Here are my observations on the relation of the new Liturgy of the C of E to the earthly Head of the same Church!
It is a summary of the first part of my sermon at Evensong in Belvoir Castle on 30th March at the celebration of the 300th anniversary of the foundation of the Dukedom of Rutland.
In the Litany of The Book of Common Prayer (1662), which is appointed to be used on Wednesday, Friday and Sunday, after Morning Prayer, we pray for the Sovereign, the Royal Family and the Nobility. There are three distinct petitions for the Sovereign, one for the Royal Family, and one for the Nobility. The latter is: "That it may please thee, O God, to endue the Lords of the Council, and all the Nobility, with grace, wisdom and understanding."
Further, each day in Morning and Evening Prayer, as we use this same Prayer Book, we offer the appointed prayers for the Queen's Majesty and for the Royal Family. Then each Sunday, again as we use this same Prayer Book, we always make two petitions for the Queen at Holy Communion, one before the Collect, Epistle and Gospel and one in the Prayer for the Church militant here on earth.
However, if we choose to use Common Worship (2000-2004), the multi-volume alternative to the one small volume which is The Book of Common Prayer, then we find that we are under no requirement or rubric to pray for the Queen either in Morning and Evening Prayer or in Holy Communion. We may do so if we wish; but, there is no obligation at all to pray for the Supreme Governor of the Church of England by law established. Though there are prayers provided for the Sovereign and the royal family to be used if we feel so moved, they are not required as necessary ingredients for Morning and Evening Prayer and Holy Communion. The same also is true of the new Litany which does contain one petition for the Queen of 22 words; yet it is in a section of the Litany which may be omitted! In this same Litany there is no prayer at all for the Royal family. And in the whole of the multi-volume Common Worship there are no prayers provided at all for the Nobility.
It is most surprising to me that the General Synod did not make sure that the modern ideology of contemporary liturgists concerning Shape and Content (or Structure and Ingredients) in relation to services was not modified to ensure that in an Established, National Church where the Queen is the Supreme Governor, the daily Liturgy required (not made possible according to whim and fancy) prayer for the Queen's Majesty and related petitions.
Regrettably the provisions of Common Worship can be interpreted as a sign of the Church calling for dis-establishment through the means of teaching people NOT to pray for the Queen, the royal family and the nobility!
Those who use faithfully The Book of Common Prayer (1662) will continue to pray fervently for the Queen, the Royal Family and the Nobility.
(Please visit the new Prayer Book Society on-line store (coming soon) -- below anglican marketplace)
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon
Monday, March 31, 2003
Saturday, March 29, 2003
ECUSA & Orthodox Liturgy 2003 onwards
What is the major challenge posed by the ECUSA in 2003 that the Prayer Book Society and all orthodox Episcopalians who want to preserve sound doctrine and an excellent form/idiom of language should address?
It is not any longer the 1979 prayer book, even though this has had a major impact upon the worship, doctrine and discipline of the ECUSA and changed its spiritual, moral and doctrinal character enormously - and perhaps for ever.
I believe the challenge is found in embryo in the 1979 prayer book and will be very evident when the proposals for the new plans for provisions for public worship in the ECUSA are released in a month's time and then voted on in July at the General Convention. That is plans to produce the new multi-volume, multi-CD of structures/shapes and contents/ingredients for public worship in the ECUSA for the next decade to replace the 1979
(already) book of alternative services.
The embryo in the 1979 book is to reduce a service to a shape or structure into which the local church can place its own ingredients or those recommended in national provisions (see page 400).
What we find now to be the case is that the whole idea of common prayer has been reduced by modern liturgists (and the ECUSA pioneered this practically) to a basic shape or structure for the Daily Office, for Holy Communion and for Baptism etc. This shape is so brief that it can be put down on one side of a small sheet of paper ( see pages 400-401 in 1979 prayer book) and one then can go to numerous places to find satisfactory things to put into the structure or shape. At the local level the worship committee does the pasting up of the liturgy weekly, or as they are moved. ELCA folks are most happy about this arrangement for it fits in with their liturgical history.
This procedure can be seen or claimed as satisfying for everyone; at one end you can have worship of Sophia with an apparent ORTHODOX SHAPE and definitely heretical ingredients, and at the other you can fill the SHAPE with ingredients from the classic Book of Common Prayer 1662 or 1928.
What this new approach to liturgy means in practice is (a) the total abandonment of Common Prayer as that has been known in the English speaking world since the middle of the 16th century, and (b) a claim of unity around a common structure, and (c) an open door to heresy of all kinds, and (d) to chaos in the long term, and (e) to easier ecumenical agreements with churches that have not had a fixed liturgy.
I hope I am wrong in my prediction; but this is the mood and mind of liturgists and bishops at this time; and the English have produced a first run of this type of thing in COMMON WORSHIP (five or more volumes already in it), although here the conservatism of the C of E (with its relation to Queen in Parliament) has made the offered ingredients for the required structure/shape to be moderate not radical, even if often banal and dumbed down.
Such inhibitions will be less obvious in the USA (even though for Rowan Williams's sake there will be some restraints) and the elevation of structure/shape to the equivalency of commonality will be a very major open door to every kind of recent innovation and immorality.
Whether we actually use the classic Book of Common Prayer or one of the sober alternatives from the 1979 prayer book, orthodox Anglicans truly need now to provide an apologetic for the CONCEPT of Common Prayer as historically understood and we also need to provide an apologetic for the classic IDIOM of public prayer that is part of the whole concept of Common Prayer.
We cannot surely allow the notion that common refers only to a vague shape or structure to triumph; and we surely cannot allow (even if we do not use it) the traditional idiom of public worship to be pushed out completely.
I believe that in the book, "NEITHER ARCHAIC NOR OBSOLETE, The Language of Common Prayer and Public Worship", by Dr Tarsitano and myself (available from the Prayer Book Society - website sales address below) a start has been made on the second of these two aims; and I believe that in my (not yet published) COMMON WORSHIP EXAMINED (due in the summer from a British publisher) I have indicated clearly where the new divide in terms of what is "Common" lies, and what is involved in this divide. This book takes apart the COMMON WORSHIP (5 vols) in order to see what is involved in the new era of liturgy. There is much work to be done and we have only just begun. Others more able than I am need to join the campaign.
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon
It is not any longer the 1979 prayer book, even though this has had a major impact upon the worship, doctrine and discipline of the ECUSA and changed its spiritual, moral and doctrinal character enormously - and perhaps for ever.
I believe the challenge is found in embryo in the 1979 prayer book and will be very evident when the proposals for the new plans for provisions for public worship in the ECUSA are released in a month's time and then voted on in July at the General Convention. That is plans to produce the new multi-volume, multi-CD of structures/shapes and contents/ingredients for public worship in the ECUSA for the next decade to replace the 1979
(already) book of alternative services.
The embryo in the 1979 book is to reduce a service to a shape or structure into which the local church can place its own ingredients or those recommended in national provisions (see page 400).
What we find now to be the case is that the whole idea of common prayer has been reduced by modern liturgists (and the ECUSA pioneered this practically) to a basic shape or structure for the Daily Office, for Holy Communion and for Baptism etc. This shape is so brief that it can be put down on one side of a small sheet of paper ( see pages 400-401 in 1979 prayer book) and one then can go to numerous places to find satisfactory things to put into the structure or shape. At the local level the worship committee does the pasting up of the liturgy weekly, or as they are moved. ELCA folks are most happy about this arrangement for it fits in with their liturgical history.
This procedure can be seen or claimed as satisfying for everyone; at one end you can have worship of Sophia with an apparent ORTHODOX SHAPE and definitely heretical ingredients, and at the other you can fill the SHAPE with ingredients from the classic Book of Common Prayer 1662 or 1928.
What this new approach to liturgy means in practice is (a) the total abandonment of Common Prayer as that has been known in the English speaking world since the middle of the 16th century, and (b) a claim of unity around a common structure, and (c) an open door to heresy of all kinds, and (d) to chaos in the long term, and (e) to easier ecumenical agreements with churches that have not had a fixed liturgy.
I hope I am wrong in my prediction; but this is the mood and mind of liturgists and bishops at this time; and the English have produced a first run of this type of thing in COMMON WORSHIP (five or more volumes already in it), although here the conservatism of the C of E (with its relation to Queen in Parliament) has made the offered ingredients for the required structure/shape to be moderate not radical, even if often banal and dumbed down.
Such inhibitions will be less obvious in the USA (even though for Rowan Williams's sake there will be some restraints) and the elevation of structure/shape to the equivalency of commonality will be a very major open door to every kind of recent innovation and immorality.
Whether we actually use the classic Book of Common Prayer or one of the sober alternatives from the 1979 prayer book, orthodox Anglicans truly need now to provide an apologetic for the CONCEPT of Common Prayer as historically understood and we also need to provide an apologetic for the classic IDIOM of public prayer that is part of the whole concept of Common Prayer.
We cannot surely allow the notion that common refers only to a vague shape or structure to triumph; and we surely cannot allow (even if we do not use it) the traditional idiom of public worship to be pushed out completely.
I believe that in the book, "NEITHER ARCHAIC NOR OBSOLETE, The Language of Common Prayer and Public Worship", by Dr Tarsitano and myself (available from the Prayer Book Society - website sales address below) a start has been made on the second of these two aims; and I believe that in my (not yet published) COMMON WORSHIP EXAMINED (due in the summer from a British publisher) I have indicated clearly where the new divide in terms of what is "Common" lies, and what is involved in this divide. This book takes apart the COMMON WORSHIP (5 vols) in order to see what is involved in the new era of liturgy. There is much work to be done and we have only just begun. Others more able than I am need to join the campaign.
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon
Wednesday, March 26, 2003
The Fourth Sunday in Lent: Refreshment Sunday & Mothering Sunday
Adelphoi,
A meditation for the coming Sunday on the traditional collect, epistle and Gospel.
"Grant, we beseech thee, Almighty God, that we, who for our evil deeds do worthily deserve to be punished, by the comfort of thy grace may mercifully be relieved; through our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. Amen."
Epistle: Galatians 4:21-31 Gospel: St John 6:1-14
The Gospel, Epistle and Collect for this Sunday, the mid-point in Lent, are a threefold cord. The Epistle spiritualises the Gospel; the Collect takes it up as spiritualised and turns it into a prayer.
The Gospel provides the account of the feeding of the 5,000 - thus the ancient title for the day, Dominica Refectionis, Refreshment Sunday. This miracle of providing bodily sustenance and physical healing to weary souls may be seen as a fulfilment of the promise of Jesus: "Come unto me all that travail and are heavy laden, and I will refresh you" (Matthew 11:28). The bodily refreshment is symbolical of our higher refreshment by his grace.
The Epistle describes another kind of weariness, that of guilt under the law of God, which Christ also relieves. There are two covenants, that of the Law and that established in and by Christ. The terms of the covenant of the Law are, "The man that doeth the works of the law shall live" but none of us can fulfil it! In contrast, the terms of the new covenant are "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ (who fulfils the Law and bears it curse) and you shall be saved". So there is comfort and refreshment for the guilt-laden soul in union with Jesus Christ and in membership of the new Jerusalem, the heavenly Mother of those who believe the Gospel (so this Day is also called Mothering Sunday - "Jerusalem above is free and is the mother of us all" [Galatians 4:26]).
The Collect begins by recognizing that before God's court we all stand condemned as those who both break his commandments and fail to obey them; thus in our consciences we know that we deserve his punishment ( as the Covenant of the Law clearly states). But it does not stop there. It prays that by the comfort of the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ we shall be relieved and refreshed (here we hear the invitation - Come unto me all that travail.).
This is a perfect Collect for mid-Lent if we have been taking Lent seriously and are much aware of our sins though self-examination and penitence.
This Sunday is a day when the Church encamps in a green pasture to be relieved, refreshed and fed by the Lord Jesus Christ so that we may serve his Father not only in the rest of Lent but in Easter power and grace unto our life's end with out Mother, the new Jerusalem which is above.
P.S. There is a great sermon to be preached on the theme of Refreshment from Exodus 15:27 -- the Israelites came to an oasis called Elim after making bitter trial of the waters of Marah and there they found refreshment with the twelve wells of water and the 70 palm trees...
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon
A meditation for the coming Sunday on the traditional collect, epistle and Gospel.
"Grant, we beseech thee, Almighty God, that we, who for our evil deeds do worthily deserve to be punished, by the comfort of thy grace may mercifully be relieved; through our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. Amen."
Epistle: Galatians 4:21-31 Gospel: St John 6:1-14
The Gospel, Epistle and Collect for this Sunday, the mid-point in Lent, are a threefold cord. The Epistle spiritualises the Gospel; the Collect takes it up as spiritualised and turns it into a prayer.
The Gospel provides the account of the feeding of the 5,000 - thus the ancient title for the day, Dominica Refectionis, Refreshment Sunday. This miracle of providing bodily sustenance and physical healing to weary souls may be seen as a fulfilment of the promise of Jesus: "Come unto me all that travail and are heavy laden, and I will refresh you" (Matthew 11:28). The bodily refreshment is symbolical of our higher refreshment by his grace.
The Epistle describes another kind of weariness, that of guilt under the law of God, which Christ also relieves. There are two covenants, that of the Law and that established in and by Christ. The terms of the covenant of the Law are, "The man that doeth the works of the law shall live" but none of us can fulfil it! In contrast, the terms of the new covenant are "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ (who fulfils the Law and bears it curse) and you shall be saved". So there is comfort and refreshment for the guilt-laden soul in union with Jesus Christ and in membership of the new Jerusalem, the heavenly Mother of those who believe the Gospel (so this Day is also called Mothering Sunday - "Jerusalem above is free and is the mother of us all" [Galatians 4:26]).
The Collect begins by recognizing that before God's court we all stand condemned as those who both break his commandments and fail to obey them; thus in our consciences we know that we deserve his punishment ( as the Covenant of the Law clearly states). But it does not stop there. It prays that by the comfort of the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ we shall be relieved and refreshed (here we hear the invitation - Come unto me all that travail.).
This is a perfect Collect for mid-Lent if we have been taking Lent seriously and are much aware of our sins though self-examination and penitence.
This Sunday is a day when the Church encamps in a green pasture to be relieved, refreshed and fed by the Lord Jesus Christ so that we may serve his Father not only in the rest of Lent but in Easter power and grace unto our life's end with out Mother, the new Jerusalem which is above.
P.S. There is a great sermon to be preached on the theme of Refreshment from Exodus 15:27 -- the Israelites came to an oasis called Elim after making bitter trial of the waters of Marah and there they found refreshment with the twelve wells of water and the 70 palm trees...
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon
Tuesday, March 25, 2003
March 25th a most holy day
THE ANNUNCIATION OF OUR LORD TO THE BLESSED VIRGIN
March 25th is nine months before Christmas Day and is thus the day the Church commemorates the conception of Jesus by Mary. However, since Mary was a pure Virgin, and since she conceived when and as the Holy Spirit in Person and present caused her to do so, the conception was miraculous and outside the laws of nature for no male semen was involved.
St Luke provides us with the account of the conception in his Gospel, 1:26-38. The angel Gabriel descended from heaven to earth as the messenger of YHWH, the Lord God, to the young, unmarried maiden and told her that she had found favour with God. This meant that she would conceive and bear to termination a son, to be called Jesus, and he will be called "the Son of the Most High".
When amazed and frightened, Mary asked how this could be, she was told that it would occur by direct, divine intervention. The Holy Ghost, not a man, would [as it were] come upon her, and (put in a parallel way) God whose Name is "the Power of the most High" will hover over her so that she shall conceive solely and miraculously by divine intervention. Her son will thus be unique and holy, the Son of God incarnate.
Mary accepted her calling and submitted to the will of Heaven: "Behold I am the handmaid of the Lord; let it be to me according to thy word." Then she conceived and the Incarnation occurred.
SO IMPORTANT did Christendom regard this day that in England, for example, the secular year (as we call it) began on this day and this practice was not changed until the eighteenth century (when the Enlightenment was having its influence) to January 1st. Christendom truly could be said to have its immediate origins in the conception by Mary of the Lord Jesus Christ.
One of the great tragedies of modern church life and of the translating of ancient Creeds has been the rendering in both the Apostles & Nicene Creeds "conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit" (a translation now rejected but widely in use in prayer books produced in the 1970s and 1980s). Jesus was not conceived by the power of the Holy Ghost but by the Holy Ghost himself, in Person. You and I, and all the creation, are procreated by the power of the Holy Spirit, working through and in the laws of nature. Jesus was not so conceived. The Holy Ghost, the Holy Spirit, was personally present in heavenly grace and power to effect the conception. Further, the conception by Mary was also the Incarnation, the assuming of human flesh and nature by the eternal Word and only-begotten Son of the Father.
To say "conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit" is thus, strictly speaking, to reject the Incarnation of the Son of God!
The Collect for this Day in the classic Book of Common Prayer (1549 etc) is not the Collect in the old Latin Missals but is rather the Post-Communion Prayer for this Day. Archbishop Cranmer and his colleagues judged the Latin Collect to be corrupt and thus used instead the Post-Communion Prayer for the new The Book of the Common Prayer of 1549. This Collect connects the Incarnation with the vocation of the Suffering Servant of God who redeems his people through death and resurrection.
The Latin Collect rejected may be translated as follows:
Here the emphasis is upon Mary as the Intercessor and not on her Son!
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon
March 25th is nine months before Christmas Day and is thus the day the Church commemorates the conception of Jesus by Mary. However, since Mary was a pure Virgin, and since she conceived when and as the Holy Spirit in Person and present caused her to do so, the conception was miraculous and outside the laws of nature for no male semen was involved.
St Luke provides us with the account of the conception in his Gospel, 1:26-38. The angel Gabriel descended from heaven to earth as the messenger of YHWH, the Lord God, to the young, unmarried maiden and told her that she had found favour with God. This meant that she would conceive and bear to termination a son, to be called Jesus, and he will be called "the Son of the Most High".
When amazed and frightened, Mary asked how this could be, she was told that it would occur by direct, divine intervention. The Holy Ghost, not a man, would [as it were] come upon her, and (put in a parallel way) God whose Name is "the Power of the most High" will hover over her so that she shall conceive solely and miraculously by divine intervention. Her son will thus be unique and holy, the Son of God incarnate.
Mary accepted her calling and submitted to the will of Heaven: "Behold I am the handmaid of the Lord; let it be to me according to thy word." Then she conceived and the Incarnation occurred.
SO IMPORTANT did Christendom regard this day that in England, for example, the secular year (as we call it) began on this day and this practice was not changed until the eighteenth century (when the Enlightenment was having its influence) to January 1st. Christendom truly could be said to have its immediate origins in the conception by Mary of the Lord Jesus Christ.
One of the great tragedies of modern church life and of the translating of ancient Creeds has been the rendering in both the Apostles & Nicene Creeds "conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit" (a translation now rejected but widely in use in prayer books produced in the 1970s and 1980s). Jesus was not conceived by the power of the Holy Ghost but by the Holy Ghost himself, in Person. You and I, and all the creation, are procreated by the power of the Holy Spirit, working through and in the laws of nature. Jesus was not so conceived. The Holy Ghost, the Holy Spirit, was personally present in heavenly grace and power to effect the conception. Further, the conception by Mary was also the Incarnation, the assuming of human flesh and nature by the eternal Word and only-begotten Son of the Father.
To say "conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit" is thus, strictly speaking, to reject the Incarnation of the Son of God!
The Collect for this Day in the classic Book of Common Prayer (1549 etc) is not the Collect in the old Latin Missals but is rather the Post-Communion Prayer for this Day. Archbishop Cranmer and his colleagues judged the Latin Collect to be corrupt and thus used instead the Post-Communion Prayer for the new The Book of the Common Prayer of 1549. This Collect connects the Incarnation with the vocation of the Suffering Servant of God who redeems his people through death and resurrection.
"We beseech thee, O Lord, pour thy grace into our hearts; that as we have known the Incarnation of thy Son Jesus Christ by the message of an angel, so by his cross and passion we may be brought unto the glory of his resurrection, through the same Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen."
The Latin Collect rejected may be translated as follows:
"O God, who didst will thy Word to take flesh from the womb of the Blessed Virgin Mary, at the announcement of the angel; grant unto us they suppliants that as we believe her truly to be the mother of God, so we may be assisted by her intercessions with thee, through the same Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen."
Here the emphasis is upon Mary as the Intercessor and not on her Son!
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon
Monday, March 24, 2003
Forward in Faith NA to Presiding Bishop Griswold
Adelphoi,
(The influence of Rowan Williams in the background may serve the F in F interests here) -- P.T.
March 19th, 2003
The Most Rev'd Frank T. Griswold
Presiding Bishop and Primate
The Episcopal Church Center
815 Second Avenue
New York, NY 10017-4503
Most Reverend Father in God:
Grace to you and peace from God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ.
The Council of Forward in Faith, North America, was glad to receive your letter of December 11th. It was discussed at the Council's February meeting, and I was directed to respond on its behalf.
The Council is cognizant of the Covenant adopted by the House of Bishops, which offers the possibility of 'supplemental episcopal pastoral care' within the existent Constitution and canons of The Episcopal Church. But we note that the Covenant speaks of 'the visitor', without stating who 'the visitor' is to be. It was to provide such visitors that FIF/NA's Assembly put forward the names of two godly priests, in the hope that one or more might be consecrated to fulfill that ministry.
We are aware that, under the Constitution and Canons of The Episcopal Church, a Presiding Bishop cannot simply choose and consecrate a bishop. Any bishop chosen for this ministry must be duly and canonically elected by a diocese. But while you do not have metropolitical jurisdiction, you do have a 'bully pulpit'. You have said that you are committed to providing the 'appropriate episcopal care' which the Communion has promised those we represent, and to the House of Bishops' resolution as a means of doing this. We enclose a proposal which we believe would achieve that end in a manner entirely consonant with the Constitution and Canons. We call upon you to use the considerable influence of your office to bring this proposal to fruition.
However, we would be less than forthright with you, and fail in our responsibility to those we represent, if we did not go on to say that the House of Bishops' proposal for 'supplemental episcopal pastoral care' seems to us to fall far short of the 'appropriate episcopal care' which the Communion has promised and our constituency requires. We have enclosed a statement outlining what we consider its deficiencies, and suggesting a remedy.
On behalf of those we represent, the Council implores you, as our father in God, to use the full force of your office not merely to provide for the consecration of one or more bishops to serve as 'visitors' under the Covenant, but to take the actions necessary to establish a binding system of alternate pastoral care within The Episcopal Church.
Yours sincerely,
(The Rev'd Canon) Warren Tanghe, SSC
Secretary, Forward in Faith, North America
A Proposal from the Council of Forward in Faith, North America, to the Presiding Bishop for the implementation of the Covenant
The Covenant adopted by the House of Bishops speaks of 'the visitor' who is to provide supplemental pastoral care, without defining who that 'visitor' is to be.
The number of bishops who do not ordain women, and thus would be acceptable to those the Council represents, is small. Age and infirmity limit the availability of those who are retired. At the same time, a number of diocesans have openly stated their hesitancy to have another diocesan minister in their jurisdiction.
The Assembly of Forward in Faith, North America, has therefore suggested to the Presiding Bishop the names of two worthy priests, acceptable to and affirmed by the only organization representing those who adhere to the historic all-male priesthood of the Church, in the hope that one or both of them may be consecrated to care for those we represent.
The Council of Forward in Faith, North America, therefore calls upon the Presiding Bishop to take the following or similar steps to secure the consecration of one or both of the priests whose names the Assembly put forward or of other suitable persons to serve as bishops visitor to those who affirm the historic, all-male priesthood of the Church.
* to get financial provision for the support of one or more bishops visitor included in the national church's budget;
* to contact FIF/NA diocesans, American Anglican Council diocesans, and even diocesans who would not consider themselves conservatives but might be open to such an idea (the Bishop of Bethlehem, for example) to find one or more willing to set in motion the process leading to the election by their dioceses of one or more bishops suffragan partly funded by the national church, whose stated duties would include serving as a bishop visitor wherever invited; and
* to urge both the church's acceptance of such a plan, and the consents of the bishops and dioceses to the election and consecration of the person or persons so elected. We believe this proposal is entirely consonant with the Constitution and Canons of The Episcopal Church.
A Proposal from the Council of Forward in Faith, North America to the Presiding Bishop for the provision of Alternate Episcopal Care
The Council of Forward in Faith, North America, respectfully submits that the House of Bishops' proposal for 'supplemental episcopal pastoral care' falls far short of the 'appropriate episcopal care' which the Communion has promised and the loyal Anglicans we represent require. In particular:
* the House of Bishops' resolution says that 'the provision of supplemental episcopal pastoral care shall be under the direction of the bishop of the diocese', but in fact, under the existent canons, the diocesan not only directs it but decides at his discretion whether or not to offer it in his diocese, or to a particular congregation within his diocese. Thus, the provision is inadequate and inequitable, both in that not all congregations which wish it have access to it, and in that the person who decides whether or not they will have access is the person whose actions gave rise to the request for such care in the first place.
* the term 'supplemental episcopal pastoral care' is not defined, and would therefore seem to mean whatever each diocesan deems it to mean. For instance, it is by no means clear that it should include the administration of the Sacraments. Again, this is inadequate and inequitable.
* the House of Bishops deems the provision of supplemental episcopal pastoral care to be 'a temporary arrangement'. But the impairment of communion created by a diocesan's including women among the ordained is not temporary, and the process of reception recognized by the Communion is one that the Eames Commission has stated will last generations, not months or years. The matter at issue is not a temporary dispute between a bishop and a congregation or priest, but, as the Anglican Communion has recognized, a deep and long-term rift which impairs their communion.
Insofar as 'supplemental episcopal pastoral care' means the provision of sacramental and pastoral care in addition to that provided by the diocesan rather than in its stead, it does not address the central issue of impaired communion. For it may still be expected that one will receive the Eucharist from the diocesan - in the case of clergy, given recent threats and actions, on pain of being judged to have abandoned the Communion of this Church and deposed. If the diocesan is male, we publicly affirm the validity of the sacraments he celebrates. But if he has impaired the unity of the diocese by obtruding into its ordained ministry those whom not all recognize to be validly ordained, or those whose conduct is unworthy of the ordained, then conscience demands that we refuse to receive the Sacrament from him as a sign of our impaired communion with him.
The Council is aware that you have contacted a number of congregations which presently enjoy supplemental pastoral care, and have been told by at least some of them that their present arrangements are acceptable. But surely you realize that those you contacted may fear that, were they to say otherwise, word might get back to their diocesans and create problems for them. They may want something different, something more, but are fearful of jeopardizing what they have in the absence of a secure system to provide what they seek, just as a number of congregations known to the Council are fearful of requesting even supplemental episcopal care lest they damage their relationships with their bishops and their dioceses.
That is why The Episcopal Church needs to go beyond what the Covenant provides. Perhaps the present provisions of the Constitution and Canons do not provide for it; but just as they have been amended to other ends, so they can be amended to this end. The Council wishes to offer the full resources of Forward in Faith, North America, to work with those who serve on your staff and advise you to devise amendments to Article I of the Constitution, and complementary canons, in such a way as to allow the election of a bishop or bishops suffragan to the Presiding Bishop to serve our constituency, parallel to the provision for 'national' bishops suffragan to serve the Armed Forces and the Convocation of American Churches in Europe. Such provisions would need to include a mechanism whereby a congregation could assert that its communion with its diocesan is impaired, and the exercise of pastoral and sacramental care of that congregation and its clergy would thereupon be placed in this suffragan's hands, much as the Suffragan Bishop for the Armed Forces and the chaplains under his authority exercise pastoral and sacramental care even in domestic military facilities.
The Episcopalians and Episcopal congregations represented by Forward in Faith, North America, have proved themselves loyal to their church. In spite of dismissal, hostility and even persecution, we remain within it, and do not wish to leave it. The Council looks to you, Presiding Bishop, to use the 'bully pulpit' which your office affords to call the church and its leaders to restore us to our full and rightful place in this community of faith, embracing and affirming both us and the place which our understanding of God's truth holds in the church's life. We further look to you not just to call upon the church, but to lead the church, to reward our fidelity by taking the actions necessary to provide the 'appropriate episcopal care' which the Communion affirms is our due as loyal Anglicans.
(The influence of Rowan Williams in the background may serve the F in F interests here) -- P.T.
March 19th, 2003
The Most Rev'd Frank T. Griswold
Presiding Bishop and Primate
The Episcopal Church Center
815 Second Avenue
New York, NY 10017-4503
Most Reverend Father in God:
Grace to you and peace from God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ.
The Council of Forward in Faith, North America, was glad to receive your letter of December 11th. It was discussed at the Council's February meeting, and I was directed to respond on its behalf.
The Council is cognizant of the Covenant adopted by the House of Bishops, which offers the possibility of 'supplemental episcopal pastoral care' within the existent Constitution and canons of The Episcopal Church. But we note that the Covenant speaks of 'the visitor', without stating who 'the visitor' is to be. It was to provide such visitors that FIF/NA's Assembly put forward the names of two godly priests, in the hope that one or more might be consecrated to fulfill that ministry.
We are aware that, under the Constitution and Canons of The Episcopal Church, a Presiding Bishop cannot simply choose and consecrate a bishop. Any bishop chosen for this ministry must be duly and canonically elected by a diocese. But while you do not have metropolitical jurisdiction, you do have a 'bully pulpit'. You have said that you are committed to providing the 'appropriate episcopal care' which the Communion has promised those we represent, and to the House of Bishops' resolution as a means of doing this. We enclose a proposal which we believe would achieve that end in a manner entirely consonant with the Constitution and Canons. We call upon you to use the considerable influence of your office to bring this proposal to fruition.
However, we would be less than forthright with you, and fail in our responsibility to those we represent, if we did not go on to say that the House of Bishops' proposal for 'supplemental episcopal pastoral care' seems to us to fall far short of the 'appropriate episcopal care' which the Communion has promised and our constituency requires. We have enclosed a statement outlining what we consider its deficiencies, and suggesting a remedy.
On behalf of those we represent, the Council implores you, as our father in God, to use the full force of your office not merely to provide for the consecration of one or more bishops to serve as 'visitors' under the Covenant, but to take the actions necessary to establish a binding system of alternate pastoral care within The Episcopal Church.
Yours sincerely,
(The Rev'd Canon) Warren Tanghe, SSC
Secretary, Forward in Faith, North America
A Proposal from the Council of Forward in Faith, North America, to the Presiding Bishop for the implementation of the Covenant
The Covenant adopted by the House of Bishops speaks of 'the visitor' who is to provide supplemental pastoral care, without defining who that 'visitor' is to be.
The number of bishops who do not ordain women, and thus would be acceptable to those the Council represents, is small. Age and infirmity limit the availability of those who are retired. At the same time, a number of diocesans have openly stated their hesitancy to have another diocesan minister in their jurisdiction.
The Assembly of Forward in Faith, North America, has therefore suggested to the Presiding Bishop the names of two worthy priests, acceptable to and affirmed by the only organization representing those who adhere to the historic all-male priesthood of the Church, in the hope that one or both of them may be consecrated to care for those we represent.
The Council of Forward in Faith, North America, therefore calls upon the Presiding Bishop to take the following or similar steps to secure the consecration of one or both of the priests whose names the Assembly put forward or of other suitable persons to serve as bishops visitor to those who affirm the historic, all-male priesthood of the Church.
* to get financial provision for the support of one or more bishops visitor included in the national church's budget;
* to contact FIF/NA diocesans, American Anglican Council diocesans, and even diocesans who would not consider themselves conservatives but might be open to such an idea (the Bishop of Bethlehem, for example) to find one or more willing to set in motion the process leading to the election by their dioceses of one or more bishops suffragan partly funded by the national church, whose stated duties would include serving as a bishop visitor wherever invited; and
* to urge both the church's acceptance of such a plan, and the consents of the bishops and dioceses to the election and consecration of the person or persons so elected. We believe this proposal is entirely consonant with the Constitution and Canons of The Episcopal Church.
A Proposal from the Council of Forward in Faith, North America to the Presiding Bishop for the provision of Alternate Episcopal Care
The Council of Forward in Faith, North America, respectfully submits that the House of Bishops' proposal for 'supplemental episcopal pastoral care' falls far short of the 'appropriate episcopal care' which the Communion has promised and the loyal Anglicans we represent require. In particular:
* the House of Bishops' resolution says that 'the provision of supplemental episcopal pastoral care shall be under the direction of the bishop of the diocese', but in fact, under the existent canons, the diocesan not only directs it but decides at his discretion whether or not to offer it in his diocese, or to a particular congregation within his diocese. Thus, the provision is inadequate and inequitable, both in that not all congregations which wish it have access to it, and in that the person who decides whether or not they will have access is the person whose actions gave rise to the request for such care in the first place.
* the term 'supplemental episcopal pastoral care' is not defined, and would therefore seem to mean whatever each diocesan deems it to mean. For instance, it is by no means clear that it should include the administration of the Sacraments. Again, this is inadequate and inequitable.
* the House of Bishops deems the provision of supplemental episcopal pastoral care to be 'a temporary arrangement'. But the impairment of communion created by a diocesan's including women among the ordained is not temporary, and the process of reception recognized by the Communion is one that the Eames Commission has stated will last generations, not months or years. The matter at issue is not a temporary dispute between a bishop and a congregation or priest, but, as the Anglican Communion has recognized, a deep and long-term rift which impairs their communion.
Insofar as 'supplemental episcopal pastoral care' means the provision of sacramental and pastoral care in addition to that provided by the diocesan rather than in its stead, it does not address the central issue of impaired communion. For it may still be expected that one will receive the Eucharist from the diocesan - in the case of clergy, given recent threats and actions, on pain of being judged to have abandoned the Communion of this Church and deposed. If the diocesan is male, we publicly affirm the validity of the sacraments he celebrates. But if he has impaired the unity of the diocese by obtruding into its ordained ministry those whom not all recognize to be validly ordained, or those whose conduct is unworthy of the ordained, then conscience demands that we refuse to receive the Sacrament from him as a sign of our impaired communion with him.
The Council is aware that you have contacted a number of congregations which presently enjoy supplemental pastoral care, and have been told by at least some of them that their present arrangements are acceptable. But surely you realize that those you contacted may fear that, were they to say otherwise, word might get back to their diocesans and create problems for them. They may want something different, something more, but are fearful of jeopardizing what they have in the absence of a secure system to provide what they seek, just as a number of congregations known to the Council are fearful of requesting even supplemental episcopal care lest they damage their relationships with their bishops and their dioceses.
That is why The Episcopal Church needs to go beyond what the Covenant provides. Perhaps the present provisions of the Constitution and Canons do not provide for it; but just as they have been amended to other ends, so they can be amended to this end. The Council wishes to offer the full resources of Forward in Faith, North America, to work with those who serve on your staff and advise you to devise amendments to Article I of the Constitution, and complementary canons, in such a way as to allow the election of a bishop or bishops suffragan to the Presiding Bishop to serve our constituency, parallel to the provision for 'national' bishops suffragan to serve the Armed Forces and the Convocation of American Churches in Europe. Such provisions would need to include a mechanism whereby a congregation could assert that its communion with its diocesan is impaired, and the exercise of pastoral and sacramental care of that congregation and its clergy would thereupon be placed in this suffragan's hands, much as the Suffragan Bishop for the Armed Forces and the chaplains under his authority exercise pastoral and sacramental care even in domestic military facilities.
The Episcopalians and Episcopal congregations represented by Forward in Faith, North America, have proved themselves loyal to their church. In spite of dismissal, hostility and even persecution, we remain within it, and do not wish to leave it. The Council looks to you, Presiding Bishop, to use the 'bully pulpit' which your office affords to call the church and its leaders to restore us to our full and rightful place in this community of faith, embracing and affirming both us and the place which our understanding of God's truth holds in the church's life. We further look to you not just to call upon the church, but to lead the church, to reward our fidelity by taking the actions necessary to provide the 'appropriate episcopal care' which the Communion affirms is our due as loyal Anglicans.
Archbishop: pastoral letter to Anglican Primates
ACNS 3374 | LAMBETH PALACE | 24 MARCH 2003
The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams has written to the most senior Bishops and Archbishops of the worldwide Anglican Church to express his concerns about the conflict in Iraq and his hope for a positive future for the region.
In his letter to the Primates of the Anglican Church's 38 Provinces, Dr Williams spoke of his concern for Christian communities of the Middle East, and of his prayers for them and their neighbours of other faiths. Acknowledging Iraq as the homeland of Abraham, Dr Williams also voiced hopes for reconciliation and justice in the region.
Text of letter to Anglican Primates
We have entered on a time of acute suffering for some and of anxiety for all peoples and nations round the world. As leaders of our Churches within the Anglican Communion, we must pray that, whatever the many and varied misgivings expressed, the military action now being undertaken may help to bring about a more stable future for the whole region, with justice for all.
We shall be thinking especially of our fellow Christians throughout the Middle East, and praying that they and their neighbours who belong to other faiths will find the strength and vision to go on working for a shared future of understanding and respect. Let us also hold in our prayers Christians in others parts of the world, who may feel vulnerable and uncertain at this time of tension.
Those in the front line of conflict and their families face particular challenges; and in praying for them and those who seek to support, let us also remember the many clergy from different countries who are charged with pastoral responsibility for men and women on active service.
The prayers of the whole world will be focused in the days ahead on hopes for an early end to armed conflict and a settlement that will honour the freedom and dignity of the people of Iraq.
May God our redeemer bring good out of the passions and tragedies that have scarred that country, the first homeland of Abraham our father in faith. With Abraham, we look forward to 'the city with foundations, whose architect and builder is God' Let us commit ourselves to working under God for the signs of that city to become manifest among us in reconciliation and justice.
With my love and prayers,
Rowan CANTUAR:
The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams has written to the most senior Bishops and Archbishops of the worldwide Anglican Church to express his concerns about the conflict in Iraq and his hope for a positive future for the region.
In his letter to the Primates of the Anglican Church's 38 Provinces, Dr Williams spoke of his concern for Christian communities of the Middle East, and of his prayers for them and their neighbours of other faiths. Acknowledging Iraq as the homeland of Abraham, Dr Williams also voiced hopes for reconciliation and justice in the region.
Text of letter to Anglican Primates
We have entered on a time of acute suffering for some and of anxiety for all peoples and nations round the world. As leaders of our Churches within the Anglican Communion, we must pray that, whatever the many and varied misgivings expressed, the military action now being undertaken may help to bring about a more stable future for the whole region, with justice for all.
We shall be thinking especially of our fellow Christians throughout the Middle East, and praying that they and their neighbours who belong to other faiths will find the strength and vision to go on working for a shared future of understanding and respect. Let us also hold in our prayers Christians in others parts of the world, who may feel vulnerable and uncertain at this time of tension.
Those in the front line of conflict and their families face particular challenges; and in praying for them and those who seek to support, let us also remember the many clergy from different countries who are charged with pastoral responsibility for men and women on active service.
The prayers of the whole world will be focused in the days ahead on hopes for an early end to armed conflict and a settlement that will honour the freedom and dignity of the people of Iraq.
May God our redeemer bring good out of the passions and tragedies that have scarred that country, the first homeland of Abraham our father in faith. With Abraham, we look forward to 'the city with foundations, whose architect and builder is God' Let us commit ourselves to working under God for the signs of that city to become manifest among us in reconciliation and justice.
With my love and prayers,
Rowan CANTUAR:
Archbishop: pastoral letter to Forces Chaplains
ACNS 3373 | LAMBETH PALACE | 23 MARCH 2003
Lambeth Palace has released the text of a pastoral letter sent by the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, to UK military chaplains serving in the Gulf as part of the current operations.
In his letter, written before the start of the military campaign, Dr Williams said that they and those serving with them would be in his thoughts and prayers and he paid tribute to their difficult role:
"You stand in a long and honourable tradition of Christians bearing witness to the love of Christ in hard and dangerous places."
The text of the letter:
Amidst all the preparations for armed conflict possibly involving British military personnel, I wanted, in the light of my own pastoral responsibilities, to write to assure you and those under your care of my thoughts and prayers in these difficult and testing times.
There has been a great deal of public discussion about the events now unfolding; the decisions that have been made have been hard choices between different kinds of risk and cost. But that is not the focus of this letter and we pray for those who carry the great burden of responsibility for making key judgements in these matters.
Those who are deployed with their units will, I am certain, acquit themselves with courage and dedication. Few join the armed forces without having thought deeply about the personal cost of service or of the possibility of being put in harm's way and the Church has never shrunk from sending its clergy to serve as chaplains wherever military people find themselves. You stand in a long and honourable tradition of Christians bearing witness to the love of Christ in hard and dangerous places.
You and I are both charged, in our different ways, with the pastoral care of members of the armed forces and their families. As you exercise your ministry with them, please be assured that prayers are being offered here for you and those under your care. We pray for your swift and safe return.
Every blessing,
Rowan CANTUAR:
Notes for editors:
The Archbishop met recently with the senior chaplains from the Navy, Army and RAF and the Bishop to the Forces, the Rt Revd David Conner, and was briefed about the work of chaplains in the Gulf
For details about the Enthronement of the 104th Archbishop of Canterbury, the Most Revd Rowan D Williams, visit http://www.anglicancommunion.org/
Lambeth Palace has released the text of a pastoral letter sent by the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, to UK military chaplains serving in the Gulf as part of the current operations.
In his letter, written before the start of the military campaign, Dr Williams said that they and those serving with them would be in his thoughts and prayers and he paid tribute to their difficult role:
"You stand in a long and honourable tradition of Christians bearing witness to the love of Christ in hard and dangerous places."
The text of the letter:
Amidst all the preparations for armed conflict possibly involving British military personnel, I wanted, in the light of my own pastoral responsibilities, to write to assure you and those under your care of my thoughts and prayers in these difficult and testing times.
There has been a great deal of public discussion about the events now unfolding; the decisions that have been made have been hard choices between different kinds of risk and cost. But that is not the focus of this letter and we pray for those who carry the great burden of responsibility for making key judgements in these matters.
Those who are deployed with their units will, I am certain, acquit themselves with courage and dedication. Few join the armed forces without having thought deeply about the personal cost of service or of the possibility of being put in harm's way and the Church has never shrunk from sending its clergy to serve as chaplains wherever military people find themselves. You stand in a long and honourable tradition of Christians bearing witness to the love of Christ in hard and dangerous places.
You and I are both charged, in our different ways, with the pastoral care of members of the armed forces and their families. As you exercise your ministry with them, please be assured that prayers are being offered here for you and those under your care. We pray for your swift and safe return.
Every blessing,
Rowan CANTUAR:
Notes for editors:
The Archbishop met recently with the senior chaplains from the Navy, Army and RAF and the Bishop to the Forces, the Rt Revd David Conner, and was briefed about the work of chaplains in the Gulf
For details about the Enthronement of the 104th Archbishop of Canterbury, the Most Revd Rowan D Williams, visit http://www.anglicancommunion.org/
Friday, March 21, 2003
Joint Statement by Religious Leaders in the UK
ACNS 3368 | LAMBETH PALACE | 21 MARCH 2003
...not a religious war
We have gathered against the backdrop of military action in Iraq involving British forces. They, their families and everyone caught up in this conflict are in our thoughts and prayers-especially those whose lives or loved ones have been lost.
As religious leaders from several faiths, we are here to signal the common ground on which we stand and to reaffirm the values we share at this time of tension, conflict and discord.
We pray that almighty God will grant wisdom, judgement and compassion to the political and military leaders who carry the immense burden of responsibility for the way this war is prosecuted.
Respect for every human being in times of armed conflict, as set out in the Geneva conventions and protocols, must be guaranteed on all sides. The rights and needs of civilians innocently affected by the conflict must be fully protected.
This is a conflict neither about religion nor between religions. We completely reject any attempt to misrepresent it in this way. As Christian, Jewish and Muslim religious leaders in this country, we believe that it is vital, amid so much uncertainty and turmoil, to resist any attempt to drive our communities apart.
We commend the continuing efforts being made in Britain to build a society in which different faith communities can flourish side-by-side in mutual respect and harmony.
We urge all communities to maintain their commitment to this goal, at a time when it may come under strain. We commit ourselves fully to strive to that end, for the sake of our shared well-being and as a mark of our commitment to a more harmonious, less conflict-ridden world.
Although, sadly, the diplomatic road is currently blocked, military action can only be a limited means to an end. We pray that early efforts to achieve a just, lasting and secure peace both in Iraq and throughout the Middle East may follow swiftly in the footsteps of war. We urge those with the power to help make real this vision, to remain true, amid the clamour of conflict, to that noble and vital purpose.
It is a vision which we commend in the confident belief that by so doing we are acting in the true interests of our God given humanity.
This joint statement has been issued by:
The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams
The Archbishop of Westminster, Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor
The Free Churches Moderator, the Revd David Coffey
The Chief Rabbi, Dr Jonathan Sacks
Chairman of the Council of Mosques and Imams UK, Shaikh Dr Zaki Badawi
Co-President of Churches Together in England, the Revd Esme Beswick
...not a religious war
We have gathered against the backdrop of military action in Iraq involving British forces. They, their families and everyone caught up in this conflict are in our thoughts and prayers-especially those whose lives or loved ones have been lost.
As religious leaders from several faiths, we are here to signal the common ground on which we stand and to reaffirm the values we share at this time of tension, conflict and discord.
We pray that almighty God will grant wisdom, judgement and compassion to the political and military leaders who carry the immense burden of responsibility for the way this war is prosecuted.
Respect for every human being in times of armed conflict, as set out in the Geneva conventions and protocols, must be guaranteed on all sides. The rights and needs of civilians innocently affected by the conflict must be fully protected.
This is a conflict neither about religion nor between religions. We completely reject any attempt to misrepresent it in this way. As Christian, Jewish and Muslim religious leaders in this country, we believe that it is vital, amid so much uncertainty and turmoil, to resist any attempt to drive our communities apart.
We commend the continuing efforts being made in Britain to build a society in which different faith communities can flourish side-by-side in mutual respect and harmony.
We urge all communities to maintain their commitment to this goal, at a time when it may come under strain. We commit ourselves fully to strive to that end, for the sake of our shared well-being and as a mark of our commitment to a more harmonious, less conflict-ridden world.
Although, sadly, the diplomatic road is currently blocked, military action can only be a limited means to an end. We pray that early efforts to achieve a just, lasting and secure peace both in Iraq and throughout the Middle East may follow swiftly in the footsteps of war. We urge those with the power to help make real this vision, to remain true, amid the clamour of conflict, to that noble and vital purpose.
It is a vision which we commend in the confident belief that by so doing we are acting in the true interests of our God given humanity.
This joint statement has been issued by:
The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams
The Archbishop of Westminster, Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor
The Free Churches Moderator, the Revd David Coffey
The Chief Rabbi, Dr Jonathan Sacks
Chairman of the Council of Mosques and Imams UK, Shaikh Dr Zaki Badawi
Co-President of Churches Together in England, the Revd Esme Beswick
War & Peace, Prayer and the BCP
As far as I can tell the vast liturgical provision or multi-volume Directory for worship called COMMON WORSHIP of the Church of England provides no prayers for use in time of war. This of course does not stop bishops issuing such prayer for use, which they are doing. In contrast THE BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER of 1662 does envisage war and conflict as real possibilities and does provide petition in the traditional Litany as well as a prayer to be used at the end of Morning and Evening Prayer entitled, "In the Time of War and Tumults". Then, there is the fixed Collect for Peace daily required at Morning and Evening Prayer and within the Collects for the Christian Year not a few of them have petitions to be saved from enemies (physical and spiritual).
The 1928 BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER of the PECUSA has several prayers for a time of war (pages 41-2 of the pew edition), but the 1979 Prayer Book of ECUSA in "Prayers and Thanksgivings" 814ff. does not have a specific prayer for use in time of war. It does have prayers for peace, for country, for the government, for social justice and for prisoners of conscience, as well as a prayer for those in the Armed Forces, but nothing specifically for a time of war.
It would seem that the classic BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER (1662 etc) provides for prayer in war but assumes that any such war is a just war. (If a church of a nation using the classic BCP believed that a war was not just then there are problems using the set prayers.)
It would seem also that the American Prayer Book of 1979 does not want to face the ugly fact of war (after all it was put together in the aftermath of the Viet Nam conflict) and so provides only general prayers for international peace, peace with justice and the well being of the members of the armed forces. It has the 1960s ring of protestors for peace about it.
Right now pastors face the real difficult situation of framing public prayers for Sunday worship which rightly capture the known will of God and rightly make petition for all those managing, fighting in and affected by war. And we cannot avoid the fact in our thinking that war reveals both the dark/evil and well as the light/compassionate side of human nature and thereby shows that man though made in the image of God is nevertheless depraved and degenerate and will only be perfected in the age to come. Victors and the conquered share the same fallen human nature.
The following note (below) may be help to some as they prepare prayers for public worship -- but perhaps more useful to traditional congregations will be such collections as "Parish Prayers" edited by Frank Colquhoon, which has prayers that were composed in World War II.
[The Invitation to Prayer website, www.invitationtoprayer.org, exists to support both individual prayer and collective worship. Special prayers for use in time of war have been added to the site on 20th March. There are resources for clergy and laity, for use individually and collectively, and for use at different times of day. These may form the basis for a short act of prayer in church or at home, at a regular time each day or week, at the start or conclusion of a silent vigil, or whenever people meet together to pray.]
In Britain with half the population vocally against the war against Iraq, pastors who open their mouths need to have prepared carefully what they offer to God on behalf of their congregations!
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon
The 1928 BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER of the PECUSA has several prayers for a time of war (pages 41-2 of the pew edition), but the 1979 Prayer Book of ECUSA in "Prayers and Thanksgivings" 814ff. does not have a specific prayer for use in time of war. It does have prayers for peace, for country, for the government, for social justice and for prisoners of conscience, as well as a prayer for those in the Armed Forces, but nothing specifically for a time of war.
It would seem that the classic BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER (1662 etc) provides for prayer in war but assumes that any such war is a just war. (If a church of a nation using the classic BCP believed that a war was not just then there are problems using the set prayers.)
It would seem also that the American Prayer Book of 1979 does not want to face the ugly fact of war (after all it was put together in the aftermath of the Viet Nam conflict) and so provides only general prayers for international peace, peace with justice and the well being of the members of the armed forces. It has the 1960s ring of protestors for peace about it.
Right now pastors face the real difficult situation of framing public prayers for Sunday worship which rightly capture the known will of God and rightly make petition for all those managing, fighting in and affected by war. And we cannot avoid the fact in our thinking that war reveals both the dark/evil and well as the light/compassionate side of human nature and thereby shows that man though made in the image of God is nevertheless depraved and degenerate and will only be perfected in the age to come. Victors and the conquered share the same fallen human nature.
The following note (below) may be help to some as they prepare prayers for public worship -- but perhaps more useful to traditional congregations will be such collections as "Parish Prayers" edited by Frank Colquhoon, which has prayers that were composed in World War II.
[The Invitation to Prayer website, www.invitationtoprayer.org, exists to support both individual prayer and collective worship. Special prayers for use in time of war have been added to the site on 20th March. There are resources for clergy and laity, for use individually and collectively, and for use at different times of day. These may form the basis for a short act of prayer in church or at home, at a regular time each day or week, at the start or conclusion of a silent vigil, or whenever people meet together to pray.]
In Britain with half the population vocally against the war against Iraq, pastors who open their mouths need to have prepared carefully what they offer to God on behalf of their congregations!
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon
Piracy by Liturgists
PIRACY
We have witnessed over the last twenty-five years in the Anglican Communion, from the West Indies through the United States of America to England, the use of piracy by liturgists and bishops. Not that the latter are sea-robbers but that they are pirates in this sense of the word: "One who appropriates or reproduces without leave, for his own benefit, a composition, idea or invention that he has no right to; especially one who infringes on the copyright of another" (Oxford English Dictionary).
First of all, the Episcopal Church of the USA pirated the expression "Common Prayer" and used it for a form of public prayer which was not its original meaning and purpose. That is, it called by the traditional Title that which was in shape and content, in structure and ingredients, a prayer book in which were multiple alternatives - and thus choice of service/rite at the local level from the available provision. So there is not one Eucharistic Prayer but many. Since 1979 when it called a book of alternative services by the title of "The Book of Common Prayer", as if this new book were in the direct lineage of the English Prayer Book of 1662 and the first American of 1789, this Church has sought to make respectable its piracy. But having become a pirate and living in lawlessness this Church has continued to defy natural and divine law in various ways and is universally known for its innovations ("sin") and its rejection of "the old paths and ways". Regrettably a good proportion of its membership rejoices in its piracy, lawlessness and innovations in worship, doctrine and discipline. The new Prayer Book (on which work has begun) to replace that of 1979 will be a multi-volume and several CD's affair, and it will make ever clearer to the world, if the world be still interested, how far the Episcopal Church has departed from the Anglican Way and how defiant a pirate it is.
In the second place, the Church of the Province of the West Indies imitated the Episcopal Church ( a near neighbour) and also proceeded to use the title of "The Book of Common Prayer" for its new book of alternative services from 1996. The effects of this piracy will become clearer as the years pass by.
What both the ECUSA and West Indian Province could have done was to keep "The Book of Common Prayer" (USA, 1928, WI 1662) as received intact, and to place alongside it a "Book of Alternative Services", called by that or a similar name, as happened in other places (e.g., Canada in 1985).
The Church of England, Mother Church of the Anglican Communion, seems to have done what I have indicated the Churches on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean ought to have done. In 1980 she called her new prayer book "The Alternative Service Book, 1980. Services authorized for use in the Church of England in conjunction with The Book of Common Prayer". "The Book of Common Prayer" (1662) remained as the primary Prayer Book and also the doctrinal Formulary of the Church of England and so some parishes used only the 1662 Book, others used only the 1980 Book and yet others used both from 1980 until 2000. At the beginning of the new millennium, the Church of England ordered that the 1980 Book be recycled (the pew edition was 1290
pages!) and that parishes acquire the replacement, or at least the first volume of the multi-volume replacement, given the general title of "Common Worship."
Now the legal status of "Common Worship" is the same as that of the 1980 Book but on the title pages of the various volumes the words, "Services authorized for use in the Church of England in conjunction with the Book of Common Prayer" are not to be found. However, if one looks inside the volumes one can find this recognition although it is not anything like as prominent as it was in 1980. Inside the first volume of Common Worship, which has provision for Sundays services, there are many options provided and amongst these are services (only slightly revised) from the Prayer Book of 1662 both in its own idiom and in a modern, contemporary idiom. Obviously the aim of this enterprise is to provide one source (howbeit multi-volume) for the Church of England and to leave the "Book of Common Prayer" on the shelf or in the cupboard to be referred to as and when required. This is an enterprise one of whose aims is to incorporate the major services of the classical Prayer Book into the general mix and match of the new order. The General Synod is not seeking to get rid of "The Book of Common Prayer" (of which it is proud as a historical relic) but merely, for practical purposes, making it a part of the general provision of ingredients from which a parish can choose.
In pursuing this aim, the liturgists and bishops have become pirates, as are their colleagues across the Atlantic. They have taken the word "common" (which has been inextricably connected in English tradition for four centuries with a specific Book and the specific texts in that Book) and, with deliberate and careful calculation, they have used this adjective to accompany the word "worship" and multiple choice. How they did this is, looking back, is easy to plot. First of all, they wrote and spoke of common structures/shapes to services and also of common contents/ingredients for services and then began to tear the word "common" away from a specific book with specific texts within in it, in order to refer more vaguely to anything used with the permission of the Church. That is, they convinced themselves and taught others that commonality lay in a whole Church using only those approved shapes or structures of services authorized by its Synod. So "common prayer" is not seen (as it had been) as the whole Church using (with varied ceremony) the same basic texts for Daily Prayer, Holy Communion, Baptism, Confirmation, Burial of the Dead and so on, but the whole Church using the same basic structure for services while each parish chooses what ingredients to place within the basic structure from the growing provision of alternatives available in the supermarket which are the growing volumes of Common Worship and explanatory books, booklets and essays. Thus common worship unlike common prayer means that two parishes a mile apart have services which have nothing in common except (behind or underneath the details and not necessarily obvious) a common structure or shape.
The title "Common Worship" is so near to "Common Prayer" that the word piracy is applicable as much to the liturgists and bishops of the Mother Church as it is to the Churches of the former colonies of England/Great Britain. Regrettably there is no evidence that the pirates on either side of the Atlantic regret their action or intend to restore the stolen property. Their strategy seems to be not to talk about it but to divert attention elsewhere. Churches cannot prosper if they are built upon lies for which there is no repentance.
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon
We have witnessed over the last twenty-five years in the Anglican Communion, from the West Indies through the United States of America to England, the use of piracy by liturgists and bishops. Not that the latter are sea-robbers but that they are pirates in this sense of the word: "One who appropriates or reproduces without leave, for his own benefit, a composition, idea or invention that he has no right to; especially one who infringes on the copyright of another" (Oxford English Dictionary).
First of all, the Episcopal Church of the USA pirated the expression "Common Prayer" and used it for a form of public prayer which was not its original meaning and purpose. That is, it called by the traditional Title that which was in shape and content, in structure and ingredients, a prayer book in which were multiple alternatives - and thus choice of service/rite at the local level from the available provision. So there is not one Eucharistic Prayer but many. Since 1979 when it called a book of alternative services by the title of "The Book of Common Prayer", as if this new book were in the direct lineage of the English Prayer Book of 1662 and the first American of 1789, this Church has sought to make respectable its piracy. But having become a pirate and living in lawlessness this Church has continued to defy natural and divine law in various ways and is universally known for its innovations ("sin") and its rejection of "the old paths and ways". Regrettably a good proportion of its membership rejoices in its piracy, lawlessness and innovations in worship, doctrine and discipline. The new Prayer Book (on which work has begun) to replace that of 1979 will be a multi-volume and several CD's affair, and it will make ever clearer to the world, if the world be still interested, how far the Episcopal Church has departed from the Anglican Way and how defiant a pirate it is.
In the second place, the Church of the Province of the West Indies imitated the Episcopal Church ( a near neighbour) and also proceeded to use the title of "The Book of Common Prayer" for its new book of alternative services from 1996. The effects of this piracy will become clearer as the years pass by.
What both the ECUSA and West Indian Province could have done was to keep "The Book of Common Prayer" (USA, 1928, WI 1662) as received intact, and to place alongside it a "Book of Alternative Services", called by that or a similar name, as happened in other places (e.g., Canada in 1985).
The Church of England, Mother Church of the Anglican Communion, seems to have done what I have indicated the Churches on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean ought to have done. In 1980 she called her new prayer book "The Alternative Service Book, 1980. Services authorized for use in the Church of England in conjunction with The Book of Common Prayer". "The Book of Common Prayer" (1662) remained as the primary Prayer Book and also the doctrinal Formulary of the Church of England and so some parishes used only the 1662 Book, others used only the 1980 Book and yet others used both from 1980 until 2000. At the beginning of the new millennium, the Church of England ordered that the 1980 Book be recycled (the pew edition was 1290
pages!) and that parishes acquire the replacement, or at least the first volume of the multi-volume replacement, given the general title of "Common Worship."
Now the legal status of "Common Worship" is the same as that of the 1980 Book but on the title pages of the various volumes the words, "Services authorized for use in the Church of England in conjunction with the Book of Common Prayer" are not to be found. However, if one looks inside the volumes one can find this recognition although it is not anything like as prominent as it was in 1980. Inside the first volume of Common Worship, which has provision for Sundays services, there are many options provided and amongst these are services (only slightly revised) from the Prayer Book of 1662 both in its own idiom and in a modern, contemporary idiom. Obviously the aim of this enterprise is to provide one source (howbeit multi-volume) for the Church of England and to leave the "Book of Common Prayer" on the shelf or in the cupboard to be referred to as and when required. This is an enterprise one of whose aims is to incorporate the major services of the classical Prayer Book into the general mix and match of the new order. The General Synod is not seeking to get rid of "The Book of Common Prayer" (of which it is proud as a historical relic) but merely, for practical purposes, making it a part of the general provision of ingredients from which a parish can choose.
In pursuing this aim, the liturgists and bishops have become pirates, as are their colleagues across the Atlantic. They have taken the word "common" (which has been inextricably connected in English tradition for four centuries with a specific Book and the specific texts in that Book) and, with deliberate and careful calculation, they have used this adjective to accompany the word "worship" and multiple choice. How they did this is, looking back, is easy to plot. First of all, they wrote and spoke of common structures/shapes to services and also of common contents/ingredients for services and then began to tear the word "common" away from a specific book with specific texts within in it, in order to refer more vaguely to anything used with the permission of the Church. That is, they convinced themselves and taught others that commonality lay in a whole Church using only those approved shapes or structures of services authorized by its Synod. So "common prayer" is not seen (as it had been) as the whole Church using (with varied ceremony) the same basic texts for Daily Prayer, Holy Communion, Baptism, Confirmation, Burial of the Dead and so on, but the whole Church using the same basic structure for services while each parish chooses what ingredients to place within the basic structure from the growing provision of alternatives available in the supermarket which are the growing volumes of Common Worship and explanatory books, booklets and essays. Thus common worship unlike common prayer means that two parishes a mile apart have services which have nothing in common except (behind or underneath the details and not necessarily obvious) a common structure or shape.
The title "Common Worship" is so near to "Common Prayer" that the word piracy is applicable as much to the liturgists and bishops of the Mother Church as it is to the Churches of the former colonies of England/Great Britain. Regrettably there is no evidence that the pirates on either side of the Atlantic regret their action or intend to restore the stolen property. Their strategy seems to be not to talk about it but to divert attention elsewhere. Churches cannot prosper if they are built upon lies for which there is no repentance.
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)