-Fr. Hart
Additional thoughts
In my post two days ago I was writing in attempt to represent a point of view that had been expressed in comments here, and in some emails to me. I think it useful, considering how much discussion has been generated, to reproduce the following from my own responses in the comment section.
"Every edition of the BCP that was authorized, whether in England, the U.S., Canada, South Africa, or anywhere, was authorized only after discussion and through a legal process. In England it involved both the General Synod, Parliament and the Crown; and in the U.S. it involved, in the old days, the national Church in General Convention (the old American way of saying "General Synod"). So, for the ACC to act in Provincial Synod is quite proper by all the old standards of Anglican Canon Law. We are a church; we are neither an extension of the Episcopal Church nor of the Church of England.
"I have voiced a point of view that is in keeping with public knowledge, there being no dark, deep secrets. The Anglican Catholic Church (ACC) has placed all its cards on the table, without pretense to perfection or claims of infallibility. All over the world, where Anglicans are in a state of emergency and turmoil, the ACC is the best option. We may not be the perfect solution in a perfect world governed by the Ideal of Plato. But, the ACC is the best option on the ground in the real world."
I do not mean to take away anything from the United Episcopal Church North America (UECNA) or the Anglican Province of Christ the King (APCK). But, the fact is that these are both to be found only in North America, frankly in the United States. An exodus from the Church of England that is taking place at the same time in which the "Traditional Anglican Church" in England (the TAC body there) has voted to go Roman, presents a need that only the ACC can fill.
Also, I want to reproduce this comment:
"I received this, interspersed with other information, from an ACC Bishop:
Authorization of the 1662 book has been proposed to Provincial Synod and has not received a majority in any of the three constituent houses, much less the requisite supermajority in all of them. The English delegates spoke against such authorization more strongly than most...Bishop Mead has asked to hear from anyone who might be interested in the ACC but also wants to use 1662. The notion that failure to authorize 1662 is keeping folk out of the ACC is, I think, just not the case. If it were, Bishop Mead would have gotten a response that he has in fact not received."
Frankly speaking, those who want to communicate with Bp. Mead about the 1662 BCP ought to do so directly. Commenting here is perfectly fine, but it is not the way to open truly effective discussion, and neither is emailing me personally about the matter. Those who have made known their interest in the matter by these two methods, and yet have not contacted Bp. Mead himself, appear to be less than strongly motivated.
What should be clear, from all this discussion, is that the ACC operates according to its Constitution and Canons. That may make some people unhappy, and it certainly cannot guarantee either perfection or infallibility; but, it should indicate stability and therefore provide a sense of security. This matters because of the lawlessness and secrecy that have been characteristic of certain jurisdictions calling themselves "Continuing Anglican," and paying lip service to The Affirmation of St. Louis. It should be clear also that a church that welcomes and gives voice to such priests as Fr. Laurence Wells and me, under the Archiepiscopal jurisdiction of a confirmed Anglo-Catholic (indeed also our Diocesan Ordinary) makes room for orthodox catholic Anglicans without overmuch partisanship.
For all of these reasons, and others, the ACC is the best international option for Anglicans who are displaced by the simultaneous Anglican Communion heresy and TAC Romeward roaming.
In my post two days ago I was writing in attempt to represent a point of view that had been expressed in comments here, and in some emails to me. I think it useful, considering how much discussion has been generated, to reproduce the following from my own responses in the comment section.
"Every edition of the BCP that was authorized, whether in England, the U.S., Canada, South Africa, or anywhere, was authorized only after discussion and through a legal process. In England it involved both the General Synod, Parliament and the Crown; and in the U.S. it involved, in the old days, the national Church in General Convention (the old American way of saying "General Synod"). So, for the ACC to act in Provincial Synod is quite proper by all the old standards of Anglican Canon Law. We are a church; we are neither an extension of the Episcopal Church nor of the Church of England.
"I have voiced a point of view that is in keeping with public knowledge, there being no dark, deep secrets. The Anglican Catholic Church (ACC) has placed all its cards on the table, without pretense to perfection or claims of infallibility. All over the world, where Anglicans are in a state of emergency and turmoil, the ACC is the best option. We may not be the perfect solution in a perfect world governed by the Ideal of Plato. But, the ACC is the best option on the ground in the real world."
I do not mean to take away anything from the United Episcopal Church North America (UECNA) or the Anglican Province of Christ the King (APCK). But, the fact is that these are both to be found only in North America, frankly in the United States. An exodus from the Church of England that is taking place at the same time in which the "Traditional Anglican Church" in England (the TAC body there) has voted to go Roman, presents a need that only the ACC can fill.
Also, I want to reproduce this comment:
"I received this, interspersed with other information, from an ACC Bishop:
Authorization of the 1662 book has been proposed to Provincial Synod and has not received a majority in any of the three constituent houses, much less the requisite supermajority in all of them. The English delegates spoke against such authorization more strongly than most...Bishop Mead has asked to hear from anyone who might be interested in the ACC but also wants to use 1662. The notion that failure to authorize 1662 is keeping folk out of the ACC is, I think, just not the case. If it were, Bishop Mead would have gotten a response that he has in fact not received."
Frankly speaking, those who want to communicate with Bp. Mead about the 1662 BCP ought to do so directly. Commenting here is perfectly fine, but it is not the way to open truly effective discussion, and neither is emailing me personally about the matter. Those who have made known their interest in the matter by these two methods, and yet have not contacted Bp. Mead himself, appear to be less than strongly motivated.
What should be clear, from all this discussion, is that the ACC operates according to its Constitution and Canons. That may make some people unhappy, and it certainly cannot guarantee either perfection or infallibility; but, it should indicate stability and therefore provide a sense of security. This matters because of the lawlessness and secrecy that have been characteristic of certain jurisdictions calling themselves "Continuing Anglican," and paying lip service to The Affirmation of St. Louis. It should be clear also that a church that welcomes and gives voice to such priests as Fr. Laurence Wells and me, under the Archiepiscopal jurisdiction of a confirmed Anglo-Catholic (indeed also our Diocesan Ordinary) makes room for orthodox catholic Anglicans without overmuch partisanship.
For all of these reasons, and others, the ACC is the best international option for Anglicans who are displaced by the simultaneous Anglican Communion heresy and TAC Romeward roaming.
16 comments:
Thanks Father - and apologies too if mine appeared more than one, but a clitch this end seems to suggest that they aren't taking?!
It was repeated about eight times. Don't worry. That happens from time to time when the blogger program produces strange little notices.
Father Hart,
Indeed I am glad we have you and Fr Wells with us.
+DM
I believe it was W. C. Fields who said "I would never trust any organization which would have me as a member." But I indeed trust the Anglican Catholic Church. And having been within its fellowship for going on five years, counting such stalwart Catholic bishops as my own Ordinary and Bishop Mead as good personal friends, I am prepared to say emphatically that "churchmanship" (Altar Service Book versus Missal, 2 candles versus 6, E. A. Litton vs Francis J. Hall) is simply NOT a valid reason for remaining outside the ACC.
Therefore I was quite disappointed in a recent essay by Bp Robinson, a learned man whose perspective I value and who would contribute immensely to a truly united Anglican body.
LKW
LKW
You are not the only one who thinks Bishop Robinson could make a positive impact on reunion amongst continuing Churchmen. Likewise you express what many are feeling about his essay on his doubts about the possibility of reunion.In his other writings I find him to be where a uniting continuum needs him such as his statements urging acceptance of the REAL BCPs indigenous to places such as England, Scotland, Wales, Ireland, Japan, Korea etc.
Father Wells,
Groucho Marx ... I think ...?!?
+DM
"I refuse to be a member of any club that accepts people like me as members." - Groucho Marx, writing to decline an invitation to join some exclusive snob club that, only a few months earlier, informed his daughter that she could not use the swimming pool because she was Jewish. It was run, probably, by Episcopalians in good standing.
I too was a little bit disappointed to realise that the differences that divide the various species within the genus "Continuing Anglican" were a bit more profound that mere churchmanship. However, that should not prevent us working together, or working towards ever greater unity. One extremely helpful exercise would be for all of us to look at the Constitutions and Canons of our respective jurisdictions and see where we have inadvertantly made innovations. It is generally the very things that we did not used to have to sign on to in the "old Church" that divide us today. We have all been a bit prone to reinventing the wheel from time to time. It would have been a good rule if we had done only that which was necessary to protect orthodoxy of doctrine, and eschew the temptation to improve on the original.
Bishop Robinson writes:
"One extremely helpful exercise would be for all of us to look at the Constitutions and Canons of our respective jurisdictions and see where we have inadvertantly made innovations."
Now would would be the starting point, the norm, to which we would compare our various C and C?
"It is generally the very things that
we did not used to have to sign on to in the "old Church" that divide us today."
Would you care to give us a list of such innovations?
LKW
Giving everyone the benefit of the doubt, I like the concept of inadvertent innovation. The key is to not only stop further innovation but to reverse previous innovation.
I will go out on a limb and say that in any case of innovation the innovators do not see themselves as wrong or even misguided. Being open to listening and being prepared to change if needed is the first step.
As for the 1662 BCP, I think that folks here in the U.S.A. are not seeing the big picture. The sole reason that the continuum has retained the 1928 BCP is that it was the last best version at the time the continuum formed. Now there is the potential for a large influx of CoE into the ACC. This is the time that the 1662 book should be considered, not at some previous time when it would not have been relevant or useful.
AFS1970 wrote, "As for the 1662 BCP, I think that folks here in the U.S.A. are not seeing the big picture."
I agree that they are not, but perhaps AFS and I have different pictures in mind.
For many years, our people on the ground in the U.K. have told me that the 1662 BCP is essentially a dead issue among any of the folk who might ever consider coming to the ACC or any other Continuing Church. My informants, such as Bp. Mead, are the people in a position to know and I have always accepted their local knowledge and the conclusions they have drawn from that.
However, in the rest of the world, i.e., outside the British Isles, it is my strong impression that the 1662 BCP is looked upon in much the same way as the 1928 one is here in the U.S. -- that is, as the symbol and standard of traditional Anglican worship and teaching. In such places, to put "1662 Book of Common Prayer" in an advertisement or on a church sign conveys the same message as "1928 Book of Common Prayer" does here.
Does that necessarily mean that the people who receive and appreciate such messages then go on actually to use that book in their own personal worship? Probably they often do not; it may, indeed, be "the Book they usually refrain from using", just as the group in which they report their church membership may be "the church they usually absent themselves from".
But, to invert what Marshall McLuhan wrote, way back in the 1970s, "the message is the medium".
John A. Hollister+
"For many years, our people on the ground in the U.K. have told me that the 1662 BCP is essentially a dead issue among any of the folk who might ever consider coming to the ACC or any other Continuing Church."
I get conflicting information on this point, One of our founding parishioners was a very very English lady fiercely loyal to the Common Prayer tradition and entirely resistive to modern liturgies, even celebrated by "traditional" clergy. Even after she retutned to UK, she continued to support our church. She has looked into the Continuing Churches available to her, but will have nothing to do with them, for reasons she did not expand on.
We have another English parishioner of many years, also a stalwart supporter of the 1662 Prayer Book.
Over the years I have bumped into numerous people with English accents (from cockney to posh) in Continuing Church circles. I know there is, or was, a British Prayer Book Society, and Peter Toon and Bishop Robinson are hardly isolated cases. So something tells me the reports of the demise of the Prayer Book in the Mother Country are a trifle exaggerated.
Liturgist
Liturgist,
The discussion about the 1662 BCP for me on this site has never been about proof of the demise of that rite here in the UK. Although it isn't as common an experience as some overseas contributors seem to think it is. I am certain one could still find Parishes in England where services are all still taken from the 1662 BCP, although they are becoming few and far between. The question posed has been whether, included in the 'mass exodus' of people anticipated by some from the CofE, there are those who will not join the Anglican Catholic Church because we do not have the Holy Communion from the 1662 BCP as one of our authorised rites. They could, of course, still have much that is completely familiar including Prayer Book Matins and Evensong -it's fundamentally about the Communion rite.
I have in my 12 years membership with ACC seen little evidence to suggest this. Prevously I belonged to TAC which did (does?)have staunchly 1662 BCP supporters within it ... But the most successful parish that I can recall was St Agatha's, Portsmouth which used both the 1662 and the English Missal. TAC here have declared they are off to Rome ... So goodbye 1662 !
Continued/
The fact that you report that a lady you know to be staunchly BCP will have nothing to do with any Continuing Church here in the UK suggests that her (and folk like her) continued devotion to the BCP keeps her in the CofE (unless she has stopped going to Church altogether). Is the argument then that if the rite is right you can remain in a Church that is no longer orthodox? (Like the novel " impaired communion" argument?)
Of course I have said before elsewhere on here that I am aware that there are American Continuers who when they visit the UK seek out Prayerbook worship in CofE churches rather than worship with a Continuing Church... So maybe they too think simply that the rite makes it right!
AFS1970 said
"now there is the potential for a large influx of CoE into the ACC. This is the time that the 1662 book should be considered, not at some previous time when it would not have been relevant or useful."
Do you know how many active members the CofE have? I don't think there is a chance of a large anything from the CofE.
Rome will attract some of the disaffected, the Eastern Orthodox a few, the golf club a few, we will (are also) attracting some, but for all whom the BCP used is way down the list. Those very few who leave and do want the 1662 BCP exclusively will go elsewhere and would probably do so even if ACC authorised it because they would find something else about the ACC to object to.
If it turns out I'm wrong I will be the first to rejoice!
+DM
"The fact that you report that a lady you know to be staunchly BCP will have nothing to do with any Continuing Church here in the UK suggests that her (and folk like her) continued devotion to the BCP keeps her in the CofE (unless she has stopped going to Church altogether)."
I am far from suggesting that her attitude and reasoning are correct. The point is: she is a soul to whom the Continuing Churches have failed to minister. My strong suspicion is that she is far from exceptional. This would appear to be a wasted opportunity for DUK.
Liturgist
"The point is: she is a soul to whom the Continuing Churches have failed to minister"
I would beg to differ ... The point is that TAC and other 'continuing' Anglican bodies in the UK have always enthusiastically authorised the 1662 BCP ... She, and - if you and others here are right - many more like her (good people though they maybe) haven't quit the CofE for one of these alternative bodies. It may not simply be their devotion to the 1662 BCP that keeps them in the CofE but that has been my point all along. You have already stated she didn't expand on her reasons for not joining a 'continuing'" church. It could be that she doesn't live within reach of one
of our (ie any 'continuing') congregations. But to dismissively ( and easily ) claim that 'the continuing churches' have 'failed to minister to her' is a wee bit misleading, even if you wish to be critical of ACC policy.
Post a Comment