It appears Fr Geoffrey Kirk and I completely agree on the underlying problems in the Anglican Communion, as evidenced by his op-ed piece in this month's New Directions and my own thoughts recorded at the end of the Tanzania Primates' Meeting. In short, the Anglican Communion is now defective at the core because it has ceded the Apostolic Faith to modernity by the innovation of women's ordination and a general refusal to accept the sensus Catholicus.
Here are a few thoughts I penned after the Tanzania meeting...
I am concerned by the attitudes displayed and language used by some of the participants at the Primates’ Meeting, which seem to convey a belief that maintaining the Anglican Communion in its current state or maintaining communion with the See of Canterbury is necessary for communion with our Lord Jesus Christ or with the historic Church. To me, such claims are nothing short of ecclesiolatry, the service of an ecclesiastical institution above that of our Blessed Saviour and His Gospel. Our Lord proclaims 'the gates of hell shall not prevail' against His Church (Saint Matthew 16:18). We take Jesus at His word. The Anglican Communion is a modern creation, only established by historical circumstances in 1784 when Bishop Samuel Seabury of Connecticut was consecrated for ministry in the United States by three bishops of the Scottish Episcopal Church. It is only because of the exigencies of Bishop Seabury’s consecration that the Anglican Communion was brought into being. The communion of the Church necessitates a communion of orthodox bishops with one another in the Apostolic Faith; the Holy Catholic Church does not require for her full life either communion with the See of Canterbury or with any other particular historic See. Anglicanism, I am eager to state, is defined by adherence to the Anglican Tradition, not by communion with Canterbury at all costs. Although the Anglican Communion is a worthy institution owned by God and blessed by Him in time past and present for the spread of the Gospel, I submit it exists for the good order, the bene esse, or even the full order, the plene esse, of Anglicanism, but it is not of the esse, the essence, of Anglicanism. Simply put, I believe it is more important to remain in communion with Christ than to remain in communion with Canterbury.
We should state categorically that Mrs Katherine Jefferts Schori is not a bishop and we must deny that she possesses any jurisdiction or exercises any episcopal ministry from which any delegation of authority can occur in the first place. The proposal for a Primatial Vicar in The Episcopal Church obscures a genuine understanding of the theology and ministry of the episcopate, and will most likely not succeed in achieving its goal of uniting a body so profoundly divided on the essential matters of faith, order and moral teaching. It is doubtful that the bishops and congregations of the Anglican Mission in America (AMiA) and the Convocation of Anglicans in North America (CANA) will voluntarily return to the oversight and jurisdiction of bishops or organizations within The Episcopal Church. It will probably require much more than a Pastoral Council or a Primatial Vicar to bring about any kind of institutional reconciliation between conservative people and groups and TEC structure.
I am led to believe by the actions of the Primates’ Meeting that the Anglican Communion has now received as authoritative doctrine the purported ordination and consecration of women to the episcopate. This is a very distressing development in the life of the Anglican Communion and it is one that the Anglican Province of America must, in all good conscience, reject as contrary to the historic Catholic and Apostolic Faith. We cannot condone the actions of the Primates’ Meeting or the Anglican Communion in this matter. We will continue to preserve and hand-on the two-thousand year old teaching of Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition regarding the male character of the Sacrament of Holy Orders. We will continue our witness to Prayer Book Catholicism.
Mindful of Christ’s call to us during this holy season of Lent, I believe the only real solution to the ongoing dilemma that now engulfs the Anglican Communion is repentance and amendment of life, a convicted return to the uncompromised Faith and Order of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church and the Anglican formularies. That alone can heal the division and restore the mission of the Anglican Communion.
As for us, we shall remain committed to our brethren in Christ and in full communicatio in sacris with all faithful Anglicans who maintain the Scriptures, Creeds, Sacraments and Apostolic Ministry of the classical Anglican expression.
And here is Fr Kirk's commentary from New Directions:
'For nearly two centuries,' a wit once remarked, 'Westminster politicians have been talking about a solution to the Irish problem. What none of them would ever admit was the nature of the problem. The problem is that there is no solution.'
Much the same is true about the Anglican Communion. No one, it seems, has the courage to admit what must be obvious to all: that the problem with world-wide Anglicanism is not with the conduct of individual provinces but with the polity of the whole. Like the Home Office in the parlance of Dr John Reid, it is 'not fit for purpose'.
Not only does the doctrine of Provincial Autonomy make divergence in ethos and doctrine virtually inevitable, but the resulting weakness of common structures (the so-called Instruments of Unity) makes disciplining errant provinces severely difficult. And when that province is TEC, the predominant source of funding for the Communion's central secretariat, it is impossible.
Whether or not the Secretary General saw the irony of ending the recent meeting of Primates in Frank Weston's cathedral in Zanzibar, readers of New Directions will probably take the point: the doctrinal disintegration of Anglicanism is no adventitious phenomenon. It has been unfolding for the best part of a century. The Communique of the meeting in Dar es Salaam, for all its vaunted 'unanimity' cannot hope to turn the tide of history.
What the Communique has done, couched as it is in the language of the revisionists themselves, is merely to draw another line in the sand. The Primates have requested, through the presiding bishop, that the House of Bishops of TEC make an unequivocal common covenant that they will not authorize any rite of blessing for same-sex unions in their dioceses or through General Convention, and confirm that a candidate for episcopal orders living in a same-sex union shall not receive the necessary consent, unless some new consensus on these matters emerges across the communion.
The deadline for the answer is 30 September 2007. 'If the reassurances requested of the House of Bishops cannot in good conscience be given, the relationship between The Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion as a whole remains damaged at best, and this has consequences for the full participation of the Church in the life of the Communion.'
No one could reasonably suppose that such undertakings will be given, or that the failure to give them will result in any specific action by any of the 'Instruments of Unity'. But that is hardly the point. The heart of the statement is not in the requests, but in the terms in which they are made: unless some new consensus on these matters emerges across the communion. With that proviso the game is up for the traditionalists.
For the grounds upon which traditionalists oppose gay bishops and same-sex unions is not that they go against previous Anglican practice, but that they contravene the plain teaching of Scripture, which applies in all times and cultures, and which neither individual provinces nor the Communion as a whole is competent to change.
By signing the Communique traditionalist bishops have conceded the very point they were striving to uphold. Having initially refused to sit at the same table as Katherine Schori, and shunned her at the Lord's Table, they have signed a document which endorses her position and effectively outlaws their own - and elected her to their Standing Committee! To this observer it looks uncommonly like suicide.
But lest you think this judgement harsh, consider the implications of the Communique for the future of Anglican moral theology.
Until now it has been assumed that penitence involves not only contrition but amendment of life. Not so with The Episcopal Church and the Zanzibar Communique. There a half-hearted expression of blanket regret (how many times has your confessor told you to be explicit?) and a future possible undertaking not to do the same again (why the reluctance to renounce wrong-doing in the first place?) is taken as enough. No mention, you will notice, of Gene Robinson.
We must sadly conclude that in Zanzibar the traditionalist primates were skilfully out-manoeuvred. They conceded the very principles for which they stand; and did so in exchange for assurances which they will probably not get, and which, should they be forthcoming, will be half-hearted and of little effect. All this came about not because those primates are weak or foolish, but because the Communion itself, of which they are an intrinsic part, is structured on principles of democracy and mutual accountability.
It was clear from its ringing endorsement of the politicking which resulted in the ordination of women in some provinces, that the 'Windsor process' cannot, by its very nature, comprehend an appeal to the unchanging word of God as witnessed by Catholic tradition. The words of Pope John Paul II: 'declaramus Ecclesiam facultatem nullatenus habere ordinationem sacerdotalem mulieribus conferendi' [we declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women] have no resonance whatever in the official structures of the Anglican Communion, which can only proceed by accommodation and consensus. And Katherine Jefferts Schori, now a member of the Primates' Standing Committee, is the very incarnation of those procedures.
Friday, March 16, 2007
A Critique of the Anglican Federation
A new epithet has been invented by some of our brothers in the Continuing Church to describe those orthodox Anglicans who are seeking to restore communicatio in sacris and practical cooperation amongst all who profess and embody the Anglican Tradition: neo-Anglicans. In the most recent edition of the The Trinitarian, Archbishop Mark Haverland of the Anglican Catholic Church issues a sharp criticism of the Federation of Anglican Churches in the Americas and its efforts to forge a new realignment in American Anglicanism. In the op-ed piece we 'Neo-Anglicans' are clearly implied to be the very antithesis of what we claim we are, orthodox Anglicans who maintain the fullness of the Apostolic Tradition. Why? Because of our sacramental relationship with the Reformed Episcopal Church and the Anglican Mission in America. Does our communion with these bodies render us innovators, un-Anglican and un-Catholic?
The Archbishop does not mention the 1941 Report of the Joint Commission on Approaches to Unity of the Episcopal Church led by the Anglo-Catholic Bishop Frank Wilson of Eau Claire, certainly held in the days of orthodoxy, which, taking into consideration the record of the 1888 Lambeth Conference, declares Reformed Episcopal Orders valid. Heresy, even regarding Apostolic Succession, does not invalidate Holy Orders, or so say Saint Augustine, Saint Thomas Aquinas and Saint Robert Bellarmine, to mention a few authoritative names. The 1941 Report unequivocally asserts: 'The Historic Episcopate has been preserved in the Reformed Episcopal Church and the episcopal succession has been carefully maintained from this beginning' and 'Therefore it is now proposed that the Statement to the Lambeth Conference of 1888 should be considered as a significant document of an earlier generation but with no current authority and that it should not be allowed to stand in the way of negotiations looking toward the healing of this particular schism.' In 1960, in the days of its orthodoxy, the Church of England published the findings of its Faith and Order Advisory Group (FOAG) which stated: 'It is clear that the orders of this Church [REC] derive from an Anglican bishop; and that its bishops have been consecrated in due succession and its priests ordained with the use of the Anglican Ordinal, though in a slightly altered form. We cannot regard these alterations as being in themselves sufficient to call into question the validity of the ministry.'
Archbishop Haverland also does not mention the critical fact for this discussion that the Anglican Mission in America (AMiA), perhaps for the first time in Anglican history, has reversed its previous position and as of July 2003 has ceased to purport to ordain women to the priesthood and episcopate. The Anglican Province of America consistently and repeatedly affirms the male character of the Sacrament of Holy Orders and sees in AMiA's decision a vitally-important first step back to Apostolic Faith and Order. God willing, the AMiA will in time come to embrace a fully catholic doctrine of the diaconate as well as of the priesthood and episcopate. A shared common doctrine of the sacerdotium has indeed finally enabled our Churches to restore sacramental communion, a precedent that should be encouraged for the whole Universal Church. It should also be noted that a dispute over the male character of the diaconate could be allowed, if pressed, to affect any jurisdiction's relationship with Forward in Faith United Kingdom, Forward in Faith North America and the majority of Anglo-Catholic dioceses and parishes worldwide. Most Anglo-Catholics have not allowed the dispute to be a church-dividing impediment.
What do you think? Do you agree with the Anglican Catholic Church on this issue?
Be wary of 'Neo-Anglicans' by the Most Reverend Mark Haverland
Father Lawrence Wells in Orange Park, Fla. has coined a term that I am recommending widely: "neo-Anglican." I continue to be asked why the ACC is not uniting with the folk currently leaving The Episcopal Church. The answer is that we can only unite with people who believe as we do about important matters of doctrine, worship, morals and order. Many people who joined The Episcopal Church in the 1980s and 1990s have had little or no exposure to the Anglican tradition. For such people the Affirmation of St. Louis and the ACC are not particularly attractive. Such folk are neo-Anglicans, with no commitment to the classical Prayer Books, the male character of Holy Orders, or the Anglican musical and literary patrimony. Canon John Hollister recently made a similar point about the "Anglican Federation of Churches and Ministries" (www.anglicanfederation.org), which is composed of the Anglican Church in America, the Anglican Mission in America, the Episcopal Missionary Church, the Anglican Province in America (sic), and the Reformed Episcopal Church. These various groups are by their federation articles committed to receiving members from each other upon the mere presentation of Letters Dimissory. Canon Hollister has trenchantly observed that therefore each of these AFCM bodies has formally recognized the validity of the ministry of each of the other. Which is "neo-Anglican," not Anglican. The Lambeth Conferences in the days of their orthodoxy refused to recognize the ordinations of the Reformed Episcopal Church, which began with an explicit rejection of Apostolic Succession. Likewise the AMiA has women deacons, has "grandfathered" (or "grandmothered") in women already "ordained" as priests, and is under the oversight of an African Anglican Church which has women priests. All of the AFCM bodies have, therefore, effectively asserted that the ordination of women is NOT an essential bar to full communion and that the classical Anglican position on the REC is wrong. But these assertions are neither Catholic nor Anglican; only neo-Anglican.
Let me make clear that the ACC and I are not seeking to be separated from others. We desire the highest possible level of cooperation and communion. But the whole point of the formation of the ACC in the late 1970s was to assert that the creation of a new ministry (women priests) by The Episcopal Church was itself an essential error that demanded separation. Union of the ACC with people who accept that essential error on any level would be utterly disastrous. While I am alive—and I think I may speak for my episcopal colleagues in the ACC—the ACC will not infect itself with the disease we have purged ourselves of at great cost. "Unity" can come only when the AFCM, its member bodies, and similar groups, realize that the Faith is a seamless whole. We cannot pull out one thread without raveling the whole garment. The road from women deacons to Gene Robinson and Presiding Bishop Mrs. Schori is direct and short, and the happy coalition builders who are obscuring and compromising at the beginning of their enterprises will come quickly to grief.
The Archbishop does not mention the 1941 Report of the Joint Commission on Approaches to Unity of the Episcopal Church led by the Anglo-Catholic Bishop Frank Wilson of Eau Claire, certainly held in the days of orthodoxy, which, taking into consideration the record of the 1888 Lambeth Conference, declares Reformed Episcopal Orders valid. Heresy, even regarding Apostolic Succession, does not invalidate Holy Orders, or so say Saint Augustine, Saint Thomas Aquinas and Saint Robert Bellarmine, to mention a few authoritative names. The 1941 Report unequivocally asserts: 'The Historic Episcopate has been preserved in the Reformed Episcopal Church and the episcopal succession has been carefully maintained from this beginning' and 'Therefore it is now proposed that the Statement to the Lambeth Conference of 1888 should be considered as a significant document of an earlier generation but with no current authority and that it should not be allowed to stand in the way of negotiations looking toward the healing of this particular schism.' In 1960, in the days of its orthodoxy, the Church of England published the findings of its Faith and Order Advisory Group (FOAG) which stated: 'It is clear that the orders of this Church [REC] derive from an Anglican bishop; and that its bishops have been consecrated in due succession and its priests ordained with the use of the Anglican Ordinal, though in a slightly altered form. We cannot regard these alterations as being in themselves sufficient to call into question the validity of the ministry.'
Archbishop Haverland also does not mention the critical fact for this discussion that the Anglican Mission in America (AMiA), perhaps for the first time in Anglican history, has reversed its previous position and as of July 2003 has ceased to purport to ordain women to the priesthood and episcopate. The Anglican Province of America consistently and repeatedly affirms the male character of the Sacrament of Holy Orders and sees in AMiA's decision a vitally-important first step back to Apostolic Faith and Order. God willing, the AMiA will in time come to embrace a fully catholic doctrine of the diaconate as well as of the priesthood and episcopate. A shared common doctrine of the sacerdotium has indeed finally enabled our Churches to restore sacramental communion, a precedent that should be encouraged for the whole Universal Church. It should also be noted that a dispute over the male character of the diaconate could be allowed, if pressed, to affect any jurisdiction's relationship with Forward in Faith United Kingdom, Forward in Faith North America and the majority of Anglo-Catholic dioceses and parishes worldwide. Most Anglo-Catholics have not allowed the dispute to be a church-dividing impediment.
What do you think? Do you agree with the Anglican Catholic Church on this issue?
Be wary of 'Neo-Anglicans' by the Most Reverend Mark Haverland
Father Lawrence Wells in Orange Park, Fla. has coined a term that I am recommending widely: "neo-Anglican." I continue to be asked why the ACC is not uniting with the folk currently leaving The Episcopal Church. The answer is that we can only unite with people who believe as we do about important matters of doctrine, worship, morals and order. Many people who joined The Episcopal Church in the 1980s and 1990s have had little or no exposure to the Anglican tradition. For such people the Affirmation of St. Louis and the ACC are not particularly attractive. Such folk are neo-Anglicans, with no commitment to the classical Prayer Books, the male character of Holy Orders, or the Anglican musical and literary patrimony. Canon John Hollister recently made a similar point about the "Anglican Federation of Churches and Ministries" (www.anglicanfederation.org), which is composed of the Anglican Church in America, the Anglican Mission in America, the Episcopal Missionary Church, the Anglican Province in America (sic), and the Reformed Episcopal Church. These various groups are by their federation articles committed to receiving members from each other upon the mere presentation of Letters Dimissory. Canon Hollister has trenchantly observed that therefore each of these AFCM bodies has formally recognized the validity of the ministry of each of the other. Which is "neo-Anglican," not Anglican. The Lambeth Conferences in the days of their orthodoxy refused to recognize the ordinations of the Reformed Episcopal Church, which began with an explicit rejection of Apostolic Succession. Likewise the AMiA has women deacons, has "grandfathered" (or "grandmothered") in women already "ordained" as priests, and is under the oversight of an African Anglican Church which has women priests. All of the AFCM bodies have, therefore, effectively asserted that the ordination of women is NOT an essential bar to full communion and that the classical Anglican position on the REC is wrong. But these assertions are neither Catholic nor Anglican; only neo-Anglican.
Let me make clear that the ACC and I are not seeking to be separated from others. We desire the highest possible level of cooperation and communion. But the whole point of the formation of the ACC in the late 1970s was to assert that the creation of a new ministry (women priests) by The Episcopal Church was itself an essential error that demanded separation. Union of the ACC with people who accept that essential error on any level would be utterly disastrous. While I am alive—and I think I may speak for my episcopal colleagues in the ACC—the ACC will not infect itself with the disease we have purged ourselves of at great cost. "Unity" can come only when the AFCM, its member bodies, and similar groups, realize that the Faith is a seamless whole. We cannot pull out one thread without raveling the whole garment. The road from women deacons to Gene Robinson and Presiding Bishop Mrs. Schori is direct and short, and the happy coalition builders who are obscuring and compromising at the beginning of their enterprises will come quickly to grief.
Sunday, March 04, 2007
The Eucharistic and Sacerdotal Doctrine of the 'Ritualists'
In November 1867, the Church Association, a radically protestant prosecutorial body created to attack Catholic Anglicanism in the church and civil courts of England, accused Anglican Catholics of holding the following:
'First, that the Supper of the Lord is a Propitiatory Sacrifice; secondly, that the Body and Blood of Christ are objectively present in the Elements; thirdly, that all who partake of the Elements receive the Body and Blood of Christ (including 'the wicked, albeit they do not receive it to salvation'); fourthly, that the Clergymen are Sacrificing Priests; fifthly, that the Clergy possess judicial authority to forgive sin, and that forgiveness of sin is not complete without Priestly Absolution; sixthly, that the Clergy are authorized to receive confessions as an habitual part of religious practice; seventhly, that Christ is to be adored as personally present in the Elements.'
Overall one can say, with a little correction and clarification - what a clear assertion of our Holy Religion! What was and is at stake as regards the Catholic Movement is not churchmanship or tastes or styles of worship, but the whole sacramental system of the Church and in particular the revealed dogma of the Real Presence. Keep the Faith...
'First, that the Supper of the Lord is a Propitiatory Sacrifice; secondly, that the Body and Blood of Christ are objectively present in the Elements; thirdly, that all who partake of the Elements receive the Body and Blood of Christ (including 'the wicked, albeit they do not receive it to salvation'); fourthly, that the Clergymen are Sacrificing Priests; fifthly, that the Clergy possess judicial authority to forgive sin, and that forgiveness of sin is not complete without Priestly Absolution; sixthly, that the Clergy are authorized to receive confessions as an habitual part of religious practice; seventhly, that Christ is to be adored as personally present in the Elements.'
Overall one can say, with a little correction and clarification - what a clear assertion of our Holy Religion! What was and is at stake as regards the Catholic Movement is not churchmanship or tastes or styles of worship, but the whole sacramental system of the Church and in particular the revealed dogma of the Real Presence. Keep the Faith...
The Faith In A Nutshell
'We as little follow Calvin as we do the Pope, where either the one or the other departs from the footprints of the Fathers.'
-Bishop Lancelot Andrewes (1555-1626) quoted by Bishop William Forbes (1585-1634)
-Bishop Lancelot Andrewes (1555-1626) quoted by Bishop William Forbes (1585-1634)
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
Bishop Kemp on his Old Catholic succession
'Because of my connection with the Old Catholic Churches, Michael Ramsey had invited them to be represented at my ordination to the episcopate. Both Archbishop Kok of Utrecht and Bishop Van Kleef of Haarlem were present and laid on hands, saying aloud, 'Accipe Spiritum Sanctum' which is the Old Catholic formula of episcopal ordination. Afterwards they signed the Latin protocol, drawn up for such occasions by Dr NP Williams shortly after communion between the Church of England and the Church of Utrecht had been established. The fact that the two visitors did not quite understand the niceties of English history was evident when, at dinner at Lambeth the night before, they presented me with a picture to commemorate the occasion - it was a drawing of William of Orange! Some years later I showed the protocol to an English Jesuit who wrote to me saying, 'I cannot see how even Cardinal Ratzinger could deny that you are a Catholic bishop.' The Bishop of Chartres, Mgr Michon, also attended, and at the end said to Canon Francois Legaux, who accompanied him, 'I can have no doubt that that man is now a bishop in the Catholic Church.' Whether that was because of the Old Catholic participation or the general impression made by the ceremony, I have never asked. As it was his last consecration, I had asked Michael himself to preach and I think that that pleased him. I much regret I do not have a copy of his sermon. The details of the service had been largely arranged with his chaplain at a meeting which I had attended shortly before. The service was unusual in that what always seems to me an unseemly scrum when the bishops come up for the laying-on of hands was replaced by their coming up individually and putting their hands on my head saying, 'Receive the Holy Ghost'. The two Old Catholic bishops were at the end.'
Monday, February 19, 2007
The Mass in Catholic Zanzibar
In the notable article posted below from The Living Church is recorded news of the Solemn Mass celebrated yesterday by the Anglican Communion Primates in Zanzibar, Tanzania, a great historic centre of Anglo-Catholicism in Africa. The one potential reference in the news and speeches from yesterday I found glaringly absent was the importance for the whole Anglican Communion of the life and witness of Bishop Frank Weston of Zanzibar, a vitally influential Anglo-Catholic pastor and divine for his generation. Bishop Weston was a keynote speaker at the 1923 Anglo-Catholic Congress, on which occasion he gave one of the most stirring and powerful public addresses of his time, a speech given wide coverage by both secular and religious media. He was an indefatigable defender of the Catholic Faith, who opposed all pan-protestant church union schemes and established Zanzibar as an shining example of Catholic teaching and evangelism for the whole of Africa and the world. His life and many works may be studied on the Project Canterbury website: http://anglicanhistory.org/weston/.
A sadness looms over the proceedings yesterday in Zanzibar as one considers what the Anglican Communion once was and might yet still more gloriously have become if only the faith and tradition embodied by Bishop Weston had been allowed to grow and expand throughout Anglicanism. Sunday's Mass was but a glimpse, a faltering shadow or glimmer, of what perhaps could have been Anglicanism if the Catholic Revival had been permitted to succeed. But even as the Catholicism of Bishop Weston was evident in it, the Solemn Mass was a stark demonstration of division and disunity, as seven Primates could not in good conscience receive the Blessed Sacrament at that Eucharistic Celebration. The Anglican Communion, as a true eucharistic communion in the fullest sense of the term, is divided, and probably permanently. Let us learn our lessons well and jealously guard and transmit the inheritance bequeathed to us by Frank Weston.
http://livingchurch.org/publishertlc/viewarticle.asp?ID=3085
No business sessions were held on Feb. 18 as the primates sailed two hours by boat to Zanzibar to celebrate a solemn Eucharist at the Cathedral Church of Christ, also known as the Universities Mission to Central Africa (UMCA) Cathedral.
Considered the most "Catholic" of the traditional mission societies, the UMCA heritage was evident in the color, music and liturgy of the Holy Communion service drawn from the 1662 Book of Common Prayer.
Over 600 worshippers packed the Cathedral, built in 1878 on the site of Zanzibar's former slave market in Stone Town. Archbishop Williams served as preacher, Archbishop Donald Mtetemela of Tanzania served as celebrant and the bishops of Zanzibar and Dar es Salaam served as deacon and sub-deacon in the elaborate Anglo-Catholic service which was conducted in both English and Swahili.
In high ritual style, Archbishop Mtetemela sang (sic) the liturgy, as clouds of incense arose from a censer held by the former Archbishop of Zanzibar, John Rahamdhani. The altar service reflected an ecclesial style seldom seen in The Episcopal Church, with copes, maniples, zucchettos and other finery. Yellow roses covered the front of the altar and much of the cathedral in honor of Quinquagesima Sunday.
Following a processional choir of 40 down the aisle to the hymn "Jesus Shall Reign," the primates proceeded down the aisle under a barrage of klieg lights and flashbulbs from the press, with 12 of the 14 new primates seated in canon's stalls around the high altar and the remaining primates seated in the stalls.
At the close of the service Canon Matthew Mhagama offered thanks to the Catholic missionary societies of the Church of England for planting the faith in Central Africa, and to the British Royal Navy for crushing the slave trade. "Whatever their shortcomings," the missionaries of the UMCA were "heroes." Their graves surrounding the cathedral were a testament to the power of the gospel and to their sacrifices for the "Catholic faith," he said.
A sadness looms over the proceedings yesterday in Zanzibar as one considers what the Anglican Communion once was and might yet still more gloriously have become if only the faith and tradition embodied by Bishop Weston had been allowed to grow and expand throughout Anglicanism. Sunday's Mass was but a glimpse, a faltering shadow or glimmer, of what perhaps could have been Anglicanism if the Catholic Revival had been permitted to succeed. But even as the Catholicism of Bishop Weston was evident in it, the Solemn Mass was a stark demonstration of division and disunity, as seven Primates could not in good conscience receive the Blessed Sacrament at that Eucharistic Celebration. The Anglican Communion, as a true eucharistic communion in the fullest sense of the term, is divided, and probably permanently. Let us learn our lessons well and jealously guard and transmit the inheritance bequeathed to us by Frank Weston.
http://livingchurch.org/publishertlc/viewarticle.asp?ID=3085
No business sessions were held on Feb. 18 as the primates sailed two hours by boat to Zanzibar to celebrate a solemn Eucharist at the Cathedral Church of Christ, also known as the Universities Mission to Central Africa (UMCA) Cathedral.
Considered the most "Catholic" of the traditional mission societies, the UMCA heritage was evident in the color, music and liturgy of the Holy Communion service drawn from the 1662 Book of Common Prayer.
Over 600 worshippers packed the Cathedral, built in 1878 on the site of Zanzibar's former slave market in Stone Town. Archbishop Williams served as preacher, Archbishop Donald Mtetemela of Tanzania served as celebrant and the bishops of Zanzibar and Dar es Salaam served as deacon and sub-deacon in the elaborate Anglo-Catholic service which was conducted in both English and Swahili.
In high ritual style, Archbishop Mtetemela sang (sic) the liturgy, as clouds of incense arose from a censer held by the former Archbishop of Zanzibar, John Rahamdhani. The altar service reflected an ecclesial style seldom seen in The Episcopal Church, with copes, maniples, zucchettos and other finery. Yellow roses covered the front of the altar and much of the cathedral in honor of Quinquagesima Sunday.
Following a processional choir of 40 down the aisle to the hymn "Jesus Shall Reign," the primates proceeded down the aisle under a barrage of klieg lights and flashbulbs from the press, with 12 of the 14 new primates seated in canon's stalls around the high altar and the remaining primates seated in the stalls.
At the close of the service Canon Matthew Mhagama offered thanks to the Catholic missionary societies of the Church of England for planting the faith in Central Africa, and to the British Royal Navy for crushing the slave trade. "Whatever their shortcomings," the missionaries of the UMCA were "heroes." Their graves surrounding the cathedral were a testament to the power of the gospel and to their sacrifices for the "Catholic faith," he said.
Anglican-Roman Catholic Proposals for Unity
On the same day the Primates of the Anglican Communion prepare to announce the result of their recent embattled deliberations in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, the International Anglican-Roman Catholic Commission for Unity and Mission has published a groundbreaking statement on its goals for eventual rapprochement between the Church of Rome and the Ecclesia Anglicana. Like ARCIC, however, one should be very mindful that the statement is the reflection only of the opinions and beliefs of the authors themselves, and not an official view of the two Churches. Were it not for the purported ordination of women and the ongoing crisis caused by the prosecution of a homosexualist agenda, both from the Anglican Communion side, the IARCCUM proposal would surely mark a profound achievement in ecumenical dialogue. As it stands, I am disappointed to assert it is all only wishful thinking, at least as far as the Canterbury Communion is concerned. When will Rome finally realise that authentic Anglicanism in now located almost exclusively (in North America at least) in the Continuing Church? When will Rome start talking to the right people? But do have a look...
http://www.anglican-mainstream.net/downloads/growingtogether.pdf
http://www.anglican-mainstream.net/downloads/growingtogether.pdf
Bishop Eric Kemp on the Reformed Episcopal Church
If one enjoys reading autobiographical material from famous Anglo-Catholics, then one will certainly appreciate the relatively new book by Bishop Eric Kemp, sometime Bishop of Chichester, entitled Eric Kemp: Shy But Not Retiring, Continuum Press, 2006. It is a splendid little work. In it is found a fascinating reference to the 'Cumminsite' movement and the modern Church of England's official position regarding it. In practice it appears the C of E has taken a cautious approach to the subject of REC orders on the basis of the REC's historical views on Baptism and Ministry, which views have been problematic for many in the Anglican Communion since the nineteenth century. The other most fascinating part of this book is the segment in which Bishop Kemp recalls the participation of Old Catholic bishops at his episcopal consecration and the favourable response given by Rome to that act. I shall be happy to post that part if there is interest. As to the REC...
'While I was at Chichester two problems arose which I did not feel I could settle myself, and therefore asked if they could be referred to FOAG [Faith and Order Advisory Group]. Both concerned men asking to be allowed to minister in the Church of England. The first was a minister of the Reformed Church of England, a body which derived from an American suffragan bishop of evangelical outlook who had left his diocese and established an independent Church which had then spread to England. There was no doubt about the episcopal succession but the more we looked at the teaching of the body, questions began to arise about baptism and the ministry, on both of which they seemed to hold very negative views. FOAG eventually recommended ordination sub conditione, which I accepted. I was a little worried about the reaction of the congregation to my holding separate ordination services for this man to the diaconate and the priesthood, with an interval between. As I pondered this I remembered a tea-time conversation at one of Claude Jenkins's seminars in his house at Christ Church in which he had spoken of the powers of dispensation available to the Archbishop of Canterbury resulting from the time when he was a papal legate. One of these was the power to authorize the ordination of a person to the diaconate and the priesthood in the same service. I therefore applied for this dispensation and, having assured the Archbishop of the authoritative source of my information, I was granted it. The second case concerned a priest of the Liberal Catholic Church. Here we had much more hesitation than before, as the body was much influenced by theosophy and there were questions about its commitment to belief in the resurrection of Christ. In the end FOAG recommended ordination ab initio was required and that is what I did.'
'While I was at Chichester two problems arose which I did not feel I could settle myself, and therefore asked if they could be referred to FOAG [Faith and Order Advisory Group]. Both concerned men asking to be allowed to minister in the Church of England. The first was a minister of the Reformed Church of England, a body which derived from an American suffragan bishop of evangelical outlook who had left his diocese and established an independent Church which had then spread to England. There was no doubt about the episcopal succession but the more we looked at the teaching of the body, questions began to arise about baptism and the ministry, on both of which they seemed to hold very negative views. FOAG eventually recommended ordination sub conditione, which I accepted. I was a little worried about the reaction of the congregation to my holding separate ordination services for this man to the diaconate and the priesthood, with an interval between. As I pondered this I remembered a tea-time conversation at one of Claude Jenkins's seminars in his house at Christ Church in which he had spoken of the powers of dispensation available to the Archbishop of Canterbury resulting from the time when he was a papal legate. One of these was the power to authorize the ordination of a person to the diaconate and the priesthood in the same service. I therefore applied for this dispensation and, having assured the Archbishop of the authoritative source of my information, I was granted it. The second case concerned a priest of the Liberal Catholic Church. Here we had much more hesitation than before, as the body was much influenced by theosophy and there were questions about its commitment to belief in the resurrection of Christ. In the end FOAG recommended ordination ab initio was required and that is what I did.'
Friday, February 02, 2007
The Church of the Triune God: The Cyprus Agreed Statement of the International Commission for Anglican-Orthodox Dialogue
http://www.churchtimes.co.uk/content.asp?id=32722
Reunion with East not beyond hope
by Bill Bowder
THE DOOR to visible unity between the Anglicans and the Orthodox was said to be still open, after a long-awaited statement by the International Commission for Anglican-Orthodox Theological Dialogue was published this week. But the Orthodox leadership said that new “hindrances” had left that prospect less obvious than it had been.
By ordaining women as priests, Anglicans had been unduly influenced by social change, the co-chairman of the Commission, Metropolitan John of Pergamon, said at a ceremony in Lambeth Palace on Tuesday to launch The Church of the Triune God: The Cyprus Agreed Statement, which has taken 16 years to produce. The joint statement was handed to the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Ecumenical Patriarch, Bartholomew I.
Neither side on the Commission had been convinced by the other’s reasons on women’s ordination, Metropolitan John said. “The Orthodox are not convinced that the reasons for the ordination of women given from the Anglican side are really so serious and so important as to lead to this change which is, as we all know, an innovation in the tradition.” Ordination added nothing essential to women’s status. Homosexuality issues were internal matters for the Anglicans.
Welcoming the Ecumenical Patriarch, the Archbishop of Canterbury said that the document was a very substantial achievement in dialogue. Based firmly on the scriptures and the Church’s tradition, it had returned to the “wellsprings” of faith, to take a long run up to the present problems between the Churches.
Replying, Bartholomew I said that the Orthodox and Anglicans had travelled an extremely long road together. There had been difficult occasions, but the object remained fixed: the visible unity of the Church. “We affirm our readiness, despite existing unfortunate hindrances, to continue on the same path.”
He received “with great joy” the work of Metropolitan John and the Anglican co-chairman, the Rt Revd Mark Dyer, the retired Bishop of Bethlehem, Pennyslvania, USA.
Metropolitan John said that, although once it had seemed that the two Churches might well achieve visible unity, that prospect was now not obvious. “Anthropological” differences in their approaches to the sacraments and to priestly ordination “must be handled with the utmost care so they don’t become irreversible objects to our communion”, he said.
Bishop Dyer said that he had never worked with people “so Christ-like gentle to one another and so Christ-like direct in speaking the truth”. The document was now for the Anglican provinces and autocephalous Orthodox Churches to consider. “Now what do you say back to us?” he asked.
Reunion with East not beyond hope
by Bill Bowder
THE DOOR to visible unity between the Anglicans and the Orthodox was said to be still open, after a long-awaited statement by the International Commission for Anglican-Orthodox Theological Dialogue was published this week. But the Orthodox leadership said that new “hindrances” had left that prospect less obvious than it had been.
By ordaining women as priests, Anglicans had been unduly influenced by social change, the co-chairman of the Commission, Metropolitan John of Pergamon, said at a ceremony in Lambeth Palace on Tuesday to launch The Church of the Triune God: The Cyprus Agreed Statement, which has taken 16 years to produce. The joint statement was handed to the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Ecumenical Patriarch, Bartholomew I.
Neither side on the Commission had been convinced by the other’s reasons on women’s ordination, Metropolitan John said. “The Orthodox are not convinced that the reasons for the ordination of women given from the Anglican side are really so serious and so important as to lead to this change which is, as we all know, an innovation in the tradition.” Ordination added nothing essential to women’s status. Homosexuality issues were internal matters for the Anglicans.
Welcoming the Ecumenical Patriarch, the Archbishop of Canterbury said that the document was a very substantial achievement in dialogue. Based firmly on the scriptures and the Church’s tradition, it had returned to the “wellsprings” of faith, to take a long run up to the present problems between the Churches.
Replying, Bartholomew I said that the Orthodox and Anglicans had travelled an extremely long road together. There had been difficult occasions, but the object remained fixed: the visible unity of the Church. “We affirm our readiness, despite existing unfortunate hindrances, to continue on the same path.”
He received “with great joy” the work of Metropolitan John and the Anglican co-chairman, the Rt Revd Mark Dyer, the retired Bishop of Bethlehem, Pennyslvania, USA.
Metropolitan John said that, although once it had seemed that the two Churches might well achieve visible unity, that prospect was now not obvious. “Anthropological” differences in their approaches to the sacraments and to priestly ordination “must be handled with the utmost care so they don’t become irreversible objects to our communion”, he said.
Bishop Dyer said that he had never worked with people “so Christ-like gentle to one another and so Christ-like direct in speaking the truth”. The document was now for the Anglican provinces and autocephalous Orthodox Churches to consider. “Now what do you say back to us?” he asked.
Sunday, January 28, 2007
AMiA: A Backdoor Entrance for Women's 'Ordination'?
Changes In AMiA’s Structure Raise Concerns About Ordination Policy
Report/Analysis By Auburn Traycik
The Christian Challenge www.challengeonline.org
January 23, 2007
Is the booming Anglican Mission in America effectively re-embracing its original policy of accepting women priests?Some may claim it is – and some distraught AMiA clergy certainly fear it is – following a change announced with little fanfare at the AMiA’s seventh annual Winter Conference, which opened with a Eucharist attended by some 1,600 persons January 17 and concluded January 20 in Jacksonville, Florida. The Anglican Mission, it seems, is now to be part of a larger international structure, overseen by a single AMiA bishop, that includes a second American wing that has female priests.
The AMiA is of course the U.S initiative backed by the Anglican Communion province of Rwanda, but not recognized by the U.S. Episcopal Church. It started controversially, with the surprise consecrations in 2000 of two Episcopal clerics, Dr. John Rodgers and Chuck Murphy, at the hands of Rwandan Archbishop Emmanuel Kolini and now-retired South East Asian Bishop Moses Tay (both of whom attended the Winter Conference). But now AMiA represents a significant and expanding piece of the Anglican realignment currently underway in response to deviations from historic faith and morals in some northern Anglican provinces. While the Anglican Mission began by accepting ordained women into its ranks, a careful and highly praised study undertaken by Bishop Rodgers led it to conclude in 2003 “that the most faithful response to the witness of Scripture and its teaching on headship would dictate that women be ordained only to the diaconate,” in the words of Bishop Murphy. “While recognizing that the Church is presently seeking further clarity in this matter through a period of discernment and `reception,’ the important concept of `headship’ proved to be the most critical issue for us as we developed our policy on the issue of women’s ordination.”
That determination brought AMiA significantly into line with historic Anglicanism and the wider Universal Church.Signs of an opposing trend actually began to emerge last year, however. In early 2006, AMiA’s overseer, Archbishop Kolini (whose province allows female clergy but has few of them) agreed that the Anglican Coalition in Canada (ACiC), comprised of some 20 faithful congregations and also accepting of women priests, should form a separate wing of AMiA. To that end, Kolini established on an ongoing basis what had been the temporary episcopal care of the Canadians by AMiA’s Bishop T.J. Johnston. At the time, Bishop Murphy, AMiA’s Chairman, denied that this represented a change in or violation of Anglican Mission policy. He said that all AMiA bishops are part of the Rwandan Church’s House of Bishops and “subject to the authority of Archbishop Kolini,” and added that Rwanda gave the ACiC “the same opportunity that AMiA had been given to express its preference on women’s ordination.” More to the point, Murphy noted that two viewpoints on women’s ordination are officially recognized by the Anglican Communion, of which AMiA claims to be a part, due to its link to Rwanda. To belong to that Communion “is to be in communion with those who are not of one mind on the issue of women’s ordination,” he said.
In this, he spotlighted the difficulties for some orthodox groups attempting to remain in the Communion, and one reason some extramural Anglicans have little interest in being brought back into it: the Communion as a whole no longer has a common view of holy orders or believes that the full interchangeability of ministers is necessary to true communion (as it is in other apostolic bodies); the Communion is content to say, officially, that women’s ordination is still being tested (in the aforementioned process of “reception”) and is therefore “provisional,” which is to say that the sacramental ministrations of ordained women might or might not be a valid and efficacious lifeline for the faithful, and might or might not be finally and fully accepted!It is a state of affairs that AMiA leaders had already accepted to a significant degree, but one that they now appear willing or under pressure from Rwanda to live with in a closer and more commingled way than might have been expected. In remarks to the gathering January 18, Bishop Murphy indicated that the AMiA is now to be put under the umbrella of the new, Rwandan-backed “Anglican Mission in the Americas ” alongside the ACiC, and a new entity, the Anglican Coalition in America (ACiA), which, unlike AMiA, will accept women priests. All three entities will be under Murphy as chairman of the super-structure and “in communion” with each other. Reportedly, the new American coalition was requested by Archbishop Kolini.
A “fact sheet” distributed by the new umbrella structure stated that:“In May 2005, Archbishop Kolini asked the Anglican Mission in America to seek a way to embrace all those priests and deacons, male and female, canonically resident in Rwanda, but living and ministering in the U.S. and Canada (now and in the future). The current structure of the Anglican Mission in the Americas, discussed and planned over the last 18 months, was created in response to Archbishop Kolini’s request and represents an expansion of our missionary outreach – a widening of Anglican Mission’s tent.“The Anglican Mission in the Americas embraces two countries (the U.S. and Canada) as well as two positions on the ordination of women,” the fact sheet continues. “ACiC and ACiA ordain women to the priesthood, as does the Province of Rwanda, while AMiA maintains its policy of ordaining women only to the diaconate. [The] Anglican Mission in the Americas provides a way to maintain the integrity of those with differing opinions and policies on women’s ordination.”“The three entities – ACiC, AMiA and ACiA – are equal, are in communion with one another and are under the authority of the Province of Rwanda through its missionary outreach – the Anglican Mission in the Americas.“Bishop Chuck Murphy serves as chairman of Anglican Mission in the Americas, and the National Mission Resource Center will assist and facilitate ministry for the ACiC, AMiA and ACiA.”
The issue of “integrity,” however, seemed to loom large in this matter from the viewpoint of those distressed by the change, who were said to include a number of AMiA clergy, though whether they would raise their concerns with their body’s leadership was not clear at this writing. (The AMiA has no diocesan or synodical governmental bodies but rather appears to operate by consultation among Rwandan and AMiA leaders.)One non-AMiA cleric willing to go on the record was the Rev. Dr. Peter Toon, President of the Prayer Book Society of the USA, who during the Winter Conference helped lead a standing-room-only workshop focusing on a new rendering of the 1662 Book of Common Prayer in contemporary language. Dr. Toon asserted that the new Anglican Mission in the Americas is “not a genuine fellowship”; there is going to be “impaired or broken communion” between parts of the AMiA and the new coalition sooner or later, he said. He thought the new configuration represented “a complete undermining of the doctrinal and practical position of the AMiA and will probably lead to doctrinal confusion and to schism in the long run.”
In a separate commentary, however, Dr. Toon specifically maintained that Rwanda went against the Communion’s doctrine of reception on women’s ordination by failing to appoint one or more bishops solely for the ACiA and ACiC, in order to maintain what the Communion recognizes as the “two integrities” on the ordination question.“The present policy as determined by Rwanda has one set of bishops…in the AMiA,” all of whom “are committed by oath, annually taken, to the doctrinal basis of AMiA,” Toon wrote. “This includes [a] commitment not to ordain or promote women as priests and means that they belong squarely within one integrity.”He added that: “It is impossible on principle for a bishop, who does not ordain women in one diocese or province or network, to cross over into another place and there act and speak as if the ministry of women priests is fine. That is, a bishop cannot as a man of principle belong to two integrities simultaneously. This mocks truth and sets aside the Anglican doctrine of reception.”
Toon contended that this conflict is not present in Rwanda, which has decided that women may be ordained, but in accordance with the doctrine of reception does not require a bishop who does not accept the innovation to ordain or license women within his jurisdiction. He noted that the “Mother” Church of England has also provided separately for orthodox parishes through its provincial episcopal visitors (“flying bishops”). “The aim here is to maintain two integrities while the process of reception is continuing,” Dr. Toon wrote.But for AMiA bishops, “who are committed to one integrity, that of maintaining historic catholic order” in the presbyterate and episcopate, “to move into another (which is what the ACiC and ACiA contain) and function there, as if they were also of that integrity, is clearly contrary to right reason and to good ecclesial practice. It is to conflate two integrities into one,” he stated.
“I suggest that to put matters right Rwanda should provide immediately a bishop who belongs to the new integrity” to minister to the ACiC and ACiA, Dr. Toon concluded. “And, as part of the pain of the modern Anglican situation, let it be understood that [that] bishop will not be able to minister within the AMiA, once he has ordained a woman as a priest.”Countering the idea that the creation of ACiA represents a significant change, however, new AMiA Communications Director Cynthia Brust noted that the Anglican Mission “was already under the authority of a province that ordains women.”Bishop Murphy also commented on the changes in question in a January 20 interview with David Virtue of VirtueOnline:
Mr. Virtue: You have had a corporate name change since last year. You now call yourself the Anglican Mission in the Americas, no longer simply the AMiA. Would you tell us what this is about and what it all means?
Bishop Murphy: The Province of the Episcopal Church of Rwanda has canonical letters from three different groups. From Canada we now have the Anglican Coalition in Canada. This was done to justify women’s ordination in that country. Then we formed the Anglican Coalition in America, where we believe the ordination of women should only be to the level of the diaconate (though he evidently means priesthood – Ed.). Thirdly, we still have the original Anglican Mission in America – the largest group of canonical letters – priests that do not accept the ordination of women to the priesthood.
Virtue: So you have not changed your fundamental position on women’s ordination?
Murphy: No, we have not. The charge from the Province of Rwanda was to create a structure that could embrace all three groups and maintain the integrity and conscience of each of the three groups. The AMiA consists of two nations, Canada and the U.S. and two positions on the appropriate biblical response with the women’s ordination question. Since we are in a province that has women’s ordination and since we are in a period of reception to discern the mind of Christ, our response is, being under authority, we created an umbrella with two countries and two positions while maintaining the integrity and conscience of both. I am the chairman of it all and Rwanda gives oversight. We remain under authority and in full communion with our Archbishop in Rwanda, even in our differences.
Virtue: Some of your priests I spoke with were quite upset, with several using words like “betrayal,” “backtracking,” “caving in,” “disaster” – to the point that they said it would have grave consequences [for] the church’s ability to grow and more. A number of your North American priests believe women’s ordination is a nose in the tent, a slippery slope to spiritual anarchy. How would you allay their fears? Are you concerned that it could ultimately divide you?
Murphy: The nose in the tent is that we are in the Province of Rwanda. This province believes in women’s ordination (and is growing as a church) and they have assured us that they respect our decision and our position with respect to women’s ordination to the diaconate only. I believe them. We are encompassing two nations and two positions. This is not a new development. We are giving leadership to all who are part of the Province of Rwanda. It is simply a new charge to give leadership to all the canonical letters.”
Report/Analysis By Auburn Traycik
The Christian Challenge www.challengeonline.org
January 23, 2007
Is the booming Anglican Mission in America effectively re-embracing its original policy of accepting women priests?Some may claim it is – and some distraught AMiA clergy certainly fear it is – following a change announced with little fanfare at the AMiA’s seventh annual Winter Conference, which opened with a Eucharist attended by some 1,600 persons January 17 and concluded January 20 in Jacksonville, Florida. The Anglican Mission, it seems, is now to be part of a larger international structure, overseen by a single AMiA bishop, that includes a second American wing that has female priests.
The AMiA is of course the U.S initiative backed by the Anglican Communion province of Rwanda, but not recognized by the U.S. Episcopal Church. It started controversially, with the surprise consecrations in 2000 of two Episcopal clerics, Dr. John Rodgers and Chuck Murphy, at the hands of Rwandan Archbishop Emmanuel Kolini and now-retired South East Asian Bishop Moses Tay (both of whom attended the Winter Conference). But now AMiA represents a significant and expanding piece of the Anglican realignment currently underway in response to deviations from historic faith and morals in some northern Anglican provinces. While the Anglican Mission began by accepting ordained women into its ranks, a careful and highly praised study undertaken by Bishop Rodgers led it to conclude in 2003 “that the most faithful response to the witness of Scripture and its teaching on headship would dictate that women be ordained only to the diaconate,” in the words of Bishop Murphy. “While recognizing that the Church is presently seeking further clarity in this matter through a period of discernment and `reception,’ the important concept of `headship’ proved to be the most critical issue for us as we developed our policy on the issue of women’s ordination.”
That determination brought AMiA significantly into line with historic Anglicanism and the wider Universal Church.Signs of an opposing trend actually began to emerge last year, however. In early 2006, AMiA’s overseer, Archbishop Kolini (whose province allows female clergy but has few of them) agreed that the Anglican Coalition in Canada (ACiC), comprised of some 20 faithful congregations and also accepting of women priests, should form a separate wing of AMiA. To that end, Kolini established on an ongoing basis what had been the temporary episcopal care of the Canadians by AMiA’s Bishop T.J. Johnston. At the time, Bishop Murphy, AMiA’s Chairman, denied that this represented a change in or violation of Anglican Mission policy. He said that all AMiA bishops are part of the Rwandan Church’s House of Bishops and “subject to the authority of Archbishop Kolini,” and added that Rwanda gave the ACiC “the same opportunity that AMiA had been given to express its preference on women’s ordination.” More to the point, Murphy noted that two viewpoints on women’s ordination are officially recognized by the Anglican Communion, of which AMiA claims to be a part, due to its link to Rwanda. To belong to that Communion “is to be in communion with those who are not of one mind on the issue of women’s ordination,” he said.
In this, he spotlighted the difficulties for some orthodox groups attempting to remain in the Communion, and one reason some extramural Anglicans have little interest in being brought back into it: the Communion as a whole no longer has a common view of holy orders or believes that the full interchangeability of ministers is necessary to true communion (as it is in other apostolic bodies); the Communion is content to say, officially, that women’s ordination is still being tested (in the aforementioned process of “reception”) and is therefore “provisional,” which is to say that the sacramental ministrations of ordained women might or might not be a valid and efficacious lifeline for the faithful, and might or might not be finally and fully accepted!It is a state of affairs that AMiA leaders had already accepted to a significant degree, but one that they now appear willing or under pressure from Rwanda to live with in a closer and more commingled way than might have been expected. In remarks to the gathering January 18, Bishop Murphy indicated that the AMiA is now to be put under the umbrella of the new, Rwandan-backed “Anglican Mission in the Americas ” alongside the ACiC, and a new entity, the Anglican Coalition in America (ACiA), which, unlike AMiA, will accept women priests. All three entities will be under Murphy as chairman of the super-structure and “in communion” with each other. Reportedly, the new American coalition was requested by Archbishop Kolini.
A “fact sheet” distributed by the new umbrella structure stated that:“In May 2005, Archbishop Kolini asked the Anglican Mission in America to seek a way to embrace all those priests and deacons, male and female, canonically resident in Rwanda, but living and ministering in the U.S. and Canada (now and in the future). The current structure of the Anglican Mission in the Americas, discussed and planned over the last 18 months, was created in response to Archbishop Kolini’s request and represents an expansion of our missionary outreach – a widening of Anglican Mission’s tent.“The Anglican Mission in the Americas embraces two countries (the U.S. and Canada) as well as two positions on the ordination of women,” the fact sheet continues. “ACiC and ACiA ordain women to the priesthood, as does the Province of Rwanda, while AMiA maintains its policy of ordaining women only to the diaconate. [The] Anglican Mission in the Americas provides a way to maintain the integrity of those with differing opinions and policies on women’s ordination.”“The three entities – ACiC, AMiA and ACiA – are equal, are in communion with one another and are under the authority of the Province of Rwanda through its missionary outreach – the Anglican Mission in the Americas.“Bishop Chuck Murphy serves as chairman of Anglican Mission in the Americas, and the National Mission Resource Center will assist and facilitate ministry for the ACiC, AMiA and ACiA.”
The issue of “integrity,” however, seemed to loom large in this matter from the viewpoint of those distressed by the change, who were said to include a number of AMiA clergy, though whether they would raise their concerns with their body’s leadership was not clear at this writing. (The AMiA has no diocesan or synodical governmental bodies but rather appears to operate by consultation among Rwandan and AMiA leaders.)One non-AMiA cleric willing to go on the record was the Rev. Dr. Peter Toon, President of the Prayer Book Society of the USA, who during the Winter Conference helped lead a standing-room-only workshop focusing on a new rendering of the 1662 Book of Common Prayer in contemporary language. Dr. Toon asserted that the new Anglican Mission in the Americas is “not a genuine fellowship”; there is going to be “impaired or broken communion” between parts of the AMiA and the new coalition sooner or later, he said. He thought the new configuration represented “a complete undermining of the doctrinal and practical position of the AMiA and will probably lead to doctrinal confusion and to schism in the long run.”
In a separate commentary, however, Dr. Toon specifically maintained that Rwanda went against the Communion’s doctrine of reception on women’s ordination by failing to appoint one or more bishops solely for the ACiA and ACiC, in order to maintain what the Communion recognizes as the “two integrities” on the ordination question.“The present policy as determined by Rwanda has one set of bishops…in the AMiA,” all of whom “are committed by oath, annually taken, to the doctrinal basis of AMiA,” Toon wrote. “This includes [a] commitment not to ordain or promote women as priests and means that they belong squarely within one integrity.”He added that: “It is impossible on principle for a bishop, who does not ordain women in one diocese or province or network, to cross over into another place and there act and speak as if the ministry of women priests is fine. That is, a bishop cannot as a man of principle belong to two integrities simultaneously. This mocks truth and sets aside the Anglican doctrine of reception.”
Toon contended that this conflict is not present in Rwanda, which has decided that women may be ordained, but in accordance with the doctrine of reception does not require a bishop who does not accept the innovation to ordain or license women within his jurisdiction. He noted that the “Mother” Church of England has also provided separately for orthodox parishes through its provincial episcopal visitors (“flying bishops”). “The aim here is to maintain two integrities while the process of reception is continuing,” Dr. Toon wrote.But for AMiA bishops, “who are committed to one integrity, that of maintaining historic catholic order” in the presbyterate and episcopate, “to move into another (which is what the ACiC and ACiA contain) and function there, as if they were also of that integrity, is clearly contrary to right reason and to good ecclesial practice. It is to conflate two integrities into one,” he stated.
“I suggest that to put matters right Rwanda should provide immediately a bishop who belongs to the new integrity” to minister to the ACiC and ACiA, Dr. Toon concluded. “And, as part of the pain of the modern Anglican situation, let it be understood that [that] bishop will not be able to minister within the AMiA, once he has ordained a woman as a priest.”Countering the idea that the creation of ACiA represents a significant change, however, new AMiA Communications Director Cynthia Brust noted that the Anglican Mission “was already under the authority of a province that ordains women.”Bishop Murphy also commented on the changes in question in a January 20 interview with David Virtue of VirtueOnline:
Mr. Virtue: You have had a corporate name change since last year. You now call yourself the Anglican Mission in the Americas, no longer simply the AMiA. Would you tell us what this is about and what it all means?
Bishop Murphy: The Province of the Episcopal Church of Rwanda has canonical letters from three different groups. From Canada we now have the Anglican Coalition in Canada. This was done to justify women’s ordination in that country. Then we formed the Anglican Coalition in America, where we believe the ordination of women should only be to the level of the diaconate (though he evidently means priesthood – Ed.). Thirdly, we still have the original Anglican Mission in America – the largest group of canonical letters – priests that do not accept the ordination of women to the priesthood.
Virtue: So you have not changed your fundamental position on women’s ordination?
Murphy: No, we have not. The charge from the Province of Rwanda was to create a structure that could embrace all three groups and maintain the integrity and conscience of each of the three groups. The AMiA consists of two nations, Canada and the U.S. and two positions on the appropriate biblical response with the women’s ordination question. Since we are in a province that has women’s ordination and since we are in a period of reception to discern the mind of Christ, our response is, being under authority, we created an umbrella with two countries and two positions while maintaining the integrity and conscience of both. I am the chairman of it all and Rwanda gives oversight. We remain under authority and in full communion with our Archbishop in Rwanda, even in our differences.
Virtue: Some of your priests I spoke with were quite upset, with several using words like “betrayal,” “backtracking,” “caving in,” “disaster” – to the point that they said it would have grave consequences [for] the church’s ability to grow and more. A number of your North American priests believe women’s ordination is a nose in the tent, a slippery slope to spiritual anarchy. How would you allay their fears? Are you concerned that it could ultimately divide you?
Murphy: The nose in the tent is that we are in the Province of Rwanda. This province believes in women’s ordination (and is growing as a church) and they have assured us that they respect our decision and our position with respect to women’s ordination to the diaconate only. I believe them. We are encompassing two nations and two positions. This is not a new development. We are giving leadership to all who are part of the Province of Rwanda. It is simply a new charge to give leadership to all the canonical letters.”
Thursday, January 18, 2007
The Old and Ever New Dangers of Latitudinarianism
LATITUDINARIANISM. A term opprobriously applied in the 17th century to the outlook of a group of Anglican divines who, while continuing to conform with the Church of England, attached relatively little importance to matters of dogmatic truth, ecclesiastical organization, and liturgical practice. It found characteristic representatives in the 'Cambridge Platonists'. In general the sympathies of Latitudinarian divines lay with the Arminian theology. Their views did much to prepare the way for the religious temper of England in the 18th century (Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church).
In response to the development of multi-jurisdictional Anglicanism now underway in the USA as a result of the final death rattle of the The Episcopal Church, I offer a few thoughts at the beginning of this new year about what I perceive to be a real threat to the integrity and identity of orthodox Anglican catholicity. Full-blown Anglican Catholicism may indeed be the 'minority report' in the history of Anglicanism, at least since since the sixteenth century, but I would venture, in all honesty, to say we have the post-reformation Anglican formularies, the BCP liturgy and the great classic writers of Anglican pastoralia, theology, spirituality and asceticism on our side. History, I submit, will judge that we were right. When it comes to the fullest expression of that to which Anglicanism has always inherently tended, when it comes to what Anglicanism has always inclined towards liturgically and theologically, well, Anglican Catholicism, Prayer Book 'Mass and Office' Catholicism, is it. Take heart! - Anglican Catholicism is alive and well and will by God's grace continue to flourish where it is practised and taught.
A latitudinarian, a broad churchman, is one who believes that Anglicanism is an umbrella, a large copious institution which is capable of holding together dramatically different theologies and expressions of worship and belief so long as the lowest common denominator of discernible visible characteristics is maintained. What follows is my personal understanding of what broad churchmanship really is. It may be that I have completely misunderstood or mistranslated the broad position. But what I do summarise herein poses a terrible danger to us if it is allowed to take hold and to govern our policies. What I attempt to describe would no doubt be characterised by some as a straw man, a caricature. That may be, but this is how I see it as an Anglican Catholic. It is very hard for me to see it in any other light.
In the broad church milieu, so long as one simply maintains life in the Anglican flotilla, then one is as Anglican as one can get and no fuller expression of genuine catholicity is either necessary or desirable. Within this gaping spectrum any number of different, competing or even contradictory interpretations of Anglicanism are permissible and even encouraged. In its worst form, broad churchmanship is political opportunism and expediency. In its best, it is a generous application of the quintessential Anglican virtues of irenicism and civility and politeness. This is the classic broad church perspective, which is essentially atheological and institutional in nature. The danger involved: it is structure and symbolism over substance, organisation over organism, polity over faith and tradition, and it was the predominant political device in Church of England history from the 18th century forward. Broadness, unfortunately, has a long and influential history in Anglican affairs. 'Tepid centrist churchmanship,' to borrow a phrase, doesn't terribly mind Catholicism, the fullness of Apostolic and Patristic faith and practice, as long as it remains a harmless minority and stays out of the way and doesn't interfere with the machinery of church life and perceived temporal successes. But once Catholicism emerges as a theological and spiritual force, latitudinarianism is quick to persecute it as 'strange' 'eccentric' and most especially 'divisive,' 'a turn-off to prospective converts and members.' Our forebears in the Catholic Revival knew these epithets well and disproved them at every turn. From the broad point of view, the purpose of Anglicanism is to house the most diverse number of people possible within the most comprehensive body possible with as few tests of religious orthodoxy or orthopraxy as possible; issues of dogma and its corollary, liturgical expression, become adiaphora, things indifferent, when compared to the greater need to accommodate the widest section of people regardless of theology or faith. Accommodation is the supreme virtue of the latitudinarian cultus.
I believe this stream of Anglicanism can be Anglicanism at its weakest, its most insipid and lifeless and empty. Worse yet, Broad churchmanship is the Establishment mother of her insidious offspring, liberalism. Its antidote, its cure, is the fullness of the Catholic Faith as expressed in the Anglican law of prayer: lex orandi, lex credendi. We must begin to believe and practise the Faith precisely as we pray it. Otherwise, all we have done is to dress up and play Catholic, and that would be an exercise in sacrilege. As Gibbons once remarked, 'I see the vestments of a priest but hear the voice of a parson.' The outward and visible must begin to correspond and connect with the inward and spiritual or else we shall wind up a vacuous shell of orthodoxy at best or a gnostic sect at worst. In its reductio ad absurdum, the worst kind of broad churchmanship results in modernism, revisionism, the religion of the naturalist, the humanist and the secularist. Latitudinarianism, translated from a philosophical idea to a church-governing policy, resulted in the death of the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion; those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Will we learn before it is too late?
The ultimate fruit of broad churchmanship is seen at this very moment in TEC and the Canterbury Communion: the elevation of reason (so-called) and personal experience, private judgement and interpretation of the Christian Faith, above the received and God-given authority of Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition in Holy Church. 'No prophecy of scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God' (II Peter 1.20-21).
In short, one can say that the latitudinarian approach to matters Anglican is Rodney King theology: 'why can't we all just get along?' Such a religion is usually described by its partisans with a special buzz-word, the creedal formula above all creeds, comprehensiveness. As such, Anglican broad churchmanship seeks more to preserve a certain culture, a certain ethos of form, architecture, manners, a certain style, than to affirm or proclaim or witness or manifest a divinely revealed dogmatic esse and system of grace and truth given by Christ and the Apostles enshrined in the outward and visible signs of the Church's ordinances. We must learn to be true to our genuine selves. Prayer Book & Missal orthodoxy or Anglican Catholicism is also broad and comprehensive in the best possible sense, in that it allows a great deal of intellectual and spiritual freedom to explore the mysteries of the Gospel while maintaining the bond of communion with the Catholic Tradition via the Book of Common Prayer and the liturgical and spiritual patrimony inherited from the Church of England and especially located in the BCP, the Articles and the other Anglican formularies. The difference of Anglican Catholicism from latitudinarianism is that we allow the Church Fathers and the Tradition of the Undivided Church to interpret the standard formularies and liturgy of the English Church, whereas broad churchmanship uses the liturgy in its given form but has no definitive interpretation or theology at all. Anglican Catholics allow the Patristic Tradition to move and guide our teaching and worship to conform with the ancient and undivided Church, continually to restore and preserve for us the position of the Church of the First Millennium. For us, the Holy Fathers interpret the formularies and the formularies do not interpret the Fathers.
The Elizabethan Settlement as it once was, whether we like or not, is over, broken, and humpty-dumpty cannot be put back together again - if anyone questions this observation, all one need do is examine what is powerfully demonstrated by the ongoing disintegration of the Anglican Communion. I believe the challenge before us is simply this: we must either follow the natural and intended course of Anglicanism to the fullness of orthodox Catholic faith and practice or relinquish it to fall into the abyss. Archbishop Michael Ramsey writes that Anglicanism's vocation is ultimately to locate itself within the Great Church and the Great Tradition, even if that location means Anglicanism's distinctives must eventually disappear. I could not agree more. Old-style low church Episcopalians, a breed now mostly defunct, were liturgically-minded protestants, and they too had a kind of theology, a tradition, by which they interpreted the church's way of praying and living. Today, the new modern mega-church style evangelical Anglicans do the same with amazing vigour and commitment. The vacuum opened up by the rejection of the classical Caroline Tractarian Catholic Anglican position in the 1970's has now been filled, in the Global South at least, with a robust Calvinist-leaning evangelical protestantism. The lesson of the Global South - nature, and Church, abhor a vacuum; it is better to have a fully defined theology and praxis than to have none at all save a cultural relic.
Let us remain steadfast and resolute in our commitment to the Faith of our Fathers!
In response to the development of multi-jurisdictional Anglicanism now underway in the USA as a result of the final death rattle of the The Episcopal Church, I offer a few thoughts at the beginning of this new year about what I perceive to be a real threat to the integrity and identity of orthodox Anglican catholicity. Full-blown Anglican Catholicism may indeed be the 'minority report' in the history of Anglicanism, at least since since the sixteenth century, but I would venture, in all honesty, to say we have the post-reformation Anglican formularies, the BCP liturgy and the great classic writers of Anglican pastoralia, theology, spirituality and asceticism on our side. History, I submit, will judge that we were right. When it comes to the fullest expression of that to which Anglicanism has always inherently tended, when it comes to what Anglicanism has always inclined towards liturgically and theologically, well, Anglican Catholicism, Prayer Book 'Mass and Office' Catholicism, is it. Take heart! - Anglican Catholicism is alive and well and will by God's grace continue to flourish where it is practised and taught.
A latitudinarian, a broad churchman, is one who believes that Anglicanism is an umbrella, a large copious institution which is capable of holding together dramatically different theologies and expressions of worship and belief so long as the lowest common denominator of discernible visible characteristics is maintained. What follows is my personal understanding of what broad churchmanship really is. It may be that I have completely misunderstood or mistranslated the broad position. But what I do summarise herein poses a terrible danger to us if it is allowed to take hold and to govern our policies. What I attempt to describe would no doubt be characterised by some as a straw man, a caricature. That may be, but this is how I see it as an Anglican Catholic. It is very hard for me to see it in any other light.
In the broad church milieu, so long as one simply maintains life in the Anglican flotilla, then one is as Anglican as one can get and no fuller expression of genuine catholicity is either necessary or desirable. Within this gaping spectrum any number of different, competing or even contradictory interpretations of Anglicanism are permissible and even encouraged. In its worst form, broad churchmanship is political opportunism and expediency. In its best, it is a generous application of the quintessential Anglican virtues of irenicism and civility and politeness. This is the classic broad church perspective, which is essentially atheological and institutional in nature. The danger involved: it is structure and symbolism over substance, organisation over organism, polity over faith and tradition, and it was the predominant political device in Church of England history from the 18th century forward. Broadness, unfortunately, has a long and influential history in Anglican affairs. 'Tepid centrist churchmanship,' to borrow a phrase, doesn't terribly mind Catholicism, the fullness of Apostolic and Patristic faith and practice, as long as it remains a harmless minority and stays out of the way and doesn't interfere with the machinery of church life and perceived temporal successes. But once Catholicism emerges as a theological and spiritual force, latitudinarianism is quick to persecute it as 'strange' 'eccentric' and most especially 'divisive,' 'a turn-off to prospective converts and members.' Our forebears in the Catholic Revival knew these epithets well and disproved them at every turn. From the broad point of view, the purpose of Anglicanism is to house the most diverse number of people possible within the most comprehensive body possible with as few tests of religious orthodoxy or orthopraxy as possible; issues of dogma and its corollary, liturgical expression, become adiaphora, things indifferent, when compared to the greater need to accommodate the widest section of people regardless of theology or faith. Accommodation is the supreme virtue of the latitudinarian cultus.
I believe this stream of Anglicanism can be Anglicanism at its weakest, its most insipid and lifeless and empty. Worse yet, Broad churchmanship is the Establishment mother of her insidious offspring, liberalism. Its antidote, its cure, is the fullness of the Catholic Faith as expressed in the Anglican law of prayer: lex orandi, lex credendi. We must begin to believe and practise the Faith precisely as we pray it. Otherwise, all we have done is to dress up and play Catholic, and that would be an exercise in sacrilege. As Gibbons once remarked, 'I see the vestments of a priest but hear the voice of a parson.' The outward and visible must begin to correspond and connect with the inward and spiritual or else we shall wind up a vacuous shell of orthodoxy at best or a gnostic sect at worst. In its reductio ad absurdum, the worst kind of broad churchmanship results in modernism, revisionism, the religion of the naturalist, the humanist and the secularist. Latitudinarianism, translated from a philosophical idea to a church-governing policy, resulted in the death of the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion; those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Will we learn before it is too late?
The ultimate fruit of broad churchmanship is seen at this very moment in TEC and the Canterbury Communion: the elevation of reason (so-called) and personal experience, private judgement and interpretation of the Christian Faith, above the received and God-given authority of Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition in Holy Church. 'No prophecy of scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God' (II Peter 1.20-21).
In short, one can say that the latitudinarian approach to matters Anglican is Rodney King theology: 'why can't we all just get along?' Such a religion is usually described by its partisans with a special buzz-word, the creedal formula above all creeds, comprehensiveness. As such, Anglican broad churchmanship seeks more to preserve a certain culture, a certain ethos of form, architecture, manners, a certain style, than to affirm or proclaim or witness or manifest a divinely revealed dogmatic esse and system of grace and truth given by Christ and the Apostles enshrined in the outward and visible signs of the Church's ordinances. We must learn to be true to our genuine selves. Prayer Book & Missal orthodoxy or Anglican Catholicism is also broad and comprehensive in the best possible sense, in that it allows a great deal of intellectual and spiritual freedom to explore the mysteries of the Gospel while maintaining the bond of communion with the Catholic Tradition via the Book of Common Prayer and the liturgical and spiritual patrimony inherited from the Church of England and especially located in the BCP, the Articles and the other Anglican formularies. The difference of Anglican Catholicism from latitudinarianism is that we allow the Church Fathers and the Tradition of the Undivided Church to interpret the standard formularies and liturgy of the English Church, whereas broad churchmanship uses the liturgy in its given form but has no definitive interpretation or theology at all. Anglican Catholics allow the Patristic Tradition to move and guide our teaching and worship to conform with the ancient and undivided Church, continually to restore and preserve for us the position of the Church of the First Millennium. For us, the Holy Fathers interpret the formularies and the formularies do not interpret the Fathers.
The Elizabethan Settlement as it once was, whether we like or not, is over, broken, and humpty-dumpty cannot be put back together again - if anyone questions this observation, all one need do is examine what is powerfully demonstrated by the ongoing disintegration of the Anglican Communion. I believe the challenge before us is simply this: we must either follow the natural and intended course of Anglicanism to the fullness of orthodox Catholic faith and practice or relinquish it to fall into the abyss. Archbishop Michael Ramsey writes that Anglicanism's vocation is ultimately to locate itself within the Great Church and the Great Tradition, even if that location means Anglicanism's distinctives must eventually disappear. I could not agree more. Old-style low church Episcopalians, a breed now mostly defunct, were liturgically-minded protestants, and they too had a kind of theology, a tradition, by which they interpreted the church's way of praying and living. Today, the new modern mega-church style evangelical Anglicans do the same with amazing vigour and commitment. The vacuum opened up by the rejection of the classical Caroline Tractarian Catholic Anglican position in the 1970's has now been filled, in the Global South at least, with a robust Calvinist-leaning evangelical protestantism. The lesson of the Global South - nature, and Church, abhor a vacuum; it is better to have a fully defined theology and praxis than to have none at all save a cultural relic.
Let us remain steadfast and resolute in our commitment to the Faith of our Fathers!
Tuesday, December 19, 2006
Question 13 from CANA
http://canaconvocation.org/about/faq.php
Q13. What is CANA’s position on women’s ordination?
CANA recognizes that there are differing theological positions in the Anglican Communion about women in ordained ministry. CANA acknowledges the integrity of those who understand the Holy Scriptures to permit the ordination of women to the priesthood and those who believe the Scriptures prohibit women’s ordination. Archbishop Peter Akinola has stated that there needs to be freedom for CANA to include both perspectives because of its North American character. CANA believes that for the health and well being of the church the particular gifts of women must be freely expressed. CANA will welcome applications from congregations and female clergy on the same basis as other applications with the expectation that women clergy will be licensed to continue their ministry.
Because of the differing positions regarding the ordination of women to the priesthood CANA policies regarding the ordination of new female aspirants will be developed from a biblical and pastoral perspective. This is a matter that is being actively pursued by the CANA clergy and elected lay leadership.
Q13. What is CANA’s position on women’s ordination?
CANA recognizes that there are differing theological positions in the Anglican Communion about women in ordained ministry. CANA acknowledges the integrity of those who understand the Holy Scriptures to permit the ordination of women to the priesthood and those who believe the Scriptures prohibit women’s ordination. Archbishop Peter Akinola has stated that there needs to be freedom for CANA to include both perspectives because of its North American character. CANA believes that for the health and well being of the church the particular gifts of women must be freely expressed. CANA will welcome applications from congregations and female clergy on the same basis as other applications with the expectation that women clergy will be licensed to continue their ministry.
Because of the differing positions regarding the ordination of women to the priesthood CANA policies regarding the ordination of new female aspirants will be developed from a biblical and pastoral perspective. This is a matter that is being actively pursued by the CANA clergy and elected lay leadership.
An Excellent Reflection on CANA
http://apologeticsgalore.blogspot.com/
Question 13: What is CANA's position on WO?
For an excellent, thoughtful and sober assessment of the difficulties currently emerging from the Convocation of Anglicans in North America, please visit Apologetics Galore and read the well-presented post by its blogger, DH. In light of the historic move on the part of The Falls Church, Truro Church and 13 other former parishes in Virginia of the Episcopal Church which have already voted or are in the process of voting to separate from TEC, it is imperative that the serious theological, sacramental and ecclesiological issues at stake be addressed openly and deliberately in the days ahead. The role of the Covenant Union between the Church of Nigeria and the APA/REC is not at all clear at the moment, as CANA appears to have moved forward in allowing purportedly-ordained women to function within its jurisdiction. Will the Covenant Union be upheld? Will the proper consultation and discussion to which the Covenant Union commits both CANA and the APA/REC take place? Only time will tell.
Let us pray that the errors made and the theological novelties promoted in the Anglican Communion over the past thirty years will not be repeated yet again in this situation. Let us pray for the unity and fidelity of the Anglican expression of the Holy Catholic Church.
http://www.anglicantv.org/blog/index.cfm
In the CANA news conference linked above, you will discover that the CANA-sponsored mission of Christ the Redeemer, Centreville, Virginia, has as its interim rector a lady who purports to have received priestly ordination, one who we presume has now been licenced to function sacramentally in CANA. The Falls Church of CANA already has on its pastoral staff a lady who has undergone the rite of presbyteral ordination. Problematic indeed...
Question 13: What is CANA's position on WO?
For an excellent, thoughtful and sober assessment of the difficulties currently emerging from the Convocation of Anglicans in North America, please visit Apologetics Galore and read the well-presented post by its blogger, DH. In light of the historic move on the part of The Falls Church, Truro Church and 13 other former parishes in Virginia of the Episcopal Church which have already voted or are in the process of voting to separate from TEC, it is imperative that the serious theological, sacramental and ecclesiological issues at stake be addressed openly and deliberately in the days ahead. The role of the Covenant Union between the Church of Nigeria and the APA/REC is not at all clear at the moment, as CANA appears to have moved forward in allowing purportedly-ordained women to function within its jurisdiction. Will the Covenant Union be upheld? Will the proper consultation and discussion to which the Covenant Union commits both CANA and the APA/REC take place? Only time will tell.
Let us pray that the errors made and the theological novelties promoted in the Anglican Communion over the past thirty years will not be repeated yet again in this situation. Let us pray for the unity and fidelity of the Anglican expression of the Holy Catholic Church.
http://www.anglicantv.org/blog/index.cfm
In the CANA news conference linked above, you will discover that the CANA-sponsored mission of Christ the Redeemer, Centreville, Virginia, has as its interim rector a lady who purports to have received priestly ordination, one who we presume has now been licenced to function sacramentally in CANA. The Falls Church of CANA already has on its pastoral staff a lady who has undergone the rite of presbyteral ordination. Problematic indeed...
Wednesday, December 13, 2006
Ten Years of Priesthood...
Dearly Beloved:
Saturday 21 December 1996, on bright clear glistening snow-covered morning in Lexington, Virginia, I was ordained to the Sacred Order of Priests in Christ’s One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church at Saint Paul’s Church by the Most Reverend John Thayer Cahoon, Junior of the Anglican Catholic Church. What a glorious day it was!
In commemoration of that joyful and life-transforming event, a Solemn High Mass will be celebrated at Saint Alban’s Anglican Cathedral, 3348 West State Road 426, Oviedo, Florida, at 7 PM on Wednesday 20 December 2006 for the transferred Feast of Saint Thomas the Apostle. If you happen to be in the Central Florida area next week, you are most cordially invited to attend the Mass and a dinner gathering (dutch treat) to follow. Please be assured of my prayers for you and your ministries in the Lord on that special day. Should you like to attend the Mass and join our dinner party, please notify me at your convenience. I would be honoured beyond words by your presence and prayers.
You go with me to the Altar of God as the Holy Sacrifice is offered in thanksgiving for ten years of participation in Christ’s Holy Priesthood. Thank you very much and God bless you.
Saturday 21 December 1996, on bright clear glistening snow-covered morning in Lexington, Virginia, I was ordained to the Sacred Order of Priests in Christ’s One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church at Saint Paul’s Church by the Most Reverend John Thayer Cahoon, Junior of the Anglican Catholic Church. What a glorious day it was!
In commemoration of that joyful and life-transforming event, a Solemn High Mass will be celebrated at Saint Alban’s Anglican Cathedral, 3348 West State Road 426, Oviedo, Florida, at 7 PM on Wednesday 20 December 2006 for the transferred Feast of Saint Thomas the Apostle. If you happen to be in the Central Florida area next week, you are most cordially invited to attend the Mass and a dinner gathering (dutch treat) to follow. Please be assured of my prayers for you and your ministries in the Lord on that special day. Should you like to attend the Mass and join our dinner party, please notify me at your convenience. I would be honoured beyond words by your presence and prayers.
You go with me to the Altar of God as the Holy Sacrifice is offered in thanksgiving for ten years of participation in Christ’s Holy Priesthood. Thank you very much and God bless you.
Tuesday, December 12, 2006
The Sacrificing Priesthood
Recently on the blog Pontifications it was asserted that the Anglicans do not possess and do intend to possess a 'sacrificing priesthood.' Is that true?
Here's the definitive answer from Saepius Officio, the official Reply of the Archbishops of Canterbury and York to Pope Leo XIII (1897)...
XI. We inquire therefore what authority the Pope has for discovering a definite form in the bestowal of holy orders? We have seen no evidence produced by him except two passages from the determinations of the Council of Trent (Session xxiii. On the Sacrament of Order, canon i., and Session xxii. On the sacrifice of the Mass, canon iii.) which were promulgated after our Ordinal was composed, from which he infers that the principal grace and power of the Christian priesthood is the consecration and oblation of the Body and Blood of the Lord. The authority of that Council has certainly never been admitted in our country, and we find that by it many truths were mixed with falsehoods, much that is uncertain with what is certain. But we answer as regards the passages quoted by the Pope, that we make provision with the greatest reverence for the consecration of the holy Eucharist and commit it only to properly ordained Priests and to no other ministers of the Church. Further we truly teach the doctrine of Eucharistic sacrifice and do not believe it to be a ' nude commemoration of the Sacrifice of the Cross,' an opinion which seems to be attributed to us by the quotation made from that Council. But we think it sufficient in the Liturgy which we use in celebrating the holy Eucharist,—while lifting up our hearts to the Lord, and when now consecrating the gifts already offered that they may become to us the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ,—to signify the sacrifice which is offered at that point of the service in such terms as these. We continue a perpetual memory of the precious death of Christ, who is our Advocate with the Father and the propitiation for our sins, according to His precept, until His coming again. For first we offer the sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving; then next we plead and represent before the Father the sacrifice of the cross, and by it we confidently entreat remission of sins and all other benefits of the Lord's Passion for all the whole Church ; and lastly we offer the sacrifice of ourselves to the Creator of all things which we have already signified by the oblations of His creatures. This whole action, in which the people has necessarily to take its part with the Priest, we are accustomed to call the Eucharistic sacrifice.
Undeniably, we have what the whole Catholic Church has always understood to be the only 'sacrificing priesthood.'
Here's the definitive answer from Saepius Officio, the official Reply of the Archbishops of Canterbury and York to Pope Leo XIII (1897)...
XI. We inquire therefore what authority the Pope has for discovering a definite form in the bestowal of holy orders? We have seen no evidence produced by him except two passages from the determinations of the Council of Trent (Session xxiii. On the Sacrament of Order, canon i., and Session xxii. On the sacrifice of the Mass, canon iii.) which were promulgated after our Ordinal was composed, from which he infers that the principal grace and power of the Christian priesthood is the consecration and oblation of the Body and Blood of the Lord. The authority of that Council has certainly never been admitted in our country, and we find that by it many truths were mixed with falsehoods, much that is uncertain with what is certain. But we answer as regards the passages quoted by the Pope, that we make provision with the greatest reverence for the consecration of the holy Eucharist and commit it only to properly ordained Priests and to no other ministers of the Church. Further we truly teach the doctrine of Eucharistic sacrifice and do not believe it to be a ' nude commemoration of the Sacrifice of the Cross,' an opinion which seems to be attributed to us by the quotation made from that Council. But we think it sufficient in the Liturgy which we use in celebrating the holy Eucharist,—while lifting up our hearts to the Lord, and when now consecrating the gifts already offered that they may become to us the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ,—to signify the sacrifice which is offered at that point of the service in such terms as these. We continue a perpetual memory of the precious death of Christ, who is our Advocate with the Father and the propitiation for our sins, according to His precept, until His coming again. For first we offer the sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving; then next we plead and represent before the Father the sacrifice of the cross, and by it we confidently entreat remission of sins and all other benefits of the Lord's Passion for all the whole Church ; and lastly we offer the sacrifice of ourselves to the Creator of all things which we have already signified by the oblations of His creatures. This whole action, in which the people has necessarily to take its part with the Priest, we are accustomed to call the Eucharistic sacrifice.
Undeniably, we have what the whole Catholic Church has always understood to be the only 'sacrificing priesthood.'
Sunday, December 10, 2006
A Tale of Two Priesthoods
Father Alvin Kimel:
'...Whatever I was as a priest within the Anglican Communion has now been gathered into the deeper, more fundamental and primary ecclesial reality that simply is the Catholic Church. I do not know the words to express this newness and difference. Certainly the canonical categories employed in Apostolicae curae do not adequately capture it. Yet at an existential level, I understand now why the Catholic Church has always insisted upon the absolute ordination of Anglican priests. The Catholic priest is different. His ministry is different. He is a priest in a way that an Anglican presbyter can never be a priest. This is not a matter of intention, belief, or practice. I know many godly Anglo-Catholic priests who ardently believe they are priests as truly as any Catholic or Orthodox priest … and yet they are not, because the Church in which they serve and minister is not the Church in the same way that the Catholic Church is the Church. The catholicity of the Anglican presbyter will always remain optional...'
'...This is why the debate on the validity of Anglican Orders so quickly descends into irrelevance. It’s not just a matter of proving an unbroken historic succession of properly ordained ordaining hands. Be the physical links ever so intact, yet the sacerdotal line is ruptured if Anglicanism is not Church in doctrinal and catholic fullness; and by both Catholic and Orthodox standards, it is not. How can the Anglican Church, for example, pass on the sacerdotium, when it has always denied a sacrificing priesthood?...'
Dr C. B. Moss:
The Anglican Communion claims that its bishops, priests, and deacons are bishops, priests, and deacons in the sense in which those words were used by the ancient Church and by the Roman Communion today. The Archbishop of Canterbury is a bishop in the same sense as the Pope. Every Anglican priest is as much a priest as any Romanist priest. It is his duty and his privilege to offer the Eucharistic sacrifice, to give absolution, and to bless in the name of the Church; and this claim is supported by the Prayer Book...' (The Christian Faith, 408).
There were three stages in the sacrifice or self-offering of our Lord, corresponding to three stages in the Old Testament sacrifices. The first was His death on the Cross, corresponding to the slaying of the victim. The second is His perpetual self-offering in Heaven which began with His Ascension and corresponds to the entry of the High Priest into the Holy of Holies carrying the blood of the sin offering on the Day of Atonement. The third is the Holy Eucharist, corresponding to the feast upon the sacrifice which belonged to the peace offering.
The sacrifice of Christ is one and cannot be repeated. There is no sacrifice in the Christian religion other than the sacrifice of Christ. The Holy Eucharist is not in any sense whatever a repetition of Christ's death on the Cross or of His offering of Himself in Heaven. It is not called a sacrifice in the New Testament, nor are the Christian ministers called priests (hiereis). The reason is clear. Jewish priests and heathen priests were well known to the first readers of the New Testament. If the Christian presbuteroi (elders) had been called priests, it would have been supposed that animal sacrifice was part of their duty. But animal sacrifice had been abolished.
Nevertheless, sacrificial language was used of the Eucharist, as we have seen, by our Lord Himself, who said, "This is My blood of the covenant", when He instituted the Eucharist. St. Paul called himself leitourgos, a sacrificial word (Rom. 15:16), doing priestly work (hierourgounta), that the offering (prosphora) of the Gentiles might be made acceptable. He contrasted the "table of the Lord" with "the table of devils", the heathen sacrifices (I Cor. 10:21), showing that he regarded the Christian Eucharist as sacrificial. The sacrifice of Christ was the Christian Passover; "Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us; therefore let us keep the feast" (I Cor. 5:7). Compare also I Cor. 10:18: the Jews who "eat the sacrifices" and "have communion with the altar" are compared to the Christian at the Eucharist.
All the Fathers beginning with St. Clement of Rome called the Eucharist a sacrifice. So do all the ancient liturgies. But whereas the New Testament appears to regard the Eucharist as corresponding to the feast which was the last stage of the sacrifice, the Fathers taught that it was also the representation of earth of what is continually going on in Heaven. As the Epistle to the Hebrews constantly asserts, our Lord is the true High Priest, "a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek" (Heb. 6:20) who passed into the heavens at the Ascension bearing His own blood (like the High Priest into the Holy of Holies), and who perpetually presents to the Father His own life, for His priesthood is unchangeable (7:24). The Christian Church of which He is the Head is "a royal priesthood" (I Peter 2:9) sharing the priesthood of its Head and His heavenly work of offering. This the Church does by the whole of her life which is, ideally, one long self-offering, united with the self-offering of our Lord in Heaven. But she shares in His self-offering especially at the Eucharist, in which the congregation is united with Jesus Christ in Heaven, first by offering His Body and Blood (with which all their other offerings, their alms, the bread and wine, their own lives, are united), and then by receiving it in communion.
The earthly priest is the necessary organ of the Church for this purpose, as the eye is the necessary organ of sight. There can be no offering without him, but the offering is the people's, not his alone... (The Christian Faith, 369, 370).
The word "priest" represents both presbuteros, presbyter, and hiereus, sacerdos. The latter title was given to bishops from the third century onwards and later to priests as well. It describes them as "offering sacrifice". The Christian priest is not a priest in the same sense as the Hebrew priests under the Old Covenant. Our Lord Jesus Christ is the only Priest in the proper sense under the New Covenant. In what sense the Christian "presbyter" is also "sacerdos", sacrificing priest, has already been explained. The use of the word "presbyter" in the Catholic Church to mean a member of the second order of the Apostolic ministry is not to be confused with its use by the "Reformed churches". The Calvinist "presbyter" is not a priest but a preacher, as we shall see.
The essential duties of the priest which cannot be performed by anyone but a priest (all bishops being also priests) are to consecrate the Eucharist, to give absolution to sinners, to anoint the sick, and to bless in the name of the Church. (Anyone may bless as a father blesses his children, but the blessing of the Church is given only by the bishop, or in his absence by the priest.)
All these duties of the priest belong properly to the bishop and are performed by the priest as the representative of some bishop (or person with the jurisdiction of a bishop). In early times the bishop, when present, was always the celebrant of the Eucharist. The absolution and the blessing in the Eucharist are still given by the bishop of the diocese (or the suffragan or assistant bishop who represents him), even though he is not the celebrant.
The priest is also ordinarily a pastor, teacher, and evangelist. He is the normal minister of baptism. These duties can also be performed by others; but they form the largest part of the priest's work, and his training is chiefly directed to prepare him for carrying them out. Experience has shown that though the functions which are confined to the priest are limited and can easily be learned, priests who should do nothing but perform those functions would be of little use. The priest's highest duty is to consecrate the Eucharist, and the next to give absolution. But the Eucharist must be accompanied by preaching and teaching, and the absolution must usually be accompanied by counsel. Therefore the priest must be a man of holiness, of learning, and of knowledge of human nature. He must know his Bible and be trained in dogmatic, moral, and ascetic theology, and in the art of teaching (The Christian Faith, 393, 394).
'...Whatever I was as a priest within the Anglican Communion has now been gathered into the deeper, more fundamental and primary ecclesial reality that simply is the Catholic Church. I do not know the words to express this newness and difference. Certainly the canonical categories employed in Apostolicae curae do not adequately capture it. Yet at an existential level, I understand now why the Catholic Church has always insisted upon the absolute ordination of Anglican priests. The Catholic priest is different. His ministry is different. He is a priest in a way that an Anglican presbyter can never be a priest. This is not a matter of intention, belief, or practice. I know many godly Anglo-Catholic priests who ardently believe they are priests as truly as any Catholic or Orthodox priest … and yet they are not, because the Church in which they serve and minister is not the Church in the same way that the Catholic Church is the Church. The catholicity of the Anglican presbyter will always remain optional...'
'...This is why the debate on the validity of Anglican Orders so quickly descends into irrelevance. It’s not just a matter of proving an unbroken historic succession of properly ordained ordaining hands. Be the physical links ever so intact, yet the sacerdotal line is ruptured if Anglicanism is not Church in doctrinal and catholic fullness; and by both Catholic and Orthodox standards, it is not. How can the Anglican Church, for example, pass on the sacerdotium, when it has always denied a sacrificing priesthood?...'
Dr C. B. Moss:
The Anglican Communion claims that its bishops, priests, and deacons are bishops, priests, and deacons in the sense in which those words were used by the ancient Church and by the Roman Communion today. The Archbishop of Canterbury is a bishop in the same sense as the Pope. Every Anglican priest is as much a priest as any Romanist priest. It is his duty and his privilege to offer the Eucharistic sacrifice, to give absolution, and to bless in the name of the Church; and this claim is supported by the Prayer Book...' (The Christian Faith, 408).
There were three stages in the sacrifice or self-offering of our Lord, corresponding to three stages in the Old Testament sacrifices. The first was His death on the Cross, corresponding to the slaying of the victim. The second is His perpetual self-offering in Heaven which began with His Ascension and corresponds to the entry of the High Priest into the Holy of Holies carrying the blood of the sin offering on the Day of Atonement. The third is the Holy Eucharist, corresponding to the feast upon the sacrifice which belonged to the peace offering.
The sacrifice of Christ is one and cannot be repeated. There is no sacrifice in the Christian religion other than the sacrifice of Christ. The Holy Eucharist is not in any sense whatever a repetition of Christ's death on the Cross or of His offering of Himself in Heaven. It is not called a sacrifice in the New Testament, nor are the Christian ministers called priests (hiereis). The reason is clear. Jewish priests and heathen priests were well known to the first readers of the New Testament. If the Christian presbuteroi (elders) had been called priests, it would have been supposed that animal sacrifice was part of their duty. But animal sacrifice had been abolished.
Nevertheless, sacrificial language was used of the Eucharist, as we have seen, by our Lord Himself, who said, "This is My blood of the covenant", when He instituted the Eucharist. St. Paul called himself leitourgos, a sacrificial word (Rom. 15:16), doing priestly work (hierourgounta), that the offering (prosphora) of the Gentiles might be made acceptable. He contrasted the "table of the Lord" with "the table of devils", the heathen sacrifices (I Cor. 10:21), showing that he regarded the Christian Eucharist as sacrificial. The sacrifice of Christ was the Christian Passover; "Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us; therefore let us keep the feast" (I Cor. 5:7). Compare also I Cor. 10:18: the Jews who "eat the sacrifices" and "have communion with the altar" are compared to the Christian at the Eucharist.
All the Fathers beginning with St. Clement of Rome called the Eucharist a sacrifice. So do all the ancient liturgies. But whereas the New Testament appears to regard the Eucharist as corresponding to the feast which was the last stage of the sacrifice, the Fathers taught that it was also the representation of earth of what is continually going on in Heaven. As the Epistle to the Hebrews constantly asserts, our Lord is the true High Priest, "a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek" (Heb. 6:20) who passed into the heavens at the Ascension bearing His own blood (like the High Priest into the Holy of Holies), and who perpetually presents to the Father His own life, for His priesthood is unchangeable (7:24). The Christian Church of which He is the Head is "a royal priesthood" (I Peter 2:9) sharing the priesthood of its Head and His heavenly work of offering. This the Church does by the whole of her life which is, ideally, one long self-offering, united with the self-offering of our Lord in Heaven. But she shares in His self-offering especially at the Eucharist, in which the congregation is united with Jesus Christ in Heaven, first by offering His Body and Blood (with which all their other offerings, their alms, the bread and wine, their own lives, are united), and then by receiving it in communion.
The earthly priest is the necessary organ of the Church for this purpose, as the eye is the necessary organ of sight. There can be no offering without him, but the offering is the people's, not his alone... (The Christian Faith, 369, 370).
The word "priest" represents both presbuteros, presbyter, and hiereus, sacerdos. The latter title was given to bishops from the third century onwards and later to priests as well. It describes them as "offering sacrifice". The Christian priest is not a priest in the same sense as the Hebrew priests under the Old Covenant. Our Lord Jesus Christ is the only Priest in the proper sense under the New Covenant. In what sense the Christian "presbyter" is also "sacerdos", sacrificing priest, has already been explained. The use of the word "presbyter" in the Catholic Church to mean a member of the second order of the Apostolic ministry is not to be confused with its use by the "Reformed churches". The Calvinist "presbyter" is not a priest but a preacher, as we shall see.
The essential duties of the priest which cannot be performed by anyone but a priest (all bishops being also priests) are to consecrate the Eucharist, to give absolution to sinners, to anoint the sick, and to bless in the name of the Church. (Anyone may bless as a father blesses his children, but the blessing of the Church is given only by the bishop, or in his absence by the priest.)
All these duties of the priest belong properly to the bishop and are performed by the priest as the representative of some bishop (or person with the jurisdiction of a bishop). In early times the bishop, when present, was always the celebrant of the Eucharist. The absolution and the blessing in the Eucharist are still given by the bishop of the diocese (or the suffragan or assistant bishop who represents him), even though he is not the celebrant.
The priest is also ordinarily a pastor, teacher, and evangelist. He is the normal minister of baptism. These duties can also be performed by others; but they form the largest part of the priest's work, and his training is chiefly directed to prepare him for carrying them out. Experience has shown that though the functions which are confined to the priest are limited and can easily be learned, priests who should do nothing but perform those functions would be of little use. The priest's highest duty is to consecrate the Eucharist, and the next to give absolution. But the Eucharist must be accompanied by preaching and teaching, and the absolution must usually be accompanied by counsel. Therefore the priest must be a man of holiness, of learning, and of knowledge of human nature. He must know his Bible and be trained in dogmatic, moral, and ascetic theology, and in the art of teaching (The Christian Faith, 393, 394).
Wednesday, December 06, 2006
CANA, Nigeria and the Ordination of Women
From the text I Will Welcome You, A Report of The Falls Church, November 2006:
'This hoped-for unity faces obstacles, including some important doctrinal questions - chiefly, the ordination of women. (CANA intends to welcome applications from women clergy, and expects that women clergy will be licensed to continue their ministries. The question whether CANA will itself ordain women has yet to be determined. While the Church of Nigeria does not currently ordain women, Archbishop Akinola has stated that he recognizes that there needs to be freedom for CANA to take a different direction because of its North American context.) It is relatively easy for orthodox Anglicans to agree against the errors of the Episcopal Church, but harder to come to agreement on all the matters, practical and doctrinal, that must be resolved before full unity is achieved. This will become a major subject of our prayers in the months and years ahead.'
What will happen to the Covenant Union between the Church of Nigeria (Anglican Communion) and the Anglican Province of America/Reformed Episcopal Church if the Convocation of Anglicans in North America, a mission of the Church of Nigeria, proceeds to licence and purportedly ordain women to the priesthood? Such a willful break in Catholic Order would have unquestionably dire consequences for the recent intra-Anglican movement towards unity and co-operation in our country. Let us pray fervently for the preservation of the Catholic Priesthood in CANA and in those Dioceses and Provinces of the Anglican Communion which have heretofore been faithful to the Apostolic Tradition.
'This hoped-for unity faces obstacles, including some important doctrinal questions - chiefly, the ordination of women. (CANA intends to welcome applications from women clergy, and expects that women clergy will be licensed to continue their ministries. The question whether CANA will itself ordain women has yet to be determined. While the Church of Nigeria does not currently ordain women, Archbishop Akinola has stated that he recognizes that there needs to be freedom for CANA to take a different direction because of its North American context.) It is relatively easy for orthodox Anglicans to agree against the errors of the Episcopal Church, but harder to come to agreement on all the matters, practical and doctrinal, that must be resolved before full unity is achieved. This will become a major subject of our prayers in the months and years ahead.'
What will happen to the Covenant Union between the Church of Nigeria (Anglican Communion) and the Anglican Province of America/Reformed Episcopal Church if the Convocation of Anglicans in North America, a mission of the Church of Nigeria, proceeds to licence and purportedly ordain women to the priesthood? Such a willful break in Catholic Order would have unquestionably dire consequences for the recent intra-Anglican movement towards unity and co-operation in our country. Let us pray fervently for the preservation of the Catholic Priesthood in CANA and in those Dioceses and Provinces of the Anglican Communion which have heretofore been faithful to the Apostolic Tradition.
Monday, November 27, 2006
Roman Antipathy for the Anglican Church...
Is this what modern-day Roman Catholics still actually believe about Anglicanism? Ponder these statements placed on the blog New Liturgical Movement regarding the celebration of the Anglican Holy Eucharist by His Grace Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams in the Dominican Church of S. Sabina in Rome.
-'it's sacreligious' [sic]
-'in a [Roman] Catholic understanding the service which took place was certainly not the Eucharistic Sacrifice and so, to my mind, was profane use.'
-'the profanity of the [Roman] Catholic altar.'
-'the priest in question gave the false impression that the [Roman] Catholic Church attaches a sacramental significance to the act of worship of this Ecclesial communion.'
-'For the [Roman] Catholic commentator to describe this service as a 'Mass' is disingenuous at the very least. More likely, the service was a scandalous action...'
-'I am certain Christ, Mary and Joseph are offended'
-'This is horrendous, but not a surprise. In yesterdays gospel, Jesus speaks of the Abomination of Desolation standing in the temple. This means that the presider, Man has taken the position of God as the center of worship, even in His earthly churches.'
-'If I put on a costume can I -- as equally without orders as Dr. Williams -- say Mass in Rome'
-'So I suppose nothing will be done about this recent outrage.'
-'This is a scandal in the truest sense of the word: a stumbling block to belief. For me, this is the lowest point so far in the pontificate of Benedict XVI.'
-'I am apalled [sic] and disgusted at such overt disregard for what the [Roman] Catholic Church teaches... to allow the Archbishop of Canterbury to celebrate a liturgical celebration which is null and void in the eyes of the Church on a [Roman] Catholic altar in a [Roman] Catholic temple? That is going much too far and yes, it is sacriledge [sic]. Shame on the Dominicans... how did this fall through the cracks with the Vatican? How could this have happened?'
-'I think this is an insult to the memory of the [Roman] Catholic martyrs who forfeited their lives rather than profess loyalty to the schismatic Church of England.'
-'Fr. [the Roman priest who proclaimed the Gospel] should be tried by Tomas deTorquemada, and a fitting punishment should be applied. (Please send a cord of seasoned firewood...)'
Mercifully, it appears that the Pope of Rome and the Roman Curia do not sympathise with the above-cited comments, as the celebration of the Mass in the Anglican Rite was permitted by Vatican officials with the full knowledge and consent of the proper authorities.
Sour grapes! How tragic and sad in this purportedly enlightened age of ecumenism that some Roman Catholics still harbour such antipathy, even hatred, for our beloved Mother, the Ecclesia Anglicana. Romanist controversalists still make it very hard to dispel the myths about us constructed over the last five centuries. Why would Pope Paul VI have given his papal ring to Archbishop Michael Ramsey, why would Pope John Paul II have given his pectoral cross to Archbishop Williams and have kissed Canterbury's ring, and why would the Pope have allowed the celebration of the Anglican Eucharist in one of the Roman See's great shrines if the Anglican Church were but an invalid sect? Such episcopal and sacerdotal honours are not conferred on laymen. The real point at issue is that the Anglican Church is the one thing some Roman Catholics cannot abide, cannot and will not accept, to wit, a Western Catholic Church with valid Orders and Sacraments, possessing tremendous social, cultural and religious influence, all beyond the control of the Vatican. Let us pray for the turning of hearts and the restoration of visible unity to the Apostolic and Catholic Church.
-'it's sacreligious' [sic]
-'in a [Roman] Catholic understanding the service which took place was certainly not the Eucharistic Sacrifice and so, to my mind, was profane use.'
-'the profanity of the [Roman] Catholic altar.'
-'the priest in question gave the false impression that the [Roman] Catholic Church attaches a sacramental significance to the act of worship of this Ecclesial communion.'
-'For the [Roman] Catholic commentator to describe this service as a 'Mass' is disingenuous at the very least. More likely, the service was a scandalous action...'
-'I am certain Christ, Mary and Joseph are offended'
-'This is horrendous, but not a surprise. In yesterdays gospel, Jesus speaks of the Abomination of Desolation standing in the temple. This means that the presider, Man has taken the position of God as the center of worship, even in His earthly churches.'
-'If I put on a costume can I -- as equally without orders as Dr. Williams -- say Mass in Rome'
-'So I suppose nothing will be done about this recent outrage.'
-'This is a scandal in the truest sense of the word: a stumbling block to belief. For me, this is the lowest point so far in the pontificate of Benedict XVI.'
-'I am apalled [sic] and disgusted at such overt disregard for what the [Roman] Catholic Church teaches... to allow the Archbishop of Canterbury to celebrate a liturgical celebration which is null and void in the eyes of the Church on a [Roman] Catholic altar in a [Roman] Catholic temple? That is going much too far and yes, it is sacriledge [sic]. Shame on the Dominicans... how did this fall through the cracks with the Vatican? How could this have happened?'
-'I think this is an insult to the memory of the [Roman] Catholic martyrs who forfeited their lives rather than profess loyalty to the schismatic Church of England.'
-'Fr. [the Roman priest who proclaimed the Gospel] should be tried by Tomas deTorquemada, and a fitting punishment should be applied. (Please send a cord of seasoned firewood...)'
Mercifully, it appears that the Pope of Rome and the Roman Curia do not sympathise with the above-cited comments, as the celebration of the Mass in the Anglican Rite was permitted by Vatican officials with the full knowledge and consent of the proper authorities.
Sour grapes! How tragic and sad in this purportedly enlightened age of ecumenism that some Roman Catholics still harbour such antipathy, even hatred, for our beloved Mother, the Ecclesia Anglicana. Romanist controversalists still make it very hard to dispel the myths about us constructed over the last five centuries. Why would Pope Paul VI have given his papal ring to Archbishop Michael Ramsey, why would Pope John Paul II have given his pectoral cross to Archbishop Williams and have kissed Canterbury's ring, and why would the Pope have allowed the celebration of the Anglican Eucharist in one of the Roman See's great shrines if the Anglican Church were but an invalid sect? Such episcopal and sacerdotal honours are not conferred on laymen. The real point at issue is that the Anglican Church is the one thing some Roman Catholics cannot abide, cannot and will not accept, to wit, a Western Catholic Church with valid Orders and Sacraments, possessing tremendous social, cultural and religious influence, all beyond the control of the Vatican. Let us pray for the turning of hearts and the restoration of visible unity to the Apostolic and Catholic Church.
Friday, November 24, 2006
Owain Robert Holder Jones
24 November 2006
S. John of the Cross
My dear friends:
Praised be Jesus Christ!
On Friday 24 November 2006 at 2.25 AM in lovely Orlando, Florida, my beloved wife Megan gave birth to a healthy beautiful baby boy, 7 pounds 11 ounces, 20 and one-half inches long.
Our son has been given the name Owain Robert Holder Jones - Owain is the Welsh variant of the English 'Owen' and is pronounced the same, at least in our family! Saint Owen (Owini) of Lichfield was in Anglican history a primary disciple of Saint Chad of Lichfield and Robert is the very Welsh name of my father and grandfather. We praise and thank Almighty God for His mercy and grace is providing a safe and joyful delivery for Megan and Owain. Please be assured of our deepest and most profound gratitude for your prayers and of our prayers for you all.
May the Lord bless and keep you!
Chad+
S. John of the Cross
My dear friends:
Praised be Jesus Christ!
On Friday 24 November 2006 at 2.25 AM in lovely Orlando, Florida, my beloved wife Megan gave birth to a healthy beautiful baby boy, 7 pounds 11 ounces, 20 and one-half inches long.
Our son has been given the name Owain Robert Holder Jones - Owain is the Welsh variant of the English 'Owen' and is pronounced the same, at least in our family! Saint Owen (Owini) of Lichfield was in Anglican history a primary disciple of Saint Chad of Lichfield and Robert is the very Welsh name of my father and grandfather. We praise and thank Almighty God for His mercy and grace is providing a safe and joyful delivery for Megan and Owain. Please be assured of our deepest and most profound gratitude for your prayers and of our prayers for you all.
May the Lord bless and keep you!
Chad+
Monday, November 13, 2006
Another thought...
I must confess I do get a bit exasperated with the Anglo-Tridentine side of things when it seems to be quite oblivious to the intervening 400 years of Anglican history and development between now and the Henrician Reformation. Using post-Trent hyperscholastic Roman theological and philosophical arguments of the kind we now encounter in the blogosphere will get Anglicans absolutely nowhere fast.
Of course, I absolutely swear by the Catholic Tradition and the unique sacramental ministerial eucharistic sacrificial priesthood, the sacerdotium exactly as understood by the Roman, Eastern and Old Catholic Communions. I believe utterly in apostolic succession and the grace of apostolic Holy Order. But some Anglo-Papalist arguments just don't hold water. I see the REC's historical position as analogous to that of the Church of Sweden and the Church of South India, churches of a more protestant character which nevertheless have transmitted unimpaired the true Apostolic Ministry. The Church of England, in the days of her orthodoxy, recognised the orders of the Swedish Church in 1920 and those of the CSI in 1955. Surely if the Anglican Communion has recognised those Churches as possessing the sacerdotium in spite of what may be perceived as lower or lesser views of the priesthood, Mass and sacramental system, it can and should do the same for the REC. Even Dr E.L. Mascall would come to our defence in this matter, as he did with the CSI in the 1950's. His example demonstrates, I think, in a nutshell the theological difference between the irenic and scholarly Anglo-Catholic position held by our classic theologians and what now obtains in a certain segment of the Continuing Church.
Of course, I absolutely swear by the Catholic Tradition and the unique sacramental ministerial eucharistic sacrificial priesthood, the sacerdotium exactly as understood by the Roman, Eastern and Old Catholic Communions. I believe utterly in apostolic succession and the grace of apostolic Holy Order. But some Anglo-Papalist arguments just don't hold water. I see the REC's historical position as analogous to that of the Church of Sweden and the Church of South India, churches of a more protestant character which nevertheless have transmitted unimpaired the true Apostolic Ministry. The Church of England, in the days of her orthodoxy, recognised the orders of the Swedish Church in 1920 and those of the CSI in 1955. Surely if the Anglican Communion has recognised those Churches as possessing the sacerdotium in spite of what may be perceived as lower or lesser views of the priesthood, Mass and sacramental system, it can and should do the same for the REC. Even Dr E.L. Mascall would come to our defence in this matter, as he did with the CSI in the 1950's. His example demonstrates, I think, in a nutshell the theological difference between the irenic and scholarly Anglo-Catholic position held by our classic theologians and what now obtains in a certain segment of the Continuing Church.
Saturday, November 11, 2006
Father Alfred Hope Patten, SSC
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Alfred-Hope-Patten-Shrine-Walsingham/dp/1853117536
I have just finished reading an utterly compelling page-turner of a book, newly-published and certainly a must for every Traditional Anglican library, Alfred Hope Patten and the Shrine of Our Lady of Walsingham: An Illustrated Biography by Michael Yelton, Canterbury Press, Norwich, 2006. This gem contains new information and stories about the controversial and saintly Father Patten, Restorer of the Shrine, which I have never before encountered. Yelton's new book is the first comprehensively-researched biography of Father Patten published since Canon Colin Stephenson wrote his famous Walsingham Way in 1970. This handsome volume delves deeply into the history of 20th century Anglo-Catholicism in England and places Father Patten in the context of the wider Church of England, Anglican Papalism and the Catholic Revival of the last century. I could not more highly recommend it - get your copy today!
If you love Our Lady of Walsingham, you'll love this book...
I have just finished reading an utterly compelling page-turner of a book, newly-published and certainly a must for every Traditional Anglican library, Alfred Hope Patten and the Shrine of Our Lady of Walsingham: An Illustrated Biography by Michael Yelton, Canterbury Press, Norwich, 2006. This gem contains new information and stories about the controversial and saintly Father Patten, Restorer of the Shrine, which I have never before encountered. Yelton's new book is the first comprehensively-researched biography of Father Patten published since Canon Colin Stephenson wrote his famous Walsingham Way in 1970. This handsome volume delves deeply into the history of 20th century Anglo-Catholicism in England and places Father Patten in the context of the wider Church of England, Anglican Papalism and the Catholic Revival of the last century. I could not more highly recommend it - get your copy today!
If you love Our Lady of Walsingham, you'll love this book...
Friday, November 10, 2006
The REC Orders Controversy
In this matter I believe one can be seriously mistaken, as one may follow a line of strict theological interpretation, especially of sacramental intention, that ends up justifying Apostolicae Curae and Leo XIII and the Roman claim against Anglican Orders. The imposition of too rigid views on the validity of orders runs the risk of undoing the theology that has underpinned an Anglican understanding of the validity of orders since the sixteenth century.
The Catholic Church has always said that so long as proper matter and form are used in the administration of sacramental ordination, and proper liturgical expression is given to the sacramental act in question, the sacrament is valid, even if those who convey and receive it are heretics, not just heretics on Christology or Trinitarian theology, but heretics even on the question of Holy Orders itself. The only way ordination can be rendered invalid by way of intention is if an ecclesial body purposefully frames rites of ordination which clearly intend not to ordain to the three sacred Orders of the Catholic Church. That simply cannot be said of the REC Ordinal, which is virtually identical to the 1789 American Ordinal. Sacramental intention is always liturgical exterior intention, the intention of the Catholic Church enshrined in her rites and manifested in her liturgical action, not the private intention of the minister or subject. For that reason REC orders are as valid as those of the Anglican Communion...
Please visit The Continuum and the All Too Common blogs to contribute to the ongoing discussion.
http://all2common.classicalanglican.net/
http://anglicancontinuum.blogspot.com/
The Catholic Church has always said that so long as proper matter and form are used in the administration of sacramental ordination, and proper liturgical expression is given to the sacramental act in question, the sacrament is valid, even if those who convey and receive it are heretics, not just heretics on Christology or Trinitarian theology, but heretics even on the question of Holy Orders itself. The only way ordination can be rendered invalid by way of intention is if an ecclesial body purposefully frames rites of ordination which clearly intend not to ordain to the three sacred Orders of the Catholic Church. That simply cannot be said of the REC Ordinal, which is virtually identical to the 1789 American Ordinal. Sacramental intention is always liturgical exterior intention, the intention of the Catholic Church enshrined in her rites and manifested in her liturgical action, not the private intention of the minister or subject. For that reason REC orders are as valid as those of the Anglican Communion...
Please visit The Continuum and the All Too Common blogs to contribute to the ongoing discussion.
http://all2common.classicalanglican.net/
http://anglicancontinuum.blogspot.com/
Orders Again
It is interesting to see that this conversation is still generating such thoughtful contributions, which we should all welcome.
I shall add these points, just for my own clarification...
An important note - the Anglican Church in America has affiliated with the Federation of Anglican Churches in the Americas, which was co-founded by the REC and APA. The ACA's membership in FACA constitutes full communicatio in sacris with the Reformed Episcopal Church and thus the recognition of the validity of REC Orders. So it is now inaccurate to say that the APA alone of the Continuing Churches recognises the sacramental order and ministry of the REC. The ACA has now definitively decided in favour of the APA position on this matter.
Father Anderson's probing and excellent comments reiterate precisely what I have attempted to articulate regarding the thorny question of sacramental intention. Pope Leo XIII in Apostolicae Curae explicitly states that the Anglican Ordinal itself possesses an 'anti-intention' because of its asserted protestant origin, which contains, as he puts it, an 'anti-sacerdotal signification.' On the basis of purported defect of intention, Orders conferred with the Anglican Ordinal are always held by the Roman Church to be invalid. If one too rigidly defines the meaning of 'generally doing what the Church does,' then one has moved from that Augustinian theological axiom to a theological novum, one which is not necessary to the valid administration of a sacrament, to wit, to 'intend what the church intends.' From what I have read most carefully of our correspondence, it is exactly this view which is being postulated by Father, e.g., to have valid orders a church must not only do what the Church does, but must also intend what the Church intends. Such a definition is beyond the traditional Western Augustinian theological method and moves into the Eastern and Cyprianic view of sacramental validity. That is fine, of course, if one wishes to so define the meaning of sacramental intention, but that is not the classical Anglican approach to the subject.
Moving from the minimalist view of doing what the Church does, a view held universally in the Western Church, into something more stringent or strictly defined puts us exactly where Pope Leo wants us to be. Dr E. J. Bicknell reminds us that Anglican Orders are valid simply because the Anglican Church generally intends to do in ordination what Our Lord, the Apostles and the New Testament Church instituted, nothing more, nothing less. That can certainly be said of the REC, no matter how imprecisely the REC expresses that view or how imperfectly she has grasped the objective truth of it in the course of history.
As Father Anderson points out, the intention to do what the Church does in ordination exists even in ecclesial bodies which lack apostolic succession. They do not have valid orders, not because of defect of intention, but defect of minister, for only a bishop can validly ordain. The case could be strongly made that even classical Lutheran and Calvinist ministries intend themselves to be true manifestations of the Office and Ministry of the Apostles. Such a general intention is all that is necessary for valid ordination.
Otherwise, to come full circle, we Anglicans have used Apostolicae Curae against ourselves. The sacraments always convey what they symbolise, ex opere operato, in the serious performance of the matter and form, with the deliberate intention of doing what the Church does in a general sense. In this case of ordination, it is 'ordination.' The minister and subject do not even have to intend to produce the objective grace or effect of the sacrament; they must only intend, in a general way, to do what the Church understands as 'ordination.' To demand anything beyond that is, for Anglicans at least, to confirm that Leo XIII is right.
I shall add these points, just for my own clarification...
An important note - the Anglican Church in America has affiliated with the Federation of Anglican Churches in the Americas, which was co-founded by the REC and APA. The ACA's membership in FACA constitutes full communicatio in sacris with the Reformed Episcopal Church and thus the recognition of the validity of REC Orders. So it is now inaccurate to say that the APA alone of the Continuing Churches recognises the sacramental order and ministry of the REC. The ACA has now definitively decided in favour of the APA position on this matter.
Father Anderson's probing and excellent comments reiterate precisely what I have attempted to articulate regarding the thorny question of sacramental intention. Pope Leo XIII in Apostolicae Curae explicitly states that the Anglican Ordinal itself possesses an 'anti-intention' because of its asserted protestant origin, which contains, as he puts it, an 'anti-sacerdotal signification.' On the basis of purported defect of intention, Orders conferred with the Anglican Ordinal are always held by the Roman Church to be invalid. If one too rigidly defines the meaning of 'generally doing what the Church does,' then one has moved from that Augustinian theological axiom to a theological novum, one which is not necessary to the valid administration of a sacrament, to wit, to 'intend what the church intends.' From what I have read most carefully of our correspondence, it is exactly this view which is being postulated by Father, e.g., to have valid orders a church must not only do what the Church does, but must also intend what the Church intends. Such a definition is beyond the traditional Western Augustinian theological method and moves into the Eastern and Cyprianic view of sacramental validity. That is fine, of course, if one wishes to so define the meaning of sacramental intention, but that is not the classical Anglican approach to the subject.
Moving from the minimalist view of doing what the Church does, a view held universally in the Western Church, into something more stringent or strictly defined puts us exactly where Pope Leo wants us to be. Dr E. J. Bicknell reminds us that Anglican Orders are valid simply because the Anglican Church generally intends to do in ordination what Our Lord, the Apostles and the New Testament Church instituted, nothing more, nothing less. That can certainly be said of the REC, no matter how imprecisely the REC expresses that view or how imperfectly she has grasped the objective truth of it in the course of history.
As Father Anderson points out, the intention to do what the Church does in ordination exists even in ecclesial bodies which lack apostolic succession. They do not have valid orders, not because of defect of intention, but defect of minister, for only a bishop can validly ordain. The case could be strongly made that even classical Lutheran and Calvinist ministries intend themselves to be true manifestations of the Office and Ministry of the Apostles. Such a general intention is all that is necessary for valid ordination.
Otherwise, to come full circle, we Anglicans have used Apostolicae Curae against ourselves. The sacraments always convey what they symbolise, ex opere operato, in the serious performance of the matter and form, with the deliberate intention of doing what the Church does in a general sense. In this case of ordination, it is 'ordination.' The minister and subject do not even have to intend to produce the objective grace or effect of the sacrament; they must only intend, in a general way, to do what the Church understands as 'ordination.' To demand anything beyond that is, for Anglicans at least, to confirm that Leo XIII is right.
Saturday, November 04, 2006
Sacramental Intention
Theological Outlines by Rev. Dr. Francis J. Hall:
'The intention of a Sacrament is always the intention of Christ and His Church, unless the matter and form are so employed as visibly to exclude such intention, in which case the Sacrament is altogether invalid.'
The Christian Faith: An Introduction to Dogmatic Theology by Dr. C. B. Moss
Intention of Ordination
The intention of ordination is that the bishop ordaining or consecrating intends to admit the candidate to one of the three Holy Orders of the Catholic Church. It is not necessary that his personal belief about the functions of those who are ordained should be orthodox; nor is the internal intention necessary, for if it were, we could never be certain that anyone was rightly ordained. (In Spain in the fifteenth century there were many bishops who were secretly Jews; the notorious Bishop Talleyrand, afterwards Napoleon's minister, was an open unbeliever, but those whom such men ordained were held to be validly ordained.)
'The intention of a Sacrament is always the intention of Christ and His Church, unless the matter and form are so employed as visibly to exclude such intention, in which case the Sacrament is altogether invalid.'
The Christian Faith: An Introduction to Dogmatic Theology by Dr. C. B. Moss
Intention of Ordination
The intention of ordination is that the bishop ordaining or consecrating intends to admit the candidate to one of the three Holy Orders of the Catholic Church. It is not necessary that his personal belief about the functions of those who are ordained should be orthodox; nor is the internal intention necessary, for if it were, we could never be certain that anyone was rightly ordained. (In Spain in the fifteenth century there were many bishops who were secretly Jews; the notorious Bishop Talleyrand, afterwards Napoleon's minister, was an open unbeliever, but those whom such men ordained were held to be validly ordained.)
A Eucharistic Hymn
Lord, how delightful 'tis to see
A whole assembly worship thee:
At once they sing, at once they pray;
They hear of heaven, and learn the way.
I have been there, and still would go,
'Tis like a little heaven below;
Not all that earth and sin can say,
Shall tempt me to forget this day.
O write upon my memory, Lord,
The text and doctrine of thy word;
That I may break thy laws no more,
But love thee better than before.
With thoughts of Christ and things divine,
Fill up this sinful heart of mine;
That hoping pardon through his blood,
I may lie down and wake with God.
From "Hymns, Suited to the Feasts and Fasts of the Church" as published in the 1848 edition of the American Prayer Book. Author unknown.
A whole assembly worship thee:
At once they sing, at once they pray;
They hear of heaven, and learn the way.
I have been there, and still would go,
'Tis like a little heaven below;
Not all that earth and sin can say,
Shall tempt me to forget this day.
O write upon my memory, Lord,
The text and doctrine of thy word;
That I may break thy laws no more,
But love thee better than before.
With thoughts of Christ and things divine,
Fill up this sinful heart of mine;
That hoping pardon through his blood,
I may lie down and wake with God.
From "Hymns, Suited to the Feasts and Fasts of the Church" as published in the 1848 edition of the American Prayer Book. Author unknown.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Comprovincial Newsletter for November 2026
The Comprovincial Newsletter of the Anglican Province of America for November 2026...
-
Pope Leo IX, Last of the Bishops of Rome in communion with the rest of Christendom. The Bishop of Rome is historically the first Bi...
-
Following on the intriguing discussion at The Continuum , below is the carefully-researched essay by Father John Jay Hughes found in his 197... -
Being a Tractarian, ressourcement, patristically-minded, first millennial, conciliarist, philorthodox kind of Anglo-Catholic, I have always ...
