacious Liberty he promises to all those who forsake the Catholic Church to follow him, viz. That they may be freed at last from the Use and Faith of the Sacrament!” (Pg 172).

Tuesday, February 27, 2018

Defence of the Seven Sacraments: Week 1 - Introduction

King Henry VIII is an enigma. He was not supposed to the King, but the Archbishop of Canterbury. Tudor dynasty was young and shaky, a male heir would make it secure. He has theological training, devout, attended Mass usually multiple times a day, regular confessor, made pilgrimage, creeped to the cross on Good Friday, fought Protestantism, given title “Defender of the Faith”, died with the host on his tongue . . . and yet . . . he carried on an affair with the Boleyns (product of the church in his time), was willing to use absolute power (executions), was weak-willed, was very lustful, began young and vigorous but then likely suffered from syphilis and diabetes, dissolved the monasteries and gave their property to the nobility, broke up the communion of the church in the West, and promoted and fostered Protestantism.

From Belloc's chapter on Henry: 
"Though so much else was at work, it will be seen that if Henry had not weakly allowed himself to be captured by Anne Boleyn, and then allowed himself to be pushed into the extreme position of breaking with the Papacy rather than disappoint the woman who had infatuated him, England would be Catholic to-day; and if England had remained Catholic the Reformation elsewhere would certainly have died out. 

"He it was who started the ball rolling. He did not intend the results which ultimately followed, nor even the results which followed immediately within his own lifetime, still less the results which followed after his death. It was a passionate, foolish, ill-considered blunder — and was a very good example of the truth that evil comes upon the world through men's blind sins much more than through their calculation. 

" . . . even for the betrothal it was necessary to get a dispensation from the Pope of the day, Julius II, because Catherine had been (nominally at least) the wife of the boy's brother. It was a disputed point among theologians whether the Pope could or could not give a dispensation for marriage with a deceased brother's wife; morally, of course, it did not matter in this case because the marriage between young Prince Arthur and' Catherine had only been a nominal one, but the point was to prove of enormous importance in the future. 

" . . . Now let me describe the character of this young fellow, upon whom so much was to depend. His leading characteristic was an inability to withstand impulse; he was passionate for having his own way — which is almost the opposite of having strength of will. He was easily dominated, always being managed by one person or another in succession, from this beginning of his fife to the end of it, but being managed — not bullied or directly controlled. 

"It is exceedingly important to understand this chief point about him because a misjudgment of it has warped much the greater part of historical appreciation upon him. Because he was a big man who blustered and had fits of rage and was exaggeratedly eager to follow appetite and whim he had been given the false appearance of a powerful figure. Power he had, but it was only the political power which the mood of the time gave to whoever might be monarch. He had no personal power of character. He did not control others by their respect for his tenacity, still less by any feeling that he was wise and just and still less by any feeling that he was of strong fiber. 

"On the contrary, all those who managed him, one after the other — except his wife — despised him, and soon came to carry on as though they could do what they liked on condition that they flattered him. They managed public affairs while he followed his appetites or private interests. That was true of the whole series of those who "ran" him: Wolsey, Anne Boleyn, Thomas Cromwell, and, at the end, his brother-in-law Seymour. The only exception was that admirable wife of his who, through the simplicity of her character and her strong affection as well as from her sense of duty, treated him with respect. But her influence over him was, perhaps on that very account, soon lost. 

"As might be expected with a nature of this kind, he revolted against each manager one after the other. He felt he was being "run" by each in turn, grew peevish about it, had explosions of anger and would in a fit of passion get rid of them. Getting rid of them often meant, under the despotic conditions of that day, putting them to death. That is how he suddenly broke with Wolsey, that is how he broke with Anne Boleyn, that is how he broke with Thomas Cromwell — who had all three done what they willed with him, acting independently of him, showing their contempt for him in private and ultimately rousing his fury. Every woman (except his first wife Catherine) with whom he had to deal treated him pretty soon with contempt, and that is a most significant test of a man's value. 

" . . . though he was intelligent, in the sense of being able to follow a logical process clearly or to draw up a consecutive plan or to analyse intellectual propositions such as are presented by theological or political discussion, he was a bad judge of men. He could see indeed well enough that this man or that was working hard and producing results, but he blundered badly whenever he tried to frame a foreign policy for himself; also he was very hesitant — perhaps because he half consciously recognized his incompetence in dealing with a complicated situation. 

"He would put off a decision, advance towards a certain end and then draw back, half determining to give up objects towards which he was bent, and the main lines of action during his reign were always undertaken by somebody else. 

"It was Wolsey who conducted his early foreign policy entirely; it was Cromwell who later worked his breach with Rome; it was Seymour who, at the end of his life, determined what sort of will he should leave and how the succession to his throne should be arranged. He was emotional after a fashion, and especially sensitive to music; he was even a good practical musician himself and something of a poet and he composed a few songs which are not without merit, as well as other set pieces of harmony, notably two Masses to which are given his name but which are perhaps from his own hand. 

"He was very vain — vain of his looks, and of his athletics in early life; exceedingly touchy about his dignity and his majesty as a King. His feelings were here in comic contrast with the way in which he was always being got the better of by other people, until the moment when the regular explosion against their control arrived. It was this vanity which made him fall a victim to more than one woman, but it also prevented his being completely infatuated by them save in the one case of Anne Boleyn. 

" . . . he did have a fixed emotional attachment to the practices of the Faith, and he never got out of what may be called the atmosphere of these practices. He had a constant devotion to the Sacrament of the Altar and no little of his severity appeared in his treatment of anyone who denied the Real Presence. He insisted on the celibacy of the clergy, on the maintenance of full ritual in the liturgy and all ecclesiastical discipline under the episcopacy, which he formally maintained."

1491—Henry Tudor is born; as the second-born son, he is prepared for a career in the Church.

1502—Arthur, Prince of Wales, dies, leaving Henry Tudor as the heir to the throne of England.

1504—Henry VII, still desiring a Spanish alliance, arranges a marriage between his son and Arthur’s widow, Catherine of Aragon; though Catharine swore that her marriage had not been consummated, an additional papal dispensation of affinity (see Leviticus 18:16) is sought to remove all doubt regarding the legitimacy of the marriage; Pope Julius II grants the dispensation.

1509—Henry VIII, becomes king after the death of his father, Henry VII.

1515—Thomas Wolsey, Archbishop of York, is made a Cardinal by the pope and Lord Chancellor of England by the king.

1517—Martin Luther nails his “95 Theses” debating indulgences on the church door at Wittenberg; the Protestant Reformation begins.

1520—Martin Luther writes his essay “The Babylonian Captivity of the Church,” his most hostile treatment of the papacy (labeling the pope the “antichrist”) and the Catholic teaching on the sacraments.

1521—Henry VIII publishes his treatise “Defence of the Seven Sacraments” as a rebuttal of Luther’s “Babylonian Captivity.” King Henry  receives the title “Defender of the Faith” from Pope Leo X for his work.

1522—Martin Luther writes his reply to King Henry VIII. In this year, Henry begins an affair with Mary Boleyn.

1525—At the entreaty of Christian, King of Denmark, Luther apologizes to Henry. The King also becomes interested in an annulment of his marriage and begins pursuing Anne Boleyn.

1526—Sir Thomas More writes a reply to Luther’s response to Henry VIII, entitled “Vindicatio Henrici VIII. a calumniis Lutheri” by “Gulielmus Rosseus.”

1529—Henry VIII dismisses Cardinal Wolsey as Lord Chancellor for failing to obtain the Pope’s annulment of his marriage to Catherine of Aragon; Sir Thomas More appointed Lord Chancellor; Henry VIII summons the “Reformation Parliament” which begins to cut ties with the Church of Rome.

1530—Cardinal Wolsey dies; the “Reformation Parliament” reinstates præmunire charges, outlawing legal appeals to the Roman Curia; reformer William Tyndale is executed; his final words are, “Lord, open the King of England’s eyes.”

1532—The “Reformation Parliament” curtails church taxes sent abroad to Rome; Sir Thomas More resigns over the question of Henry VIII’s annulment.

1533—All legal appeals to Rome are outlawed by the “Reformation Parliament”; the Boleyn family chaplain, Thomas Cranmer, is appointed Archbishop of Canterbury and grants the annulment of the king’s marriage to Catherine of Aragon; Henry VIII marries Anne Boleyn and is excommunicated by Pope Clement VII.

1534—The “Reformation Parliament” passes the Act of Supremacy: as no foreign bishop has jurisdiction within the realm, Henry VIII is declared the “supreme head” of the Church of England.

1535—Sir Thomas More and John Cardinal Fisher, Bishop Rochester, are beheaded for failing to take the Oath of Supremacy.

1536—Concluding the “Reformation Parliament,” all papal authority in England is outlawed; Anne Boleyn is beheaded; Henry VIII marries Jane Seymour; the dissolution of monasteries in England begins under the direction of Thomas Cromwell and is completed in 1539.

1537—Jane Seymour dies after bearing a son, the future King Edward VI.

1539—Parliament passes the king’s “Six Articles” of Religion, outlawing Protestant religious opinions on key issues; Glastonbury Abbey is dissolved; the buildings are torched and looted by the king’s men.

1540—Henry VIII marries Anne of Cleves following negotiations by Thomas Cromwell; as it was not consummated, Henry’s marriage to Anne of Cleves is annulled and he marries Catherine Howard; Thomas Cromwell executed on charge of treason.

1542—Catherine Howard is executed.

1543—Henry VIII marries Catherine Parr; alliance forms between Henry and Charles V (Holy Roman Emperor) against Scotland and France.

1544—The first liturgical texts in English are issued (the only ones issued in Henry’s reign); the Exhortation and Litany were composed by Archbishop Thomas Cranmer.

1547—Henry dies; under the Act of Succession, his sole surviving son, becomes King Edward VI; as he is too young to rule (nine years old), Edward Seymor acts as Lord Protector of the Realm.

1548—Archbishop Thomas Cranmer introduces an English communion rite, to be inserted in the Latin Mass just before receiving Communion.

1549—The first Book of Common Prayer, mostly written by Cranmer, is issued and its use is required in all English churches; resistance comes from Cornwall.

1552—A new Prayer Book, revised along Protestant lines, is issued.

1553—Upon the death of Edward VI, Henry’s first daughter Mary is crowned Queen of England; she restores both the Latin liturgy and communion with the Church of Rome.

1558—Upon the death of Mary I, Henry’s second daughter Elizabeth (by Anne Boleyn) is crowned Queen of England; papal jurisdiction is denied, the Queen being proclaimed “Supreme Governor” of the English Church, and the Prayer Book is restored.

"Whose Sins ye forgive, shall be forgiven unto them, and whosoever Sins ye retain, shall be retained. (Jn 20:22). By which Words, if it is manifest that any Priest has Power to absolve Men from Sins, and take away eternal Punishment due thereunto; who will not judge it ridiculous, that the Prince of all Priests should be denied the taking away of temporal Punishment?"