---------------- a discussion starter --------------------
Whereas The Articles of Religion are most clear on the authority of Scripture, the Lambeth Conference has been, at best, vague and at worst misleading!
Article VI states that Holy Scripture “containeth all things necessary to salvation; so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary for salvation.” Then in Article XX it is stated that The Church has “authority in Controversies of Faith; And yet it is not lawful for the Church to ordain anything that is contrary to God’s Word written, neither may it expound one place of Scripture, that it be repugnant to another.” Article II speaks of the Word of God, the Son, made flesh.
Here the authority of the Word written and its relation to the Person of Jesus Christ is clear.
Since 1948 it has become common amongst Anglican theologians to speak less of the authority of the Holy Scriptures and more of a “dispersed authority”. The latter is defined by the Lambeth Conference of 1948 in these terms:
“Authority… is distributed among Scripture, Tradition, Creeds, the Ministry of the Word and Sacraments, the witness of saints, and the consensus fidelium , which is the continuing experience of the Holy Spirit through his faithful people in the Church. It is thus a dispersed rather than a centralized authority, having many elements which combine, interact with, and check each other; these elements together contributing by a process of mutual support, mutual checking, and redressing of errors or exaggerations to the many-sided fullness of the authority which Christ has committed to his Church.”
Such a statement would have been inconceivable, and if conceived driven away as error, by the Reformers of the sixteenth and the standard divines of the seventeenth centuries. Yet it has been used to justify all the innovations of the ECUSA and Anglican Provinces in the West over the last fifty years.
Let us note a few of the problems with it. First of all the impression is given that all the items mentioned, from the Bible to the consensus fidelium, are of equal or roughly equal standing. The Bible is not singled out as having unique authority through Christ Jesus over everything else, although it is first in order. Secondly, it is not clear what is Tradition – of the Patristic Age? Of the Reformation Period? Of all time? Thirdly, it is not clear which Saints – of the Easter, Roman or Anglican Calendars, or of all? Finally, does the consent of the faithful mean the majority votes of Synods or something else?
In terms of how this approach has been used in North America, we may express it thus:
Scripture is in essence a record of religious experience which must be defined, mediated and verified, for what the Bible provides is data and not doctrine. It is unique in that it is first of its kind. What is described in Scripture is defined by the Creeds and in dogma, doctrine and continuing theological writings; it is mediated by the ministry of word and sacrament and it is verified in the witness of the saints and in the consent of the faithful in their democratic synods. Finally (see the 1979 ECUSA and the 1985 Canadian prayer books) “liturgy…is the crucible in which these elements and authority are fused and unified in the fellowship and power of the Holy Spirit” (Lambeth Conf. 1948). Thus the constant and widespread use of the Latin tag – lex orandi, lex credendi [the law of praying is the law of believing] – as a kind of proof that the recent Liturgies are sound.
One can see immediately how the ECUSA has introduced all kinds of innovations in worship, doctrine and discipline and why it consistently claims that it has done so and continues to do so democratically (= consensus fidelium) in local and national synods.
As I pointed out in the 64 page booklet which responded to the Book, To Set Our Hope on Christ, by the Presiding Bishop’s theological team addressed to the whole Anglican Family, the situation in ECUSA has long been that Scripture does not contain doctrine to be believed, confessed and taught, but rather data of religious experience to be collected, sifted, judged and used for a modern purpose. [for my Same-Sex Affection…. Go to www.anglicanmarketplace.com or call 1 800 727 1928]
The Church is to be always under the authority of the Holy Scripture as the Word of God written, in which is not merely data but doctrine in propositional form to be believed, confessed and taught in the Church and by the Church to the world. Of course the Church itself has a certain authority (defined in the Articles); the Creeds have authority; and Councils/Synods have authority; but only as subordinate to the final authority of the Scriptures. And we must not forget that although the visible Church is “a witness and keep of Holy Writ [a most important vocation & duty], yet, as it ought not to decree anything against the same, so besides the same it ought not to enforce any thing to be believed for necessary of Salvation” (Article XX).
The Lambeth Conference has erred often and will continue so to do in matters small and large! As also will all church synods. We all need to study the Articles again to recover our real Anglican approach to the Lordship of Christ and the Authority of the Word written, which is closely tied to the Word made flesh, the same Lord Jesus Christ.
[For a set of 12 major expositions by learned divines of The Articles in pdf and on one CD for $20.00, go to www.anglicanmarketplace.com]
As the Province of Nigeria and its Primate, Dr Akinola, have said, the Anglican Churches need their Formularies to guide them and keep them straight and the Articles are one of the Three classic Formularies!
October 20, 2005 petertoon@msn.com
Thursday, October 20, 2005
Anglo-Roman BOOK of Divine Worship
THE BOOK OF DIVINE WORSHIP being elements of The Book of Common Prayer revised and adapted according to the Roman Rite for use by Roman Catholics coming from the Anglican Tradition. Approved by the National Conference of Catholic Bishops of the USA and confirmed by the Apostolic See (Newman House Press, 2003).
This book is rather large and heavy and has nearly 1000 pages in all. It is intended as a Pew Edition but will not fit into the normal-sized book holder in Pews.
It is presently used in the USA by not more than twenty congregations of converts to Roman Catholicism from the Anglican Way. However, it is important for the future because some Anglican jurisdictions (e.g., the Traditional Anglican Communion led by Archbishop Hepworth of Australia), that are seeking a uniate status with Rome, have indicated that they will be ready to use it.
It contains the Calendar for the Church Year, the Daily Office Lectionary, the Daily Office, the Litany, the Proper (Collects, Prayers over the Gifts & Preface), the holy Eucharist , Holy Baptism, Holy Matrimony, the Burial of the Dead and the Psalter. All of these come in two versions, the traditional and the contemporary and it is this provision that makes the book so large. The Litany alone is in one form, the traditional (even as it is in the 1979 ECUSA Prayer Book).
The literary sources used to compose these rites were The Book of Common Prayer (1928); and “The Book of Common Prayer” (1979) from the Episcopal Church USA, and the English translation of the Missale Romanum (1973 – International Committee on English in the Liturgy). Here it may be observed that the translations of Scripture and ancient texts used in the 1979 Prayer Book and in the Missal of 1973 were much influenced by the theory of dynamic equivalency as well as by the ideology of inclusivism and they do need revision.
The basis for the Daily Office and Litany are Rites One and Two from the 1979 Prayer Book, with some minor additions from the 1928 BCP and from Roman Catholic sources (e.g., additional supplications in the Litany). Likewise, the basis for the Propers are Rites One and Two from the 1979 Prayer with significant additions from the Roman Missal.
With respect to the Eucharist, the provision of Rites One and Two continues but here there is greater dependence (as one would expect) upon the Roman Missal. In Rite One the Canon of the Mass is the traditional Roman Canon in traditional English and in Rite Two the four Eucharistic Prayers of the Canon in contemporary English in the Missal are made available. Several observations may be made. Both Rites retain the opening Acclamation, “Blessed be God: Father, Son and Holy Spirit” (the novel formula of the 1979 book) rather than adopting the “In the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” of the Missal. Both Rites provide the Creed in the first person singular only [its correct form for the Eucharist, cf. Credo….] and in the 1979 Rite One version. It is impossible to use only traditional language if one is using Rite One all the time because certain provisions are only given in contemporary form (e.g., the Easter Vigil Service) and also because the Creed is provided only in the traditional version then it is also impossible to use Rite Two completely in contemporary language.
The two services for Baptism are based on the provisions of the 1928 BC for Rite One and the 1979 Prayer Book for Rite Two but with modifications. And the same principle applies to the two Services for both Holy Matrimony and the Burial of the Dead.
Finally, the Psalter is first in the 1928 BCP version (the Coverdale) and secondly in the 1979 Prayer Book version. The latter is well known for its inclusion of inclusive language and begins, “Happy are they…” whereas the other traditional version begins (as it points to Christ the Man) “Blessed is the Man….”
I would hope that if this Book is to be used for uniate churches (e.g., TAC) that there will be a careful scrutiny of the use of language so that Rite One can have integrity and be only and always in traditional form -- and the same for Rite Two. Further, that the use of texts from the Missal which are now regarded by the Vatican as improper or erroneous translations be modified, and that a version of the Psalter in contemporary English be provided that does not contain the feminist ideology within it (which the ECUSA provided in its 1979 version!). Finally, that the Naming of the Blessed Trinity in Rite Two texts, in the form that this is taken over from the 1979 Book, be examined and adjusted to harmonize better with received Catholic dogma of the Trinity and Person of Christ.
The TAC and like-minded traditional Anglicans who move to Rome will miss the ancient Eucharistic Lectionary of the old Roman (Sarum) use that is printed in the classic BCP, even as they will also miss the use of the Name of the Trinity to denote the weeks after Whitsuntide until the arrival of Advent.
Finally, this BOOK is so large and heavy that I can see uniate Church parishes making their own Missalette of the Rite they use and of possessing few copies of the whole thing.
Peter Toon October 20, 2005
Why is All Souls’ more popular than All Saints’ Day?
After death and before the General Resurrection.
November 1 is “All Saints’ Day” which is identified as a “Red Letter Day” in The Book of Common Prayer, and is celebrated in the West to remember all Christian saints, known and unknown, who have gone before us and are now with Christ.
November 2 is “All Souls’ Day” which is not included in The Book of Common Prayer, but is celebrated in the West (by Catholics and by some Anglicans) to commemorate the souls of the faithful, Christian departed.
A strange fact is that in most Anglican parishes in the West more people attend the Eucharist on All Souls’ than on All Saints’ – that is, when and where a church offers both!
Why so? Probably because (in Europe especially) many people, especially widows, remember the loss of loved ones in World War II; and, more generally, this Day is the only Day in the Church Year when public opportunity arises to express devotion in relation to family and friends who have died as Christians. In contrast, there are many Days for remembering those known as Saints. Further, while most folks feel a sense of nearness to departed family members, they do not feel any profound sense of nearness to or fellowship with the Saints of God who live within the mystical Body of Christ and the Church invisible. So it is that the attendance on All Souls’ seems more practical and helpful than attendance on All Saints’ (though being present at the latter is regarded a good thing). [Possibly if we were all more spiritually minded and had a greater sense of belonging to the communion of Saints, then All Saints’ Day would be the more precious to us!]
However, it would appear that very few Anglicans who go to a Mass or Eucharist on All Souls’ Day have any real sense of the Roman doctrine of purgatory, that is of their loved ones being purged of their sins in anticipation of the resurrection of the dead and the glorious life of the age to come in redeemed bodies as saints in glory.
Indeed, the various Collects used by Anglicans on this day are deliberately vague in doctrinal terms. Here is a typical one which does not specifically refer to purging and cleansing of the soul from sin:
“O God, the Maker and Redeemer of all believers: Grant to the souls of the faithful departed all the unsearchable benefits of thy Son’s passion, that in the day of his appearing they may be manifested as thy children; through the same Jesus Christ our Lord…..”
We may assume that all Christians who recite the Creeds faithfully believe in “the intermediate state” between personal death and personal resurrection at the Last Day. However, most agree that the precise nature of this sphere and period of bodiless life for baptized Christians are not clear, except that the departed are in some real sense with Lord Jesus and not separated from him. And the question as to whether or not the prayers of believers on earth and the offering of the Eucharist on their behalf can in some way enrich the experience of the faithful departed is not often raised.
The Anglican Collect for All Saints’ Day is very clear in terms of their being One Body of Christ and thus one mystical communion and fellowship, which exists across and through death into and then within the age to come. Further, this Prayer expresses confidence in God’s provision for this age to come of tremendous joy for those who are in this life his true children.
O Almighty God, who hast knit together thine elect in one communion and fellowship, in the mystical body of thy Son Christ our Lord; Grant us grace so to follow thy blessed Saints in all virtuous and godly living, that we may come to those unspeakable joys which thou hast prepared for them that unfeignedly love thee; through Jesus Christ our Lord.
There have been real saints of God in every generation in all places where the Church has existed. Most of their names are now forgotten by us but they are written in the Lamb’s Book of Life in heaven!
Now let us return to consider the soul of the faithful believer in the intermediate state.
All Christians possess both a sinful human nature and the presence of a new nature, a new creation, wherein the Holy Spirit is pleased to dwell. In the process of sanctification, the old nature is to be put to death, to be mortified, but it never fully dies. While the sins of the believing child of God are forgiven for Christ’s sake, the diseased nature is not removed.
Then most Christians at death have not reached a stage where their love of God and of man has reached true maturity or perfection. They are imperfect in love.
So the question arises: Does the soul as it leaves the body at death experience a total cleansing by the Holy Spirit and an infusion of divine love so that in the intermediate state, it is wholly regenerated and renewed and able to have pure fellowship with God and all the saints? If it does, then the doctrine of purgation and of growth and development in maturity (which presupposes that the souls of the departed enter the intermediate state as they were at the last moment of life on earth) is without any foundation in reality. For Purgatory is based on the assumption that cleansing and renewal – not to mention appropriate punishment -- are still needed in the soul whose body has been given Christian burial.
Now there is no assumption of purgatory anywhere in The Book of Common Prayer (1662 & 1928) and in the Articles of Religion printed in the prayer book we read the following: “The Romish doctrine concerning Purgatory… is a fond thing, vainly invented, and grounded upon no warranty of Scripture, but rather repugnant to the Word of God” (Articles XXII). Now this was written before the Council of Trent carefully defined the “Romish doctrine of Purgatory” and, possibly, had the Article been written after the Tridentine doctrine was known, it would have been less judgmental, even if it still rejected not only purgatory but the customs and rites associated with it.
In recent centuries it seems that that many Anglicans have believed in the intermediate state, holding that there is only one door out of it and that is into God’s courts, and also holding that prayers for the faithful departed in suitably vague form can do no harm and may do good – even as prayers for believers on earth may do good. A minority have vigorously opposed all forms of prayer for the departed on the basis that Scripture nowhere requires them. And yet others, having adopted the Tridentine doctrine of purgatory, do believe that prayers and masses for the dead will by God’s grace speed the faithful through purging into the blessedness of heaven itself.
Whether we observe only All Saints’ Day. or we observe both All Saints’ and All Souls’ Day, will probably reveal a lot about what we believe and how we feel about the state of souls in the intermediate state between life on earth and life in resurrected bodies of glory in heaven.
Certainly we should all observe All Saints’ Day for that is RED LETTER!
Peter Toon October 19, 2005
November 1 is “All Saints’ Day” which is identified as a “Red Letter Day” in The Book of Common Prayer, and is celebrated in the West to remember all Christian saints, known and unknown, who have gone before us and are now with Christ.
November 2 is “All Souls’ Day” which is not included in The Book of Common Prayer, but is celebrated in the West (by Catholics and by some Anglicans) to commemorate the souls of the faithful, Christian departed.
A strange fact is that in most Anglican parishes in the West more people attend the Eucharist on All Souls’ than on All Saints’ – that is, when and where a church offers both!
Why so? Probably because (in Europe especially) many people, especially widows, remember the loss of loved ones in World War II; and, more generally, this Day is the only Day in the Church Year when public opportunity arises to express devotion in relation to family and friends who have died as Christians. In contrast, there are many Days for remembering those known as Saints. Further, while most folks feel a sense of nearness to departed family members, they do not feel any profound sense of nearness to or fellowship with the Saints of God who live within the mystical Body of Christ and the Church invisible. So it is that the attendance on All Souls’ seems more practical and helpful than attendance on All Saints’ (though being present at the latter is regarded a good thing). [Possibly if we were all more spiritually minded and had a greater sense of belonging to the communion of Saints, then All Saints’ Day would be the more precious to us!]
However, it would appear that very few Anglicans who go to a Mass or Eucharist on All Souls’ Day have any real sense of the Roman doctrine of purgatory, that is of their loved ones being purged of their sins in anticipation of the resurrection of the dead and the glorious life of the age to come in redeemed bodies as saints in glory.
Indeed, the various Collects used by Anglicans on this day are deliberately vague in doctrinal terms. Here is a typical one which does not specifically refer to purging and cleansing of the soul from sin:
“O God, the Maker and Redeemer of all believers: Grant to the souls of the faithful departed all the unsearchable benefits of thy Son’s passion, that in the day of his appearing they may be manifested as thy children; through the same Jesus Christ our Lord…..”
We may assume that all Christians who recite the Creeds faithfully believe in “the intermediate state” between personal death and personal resurrection at the Last Day. However, most agree that the precise nature of this sphere and period of bodiless life for baptized Christians are not clear, except that the departed are in some real sense with Lord Jesus and not separated from him. And the question as to whether or not the prayers of believers on earth and the offering of the Eucharist on their behalf can in some way enrich the experience of the faithful departed is not often raised.
The Anglican Collect for All Saints’ Day is very clear in terms of their being One Body of Christ and thus one mystical communion and fellowship, which exists across and through death into and then within the age to come. Further, this Prayer expresses confidence in God’s provision for this age to come of tremendous joy for those who are in this life his true children.
O Almighty God, who hast knit together thine elect in one communion and fellowship, in the mystical body of thy Son Christ our Lord; Grant us grace so to follow thy blessed Saints in all virtuous and godly living, that we may come to those unspeakable joys which thou hast prepared for them that unfeignedly love thee; through Jesus Christ our Lord.
There have been real saints of God in every generation in all places where the Church has existed. Most of their names are now forgotten by us but they are written in the Lamb’s Book of Life in heaven!
Now let us return to consider the soul of the faithful believer in the intermediate state.
All Christians possess both a sinful human nature and the presence of a new nature, a new creation, wherein the Holy Spirit is pleased to dwell. In the process of sanctification, the old nature is to be put to death, to be mortified, but it never fully dies. While the sins of the believing child of God are forgiven for Christ’s sake, the diseased nature is not removed.
Then most Christians at death have not reached a stage where their love of God and of man has reached true maturity or perfection. They are imperfect in love.
So the question arises: Does the soul as it leaves the body at death experience a total cleansing by the Holy Spirit and an infusion of divine love so that in the intermediate state, it is wholly regenerated and renewed and able to have pure fellowship with God and all the saints? If it does, then the doctrine of purgation and of growth and development in maturity (which presupposes that the souls of the departed enter the intermediate state as they were at the last moment of life on earth) is without any foundation in reality. For Purgatory is based on the assumption that cleansing and renewal – not to mention appropriate punishment -- are still needed in the soul whose body has been given Christian burial.
Now there is no assumption of purgatory anywhere in The Book of Common Prayer (1662 & 1928) and in the Articles of Religion printed in the prayer book we read the following: “The Romish doctrine concerning Purgatory… is a fond thing, vainly invented, and grounded upon no warranty of Scripture, but rather repugnant to the Word of God” (Articles XXII). Now this was written before the Council of Trent carefully defined the “Romish doctrine of Purgatory” and, possibly, had the Article been written after the Tridentine doctrine was known, it would have been less judgmental, even if it still rejected not only purgatory but the customs and rites associated with it.
In recent centuries it seems that that many Anglicans have believed in the intermediate state, holding that there is only one door out of it and that is into God’s courts, and also holding that prayers for the faithful departed in suitably vague form can do no harm and may do good – even as prayers for believers on earth may do good. A minority have vigorously opposed all forms of prayer for the departed on the basis that Scripture nowhere requires them. And yet others, having adopted the Tridentine doctrine of purgatory, do believe that prayers and masses for the dead will by God’s grace speed the faithful through purging into the blessedness of heaven itself.
Whether we observe only All Saints’ Day. or we observe both All Saints’ and All Souls’ Day, will probably reveal a lot about what we believe and how we feel about the state of souls in the intermediate state between life on earth and life in resurrected bodies of glory in heaven.
Certainly we should all observe All Saints’ Day for that is RED LETTER!
Peter Toon October 19, 2005
Wednesday, October 19, 2005
Anglicanism’s three options, routes & destinies
The Anglican Way is no longer an unified way and looks like it will soon end up in three parts, with a lot of messiness around the parts!
Since the ordination of women entered into the practice of Anglican provinces twenty or more years ago, the Anglican Family has been suffering from increasing internal strains, crises and divisions. These problems and pains have been exacerbated by the multiplication of liturgies and rites, and the setting aside of the classic Formularies of the Anglican Way by provinces in the West (e.g., USA, West Indies, Wales & Ireland). The Formularies served as identifiers and unifiers of Anglicanism. And the internal dysfunctionality has been much increased and polarized in the last few years by major differences over sexual ethics and practice and what the Scriptures and tradition have to say in these matters.
The so-called Instruments of Unity (Archbishop of Canterbury, Lambeth Conference, Anglican Consultative Council and the Primates’ Meeting) are seemingly powerless to do other than make statements and call for actions. They cannot heal the divisions but may serve to make them worse.
What are the three routes being taken?
First of all, there is the route to the Vatican City in Rome. A growing number of Anglican groups such as the Forward in Faith Movement of the UK and the Traditional Anglican Communion are pressing for a uniate status with Rome. They wish to maintain an Anglican identity that is doctrinally at one with Rome and to be under the protection of the Roman See and thus in communion with all parts of the Roman Church. It seems likely that more and more Anglo-Catholics (e.g., the diocese of Fort Worth) will be drawn into this movement. It already has a basic Liturgy approved by the Vatican and used in a dozen or so parishes in the USA and so it seems all set to move forward with many converts in the next five or so years. Will the Vatican receive it?
Secondly, there is the route into progressive liberalism, which is currently the position of the majority of the synods of the Anglican provinces of the West/North. The ecclesial center will be the See of Canterbury but the leader of this attempt to make the Anglican Way conform to the “enlightened” culture of the West will be the Episcopal Church of the USA, followed by the Church in Canada, Churches in the UK & Ireland, the Churches in Australia and New Zealand and so on. Churches in Latin America and in Southern Africa will probable also opt for this route. So this association is and will be a mixed bag but united in efforts to be relevant and contemporary and to avoid at all costs to be traditionalist and old fashioned. And since it will hold the title-deeds to much property and financial trusts, it will be able to continue in existence even where those attending its places of worship are few..
Thirdly there is the evangelical route already being taken by Churches in Africa (e.g., Nigeria and Uganda) and Asia. In terms of numbers this association, which claims to be based upon the Bible and the Formularies of the Anglican Way, is and will be the largest of the Anglican identities. From the West it will have only small numbers of adherents (those who have separated from the progressive liberal provinces) for its vast membership will be African and Asian. Financially, it will be the poorest of the three routes but it will be very evangelistic, ever looking to grow in maturity and numbers. It will develop a center somewhere in a city of Africa to hold its minimal organization.
Around and between these three basic associations and routes, there will be a lot of confusion, pain and mess, individual, family, congregational and corporate. A few provinces (e.g., West Indies) will not be sure which route to take for they are internally divided over the issues. People in the progressively liberal provinces will feel a great pull to stay where they are because of long and deep ties to sacred buildings and local cemeteries and burial plots. Then clergy in these same provinces will think a lot about their retirement plans and the like. Not a few Anglo-Catholics will feel torn between going with their fellow believers to Rome and remaining as Anglicans but in a charismatic or evangelical ethos. Evangelical Episcopalians will hesitate at the prospect of being under an African bishop on a permanent basis. And so on!
In summary. It seems that the centrifugal forces evident in what was the Anglican Communion of Churches are now so strong that no centripetal forces exist to counter them. A falling apart seems inevitable and many cracks are visible now. To predict the result of the demise of the centripetal forces and the triumph of the centrifugal ones is dangerous, but I have suggested that there will be three identifiable pieces of Anglicanism with a lot of little bits around them! My prediction will probably be proved to be wrong. After all, only God the Omniscient One, knows.
Peter Toon October 19, 2005
Since the ordination of women entered into the practice of Anglican provinces twenty or more years ago, the Anglican Family has been suffering from increasing internal strains, crises and divisions. These problems and pains have been exacerbated by the multiplication of liturgies and rites, and the setting aside of the classic Formularies of the Anglican Way by provinces in the West (e.g., USA, West Indies, Wales & Ireland). The Formularies served as identifiers and unifiers of Anglicanism. And the internal dysfunctionality has been much increased and polarized in the last few years by major differences over sexual ethics and practice and what the Scriptures and tradition have to say in these matters.
The so-called Instruments of Unity (Archbishop of Canterbury, Lambeth Conference, Anglican Consultative Council and the Primates’ Meeting) are seemingly powerless to do other than make statements and call for actions. They cannot heal the divisions but may serve to make them worse.
What are the three routes being taken?
First of all, there is the route to the Vatican City in Rome. A growing number of Anglican groups such as the Forward in Faith Movement of the UK and the Traditional Anglican Communion are pressing for a uniate status with Rome. They wish to maintain an Anglican identity that is doctrinally at one with Rome and to be under the protection of the Roman See and thus in communion with all parts of the Roman Church. It seems likely that more and more Anglo-Catholics (e.g., the diocese of Fort Worth) will be drawn into this movement. It already has a basic Liturgy approved by the Vatican and used in a dozen or so parishes in the USA and so it seems all set to move forward with many converts in the next five or so years. Will the Vatican receive it?
Secondly, there is the route into progressive liberalism, which is currently the position of the majority of the synods of the Anglican provinces of the West/North. The ecclesial center will be the See of Canterbury but the leader of this attempt to make the Anglican Way conform to the “enlightened” culture of the West will be the Episcopal Church of the USA, followed by the Church in Canada, Churches in the UK & Ireland, the Churches in Australia and New Zealand and so on. Churches in Latin America and in Southern Africa will probable also opt for this route. So this association is and will be a mixed bag but united in efforts to be relevant and contemporary and to avoid at all costs to be traditionalist and old fashioned. And since it will hold the title-deeds to much property and financial trusts, it will be able to continue in existence even where those attending its places of worship are few..
Thirdly there is the evangelical route already being taken by Churches in Africa (e.g., Nigeria and Uganda) and Asia. In terms of numbers this association, which claims to be based upon the Bible and the Formularies of the Anglican Way, is and will be the largest of the Anglican identities. From the West it will have only small numbers of adherents (those who have separated from the progressive liberal provinces) for its vast membership will be African and Asian. Financially, it will be the poorest of the three routes but it will be very evangelistic, ever looking to grow in maturity and numbers. It will develop a center somewhere in a city of Africa to hold its minimal organization.
Around and between these three basic associations and routes, there will be a lot of confusion, pain and mess, individual, family, congregational and corporate. A few provinces (e.g., West Indies) will not be sure which route to take for they are internally divided over the issues. People in the progressively liberal provinces will feel a great pull to stay where they are because of long and deep ties to sacred buildings and local cemeteries and burial plots. Then clergy in these same provinces will think a lot about their retirement plans and the like. Not a few Anglo-Catholics will feel torn between going with their fellow believers to Rome and remaining as Anglicans but in a charismatic or evangelical ethos. Evangelical Episcopalians will hesitate at the prospect of being under an African bishop on a permanent basis. And so on!
In summary. It seems that the centrifugal forces evident in what was the Anglican Communion of Churches are now so strong that no centripetal forces exist to counter them. A falling apart seems inevitable and many cracks are visible now. To predict the result of the demise of the centripetal forces and the triumph of the centrifugal ones is dangerous, but I have suggested that there will be three identifiable pieces of Anglicanism with a lot of little bits around them! My prediction will probably be proved to be wrong. After all, only God the Omniscient One, knows.
Peter Toon October 19, 2005
The elusive option
Aidan Nichols OP continues his reflections on the character and development of Anglo-Catholicism by considering the possibility and practicality are moving towards an Anglican Uniate Church (From Forward in Faith UK's New Directions October 2005)
The question of an Anglican Uniate Church is the question of whether all that heritage – or most of it, or a significant part of it – could be preserved in a union with Rome, not through absorption by the modern Latin-rite church in England or elsewhere, but in union with the Petrine office, whose continued steadfast guardianship of classical Catholic Christian doctrine in faith and morals remains remarkably unshaken among the squalls of the contemporary world.
In a wider context, how might the way to union with such smaller bodies – the way of Uniatism, in a word – be possible? What are its chances of success, and what the pitfalls on its way?
Coming together
There is a need for all Catholic-minded Christians to come together. For the future of Catholicity, the greatest potential rapprochement is in theory that between Rome and Orthodoxy. But the historical and emotional obstacles to this from the Orthodox side are such that in practice more is to be expected from convergences from the side of the Western communions that split off from the Latin church in the course of the modern centuries. Speaking from a Roman Catholic standpoint, this question falls in one sense outside our responsibility to answer.
It is up to bodies like the Polish National Catholic Church emerging from the Union of Utrecht, the Nordic Catholic Church emerging from the Lutheran Church of Norway, the Continuing Churches of the wider Anglicanism, and the free province of St Augustine of Canterbury, which Forward in Faith may or may not succeed in establishing, to decide what it is they ask of Rome, whether by ‘Rome’ we mean the Catholic Church generally or the Holy See. We can, however, take steps to prepare for a response from our own side.
Desire for communion
Firstly, it should hardly need to be said that groups seeking Catholic communion but retaining a distinctive ecclesial life must manifest that desire for communion by a willingness to find in and as the Word of God the doctrine of the Catholic Church in its entirety – everything taught by Peter. If you want the communion of Peter, you must have Peter’s faith. This is a sine qua non, and needs to be recognized as such.
Secondly, if we take the model of the Eastern Catholic Churches, which is the only model for Churches united but not absorbed that we have, we need to say that petitioning groups must be able to specify what it is about their distinctive patrimony that they wish to safeguard through having what used to be called a ‘ritual Church’ of their own and in the present Codes of Canon Law is termed a Church sui juris, which I think should be translated ‘by its own right’ rather than ‘with its own law’.
Anglican Catholics need to specify what it is theologically, liturgically, spiritually, that it would be both legitimate and desirable to retain in communion with Rome. This is a particular difficulty for English Anglo-Papalists who are already what one well-known representative of their number described to me as ‘Roman-rite Anglicans.’ The Book of Divine Worship produced for the Anglican Use parishes in the United States is a start here – though it may not be easy to commend it to Forward in Faith UK, whose view of anything connected with the Prayer Book tends to be ‘We can’t go back to that.’
Archbishop John Hepworth, the Primate of the Traditional Anglican Communion, has called it at least in private a basis for a definitive book. One reason for regarding it as not yet definitive are the criticisms put forward by well-informed orthodox-minded Latin-rite Catholics who point to the desirability of some further fine-tuning of the Cranmerian texts it includes.
Distinctive ethos
At the meeting I attended in Arlington, Texas, the Revd David Moyer, who, controversially, was ordained a suffragan bishop in the Australian Diocese of the Murray by bishops of the Traditional Anglican Communion in a ceremony in his own embattled parish church in Philadelphia, spoke of the need for at least one theological college which would cultivate a distinctively Anglican Catholic ethos as well as for a married presbyterate and episcopate.
I doubt myself that Rome would permit a married episcopate, except possibly by way of dispensation for a single sacramental generation, but the theological college would certainly be indispensable. There must be some way of transmitting a tradition with a small ‘t’ within the Tradition with a capital ‘T’. One cannot be forever living from hand to mouth. This is already a problem even now for the Anglican Use parishes of the Pastoral Provision, since despite the word ‘provision’ no provision has been made for a future supply of pastors willing and able to lead their parishes on the basis of the Anglican Use.
Anglican classics
As I see it, such a college would take for its textbooks not only Roman Catholic works of impeccable orthodoxy but also within that framework Anglican ‘classics’, any deficiencies in whose doctrinal understanding would be catered for in advance through contextualization by Catholic works.
All this would have to be presented prudently to the wider Catholic public. It can certainly be pointed out that the Second Vatican Council goes out of its way, in the Decree on Ecumenism, to give a special place to Anglicanism among the ecclesial communities that emerged from the Church crisis of the sixteenth century, and assurances that whatever is valid in the patrimony of Anglican worship, thought and spirituality, could be preserved in Catholic unity have been forthcoming, if in very general terms, from post-Conciliar popes. Places to look would be, for instance, the speeches of Paul VI at the canonization of the Forty Martyrs of England and Wales and of John Paul II on his visit to Canterbury Cathedral.
St Thomas Aquinas, when speaking of the variety of religious orders in the Church, liked to cite the psalm which, in its Latin version, describes the Church as circumdata varietate, surrounded by variety. The pains and purgatories of the post-conciliar period have taught us to treat ‘variety’ with some caution, since pluralism comes in two forms, the legitimate and the anarchic. But an Anglican Uniate body, defined with discernment and sensitivity, could I believe join the ranks of the Churches sui juris which give Catholicism an indispensable dimension of its plenary or holistic quality
The question of an Anglican Uniate Church is the question of whether all that heritage – or most of it, or a significant part of it – could be preserved in a union with Rome, not through absorption by the modern Latin-rite church in England or elsewhere, but in union with the Petrine office, whose continued steadfast guardianship of classical Catholic Christian doctrine in faith and morals remains remarkably unshaken among the squalls of the contemporary world.
In a wider context, how might the way to union with such smaller bodies – the way of Uniatism, in a word – be possible? What are its chances of success, and what the pitfalls on its way?
Coming together
There is a need for all Catholic-minded Christians to come together. For the future of Catholicity, the greatest potential rapprochement is in theory that between Rome and Orthodoxy. But the historical and emotional obstacles to this from the Orthodox side are such that in practice more is to be expected from convergences from the side of the Western communions that split off from the Latin church in the course of the modern centuries. Speaking from a Roman Catholic standpoint, this question falls in one sense outside our responsibility to answer.
It is up to bodies like the Polish National Catholic Church emerging from the Union of Utrecht, the Nordic Catholic Church emerging from the Lutheran Church of Norway, the Continuing Churches of the wider Anglicanism, and the free province of St Augustine of Canterbury, which Forward in Faith may or may not succeed in establishing, to decide what it is they ask of Rome, whether by ‘Rome’ we mean the Catholic Church generally or the Holy See. We can, however, take steps to prepare for a response from our own side.
Desire for communion
Firstly, it should hardly need to be said that groups seeking Catholic communion but retaining a distinctive ecclesial life must manifest that desire for communion by a willingness to find in and as the Word of God the doctrine of the Catholic Church in its entirety – everything taught by Peter. If you want the communion of Peter, you must have Peter’s faith. This is a sine qua non, and needs to be recognized as such.
Secondly, if we take the model of the Eastern Catholic Churches, which is the only model for Churches united but not absorbed that we have, we need to say that petitioning groups must be able to specify what it is about their distinctive patrimony that they wish to safeguard through having what used to be called a ‘ritual Church’ of their own and in the present Codes of Canon Law is termed a Church sui juris, which I think should be translated ‘by its own right’ rather than ‘with its own law’.
Anglican Catholics need to specify what it is theologically, liturgically, spiritually, that it would be both legitimate and desirable to retain in communion with Rome. This is a particular difficulty for English Anglo-Papalists who are already what one well-known representative of their number described to me as ‘Roman-rite Anglicans.’ The Book of Divine Worship produced for the Anglican Use parishes in the United States is a start here – though it may not be easy to commend it to Forward in Faith UK, whose view of anything connected with the Prayer Book tends to be ‘We can’t go back to that.’
Archbishop John Hepworth, the Primate of the Traditional Anglican Communion, has called it at least in private a basis for a definitive book. One reason for regarding it as not yet definitive are the criticisms put forward by well-informed orthodox-minded Latin-rite Catholics who point to the desirability of some further fine-tuning of the Cranmerian texts it includes.
Distinctive ethos
At the meeting I attended in Arlington, Texas, the Revd David Moyer, who, controversially, was ordained a suffragan bishop in the Australian Diocese of the Murray by bishops of the Traditional Anglican Communion in a ceremony in his own embattled parish church in Philadelphia, spoke of the need for at least one theological college which would cultivate a distinctively Anglican Catholic ethos as well as for a married presbyterate and episcopate.
I doubt myself that Rome would permit a married episcopate, except possibly by way of dispensation for a single sacramental generation, but the theological college would certainly be indispensable. There must be some way of transmitting a tradition with a small ‘t’ within the Tradition with a capital ‘T’. One cannot be forever living from hand to mouth. This is already a problem even now for the Anglican Use parishes of the Pastoral Provision, since despite the word ‘provision’ no provision has been made for a future supply of pastors willing and able to lead their parishes on the basis of the Anglican Use.
Anglican classics
As I see it, such a college would take for its textbooks not only Roman Catholic works of impeccable orthodoxy but also within that framework Anglican ‘classics’, any deficiencies in whose doctrinal understanding would be catered for in advance through contextualization by Catholic works.
All this would have to be presented prudently to the wider Catholic public. It can certainly be pointed out that the Second Vatican Council goes out of its way, in the Decree on Ecumenism, to give a special place to Anglicanism among the ecclesial communities that emerged from the Church crisis of the sixteenth century, and assurances that whatever is valid in the patrimony of Anglican worship, thought and spirituality, could be preserved in Catholic unity have been forthcoming, if in very general terms, from post-Conciliar popes. Places to look would be, for instance, the speeches of Paul VI at the canonization of the Forty Martyrs of England and Wales and of John Paul II on his visit to Canterbury Cathedral.
St Thomas Aquinas, when speaking of the variety of religious orders in the Church, liked to cite the psalm which, in its Latin version, describes the Church as circumdata varietate, surrounded by variety. The pains and purgatories of the post-conciliar period have taught us to treat ‘variety’ with some caution, since pluralism comes in two forms, the legitimate and the anarchic. But an Anglican Uniate body, defined with discernment and sensitivity, could I believe join the ranks of the Churches sui juris which give Catholicism an indispensable dimension of its plenary or holistic quality
Tuesday, October 18, 2005
How to view the ECUSA
A word from yesterday for the would-be orthodox of today.
This reflection arises from study of Article XIX of the Anglican Formulary, The Thirty-Nine Articles of the National Church of England (1571) and later of the Province of PECUSA (USA 1801). After providing the marks or signs of the visible Church of Christ on earth in space and time, the Article speaks of error in the Church on earth. “As the Church of Jerusalem, Alexandria and Antioch have erred, so also the Church of Rome hath erred, not only in their living and manner of ceremonies, but also in matters of faith.”
First of all, let us note that the ancient patriarchates of East and West are not denied the status of being visible Churches but are rather accused of “having erred.” That is, not everything that they teach, confess and do is erroneous but that they have been in error in significant and important ways. Thus, at worst, these Churches are corrupt branches of the one Church of God, but, branches and jurisdictions nevertheless. And to claim the minimum for them, these Churches still baptized in the Name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost , and worshipped the LORD as the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost, and so the Reformers did not advocate the re-baptizing, only the instructing, of their members.
The Roman Church erred in that it claimed too much for itself and for its Bishop (e.g., as Vicar of Christ) and, further, it made as part of the Faith certain doctrines (e.g., of the Blessed Virgin Mary and of the Mass as a propitiation) and ceremonies (e.g., denial of the Chalice to laity) which were clearly contrary to the plain sense of Holy Scripture and the teaching of the Fathers of the first five centuries or so. However, within Its embrace, and despite its errors, were thousands who were united to Christ in faith and love and who had good hope of life with Christ in heaven. That is, the invisible catholic Church of God was manifested in the existence and life of those national Churches of Europe and elsewhere which were under the control of the Roman See.
Now it is certainly true that some of the rhetoric of the Reformers was such as to suggest that these Churches, under the rule of the Roman Papacy, were totally lost to the true Church of God on earth. In those days both sides, when in controversy, engaged in lively and exaggerated speech in order to make their points. Yet in their more sober and guarded language when they wrote catechisms and confessions of faith, Luther, Calvin and Cranmer and their colleagues were more reserved and careful. (Richard Hooker is extremely careful in his Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity as is Bishop Jewel before him in his Apology.) The message from the reformed Catholic Church of England about Rome seems to have been – to paraphrase – something like this: “Let Rome throw off her false additions to the Creed and Liturgy, and we will gladly communicate with her; but so long as she retains her errors, we cannot but stand aloof, lest we should be partakers of her sins.” (Remember that at this time there was no R C “denomination” in England!)
Of course, we all know that since Vatican II (1962-65), relations between Roman Catholics and the Orthodox, Anglicans and Protestants have been more open and positive than in earlier times.
This noted we ask: IS THERE ANYTHING to learn from this sixteenth-century situation about the adoption of possible attitudes towards the ECUSA by those who like Cranmer, Jewel and Hooker, are or seek to be Reformed Catholics?
We can probably agree that the ECUSA has erred in matters of faith, ceremony and living, especially since the 1960s. It has definitely encouraged immorality in sexual relations; it allows ceremonies that are wrong – e.g., ordaining and consecrating openly gay men; and it has openly and clearly set aside the received Anglican Formularies of the Faith and substituted novel ones for them (and these are in certain places and ways of doubtful orthodoxy).
But also we can probably agree that, despite all this, it is possible within the ECUSA to hear the Gospel, to receive the Sacraments, to be instructed in sound teaching and to be buried in the true Faith.
The ECUSA has erred and is in error as an institution; yet because it contains hundreds of parishes, it is possible in many of these to encounter the means of grace in such a way as to be placed in union with Christ and be made a member of His Body as a child of God the Father unto eternal life.
Therefore, it would seem that there are reasons to depart and reasons to stay; and as each person is unique and as no two situations are identical, some will believe they are guided to stay and others to depart from ECUSA. The issues are not so clear cut as to make all sincerely-intentioned Christians see things identically.
This said, it would seem prudent that those who depart should give their energy and time to the new jurisdiction they join and not waste their time bemoaning the errors of that which they have left behind!
In conclusion, it would seem that for those who have the conviction and courage to stay and minister within this Church (and be persecuted or deprived perhaps) there is still work to be done, work that can be fruitful for the kingdom of God. Yet those who remain must do so in the knowledge that this Church has erred and persists, often proudly, in its errors. So they will never be free from this pain of being part of an erring Church, and a minority that can do little or nothing in the immediate future about changing the institutional errors and sickness. Indeed to raise hopes that they can if they raise enough money and foreign support is to create false optimism! Yet, happily, they can find great encouragement and help in bearing this burden of error and sickness, while being faithful Minister or members, by taking note of and meditating on the way in which the Remnant of Israel lived and witnessed within the often apostate and erring Israel!
Let us pray one for another, for those who depart and those who stay, and let us use our energy to build up the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church of God which is not confined to any of our jurisdictions but includes them all and more!
Peter Toon October 18, 2005
This reflection arises from study of Article XIX of the Anglican Formulary, The Thirty-Nine Articles of the National Church of England (1571) and later of the Province of PECUSA (USA 1801). After providing the marks or signs of the visible Church of Christ on earth in space and time, the Article speaks of error in the Church on earth. “As the Church of Jerusalem, Alexandria and Antioch have erred, so also the Church of Rome hath erred, not only in their living and manner of ceremonies, but also in matters of faith.”
First of all, let us note that the ancient patriarchates of East and West are not denied the status of being visible Churches but are rather accused of “having erred.” That is, not everything that they teach, confess and do is erroneous but that they have been in error in significant and important ways. Thus, at worst, these Churches are corrupt branches of the one Church of God, but, branches and jurisdictions nevertheless. And to claim the minimum for them, these Churches still baptized in the Name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost , and worshipped the LORD as the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost, and so the Reformers did not advocate the re-baptizing, only the instructing, of their members.
The Roman Church erred in that it claimed too much for itself and for its Bishop (e.g., as Vicar of Christ) and, further, it made as part of the Faith certain doctrines (e.g., of the Blessed Virgin Mary and of the Mass as a propitiation) and ceremonies (e.g., denial of the Chalice to laity) which were clearly contrary to the plain sense of Holy Scripture and the teaching of the Fathers of the first five centuries or so. However, within Its embrace, and despite its errors, were thousands who were united to Christ in faith and love and who had good hope of life with Christ in heaven. That is, the invisible catholic Church of God was manifested in the existence and life of those national Churches of Europe and elsewhere which were under the control of the Roman See.
Now it is certainly true that some of the rhetoric of the Reformers was such as to suggest that these Churches, under the rule of the Roman Papacy, were totally lost to the true Church of God on earth. In those days both sides, when in controversy, engaged in lively and exaggerated speech in order to make their points. Yet in their more sober and guarded language when they wrote catechisms and confessions of faith, Luther, Calvin and Cranmer and their colleagues were more reserved and careful. (Richard Hooker is extremely careful in his Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity as is Bishop Jewel before him in his Apology.) The message from the reformed Catholic Church of England about Rome seems to have been – to paraphrase – something like this: “Let Rome throw off her false additions to the Creed and Liturgy, and we will gladly communicate with her; but so long as she retains her errors, we cannot but stand aloof, lest we should be partakers of her sins.” (Remember that at this time there was no R C “denomination” in England!)
Of course, we all know that since Vatican II (1962-65), relations between Roman Catholics and the Orthodox, Anglicans and Protestants have been more open and positive than in earlier times.
This noted we ask: IS THERE ANYTHING to learn from this sixteenth-century situation about the adoption of possible attitudes towards the ECUSA by those who like Cranmer, Jewel and Hooker, are or seek to be Reformed Catholics?
We can probably agree that the ECUSA has erred in matters of faith, ceremony and living, especially since the 1960s. It has definitely encouraged immorality in sexual relations; it allows ceremonies that are wrong – e.g., ordaining and consecrating openly gay men; and it has openly and clearly set aside the received Anglican Formularies of the Faith and substituted novel ones for them (and these are in certain places and ways of doubtful orthodoxy).
But also we can probably agree that, despite all this, it is possible within the ECUSA to hear the Gospel, to receive the Sacraments, to be instructed in sound teaching and to be buried in the true Faith.
The ECUSA has erred and is in error as an institution; yet because it contains hundreds of parishes, it is possible in many of these to encounter the means of grace in such a way as to be placed in union with Christ and be made a member of His Body as a child of God the Father unto eternal life.
Therefore, it would seem that there are reasons to depart and reasons to stay; and as each person is unique and as no two situations are identical, some will believe they are guided to stay and others to depart from ECUSA. The issues are not so clear cut as to make all sincerely-intentioned Christians see things identically.
This said, it would seem prudent that those who depart should give their energy and time to the new jurisdiction they join and not waste their time bemoaning the errors of that which they have left behind!
In conclusion, it would seem that for those who have the conviction and courage to stay and minister within this Church (and be persecuted or deprived perhaps) there is still work to be done, work that can be fruitful for the kingdom of God. Yet those who remain must do so in the knowledge that this Church has erred and persists, often proudly, in its errors. So they will never be free from this pain of being part of an erring Church, and a minority that can do little or nothing in the immediate future about changing the institutional errors and sickness. Indeed to raise hopes that they can if they raise enough money and foreign support is to create false optimism! Yet, happily, they can find great encouragement and help in bearing this burden of error and sickness, while being faithful Minister or members, by taking note of and meditating on the way in which the Remnant of Israel lived and witnessed within the often apostate and erring Israel!
Let us pray one for another, for those who depart and those who stay, and let us use our energy to build up the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church of God which is not confined to any of our jurisdictions but includes them all and more!
Peter Toon October 18, 2005
NEW Altar Book in Production
The Prayer Book Society of the USA
October 14, 2005
Dear fellow Episcopalian/Anglican:
We greet you in the Name of Jesus as a supporter of the Anglican Way of worship, doctrine and discipline and as a believer in biblical/catholic orthodoxy and evangelical faith and practice.
We write to tell you about a major publishing venture in which we are currently engaged and in which you can help as God leads you.
The Priest at the Holy Table requires not a pew edition of The Book of Common Prayer but what is referred to as “An Altar Book.” That is, a large book with large print which contains the service for which the Altar exists, the Holy Communion, together with the Collects, Epistles and Gospels for Sundays and Holy Days.
For the last fifty years or more traditional parishes have used an Altar Book (based on the BCP, 1928) typeset and published by Oxford University Press of New York City. This is in two colors – text in black and rubrics in red – and it is well bound in leather. Books wear out through use, and many churches have old copies and are looking to obtain a new Altar Book. Second-hand copies are now very rare. We get requests for copies virtually every week.
Here is the good news. The Prayer Book Society has obtained permission from the Oxford University Press to reprint the Oxford edition, in two colors, on first-class paper and in leather binding. And the Society is using the same printer as the University Press employs in order to guarantee first-class quality of product.
Now to the not-so-good news! The minimum print run that this top-class printer will do is 1,500 (one thousand and five hundred); and the cost of producing this number and binding each one and then enclosing it in a suitable wrapping, with delivery to storage, will be about $40,000.00 (forty thousand dollars) in all.
Finally, here is where in your generosity you can help. We intend to place inside each copy, when distributed to churches or to individual persons, a List of those who have made a donation of $100.00 or more to this noble enterprise. We would like to see as many names as possible on this insert (which will be printed on superior paper in an attractive format). May we request that you consider being on this List?
Please see this project as a necessary part of the keeping available, as well as the providing for the next generation, of an important tool in the practice of the Anglican Way and the worship of the Father Almighty. And please give generously.
We expect to sell the Altar Book in time for Christmas at a special price to missions and small churches, and at a reasonable price to larger churches and individual persons. Anyone who makes a donation of $100.00 or more will have the opportunity to buy copies at the same price as missions are charged.
The Board is excited about this project (the largest publishing venture in the history of the Society) and what it offers and means to the cause of traditional and orthodox worship of the Father through the Son and with the Holy Ghost. We believe you will share its excitement and enthusiasm!
May the Lord guide us in the work of typesetting, printing, binding, packing, advertising and distributing so that the product is truly a means of blessing in the churches! Please pray for all involved and give generously.
Yours faithfully in Christ,
David Kennedy
Fr David Kennedy SSC , President
To: The Prayer Book Society, P.O. Box 35220, Philadlephia, PA 19128-0220.
From: …………………………………………………………………………………..
……………………………………………………………………………………………
I give $ ............... to the Prayer Book Society of the USA as a gift towards the cost of producing the Altar Edition of the 1928 BCP.
I would like to order a copy/ copies at the special price (to be announced)
I ask God to make this project into a success for his honor and glory.
Signature……………………………………………Date……………………………
October 14, 2005
Dear fellow Episcopalian/Anglican:
We greet you in the Name of Jesus as a supporter of the Anglican Way of worship, doctrine and discipline and as a believer in biblical/catholic orthodoxy and evangelical faith and practice.
We write to tell you about a major publishing venture in which we are currently engaged and in which you can help as God leads you.
The Priest at the Holy Table requires not a pew edition of The Book of Common Prayer but what is referred to as “An Altar Book.” That is, a large book with large print which contains the service for which the Altar exists, the Holy Communion, together with the Collects, Epistles and Gospels for Sundays and Holy Days.
For the last fifty years or more traditional parishes have used an Altar Book (based on the BCP, 1928) typeset and published by Oxford University Press of New York City. This is in two colors – text in black and rubrics in red – and it is well bound in leather. Books wear out through use, and many churches have old copies and are looking to obtain a new Altar Book. Second-hand copies are now very rare. We get requests for copies virtually every week.
Here is the good news. The Prayer Book Society has obtained permission from the Oxford University Press to reprint the Oxford edition, in two colors, on first-class paper and in leather binding. And the Society is using the same printer as the University Press employs in order to guarantee first-class quality of product.
Now to the not-so-good news! The minimum print run that this top-class printer will do is 1,500 (one thousand and five hundred); and the cost of producing this number and binding each one and then enclosing it in a suitable wrapping, with delivery to storage, will be about $40,000.00 (forty thousand dollars) in all.
Finally, here is where in your generosity you can help. We intend to place inside each copy, when distributed to churches or to individual persons, a List of those who have made a donation of $100.00 or more to this noble enterprise. We would like to see as many names as possible on this insert (which will be printed on superior paper in an attractive format). May we request that you consider being on this List?
Please see this project as a necessary part of the keeping available, as well as the providing for the next generation, of an important tool in the practice of the Anglican Way and the worship of the Father Almighty. And please give generously.
We expect to sell the Altar Book in time for Christmas at a special price to missions and small churches, and at a reasonable price to larger churches and individual persons. Anyone who makes a donation of $100.00 or more will have the opportunity to buy copies at the same price as missions are charged.
The Board is excited about this project (the largest publishing venture in the history of the Society) and what it offers and means to the cause of traditional and orthodox worship of the Father through the Son and with the Holy Ghost. We believe you will share its excitement and enthusiasm!
May the Lord guide us in the work of typesetting, printing, binding, packing, advertising and distributing so that the product is truly a means of blessing in the churches! Please pray for all involved and give generously.
Yours faithfully in Christ,
David Kennedy
Fr David Kennedy SSC , President
To: The Prayer Book Society, P.O. Box 35220, Philadlephia, PA 19128-0220.
From: …………………………………………………………………………………..
……………………………………………………………………………………………
I give $ ............... to the Prayer Book Society of the USA as a gift towards the cost of producing the Altar Edition of the 1928 BCP.
I would like to order a copy/ copies at the special price (to be announced)
I ask God to make this project into a success for his honor and glory.
Signature……………………………………………Date……………………………
Monday, October 17, 2005
Eames & Akinola: The old boys network & the new upstarts
Archbishop Eames of Ireland, and an elder statesman of Anglican Communion affairs, recently gave three lectures on the present state and the future of the Anglican Communion in two liberal Seminaries of the ECUSA. One of these also gave him the D.D. degree. The lectures have been circulated by both the Anglican Communion Office and the Episcopal Church news-service. Their content seems most acceptable to the ECUSA leadership and worrying to more conservative Anglicans.
In one lecture he criticized the recent action of the Synod of the Church in Nigeria when it made commitment to the classic Anglican Formularies (BCP, Ordinal & Articles of Religion) the basis of its common life and of its fellowship with other Anglican Churches. Previously, its fellowship had been based on the See of Canterbury and with all who were in communion with the Archbishop there.
[What many people do not know about the Church of Ireland is that in 2004 it took the same path as the ECUSA did in 1979 and the West Indies did in the 1990s. It made a “Book of Alternative Services” into its formulary, “The Book of Common Prayer,” and it abandoned its edition of the classic Book of Common Prayer (derived from the English edition of 1662). Thus the Irish Church has lost its nature as Reformed Catholic and has become whatever succeeding Synods determine it shall be. Further, it relies on its fellowship with the See of Canterbury to assure its Anglican standing. What it has rejected in terms of Standard it seek to replace by association.]
Rightly, Archbishop Akinola has responded and protested to the Eames criticisms, pointing out that neither he nor his Church were consulted before, or informed of, the attack by Eames. Further, he has justified the commitment of his Church to the classic Anglican Formularies (wherein of course the full authority of Scripture, the full doctrine of Christ as Lord, and the rich nature of Reformed Catholicism is set forth). Well done, Akinola, say thousands around the world.
Questions arising:
In one lecture he criticized the recent action of the Synod of the Church in Nigeria when it made commitment to the classic Anglican Formularies (BCP, Ordinal & Articles of Religion) the basis of its common life and of its fellowship with other Anglican Churches. Previously, its fellowship had been based on the See of Canterbury and with all who were in communion with the Archbishop there.
[What many people do not know about the Church of Ireland is that in 2004 it took the same path as the ECUSA did in 1979 and the West Indies did in the 1990s. It made a “Book of Alternative Services” into its formulary, “The Book of Common Prayer,” and it abandoned its edition of the classic Book of Common Prayer (derived from the English edition of 1662). Thus the Irish Church has lost its nature as Reformed Catholic and has become whatever succeeding Synods determine it shall be. Further, it relies on its fellowship with the See of Canterbury to assure its Anglican standing. What it has rejected in terms of Standard it seek to replace by association.]
Rightly, Archbishop Akinola has responded and protested to the Eames criticisms, pointing out that neither he nor his Church were consulted before, or informed of, the attack by Eames. Further, he has justified the commitment of his Church to the classic Anglican Formularies (wherein of course the full authority of Scripture, the full doctrine of Christ as Lord, and the rich nature of Reformed Catholicism is set forth). Well done, Akinola, say thousands around the world.
Questions arising:
- Does Archbishop Akinola realize that the Church of Ireland and Dr Eames have abandoned the classic Formularies and followed the example of ECUSA? This may in part explain the outburst of Eames against the going back to old standards by Nigeria.
- When will the Network and the American Anglican Council commit themselves unreservedly to the received classic Formularies and wholly forsake their present commitment to the false formularies of the ECUSA (those in the 1979 prayer book)?
- Is not Akinola a hero for them?
- Do they share his Faith?
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon MA., D.Phil (Oxford)
The Church of God, where is it? Is it INVISIBLE?
Let us begin with a contrast between the “theoretical doctrine” and the “practical reality.”
The Lord Jesus Christ taught that there is one Church --- “upon this rock I will build my Church”; his apostles taught that there is one Church and they identified this Church through the use of various metaphors or models – e.g., the Body of Christ, the Bride of Christ and the royal Priesthood; and the ecumenical Creed declares in summary of the biblical teaching that there is “one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church.”
What the eyes see in the USA is not one Church, not even one Anglican, one Lutheran, one Presbyterian, one Baptist, and one Orthodox Church. They behold a vast array of denominations, which are distinguished from each other by name, by what they stand for, by their ecclesiastical polity and organization, and so on. Each of them claims either to be the whole of, or to be a part of, the Church of God and some but not all of them are in fellowship with others.
How can we maintain the belief in the One Church of Scripture and Creed, and at the same time live within the massive variety of competitive denominations and congregations in the West and in the world generally?
First of all, we need to realize that this is not in essence a new problem for sensitive souls. In other forms and manifestations, it has in principle been addressed by Christian philosophers and theologians in the past. From the patristic period, St Augustine is the obvious example (remember he had to address the Donatist schism] and at the Reformation of the 16th century, the reality of national churches, not always in communion with each other and not in communion with the Church of Rome and the Orthodox Churches of the East, raised serious questions for all the leaders about the unity of the Church.
Further, added to this problem of unity there always was the problem of the presence of those who deny the Faith by word and deed and who are members of parishes and national churches. Not all church members were of the elect of God, not even in apostolic times!
In England, these problems were addressed by the divines who met in Westminster Abbey, London, in the 1640s and who produced the Westminster Catechisms and Confession of Faith. In Chapter XXV of the Confession they wrote this “Of the Church”:
In making a distinction between (a) the One true Church of God, known only in its entirety to God and thus invisible to man who belongs to space and time, and (b) the variety of visible national Churches (or later of national Churches and denominations) together making up the One mixed and divided Church of God visible on earth, this Confession stated what was held in common by all Protestants. (Roman Catholics made the same essential distinction between the invisible and visible but stated the relation between the two in terms which effectively identified the visible with the R C Church only- or the R C and Orthodox Churches.)
So we return to the present day and the supermarket of Christian groups in the USA!
I cannot see any other way out of our dilemma today than that of also accepting this distinction between visible and invisible (it is presumed by the Articles of Religion and The Book of Common Prayer of the Anglican Way and so is already part of the faith of an Anglican).
How else can one make any sense of the complexity of the situation in the USA in terms of the massive variety of denominations, all claiming to be under Christ the Lord and based upon the revelation recorded in Holy Scripture? Of course, to accept it, does not mean that one uses it to justify the existence of thousands of denominations or to justify starting a new one when we feel that our interests are not being served! On the other hand, to accept it does mean that we shall see brothers and sister in Christ in groups and congregations other than our own, and we shall view them as future neighbors in the heavenly Jerusalem! And this will surely lead us to desire to dream of, to long for, to work for practical unity amongst the professing Christian people of the land, and especially so when they claim to belong to the same tradition (e.g., “Anglican”).
One major way in which the doctrine of the Church as invisible is wrongly used is to think and act as if, as a “born-again believer”, one has a kind of direct individualistic link as a human person to God the Father through Jesus Christ ( a kind of dial-up instant link). Note how the Confession states in (2) that ordinarily there is no salvation outside the belonging to and being a full member of the visible Church. In these days when individual autonomy is assumed as basic to living in the West, there is the real danger of linking this sense of autonomy to a doctrine of the Church as invisible and thereby getting the relation of the individual believer to Christ, to the members of Christ, to the local church and to God the Father, skewed! Salvation is as an individual person into the family of God so that one has brothers and sisters from the word go and on into eternity!
October 17, 2005 The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon MA., D.Phil (Oxford)
The Lord Jesus Christ taught that there is one Church --- “upon this rock I will build my Church”; his apostles taught that there is one Church and they identified this Church through the use of various metaphors or models – e.g., the Body of Christ, the Bride of Christ and the royal Priesthood; and the ecumenical Creed declares in summary of the biblical teaching that there is “one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church.”
What the eyes see in the USA is not one Church, not even one Anglican, one Lutheran, one Presbyterian, one Baptist, and one Orthodox Church. They behold a vast array of denominations, which are distinguished from each other by name, by what they stand for, by their ecclesiastical polity and organization, and so on. Each of them claims either to be the whole of, or to be a part of, the Church of God and some but not all of them are in fellowship with others.
How can we maintain the belief in the One Church of Scripture and Creed, and at the same time live within the massive variety of competitive denominations and congregations in the West and in the world generally?
First of all, we need to realize that this is not in essence a new problem for sensitive souls. In other forms and manifestations, it has in principle been addressed by Christian philosophers and theologians in the past. From the patristic period, St Augustine is the obvious example (remember he had to address the Donatist schism] and at the Reformation of the 16th century, the reality of national churches, not always in communion with each other and not in communion with the Church of Rome and the Orthodox Churches of the East, raised serious questions for all the leaders about the unity of the Church.
Further, added to this problem of unity there always was the problem of the presence of those who deny the Faith by word and deed and who are members of parishes and national churches. Not all church members were of the elect of God, not even in apostolic times!
In England, these problems were addressed by the divines who met in Westminster Abbey, London, in the 1640s and who produced the Westminster Catechisms and Confession of Faith. In Chapter XXV of the Confession they wrote this “Of the Church”:
1.The catholic or universal Church, which is invisible, consists of the whole number of the elect, that have been or are, or shall be gathered into one, under Christ the Head thereof; and is the spouse, the body, the fulness of Him that filleth all in all.
2. The visible Church, which is also catholic or universal under the Gospel (not confined to one nation, as before under the law), consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion; and of their children; and is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ, the house and family of God, our of which three is no ordinary possibility of salvation.
3. Unto this catholic, visible Church, Christ hath given the ministry, oracles, and ordinances of God, for the gathering and perfecting of the saints, in this life to the end of the world: and doth by His own presence and Spirit, according to His promise, make them effectual thereunto.
4.This catholic Church hath been sometimes more, sometimes less, visible. And particular Churches, which are members thereof, are more or less pure, according as the doctrine of the Gospel is taught and embraced, ordinances administered, and public worship performed more or less purely in them.
5. The purest Churches under heaven are subject both to mixture and error; and some have so degenerated, as to become no Church of Christ, but synagogues of Satan. Nevertheless, there shall be always a Church on earth to worship God according to His will….
In making a distinction between (a) the One true Church of God, known only in its entirety to God and thus invisible to man who belongs to space and time, and (b) the variety of visible national Churches (or later of national Churches and denominations) together making up the One mixed and divided Church of God visible on earth, this Confession stated what was held in common by all Protestants. (Roman Catholics made the same essential distinction between the invisible and visible but stated the relation between the two in terms which effectively identified the visible with the R C Church only- or the R C and Orthodox Churches.)
So we return to the present day and the supermarket of Christian groups in the USA!
I cannot see any other way out of our dilemma today than that of also accepting this distinction between visible and invisible (it is presumed by the Articles of Religion and The Book of Common Prayer of the Anglican Way and so is already part of the faith of an Anglican).
How else can one make any sense of the complexity of the situation in the USA in terms of the massive variety of denominations, all claiming to be under Christ the Lord and based upon the revelation recorded in Holy Scripture? Of course, to accept it, does not mean that one uses it to justify the existence of thousands of denominations or to justify starting a new one when we feel that our interests are not being served! On the other hand, to accept it does mean that we shall see brothers and sister in Christ in groups and congregations other than our own, and we shall view them as future neighbors in the heavenly Jerusalem! And this will surely lead us to desire to dream of, to long for, to work for practical unity amongst the professing Christian people of the land, and especially so when they claim to belong to the same tradition (e.g., “Anglican”).
One major way in which the doctrine of the Church as invisible is wrongly used is to think and act as if, as a “born-again believer”, one has a kind of direct individualistic link as a human person to God the Father through Jesus Christ ( a kind of dial-up instant link). Note how the Confession states in (2) that ordinarily there is no salvation outside the belonging to and being a full member of the visible Church. In these days when individual autonomy is assumed as basic to living in the West, there is the real danger of linking this sense of autonomy to a doctrine of the Church as invisible and thereby getting the relation of the individual believer to Christ, to the members of Christ, to the local church and to God the Father, skewed! Salvation is as an individual person into the family of God so that one has brothers and sisters from the word go and on into eternity!
October 17, 2005 The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon MA., D.Phil (Oxford)
Saturday, October 15, 2005
Tribute to Caesar Yes – but Today?
A meditation to foster better reflection.
Over the weekend of October 15, 2005, the Gospel heard in many Episcopal parishes will be Matthew 22:15-22. In It are these words of Jesus: Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and to God the things that are God’s. He said these words as he held a Roman coin in his hand, a coin on which was the image and inscription of the Emperor.
This profound pronouncement came from Jesus’ lips in response to a question: “Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar?” Whether or not the Jews as a subject people, whose land was occupied by the Roman forces, ought to/should pay taxes to the Roman imperial government was a hot theme in Jewish piety. The Herodian party which benefited most from the occupation insisted that it was good and right to pay taxes; the Pharisees sat on the fence but paid in the end; and the Zealots refused to pay and took the consequences.
Jesus called for a Roman coin and surprisingly his questioners quickly produced one. (The mere possession of which suggested that they accepted the principle of paying taxes to the imperial government!). Then Jesus asked whose likeness and inscription was on the denarius? And they answered, “Caesar’s” for all Roman coins of this period had such on them.
At this point Jesus made his pronouncement: “Give unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s.” Pay your taxes, keep the laws of the land and submit to the government.
Yet this instruction must not stand alone as an absolute for man is God’s creature. So Jesus continued: “ Render to God the things that are God’s.” God’s image and likeness [Genesis 1:27] is stamped upon you, therefore offer to God your whole being and life for he is your Creator, Lord and Judge.
What we see here is that all obedience to human governments and authorities is not isolated and standing alone but is WITHIN the comprehensive submission and obedience to God as the LORD. Thus we are to obey the laws of the land and pay taxes, as part of our obedience of God, for “the powers that be are ordained of God.” Children are to obey parents, wives obey husbands, church members obey their elders, soldiers obey their officers – and so on – within the one submission and obedience to God. Thus we are only to refuse to submit to human authority when it is absolutely clear that the human authority is exceeding its God-ordained role (e.g., when the Caesar required worship of his image, then the Christians said no and became martyrs).
The situation in America is very different from that in Jerusalem in A.D. 30! And thus the temptations are different, and, further, not identical for people of different persuasions and mindsets.
Take, for example, a temptation facing people of a social conservative mindset. Some of them are perhaps in danger of giving too much devotion to “Caesar” (read the Republican Party and Government). That is, they possibly identify too closely the political ideals and programs of the “right” and of its “conservative ideology” with the will and purpose of God. So much so that they see it as a Christian duty not merely to vote responsibly and carefully but to vote only Republican, and they see it as a sin to vote any other way.
And this general commitment is usually linked to a particular (but debatable) reading of American history, of its founding and its constitution. Politics seems to have ceased to be the art of the possible and has become the means of the realization of the foretaste or first-fruits of the kingdom of God on American soil. This close identification of a this-worldly yet high-minded political aim and ideal with the actual kingdom of God and the perfect will of the LORD means that, in effect, too much is rendered to Caesar. And thus what is rendered to God, the Lord, whose image and likeness we bear, is less than it should be, for some devotion is taken away and is given to the “earthly kingdom.” (One well-known southern preacher often says of his evangelism: “We get them saved; we get them baptized; and then we get them signed up to work for the Republican Party.”)
It is part of our required obedience to God not to kill (and thus not to engage in abortion or euthanasia) but it is not necessarily part of our clear obedience of God to support or not support this or that legislation at the state and federal level. Prudential judgment is required all the time for politics is the art of the possible. It is one thing to be submitted to God’s law personally and as a family or congregation of Christ’s flock, and it is yet another thing to be clear as to the best way of helping and causing people in general to submit to this divine law via political, education and social means.
Whether our judgment leads us to vote one way or another, it is the act of voting responsibly that is required of us by God in obedience to the State as appointed by him. No earthly program, however noble, can ever equate with the perfect requirements of the kingdom of Christ. Likewise no political party is worthy of our total devotion and commitment. Why? Because Jesus Christ is Lord.
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon MA., D.Phil (Oxford)
Over the weekend of October 15, 2005, the Gospel heard in many Episcopal parishes will be Matthew 22:15-22. In It are these words of Jesus: Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and to God the things that are God’s. He said these words as he held a Roman coin in his hand, a coin on which was the image and inscription of the Emperor.
This profound pronouncement came from Jesus’ lips in response to a question: “Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar?” Whether or not the Jews as a subject people, whose land was occupied by the Roman forces, ought to/should pay taxes to the Roman imperial government was a hot theme in Jewish piety. The Herodian party which benefited most from the occupation insisted that it was good and right to pay taxes; the Pharisees sat on the fence but paid in the end; and the Zealots refused to pay and took the consequences.
Jesus called for a Roman coin and surprisingly his questioners quickly produced one. (The mere possession of which suggested that they accepted the principle of paying taxes to the imperial government!). Then Jesus asked whose likeness and inscription was on the denarius? And they answered, “Caesar’s” for all Roman coins of this period had such on them.
At this point Jesus made his pronouncement: “Give unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s.” Pay your taxes, keep the laws of the land and submit to the government.
Yet this instruction must not stand alone as an absolute for man is God’s creature. So Jesus continued: “ Render to God the things that are God’s.” God’s image and likeness [Genesis 1:27] is stamped upon you, therefore offer to God your whole being and life for he is your Creator, Lord and Judge.
What we see here is that all obedience to human governments and authorities is not isolated and standing alone but is WITHIN the comprehensive submission and obedience to God as the LORD. Thus we are to obey the laws of the land and pay taxes, as part of our obedience of God, for “the powers that be are ordained of God.” Children are to obey parents, wives obey husbands, church members obey their elders, soldiers obey their officers – and so on – within the one submission and obedience to God. Thus we are only to refuse to submit to human authority when it is absolutely clear that the human authority is exceeding its God-ordained role (e.g., when the Caesar required worship of his image, then the Christians said no and became martyrs).
The situation in America is very different from that in Jerusalem in A.D. 30! And thus the temptations are different, and, further, not identical for people of different persuasions and mindsets.
Take, for example, a temptation facing people of a social conservative mindset. Some of them are perhaps in danger of giving too much devotion to “Caesar” (read the Republican Party and Government). That is, they possibly identify too closely the political ideals and programs of the “right” and of its “conservative ideology” with the will and purpose of God. So much so that they see it as a Christian duty not merely to vote responsibly and carefully but to vote only Republican, and they see it as a sin to vote any other way.
And this general commitment is usually linked to a particular (but debatable) reading of American history, of its founding and its constitution. Politics seems to have ceased to be the art of the possible and has become the means of the realization of the foretaste or first-fruits of the kingdom of God on American soil. This close identification of a this-worldly yet high-minded political aim and ideal with the actual kingdom of God and the perfect will of the LORD means that, in effect, too much is rendered to Caesar. And thus what is rendered to God, the Lord, whose image and likeness we bear, is less than it should be, for some devotion is taken away and is given to the “earthly kingdom.” (One well-known southern preacher often says of his evangelism: “We get them saved; we get them baptized; and then we get them signed up to work for the Republican Party.”)
It is part of our required obedience to God not to kill (and thus not to engage in abortion or euthanasia) but it is not necessarily part of our clear obedience of God to support or not support this or that legislation at the state and federal level. Prudential judgment is required all the time for politics is the art of the possible. It is one thing to be submitted to God’s law personally and as a family or congregation of Christ’s flock, and it is yet another thing to be clear as to the best way of helping and causing people in general to submit to this divine law via political, education and social means.
Whether our judgment leads us to vote one way or another, it is the act of voting responsibly that is required of us by God in obedience to the State as appointed by him. No earthly program, however noble, can ever equate with the perfect requirements of the kingdom of Christ. Likewise no political party is worthy of our total devotion and commitment. Why? Because Jesus Christ is Lord.
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon MA., D.Phil (Oxford)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)