Rehabilitating Pelagius: The Making of the West's Most Notorious "Heretic"

Rehabilitating Pelagius: The Making of the West's Most Notorious "Heretic"

That Augustine did indeed retain something of his former Manichee views of human nature seems a fair assessment on Pelagius's part. But rather than base his pessimistic views of human nature in the Manichee mythos that the physical universe was not created by God at all, but rather by evil forces, Augustine found in his new Christian faith an explanation that seemed to uphold the doctrine of God as Creator of all things while at the same time exonerating God from being the author of sin. This was, of course, the story of the Fall of Adam in the Book of Genesis, especially as interpreted by Paul in his letter to the Romans (chapter 5).

Read the rest of the article here.

The Meaning of "Liturgy"

The term "liturgy" means different things depending on context. Considered as a field of scholarly inquiry, "liturgy" refers to worship in general. A liturgiologist is someone who studies how various religious traditions order their public acts of worship. In this general sense, Baptists are just as "liturgical" as Roman Catholics.

However, in the churches of the catholic tradition (I obviously include Anglicanism in this mix), "liturgy" and "liturgical" take on very definite and specific meanings that are not really applicable to the "free churches" of the Protestant evangelical tradition (e.g. Baptists). In this case the distinction between "liturgical" and "non-liturgical" is valid, and indeed this is what most people instinctively mean when they employ these terms.

Probably some of the best theological material on what the catholic tradition means by "liturgical celebration" is to found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

Considered abstractly, "liturgy" refers to the Church's celebration of the Paschal Mystery of Christ, preeminently in the sacraments. Indeed, the catholic tradition holds that the greatest sacrament of all is the "Church at prayer." In this sense, liturgy is the action of the Body of Christ with Christ as its head. The Church is "liturgical" in that it orders or sanctifies (i.e. "sets apart as holy") time, space, and material things for the service of adoration of the Triune God. Liturgy is thus practically synonymous with "Sacramental Economy." More concretely, "a liturgy" or "the liturgy" (with either article) refers to the specific formulaic or normative forms, standards, or conventions of any particular worshiping community at any point in its history (e.g. the 1979 BCP).

Although the Paschal Mystery is rooted in the historical events of Christ's life-death-resurrection-ascension, the Church nonetheless believes that the Paschal Mystery transcends historical event and is "made present" in all times through the Church's liturgical life. Hence, the Church itself transcends history, events, and times. Churches of a "liturgical mindset" thus see themselves as the continuation of the original "apostolic community," historically manifested in apostolic succession (sacramentally in its holy orders), and thus in continuity with apostolic churches of all ages. This continuity is not something to which our evangelical friends can easily lay claim, even though they also participate in such things as baptism and the Lord's Supper.

One example may suffice in demonstrating the difference between the "liturgical" and "non-liturgical" mindsets. Many evangelicals recognize and celebrate Christmas and Easter just as those churches in the catholic tradition do. However, the non-liturgical mindset views these "holidays" as mere annual observances or commemorations on par with other annual observances such as Memorial Day, Thanksgiving or Labor Day. This is not to deny that evangelicals recognize Christmas and Easter as being more important than other annual observances. Indeed, most evangelicals certainly recognize the distinctly Christian nature of Christmas and Easter as opposed to secular holidays. But the difference between, say, Christmas and President's Day (considered as annual observances), is really one of degree of importance and significance, rather than a difference of kind.

In the "liturgical mindset," Christmas and Easter are the two annual cycles around which whole of the Church Year is ordered. In and through these cycles the Church celebrates and relives the various "epochs" of the Paschal Mystery, which epochs are thus "made present" to us sacramentally. This cannot be said of Presidents Day or Memorial Day. So the difference is one of kind not of degree.

The Visible Church: My continuing conversation with "Anonymous"

ANON: "One" in what way? If you offer with the vague "in Christ", it is eerily similar to "invisible Church".

LEXORANDI2: The invisible Church model, originating with the Lutherans, makes personal faith or belief determinative of one’s membership in the Church. In such a model, the visible Church and her sacraments are secondary and non-determinative. All that counts is one’s personal faith. Thus you are right be concerned about this.

But that is not what I’m saying at all. Rather, baptism – a visible sign – is the determinative boundary of the Church. One is either baptized or not, and with the claim of baptism comes the responsibility to assent to the Church’s faith and teaching, which includes continuing “in the apostles’ teaching and fellowship, in the breaking of bread, and in the prayers.”

When I, as an Anglican, confess my “oneness” with the Roman Catholic or the Eastern Orthodox adherent I confess primarily a common baptism and a common faith (i.e., the Faith of the Church Catholic articulated in the Creed). But with this confession is also my affirmation that the respective ecclesial communities to which they belong are true, visible churches – part of the “one Church” that I confess in the Creed.

I suspect that your discomfort with the Anglican position (at least THIS Anglican’s position) is not only the explicit recognition of other apostolically-constituted churches (e.g., Roman Catholic, Orthodox), but also that other communities, whose apostolic pedigrees may be in question, are not explicitly “unrecognized.” I can only respond with something that a wise Eastern Orthodox priest once told me, “We can show you where the Church is, but we cannot always show you where it is not.” That Anglicans tend to err on the side of charity with respect to non-episcopal bodies is readily to be admitted. But I tend to see that as a virtue, not a vice.

Sacramental Causality

My friend Jeff over at meam-commemorationem recently published a "teaser" from an article critiquing Roman Catholic theologian L-M. Chauvet's postmodern take on Aquinas. Hopefully we can encourage Jeff to publish more entries on this article on his blog. Personally, I have profited greatly from Chauvet's Symbol and Sacrament, and I can already tell from the brief excerpt that the author is going to push a few of my buttons.

The entire article can be found HERE.

The Anglican Practice of Open Communion: A "Barthian" Take

A question from the comment section of an earlier entry ("My Third Reason for Remaining Anglican" - Saturday, January 6, 2007):

DMARTIN ASKS: Do Anglicans believe that to share the Body and Blood of Christ is an act of full communion or not?

LEXORANDI2: Obviously, I can only give you one Anglican's perspective on this, but, YES, this is certainly the principle behind the practice of open communion in Anglican churches, even if institutionally (canonically) our respective ecclesial communities (i.e. churches) do not yet live into this reality.

I find it helpful to appeal to Barth's objectivist theology in support of the "open Table" practice, particularly the question of what is real and unreal about the Christian and the Church in light of our union in Christ. What is real about the Church in Christ (objectively and eternally so) is the Church's unicity and holiness. Disunity and corruption -- the very things we unhappily "live into" -- are unreal, and thus are things destined to nothingness. By "living into" them (through schism and apostasy) we improperly reify the very things that have been abolished in Christ.

That being said, over the course of my ministry I have become increasingly passionate in my advocacy for the "open Table." For, despite our tenacity to live into the unreal (with respect to such things as "orders" and tertiary differences in doctrine), I am convinced that the Anglican tradition attains her highest degree of "living into the reality of what we already are in Christ" in the celebration of the sacraments via her "open Table."

Obviously, she fails miserably in other ways...

(I direct my readers to revisit an earlier blog entry --Dialogue with Barth-- for a further elaboration on the real and unreal distinction.)

The Roots of Sacramental Minimalism in the West

By putting together Augustine's responses to Donatism and Pelagianism one ends up with a baptismal rite and theology which is considerably narrow in its approach in comparison, at least, with the great mystagogues of the West Syrian East and even Ambrose himself. Here, unfortunately, even if his responses to these heretical movements were necessary, we see the beginnings of a minimalistic approach to rite, interpretation, candidate, minister, and Church and a loss of sacramental and liturgical richness in favor of a concern for sacramental validity. While he himself knew a full and rich rite for Christiain initiation there is no question but that: "If ever there was a man who held that the solemn paraphernalia of the actual rite was of little importance, but that the sacrament of baptism by water was indispensible for salvation, that man was Augustine" (Frederick van der Meer, Augustine the Bishop, 1961). This minimalism in rite, formula, and interpretation will continue to reinforce an unfortunate theology of baptism even today as almost a privatized "minute wash" to rid infants, as soon as possible after birth, of the inherited sin of Adam (not necessarily of Eve) and so to ensure their eternal beatific destiny "in case something should happen." On this issue, at least, Western Christianity not only learned its Augustinian theological foundations well but has been abundantly successful through the centuries in catechizing the faithful. Indeed, although the practice and custom of infant baptism comes long before any theological rationale for it is made, from Augustine on, infant baptism will become seen as necessary and expected, rather than permitted, in the life of the Church.

--Maxwell Johnson, The Rites of Christian Initiation: Their Evolution and Interpretation (The Liturgical Press, 1999), 156-7.

Richard Hooker on the Efficacy of Baptism

Another fine excerpt from the theologian who weaned me away from Dortian Calvinism over a decade ago.

+++++++++++++++++

Were St Augustine now livinge there are which would tell him for his better instruction that to saie of a child it is elect and to saie it doth believe are all one, for which cause sith [since] no man is able preciselie to affirme the one of any infant in particular, it followeth that precisely and absolutelie wee ought not to say the other. Which precise and absolute termes are needles [needless] in this case. Wee speake of infantes as the rule of pietie alloweth both to speake and thinke. They that can take to themselves in ordinarie talke a charitable kinde of libertie to name men of theire own sorte Gods deare children (notwithstandinge the large raign of hypocrisie) should not me thinkes be so strickt and rigorous against the Church for presuminge as it doth of a Christian innocent. For when wee knowe how Christ in generall hath said that of such is the kingedom of heaven, which kingdom is thininheritance [the inheritance] of Gods elect, and doe withall behold how his providence hath called them unto the first beginninges of eternall life and presented them at the welspringe of nue birth wherein originall synne is purged, besides which synne there is no hinderance of theire salvation knowne to us, as them selves will graunt, hard it were that havinge so manie faire inducementes whereupon to ground, wee should not be thought to utter at the least a truth as probable and allowable in terminge anie such particular infant an elect babe, as in presuminge the like of others, whose saftie nevertheles wee are not absolutelie able to warrant. If any troubled with these scruples be onlie for instructions sake desirous to knowe yeat some farther reason why interogatories should be ministred to infantes in baptisme, and be answered unto by others as in theire names, they may consider that baptisme implyeth a covenant or league between God and man, wherein as God doth bestowe presentlie remission of synnes and the holie Ghost, bindinge also him selfe to add in processe of tyme what grace soever shalbe farther necessarie for thattainement of everlastinge life; so everie baptised soule receyvinge the same grace at the handes of God tyeth likewise it selfe for ever to the observation of his lawe no less the Jewes by circumcision bound them selves to the lawe of Moses. The law of Christ requiringe therefore faith and nunes [newness] of life in all men by vertue of the covenant which they make in baptisme, is it toyish that the Church in baptisme exacteth at everie mans hande an expresse profession of faith and an irrevocable promise of obedience by way of sollmene stipulation?

--Richard Hooker, Of the Lawes of Ecclesiasticall Politie, V:lxiv, 3-4.

The Judicious Mr. Hooker

The following excerpt was taken from Fragments of an Answer to the Letter of Certain English Protestants found in the Keble edition of Richard Hooker's Works, Book V, Appendix 1, 46.

+++++++++++

"One thing further also we must note, touching obduration: that there may be in man such malice, as maketh him the child of eternal death, and yet not always such cause, as induceth God perpetually to withhold his grace: which difference between the act of reprobation and obduration is the more necessary to be well observed, in regard of those things, which the Scripture hath concerning sin against the Holy Ghost, and the sin of apostasy after grace. For we need not doubt of the cause of reprobation in them, touching whom the Apostle hath said, they crucify again unto themselves the Son of God, and make mock of him. And yet, that in them God did not always see cause to withhold his Holy Spirit, appeareth as much as the same men were once enlightened, and had been partakers of the heavenly gift of the Holy Ghost, and had tasted of the good word of God, and of the power of the world to come. On the other side, perpetuity of inward grace belongeth unto none, but eternally foreseen elect, whose difference from castaways, in this life, doth not herein consist, that the one have grace always, the other never: but in this, that the one have grace that abideth, the other either not grace at all, or else grace which abideth not." [Emphasis in text]

How Dix distorted Cranmer's position

Until the mid-20th century, when Dom Gregory Dix proposed otherwise, the most common explanation for the verbal differences between the eucharistic rites of 1549 and 1552 involved the political pressures exerted on liturgical reform, and on Cranmer himself, in the last half of the reign of Edward VI. The coup de tat that brought down the Somerset government also replaced its cautious and moderate religious reform (in keeping with Cranmer’s own views) with the more radical and thoroughgoing agenda of the Northumberland regime. Significantly this change ushered in a favorable climate for the political ascendancy of the Züricher party -– consisting of reformers of Zwinglian sympathies such as John Hooper, Bp. of Gloucester.

Of the two rites, 1549 was seen as more in keeping with Cranmer’s mind in its articulation of Christ’s presence in the Eucharist. This did not mean, however, that the 1552 rite constituted a “different mind” or a fully Zwinglian alternative; but rather one that, for political reasons, had been crafted to be more Zwinglian-friendly. This view remained the standard reading of Cranmer's two liturgical projects up to the early 20th century, even among prominent Anglo-Catholic liturgical scholars such as the godly Bishop of Truro, Walter Howard Frere.

The beauty of this explanation lies in how well it explains three seemingly conflicting elements in the story of the liturgical reform that had produced the two Books of Common Prayer. The first was Cranmer’s insistence throughout the latter years of his life that he had only ever held two views of eucharistic presence: transubstantiation, and what he came to refer to as the “true and catholic doctrine” of the Supper, a view that he had come to embrace by ca. 1546. The second element consisted of the verbal changes themselves: namely, the softening, and in some cases the removal, of the 1549 rite’s overt instrumental/objectivist language to produce a rite significantly more palatable to the Zürichers. The third element was the fact that, even after the changes and often in spite of them, the rite could still continue to support a catholic reading, a fact celebrated by E.B. Pusey in Tract 80 (1836). It’s in this third element – this liturgical “sleight of hand” – where Cranmer’s true genius shines through.

A striking example of this sleight of hand can be seen in the removal of the phrase “in these holy mysteries” from the Prayer of Humble Access in 1552:

"Grant us therefore, gracious Lord, so to eat the flesh of thy dear Son Jesus Christ, and to drink his blood in these holy mysteries…"

To eat the body and drink the blood of Christ “in these holy mysteries” (i.e. consuming the elements) assumes an instrumental and objectivist understanding of Christ’s presence in the Supper; an understanding utterly abhorrent to Zwinglians of the period, as evidenced by Bp. Hooper’s refusal to use the new Prayer Book for this and similar reasons. Yet, while the removal of the phrase went far to placate those of Zwinglian sympathies, to suggest that this change irreparably altered the theology of the prayer would be a huge overstatement. The Prayer of Humble Access, even without its fuller catholic expression, was still capable of supporting its natural catholic meaning.

But such blunting of the instrumental and objective language would inevitably cause some of his contemporaries to wonder aloud whether Cranmer had shifted to more a continental Reformed view. This Cranmer adamantly denied to his dying day; and no serious scholar, not even Dix, ever questioned this testimony until quite recent times.

Where Dix departed from conventional wisdom was not in contradicting Cranmer’s testimony on this matter, but rather in proposing that the 1552 rite, not the 1549, expressed Cranmer’s “true mind” during his Protestant period, and, moreover, that this true mind was decidedly “Zwinglian.” For Dix, the changes made to the 1552 edition (rather than the edition itself) were evidence not only of Zwinglian influences on liturgical reform, but also of overt Zwinglianism in Cranmer himself. And since Dix believed that Cranmer was a Zwinglian even before he wrote the 1549 rite, then logically the 1549 rite must be Zwinglian too!

The problem that Dix would encounter, and one he would never be able to explain adequately, was the language of the 1549 rite. If Cranmer was a convinced Zwinglian as early as, say, 1548, then how could he have been so careless (deliberate?) in the use of such instrumental language of presence? The best that Dix could do was to explain away the language of 1549 as “ambiguous,” the sense of which would be “fully perfected” in the rite of 1552. In the final analysis, the 1549 rite was "guilty," not on account of its own deficiencies, but merely by association.

Thus, for Dix, the interpretive key to reading anything that Cranmer ever wrote on the Eucharist (even the 1549 rite) was to read backwards from 1552 through Zwinglian spectacles. Once this modus operandi is appreciated one can begin to see more clearly the motive and agenda behind it: nothing less than the full discrediting of the Cranmerian Prayer Book tradition.

Until next time.

Jeremy Taylor's Doctrine of Eucharistic Presence

I just came across this very insightful paper on Jeremy Taylor's doctrine of Eucharistic Presence, which argues for a continuity of Anglican thought from Cranmer and Hooker thru Andrewes and Taylor. I'd love to hear some feedback. Enjoy!

http://www.kerygma.org/lee/papers/Taylor.pdf

Sacraments as Language, II

…Perchance if Sacraments ever do enter into the discussion of Christians (which they often do in seminaries) so caught up are we modern Christians in re-hashing the old controversies which tragically divided Christendom in the 16th century that we miss the utter simplicity of them. This is because we have forgotten how to speak our "mother tongue."

Consequently we are accustomed to think of the Sacraments in one of two outmoded, if not unhelpful, paradigms. The first is…the objectivist model. The objectivist model places emphasis on the sacraments as operative means of salvation, captured in the somewhat infamous Latin phrase ex opere operato. Here we are encouraged to think of sacraments in mechanical ways, quasi-automatic in their effects. Grace is "produced" by them, or is seen as a product of their administration. Baptism is described in terms of implanting a "germ" or "seed" into the soul; and Holy Communion as a "medicine", "potion", or "remedy" for good spiritual health. Questions which focus on the validity of form, matter and intent, not to mention the proper ministers to celebrate them, pre-occupy polemical dialogue and debate both between and within various churches. Sacraments are viewed as necessary "channels" of grace, and inevitably the efficacy of the Gospel is very limited and exclusive – for only those who receive sacraments receive grace. It is not only necessary to go to church to be saved, but one must go to the right church to be saved.

Equally disturbing is the subjectivist model, spawned by reaction to the abuses of a Medieval Church in the throes of an addiction to a sacramentalism grounded in the objectivist model. Here emphasis is placed on the subjective sincerity – whether doctrinal, moral, or spiritual – of those who actively celebrate and partake of the sacraments. If there is any profit to be had or effect that takes place in the sacraments it wholly depends on what the participant brings to the Table (pun intended!). Baptism and the Lord's Supper – ordinances commanded and instituted by Christ himself – are at the mercy of the individual's sincerity. But…how "hearty" must our repentance be to convince God that our repentance is sincere? How "true" must our faith be before it rings true to God? The tendency is towards "Pelagian rigorism," which is precisely why the subjectivist model fails so miserably to lead a person to Christ.

Abuses associated with both models, the fruition of taking them to their logical extremes, is no doubt the primary reason why the sacraments have fallen into a general state of disuse and abuse in the modern Western Church. The objectivist model subjugates subjective (i.e., personal) response, rendering it redundant as a result. The subjectivist model subjugates objective effect (i.e., operative grace), denying it altogether in the process. Both tendencies are akin to the failure of the modern Western Church to understand the DISTINCTION IN UNITY of person and nature – a distinction altogether grounded in the doctrines of the Trinity and the Hypostatic Union. In the objectivist model, personhood is sacrificed on the "altar" of nature. In the subjectivist model, nature is sacrificed on the "altar" of person.

As a result, we fail to appreciate (ironically) the one thing to which both sides seem to pay lip service: that the salient point of the Sacraments is the gratuitous communication of God in Christ to believers, along with the corresponding faith response of believers to God in Christ – hence, Sacraments considered as language and dialogue. In fact, I will go further in my definition of the term "Sacrament": Sacraments are Divine-language incarnated in tangible, created matter – water, bread and wine. Is it any wonder that the ancients described them as "visible words"? The ancient faith and universal consensus of the Church has always affirmed that the Sacraments which the Church celebrates in faith necessarily have a spiritual efficacy which we call "grace," precisely because they are grounded in the truth and the event of the Incarnation – the "hem" of Jesus' garment. Why is this? It is God in Christ who meets us in them, because he promised to meet us in them. It is Christ who clothes us in the baptism of his own death and resurrection; Christ who bids us to feed upon his own glorified flesh and drink his glorified blood. It is only when the Sacraments are once again considered in terms of language – the medium of true relationship and real presence – that we can begin to rescue them from both abuse and disuse in the modern Church.

Sacraments as Language

The recent discussion on language and grammar incited by my last entry is reminiscent of a lecture that I gave a few years back in which I defined the Sacraments as "Divine-language incarnated in tangible, created matter (water, bread, wine)." For the Church, I argued, Sacraments are the fundamental vocabulary of our "Mother Tongue." Here's an excerpt from the conclusion of my paper relating to baptism:

One of the first things that all new parents do at the birth of a child is to cuddle and comfort that child with the "coos" and gentle re-assuring sounds of their voices. It does not matter that the baby in their arms cannot define the words spoken or even that it will ever remember that particular moment. All that matters is that someday our children will understand. They will not only learn to recognize the voice of the parent they will also learn how to speak the parent's language, and consequently the language of the parent will undergo a transformation to become the language of the family. Someday they too will be parents and cuddle and comfort their own children with the "coos" and gentle re-assuring sounds of their voices; and the cycle will be repeated generation after generation, "even unto the end of the world."

In Baptism in the Name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, even when it takes place in the earliest moments of a child's existence (for those of us who practice infant baptism), God speaks to us in Divine "coos" and re-assuring words. It does not matter that we cannot yet understand what He says, or even whether we will ever be able to recall that particular moment. The only thing that matters is that one day we will understand: that it was at this very moment that our Father told the world "This is my Son, in whom I am well pleased"; that a Husband rejoiced with his spotless Bride over the birth of another child and its inclusion in the family; that our Mother, the Church, held a child to her breast and promised in the power of the Spirit to love, nurture, and protect that child from harm's way.