LENT III 2008

It is always a good thing on this particular Sunday in the Church year to clarify a couple of things from the Gospel reading for the day, as they are very commonly misunderstood by about 180 degrees.

In using parable-like examples after He has been accused of casting out devils by Beelzebul, Jesus says first, “When a strong man armed keepeth his palace, his goods are in peace; but when a stronger than he shall come upon him, and overcome him...” I read somewhere that a US President assumed that the strong man armed referred to a good person, such as himself (sic), perhaps confusing these words of Jesus with a different episode where Jesus mentions the goodman of the house being aware or unaware of when thieves might break in and steal. However, the strong man armed in today’s reading is the devil, and the one stronger than he, is our Lord.

Second, in the next example our Lord says, “When the unclean spirit is gone out of man, he walketh through dry places, seeking rest.” Some may understand that the one walking through the dry places seeking rest is the man who had just rid himself of the unclean spirit. However, it is the displaced unclean spirit who walketh through the dry places, and when does not find rest, he, the unclean spirit, returns to the man – along with other unclean spirits worse than himself, as the man, having been purged of the bad, did not fill himself with good – leaving an inviting space for whomever.

However, a few factors mitigate against my spending more time on today’s readings, not least being that two days ago – by calendar count – was the 30^th anniversary of the existence of this parish. As there are only about a dozen original members remaining, and a fair number of newer members, perhaps this is as good a time as any to review the reasons for our existence. Also, today is our Annual Vestry; and, further, on Wednesday past, I was finally successful in having an article published in something even better than the Ottawa Citizen who steadfastly refuse to even acknowledge our existence. The article ran in the National Post, and by the next day, I was receiving positive feedback from across the country and even around the world. The article also dealt with the reasons for our existence, but within the context of the current furor over same-sex marriages that is tearing apart the Canterbury communion as we watch.

For our newer members who may be unaware, not the sole, but certainly the most publicized event that spurred the formation of “continuing Anglicans” as we are sometimes called, was the issue of whether or not an ecclesial body claiming to hold to the core doctrines of the early Church can presume to begin to ordain women to the priesthood (and ultimately the episcopacy). Then, as now, many feel that our opposition to such an innovation is somehow misogynist, anti-woman, when in fact it has nothing to do with our attitude towards women. Rather it has entirely to do with our attitude towards Jesus Christ.

There have been many convincing arguments put forth in favour of the innovation, claiming to have a theological basis, being cloaked in such phrases as, “If Jesus were alive today” (news flash He is!), and, “Jesus was just acting according to the social standards of the time” (news flash – He was most often breaking the standards of the day!), but they are, without exception, based on sociological perspectives. When the topic is put under the scrutiny of the deposit of faith, based on our Lord’s teachings and examples, and on the teaching of the remainder of the New Testament, and then the practice of the Church ever since, there is in fact no justification for the change. Which is to say, there are very many theological reasons against the innovation and truly none in favour of it.

And, based solely on the apostolic ministry being something which our Lord Himself ordained, Pope John Paul II summarized the Church’s position so very briefly, “We have no authority to alter the nature of Holy Orders.”

It is very curious indeed that today’s current furor over same-sex marriage has got the attention of more Canterbury Anglicans than the issue of Holy Orders 30 years ago. Curious in that Marriage, although a Sacrament, does not impact the nature of the other Sacraments in the same way that Holy Orders does. To explain: churches catholic and orthodox believe that the Sacraments are covenanted means of grace from God to man. In our Catechism, we categorize Sacraments as having two parts: an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace. There are also considerations of what makes up a valid Sacrament: it must have the proper minister, object, form, matter and intention. We also recognize two dominical – that is, essential to salvation – Sacraments: Baptism and the Holy Eucharist. There are also five other “minor” Sacraments, if you will: Confirmation, Penance, Unction (anointing of the sick), Holy Orders and Holy Matrimony or Marriage.

And here is the crunch. For that inward and spiritual grace to be realized, utilizing the outward physical signs as ordained by God or the Apostolic Church, the other factors must also be properly included. In the case of all of the Sacraments except Marriage, the proper minister is either a bishop or priest; Marriage is unique in that the proper ministers are an unmarried man and an unmarried woman. In that sense, when that apple cart is upset with something like two people of the same sex presuming to engage in the Sacrament of Marriage, it doesn’t affect the other Sacraments as critically as having an invalid ministry does. Yes, in terms of it being contrary to Scriptural revelation, it is equally as bad as the change to Holy Orders, also being contrary to Scriptural revelation; yet, it does not affect other sacramental considerations as do Holy Orders.

In the article that I managed to have published in the National Post, I quoted our first bishop, Carmino de Catanzaro, “‘Women priests are now an accomplished fact in both Canada and the United States. Why, then, resist? Because I am convinced with many others, that this is against God’s will for His Church.’ He succinctly summarized his reasons: ‘It has no support in Scripture. It has no support in Catholic tradition. It creates theological confusion.’ He then went on to predict that the issue of same sex unions would cause further confusion and destruction of the Anglican communion.”

When he said that altering the Sacrament of Holy Orders creates theological confusion, his intention was to get people to recognize that, if the validity of the orders of someone claiming to be a priest in the tradition of the Church is thrown into question, then all of the other Sacraments that depend on having a valid minister – Baptism, the Eucharist, Confirmation, Unction, Penance and further ordinations – also fall into question. The whole stream of grace from God that we believe to be dependent on obedience to the clearly understood nature of the Sacraments throughout the Church’s existence becomes doubtful. As mentioned, this is not true in the case of Marriage, as two people of the same sex presuming to exercise that Sacrament does not affect the other Sacraments. Same-sex Marriage is a scratch; compromised Holy Orders is a very deep wound.

In my experience, few of the supporters of the innovations – either in the case of Holy Orders or Holy Matrimony, have thought very much about the issues in this light. Rather, arguably their motivation seems clearly to have been driven by sociological trends. One might further dare to ask, “When you come to church, is it to participate in the one perpetual Eucharistic Sacrifice, offering our praise and thanksgiving to Almighty God, seeking to be filled with His grace, and thus moving along the path of sanctification, and to the promised hope of salvation? Or is church an exercise very much like attending a Lion’s or Rotary Club meeting, where we make up the rules as we go along? Which is to say, is church just a social exercise where we give little thought to our Lord’s demand of obedience to His will?”

I can only conclude that the large numbers of Anglicans who are upset over the same-sex issue are not primarily upset because they feel that such is contrary to revelation – even though they claim such to be the case – as, if that is true, then they should be even more upset that the ministry in their church, on which all of the other Sacraments depends, is also in clear contradiction to the revelation. Might we suspect that the primary catalyst for their objection is social conditioning? Beginning to ordain women would upset nobody from a sociological perspective; however, the flaunting of so-called gay rights is still, well, for want of a gentler word, repugnant to many church goers. Beginning to bless their unions, and the next step of performing marriages will upset very many. In truth, for many it is social conditioning and not theology that has caused their current discomfort.

And that is exactly what Bishop de Cat was predicting. He knew that changing the nature of one Sacrament would open a Pandora’s box. It appears that most Anglicans didn’t understand him then, and they don’t today either. They somehow didn’t see that the real justification for ordaining women had no theological basis whatever, but was a cry for social justice; today’s topic of same-sex marriages is also a cry from them for their understanding of social justice. They are simply using the same underlying arguments as were used 30 years ago. To be quite blunt and judgemental, those who can accept the one and oppose the other are either sadly confused at best, or quite dishonest at worst.

And there for our newcomers is an all-too-brief overview of the most publicized issue that precipitated our existence. Hopefully, if you did not before, perhaps now you may have a better understanding that, as mentioned, the cause célèbre of our Anglican Catholic and TAC formation, has nothing whatever to do with any particular attitude towards women. It has everything to do with continuing to do what the Church has always done, in grateful and willing obedience to our Lord.

ANNUNCIATION OTTAWA 2008 +CR