Letter to the English Churchman on Canon Law, and Sacramental & Liturgical Theology
Dear Sir
Re: Deposited Prayer-Book (1927) and all that ...
I would like to follow up on the front page article of EC 7628, and David Relf's letter (EC 7629) concerning canon law, the Gorham case and the Deposited Prayer-Book respectively.
Firstly, the See of Rome does not recognise the canon law of the Church of England and - alongside with it - the episcopal credentials of its 'apostolic succession' (e.g. Apostolicae Curae, 1897) precisely because of the break of communion between the two. However, the Reformed English Church inherited her pre-Reformation canon law substantially intact with significant modification (i.e. the procedural discipline and material corpus are now grounded in royal authority, and indirectly, Parliament's legislation for their enforcement, e.g. through the Act of Uniformity, 1559).
Secondly, the Gorham decision at the Privy Council demonstrated that the appellant (i.e. Rev. George Cornelius Gorham) agreed with the Bp. of Exeter (i.e. Henry Philpotts) as to the 'ordinary connection' between the grace of the Holy Spirit and the Sacrament of Baptism (cf. Article 25). They also shared a common notion of Regeneration (as instantaneous/an event which excludes a priori experience and eludes subjective description).
Where they differed was to the timing of Regeneration, i.e. whether 'ORIGINAL' prevenient grace was bound to Baptism or not in respect of infants. The answer depended on the role of Baptism and, by extension, the scope of baptismal efficacy which - the old-fashioned High Churchman (albeit POST-1662/Arminian) - Philpotts construed as applying ex opere operato (i.e. invariably) though without the concomitance of 'renovation' (i.e. inner change) or 'conversion' (the mutual inclusiveness of both is held by Roman, Tractarian and Calvinist alike), which means Baptismal Regeneration, according to this theory (also held by the first two traditions) is informed by ecclesiastical election ('monergistic') but 'final salvation' is based on God's foreknowledge of who will persevere to the end('synergistic'). Only Calvinists like Gorham limited Regeneration in Baptism (if it occurs during the administration of the rite) to elect infants only because the order of salvation (ordo salutis) is grounded in sovereign predestination, thus, making the entire 'chain of salvation' (in ordinary LOGICAL, as distinguished from temporal, sequence) inseparable: Election, Regeneration, Calling, Conversion (Definitive Sanctification), Faith (& Repentance), Baptism, Justification, Sanctification/Conversion, Glorification.
Thirdly, the Deposited Prayer-Book (1927) attempted to redress Roman proclivities on ecumenical and devotional issues within a liturgical context. Thus, the aim was to maintain so-called Anglican comprehensiveness whilst supressing illegal practices through pastoral methods within the Prayer-Book tradition. It included prominently the formulation of an alternative Eucharistic (Consecration) Prayer ('a Canon within Canon') drafted by scholars like Walter Howard Frere (Bp. of Truro) who looked to the 'East' (both early and Byzantine), the 1549 'Invocation' and subsequent 'epicleses' (e.g. 1637, 1764) - of the 'greater Anglican tradition' of which the Caroline divines were the best representatives in the terms of the catholic heritage of the Church - for inspiration and resources.
It was conceived as a liturgical measure (backed by ecclesiastical sanction) partly to rein in on popular abuses associated either with 'Transubstantiation' or a locaLISED (not 'local') presence - and the concomitant theory of the propitiatory Sacrifice of the Mass - according to extreme Anglo-Catholic gloss of the Words of Institution (WOI: Narrative component) in 1662 Office.
Perhaps a possible strategy by classical Anglicans (i.e. Prayer-Book evangelicals) in 1927 to counter 'Anglo-Catholic influence was to reclaim the liturgical inheritance of the Caroline divines or PRE-1662 Laudians, i.e. Reformation High-Church Protestants (the majority of which, with the exception Jeremy Taylor, held to single predestination and forensic justification, including the venerable Abps. William Laud and Richard Neile of York) who with the moderate Puritan divines shared a common concern for the inclusion of an explicit Invocation and restoration of manual acts in conjunction with the WOI (the latter of which was to be incorporated at the Savoy Conference, 1661). The liturgical divergence was in the treatment of the WOI, i.e. whether set within the context of a prayer (which the Prayer-Book tradition undeniably places it) or in a mono-didactic role (as in Continental Reformed and Presbyterian traditions).
The notion of an epiclesis alongside the WOI gives full expression to the intent of the Church to commemorate the Lord's Supper in the words and action of the liturgy. God the Father is invoked to send down His Spirit to 'bless (or approve) and sanctify (or set apart) these gifts of bread and wine' in hypostatic union and conjunction with the (written) Word 'so that these may be unto us (by faith) the Body and Blood of Christ'. This is where the sanctification of the species/elements and people is concentrated at the point immediately prior to reception.
Implicit in this invocation is the Eucharist primarily as a divine action in which the human response (i.e. gratitude) is set within the 'use' (presentation/oblation-prayer/invocation sequence and communion/reception) of the sacramental species which includes a 'pleading' - by the COMMON priesthood - of the merits of the 'one oblation of Christ finished upon the Cross', as per Article 31 through locating the post-communion offertory of praise and thanksgiving (sacrificium laudis) after the Invocation/epiclesis. This is distinguished sharply from the mainstream Anglo-Catholic 'co-offering' with Christ of His perpetual heavenly sacrifice.
Whether the placement of the 'epiclesis' is before or after the WOI and Oblation/anamnesis is insignificant if 'Calvinistic' sacramental theology of the Real Presence (both Calvin's and Cranmer's Virtualism) as representing the best of mature Anglican reflection in the Eucharist is again asserted in its rightful place in the Communion Office 'configurated' by the supplemental components of Sursum Corda, Sanctus, Prayer of Humble Access, Lord's Prayer, Gloria in exclesis Deo, etc. Note too that Westminster Puritanism in its 1645 Directory for Public Worship contains a similar invocation (last paragraph of the prayer), albeit outside the perimeters of its Narrative component.
Lastly, however, I am bound my reverence to our Protestant forefathers, including the then Conservative MP, William Joynson-Hicks (later Lord Brentford) and its authentic contemporary embodiment in the Church of England (Continuing) to 'reject' the Deposited Prayer-Book (1927) as an alternative to the BCP (1662).
Re: Deposited Prayer-Book (1927) and all that ...
I would like to follow up on the front page article of EC 7628, and David Relf's letter (EC 7629) concerning canon law, the Gorham case and the Deposited Prayer-Book respectively.
Firstly, the See of Rome does not recognise the canon law of the Church of England and - alongside with it - the episcopal credentials of its 'apostolic succession' (e.g. Apostolicae Curae, 1897) precisely because of the break of communion between the two. However, the Reformed English Church inherited her pre-Reformation canon law substantially intact with significant modification (i.e. the procedural discipline and material corpus are now grounded in royal authority, and indirectly, Parliament's legislation for their enforcement, e.g. through the Act of Uniformity, 1559).
Secondly, the Gorham decision at the Privy Council demonstrated that the appellant (i.e. Rev. George Cornelius Gorham) agreed with the Bp. of Exeter (i.e. Henry Philpotts) as to the 'ordinary connection' between the grace of the Holy Spirit and the Sacrament of Baptism (cf. Article 25). They also shared a common notion of Regeneration (as instantaneous/an event which excludes a priori experience and eludes subjective description).
Where they differed was to the timing of Regeneration, i.e. whether 'ORIGINAL' prevenient grace was bound to Baptism or not in respect of infants. The answer depended on the role of Baptism and, by extension, the scope of baptismal efficacy which - the old-fashioned High Churchman (albeit POST-1662/Arminian) - Philpotts construed as applying ex opere operato (i.e. invariably) though without the concomitance of 'renovation' (i.e. inner change) or 'conversion' (the mutual inclusiveness of both is held by Roman, Tractarian and Calvinist alike), which means Baptismal Regeneration, according to this theory (also held by the first two traditions) is informed by ecclesiastical election ('monergistic') but 'final salvation' is based on God's foreknowledge of who will persevere to the end('synergistic'). Only Calvinists like Gorham limited Regeneration in Baptism (if it occurs during the administration of the rite) to elect infants only because the order of salvation (ordo salutis) is grounded in sovereign predestination, thus, making the entire 'chain of salvation' (in ordinary LOGICAL, as distinguished from temporal, sequence) inseparable: Election, Regeneration, Calling, Conversion (Definitive Sanctification), Faith (& Repentance), Baptism, Justification, Sanctification/Conversion, Glorification.
Thirdly, the Deposited Prayer-Book (1927) attempted to redress Roman proclivities on ecumenical and devotional issues within a liturgical context. Thus, the aim was to maintain so-called Anglican comprehensiveness whilst supressing illegal practices through pastoral methods within the Prayer-Book tradition. It included prominently the formulation of an alternative Eucharistic (Consecration) Prayer ('a Canon within Canon') drafted by scholars like Walter Howard Frere (Bp. of Truro) who looked to the 'East' (both early and Byzantine), the 1549 'Invocation' and subsequent 'epicleses' (e.g. 1637, 1764) - of the 'greater Anglican tradition' of which the Caroline divines were the best representatives in the terms of the catholic heritage of the Church - for inspiration and resources.
It was conceived as a liturgical measure (backed by ecclesiastical sanction) partly to rein in on popular abuses associated either with 'Transubstantiation' or a locaLISED (not 'local') presence - and the concomitant theory of the propitiatory Sacrifice of the Mass - according to extreme Anglo-Catholic gloss of the Words of Institution (WOI: Narrative component) in 1662 Office.
Perhaps a possible strategy by classical Anglicans (i.e. Prayer-Book evangelicals) in 1927 to counter 'Anglo-Catholic influence was to reclaim the liturgical inheritance of the Caroline divines or PRE-1662 Laudians, i.e. Reformation High-Church Protestants (the majority of which, with the exception Jeremy Taylor, held to single predestination and forensic justification, including the venerable Abps. William Laud and Richard Neile of York) who with the moderate Puritan divines shared a common concern for the inclusion of an explicit Invocation and restoration of manual acts in conjunction with the WOI (the latter of which was to be incorporated at the Savoy Conference, 1661). The liturgical divergence was in the treatment of the WOI, i.e. whether set within the context of a prayer (which the Prayer-Book tradition undeniably places it) or in a mono-didactic role (as in Continental Reformed and Presbyterian traditions).
The notion of an epiclesis alongside the WOI gives full expression to the intent of the Church to commemorate the Lord's Supper in the words and action of the liturgy. God the Father is invoked to send down His Spirit to 'bless (or approve) and sanctify (or set apart) these gifts of bread and wine' in hypostatic union and conjunction with the (written) Word 'so that these may be unto us (by faith) the Body and Blood of Christ'. This is where the sanctification of the species/elements and people is concentrated at the point immediately prior to reception.
Implicit in this invocation is the Eucharist primarily as a divine action in which the human response (i.e. gratitude) is set within the 'use' (presentation/oblation-prayer/invocation sequence and communion/reception) of the sacramental species which includes a 'pleading' - by the COMMON priesthood - of the merits of the 'one oblation of Christ finished upon the Cross', as per Article 31 through locating the post-communion offertory of praise and thanksgiving (sacrificium laudis) after the Invocation/epiclesis. This is distinguished sharply from the mainstream Anglo-Catholic 'co-offering' with Christ of His perpetual heavenly sacrifice.
Whether the placement of the 'epiclesis' is before or after the WOI and Oblation/anamnesis is insignificant if 'Calvinistic' sacramental theology of the Real Presence (both Calvin's and Cranmer's Virtualism) as representing the best of mature Anglican reflection in the Eucharist is again asserted in its rightful place in the Communion Office 'configurated' by the supplemental components of Sursum Corda, Sanctus, Prayer of Humble Access, Lord's Prayer, Gloria in exclesis Deo, etc. Note too that Westminster Puritanism in its 1645 Directory for Public Worship contains a similar invocation (last paragraph of the prayer), albeit outside the perimeters of its Narrative component.
Lastly, however, I am bound my reverence to our Protestant forefathers, including the then Conservative MP, William Joynson-Hicks (later Lord Brentford) and its authentic contemporary embodiment in the Church of England (Continuing) to 'reject' the Deposited Prayer-Book (1927) as an alternative to the BCP (1662).
Labels: Canonical Theology, Liturgical Theology, Sacramental Theology
posted by Augustinian Successor at
5:43 PM
5 Comments:
Hi Jason!
Just curious to know what version of the Prayer Book is the Anglican Church of Malaysia is currently using? I was told that the Prayer Book of Anglican Churches from different countries may differ. I was even told further that the once used in England is not the same as in the dioceses of Malaysia. Is this true? Or is there a world-wide uniformity now? Obviously from this question you may have guessed that I’m not an Anglican. But I’m very much intrigued to know more. Hope you can answer my questions.
The origins of the sacred text of the liturgy of the Eucharist dates back centuries ago. Though there may be some slight alternations from now and then, the framework and essence/substance of the text in general has always stayed intact. But continued accumulated alterations throughout time in my opinion will definitely erode and corrupt the very essence and substance that was once intended to be embedded into the text by the early fathers of the Church. The liturgical text inherited by early Protestant Churches from Rome contains an insurmountable source of “treasure” and therefore should be preserved in its substance and even in form with only necessary minute alterations where needed. In a spiritual perspective, unnecessary reforms/alterations/changes for the sake of “REFORM” will also affect the efficacy of the prayers in the text. This also extends to other forms of public prayers/common prayers of the Church. – Old is Gold! In this particular matter, I think tis’ best for the COE to return to her Anglo-Catholic roots.
Unlike yourself, I very much believe in the absolute application of ex opere operato in the Eucharist simply because if there is no conference of grace in the rituals and rites of the Eucharist, why then have the Eucharist? - Wasting my time, might as well sleep in on Sunday mornings. :) To me personally, the Eucharist represents the source and summit of my weekly Christian-life. For the Universal Church was instituted from that mere breaking of bread and the sharing of the cup of wine. This act represents and sums up the very purpose and climax of the gospel, “... that He may die for the remissions of our transgressions so that we may live in Him, just as He lives in the Father ...” (Unfortunately I can’t remember the reference to this verse from the bible at this point of time, too lazy to do referencing). Okay lah, its getting late, I will continue other day when I have the time. Meanwhile keep posting those intellectual theological articles of yours. If only more would take their time to read and actually understand their faith, there wouldn’t be so much confrontations and divisions within the sphere of Christendom and more meaningful dialog would take place which will germinate the seeds of Ecumenism, “... be united as I am united with the Father ...” (IBID).
God Bless!
Pax et Bonum,
KS Tan
PS: From my last paragraph you would be able to identify my background. :)
Dear KS,
Thanks for dropping by. Your comments are eminently relevant and suitable for a blog such as this which is devoted to exploring and understanding theology as a discipline in its own right, i.e. as 'queen of the sciences' for which all other fields of knowledge must be subordinated. This is different from post-modernist theology such as for example, the Emergent Movement which is gaining currency and popularity amongst the evangelical churches, even here in Malaysia.
Theology as the 'queen of the sciences' is an exercise in the quest for catholicity/catholicism and therefore, continuity/continuation of the apostolic faith once for all delivered unto the saints, whether by e.g.
a) tracing the development of dogma;
b) collating the consensus of the fathers (consensus patri);
c) cataloguing the decisions of the ecumenical councils;
c) exegeting the Scriptural text.
These ecclesiastical activities are set within the context of the Holy Spirit as the internal witness of Scripture in conjunction with Tradition as the external witness of the Church.
It is no coincidence then that you were 'predestined' to visit my blog! Protestants are not as theologically educated as Roman Catholics, especially in the areas of historical, creedal, sacramental, liturgical and philosophical theologies. This is true of seminarians and ordinands as it is true of the laity.
Anyway, the Book of Common Prayer (BCP) as sanctioned for use in the Diocese of West Malaysia is not the same as the BCP (1662) which is the official historic liturgical manual for the Church of England, notwithstanding the authorisation of Common Worship being the latest innovation, the Alternative Service Book (1980), etc. Many of the modern-day versions of the Prayer-book are in modern English (although have yet - to my knowledge - degenerate down the same path of 'pedestrianisation' of the sacred language as in the case of Bible translations themselves!), rather than 'Elizabethan', 'Shakesperean',or 'King James' English, with the 'thees', 'thous', as singular pronouns etc. Having said this, I do not know what version the Anglican Church here use as I do not attend their services. The uniformity is more at the framework level such as the basic format of the liturgy, e.g. the Office of Baptism. Even then, the theological emphasis do tend to vary from one province to another. The New Zealand Church tend to very low church and so its baptismal service might sound more like a dedication service rather than a baptism of infant conceived in original sin and laden with personal guilt inherited from Adam.
The BCP (1662) was a Reformed Catholic compromise between the high church party known as the Laudians and the more Puritan-minded churchmen. It arose out of the Savoy Conference called by King Charles II to produce a Prayer-book which would once again restore uniformity throughout the realm and unite the factions of the Church.
The BCP (1662) itself was based on earlier Prayer-books the 'prototype' of which was the 1549 version, which was basically a compilation of the pre-Reformation breviaries which contained the Daily Offices especially reflecting the earlier medieval reforms of Cardinal Quignonez, the Sarum rite purged of medieval accretions, i.e. beliefs and practices incompatible with the Reformation understanding of iustificatio per solam fidem (e.g. the Litany purged of any impetrative reference to the Saints acting as intercessors), elevation of the symbols of bread and wine prohibited to exclude incipient notions of a propitiatory sacrifice, etc.
The only feature in the Prayer-book tradition which is distinctly Eastern is the epiklesis - apart from the Prayer of St. Chrysostom in the Daily Offices of Morning and Evening Prayers - which was first introduced by Cranmer into the 1549 Communion Office. He probably borrowed the invocation of the Holy Spirit upon the eucharistic elements from the patristic prayer of St. Basil of Caesaerea. The epiklesis is a prominent feature in the Eucharistic Canon of the Eastern Churches, some to the point of omitting the Words of Institution altogether in the anaphora, e.g. the Holy Qurbana of Addai and Mari of the Assyrian Church of East
(Nestorian).
The classical Prayer-book tradition of the Church of England (1549, 1552, 1559, 1662) and by extension Anglicanism is emphatically Protestant and unequivocally evangelical to its core. This means that Anglo-Catholicism has no real claim to being the revival of the Church's catholic heritage as the English Reformers, Elizabethan, Jacobean, Caroline churchmen were all avowedly anti-popish and sound Protestants notwithstanding the later Platonists, Deists, Unitarians, etc. after 1662. This is why Newman left the Church of England in 1845 when he found that his position as a 'Catholic' was untenable, and based on spurious grounds such as the apparent compatibility between the 39 Articles and Trent which he formerly argued for in the infamous Tract 91.
Of course classical or original Protestantism is different from modern evangelicalism today.
Hello again Jason!
Thanks for answering my question. You brought up about a very famous man by the name of John Henry Cardinal Newman. I have always told myself to find the time to read and some of his writings and that was in 2005. Hopefully I will be able to fulfil this by the end of 2007. I’ve got a lot of stuff to read and my bedtime reading orders is currently full and will not be taking anymore materials for the time being. I think there are some areas of theology where I may be in the same view as you. I also think we are at the same page when you mentioned in general your stand against post-modernist theology and the various "movements" that came thereafter. I am with you on this one too! Unfortunately Malaysia is currently being bombarded with these so called "modern evangelism" and their various establishments. :)
While my loyalty is rendered towards the Holy See of Rome, it is not blind loyalty. I am most cautious with the current successor of St. Peter, an ex-Nazi and an extremist in terms of his continued enforcement of rigid and medieval laws and somewhat "erroneous" doctrines that made many quarters within the Catholic realm unhappy. Believe me when I say that there are many pressure groups within the Latin Church who are advocating for more reforms and changes. Catholics in the West tend to pick out what they like and ignore what they don’t like with Vatican; this includes ludicrous doctrines and practises such as the infallibility of the Pope, the celibacy of the religious, indulgences and etc. So don't take this Ratzinger guy too seriously. In fact don't take life too seriously. From your writings and from your response I find you to be very apologetic. I will try to keep to that same tone in my future postings.
I also wish to clarify that though it is generally said that Catholics are more theologically educated than their Protestant counterpart, Malaysian Catholics on the other hand are NOT. They are more interested in devotions and of course that includes their perpetual senseless repetition on the Hail Marys in the Rosary, their insatiable desire to venerate iconic pictures and statues and their voracious appetite in consuming the Sacred Host without the full comprehension and appreciation and to some degree, gratefulness of the rites and rituals, knowledge and theological philosophies and efficacies underlining behind of the richness of the Eucharist. "O God, what heretics you have in your fold!" (At this point you are supposed to laugh and not to take what I said above too seriously).
Okay let’s call in a night for now and I’ll be sure to keep you in nightly prayers. Keep up the good work! God Bless!
KS TAN
KS, you know, I'm really glad to have you on my blog. Yes, we are on the same page on a lot of issues. There's so much we can learn from one another. Please keep your postings coming!
Please bear with me. I'll try and post another comment soon. Having said this, could you please post your new comments on the newer posts? Thank you.
Before I forget, I used to borrow books from College General, Penang and now I have joined the Catholic Resource Centre, Jln Robertson, off Jalan Pudu. Solid theological books are hard to come by in Malaysia. Are you studying to be an ordinand?
Dear Jason,
If I were to be ordained as a minister, I think my strong personal views, the Archbishop would have not only strip me from my priesthood but would also ex-communicate me from the church. (Not to say that I fear being ex-communicated). No, I’m not studying to be ordained. I’m just a lowly creature of God who is seeking the TRUTH. In order to seek the truth, one must not just accept what the other says as the absolute facts. We should always read and do some research in order to obtain knowledge and so not being fooled by others easily. One negative tendency about the Catholic Church is that it tends to shove religion down people’s throat. I’m not one of those people who allow one’s throat to be shoved with teachings I don’t understand nor do I agree with. Your next article on hypostatic union would be interesting as this is something where I can contribute rather than issues on such as the Synod of Dordt and Arminianism (which I disagree totally). Your blog however have helped me to see the other side of the COE and a more in-depth view of Classical Protestantism. By the way where do you worship? Is there a COE (continuing) parish in KL? I’ve only entered the famous St. Mary Cathedral once and that was years ago.
KS TAN
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home