Yet More Resolutions
5. Open Communion
Episcopalians since the 1970s (I think) extend communion to all baptized Christians. Moreover, many Episcopalians, including myself, believe in transubstantiation (i.e., that the Eucharistic gifts, if validly consecrated, are the very Body and Blood of Jesus Christ). Moreover, since the Eucharistic elements contain the very essence of Creation, they ought to be consumed in the spirit in which they were ordained, that is, "Do this in remembrance of me." Theoretically, those who partake of this feast of both death and victory ought to be friendly with Him whom they commemorate and consume. Baptized persons who have not committed any grave sin and are truly repentant about the rest of them ought to be sufficiently friendly. Open communion contradicts this theology. Those who practice it extend Jesus Christ to all mankind. Most of those who do have some understanding of the merits of that which they extend. Perhaps, they think it is an instrument of spiritual healing. Yet Paul and Augustine have both warned that those who do not consume the Lord in the right spirit eat to their destruction. Those who extend it are using it like a magical elixir or a narcotic. It is food for a people as reserved as the priesthood of Aaron was. (They alone consumed certain offerings to God.) Those who wish to extend some benefit to non-Christians in the liturgy should have some faith in the blessing of the priest. The priest they can know; Christ they cannot.
What worries me about this otherwise excellent resolution is its reference to the eucharistic disciplines of other churches. Those of other churches may partake or not. Personally, I believe that they do themselves no harm either way. The only reason I do not partake in Catholic churches is that I feel that it is impolite. I understand that Roman Catholic theology regards my partaking as sacrilege, because they either do not consider me validly baptized or they do not consider me to be in a sufficient state of grace. (I've heard both.) While I find both opinions repugnant to Scripture and hateful to myself, I do not wish anyone to feel defiled on my account. However, I believe that Christians of all stripes eventually should partake of each other's communion as a means of reconciliation. Yet the Gospel and not the Eucharist must be the first means to reconcile the world to God.
6. Saints and Sinners
There are resolutions before Convention to include commemorations for various people on the Episcopal liturgical calendar. This is the way Episcopalians canonize. Theoretically, we consider all the faithful dead to be saints. Those on the liturgical calendar have a special importance for us.
The two proposed inclusions in which I am most interested are two Englishmen who were both at odds with their century. The first candidate is C.S. Lewis of Narnia, Space Trilogy, and Mere Christianity fame. His feast day is to be November 22. Perhaps, some of his fans would like to help me with a special service of Compline? Lewis' faith, though apparently involving great personal struggle, was evident in his works. He surely is worthy of remembrance. This resolution proposes a Collect (an opening prayer) and readings for his feast day. I will be interested to hear your opinions about the proposals. The Psalm is a tribute to his difficult journey of faith, his intellectual gifts, and the wide geography and divinity inherent in his writings. The Lesson is likewise proper. The Gospel speaks to leading of the Holy Spirit that is always necessary for faithful literature. Those who know Lewis' more serious works better than I might have something to say about whether Lewis had light to shed on these readings. What is wonderful about the liturgical aspect of this form of remembrance is that it honors the human being while so wonderfully glorifying the God who made the being possible.
Yet should then we remember Charles I (also known as King Charles the Martyr)? He has been remembered before by the Church of England, although 19th century English liberalism rightly reviled him for his single-minded monarchism and suppression of dissent through his Archbishop Laud as much for his "defense of the historic episcopate" (in the words of the resolution). Episcopalians are not like the many Christians of the past who thought the power "to bind or to loosen" could damn or thrust humans into glory by resolution. Charles confronts us with a still pressing dilemma, how much are our institutions worth the suppression of others' freedom? His life might have been a faithful life, but he does not deserve to be whitewashed. If God is to be glorified, any inclusion of Charles must include liturgical rubrics that honor both the saintliness and the sinfulness that consumed him as much as they consumed Clive Staples Lewis.
(to be continued)
ESA (20030730.3)
5. Open Communion
Episcopalians since the 1970s (I think) extend communion to all baptized Christians. Moreover, many Episcopalians, including myself, believe in transubstantiation (i.e., that the Eucharistic gifts, if validly consecrated, are the very Body and Blood of Jesus Christ). Moreover, since the Eucharistic elements contain the very essence of Creation, they ought to be consumed in the spirit in which they were ordained, that is, "Do this in remembrance of me." Theoretically, those who partake of this feast of both death and victory ought to be friendly with Him whom they commemorate and consume. Baptized persons who have not committed any grave sin and are truly repentant about the rest of them ought to be sufficiently friendly. Open communion contradicts this theology. Those who practice it extend Jesus Christ to all mankind. Most of those who do have some understanding of the merits of that which they extend. Perhaps, they think it is an instrument of spiritual healing. Yet Paul and Augustine have both warned that those who do not consume the Lord in the right spirit eat to their destruction. Those who extend it are using it like a magical elixir or a narcotic. It is food for a people as reserved as the priesthood of Aaron was. (They alone consumed certain offerings to God.) Those who wish to extend some benefit to non-Christians in the liturgy should have some faith in the blessing of the priest. The priest they can know; Christ they cannot.
What worries me about this otherwise excellent resolution is its reference to the eucharistic disciplines of other churches. Those of other churches may partake or not. Personally, I believe that they do themselves no harm either way. The only reason I do not partake in Catholic churches is that I feel that it is impolite. I understand that Roman Catholic theology regards my partaking as sacrilege, because they either do not consider me validly baptized or they do not consider me to be in a sufficient state of grace. (I've heard both.) While I find both opinions repugnant to Scripture and hateful to myself, I do not wish anyone to feel defiled on my account. However, I believe that Christians of all stripes eventually should partake of each other's communion as a means of reconciliation. Yet the Gospel and not the Eucharist must be the first means to reconcile the world to God.
6. Saints and Sinners
There are resolutions before Convention to include commemorations for various people on the Episcopal liturgical calendar. This is the way Episcopalians canonize. Theoretically, we consider all the faithful dead to be saints. Those on the liturgical calendar have a special importance for us.
The two proposed inclusions in which I am most interested are two Englishmen who were both at odds with their century. The first candidate is C.S. Lewis of Narnia, Space Trilogy, and Mere Christianity fame. His feast day is to be November 22. Perhaps, some of his fans would like to help me with a special service of Compline? Lewis' faith, though apparently involving great personal struggle, was evident in his works. He surely is worthy of remembrance. This resolution proposes a Collect (an opening prayer) and readings for his feast day. I will be interested to hear your opinions about the proposals. The Psalm is a tribute to his difficult journey of faith, his intellectual gifts, and the wide geography and divinity inherent in his writings. The Lesson is likewise proper. The Gospel speaks to leading of the Holy Spirit that is always necessary for faithful literature. Those who know Lewis' more serious works better than I might have something to say about whether Lewis had light to shed on these readings. What is wonderful about the liturgical aspect of this form of remembrance is that it honors the human being while so wonderfully glorifying the God who made the being possible.
Yet should then we remember Charles I (also known as King Charles the Martyr)? He has been remembered before by the Church of England, although 19th century English liberalism rightly reviled him for his single-minded monarchism and suppression of dissent through his Archbishop Laud as much for his "defense of the historic episcopate" (in the words of the resolution). Episcopalians are not like the many Christians of the past who thought the power "to bind or to loosen" could damn or thrust humans into glory by resolution. Charles confronts us with a still pressing dilemma, how much are our institutions worth the suppression of others' freedom? His life might have been a faithful life, but he does not deserve to be whitewashed. If God is to be glorified, any inclusion of Charles must include liturgical rubrics that honor both the saintliness and the sinfulness that consumed him as much as they consumed Clive Staples Lewis.
(to be continued)
ESA (20030730.3)
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home