On the eve of the Great and Holy Council of the Eastern Orthodox in June 2016, the first general meeting of the majority of Eastern Orthodox Patriarchs and hierarchs in many centuries, it should be beneficial take a moment and reflect upon what the Eastern Orthodox Churches have historically held and taught concerning their closest ecumenical friend and partner, the Anglican Church. The impending Council will discuss the current relationship of the Eastern Orthodox with other Christian bodies, including Anglicanism.

Below are passages from a remarkable and rarely studied book, The Thyateira Confession - the Faith and Prayer of the People of God, an official catechism of the Greek Orthodox Church. It was published in 1975 by the Faith Press of England, with the blessing and authorisation of His All-Holiness the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople Demetrios I. It is as official a doctrinal book as one could hope to procure from the Eastern Church; it recognises the unique relationship enjoyed between Anglicanism and Eastern Orthodoxy, a relationship which was once de facto sacramental communion, as it also affirms the validity of Anglican priesthood and sacraments. The text was almost certainly translated from Greek into English, so the language and syntax do not flow very smoothly in parts and places.

One cautionary note: Traditional Anglo-Catholics, naturally, will not agree entirely with all the assertions made in this text about ourselves or our Church. We may particularly dispute the explanations provided for the meaning of some of the Articles of Religion. But the cited text proffers us an understanding of where the Eastern Orthodox usually stand on these issues. Many traditional Anglo-Catholics maintain, a la Tract XC and the Tractarian theological movement, that the XXXIX Articles of Religion are patient of an orthodox catholic interpretation thoroughly compatible with the received Holy and Apostolic Tradition of the Undivided Church and the Seven Ecumenical Councils, and beyond this, that the Articles are so intentionally designed - being as they are Articles of Peace and theological limitations and not of dogma or Faith. The Articles must be subject to and interpreted by the Book of Common Prayer and the consensus fidelium and consensus patricum, not vice-versa. We may also find the claimed differences on Eucharistic doctrine to be semantic, linguistic, and not substantial, as well. The Common Prayer Book, the Great Creeds, and the Seven Holy Councils are the living magisterium of orthodox continuing Anglicanism. Such is the stuff of 'continuing' dialogue...


We must never forget the fact that all Christians are not Apostles as the Twelve were, though all are duty bound to participate in the Apostolic Mission of the Church. The Orthodox Church together with the Roman Catholic and the Anglican, etc., maintain the three Degrees of the Priesthood: those of Bishops, Priests and Deacons as indispensable for the Ministry of the People of God and the systematic dissemination of the Gospel of Christ.

Orthodox Christians believe that the following Churches have valid and true Priesthood or Orders: the Orthodox, the Roman Catholic, the Ethiopian, the Copto-Armenian and the Anglican. The Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the Patriarchate of Alexandria, the Patriarchate of Jerusalem, the Patriarchate of Romania and the Church of Cyprus half a century ago declared officially that the Anglican Church has valid Orders by dispensation and that means that Anglican Bishops, Priests and Deacons can perform valid Sacraments as can those of the Roman Catholic Church.

It is perhaps right to state here that there are still differences of opinion among Orthodox people in regard to Anglican Orders. There are Orthodox Churches and theologians who are more rigorous and others less so regarding the validity of the Priesthood and consequently of the Sacraments performed outside the Orthodox Church.

This difference of opinion among the Orthodox is based on the fact that the Orthodox Church as a whole has not yet examined these important questions. We hope, however, that the Ecumenical Orthodox Council which is to be called soon will investigate not only the Mystery of Unity but also the Mystery of disunity and answer among other matters the question of valid priesthood and the validity of Sacraments celebrated within non-Orthodox Christian bodies.

Orthodox Christians know that they have been in friendly relations with Anglican Christians for more than a century past. Orthodox Christians know that the Anglicans believe as the Orthodox do in the Holy Trinity, in Christ the God-Man, in the Paraclete or the Holy Spirit, in the Church and its mysteries and traditions. The Orthodox Christians know that the Anglicans acknowledge the two great Sacraments, that is, Baptism and the Holy Eucharist. For this reason Orthodox theologians at various theological discussions raise the question: What do the Anglicans believe about the remaining five Sacraments? The Anglicans answer that they accept them as being Sacraments. However, they distinguish the first two as being basic and indispensable for salvation.

It is rather evident that all the Anglicans do not agree with this interpretation because there are among them groups who prefer the Protestant views, and groups who as true Catholic and Orthodox Christians accept all the Holy Sacraments of the Church.

On account of friendly relations it has become customary for the Orthodox to perform funerals for the Anglicans and offer to them the Holy Eucharist in places where there is no Anglican clergyman available. This is reciprocated for the Orthodox Christians wherever there is no Orthodox clergyman available. This is done both officially and unofficially and in various localities it is a necessary practice expressing Christian sacramental hospitality. Furthermore it is certain that the Christian people themselves seek this sacramental hospitality. This is certainly a sign of the intention of the People of God by thus establishing practical unity because they see that both groups believe in the same Bible and traditions and confess the same Creed of Nicea-Constantinople.

Orthodox Christians know that in certain matters they disagree with Anglicans and these are as follows: ---

1. In the Mystery of the Holy Eucharist the Anglicans seem to reject the theory of transubstantiation and emphasise their faith in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharistic bread and wine. This view is not entirely acceptable to the Orthodox because the Presence of Christ seems to coexist in the bread and in the wine of the Eucharist. This coexistence means that Christ is present as He is present everywhere. However the Bread and Wine are not totally changed into Christ Himself. If the Eucharistic Bread and Wine are changed into Christ's Body then there is an identical agreement between the Anglicans and the Orthodox. If however Christ by His Presence coexists with the Bread and the Wine then the Orthodox disagree with this view because Christ said: 'This is My Body.' This means that Christ is not solely present in the Eucharistic Bread but rather that the Bread is changed into the Theandric Christ.

It is evident, however, that the Real Presence concept is an effort of Theologians to approach and explain the Mystery. This view does not seem to be the faith of the Anglican Christians because when they receive Holy Communion they believe that they take Christ the God-Man.

2. As to the question of the Ecumenical Councils some Anglicans declare that they accept only Four, that is, of Nicea AD 325, of Constantinople AD 381, of Ephesus AD 431, and of Chalcedon AD 451. The remaining three some Anglicans accept as ecumenical and others not. The differentiation has been evident in what Anglican theologians answer when the Orthodox enquire about the Fifth, Sixth and Seventh Ecumenical Councils.

3.  The exercise of authority in the Anglican Church is another question which the Orthodox often raise and about which they frequently ask the Anglicans. The fact that some Anglican Bishops and Priests and theologians express and publish opinions in sermons and books that are in disagreement with the doctrine of Holy Scripture and the Church has led the Orthodox to seek an answer in order to determine the question of authority. Christian people and especially Anglican students of theology are often confused because they see that there is a difference between the teachings of some Bishops and theologians and the teachings of the Book of Common Prayer, in matters of great importance, such as, the Person of Christ, the Resurrection, the Seven Sacraments and the Apostolic Succession of Bishops. It is certain that the majority of Anglican Bishops and theologians see the centre of Church authority in the Faith proclaimed in the Book of Common Prayer, the Ecumenical Creeds and the hierarchical structure of the Church, and the faith and worship of her believers.

4. Another matter of disagreement between Anglicans and Orthodox is that of the well-known Thirty Nine Articles, which for historical reasons - and despite the wishes of many Anglican Bishops, priests and laity - are still to be found in the Book of Common Prayer. Some of these Articles are unacceptable to Orthodox Christians because they declare:

a. that the formulations of doctrine agreed by the Ecumenical Councils are not infallible (Article 21).

b. that adoration of the saints and their relics and ikons, being confused with veneration, is considered an impious invention (Article 22).

c. that Holy Communion is received in a manner that indicates denial of the Eucharistic Reality, since Article 28 states that it is given and received only in a heavenly and spiritual manner.

d. that the theory of predestination is advocated as a revealed truth to benefit the very few (Article 17).

e. that the Sacraments are only two in number, while the remaining Five are mere products of the 'corrupt following of the Apostles' doctrine' (Article 25).

However, we must not fail to observe that the [English] Book of Common Prayer contains the Offices of six Sacraments, although only two of them are considered to be Sacraments of the Holy Gospel. The seventh Sacrament, Holy Unction, is now widely practised after a recent decision taken at the Convocations of Canterbury and York.

All these questions have been thoroughly debated between Anglican and Orthodox theologians. We believe and pray that a blessed time will come when Anglicans and Orthodox Christians will eventually reach an understanding that will lead to the Unity of the Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

This Unity does not mean unity of administration, and the submission of the one church to the other. It means freedom in the preservation of the characteristics of each church, and that unity in the Blessed Sacraments that is so dearly desired by Anglican and Orthodox Christians.

There is only one Mediator and Advocate between God and man, the Man Christ Jesus (I Timothy 2.5). His mediation and mediatorial work are absolute and unique. Ontologically, there can be only one Advocate and Mediator for the whole of mankind because Jesus Christ alone is the Hypostatic Union, God made Man, the God-Man, the Word made Flesh, who unites divinity and humanity in His One Person. He is the Bridge between God and Man. But Our Lord invites all those who are organically and supernaturally united to Him in His Mystical Body to share, to participate in, His one unique intercession. This is true, not only of Our Lady and the Saints in heaven, but of every Christian who has ever lived or ever will live. 'Brethren, pray for us' (I Thessalonians 5.25).

When we pray, and especially pray for one another, we are not displacing the unique mediation of Our Lord, but taking our place in it and exercising it as living members of Christ. Our Lord's Messianic Offices of Prophet, Priest, and King are communicated to us in Baptism and Confirmation, and we become in the order of grace 'kings and priests unto God and our Father.' We are bold to say 'Abba, Father,' 'Our Father who art in heaven.' Every baptised, chrismated, and Eucharistised Christian is a true and full partaker of Christ's divine sonship, and shares fully in His life, His ministry, His one and unique advocacy and mediation. We become true adopted children of the Father, sons in the One Son, filii in Filio. This filial life of Christ infused into us does not replace, but activates in our own sphere, His one eternal priesthood. 'Brethren, pray for us' (II Thessalonians 3.1).

This mystery of participation in the one priesthood of Christ is shared by the Church Militant, the Church Expectant, and the Church Triumphant. What Our Lady and the Saints do in their prayers before God is exactly what we do as well. When we ask the Saints for pray for us, it is precisely the same as when we ask our friends and neighbours, fellow Christians, to pray for us. Such advocation is at the heart of all intercessory prayer. To advocate the Saints is the same action in kind as to advocate one's spouse or sister - the principle is always exactly one and the same. The prayers of the Saints in heaven, the Holy Souls in the Intermediate State, and the faithful on earth are simply intercessory prayer - and as such please God, Who is pleased to have us pray this way as the supreme sign of our Communion with the Holy Trinity and with one another. The Church is nothing less than the very communion and mutual life of the Blessed Trinity, into which we are invited by grace. The request for such prayers from one to another, even across the veil of time and space, serves to be the very basis of the Communion of Saints, the Communion of Holy People and Holy Things. 'Pray for us' (Hebrews 13.18).

We would not want to say, for example, that because Uncle Aubrey and Aunt Patty pray for us that somehow they are weakening Christ's High Priesthood or detracting from Christ because they pray for others in His Name. They are subjective or secondary intercessors in the one true Intercessor, relative advocates and mediators praying in and through the one absolute Mediator and Advocate. 'Cousin Bobby, pray for me.' 'Holy Mother of God, pray for us.' Both requests are identical in nature and in practice. We are commanded to pray for one another, and in so doing, the Church and her members are incorporated, and incorporate their prayers, into the Perfect Prayer of Our Lord to His Father, the eternal adoration and worship of the Son towards the Father in the Spirit. What applies to us in this regard applies also to the Saints in glory, for in no way do they differ from us, except that they have passed through death and judgement into the Age to Come. They remain forever one with us in prayer before the Throne of Grace, the Throne of God and of the Lamb which was slain from the foundation of the world. O ye Spirits and Souls of the Righteous, bless ye the Lord: * praise him, and magnify him for ever.

1. Common humanity. The Holy Ghost has been present in creation since He established it and has always abided in the imminent creation, sanctifying, controlling, and ordering it. The Holy Ghost operates in His grace in the creation of every human being and endows every human being with his human soul, making each man the Image and Likeness of God. He, with the Father and the only-begotten Son/Logos/Word, continually loves, creates, governs, sustains, and gives life to the universe, including all living things, and especially human beings. God the Holy Ghost is the Person, source, and power Who gives life to all things, to all men: He is the 'Lord and Giver of Life' as the Creed declares. It is the Holy Spirit Who infuses divine aspirations, guidance, and knowledge into the minds and hearts of all men and Who leads all men to seek the true and living God. God the Holy Spirit has conferred all divine revelation in the history of the world and particularly to the covenant people of Israel, has inspired all of the Old Testament covenants, prophets, and writings, and has led and still leads the heathen to contemplate the truth about God. The Holy Ghost indwells all human beings only in the above sense, as Creator Spirit, as Life-Giver, as Wisdom - we call this ministry and operation of the Holy Ghost prevenient grace, 'grace that goes before.' The Holy Ghost leads and guides into all truth - He functions in common humanity to persuade men to enter into the Life of Jesus Christ.

2. The Church. The Holy Ghost indwells the crucified and risen Body of Christ, the Church, in a unique and supreme way: Christians possess the Holy Ghost in the fullness of His Person, in the fullness of His sevenfold Gift, in a way different from the common mass of humanity. The Spirit raised Jesus Christ from the dead, and the Spirit emanates from the risen and glorified Body of Jesus. It is only through the risen Body of Christ that the Holy Ghost infuses His full life, gifts, virtue, and power into the members of that Body, the new and renewed humanity, the new human race, the New Creation, which is the Church. The Holy Ghost is given for the remission of sins and regeneration, the New Life in Christ, in Holy Baptism; the Holy Ghost is given for strengthening and spiritual perfection in Holy Confirmation; the Holy Ghost is outpoured upon and within the Holy Gifts and upon and within us in the Holy Eucharist, changing the bread and wine into the True Body and Blood of Christ and us into the mystical Body. The Spirit is communicated sacramentally to those who are grafted into Christ. The Church is now the unique Home and Sphere of the Holy Ghost and of all grace. Whereas common humanity continues to receive the Holy Ghost for prevenient grace, the living members of the Body of Christ now receive the Holy Ghost in His fullness as sanctifying grace - grace to make us one with the Holy Trinity and to divinise us by entering us into the life of God - theosis - God-likeness, mutual indwelling, perichoresis, coinherence. Sanctifying grace, salvation, the Holy Ghost as Sanctifier, is received exclusively in the Church. Extra ecclesiam non salus est. The Spirit dwells in us only because we are members of that Body of Christ in Whom the Spirit dwells. 'In the One Body we are all made to drink of One Spirit.'

The indwelling of the Holy Ghost is complete and entire only within the Church, which is His Temple and dwelling-place, the Visible Sign and Sacrament of the Spirit. Wherever the Church is, there in covenant and promise is the Holy Spirit. Now uniquely, through the Church, the Holy Ghost sanctifies and consecrates the whole creation, and draws all men to saving communion with Jesus Christ in His mystical Body. What the Spirit does even now through the Church will finally enter into its fulfillment on the Last Day, wherein Christ completes the redemption of the universe and the Kingdom of God is fully realised. The Spirit is in the Church as the 'down payment' for the final glorification of the cosmos in Christ. 'The Spirit is in the Church and the Church is in the Spirit.' 'The Church is the place where the Spirit flourishes.' The Church is the Spirit-possessed Body of Christ. (Saint Irenaeus of Lyons). In fidelity to the ancient Tradition of the Church, we can only say where this Church, this communio sanctorum, is: we cannot say with certitude where it is not. We know for certain that the Church is found in those communions which bear the Four Notes of the Church, unity, holiness, apostolicity, and catholicity, and the Four Essentials of the New Testament Church, the canonical Holy Scriptures, the Three Great Creeds, the Seven Sacraments, and the Apostolic Succession of Faith and Order.

In summary, the Holy Ghost creates, loves, and sustains all human beings but only indwells in a salvific way those who are united to Christ in Holy Baptism, and are thus members of His mystical Body, and who seek to cooperate with Him for sanctification and salvation. Universalism, or the salvation of the whole of mankind without reference to one's moral state, sometimes described as apocatastasis, is a heresy. Not everyone will be saved because not everyone will desire to be saved. We may rightly hope and pray for the salvation of all, but some men will inevitably and finally refuse the grace of salvation - as we are informed in Scripture.

From The American Conservative:

 America’s youth are leaving churches in droves. One in four young adults choose “unaffiliated” when asked about their religion, according to a 2012 Public Religion Research Institute poll, and 55 percent of those unaffiliated youth once had a religious identification when they were younger. Yet amidst this exodus, some church leaders have identified another movement as cause for hope: rather than abandoning Christianity, some young people are joining more traditional, liturgical denominations—notably the Roman Catholic, Anglican, and Orthodox branches of the faith. This trend is deeper than denominational waffling: it’s a search for meaning that goes to the heart of our postmodern age.

For Bart Gingerich, a fellow with the Institute on Religion and Democracy and a student at Reformed Episcopal Seminary, becoming Anglican was an intellectual journey steeped in the thought of ancient church fathers. He spent the first 15 years of his life in the United Methodist Church, where he felt he was taught a “Precious Moments” version of Christianity: watered down, polite, and unreal. His family joined a nondenominational evangelical church when Gingerich was 16. Some of the youth he met were serious about their faith, but others were apathetic, and many ended up leaving the church later on.

While attending Patrick Henry College in Virginia, Gingerich joined a reformed Baptist church in the nearby town of Guilford. Gingerich read St. Augustine and connected strongly with his thought—in class from Monday to Friday, Gingerich found himself arguing for ideas that clashed with his method of worship on Sunday. Protestantism began troubling him on a philosophical level. Could he really believe that the church “didn’t start getting it right” till the Reformation?

The final straw came when a chapel speaker at the college explained the beauty of the Eucharist in the Anglican service. Gingerich knew this was what he was looking for. Soon after, he joined the Anglican Church.

For high-school English teacher Jesse Cone, joining the Orthodox Church fulfilled a deep yearning for community and sacramental reality. Cone grew up in the Presbyterian Church of America, heavily involved in youth group and church activities. While attending Biola University, an evangelical school in southern California, Cone returned home over the summers to help lead youth-group activities. He was hired as a youth pastor and “even preached a sermon.” But at Biola, Cone struggled to find a home church. There were many megachurches in the area that didn’t have the “organic, everyday substance” Cone was seeking.

He began attending an Anglican service, drawn to its traditional doctrine. He was a “perpetual visitor” over the next few years. A Bible study on the Gospel of John pushed him further towards the high church. Reading through the book with a group of friends, Cone began to notice the “conversational and sacramental” way Jesus related to people. “There’s a lot of bread, and wine, and water,” he says. From Jesus’s first miracle—turning water into wine—to telling his disciples “I am the True Vine,” the mundane, communal ways in which in which Jesus connected with people “confirmed in me a sense of sacramentalism—that everyday aspects of life are important, in a way the modern mindset doesn’t share,” Cone says. “I started looking at the world with more sacramental eyes.”

Cone became engaged to a woman who was also raised Presbyterian. In the weeks leading up to their marriage, they sought a church together, but none seemed to fit. Fundamental questions lingering in Cone’s mind—about church history, the importance of doctrine and dogma, what it means to live a full Christian life—came to a head. He told his wife, “I don’t think I’m comfortable being Orthodox, but I want to at least see one of their services, see what it’s like out there.” The next Sunday, they decided to attend an Orthodox Church with another young couple. By the end of the service, Cone says, “We were just blown away. Just blown away.” The worship, doctrine, and tradition were exactly what they had been looking for. “We were shell-shocked. And we haven’t stopped going since.”

For CreedCodeCult.com blogger Jason Stellman, joining the Catholic Church was an act of religious and intellectual honesty. Brought up in a Baptist church, Stellman became a missionary in Europe for Calvary Chapel after college. When he began studying and accepting Calvinistic theology, he was dismissed from Calvary’s ministry and moved back to the U.S. He joined the Presbyterian Church of America and enrolled in Westminster Seminary in 2000. He and his wife helped start a Presbyterian Church in Southern California some time later.

In 2008, Stellman was introduced to serious arguments for the Catholic faith.  He studied scriptural passages on church authority, the early church fathers, and St. Augustine’s writings on justification. The more Stellman read, the more he was drawn to the Catholic Church. While in Europe, he had attended mass at a cathedral in Brussels and discovered it possessed a liturgical beauty he hadn’t encountered before. Last year, he announced to his church that he was leaving to become Catholic.

Leaving one church for another is not easy. For Gingerich and Cone, the decision was difficult on a family and community level. Many in their old churches expressed confusion and hurt, and some asked rather ignorant, if well-intentioned, questions: “Do you worship Mary?” or “Do you still believe in Jesus?” There began a process of rebuilding trust that continues to this day. Stellman had to tell his church—a church he planted and ministered, and which his family still attends—that he could no longer serve as their pastor.

Yet all three say the high church has presented them with a sense of community they would not have experienced otherwise. For Gingerich, the seasons of feasting and fasting taught him to suffer and celebrate with the church in a way he had never experienced. “I was re-taught compassion,” he says. Cone’s Orthodox family now stretches from coast to coast and has supported him and his wife as they raise their three children. Their priest drives an hour to their house for confession, knowing how difficult it is for them to make the drive. “He leaves the 99 to get the one,” Cone says.

Many Protestant churches have noticed these congregational trends and their loss of numbers. Some are adopting a more liturgical style to draw in younger audiences: the new book Gathering Together, by Christian theology professor Steve Harmon, describes a Baptist denominational move towards a greater liturgical focus. “It represents an increasingly widespread Baptist recognition that our tradition by itself is not sufficient,” Harmon told ABP News.

Gingerich argues that such stylistic treatments dodge the real question: the issues of church authority behind the traditional liturgy. Cone says he sees “a sincere expression of gratitude and study” from his Protestant friends. But, he adds, “When I look at a Protestant service, it lacks the mystery and power of the body of Christ. … The whole life of the church, the prayers of the desert fathers, the blood of the martyrs, is more intimately connected in the Orthodox life than a mere stylistic change that a Protestant church can do.”

Yet Lee Nelson, Co-Chair of the Catechesis Taskforce of the Anglican Church of North America, is hopeful that if evangelical churches begin adopting elements of liturgical worship, some of the Christianity’s larger schisms might dissipate. One must wonder, he admits: are churches becoming liturgical because it’s cool or because it’s right? But when a church’s intention is truly worship-motivated, Nelson thinks such changes can lead “closer and closer to Christian unity, and that’s the best part.”

Nelson believes a sacramental hunger lies at the heart of what many millennials feel. “We are highly wired to be experiential,” he says. In the midst of our consumer culture, young people “ache for sacramentality.”

“If you ask me why kids are going high church, I’d say it’s because the single greatest threat to our generation and to young people nowadays is the deprivation of meaning in our lives,” Cone says. “In the liturgical space, everything becomes meaningful. In the offering up of the bread and wine, we see the offering up of the wheat and grain and fruits of the earth, and God gives them back in a sanctified form. … We’re so thirsty for meaning that goes deeper, that can speak to our entire lives, hearts, and wallets, that we’re really thirsty to be attached to the earth and to each other and to God. The liturgy is a historical way in which that happens.”

The millennial generation is seeking a holistic, honest, yet mysterious truth that their current churches cannot provide. Where they search will have large implications for the future of Christianity. Protestant churches that want to preserve their youth membership may have to develop a greater openness toward the treasures of the past. One thing seems certain: this “sacramental yearning” will not go away.

Gracy Olmstead is associate editor of The American Conservative.

'There is no need to intend what the Roman Church does; but what the true Church does, whatever that True Church is. Or what Christ instituted. Or what Christians do. Because these all amount to the same thing. You ask: What if someone intends to do what some particular and false church does, which he himself believes to be the true one - for example, the church of Geneva; and intends not to do what the Roman Church does? I answer, even that suffices. Because the man who intends to do what the church of Geneva does, intends to do what the universal Church does. For he intends to do what such-and-such a church does, because he believes it to be a member of the true Universal Church, granted that he is mistaken in recognising the True Church. For the error of the minister about the Church does not take away the efficacy of the Sacrament. Only defect of intention does that.'

- Saint Robert Bellarmine, de Sacramentis in genere chapter 27 paragraph 8.

This excellent new translation of Saint Bellarmine's classic exposition explains clearly why necessary intention in regard to the sacraments is very simple and easy to fulfil. Necessary sacramental intention means intending to 'do what the Church does' in a general sense, faciendi, quod facit Ecclesia, that is, to do what Christians do, or to do what Our Lord commands in the New Testament. One need not intend to do what the Church intends, but only intend to do what the Church (however that word is understood) does. Those who baptise must intend to baptise, those who celebrate the Eucharist must intend to celebrate the Eucharist, those who ordain must intend to ordain. No more. That's it. Period. Nothing could be simpler.

Saint Bellarmine also writes: 'The Council of Trent does not mention the purpose of the sacrament or say that the minister ought to intend to do what the Church intends but what the Church does. Moreover, what the Church does refers to the action, not the purpose. There is required the intention with regard to the action, not in so far as it is a natural action, but in so far as it is a sacred action or ceremony, which Christ instituted or Christians practise. If one intends to perform the ceremony which the Church performs, that is enough.'

Father Edward Yarnold affirms, 'A wrong understanding of the nature of a sacrament does not invalidate the sacrament... All that is necessary is 'the implicit intention of doing what the Church does without reference to the sacrament's effect, as if the minister were to say to himself: "I intend to perform the Christian rite of (say) baptism," and is therefore de facto doing what the Church does without attending to the fact... The traditional intention of doing what the Church does is apparently taken as synonymous with the intention of doing what Christ instituted (quod voluit Christus)... To sum up. There can be no doubt that Bellarmine held to the necessity of intending to do what the Church does only in the sense defined above: namely, that the minister is intending to perform a rite as practised by what he takes to be the Church. To deny the purpose of the sacrament does not extinguish this intention; nor even does the intention not to produce an effect intended by the Church.'

On the basis of this received teaching, the traditional theological position of the Western Church, sacraments are valid even if they are administered in heresy or in schism or outside the visible canonical boundaries of the Church, if they are administered by ministers with a false understanding of the very sacrament being administered, if they are received by a subject who holds a false understanding of the sacrament being administered, or if they are given or received by persons holding a false ecclesiology - so long as the proper matter (material thing or action) and form (words) necessary for the sacrament are used.

The rite used itself determines the necessary intention for validity. It is the objective action that matters; what one subjectively thinks about it does not affect validity. In the objective action, Our Lord is always infallibly the true minister of the sacrament. When the basic rite is observed, the outward and visible signs used as He commands, Our Blessed Lord promises that He will give His grace, which promise is the covenant of the sacramental system. The human minister is but an instrument, an agent; Christ is the actual minister, the one who truly celebrates and confers grace.

This quintessential theological instruction means, for example, that all sectarian Baptism given outside the visible Catholic Apostolic Church is valid so long as it is Trinitarian in form and administered with water - and is thus Christ's and the Church's one Baptism. It means that the Eucharist and Holy Orders celebrated by individual ministers or ecclesial bodies holding heterodox views on these very sacraments themselves are always valid, so long as the necessary matter and form are used in the celebration of the Eucharist and Holy Orders and the unbroken succession of Orders with necessary matter and form is conferred upon the celebrant in each and every instance.

A validly ordained priest always validly celebrates the Eucharist regardless of his own beliefs or views on the Church or the sacrament, so long as he employs the Words of Institution from Our Lord and real wheaten bread and fermented grape wine in the consecration. A validly consecrated bishop always validly ordains regardless of his own beliefs or views on the Church or the sacrament, so long as he employs a rite for ordination that contains both the laying on of hands on the male baptised candidate and prayer for the grace of the Order being conferred. In both cases, this is all that the New Testament and the universal Tradition require.

Saint Bellarmine therefore also completely eviscerates the erroneous assertions of Pope Leo XIII in 1896 regarding Anglican Orders.

1537: King Edward VI is born, the son of Henry VIII and Jane Seymour.

1547: Henry dies; Edward ascends the English Throne.

1547: The Privy Council, and Somerset and the Duke of Northumberland take control of the nation and impose Calvinist doctrine on the Church of England; they establish an Erastian civil and ecclesiastical government.

The Book of Homilies and the Injunctions of Thomas Cranmer are published – they condemn many ancient, traditional practices and doctrines, including use of pictures and statues, and forbid candles except for two before the Blessed Sacrament in the church building.

The Great Bible of 1535 and the biblical paraphrase of Erasmus are required to be placed in every parish church.

The Epistle and Gospel must be sung in English during High Masses.

1547:  The Acts of Parliament –

Legal penalties are imposed on those who speak irreverently of the Blessed Sacrament.

Holy Communion must be given in both kinds.

The royal nomination of bishops is eliminated – letters patent are used instead.

The Lollard heresy laws are repealed – the followers of John Wycliffe are permitted openly to profess their religious beliefs, which are: personal faith alone justifies for salvation, divine election and predestination, sola Scriptura, individual interpretation of the Bible alone suffices for the explication of Scripture, a denial of the Real Presence, the priesthood, and the hierarchy, and a belief that the validity of sacraments depends on the personal holiness or worthiness of the minister (Donatism).

The Six Articles of Henry VIII are repealed.

1548:  The Proclamations of the Privy Council  –

A number of ceremonies are banned, including ashes, palms, holy water, processions.

All sacred images are abolished.

The Order of Communion in English (1548) is required to be used at Mass: at this time the Mass is still celebrated in Latin according to the Sarum Use. The Order is the first Eucharistic rite in English during the English Reformation.

Holy Communion in both kinds is reinforced.

Clerical Marriage is recognized by law.

1549: The Act of Uniformity
The First Book of Common Prayer is created and imposed by penal legislation. The entire reformed liturgical rite of the Church of England is promulgated in the vernacular in one book, a first in English history.

1550: The Anglican Ordinal is created and imposed by penal legislation. It perpetuates the Three Sacred Orders of the Apostolic Ministry, Bishops, Priests and Deacons. (This rite is condemned as sacramentally invalid by the Roman Pope Leo XIII in 1896, but recognized as valid by the Patriarch of Constantinople in 1922).

1550: The destruction of stone altars and their substitution with wooden altars is enforced by Bishop Ridley of London.

1552: A second, more Calvinist edition of the Book of Common Prayer is imposed without parliamentary or Convocation approval.

1553: The Forty-Two Articles are imposed on Church of England, along with a new Catechism and Primer of a decidedly reformed protestant orientation.

A royal mandate requires all clergy, schoolmasters and university members upon taking degrees to subscribe to the XLII Articles. They are written by Thomas Cranmer, but never receive the consent of Convocation and are never enforced by law.

The Forty-Two Articles of 1553 have four additional articles of an eschatological nature, namely on the resurrection of the dead, on the condition of the souls of the departed, on the millenarian heresy, and on eternal damnation of the wicked. All four were dropped at the revision of 1563 which produced the Thirty-Eight Articles. The addition of article XXIX on the manducatio impiorum achieved the final number of the XXXIX Articles of the Church of England. In 1563, Convocation met under Archbishop Matthew Parker to revise the Articles. Convocation passed only 39 of the 42, and Queen Elizabeth I reduced the number to 38 by throwing out Article XXIX. In 1571, the 29th Article, despite the opposition of Bishop Edmund Guest, author of Article XXVIII, was inserted. The language of Article XXIX is based on the writings of Saint Augustine.

1553: King Edward dies - bringing his Reformation, the most radical phase of the English Reformation, to an end.

In the 1928 American Prayer Book Eucharist, the Prayer for the Whole State of Christ's Church contains this phrase of intercession for the Dead, which petition is absolutely unique to the revised American liturgy: 'And we also bless thy holy Name for all thy servants departed this life in thy faith and fear; beseeching thee to grant them continual growth in thy love and service, and to give us grace so to follow their good examples, that with them we may be partakers of thy heavenly kingdom.'

From whence does this unique prayer for the Holy Souls come?

The answer: Saint Gregory of Nyssa teaches we shall eternally grow and develop into the life of God in the land of light and joy in the fellowship of the Saints, as we go from strength to strength and glory to glory, for God is infinite and we are finite beings graced to enter into communion with an infinite Communion of Persons.

Prayers for the faithful departed were reintroduced into the American Liturgy in the 1928 edition and all possess this characteristic reference to the doctrine of Saint Gregory, that souls in Christ may continue to grow in God's love and service in Paradise. These prayers all view the state of the soul, and the life of service, in the realm of the Intermediate State as one of growth and increase in the love and knowledge of God (Prayer Book pages 42, 74-75, 268, 332, 334, 598).

For Saint Gregory, the soul divinised by grace will never cease to grow in love and service, will never cease to seek to conform itself to the infinite God, Who is love.

Saint Gregory instructs us that in the life of the world to come, the soul in Jesus Christ seeks to be entirely conformed to the divine nature, which is love. Love will alone remain as the soul's truest desire and orientation. The soul wishes to attach itself to the highest reality, the Good, to God, Who alone is the One and Only truly to be desired and loved. Being the image of God, the soul attaches itself to God by the attraction and action of love. It wills to be conformed to the One who is forever sought and acquired. The soul continually becomes the image and likeness of the God in Whom it participates and lives in communion. For all eternity, we shall love God and be caught up into the God who loves us.

The Nature of God eternally lives, thrives, and operates as love, being love, without limit. The Holy Trinity is infinite, limitless love Himself, and therefore, for all eternity the souls of the faithful will experience a limitless ascent to God, a never-ending growth into God's love.

So when the soul which has become simple and uniform and an accurate image of God finds that truly simple and immaterial good, the one thing which is really lovable and desirable, it attaches itself to it and combines with it through the impulse and operation of love. It conforms itself to that which is always being grasped and found, and becomes through its likeness to the good that which the nature is in which it participates (On the Soul and the Resurrection).

This truly is the vision of God: never to be satisfied in the desire to see him. But one must always, by looking at what he can see, rekindle his desire to see more. Thus, no limit would interrupt the growth in the ascent to God, since no limit to the Good can be found nor is the increasing of the desire for the Good brought to an end because it is satisfied (The Life of Moses).

Saint Charles Stuart I (1600-1649) was King of Great Britain and Ireland from 1625. On his accession to the throne, King Charles found a considerable party amongst the clergy disposed to abandon the Calvinistic views which had been predominant in the previous century and to welcome a theological position much near to traditional Catholicism. The King, who personally favoured the new movement, took decisive steps to silence religious controversy, meanwhile promoting Anglo-Catholics, or High Churchmen, to important positions. In 1633, he gave the See of Canterbury to Blessed William Laud, the leader of the catholic Anglican movement. Archbishop Laud’s vigorous policy in enforcing a fixed standard of liturgical ceremonial, including Altar rails, Altar lights, bowing to the Altar and Cross, the Eastward position at the Mass, and the restoration of true Altars and sanctuaries, and repressing Calvinism, earned him wide unpopularity, while the King, whose administrative, financial, and foreign policy had been as distarous as it had been well-intentioned, suffered with him. The fact that the Kings’ wife, Henrietta Maria, was a Roman Catholic added to the difficulties, since Saint Charles, torn between her demands for complete toleration for her Roman co-religionists and the violent anti-popery of the mass of his subjects, unsuccessfully compromised. The only result of this policy of compromise was popular indignation at the difference between the half-hearted enforcement of the recusancy laws against Roman Catholics and the rigour with which the Star Chamber, under Archbishop Laud’s direction, passed sentence on Puritans, even though such sentences were lenient in comparison with those which Romanists and Puritans alike has suffered under Elizabeth I.

Saint Charles’ Scottish policy was equally unfortunate. In Scotland the earlier agitation against Episcopacy had died down, but between his coronation in 1633 at Edinburgh and the revolt against the Book of Common Prayer in 1637, King Charles, himself a Scot and son of King James VI of Scotland, enflamed the situation. His coronation was carried out with the fullest Anglican ceremonial; he absolutely insisted that Scotland should adopt the English or a similar Scottish Book of Common Prayer, and should conform to the Laudian liturgical usages in all externals. He insisted on a uniform Anglican Catholicism for both the Church of England and the Church of Scotland. His goal was to make both the English and Scottish Churches Catholic, united in the fullness of Catholic faith and order under the authority of King and Bishops. The King, most dangerously, insisted that the government and policy of the Church of Scotland were to be dependent upon the See of Canterbury or upon Scottish Bishops controlled by the King and the Archbishop. The result of this unbending policy was the National Covenant of 1638, which forever plunged Scotland into Presbyterianism and Calvinism. Saint Charles’ policy backfired.

The Civil War, which broke in England in 1642, was only in part caused by the ecclesiastical situation, but the defeat of the King in 1645 meant the disestablishment of the Church of England and the loss of the Prayer Book and the Apostolic Ministry, and the establishment of Presbyterianism in their place. The failure of Saint Charles to negotiate successfully with his enemies in the following years is in part evidence that he was not trusted, but it was due even more to the fact that his principles refused to let him consent to the loss of the Episcopate in order to conciliate the goodwill of the Scots and the wealthy English laity. He was unwilling to sacrifice the Apostolic Ministry of Bishops, Priests, and Deacons in order to save his own life – he could have done so and preserved himself, but he did not. For this reason, he is venerated as the Royal Martyr of the Anglican Church, whose death secured the preservation of Apostolic Succession. Because Saint Charles died as a Martyr for the sake of Apostolic Order, the Anglican Church is branch of the Holy Catholic Church, and not a sect.

In the words of Father Vernon Staley: ‘It is sufficient to say, in conclusion, that humanly speaking, the very existence of the Church of England as an integral part of the Catholic Church, is due to King Charles I. It is true of him that "he that will save others, himself he cannot save." By consenting to regard Episcopacy as merely a useful institution, and not an institution essential to the Church's very being, and by suffering the Presbyterian theory of Church's ministry to be established in the land, King Charles the Martyr might have saved his life. Had King Charles yielded upon this point, the Church would have been destroyed. To forget the Royal Martyr on this day of his supreme sacrifice, is to be guilty of utter ingratitude.’

"True son of our dear Mother, early taught

With her to worship, and for her to die,

Nurs'd in her aisles to more than kingly thought,

Oft in her solemn hours we dream thee nigh.

"And yearly now, before the Martyr's King,

For thee she offers her maternal tears,

Calls us, like thee, to His dear feet to cling,

And bury in his wounds our earthly fears."

--Blessed John Keble, The Christian Year

Saint Charles’ murder, an illegal action carried through by fanatical army leaders, has been justly considered a martyrdom, since in the end it was conditioned only by his resolution to defend the Church and to save the Catholic Priesthood and the Prayer Book liturgy. His personal character, though marred by indecision, imprudence, and, at times, confusion, was, in his private life, of the highest moral purity and beauty, and in his public position, of such religious principle and personal responsibility which appeared to full effect in the dignity of his last days.

On the day of his death the Eikon Basilike, a hagiographical memoir was published as the dead King was acclaimed widely as a Martyr. From 1662 to 1859 a special service for 30th January, the day of his martyrdom, was annexed to the Book of Common Prayer by Royal Mandate – it ordered an annual day of national fasting. Saint Charles, King and Martyr, is still commemorated on 30th January in the Anglican liturgical Kalendar. At least five Church of England parishes have been dedicated to him and many others are dedicated to him throughout the Anglican Communion; numerous shrines to him exist throughout the Anglican world.

Remember! Saint Charles, pray for us!

For Anglicans in the United States, the month of November provides a commemoration of unique importance which reinforces what we celebrate on All Saints' Day and All Souls' Day, the great celebrations of the Church Triumphant in Heaven and the Church Expectant in Paradise. During this time, we remember our link with the historic Catholic Church of the ages and the Communion of Saints, and our Apostolic lineage in Holy Order and orthodox worship, forged by the consecration of Bishop Samuel Seabury. On 14th November 1784, the Church in the USA received its first bishop from the Non-Juring Scottish Church, at that time the small persecuted remnant of faithful Anglicans in Scotland. Bishop Seabury was consecrated for the American Church as Bishop of Connecticut by Bishops Robert Kilgour, Bishop of Aberdeen and Primus of Scotland, Arthur Petrie, Bishop of Ross and Moray, and John Skinner, Coadjutor of Aberdeen, in Longacre near what is today Saint Andrew's Cathedral, Aberdeen.

Bishop Seabury also introduced the Scottish Eucharistic Liturgy into the American version of the Book of Common Prayer. The Scottish Mass developed along the lines of the 1549 English Mass, with a renewed emphasis on the Real Objective Presence, the Eucharistic Sacrifice, and the role of the Holy Ghost in the Eucharistic Consecration, in iterations of 1637, 1718, and 1764, ultimately incorporated into the 1789 American Prayer Book. Hence, the Apostolic Succession of the American Church and her Liturgy are splendidly Scottish in origin!

To this very day, the Continuing Church in America uninterruptedly maintains the episcopal succession received from Bishop Seabury and the Eucharistic Rite of the Scottish Church now enshrined the 1928 Prayer Book. Let us render unto Almighty God our thanks and praise for the inestimable gifts provided for our Church in His mercy and providence.

A wonderful meditation from the Anglican Breviary...

The English Colonists who settled in Virginia brought with them priests to minister in the new land, and from this beginning the ministrations of the Anglican Church spread somewhat throughout all the original thirteen colonies. But the Revolutionary War drove many of the faithful and their priests from the said Colonies, and caused the Church to be hated because of its connection with the English Crown, and its buildings and estates to be confiscated or stolen. In which time of need there was no bishop to shepherd the scattered flock, because no diocesan organisation had been set up in the new land; and the bestowal of the episcopate thereto seemed more unlikely than ever before, since it involved an oath of allegiance to the British Crown which no American could take.

But, lest the Church become extinct through loss of Catholic order, in Connecticut ten priests, out of the fourteen who still remained after the war, gathered secretly at Woodbury on Lady Day 1783, and took counsel as to the election and consecration of a bishop. Which same, they determined, must needs be not only a man of godliness and learning, but ready to suffer humiliations in England and persecutions on his return home. And the choice fell on Samuel Seabury, priest of the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel, and a man of strong conviction as to Catholic order.

Some sixty years before this, namely, in 1722, the Puritan Colony of Connecticut had been unbelievably stirred up by an event of great import. For it was then that the Rector of Yale College, the chief seat of learning in that Colony, and other Puritan ministers, in the presence of George Pigot, priest of the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel, whose presence had been procured to represent the Church, did publicly, according to the latter's report to his superiors of that venerable Society, declare themselves in this wise, namely, that they no longer could keep out of the Communion of the Catholic Church. These men, after they had been ordained Anglican priests in England, returned to foster the Church in New England, and their self-sacrifice and courage was blessed with many converts.

Of these was one Samuel Seabury, father of the aforesaid Samuel Seabury who was elected in 1783, by priests brought up in this great tradition, to be the first bishop of the American Church. The same, when he finally arrived in England, found many difficulties. For one thing, an Act of Parliament was required to dispense with the oath to the Crown; but at last, after twelve months of waiting, there was introduced into Parliament an Act to empower the Archbishops of Canterbury and York to consecrate as bishops persons being subjects or citizens of countries out of his Majesty's Dominions. Later, when this act was finally passed, it led to the extension of the English Church throughout the world.

Meanwhile the poverty of resources, and the prospect of interminable delay, moved the Bishop-Elect of Connecticut to seek consecration at the hands of the Catholic remainder of the Church of Scotland (as certain of the faithful there called themselves), for this course had been previously agreed upon in case his consecration was blocked in England. In Aberdeen, therefore, on November 14th 1784, he was consecrated by the Primus, Robert Kilgour, Bishop of Aberdeen, assisted by two other bishops, in the sight alone, as they said, of those known to be supporters of the old and persecuted Faith. With them he signed a Concordat, the tenor of which was: that they would maintain the Common Faith once delivered to the Saints, and they believed the Church to be the Mystical Body of Christ; and that they held the Eucharist to be the principal Bond of Union among Christians, as well as the most solemn Act of Worship, for which reason there should be as little variance in this matter as possible.

And hence the newly consecrated bishop was asked to endeavour to have the Rite of the Scottish Church used as the basis of the new American liturgy. On his return to America he suffered many trials, but from his example the clergy of the Middle and Southern States took courage, and in 1786 sent two of their number, William White, Bishop-Elect of Pennsylvania, and Samuel Provoost, Bishop-Elect of New York, to be consecrated under the new Act of Parliament. In the Convention of 1789, Bishop Seabury united with them to authorise the general ecclesiastical constitution of the American Church; and after the Archbishop of Canterbury had consecrated a third bishop, James Madison of Virginia, he joined with these three other bishops in the consecration of John Claggett as Bishop of Maryland. Thus by the bestowal of the episcopate on Samuel Seabury was finally founded the Church in the United States of America.
God bless you!

The Bishops of the Anglican Joint Synods Churches released the following statement on the matter of abortion. 

In 1973 the Supreme Court paved the way for legalized abortion in the United States in a landmark decision known as Roe v. Wade.  Four years later, The Affirmation of Saint Louis laid out the following in response: “every human being, from the time of his conception, is a creature and child of God, made in His image and likeness, an infinitely precious soul; and…the unjustifiable or inexcusable taking of life is always sinful.”  For over forty years the bishops of the Joint Anglican Synods (commonly known as the G-4) have upheld this teaching, and proclaimed that protection of the unborn is a fundamental principle of catholic moral law.  Though we generally refrain from engaging in politics, recent events in New York and Virginia compel us to reaffirm this teaching and to speak out against continued attempts by certain elected leaders to advance what has aptly been termed the “culture of death.”  

On January 22nd of this year, the New York State Legislature passed the Reproductive Health Act, a statute that expands the state’s already liberal abortion policies by allowing the termination of pregnancy up until the moment of birth; permitting physician assistants, nurse practitioners, and licensed midwives to perform abortions; and removing penalties for performing an abortion from the state’s penal code.  Not only does this legislation allow for the killing of a viable human child, it runs the risk of exposing women to higher-risk medical procedures and removes protections against domestic abuse.  Already a New York prosecutor has dropped felony abortion charges against a man who murdered his girlfriend and their unborn child.  

In Virginia, where similar legislation has been proposed, the current governor has made statements that appear to endorse the notion that babies who survive late-term abortions could be left to die.  Such sentiments reveal how far removed the pro-abortion movement is from the values expressed in a document penned by another governor of Virginia, one which asserts that all humans are “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,” and “that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.” A society founded on these principles cannot support legalized abortion.  If the right to life is unalienable, it belongs to the individual alone, and cannot unjustly be taken away. Moreover, the right to life possesses a logical priority in that all other rights flow from the individual’s status as a living being.  Curtailing the right to life undermines the principles of natural law and threatens the very fabric of our democracy.

We, the bishops of the St. Louis Continuum, therefore call upon all Christians and people of goodwill to join us in resisting the expansion of abortion in the United States, and working to roll back the laws that permit it in the first place. Our role, however, is not to craft legislation, but to bring the world to Christ, a process that begins in prayer.  We therefore ask our clergy and laity to pray for those who support the practice of abortion, asking God that their hearts may be changed.  Pray for the women who are struggling with the decision to keep a child, particularly those who are under outside pressure to end a pregnancy.  And, as always, pray for the unborn children at risk, that they might come to know the blessings of this life.  We also call upon our people to support organizations that promote adoption, minister to women in crisis, and assist families in need.  We encourage them to give to these organizations the gifts of talent, treasure, and especially time, that through making personal connections with those involved, we may witness to the goodness and mercy of Christ.  

We ask all of this with the fervent prayer that every life may be cherished and every person may be recognized as a child of God.

The Affirmation of Saint Louis (1977) is the foundational document of the Continuing Church.  The Affirmation distinguishes the Continuing Churches from earlier Anglican bodies, such as the Episcopal Church prior to 1976, which were vaguer and deliberately more ‘comprehensive’ in their doctrine and moral teaching than are the Continuing Churches.  The Affirmation also distinguishes the Continuing Churches from neo-Anglican bodies (such as the Anglican Church of North America, ACNA) and from modernist Anglican bodies (such as the Episcopal Church after 1976).  The Affirmation is the foundation of and is embraced by the 2017 agreement of the so-called G-4 Churches (Anglican Church in America, Anglican Catholic Church, Anglican Province of America, and Diocese of the Holy Cross) to establish full communion (communio in sacris) amongst themselves.

The Affirmation states its doctrinal catholicity in a form more detailed than in earlier Anglican formularies.  It then asserts that ‘In affirming these principles, we recognize that all Anglican statements of faith and liturgical formulae must be interpreted in accordance with them.’  That is to say, the Affirmation establishes itself as an interpretative lens for viewing, and as an hermeneutical principle for understanding, ‘all Anglican statements of faith and liturgical formulae’.

The relationship between the Affirmation and these earlier statements and formulae might usefully be understood as analogous to the relationship between the Nicene and Apostles’ Creeds.  The Nicene Creed is later and fuller than the Apostles’ Creed.  The Nicene Creed deals with questions and heresies that arose after the Apostles’ Creed.  The Nicene Creed does not invalidate the Apostles’ Creed, but it establishes a clarifying lens through which the Apostles’ Creed is read and interpreted.

‘Anglican statements of faith and liturgical formulae’ in this respect means peculiarly or uniquely Anglican statements and formulae.  Such Anglican statements and formulae are contrasted with universal or Catholic statements of faith, such as the Creeds, and universal liturgical formulae, including common forms such as the Gloria in excelsis, the Te Deum, and other Catholic and doctrinally-rich prayers and hymns.  Examples of Anglican liturgical formulae include most notably the historic Book of Common Prayer, in its various editions.  Anglican statements of faith include notably the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion and the Tudor Homilies.  The Affirmation, therefore, asserts that these particularly Anglican formularies are not the interpretative lens through which we view the wider, Catholic formularies of the Church.  Neither are peculiarly Anglican statements and formulae a kind of Occam’s razor to limit and circumscribe what may be concluded from those wider and more universal formularies.  The reverse is true:  the universal and Catholic limit and define the possible meanings of the peculiarly Anglican.

That is to say, the universal tradition of the Undivided Church of the first millennium is primary and limits and governs the reception and interpretation of peculiarly Anglican statements of faith and liturgical formulae.  Many Anglicans have always believed this to be the case.  The Affirmation explicitly and officially requires this.

EUCHARISTIC THEOLOGY, ARTICLE XXVIII, AND THE G-4

The G-4 Churches believe the Eucharistic faith of the Catholic Churches, which is substantially that of the undivided Church of the first millennium.  This faith is authoritative, and Anglican statements concerning the Eucharist must be understood in a manner consistent with the faith found in the central tradition of the great Churches of the East and West and in the consensus of the first millennium.  Ambiguities and questions left by reading Anglican formularies are, for the G-4, defined and settled by looking to the faith of the wider Church.

It is in the light of this starting point that we understand Article XXVIII of the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion.  Many Catholic readers of Article XXVIII are disturbed by its repudiation of transubstantiation and by its assertion that ‘The Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper was not by Christ’s ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshipped.’

Polish National Catholic participants in the inaugural session of the PNCC/G-4 dialogue, reflecting such concern, asked their G-4 interlocutors for a written clarification of our understanding of Article XXVIII.  We here offer the following clarifications.

First, Eucharistic adoration and Eucharistic reservation are present in the life of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches.  Such adoration and reservation, therefore, meet the criteria of the Vincentian canon and as such enjoy the approbation of the Affirmation, whatever any Anglican statement might appear to say to the contrary.

Secondly, the Articles must be interpreted in their historical context, which to some extent modifies their meaning and relativizes their authority.  ‘Transubstantiation’ in a mid-16th century document antedating the Council of Trent, such as Article XXVIII, does not and cannot refer to Tridentine or modern Roman Catholic understandings of Transubstantiation.  Much less does or can Article XXVIII refer to understandings of the Real Presence which use other terminology such as ‘transelementation’ or ‘transformation’ common in the Eastern Orthodox Churches and in other Catholic Churches.  In short, Article XXVIII must be understood as a condemnation of popular but common medieval Western theological opinions, of crassly materialistic Eucharistic theories, and of errors often repudiated and corrected also by subsequent Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox theologians.  Article XXVIII should not be understood, much less accepted, as repudiating the central Eucharistic belief of the universal Church.

Thirdly, the language of Article XXVIII when understood in a strictly literal fashion does not mean what casual readers often conclude.  It is perfectly true, as Article XXVIII says, that ‘the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper was not by Christ’s ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshipped.’  On the contrary, the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper was instituted by Christ to be received in Holy Communion.  Holy Communion is the main and root reason for the institution of the Sacrament of the Altar:  to feed God’s people with the Body and Blood of the Lord and to constitute them, in the Eucharistic celebration and through their communion therein, as the royal, priestly people of God.  It does not follow, and Article XXVIII does not say, that the Sacrament may not be reserved, to extend and make easier the communion of the sick.  Nor does it follow, nor does the Article say, that Eucharistic adoration is inappropriate and not a logical and godly extension of the facts of the objective and salvific Real Presence of Jesus Christ, God the Son, in and through his sacramental Body and Blood.  The Article speaks only of the first and main reason for the institution of the Sacrament, not of its full meaning.  Again, the Article condemns medieval abuses in the Church, when non-communicating Masses became the norm and secondary meanings of the Eucharist became effectively primary.

Fourthly, we recall the Catholic principle, Lex orandi statuit legem credendi:  the rule of praying establishes the rule of belief.  In all of the G-4 Churches, missals that include the Feast of Corpus Christi are in use and the Eucharistic hymns attributed to Saint Thomas Aquinas are sung.  In 2019 an Ordo Kalendar was produced jointly for all of the G-4 Churches that includes this Feast.  In all of the G-4 Churches, Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament is offered.  In all of the G-4 Churches, Eucharistic reservation is practiced.  In all of the G-4 Churches, honor and worship and adoration are offered to our Lord really present in the tabernacles of the churches.  The actual practice of all of the G-4 Churches provides a clear and practical statement of the actual Eucharistic faith and doctrine present in the G-4.  This faith is not just that of the G-4 clergy present in dialogue with the PNCC, but is also that of our layfolk and clergy and parishes.