tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post3438194274527270321..comments2024-03-24T15:19:06.377-04:00Comments on The Continuum: A step forward or a leap backward?Fr. Robert Harthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comBlogger45125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-72386251179383970322009-06-30T13:58:14.469-04:002009-06-30T13:58:14.469-04:00Is it fair to suggest that the presence of viable,...Is it fair to suggest that the presence of viable, functioning seminaries--four of them in the "Anglican Concatenation North of Mexico," which seems to have cherrypicked quite a few parishes of the "Confederation of Unreconstructed Anglicans"--might have played a big part in this development? I note that one of the newly-consecrated "CUA" bishops, who had not been priested for long before his elevation, entered a AC N of M seminary shortly after being received *in his orders* in that jurisdiction. <br /><br />Perhaps it is also fair to suggest that consecrating fairly green priests who might not have fully grasped the importance of the events of 1977 (as opposed to the events of 2003) might not be a wise move in the face of the ACNA phenomenon?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-35568069020506173452009-04-23T23:06:00.000-04:002009-04-23T23:06:00.000-04:00I don't think Rome is a safe place to be. The que...I don't think Rome is a safe place to be. The quest for Christian unity is an imperative, but as John Paul II said about ecumenism, it must be a positive one.<br /><br />The entire Christian world is in flux and heresy has taken root in some very powerful places. For the ACC to carelessly risk its sovereignty and hard won independent orthodox parishes would be an act of bad stewardship.<br /><br />I too would love to see a unified Anglican communion in communion with the Holy See and all of Eastern Orthodoxy, but we know that TEC, for instance, could never be part of such an arrangement arrangement. Furthermore the American, Dutch, German, and English branches of the Roman Catholic Church as currently constituted (at civil war with themselves)could not either.<br /><br />Why would we allow ourselves to be sucked into a relationship that might in the future put our orthodoxy at risk through law suits claiming that some foreign or domestic prelate had jurisdiction over us.<br /><br />Let the ACA/TAC run out their overture to Rome. I sincerely hope it turns out well for them, but I am seriously skeptical.<br /><br />The verification word is "reensmu""Fr. Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18097549748468739701noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-15517784225657939302009-04-13T22:48:00.000-04:002009-04-13T22:48:00.000-04:00Thank you.
We have some serious methodological dis...Thank you.<br />We have some serious methodological disagreement here. As to the ACC approaches, a common ACA observation is that tentative responses were rebuffed. Agaon there is no accusation. My point remains that when we argue over what occurred historically, we will never come to agreement, as the perception of the events is different. You are correct that going back to find motivations is just as fruitless, but it remains that the motivation behind an action is a part of defining what the action actually was. just as in civil law murder with malice aforethought is an entirely different matter from murder of passion.<br /><br />The question is and always must be as to what is believed now. historical matters may indeed illustrate and explain such matters, but only as a secondary thing.<br /><br />I think we've carried this on far enough. All we'll accomplish in this forum is to illustrate just how far we are more willing to look at the weakness of others than to find out what our own faults are. Both sides are seriously wrong. Both sides need to change considerably. If either side is unwilling to see this (and what I have seen leads me to think this to be the case) unity will not come and the movement is extremely unlikely to survive. I pray that there may be more happening than I see.<br /><br />At any rate, I've said all I need to or want to say, feel that to say much more would be fruitless, and intend to abstain from this particular discussion.<br /><br />edpoetreaderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11613032927883843078noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-54844473249641377142009-04-13T17:13:00.000-04:002009-04-13T17:13:00.000-04:00Again, I think the facts that occurred in the past...Again, I think the facts that occurred in the past, and that therefore shaped the realities of today, are important precisely because they did shape today's realities. What motivated the actions that created those facts is, on the other hand, both difficult if not impossible to assess to the complete satisfaction of all interested parties, but it is also probably unnecessary to do so.<BR/><BR/>Let me give two examples that I hope will not appear contentious. In the very late 1970s or very early 1980s (at any rate, at some point prior to 1983), Charles D.D. Doren, one of the four original Denver bishops (and, successively, first Ordinary of the ACC's Diocese of the Midwest and then of its Diocese of the Mid Atlantic States), left the ACC with a few followers to begin the UECNA.<BR/><BR/>Two factors lead me to conclude that it must have been recognized by all involved that Bp. Doren's dispute was a purely aesthetic one, based perceptions regarding prevailing styles of churchmanship rather than in any underlying theology. The first of those factors is that, effectively, the UECNA has always been in communion with the ACC and the APCK, something that would not have been true had there been a real theological dispute. The second is that when the UECNA terminated its "agreement to agree" on intercommunion with the APA, it did so precisely because the APA had already gone into intercommunion with the REC. The sacramental issues that prevented the UECNA from accepting the REC as a partner in communion would have been viewed in exactly the same way by the ACC and the APCK, so, again, to my mind that evidences a retained common theology of the Sacraments.<BR/><BR/>All three parties to the informal or formal APCK/ACC/UECNA state of intercommunion seem always to have recognized the historic, but non-theological reason for the UECNA's separation. With time, all also seem to have realized that, for example, the ACC has some "snake belly low" congregations that differ in no significant point of style from Bp. Doren's preferences and some UECNA congregations have developed local styles that differ in no way from many ACC and APCK congregations.<BR/><BR/>Because of this twin awareness, i.e., of converging aesthetics and of fundamental agreement on basic theology, it has been remarkably painless to formalize and intensify the three groups' common life. Nor, other than recognizing the reason that was expressed 28 or so years ago as the reason for the UEC's withdrawal, has it been necessary for anyone to spend a minute analyzing what motivated Bp. Doren to feel that the stylistic differences he perceived thereby necessitated separate institutional arrangements.<BR/><BR/>So in this instance, attention to the facts involved in the separation greatly facilitated its healing.<BR/><BR/>Something of the same sort, if not to the same serendipitous extent, might possibly be found to be true were the ACC and the ACA/TAC ever to sit down to talk. At least, we'll never know whether a solution can be found for the Deerfield Beach issue, among others, until an effort is made to do so.<BR/><BR/>And presumably any such effort would have a much higher chance of success if it focussed on the objective facts of what occurred and not on the often unknowable and almost always conveniently remembered subjective motives for what happened.<BR/><BR/>However, the ACC has made two overtures toward the TAC to which it has never received a direct reply (that's not an accusation, that's an observation). It may well be that this was because the TAC has been preoccupied with its overtures to Rome but, whatever the reason for it, one cannot talk to someone who won't sit still for the conversation. (Again, that's not an accusation, that's a sort of mangled proverb.)<BR/><BR/>John A. Hollister+<BR/><BR/>Appropriately, the veriword is "mingl"....John A. Hollisterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01325615323834517909noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-22884209080425330102009-04-13T16:28:00.000-04:002009-04-13T16:28:00.000-04:00Thank you, Fr. Hollister.The warm and open tone of...Thank you, Fr. Hollister.<BR/>The warm and open tone of your response is certainly appreciated, and I, in turn, hope I dodn't over-react to a hurtful extent.<BR/><BR/>I am mostly in agreement with what you say, but only mostly. I am tireless in pointing out that past sins are past, and I continue to be not a little dismayed at the constant harking back to what happened at some past date as a reason for remaining separate. What matters is what now is.<BR/><BR/>What theological differences NOW exist? Are any of them major enough to make schism inevitable? Is there an excuse for maintaining division NOW? If there is, then what us being done to remedy the situation? If nothing is being done, then one party is effectively considering the other as heretic and outside the Church. I do indeed make the charge that both ACA and ACC are, even though BOTH would deny it, saying precisely that about the other. When I hear complaints in my jurisdiction that the other side is not doing sufficient, I don't care whether that is tru or not, I merely ask WHAT ARE WE DOING ABOUT IT? I hear ACC saying the same thing about us. Yes, it is partially true, but it is not ACC's business to get ACA to do anything any more than the reverse is true. What is ACC doing? Is it as much as Our Lord wants done? Brings us back to the much maligned speck/beam story. It's easy to see the other's imperfections and hard to see our own. Both are true.<BR/><BR/>You make a very common, but very false, assumption, that the events and motivations of the past are easy to discover. That's not true. Even if one can find out exactly what was done (which can seldom be done with certainty - reasonable doubt is a hard enough standard to reach for) the disagreement in these cases isn't over facts, but over motivations and over unrecorded words and events. I'm sorry, but that matter won't be solved to anyone's justified satisfaction.<BR/><BR/>Now, if one can first find a theological difference now existing great enough to make a real problem, THEN it MIGHT be productive to find where they came from, if discovering that could lead toward a resolution. It serves no purpose (other than the adversaries desire to divide and conquer) to look at past events and then to surmise what differences may have resulted from that. That is what I see all the time, not only in our little movement, but everywhere there is division. I simply don't care who did what to whom. I do care intensely who is doing what to whom.<BR/><BR/>I hope I haven't sounded too fierce, but these things are close to my heart, and I am very tired and heartily sick from watching God's people biting and devouring one another. My slightly angry tone here is not really of anger, but of frustrated and bitter tears.<BR/><BR/>edpoetreaderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11613032927883843078noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-63847305434131264532009-04-13T15:24:00.000-04:002009-04-13T15:24:00.000-04:00I am indeed sorry if Ed Pacht was either offended,...I am indeed sorry if Ed Pacht was either offended, or hurt, or both, by my comment about the genealogical connection between the old Anglican Orthodox Church and today’s Anglican Church in America. Such offense or hurt was certainly not my intention, particularly with regard to Ed, who I regard as a both a friend and as an exceptionally kindly, as well as honest, person.<BR/><BR/>The point I was trying to make was that Abp. Stephens’s extraordinary personal qualities enabled him to overcome a rather unpromising ecclesiastical beginning, a beginning which he shared with a number of other persons and organizations. <BR/><BR/>What was actually in my mind at that time, although I did not spell it out in detail, was the contrast between him, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, two particular individuals who also got their “Continuing Anglican” starts in the 1963 AOC and who also went through a number of church memberships after that, viz., Thomas Justin Kleppinger and Anthony Forbes Morton Clavier. Thereby, I intended to allude inferentially to the rather different endpoints of the journeys of the Archbishop (Metropolitan of the ACC), on the one hand, and the other two of them, on the other hand (respectively HCC[AR] and PECUSA/ECUSA/TEC).<BR/><BR/>Just as individuals, through their own innate qualities, can overcome questionable beginnings, so too can organizations. There are at least four church bodies presently extant which have their ultimate origins in that same 1963 AOC, of which at least three, the ACA, the OAC, and the APA, descend from the AEC that by 1967 or so had already discarded Dees’ characteristic racism. <BR/><BR/>That, I think, shows that segregation was a personal peculiarity of Dees’ and not a permanent aspect of the movement he founded. One of those three bodies, the OAC, has since then not only publicly disavowed his influence and beliefs nearly in toto but even went so far as also to try to cure his vagans episcopal Orders. (The position of the fourth body, the one that currently uses the AOC name, is harder to assess, in that it is so small that one seldom has any contact with it, its members, or their statements, and given that its website still refers expressly to Dees as its founder without, however, referring specifically to the issues over which he actually split from PECUSA.)<BR/><BR/>I do understand Ed’s frustration and genuine desire to see real, and short-term progress toward meaningful unity among “extramural Anglicans”. However, as I have previously had occasion to write elsewhere,* while the impulse to “ignore the past, achieve unity now” has a certain superficial appeal, it is simply not going to happen. <BR/><BR/>For more than thirty years, a principal barrier to real progress toward unity has been the insidious combination of (1) empty lipservice, such as have marked most “unity conferences”, with (2) the baseless assumption that “we are all alike anyway and we all believe the same things”, and (3) an utter unwillingness to examine the actual factors that led to the present fissiparous situation, factors that can never be overcome until they are properly understood and resolved.<BR/><BR/>(These are general comments regarding prevalent tendencies and are not to be taken as personal references to any particular individuals. Or, as the Barking Toad would say, "You know who you are, brraaawwwwkkkkk.")<BR/><BR/>It is all too easy to write off the present divisive state of “Continuing Anglicanism” as being due solely to sin, particularly the sins of pride and ambition on the part of certain individuals. Assuredly there has been more than enough sin to be going on with, especially those sins of pride and ambition, as also the bodies to protest against which the Continuing movement was formed have likewise been riddled with sin. <BR/><BR/>But there have also been some real theological, philosophical, ligurgical, aesthetic, and institutional factors responsible as well and those cannot simply be wished away. Until they are dealt with, openly and honestly, they will persist, waiting an opportune time to come out of remission and again begin working, just like the germs of an incompletely-cured disease.<BR/><BR/>Nor, contrary to Ed’s suggestion, are those historical factors all that difficult to unearth if people are actually willing to do the spadework. The facts of each separate group’s history cannot really be in much dispute, once all the relevant data is in hand.<BR/><BR/>There may be significant disagreements over the subjective intentions, goals, and objectives that motivated particular individuals to take certain actions at given times, but there can’t be a whole lot of disagreement as to what, objectively, those individuals actually did. Once they moved off the scene, has been the fallout from their actions with which we must deal; their motives can safely be left in this world to the mental health professionals and in the next to a merciful and forgiving God.<BR/><BR/>John A. Hollister+<BR/>_______________<BR/>*Unfortunately, this address to a regional meeting of the Fellowship of Concerned Churchmen is not readily accessible since The Christian Challenge closed the website on which it was archived.John A. Hollisterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01325615323834517909noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-53921194692159298752009-04-11T22:50:00.000-04:002009-04-11T22:50:00.000-04:00Somehow I missed the Dees reference, and suppose i...Somehow I missed the Dees reference, and suppose it is the busy-ness of the week. <BR/><BR/>We have all had a bad ancestor or two, such as, in my case, William the Conqueror, known also as William the Bastard for two very appropriate reasons. <BR/><BR/>Thank God, the validity of Apostolic Succession, as with all sacraments, has never depended on the worthiness of the minister.Fr. Robert Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-54804538335162128742009-04-10T10:55:00.000-04:002009-04-10T10:55:00.000-04:00Fr. Hollister,I'm speaking to a good, valued, and ...Fr. Hollister,<BR/>I'm speaking to a good, valued, and respected friend when I say this. Your slap at ACA in reference to Dees was entirely uncalled for. possibly you did not realize just how bad it sounded, but it is truly and deeply hurtful. You do know that there is ongoing debate as to both the nature and the significance of the historic facts, and have chosen, for what appears to you to be sufficient reason, to put the worst of all possible constructions on what you see. ACA and ACC do disagree about those things while both attempt to serve the Lord in a reputable and Catholic manner. Disagreement about the success of those efforts is certainly legitimate. Speaking with that kind of apparent scorn is never acceptable.<BR/><BR/>Fr. Hart, <BR/>I'm totally in agreement that the Continuing Anglican enterprise ought to survive and grow, but I am also entirely convinced that we are being presented with certain realities that will, if not faced honestly and with great energy, cause the demise of this movement. There are indeed many signs of health, but the fact that as good a man as Fr. Hollister can find it appropriate to fall into this kind of negativity and dismissive attitude toward brethren with whom we must be seeking unity, serves to illustrate, not weakness in him, but weakness in a movement, and at least an appearance that the movement is committing suicide.<BR/><BR/>If we are to survive, and we should, oh yes, it is important that we should, this kind of thing needs to stop once and for all and immediately. Those who wish us ill may indeed be serving dark powers -- but those who speak prophetically to our weakness and, yes, shame need to be held in honor. I hope that my complaints are of the latter nature. It is at least my intent.<BR/><BR/>I'm an Anglican, by choice, after a career probably as checkered as that of ++Stephens. I find myself in ACA, and glad to be where I am, but also loving many (including both of you Fathers) in ACC, and fervently desiring that the shameful and sinful division be ended -- insisting, in fact, that it must. A deeply charitable attitude is necessary from both sides, or else the voice of Our Lord is going unheeded.<BR/><BR/>edpoetreaderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11613032927883843078noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-40304902757883248362009-04-09T01:01:00.000-04:002009-04-09T01:01:00.000-04:00I am grateful to Fr. John for joining his voice to...I am grateful to Fr. John for joining his voice to mine in rejecting the anonymous comment. I believe that I spoke none too harshly when I called that comment "Satanic accusation motivated by hostility." It was a lie from the father of lies.<BR/><BR/>To speak for my jurisdiction, I see health and strength in the ACC. Those who write our obituary, despite the healthy vital signs, tell no truth at all, but reveal one fact nonetheless: They wish we were dead.<BR/><BR/>Let us continue to disappoint their evil wishes.Fr. Robert Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-74660347358781044782009-04-08T23:47:00.000-04:002009-04-08T23:47:00.000-04:00I agree completely with Fr. John's comment about m...I agree completely with Fr. John's comment about multiple jurisdiction-hopping as well as Fr. Hart's seconding of it. (Albert Sydney Johnson was the author of the quote with which Fr. John ended his note.)<BR/><BR/>But I also feel compelled to add that a man's having been in several jurisdictions is not necessarily a bad thing. The best man I ever met, our late, sainted Abp. Michael Dean Stephens, had been in more separate church groups than Carter has little pills, beginning with the ancestor of today's ACA, James Parker Dees' notorious Anglican Orthodox Church.<BR/><BR/>When asked about his checkered, highly vagans background, the Archbishop never minced words: "Yes, I was there and I did that. And I am now in the last church I will ever join."<BR/><BR/>That varied background was a major reason why he was able to reach out to individuals and congregations that were struggling in the vagans underbrush, make them feel understood and loved, help salve the multiple bruises they had suffered from prior irregular "leaders", and ultimately welcome them into a stable, safe church home.<BR/><BR/>Some people like to growl about "sheep stealing", but when the sheep come running, looking for refuge, and can document real histories of spiritual, psychic, financial, and other forms of abuse, it would be hard to turn them away.<BR/><BR/>John A. Hollister+<BR/>"upula"John A. Hollisterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01325615323834517909noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-51962629843433560922009-04-08T23:38:00.000-04:002009-04-08T23:38:00.000-04:00Fr. John asked, "Did you mean Cocofli?"No, it was ...Fr. John asked, "Did you mean Cocofli?"<BR/><BR/>No, it was "cocoffee", which was the "veriword" or random collection of letters needed to convince the blogspot's software that I was posting a genuine comment and not spamming some commercial message.<BR/><BR/>Several of us, including especially Ms. McColl, have noticed that these "random" groups of letters often have an eerie resemblance to some Lewis Carroll-style "portmanteau word" that might actually apply to the subject of a given posting.<BR/><BR/>Maybe it's a sort of anecdotal evidence of the old wheeze about "If you gave a million monkeys a million typewriters...."<BR/><BR/>John A. Hollister+<BR/><BR/>(This time, the veriword is "stiveive")John A. Hollisterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01325615323834517909noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-40696645180855721922009-04-08T22:19:00.000-04:002009-04-08T22:19:00.000-04:00Canon Hollister,Did you mean Cocofli?Czy jest w po...Canon Hollister,<BR/><BR/>Did you mean Cocofli?<BR/><BR/>Czy jest w pobliżu bar samoobsługowy? Где здесь побл'изости ... Spotkanie w barze Cocofli – opis sytuacji.Fr. Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18097549748468739701noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-24178508610514024702009-04-08T22:08:00.000-04:002009-04-08T22:08:00.000-04:00"Most of the clerics who post here have been membe..."Most of the clerics who post here have been members of multiple jurisdictions. Of course they feel justified in their reasons and don't see an offense as long as the next jurisdiction they pick is considered to be a continuing one.<BR/><BR/>I am so sick of this kind of hypocrisy. No wonder these guys have not been able to get it together in over 30 years."<BR/><BR/>and this:<BR/><BR/>"The continuum had its chance and it failed,even though it fed many along the way (and for that I give thanks, for I am IN the continuum myself).<BR/><BR/>The reality is undeniable when you look at the numbers, and before anyone screams about "number crunching", I am talking about the same type of honest evaluation of what you do when you to pay your bills, or build something.<BR/><BR/>My years in the continuum have convinced me that we are so "doctrinally pure" that St. Paul wouldn't pass the test for acceptance, especially when he talks about being all things to all people.<BR/><BR/>The ACNA has and will have its problems, but it appears to be doing alot better than we have in 30 years combined.<BR/><BR/>At least that is what it looks like to me."<BR/><BR/>I see these types of comments on line frequently. I suppose the intent is to demonstrate or "prove" that the ACC, APCK, and UECNA are not a viable alternative to the ACNA which is in the process of forming.<BR/><BR/>They see a different church than the one I am in (ACC) I have been in the ACC since 1982 and I have never been in any other jurisdiction. I post here so I am supposed to be an exception according to one anonymous voice, I wonder how he has that kind of knowledge? It is not apparent to me.<BR/><BR/>I will not retell the history of the ACC here, but I positively refute the inference that we are a hollow church and have failed in out thirty year effort to keep classic Anglicanism alive. The parishes I have been privileged to serve are all quite vibrant to this day. I invite the masked commenter to visit my own parish in Atlanta www.sthildasacc.org and see if we have failed in our mission.<BR/><BR/>For any of us to join the ACNA coalition would mean a return to Egypt. To the same situation we left in 1977.<BR/><BR/>"I would fight them if they were a million."<BR/><BR/>Albert Sydney Johnston<BR/><BR/>I smell an agent provocateur.Fr. Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18097549748468739701noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-60611611399309348472009-04-08T11:30:00.000-04:002009-04-08T11:30:00.000-04:00This thread has wandered a bit, for which I am as ...This thread has wandered a bit, for which I am as guilty as anyone. However, just to put the original discussion in context, my attention was recently called to some official materials of the group I have called "the Anglican Concatenation North of Mexico" (ACNM) which it might be useful to consider. <BR/><BR/>Since this thread has gotten up to 31 comments, so the details of the original posting may be getting fuzzy, I will remind the reader that the ACNM is the body that has just been joined by the parish I called St. Charles the Martyr, and that in order to do so, St. Charles left one of the Denver Succession bodies.<BR/><BR/>"Declaration of Principles<BR/><BR/>"The first general council of the [ACNM] approved this declaration [at the time of its formation]: <BR/><BR/>"....<BR/><BR/>"2. This Church recognizes and adheres to Episcopacy, not as of Divine right, but as a very ancient and desirable form of Church polity.<BR/><BR/>"....<BR/><BR/>"4. This Church condemns and rejects the following erroneous and strange doctrines as contrary to God's Word: First, that the Church of Christ exists only in one order or form of ecclesiastical polity; Second, that Christian Ministers are 'priests' in another sense than that in which all believers are a 'royal priesthood'; Third, that the Lord's Table is an altar on which the oblation of the Body and Blood of Christ is offered anew to the Father; Fourth, that the Presence of Christ in the Lord's Supper is a presence in the elements of Bread and Wine; Fifth, that regeneration is inseparably connected with Baptism."<BR/><BR/>The ACNM's founder himself wrote: "I contend that the Episcopate is not of apostolic origin; that the Bishop is only 'primus inter pares', and not in any way superior in order to the Presbyter. We are acting on this principle. We set apart a Bishop to his work by a joint laying on of hands of a Bishop and the presbyters. I act as a Bishop, not claiming a 'jure divino' right, or to be in any Apostolic Succession, but only as one chosen of his brethren to have the oversight. If others look upon me as retaining the succession, that does not commit us to their understanding."<BR/><BR/>So there can be no reasonable dispute that the ACNM has jettisoned the historic episcopacy, the Apostolic Succession, the objective Sacraments "ex opere operato", and the Real Presence. <BR/><BR/>Reasonable men may differ, I suppose, but I can't see where that leaves much that is actually Anglican except for the subscription to Almy's catalogue. And Almy's, of course, is more than happy to produce cassocks and albs that have darts in their sides.<BR/><BR/>John A. Hollister+<BR/>"cocoffee"John A. Hollisterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01325615323834517909noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-48276199907772778012009-04-07T01:29:00.000-04:002009-04-07T01:29:00.000-04:00This is why +Schofield & +Iker, despite their ...<I>This is why +Schofield & +Iker, despite their vaunted catholicity, held off on breaking with TEC over female ordination--even to the episcopate--until the election of KJS.</I><BR/><BR/>The FiF/NA bishops and dioceses began to take action because TEC made an orthodox successor impossible, since only WO supporters would be approved. This does matter only to make it clear that the SFers were wrong by claiming it was all about homosexuality only. That was important too; but the issue of WO was, as a matter of fact, the issue that got the Realignment ball rolling. I proved this from Bp. Iker's words at an international FiF gathering in England in the Fall of 2007, and was the only person who reported this fact(in <I>The Christian Challenge</I>, but here first).<BR/><BR/>That fact that it has come to nothing, however, is also no surprise.Fr. Robert Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-3462592124981162862009-04-06T17:32:00.000-04:002009-04-06T17:32:00.000-04:00Responding to the question whether ++Akinola is a ...Responding to the question whether ++Akinola is a heretic : he certainly doesn't seem to be teaching anything contrary to the revealed doctrine of the Church. On the other hand, he has remained in communion with material heretics for many years now. Orthodox Christians of the 4th and 5th centuries had no difficulty in severing communion with Arians and Nestorians; why is it so difficult for churchmen of the modern day to do so?<BR/><BR/>The answer is, to me, obvious. The ecclesiology of TEC is only incidentally episcopal; it is, in the main, a Congregationalist church. This crap ecclesiology is what makes it so easy for the ostriches of the denomination to poke their heads in the sand and think that everything's fine as long as it's not happening in my parish/diocese/province. This is why +Schofield & +Iker, despite their vaunted catholicity, held off on breaking with TEC over female ordination--even to the episcopate--until the election of KJS. <BR/><BR/>To be sure, we should not break communion without cause. But if heresy isn't a cause, I must confess I don't know what is. Heresy is wickeder, much wickeder, than schism; schism is just the formal acknowledgment of a split that's already occurred, and hence schism is a truth--although a painful one. But heresy is nothing but damnable lies, and to remain in communion with heretics is to give our approval to lies. <BR/><BR/>If you have an infection in your hand which resists even the strongest antibiotics, your hand will have to be amputated. Likewise, when heresy infects the body of Christ : if teaching and example don't rout the heresy, then we have to separate ourselves from the heterodox. As Fr Hollister points out, there's nothing Donatist about this at all; whether Katharine Jefferts-Schori is a sinner or not is not the issue. What is at issue is the proper matter for the Sacrament of Holy Orders, which is a male human being : KJS, being female, is no more proper matter for Ordination than pretzels and beer are for the Eucharist.palaeologoshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01083316937862412507noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-25557842279086909162009-04-06T01:01:00.000-04:002009-04-06T01:01:00.000-04:00Fr Hart's comment reminds me of a story I once hea...Fr Hart's comment reminds me of a story I once heard about a priest visiting a parish in the Rhondda Valley. At tea afterwards, a lady explained, comparing her church with the one in the next village, "Oh, Father, we're the low church. We only have Mass at eight."<BR/><BR/>"rotion"Sandra McCollnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-75914627752352110202009-04-06T00:48:00.000-04:002009-04-06T00:48:00.000-04:00I should add, St. A & M need three services, b...I should add, St. A & M need three services, because they have over three hundred members, and most of them are present every week (the Rector is a fine and busy priest, Fr. Nick Athenaelos). This is just another example of why one anonymous commenter was out of line writing an obituary for the living-in fact the living and quite healthy.<BR/><BR/>As Mark Twain wrote in response to his own premature obituary, upon reading the notice of his demise: "The rumors of my death have been exaggerated."Fr. Robert Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-3198840490069061042009-04-06T00:42:00.000-04:002009-04-06T00:42:00.000-04:00The delightful hymn to Mrs. Beamish reminded me fo...The delightful hymn to Mrs. Beamish reminded me forcibly of an occasion years ago when I was supplying for a parish that I had never previously visited.<BR/><BR/>Not being quite sure of all the fine details of the local style of churchmanship, I did pretty much the 1928 BCP service, with a few (but not all) of the more common interpolations from the Missals, thinking I was hitting all the likely bases but not going overboard.<BR/><BR/>So, after the Canon of Consecration and its immediately following Lord's Prayer, I said,<BR/>while still facing the altar, "The peace of the Lord be alway with you", to which a number in the congregation dutifully responded, "And with thy spirit."<BR/><BR/>(As I only had an acolyte to assist me, no deacons, etc., there was no French General's hug or anything like that. Just nine words without my moving an inch from my position.)<BR/><BR/>I figured that response meant we were hitting just about the right note. However, afterwards, when I asked the Senior Warden how he felt it all went, he said, "Well, in general it was fine but I heard a couple of the older people complaining, 'He PASSED THE PEACE!'"<BR/><BR/>John A. Hollister+<BR/>"podesene"John A. Hollisterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01325615323834517909noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-40997715167327581612009-04-06T00:41:00.000-04:002009-04-06T00:41:00.000-04:00Actually, as I should know from covering it a few ...Actually, as I should know from covering it a few times, St. Andrew and St. Margaret of Scotland have three services every Sunday, Low, Mid and High. When there, my sermons were the same in each service. The differences of churchmanship are not theological differences, but matters of taste and family custom. Some people like incense and chanting, and some do not. But, they are all solid Anglican Catholics who believe the same thing.<BR/><BR/>St. Alban's Richmond is one parish I have not been to; but I know it is also a solid ACC parish, and I am glad to hear they have a Rector now.Fr. Robert Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-8677548630669718932009-04-06T00:29:00.000-04:002009-04-06T00:29:00.000-04:00One of the Anonymice elaborated on Steveo's qu...One of the Anonymice elaborated on Steveo's question by referring to St. Chrysostom's UEC and St. Alban's ACC, both in Richmond VA.<BR/><BR/>I have no idea how this duality came about and have never been in St. Chrysostom's, although I have worshipped at St. Alban's. So I can say from personal experience that St. Alban's, at least, is far from struggling, which was one of Steveo's premises.<BR/><BR/>Further, St. Alban's has, by ACC standards at least, a middle-of-the-road-to-crown-of-the-road style of churchmanship. On the other hand, St. Chrysostom's website warns sternly that all celebrations there are in cassock, surplice, and stole, and that no chasubles are worn at any time.<BR/><BR/>That rather makes it look as though the existence of the two congregations can be explained on aesthetic grounds, for it certainly can't on theological ones. However, in that apparent divide also lies the seed of hope.<BR/><BR/>The ACC used to have two congregations in the Washington, DC area, located only a few miles apart, one a "prayer book" and one a "missal" parish. Years ago, the two merged and now form the more than health parish of St. Andrew and St. Margaret of Scotland, Alexandria VA.<BR/><BR/>SS. Andy & Meg has at least two services each Sunday, one BCP and one Missal, and all are happy.<BR/><BR/>St. Alban's has just installed a new Rector, who happens to be a very ecumenically-minded man -- and whose own tenure there is a prime example of inter-church cooperation -- so who knows what may happen in Richmond in the future?<BR/><BR/>John A. Hollister+John A. Hollisterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01325615323834517909noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-49788358859179954092009-04-05T21:15:00.000-04:002009-04-05T21:15:00.000-04:00Ms. McColl:I never suggested you should kiss him o...Ms. McColl:<BR/><BR/>I never suggested you should kiss him or her in church. There, of course, a decorous nod of acknowledgement of his or her existence, as he or she passes up the aisle, is all that is required.<BR/><BR/>The kiss is properly bestowed at the end of the coffee hour, in the back corridor, after about the sixth finger of sherry.<BR/><BR/>John+John A. Hollisterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01325615323834517909noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-88933429288065685792009-04-05T16:35:00.000-04:002009-04-05T16:35:00.000-04:00Poetreader,To your prayer I say simply: Amen.Poetreader,<BR/><BR/>To your prayer I say simply: Amen.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-72099901668640991512009-04-05T16:19:00.000-04:002009-04-05T16:19:00.000-04:00Discussion on this issue was heavy on the Anglican...Discussion on this issue was heavy on the Anglican Diaspora Board. I think it appropriate to post here the prayer I placed there:<BR/><BR/><I>Brethren, I went to Mass this morning, thinking that I would come back and discuss this subject some more. I believe Our Lord was speaking to my heart that we've had our say, we've expressed what we believe about this situation, and we've probably said all that we have to say to each other, but that He would that we would speak to Him together about it. I'm going to talk to Him rather informally now, and would invite everyone on all sides of this issue, please, to join in storming heaven for a healing for our fractured movement.<BR/>ed</I><BR/><BR/>It's Palm Sunday, my Lord, and we're thinking heavy thoughts. We're remembering how they cheered You, how they threw down palm branches and even their own clothes in Your path, and how they cried out so very soon that You should be crucified. We hear the story of Your passion and death, for us, and yet, though we praise You with our lips, we so easily deny You with our attitudes and actions. Lord, we've made such a mess of Your beautiful Church. We're always arguing, always giving vent to anger and condemnation, always so ready to criticize. Yes, Lord, many of the issues are important. Many of the conflicting opinions just can't coexist. That's true, Lord, and most of us certainly know what we think of these issues. Whichever 'side' we espouse, most of us have no doubts at all. Our minds are made up. Lord, we can't all be right. Though we all think we know Your opinion of the matter, the fact is that we're not all right, and that none of us are infallible. Lord, decisions have been made and actions taken by brethren of good will who sincerely desire to serve You as best they can. You know their hearts. Many of us just as sincerely feel they are mistaken. You know their hearts as well. Open our hearts, all of us, to be able to hear you, to be able to deal with these conflicts exactly as You would have us to do. Heal the scandalous disunity of our movement, Lord. Help us to find out how to speak the truth in love, and to cease the endless biting and devouring that we so easily do. Lord, You have instituted One Church, one Baptism, one Eucharist, one Gospel Message, for the whole world, and have desired to draw all men unto You, for there is one God, one ather of us all. Heal us, Lord, and we shall be healed, O Lord Jesus, with Your Father and the Holy Spirit, ever one God, world without end. Amen.poetreaderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11613032927883843078noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-44245936641106426852009-04-05T00:46:00.000-04:002009-04-05T00:46:00.000-04:00"Have you kissed your inter-church negotiator toda..."Have you kissed your inter-church negotiator today?"<BR/><BR/>Certainly not.<BR/><BR/>You should try:<BR/><BR/>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uc80G6Yzu04<BR/><BR/>Language warning: contains a word you may prefer not to hear for another week.Sandra McCollnoreply@blogger.com