In these elevations Bossuet expounds on the early life of John the Baptist. The elevations are as follows: Elevations on the Birth of the Holy …Elevations on the Birth of the Holy Forerunner
These elevations concern Mary’s visitation to her cousin Elizabeth, who was pregnant with John the Baptist. It includes an exposition of Mary’s canticle the Magnificat, shown below. The elevations are as follows: Elevations on the effects which the Incarnate Word produces on men immediately after his Incarnation: 1, Mary goes to visit Saint Elizabeth. Elevations on […]Elevations on the effects which the Incarnate Word produces on men immediately after his Incarnation
These elevations are primarily about the conception of Jesus Christ in Mary, and as such is an exposition of Bossuet’s idea of Mary’s role. But it’s also a theological tour de force: Bossuet turns his elevations on Our Lord’s human beginning into an emotional panegyric of his divine, eternal origin. One of the best examples […]Elevations on the Conception of the Word
Over the years, I’ve noticed that some people take a break for Lent on social media. Some of that is to avoid the dumpster fire that social media is and has been for a long time, and that’s understandable. On the flip side, some want to take a break from putting out content and concentrating on what they’re supposed to be concentrating on.
I’ve always had trouble doing that, for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is that stuff happens during Lent and some of it needs to be commented upon. (Some doesn’t.) But I think the best thing to do is to put out stuff that is edifying, uplifting and makes for introspection. The one site that I can guarantee does that all year around is the Bossuet Project. The heart of the project is translating Bossuet’s Elevations on the Mysteries and, in addition to the elevations already there, during Lent this year I’ll be putting up “Elevations on Prophecies,” which deal with the subject in the Old Testament and how it relates to the new.
You can subscribe to the Bossuet Project by clicking the link on the right hand side of any page. Blessings!
I have an Iranian office mate. My contact with the Iranians has been educational in my understanding of the Scriptures. One thing he’s really big on is bread. One time we went to a bakery where he brought a loaf of sourdough bread, which he consumed in its entirety–in one sitting. I bring bread from […]
That was certainly the case with Peter Ball, whom John Major appointed to the see of Gloucester, much to then Archbishop of Canterbury George Carey’s horror:
LORD CAREY has expressed his horror that the former Prime Minister John Major was persuaded by a senior aide to choose Peter Ball over another candidate for the see of Gloucester against the wishes of the Crown Appointments Commission (CAC — now the Crown Nominations Commission).
That’s basically the deal with a state church: the church gets the privileges of official status but must submit to the state’s will. I’ve noted this problem before (and so did Bossuet, who preached at the court of Louis XIV,) but it hasn’t stopped many in North American Anglicanism from pining for communion with Canterbury, even as the drift in the culture was reflected in the attitude of the state.
I think now that the consequences of this signal weakness are apparent to just about everyone, as was evidence as the recent GAFCON meeting. Better late than never.
As far Ball’s appointment being recommended by Sir Robin Catford, recalling this is impossible to resist:
That could be applied to a large number of Anglican and Episcopal prelates and clergy as well…
Is he or is he not on the road to being canonized?
In the coming weeks, the fate of Gilbert Keith Chesterton will be known.
Soon, all eyes will turn upon Canon John Udris as he presents his written report to the bishop of Northampton, England, with, thereafter, a decision being made.
I’m not optimistic about seeing “St. Gilbert” anytime soon, although the Roman Catholic Church is full of surprises. Some of that is due to his anti-Semitic remarks, which should endear him to the current Labour Party. But frankly I’m surprised that the RCC in England, as liberal as its hierarchy is, is even allowing consideration of Chesterton for anything.
On a broader view, the Roman Catholic Church has always had an aversion for canonising or even celebrating its best post-Reformation thinkers and preachers. Whether you’re an Old Folk Mass or #straightouttairondale type, Catholics in parishes are presented with some of the most banal examples of Catholic thought and life out there. For the better ones, one in particular whose cause is a main item on this blog is Jaques-Bénigne Bossuet. AFAIK, he’s never been considered for canonisation, although he is the Church’s best and most eloquent defender since Trent. Perhaps it is best that Chesterton be left to his fans to insure his legacy.
In the UK, he is known mostly for the Father Brown series; his magnificent apologetic works are mostly admired outside of Old Blighty. With Bossuet it’s different; the French still consider him a major literary figure of the XVIIth Century, in some ways the country’s Golden Age. But then again the French are better at appreciating their literary heritage en bloc, as they did recently when they re-entombed Simone Veil (a Holocaust survivor) in the Pantheon.
Another good reason for Brexit?
Not too long ago I reviewed a book entitled Was Jesus an Evangelical? by the Rev. Thomas Reeves, an ACNA priest in Roanoke, VA. He’s come back with some interesting points (most of which are in his book, in more detail) and he’s given me the opportunity to post then and comment. We’ll start here:
While it may sound reductionistic, this is one reason that I am convinced that an honest look a the Nicene Fathers and what they believed (in a shared, core way) about the church, the sacraments, conversion, etc. could help us to cut through the divisions that have occurred in Anglicanism since the Reformation.
One way of looking at Anglicanism is that it is an attempt to restore a Patristically based Christianity. There are those who would object to this characterisation but I think there’s enough evidence that at least some important people in the early years of the Church of England desired to do just that. The retention of the episcopacy and the liturgy make that desire evident.
The problem with this was pointed out by Bossuet in his History of the Variations of the Protestant Churches: where do you stop? The Roman Catholic Church claims continuity both in its institution and in its carrying forth of tradition. Protestants say that somewhere in there the church excessively erred from the Scriptures. Bossuet’s question is valid: where do you draw the line?
Let’s take the example of Vigilantius, a priest in fourth-century Gaul. The main thrust of his writings (as best as we can tell) was as follows:
- Devotions to the relics of martyrs is superstitious. Also, offering prayers to saints and martyrs, was unnecessary since they were with God, and pagan.
- The observance of all-night vigils was unacceptable.
- The ascetic ideals of fasting, monastic withdrawal and virginity were not necessary for Christianity, and that included a celibate clergy.
- He proposed ending sending alms to Jerusalem and the monks who lived there.
Vigilantius was savaged for these ideas by Jerome in a fashion that anticipated the online abuse we see today. For its part the Church of England pretty much went along with Vigilantius on all of these. But Jerome was not only a Father of the Church but a Doctor. So where do we stop? We also have the case of the Seventh Ecumenical Council, which commended the veneration of icons and relics, and is held to be on par with the other six (including Nicaea.)
If the Reformation was truly only a response to the abuses of the Medieval Church (in ethics, practice, and theology), then the unity of the Patristic theology behind the creeds should be a reasonable starting place for discussions among Anglican thinkers. However, I believe that the Reformation in the end became the wholesale rejection of Western Catholicity. The Creeds just became historic documents that Protestants reinterpreted out of their original contexts.
I think you’re basically right about this. One enduring problem in the Anglican/Episcopal world is that the creeds (Apostles’ or Nicene) are recited but many of the ministers–and laity too–who recite them don’t believe them!
Of course, my belief is that the Reformation had much more to do with societal and cultural changes desired by the populous who wanted more say and freedom and the Reformation was swallowed up very quickly by Pietism which then became rampant sectarianism. Thus, the Reformation quickly devolved into an over-reaction which essentially cherry-picked the theology of the creeds according to “whatever groups” Reformational, limited, and desired theological assumptions.
The largest movement to come out of Pietism (with apologies to the Continentals) is Wesleyan Methodism and its progeny, and I don’t think that this has “swallowed up” the Reformation or Reformed Christianity. In fact, one of the major challenges of Wesleyans (and that includes modern Pentecost) is to keep Reformed theology from making inroads. The Baptists have the same problem for different reasons.
Some of the problem here is that the creeds don’t cover the issues that resulted in the fracturing you describe. That includes the nature of the Eucharist, election and perseverance. The creeds crystallised fairly early before these issues came to the forefront. In the case of Eucharistic theology, problems came with the Reformation. For the other two, Augustine’s theology (which anticipated but is not identical to Calvin’s) was accepted (after a fight) in the West but not the East. The only creedal difference between the two is the filioque clause, which is far less important than Augustinian theology!
I submit Anglo-Catholicism, while important, is still caught up in propping up their own particular sectarianism as the ONLY WAY…
If one looks at the Oxford Movement at the start, one sees an admirable attempt to bring unity between Anglicanism and Roman Catholicism. That ran into two large obstacles: the unwillingness of the Church of England to move in that direction, and the unwillingness of Roman Catholicism to move at all. The latter ultimately inspired people like Newman and Manning to “swim the Tiber.” Those two immovable objects have bedevilled Anglo-Catholicism ever since.
One the one side, the Anglo-Catholics have had more success outside of England than within. Part of that may be because they weren’t saddled with “unEnglish and unManly” like they were in the old country, but that’s another post…the 1928 BCP was, in many ways, an Anglo-Catholic triumph. And it’s not an accident that the first group to bolt the TEC and set up institutional alternatives were the Continuing (Anglo-Catholic) Episcopalians; their boldness inspired the Dennis Canon. Other provinces (notably the West Indies) were deeply affected by this movement.
On the other hand, frankly I am surprised that the Ordinariate has gotten as far as it has. I didn’t see that happening. What I think happened is that the conservative Ordinariate served the purpose of Traditionalist Catholics (like Benedict XVI) in their struggle with the more liberal wing of the church.
That brings us to the greatest fault of Anglo-Catholicism, one they share with the Orthodox, St. Pius X and #straightouttairondale types: the idea that tight liturgical precision is the key to great churches and great church life. On the Anglican side, we have the church Robin Jordan joined, with the 1928 BCP as the ne plus ultra of Anglican life. On the Catholic side, the broadest-based liturgy, incorporation elements of Eastern and Western worship alike, is the Novus Ordo Missae, but don’t tell that to the trads, some of whom don’t believe the Mass it celebrates is sacramentally valid.
Anglo-Catholics’ ultimate goal is reunion with Rome, with Rome making concessions. That’s about as realistic as the unrequited (and declining) desire of many in the ACNA for full communion with Canterbury. Since both Rome and Canterbury are under shaky leadership these days, the best course for Anglo-Catholics would be to clean up the careerism in their ranks, unite institutionally, and act as a witness to the Gospel as they see it. Who knows, they just might pick up a #straightouttairondale Catholic or two on the way.
I submit that a future for Anglicanism is not MY theology getting adhered to (or any other sectarian groups particular theology), but a return to OUR theology with clarity regarding what is essential to an Anglican definition or what is not. However, very few seemed interested this discussion.
I think getting agreement to the creeds is the easy part. But the issues beyond the creeds is where things get tricky. There are too many people involved whose agendas are driven by purism, nostalgia or both. They’re justified in being wary of “innovations” (the TEC is enough to cure anyone of that) but they don’t have the theological framework to work through the problems.
This is what so few seem to understand: We don’t have the right to cherry pick the creeds, and it is a reason that the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church (with all of their own problems) in part has had fewer problems being shaped by the cultures around them in their core theological (and ethical) beliefs. The Patristics gave us a unified set of scriptures and the Creeds. Why do we think we don’t need their grounding as a starting place?
I think that Patristic theology is the best place to start, but you need to be aware of the issues that block that other than ignorance.
The first is the “stopping point” issue I mentioned above.
The second is that the Patristic method of allegorising Biblical interpretation is going to be a hard sell in seminaries, which are too centred on the German methods. (Modern philosophies and theologies, I think, are an obstacle to progress in many ways.) The ancients had good reason to go that route, and our butting heads with the atheists (who routinely shove back a literalistic interpretation) should tell us something.
The third is that the differences between Patristic and Charismatic views on the church and the move of the Spirit are different. I don’t think this problem is insoluble; it’s one that has occupied my thoughts (and much space on this blog) for many years. Frankly modern Pentecost’s greatest enemy is cessational Reformed theology, and Patristic thought goes a long way to address that.
I would love to hear another option to true Christian Unity than getting back to a generally unified theology of those attending Nicea. With these “gogles” then, we could more clearly start evaluating our numerous mind-numbing amount of ever developing, sectarian, and individualistic streams. It isn’t that there is no place for such streams, but without a clarifying unity regarding core beliefs and practices,
One thing that would mitigate this is an understanding that differences in fundamental belief are more important than mode of worship. But it’s simply too easy to turn lex orandi, lex credendi into a reductio ad absurdum. Anglicanism is supposed to be “comprehensive,” but the divisions over the fundamentals has shattered that broad nature. Putting it back together again–or at least the part which wants to stick with the basics–is a daunting task.
Anglicanism will just continue to be an every fragmenting, self-supporting, sectarian Protestantism. A Christianity that I submit that has little lasting future beyond this century.
And that would be a tragedy of the first magnitude.
This series from Jaques-Benigne Bossuet’s Elevations on the Mysteries, and specifically the Fifth Day, is complete. The table of contents for this is below. There is more here on the Bossuet Project.
- The snake.
- The temptation. Eve is attacked before Adam.
- The tempter proceeds by underhanded questioning to first produce a doubt.
- Answer of Eve and reply of Satan who reveals himself.
- The temptation and the fall of Adam. Reflections of Saint Paul.
- Adam and Eve perceived their nudity.
- Enormity of Adam’s sin.
- The presence of God is fearful for sinners: our first parents increase their crime by seeking excuses.
- The order of God’s Justice.
- More excuses.
- Eve’s torment and how it is changed into a cure.
- Adam’s torture, and first the work.
- The clothes and the injuries of the air.
- Following the torture of Adam, the derision of God.
- Death, true punishment of sin.
- Eternal death.
This is one in a series from Jaques-Benigne Bossuet’s Elevations on the Mysteries, and specifically the Fifth Day. There is more here on the Bossuet Project.
But the great penalty of sin, which alone is proportionate, is eternal death, and this punishment of sin is locked up in sin itself; for sin being nothing other than the voluntary separation of man from God, it follows from this that God also withdraws from man, and forever withdraws from him, a man having nothing by which he can reunite himself; so that by this single blow which the sinner gives himself, he remains eternally separated from God, and God is therefore forced to withdraw from him; until, by a return of his pure mercy, he is pleased to return to his unfaithful creature; that which arrives only by a pure goodness which God does not owe to the sinner, it follows that he owes him nothing but eternal separation and subtraction of his goodness, grace, and presence; but from that moment his misfortune is as immense as it is eternal.
For what can happen to the creature deprived of God, that is, of all good? What can happen to him, if not all wrong? Go, cursed, to eternal fire; and where will they go, these wretched ones, driven away from the light, if not into eternal darkness? Where will they go, far from peace, except to trouble, despair, the grinding of teeth? Where will they go, in a word, far from God, if not in all the horror that will be caused by the absence and deprivation of all the good that is in him, as in the source? I will show you all the good, he said to Moses, showing myself. What, then, may happen to those to whom he will refuse his face and his desirable presence, except that he will show them all evil, and that he will show them not only to see it, which is frightful; but, what is much more terrible, to feel it by a sad experience. And this is the just punishment of the sinner who withdraws from God, that God also gets rid of him, and by this subtraction deprives him of all good, and invests him irretrievably and inexorably will all evil. God! O God! I tremble, I am seized with fear at this sight. Console me with the hope of your goodness; refresh my bowels, and comfort my broken bones, by Jesus Christ, your Son, who bore death to deliver me from these terrors, and from all these terrible consequences, the most inevitable of which is hell.