Our Beliefs St. Thomas of Canterbury is a parish of the Diocese of the Mid Atlantic States of the Anglican Catholic Church. The Anglican Catholic Church is a branch of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, instituted by Jesus Christ, faithfully continuing the Anglican tradition. We uphold the historic Catholic Faith, Apostolic Order and Evangelical Witness as set forth in the traditional Book of Common Prayer. We accept as binding the received Faith and Traditions of the Church, and its teachings. We are glad you have visited our website, and welcome you to come worship with us! |
Articles and Writings of Interest  Sabbath ShiftFrom the Continuum Website “Sabbath Shift” first appeared in the November 2008 issue of Touchstone. Robert Hart on Sunday Marathons & New Savages If someone wants a picture of mankind without religion, I suggest the first twenty minutes of Stanley Kubrick’s 2001: A Space Odyssey.
That image would be perfect if the apes were naked rather than furry,
and used human speech rather than chimpanzee shrieks. Otherwise, it is
just about right, and far from the ethically sensible and civilized
non-religious world envisioned by Richard Dawkins and Christopher
Hitchens. At
church one Sunday morning in Fountain Hills, Arizona, about fifteen
minutes before service time, I was told that a man wanted me to come
outside and speak with him (rather an imposition for a priest who is
trying to put on vestments and concentrate). I went out into the Phoenix
valley sunlight and was approached by the man, a rather busy-looking
fellow visibly stressed. “We want to spray-paint the new office building
next door. Could you ask everyone to move their cars far away from your
parking lot and walk back to church?” Even
if everyone in my congregation had been young and athletic, I would
have answered the same way. But the fact that a couple of parishioners
made a great effort to walk even a short distance, leaning on their
walkers and panting—such was their determination to be in church for
Holy Communion—made his request all the more silly. “Absolutely not.
Under no circumstances will I ask them to do any such thing.” “But
we need to get this job finished, and I have my crew here, and I have
to pay them.” I thought about the big sign that said “Church,” clear for
all to see, under a huge cross, and considered that this was, after
all, Sunday morning. Only one reply seemed appropriate. “You should have
known better than to schedule a spray-paint job next door to a church
on a Sunday morning.” I went back inside and turned my attention back
where it belonged. Running over Religious Freedom Back
in the 1970s we were all so busy fighting the major issues, especially
for the pro-life cause, and trying to evangelize in the face of the
major social upheavals introduced in the previous decade, that defense
of what were mockingly called the “blue laws” seemed a bit archaic and
counterproductive. In fact, even many Christians were probably glad that
stores previously closed on Sundays were now open seven days a week,
and that the world had finally given us non-stop shopping. By 1983
nearly everything was open everyday. But
look where this has led. All too often now it is simply assumed that
religious liberty and rights can be sacrificed for a public occasion. On
March 24, 2002, Washington, D.C., held a marathon race that hindered
many people from attending church. Adding insult to injury, that day was
Palm Sunday. The mayor, Anthony Williams, had the nerve to say that all
the churches should get together in some public arena for an interfaith
service, and leave the roads clear for the marathon runners. This
insensitivity to and violation of people’s cherished rights are
intolerable on any Sunday, but doubly offensive on Palm Sunday. And
Washington’s 2002 race wasn’t an anomaly. In Pittsburgh, for instance,
five or six downtown churches must close on one Sunday every year
because of the Pittsburgh Marathon. No one is permitted to drive or even
walk on the streets around these churches because such activity would
“interfere” with the race. Sunday-morning marathons that block access to
churches are annual events in Stamford, New York; Evansville, Illinois;
Los Angeles, California (despite claims of improvement in 2006), and so
many other cities that we have not the space to list them all. The
First Amendment’s protection of the free exercise of religion is
blatantly curtailed by cities and towns without penalty. Burdensome Liberation “Liberation”
from the blue laws has become a burden especially to the poor, who need
the Sabbath rest even if they do not go to church. They now have to
go to work on Sunday, even if they are troubled by their conscience for
missing church, or simply hurt because they miss it. This progressive,
bold step away from the shackles of the past, promising freedom and
prosperity, has taken its toll on the people who suffer the greatest
economic need, making them choose between their religious observance and
their paycheck. That
is the very opposite of expanded freedom. Perhaps those “silly” blue
laws, and other social norms and mores, provided a kind of freedom of
their own, especially for people in the working and laboring classes. I
learned that one business in that Arizona town, a diner near the
church, had traditionally closed every Sunday until shortly before my
arrival. But then a local clergyman, my predecessor, convinced the owner
to open every Sunday for the convenience of the congregation. Many
liked to go there after the early Mass (8:00 AM) each Sunday and have
breakfast together. One waitress there, I learned, had been a member of
the church, but was no longer. I
remember the sight of that waitress looking at her former fellow church
members, serving them breakfast, missing the services every Sunday. I
suppose it was very convenient for the people who could now hop over to
the diner after church, but at what cost to that waitress? Is this what a
Christian clergyman should have asked for? Just
this past Sunday here in Easton, Maryland, about half an hour before
our principal Holy Communion service, I heard what sounded very much
like machine-gun fire out in the street. It turned out to be one of
those hand-held jackhammers that tears up a street or sidewalk and
deafens all passers by. I walked through the front doors of the church
into the street, and got the attention of the crew. They were
contractors working by the schedule of their boss, who was not of the
town. “You
can’t do this here this morning,” I said. We are about to have a church
service.” I pointed to St. Andrew’s, a historic (former Roman Catholic)
church building that dated from about 1860. They all looked up at the
steeple with the cross, and at the signs with clearly visible words like
“St. Andrew’s Anglican Church,” “Holy Communion Sunday morning at
10:00,” and other subtle clues. “Do you want us to stop?” Just
then our bishop walked right up, smiling, and asked them in friendly
tones if he needed to call the mayor. Easton is civilized, and the crew
knew that they were not going to be drilling for quite some time. But
what if they had arrived during a service? They would have been stopped,
but only after creating an inexcusable interruption of a sort no one
would have dreamed of making several years ago, during a time when work
crews and their bosses simply did not need to be told. False Paradise In
2006, a town councilman in Scottsdale, Arizona, introduced a bill that
would make it illegal for churches to hold services except on Sunday, on
the grounds that some of the church parking created an “inconvenience.”
No Holy Week services, often no Christmas services, no Saturday
weddings, no weekday funerals, no midweek Masses in liturgical churches,
no Wednesday Bible studies, no prayer meetings, no revival services in
Baptist churches. Sunday was enough. Even
if that bit of insanity had passed, the courts would have been
obligated to strike it down. But what has happened in our day and age
that makes such lunacy conceivable at all? Pure
capitalism, without ethical or even legal restraints to protect the
freedom of the lower classes to worship God, is no wonderful Utopia. We
have moved away from those protections hardly noticing what we were
doing, and sometimes even cheering for all the wrong reasons as we
welcomed the alleged convenience and liberty. We
have, however, been taking a step forward into the world of those first
twenty minutes of Kubrick’s movie. Not as hairy, ape-like, pre-man
creatures, but rather as businessmen, shopkeepers, entrepreneurs,
contractors, and politicians, all living down to the call of the wild in
a non-religious “paradise” of savagery.
Ancient History Sourcebook: St. Vincent of Lerins: The "Vincentian Canon", AD 434 From Chapter 4 of the Commonitorium A.D. 434 [ed. Moxon, Cambridge Patristic Texts] * (1) I have continually given the greatest pains and diligence to inquiring, from the greatest possible number of men outstanding in holiness and in doctrine, how I can secure a kind of fixed and, as it were, general and guiding principle for distinguishing the true Catholic Faith from the degraded falsehoods of heresy. And the answer that I receive is always to this effect; that if I wish, or indeed if anyone wishes, to detect the deceits of heretics that arise and to avoid their snares and to keep healthy and sound in a healthy faith, we ought, with the Lord's help, to fortify our faith in a twofold manner, firstly, that is, by the authority of God's Law, then by the tradition of the Catholic Church. (2) Here, it may be, someone will ask, Since the canon of Scripture is complete, and is in itself abundantly sufficient, what need is there to join to it the interpretation of the Church? The answer is that because of the very depth of Scripture all men do not place one identical interpretation upon it. The statements of the same writer are explained by different men in different ways, so much so that it seems almost possible to extract from it as many opinions as there are men. Novatian expounds in one way, Sabellius in another, Donatus in another, Arius, Eunomius and Macedonius in another, Photinus, Apollinaris and Priscillian in another, Jovinian, Pelagius and Caelestius in another, and latterly Nestorius in another. Therefore, because of the intricacies of error, which is so multiform, there is great need for the laying down of a rule for the exposition of Prophets and Apostles in accordance with the standard of the interpretation of the Church Catholic. (3) Now in the Catholic Church itself we take the greatest care to hold that which has been believed everywhere, always and by all. That is truly and properly 'Catholic,' as is shown by the very force and meaning of the word, which comprehends everything almost universally. We shall hold to this rule if we follow universality [i.e. oecumenicity], antiquity, and consent. We shall follow universality if we acknowledge that one Faith to be true which the whole Church throughout the world confesses; antiquity if we in no wise depart from those interpretations which it is clear that our ancestors and fathers proclaimed; consent, if in antiquity itself we keep following the definitions and opinions of all, or certainly nearly all, bishops and doctors alike. (4) What then will the Catholic Christian do, if a small part of the Church has cut itself off from the communion of the universal Faith? The answer is sure. He will prefer the healthiness of the whole body to the morbid and corrupt limb. But what if some novel contagion try to infect the whole Church, and not merely a tiny part of it? Then he will take care to cleave to antiquity, which cannot now be led astray by any deceit of novelty. What if in antiquity itself two or three men, or it may be a city, or even a whole province be detected in error? Then he will take the greatest care to prefer the decrees of the ancient General Councils, if there are such, to the irresponsible ignorance of a few men. But what if some error arises regarding which nothing of this sort is to be found? Then he must do his best to compare the opinions of the Fathers and inquire their meaning, provided always that, though they belonged to diverse times and places, they yet continued in the faith and communion of the one Catholic Church; and let them be teachers approved and outstanding. And whatever he shall find to have been held, approved and taught, not by one or two only but by all equally and with one consent, openly, frequently, and persistently, let him take this as to be held by him without the slightest hesitation.
|
