PARISH NEWS  

Bishop Grote to Make Annual Visit

      The Rt. Rev. Royal Upton Grote, Bishop of the Diocese of Mid-America of the Reformed Episcopal Church will make his annual visitation to Saint Michael's Broken Arrow,  On Saturday September 20 "A Wine and Cheese Reception" will be held for the Bishop on Saturday evening at 6:00 p.m. On Sunday, September 21 the Bishop will preach and administer the "ancient rite of the laying on of hands" as recorded in the Book of Acts.  This is a joyous time in the life of the parish and everyone is invited to attend.  

 "Why the use of Rite 1 is so dangerous"

 A comment from Peter Toon for the P.B.S.

20b. 1979 is an expression of modern “Affirming, Liberal Anglican Catholicism” seeking to preserve catholic ceremonial and ritual with modern, liberal theology.

Conclusion. The BCP edition of 1928 and the so-called BCP of 1979 are very different because the latter is truly in shape and content “An Alternative Service Book” not the classic BCP.

         

Parish Priests Can Sure Cook 

                                                                                                                     

             Intercessions

The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much.    James 5:16

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

THE PRAYER CYCLE FOR 

August  2008

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

A PRAYER OF ST. CHRYSOSTOM

Almighty God, who hast given us grace at this time with one accord to make our common supplications unto thee; and dost promise that when two or three are gathered together in thy Name thou wilt grant their requests; Fulfil now, O Lord, the desires and petitions of thy servants, as may be most expedient for them; granting us in this world knowledge of thy truth, and in the world to come, life everlasting.  Amen.

Of your charity, pray for the Spiritual and Material Needs of this Congregation.  For  Royal, our bishop, for Jack, our Rector, for Robert, Andrew our clergy, and for those who are: 

Serving in the Armed Forces: Eric Pelkey, Mark McCorkle (Stephanie) now at Ft. Sill, Lawton, OK. and Jason and Steven Lemire.

Prayes for:  Lloyd Rice, Betty Anderson, Wanda Decker,  Ione Newman, Renanah (now in D.C. ), Sydney, Samuel, Hamish, Michelle, David, Christopher, Rosemary, Mary Jane, Doug,  Belinda, Curt, Dawn (Branson), Dr. Toon, Fr. Drew, Jackie, Tirzah, and Fr. Jack's friend, Patrick.

In Adversity or Need of Guidance:  Mandy, David, Katy, Joni, Tiffany,    

---

            Some Very Interesting Reading       

                                         

                                           THE ANTIQUITY OF THE

     CHURCH OF ENGLAND

                                                                                  BY

The Rev. T. Tracy Walsh

General Missionary

Diocese of South Carolina            

     “Which was the first Church?” is a recurrent question.  The answer sufficient for us is found in the Apostles’ Creed – “The Holy Catholic Church.”  The first Church was founded by Jesus Christ and established by His Apostles in various cities and countries, such as Jerusalem, Antioch, Philippi, Corinth, Galatia , etc.  When an Apostle wrote of the “Church of the Thessalonians” or “the churches in Galatia ” he did not meant rival and independent organizations, because there were but local branches of the self same Church, continuing in the Apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, having the same faith and system of government.  Upon these principles were developed racial or national churches, such as those of Spain, France (or Gaul), Italy, Britain and Ireland , differing in local customs and traditions and ceremonies, but one in all essential features.  During the early centuries, certain bishoprics, for various ceremonies, received special deference, such as Jerusalem, Antioch, Ephesus, Alexandria, Rome, Carthage, Lyons and Constantinople .  It cannot be said that the Greek and Latin ideas of the Church originated or the Eastern or Western branches of Christendom began their existence only when the bishops of Constantinople and Rome excommunicated one another.            

     It is self-evident that some national Churches should be older than others, and the amalgamation of several national Churches under one central government never destroyed certain local characteristics or the fact of original independence.  Thus any body of Christians retaining and showing the marks of the original Catholic and Apostolic Church is entitled to be called a true branch of that Church, regardless of the time of its introduction into any country.  Therefore the age of the Church in Braitain, or the Church of England, or the Episcopal Church, is not of chief importance.         

     Each national Church has its traditions, but those traditions are incapable of absolute verification.  For instance, it cannot be proved that Christianity was brought to Britain or to Italy by any of the Apostles, but there interesting legends which give rise to such claims.  With reference to Britain they are given for what they are worth.  It may surprise many to learn that the quaint legends of the Holy Grail embodied in the story of King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table so beautifully set forth by Sir Thomas Mallory, Tennyson and Wagner, are all based upon the tradition that Joseph of Arimathea came to Glastonbury in Britain about AD 63 bringing the chalice or grail used at the institution of the Lord’s Supper.            

     It is worthy to remark that at the Council of Basle in the year 1431 the British bishops were given precedence “because Joseph of Arimathea founded their Church.”            

     We may next deal with the tradition of St. Paul’s relations with Britain .  In the year 66, before St. Paul’s death, there were in Rome certain hostages, viz: Linus and Claudia.  Martial, the contemporary Roman historian, says that Claudia married Pudens, a Roman, and here are some remarkable coincidences.  In 2 Timothy 8:21, these three, Linus, Claudia and Pudens, are mentioned by St. Paul as being with him in Rome .  According to tradition the first Roman bishop was name Linus.  In the Epistle to the Philippians a Clement is mentioned, and one bearing that name, who was bishop of Rome twenty years after the Apostle’s death, writes that “ St. Paul . . . traveled to the utmost bounds of the west.”  Classical and contemporaneous writes used this expression to signify Britain .  St. Jerome uses similar language, and Theodoret, the ancient historian, says that “Paul, liberated from his first captivity at Rome , preached to the Britons.”            

     Irenaeus, AD 180, says: “Christianity was propagated, especially in the Celtic nations, Germans and Britons.”            

     Tertullian, AD 200, says: “Some countries of the Britons are subject to Christ.”            

     Origen, AD 208, says: “The power of the Saviour’s Kingdom reached as far as Britain,” and Eusebius, the historian, AD 325, says that one of the Apostles “visited the British Isles .”            

     All that can be said of these traditions is that at a very early date they were in circulation and are not unreasonable.  It might also be said that there is as good proof of St. Paul’s visit to Britain as there is that St. Peter was the first bishop of Rome , and no absolute proof of either claim has ever been established.

     We now enter the bounds of more authentic history, and let it be noted before any other dates are given that the first missionary sent to Britain by the bishop of Rome arrived there late in the sixth century.  The first Christians in Britain whose names are known were Aaron and Julius, who were martyred at Caerleon in Wales , and Alban, beheaded at Verulam in the year 305.  At the Council or Arles, AD 314, there were present Eborius, bishop of York ; Restitutus of London and Adelphius of Civitate Coloniae, besides a priest and a deacon.  At subsequent councils, such as Sardica, aD 343, Ariminium, AD 360, there were British bishops.  These references are sufficient to establish the fact that the Church was in Britain at a very early date.     

     But what became of it, and why were missionaries sent to Britain from Rome in the year 597?  Because when the Roman army evacuated Britain the country was overwhelmed by heathen invaders.  The Picts, Angles, Saxons and Danes well-nigh eradicated Christianity from the Island .  The remaining British Christians fled to the wilds of Cornwall, Wales and Devonshire , where they kept up the organization of the Church.  The bishoprics of Bangor , Landaff, St. David’s and St. Asaph’s were all established before the year 560.     

     Their doctrines and customs were practically identical with those of Scotch and Irish Christians.     

     The assertion that the early British Church conceded appellate jurisdiction to the Bishop of Rome has never been proved.

     In the year 597 Augustine with his twelve companions arrived in Britain, having been sent by Gregory, bishop of Rome , to convert the Angles and Saxons.  Augustine soon had a conference with the British bishops.  His avowed object at this meeting was to secure some unity or action with the Britons in the conversion of the heathen.  But there were several matters in which they differed.  One was the time of observing Easter.  Their liturgies were different.  The British Christians would not accept Augustine as their chief, and as to Gregory they said: “We indeed owe fraternal love to the Church of God and the bishop of Rome , but we owe no obedience to him who you call pope.”

     They claimed to be already subject to the bishop of Caerleon in Wales .

      This period marks the beginning of a long continued series of protests against the usurpations of the bishop of Rome .  It may be noted here that with the exception of three kingdoms all of Britain was evangelized by Celtic missionaries, British, Scotch or Irish, and not by missionaries from Rome .  The coming Archbishop Theodore in the year 668 prepared the way for the organization of a national Church.  There could be no Church of England at that time because there was no England .  Instead there was a number of petty and often hostile kingdoms.  It was a century later when the country was called England (Angleland).  One of the first acts of Theodore was to reconcile and amalgamate the British, Irish and Scotch Christianity with that established by Augustine.  Thus the succession of the ministry was re-enforced and the British Christians recognized the primacy of the archbishop (presiding bishop) of Canterbury .  It is true that at that time a special deference was being paid to the bishop of Rome , the chief city of the world, but his appellate jurisdiction was not then fully admitted by the Church of England.

     This was demonstrated by the following incident: Wilfrid, a British bishop, appealed to the pope against Theodore, Archbishop of Canterbury.  Ere long he appeared before the Witan or Council of the Church in Britain with a decree from the pope, but the claims of the pope were repudiated, his decree burned, and Wilfrid imprisoned.      These facts clearly show that at this early date there were continual protests against the increasing papal aggressions.      The coming of the Normans , AD 1066, tainted the Church with many corruptions in doctrines and customs.  Yet when Pope Gregory VII demanded homage from William the Conqueror, he very emphatically refused, saying: “Homage to thee I have not chosen nor do I chose to do.  I never made a promise to that effect, neither do I find that it was ever performed by my predecessors (in England ) to thine.”     

     It should be remembered that in those days Church and State were practically one and homage yielded by one included the other.  Without William’s consent no pope could be acknowledged in his dominions.  Till he had approved them no papal bulls were to be of force.     

     Early in the twelfth century, Warelast, Bishop of Exeter, was sent to Rome with the protest “that the Church and realm of England occupied a different position from the continental kingdoms and churches, and had always been independent of papal jurisdiction.”      

     It is evident that a Church of England was then in existence.      

     The Magna Charta, AD 1215, was the fruit of a bitter struggle of the Church and people of England against the king and the pope  Be it ever remembered that the first clause of that famous document reads thus: “The Church of England shall be free and hold her rights entire and her liberties inviolate.”      

     While Henry II was the king the “Constitutions of Clarendon” ordained that appeal lay, on failure of justice from the archbishop, to the king, and no further appeal was to be made without the king’s consent.      

     In the year 1302, Gainsborough, Bishop of Worcester, was fined for accepting a papal bull, and a layman, procuring a papal decision, was adjudged guilty of treason.      

     In the 25^th statue of Edward II, the “Holy Church of England” is named as a sufferer from papal usurpations.      The Statutes of Provisors passed during the reign of Edward III take the seigniory of bishops and benefices from the pope and confer them on the king.  According to 27 Ed. III, S. 4, appeals to Rome from the king’s court were forbidden.  The first “Statute of Premunire,” AD 1353, declared that anyone suing for redress in the papal courts would lose the protection of England ’s laws.  By 13 Richard II, it was highly penal to introduce any papal bulls or sentences.      

     The Preface to the first Prayer Book in English, 1549, says: “The service in this Church of England, these many years, hath been read in Latin.”      

     Cardinal Manning, in his earlier writings, said: “If any man will look down along the line of early English history he will see a standing contest between the rulers of this land and the bishops of Rome .  The crown and Church of England with a steady opposition resisted the entrance and encroachment of the secularized ecclesiastical power of the bishop of Rome .      

     It would be possible to make numerous other references and quotations, but enough have been adduced to establish the following facts:      

     First.  That a true and lawful branch of the Holy Catholic Church was established in Britain at a very early date and that the bishop of Rome was not recognized as having any rightful supremacy over it.      

     Second.  That when the country really became England (in the eighth century), this British Church , amalgamated with the foreign element, became the Church of England.      

     Third.  That while the bishop of Rome , the chief city of the world, received due deference, he was not at that or any other time accepted as supreme ruler of the Church of England.      

     Fourth.  That from the time the country became England , nearly eight hundred years before the Reformation, there was a national Church known in law and in literature as the Church of England.      

     Fifth.  That while this Church naturally became tainted by the general corruption of the age, it was continually protesting against the increasing encroachments of the bishop of Rome .      

     After all this array of facts it would seem marvelous that any fair minded person of ordinary intelligence should assert that the Church of England was founded by Henry VIII.  But for the fact that the papal power was eventually cast off during the reign of this sovereign it would be superfluous to say anything about Henry VIII.      

     But a few words will dispose of his part in the reformation of the Church of England.  Like Jehu of old he was not a good man, yet God used both of them as instruments for the promotion of good.  Henry was not much in sympathy with the movement for reform which had been growing for centuries, but it afforded him an opportunity to gain his own selfish ends.  We need not here consider the motives of the king, the clergy or parliament.  It is sufficient to say that most of the reforms were begun and carried out by Convocation of the Church.  It was this Convocation that in 1531 voted: “Of the English Church and clergy we recognize his majesty as the singular protector and only supreme governor, and, so far as the law of Christ permits, the only supreme head.”

     Meanwhile Henry had been negotiating with Pope Clement VII for a divorce from Queen Catherine.  That he took advantage of the reforming tendencies of both the people and the Church of England there can be no doubt.  It is possible that but for Henry’s desire of divorce the casting off of papal jurisdictions would have been delayed for a year or more, but it was certain to come shortly.      

     Says Green, the secular historian: “The time had come when England was to claim for herself the fullness of power, ecclesiastical as well as temporal, within her bounds, and in the concentration of all authority within the hands of the sovereign which was the political characteristic of the time.  To claim this power for the antion was to claim it for the king.      

     With reference to the actions of the king, the clergy and the parliament in this case, Hallam, in his “Constitutional History of England,” chapter 2, says: “By these means was the Church of England altogether emancipated from the superiority of that of Rome .  For as to the pope’s merely spiritual primacy and authority in matters of faith. . . they seem to have attracted little peculiar attention at the time and to have dropped off as a dead branch when the axe had lopped the fibers that gave it nourishment.”      

     Freeman, the historian, says: “We must assume, because the facts of history compel us to assume, the absolute identity of the Church of England after the Reformation with the Church of England before the Reformation.”      

     As to royal supremacy over the Church, Henry merely “re-assumed the authority and prerogative of the crown, from which the kings of England had never formally departed.”      

     Was this the beginning, creation or founding of the Church of England?  A foreign monarch might overcome and retain control of these United States, and after centuries some strong though wicked man might lead the people to victory and throw off the foreign yoke, but would that mark the beginning of this nation?      

     There is quite a distinction between founding and “establishing” a Church by law.  If by some marvelous chain of circumstances the Baptist denomination should become the “Established Church of the United States,” would that mean the founding or creation of the Baptist Church?

     The Church of England does not stand or fall by the character or actions of Henry VIII, and we may sum up his part in this episode as follows (quoted by permission from Rev. W.F. Faber):      

     “First.  Henry VIII did not found a new Church, the old Church was there; was not done away, nor any new organization put by its side or into its place; there was no new organization formed at all.      

     Second.  Henry VIII did not himself reform the old Church; he compelled some reforms which really benefited her; others he opposed and hindered, which were carried out later.      

     Third.  Henry VIII did not inaugurate the overthrow of papal supremacy, that had been inaugurated centuries before.      

     Fourth.  Henry VIII did not, by the sole weight of his individual will, sever the Roman allegiance.  An entire nation and national Church made the separation a fact.  Lacking such moral support it never could have become a permanent fact.  The divorce, so called, of Catherine, furnished an opportune moment for action.”      

     Even the Roman Catholic historian, Dr. Lingard, admits that “the kingdom was severed by legislative authority from the communion of Rome long before the judgment given by Clement could have reached the knowledge of Henry.”      

     The Church of England did not separate herself from any branch of the Catholic Church.  In the 30^th of the “Constitution and Canons,” she says:      

     “So far was it from the purpose of the Church of England to forsake and reject the Church of Italy , France, Spain , German or any other like Church in all things which they held and practiced. . . that it doth with reverence retain those ceremonies which do neither endanger the Church of God nor offend the minds of sober men, and only departed from them in those particular points wherein they were fallen both from themselves in their ancient integrity and from the apostolic Church which were their first founders.”      

     Be it remembered that the first separation was made by Pope Pius IV, who, in the year 1570, after his overtures had been rejected issued a “bull” of excommunicating Queen Elizabeth and absolving her subjects from allegiance to her.  There was but one Church in England up to the reign of Elizabeth .  Those holding reformed or Roman views worshiped together in one church.  And, strange to say, out of the 9,400 clergy in England only 177 refused to take the oath of allegiance to Elizabeth’s royal supremacy.  This little band of clergy led the first non-conformist body in England .  Furthermore, the Church of England did not separate herself from the Baptists, Congregationalists, Methodists, or Presbyterians, and many of the things which caused them to separate from her are now being advocated and adopted.      

     May God hasten the re-union of all who profess and call themselves Christians.