http://www.churchsociety.org/publications/tracts/CAT006_GospelFreedom.pdf
A short compendium of contrasts between the Church of England and the wayward, errant, false, and disloyal sons within her precincts, Anglo-Romanists.
The Church of England
- The one completed and finished sacrifice. (Jn.19.30; Mt.27.51; Heb. 10.10, 12, 14, 17-19, 20; 11.26; 1 Pet.3.18; 1 Jn.2.2). Articles XXV, XXXI, and the 28th Homily reflect this perspective.
- Christ’s work alone necessary to salvation (Jn.11.25; 17.3; Acts 4.12; 16.31; 1 Pet. 1.18-19; Eph.1.7; Rev. 5.9-10). Articles XI and XVIII reflect this teaching.
- Jesus Christ is the only avenue of access to God (Jn. 6.37; 10.9; 14.6; 15.5; Rom.5.1-2; Eph.3.12; 1 Pet.3.12; Rev.3.8). Article XX and the Homily on Repentance teach this perspective alone.
- Jesus Christ is the only, repeat, only Mediator and Advocate. There is no invocation of Mary or other saints. (Rom.8.34; 1 Tim.2.5; Heb.7.25; 9.15; 1 Jn.2.1; Rev.1.17,18; 2.1). Article IV and the 27th Homily teach this, to wit, “Thou needest no other man’s help; no sacrificing priest.”
- Free Access to the Throne of Grace (Mt.11.28; Jn.6.37; 7.37; 16.24; Eph.3.12; Heb.4.10; 10.22; Rev.22.17). The Sermon and Homilies affirm no need for “shameful”auricular confessions.
In contrast, the Tractarians, Ritualists and Anglo-Romewardizers:
- The Lord’s Supper is a Propitiatory Sacrifice. See the article for references from Anglo-Romanists.
- The assumed Sacrifice is declared to be essentials. Quotations from Tracts for the Day (3.60), O. Shipley’s sermons, and the Eucharistic Manual.
- Ergo, the necessity of a sacrificing priesthood. Quotes from Tracts for the Day (1.25) and The Ministry of Consolation.
- Ergo, the assumption of priestly power in absolution. Quotes from Tracts for the Day (1.21), The Mediation of the Church, The Ministry of Consolation; a Guide to Confession and The Ordinance of Confession.
The author of this Tract asks whether the sons of the Reformation—with freedoms secured through the blood of English Reformers—should now submit “to the Priestly Tyranny” for which Anglo-Romanists contended? For which they contended in the 19th and 20th centuries? For which they contend now in various Anglican jurisdictions?
The author's resolution: “The struggle is at hand, so let all faithful members of the Church prepare for this inevitable conflict.”
With reference to the Anglo-Romewardizers and, by implication for our times, those in the 50 U.S. and Canadian “Continuing” jurisdictions and the new ACNA, the Tractarians and Ritualists have “made no secret of their hostility to the work of the Reformation and their repugnance to the Articles of our Church. They are striving to bring us back into the bondage of superstition…”
St. Paul when confronted by “false brethren,” said, “To whom we gave place by subjection, no not for an hour, that the truth of the Gospel might remain with you.” (Gal.2.5)
Does a Protestant (Catholic), Calvinistic, Reformed, Creedal, Confessional, and Evangelical Anglican have any other alternative? “To give no place to subjection, no, not for one single hour?”
A well-taught Anglican knows his duty and does it.
10 comments:
First of all, unless you are going to argue that it is wrong to pray for one another, using the passage that "there is one mediator between God and man..." is a bad idea. I don't really practice invocation of saints myself, but it is because I have some question over whether or not they have the ability to hear, not because it makes them somehow take the place of Christ.
BTW, the passage in Rev. which speaks of the Martyrs asking How long? till their vengeance, would seem to indicate a knowledge of things going on in the world. I would also argue that the saints are actively participating in our lives based on Hebrews 12 and the account of Elisha and Gehazi and the battle against the Syrians (the reference for which I have forgotten)
I don't believe in the propitiatory sacrifice of the Mass, my church-a part of ACNA-doesn't practice anything close to it. But before you get too caught up in making an either/or argument about the completion of Christ's Sacrifice and the so-called Sacrifice of the Mass, read the Catechism of the catholic Church on Jesus Died Crucified http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p122a4p2.htm
I don't really think we need the Mass as understood by AC's and RC's, but that does not diminish their faith in the once for all sacrifice of Christ. The Lord's Supper is a presenting of the death of Christ over again. Jesus presented the elements as his body and blood before he was ever crucified. That doesn't take away from it being a once for all event.
Thanks Billy for your post.
Your first point is ill-taken re: the exclusive Mediation of Christ. Authentic Anglicanism, as well as the Magisterial Reformation faiths, have rejected the invocation of saints. My argument is that ACs are squatters and parasites, as tough as that sounds.
We have two-thousand years of OT history. Not one mention of invoking departed saints. Significant, given St. Paul's pointed comments about the OT serving as a doctrinal mooring, e.g. Rom.15.4; 1 Cor.10.1ff; 2 Tim.3.14-17. You'll have an impossible task thinking otherwise.
Secondly, your citation of the martyrs of Revelation, an indicative situation in the heaveniles, is hardly foundational for an imperative for Churchmen in the Church Militant. Again, authentic Anglicanism and its formularies bespeak this view. Search the entire NT and you'll have more difficulties.
I've read Trent many times (and other documents, e.g. Denziger, et.al.) I'll read your suggested post and comment later.
"Presenting" Christ's death anew by way of proclamation and reception of Christ's benefits by faith alone is a far different thing from "Transubstantion" and the gross confusion of justification and sanctification.
well, as I said, i don't really practice invocation of saints, again though, not based on a lack of evidence for it in the O.T. I would have a hard time justifying the use of the the prayer book if I thought it needed to be mandated for use in worhsip.
You're right, the Martrys in heaven do not provide a mandate or pretext for the practice. But if we are willing to ask saints in the church militant for their prayers, why would we not do the same with regard to those in the Church triumphant...if we were confident they could hear us?
MY suggested post only shows that the catechism speaks of Christ's sacrifice in singular terms. AS I have said to Charlie on numerous occasions, I don't believe in transubstantiation, or a re-sacrifice, but the sacrifice of Christ while once for all, is eternal in a sense. "the Lamb slain before the foundations of the world". I bring that up because I think there is a sense in which Christ through the liturgy of the Lord's Supper or Eucharist shows his death to us again-hence Calvin's understanding of the celebration as the second preaching of the Gospel in a service.
To say Christ can re-present his death for us is only to acknowledge that the sacrifice has an eternal, timeless characteristic, and at the same time it only happened once.
I hope you understand I'm not trying to water down the gospel at all! But there are questions I have about John 6 and the Institution narratives which are not satisfied in my mind by typical reformed responses.
Billy:
First, your kind and charitable spirit is noted. I much appreciate that, brother. I am glad that you acknowledge, recognize, and aver that there is neither OT nor NT imperatives, commendations, recommendations, nor pointers to pray to departed saints. Again, your integrity on this point shines forth grandly.
Second, I cannot comment on your interactions with Charlie, but will leave it at that.
Are you an authentic Anglican, to wit, conforming to the historic formularies?
Regards,
Phil
I am a high-churchman. I believe the Articles of Religion but I do have several caveats. The main ones are as follows: Justification by Faith Alone is a wholesome doctrine. But as one of the Magisterial refomers said-never by a faith that is alone. I wish the Articles made that clearer.
As something of a corrolary, I do believe the doctrines of predestination, election...however I think the biblical emphasis is on repentance and sacraments. (e.g. Acts 2:38) So some of my posts tend to have a "co-operative" flavor. I don't by that mean to diminish the soverignty of God, but I think they exist as a paradox-God's Will and Man's Will. Since we see things from the human side of the coin, I think it makes sense to address people in human terms.
Therefore my blogs and my sermons are more likely to say "Repent of your sins" than "you are elect, be comforted". Does that make sense?
Off the top of my head I think the 39 Articles are solid otherwise. Depending on the day of the week, I will say there are 2 Dominical sacraments and 5 others of a similar nature-though not exact. But other days I'm more comfortable saying there are just 2...period. Sometimes I find that a meaningless discussion because of the fact that services for the other 5 are all in the BCP.
So that's my theological nutshell. A high-church Anglican who loves catholics, the sacraments, and a more reformed understanding of soteriology. I'm not trying just to be different, nor am I equating experience with Divine Revelation. But we are formed by both and this is where I am right now.
Billy said...
I am a high-churchman. I believe the Articles of Religion but I do have several caveats. The main ones are as follows: Justification by Faith Alone is a wholesome doctrine. But as one of the Magisterial reformers said-never by a faith that is alone.
PV: As I’ve posted elsewhere, I continue to have confusions on my side about what constitutes “high” in Anglican history since the Reformation…to the Caroline, Hanoverians, and Oxfordian times. I take it that you mean Anglo-Roman on certain doctrines? If by high, do you mean Anglo-Roman on certain doctrines?
Billy as to your caveat about justification by faith alone, this will not work in light of Scripture or the Articles, or the English Reformation for that matter. The relationship of justification by faith alone and the necessary, but non-meritoriousness, of works vis a vis James 2.14-26 is firmly asserted. I commend your insistence on good works. I commend all of us to a re-visitation of Romans, Galatians, the great Reformation councils and confessions, and theologians.
Billy said:
I wish the Articles made that clearer.
PV: I concur. I find the Articles insufficient, theologically and exegetically. I believe a wider set of formularies are needed for an authentic expression of historic, Reformational Anglicanism.
Billy said (continued):
As something of a corollary, I do believe the doctrines of predestination, election...however I think the biblical emphasis is on repentance and sacraments. (e.g. Acts 2:38) So some of my posts tend to have a "co-operative" flavor. I don't by that mean to diminish the sovereignty of God, but I think they exist as a paradox-God's Will and Man's Will. Since we see things from the human side of the coin, I think it makes sense to address people in human terms.
PV: While your sense is correct, I must say with Luther (over against Erasmus) that the Holy Spirit—a Great Asserter of propositions—saw fit to include predestination and election in the Bible, especially Jesus and St. Paul. Who are we to minimize such?
Billy said:
Therefore my blogs and my sermons are more likely to say "Repent of your sins" than "you are elect, be comforted". Does that make sense?
PV: It makes sense if your readers and auditors affirm both Majesty’s sovereign prerogatives as well as our manifest duies.
Off the top of my head I think the 39 Articles are solid otherwise. Depending on the day of the week, I will say there are 2 Dominical sacraments and 5 others of a similar nature-though not exact. But other days I'm more comfortable saying there are just 2...period. Sometimes I find that a meaningless discussion because of the fact that services for the other 5 are all in the BCP.
PV: I embrace two, since the other five do not have the Words of divine institution, redemptively, associated with them. Additionally and pastorally, I must steer clear of impenitent Romanism, something the Reformers called--rightly--a church of the false gospel.
So that's my theological nutshell. A high-church Anglican who loves catholics, the sacraments, and a more reformed understanding of soteriology. I'm not trying just to be different, nor am I equating experience with Divine Revelation. But we are formed by both and this is where I am right now.
PV: What do you mean by high church? Second, “catholics” applies to the Protestant and Reformed Churchmen of the Anglican Church. By “catholics,” what do you mean? Not one single Reformer, Continental of English, surrendered the term “catholic” to Romanists or Romewardizers.
You know, I am a slave to imprecise language at times. My fault. By high-church, I mean that I go to a parish that has an opening procession, gospel procession, with cross. My father, who is the rector of my parish, wears the chasuble. About half of my parish crosses themselves at the benediction and absolution. We celebrate Holy Communion weekly. I and a few others, bow slightly at the names of each member of the blessed Trinity during the Creed.
That's what I mean.
As far as the term "catholic" goes, I accidentally was making a reference to something I eventually deleted from my blog post. I went to a catholic college. And while there were far too many students who were the type of Romans who give RC's a really bad name, I found 50-60 students who I worshipped with every Thursday evening in Evensong. I have strong disagreements with them on a couple of things...but it is largely because of them that I am unwilling to condemn the Roman church at large, and why I will often defend RC's from Protestant attacks. They are wrong on certain things. But the faith of this group of students and their submission to Jesus as Lord was clear. To me, that counts for a lot.
Billy said:
You know, I am a slave to imprecise language at times. My fault. By high-church, I mean that I go to a parish that has an opening procession, gospel procession, with cross. My father, who is the rector of my parish, wears the chasuble. About half of my parish crosses themselves at the benediction and absolution. We celebrate Holy Communion weekly. I and a few others, bow slightly at the names of each member of the blessed Trinity during the Creed.
PV: Billy, those are liturgical pieties that would appear to be more of Ritualistic fashion than doctrinal. During the Ritualistic phase of Tractarianism, however, the Rituals were very explicitly and very designedly attached to Roman doctrines with a view to reversing the Recoveries of the Reformation. This is documentable. Adiaphora was not adiaphora. Sophisticated Anglo-Romewardizers still use the ceremonial to that end. It is notable that you do not talk of the doctrines of the Reformation, but millinery, processions, and the weekly Communion. The issues are far deeper than these matters.
Billy said:
As far as the term "catholic" goes, I accidentally was making a reference to something I eventually deleted from my blog post. I went to a catholic college. And while there were far too many students who were the type of Romans who give RC's a really bad name, I found 50-60 students who I worshipped with every Thursday evening in Evensong. I have strong disagreements with them on a couple of things...but it is largely because of them that I am unwilling to condemn the Roman church at large, and why I will often defend RC's from Protestant attacks. They are wrong on certain things. But the faith of this group of students and their submission to Jesus as Lord was clear. To me, that counts for a lot.
PV: First, as to the term "Catholic," the English Reformers and Continental ones for that matter all viewed themselves as Catholic. If you mean Roman doctrine, that is the defining thing. Otherwise, it was the view of the English Reformation that they were the true, continuing Catholic and Reformed tradition.
Second, I cannot use “experience” as a benchmark, as you do, for my theological thinking. As my Protestant mother often said, “I’d rather have a devout Roman Catholic than many antinomian Protestants.” Luther and Calvin would agree that the Romanist communion has converted and justified saints up and down and throughout the Church. That is one discussion. Theology as exposited through grammatico-historical exegesis in its plain and natural sense is another. Of course, good works and godliness is essential. But fidelity to the biblical Gospel, vis a vis Galatians, is not an option, but a duty.
Third, I attended an Anglo-Romewardizing service today, ACC. They sought the intercessions of St. Vladimir as well as the Agnus Dei and elevation of the host, among other things, well outside historic Anglicanism, vis a vis the 1662 BCP. However, I doubt few are concerned with these things; the English Reformers were concerned about these things and would correct many of these pieties as misleading and unnecessary.
Post a Comment