"... many of these people have the impression that Anglicanism belongs in principle to the Catholic type of Christianity and that it has been influenced by the sixteenth century Reformation and Protestantism only accidentally and superficially.
"Such a neo-Anglican vision is untenable. It is contrary to the historical facts, if all the facts, documents and data taken into consideration...."
If you'd like to have a go at de-bunking this, please do it where it all started and not here.
I posted a comment, and quote it here for the benefit of our readers. I do not like being called a Protestant simply because the word no longer has any definition; however, I do not mind it if someone is simply accusing me of being Western non-papal- to which I joyfully plead guilty.
Here is the comment I posted:
The BCP has not been forbidden or abandoned by Continuing Anglicans, and the Missal really is the BCP Communion Service with the addition (not the subtraction) of usages, but only by opening the real thing can you see the proof that is in the pudding. Furthermore, most of these churches have the BCP in the pews, and teach the ideal of using it for daily Morning Prayer and Evening Prayer. Many of them do not use the Missal at all.
Furthermore, it is misleading to use contemporary language to describe the 16th Century mind. Especially incorrect is the use of “Catholics” and Protestants” which, in that era, would have been unintelligible both to “Papist Catholics” and “Protestant Catholics.” You will not find the contemporary usage of “Catholic” and “Protestant” as mutually exclusive of the other in any old C of E document.
I must laugh when people charge Anglo-catholics with not knowing the obvious Protestant facts of the C of E Reformation. Of course we know it, for crying out loud. What the C of E, and Anglicanism always maintained, is that this was not to such a degree that we lost the validity of sacramental grace. Does anyone anywhere actually read such important Anglican documents as Saepius Officio?
I think it is high time that we restored those traditional definitions. Do not be dissuaded! Somewhere along the way, "Protestant" became synonymous with innovative Reformation theologies, when in its original sense, as oft-repeated by the Caroline Divines for one, it only pointed to disagreement with the Roman Catholic distortion of the papacy. "Protestant" and "Catholic" are not mutually exclusive terms, and I am surprised to find that so many on that thread need to be reminded of this quintessentially Anglican fact. The opposite of "Protestant" is "Papist" (or "Romanist") while the opposite of "Catholic" is "Heretic."
Let me proclaim proudly that I am a Protestant Catholic, which is to say that I am Western Orthodox. I reject the Roman Catholic distortion of the papacy while embracing the Orthodox Catholic faith, free of all Roman distortions ("developments"). The current controversy, which Packer's essay highlights, is not "Protestant vs. Catholic," but rather "Protestant Catholic vs. Protestant Heretic." Packer needs to learn that we as Anglicans, unlike Puritans, are Protestant Catholics.
(Yes, Albion Land. I guess I need to post something like this over there. Was just trying to avoid doing so.)
I agree with both the comments so far. In our parish, and most ACC parishes I know, the BCP is always in the pews. The people read their prayers from the BCP. The majority of the people don't even know what the Anglican Missal is in all honesty.
I would guess most people just think that priests copy of the BCP has extra "stuff" in it.
I go to a parish where the priest uses the Missal. I read along in the prayer book and let the "extras" go in one ear and out the other.
We need to reclaim the correct usage of catholic. Many ACC parishes are afraid to use the word "catholic" because people think that Rome has exclusive use of it. Many ACC parish signs read only "St. ------- Anglican Church" and do the same in advertising. Our parish now consistently uses Anglican Catholic Church in our advertising, etc. It has paid off for us with converts from Rome. It also lets people know what we are; with an ever-growing alphabet soup of Anglican groups.
In our publicity articles and ads I've tried to "take back" the word catholic, and let people know that it does not belong exclusively to Rome. In news articles I've described it as "catholic as used in the Apostles Creed"; with that usage Methodists, for one, automatically see their connection to us. If they think about it, they then realize the Wesley connection as well.
Brian McKee, nO/C.G.S.
Did anyone catch Packer's huge gaffe of "ultra-Montaigne"--the Frenchman would find that quite amusing I should think.
It would be interesting to see what sort of membership the TPEC has since he dismisses the continuing movement as inconsequential (one suspects this is wishful thinking outloud).
Our friened "the barking Toad" has written in his customary way about this.
My response to this tune is to sing the song I have sung before on this 'blog:
Commenting on that site is too much of a hassle and appears not worth the effort.
I agree with Fr Kirby. I'd rather comment among friends in the (relatively) safe environment of this blog. I'm not very brave (although I'm sure it's not lack of courage that influences Fr Kirby's preferences).
One of the things I've found curious about the Continuing Churches in that the BCP (US 1928 or 1662 in the UK) is nearly always mentioned with regard to doctrine and worship but then replaced by the Missal at the altar.
I can't help but think that most people would be confused attending a Missal Eucharist with nothing but the BCP to hand in the pews.
One of the great joys I have each week is celebrating the 1662 Eucharist with no additions or devitations apart from the omission of the Exhortations (it is a weekday after all!). For me it expresses what I regard as the full catholicity (still!) of the CofE.
It also seems to resonate with people who can bring their BCPs from home and find the Eucharist being celebrated as printed in the same prayer book they've had for years.
I often wonder what response a church sign that read 'bring your prayer book with you (you'll need it)' would bring.
As a continuing Anglican, I believe that the mass should be directly from the 1549, 1662, or 1928 BCP. The BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER is the only continuing proof that the Church of England did intend for itself to be a catholic body.
In our parish, myself, and the vast majority of of our members, read along in our prayerbooks and let the rest go in one ear and out the other. I wish that every continuing parish offered two masses each Sunday: one straight from the prayerbook for the true Anglicans; and one from the Missal for those who wish to imitate Rome.
Unfortunately, in small parishes, that isn't a reaistic option. So, many of us just follow in the prayerbook and ignore the rest.
Brian McKee, nO/C.G.S.
Fr. Edward, I have deep respect for your courage to follow the book. God bless you. I have even more respect for your using the 1662 BCP if for no other reason than the changes made to the Good Friday prayers in the 1928.
My own tiny parish, St. Luke's Anglican Catholic Church, Fredericksburg, VA, ignores the Anglican Missal altogether. Oh, a few copies lie around for the perusal of the curious, to be sure, but they are never used....
We're pretty much a 1928 BCP parish, and comfortable being one. Any attempt to introduce the Anglican Missal would probably start a row that we don't need.
However: I am under the impression that St. Luke's is rather the exception to the rule here in the diocese of the Mid-Atlantic States, and that the Anglican Missal is in common use in other DMAS parishes.
St. Luke's ACC
I serve three ACC Parishes in the Diocese of the Mid-Atlantic States, and in none of them is the Missal the norm for the celebration of the Holy Eucharist. I do say the priest's prayers from the American Missal during the Consecration, which are not included in the BCP, but that is done sotto voce.
The opposite of "Protestant" is "Papist" (or "Romanist") while the opposite of "Catholic" is "Heretic."
Exactly. That is the Anglican usage of the word "Protestant."
To all interested parties:
Someone has just posted a message to the linked Stand Firm thread, purported to be from J.I. Packer himself. In it, he denies authorship of the essay in question. Here is a link to the text of the message:
(THIS IS INFORMATION THAT MIGHT BE GOOD FOR A NEW ARTICLE.)
GOOD NEWS IN THE A.C.C.
I receieved some wonderful news of good things happening in the Anglican Catholic Church:
1. In 2006, the Diocese of the South had a 27% membership growth, and so far an equally good rate of growth for 2007.
2. Anglican Parishes Association is having trouble keeping the 1928 BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER in stock. They are selling as fast as they can print them.
3. Growth in overseas missions is very encouraging:
(A). The Anglican Catholic Church is now established in the Sudan.
(B). The Anglican Catholic Church is being registered in Kenya to being missions there.
(C). Plans are underway to being mission work in Rwanda in 2008.
4. The new A.C.C. TV Spot/Commercial has been distributed to 10 parishes who will soon begin airing it on television stations in their area. This commercial was produced by Novice Oblate Brother Brian McKee of the A.C.C.'s Community of the Good Samaritan.
Brian McKee, nO/C.G.S.
For your edification, clearly we are all uder attack and ought to take stock of who we are fighting with, shoulder to shoulder, against the enemy.
Retraction and Apologies to the Rev. Dr. James Packer
Last week I posted an article purportedly written by Dr. James I Packer entitled: Anglicanism: Protestant or Catholic. - Matt Kennedy
It was sent to me, with attribution, by two independent trustworthy sources.
It turns out that the article was not written by Dr. Packer. It has, apparently, been making the rounds for some time.
I apologise to my readers and to Dr. Packer for posting this article under his name and take full responsibility for it. I ought to have checked on this more diligently and thoroughly and regret that I did not.
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.
Post a Comment