The Continuing 
Anglican Church movement began with the Congress of Saint Louis in 1977.  The Anglican Church in North America was 
born in 2010.  Between these two 
ecclesial movements there are points of contact, but there also is a great gulf 
fixed.  
 
In regard to 
points of contact, both of the entities concerned are movements composed of a 
number of imperfectly united ecclesial jurisdictions rather than perfectly 
united dioceses or Churches.  Both 
understand themselves to be Anglican and to relate in positive ways to a common 
history and shared theological and cultural influences.  Both understand themselves to have left 
former Church homes as an act of fidelity to the teaching of Scripture and in 
the face of grave aberrations in the Episcopal Church and Anglican 
Communion.  Both are challenged by 
the need to present the gospel in compelling and attractive ways to an 
increasingly secular and indifferent Western society.
The gulf between 
us concerns mostly the changes accepted in the Episcopal Church (and the 
Canadian Church) between the mid-1970s and 2010.  Those of us who left the Episcopal 
Church and the Anglican Church of Canada in the 1970s did so due to the adoption 
in those years of the ordination of women to the priesthood by General 
Convention (1976) and General Synod (1975).  More generally, in the roughly 30 years 
between the Congress of Saint Louis and ACNA’s formation, the people who 
eventually formed ACNA lived in ecclesial bodies which increasingly abandoned 
elements of classical Anglicanism.  
The precipitating cause of the founding of the ACNA was TEC’s abandonment 
of orthodox Christian teaching concerning homosexuality.  But prior to 2010 many of those now in 
ACNA accepted liturgies and prayer books with few connections to classical 
Anglican worship and accepted female deacons, priests, and bishops contrary to 
the mind of all Anglicans prior to the mid-20th century.  
One of our 
number, in an earlier letter to Archbishop Duncan of ACNA, wrote in regard to 
these matters as follows:
The notion that 
women can receive the sacrament of Holy Orders in any of its three parts 
constitutes, in our view, a revolutionary and false claim:  a claim false in itself; a claim 
destructive of the common ministry that once united Anglicans; and, finally, a 
claim productive of an even broader and worse consequence.  That worse consequence is the claim that 
Anglicans have authority to alter important matters of 
faith and order 
against a clear consensus in the central tradition of Catholic and Orthodox 
Christendom.  Once such a claim is 
made it may be pressed into service to alter any matter of faith or morals.  The revolution devours its 
children.  Many of the clergy 
represented at GAFCON and now joining the ACNA seem to us to accept the flawed 
premise and its revolutionary claim in one matter while seeking to resist the 
application of the premise in the matter of homosexuality.  This position seems to us to be 
internally inconsistent and impossible to sustain successfully over time. 
All Continuing 
Anglicans accept this analysis.  We 
note that ACNA has not abandoned the putative ordination of women and that this 
issue deeply divides the dioceses which compose ACNA.  
While we 
recognize that the Churches through history and today are free to adopt a 
variety of liturgical forms, as they are not free to accept the ordination of 
women, yet we also agree that any sound Anglican body today needs to relate more 
positively to the classical Books of Common Prayer than is the case in many ACNA 
dioceses.  
Many in ACNA 
effectively accept elements of the revolution since the 1970s.  If orthodox Anglicanism in North America 
is again to unite, then it can only do so on the basis of the pre-1976 state of 
the Church, without women clergy and with classically Anglican 
liturgies.
We recognize 
that the Continuing Church has failed to present a united front, has failed to 
grow as we should, and in general has failed to present an attractive 
alternative to the growing heresy and absurdity of the Episcopal Church.  However, we also note that against 
furious opposition, and often against obstacles set up by those who later formed 
ACNA, we have built hundreds of congregations in North America, many of which 
are thriving.  We have established 
works of mercy, publications ministries, and international missions, and we have 
trained and ordained a new generation of able clergy.  
The Continuing 
Churches are said to be riven by constant conflicts and to be increasingly 
divided.  This is not true.  Those of us who are undersigned below 
represent the great bulk of the Continuing Church.  We have among ourselves cordial 
relations.  We cooperate on many 
levels and have at least as great a level of 
communion as 
that which exists amongst the disparate groups of ACNA.  Our tendency is towards greater unity 
and cooperation, whereas we observe within ACNA a tendency, just beneath the 
surface, to divide along the fault line we have identified above (between many 
in ACNA and classical Anglicanism).  
We have no wish to deny or to minimize our own failures or 
divisions.  But our divisions are 
largely matters amenable to improvement.  
The divisions facing ACNA are fundamental and 
essential.
We call upon 
ACNA to heed our call to return to your classical Anglican roots.  We commend to your prayerful attention 
the Affirmation of Saint Louis, which 
we firmly believe provides a sound basis for a renewed and fulfilled Anglicanism 
on our continent.  We urge you to 
heed the call of Metropolitan Jonah, whose concerns we share.  Anglicanism in North America cannot be 
both united and orthodox on a partially revolutionized basis.  We call upon you to repudiate firmly any 
claim to alter doctrine or order against the consensus of the Catholic and 
Orthodox world.  We call upon you to 
embrace the classical Prayer Book tradition.  The 30 years between our formation in 
1977 and yours in 2010 were years of sharp decline in TEC numbers and of growing 
aberrations in all areas of Church life.  
We call upon you to look upon all the works of those years with a much 
more critical eye, and to join us in returning to the doctrine, worship, and 
orders that preceded the intervening decades. 
Yours 
in Christ,
The 
Right Reverend Paul Hewett, SSC
Diocese 
of the Holy Cross
The 
Most Reverend Walter Grundorf
Anglican 
Province of America
The 
Most Reverend Brian Marsh
Anglican 
Church in America
The 
Most Reverend Mark Haverland
Anglican 
Catholic Church
The 
Most Reverend Peter D. Robinson
United 
Episcopal Church of North 
America
21 comments:
This has informed me, so much that i think i have questioned the Anglican Church of North America for good reason; regarding women clergy, Ecumenism with Rome, and less of a Western/American position. I have located what i believe to be a Continuing Anglican Church a few miles from my general locale, and i will visit it soon.
Was the Orthodox Anglican Communion (http://orthodoxanglican.net/) invited to sign this appeal to the ACNA? If not, then why not? If yes, then why didn't it sign?
Does the Anglican Continuum recognize the OAC which formed before the Continuum (1964 versus 1977)? If yes, then what are the current state of relations between the two? If no, then why not?
Thank you.
PS, The Affirmation of St. Louis signed by members of the Anglican Continuum (in 1977?) appears to no longer be valid because of its recognition of the primacy of the See of Canterbury which has devolved into heresy and apostasy with female ordination. Therefore, if the OAC (founded in 1964) did not sign this affirmation, then that is to its credit. Nevertheless, this whole thing makes me sad. :-(
I'm surprised APCK did not join. But it is good to see the Continuing Churches reach out to the ACNA. I hope both ACNA and Continuing Churches start a dialogue to help bring a true and good unity based on the classical Anglicanism America desperately needs.
On a similar note, has the Continuing body of churches reached out to the Orthodox? I am curious as to our dialogue, if any, that has occurred or is occurring?
Awkward Aardvark
No Ioannes. The Affirmation of St. Louis has been amended to say that Canterbury's decision has made them irrelevant.
It now says, "The Continuation of Communion with Canterbury
We affirm our continued relations of communion with the See of Canterbury and all faithful parts of the Anglican Communion. [Note: Because of the action of General Synod of the Church of England, Parliament, and the Royal Assent, the College of Bishops of the Anglican Catholic Church is obliged no longer to count the See of Canterbury as a faithful part of the Anglican Communion.]"
...and the others agree.
Thank you, Fr. Hart.
I am curious to see is anything will come out of Awkward Aardvark's suggestion above. Right now what we have is:
(1) Rome,
(2) The divided Eastern Orthodoxy
(3) A heretical and apostate Canterbury and ECUSA / TEC.
(4) The divided Anglican Continuum with the OAC on the outskirts even though it started first.
(5) 33,000 + Protestant denominations.
As I said, it makes me sad. :-(
Ioannes:
Look at this document and see the bright side. Two years ago the APA was in its own world, and the ACA was under the thumb of John Hepworth who exerted pressure to convert to the RCC. This much unity was impossible then. God is at work.
Ioannes:
Note that the OAC was NOT founded in 1964. You are talking about the Anglican Orthodox Church (AOC) which was founded by Bp. James Parker Dees and is now headed by Bp. Jerry Ogles. The OAC was a split from the AOC under Scott McLaughlin.
The OAC was thus formed in the late 1990s after Dees died.
I have had conversations with the Rector of a local ACNA parish and he told me that ordination with Apostolic Succession is not necessary. If this position is allowed within ACNA (I have no idea if it is) then it seems that there’s others things just as serious as WO dividing us.
I’m constantly learning about new Anglican jurisdictions that I didn’t know existed. SEC was a recent one I learned of. There’s an OAC and an AOC? Good grief!
I would like to distance myself from the idea that the UECNA regards the Affirmation of St Louis as being of permanent significance. If included in the formularies of any future united Continuing Anglican Church it has to be firmly subordinated to the historic formularies - the 1662 BCP and the 39 Articles as its primary function was to provide a road map to guide the Continuum away fromnn the errors of AC of Can, and ECUSA, not to provide a charter for the remodelling of Anglicanism - which is the sense that some folks have attached to it.
A big thumbs up to Abp. Robinson's comment at 12:22 AM.
The Embryo Parson
Many who refer to the Affirmation as if it were on a par with the Chalcedonian Formula need to read the Affirmation more carefully. This is especially the case for those who try to drive a wedge between the Affirmation and the 39 Articles. It is commonly overlooked that the Affirmation actually cites the Articles as authoritative:
"We recognize that man, as inheritor of original sin, is "very far gone from original righteousness," and as a rebel against God's authority is liable to His righteous judgment."
We attended an ACNA group headed by a bishop who turned out to be very left wing and anti Israel (out of the Reformed Episcopal Church of all things). They also had a "deaconess." Most of us left the Episcopal Church due to female ordination and the pro-homosexual stance. With the ACNA's acceptance of women priests, what is next? We now attend an AEC group.
AEC? Wasn't that Clavier's group that merged with part of the ACC to form the ACA? Was there a rump left that still functions as the AEC? Or is this a new AEC?
I think it's the Anglican Episcopal Church and has some HQ in Tucson, AZ. I could have it wrong though.
The Orthodox Anglican Church (OAC)~WAS~ founded in 1964. Anybody can go to the NC Secretary of States website and verify that fact.
The current Anglican Orthodox Church (AOC) was incorporated a little over a decade ago. A fact which can also be verified on the NC Secretary of States website.
I am a cradle Episcopalian and a CANA priest. I note that in the appeal sent to Abp. Duncan there is a statement about the Continuing Anglican Churches thriving. In the areas that I have lived in nine states, if there was any CAC presence it was a small church. How do you define thriving? How many communicants are in the CAC churches?
Obviously, you have not been in the same places I have.
Post a Comment