Nielsen’s Nook

I happened to come across this album (if we may call it that), which is a recording of the Cistercian Monks of Stift Heilgenkreuz. If ever music could compel one to long to lay cruciform for hours before the altar of the LORD, this does. If ever the human voice could sound forth with symphonies of glory, the voices on this piece do merely that. I hope it brings as many worshipful tears to you as are beheld by this music.

If you’d like a copy, buy one through Amazon.

The Church has been the recipient of Christ’s redemptive work in history and is itself part of that redemptive history.  Every Sunday the story of Redemption is reenacted an proclaimed in Word and Sacrament.  But did you know that every year the Story of Redemption is told through the Church Calendar.

That’s what the Christian seasons are all about. From Christmas to Easter and back again, the Church calendar is a reenactment of the redemptive narrative that God spoke in the person of Jesus Christ in which we participate today. Fr. Bob Corley, Curate at St. John’s Episcopal Church in Dallas, has written a short article on the Church Calendar that I think you might find informative and helpful.

In exploring trans-tradition hermeneutics, trying to get at where interpretive authority lies in a span of traditions, I did a little reading on the Roman Catholic Church from their own Vatican II documents. So what follows is a concise summary of what I understand the Roman Church to be saying about interpretive authority in their context.

Apostolic Succession through Bishops

The Roman Church has and asserts an unbroken apostolic succession in which “the apostles left bishops as their successors” to whom they gave “‘their own position of teaching authority.’” As such, this tradition of apostolic succession is said to function as a mirror in which the church contemplates God. [1]

A Single Composite Sacred Deposit

The Dogmatic Constitution on the Church (Lumen Gentium) precedes the Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation (Dei Verbum). This subtle logical priority is worked out practically in Dei Verbum as the tensions represented in the hermeneutical continuum are worked out. “Tradition and scripture make up a single sacred deposit of the word of God, which is entrusted to the church,” appears to capture the practical effect succinctly.[2]

Correlatively, as Roman Christians adhere to this single deposit united to the pastors of the church they are said to continue in the trajectory of the “teaching of the apostles” (τῇ διδαχῇ), the “communion of life” (τῇ κοινωνίᾳ), the “breaking of bread” (τῇ κλάσει τοῦ ἄρτου) and the “prayers” (ταῖς προσευχαῖς) established in Acts 2:42. Consequently, in maintaining such trajectory, a “unique interplay” exists between bishops and the faithful.[3]

Magisterial Interpretation

“Authentic interpretation” of this single sacred deposit has been “entrusted to the living teaching office of the church alone.”[4] Dei Verbum goes on to explain:

This magisterium is not superior to the word of God, but is rather its servant. It teaches only what has been handed on to it [ostensibly from the apostles and prophets]. … It is clear, therefore, that, in the supremely wise arrangement of God, sacred tradition, sacred scripture, and the magisterium of the church are so connected and associated that one of them cannot stand without the others.[5]

Summary

In short, the “single sacred deposit” of the word of God is composed of two component parts: scripture and tradition. This deposit requires interpretation and it is the magisterium alone, composed of bishops, serving the church and the single sacred deposit that gives “authentic interpretation.” In other words, if the reader of scripture wants to know if her interpretation of it is correct she must only see how the Magisterium has interpreted it.

[1] Austin Flannery, “Dei Verbum,” in Vatican II the Basic Sixteen Documents : Constitutions Decrees Declarations (Northport, NY: Costello Pub., 1996), II.7.

[2]Ibid., II.10.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Ibid.

I know the translation of Hebrews has been slow out of the gate. I am not abandoning it; however, I have a paper due on May 1. The thesis of the paper is to underscore how, generally speaking, the historic/traditional Anglican hermeneutic provides a via media between the hermeneutical (and epistemological) problems of private interpretation in Protestantism and unresolvable parity given to Tradition and Scripture in the Roman Church.

If you have any good articles you might suggest that are engaged with contemporary primary sources ¹ please leave a comment and let me know about them. I appreciate the help.

__________

¹ For example, articles dealing with how Roman Catholics, Protestants or Anglicans deal with Tradition and Scripture today would be helpful. However, articles about Tridentine formulations and polemics are a bit removed for much relevant discussion.

ChurchYear.net has put together what looks to be a very helpful reading plan for Lent, composed of readings from the Church Fathers. It is available for download.

The Church Liturgy is divided into two parts: 1) the Word Spoken and 2) the Word Broken. In the first part one will experience the reading and preaching of the Word of God. There is in our church an Old Testament reading, the singing of a Psalm, the Epistle reading and then the reading from the Gospel. There is a processional from the altar to the middle of the sanctuary, in the midst of the people, where a formation occurs and the reading of the Holy Gospel occurs. The formation looks something like this:

The crucifer (i.e., the person carrying the crucifix) stands at the head of the formation. The torch bearers stand to either side and forward, shining light upon the Gospel Book held by the Lay Reader in between them. And at the foot of this cruciform formation stands the priest who reads the Gospel. Something is profoundly and purposefully communicated to both clergy and laity, that is to everyone, at this point. Whatever the Gospel is, we come to it at the foot of the Cross. It is a visible lesson on hermeneutics, that we must always seek to understand Jesus at the foot of the Cross. We cannot read His book on any other terms than the terms that were given at the foot of the Cross. Thus, it is that St. Paul has told us that he decided to know nothing except Jesus Christ and him crucified. (1 Corinthians 2:2).

Want to learn more about Christian Liturgy? Check out Thomas Howard’s Liturgy Explained.

Translation

3 For this reason and concerning all things, I praise you, I bless you, I glorify you [1] through the eternal and heavenly high priest, Jesus Christ, your beloved son, [2] through whom be glory to you, with him and the Holy Spirit, both now and for the ages to come. Amen.”

[1] σε αἰνῶ, σὲ εὐλογῶ, σὲ δοξάζω is a sequence used today in the liturgy, “We praise thee, we bless the, we worship thee, we glorify thee, we give thanks to thee for thy great glory, O Lord God, heavenly King, God the Father Almighty….” (Episcopal Book of Common Prayer, 324).

[2] See note on §14.1 regarding the use of παιδός.

Kevin D. Johnson at Reformed Catholicism has made another post that has grabbed my attention. Given the scope of Nielsen’s Nook (pastoral, ecumenical, irenic), there are a number of reasons I bring this lengthy post to your attention here. I summarize the article here:

Johnson had been a supporter of the Federal Vision (FV) in its initial articulations from 2002. Today he wonders whether FV is as consistent with Reformed theology as once claimed. In the last year of pastoring a church, and I take it - existentially feeling the weight of responsibility for those in his care, he has begun to think differently about the matter. He asks the question:

Is Federal Vision theology the appropriate pastoral response to the nominalism apparently latent in the late twentieth-century Reformed world? In the last five years has Federal Vision theology capably addressed this and related issues with any sort of effectiveness in calling youth and children back to Reformed or Presbyterian churches?

In his pastoral critique of FV he warns against of a tendency in which obedience to the commandments is emphasized in contradistinction to being a regenerate covenant member. Johnson sees this resulting in a sort of skewing of the work of preaching.

Second, a danger of raising clergy (teaching and ruling elders) to a place of authority which is contrary to historic Presbyterian polity and just as alarming is the resultant “negative treatment of women.”

Third, including himself explicitly here, Johnson states that:

… Federal Vision theology has often served to muddy the waters concerning the grace of Christ operative in the life of believers and in and among the Church.

Fourth, Johnson argues that to the degree in which Presbyterian and Reformed churches leave their Reformed traditions for Episcopalian/Anglican or Roman Catholic communions, FV demonstrates itself pastorally impotent to “properly combat nominalism in Reformed circles.”

Fifth, while Johnson argues elsewhere that the two sacraments of the Reformed churches are undervalued, he sees FV as swinging “the pendulum” too far. The result is that the sacraments become the emphasis and begin to eclipse the Lord Jesus who is signified in them. He gives a anecdotal illustration here of children in worship services in paedocommunion congregations who are allowed to sleep undisturbed through the entire liturgy except when the bread and wine are received. He makes a fine point when he says:

it is high time that gospel-centered, Christ proclaiming preaching took center stage again in these environments. The sacraments mean nothing without the accompanying Scripture being proclaimed in our services and I see more change in a congregation when the Word is properly proclaimed then I ever have through devotion to the sacraments.

He concludes by calling FV proponents to not hide behind misunderstanding, but to acknowledge the significant pastoral problems involved in adopting FV theology. While Johnson does not use this terminology, he seems to be arguing for the engagement of a semper reformanda disposition, a spirit of prayerful scriptural self-correction. Seeking to combat the nominalism that is present in Reformed churches (in those who propound FV, in those who oppose FV, and in those who don’t care) is a good thing; however, the answer does not seem to be without but has been with us since the beginning:

Heartfelt Holy Spirit inspired regeneration of the hearts of men who rely exclusively on Christ, the preaching and presentation of Christ in our churches, a centering on the grace of the gospel of Christ–these are the things that will fix nominalism in our churches and it is what will keep us away from implementing solutions which really can be a departure from the gospel if we’re not careful. We should be thankful for the heritage we have in those that have gone before us and look back once again at the classic formulations of our faith–’the faith once for all delivered to the saints’.

I have always found it fascinating how much Calvin interacted with St. Augustine; however, did you know that he interacted tremendously with the Early Church Fathers? What is even more fascinating to me is how many Reformed people these days have forgotten that they come from a long meandering church tradition that stems from the Roman Catholic tradition and is influenced significantly from the Eastern Orthodox tradition. Luther simply wasn’t the first Christian. :-)

So let me share some statistics from Calvin’s work that I hope shows the girth of his interaction with the Fathers and other Saints of the Church:

• Name: (Commentaries # of references), (Institutes # of references)
• Irenaeus: (12), (12)
• Justin Martyr: (6), (1)
• Tertullian (35), (25)
• Origen (63), (2)
• Athanasius (3), (6)
• Gregory Nazianzen (1), (1)
• Bernard (5), (70)
• Augustine (275), (393)
• Ambrose (55), (51)
• Basil the Great (0), (1)
• Clement of Alexandria (2), (0)
• Clement of Rome (1), (0)
• Cyprian of Carthage (16), (50)
• Cyril of Jerusalem (2), (0)
• Pseudo-Dionysius¹ (1), (0)
• Eusebius (61), (4)
• Hilary (8), (11)
• Jerome (522), (37)
• Hipolytus (19), (0)
• Ignatius (1), (3)
• John Chrysostom (227), (56)

These are only a handful for which I had time to electronically search tonight. The numbers may be off a little because I did not have the time to read through every citation that my software showed as a hit. Nevertheless, I think this demonstrates that Calvin was very self-consciously standing on the shoulders of those who came before him, those with whom he agreed and those with whom he did not.

__________
¹ Pseudo-Dionysius was known to Calvin as Dionysius the Areopagite, referenced in his commentary on 2 Cor 12:1-5.