Peter Toon
The Anglican Primates’ Meeting set a deadline of September 30 for the House of Bishops of The Episcopal Church [TEC] to respond in the affirmative or negative as to whether it will abide by the recommendations of The Windsor Report (2004) on sexuality. Before this deadline, there will be a meeting of the House of Bishops, which will be addressed by the Archbishop of Canterbury, who is desirous to bring the American Bishops into general conformity with the mind of the global Anglican Communion.
Obviously, if the House of Bishops decides by a majority vote to stay with the present position of TEC, then this will mean that TEC will probably walk apart from the global Anglican Communion in the immediate future. Already not a few provinces have declared themselves out of communion with TEC or with specific bishops and dioceses within it and so there is a division already.
If the TEC House of Bishops decides to maintain the status quo then their position will raise a matter of conscience for some members of that house, together with clergy and laity. They will have to decide whether to stay within TEC or secede from it, as have not a few of their friends done in the last few years.
What guidance can be offered to such people as they face this question of conscience?
One possible source of help is to go to the writings of Richard Hooker (d.1600), who addressed with care and erudition in 1586 a question not too different from that faced by Episcopalians today. So let us see what he had to say.
Enter Hooker
He lived at a time when the Church of England faced pressures from within and without to change radically—that is to abandon the Elizabethan Settlement of Religion of 1559. From within were the Puritans (or Anglican Presbyterians) pressing for reform of the Church of England towards the Genevan model of a Calvinistic Presbyterianism; and from without were the Pope and Spain seeking to restore Ecclesia Anglicana to the governance of the Papacy (and threatening force as came later in the Armada).
Both Hooker and the Puritans believed that the Church of Rome taught and confessed many heresies and errors, but they disagreed over whether or not this Church could be called a Church of God. This difference was the root cause of a controversy in which Hooker published a Tractate of some 20,000 words, with the title A Learned Discourse on Faith, and Works, and how the Foundation of Faith is overthrown. From the content of this Tractate we can discern what Hooker believed about the Church of Rome and whether or not it was right to secede from it. Here in summary form are the positions Hooker expounded and in them is the basis for guidance for present-day Episcopalians:
1) The Church of Rome publicly teaches many heresies and errors which do great harm to souls. These vary from extraordinary claims about the Pope and the Eucharist to false teaching about how a sinner is justified by God the Father through Jesus Christ.
2) However, the same Church does maintain the true foundation of the visible Church of God—i.e., that Jesus Christ is the one and only Saviour of mankind, and the one and only Mediator between God and man.
3) Some of the heresies and errors of Rome do by logical deduction and inference indirectly overthrow the foundation of this same Church. Yet they do not directly overthrow it. (The distinction between directly and indirectly is assumed by Hooker to be an important distinction.)
4)By the mercy and providence of God alone, it is possible to be saved everlastingly while a member of the Church of Rome, despite the presence of heresies and errors.
5) The safest and surest way to obtain salvation and be a faithful child of God is to depart from the Church of Rome and be a member of a Reformed Catholic Church where the pure Gospel is proclaimed and where heresies and errors of Rome do not exist.
Unlike the Puritans, Hooker was not prepared to say that the Church of Rome was totally engulfed in infidelity and fully gone into apostasy. But he did believe that the body of this Church hung on to Christ by a very thin and tiny thread! It was a visible Church of God that like Israel of old which often departed from the Lord its God.
So Hooker addresses Episcopalians today from across the centuries, but within the communion of the saints, with these questions as they ponder what they ought to do on or after September 30:
A. Is TEC still a visible Christian Church in the sense that the fact of Jesus Christ as the one and only Saviour is clearly and unambiguously affirmed by her?
B. Assuming that TEC is truly a visible Church of God (even if united to Christ the head by a thin thread) does She teach and propagate such heresies and errors as directly overthrow this foundation of Christ the only Saviour?
With respect to A, it can be claimed on the basis of her constitution that TEC is committed to the Creeds and thereby holds on to Christ the only Saviour. Yet on the basis of many weekly sermons this claim could be challenged.
With respect to B, it can be argued that despite the Creeds, there is also widespread acceptance of universalism (“all will be saved in the end and there is no hell”) by the leadership of the Church, as well as the claim that all religions sincerely practiced lead to God. But do they contradict the Foundation indirectly or directly? Then there is the acceptance of new sexual ethics and practice which again has to be evaluated as to whether it represents an indirect or a direct overthrowing of the foundation!
So Hooker would say, I think, that the first thing to get clear is whether or not TEC actually and really maintains the true and living Foundation. Then the second thing to work out—if indeed the Foundation is apparently maintained—whether any of the TEC heresies and errors in worship, doctrine, morality and discipline actually overthrow the Foundation directly? If the answer to the latter is yes then secession is morally required immediately! However, if any overthrowing is not direct but by implication and thus indirectly then secession becomes more a question of prudential judgment, than of a distinct moral duty.
[Please note that the Preservation Press of the PBS of the USA will publish in September 07 this Tractate of Hooker’s under the title On Salvation and the Church of Rome, and in a contemporary form of English, in order to help the reader quickly receive Hooker’s teaching and not have to labor over his complex original style. Send $7.50 to The Prayer Book Society, P O Box 35220, Phildelphia, PA. 19128-0220.]
Sunday, August 19, 2007
Hooker’s Tractate in contemporary English: An opportunity to meet on your terms the Judicious Mr. Hooker!
Anglicans of all shapes and sizes seem to agree that Richard Hooker (d.1600) is a leading if not the leading Anglican theologian.
Many have attempted to read his massive Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity but few seem to get very far into it, before giving up because of the density of the prose and the complexity of the sentences. In 1950, John S. Marshall, professor of philosophy at The University of the South, published Hooker’s Polity in modern English…abridged and paraphrased, to try to build a literary bridge into Hooker’s profound thought. Then he did the same again in 1956 for Book Five of the Polity, the Book which is on the theme of Common Prayer. Both books were published by the University Press where he taught.
Before Hooker wrote the Polity he published other things, notable amongst which is that which he entitled, A Learned Discourse of Justification, Works, and how the Foundation of Faith is Overthrown. This is a Tractate of some 20,000 words or so and was written to set forth the Reformed Catholic position, as given legal status in the Elizabethan Settlement, over against both the Puritan (zealous Calvinist Protestant) and the Roman Catholic (via Council of Trent) positions. In other words, it is a classic Anglican exposition of Justification by Faith, of Works as the fruit of Faith, and of the place of this doctrine in the basis and foundation of the Church of God. And it has implications for the moral life, the devotional life and for the structure and content of Liturgy, not to mention dialogue with Rome and Calvinist Protestants.
Like both his earlier and later writings this Tractate does not make for easy reading today, because of the long and involved sentences and of the complexity of the thought contained in them.
So, since the relation of the Anglican Way to both popular Protestantism and to Roman Catholicism is still very much at the center of religious consciousness and expression in American Anglicanism, it seemed good to the Board of the Prayer Book Society to follow the example of Professor Marshall (whose relatives have long supported the Prayer Book Society) and render this important Tractate into contemporary English. The aim was to retain the teaching and the doctrine but to simplify and shorten the sentences.
It will be available by the middle of September 2007 or earlier under the title, On Salvation and the Church of Rome, from the Prayer Book Society as a 64 page booklet.
To order a copy (and to receive with it a free copy to pass on to a friend) send a check to the Prayer Book Society for $7.50. The Prayer Book Society, P. O. Box, 35220, Philadelphia, PA. 19128-0220.
The two copies will be posted to you as soon as stock arrives from the printer in early September. Orders from abroad will be sent by sea-mail.
This offer of 2 for 1 price is NOT and will NOT be available at the PBS website, www.anglicanmarketplace.com and will last through September only.
So please do two things: with reference to On Salvation and the Church of Rome:
(1) acquaint yourself via this Tractate with “the judicious Mr. Hooker,” whom John Keble so admired that he edited and published his works in the nineteenth century.
(2) pass on this note to all your thinking Anglican friends so they too may spend $7.50 and read this learned divine.
Finally, kindly be aware that The Prayer Book Society has the whole of the Polity in the Keble edition together with the resource book, Anglicanism, edited by F.L.Cross et al, as one CD available on www.anglicanmarketplace.com for a very reasonable price.
Happy and edifying reading.
Dr Peter Toon, President of The Prayer Book Society of the U.S.A.
Many have attempted to read his massive Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity but few seem to get very far into it, before giving up because of the density of the prose and the complexity of the sentences. In 1950, John S. Marshall, professor of philosophy at The University of the South, published Hooker’s Polity in modern English…abridged and paraphrased, to try to build a literary bridge into Hooker’s profound thought. Then he did the same again in 1956 for Book Five of the Polity, the Book which is on the theme of Common Prayer. Both books were published by the University Press where he taught.
Before Hooker wrote the Polity he published other things, notable amongst which is that which he entitled, A Learned Discourse of Justification, Works, and how the Foundation of Faith is Overthrown. This is a Tractate of some 20,000 words or so and was written to set forth the Reformed Catholic position, as given legal status in the Elizabethan Settlement, over against both the Puritan (zealous Calvinist Protestant) and the Roman Catholic (via Council of Trent) positions. In other words, it is a classic Anglican exposition of Justification by Faith, of Works as the fruit of Faith, and of the place of this doctrine in the basis and foundation of the Church of God. And it has implications for the moral life, the devotional life and for the structure and content of Liturgy, not to mention dialogue with Rome and Calvinist Protestants.
Like both his earlier and later writings this Tractate does not make for easy reading today, because of the long and involved sentences and of the complexity of the thought contained in them.
So, since the relation of the Anglican Way to both popular Protestantism and to Roman Catholicism is still very much at the center of religious consciousness and expression in American Anglicanism, it seemed good to the Board of the Prayer Book Society to follow the example of Professor Marshall (whose relatives have long supported the Prayer Book Society) and render this important Tractate into contemporary English. The aim was to retain the teaching and the doctrine but to simplify and shorten the sentences.
It will be available by the middle of September 2007 or earlier under the title, On Salvation and the Church of Rome, from the Prayer Book Society as a 64 page booklet.
To order a copy (and to receive with it a free copy to pass on to a friend) send a check to the Prayer Book Society for $7.50. The Prayer Book Society, P. O. Box, 35220, Philadelphia, PA. 19128-0220.
The two copies will be posted to you as soon as stock arrives from the printer in early September. Orders from abroad will be sent by sea-mail.
This offer of 2 for 1 price is NOT and will NOT be available at the PBS website, www.anglicanmarketplace.com and will last through September only.
So please do two things: with reference to On Salvation and the Church of Rome:
(1) acquaint yourself via this Tractate with “the judicious Mr. Hooker,” whom John Keble so admired that he edited and published his works in the nineteenth century.
(2) pass on this note to all your thinking Anglican friends so they too may spend $7.50 and read this learned divine.
Finally, kindly be aware that The Prayer Book Society has the whole of the Polity in the Keble edition together with the resource book, Anglicanism, edited by F.L.Cross et al, as one CD available on www.anglicanmarketplace.com for a very reasonable price.
Happy and edifying reading.
Dr Peter Toon, President of The Prayer Book Society of the U.S.A.
Jim Packer on Anglicanism--a good and challenging read
Anglicanism: Protestant or Catholic
This post has been removed as it is not by Dr Packer (See below). Thank you to commenters who pointed this out.
Hello--just read this:
Dr. Packer has issued the following statement, which is also attached:
____________________________________________________________________
A Statement from the Rev. Dr. James I. Packer
Vancouver British Columbia, Canada
August 24, 2007
Regarding the article, “Anglicanism: Protestant and Catholic, August 15, 2007”
This piece is not by me. It contains information, which was new to me. Its source is identified as the Protestant Alliance, a body with which I have no links and of which I know nothing. It has apparently been on the Internet for a number of years anonymously and to have my name attached to it with the date, August 15, 2007, is, simply, a mistake.
The views expressed do not match my present attitude towards Anglo-Catholics in the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada.
I ask that no one be misled into supposing that this piece, which clearly was written by someone in the Episcopal Church, is connected with me in any way.
_____________________________________________________________
God Bless,
William Scott
This post has been removed as it is not by Dr Packer (See below). Thank you to commenters who pointed this out.
Hello--just read this:
Dr. Packer has issued the following statement, which is also attached:
____________________________________________________________________
A Statement from the Rev. Dr. James I. Packer
Vancouver British Columbia, Canada
August 24, 2007
Regarding the article, “Anglicanism: Protestant and Catholic, August 15, 2007”
This piece is not by me. It contains information, which was new to me. Its source is identified as the Protestant Alliance, a body with which I have no links and of which I know nothing. It has apparently been on the Internet for a number of years anonymously and to have my name attached to it with the date, August 15, 2007, is, simply, a mistake.
The views expressed do not match my present attitude towards Anglo-Catholics in the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada.
I ask that no one be misled into supposing that this piece, which clearly was written by someone in the Episcopal Church, is connected with me in any way.
_____________________________________________________________
God Bless,
William Scott
Thursday, August 09, 2007
How the first edition of The American BCP was commended in 1789 & How the same message may commend The BCP 1662 for Common Cause in 2007
Soon after Independence, the General Convention of the new denomination, The Protestant Episcopal Church of the United States of America, sent forth the first American edition of that Book of Common Prayer, of which the English edition from the seventeenth century had been used in the thirteen colonies for many years. The new edition was dated 1789 and the one it replaced was dated 1662, but both had the same title, being [it is important to note] two related but different editions of One and the same Book, one for use in a Monarchy and one for use in a Republic.
The last paragraph of the 1789 Preface, written for the General Convention by the Rev. Dr. William Smith, expressed fine principles and sentiments, and it is worth quoting in full:
And now, this important work [of revision] being brought to a conclusion, it is hoped the whole will be received and examined by every true member of the Church, and every sincere Christian, with a meek, candid, and charitable frame of mind; without prejudice or prepossessions; seriously considering what Christianity is, and what the truths of the Gospel are; and earnestly beseeching Almighty God to accompany with his blessing every endeavour for promulgating them to mankind in the clearest, plainest, affecting and majestic manner, for the sake of Jesus Christ, our blessed Lord and Saviour.
Let us analyze what the General Convention (by far and away the most democratic Anglican synod in the world at that time) is asking of the American public, both Episcopalians and other Christians. And as we do so, it is necessary to bear in mind that The BCP 1662 had been very widely used in the American colonies, not only in churches but for family prayers, and not only by Anglicans but also by other Protestant Christians. So, what was being introduced was not a major innovation but a familiar product in an updated version. Virtually all the Founding Fathers of the U.S.A. had been influenced, if only in language, by The BCP 1662.
Turning to the text, we see, first of all, that it is requested that the BCP be read and prayed with a meek, candid, and charitable frame of mind. A frame of mind refers to a state and attitude of mind, and here it is to be meek (quiet, gentle and submissive to the Lord), candid (truthful and straightforward). and charitable (generous and tolerant).
Further, it is requested that it be read without prejudice or prepossession. That is without irrational, preconceived opinion or without beliefs and impressions formed before seeing the text
And as Americans, belonging to the age of reason and Enlightenment, they are asked as readers to consider seriously the nature of Christianity and what it both proclaims as Good News and teaches as Truths. Yet they are asked not to engage in such considering without also fervently asking Almighty God for his blessing upon the propagation of the Gospel and its Truths to all people by the church, in the clearest, plainest, moving and dignified way possible, for the sake of Jesus Christ, Lord and Saviour.
Conclusion
Whether many Americans took this advice at the end of the eighteenth century is difficult to estimate. Without a doubt some did.
However, what we may say is that the content of this paragraph can, does and will speak a timely word in 2007 to the members of the Common Cause Churches and Networks (including the Anglican Communion Network) on behalf of whom their representatives have committed them to The BCP 1662 as a formulary and standard of worship, doctrine and discipline. What was said about the replacement for The BCP 1789 may in changed circumstances serve to commend the right reception of The BCP 1662 in 2007! Let us hope that The BCP 1662 is received in the way that General Convention desired its own new edition of The BCP to be received in 1789-90.
drpetertoon@yahoo.com August 10, 2007
The last paragraph of the 1789 Preface, written for the General Convention by the Rev. Dr. William Smith, expressed fine principles and sentiments, and it is worth quoting in full:
And now, this important work [of revision] being brought to a conclusion, it is hoped the whole will be received and examined by every true member of the Church, and every sincere Christian, with a meek, candid, and charitable frame of mind; without prejudice or prepossessions; seriously considering what Christianity is, and what the truths of the Gospel are; and earnestly beseeching Almighty God to accompany with his blessing every endeavour for promulgating them to mankind in the clearest, plainest, affecting and majestic manner, for the sake of Jesus Christ, our blessed Lord and Saviour.
Let us analyze what the General Convention (by far and away the most democratic Anglican synod in the world at that time) is asking of the American public, both Episcopalians and other Christians. And as we do so, it is necessary to bear in mind that The BCP 1662 had been very widely used in the American colonies, not only in churches but for family prayers, and not only by Anglicans but also by other Protestant Christians. So, what was being introduced was not a major innovation but a familiar product in an updated version. Virtually all the Founding Fathers of the U.S.A. had been influenced, if only in language, by The BCP 1662.
Turning to the text, we see, first of all, that it is requested that the BCP be read and prayed with a meek, candid, and charitable frame of mind. A frame of mind refers to a state and attitude of mind, and here it is to be meek (quiet, gentle and submissive to the Lord), candid (truthful and straightforward). and charitable (generous and tolerant).
Further, it is requested that it be read without prejudice or prepossession. That is without irrational, preconceived opinion or without beliefs and impressions formed before seeing the text
And as Americans, belonging to the age of reason and Enlightenment, they are asked as readers to consider seriously the nature of Christianity and what it both proclaims as Good News and teaches as Truths. Yet they are asked not to engage in such considering without also fervently asking Almighty God for his blessing upon the propagation of the Gospel and its Truths to all people by the church, in the clearest, plainest, moving and dignified way possible, for the sake of Jesus Christ, Lord and Saviour.
Conclusion
Whether many Americans took this advice at the end of the eighteenth century is difficult to estimate. Without a doubt some did.
However, what we may say is that the content of this paragraph can, does and will speak a timely word in 2007 to the members of the Common Cause Churches and Networks (including the Anglican Communion Network) on behalf of whom their representatives have committed them to The BCP 1662 as a formulary and standard of worship, doctrine and discipline. What was said about the replacement for The BCP 1789 may in changed circumstances serve to commend the right reception of The BCP 1662 in 2007! Let us hope that The BCP 1662 is received in the way that General Convention desired its own new edition of The BCP to be received in 1789-90.
drpetertoon@yahoo.com August 10, 2007
Not different but essentially the same---the English and American Prayer Books
BCP 1662 (C of E edition) and BCP 1789-1928 (PECUSA edition) are identical in doctrine, discipline and worship
If we are to take the words of the Founding Fathers of The Protestant Episcopal Church of the U.S.A. at their face value, then we can assert with confidence with them that there are no substantial differences of doctrine, discipline and worship between The BCP 1662 and The BCP 1789 (1892/1928). Further, we know that the English Archbishops also held this opinion. However, and importantly, this positive assertion cannot be made of the American 1979 Book which is an altogether different kind of collection of services and prayers.
The Preface to the 1789 (also in the 1892 & 1928 editions) states very clearly that there are differences between the English and American editions of The BCP but that they are not substantial. Below are reproduced the sentences which state this fact. However, it is necessary, first of all, to state that the reproduction of this 1789 Preface in the 1979 Prayer Book of The Episcopal Church is one of many deceitful aspects of this book, which bears the name of Common Prayer, and has the content and character of what elsewhere at that time was called "A Book of Alternative Services," alternative that is to the actual BCP itself (which in 1979 was the edition of 1928).
The Preface, written in excellent style by William Smith in 1789, states in brief the following:
(a) the general principles of the Church's worship as expressed in the Anglican tradition;
(b) the reasons for an American edition of the one Prayer Book, distinct from the English 1662 edition;
(c) the nature and character of the American revision for the 1789 Book; and
(d) a brief commendation of the 1789 Book to the membership of the Church and to every sincere Christian.
After stating the need to make alterations in terms of the identity of civil rulers, the Preface states that other alterations were made as were deemed expedient. Then of these changes it states:
They will appear, and it is to be hoped the reasons for them also, upon a comparison of this [Book] with The Book of Common Prayer of the Church of England. In which, it will also appear that this Church is far from intending to depart from the Church of England in any essential point of doctrine, discipline, or worship; or further than local circumstances require.
We must now reflect on what the implications of this sentence are.
Any competent person in 1789 who had been used to using The BCP 1662 all of his or her life (and most of the Founding Fathers of the Republic were familiar with The BCP 1662) would notice several differences right away. Here are three examples. First, the Venite (in 1662 = Psalm 95) had been changed although the old Venite was still allowed—this was done to remove the seemingly harsh last four verses of Psalm 95. Secondly, the Athanasian Creed had been removed—which an Enlightenment, Latitudinarian culture would understand right away, due to its opening statement concerning who shall be saved. Thirdly, the Order of Holy Communion had been changed, as it was commonly known, to accommodate the desires primarily of the delegates from Connecticut, and to provide for unity. (Few then as now knew the historical and religious reasons why Bishop Seabury and others pressed for the imitation of the Scottish 1764 service by the American 1789 service.)
The removal of the Athanasian Creed did not change the doctrine of the American Church but it did lessen its witness to the Trinitarian Faith. And the revision of the Communion Office—despite recent claims from Anglo-Catholic circles that it does—did not change the doctrine of Holy Communion, but simply attempted to make explicit what could be seen either as implicit in the Rite of the Church of England or as providing what belongs to adiaphora (that is, useful in the USA but not necessary worldwide). Certainly those who actually made the changes in the Communion Service in 1789 were those who agreed at the same time to these words: In which, it will also appear that this Church is far from intending to depart from the Church of England in any essential point of doctrine, discipline, or worship; or further than local circumstances require.
The mistake that the American Church made in 1789 was to make compulsory its revised Order for Holy Communion in its BCP edition for America (looking for unity in the newly independent denomination) and not to allow as an alternative the previously common usage in most of it not all of the thirteen colonies—the Order of The BCP 1662.
The advantage of the 1662 form, from a pragmatic and practical viewpoint, is that it can be supplemented if this is deemed appropriate in a local situation; however, the 1789 form can only be supplemented in a direction away from the basic norm of The BCP 1662 (as in the Anglican Missal towards Tridentine Catholicism). Thus it was wise for The Anglican Communion Network and Common Cause Movement to choose The BCP 1662 as formulary, which foundation then allows the use of the American BCP 1789-1928 and the Canadian BCP (1918-1962) as real alternatives for they supplement rather than take away from the original text.
So as long as there is an orthodox Anglican or Episcopal Church in the USA, the use of The BCP 1928 ought to be a Formulary, but not alone, but with The BCP 1662, so as to allow the comprehensiveness based upon orthodoxy that the post-Gene Robinson situation requires.
drpetertoon@yahoo.com August 9 2007
If we are to take the words of the Founding Fathers of The Protestant Episcopal Church of the U.S.A. at their face value, then we can assert with confidence with them that there are no substantial differences of doctrine, discipline and worship between The BCP 1662 and The BCP 1789 (1892/1928). Further, we know that the English Archbishops also held this opinion. However, and importantly, this positive assertion cannot be made of the American 1979 Book which is an altogether different kind of collection of services and prayers.
The Preface to the 1789 (also in the 1892 & 1928 editions) states very clearly that there are differences between the English and American editions of The BCP but that they are not substantial. Below are reproduced the sentences which state this fact. However, it is necessary, first of all, to state that the reproduction of this 1789 Preface in the 1979 Prayer Book of The Episcopal Church is one of many deceitful aspects of this book, which bears the name of Common Prayer, and has the content and character of what elsewhere at that time was called "A Book of Alternative Services," alternative that is to the actual BCP itself (which in 1979 was the edition of 1928).
The Preface, written in excellent style by William Smith in 1789, states in brief the following:
(a) the general principles of the Church's worship as expressed in the Anglican tradition;
(b) the reasons for an American edition of the one Prayer Book, distinct from the English 1662 edition;
(c) the nature and character of the American revision for the 1789 Book; and
(d) a brief commendation of the 1789 Book to the membership of the Church and to every sincere Christian.
After stating the need to make alterations in terms of the identity of civil rulers, the Preface states that other alterations were made as were deemed expedient. Then of these changes it states:
They will appear, and it is to be hoped the reasons for them also, upon a comparison of this [Book] with The Book of Common Prayer of the Church of England. In which, it will also appear that this Church is far from intending to depart from the Church of England in any essential point of doctrine, discipline, or worship; or further than local circumstances require.
We must now reflect on what the implications of this sentence are.
Any competent person in 1789 who had been used to using The BCP 1662 all of his or her life (and most of the Founding Fathers of the Republic were familiar with The BCP 1662) would notice several differences right away. Here are three examples. First, the Venite (in 1662 = Psalm 95) had been changed although the old Venite was still allowed—this was done to remove the seemingly harsh last four verses of Psalm 95. Secondly, the Athanasian Creed had been removed—which an Enlightenment, Latitudinarian culture would understand right away, due to its opening statement concerning who shall be saved. Thirdly, the Order of Holy Communion had been changed, as it was commonly known, to accommodate the desires primarily of the delegates from Connecticut, and to provide for unity. (Few then as now knew the historical and religious reasons why Bishop Seabury and others pressed for the imitation of the Scottish 1764 service by the American 1789 service.)
The removal of the Athanasian Creed did not change the doctrine of the American Church but it did lessen its witness to the Trinitarian Faith. And the revision of the Communion Office—despite recent claims from Anglo-Catholic circles that it does—did not change the doctrine of Holy Communion, but simply attempted to make explicit what could be seen either as implicit in the Rite of the Church of England or as providing what belongs to adiaphora (that is, useful in the USA but not necessary worldwide). Certainly those who actually made the changes in the Communion Service in 1789 were those who agreed at the same time to these words: In which, it will also appear that this Church is far from intending to depart from the Church of England in any essential point of doctrine, discipline, or worship; or further than local circumstances require.
The mistake that the American Church made in 1789 was to make compulsory its revised Order for Holy Communion in its BCP edition for America (looking for unity in the newly independent denomination) and not to allow as an alternative the previously common usage in most of it not all of the thirteen colonies—the Order of The BCP 1662.
The advantage of the 1662 form, from a pragmatic and practical viewpoint, is that it can be supplemented if this is deemed appropriate in a local situation; however, the 1789 form can only be supplemented in a direction away from the basic norm of The BCP 1662 (as in the Anglican Missal towards Tridentine Catholicism). Thus it was wise for The Anglican Communion Network and Common Cause Movement to choose The BCP 1662 as formulary, which foundation then allows the use of the American BCP 1789-1928 and the Canadian BCP (1918-1962) as real alternatives for they supplement rather than take away from the original text.
So as long as there is an orthodox Anglican or Episcopal Church in the USA, the use of The BCP 1928 ought to be a Formulary, but not alone, but with The BCP 1662, so as to allow the comprehensiveness based upon orthodoxy that the post-Gene Robinson situation requires.
drpetertoon@yahoo.com August 9 2007
Tuesday, August 07, 2007
Why is The BCP 1662 so popular all of a sudden; and why is its American child, The BCP (1928), in continuing if slow demise?
Various questions have come my way during the last week since the adoption of The Common Cause Theological Statement by The Anglican Communion Network, and here is my summary of their content, and a tentative reply to them:
Why has the Common Cause Movement apparently by-passed the authentic Common Prayer Tradition of American Episcopalianism—i.e., from the end of the British colonial period to 1976/79, and expressed in three editions of The Common Prayer, 1789, 1982 & 1928?
Why has this Movement recovered as its Formulary the very Prayer Book that was in use in the thirteen colonies in America up to Independence from the British crown?
Why is this Movement seemingly prepared to ditch a peculiar but valid expression of the Common Prayer Tradition ( i.e., that of The Protestant Episcopal Church, USA) in order to recover the original one on which the 1789 was based?
In 2007, The BCP 1928 is still in print (luxury edition from OUP and pew edition and with KJV Bible from Anglican Parishes Association of Athens, GA.) and still in use (by at least fifty churches inside The Episcopal Church (TEC) and by several hundred, mostly small, churches in the various departments of Continuing Anglicanism). Inside TEC several large congregations use it, such as St Andrew's of Fort Worth and St John's of Savannah. It has an excellent Hymnal, the Episcopal of 1940, to go with it and this Hymnal is also still in print.
Within the Common Cause Movement, the 1928 BCP with the 1940 Hymnal, are used in most of the parishes of the APA and in some of the REC. However, in most of the parishes of the other partners the Canadian BAS 1985 and the American Prayer Book of 1979 are used—but happily there are a growing number which is using the contemporary form of The BCP 1662 on trial use in the AMiA and elsewhere (and available from St John the Evangelist AMIA church in Philadelphia).
After thinking about possible answers to the questions summarized above, I have come up with the following possible answers, which may or may not contain singly or together the truth.
1) The Common Cause movement has no real meaning or future without the active support of major players in the Global South of the international Anglican family. And the fact of the matter is that these players are from provinces, which like most in the global Anglican Family, have constitutions based on the Formularies of the Church of England (which means that BCP 1662 & Ordinal) and in some cases use The BCP 1662 all the time now. To walk with the Global South is thus made the easier if the same Formularies are in place.
2) The Common Cause movement has Canadian partners and the BCP 1928 has never been used in Canada , while the 1662 tradition is basic to the history of The Anglican Church of Canada.
3) The Common Cause movement wishes to recover the authentic Anglican Way in the context of the dysfunctionality of contemporary American Anglicanism and the international global crisis in the Anglican Communion. Thus it goes back to the roots of the massive world-wide extension of the Church of England through colonialism and missionary effort, an expansion that began in the seventeenth century and reached its heights in the nineteenth. And a movement that held the Bible in one hand and The BCP 1662 in the other.
4) The BCP 1662 is the kind of base line and standard that can serve everywhere, allowing local (but certainly not universal mandatory) additions in terms of hymns, canticles, ceremonial and the like. Thus a comprehensiveness can be attained based upon a common form—and this has been in place in the past before the arrival of the seemingly uncontrollable variety of modern liturgies since the 1960s. On this principle, the present Canadian 1962 and the American 1928 editions of the authentic Common Prayer Tradition could be used—but not to set doctrine, which remains inside The BCP 1662.
5) In the Church of England, alongside The BCP & Ordinal of 1662 (which remain the Formularies and in use) there existed Alternative Services 1980 and now there exists Common Worship. This model possibly allows for the use of the BAS, 1985 of Canada and the 1979 Prayer Book of the USA—even though, it may be recalled, these two books [and 1985 is based on 1979] were designed to undermine and remove The BCP 1662 tradition.
6) Within The Episcopal Church, there was from 1979 a purge to remove the use of The BCP (1928) and those who did not conform were subject in many dioceses to the displeasure of the Ordinary or even his persecution. Some of those in leadership in TEC dioceses within the Anglican Communion Network, the major Common Cause partner, have been zealous in the past in their seeking to remove the use of The BCP 1928 from their dioceses. It is therefore easier for such people, and those who thought like them and supported them, to go to The BCP 1662 and avoid talking about or contemplate using the whole classic Common Tradition of The Protestant Episcopal Church of the U.S.A.
Now for use in the USA there will need to be a little editing of The BCP 1662 for the Monarch is very much part of this Prayer Book, but this can easily be achieved, and prayer for Presidents and Governors and the like introduced.
So what is going to happen to the specific American edition of authentic Common Prayer? That is, will The BCP 1928 survive?
What seems clear is that, if the forward movement of the Common Cause towards becoming eventually a new Province of the global Anglican Communion actually proceeds to its conclusion, then the use of BCP 1928 will become more and more a characteristic of those who stay outside the new Province. Here I have in mind the traditional Continuing Anglicans whose origins lie in the secession from the Protestant Episcopal Church in 1977 and who in general adopt the Affirmation of St Louis of 1977. In some cases these groups do not allow the use of The BCP 1662 because they deem it to be "Protestant;" but yet they do use The Anglican Missal , based on The BCP 1928, which makes The BCP 1928 effectively become the agent of certain Tridentine Roman Catholic doctrines (which are wholly excluded by The BCP 1662 tradition).
So it would seem that the possibility of a revival of The BCP 1928 for use in a new Anglican Province in America is virtually nil, and the possibility of its continued use in the U.S.A. very limited due to its eclipse in most of traditional Continuing Anglicanism by The Anglican Missal. (However, in these circles The BCP 1928 is needed for the Daily Office, Baptism, Funeral and Wedding etc but it is deemed insufficient and even treated as invalid as a stand-alone text for the "Mass".)
However, the use of The BCP 1662 as the standard text and base line seems to be a real possibility for a large sector of would-be orthodox American Anglicanism and through it may come the restoration of the authentic Anglican Way as Reformed Catholicism and part of a global Family. For parishes with a solid musical tradition, the use of The BCP 1662 opens up massive possibilities of classic and modern sung services and of course with this Prayer Book comes a tremendous devotional and theological literature, together with marvelous poetry and special services (Advent Carol Service etc.). Not least with this tradition comes the missionary zeal, exhibited in the past by the major evangelical missionary societies of England—e.g., Church Missionary Society.
Dr Peter Toon August 8, 2007
Why has the Common Cause Movement apparently by-passed the authentic Common Prayer Tradition of American Episcopalianism—i.e., from the end of the British colonial period to 1976/79, and expressed in three editions of The Common Prayer, 1789, 1982 & 1928?
Why has this Movement recovered as its Formulary the very Prayer Book that was in use in the thirteen colonies in America up to Independence from the British crown?
Why is this Movement seemingly prepared to ditch a peculiar but valid expression of the Common Prayer Tradition ( i.e., that of The Protestant Episcopal Church, USA) in order to recover the original one on which the 1789 was based?
In 2007, The BCP 1928 is still in print (luxury edition from OUP and pew edition and with KJV Bible from Anglican Parishes Association of Athens, GA.) and still in use (by at least fifty churches inside The Episcopal Church (TEC) and by several hundred, mostly small, churches in the various departments of Continuing Anglicanism). Inside TEC several large congregations use it, such as St Andrew's of Fort Worth and St John's of Savannah. It has an excellent Hymnal, the Episcopal of 1940, to go with it and this Hymnal is also still in print.
Within the Common Cause Movement, the 1928 BCP with the 1940 Hymnal, are used in most of the parishes of the APA and in some of the REC. However, in most of the parishes of the other partners the Canadian BAS 1985 and the American Prayer Book of 1979 are used—but happily there are a growing number which is using the contemporary form of The BCP 1662 on trial use in the AMiA and elsewhere (and available from St John the Evangelist AMIA church in Philadelphia).
After thinking about possible answers to the questions summarized above, I have come up with the following possible answers, which may or may not contain singly or together the truth.
1) The Common Cause movement has no real meaning or future without the active support of major players in the Global South of the international Anglican family. And the fact of the matter is that these players are from provinces, which like most in the global Anglican Family, have constitutions based on the Formularies of the Church of England (which means that BCP 1662 & Ordinal) and in some cases use The BCP 1662 all the time now. To walk with the Global South is thus made the easier if the same Formularies are in place.
2) The Common Cause movement has Canadian partners and the BCP 1928 has never been used in Canada , while the 1662 tradition is basic to the history of The Anglican Church of Canada.
3) The Common Cause movement wishes to recover the authentic Anglican Way in the context of the dysfunctionality of contemporary American Anglicanism and the international global crisis in the Anglican Communion. Thus it goes back to the roots of the massive world-wide extension of the Church of England through colonialism and missionary effort, an expansion that began in the seventeenth century and reached its heights in the nineteenth. And a movement that held the Bible in one hand and The BCP 1662 in the other.
4) The BCP 1662 is the kind of base line and standard that can serve everywhere, allowing local (but certainly not universal mandatory) additions in terms of hymns, canticles, ceremonial and the like. Thus a comprehensiveness can be attained based upon a common form—and this has been in place in the past before the arrival of the seemingly uncontrollable variety of modern liturgies since the 1960s. On this principle, the present Canadian 1962 and the American 1928 editions of the authentic Common Prayer Tradition could be used—but not to set doctrine, which remains inside The BCP 1662.
5) In the Church of England, alongside The BCP & Ordinal of 1662 (which remain the Formularies and in use) there existed Alternative Services 1980 and now there exists Common Worship. This model possibly allows for the use of the BAS, 1985 of Canada and the 1979 Prayer Book of the USA—even though, it may be recalled, these two books [and 1985 is based on 1979] were designed to undermine and remove The BCP 1662 tradition.
6) Within The Episcopal Church, there was from 1979 a purge to remove the use of The BCP (1928) and those who did not conform were subject in many dioceses to the displeasure of the Ordinary or even his persecution. Some of those in leadership in TEC dioceses within the Anglican Communion Network, the major Common Cause partner, have been zealous in the past in their seeking to remove the use of The BCP 1928 from their dioceses. It is therefore easier for such people, and those who thought like them and supported them, to go to The BCP 1662 and avoid talking about or contemplate using the whole classic Common Tradition of The Protestant Episcopal Church of the U.S.A.
Now for use in the USA there will need to be a little editing of The BCP 1662 for the Monarch is very much part of this Prayer Book, but this can easily be achieved, and prayer for Presidents and Governors and the like introduced.
So what is going to happen to the specific American edition of authentic Common Prayer? That is, will The BCP 1928 survive?
What seems clear is that, if the forward movement of the Common Cause towards becoming eventually a new Province of the global Anglican Communion actually proceeds to its conclusion, then the use of BCP 1928 will become more and more a characteristic of those who stay outside the new Province. Here I have in mind the traditional Continuing Anglicans whose origins lie in the secession from the Protestant Episcopal Church in 1977 and who in general adopt the Affirmation of St Louis of 1977. In some cases these groups do not allow the use of The BCP 1662 because they deem it to be "Protestant;" but yet they do use The Anglican Missal , based on The BCP 1928, which makes The BCP 1928 effectively become the agent of certain Tridentine Roman Catholic doctrines (which are wholly excluded by The BCP 1662 tradition).
So it would seem that the possibility of a revival of The BCP 1928 for use in a new Anglican Province in America is virtually nil, and the possibility of its continued use in the U.S.A. very limited due to its eclipse in most of traditional Continuing Anglicanism by The Anglican Missal. (However, in these circles The BCP 1928 is needed for the Daily Office, Baptism, Funeral and Wedding etc but it is deemed insufficient and even treated as invalid as a stand-alone text for the "Mass".)
However, the use of The BCP 1662 as the standard text and base line seems to be a real possibility for a large sector of would-be orthodox American Anglicanism and through it may come the restoration of the authentic Anglican Way as Reformed Catholicism and part of a global Family. For parishes with a solid musical tradition, the use of The BCP 1662 opens up massive possibilities of classic and modern sung services and of course with this Prayer Book comes a tremendous devotional and theological literature, together with marvelous poetry and special services (Advent Carol Service etc.). Not least with this tradition comes the missionary zeal, exhibited in the past by the major evangelical missionary societies of England—e.g., Church Missionary Society.
Dr Peter Toon August 8, 2007
Sunday, August 05, 2007
On the difference between BASICS and BASICS-WITH-ADORNMENT
The Order for Holy Communion of 1662 as the Basic TEXT
The Anglican Communion Network [ACN] made the momentous decision on July 31 to accept The Book of Common Prayer (1662) of The Church of England, the mother Church of the Global Anglican Family, as the basic Formulary of global Anglicanism and as its Formulary within the Common Cause alliance.
Amongst the reactions to the adoption by the Anglican C. Network posted on the web I have noticed various kinds of claims that The BCP 1662 Holy Communion Service is unacceptable and deficient to right-minded and mature Anglicans. Where does this notion come from?
In USA Episcopalianism, there is amongst a minority of those of an anglo-catholic persuasion, or who are influenced by anglo-catholic teaching, either a tendency to deny or a decision to make an out-right denial of “The Order of Holy Communion” in The BCP 1662 as a valid Rite in the Celebration of the Eucharist. This denial comes from three related but different mindsets—that which is based on The Anglican Missal (used in many small Continuing Anglican circles), that which is based on The Order for Holy Communion in The BCP 1928 of PECUSA, and that which is based on Rite One Eucharist, first Prayer, in the 1979 ECUSA Prayer Book. The charges against the Rite of The BCP of 1662 move along a spectrum of it being “Protestant” to it not having within its short Consecration Prayer an Epiclesis (Invocation for the descent of the Holy Ghost) or an Oblation (offering of the Gifts to the heavenly Father).
Having stated the objections, let me now offer a general reply to them.
We are all familiar with the difference between a basic model and a well-appointed model with respect to cars. The basic model is more than adequate to move people from point x to point y, but the well-appointed model can make that journey more comfortable and the driving a little easier. Also some of us may live in what may be called basic housing, where we have all that is necessary, and others of us may live in luxury housing, where we have what is necessary together with a variety of extra comforts and conveniences. Then we can all imagine, on the one hand, a basic tune or melody that we can easily hum and readily remember, and, on the other hand, an elaborate setting of that basic melody by a composer in a complex orchestral work.
The point I am moving towards making is this: That Anglican divines over the centuries from the reign of Elizabeth I (1559-1603) have overwhelmingly regarded what may be called the classic Anglican Order for Holy Communion—especially as found in its final form in The BCP 1662 and in over 150 translations of this globally—as in and of itself and by itself a basic and adequate Rite for the Celebration of the Dominical Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper or Holy Communion.
To say this is not to claim that a minority in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries (the schismatic supporters of James II or Non-Jurors and Jacobites and some leaders in the tiny Episcopal Church in Scotland) expressed an interest in reforming this Rite by incorporating characteristics of the Eastern Rites used in the Eastern Patriarchates; or that a minority of anglo-catholics in the late nineteenth century created Missals in order to incorporate material from the traditional Roman Mass. However, it is to claim that there has been and remains only one basic and classic Anglican form of “The Order for Holy Communion” and that is the Rite found in The BCP 1559, The BCP 1604 and given final form in The BCP 1662. It is to be noted that the Formularies of the Church of England and many Provinces of the global Anglican Communion to this day include The BCP 1662 with its attached Ordinal and also, usually, The Articles of Religion.
The Protestant Episcopal Church of the USA modified “The Order for Holy Communion of 1662” in 1789 on the model of the Scottish Rite of 1764, but It was careful to get the approval of the English Bishops for this revision, which was considered by the latter as remaining within the basic doctrine of the 1662 text. So what can be said as a generally true fact is that before the liturgical revolution of the 1960s-1980s, the 1662 text was used everywhere either in its basic form, embellished only by hymnody, or in a luxury or elaborate form, embellished not only by hymns but also by extra ceremonial and words. As there are several forms of the Toyota Camry and the Honda Accord on the road today, from the basic to the luxurious, so there were various expressions of the basic 1662 Rite in use around the world by the Anglican Family. In some cases where missionaries were relatively free of supervision from the home Church, they either provided what was below the basic or standard towards a generic Protestantism (as in some evangelical missionary work), or what was above the standard tending towards the texts of Rome or of the Eastern Patriarchates (as in some anglo-catholic missionary work) but these excesses were not the norm.
Tragically, ever since the go-ahead was given in 1968 by the Lambeth Conference to experiment with additional forms of liturgy to The BCP, the provinces— especially in the western or northern parts of the Anglican Communion— have not known where to stop once they got started on liturgical revision. Having opened the doors to new possibilities, the range of possibilities has been very wide and each Province, being autonomous, has done its own thing. Therefore, what was an essential component in the glue that held together the Provinces of the global Communion, the basic structure and content of BCP 1662, got lost (but happily not in the African Provinces). And a lot of people have got used to variety as the norm and personal opinion in liturgy as paramount.
Having let the water out of the reservoir and the kittens out of the bag, not a few sensitive Anglicans are realizing that the Anglican Way in the West, and not least in the U.S.A., needs to recover some basic rules on Formularies and Liturgy or else there will be no glue at all to hold together either Anglicans in North America or within even the global Communion. This is where Common Cause and the Anglican Communion Network seem to be now. They recognize the need for a standard, for a base line, for an agreed essential content of the Anglican Way as Reformed Catholicism.
To get in step with this new army and to walk together with this new movement is not going to be easy for those who have been raised to believe that the 1979 Prayer Book is the last word in modern Liturgy or those who have been raised to hold that only certain post-1662 Anglican Prayer Books are valid for “Catholic” Anglicans. But if there is to be any common glue that is used for binding together Anglicans in a comprehensiveness based upon a sound foundation, that glue will have to include the Formularies of 1662.
What I would say to those with lingering doubts about the validity of 1662 in brief are four things, and they all assume that in the editions of the BCP of 1559 and 1662 we have the basic content of Reformed Catholicism.
1. Be aware that the great Anglican divines of the late sixteenth century (e.g., Bishop Jewel and Richard Hooker) and of the seventeenth century and eighteenth century (see the collection of testimonies from Caroline divines in Anglicanism, edited by F.L. Cross & P.E. More, 1951 SPCK, and available as a CD from www.anglicanmarketplace.com ) were perfectly satisfied with either the 1559 or 1662 editions of The BCP. Be aware also that the founding fathers of the Anglo-Catholic movement, Keble and Pusey for example, happily used the BCP1662, as did also the famous missionaries and preachers of the evangelical movement both of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. And do not forget that The BCP 1662 is widely used today in Africa, not least in Uganda, in both English and local languages. Also, it is in the Constitutions as a Formulary of all African Provinces.
2. Do not get taken in by the claims that unless a Eucharistic Prayer has an explicit Epiclesis (Invocation for descent of Holy Ghost upon gifts and people) or an explicit Oblation (Offering of gifts to the Father) that it is invalid. In the Bible it is said of the Word of God that it is powerful, energized by the Holy Spirit, and that it achieves the purpose for which it is spoken. The repeating of the words of Institution originally spoken by Christ, because of the presence of his Spirit, become in fact his words and as such they have authority and power. If the Presbyter of the church does in simple form what the Lord Christ did at the Last Supper and does so with the intention of obeying his command, then the Sacrament is real and the consecrated bread and wine become the sacramental body and blood of the Lord Jesus, food of eternal life. Thousands of the finest godly and learned persons of the Anglican Way have judged that the 1662 Rite is a valid Rite and is an appointed means by which the Dominical Sacrament may be celebrated for the glory of God and the salvation of man. Follow them rather than a disaffected minority opinion.
3. If you are put off by the traditional language of the 1662 Rite, there are versions of it in contemporary language available and in use. The AMiA has in use right now a version on trial use and the same text is in use in other jurisdictions as well. Copies are availabve from the AMiA church in Philadelphia. A copy of this Rite may also be obtained from thomascranmer2000@yahoo.com
4. The Prayer Book Society of England has a Booklet “The Order for Holy Communion” in which on one side of the Page is the text with Annotations on the opposite side and these explanations may be helpful to enquirers. Go to www.prayerbook.org.uk Likewise the USA Prayer Book Society has a booklet doing the same for the 1928 edition of the BCP—go to www.anglicanmarketplace.com or call 1-800-727-1928.
The Revd Dr. Peter Toon M.A., D.Phil (Oxford)
The Anglican Communion Network [ACN] made the momentous decision on July 31 to accept The Book of Common Prayer (1662) of The Church of England, the mother Church of the Global Anglican Family, as the basic Formulary of global Anglicanism and as its Formulary within the Common Cause alliance.
Amongst the reactions to the adoption by the Anglican C. Network posted on the web I have noticed various kinds of claims that The BCP 1662 Holy Communion Service is unacceptable and deficient to right-minded and mature Anglicans. Where does this notion come from?
In USA Episcopalianism, there is amongst a minority of those of an anglo-catholic persuasion, or who are influenced by anglo-catholic teaching, either a tendency to deny or a decision to make an out-right denial of “The Order of Holy Communion” in The BCP 1662 as a valid Rite in the Celebration of the Eucharist. This denial comes from three related but different mindsets—that which is based on The Anglican Missal (used in many small Continuing Anglican circles), that which is based on The Order for Holy Communion in The BCP 1928 of PECUSA, and that which is based on Rite One Eucharist, first Prayer, in the 1979 ECUSA Prayer Book. The charges against the Rite of The BCP of 1662 move along a spectrum of it being “Protestant” to it not having within its short Consecration Prayer an Epiclesis (Invocation for the descent of the Holy Ghost) or an Oblation (offering of the Gifts to the heavenly Father).
Having stated the objections, let me now offer a general reply to them.
We are all familiar with the difference between a basic model and a well-appointed model with respect to cars. The basic model is more than adequate to move people from point x to point y, but the well-appointed model can make that journey more comfortable and the driving a little easier. Also some of us may live in what may be called basic housing, where we have all that is necessary, and others of us may live in luxury housing, where we have what is necessary together with a variety of extra comforts and conveniences. Then we can all imagine, on the one hand, a basic tune or melody that we can easily hum and readily remember, and, on the other hand, an elaborate setting of that basic melody by a composer in a complex orchestral work.
The point I am moving towards making is this: That Anglican divines over the centuries from the reign of Elizabeth I (1559-1603) have overwhelmingly regarded what may be called the classic Anglican Order for Holy Communion—especially as found in its final form in The BCP 1662 and in over 150 translations of this globally—as in and of itself and by itself a basic and adequate Rite for the Celebration of the Dominical Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper or Holy Communion.
To say this is not to claim that a minority in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries (the schismatic supporters of James II or Non-Jurors and Jacobites and some leaders in the tiny Episcopal Church in Scotland) expressed an interest in reforming this Rite by incorporating characteristics of the Eastern Rites used in the Eastern Patriarchates; or that a minority of anglo-catholics in the late nineteenth century created Missals in order to incorporate material from the traditional Roman Mass. However, it is to claim that there has been and remains only one basic and classic Anglican form of “The Order for Holy Communion” and that is the Rite found in The BCP 1559, The BCP 1604 and given final form in The BCP 1662. It is to be noted that the Formularies of the Church of England and many Provinces of the global Anglican Communion to this day include The BCP 1662 with its attached Ordinal and also, usually, The Articles of Religion.
The Protestant Episcopal Church of the USA modified “The Order for Holy Communion of 1662” in 1789 on the model of the Scottish Rite of 1764, but It was careful to get the approval of the English Bishops for this revision, which was considered by the latter as remaining within the basic doctrine of the 1662 text. So what can be said as a generally true fact is that before the liturgical revolution of the 1960s-1980s, the 1662 text was used everywhere either in its basic form, embellished only by hymnody, or in a luxury or elaborate form, embellished not only by hymns but also by extra ceremonial and words. As there are several forms of the Toyota Camry and the Honda Accord on the road today, from the basic to the luxurious, so there were various expressions of the basic 1662 Rite in use around the world by the Anglican Family. In some cases where missionaries were relatively free of supervision from the home Church, they either provided what was below the basic or standard towards a generic Protestantism (as in some evangelical missionary work), or what was above the standard tending towards the texts of Rome or of the Eastern Patriarchates (as in some anglo-catholic missionary work) but these excesses were not the norm.
Tragically, ever since the go-ahead was given in 1968 by the Lambeth Conference to experiment with additional forms of liturgy to The BCP, the provinces— especially in the western or northern parts of the Anglican Communion— have not known where to stop once they got started on liturgical revision. Having opened the doors to new possibilities, the range of possibilities has been very wide and each Province, being autonomous, has done its own thing. Therefore, what was an essential component in the glue that held together the Provinces of the global Communion, the basic structure and content of BCP 1662, got lost (but happily not in the African Provinces). And a lot of people have got used to variety as the norm and personal opinion in liturgy as paramount.
Having let the water out of the reservoir and the kittens out of the bag, not a few sensitive Anglicans are realizing that the Anglican Way in the West, and not least in the U.S.A., needs to recover some basic rules on Formularies and Liturgy or else there will be no glue at all to hold together either Anglicans in North America or within even the global Communion. This is where Common Cause and the Anglican Communion Network seem to be now. They recognize the need for a standard, for a base line, for an agreed essential content of the Anglican Way as Reformed Catholicism.
To get in step with this new army and to walk together with this new movement is not going to be easy for those who have been raised to believe that the 1979 Prayer Book is the last word in modern Liturgy or those who have been raised to hold that only certain post-1662 Anglican Prayer Books are valid for “Catholic” Anglicans. But if there is to be any common glue that is used for binding together Anglicans in a comprehensiveness based upon a sound foundation, that glue will have to include the Formularies of 1662.
What I would say to those with lingering doubts about the validity of 1662 in brief are four things, and they all assume that in the editions of the BCP of 1559 and 1662 we have the basic content of Reformed Catholicism.
1. Be aware that the great Anglican divines of the late sixteenth century (e.g., Bishop Jewel and Richard Hooker) and of the seventeenth century and eighteenth century (see the collection of testimonies from Caroline divines in Anglicanism, edited by F.L. Cross & P.E. More, 1951 SPCK, and available as a CD from www.anglicanmarketplace.com ) were perfectly satisfied with either the 1559 or 1662 editions of The BCP. Be aware also that the founding fathers of the Anglo-Catholic movement, Keble and Pusey for example, happily used the BCP1662, as did also the famous missionaries and preachers of the evangelical movement both of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. And do not forget that The BCP 1662 is widely used today in Africa, not least in Uganda, in both English and local languages. Also, it is in the Constitutions as a Formulary of all African Provinces.
2. Do not get taken in by the claims that unless a Eucharistic Prayer has an explicit Epiclesis (Invocation for descent of Holy Ghost upon gifts and people) or an explicit Oblation (Offering of gifts to the Father) that it is invalid. In the Bible it is said of the Word of God that it is powerful, energized by the Holy Spirit, and that it achieves the purpose for which it is spoken. The repeating of the words of Institution originally spoken by Christ, because of the presence of his Spirit, become in fact his words and as such they have authority and power. If the Presbyter of the church does in simple form what the Lord Christ did at the Last Supper and does so with the intention of obeying his command, then the Sacrament is real and the consecrated bread and wine become the sacramental body and blood of the Lord Jesus, food of eternal life. Thousands of the finest godly and learned persons of the Anglican Way have judged that the 1662 Rite is a valid Rite and is an appointed means by which the Dominical Sacrament may be celebrated for the glory of God and the salvation of man. Follow them rather than a disaffected minority opinion.
3. If you are put off by the traditional language of the 1662 Rite, there are versions of it in contemporary language available and in use. The AMiA has in use right now a version on trial use and the same text is in use in other jurisdictions as well. Copies are availabve from the AMiA church in Philadelphia. A copy of this Rite may also be obtained from thomascranmer2000@yahoo.com
4. The Prayer Book Society of England has a Booklet “The Order for Holy Communion” in which on one side of the Page is the text with Annotations on the opposite side and these explanations may be helpful to enquirers. Go to www.prayerbook.org.uk Likewise the USA Prayer Book Society has a booklet doing the same for the 1928 edition of the BCP—go to www.anglicanmarketplace.com or call 1-800-727-1928.
The Revd Dr. Peter Toon M.A., D.Phil (Oxford)
Friday, August 03, 2007
Philip TURNER responds to Stephen NOLL: Two decent men present two very different approaches to The Episcopal Church: Why?
A starter for reflection.
Writing from Uganda, Dr Stephen Noll urged the leadership of The Anglican Communion Network to secede from The Episcopal Church, where a false gospel is proclaimed. Writing from Austin, Texas, Dr Philip Turner urged the leadership of the same Network to stay put, recognizing that much was being done to seek to bring changed attitudes and actions in The Episcopal Church.
Before noting the very different estimates of each man with regard to the state of Anglicanism in North America, let us briefly note what they have in common and where they are in agreement. In fact they have much in common, since they are baptized Christians, who believe the Creed and confess that Jesus is Lord. Both have served as priests in seminaries within The Episcopal Church; both have earned Ph.D’s; both have served in Uganda; both believe that the leadership of The Episcopal Church is basing itself upon and commending a false gospel; both hold firmly to a generally evangelical understanding of the way of salvation; both are solidly against the blessing of same-sex couples and the ordaining of persons in such partnerships; both desire to see the renewal of the Anglican Way in North America; both accept the ordination of women (Turner is married to a female priest); and both accept that the innovatory Formulary [i.e., the 1979 Prayer Book] of The Episcopal Church is generally orthodox, and both do not appear to see any loss to the Church in the placing of the historic Formularies [classic BCP, Ordinal and Articles] in the archives to be regarded as historical documents only. Finally, each man is rational, lucid and passionate in the presentation of his case.
How can it be that two good men who have so much in common in belief, vocation and experience come to such different conclusions concerning whether or not those who desire to be biblically orthodox should or should not remain within The Episcopal Church in 2007. Though both supply what appear to be good reasons for their views, I would suggest that neither man has come to his present position of secession or not on the basis of study and reasoning alone. Behind and underneath the use of observation and reason is what we may call “a mindset” which is composed of a mixture of emotion and rationality and which is acquired in various ways but never solely through objective rational study. In fact, the formation of a “mindset” is a complex psychological story
Noll has acquired through his own unique personal circumstances, a mindset, a disposition, a conviction, that allows him or tends to cause him to view the situation and evidence in a given way, a way that leads to the belief that secession from the Church dominated by a false gospel is the only way forward for those who confess that “Jesus Christ is Lord” and wish to maintain the Anglican Way. In a similar way, Turner through his own unique circumstances in life has acquired a mindset, disposition and conviction that allows or tends to cause him to see things very differently—nearly totally opposite when it comes to secession, which he opposes as the thing to do in 2007.
To speculate on why the two men have very different psychological bases, which deeply affect how they see the situation, would be to enter into the details of their personal and family lives and a host of other things. It is best not even to try to provide an answer why each man possesses a different estimate and comes to a different conclusion about whether secession or remaining within is the right option. After all, we have a similar recent public difference in mindset between Dr Ephraim Radner (a close friend of Dr Turner) and Bishop Robert Duncan. Radner has resigned from the Network because of the move to secession and forming a new province which he sees Duncan advocating. Again Radner and Duncan are both fine men, both hold to the Creed, to personal salvation and godliness and also both agree on the ordination of women (Radner is marred to lady priest) and happily use the 1979 Prayer Book as orthodox. Obviously, they have similar but yet different mindsets!
Looking back over Church history we face the same type of problem when we ask such questions as: Why were some decent Christians Pelagians and others Augustinians, some Protestants and some Catholics, some Calvinists and some Arminians, some Evangelicals and some Anglo-Catholics, and so on? Good men and women of seemingly impeccable character and devotion are found on both sides of these many divides, even as they are now in the confused state of American Episcopalianism and Anglicanism. In fact the Anglican Way invented the Anglican doctrine of Reception in the late 1980s in order to try to keep together in one diocese or province those who differed radically on the ordination of women as priests and bishops.
It would appear that unless any one of us actually possesses the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth—and this has been verified by the Archangel Michael in a written document sealed in heaven—then we have to be ready to admit that, even when we have come to a given, ecclesiastical position after careful thought and prayer, we may still be only half right or half-wrong. Indeed, we may even be totally wrong though we are utterly sincere and totally rational, for, after all, our conclusions are only as good as our premises (and our premises are often not wholly consciously known to us!).
Of course, I am referring here not to disagreement about the foundational doctrines of the Creed but to different views and approaches with respect to the application of basic doctrines in complex and difficult situations, as is the dysfunctional reality of Anglicanism in 2007. In fact there are so many aspects to the complex reality of the great variety of forms of Anglicanism in North America that any evaluation is more likely to get it at least partially wrong than nearly right.
The reality is that, as complex human beings who use our senses and minds, we cannot avoid coming to positions and opinions and mindsets; but we can avoid being uncharitable in the way we speak of others who differ from our own positions. In this matter, Dr Turner sets a good example of charitable writing in his Open Letter to Dr Noll.
Dr Peter Toon August 2, 2007
Writing from Uganda, Dr Stephen Noll urged the leadership of The Anglican Communion Network to secede from The Episcopal Church, where a false gospel is proclaimed. Writing from Austin, Texas, Dr Philip Turner urged the leadership of the same Network to stay put, recognizing that much was being done to seek to bring changed attitudes and actions in The Episcopal Church.
Before noting the very different estimates of each man with regard to the state of Anglicanism in North America, let us briefly note what they have in common and where they are in agreement. In fact they have much in common, since they are baptized Christians, who believe the Creed and confess that Jesus is Lord. Both have served as priests in seminaries within The Episcopal Church; both have earned Ph.D’s; both have served in Uganda; both believe that the leadership of The Episcopal Church is basing itself upon and commending a false gospel; both hold firmly to a generally evangelical understanding of the way of salvation; both are solidly against the blessing of same-sex couples and the ordaining of persons in such partnerships; both desire to see the renewal of the Anglican Way in North America; both accept the ordination of women (Turner is married to a female priest); and both accept that the innovatory Formulary [i.e., the 1979 Prayer Book] of The Episcopal Church is generally orthodox, and both do not appear to see any loss to the Church in the placing of the historic Formularies [classic BCP, Ordinal and Articles] in the archives to be regarded as historical documents only. Finally, each man is rational, lucid and passionate in the presentation of his case.
How can it be that two good men who have so much in common in belief, vocation and experience come to such different conclusions concerning whether or not those who desire to be biblically orthodox should or should not remain within The Episcopal Church in 2007. Though both supply what appear to be good reasons for their views, I would suggest that neither man has come to his present position of secession or not on the basis of study and reasoning alone. Behind and underneath the use of observation and reason is what we may call “a mindset” which is composed of a mixture of emotion and rationality and which is acquired in various ways but never solely through objective rational study. In fact, the formation of a “mindset” is a complex psychological story
Noll has acquired through his own unique personal circumstances, a mindset, a disposition, a conviction, that allows him or tends to cause him to view the situation and evidence in a given way, a way that leads to the belief that secession from the Church dominated by a false gospel is the only way forward for those who confess that “Jesus Christ is Lord” and wish to maintain the Anglican Way. In a similar way, Turner through his own unique circumstances in life has acquired a mindset, disposition and conviction that allows or tends to cause him to see things very differently—nearly totally opposite when it comes to secession, which he opposes as the thing to do in 2007.
To speculate on why the two men have very different psychological bases, which deeply affect how they see the situation, would be to enter into the details of their personal and family lives and a host of other things. It is best not even to try to provide an answer why each man possesses a different estimate and comes to a different conclusion about whether secession or remaining within is the right option. After all, we have a similar recent public difference in mindset between Dr Ephraim Radner (a close friend of Dr Turner) and Bishop Robert Duncan. Radner has resigned from the Network because of the move to secession and forming a new province which he sees Duncan advocating. Again Radner and Duncan are both fine men, both hold to the Creed, to personal salvation and godliness and also both agree on the ordination of women (Radner is marred to lady priest) and happily use the 1979 Prayer Book as orthodox. Obviously, they have similar but yet different mindsets!
Looking back over Church history we face the same type of problem when we ask such questions as: Why were some decent Christians Pelagians and others Augustinians, some Protestants and some Catholics, some Calvinists and some Arminians, some Evangelicals and some Anglo-Catholics, and so on? Good men and women of seemingly impeccable character and devotion are found on both sides of these many divides, even as they are now in the confused state of American Episcopalianism and Anglicanism. In fact the Anglican Way invented the Anglican doctrine of Reception in the late 1980s in order to try to keep together in one diocese or province those who differed radically on the ordination of women as priests and bishops.
It would appear that unless any one of us actually possesses the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth—and this has been verified by the Archangel Michael in a written document sealed in heaven—then we have to be ready to admit that, even when we have come to a given, ecclesiastical position after careful thought and prayer, we may still be only half right or half-wrong. Indeed, we may even be totally wrong though we are utterly sincere and totally rational, for, after all, our conclusions are only as good as our premises (and our premises are often not wholly consciously known to us!).
Of course, I am referring here not to disagreement about the foundational doctrines of the Creed but to different views and approaches with respect to the application of basic doctrines in complex and difficult situations, as is the dysfunctional reality of Anglicanism in 2007. In fact there are so many aspects to the complex reality of the great variety of forms of Anglicanism in North America that any evaluation is more likely to get it at least partially wrong than nearly right.
The reality is that, as complex human beings who use our senses and minds, we cannot avoid coming to positions and opinions and mindsets; but we can avoid being uncharitable in the way we speak of others who differ from our own positions. In this matter, Dr Turner sets a good example of charitable writing in his Open Letter to Dr Noll.
Dr Peter Toon August 2, 2007
Wednesday, August 01, 2007
Network, Common Cause and the BCP (1662) with the Ordinal (1662): asking some questions.
Most Anglicans know that the most widespread edition of the classic Book of Common Prayer is that of the Church of England dated 1662. Bound with this are the official Ordination Services (Ordinal) and usually also The Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion . The 1662 edition serves as the Formulary of many provinces of the Anglican Communion and is also the primary text for worship in many places whether in English or the local vernacular—not least Uganda (to where the Prayer Book Society of the U.S.A. is in the process of shipping right now around new 600 copies of the English CUP edition for the use of bishops, clergy and catechists—at their request.
So it is not surprising that since the BCP (1662) exists in over 150 languages that the Common Cause movement, with its connections (via, for example, the AMiA and CANA to Rwanda & Nigeria in Africa) should have the following in its theological Statement:
6) We receive The Book of Common Prayer as set forth by the Church of England in 1662, together with the Ordinal attached to the same, as a standard for Anglican doctrine and discipline, and, with the Books which preceded it, as the standard for the Anglican tradition of worship.
7) We receive the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion of 1562, taken in their literal and grammatical sense, as expressing the Anglican response to certain doctrinal issues controverted at that time, and as expressing fundamental principles of authentic Anglican belief.
In terms of Common Prayer, this Statement effectively eliminates as authentic editions of The BCP both the American 1979 and the West Indian 1995 Prayer Books, which, though using the ancient title of "Book of Common Prayer," are what, in other parts of the Anglican Family, are called "Books of Alternative Services,"—alternative that is to the classic BCP and existing alongside it, and under its doctrinal authority. This elimination is contained in the words: as a standard for Anglican doctrine and discipline, and, with the Books which preceded it, as the standard for the Anglican tradition of worship. It does not say which followed but which preceded it.
Further, though the American editions of 1789, 1982 & 1928 and the Canadian ones of 1918 and 1962 are truly authentic editions of The BCP, they too are to be set under the basic authority of The BCP 1662 in terms of Anglican doctrine by Common Cause.
The making of The BCP 1662 so pivotal and central by the Common Cause has all kinds of implications, not least that Common Cause is committing itself to what is best called Reformed Catholicism, wherein the doctrine of Justification by Faith alone, is in the context of the supreme authority of the Bible and the guidance of the patristic dogma of The Trinity and the Person of the Lord Jesus Christ, crucial for soteriology. (For more on this see The Articles of Religion, The Homilies (1547) and Richard Hooker's, Faith, Works and the Foundation of Faith. The latter is most insistent that the doctrine of justification by faith alone through the imputation of the righteousness of Christ the Mediator is crucial for Anglicans.)
Now let us turn to the connection of the Anglican Communion Network to the Common Cause Movement. The Network is one of several members of the Common Cause. It is composed of congregations both within and without The Episcopal Church, and, as empirical data clearly show is basically attached for all practical purposes to the 1979 Prayer Book. In fact, for those within TEC in the Network this is their official Formulary!
However, the Network Council amazingly voted on July 31 unanimously to embrace the Common Cause Theological Statement.
How could this be? How could a body publicly and in some cases canonically committed to the 1979 Book appear to embrace two very different basic approaches to the Anglican Way? How can you hold to the authority of 1662 at the same time as to that of 1979 if you have actually read both carefully?
Out of concern for these my brethren in the Network, let me continue with my questions.
Have they actually read The BCP, Ordinal and Articles of Religion bound together in what is called the BCP 1662? Do they not realize that one of the purposes of the 1979 Prayer Book was to eliminate much of the doctrine and devotion of The BCP 1662 tradition (via the BCP 1928) from The Episcopal Church? Have they carefully compared the content of The BCP and Ordinal of 1662 with the 1979?
Are they aware of the major changes in the doctrine and practice of Baptism in 1979 as compared with 1662 and the classic American editions of BCP (1789, 1892 & 1928)? Do they not see that the placing of a so called baptismal covenant before the actual Baptism is sheer Pelagianism? And the commitment to peace, justice and dignity a 1960s theme?
Are they aware of the major changes in the doctrine and discipline of marriage in 1979 as compared with the 1662? 1979 was intended to be used in the context of the new canons of 1973 on marriage, which effectively took all traditional discipline out of who may be married in church and what the church expects of them and asks God for them. It is a marriage service for the divorce culture and for the artificial birth control mindset. One has simply to read the Preface to the BCP 1662 service and the differences are immediately obvious.
Have they carefully read the Outline of Faith in 1979 and noticed how, while it appears to be orthodox, it simply uses traditional terminology to advance innovations and changes in basics? There is implied in this Catechism changed doctrines of Who is God? Who is Jesus? What is Man? What is salvation? And so on.
In asking these questions I realize that, unless those who seek to answer them have done some study of these matters, they will simply work from the assumption—picked up from the false slogan "What we pray we believe"— that the 1979 represents orthodoxy.
Have they actually read a critique of the 1979 in order to face some of these questions—see e.g, the informative book by L Tarsitano & Peter Toon, Neither Orthodoxy Nor A Formulary, www.anglicanmarketplace.com or 1-800-727-1928, and the revealing essay by the insider, Urban T Holmes, "Education for Liturgy," in Worship Points The Way, ed M. C Burson, New York 1991?
Have they really faced what TEC did in 1979? Have they pondered the implications of this Church placing in the archives the received classic Formularies—BCP, Ordinal and Articles—and replacing them all with one new Book, a Book that reflects very much both the theological emphases of the 1960s and the new forms of morality based upon human rights and psychotherapy? In 1979 TEC formally rejected the received Anglican Way and sought to remake this Way in the image of the 1960s with help from Vatican II and the so-called Liturgical Movement.
I am not saying that TEC from 1979 ceased to be a Christian Church. Rather what I am suggesting is that it pioneered a liberal progressive way of being Anglican, and the fruit of this appeared over the years from 1979.
-
The Revd Dr Peter Toon
So it is not surprising that since the BCP (1662) exists in over 150 languages that the Common Cause movement, with its connections (via, for example, the AMiA and CANA to Rwanda & Nigeria in Africa) should have the following in its theological Statement:
6) We receive The Book of Common Prayer as set forth by the Church of England in 1662, together with the Ordinal attached to the same, as a standard for Anglican doctrine and discipline, and, with the Books which preceded it, as the standard for the Anglican tradition of worship.
7) We receive the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion of 1562, taken in their literal and grammatical sense, as expressing the Anglican response to certain doctrinal issues controverted at that time, and as expressing fundamental principles of authentic Anglican belief.
In terms of Common Prayer, this Statement effectively eliminates as authentic editions of The BCP both the American 1979 and the West Indian 1995 Prayer Books, which, though using the ancient title of "Book of Common Prayer," are what, in other parts of the Anglican Family, are called "Books of Alternative Services,"—alternative that is to the classic BCP and existing alongside it, and under its doctrinal authority. This elimination is contained in the words: as a standard for Anglican doctrine and discipline, and, with the Books which preceded it, as the standard for the Anglican tradition of worship. It does not say which followed but which preceded it.
Further, though the American editions of 1789, 1982 & 1928 and the Canadian ones of 1918 and 1962 are truly authentic editions of The BCP, they too are to be set under the basic authority of The BCP 1662 in terms of Anglican doctrine by Common Cause.
The making of The BCP 1662 so pivotal and central by the Common Cause has all kinds of implications, not least that Common Cause is committing itself to what is best called Reformed Catholicism, wherein the doctrine of Justification by Faith alone, is in the context of the supreme authority of the Bible and the guidance of the patristic dogma of The Trinity and the Person of the Lord Jesus Christ, crucial for soteriology. (For more on this see The Articles of Religion, The Homilies (1547) and Richard Hooker's, Faith, Works and the Foundation of Faith. The latter is most insistent that the doctrine of justification by faith alone through the imputation of the righteousness of Christ the Mediator is crucial for Anglicans.)
Now let us turn to the connection of the Anglican Communion Network to the Common Cause Movement. The Network is one of several members of the Common Cause. It is composed of congregations both within and without The Episcopal Church, and, as empirical data clearly show is basically attached for all practical purposes to the 1979 Prayer Book. In fact, for those within TEC in the Network this is their official Formulary!
However, the Network Council amazingly voted on July 31 unanimously to embrace the Common Cause Theological Statement.
How could this be? How could a body publicly and in some cases canonically committed to the 1979 Book appear to embrace two very different basic approaches to the Anglican Way? How can you hold to the authority of 1662 at the same time as to that of 1979 if you have actually read both carefully?
Out of concern for these my brethren in the Network, let me continue with my questions.
Have they actually read The BCP, Ordinal and Articles of Religion bound together in what is called the BCP 1662? Do they not realize that one of the purposes of the 1979 Prayer Book was to eliminate much of the doctrine and devotion of The BCP 1662 tradition (via the BCP 1928) from The Episcopal Church? Have they carefully compared the content of The BCP and Ordinal of 1662 with the 1979?
Are they aware of the major changes in the doctrine and practice of Baptism in 1979 as compared with 1662 and the classic American editions of BCP (1789, 1892 & 1928)? Do they not see that the placing of a so called baptismal covenant before the actual Baptism is sheer Pelagianism? And the commitment to peace, justice and dignity a 1960s theme?
Are they aware of the major changes in the doctrine and discipline of marriage in 1979 as compared with the 1662? 1979 was intended to be used in the context of the new canons of 1973 on marriage, which effectively took all traditional discipline out of who may be married in church and what the church expects of them and asks God for them. It is a marriage service for the divorce culture and for the artificial birth control mindset. One has simply to read the Preface to the BCP 1662 service and the differences are immediately obvious.
Have they carefully read the Outline of Faith in 1979 and noticed how, while it appears to be orthodox, it simply uses traditional terminology to advance innovations and changes in basics? There is implied in this Catechism changed doctrines of Who is God? Who is Jesus? What is Man? What is salvation? And so on.
In asking these questions I realize that, unless those who seek to answer them have done some study of these matters, they will simply work from the assumption—picked up from the false slogan "What we pray we believe"— that the 1979 represents orthodoxy.
Have they actually read a critique of the 1979 in order to face some of these questions—see e.g, the informative book by L Tarsitano & Peter Toon, Neither Orthodoxy Nor A Formulary, www.anglicanmarketplace.com or 1-800-727-1928, and the revealing essay by the insider, Urban T Holmes, "Education for Liturgy," in Worship Points The Way, ed M. C Burson, New York 1991?
Have they really faced what TEC did in 1979? Have they pondered the implications of this Church placing in the archives the received classic Formularies—BCP, Ordinal and Articles—and replacing them all with one new Book, a Book that reflects very much both the theological emphases of the 1960s and the new forms of morality based upon human rights and psychotherapy? In 1979 TEC formally rejected the received Anglican Way and sought to remake this Way in the image of the 1960s with help from Vatican II and the so-called Liturgical Movement.
I am not saying that TEC from 1979 ceased to be a Christian Church. Rather what I am suggesting is that it pioneered a liberal progressive way of being Anglican, and the fruit of this appeared over the years from 1979.
-
The Revd Dr Peter Toon
The Transfiguration of Christ Celebrated on August 6
At the mid-point in his public ministry, something unique happened to Jesus and it was witnessed by only three of his disciples, Peter, John and James, together with—amazingly—Moses and Elijah, who actually talked with Jesus. Here is how the first three Gospels describe what happened to Jesus:
He was transfigured before the three disciples, and his garments became glistening, intensely white, as no fuller on earth could bleach them. And there appeared to them Elijah and Moses and they were talking with Jesus. (Mark 9:3-4)
He was transfigured before the three disciples, and his face shone like the sun, and his garments became white as light. And behold there appeared to them Moses and Elijah, talking with Jesus. (Matthew 17:2-3)
As he was praying, the appearance of his countenance was altered, and his raiment became dazzling white. And behold, two men talked with him, Moses and Elijah, who appeared in glory and spoke of his departure [exodus], which he was to accomplish at Jerusalem. (Luke 9:29-30)
There are perhaps three explanations of what actually happened to Jesus and they are complementary. First of all, the Spirit of the Lord, who filled him and guided him as the Messiah (the Anointed One), caused his whole being to be radiated with his own pure immortal light and this shone through his skin and clothing. In the second place, God the Father caused the pure light of his own being to radiate through the total humanity of Jesus and via his clothing. And, thirdly, since Jesus (as we now know) is One Person made known in two natures, divine and human, the Transfiguration is nothing less than the brilliant purity of his divine nature being reflected through his human nature and via his garments. All in all by this event, Jesus was declared to be the Messiah, the one who fulfills the Law (represented by Moses) and the Prophets (represented by Elijah), and he is the one to whom the disciples and the world must henceforth listen! Yet, as the Lukan account makes very clear, the path of the Messiah included fulfilling the role of the Suffering Servant of the Lord (Isaiah 53) and by this suffering creating a new Exodus, a great deliverance and redemption of his people.
The transfigured Jesus on the mount is the Jesus who is transfigured now in heaven, at the Father’s right hand. The only difference—and it is a major one—is that his transfigured human nature and resurrected body in heaven have been through suffering, crucifixion and death en route to glorification through resurrection and ascension. 2 Peter 1:15-17 refers to the Transfiguration briefly.
The Feast of the Transfiguration of Jesus Christ, though celebrated in the East from the fourth century, was not made a universal Feast in the West until 1457. Provision was made for it in late editions of The Sarum Missal in England, but it was not included as a red-letter or major feast by Archbishop Cranmer in 1549 in The Book of Common Prayer. The probable reason for this was that it had been imposed by Pope Callistus III and thus was seen by the Reformers as a papal innovation. However, the feast entered the American edition of The BCP in 1892 through the zeal of Dr William Reed Huntington, and it was later incorporated into editions in other countries. Yet, though there is a similarity in the content of the Collects composed for this day, no two are exactly the same. Likewise the Epistle and Gospel are not identical throughout the editions. Here are the major texts:
ENGLAND (1928, proposed)
O God, who before the passion of thine only-begotten Son didst reveal his glory upon the holy mount: Grant unto us thy servants, that in faith beholding the light of his countenance, we may be strengthened to bear the cross, and be change into his likeness from glory to glory; through the same Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.
Epistle: 1 John 3:1-3 Gospel: Mark 9:2-8
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (1928)
O God, who on the mount didst reveal to chosen witnesses thine only-begotten Son wonderfully transfigured in raiment white and glistering; Mercifully grant that we, being delivered from the disquietude of this world, may be permitted to behold the King in his beauty, who with thee, O Father, and thee O Holy Ghost, liveth and reigneth, one God, world without end. Amen.
Epistle: 2 Peter 1:13-17 Gospel: Luke 9:28-36
SCOTLAND (1929)
O Almighty and Everlasting God, whose blessed Son revealed himself to his chosen Apostles when he was transfigured on the holy Mount, and amidst the excellent glory spake with Elijah and Moses of his decease, which he should accomplish at Jerusalem: Grant to us, thy servants, that beholding the brightness of his countenance we may be strengthened to bear the cross; through the same Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.
Epistle: 2 Peter 1:16-17 Gospel: Matthew 17:1-8
SOUTH AFRICA (1952)
O God, who before the passion of thine only-begotten Son didst reveal his glory upon the holy mount: Grant unto us thy servants, that in faith beholding the light of his countenance, we may be strengthened to bear the cross, through the same Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.
Epistle: I John 3:1-3 Gospel: Mark 9:2-8
CANADA (1962)
O God, who on the holy mount didst reveal to chosen witnesses thy well-beloved Son wonderfully transfigured: Mercifully grant unto us such a vision of his divine majesty, that we, being purified and strengthened by his grace, may be transformed into his likeness from glory to glory; through the same thy Son Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.
Epistle: 2 Peter 1:16-21 Gospel: Matthew 17:1-8
We note that two of these Collects relate the experience of beholding the transfigured Jesus to the bearing of his cross in the Christian life, following the Lukan account where the transfigured Jesus is sent forth from the mount on his way to suffering and death, thereby to create a new exodus for the people of God. But the other two relate the seeing of the transfigured Jesus to the deification of the people of God, with no reference glorification through the way of the Cross. The omission of the cross in these two collects is regrettable for all three Gospel accounts certainly present a very distinct relation between the Transfigured Jesus on the Mount Tabor and the Crucified Jesus on Mount Calvary. The Scottish Collect appears to be a free rendering of the original Collect from the fifteenth century.
Regrettably, there are not many hymns in English especially written for this Feast. The Episcopal Hymnal of 1940 only has one, and that is a translation from a fifteenth-century Latin hymn, written for the Feast soon after it became a major Feast in the West.
Whether we attend public worship on August 6 to keep this Feast or we keep it in our own private or family devotions what we are keeping is a celebration of the Incarnate Son of God who is truly God and truly Man and whose humanity is filled with the radiance of his Godhead—and further, that it this very Incarnate for us and our salvation suffered and died on the Cross.
The Revd Dr Peter Toon
He was transfigured before the three disciples, and his garments became glistening, intensely white, as no fuller on earth could bleach them. And there appeared to them Elijah and Moses and they were talking with Jesus. (Mark 9:3-4)
He was transfigured before the three disciples, and his face shone like the sun, and his garments became white as light. And behold there appeared to them Moses and Elijah, talking with Jesus. (Matthew 17:2-3)
As he was praying, the appearance of his countenance was altered, and his raiment became dazzling white. And behold, two men talked with him, Moses and Elijah, who appeared in glory and spoke of his departure [exodus], which he was to accomplish at Jerusalem. (Luke 9:29-30)
There are perhaps three explanations of what actually happened to Jesus and they are complementary. First of all, the Spirit of the Lord, who filled him and guided him as the Messiah (the Anointed One), caused his whole being to be radiated with his own pure immortal light and this shone through his skin and clothing. In the second place, God the Father caused the pure light of his own being to radiate through the total humanity of Jesus and via his clothing. And, thirdly, since Jesus (as we now know) is One Person made known in two natures, divine and human, the Transfiguration is nothing less than the brilliant purity of his divine nature being reflected through his human nature and via his garments. All in all by this event, Jesus was declared to be the Messiah, the one who fulfills the Law (represented by Moses) and the Prophets (represented by Elijah), and he is the one to whom the disciples and the world must henceforth listen! Yet, as the Lukan account makes very clear, the path of the Messiah included fulfilling the role of the Suffering Servant of the Lord (Isaiah 53) and by this suffering creating a new Exodus, a great deliverance and redemption of his people.
The transfigured Jesus on the mount is the Jesus who is transfigured now in heaven, at the Father’s right hand. The only difference—and it is a major one—is that his transfigured human nature and resurrected body in heaven have been through suffering, crucifixion and death en route to glorification through resurrection and ascension. 2 Peter 1:15-17 refers to the Transfiguration briefly.
The Feast of the Transfiguration of Jesus Christ, though celebrated in the East from the fourth century, was not made a universal Feast in the West until 1457. Provision was made for it in late editions of The Sarum Missal in England, but it was not included as a red-letter or major feast by Archbishop Cranmer in 1549 in The Book of Common Prayer. The probable reason for this was that it had been imposed by Pope Callistus III and thus was seen by the Reformers as a papal innovation. However, the feast entered the American edition of The BCP in 1892 through the zeal of Dr William Reed Huntington, and it was later incorporated into editions in other countries. Yet, though there is a similarity in the content of the Collects composed for this day, no two are exactly the same. Likewise the Epistle and Gospel are not identical throughout the editions. Here are the major texts:
ENGLAND (1928, proposed)
O God, who before the passion of thine only-begotten Son didst reveal his glory upon the holy mount: Grant unto us thy servants, that in faith beholding the light of his countenance, we may be strengthened to bear the cross, and be change into his likeness from glory to glory; through the same Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.
Epistle: 1 John 3:1-3 Gospel: Mark 9:2-8
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (1928)
O God, who on the mount didst reveal to chosen witnesses thine only-begotten Son wonderfully transfigured in raiment white and glistering; Mercifully grant that we, being delivered from the disquietude of this world, may be permitted to behold the King in his beauty, who with thee, O Father, and thee O Holy Ghost, liveth and reigneth, one God, world without end. Amen.
Epistle: 2 Peter 1:13-17 Gospel: Luke 9:28-36
SCOTLAND (1929)
O Almighty and Everlasting God, whose blessed Son revealed himself to his chosen Apostles when he was transfigured on the holy Mount, and amidst the excellent glory spake with Elijah and Moses of his decease, which he should accomplish at Jerusalem: Grant to us, thy servants, that beholding the brightness of his countenance we may be strengthened to bear the cross; through the same Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.
Epistle: 2 Peter 1:16-17 Gospel: Matthew 17:1-8
SOUTH AFRICA (1952)
O God, who before the passion of thine only-begotten Son didst reveal his glory upon the holy mount: Grant unto us thy servants, that in faith beholding the light of his countenance, we may be strengthened to bear the cross, through the same Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.
Epistle: I John 3:1-3 Gospel: Mark 9:2-8
CANADA (1962)
O God, who on the holy mount didst reveal to chosen witnesses thy well-beloved Son wonderfully transfigured: Mercifully grant unto us such a vision of his divine majesty, that we, being purified and strengthened by his grace, may be transformed into his likeness from glory to glory; through the same thy Son Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.
Epistle: 2 Peter 1:16-21 Gospel: Matthew 17:1-8
We note that two of these Collects relate the experience of beholding the transfigured Jesus to the bearing of his cross in the Christian life, following the Lukan account where the transfigured Jesus is sent forth from the mount on his way to suffering and death, thereby to create a new exodus for the people of God. But the other two relate the seeing of the transfigured Jesus to the deification of the people of God, with no reference glorification through the way of the Cross. The omission of the cross in these two collects is regrettable for all three Gospel accounts certainly present a very distinct relation between the Transfigured Jesus on the Mount Tabor and the Crucified Jesus on Mount Calvary. The Scottish Collect appears to be a free rendering of the original Collect from the fifteenth century.
Regrettably, there are not many hymns in English especially written for this Feast. The Episcopal Hymnal of 1940 only has one, and that is a translation from a fifteenth-century Latin hymn, written for the Feast soon after it became a major Feast in the West.
Whether we attend public worship on August 6 to keep this Feast or we keep it in our own private or family devotions what we are keeping is a celebration of the Incarnate Son of God who is truly God and truly Man and whose humanity is filled with the radiance of his Godhead—and further, that it this very Incarnate for us and our salvation suffered and died on the Cross.
The Revd Dr Peter Toon
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)