Fr. Ben - as an advocate of Nicaea II for a long time, this brings me a lot of joy to read. Thank you for your humility and thank you for being public about this change. I pray for more minds to see the truth of your words and of the ecumenical Church.
I was at AWI with Fr. Ben. We sat at the same table for all the plenaries and had late night discussions with Fr. LeTourneau and others. I saw his eyes when he realized he was being swayed in favor of Nicaea II and there wasn't much he could do about it.
So refreshing to see this revocare. God bless him for his humility and his jealous love for the right worship of God.
I believe this is from Mogilia's confession (not always the best source for Orthodox teaching, but very fine here): "But Christians in no respect honor images as gods, neither in their veneration do they take anything from the true adoration due to God. Nay, rather they are led by the hand, as it were, by the image to God, while under their visible representations they honor the Saints with the veneration of dulia (δουλικῶς) as the friends of God; asking for their mediation (μεστιεύουσιν) to the Lord. And if perchance some have strayed, from their lack of knowledge, in their veneration, it were better to teach such an one, rather than that the veneration of the august images should be banished from the Church."
Does Frankfurt or the Carolines have anything to say about the type-prototype relationship that Nicaea II relies on? Because that's the real crux of the matter. If honor given to an icon can terminate not in an icon, but in the prototype, then you agree with the teaching kf Nicaea II.
What do you think this means for Christians who are in churches/denominations which don't venerate images? I'm thinking of normal Western Christians for whom it has never crossed their mind to venerate an image, because it's just not been part of their tradition or experience. Are they condemned by their ignorance?
Ignorance always mitigates any fault. So, generally - no.
And I think also — even a bare cross is a minimalist “icon” - and therefore “counts”
Maybe what I mean is - there is a range of what can count as Iconophilia.
If active hatred of images is fostered — this may be a sign of hard-heartedness , and would be anti-Catholic, on behalf of the individual, and could end up being dangerous to faith.
I think this is the best path forward... But I'm thinking of Presbyterians I love, who don't hate images or destroy them, but who refuse a liturgical role for them because they think Jesus should be worshipped in Word and Sacrament only. And honestly they've never had an interaction with a good case for religious images. What counsel would you give to people who don't hate or destroy images, but exclude them strictly? Do you think they're in danger of final condemnation? I'd be very thankful to know how you'd approach that.
So, I would frame this differently. I think ALL of us are "in danger of final condemnation" (1 Pet 4:18!). The Lord will judge us each according to the light we were given. (Matt 11, Luke 12, Rom 2, etc). I don't think a presbyterian living in a functional ignorance of the catholic necessity of image-honoring is in grave danger as such. I can think of much graver matters, such as the Baptists who deny "one baptism for the forgiveness of sins", who nevertheless, in their ignorance, are not in grave danger. Thanks be to God that bad-theology in our heads is not the central criteria of judgment day (rather: our words, and our deeds, Matt 12, 2 Cor 5, etc.)
Thank you, this is really helpful. I feel similarly about beloved people in my life who don't think much about final judgement, which would usually concern me, but these people love God and others so much that they're nevertheless much holier and christ-like than I am. (Maybe it's not a suitable parallel.) God bless you for your future ministry.
So does this mean that we might see some revisions to the St. Bernard Breviary, specifically the third question ("Sought the good favor of the saints instead of appealing to Christ?) under the Second Commandment of the self-assessment?
I found this question, and a couple of the questions were Fr. Ben's doctrinal convictions being added here, and by having them included in the self-assessment, they made specific implications that these doctrinal differences were sins I must confess. It has required my parish priest to clarify to parishioners a few of these questions.
I would think that if Nicea II is being recognized by Fr. Ben as ecumenical, then the hardline stance on Article 22 that was taken from his article about the Litany of the Saints in 2019 and invoking the prayers of the saints has changed since icons, relics, and invocation of the saints are all mentioned as romish inventions in article 22. I would be curious how much this revocation applies to previous rigidly reformed Anglican stances he has made in the past.
I also should state that these are small, minor details in Saint Bernard's Breviary that I found less than satisfying, but it is a great resource and has immensely helped my prayer and devotional life. I also do not harp on it because I have the St Augustine's Prayer Book as a supplement. I swim in a diocese where being High Church automatically makes you Anglo-Catholic and have had a lot of strict 39 article arguments.
So, the wording of that question in the SBB is intentional -- because there MUST be a ceiling to what we are looking to the saints for, and, tho it might be defined differently, surely that ceiling is recognized when it is something we SHOULD have been looking to Christ for. I am thinking specifically of when request for spiritual protection or for salvific mercy is made to the saints, as if it were theirs to give. Things we should look to our Lord Jesus for.
Not all asking of the Saints for things -- i.e. their prayers, etc. -- is sin -- definitely not, and I never intended that meaning (tho I can see how it could be read in this maximal way). But as a Re-formed catholic breviary -- caution about the saints seemed meet. I took that question from some old 1890s Anglo-catholic self-examinations by the way, and actually softened the wording. it wasn't of my own invention at root.
As for prayers to the saints generally, my convictions remain more or less the same, although perhaps less vociferous in tone.
Namely --
- The BCP tradition IS the Anglican Tradition -- and the BCP tradition has no "ora pro nobis". To include prayers to saints in private devotion - fine. But it is not *Anglican* to include them in the public liturgy of the Church, which should always be from the BCP.
- The Ecumenical Councils, which set the minimum standard for the Catholic faith, do not require Invocation of saints. It is therefore not less than Catholic to omit doing so at all.
- While evangelicals-turn-Anglo-Catholics might use Invocation "safely", born Roman-Catholics do not seem to do so. The huge groundswell of "Consecration through Mary" etc etc.
- Pusey said, when asked about St. Bernards invoking the BVM -- that when you are as holy as St. Bernard, it can be an edifying practice. For us semi-converted sinners, it is less so.
The fact that Art. 22 heaps them all together I think only shows that they are all things that are liable to be abused and to replace catholic faith in Christ Jesus as savior, in favor of degrees of a mechanistic merit system.
Hope that helps, in showing my own mind, and present attempts at consistency.
I’m curious, as someone who came to Orthodox Christianity, in part, through learning to bow in Japan, why you write that “If it had made bowing mandatory on pain of anathema, I think I never could have reconciled this with the catholic faith.”
I think because "bowing down to them" is the paydirt of prohibition at the level of the letter in the second commandment -- I can't see how Christianity could "develop" to *mandating* it.
Fair enough. It doesn’t seem to be in the nature of Christianity to mandate something like that, but I would make the case that our current cultural aversion to bowing to pay honour is… well, both relatively recent and distinctly cultural.
Honest and fair. I once overstated my case in a pulpit, and by the grace of God was given the courage to offer apology from it the next week. It's hard to do and I commend you for it.
Nicaea II is a bit of a flashpoint between our little fellowship as we seek a diocese to officially plant under, but I think this offers very good food for thought. Thank you for writing it.
I once phrased a few things poorly during a sermon, where at the peace, my wife briefly mentioned how what I had said could be misinterpreted. And I felt the need to correct it at announcements (at the end) in the same service.
If your fellowship is on board with the forward and faith statement (fifna.org), I would commend the Diocese of All Saints (mdasanglican.org).
Food for thought indeed. There are two established parishes in our area, one diocese is ADLW, the other is Great Lakes. I don't think we'd even considered any others.
it is the "catholic" non-geographic diocese, which requires subscription to forward and faith ( uphold seven sacraments, including catholic orthodoxy on holy orders.) It has classical prayer book parishes and more charismatic parishes.
I'm in the Cleveland area, and our parish is a High Church/Prayer Book Catholic parish in the ADGL. We tend to be an outlier, as most of the parishes I have seen in the ADGL are very evangelical or charismatic. I think if you were to join the ADGL, our priest would most likely be the dean who would support you.
Fr. Ben - as an advocate of Nicaea II for a long time, this brings me a lot of joy to read. Thank you for your humility and thank you for being public about this change. I pray for more minds to see the truth of your words and of the ecumenical Church.
Holy smokes. What an admission.
I was at AWI with Fr. Ben. We sat at the same table for all the plenaries and had late night discussions with Fr. LeTourneau and others. I saw his eyes when he realized he was being swayed in favor of Nicaea II and there wasn't much he could do about it.
So refreshing to see this revocare. God bless him for his humility and his jealous love for the right worship of God.
Fun to be on the cutting-room floor together!
Truly! I look forward to being in the flesh with you again in November for Fr LeTourneau’s vocation conference.
Oh nice! Yeh!
I believe this is from Mogilia's confession (not always the best source for Orthodox teaching, but very fine here): "But Christians in no respect honor images as gods, neither in their veneration do they take anything from the true adoration due to God. Nay, rather they are led by the hand, as it were, by the image to God, while under their visible representations they honor the Saints with the veneration of dulia (δουλικῶς) as the friends of God; asking for their mediation (μεστιεύουσιν) to the Lord. And if perchance some have strayed, from their lack of knowledge, in their veneration, it were better to teach such an one, rather than that the veneration of the august images should be banished from the Church."
Does Frankfurt or the Carolines have anything to say about the type-prototype relationship that Nicaea II relies on? Because that's the real crux of the matter. If honor given to an icon can terminate not in an icon, but in the prototype, then you agree with the teaching kf Nicaea II.
The Carolingians, not the Carolines. I keeo getting that mixed up.
What do you think this means for Christians who are in churches/denominations which don't venerate images? I'm thinking of normal Western Christians for whom it has never crossed their mind to venerate an image, because it's just not been part of their tradition or experience. Are they condemned by their ignorance?
Ignorance always mitigates any fault. So, generally - no.
And I think also — even a bare cross is a minimalist “icon” - and therefore “counts”
Maybe what I mean is - there is a range of what can count as Iconophilia.
If active hatred of images is fostered — this may be a sign of hard-heartedness , and would be anti-Catholic, on behalf of the individual, and could end up being dangerous to faith.
I think this is the best path forward... But I'm thinking of Presbyterians I love, who don't hate images or destroy them, but who refuse a liturgical role for them because they think Jesus should be worshipped in Word and Sacrament only. And honestly they've never had an interaction with a good case for religious images. What counsel would you give to people who don't hate or destroy images, but exclude them strictly? Do you think they're in danger of final condemnation? I'd be very thankful to know how you'd approach that.
So, I would frame this differently. I think ALL of us are "in danger of final condemnation" (1 Pet 4:18!). The Lord will judge us each according to the light we were given. (Matt 11, Luke 12, Rom 2, etc). I don't think a presbyterian living in a functional ignorance of the catholic necessity of image-honoring is in grave danger as such. I can think of much graver matters, such as the Baptists who deny "one baptism for the forgiveness of sins", who nevertheless, in their ignorance, are not in grave danger. Thanks be to God that bad-theology in our heads is not the central criteria of judgment day (rather: our words, and our deeds, Matt 12, 2 Cor 5, etc.)
Thank you, this is really helpful. I feel similarly about beloved people in my life who don't think much about final judgement, which would usually concern me, but these people love God and others so much that they're nevertheless much holier and christ-like than I am. (Maybe it's not a suitable parallel.) God bless you for your future ministry.
So does this mean that we might see some revisions to the St. Bernard Breviary, specifically the third question ("Sought the good favor of the saints instead of appealing to Christ?) under the Second Commandment of the self-assessment?
I found this question, and a couple of the questions were Fr. Ben's doctrinal convictions being added here, and by having them included in the self-assessment, they made specific implications that these doctrinal differences were sins I must confess. It has required my parish priest to clarify to parishioners a few of these questions.
I would think that if Nicea II is being recognized by Fr. Ben as ecumenical, then the hardline stance on Article 22 that was taken from his article about the Litany of the Saints in 2019 and invoking the prayers of the saints has changed since icons, relics, and invocation of the saints are all mentioned as romish inventions in article 22. I would be curious how much this revocation applies to previous rigidly reformed Anglican stances he has made in the past.
I also should state that these are small, minor details in Saint Bernard's Breviary that I found less than satisfying, but it is a great resource and has immensely helped my prayer and devotional life. I also do not harp on it because I have the St Augustine's Prayer Book as a supplement. I swim in a diocese where being High Church automatically makes you Anglo-Catholic and have had a lot of strict 39 article arguments.
So, the wording of that question in the SBB is intentional -- because there MUST be a ceiling to what we are looking to the saints for, and, tho it might be defined differently, surely that ceiling is recognized when it is something we SHOULD have been looking to Christ for. I am thinking specifically of when request for spiritual protection or for salvific mercy is made to the saints, as if it were theirs to give. Things we should look to our Lord Jesus for.
Not all asking of the Saints for things -- i.e. their prayers, etc. -- is sin -- definitely not, and I never intended that meaning (tho I can see how it could be read in this maximal way). But as a Re-formed catholic breviary -- caution about the saints seemed meet. I took that question from some old 1890s Anglo-catholic self-examinations by the way, and actually softened the wording. it wasn't of my own invention at root.
As for prayers to the saints generally, my convictions remain more or less the same, although perhaps less vociferous in tone.
Namely --
- The BCP tradition IS the Anglican Tradition -- and the BCP tradition has no "ora pro nobis". To include prayers to saints in private devotion - fine. But it is not *Anglican* to include them in the public liturgy of the Church, which should always be from the BCP.
- The Ecumenical Councils, which set the minimum standard for the Catholic faith, do not require Invocation of saints. It is therefore not less than Catholic to omit doing so at all.
- While evangelicals-turn-Anglo-Catholics might use Invocation "safely", born Roman-Catholics do not seem to do so. The huge groundswell of "Consecration through Mary" etc etc.
- Pusey said, when asked about St. Bernards invoking the BVM -- that when you are as holy as St. Bernard, it can be an edifying practice. For us semi-converted sinners, it is less so.
The fact that Art. 22 heaps them all together I think only shows that they are all things that are liable to be abused and to replace catholic faith in Christ Jesus as savior, in favor of degrees of a mechanistic merit system.
Hope that helps, in showing my own mind, and present attempts at consistency.
I’m curious, as someone who came to Orthodox Christianity, in part, through learning to bow in Japan, why you write that “If it had made bowing mandatory on pain of anathema, I think I never could have reconciled this with the catholic faith.”
I think because "bowing down to them" is the paydirt of prohibition at the level of the letter in the second commandment -- I can't see how Christianity could "develop" to *mandating* it.
Fair enough. It doesn’t seem to be in the nature of Christianity to mandate something like that, but I would make the case that our current cultural aversion to bowing to pay honour is… well, both relatively recent and distinctly cultural.
Honest and fair. I once overstated my case in a pulpit, and by the grace of God was given the courage to offer apology from it the next week. It's hard to do and I commend you for it.
Nicaea II is a bit of a flashpoint between our little fellowship as we seek a diocese to officially plant under, but I think this offers very good food for thought. Thank you for writing it.
I once phrased a few things poorly during a sermon, where at the peace, my wife briefly mentioned how what I had said could be misinterpreted. And I felt the need to correct it at announcements (at the end) in the same service.
If your fellowship is on board with the forward and faith statement (fifna.org), I would commend the Diocese of All Saints (mdasanglican.org).
Food for thought indeed. There are two established parishes in our area, one diocese is ADLW, the other is Great Lakes. I don't think we'd even considered any others.
it is the "catholic" non-geographic diocese, which requires subscription to forward and faith ( uphold seven sacraments, including catholic orthodoxy on holy orders.) It has classical prayer book parishes and more charismatic parishes.
If those are your two regional options, where exactly are you considering planting?
We're in central Indiana; there's also an ACC parish. Our motley crew is such a menagerie of backgrounds that finding our fit is quite a challenge.
I'm in the Cleveland area, and our parish is a High Church/Prayer Book Catholic parish in the ADGL. We tend to be an outlier, as most of the parishes I have seen in the ADGL are very evangelical or charismatic. I think if you were to join the ADGL, our priest would most likely be the dean who would support you.
Oh wow, quite the read. Thanks, Fr. Ben!
Thanks, Joel!