The Order for Visitation of the Sick

I'm trying to raise a larger point about the mutability of language. How do you read Jesus' words:

"Suffer the little children to come unto me"?

Do you think he really wants the children to suffer, or is it more an artifact of sixteenth century language?

We shouldn't be misled from their language and ours being the same to think that we can trivially, without any effort, perceive every one of their words exactly as they meant them.

"Jesus came for us men and our salvation". Do you think Jesus came just for you and I, or did he also (maybe?) come for @Anne too?

I was looking for this type of linguistic sophistication from the Commentator you quoted, but he commits the same semantic fallacy. We need to understand what the Reformers used by the term, and I contend that they meant it in the normal and catholic meaning of it, used among Protestants, Lutherans, Reformed, and Roman Catholics. This Rite was passed and practiced for centuries without objection, basically escaping from controversy from anyone.

 

You raise some fine points Stalwart however, at the same time, we cannot always attribute different meanings to words written in sixteenth-century English.

Here is the definition of the word "Visitation" from Dr. Johnson's Dictionary of the English Language (1755):

1. The act of visiting Shakespeare.

2. Object of visits Milton.

3. Judicial visit or perambulation Ayliffe.

4. Judicial evil sent by God Taylor.

5. Communication of Divine Love Hooker.


I don't think in this case if refers to definition five.


This is from a modern dictionary:

1. The act of visiting.

2. A formal visit, as one permitted by a court's granting of visitation rights or by parents invited to a school to observe the work of students.

3. A visit for the purpose of making an official examination or inspection, as of a bishop to a diocese.

4. (Usually initial capital letter) the visit of the Virgin Mary to her cousin Elizabeth. Luke 1:36–56.

5. (Initial capital letter) a church festival, held on July 2, in commemoration of this visit.

6. The administration of comfort or aid, or of affliction or punishment: a visitation of the plague.

7. An affliction or punishment, as from God.

 

I think there we have it. Thanks for finding this!

None of the early definitions of "visitation" come near to the modern "Affliction or punishment, as from God," the meaning I think you see here. A punishment, right?, a special selected affliction, just for you, you sick person?

Johnson's definitions are not like that. It's all removed and impersonal, nothing like a personal divine vengeance or something.

 

I still don't see what you are seeing Stalwart. I had written out a rather lengthy addition to my previous posting, but when I went to enter it, I was told the editing period had expired, so I lost it all.

What it consisted of were excerpts from Calvinist liturgies such as the Palatine, which are clearly related to Cranmer's exhortation, and also clearly state that God is the one inflicting the suffering his people are experiencing. Cranmer was obviously influenced by such continental ideas when he wrote this, and he certainly had the authority to do so, but not all Anglicans (I hope) accept this type of theology.

From the Palatine liturgy:

"Be pleased O Father of Grace...to strengthen the persecuted with victorious steadfastness and the power of Thy Holy Spirit that they may joyfully receive these sufferings from Thy hand." The History of and Character of Calvinism, pg. 273

and this:

"Eternal Merciful God and Father...seeing that Thy hast death and life in Thy hand alone...that neither health nor sickness , nor any good or evil can befall us...without Thy will...we beseech Thee, grant us the grace of Thy Holy Spirit, to teach us rightly to acknowledge our misery, and and patiently to bare Thy chastenings, which we have deserved ten thousand times more severe." The Liturgy of the Reformed Church in American for use in Public Worship, pp. 38-39.

Contrast this with the following Greek Orthodox prayer for the sick:

"O Lord Almighty, the Healer of our souls and bodies, You Who put down and raise up, Who chastise and heal also; do You now, in Your great mercy, visit our brother, who is sick. Stretch forth Your hand that is full of healing and health, and get him up from his bed, and cure him of his illness. Put away from him the spirit of disease and of every malady, pain and fever to which he is bound; and if he has sins and transgressions, grant to him remission and forgiveness, in that You love mankind; yea, Lord my God, pity Your creation, through the compassions of Your Only-Begotten Son, together with Your All-Holy, Good and Life-creating Spirit, with Whom You are blessed, both now and ever, and to the ages of ages. Amen."

While illness can certainly be sent by God to chastise or to reform, unlike the Calvinist position that requires that everything which happens is God's will, the more ancient position is that illness can come upon us for other reasons as well, and that God can release us from this bondage.

Archbishop Laud (whom I admire) seems to be on the same page as Archbishop Cranmer; in his Private Devotions, his Visitation of the Sick reads:

"Are you persuaded that no sickness or cross comes to anyone by chance...but that they come from God, without whose providence nobody is afflicted with diseases? And that God, being most wise, never will suffer anything to befall us, but when it is expedient...and that this sickness or cross which God has now sent upon you is expedient for you?" The Private Devotions of Dr. William Laud, pg.214

Sadly, while this I think demonstrates the essence and spirit of Cranmer's exhortation, it causes me to question whether or not I was mistaken in entering the Anglican Church. I have to believe however that not all Anglicans would see things this way.

The Reformed stream in Anglicanism I am sure would have no issue with either Cranmer's exhortation or the examples of Calvinist liturgies I cited. We are both in ACNA, and I seriously doubt you will find this theology in any prayer book that is eventually adopted. At least I pray not.

 

Ha! I sure hope he came for me, too

 

Sorry, I had just laughed at Stalwart's example of word use: that Christ came to save a men -- but also me

I'll be serious in my next reply. It is looking more and more like we're talking past each other a bit. Perhaps if you thought in terms of God is always near us, even in the dark (and sick) times, and so can bring about good in spite of evil circumstances. He is Emmanuel and thus always visiting

 

I think we are trying to re-plow the field on the age-old problem of pain and why bad things happen to good people. While I think that God's ways are inscrutable except where He decides it is right to reveal it to us; I believe their is a strong biblical basis for believing that all things happen only by God's permission, even those things which from our limited perspective appear "bad" or calamatous or even undeserved. Our Lord reveals to us that God causes the sun to shine and the rain to fall on the good and the bad alike. St.Paul prayed for God to remove the mysterious thorn in the flesh which God, of course, could have done. But God did not. Instead, he used it as a means to teach trust in Him, declaring to St Paul and to us through St Paul that even in the midst of physical pain, God's grace is sufficient.

We, as Christians, have a unique cause for joy in times of affliction, because Christ walks with us even in the valley of the shadow of death. We can use our afflictions as opportunities to unite our sufferings with him who suffered for us. Paul's letters to the Philippians, Galatians, and this second letter to the Corinthians all affirm this. And we have assurance that no matter our circumstances,God will be our deliverance. Colossians 3:3 reminds us that sickness and death have no power over us, we have already died. And now, our lives are hidden with Christ in God, far beyond the reach of any disease or danger. So we can use sickness for what it is meant for, we can be joyous in the midst of illness or pain. St. James teaches us "My brethren, count it all joy when you fall into various trials, knowing that the testing of your faith produces patience. But let patience have its perfect work, that you may be perfect and complete, lacking nothing."

Now, this does not mean we shouldn't pray for healing or to be spared from illness altogether. We should. St. James also exhorts us to have elders pray for the sick among us. St Paul tells us that we have not if we ask not. However, there may be times when we pray for the cup to be taken from us and He, in His love tells us no, then we must follow the example of our Lord and pray "thy will and not mine be done". We will need to hold fast to our faith in these times, knowing that God's plans for us are for our good, knowing that God'strength is made perfect in our weakness, remembering it is in precisely these times that His works can be made manifest in us.

I believe, and must believe, that God is in control, even of suffering. Otherwise, suffering makes no sense. There was a song they would often sing in my aunt's Baptist church. " The God on the mountain is still God in the valley. The God of the day is still God in the night."

 

I think Pete's objection is at seeing human afflictions being some sort of a direct and personal attack from God, and not just an outcome of our divine universe where afflictions may be divinely caused yet without God's personal onslaught upon the person.

Am I right there?

 

Bingo!

 

What makes you think the language of the office necessitates a "personal attack" interpretation?

 

I contend that your definitions of "visitation" from 1755 teach it in the impersonal sense. The word acquired a personalistic tinge over the last few hundred years: "an affliction or punishment as if from God;" a "visitation of God upon the Virgin Mary," perhaps influenced by Papalist developments of Marian dogma. The word had a removed, judicial and impersonal sense back then.

 

Since the KJV bible was published in 1611, I checked to see how visitation and visit was used. doing a quick search over 80 entries popped up. where it referred ot God, it could be either a good and bad encounter. For instance the Lord visited Hannah and her prayers for a child were answered. Othere references make it clear that visitation is punishment for the iniquity of the wicked. To me it seems that visitation, as used in the bible speaks to god's activity to someone or some people on a personal level, blessing them or cursing them according to their works. I read it as a divine settling of accounts. Again, for the Christian this is a good thing. We are chastised by God so that we will not be condemned with the world.

 

Yes Lowly, that is how I understand the word. I believe, that what Archbishops Cranmer and Laud are saying is that the illness is directly sent by God to the individual in a personal sense. Again, I reiterate, I certainly believe that at times God does send illness to punish, chastise, or reform a person. My issue is that I do not believe that this is always the case, and I feel that Cranmer and Laud are stating that it is.

 

PP, what leads you to believe that illness is not always sent by God? How does one distinguish what is God sent what isnt? From where does it come from if not from God?

 

You're undoing everything I'm trying to say here Lowly, lol.

 

Dear Lowly. I smoke. Bad decision on my part to have started 39 years ago. If I develop lung cancer, I will not conclude that it was sent by God. Where does it come from? Like death and other diseases, it has its origin in sin. As I read some years ago in an Orthodox work, when God spoke to Adam he said, "if you eat of this tree you will die." He didn't say, "if you eat of this, I will kill you." We suffer the effects of our own actions.

 

Yet many smoke for years without ever getting cancer. I take issue with your use of the word blame in this context. If someone commits a crime and is justly sentenced, is it the Judge or the criminal who should be blamed for the criminal's punishment?

Again, I go back to the quote by St. John of Damascus I referred to earlier: "It is, moreover, to be observed that of these, too, we are the cause: for involuntary evils are the offspring of voluntary ones".

 

I don't see the word blame in my posting Lowly. I think the word most appropriate would be "responsible." If my daughter dies tomorrow, I will not assume that God killed her.

 

I'm sorry...conclude. I thought I read it the first time around. senior moment I suppose. As an attorney I often see blame where most people can't.

In regard the scenario with your daughter. I'm in murky water. The sentence of death, physical death at least, has been imposed on us all. God imposed that sentence, correct? By man sin entered the world, and through sin came death, its penalty. Again, I defer to St. John of Damascus and again I ask, who is responsible? The judge or the criminal?