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.'
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
anglicanprovince.shop
We are intensely excited to announce the launch of the official Anglican Province of America online store! The website features merchandise ...
-
Being a Tractarian, ressourcement, patristically-minded, first millennial, conciliarist, philorthodox kind of Anglo-Catholic, I have always ... -
Following on the intriguing discussion at The Continuum , below is the carefully-researched essay by Father John Jay Hughes found in his 197... -
Another liturgical tradition from the Orthodox Church for one's contemplation, a section of THE OFFICE FOR THE RECEPTION OF CONVERTS: Wh...
2 comments:
Now in today's situation I think the response would probably have to be reversed: When the Free Church of England or the Reformed Episcopal Church of the United States finds itself in the position of welcoming in a priest of the former Episcopal Church USA, will we need to perform conditional ordinations, given that ECUSA now has "no official stance" on the authority of Scripture, the role of Christ in salvation, or the basic moral teachings once held as true in all times and in all places? These things are far more substantial than the REC's historical "evangelical" view of the ordained ministry.
Sorry, another comment: if one has read Bishop John R. K. Fenwick's excellent work "The Free Church of England: Introduction to an Anglican Tradition" questions concerning the nature of the ministry and the teachings on Baptism are clarified. Also, on my blog I have an extended quote from Father William McGarvey in which he faults both sides in the Baptism discussion for talking past one another and he provides some quotes from Aquinas that tend to support the FCofE/REC position more than the position frequently set forth by the "high Church" or "Anglo-Catholic" side:
"Baptism cleanseth the infection of original sin in so far as the infection of the nature redounds upon the person; and, therefore, by Baptism the penalty which is due to the person is taken away, that is, the deprivation of the divine vision. But Baptism does not remove the infection of the nature in so far as that infection is to be referred to the nature itself; this will come to pass in the heavenly country when our nature will be restored to perfect freedom” (Scriptum in Sent. II. I. 32. 2).
McGarvey+ comments further that: "This distinction underlies St. Paul’s teaching with regard to the Christian man, and is the key to its interpretation. It is also brought out sharply in the Office of Baptism wherein the minister so positively declares that the baptized “is regenerate,” and yet prays that this same person “may crucify the old man (i. e., the unregenerate nature) and utterly abolish the whole body of sin” (i. e., the original infection which still remains)."
Post a Comment