Now, I remember Archbishop John Hepworth from this documentary by Salt and Light TV in 2006 saying something about how heresy did not matter as much as maintaining the validity of sacraments, that the Church had managed with heretics before and always will, but with the introduction of women as priests, this tampered with the economy of grace in such a way as making all their sacraments uncertain.This reminds me of a case that came up on Fr Z's blog: a priest, with the best of intentions, had been celebrating the eucharist with communion bread made from gluten-free flour. After all, who knew which communicants might be allergic to wheat? He'd protect them all, no matter what! But then he learned that bread made from gluten-free flour was not, strictly speaking, bread. He metaphorically rent his garment and threw out all the gluten-free "bread" on the spot! Fr Z clearly felt this was the appropriate response.In other words, if sacraments were done in the prescribed manner, it did not matter what kind of wonky beliefs the priest or even the bishop held personally. However, not doing the sacraments properly or using different elements (female instead of male priests, raisin cakes and milk instead of bread and wine).
Well, maybe. But I keep thinking of Mark 7: 15-23, which says in part,
Do ye not perceive, that whatsoever thing from without entereth into the man, it cannot defile him; Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats? And he said, That which cometh out of the man, that defileth the man. For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, Thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness: All these evil things come from within, and defile the man.Do you suppose that some woman Episcopal priest, over the decades when I was in that denomination, may have decided to protect me from any allergies by consecrating gluten-free communion bread herself? What should I do about that? I'm simply not qualified to parse the precise sacramental value of any Episcopal eucharist, but I've been credibly told by a Catholic monsignor that there is "some" sacramental value there. Is the "some" proportionally less if the bread was gluten-free? Is the "some" proportionally less if it was consecrated by a woman priest? On the other hand, is there more of the "some" if it was real communion bread administered by a male Episcopal priest?
What of my Presbyterian childhood and adolescence? Their communion is administered with tiny cubes of bakery loaf and jiggers of grape juice. Is there still "some" sacramental value there? In 2008 I revisited my first childhood Presbyterian parish, fully aware by then of the various differences in interpretation of the Sacrament among the denominations. I nevertheless participated in the communion service and consumed a cube of bakery bread and a jigger of grape juice consecrated (if that is the proper word) by a female pastor.
As a baptized Christian, I was eligible to receive that particular form in that particular denomination, and I was not sinning as a then-Episcopalian by doing it. Will any of that be counted against me on the last day? I suspect that whoever performs that review will have Mark 7: 15-23 somewhere in mind. Naturally, I now take the Catholic view of the sacraments with utmost seriousness, and I would not become Catholic if I didn't. On the other hand, I'm not at all sure what anyone will have in mind when Apbs Hepworth and Falk come up for their own reviews, notwithstanding their correct opinions on heresy and the elements.
Actually, there was a great volume of comment on the usual blogs by the usual suspects on the whole subject of who is the real schismatic. Was it Henry VIII, or Thomas Cranmer? Was it whoever started the whole filioque dispute? Is schism from schism less schism, more schism, or just more of the same? What if it's schism over heresy and trying to repair other schism by correcting the heresy? Buzz, buzz, buzz. Not so long ago, several Episcopal parishes in the Diocese of Los Angeles chose to leave because some years before that, Eugene Robinson had been elected Bishop of New Hampshire. Another way of putting it would be that factions in those parishes, often led by clergy, went out of their way to find a scandal 3000 miles distant so that they could effectively destroy their own Christian communities with secret meeetings, disputed votes, lawsuits, and bitter contention.
Heresy worse than schism? I've been there.
