What, in your opinion, what the whole point of the motion, Mark? Was it simply to show that the Sydney Diocese could be as sneaky with their interpretative principles as to the legality of lay administration as some key ideologues are with their biblical interpretation? Was it to really put the wind up the Anglo-Catholics within the Diocese and elsewhere? Or was the motion more than merely a motherhood statement, promising real change just as soon as other GAFCON Dioceses can be bullied into acquiescing to the position of their sugar daddy?
Dear Joshua
What grieves me so greatly in this, is that people impute or at least assume such ungodly motives. Joshua, I have no idea whether you are a Christian or not, but if you are, you are talking about your brothers and sisters in the Lord Jesus. We are to do all we can to live at peace with one another.
My brothers and sisters who moved this in the synod, only have the best of motives. Of that, I am sure. They wish to help people understand the Lord’s Supper. And in our city and our church, the fact that only an ordained presbyter can read the final consecration prayer, when lay people take part in every other aspect of the service, can in and of itself, teach that the supper needs something that the presbyter has by ordination, to ‘work’ properly. That is not very helpful. Our practice has not matched what the Bible teaches about the supper. So Joshua, the motive is simple and pure - to bring practice in line with that we believe and teach. That was the point of the motion and has been the point of the 30 year long exploration in Sydney on this issue. We want to practice what we preach.
No has tried to be sneaky. We love the Anglo-Catholics in our Diocese and have no desire or motive ‘to put the wind up them’, and no one here wants to bully any one in to any thing.
We love the Lord Jesus. We want to be like him. We want to proclaim him and live for him and see others come to know him. That is what motivates Sydney.
Joshua, may I also urge you to re-consider such commentary as:
Was it simply to show that the Sydney Diocese could be as sneaky with their interpretative principles as to the legality of lay administration as some key ideologues are with their biblical interpretation? Was it to really put the wind up the Anglo-Catholics within the Diocese and elsewhere? Or was the motion more than merely a motherhood statement, promising real change just as soon as other GAFCON Dioceses can be bullied into acquiescing to the position of their sugar daddy?
.
The synod is made up of men and women, the vast majority of whom seek to honour God as they debate, discuss and vote on motions. This was certainly the case in the issue of Lay and diaconal administration of the Lord’ Supper. No one is seeking to be sneaky with legal interpretations. Bishop Glenn Davies, one of those who has written on the legal situation, is a man of integrity and godliness. I think, Joshua, that your comments are offensive, for they impute improper motives to a godly man, and many others besides.
No one is winding up anyone else, and, far from bullying, we are providing for more informed discussion on this issue; the arguments for this change have been given to interested parties at both a national and international level.
A very interesting post..thank you ....but Cranmer must be taken definitively as regards his final lagacy, the 1552 Prayer Book. 1549 was only transistional...but even 1549 freed the Communion service of the oblation
I agree--the point, though, is that a number of the practices of Anglo-Catholics which are considered “Papist,” etc by some Evangelical Anglicans are actually within the Prayer Book Tradition which started in 1549 BCP. And the practices which Cranmer allowed to be retained in the 1549 BCP are certainly not be considered as “repugnant to the Word of God” according to the 42 Articles and later the 39 Articles as certain “Romish” practices and beliefs are (such as the condemnation in the Articles of the “reservation” of the Sacrament--which applies to such practices as the Romish “reservation” of the Sacrament for Corpus Christi Processions, etc and clearly not to the ancient practice of reserving the Sacrament for the sick as contained in the 1549 BCP). In contrast the 1552 BCP shows more clearly what Cranmer “preferred” to be retained.
Robert said:
The appeal to antiquity is selective ( all the Reformers made it ...calvin does in his Institutes)..
As for their appeal being selective--all appeal to antiquity (because it is not inerrant and infallible as the Sacred Scriptures are) has at least some degree of selectivity, which is clearly the case in all appeals to antiquity by Christian Churches--including Rome herself. That said, the affirmation and appeal to the authority of antiquity is stronger in the Anglican Reformers than it is in the Continental Reformed or Lutherans. For example, Canon 6 which was drawn up by the Convocation of Bishops who affirmed the 39 Articles in 1571--states the truth of the 39 Articles, 1559 BCP and Ordinal immediately after giving binding authority to the patristic faith. Therefore, the 39 Articles and 1559 BCP/Ordinal are necessarily intended to be understood in accordance with the teaching of the “Catholic fathers and ancient bishops” according to the Convocation of Bishops who confirmed the 39 Articles. This was, of course, far beyond the authority given to antiquity by the Continental Reformed or Lutherans.
Robert said:
In the Homily in Peril of idolatry Cranmer believes the Church of England has been in idolatry for 9OO years.
Actually, the Homily on the Peril of Idolatry was not written by Cranmer. It belongs to the 2nd Book of Homilies produced after Elizabeth had become Queen of England. (Actually--just to be picky here--the Homily states that the Church had been in idolatry for “eight hundred years or more.") This statement cannot be taken as a denial of the validity/continuation of the Church during this period but rather as a statement of the quite prevalent nature of the sin of “literal” idolatry within the Church during that period (i.e. “literal” idolatry towards images, the Virgin Mary, etc versus the “spiritual” idolatry of covetousness which occurs in every member of the Church throughout all eras of the Church) . Besides all this, the English Reformers give very high commendations (including of the great godliness) of notable theologians of the Church both in England and elsewhere during this era].
Augustine is quoted, but ignored [not] when he affirms the See of Peter, the Sacrifice of the Mass and other authentic Catholic teachings. Furthermore St john Chrysostom taught sacerdotalism with a capital S.
The Anglican Reformers affirmed the teaching of St. Augustine and the other Church Fathers regarding the See of Peter--and therefore denied Roman doctrines of the Papacy. ;-)
Of course, the Anglican Reformers denied the Romish “Sacrifice of the Mass” and they certainly denied the “sacredotal priesthood” they saw in the Romish “Sacrifice of the Mass.” They did, though, affirm the teachings of St. Augustine and St. Chrysostom and the other Church Fathers on these matters--citing their teachings as the true teaching on these issues. Bishop Jewel made the following statements to the Roman Catholic Harding on the matter of “Eucharistic Sacrifice” in his Defense of the Apology:
We deny not but it may well be said, Christ at His last supper offered up Himself unto His Father; albeit, not really and indeed, but, according to M. Harding’s own distinction, in a figure or in a mystery; in such sort, as we say, CHRIST was offered in the sacrifices of the old law: and as St. John says, The Lamb was slain from the beginning of the world.
“As for our part,” St. Augustine saith, “Christ hath given us to celebrate in His Church, an image or token of that Sacrifice for the remembrance of His Passion.” Again he saith, “After CHRIST’S ascension into heaven, the Flesh and Blood of this Sacrifice is continued by a Sacrament of remembrance.” Eusebius saith, “We burn a Sacrifice unto GOD, the remembrance of that great Sacrifice upon the cross, and CHRIST commanded us to offer up a remembrance of His death, instead of a Sacrifice.” It were an infinite labour to report all that may be said. To be short, St. Hierome saith, turning himself unto CHRIST: “Then shalt Thou, O CHRIST, receive Sacrifice, either when Thou offerest up Thyself for us unto Thy Father,” (which was only upon the cross,) “or else, when Thou receivest of us praises and thanksgiving.”
St. Cyprian saith, “We offer the LORD’S cup,” meaning thereby, the wine contained in the cup. So likewise St. Augustine saith: “The Church offereth up the Sacrifice of bread and wine.” If there be any darkness in this manner of speech, both St. Cyprian and St. Augustine have plainly expounded their meaning. St. Cyprian, in the same Epistle before alleged, saith thus: “The cup is offered in remembrance of CHRIST: by the wine CHRIST’S Blood is shewed, or signified: therefore wine is used, that by wine we may understand the LORD’S Blood: water only without wine, cannot express the Blood of CHRIST: in the water we understand the people: in the wine CHRIST’S Blood is represented: in all our Sacrifices, we work the memory of CHRIST’S passion: the Sacrifice that we offer, is the Passion of our LORD.” Thus much St. Cyprian in the same epistle. St. Augustine saith, “In this Sacrifice is a Thanksgiving, and a remembrance of the Flesh of CHRIST, that He hath offered for us, and of the Blood of CHRIST that He shed for us.” Thus saith St. Cyprian: thus saith St. Augustine: thus say the old godly learned fathers of the Church of Christ.
[Of course, you can produce numerous quotes from the English Reformers strongly denouncing the “Romish Sacrifice of the Mass” (which, of course, is the case)--But this is beside the point. The point is that the English Reformers upheld the truth of the “Eucharistic Sacrifice” (and the necessarily related aspects of the Ordained Ministry to this teaching) laid out by the Church Fathers.]
Cranmer was wedded to the doctrine of justification by faith alone, which he describes as a most “comfortable doctrine.
Of course he was wedded to the doctrine (as am I). Justification by “faith alone” rightly understood (namely as being always “joined to charity” (without which charity--faith is dead) as Cranmer specifically expounds it) is the teaching of Scripture and the Church Fathers (who frequently state that we are forgiven or justified by “faith alone").
The following shows very briefly Cranmer’s teaching on Justification by Faith Alone as it relates to good works, Baptism, falling away from Salvation, etc (although the Augustinian teaching of Article 17 is upheld throughout--namely that the Elect to Glory/Elect Vessels of Mercy will always persevere in the end unlike those who are not of the Elect to Glory but are Weedy and Stony who will ultimately lose their Salvation).
1st Book of Homilies--Homily of Justification (cited in the 39 Articles for the expounding of the Articles’ teaching on justification):
[Faith only justifies, is the doctrine of old teachers.] And in this manner, to be justified only by this true and lively faith in Christ, speaks all the old and ancient authors, both Greek and Latin,...Nevertheless, this sentence, that we are justified by faith only, is not so meant by them that the said justifying faith is alone in man without true repentance, hope, charity, dread, and the fear of God, at any time and season.
…we must trust only in God’s mercy, and that sacrifice which our high priest and Savior Christ Jesus, the son of God, once offered for us upon the cross, to obtain thereby God’s grace, and remission, as well of our original sin in baptism, as of all actual sin committed by us after our baptism, if we truly repent and turn unfeignedly to him again.
Our office is not to pass the time of this present life unfruitfully and idly after we are baptized or justified, not caring how few good works we do to the glory of God and profit of our neighbors. Much less is it our office, after that we be once made Christ’s members, to live contrary to the same, making our selves members of the devil, walking after his incitements, and after the suggestions of the world and the flesh, whereby we know that we do serve the world and the devil, and not God.
…men that are very men indeed first have life and after are nourished, so must our faith in Christ go before, and after be nourished with good works. And life may be without nourishment, but nourishment cannot be without life. A man must of necessity be nourished by good works, but first he must have faith. He that does good deeds, yet without faith he has no life. I can show a man that by faith without works lived and came to heaven, but without faith, never man had life. The thief that was hanged when Christ suffered did believe only, and the most merciful God justified him. And because no man shall say again that he lacked time to do good works, for else he would have done them, truth it is, and I will not contend therein, but this I will surely affirm, that only faith saved him. If he had lived and not regarded faith and the works thereof, he should have lost his salvation again. Here ye have heard the mind of Saint Chrysostom, whereby you may perceive, that neither faith is without works (having opportunity thereto) nor works can avail to everlasting life, without faith.
...Christ declared that the laws of God are the very way that leads to everlasting life, and not the traditions and laws of men. So that this is to be taken for a most true lesson taught by Christ’s own mouth, that the works of the moral commandments of God are the very true works of faith which lead to the blessed life to come. But the blindness and malice of man, even from the beginning, has ever been ready to fall from God’s commandments.
“Furthermore his “Response” to the Catholic minded Bishop Gardiner (he had sent to the Tower) refutes the idea that the first prayer book is Catholic in its view of the Eucharist.The Sacrifice of the Mass and the real presence is “the weed that choketh the Gospel. “His book on the Lords Supper shows he rejected the Sacrifice of the Mass and the real presence.However I concede that he taught baptismal regeneration as did Luther.
Of course, the 1st Prayer Book is not intended to be Roman Catholic in its view of the Eucharist. And yes, Rome’s “Sacrifice of the Mass” and the Corporal Real Presence of Christ are contrary to both the 1549 and 1552 BCP (though both the “Eucharistic Sacrifice” and the true spiritual presence of Christ in Holy Communion, which were affirmed by the English Reformers and maintained by the Church Fathers, are not denied) .
I’m a little bit disappointed that you both suggest that I am imputing and/or assuming motives in others, while seeming to impute and/or assume motives in me. All I am doing is asking Mark is asking why the motion was moved and then positing a few hypotheticals, all of which have been suggested by different parties at different points in time. My question was motivated by Mark’s initial suggestion that the Synod motion was “merely” and “simply” about the legal position and was not, as I put it, “a signal of intent” to start changing practice either immediately, or in the forseeable future:
Mark Calder - 22 November 2008 02:42 PM
At it’s most recent synod, it merely expressed an opinion that there is no law against deacons leading a communion service.
It hasn’t changed any law. Hasn’t officially started any new practices.
It has simply agreed with a detailed legal opinion. (emphasis mine)
However, in a later post, Mark seemed to traverse this suggestion:
Mark Calder - 22 November 2008 06:04 PM
My brothers and sisters who moved this in the synod, only have the best of motives. Of that, I am sure. They wish to help people understand the Lord’s Supper. And in our city and our church, the fact that only an ordained presbyter can read the final consecration prayer, when lay people take part in every other aspect of the service, can in and of itself, teach that the supper needs something that the presbyter has by ordination, to ‘work’ properly. That is not very helpful. Our practice has not matched what the Bible teaches about the supper. So Joshua, the motive is simple and pure - to bring practice in line with that we believe and teach. That was the point of the motion and has been the point of the 30 year long exploration in Sydney on this issue. We want to practice what we preach. (emphasis mine)
So it would seem the motion is more than merely assent to legal opinion. It is very much, as I suggested before, a clear signal of intent.
Another interesting post and thank you for all that effort.
1549 was only a transitional rite and even from 1549, there was NO eucharistic reservation in the Church of England. During 1549 the altars were destroyed all over the Kingdom, and repalced with wooden communion tables.
Resevation was only allowed, in 1549 except for the” immediate “taking of the bread and wine to the sick of the parish. It was not to be stored in the church , reetained or worshipped.
In 1552 this rubric was done away with completely and the bread and wine left over were for the personal use of the curate.
In 1662 , the bread and wine were to be reverently consumed in the Church.
Cranmer hated the Mass, and he states in his book on the Eucharist:
“For figuratively he is in the bread and wine , but spiritually he is only in those who that worthily eat and drink the bread abnd wine; but really, carnally, and corporally, He is only in heaven. “
Indeed in no Anglican rite there is no prayer for the bread an wine to become ( as in the Mass) the body of Christ..instead in 1549 we have , “may be unto us”.a subjective alternative. Even this was done away with after 1552. Interstingly the modern Australian prayer Book has re-introduced the 1549 phraeology.
There was not one Anglican Holy Communion service offered for the repose of a soul for 300 years. Indeed Holy communion was administerd ifrequently...the chalices melted down and replaced by Communion cups.
The Roman Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox, the non Chalcedonian orthodox and the Nestorians all teach that the Mass is the Sacrifice of Calvary offered in propitiation for the living and the dead…
I am afraid the English reformers totally repudiated this.Cranmer’s doctrine can be summed up thus: “Christ’s Body and Blood is ‘naturally’ only in heaven. ‘Spiritually’, i.e. by grace, he dwells in the human soul, and is therein received by faith. He is not present in the sacramental bread and wine except as a thing may be said to be in the figure whereby it is signified. It does not seem exaggerated to describe this as the doctrine of the Real Absence.
If they had believed in a real presence there would have been more respect shown the consecrated elements. By contrast in 1549, the sacred pyx’s
( crafted in a shape of a dove, to contain the blessed sacrament and suspended above the altar ) were all destroyed.
A hatred of the Mass and the idea of a real presence was inculcated into the English and hence comes the phrase “Hocus pocus”.. a minmic of the Latin words of consecration...as awell as the expression “ jack in the box” , a parody of the consecrated host.
Joshua I think you represent the Catholic position excellently, but I think you are a wee too harsh on Sydney. Sydney Anglicans are convinced Protestants and they are true to their theology, and we should credit them with that. Sydney anglicans are not the Nazi party at prayer ( as the liberals portray them ), but men and women who love our Lord and Saviour according to the lights they have.
Their motivation is the glory of God..so let Him be the Judge.
Sydney Anglicans show the Protestant roots of Anglicanism and they have been wonderful in exposing those within Anglicanism who pretend that Anglicanism is historically and theologically Catholic.
Sydney is the Protestant conscience of Anglicanism, and they should not be called the new Puritans but the real heirs of Cranmer.
Lets avoid getting to heated over semantic arguments - The fact is that the Diocese has made quite clear its intent to move ahead with diaconal presidency / administration of the Holy Communion.
Indeed this Sunday at my own church we had Communion led by a deacon.
And about time too. As we did not have access to a priest, the only time we’ve had Communion recently was about 3 months ago when the regional Archdeacon dropped by.
What a lot of the detractors of the Sydney diocesan leadership do not appreciate is how much of the push for this is a grass roots movement from the laity - especially those involved in church planting.
Indeed I believe what motivated Bp Davies’ motion was his desire that this innovation occur in an orderly fashion - he is a conservative guy. Up until now there has been a lot of confusion around the status of missional church plants (like mine) which do not meet on church trust property. Some have argued that they could do whatever they like because they are not bound by canon law.
As previously requested by others, I have tried to compile as much of the relevant arguments and documents on one page
The opinions expressed in this forum belong to the individual posting the message and may not represent the view of the Sydney Diocese of the Anglican Church. Click here to read the Posting Policy.
Everyone is welcome on our forums, but please keep comments on-topic and civil. Any flaming or general nastiness will be deleted. No unsolicited advertising is allowed. All comments, suggestions, bug reports, etc. related to the forums should be directed to Robert Moller. Click here to read our complete Posting Policy.
report bugs
Get the latest Sydney stories, Culture and Indepth on your mobile device. Visit sydang.mobi