Today is the anniversary of the papal bull Regnans in excelsis published in 1570 announcing Pope St Pius V's deposition of Queen Elizabeth I from her royal throne and his call to her subjects to abandon both their sovereign and the spiritual leadership of the 'lewd preachers and ministers of impiety' whom she had planted in the Lord's Vineyard.
You might therefore have thought that Pius was no friend of the Anglican Church in any shape or form. But apparently not, if the following endorsement by an American Episcopalian culled from the internet is anything to go by.
Today is a very special day, the Feast of St Pius V. As one of my patrons (I took Pius as my confirmation name) I'll be serving at the Holy Sacrifice today from his Missal (but in English, alas). If you are able, do join us today at noon at Grace and St Peter's to celebrate this illustrious Pope and Confessor and great friend of the Church of England.
With friends like this . . .
Thursday, February 25, 2010
Tuesday, February 09, 2010
Crown and Mitre
On 30th January we Anglicans observed the feast of the blessed St Charles, King and Martyr. And we did so with hearts overflowing with gratitude for his courageous defence of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Faith - even unto death. We did, didn't we? Well I certainly did, but some of you might have been just a little too squeamish to do the same, I fear.
Perhaps you were put off by Professor J.P. Kenyon's remarks on the matter, 'His [Charles the First's] was never a masculine character, and his femine delicacy of feature, his tristesse, that Pre-Raphaelite droop so attractive to the old ladies of Anglo-Catholicism, had a limited appeal to contemporaries.' As a put-down (two put-downs, in fact) this is simply superb, but is it true? And is it enough to account for the reality of the king's part in the life of the church, or the reality of the church's life following his death?
Here's the opinion of another distinguished historian of the period, C.V. Wedgewood, 'His church policy was the outcome not of calculation but of conviction; he was ready to die for it.' And what in the end was the church policy Charles was prepared to die for? According to Mandell Creighton, bishop of London at the turn of the twentieth century and a noted ecclesiastical historian, 'Had Charles been willing to abandon the church and give up episcopacy, he might have saved his throne and his life. But on this point Charles stood firm: for this he died, and by dying saved it for the future.'
And these are some of the Royal Martyr's own words on the matter, 'I conceive that episcopal government is most consonant with the Word of God, and of apostolical institution, as it appears by the Scripture to have been practised by the apostles themselves, and by them committed and derived to particular persons as their substitutes or successors therein, and have ever since to these last times been exercised by bishops
But perhaps your sympathies lie with a later (and somewhat Presbyterian) sovereign. At a garden party for Anglican bishops Oueen Victoria remarked to her lady in waiting, "A very ugly party. I do not like bishops." When Lady Lyttelton expressed some disquiet at this pronouncement from the Supreme Governor of the Church of England, the queen said, "I like the man - not the bishop." I'm sorry to say that a good many Anglo-Catholics since then would have happily reversed her reply, and may even have had good reason to do so.
No doubt there have been (and will continue to be) objections to episcopacy from our more protestant brethren, but I'm afraid I find them entirely unconvincing. Perhaps there was a period of uncertainty about the ministry in the early Church (though you might like to take a cursory look at From Synagogue to Church by James Tunstead Burtchaell, CUP 1992, before you make up your mind). For myself I find the universal practice of the churches which have any claim to antiquity (some of which, like the Assyrian Church of the East, have been in a world of their own from very early on) to be most persuasive. Despite enormous differences in their histories, liturgies, and even in their canons of scripture, these churches have all held fast to the doctrine of apostolic succession and to the consequent three-fold ministry as being essential to the Catholic Church.
I mention the scriptural canon because even where the New Testament is concerned, there have been notable differences. The Syriac churches, for example, did not accept 2 Peter, Jude, 2 and 3 John, and the Book of Revelation until very late in the day, and even now the latter is not read at the public services of the Eastern Orthodox Church.
Only tradition tells me that there are four Gospels and not three or thirty. Likewise tradition tells me that in some vital sense bishops have succeeded the apostles in the governance of the People of God. Perhaps some bishops have been no good. But then, the gospel of John has been used to promote antisemitism, and I have yet to hear of a plan to remove it from the bible as a result. Episcopacy was established in the church before the canon, and has ever since been a foundation of the church's life. No doubt the church could get by without St John's gospel, just as some denominations get by without bishops - but it would be an impoverishment, and a statement that Christianity was on the wrong path for fifteen hundred years, which (in this instance, at least) makes very little sense to me.
However, there is an exception. There is always an exception! And the exception in this case (you will be surprised to learn) is the Roman Catholic Church. Should you consult Principles of Sacramental Theology by Father Bernard Leeming SJ (published in London by Longmans Green in 1956) you will be interested to discover that bishops are largely surplus to requirements, since the Roman Pontiff can give permission (and presumably power) to simple priests to ordain to the priesthood and the diaconate, and perhaps even to the episcopate. At least three popes have done so, and Father Leeming rather reluctantly acknowledges the fact.
But we shouldn't be too surprised. Remember those missals which we all had (well, some of us) before the Second Vatican Council, with an imprimatur from none other than one L. Suenens, working his way up to the archbishopric of Malines and a galero (a cardinal's red hat)? In the helpful introduction to these missals we are told that 'There are three major Orders or consecrations,' and that they are those of subdeacon, deacon, and priest. And just in case a bishop should feel left out, he is assured that he possesses 'the fulness of the priesthood.' Furthermore there are (or at least have been) reputable dogmatic manuals (so-called) used in seminaries which maintain that ordination to the episcopate is not a sacramental act.
Since Vatican Two, of course, all is changed. But let's not forget that until the pope says sorry, the Roman Church is officially Presbyterian. So, given a rather obvious 'defect of intention' where the episcopate is concerned, do they really have valid orders like us?
Perhaps you were put off by Professor J.P. Kenyon's remarks on the matter, 'His [Charles the First's] was never a masculine character, and his femine delicacy of feature, his tristesse, that Pre-Raphaelite droop so attractive to the old ladies of Anglo-Catholicism, had a limited appeal to contemporaries.' As a put-down (two put-downs, in fact) this is simply superb, but is it true? And is it enough to account for the reality of the king's part in the life of the church, or the reality of the church's life following his death?
Here's the opinion of another distinguished historian of the period, C.V. Wedgewood, 'His church policy was the outcome not of calculation but of conviction; he was ready to die for it.' And what in the end was the church policy Charles was prepared to die for? According to Mandell Creighton, bishop of London at the turn of the twentieth century and a noted ecclesiastical historian, 'Had Charles been willing to abandon the church and give up episcopacy, he might have saved his throne and his life. But on this point Charles stood firm: for this he died, and by dying saved it for the future.'
And these are some of the Royal Martyr's own words on the matter, 'I conceive that episcopal government is most consonant with the Word of God, and of apostolical institution, as it appears by the Scripture to have been practised by the apostles themselves, and by them committed and derived to particular persons as their substitutes or successors therein, and have ever since to these last times been exercised by bishops
But perhaps your sympathies lie with a later (and somewhat Presbyterian) sovereign. At a garden party for Anglican bishops Oueen Victoria remarked to her lady in waiting, "A very ugly party. I do not like bishops." When Lady Lyttelton expressed some disquiet at this pronouncement from the Supreme Governor of the Church of England, the queen said, "I like the man - not the bishop." I'm sorry to say that a good many Anglo-Catholics since then would have happily reversed her reply, and may even have had good reason to do so.
No doubt there have been (and will continue to be) objections to episcopacy from our more protestant brethren, but I'm afraid I find them entirely unconvincing. Perhaps there was a period of uncertainty about the ministry in the early Church (though you might like to take a cursory look at From Synagogue to Church by James Tunstead Burtchaell, CUP 1992, before you make up your mind). For myself I find the universal practice of the churches which have any claim to antiquity (some of which, like the Assyrian Church of the East, have been in a world of their own from very early on) to be most persuasive. Despite enormous differences in their histories, liturgies, and even in their canons of scripture, these churches have all held fast to the doctrine of apostolic succession and to the consequent three-fold ministry as being essential to the Catholic Church.
I mention the scriptural canon because even where the New Testament is concerned, there have been notable differences. The Syriac churches, for example, did not accept 2 Peter, Jude, 2 and 3 John, and the Book of Revelation until very late in the day, and even now the latter is not read at the public services of the Eastern Orthodox Church.
Only tradition tells me that there are four Gospels and not three or thirty. Likewise tradition tells me that in some vital sense bishops have succeeded the apostles in the governance of the People of God. Perhaps some bishops have been no good. But then, the gospel of John has been used to promote antisemitism, and I have yet to hear of a plan to remove it from the bible as a result. Episcopacy was established in the church before the canon, and has ever since been a foundation of the church's life. No doubt the church could get by without St John's gospel, just as some denominations get by without bishops - but it would be an impoverishment, and a statement that Christianity was on the wrong path for fifteen hundred years, which (in this instance, at least) makes very little sense to me.
However, there is an exception. There is always an exception! And the exception in this case (you will be surprised to learn) is the Roman Catholic Church. Should you consult Principles of Sacramental Theology by Father Bernard Leeming SJ (published in London by Longmans Green in 1956) you will be interested to discover that bishops are largely surplus to requirements, since the Roman Pontiff can give permission (and presumably power) to simple priests to ordain to the priesthood and the diaconate, and perhaps even to the episcopate. At least three popes have done so, and Father Leeming rather reluctantly acknowledges the fact.
But we shouldn't be too surprised. Remember those missals which we all had (well, some of us) before the Second Vatican Council, with an imprimatur from none other than one L. Suenens, working his way up to the archbishopric of Malines and a galero (a cardinal's red hat)? In the helpful introduction to these missals we are told that 'There are three major Orders or consecrations,' and that they are those of subdeacon, deacon, and priest. And just in case a bishop should feel left out, he is assured that he possesses 'the fulness of the priesthood.' Furthermore there are (or at least have been) reputable dogmatic manuals (so-called) used in seminaries which maintain that ordination to the episcopate is not a sacramental act.
Since Vatican Two, of course, all is changed. But let's not forget that until the pope says sorry, the Roman Church is officially Presbyterian. So, given a rather obvious 'defect of intention' where the episcopate is concerned, do they really have valid orders like us?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)