[Page 236]

Anyone who compares the Catechism of the 1928 BCP with that of 1979 book will notice many differences, over and above the fact that the latter has one hundred and twelve questions and answers while the forms has only twenty-five.  The Catechism of 1928 is intended to be taught to baptized children as they prepare for Confirmation, the second (in the context of "full initiation through baptism") is intended to explain what Episcopalians believe, primarily to those outside or on the fringes of the Church.  This is why "An Outline of the Faith" (pp. 845ff.) begins with the natural order or a natural theology; that is, it is intended to start where people are – in the world that God has made.  So it declares: "We are part of God’s creation, made in the image of God."

This text, "An Outline of the Faith, commonly called the Catechism," was not the first Catechism produced for the 1979 book.  In 1973 there appeared "A Catechism" produced by the drafting committee of the Standing Liturgical Committee.  The chairman of this committee was Bishop Stanley Atkins.  In many ways this draft Catechism was like that of 1928, being traditional in format and content.  In fact, this draft Catechism presupposed that baptized infants would be taught the Faith before Confirmation from it; it included the Nicene and Apostles’ Creeds (regrettably in the modern, dishonest translations) to be learned; and it dealt with the Scriptures, the Commandments, Prayer (giving two versions of the Lord’s Prayer), the Church, the

[Page 237]

Ordained Ministry, the Sacraments, and Christian Hope.

The 1973 Catechism was not accepted by the Standing Liturgical Commission.  As far as I can tell, this was for two reasons – first of all, it did not assume that Baptism is "full initiation," and in the second place, it did not take the Faith, that is, the lex credendi, from the already appearing (in the trial services) lex orandi.  So a new committee was formed, headed by the Very Reverend R.H. Greenfield and including Marianne Wicks, Charles Winters, and Evan Williams.  All four were desirous of presenting a simple exposition of what Episcopalians (of their kind?) believed.  The result is a form of liberal or revisionist (Anglo) Catholicism, which assumes that the lex credendi is to be based upon the lex orandi of the new Rites in the new prayer book.  Put another way, they read the new services and new translations of the Creeds (which were all then in final form) and asked what is the law of believing presupposed in them.  Having found it, they then sought to express it in as simple and as intelligent a way as possible.  Their work was approved unanimously by the theological committee of the House of Bishops and by the Standing Liturgical Commission.

Certainly Dean Terry Holmes held that Dr. Greenfield’s team had succeeded.  He believed that they expressed systematically the new theological consensus set forth in the 1979 book, and he commented that their work "appears not yet to be appreciated for its rich insights."  He added that "commentaries on that document (‘An Outline of the Faith’) would make a start at providing a resource for a theological education rooted in the new liturgy" on the principle of lex orandi as the basis for lex credendi (‘Education for Liturgy’, p.139).

[Page 238]

When we realize that the Catechism is meant to be a summary of the teaching or theological assumptions of the new Rites, then it is easy to see why its teaching is what it is.  That is, it is not difficult to see why the erroneous and inadequate doctrines hidden within the Rites become explicit within the Catechism.  The very act of summarizing makes what is general, specific, and what is loose, tight!  The result is a liberal Catholicism in Anglican dress, which looks like the real evangelical and catholic thing on first appearance, but which reveals its true identity on careful examination.

So, since the doctrine of the Trinity is taken from the incorrect translation of the Phos hilaron and the false opening Acclamation of the Eucharist, we are not surprised to learn that for modern Episcopalians "The Trinity is one God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" is modalism.  Rahner, MacQuarrie, and Tillich have left their mark.  It is "God’s Being" which "draws praise from us", not the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ!  It is as though the Athanasian Creed and the Nicene Creed and the Thirty-Nine Articles never existed.

And since this principle of deducing doctrine from liturgical texts also applies to the identity and work of our Lord Jesus Christ, we are not taught any clear doctrine of either His pre-existence as the Second Person of the Trinity, or of His Atonement as being a real sacrifice, expiation, and propitiation for the sin of the world as well as a victory over Satan, death, sin, and hell.  Jesus is primarily what may be termed a "Nestorian Christus Victor," the One who as the unique Man united to God "sets us free from the power of evil, sin, and death."

Likewise, there is no clear doctrine of the Fall or of original sin in the new Episcopalian Faith. Sin is

[Page 239]

not more than the abuse and misuse of freedom. So God’s covenant of grace is merely His initiative towards essentially free persons who are at liberty to say "yes" or "no."  It is not His provision of that relationship with the Father through the Son and by the Holy Spirit – a relationship which sinners can do absolutely nothing in and of themselves to merit, enter into, and remain within.  They are always dependent upon His grace to enable them to move towards their God and remain in communion with Him.

Therefore, anyone learning the Episcopalian Faith from this Outline, and then being asked to state that Faith, would in fact probably repeat some of the major heresies of the early Church in modern existentialist dress – Sabellianism (modalism), against which the Athanasian Creed was written; Nestorianism, which is outlawed by the Definition of the Council of Chalcedon, and Pelagianism, which was rejected in the West at the Council of Orange (AD 529).

[Page 240]

Good Friday, Easter Sunday, Ascension Day, and Whit-Sunday (Pentecost) have been special days in the Church since the late fourth century.  Each one celebrates a mighty but interrelated act of God the Father in and through Jesus Christ and by the Holy Spirit.  Because of them "repentance and forgiveness of sins" (Luke 24:47) was preached by the first apostles and evangelists and is still preached today by their successors to the world.

Those today who, following recent Roman Catholic revisions, emphatically speak of the "Paschal Mystery" and of "the great fifty days" or "the fifty-day Sunday" (Easter until Pentecost) display a certain hesitation about the feast of the Ascension of our Lord.  While this feast fits perfectly into the 40 + 10 scheme of the older Western and the Common Prayer Tradition (recall how the Pascal Candle used to be put out on Ascension Day, day 40, to show that Christ had ascended from earth to be at the right hand of the Father in heaven), it has little or no meaningful place in the 50-day scheme (where the Candle is usually kept lit until Pentecost).

The liturgical reason for keeping the Candle burning for fifty days is that in the 50-day scheme, operative (it is claimed) in the early or "ancient" Church, the Ascension was celebrated either at Easter or Pentecost or both as part of the unitary festival of the Pascha.  Further, in theological terms, it is commonplace today to see all the feasts as celebrating one "Christ event" – that is, the one Christ who died but is now alive with God.  In this approach

[Page 241]

there is no physical, bodily resurrection, only a spiritual one.  Thus the Ascension Day is redundant and may be classed as a kind of resurrection appearance.  Here ancient practice, which in its own context made good sense, is used to justify and set forth new and perhaps erroneous doctrine.  (For the ancient practice with sensible modern Roman Catholic comment see the book, The Church at Prayer, ed. A.G. Martimort, IV Liturgy and Time, pp. 57ff.)

Further, there are moral and spiritual consequences of the emphasis upon the 50-day scheme.  Its advocates usually insist that it is improper to have public confession of sins with priestly absolution (as the Common Prayer Tradition requires at each Holy Eucharist) in this whole period of seven weeks (and they also usually add Christmastide as well).  With modern Prayer Books (and more the Canadian than the American), where the confession of sin is optional, it is possible rubrically to begin this practice without any obvious breaking of the rules.

When asked for reasons for omitting the confession and absolution in Eastertide, liturgists usually offer two basic reasons.  First of all, they claim that (liturgically) Jesus is with us in a unique way in the Pascha, from Easter Eve until Pentecost.  How can we confess our sins and be mournful when the Bridegroom is with us (citing Matt.9:15)?  How can we be penitential when we ought to be celebratory and joyful?  Did we not remember our sins in Lent and did we not celebrate on Good Friday their removal by Jesus?  Surely we are to celebrate new life in the fifty days!

In the second place, they refer to canon 20 of the Council of Nicea (325), which states: "Since there are certain persons who kneel on the Lord’s Day and

[Page 242]

during the season of Pentecost [= the 50 days], therefore, to the intent that all things may be uniformly observed everywhere [= in all parishes] it seems good to the holy synod that prayer be offered to God in the standing position."  From this they argue that since kneeling implies penitence, and standing implies joyfulness and acceptance by God, then there ought to be no mourning over and confessing of sins during the fifty days.

But are these reasons sound?  Let us begin with the first one concerning our Lord’s presence.  Liturgical time is not real time.  There is a confusion between what we may call the time of the new creation, the new epoch inaugurated by the resurrected Lord, and the chronological time in which we live.  In and of ourselves we remain sinners as long as we are in this world and in this space and time.  Thus we are always in the position of having to recognize and confess our sins. However, as members of the Body of Christ and thus in the new creation, we are new creatures and thus free of sin.  It is this new creation which is celebrated by the liturgical season of Eastertide.  In other words, that which shall be at the end of this evil age when redemption is complete is anticipated liturgically – that is, the blessed state of being actually without sins is not yet experienced, but already the promise of that state is claimed in the eucharistic celebration.

If we turn to Scripture, the fact of our sinful state whilst on this earth is confirmed on virtually every page of the New Testament.  "If we confess our sins," we are told, then "God is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness."  True joy for the soul is to know that one’s sins are forgiven and that one is a right relationship by grace with the Lord. Confession of sins

[Page 243]

is part of the praise of God, the Father, offered by His obedient children who desire to be pleasing to Him.  Such confession of sins is recognized by the important document known as the Didache (circa A.D. 120).  This provides the earliest description of the Eucharist outside the New Testament:

Assemble on the Lord’s Day, and break bread and offer the Eucharist; but first make confession of your faults so that your sacrifice may be a pure one.  Anyone who has a difference with his fellow is not to take part with you until they have been reconciled, so as to avoid any profanation of your sacrifice.  For this is the offering of which the Lord has said, "Everywhere and always being me a sacrifice that is undefiled, for I am a great King, says the Lord, and my name is the wonder of nations" (Mal. 1:11, 14).

It would appear from this that the confession is an actual part of the worship.

Further, as we have noted, the Common Prayer Tradition, without any exception from 1549 to the present day, has required confession of sins during the whole year with no changes for Eastertide or for Christmastide. It is certainly true that the public confession of sins with the general absolution is the authentic Anglican Way of declaring the forgiveness of sins to penitent souls.  Other Churches use different methods – e.g. private confession before Holy Communion – and these methods Anglicans may respect and use without abandoning their own tradition.  Of course, the Anglican Way was not entirely novel as the Sarum Rite, for example, testifies.  Then also in the Greek Liturgies there is a silent recital of confession of sin before receiving Holy Communion.

[Page 244]

Turning now to canon 20 of Nicea we must note carefully what it actually says.  Apparently, there were those who wanted to kneel, and so it calls for uniformity in liturgical practice; it does not state that those who stand ought not to confess sins or be penitent.  Further, it was written when the fifty-day Eastertide was probably in operation, and before the development of the separate feast of the Ascension and the introduction of the 40 + 10 scheme.  Thus it needs interpretation to be applied to the later scheme.  Then there is a question as to what is its authority for the West and for today, since canons are not on the same level as dogma (e.g. that in the Nicene Creed) and are adapted to local situations.

Nevertheless, let us concede that it was widely believed in the third and early fourth centuries that it was appropriate to stand on Sundays and in the fifty days.  Take, for example, the fifteenth canon of Peter, Bishop of Alexandria, who was martyred in A.D. 311, which states: "We keep the Lord’s Day as a day of joy, because then our Lord rose.  Our tradition is not to kneel on that day" (H.E.Percival, The Seven Ecumenical Councils, 1900, p.601).  Earlier Tertullian, the Latin father, had written: "We consider it unlawful to fast, or to pray kneeling, upon the Lord’s Day; and we enjoy the same liberty from Easter-day to that of Pentecost" (De Corona Militis, s. 3, 4.)

When I am asked why not merely this scheme of the 50 days, but also its modern corollaries of no kneeling and no confession with absolution are so insisted upon by modern liturgists, I offer six reasons.

First, the authority of Scripture has been seriously eroded, and so it is no longer asked whether to omit the confession of sins is biblically justifiable for

[Page 245]

any period of time, let alone for fifty days.  Further, the fact that St. Paul himself knelt to pray in the Pentecost season (see Acts 20:36 and 21:5 in the light of 20:6) is not heeded as being at least an alternative authority to that of a canon.

Secondly, there is a determined desire to get behind the development of classic dogma and developed liturgy of the fifth and six centuries to a previous, more fluid state of affairs, where the evidence is less clear and where the options for choice for restoration in the present are apparently more exciting.  Further, there is a fascination with the period before Constantine the Great and the establishment of Christianity as an official religion.  Parallels between the variety of liturgical forms, and the milticulturalism and the pluralism, then and now, are drawn.

Then, thirdly, there is a positive rejection of the Common Prayer Tradition and its supposed obsession with penitence, sin, and guilt and the embracing of the theme of joyful celebration.  Here what is learned from Gregory Dix’s hatred of Cranmer and the Reformation is married to the modern desire not to say much about sin as offending God.  (It is worth noting that kneeling in the Anglican tradition is the traditional way to pray [see Richard Hooker, Ecclesiastical Polity, V.68. i–iii] and is seen not primarily as penitential but as a sign of humility and piety before God.)

In the fourth place, as I stated above, liturgical time is confused with chronological time, and the eschaton (the end-time) is equated with present time.  Further, what we are declared by the Father to be in Christ in the new covenant (sinless and righteous) is taken as if it were wholly true of us now

[Page 246]

in our physical bodies in this evil age.  Theological confusion leads to practical error.

Fifthly, the removal of the confession of sins in Eastertide and also in Christmastide seems to be a first step to the removal of any confession of sins from the liturgy at all times of the year.  Again ancient practice is cited by those who advocate this, but rarely do they quote Scripture or suggest that modern people adopt the full penitential practice of the early Church.

Finally, as we observed in the quotation from Massey H. Shepherd Jr. in chapter one, the liturgists who put together the 1979 and 1985 books saw the unitary festival of the Pascha as the very center of their reforming innovations.  By their reconstruction and adoption of this centerpiece they wish their whole enterprise to be judged.

We do not need to go back to the third century in search of that which was itself developed and changed.  By the fifth century, while there was still reference to the fifty days, the celebration of the entire Paschal Mystery as an indivisible unity was already being set aside to some extent as the Church responded to the psychological need which Christians felt to honor successively, in these days first the resurrection of our Lord, then His ascension and finally, the sending of the Holy Spirit upon the apostles and disciples.  That is, the liturgy gradually conformed to the chronology of St Luke’s Book of Acts.

I believe that there is great scope in the 40 + 10 approach for the joyful worship of the Holy Trinity in the presence of the risen Lord and the edification of the household of faith.  The feast of the Ascension is very important, for it celebrates the entry into heaven of the eternal Son and Word with His human

[Page 247]

nature to be our King, Priest, and Prophet.  (See further Davies, op.cit., Appendix 1 for the early history of the feast of the Ascension).  However, there is no reason why in Eastertide the wording of the general confession and absolution can not be adapted specifically to the theme of the resurrected Lord Jesus – and the same principle could apply to confession and absolution in other parts of the liturgical year.  Further, to return to the 40 + 10 scheme does not mean that there cannot be an Easter Vigil with other rites from the "ancient" Church.

[Pages 248–252]

Primary sources:

The Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus, ed. G. Dix, New York, 1937

Baptism, Eucharist & Ministry, 1982–1990 (Faith and Order Paper, No. 149), Geneva, Switzerland, 1990.

The Book of Alternative Services of the Anglican Church of Canada (1985).

The Book of Common Prayer (1549; 1552; 1662 of England; 1928 & 1979 of the USA; 1962 of Canada).

Called to teach and learn: A catechetical Guide for the Episcopal Church, New York, 1992.

A Catechism (a draft for the Standing Liturgical Commission), New York, 1973.

Constitution on the Liturgy, (Vatican) Rome, 1963.

Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, 2 vols, ed. Norman P. Tanner, London, 1990

Lambeth Conference Reports, (1948, 1958, 1968, 1978, 1988).

The Proper for the Lesser Feasts and Fasts, New York, 1990.

Missale Romanum (Vatican), 1970 & 1975 (= The Sacramentary, 1974 & 1985).

The Orthodox Liturgy, Oxford, England, 1982.

Prayer Book Studies, 30., New York, 1987.

The Psalter: a new version for public worship, ed. C. M. Guilbert, New York, 1978.

The Seven Ecumenical Councils, ed. H. R. Percival, New York, 1901.

Secondary sources:

Adam, Adolf, Foundations of Liturgy: An Introduction to Its History and Practice, Collegeville, Minn., 1992.

The Alternative Service Book, 1980. A Commentary by the Liturgical Commission, London, England, 1980.

Anglican Worship Today: Guide to the ASB, ed. Colin Buchanan, London, 1980.

Aulen, Gustav, Christus Victor, London, 1935.

Bugnini Annibale, The Reform of the Liturgy, 1948–1975, Collegeville, Minn., 1990.

The Church at Prayer, ed. A.G.Martimort, Collegeville, Minn., 1992.

Beckwith, Roger, The Church of England. What It is and What It Stands For, Latimer House, Oxford, England, 1992.

Curry, David, Hear His most holy Word. The BAS Lectionary: the closing of the Bible?, PBSC, Toronto, Canada, 1990.

Davies, J. G., He Ascended into Heaven, New York, 1958.

Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 1., ed. Norman P. Tanner S. J., Washington D.C., 1990.

Dix, Gregory, The Shape of the Liturgy, London, England, 1945.

Eller, Vernard, The Language of Canaan and the Grammar of Feminism, Grand Rapids, 1982.

Feenstra, Ronald J., Trinity, Incarnation and Atonement, Philosophical and Theological Essays, Notre Dame, Ind., 1989.

Grisbrooke, W.J., "Liturgical Reform and Liturgical Renewal," Studia Liturgica, xxi (2), 1991.

Hatchett, Marion J., Commentary on the American Prayer Book, New York, 1980.

Hill, William J., The Three-Personed God, Washington D.C., 1982.

Holmes, Urban T., "Education for Liturgy," in Worship Points the Way, (ed. Malcolm C. Burson) New York, 1991.

Hunter, James D., The Culture Wars, San Francisco, 1991.

Ingham, Michael, Rites for a New Age, Toronto, 1986.

Irwin, Kevin W., Liturgical Theology: A Primer, Collegeville, Minn, 1990.

Jones, Bayard Hale, Dynamic Redemption, Greenwich, Conn., 1961.

Jones, Cheslyn et al, The Study of Liturgy, New York, rev ed. 1992.

Jungmann, Josef A., The Early Liturgy, South Bend, Indiana, 1959.

Kimel, Alvin F. (ed.), Speaking the Christian God, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1992.

Kirkpatrick, F. G., Community: A Trinity of Models, Washington, DC, 1986.

MacQuarrie, John, Principles of Christian Theology, New York, 1966.

Martimort, A. G. (ed.), The Church at Prayer, Collegeville, Minn., 1992

Miller, Randolph C., The American Spirit in Theology, Philadelphia, 1974.

Moss, C.B, The Church of England and the Seventh Council, London, England, 1957.

Neill, Stephen, "Liturgical Continuity and Change," No Alternative, ed. David Martin, Oxford, England, 1981.

Nisbet, Robert, The Social Philosophers: Community and Conflict in Western Thought, New York, 1973.

Norris, Richard A., Understanding the Faith of the Church, New York, 1979.

Oden, Thomas C., After Modernity... What?, Grand Rapids, 1990.

Ousley, David, "Pastoral Implications of Prayer Book Revision," Report of the Conference, Charlottetown, Canada, 1985.

Perham, Michael, Towards Liturgy 2000: Preparing for the revision of the Alternative Service Book, London, England, 1989.

Price, Charles P., "Rites of Initiation," The Occasional Papers of the S.L.C., No.1., New York, 1987.

Price, Charles P., Introducing the Proposed Book, New York, 1976.

Price, Charles P.(with Louis Weil), Liturgy for Living, New York, 1979.

Robinson, John, Honest to God, London, 1963.

Shepherd, Massey H., A Liturgical Psalter, Minneapolis, 1976.

Shepherd, Massey H., Liturgy and Education, New York, 1965.

Shepherd, Massey H., "The Patristic Heritage of the BCP of 1979", The Historical Magazine of the Protestant Episcopal Church, Vol.53. pp. 221ff.

Shepherd, Massey, The Reform of Liturgical Worship, New York, 1961.

Soskice, J. M., Metaphor and Religious Language, Oxford, 1985.

Submission (concerning the BAS) to the Evaluation Commissioners, by the PBS of Canada, Toronto, 1991.

Tillard, Jean, "The Ecumenical Lesson of Lambeth," Irenikon, LXI, no.4., 1988.

Tillich, Paul, Systematic Theology, Chicago, 1967.

Toon, Peter, Knowing God through the Liturgy, Largo, Florida, 1992.

Turner, Philip, "Christian ‘Community’ – Another Idol," The Anglican Digest, Michaelmas, 1992.

Weatherby, Harold, An Open Letter to the Standing Liturgical Commission, Nashville, Tenn., 1976.

Wright, J. Robert, "The Official Position of the Episcopal Church on the Authority of Scripture," Anglican Theological Review, LXXIV.3., 1991.

[Pages 253–259]

Adam, Adolf, 28, 138, 144, 248

Alternative Service Book (1980), 30, 43, 45, 91, 191, 193

Anglican Communion, 5, 12, 72–74

Anglican Service Book (1991), 229

Aquinas, Thomas, 179, 214

Arianism, 91

Ascension, Feast of, 32, 240

Atkins, Stanley, 236

Atonement, 123–6, 156, 195–199, 204, 223

Augustine of Hippo, 89

Aulen, Gustav, 195, 207, 249

Authority, 59–67, 68–69, 74–78

Baptism, 82, 181–189

Barth, Karl, 105, 207, 209

Basil the Great, 89, 97, 123, 201–204, 233

Beckwith, Roger, 21, 43, 249

Book of Alternative Services (1985), 8, 14, 16, 18, 32, 37, 39, 41– 43, 44–45, 55, 56, 59, 77, 78, 79, 81, 82, 91, 95, 105–106, 128–129, 137, 147, 148–150, 152, 153, 158, 172, 181, 184–185, 187, 191, 198, 201–202, 218–225, 226

BCP (1549), 5, 12, 15, 22, 24, 60, 125, 153, 216, 243

BCP (1552), 5, 60, 61, 62

BCP (1662), 2, 43, 60, 61, 62, 91, 153

BCP (1789), 47, 48

BCP (1928), 1, 2, 8, 23, 18, 35, 37, 77, 81, 91, 94, 102, 104, 110, 116, 147, 148, 152, 157, 167, 189, 214, 216, 236–9

BCP (1962), 8, 13, 18, 37, 78, 81, 91, 148, 152, 157, 219

BCP (1979), 1, 2, 4, 8, 14, 18, 32, 33, 34, 37, 39–41, 46, 48, 55, 59, 74, 77, 79, 81, 91, 96, 97, 102–103, 116, 120–121, 125, 147, 148–150, 152, 154, 157, 167, 172, 181, 184–185, 187, 189, 191, 198, 201–202, 206–218, 226, 229, 236, 239

Brown, David, 105

Brunner Emil, 207, 209

Bultmann, Rudolph, 26, 211

Carthage, Council of, 112

Cassian, John, 131

Catechism (1973), 236, 248

Catechism (1979), 100, 101, 121–122, 126, 136–7, 236–239

Christology, 116–120, 127–8, 212

Christus Victor, 82, 186, 195–199, 238

Chrysostom, 99, 123, 233

Confirmation, 82, 186–189

Community, 134–144, 220

Councils of the Church, 10, 23, 34, 36, 64, 65, 80–81, 115, 122, 239

Cranmer, Archbishop, 29, 30, 64, 80, 113, 154, 197, 204, 223, 245

Creatio ex nihilo, 84, 99, 175, 202, 205

Creed, Apostles’, 50–52, 65, 76, 176, 236

Creed, Athanasian, 91–93, 113, 116, 118–9, 122, 176, 178

Creed, Nicene, 50–52, 65, 76, 91, 96, 176, 178, 236

Culture Wars, 17–18

Davies, J.G., 194, 246, 249

Dewey, John, 26

Didache, 190, 243

Dix, Gregory, 28–29, 30, 80, 153, 154, 189–192, 193, 196, 223, 245, 249

Donne, John, 98

Eames Commission, 72

Eller, Vernard, 171, 249

ELLC, 25, 26

Empirical Theology, 26–27, 30, 55–57, 86, 179

Episcopate, 50, 52, 63–64, 70–71

Experience as revelation, 55–57

Fatherhood of God, 174–178

Festival, Unitary, 32, 81, 82, 151–2, 188, 226, 240–247

Fifty Days, 82, 152, 240–247

Filioque, 78

Fraction, 124–125, 192

Freedom, 149–151

Greenfield, R.H., 237

Gregory of Nazianzus, 97

Gregory of Nyssa, 97

Grisbrooke, W.J., 141–142, 249

Guilbert, Charles, 104, 165–166, 248

Hebert, A.G., 195, 207–208

Heidegger, Martin, 26, 207, 209, 210

Hellenization of doctrine, 80–81

Heresy, 10, 92

Hill, W.J., 105, 249

Hippolytus, 29, 189–190, 193, 194, 196, 208, 248

Holmes, U.T., 206–215, 237, 250

Homilies, Book of, 60, 62

Hooker, Richard, 53, 245

Husserl, Edmund, 207, 210

ICEL, 25

ICET, 25, 26, 121, 211

Individual(ism), 134–150, 158

Ingham, Michael, 218–225, 250

Initiation, 82, 181–182

Irwin, K.W., 233

James, William, 26

Jones, B.H., 199–200, 250

Jones, Cheslyn, 189, 193, 250

Justification by faith, 153

Kavanagh, Aidan, 140–141, 233

Kimel, A.F., 180, 250

Kirkpatrick, F.G., 144

Ladd, W.P., 207–208

Lambeth Conferences, 23–24, 68–72, 248

Lambeth Quadrilateral, 49–52, 73

Language, Inclusive, 86, 129–130, 159ff., 221–222

Lectionary, 51, 79

Leo the Great, 127

Lex Orandi: Lex Credendi, 11–12, 76, 100, 112, 202, 213, 217, 231, 233, 237

Liturgy, 6–8, 16, 17, 19, 20–24, 24–36, 85, 165–168, 224–225

MacQuairrie, John, 27, 105, 110, 123, 238, 250

Man, doctrine of, 168–171

Martimort, A.G., 138, 241

Mass, Tridentine, 113

Matrimony, 156–158

Missal (1970), 201

Mitchell, L.L., 174

Modalism, 36, 93, 101, 108–109, 174, 212, 238

Neill, Stephen, 29, 250

Nestorianism, 36, 122–123, 128, 238, 239

Nicolas of Lyra, 131

Niebuhr, H.R., 209

Nisbet, Robert, 136

Norris, Richard, 105, 250

Oden, T.C., 11, 234, 250

Orange, Council of, 239

Origen, 189

Orthodoxy, 10–11

Otto, Rudolph, 207, 209, 211–212

Ousley, David, 215–218, 251

Panentheism, 87, 205, 228

Pantheism, 13, 87, 143, 228

Pascha, 32, 81, 151–152, 188, 223, 226, 240–247

Patriarchy, 162–164

PBS.30, 41, 55, 56, 57, 77, 86–87, 105, 120, 121, 126, 137, 172–175, 178, 229, 248

Peace, The, 142–143

Pelagianism, 36, 145–149, 184–185, 200–201, 239

Penance, 217

Phos hilaron, 100, 102, 110

Price, C.P., 34, 139, 152–153, 187, 192, 193, 213, 251

Process theology, 87

Psalm-prayers, 171–172

Psalter, 129–133, 165–167

Psalter in French, 168

Rahner, Karl, 26, 105, 123, 207, 209, 211, 214, 238

Ramsay, A.M., 193, 200

Reason, 53–58

Reformatio Legum, 63–65

Regeneration, doctrine of, 183–184

Relativism, 36, 49, 59, 87, 120

Renewal, 6, 13

Ricoeur, Paul, 207, 210

Robinson, John, 26, 214

Sabellianism, 93, 101, 239

Sacraments, 68–72, 181ff.

Scripture, 51, 53–55, 61–68, 75, 77–78, 83, 129–131, 168–170

Shema, 78, 128

Shepherd, M. H., 31–32, 200–201, 207–208, 226, 246, 251

Sin, confession of, 82, 151–156, 222–223, 242–243, 245

Sin, original, 145–149

Soskice, J.M., 180

SPBCP, 213–215

Standing Liturgical Commission, 1, 30–31, 33, 34, 100, 214, 237, 248

Symbolism (truth as), 211, 224

Tertullian, 244

Thirty-Nine Articles, 62, 64, 65, 94, 118, 125–126, 145, 221, 233

Tillard, Jean, 73–74, 251

Tillich, Paul, 26, 27, 105, 211, 238, 251

Tradition, 53–58

Trinitarianism, minimal, 96–99

Trinitarianism, novel, 99–105

Trinity, the Holy, 13, 54, 57, 64, 85, 87–88, 89–96, 106–114, 173, 175–176

Turner, Philip, 139–140, 251

Vatican II, 7, 27, 31, 81

Wainwright, Geoffrey, 233

Weatherby, Harold, 215, 252

Weil, Louis, 193, 251

Whitehead, A.N., 26

Wicks, Marianne, 237

Williams, Evan, 237

Wmters, Charles, 237

Wright, G.E., 85–86

Wright, J.R., 77, 252

Zeitgeist, 143