Conservative Presbyterians launched a new denomination on Thursday (Jan. 19), saying that the Presbyterian Church (USA) is too consumed by internal conflicts and bureaucracy to nurture healthy congregations.
“This ”˜new Reformed body’ is intended to foster a new way of being the church, just as traditional, mainline denominations rose to serve in their day,” wrote leaders of the new Evangelical Covenant Order of Presbyterians.
More than 2,000 people attended the ECO’s meeting in Orlando, Fla., this week, but a straw poll indicated that most have not yet decided whether to leave the PC(USA), according to the Presbyterian Outlook, an independent magazine.
Don’t be swayed by one-sided presentations? I think I heard something similair in TEC circa 2003.
Why not simply join the existing Presbyterian Church of America (PCA)? But then, why not form yet another petty little Protestant sect.
The OPC and the PCA both refuse to recognize WO. Most of the churches that would form out the PCUSA are quite comfortable with WO. Similar situation to ELCA congregations withdrawing and not wanting to go to LCMS or WELS.
It is possible to look at this as “just one more sect.” However, there could conceivably be an ecumenical opportunity. The Presbyterians now mark the third mainline denomination to undergo a split because of the “new thing,” following closely on the hills of TEC and the ELCA. It would be complete silliness for three new (and competing) orthodox churches to form out of this crisis. ACNA and the new NALC have already entered into ecumenical discussions with one another. ACNA, NALC, and the ECO share more with one another than either group shared with the now dominant Liberal Protestant leadership of TEC, ELCA, and PCUSA. If discussions could open up with confessing Methodist movements as well, there could conceivably be a future for a confessionally orthodox ecumenicaly oriented Evangelical Catholic movement in North America. One thinks of precedents like those that created the Church of South India.
There would be reasons such people would not fit well into groups like some churches of the Anglican Continuum, the LCMS, and the OPC, nor would they be welcome. Not least among the reasons would be a commitment to ecumenism, as well as to a critical and generous orthodoxy.
Without knowing anything about this new denomination, and with little interest in finding it out, I’d be willing to wager that its sole raison d’etre (as opposed to those fleeing the PCUSA joining one or another of already existing conservative Presbyterian denominations such as the PCA, the OPC, the RPC [each one progressively more conservative than its predecessor]) is because these ersatz “conservatives” are anti-homosex but pro-WO, and since these above-mentioned denominations have the sense not to “ordain” women, they need one that will do it. Of course, there is the EPC (Evangelical Presb. Ch.) that leaves it up to each presbytery whether to “ordain” women or not, but most of them don’t, and that would not be suitable for folk who lap up yesterday’s droppings of the Zeitgeist as ardently as they reject today’s.
We saw the same thing recently in those Lutherans who left the ELCA over the same issue: instead of joining denominations like the Missouri Synod, the Wisconsin Synod or the AELCA (which originated in 1987 among those pastors and congregations who refused the mergers that created the ELCA), all of which don’t “ordain” women, they had to create their own NALC, which does.
Following up on what priestwalter wrote at #3, the EPC [i]does[/i] allow for WO – [i]as a local church decision[/i]. For several years at least, churches disaffiliating from PC(USA) have been joining EPC and not PCA or similar groups that do not accept WO. So it might be a bit surprising that ECO is being formed. As noted by priestwalter, any church that remained with PC(USA) after its mandating of WO must have been quite comfortable with it (or come around to that point). It appears that ECO is prepared to carry the WO mandate over from the PC(USA)?
The other issue supporting ECO is how to deal with the situation where for various reasons individual churches feel they cannot disaffiliate from PCUSA but no longer feel they can have fellowship with it. This could be for churches where it is clear they will lose their property, or where they are in a presbytery hostile to them leaving and which will appoint a commission to attempt to defrock the elders and pastors. This really leaves only the “defect in place” option, where the individual church will break the ties with PCUSA as much as possible while not formally leaving. In that case, ECO will be an option for them to still have contact with like-minded Presbyterians, without formally leaving PCUSA. (My own feeling is that this is only a stopgap measure, that PCUSA will soon decide that doing this somehow is abandoning PCUSA and commissions will be appointed by liberal presbyteries to remove the elders of session and pastors and replace them with those loyal to PCUSA.)
Mr. Witt,
[blockquote]There would be reasons such people would not fit well into groups like some churches of the Anglican Continuum, the LCMS, and the OPC, nor would they be welcome. Not least among the reasons would be a commitment to ecumenism, as well as to a critical and generous orthodoxy.[/blockquote]
You don’t seem very inclusive, generous, or kind in saying certain groups would not be welcome due to their lack of ecumenism as well as a critical and generous orthodoxy. After enduring the torment of TEC and the UMC, I have found a very happy home in a LCMS congregation. At least they know what they believe and articulate it well. Other than the distinctive of heavily emphasizing grace, I find Lutheran beliefs quite close to those of classical Reformed theology. You ought to have a rollicking good time trying to reconcile Reformed theology with Wesleyan theology in your grand ecumenical denomination. I will admit however that the UMC, PCUSA, ELCA and TEC do a very good job of working hard at earning their salvation through works of social justice and socialist political activism.
[blockquote] “The Presbyterians now mark the third mainline denomination to undergo a split because of the “new thing,†following closely on the hills of TEC and the ELCA.” [/blockquote]
Or even on the *heels* of TEC and the ELCA… ;o)
[blockquote]You don’t seem very inclusive, generous, or kind in saying certain groups would not be welcome due to their lack of ecumenism as well as a critical and generous orthodoxy.[/blockquote]
I see that what I wrote was ambiguous. I did not mean that various confessional groups would not be welcome in the ACNA or the NALC or whatever the future might hold should something like a North American version of the Church of South India eventually come into existence.
I was saying that the reverse is the case. Churches like the LCMS and the OPC exist in order to be “truly Lutheran” or “truly Reformed.” Someone with my theological commitments would be welcome in neither.
I also suspect that neither the LCMS or the OPC would be interested in the ACNA or the NALC. Continuing Anglicans have made clear about what they think of the ACNA by continuing to be Continuing Anglicans.
You note the difficulty of reconciling Wesleyan and Reformed understandings of grace. Indeed. The problem is no less acute when it comes to Lutherans and Reformed. The history of their disagreements about the proper way to articulate law and gospel, sacramental theology, and predestination shows that the “truly Reformed” and the “truly Lutheran” do not view their historic differences as adiaphora.
Nonetheless, both ACNA and NALC have intentionally embraced an ecumenical future. They (or I should say “we”) intend to go forward together. This is a good thing, I think. Others obviously disagree.
Dr. Witt,
I’m delighted to see you posting here, my friend. I’m always happy to find your thoughtful comments gracing any thread at T19 or SF. But I have a few thoughts to add to the mix here.
First, a minor correction. The PCUSA is actually the FOURTH liberal oldline (“mainline”) denom to drift with the cultural currents over a waterfall and suffer the inevitable fate of breaking apart when it crashes at the bottom. The first being the UCC, of course. However, the Congregationalists (less so, the German Reformed minority) were so uber-liberal on the whole that only a quite small remnant of orthodox congregations were left to depart. I’m not aware of a new denomination emerging from the wreckage of the UCC, so I guess in that sense the PCUSA may be indeed just the 3rd denom to suffer this kind of institutional breakup or schism.
Second, while I myself would LOVE to see very close ties develop between the NALC and the ACNA, I think that the chances for an actual ecumenical merger to take place, similar to the formation of say the Church of South India, are pretty remote. The fact is, that neither the orthodox Lutherans nor we orthodox Anglicans are unified enough to pull that off successfully. For example, when I lived in Newport News a few years ago, there was a marvelous orthodox ELCA congregation a couple miles from the evangelical retreat center where I worked. Reformation Lutheran Church was a splendid example of what I like to call “3-D Christianity,” in that it was fervently evangelical in its passion for evangelism and the Bible, charismatic in its encouragement of use of the charismata, the gifts of the Spirit, but also quite catholic in its liturgical style, far more so than the AMiA congregation that I attended then. Liturgically, it came out of the Hoch Kirche German Lutheran movement, not the low church, pietistic Norwegian Lutheran traditiion I knew all too well from my boyhood days in Sioux Falls (Lake Wobegon territory). I must admit that I felt FAR more at home among those 3-D Lutherans than I did among my fellow Anglicans in Newport News.
IOW, the real fault lines aren’t really denominational these days. In some ways, it would make more sense for the evangelical Lutherans and Anglicans to get together, and for the catholic Lutherans and Anglicans to get together, but I don’t really expect much of that to happen. People have all sorts of reasons for identifying with a historic church tradition, most of which have little to do with theology or logic.
Third, last but not least, when it comes to the Presbyterians, a lot depends on just how CAlvinist they really are. The more Truly Reformed they are, the less they’ll be inclined to mingle much, far less actually merge, with Lutherans or Anglicans (at least, not with those of us of the more catholic, anti-Puritan type).
Here in Richmond where I live, there are four conservative Presbyterian congregations that have already declared that they’ve finally had enough, this is the last straw, and they are leaving the PCUSA. I expect most of them will join the EPC, although one may join the PCA. Those four evangelical congregations are big Third Presbyterian, the largest and most dynamic of the four (ASA of perhaps 800) which has planted a daughter church that’s PCA and could easily end up there too. It’s the R.C. Sproul sort of proudly Reformed church, but not charismatic.
Then there’s St. Gile’s, not so large but still big (ASA maybe 400) and the flagship parish for charismatic Presbyterians in Richmond. I expect them to go for the EPC, although this is all speculation on my part. The other two ex-PCUSA churches are much smaller (ASA 75-150) and I’m not as familiar with them, so I won’t venture a prediction as to their future affiliation.
From what I’ve seen here in VA, the EPC (Evangelical Presbyterian Church) has been picking up more ex-PCUSA congregations than the stodgy old PCA has, partly because its more flexible and less, well, less rigidly Calvinist, and much less bound to the Westminster Standards. In the PCA, even “ruling elders” who serve on the session must formally subscribe to the Westminster Confession of Faith of 1646, including all its vigorous affirmations of predestination, etc. So there’s more at stake than an ecumenical spirit or stances about WO, etc.
That said, I would agree that there is immense potential for new allainces to come out of all this turmoil and confusion. God is shaking the foundations for sure, Some apples may roll farther from the tree than others do.
Anyway, I hope you resume posting comments here more often. I’ve missed your astute observations, Bill.
Cordially,
David Handy+
David,
Thank you. I had forgotten about the UCC.
You are correct that the obstacles to ecumenical union are there, as they have always been. Impossible things sometimes happen, however, as the Church of South India demonstrates. The name Leslie Newbigin is evidence that the Reformed can make quite good bishops.
I do know that the leadership of both ACNA and NALC are committed to working together, and to doing what they can to avoid the redundancy of competing ACNA and ELCA churches in the same geographical area. NALC will be sending seminarians to TSM, where they will take the same courses as the Anglican students, with the exception of special courses in Lutheran ethos, liturgics, and preaching, rather than Way of Anglican Theology, Prayer Book, etc.
I don’t want to hijack this thread. I realize that the subject of conversation is Presbyterians, not Anglicans and Lutherans.
Nonetheless, I point readers to this section of the [url=http://thenalc.org/traditionally-grounded-ecumenical-relationships.htm] NALC statement about Ecumenical Relationships[/url]:
[blockquote]As an initial strategy the North American Lutheran Church will . . . give priority to relationships, including ecumenical dialogues, with churches such as the Anglican Church in North America, the Roman Catholic Church, and the Orthodox Churches.[/blockquote]
Might it be possible for this vision to take hold among the Reformed as well?
[Also, #11 above should read “avoid the redundancy of competing ACNA and NALC churches.”]
Isn’t Hope Church an EPC congregation planted by 3rd Pres. that so far has taken the no female clergy local option? They can’t be PCA. If you look at their web site they list female elders – a no-no for PCA, IIRC.
Just for clarification from one who is in the EPC: while we are less “rigid” than the PCA, we are firm in holding to the Westminster Standards. We do allow female ruling elders as a congregational option, while the matter of female teaching elders is up to each presbytery. As to why ECO churches may decide to leave PCUSA but not join EPC, I think the primary reason has to do with confessional standards. The ECO is going to continue to use all the statements found in the PCUSA Book of Confessions (there are 11, IIRC), and some churches felt that winnowing that down to Westminster was unnecessarily restrictive.
Thanks for the clarification on how EPC handles ruling elders and teaching elders.
Re: “that would not be suitable for folk who lap up yesterday’s droppings of the Zeitgeist as ardently as they reject today’s.”
[chuckle]
Thank God we had the reversal of that principle when Protestants did not wish to lap up Rome’s “droppings.”
RE: “Continuing Anglicans have made clear about what they think of the ACNA by continuing to be Continuing Anglicans.”
And ACNA folks have made clear about what they think of the various Continuing churches by forming ACNA.
As I’ve been pointing out for the longest now, people leave at particular times from their mainline denomination because they do not share the same theology or values as those who left in the prior wave, nor do they wish to have the organization that the prior wave constructs to hold their departure.
So it’s perfectly ordinary and predictable for the successive waves to form organizations in keeping with their theology and values.
Many had believed the PCA would be the structure holding the departing from the PCUSA; instead the EPC mopped up quite a bit in the last 5-7 years — which was understandable since those still within the PCUSA held similar positions to the EPC. But at this point, those still within the PCUSA who determine to leave will be another discrete wave of departures who will want to build a structure that holds their particular theology, values, and ecclesiology.
It’s almost a truism that the entities formed in each great “break” with the mainline entity achieve what growth they do from the mainline church within a 5-7 year period. After that, they grow — if they grow — in other ways having little to nothing to do with the mainline from which they departed.
This is true for those who left for the REC a hundred years ago, and for those who left for Continuing churches in the late 1970s/80s, and for those who left for the AMiA in 2000, and those who left in response to post-2003.
And it will be true for those who leave in a next wave from TEC as well.
Thanks to Yebonoma (#14),
Yes, you’re right about Hope Pres. being EPC. It’s embarrassing to admit, but I got confused and was thinking of West End Pres., which is a daughter church of evangelical Stony Point Pres., a PCA church in Bon Air/Midlothian, on the southside. It’s West End that’s PCA, not Hope Church. Thanks for the gentle correction.
Also thanks to EPC minister David Fischler (#15), for helping to set the record straight about the EPC’s firm commitment to the Reformed confessions, including the venerable WCF of 1646. I guess that as an ex-Presbyterian, I just know a few too many people who boast of being “more Reformed than thou, ” which is how some of my PCA friends sometimes unwittingly come across.
When I spoke above of a tendency for conservative ex-PCUSA congregations to drift toward the EPC rather than the PCA, I especially had in mind a marvelous charismatic powerhouse in the Tidewater area, Kempsville Pres., which boasts an ASA of 1200-1500.
Boy, I need to learn to do a Google search and check my facts before I post. As Proverbs warns us, where words are many, mistakes are inevitable…
David Handy+
Dr. Witt (#12),
As usual, we’re not far apart. I’m also an admirer of the matchless Lesslie Newbigin, my favorite Reformed theologian of the 20th century (by far!). I don’t want to take this thread off-topic too far either, but I agree that the formation of the Church of South India was something of a miracle back in the late 1940s. And it’s also something of a miracle that such an unusual merger has survived, and even thrived in many ways, since then. I also remember the highly ironic and ambivalent way the Lambeth Conference of 1948 responded to the creation of the CSI the year before, when four large Anglican dioceses left the Communion to help start the CSI. Essentially, the official Anglican response could be summed up as “[i]This was undoubtedly the work of God–and it shouldn’t be repeated![/i]”
As for NALC students starting to flock to TSM, that’s music to my ears. I’m delighted to hear it, Bill. Alas, the NALC faces a real dilemma in that there are NO safe, reliably orthodox Lutheran seminaries anymore (i.e., outside of the Missouri Synod, etc.). We Anglicans are so blessed to have both Trinity in Ambridge and Nashotah House, not to mention the REC schools in Philadelphia and Houston.
Keep up the good work at TSM, Bill! In so many ways, the future of orthodox Anglicanism and orthodox Lutheranism depends on faithful seminary teachers and scholars like you.
Cordially,
David Handy+
No NALC students have begun to “flock to TSM,” at least not yet. However, the NALC asked themselves whether it made sense to create a brand new seminary when others were available, and decided that it would make more sense to take advantage of what already existed. Lutherans and Anglicans share the Reformation solas. At the same time, they also share an understanding of the Reformation as a “reforming movement in the Western Catholic church” rather than a complete break with catholicism. Both traditions are liturgical in their worship.
One can hope the new situation will create an ecumenical environment of mutual learning.
Interesting issue when considering ‘ecumenism’ – does it mean two groups working towards achieving institutional unity, or does it mean two groups learning how to work together whilst always intending to remain institutionally separate?
Sometimes in a discussion of the topic, participants don’t realise that others are using ‘ecumenism’ in a different sense.
Dr. Witt (#20),
OK, no big wave of NALC students at TSM yet, but the NALC and ACNA will train students together in the future. Marvelous. I’m all for that. Hopefully, the Lutherans can help teach us Anglicans to take doctrine more seriously, and we can help the Lutherans to take church polity as more than adiaphora.
After all, liturgically the ELCA and TEC have showed a remarkable and welcome convergence since the 1970s. For example, when the Lutherans produced their revised LBW ([i]Lutheran Book of Worship[/i], which includes their humnal) in 1978, they chose not to produce their own fresh translation of the Psalter, but simply to borrow the new Psalter we’d created for the 1979 BCP. We also share the same translation of the biblical Canticles used in worship. Not least, the 1978 LBW and the later 2005 ELW ([i]Evangelical Lutheran Worship[/i], their current liturgical book) share with the 1979 BCP the same fundamental liturgical shape, both based on the recovery of the ancient patristic models championed by the ecumenical Liturgical Movement.
For instance, the LBW and ELW restore the essential baptismal anoointing to Christian initiation (albeit it remains optional, and less commonly used in practice by Lutherans than by us Anglicans, and most importantly, the oil used for the chrismation need not be blessed by a bishop, as it has to be with us). More and more Lutheran churches are becoming eucharistically-centered, with Holy Communion as the main Sunday service in growing numbers of churches, although again, the NALC seems to be well behind the ACNA in that department. But overall, the clear trend is toward convergence. Not consensus, mind you, but convergence (hat tip to MichaelA’s valid point in #21).
However, after so much amicable agreement being on display here, why did you have to go and ruin everything, Bill, by bringing in the Reformation sola’s?? Sigh. Alas, that immediately shows why we will probably never achieve full merger, like the CSI, but only more and more cooperation and convergence, instead of competition.
For the fact is that not all of us Anglicans in the ACNA agree on and endorse all those famous (or infamous) Sola’s. I can’t speak for anyone else, but while I fervently uphold the truth of [i]Sola Fide[/i], I also utterly reject and repudiate the companion principle of [i]Sola Scriptura[/i]. As you know, Bill, the former is often known among systematic theologians as the “formal principle” of the Reformation, and the latter as the “material principle” of the Reformers. Personally, I refuse to see the two twin principles or Protestant pillars as being bound inseparably together, as if they mutually implied one another.
Personally, I fully support the Protestant principle of justification by faith alone, apart from human works, and when I preach and teach about justification I speak with a pronounced Protestant accent. However, on the contrary, when addressing the crucial topic of the delicate and complex relationship between Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition, I do the opposite and take the Catholic side, and my preaching and teaching has a pronounced and highly intentional Catholic accent.
Of course, that tends to show that besides the need for more genuine dialogue and for fostering deeper mutual understanding and cooperation (instead of competition and hostility) between orthodox Lutherans, Anglicans, and even Presbyterians (and Methodists, etc.), there is a similar need for INTRA-mural dialogue and cooperation within the ACNA itself. For while the majority of orthodox Anglicans would doubtless think of themselves as liturgical and hierarchical Protestants, there are also some of us who think of ourselves more as biblical catholics and who want to distance ourselves form (mere) Protestantism just as much as we distance ourselves from Roman Catholicism. Although, to be more accurate and precise, I would prefer to stress that the kind of Anglicanism I favor so passionately is genuinely 3-D: evangelical, catholic, and charismatic.
IOW, some of us refuse to take the Protestantism of Anglicanism for granted as a given and a necessity for all time, world without end, amen. Rather than viewing Anglicanism as merely the English form of Protestantism, we choose to see Anglicanism as a true Protestant-Catholic hybrid that has spawned a synthesis that is in crucial ways NEITHER Protestant nor Catholic but a whole new, third kind of Christianity, deeply indebted to both camps, but not identified ultimately with either one. A unique Tertium Quid. You know, rather like a platypus (nod to MichaelA in Australia).incorporates both mammal and reptile characteristics (although admittedly, a platypus is ultimately a mammal, the aanalogy is imperfect, as all analogies are).
And yes, I meant that in a whimsical, teasing way. I’m not trying to divert this thread onto a long detour rehashing the old Reformation debates. Just pointing out, again, that the major faultlines within orthodox Christianity in North America don’t necessarily follow denominational lines anymore.
But on a thread devoted to the breakup of the PCUSA, it may perhaps be pertinent to add my personal testimony that when I turned my back on my own Presbyterian roots and became an Anglican, I didn’t just abandon Calvisnism, I also abandoned some key tenets of Protestantism and affiliated myself with the Anglo-Catholic wing of Anglicanism. Just as I will never, ever go back to being either a Presbyterian or a Calvinist (or a Puritan), I am firmly determined never, ever to go back to being a Protestant per se. A Prostetant-Catholic hybrid, yes, but never a mere Protestant.
Cordially and cheekily,
David Handy+
David,
Articles VI, VII, VIII, and XX of the 39 Articles contain the historic Anglican understanding of Scripture, and all Anglican clergy affirm this at ordination when they “solemnly declare that I do believe the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to be the Word of God, and to contain all things necessary to salvation.” That is sola scriptura.
The historic Anglican and Lutheran hermeneutic has been at odds with the Puritan regulative principle (anything not specifically commanded in Scripture is forbidden), which is not the same as sola scriptura. Anglicans in particular have read Scripture in light of the catholic interpretation of the early Fathers.
Moreover, sola scriptura in the sense mentioned above is also the doctrine of figures like Augustine, John Damascene, and Thomas Aquinas. The Tridentine two-source theory is a late Medieval development, and is a departure from the catholic tradition of the church. By acknowledging a canon in the second century, the post-apostolic church placed itself under the authorities of the prophetic writings of the Old Testament and the apostolic writings of the New Testament, and these alone.
For a Lutheran take on these things, with which this Anglican is familiar, I would point you (and others) to Carl E. Braaten and Robert W. Jenson, The Catholicity of the Reformation (Eerdmans, 1992).
MichaelA (#21),
Ecumenism has to begin somewhere. Sharing theological education, recognizing one another’s clergy, and refusing to duplicate congregations in a geographical area (which necessitates dual identity congregations) is a first step. I do not believe that the long term goal is to remain institutionally separate.
At the same time, an institutional merging that does not recognize and appreciate distinctive heritage and contributions is not ecumenism but absorption.
Again, the Church of South India is an ideal model.
Dr. Witt (#23),
Thanks for a moderate and amicable reply to my quite feisty and provocative #22. Just for the record, so there’s no confusion about my stance, let me clarify what sense of Sola Scriptura I’m rejecting and, more importantly perhaps, what sense of it I’m not repudiating. Please don’t misunderstand me, Bill, and other readers. I heartily affirm, along with the Articles, that Holy Scripture is truly the Word of God and contains all truths necessary to know for receiving salvation. And I also wholeheartedly go along with the standard ordination oath, which I took and which I still affirm, without my fingers crossed behind my back.
However, I would vigorously dispute your claim, Bill, that this is all that the Protestant principle of Sola Scriptura means. That is simply not so, historically or logically. Sola has got to mean sola, literally, or the slogan is meaningless and pointless. For every well-instructed Roman Catholic or Eastern Christian would affirm the very minimalist interpretation of the hoary Protestant slogan that you’ve put forward, since you’ve correctly noted that Augustine, Chrysostom, and Aquinas would affirm that sort of principle just as much as Luther, Calvin, or Cranmer did. No, Sola Scriptura must, I contend, be understood in parallel with the other sola’s.
Can you imagine someone arguing that Sola Fide meant only that Faith was the most important thing, but that good works were also valuable in securing salvation? Can anyone seriously imagine that Sola Gratia means merely that Grace is the supreme and primary thing, but that our active cooperation in the process of salvation is not thereby ruled out, but implicitly allowed? Can anyone suppose that Sola Christus means only that Christ is the primary Savior, but not the exclusive one, and that Buddha or Mohammed are subsidiary savior figures? No, to be meaningful, Sola must mean ALONE. Logically, Sola Scriptura has to mean that Scripture ALONE has divine authority and it alone is binding, etc. It is not merely a matter of distinguishing Sola Scriptura from the Calvinist regulative principle. Naturally, I utterly reject that too, but more is at stake than just that.
I’m well aware that many Protestants have in recent times been attempting a salvage operation with regard to the venerable (and traditional) watchword of Sola Scriptura. Evangelical and Reformed stalwarts like R. C. Sproul are well-known for asserting the claim you just made, Bill, i.e., all it really means is that the Bible is the supreme and final and primary authority in the Christian Church. They’ve been practically forced into that retreat, since it has become ever more obvious that the Bible has never, in fact, been the sole authority for Protestant groups in practice, however much they might want to claim to uphold the Reformation slogan in theory. But just compare Sproul’s faulty version of Sola Scriptura with the classic expositions of the phrase by Charles Hodge and B. B. Warfield during the good old days of Reformed Orthodoxy at Princeton in the late 1800s. Hodge and Warfield are far more convincing interpreters than Sproul of what that classic principle really means. Or so it seems to me anyway.
Sorry to get polemical there. You’re free to disagree, Bill. And I know that a full discussion of these matters would take us pretty far off-topic. So consider this latest comment not so much as a throwing down of the theological guantlet as an exercise in self-differentiation and further clarification, in the hopes of preventing needless strife due to misunderstanding of what I was really trying to say (not least by excluding what I never meant to say).
Let me close on an irenic note by saying that the leading theologian who taught me to appreciate how biblical and patristic Christianity is inherently 3-D was none other than the 20th century Reformed theologian….
(drum roll, please)…
[i]Lesslie Newbigin[/i].
In his classic Kerr Lectures of 1952, published later as the wonderful masterpiece on ecclesiology, [b]The Household of God[/b]. As the CSI Bishop of Madras (now called Chennai), Newbigin embodied in his person how it is indeed possible to unite the evangelical and catholic elements or dimensions of Christianity in a genuine synthesis. When he retired and returned to the UK, Newbigin didn’t affiliate himself with the CoE, despite the fact that CSI has now been fully re-incorporated back into the Anglican Communion. No, instead he affiliated himself with the United Reformed Church in the UK, in keeping with his Presbyterian roots and early ministry. Newbigin is a splendid example of how the wider convergence of traditions I’ve mentioned can be vividly and compellingly displayed in the life and witness of a truly great man, one of the theological giants and churchmen of the last generation.
Respectfully,
David Handy+
#22 New Reformation Advocate says:
One of my seminary professors described Anglicanism as, “Catholic but not Roman; Reformed but not Protestant.”
Ross (#26),
Thanks for the back up. I would generally agree with that seminary professor, except I might want to nuance that claim by making the R in “Reformed” lower case. As I see it, Anglicanism is technically reformed, not Reformed, although plenty of Anglicans have in fact been actually Reformed as well, starting with the Marian exiles that Queen Elizabeth made bishops, etc.
However, I freely grant that in the period of Protestant scholasticism in the 17th century, when the Continental Reformed theologians compiled collections of “Reformed” confessions and catechisms, the English 39 Articles of Religion were usually included, implicitly claiming that the Articles, and thereby the CoE, were not merely Protestant in general, but specifically Reformed as opposed to Lutheran (or Anabaptist). But since the Catholic Revival began within Anglicanism in 1833, there have been many of us who eschewed the “Reformed” label, although we happily call ourselves reformed in generic terms.
Ross, would you care to identify which seminary (or even which prof) you were citing there? Just curious.
David Handy+
#27:
The school in question was Seattle University, a broadly ecumenical seminary in a Jesuit school, and as liberal a place as ever was. So I found it eminently congenial, being the staunch reappraiser that I am; but T19ers may want to be cautious about quoting it 🙂
Just to throw my two cents in, when the Anglican Church was established under royal patronage in Hawaii in the 1860s (when Hawaii was still an independent kingdom), its official title was the “Hawaiian Reformed Catholic Church.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_Hawaii
Thanks, Ross (#28).
Duly noted.
Jim the Puritan (#29),
Ditto. Good point. Though FWIW, when it comes to provincial names, I could also throw in that the Anglican Church in Japan is known by a rather one-sided but unProtestant name (Nippon Sei Ko Kai) that translates into English as “[i]the Holy Catholic Church in Japan[/i].”
Upon further thought, I’m inclined to suggest a different analogy for Anglicanism than the “hybrid” analogy borrowed from the world of biology. Rather than featuring the rather odd (fascinating but lovable) creature the platypus, let me switch metaphors to the world of chemistry.
We’re all probably familiar with the basic distinction between a “mixture” and a “compound.” If you mix salt and pepper together, or mix oil and water, they remain easily separable, because they are chemically inert substances. OTOH, if sodium and chloride are brought together under the right circumstances (with a catalyst), they BOND together to form salt (sodium choride). This familiar compound displays some of the chemical properties of each of the contributing elements, but once the bonding takes place, salt displays special characteristcs that are unique to it, that neither sodium nor chloride has on their own.
In a somewhat similar way, Anglicanism, at least at its best, is a sort of religious compound, if you will, where aspects of both Protestantism and Catholicism have BONDED to create a new synthesis that has a special nature of its own.
I hope the Presbyterians or Reformed Anglicans who read this won’t take offense at what I said earlier. For when I said that as an ex-Reformed (but still reformed) Anglican I am determined never to go back to being Reformed or merely Protestant, what I had in mind was that since I have become salt (didn’t Jesus call us “the salt of the earth?”), I’m never going back to being merely sodium (Protestant alone). OTOH, even if I do someday swim the Tiber (as some of my best friends have been predicting for years that I would), I will also never become merely chlorine (Catholic alone). It’s the peculiar Anglican way of trying to combine the best of both worlds that appeals to me so much (although we often have to endure the worst of both worlds as well).
Anyway, I hope that helps shed more light on what I was feebly trying to say. And more importantly perhaps, what I wasn’t intending to say.
Let me close on an irenic note. Despite the fact that I’m a rather anti-Puritan sort of Anglican (like Richard Hooker or William Laud, although I reject the latter’s harsh methods of persecuting Puritans), I remain deeply grateful for my Presbyterian roots. We Anglicans all too often pride ourselves on what we should be ashamed of, our lack of concern for doing systematic thinking in theology, our general indifference to doctrine or guarding orthodoxy, etc. I continue to think that John Calvin fully deserves to be added to the list of official “Doctors of the Church” (along with Luther as well). Calvin would also make my short list of the top 5 or top 10 biblical exegetes of all time, putting most modern biblical scholars to shame. I continue to read the Institutes from time to time, always with spiritual profit and intellectual delight at his brilliance and depth.
I also think that Anglicanism is better off because such godly men as ++Grindal or Richard Baxter lived and ministered among us. Moreover, I have a beloved niece (age 25) who just graduated from McCormick last May (after graduating a few years ago from Bethel College in St. Paul!), and she was just ordained and plans to keep serving, as an evangelical, in the PCUSA. I think she’s naive and nuts to choose such a denominational affiliation, but she’s a dear and respected member of my extended family (most of whom remain Presbyterians, and much more conservative than most folks in the PCUSA).
The fact is that there remain good and faithful Christians in the PCUSA, just as there still are within TEC, or the ELCA, or even, wonder of wonders, in the ultra-liberal UCC. One of my dear seminary friends back at Yale is an ordained minister in the UCC in CT, and she swears that she is in it for the duration. She’s going down with the ship. Of course, the fact that she (and my niece) are women does limit their options!
David Handy+
David,
If one wants to understand the meaning of a term, one investigates how it is used by those who use it. One does not decide what the term must mean by a simple a priori look at the term itself. To use an example of a misreading that I assume you would reject: There are those who have rejected interpreted sola fide because they have interpreted it to mean that justification by grace alone through faith alone necessarily means that no good works accompany justification, i.e., justification by faith means antinominianism. Yet all the mainstream Reformers insisted that justification is inevitably accompanied by good works. Luther spoke of “two kinds of righteousness.” Calvin spoke of both “justification” and “sanctification.” Cranmer spoke of “lively faith.” One might argue (incorrectly, I would say) that the Reformers did not understand the meaning of the term sola fide, but one could not plausibly argue that they understood it to mean antinominianism.
Neither historic Anglicans nor historic Lutherans embraced the Puritan “regulative” interpretation of sola scriptura. The standard Lutheran discussions occur in the Book of Concord; Richard Hooker’s Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity is throughout a rejection of the regulative principle while nonetheless affirming sola scriptura.
Similarly, John Jewel spent his entire career arguing with Roman Catholics that Anglicanism was in continuity with the patristic church in a way that Tridentine Catholicism was not. One could plausibly challenge Jewel’s patristic scholarship. One could not plausibly argue that Jewel’s understanding of sola scriptura meant something like the Puritan regulative principle.
Neither did the leaders of the Oxford Movement reject the historic understanding. Newman’s brother in Law, J.K. Mozley, masterfully defended the historic understanding in his book The Theory of Development (against Newman) as well as the first chapter of his book A Review of the Baptismal Controversy (about baptismal regeneration).
Good discussion of Aquinas’s understanding of the normative and final authority of Scripture can be found in:
Thomas Weinandy, Daniel Keating, and John Yocum, eds. Aquinas on Doctrine: A Critical Introduction (T & T Clark, 2004).
Thomas Weinandy, Daniel Keating, and John Yocum, eds. Aquinas on Scripture: An Introduction to his Biblical Commentaries (T & T Clark, 2005).
The historic understanding of sola fide is that expressed in Kierkegaard’s book The Difference Between a Genius and an Apostle. Scripture alone has final normative authority because Scripture is the writing of inspired prophets and apostles, which we are not. Nonetheless, recognizing this normative authority of Scripture does not mean disregarding or rejecting the tradition of the church. If theology is “faith seeking understanding,” it would be arrogant to assume that our generation alone is the first to engage in that process or the first to read and understand the Bible.
Yikes, I meant sodium and chlorine make salt. At least I got it right toward the end.
Please pardon my hasty typo’s, and general verbosity.
P.S. Aside to Dr. Witt, what is it with orthodox Anglican seminary profs and the old [i]Sola Scriptura[/i] principle? Last month, I had a little online spat (albeit a cordial, mutually respectful one) with Dr. Munday at Nashotah House over the same issue (over at SFiF). I can more easily understand and forgive you, Bill, for the confusion than him. It’s one thing for a teacher at low-church TSM to defend the phrase as fitting for Anglicans than for someone at the flagship seminary for Anglo-Catholicism. Anyway, you’re not alone in interpreting the Protestant slogan the way you did above.
Let me try again to clarify what I see as at stake. Back when I was a freshman at Wheaton taking my first Bible course (and I was a Bible major, back in the Middle Ages), one of the first theological textbooks I was assigned to read was John Stott’s classic introduction to the essentials of evangelicalism, [b]Christ the Controversialist[/b]. In the chapter devoted to the issue of Scripture and Tradition, Stott makes three key claims that sum up the whole dispute rather well, I think. He boils the Protestant vs. Catholic debate down to the following three core propositions, which are marvelously clear and yet profound:
1. [i]Scripture is divine, tradition is human.[/i]
2. [i]Scripture is obligatory, tradition is optional.[/i]
3. [i]Scripture is supreme and primary, tradition is secondary.[/i]
Would you agree with Stott’s summary, Bill? I think Stott nails the heart and thrust of the Sola Scriptura principle.
Alas, I think the first two of those three propositions are so over-simplistic as to be grossly misleading. Instead of giving us a clear picture of the way things really are, those first two points amount to such a severe distortion of reality that they result in a cartoon caricature of the contrast between Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition.
By way of contrast, I would now argue that when it comes to divine inspiration and authority, Scripture and Tradition can’t be set in contrast, in water-tight compartments with no overlap, as if they differed in their very nature. That is, rather than saying as Stott does that Scripture is divinely inspired, but ecclesial traditions are merely human, I would insist that Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition differ in DEGREE of inspiration and authority, NOT in KIND. Dichotomistic thinking is out of place here, not least when modern biblical scholarship has shown, beyond any reasonable doubt, that most of the Bible passed through a period of oral formation and transmission (and revision) before crystallizing in its final canonical form (the Pentateuch and the Gospels being the parade examples). With the prominent exception of the Pauline epistles, the vast majority of the Bible not only passed through a prolonged period of oral formation and repeated editing, but equally importantly, the vast majority of the various biblical books, especially in the OT, were written by COMMUNITIES of faith and obedience for whole communities of faith and obedience. They were not written by single individuals for other individuals to read and apply on their own (as Protestants too easily suppose). Any theory of the divine inspiration of Holy Scripture must be able to accomodate the COLLECTIVE inspiration of groups, not the mere inspiration of individuals like prophets or apostles.
Likewise, with Stott’s second proposition, about whatever Scripture says being an obligatory matter for our acceptance, whereas all church traditions are merely human and thus optional. That again drastically oversimplies reality, IMHO. Not all that is apostolic is found in the NT. In particular, when it comes to liturgy and polity, I firmly believe that the apostles handed down traditions that were not reduced to writing for generations, but which are still obligatory and binding on all who profess (or aspire) to belong to the “one, holy, catholic, and APOSTOLIC Church.” IOW, the Church can, and MUST (by necessity of Scripture’s incompleteness and ambiguities) ADD to the apostolic witness in the Bible. It just can never CONTRADICT or go AGAINST that biblical witness (or as Article XX puts it, we can’t teach anything “repugnant” to the biblical teaching as a coherent whole).
However, I fully agree with Stott’s 3rd proposition, which seems to be the one you were emphasizing, Bill. That is, I fully agree that the very process of canonization implies that Scripture as the Word of God is our supreme and primary authority (under Christ the Incarnate Word), and all unwritten or later church traditions are secondary at best. Quite right.
But my point is that the third proposition does NOT depend on the Protestant assumptions captured so nicely in Stott’s first two propositions. When I say I reject and repudiate the false notion of Sola Scriptura, what I really mean is that I reject Stott’s first two propositions, which are logical corollaries of that fundamental, cherished Protestant principle.
Amicably,
David Handy+
David Handy+
Oops, sorry for the double sign-off.
And just for the record, so it’s clear. I also heartily reject and repudiate the false notion of two independent and equally important sources of divine revelation, ala the usual interpretation of Trent’s infamous decree on the subject back in the 1540s (i.e., the classic Roman view that prevailed until Vatican II, but which is now repudiated also by most RC theologians). I wholeheartedly agree with the Protestant reformers in vehemently rejecting the major and disastrous error that Scripture and Tradition are somehow two equal and independent authorities, even if Trent is still partially right in that they should both be received with great reverence and deference (although not equal reverence and deference).
Finally, following Jaroslav Pelikan, I would make a firm and decisive distinction (although one that’s hard to draw) between Tradition and lesser traditions. IOW, not all traditions are of equal importance or legitimacy or permanent value. Rather, as Pelikan put it so profoundly in his Jefferson Lectures back in 1983, with one of his characteristicallly sage and witty epigrams:
[i]Tradition is the living faith of the dead. Traditionalism is the dead faith of the living.[/i]
Absolutely right. And terribly important. As with the famous Serenity Prayer (going back to Reinhold Neibuhr), Wisdom lies in discerning the difference between the two. Bottom line: Holy Scripture is the pre-eminent and most important part of Holy Tradition (singular, capital T). The un-normed and supreme norm. That too is simply part of the Tradition.
David Handy+
P.S.S. to Dr. Witt,
Thanks, Bill, for your thoughtful #31. I’m afraid that I hadn’t noticed it when I composed my #32 and 33 this morning, so they shouldn’t be construed as a direct or even indirect response to your last comment. I acknowledge, of course, the truth and relevance of your point that the meaning of key terms or phrases should be determined by their actual use by those who use them, rather than being deduced from a priori principles and then imposed, ahistorically, on those terms or phrases.
To illustrate, Dom Gregory Dix loved to make fun of the other main Reformation slogan, Sola Fide, by noting that, taken by itself, the phrase would seem to imply that we are saved by faith ALONE, aprt from the sacraments, as well as apart from good works, or works of the law. Yet clearly, whatever some anti-sacrmentalist Zwinglian or Anabaptist reformers may have thought, both the Lutheran and Anglican traditions have generally insisted, and rightly so, that participation in the sacramental life of the Church is normally (although not absolutely) necessary for salvation. Article IX of the Augsburg Confession is even clearer on that point than our own 39 Articles. So based on how the magisterial Reformers actually used the phrase Sola Fide, it can’t be justly taken as meaning that we are saved by faith alone, apart from the sacraments.
No need to keep beating a dead horse here, I think. I’m sorry if I’ve taken this thread way off topic. Since I’m an Acts guy (my dissertation was on the Acts of the Apostles and it’s my favorite book of the Bible), allusions to Acts spring to mind more quickly than they do from most of the rest of the Scriptures. What came to me, reading your #31, Bill, was the line of the pagan Roman Governor Felix to Paul after hearing his defense in Caesarea: (citing the KJV) “[i]Almost thou persuadest me…[/i]”
Almost. But not quite.
As I tried to say above, it’s not a matter of whether or not the main Reformers valued the Fathers or the Tradition of the Church in general (obviously some did more than others), or allowed it varying degrees of influence. It always come down to the authority issue. What is the AUTHORITY of Tradition versus the authority of Holy Scripture? And there, I still think that John Stott essentially nails the whole thrust and point of the Sola Scriptura principle. Namely, Scripture ALONE has full and binding authority, since it alone is divinely inspired. Luther and Calvin, Cranmer and Knox, Melancthon and Bucer, Zwingli and Menno Simons, Osiander and Hubmaier, they all agreed, it seems to me, that the Bible alone was God’s Word, and hence it alone was binding and normative. All else was not just secondary, it was optional at best, and suspicious or harmful at worst. Whereas I would say, following the Lambeth Quadrilateral, that the great achievements of the Catholic Church by the end of the second century, although post-biblical, aren’t merely permissible options but mandatory requirements for being part of the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church: i.e. that authentic Christianity MUST be credal, liturgical and sacramental, and hierarchical. More specifically, the three-fold ordering of ministry isn’t just permissible, but MANDATORY and BINDING on all Christians.
That is not to say that the Tradition is always right, or sacrsanct, or unreformable. For that three-fold ordering of ministerial offices includes the real (permanent) diaconate. Or shall I say, the “historic diaconate.” to bring out the parallel with the so-called “historic episcopate.” In my opinion, contrary to ALL the magisterial reformers, much less the Anabaptists, the true three-fold ordering of ministry is indeed of the ESSE of the Church, not just the bene esse or the plene esse. But all that’s a topic for another day, or another thread.
Anyway, thanks for your patience with me, and for your helpful and illuminating remarks. In particular, I appreciate your tips for further reading. I didn’t know about [b]The Catholicity of the Reformation[/b] by Jensen and Braaten. I’ve read lots of other stuff, though, by those two eminent champions of orthodox Lutheranism (evangelical and catholic indeed) and I’ve always found their work stimulating and edifying. Just as I do yours, Bill.
David Handy+
Signing off this thread for good
P.S.S.S. Ugh, Let me correct a notable blunder before truly signing off for good. Despite being an Acts man, I misquoted that line from Acts. The proper allusion is to King Agrippa, not Governor Felix (or Festus). The Jewish king is the one who said, “Almost thou persuadest me…” in Acts 26:28. (Of course, a better translation is something like, “[i]In a short time you think to make me a Christian?[/i]” but the KJV suited my purpose better).
Alas, as I confessed above when I confused which Richmond Presbyterian church had planted a PCA daughter church and which had started an EPC one, I tend to compose my blog comments overly hastily, and often fail to check all my facts first before hitting the “Submit” button.
Dr. Witt may be right in his interpretation of Sola Scriptura. After all, Dr. Munday of Nashota House agrees with him, which is significant. But I still hope that our little online discussion has been worthwhile and edifying for those who’ve persevered to the end.
David Handy+
Really signing off this time
Dr Witt wrote:
[blockquote] “The historic understanding of sola fide is that expressed in Kierkegaard’s book The Difference Between a Genius and an Apostle. Scripture alone has final normative authority because Scripture is the writing of inspired prophets and apostles, which we are not. Nonetheless, recognizing this normative authority of Scripture does not mean disregarding or rejecting the tradition of the church. If theology is “faith seeking understanding,†it would be arrogant to assume that our generation alone is the first to engage in that process or the first to read and understand the Bible.” [/blockquote]
That seems to me to sum up the situation extremely well.
I would add one rider to Dr Witt’s post: “puritanism” was a broad movement; some puritans’ view of scripture was more normative than regulative.
NRA,
Sola Scriptura has been understood in at least two very different ways. On the one hand there has been the “Puritan”/Anabaptist approach (recognizing as MichaelA points out that Puritanism is not a single movement) that basically says “whatever is not commanded if forbidden.” This approach tends to view the Reformation and the Medieval (and perhaps even patristic) church as in essential discontinuity.
OTH is the approach broadly embraced by the Anglican Reformers and (largely) Lutherans that views the Reformation as a reforming movement in the late Medieval Catholic Church. This movement understands theology in terms of “faith seeking understanding,” and understands the Reformation to be in essential continuity with the Catholic (and particularly patristic) church with the understanding that the Catholic church somewhat went off the rails in the late Medieval period. Thus the debate between Jewel and his Roman opponents largely had to to do with what it meant to be Catholic, and with whether Rome or Canterbury was more in line with the patristic church.
For those who embrace this second approach, Sola Scriptura is understood in terms of “faith seeking understanding.” Tradition is not “optional.” Insofar as the church has always engaged in reading Scripture, we turn to the past to help us to read Scripture in the present. Hooker’s much misunderstood hermeneutic (not a “three legged stool”) is a classic example of this approach.
You refer to my “confusion,” which you attribute to teaching at a “low church” seminary. I assure you that I am not “confused.” This issue of the relation between Scripture and tradition has been a major area of research for me over the last several decades, long before I came to teach at TSM. I did all my graduate work at Roman Catholic institutions and have done the required reading in the Catholic Ressourcement movement, in Congar, DeLubac, Rahner, Lonergan et al. I am both a Systematic and a historical theologian, and the focus of much of my research during my doctoral work was on the relation between Medieval and Reformation Christianity. I also know Anglicanism, not just the Reformation period, but the crucial nineteenth and twentieth century period after the Oxford movement re-opened a lot of questions. I know not only Newman, but also the writings of Mozley, F.D. Maurice, Charles Gore, William Bright, B.F. Westcott, Michael Ramsey, and more contemporary figures who have addressed these questions.
I am aware of course that the biblical books were written by communities and that there is tradition within Scripture itself. I cut my biblical teeth reading the writings of the mid-twentieth century biblical theology movement, and my shelves are full of Brevard Childs, Christopher Seitz, Richard Hays, Jimmy Dunn, and N.T. Wright. I don’t know of any contemporary writers on the authority of Scripture that do not take this into account, e.g., Kevin Vanhoozer, Anthony Thiselton, John Webster, Ben Witherington, N.T. Wright.
The question is not whether there is tradition in Scripture, but rather the relative weight of prophetic and apostolic tradition over against post-canonical ecclesial tradition, whether or not the final form of the text of Scripture has normative authority in a way that subsequent tradition does not.
And, of course, I am aware of the crucial role of the second century church in recognizing (not creating) a canon within an ecclesial context that included the Rule of Faith, episcopal succession, and worship in word and sacrament. I would argue (agreeing with Oscar Cullmann in his classic essay “Tradition”) that the crucial issue for a theology of Scripture is the relation between the apostolic and second century church, and the recognition of and submission to a canon over against Gnosticism.
Finally, I would add that while Trinity is an evangelical (small “e”) seminary “in the Anglican tradition,” I don’t think many of the faculty would be comfortable with the adjective “low church.” This speaks to ecclesial controversies that have little relevance in a twenty-first century setting.
A further point:
“Sola scriptura” is a phrase used in medieval theology. Most historians see its earliest use by Aquinas in the mid-13th century, but I have seen claims that it was used by Robert Grosseteste in England early 13th century, and it may be older than that. From one of Grosseteste’s sermons:
[blockquote] “The Scripture alone so inscribing the mind, elevates the person beyond himself and all the way to God, calling that person to unite with God, he creates one spirit, and causes that person to live in divine manner” [/blockquote]
This could have been written by Richard Baxter or other puritans in the 17th century.
Whether we speak of Wyclif in the 14th century or Luther, Cranmer and Calvin in the 16th century, the reformers all wrote in the context of a thorough understanding of medieval theology, and of the church fathers which preceded it. Their use of the phrase “sola scriptura” in reference to theological authority did not mean that there was no other authority besides scripture. Rather, it meant that scripture alone possessed certain qualities, such that all other authorities are subject to it, and all other authorities must be read in the light of scripture, not the other way around. As the head of the Franciscan order (Bonaventure) wrote in 1257, referring to a passage in Ephesians:
[blockquote] “Divine Scripture undertakes to meet us in the fulness of happiness according to the truth of stated apostolic meaning” [/blockquote]