I would like to draw readers' attention to a pastoral letter here,
jointly signed by the bishops of the Anglican Province of America and the Reformed Episcopal Church in which they plea for greater unity among traditional Anglicans.
In particular, it draws attention to the Federation of Anglican Churches in the Americas here, which it says "has been created to allow separate organizational structures.
The letter says that, "through FACA we want to forge a deeper union between us. It will facilitate growing into the unity that we possess."
In addition to the APA and the REC, the federation also encompasses the Anglican Church in America and the Anglican Mission in America.
I am not nearly the theological expert that are Fathers Hart and Kirby, but it would seem to me that the FACA might provide the vehicle for the unity we so desperately need within the continuing movement, at least in terms of full inter-communion and cooperation in evangelistic and charitable works, if not full structural unity. In short, that it might prove to be the haven to which those now preparing to flee the apostate Episcopal Church might flee.
In that respect, I direct your attention to a recent speech">details here to the Forward in Faith synod in London by the Rt Revd Keith Ackerman, Bishop of Quincy.
This piece says, in part, "outlining the difficulties Anglo-Catholics face in North America, Ackerman said there were 53 separate denominations of continuing churches, with some wanting to be in communion with Canterbury, but not all. 'It is difficult for us to know the path we are to take.' (my emphasis)
"The Anglo-Catholic bishop said that half of his class from Nashotah House is now with the Roman Catholic, Antiochian and numerous continuing churches. "There is not a place for the Anglo-Catholic."(my emphasis)
Bishop Ackerman's lament is not the first such comment I have heard, particularly within the Church of England, where there seems to be little awareness even of the existence of the continuing movement. But I have also heard it from America. A very orthodox TEC priest I know there recently commented that he saw his only options as Rome and Constaninople, because there was "nowhere else" for him to go.
I am raising two questions here, the first in two parts. Could the FACA serve as a prototype for a sort of Alternative Anglican Communion, and are the Anglican Catholic Church and the Anglican Province of Christ the King giving thought to joining it? Secondly, as I so often ask, without ever getting much response, why is it that the continuing movement is so poorly known, and so often belittled when it is known?
11 comments:
As a discussion starter, the FACA charter states that it is a "Federation of Anglican Provinces or Jurisdictions in North and South America which hold to the primacy of Holy Scripture, the Ecumenical Creeds and Councils, adhere to the 39 Articles of Religion, and the principles of the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral."
It makes no mention of the Affirmation of St Louis, a seminal document for continuing churches.
Should this be an obstacle to communio in sacris?
I don't make these comments as a "spoiler" -- but:
(1) the "Affirmation of St. Louis" affirms, among other matters, the ecumenicity and , hence, the binding force of the (first) Seven Ecumenical Councils. It is well known that Dr. Toon has of late been polemicizing against any affirmation of the "binding force" of the Seventh Council as "unAnglican" -- although he personally has no objections to it theologically. What is the view of the REC and the APA on the Seventh Council? If it rejects it, or embraces Dr. Toon's position, can Catholic Anglicans go along with it?
(2) I am reliably informed that some bishops of the REC admit Protestant clergy who join their denomination to the exercise of a pastoral/sacramental ministry without any form of reordination. This had been their traditional practice since their begining in the 1870s, although I have been told that in recent years many of their bishops have begun to receive such men as deacons, and subsequently ordain them to the presbyterate. Is this in itself sufficient to prevent communicatio in sacris? (REC bishops used routinely to authorize deacons to conduct the Lord's Supper in the absence of a presbyter, but I have been informed that this sort of thing no longer takes place.)
Mr Tighe,
Good to see a comment from you after such a long time, though I see you are a fairly regular reader.
As to your second point, has there not also been some question about the validity of bishops' orders in the REC, or have I confused that with something else? Perhaps Fr Chad of the AFP might clarify that, and any other related points for us.
Further the REC, there is at least one person there who holds no truck with the alliance with the APA because of its "popish" ways, witness the following web site:
http://www.no-way-apa.net/
Sorry, meant to say APA not APF.
I'm a member of ACA, and thoroughly committed to the proposition that is is sinful not to seek full union of the Continuing churches. An attitude that says, "well, we've got it right. There's no need to reach out to the other jurisdictions," appears to me to be a major error.
However, That doesn't lead me to be satisfied with union on a less-than-orthodox basis. I would not favor full communion with the REC at this point, becuse there is a widespread denial of basic Catholic theology in the matters of Baptismal regeneration, of Eucharistic Presence, and of Apostolic Succession. It does appear that this is changing and that the ones who cannot accept the change will probably break away. Yet these attitudes are so central to their history that, if a union were eventually possible, I would want to see at least a conditional ordination of their clergy. I would be unwilling also to unite with the AMiA at this time due to the presence among them of female 'priests' even though they have pledged not to ordain more. There thus are distinct obstacles in place with regard to these bodies. Due to the closeness of their relationship with REC, I'd also hesitate to unrestricted intercommunion with APA, though not having objections to them in themselves.
If, as it appears to me, FACA is, first of all an instrument for practical cooperation on things our tiny jurisdictions cannpt easily do for ourselves; and secondarily a venue for seeking the true union that is not yet possible, I support it unreservedly. If, however, it would come to be seen as some sort of super-jurisdiction oir to imply acceptance of what cannot be accepted, I would join a clamor for ending the relationship.
It looks like a good start, and one that has to be made, but one that needs to be watched very carefully indeed.
ed
Thank you for the excellent discussion! The APA has received assurances that the REC has ceased the irregular practices with which it has been historically associated, namely, the invalid celebration of Mass by Deacons and the reception of protestant ministers without the benefit of episcopal ordination. However, one point of difficulty which continues to exist is the use of a special rite for the reception of non-episcopally ordained ministers, entitled logically 'The Reception of Presbyters,' in which episcopal hands are imposed on the minister with an imperative formula of authorisation for service in the REC, but with which neither direct prayers of ordination to the presbyterate nor any recognisable ordination forms, such as 'Receive the Holy Ghost,' are utilised. This rite is almost always used in the reception of ministers in Presbyterian 'orders.' I am disconcertingly uncertain of the sacramental validity of the rite in question and I desire very much that the REC would simply follow the universal post-1660 practice of the Anglican Communion and use the Anglican Ordinal for the conferral, first, of the Diaconate and then, the Priesthood. In 2003 my own father-in-law, a former PCUSA minister, was confirmed in the APA and subsequently deaconed and priested with the Anglican Ordinal, as our canons and consistent Anglican tradition require. Aside from this one point of concern, the REC has made great strides in correcting its formerly irregular sacramental practices.
God bless you!
It would be fallacious to conclude from the few comments on this post that there is a groundswell of support for unity in the continuum, but not to say that it should be our goal.
I would think it incumbent on the primates of each jurisdiction to have developed, in consultation with their bishops, a policy on the question and to communicate that openly and clearly to the faithful. And there should be a formal mechanism to pursue that end. If that is not the case, it is incumbent on the faithful to demand it.
We know for a fact what the TAC's policy is toward Rome, but I do not recall seeing anything of a formal nature on the policy toward Constatninople or the rest of the continuum. We also know about the formation of FACA, whose website is still under construction.
Could those of you in the TAC and the other jurisdictions perhaps tell us what the situation in your case?
Conceptually, FACA seems to be a step in the right direction. It would be nice if someone among the organisers would speak with us here. In fact, I would be happy to publish any statement or commentary as a separate post.
Albion:
You have asked two questions, and I quote: "Could the FACA serve as a prototype for a sort of Alternative Anglican Communion, and are the Anglican Catholic Church and the Anglican Province of Christ the King giving thought to joining it?"
The answers are no and no. With all charity, I cannot accept the eagerness with which some Continuers want to refer to the REC as "the first Continuing Church." It was a Protestant revolt against the belief that bishops are necessary, and therefore a revolt against an orthodox belief in Holy Orders. It is impossible for them to have valid sacraments unless they renounce The Declaration of Principles, which rejects the priesthood and the Real Presence, and Eucahristic Sacrifice in no vague terms. I am happy with the thought that they have a group within their ranks who want to do so, but, as of yet, it is not a done deal. Furthermore, because the Sacramental Intention for Holy Orders has been absent among them from the start (not even with the "Minimal Intention" of "doing what the Church does", but, rather a radical rejection of Catholic Orders), we cannot recognize any of their ordinations, and we cannot be deluded into considering their relay race as genuine Apostolic Succession.
As for the AMiA, as has been stated above, they remain compromised as long as they have priestesses at a couple of their altars. One would be one too many. The idea that heresy can be "grandfathered in" is ridiculous.
You also said: "Secondly, as I so often ask, without ever getting much response, why is it that the continuing movement is so poorly known, and so often belittled when it is known?"
Let's ask another question. How can a valid CC be recognized when any simonist vagante can sell any knucklehead the kit to start up a church in his garage? As long as we have freedom of religion, there will be vagante CCs, and vagante "Orthodox" as well as vagante "Old Catholics". One vagante "Orthodox" "bishop" used the title "Shepherd of shepherds and Master of the Universe" - which sounds like he must have been violating a copyright by the Marvel Comics group.
I believe that we have to be willing, on this Site, to help people identify valid CCs. Somebody has to do it.
I see that I made a typo on the word "Eucharistic."
Basically I'm with you,
Father. While I can see the FACA as a constructive practical program and as a way to keep the unrequited goal of unity before everyone's minds, I can't see it as an approach to unity in itself. The REC's Declaration and its history stand too firmly in the way, a situation that can only be resolved by complete rejection of the Declaration and, at least in the interest of removing doubts, the submission of all its clergy to reordination (either de novo or conditional). APA I could accept readily, if it were not for the question of whether the man at the altar was actually ordained by them or by REC. And AMiA has those lady 'priests'. Yes, unity is a very high priority for Christians, because it is a very high prioroty for Our Lord, but it has to be obtained on His terms. It is good and proper to be on friendly terms with these others. It is good and proper to cooperate with them as far as possible, but unrestricted intercommunion is still far awy.
ed
What are the prospects of at least the ACC and APCK reuniting?
Post a Comment