
Just some musings I posted elsewhere... thought they might go good here as well.
Sin is not just between us and God. When we sin -literally miss the mark- we harm our relationship with God and cause damage to our fellow man, even if we fail to recognize that fact. When we convince ourselves that 'confessing directly to God' is good enough (and certainly it is good... just not quite good enough) then we loose the valuable experience of humility that comes with the Confessional experience.
In the ancient Church, such confessions were public... everyone knew what you did, because you confessed to everyone. History tells us that the greater and greater influx of people to the Church, coupled with the harsh discipline of the Montanists and Donatists, lead to the end of public confession of specific sins and into the privacy of what we today consider Confession.
I am of the mind that there should be no specific Confession of Sins in Christian worship. These confessions are general, and sins are never general. Sins are always specific. Further, the liturgical texts (when properly employed) serve to paint a strong balance between sin & God's righteous anger and forgiveness & God's abundant mercy.
Further, to avoid the humiliation (that's what it is) of confessing our sins is a manifest refusal to take up our cross and be humiliated like Jesus.
Finally, Confession of sins needs to be thought of less juridically and more compassionately. The confessional act is a spiritual hospital for the sin-sick soul. We need the grace of the Great Physician, ministered by his residents, nurses, care-techs, etc... to avoid it is like not going to the hospital for a burst appendix.
Confession isn't very pleasant... but hell is even more unpleasant. When we fail to comprehend how our sins harm others, and fail to acknowledge them in utter humiliation, we fail to learn from our sins and avoid them in the future...
That's stubborn pride, and as we all know, pride goeth before a fall.
Tuesday, August 14, 2007
Some Further Thoughts on Confession
Posted by Father Robert Lyons at 12:58 PM 2 comments
Labels: Apologetics, Sacraments
Monday, August 6, 2007
Apostolic Succession
The following is a posting of a response to a question on "Primitive Catholic Fellowship", an e-group I moderate on Yahoo! Groups. The question, in a nutshell, is "Why bother to have Apostolic Succession?"
Apostolic Succession is composed of two very important elements.
1) Apostolic Truth
2) Apostolic Recognition
As you have already stated, Apostolic Truth is vital for any community of faith.
Apostolic Recognition (or the historic Episcopate), referring to the laying on of hands as a means of transmitting authority for mission and ministry is a second matter. While there are several citations in the Ante-Nicene Fathers, one only really needs to read the Scriptures in this instance to find a strong case for it.
First, the fact that there is at least a two-fold ordained ministry in Apostolic times is attested to in the Acts of the Apostles. At first, the Apostles operated as the only 'set apart' ministers of the Church. The twelve quickly replaced Judas (and the Greek word episcopos is used in Acts 1:20 to describe his vacated position) and after Pentecost they began to minister. After a time, the selected seven to serve the Church, laid hands upon them, and they became the first deacons (Acts 6: 1-7). It becomes clearly obvious, however, that they had a different ministry than the apostles/overseers. For example, they could baptize, but they could not impart the Holy Spirit (resuting in James and Peter having to go to Samaria to pray over those baptized by Philip (Acts 8: 14-17).
Now we come to the case of the Apostle Paul. For many, Paul is the absolute proof that Apostolic Succession is un-necessary. In fact, he states in the introduction to 1 Corinthians that he is, "chosen by the will of God to be an apostle of Jesus Christ." This man, the great Apostle to the Gentiles was unquestionably chosen to minister as an Apostle by Jesus Christ directly...
So it's funny that the Holy Spirit moves in Acts 13, commanding the prophets and teachers of the Church of Antioch to 'dedicate Barnabas and Saul for the special work to which I have called them." Jesus alrady called him to be an Apostle to the Gentiles... to preach the good news of repentance and mercy... so why the prayer? Why the setting apart?
The leaders of the Church at Antioch were established themselves by the apostles. They, in turn, recognized the call of God on Paul and sent him forth to lead a missionary effort. The Church participated in the ministry set in motion by God. Paul, a man who stated he was beholden to no man for his authority, submitted to the laying on of hands in obedience to the Holy Spirit's calling, in order to do the will of God.
Why? We'll probably never know. At the risk of sounding like I am trying to cop out of the discussion, it is something we simply cannot understand.
Are there Ante-Nicene references to Apostolic Succession, both doctrinally and through the laying on of hands? Yes. Clement of Rome, Irenaeus, Origen, and even the Apostolic Constitutions speak of the practice. But if you don't accept it on this Scriptural basis (as well as the other Scriptures that could be brought into play on the topic), then there really isn't a point in quoting the ANF, is there?
Now, to take a moment to debate the merits and long-term effects of Succession...
Obviously the tacticle succession hasn't been effective against preventing heresy. Plenty of people have the historic episcopate and are wallowing in the bog (so to speak). When the Church got split up, first in the Montanist and Donatist eras, and later in the politicization of the Church, the episcopate was comprimised. Thus, all kinds of people claim (and do have) the tactile succession, but have erred greviously in their manner of living or in the content of the faith they profess. The laying on of hands is not an insurance policy against heresy, mainly because it has been used as a weapon since the early 300's.
On the other hand, while I'd take the Apostolic Faith over any mere line of bishops any day, we would be absolutely foolish if we refused to accept the laying on of hands if it was offered to us. Why intentionally deprive ourselves of both sides of Apostolic Succession?
Let us also remember, we cannot take the ministry upon ourselves. As a child I felt a calling to the priesthood, but I couldn't ordain myself. Someone has to examine candidates, train them, and then recognize them through some means... if one could simply delcare themselves ordained, then Simon Magus would have needed nothing other than to be a faithful Christian in order to recieve the apostolic power to confer the Holy Spirit. Or, even more to the point, the Samaratans of Acts 8 wouldn't have needed Peter and John to lay hands on them... or even Philip to baptize them. All they should have needed to hear was the preaching by Philip, and then they could have handled the rest of it themselves.
In closing, is someone outside of the historic episcopate doomed? Surely not. However, why would someone want to refuse the gift of continuity through the laying on of hands to compliment the apostolic teachings of the early Church? God raised up Paul, but Paul still allowed himself to submit to the Church's earthly means of being set apart for ministry.
Who are we to argue with God... or Paul?
Posted by Father Robert Lyons at 8:20 PM 0 comments
Labels: Apologetics, Sacraments, Theology
Tuesday, June 12, 2007
Let Go and Let God
One morning, upon awaking, I was particularly troubled by some sins that were plaguing me. These were sins that I had been aware of, that I had taken to God the previous night, but that I was never able to get over. They were repeated sins, ones that I knew darned well I needed to stop, but that were so simple to fall into that I almost gave them no second thought. As I was trying to pray that morning, I decided that I needed to go to Confession. This was nothing new for me, as I have been going to Confession since I was baptized in the mid-80's. However, I had been in a slump, and for quite some time had avoided the mercies of the Rite of Reconciliation. Why had I done such a thing? Simple pride. As a Presbyter, I did not want to go and look another Presbyter in the face and have him think badly of me. "Take, Lord, receive: all my liberty, my memory, understanding, my entire will. Give me only your love and your grace: that is enough for me. Take, Lord, receive all I have and possess. You have given all to me, now I return it."
". . . confess your sins to one another and pray for one another, that you may be healed." (James 5: 16a)
"Nothing is covered up that will not be revealed, or hidden that will not be known. Therefore whatever you have said in the dark shall be heard in the light, and what you have whispered in private rooms shall be proclaimed on the housetops." (Luke 12: 2-3)
On the evening of that day, the first day of the week, the doors being locked where the disciples were for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood among them and said to them, "Peace be with you." When he had said this, he showed them his hands and his side. Then the disciples were glad when they saw the Lord. Jesus said to them again, "Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I am sending you." And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of anyone, they are forgiven; if you withhold forgiveness from anyone, it is withheld." (John 20: 19-23)
In those days Peter stood up among the brothers (the company of persons was in all about 120) and said, "Brothers, the Scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit spoke beforehand by the mouth of David concerning Judas, who became a guide to those who arrested Jesus. For he was numbered among us and was allotted his share in this ministry... For it is written in the Book of Psalms, 'May his camp become desolate, and let there be no one to dwell in it'; and 'Let another take his office.'" (see Acts 1: 15-20)
It has been suggested that the Penitential Rite should be removed from the public liturgy of the Church. I totally agree. Why? Because I believe that everyone should be coming to Confession at least weekly, if not daily. In an ideal world, the Presbyter would be sitting inside the Communion rail, or in a confessional, and as you entered the Church for the service, you would walk forward, kneel, make your confession and receive counsel and absolution, and then go to your seat and give quiet thanksgiving until the Liturgy began. This is the custom in the Eastern Church, and our Eastern brethren have no confession of sin in their Liturgy.
Posted by Father Robert Lyons at 12:42 PM 0 comments
Labels: Apologetics, Sacraments
Why am I a Christian?
As I draw near to my tenth anniversary of ordination, I have taken some time to reflect on why I am what I am. To that end, today I am looking to share the answers to a question I am often asked: Why am I a Christian?
I am a Christian because of God's grace.
I know that, to many, this seems like a cop-out answer, but it is true. God has given me the good fortune to grow in knowledge and love of his Son. From my grandmother who taught me about Jesus first, to the parish priests who encouraged my faith in my youth, to my friends who, even today, remind me of just how important Christ is in my life, I have been surrounded by God’s grace, expressed through human instruments.
I am a Christian because of my sin.
Sounds like an odd answer, but it’s true. I am not capable of offering a perfect enough prayer, a perfect enough sacrifice, or a perfect enough service to God to offset my sins. I need Jesus Christ. I need his atoning death to become at-one with the Divine. Truly, Christ became one with us that we might become one with him! It is in Christ, not myself, that I find my redemption.
I am a Christian because of my response.Here is where I depart from my Calvinist (and perhaps Lutheran) friends. As firmly as I believe in the concepts of election and predestination, I also believe in free will. This puts me in the camp of the Orthodox. I am convinced that synergeia is the most complete, biblically-based doctrine concerning the salvation of mankind that one can find. Saint Athanasius says it quite well in is work, “On the Incarnation”:
The Word of God came in His own Person, because it was He alone, the Image of the Father, Who could recreate man made after the Image. In order to effect this re-creation, however, He had first to do away with death and corruption. Therefore He assumed a human body, in order that in it death might once and for all be destroyed, and that men might be renewed according to the Image [of God].
Thus, salvation – “being saved” – refers to the process that St. Athanasius speaks of, being rescued from death and corruption and eternal fire. There is nothing that anyone can do to earn salvation; it is a free gift from God. However, this gift – this relationship – must be accepted by the believer. God will never force someone to love him or to have a relationship with him. To be saved, we must work together with God in a synergeia, uniting our will, efforts, and actions to God, and seeking to conform them more perfectly with his day by day.
Posted by Father Robert Lyons at 10:46 AM 0 comments
Labels: Apologetics