Monthly Archives: June 2010

Kalendars and Ecclesiologies

As part of the forthcoming upgrade to the breviary, I’ve been tinkering with the way that I generate my liturgical dates. I did have a system where I had to sit down and figure everything out for each year for each kalendar. Needless to say, this took a fair amount of time and caused a certain amount of duplicated work (which programmers hate).

I’m moving to a rule-based system that determines the temporal date, checks for major BCP occasions, then adds in any Days of Optional Observance based on the preferred kalendar. In order to make the magic happen, I’ve been sorting through a whole bunch of liturgical kalendars:

  • the BCP
  • Holy Women, Holy Men
  • the current Roman system
  • the Order of the Holy Cross
  • the Order of Julian of Norwich
  • Exciting Holiness (the CoE’s)
  • the Knott/English Missal
  • the Anglican Missal (functionally the Roman ’62)

All told, this makes 806 liturgical observances.

There are a lot of overlaps between the kalendars (i.e., some observances are celebrated in all 8, many are in at least 3 or 4), nor does this reflect the number of saints within these various kalendars (given that some observances celebrate no one—like days within the octave of the Nativity—and some celebrate several—like the feast of Basilides, Cyrinus, Nabor, and Nazarius or, a personal favorite, Ursula and the 11,000 virgins…)

Having all of this data collected in one table opens up all sorts of interesting possibilities for looking at it and reflecting on it. While I haven’t even begun to do that, some very general observations do come to mind:

  • The people we pray with and about have an awful lot to do with how we construct our own mental ecclesiology. If one of the things that a sanctorale does is to remind us of who all is contained in the communion of the saints, then different kalendars end up giving us very different answers and, as a result, sketch different pictures of who the church is.
  • Holy Women, Holy Men—which I’ve bashed many times in the past for a variety of offenses—takes on a new light when placed in relation to the Exciting Holiness, the ordo of the OHC (particularly the one in the monastic breviary that clearly predates HWHM), and the Knott Missal. This doesn’t necessarily mean that this new light becomes a favorable light, but adding in these relationships does help me see where some of the commemorations are coming from and why they are placed on the dates that they are.
  • That having been said, a very interesting diagram could be made mapping two different axes, the genetic relationships and theological intentions of the kalendars. Of course, two more kalendars would have to be added in first: a “pure” pre-conciliar kalendar, most likely the Pius X revision, and the Sarum kalendar…
  • The one major factor that immediately comes to my mind is the place of the martyrs. Within the big list, 213 of the 806 observances are of martyrs (26%). When we parse individual kalendars or groups of kalendars distinct patterns emerge. The highest martyr count goes without a doubt to the Anglican Missal and this is not solely due to theological grounds but rests partly on logistical grounds: this kalendar is one of few that includes commemorations and thus can—and does—have multiple observances within a single calendar day. (Which , yes, is in and of itself a theological decision…) That having been said, of the Anglican Missal’s 339 discrete liturgical observances, 138 are of martyrs (41%). By way of comparison, of Holy Women, Holy Men’s 272 discrete observances, only 39 are identified as being occasions celebrating martyrs (14%). One factor here is chronological—on the balance, HWHM has more observances from and relating to the modern era than the AM (no firm breakdown on this yet, but that can be obtained…) and thus far fewer individuals from the era of Roman persecution, but this sends a major theological and ecclesiological message.  The church sketched by the Anglican Missal is a church composed in large part by those who died rather than alter their faith. However, the church sketched by Holy Women, Holy Men with both its lack of early martyrs and its many modern entries sketches a church made up of more “ordinary” people in “regular” (to us) contexts embodying their faith.
  • There’s quite a lot more to be said here in relation to these few issues that I’ve raised and the additional material contained within this data. I’m thinking a decent-sized journal article could easily come out of all of this…

On Auricular Confession in the Anglican Churches

This is a snippet from a forthcoming article that M and I wrote; feel free to pile on any other thoughts on Confession:

The Anglican Exhortation and its understanding of confession and reconciliation stand squarely within the tradition of Omnis utriusque sexus and the Augsburg Confession. Two Exhortations stand before the Eucharistic liturgy in the 1549 book. The first exhorts the congregation to search their souls and gauge their readiness before receiving the Eucharist. The second is to be used when the congregation is negligent to come and receive. Indeed, its very purpose is to encourage congregants to come and receive and to do anything necessary that would enable them to come. It states in part:

And yf there bee any of you, whose conscience is troubled and greved in any thing, lackyng comforte or counsaill, let him come to me, or to some other dyscrete and learned priest, taught in the law of God, and confesse and open his synne and griefe secretly, that he may receive suche ghostly counsaill, advyse, and comfort, that his conscience maye be releved, and that of us (as of the ministers of GOD and of the churche) he may receive comfort and absolucion, to the satisfaccion of his mynde, and avoyding of all scruple and doubtfulnes: requiryng suche as shalbe satisfied with a generall confession, not to be offended with them that doe use, to their further satisfiyng, the auriculer and secret confession to the Priest: nor those also whiche thinke nedefull or convenient, for the quietnes of their awne consciences, particuliarly to open their sinnes to the Priest: to bee offended with them that are satisfied, with their humble confession to GOD, and the generall confession to the churche. But in all thinges to folowe and kepe the rule of charitie, and every man to be satisfied with his owne conscience, not judgyng other mennes myndes or consciences; where as he hath no warrant of Goddes word to the same.[i]

Following both Omnis utriusque sexus and the Augsburg Confession, this exhortation connects the rite of reconciliation directly to purification for the reception of the Eucharist. Unlike Omnis utriusque sexus and in line with certain Reformation understandings, it considers a general confession and absolution sufficient for the church’s role in purification.[ii] Further, in line with Reformation teaching, aural confession is recommended in the case of the disquieted conscience. The definitive statement, then, is that none must undergo the rite, but it is available for those souls who require it for the quieting of the conscience.

[i] 1549 Book of Common Prayer. Online: http://justus.anglican.org/resources/bcp/1549/ Communion_1549.htm. Accessed Nov 28th, 2007.

[ii] Despite their insistences to the contrary, the Lutheran churches moved to general confessions rather than retaining individual examination and confession. While it has been revived in certain times and places, the practice of private absolution has fallen into disuse in Lutheran circles.

The Costs of Communion

One of the Fathers asked Abba John the Dwarf, ‘What is a monk?’ He said, ‘He is toil. The monk toils at all he does. That is what a monk is.’

Then Jesus said to all, “If any would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me. For whoever would save his life will lose it; and whoever loses his life for my sake, he will save it.” (Luke 9:23-24; compare Matthew 16:24-28 and Mark 8:34-9:1)

“He who loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; and he who loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; and he who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. He who finds his life will lose it, and he who loses his life for my sake will find it.” (Matthew 10:37-39; compare Luke 14:26-27)

I must draw your attention to two things. First, the comments by BSnyder at the end of this thread are very much worth reading. BSnyder taps into something important and muchly overlooked it seems to me. Receiving the Eucharist isn’t just about whether or not a visitor’s feelings get hurt which seems to be one of the major lenses for this conversation; rather it’s about binding yourself to the life of God which may have dramatic and even negative consequences for your health and well-being. Of the first thirteen who partook of the first Lord’s Supper in that Jerusalem upper room, tradition informs us that only one died of old age. The others, without exception, suffered a violent death for their expression of faith.

There are consequences to this faith.

Second, Christopher has written a very engaging post on this topic which again addresses the broader implications and, like BSnyder’s comments, connects reception of the sacrament to the realities of our existence and our spiritual travails:

Can CWOB at its best be practice of assurance in the same way as Baptism done? What does it mean to nibble at the edges and never take the plunge? Or to eat frequently and be drawn into a leap of trust? Can I fall back on Communion in the same way I can always fall back on Baptism when the Tempter whispers lies that I am other than God’s in Christ? To my mind, CWOB precisely because of the nature of Holy Communion to be ongoing may imply rather the very thing the likes of Maurice and Ramsey after found troubling in certain positions on Baptism, that somehow we can fall out of God’s irrevocable adoption. The singular nature of Baptism, on the other hand. In darkest night, I do not cry out, “I am communed.” I rebuke, “I am baptized.”

God’s give-away of grace, I trust will not be spurned by those who receive Communion and never come back. I need not protect God’s grace, but I do need to take care that others understand that grace and its power and implications for their lives. God’s works through God’s means. While CWOB implies a high Presence of Christ in Communion, does it properly warn of God’s wrestling grace?

Read and ponder as you consider CWOB and what it means for us.

CWOB and Jesus

You know that state where a pond is almost frozen and all it takes is a single snowflake to start the thermal reaction that freezes the whole thing over? I’m getting the sense that at least the chatterers of the Episcopal Church (myself among them) are at that point concerning Communion without Baptism. Following discussion here and some off-line conversations with Donald Schell, Donald posted a piece at the Cafe that’s getting some major and sustained attention.

There’s no doubt in my mind that this topic may well be our next biggest theological battlefield. And it will be a big one as our Eucharistic practice has major implications for our liturgical practice and our sacramental theology as a whole.

There’s one particular piece of the puzzle that jumps out at me because of my own weird angle on things… There’s a direct line from the principal arguments for Communion without Baptism that rest on the work of Norm Perrin. For those who aren’t familiar with Norm, he’s a New Testament scholar who stands in a very interesting place historically. The drive-by version is that the First Quest for the Historical Jesus was closed off by the one-two punch of Wrede’s work on the messianic secret and Schweitzer’s Quest for the Historical Jesus—so, in the first decade of the twentieth century. Then there was a vestigial Second Quest in the mid-twentieth century that’s connected with Bultmann’s Christian encounter with Existentialism and is most specifically exemplified in Bornkamm’s Jesus Christ. Right after that point came Perrin. In one sense he’s a transitional figure between the Second and the Third Quest. I tend to see him more as the father figure of the Third Quest.

I see three significant points on Perrin and CWOB. Point one. Perrin was self-consciously undertaking historical work. I’ve mentioned this before in other discussions but it’s important enough to be worth repeating: a major facet of the case for CWOB is that it attempts to base itself on the practices of the historical Jesus. Thus, this opens two immediate lines of investigation. First, it means that the theology and practice are based in a historical reconstruction. This assumes and presumes that the reconstruction is correct. Second, what is the alternative to the historical Jesus? It’s the canonical Jesus… By using the selective focus of a 20th century reconstruction of what the historical Jesus did, what aspects of the canonical Jesus are being left out or deliberately ignored?

Point Two. The points from Perrin seem to rest on the reconstruction of a particular kind of “Jesus meal”—the meals that Jesus ate with “sinners and tax collectors.” There are, however, at least four kinds of meal material that need to be considered from the Gospels alone: yes, the “meals with tax collectors and sinners”, but then there’s also the Last Supper, the feeding miracles, and the discussions about meals. All four of these need to be engaged. Of course, when we do that then I suspect we cut immediately to one of the big issues with most “historical” Jesus reconstructions—the automatic jettisoning of Johannine material. Returning to the canonical Jesus and discussions of meals means that John 6 is back on the table…

Point Three. As Father John-Julian reminded me a while back, evidence from earliest Christian (including some questionable Christian) literature suggests that the fundamental paradigm for the Eucharist was the feeding miracles—not the meals with outcasts. What happens when we inject this factor into the conversation?

So—I think that the biblical and theological root of the current case for CWOB bears some much closer investigation. What’s worth remembering, though, is that most people—even those taking part in the debate—-fundamentally don’t care about the biblical and theological roots. Instead they fall for the simplistic framing of CWOB being about “inclusion” or “justice”. Which it’s not. This canard reflects a self-perpetuating failure of sacramental catechesis. As a result, any form of reasoned discussion around the issue must be two-pronged. Always attend to the first point first: “inclusion” and “justice” really isn’t the issue here—we’re willing to baptize just about anyone! Only after disposing of that can you move to the real theology…

On Transference

There are two major reasons why feasts are transferred according to the Book of Common Prayer; Holy Days are transferred if they fall within the two week period that encompass Holy Week and the following Easter week, or they may be transferred if their fixed day falls on a Sunday.  The use of “may” in the second case is used advisedly. A transference must occur when a Major Feast falls on Sunday in the seasons of Advent, Christmas, Easter, or Lent, or when a Feast of Our Lord falls on a Sunday in Advent, Easter, or Lent. When a Holy Day falls on a Sunday in the Ordinal times after Epiphany and after Pentecost, it may be observed on the Sunday rather than transferred.

Transference due to Season

In the case of the Holy and Easter Week “blackout” period, only four feasts may be affected however: The Feasts of St Joseph, the Annunciation, St Mark, and Sts Philip and James. The first two and the second two are grouped together, the first set around Easter’s earliest dates, the second two around its latest.

These transferences may be charted as follows. These charts are based on two key principles:

1)      Since all Holy Days receive Eves the first open day in a week is a Tuesday so that the Eve is not impeded by a Sunday Evening Prayer. Likewise, the dates of St Mark sometimes fall after Sts Philip & James so as to avoid the Eves of either days being impeded by the other.

2)       Following the directions on BCP, p. 17, feasts are transferred in the order of their occurrence, not in order of their dignity.

Date of Easter Feast of St Joseph The Annunciation
3/22 3/31 4/2
3/23 4/1 4/3
3/24 4/2 4/4
3/25 4/3 4/5
3/26 4/4 4/6
3/27 3/19 4/5
3/28 3/19 4/6
3/29 3/19 4/7
3/30 3/19 4/8
3/31 3/19 4/9
4/1 3/19 4/10
Date of Easter Feast of St Mark Feast of Sts Philip& James
4/18 4/27 5/1
4/19 4/28 5/1
4/20 4/29 5/1
4/21 5/3 5/1
4/22 5/3 5/1
4/23 5/3 5/1
4/24 5/3 5/5
4/25 5/5 5/6

Transference due to Sundays

The next set of charts would follow a basic straight-forward pattern but for the case of the Christmas season. Three Major Feasts follow the Feast of the Nativity one after the other. Unlike Feasts of Our Lord in Christmas (i.e., the Feast of the Holy Name), Sundays in Christmas have precedence over the Major Feasts. Thus, when a Sunday falls on any of the three days after Christmas, it transfers the feasts in order. Because they always fall back to back, there are no Eves for these feasts, so they may be moved to Mondays rather than the first open Tuesday.

Otherwise, the charts follow the Dominical Letter of the year. When a Leap Year occurs, the proper procedure is to jump from one letter to the next letter in the sequence. Thus, for the year 2012, the first two months of the year follow the chart for Dominical Letter A, the remaining months follow the chart for Dominical Letter g.

Feasts falling on Sundays when the Dominical Letter is A:

Feast Celebration Date Notes
Feast of the Holy Name 1/1 The feast supersedes the Sunday
St Joseph 3/22 Always falls in Lent; see above for additional transference in case of Holy Week
St Barnabas 6/11 or 6/13 The feast may supersede a Proper Sunday but never Pentecost or Holy Trinity
Transfiguration 8/6 The feast supersedes the Sunday

Feasts falling on Sundays when the Dominical Letter is b:

Feast Celebration Date Notes
Sts Philip & James 5/3 Always falls in Easter; see above for additional transference in case of Easter Week
St James of Jerusalem 10/23 or 10/25 The feast may supersede the Sunday
The Feast of the Nativity: Christmas Day 12/25 The feast supersedes the Sunday

Feasts falling on Sundays when the Dominical Letter is c:

Feast Celebration Date Notes
St Mark 4/27 Always falls in Easter; see above for additional transference in case of Easter Week
Independence Day 7/4 The feast may supersede the Sunday; if not celebrated on the Sunday, the feast is not transferred
St James the Apostle 7/25 or 7/27 The feast may supersede the Sunday
St Mary 8/15 or 8/17 The feast should supersede the Sunday
St Stephen 12/27
St John 12/28
Holy Innocents 12/29

*Note: Years when Easter falls on April 11th or leap years when Easter falls on April 10th and the Dominical Letter is c, the Feast of St Matthias will be transferred to 2/26. This won’t happen again until 2066…

Feasts falling on Sundays when the Dominical Letter is d:

Feast Celebration Date Notes
Confession of St Peter 1/18 or 1/20 The feast may supersede the Sunday
Conversion of St Paul 1/25 or 1/27 The feast may supersede the Sunday
Visitation of the BVM 5/31 or 6/2 The feast may supersede a Proper Sunday but never an Easter Sunday  or Holy Trinity
St Luke 10/18 or 10/20 The feast may supersede the Sunday
All Saints’ Day 11/1 The feast supersedes the Sunday
St John 12/28
Holy Innocents 12/29

Feasts falling on Sundays when the Dominical Letter is e:

Feast Celebration Date Notes
Feast of the Presentation 2/2 The feast supersedes the Sunday
Sts Peter & Paul 6/29 or 7/1 The feast should supersede the Sunday
St Bartholomew 8/24 or 8/26 The feast may supersede the Sunday
Feast of the Holy Cross 9/14 or 9/16 The feast should supersede the Sunday
St Matthew 9/21 or 9/23 The feast may supersede the Sunday
St Andrew 12/2 The feast must be transferred as  the Sunday will either be Last after Trinity or Advent 1
St Thomas 12/23
Holy Innocents 12/29

Feasts falling on Sundays when the Dominical Letter is f:

Feast Celebration Date Notes
Feast of the Epiphany 1/6 The feast supersedes the Sunday
St Matthias 2/24 or 2/26 The feast may supersede a Proper Sunday but never the Last after Epiphany or a Lenten Sunday
St Michael & All Angels 9/29 or 10/1 The feast should supersede the Sunday

Feasts falling on Sundays when the Dominical Letter is g:

Feast Celebration Date Notes
Feast of the Annunciation 3/27 Always falls in Lent or Easter; see above for additional transference in case of Holy or Easter Week
Nativity of John the Baptist 6/24 or 6/26 The feast should supersede the Sunday
St Mary Magdalene 7/22 or 7/24 The feast may supersede the Sunday
Sts Simon & Jude 10/28 or 10/30 The feast may supersede the Sunday

Since over half the Sundays of the year fall into Ordinal time, there are a number of may’s and should’s here that reflect the permissions in the BCP to celebrate Holy Days on Ordinal Sundays. The decision as to whether a feast or the Sunday should be celebrated ought to be decided before the start of the liturgical year and be applied consistently. As all other decisions of this sort, the choice is a theological one and will have theological implications for the parish.

Celebrating the feasts of the biblical saints—and all of the Holy Days are either Feasts of Our Lord or celebrate biblical saints—provides an opportunity to express liturgically what the church teaches  about our ecclesiology and, ultimately, our Christology. The Christian message is not fundamentally a literary endeavor; it is not solely encapsulated in the words of the Bible. Rather, the Bible reaches its fullest expression when it is embodied in the lives of those who saturate themselves in it. Pointing to the  examples of the saints and martyrs who first spread the word of Jesus, his resurrection, and his offer of living into the divine life of God is a means of proclaiming this message. Personally, I find feasts like Sts Simon and Jude and St Matthias to be pedagogically useful—even the Scriptures don’t say much about them—and, in that sense, they reflect the largely anonymous mass of saints who have aided in the spread of the Gospel through the centuries.

Congratulations to the Scotist

It seems one main reason for the Scotist’s latest absence from the blogs—was baptized on Sunday. Many congratulations to him and his family!

Two little ones truly are a lot of work but, as he notes, blessed work.

I’ve also observed the behavior he notes. That is, many Christians in our tradition and in others do take the Eucharist very seriously. Quite often Roman Catholics and even some protestants will not come to an Episcopal altar for the Eucharist even when it is clearly offered to all baptized Christians. The key here is that we make an invitation; we can not, do not, and should not force any one to accept it. It may be politely declined. In my experience, some Christians from other denominations will not even come forward for a blessing even when that option is presented lest there be any confusion.

We’re currently working on getting a ward of the Confraternity of the Blessed Sacrament up and running at our parish, so I was pondering a bit over the weekend the purpose of the Confraternity in a church were weekly or more frequent communion is now the norm. To my mind, the purpose is a conscious and thoughtful investigation and experience of the theology of the Eucharist. In Eucharistic Devotion, we explore the many implications for the Real Presence of Christ in our midst and what that presence means for us as a community gathered in and as that Body. It’s in light of the links between the Eucharist and ecclesiology that grounds the decision of many to not approach strange altars even where the invitation is genuinely made.

Marian Pondering

When it comes to supplementing my BCP Offices, my inclination is to trend towards the English Office. It’s a great little supplement book but has a few issues. My major one, of course, is that it’s on the pre-conciliar kalendar which means there are a quite a number of items that don’t match up.

The first edition of the English Office was published in 1956. Reforms were just getting underway, particularly in the kalendar department. As a result, we find this note in the quite brief General Rubrics:

THE OFFICE. The Office of the day is either double or simple. Doubles of the First and Second Class have a first Evensong; other Offices begin at Mattins. The observance of simple feasts ends before Evensong.

Ok—so, the shape of the day envisioned here is still the old version where feasts begin at Evensong or liturgical sunset the night before. Simples conclude after Nones, before the start of the next Evensong. However, the kalendar rules had already shifted more towards the natural day pattern which became much more rigid after Vatican II. The sign of this move is that First Vespers are only granted to Doubles of the First and Second classes. For most feasts this wasn’t a problem. (In a sly to move to decrease the weekly psalm allotment) Most feasts in the General Roman Kalendar by the 1920 reforms of Pius the Xth were Doubles. Only 30 days out of the whole year had simple feasts. However, in the English Office these days only get a Mattins and no Evensong.

The Saturday Office of the BVM is always reckoned as a Simple. Thus, as far as the English Office is concerned—no Evensong on Friday. Saturday’s Evening is always the First Evensong of Sunday. As a result, the Saturday Office only ever ends up being a Mattins of the BVM.

In places that recognize the Saturday Office is this how you do it or are there other alternatives in play?

Quick Note on Sarum Prime

I just got done glancing through the ordering for singing Prime in the Sarum rite.

Now I don’t claim to be an expert or anything, but I think it’s fair to say that I do have a certain familiarity with the liturgical year as observed in Medieval England. As remarked n this site before, there’s always been discussion among Anglo-Catholics concerning the truth of Cranmer’s allegations on the complexity of the Sarum system to the detriment of the Gospel. Let me just say that this morning, I’m on Cranmer’s side…

There are no less than 20 different melodies for the singing of the Prime hymn (with 4 additional variants in the doxologies). The directions for use tend to look like this:

Daily within the Octave and on the Octave Day of the Assumption and of the Nativity of S. Mary when the service is of the same Octave ; and on every Commemoration of S. Mary through the whole year, except from the Octave of the Epiphany until the Purification, this melody is sung.

Looking at this as a liturgist and a programmer considering how to place this rubric within a rule-based machine-comprehensible system, the heart quails…

The Scotist, CWOB, and the Eschaton

The Scotist has re-emerged (presumably following the end of the semester…) with some posts, notably one circling back to a previous post on Communion Without Baptism (CWOB). Here he mentions some and engages other issues that I’ve taken with his position but, in effect, states that his argument still stands. So—here are a few thoughts back at him.

I’ll start with his earlier post first.

Regarding section I

Citing some words by Christopher he begins by questioning the necessity of Baptism:

Someone might say, quite correctly it seems to me,

it is by the Font that we are visibly, explicitly, personally made and recognized as members of Christ’s Body,

and that truth concerns what God has ordained; being part of Christ’s body requires being baptized with water. But God is also quite free to include whomever he pleases in the Church without using Baptism as a means. To deny this would be to deny that God could have done otherwise than institute the sacrament of Baptism as a condition for membership in the Church; to accept this is to admit God may operate by his absolute power to attain ends by means apart from those he has revealed to us as means. I am not sure God is obliged to divulge all his means to us.

I would agree with the Scotist that God is not constrained by Baptism—he may bestow his grace upon those as he wills through whatever means he wishes. But the Scotist makes two errors here. First, he has elided the operation of two different channels: there are ordinary channels of grace that God has instituted in the Scriptures and in the life of the Church, then there are the extraordinary channels which God is free to use as he wills.

The ordinary channels are most clearly presented to us in the Great Commission: “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age” (Matt 28:19-20). We have been given a mandate to use the channels of Baptism as the means by which individuals are joined to the Church and given grace and the Holy Spirit. To recognize that extraordinary channels exist in no ways denies or invalidates the ordinary channels which the Scotist seems to be suggesting.

Rather, the question should be framed thusly: when it appears that God’s extraordinary grace has led someone to the confession of Christ and to the door of the church and perhaps even to the altar apart from Baptism, should the ordinary means be used or dispensed with? My response, of course, is that the ordinary means (which are the clearest and most express revelation on the matter) are to be followed.

The second error, it seems to me, is that the Scotist speaks rather blithely about the gift of God’s grace incorporating a person into the Church. And here we’ve got a problem. It’s one thing to say that God has acted upon a person to move them or even sanctify them apart from the usual means of grace; it is another to refer to inclusion into the Church. The reception of grace and inclusion into the Church are two different things. For one, the Church is, among other things, a visible institution having a specific incarnate existence where individuals gather locally to express the eschatological and sacramental reality of the Body of Christ. The confusion of these two things opens the door for much confusion later.

Regarding section III

The Scotist fears that we have lost the art of hospitality—and here I agree with him. In fact, I believe that it’s because of this loss that the whole topic of hospitality is so often abused in this discussion. Classical expressions of hospitality, to which the Scotist nods in his mention of Priam’s visit to Achilles and the three visitors coming to Abram and Sarai, were structured around the recognition of reciprocal roles. Being a host was a duty with concrete obligations and expectations. But this was no less true for the guest. Yes, we operate in a debased society with an atrophied sense of hospitality but we still retain a notion of this. It’s one thing for me to invite a stranger or a distant acquaintance into my house. If they proceed, then, to leave the room into which I had invited them so that they could wander upstairs into my bedroom and  paw through my dresser drawers, I would be justifiable annoyed. Such a guest would have breached even our vague understanding of the role of the guest.

In a church building and within a liturgy, the priest stands in the role of the steward. He or she acts on behalf of the master of the household and has been entrusted with maintaining good order. Guests may enter and have absolutely no sense of their role as guests. At this point it is the role of the priest to clarify the rules of hospitality. This is best done under the following form: “We invite all baptised Christians to the altar to receive if that is your desire. If you have not been baptized or if you do not wish to receive, you are still welcome to come to the altar; please cross your arms across your chest and I will give you a blessing. If you are interested in receiving baptism or hearing more about it, please speak to one of us on the way out…” In communicating these norms, the priest has discharged the steward’s duty. At this point the obligations of hospitality fall upon the guest. The guest must then decide whether to abide by the hospitality offered by steward or whether to disregard them.

The Scotist writes:

It is rather that there is something wrong with a host who will not take care of the guests, and who will not see that they have what they need. In the case of the unbaptized, we know what they need–Jesus–and we can offer him in the sacrament of the Altar.

The problem here is one of presumption. Yes, the unbaptized guest does need Jesus. But how should the guest be introduced to Jesus? Do we presume to violate our ordinary means and to rush a guest into an act for which they may neither be ready for or desire or do we inform the guest that such things as ordinary means even exist? In the Scotist’s presumption, the guest—apparently—is not informed or given a choice; those who have put themselves in the position of the host have forced their decision upon the guest in the guise of hospitality. Rules are broken at the expense of the guest whether that is the guest’s desire or not.

Regarding section IV

The Scotist’s initial formulation makes no sense:

[A1] (1) If CWOB is forbidden, God is not omnipotent.
(2) God is omnipotent.
Thus, (3) CWOB is permitted.

There is absolutely no connection between the two clauses in A1(1). The Scotist hopes to plug this brigade-sized hole with a number of syllogisms. Here’s the first:

[A2] (1) Suppose CWOB is forbidden.
(2) If CWOB is forbidden, then God cannot save all human beings.
(3) If God is omnipotent, then God can save all human beings.
Thus, (4) God is not omnipotent.

Again—logic fail in step 2. No connection has been made between salvation and reception of the Eucharist. We are then given a third attempt to plug what seems to be a widening rather than closing hole:

[A3] (1) If God can save all humans beings, we are obligated to hope that God does save all human beings.
(2) If we are obligated to hope that God does save all human beings, then CWOB is permitted.
(3) Suppose CWOB is forbidden.
Thus, (4) God cannot save all human beings.

Logic fail from A2(2) is merely continued here. No connection has been made between salvation and reception of the Eucharist. But the hole continues to get wider due to the curious relationship between A3(2-4). Again, there is no direction connection made between the two clauses in A3(2). Yes, I hope that God will save all beings. However, my hope has no clear bearing on the Church’s Eucharistic practice. 3 and 4 remain fundamentally unproven and there is no logical connection drawn between them; they are simply a reversal of the still unconnected A3(2).

Here’s the next attempt to breach what was a gap and is now in danger of becoming a yawning chasm:

[A4](1)If the church is permitted to hope that all humans are saved, then it is permitted to act on the hope that all humans are saved.
(2)The church is permitted to hope that all humans are saved.
Thus, (3) the church is permitted to act on the hope that all humans are saved.

The two clauses in A4(1) do not cohere. Hope of a future situation does not necessarily grant permission to act a certain way now. My future hope is that the lion will lay down with the lamb. If I put my lamb next to a lion now, the lion will receive a tasty dinner and I’ll be out one lamb. Hoping that all will be saved in the future does not give me the right to act as if they are now. And, furthermore, we continue to compound the initial logic fail: No connection has been made between salvation and reception of the Eucharist.

Eucharist and the Eschaton

At this point, I’m going to make a preemptive move. If I recall correctly, the Scotist in posts prior to these had pinned his universalist hopes upon an interpretation of Isa 25:6-9. This passage from what’s known as Isaiah’s Apocalypse gives a beautiful image of communion with God, a literal feasting with the Lord. However, the argument that the Scotist attempts to derive from it is, according to my understanding, exegetically untenable. The chief problem is that Scotist has been deceived by his English-language Bible.

Here’s Isa 25:6 from the NRSV: “Isaiah 25:6  On this mountain the LORD of hosts will make for all peoples a feast of rich food, a feast of well-aged wines, of rich food filled with marrow, of well-aged wines strained clear.” It’s easy enough to read here “all people” rather than “all peoples” and to read a universalism of sorts into it. To do so is to mistake the meaning of the text. The word rendered “peoples” by the NRSV really is a plural collective noun that refers to multiple national, linguistic, ethnic, or cultural groupings of people all coming together; it does not mean all individuals. The Hebrew word is ‘am and is accurately rendered in the Septuagint as ethneis and the Vulgate as populis. “Nations” might be a less easily mistaken English synonym but contains a governmental notion that the Hebrew word lacks.

We further note that Isaiah’s text is figural, not literal, and as such is subject to the rules for figural interpretation. Augustine laid down the principles in De Doct Chr 3.10-29 that nothing is taught in figures which is not taught plainly elsewhere in Scripture. This image participates in the broader Zion theology taught in Deutero-Isaiah and most specifically in the passage that we use in Morning Prayer as the Third Song of Isaiah (Surge Illuminare) from Isaiah 60. The New Testament picks this up in a host of ways, most specifically in Rev 20-1 where the image of the Bride of the Lamb, the holy Jerusalem, i.e., the Church uses the very language of Isa 60 at the beginning of chapter 21. Too, Matt 8 presents a clear teaching deriving from it when Jesus speaks to the crowds concerning the centurion:

Matthew 8:10-12  When Jesus heard him, he marveled, and said to those who followed him, “Truly, I say to you, not even in Israel have I found such faith.  11 I tell you, many will come from east and west and sit at table with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven,  12 while the sons of the kingdom will be thrown into the outer darkness; there men will weep and gnash their teeth.”

Acts and Paul interpret the Isaiah texts to mean that God’s plan of salvation extends to the Gentiles. They too may be baptized and be incorporated in the Church where they will dine with the Lord and the patriarchs. So, using Isa 25:6-10 to argue for CWOB looks to me like a non-starter.

In short, Scotist, you still have quite a bit of work to do to make a compelling case. The biggest is to create a credible connection between reception of the Eucharist and salvation which you assume and elide but never demonstrate. As you formulate such an argument, please remember to keep in mind a special group: those people who the Church has always recognized as partakers of the Church and of the Church’s salvation who never received the Church’s baptism—the martyred catechumens. The Church teaches that while they never received the Church’s rites, nevertheless they still died as Christians through the Baptism of Blood—and they never received the Eucharist, thus making it harder to argue that the Eucharist, rather than Baptism, is the sacrament of salvation…