tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post4406140671717918452..comments2024-03-24T15:19:06.377-04:00Comments on The Continuum: Avoiding our in-house extremesFr. Robert Harthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comBlogger100125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-26871022243889288832009-12-05T20:47:47.344-05:002009-12-05T20:47:47.344-05:00Call off the dogs! LOL!
It's evident I'm...Call off the dogs! LOL!<br /><br />It's evident I'm wading in vastly unfamiliar territory. I have only surface level knowledge of Lewis from a few of his works I've read, so I won't press the point further.<br /><br />On that note, I apologize for setting this thread adrift; I only meant to contribute, not to confuse!<br /><br />Your perpetual brother,<br />St. WormAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-87497535144403827212009-12-05T20:36:10.008-05:002009-12-05T20:36:10.008-05:00I believe I was one of the editors who voted on pu...I believe I was one of the editors who voted on publishing that one-I should say voted <i>for</i>.Fr. Robert Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-86984841502611532922009-12-05T20:15:29.771-05:002009-12-05T20:15:29.771-05:00Fr. Hart,
Thank you for your insights on this. T...Fr. Hart,<br /><br />Thank you for your insights on this. That crossed my mind too. This one really good article from Touchstone spoke volumes to me on the topic of Lewis and the Atonement:<br /><br />"...Lewis himself saw “theories,” as such, as dispensable; he did not subscribe to penal substitution as it is set forth in Evangelical circles today."<br /><br />http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=22-03-027-f<br /><br />In Jesus,<br />St. WormAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-54584181580411114802009-12-05T20:10:02.905-05:002009-12-05T20:10:02.905-05:00St Worm writes:
"I must respectfully disagre...St Worm writes:<br /><br />"I must respectfully disagree with you regarding the whole "Lewis was no theologian" argument."<br /><br />I do not have the quote at my fingertips, but I clearly recall Lewis writing SOMEWHERE that he did not regard himself as a theologian. Compare "Mere Christianity" to John Stott's "Basic Christianity" and you will see what I am driving at here. There is an important difference between Systematic theology and religious thought. Equally valuable (in fact Lewis is more valuable than much Systematic Theology!), but somewhat different.<br /><br />Back to Worm:<br />"[Lewis] was clearly denouncing Penal Substitution (someone gets punished instead of me),"<br /><br />Okay, let's analyze your quote.<br />Lewis wrote:<br /><br />"The one most people have heard is the one about our being let off because Christ volunteered to bear a punishment instead of us. Now on the face of it that is a very silly theory. If God was prepared to let us off, why on earth did He not do so? And what possible point could there be in punishing an innocent person instead? None at all that I can see, if you are thinking of punishment in the police-court sense."<br /><br />Notice the nuancing here: "Now on the face of it ....None at all that I can see, if you are thinking in the police-court sense."<br /><br />Is it not obvious that Lewis was here dealing with a popular caricature? Rejections of PS usually involve more vigorous language.<br /><br />Lewis well knew the difference between salvation and "letting us off."<br /><br />Back to StWorm:<br /><br />"but your are correct in that he affirms the substitution in terms of paying a debt."<br /><br />Your and Lewis's distinction between paying a debt and suffering a penalty is, well, a distinction. Both are subsumed in the good Blblical word propitiation. That means to appease wrath.<br /><br />Worm again.<br /><br />"Some zealous Protestants think those are apostate words [i. e., Lewis words]. However that bothers some (and believe me when I tell you I've heard my Reformed Baptist brethren denounce Lewis to my face on this count too!)."<br /><br />The people whom you quote denouncing Lewis are the same people who denounce J.I.Packer for signing ECT (a position I support, by the way). Their accusation proves nothing. Lewis, admittedly, did not stress PS as vigorously as Leon Morris. But he was writing for a different audience with a different purpose. Lewis is not theologically impeccable (his Reflections on the Psalms contain some questionable passages), but criticisms from certain sectors ought not be dignified with recognition.<br /><br />On the other hand, <br />I recall Dr John Marshall at Sewanee, staunch Anglo-Catholic, Hooker scholar, editor of the Anglican Theological Journal, who could fulminate at length against C.S.Lewis. For him the problem was that Lewis was not a true Aristotelian but (horror of horrors) a Platonist. And of course there was Norman Pittenger at General Seminary, a strong critic of Lewis.<br /><br />For all his departures from classical Refomed theology of the Princeton sort, Lewis has been highly popular with conservative evangelicals. He was first put into my hands by the Intervarsity Fellowship. A major collection (it has been called a shrine) of his manuscripts is housed at Wheaton College.<br /><br />Blessings, St Worm. You are a kindred spirit (I did not say familiar spirit).<br />LKWAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-30398377796600122432009-12-05T19:38:28.819-05:002009-12-05T19:38:28.819-05:00What C.S. Lewis said was not rejection of the trut...What C.S. Lewis said was not rejection of the truth that Christ bore the penalty, but simply an insistence that it was he who willingly acted out of charity. The penal nature of the issue was not his target; placing the whole matter in the context of Christ's freewill offering was. The idea was to help modern man accept the Gospel. that is what <i>Mere Christianity</i> was about. His other picture is that of Aslan bearing the penalty for Edwin, which more than balances out how this other quotation should be perceived.Fr. Robert Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-64712780441086489342009-12-05T16:18:44.272-05:002009-12-05T16:18:44.272-05:00Fr. Hart,
That sermon you posted on The Gospel wa...Fr. Hart,<br /><br />That sermon you posted on The Gospel was pristine, and quite a blessing to boot. Thank you for clarifying what Mere Christianity is. What it means to believe the Gospel.<br /><br />Fr. Wells,<br />I must respectfully disagree with you regarding the whole "Lewis was no theologian" argument. He was clearly denouncing Penal Substitution (someone gets punished instead of me), but your are correct in that he affirms the substitution in terms of paying a debt. Some zealous Protestants think those are apostate words. However that bothers some (and believe me when I tell you I've heard my Reformed Baptist brethren denounce Lewis to my face on this count too!), I only brought that up as an example of how we Anglicans run a spectrum, from the 5 pointers to the border-line Pelagians (wasn't William Law or Jeremy Taylor along these lines?)<br /><br />I just don't think going the route of Sproul and MacArthur (denouncing Rome or Eastern Orthodoxy as apostate institutions, not Christian, etc -- as if our Roman Catholic brethren are heathens) is fruitful in the least. (And I don't say *YOU* are in agreement with Sproul or MacArthur).<br /><br /><br />That said, good Father, I *DO* think we Anglicans of all stripes need to closely listen to the Homilies on Justification. We need to preach the gratuitous nature of justification, and that our works will never be able to leverage God's love or favor. We need that drilled into our Pelagian hearts. And this is why I think God has someone like you in our Dioecese. Give me the staunch Calvinist who will not budge on the freeness of grace, and what that means for us in response, over the man who carries on all the day about our effort and our doing. <br /><br />Now it is a good thing to know that Calvinism isn't *necessary* to carry on the good news of God's free grace, but I welcome it in our midst so long as the first principles are kept in tact (though I remain queasy with the whole Christ dying only for the elect rhetoric).<br /><br /><br />Blessings and Peace to you, dear Father Wells,<br /><br />St. WormAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-89209833234987143002009-12-05T14:20:01.552-05:002009-12-05T14:20:01.552-05:00Fr. Wells wrote:
Now does anyone care to discuss ...Fr. Wells wrote:<br /><br /><i>Now does anyone care to discuss what the Gospel is and what it means to be Evangelical?</i><br /><br />By "Evangelical" I assume you mean in the sense that all Christians ought to be, and that all orthodox Anglicans claim to be, even the most Anglo-Catholic of Anglicans; that you do not mean the "Evangelical wing." The wing, or party, speaks of an option. But, if Evangelical faith is understood rightly, it is part of the Catholic Tradition, and is not an option at all. We cannot live without it.<br /><br />As for me, I think I summed up my views most clearly in the sermon for the 11th Sunday after Trinity.<br /><br />http://anglicancontinuum.blogspot.com/2009/08/eleventh-sunday-aftertrinity.htmlFr. Robert Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-10770197201171747282009-12-05T14:18:56.194-05:002009-12-05T14:18:56.194-05:00Fr. Wells wrote: [D]oes anyone care to discuss wha...Fr. Wells wrote: <i>[D]oes anyone care to discuss what the Gospel is and what it means to be Evangelical?<br />LKW</i> <br /><br />Perhaps I can suggest an answer to this question indirectly by citing two excellent examples of what I would call <i>Evangelical Catholics</i>: Bp. David Chislett (ACCA/TAC) and Fr. Jay Scott Newman (RCC). <br /><br />Both of these men exhibit a true zeal for the proclamation of the Gospel, while at the same time clearly devoted to Sacraments of the Church. True to their respective ordination vows, they cherish the souls entrusted to their pastoral care and seek to lead people to God, not only through instruction but more importantly through the example of the joyous service that is their daily living. <br /><br />In March of this year, Bp. Chislett <a href="http://bishopdavidsblog.blogspot.com/2009/03/need-for-evangelical-preaching.html" rel="nofollow">commented</a> on the book <i>The New Evangelisation: Developing Evangelical Preaching</i>. The theme of evangelical zeal is a common one in his own articles and homilies. <br /> <br />Over at his blog, Fr. Newman has listed eight <a href="http://web.mac.com/jayscottnewman/Site/Evangelical_Catholicism.html" rel="nofollow">Principles of Evangelical Catholicism</a>. I believe they are worth a read.Joe Oliverihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18158355659523906494noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-33379054645508167182009-12-05T10:11:22.610-05:002009-12-05T10:11:22.610-05:00Fathers and Brothers,
I know my church at St. Joh...Fathers and Brothers,<br /><br />I know my church at St. John's in Pompano is committed to both Prayer Book piety as well as an abundant use of the Missal. Our prayers no less include petitions to God through the strong prayers of Mary, Joseph, the Apostles and all the saints. We don't do the Angelus but the Confiteor is used every Sunday before Mass. It has been for me a sustaining component of our parish. <br /><br />My two year sojourn at the now defunct St. Augustine's of Canterbury (which joined with another ACC church in the area) had statues of St. Mary and the Infant of Prague, every Mass the Angelus was said, Aspergillum was used to sprinkle the congregation with holy water each time too, and the rosary was encouraged. <br /><br />So, in the development of the Anglican Tradition (who says it's static?), I believe these things have healthful benefits so long as catachesis is not abandoned. For myself I understand the danger of thinking we're simply catholics without a Pope -- an irresponsible oversimplification, but on the other hand we needn't place the XXXIX Articles on the same footing of the Catholic Creeds, and subject them to the Semper Reformanda principle that has ever marked healthy catholic movements.<br /><br />I'm an Anglo-Catholic as I'm a Reformed Catholic. I accept our freedoms to properly include or exclude things in the liturgy. What I don't accept is Anglo-Catholic trashing from the low-quarters, and conversely, trashing of the "plain BCP Catholics" by nose-in-the-air Anglo-Catholics who would rather go to Rome (let them go, I say). We're a big little family, we'll just have to accept these hues. Both services are beautiful, valid, and healthful *given good catachesis*!<br /><br />Finally, though I find I'm at odds with the some the things Fr. Wells says, I have such a deep love and respect for his commitment to the Gospel and witness of Jesus in the ACC that I am proud to say he is "one of ours" -- and this goes for the likes of Fr. Hart, and am counting the days until I can see these godly men at the next Synod.<br /><br />In Jesus,<br />St. WormAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-33500630284230931802009-12-05T08:40:22.501-05:002009-12-05T08:40:22.501-05:00It is amazing how threads take on a life of their ...It is amazing how threads take on a life of their own. On another I called for a definition of regeneration and got instead a referendum on "Calvinism" with the usual threadbare polemic. (Ironically, Calvin himself used the term as synonymous with the whole process of salvation, and the Westminister Confession largely avoided the term, substituting "effectual calling.")<br /><br />Now in this thread I call for a definition of Evangelical, and immediately there ensues a debate over CSLewis and "Penal Substitution." Not the discussion I was hoping for.<br /><br />As for the CSLewis quote, two things should be noted:<br />(1) Lewis was a lay apologist, not a theologian, much less a dogmatician. He commended the Gospel to unbelievers and marginal Christians. Those who cannot grasp that 8 divided by 2 equals 4 might be made to understand that 4 plus 4 equals 8. <br />(2) The quote brought forth by St Worm affirms Penal Substitution, rather than denying it. Lewis refutes a popular carricature of PS then redefines it in terms of debt. That is rather like saying "this case is a civil rather thn a criminal matter." But in God's system of justice that distinction does not apply. <br /><br />Now does anyone care to discuss what the Gospel is and what it means to be Evangelical?<br />LKWAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-33594303254604578332009-12-05T01:44:56.903-05:002009-12-05T01:44:56.903-05:00Canon Taliis:
I would not put much emphasis on a ...Canon Taliis:<br /><br />I would not put much emphasis on a few websites (and I cannot know which ones you saw), especially when I consider how much they are neglected by parishes that have yet to realize their importance. Too many parish websites are months out of date. The first thing I did when I got here was to take charge of the website so as to keep it current.<br /><br />I agree that too many ACA/TAC bishops (and other clergy) seem to be treating Anglicanism with contempt (for that is the message they send), and so I suppose the Romeward journey is on their agenda. But, in the ACC I have seen that some parishes have no Missals at all, and use only the BCP (especially in the South). Those that do have a Missal seem to use the Missal the only way I am willing to use it-as subordinate to the BCP, using embellishments the way we use the hymnal. <br /><br />You cannot tell from a website if a church really has only one Sunday Holy Communion, nor can you always know from a one service website if the Missal is even used at all. The Canon Law of the ACC requires <i>daily</i> public MP and EP <i>in church</i> to the extent that it is possible. Obviously, this cannot yet be done in most places. A lot of the clergy still need to do secular work, etc.Fr. Robert Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-75215241238908207212009-12-05T00:58:20.514-05:002009-12-05T00:58:20.514-05:00Father Hart,
Even before the English Reformation,...Father Hart,<br /><br />Even before the English Reformation, the Sarum rite was already international. It was used in the royal chapels of both Spain and Portugal and for a considerable period before the fall of Constantiople, there was a Sarum rite church there under the authority of the Patriarch. Consequently given the discovery of the New World and the general expansion of European culture and influence it was only natural Anglicanism would expand with it. There is, I believe, a case that can be made that English is the Latin of the present time, at least of the last two centuries, so we should not be surprised at what has happened. I suspect that everyone hear would be surprised to know that the very first book to be published in Mexico, hardly a place where one might expect Anglican influence, had frontispiece lifted from the first English Book of Common Prayer. No one knows quite how it happened and it is one of the mysteries in the history of early printing.<br /><br />The other part of the historical bit is that the Cardinal of Lorraine argued at Trent that the Roman Church ought to follow the lead of England and replicate the English Reformation on the continent. It might have happened save for the noted arrival of the Holy Spirit at that council in the Spanish ambassador's diplomatic boxes. English men before in the persons of Alcuin of York and Adam of Favensham had exercized great influence on the direction of the Roman rite. And, according to the New Liturgical Movement blog, the present bishop of Rome is searching for a Roman equivalent of prayer book language, not just in English but in all of the tongues in which the churches of the Roman obedience now worship.<br /><br />The admission made by both yourself and Father Wells that the missal must be used discretly and tweaked rather than taken "whole hog" quite interested me. Indeed it lead me to do a review of the sites of one of the ACC dioceses to see if I could see how that worked out in practice. What I discovered was that most parishes had one service on a Sunday and for many that was all there was all week. That means that for all practical purposes the American Book of Common Prayer is not actually used at all. The laity will see it in use for baptisms and marriages (and I hope there are many of both) but even funerals as I discovered a few weeks ago have a way of being something other than a real prayer book service. And when in cases such as at St Benedict's, the prayer book service is done without music, it is certainly being treated as inferior. On a slightly greater stage when the services of the synod of a diocese or province, the Eucharists are always missal services the message is unmistakable; prayer book Anglicans are either not wanted or are going to be treated as second class or less. Is that really the message which the ACC intends?<br /><br />Business consultants know that our strongest impressions come by way of our eyes. What we see - or think we see - we believe even if we know it to be false which is why most of us like magic shows. But what we see when we worship or attempt to worship God should be as closely as we can make it, Truth rather than fiction and the importation into Anglicanism of papal ornaments and ceremonial with its consequent disregard of the authentic tradition is precisely what is leading to the coming debacle in the ACA/TAC. The bishops and archbishops have decided that it is not merely the Articles which are nothing more than something with which to wipe your butt, but the whole of Anglicanism itself. It is almost enough to make me give up on Christianity itself. Why, knowing what a moral wreck the Roman Church is, would I or any other educated Anglican with a regard for the classical formularies want any part of the Roman rag forced down my throat when I go to Church?Canon Tallishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05182884929479435751noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-64985197343711162092009-12-04T23:18:15.279-05:002009-12-04T23:18:15.279-05:00Fr. Hart,
And certainly Lewis has some enemies fr...Fr. Hart,<br /><br />And certainly Lewis has some enemies from certain Protestant quarters because of his "wishy-washy" theology of the Cross (labeled a heretic by these guys):<br /><br />http://www.takeheed.net/Lewisavoid.htm<br /><br />St. WormAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-85078394572032113382009-12-04T23:11:03.751-05:002009-12-04T23:11:03.751-05:00Fr. Hart,
I just now realized I omitted "pen...Fr. Hart,<br /><br />I just now realized I omitted "penal" in my descriptor for Lewis. It was my impression reading Mere Christianity that he did not think the "penal substitutionary" model was all that helpful: <br /><br />"The one most people have heard is the one about our being let off because Christ volunteered to bear a punishment instead of us. Now on the face of it that is a very silly theory. If God was prepared to let us off, why on earth did He not do so? And what possible point could there be in punishing an innocent person instead? None at all that I can see, if you are thinking of punishment in the police-court sense. On the other hand, if you think of a debt, there is plenty of point in a person who has some assets paying it on behalf of someone who has not. Or if you take "paying the penalty," not in the sense of being punished, but in the more general sense of "footing the bill," then, of course, it is a matter of common experience that, when one person has got himself into a hole, the trouble of getting him out usually falls on a kind friend." (Mere Christianity)<br /><br />In Jesus,<br />St. WormAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-68782110375750780752009-12-04T23:01:46.791-05:002009-12-04T23:01:46.791-05:00Death Bredon
Calm down fella! I am very sympathet...Death Bredon<br /><br />Calm down fella! I am very sympathetic with the idea of preserving the BCP and Anglican Formularies. But, the ACC is a separate jurisdiction from the Church of England; most of us are not English, and some of our people are not even English speaking (like the Haitians). Anglicanism became international and multilingual long before the St. Louis Affirmation; and what is Continuing cannot be fixed to England, and cannot be fixed to the 16th century. I am not English, and I have never belonged to the Church of England. And, the 16th century was long ago.<br /><br />Personally, I do not like lace, and I would not want to wear a biretta (I was offered one as a gift and I declined). I do not like Roman ritual for its own sake (it is fine in Rome), and I find the Missal to be useful only insofar as it is subordiante to the BCP as an embellishment like the Hymnal. Its rubrics have no auhtority, and some of its feast days and saints we do not even recognize (or should not).<br /><br />But, I believe that Artilce XXXIV in the original BCP of the Episcopal Church carried with it, by its importation to a new country, a strongly international, if not universal, application. If the Artilces of religion mean anything in that universal context and venue, it is that the priority is that of true Catholic faith and the primacy of the Gospel itself. A purely English liturgy, in terms of culture, would reduce Anglicanism to "Christianity with English culture." It was hearing those words from Abp. Hepqworth, as a definition of "Anglicanism," that awakened me to just how wrong he was in his mission to take Anglicanism captive to the great international Italian Mission. So, I am not prepared, in the name of Anglican purity, to accept that same definition.<br /><br />We have grown; we are world wide.<br /><br />If I have misunderstood you, please correct my interpretation.Fr. Robert Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-56806508932022702132009-12-04T22:39:35.823-05:002009-12-04T22:39:35.823-05:00It's amusing to consider that a C.S. Lewis wou...<i>It's amusing to consider that a C.S. Lewis would have been excommunicated by an R.C. Sproul or John MacArthur for his doubts about the Substitutionary model.</i><br /><br />What will be more amusing still is your attempt to document that doubt as expressed by Lewis himself.Fr. Robert Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-61754538673082122122009-12-04T20:26:36.623-05:002009-12-04T20:26:36.623-05:00To recover an understanding of the meaning of Angl...To recover an understanding of the meaning of Anglicanism proper, all one need do is engage a cursory reading of the Anglican formularies as well as any vaguely objective history of the first 350 years of the C of E and progeny. Such endeavor will reveal a struggle between Churchmen and those who drag the English into the Continental Reformation. This refreshing of the memory should make self-evident the general epistemologies, theological methods and trajectories, as well as the liturgical principles of Anglicanism, which has historically been defended formally within the C of E and progeny denominated at various points in time respectively as Orthodox, Churchmen, Anglican, High Churchmen, and Prayer-Book Catholic.<br /><br />Those willing to move onwards from 1870s, will further discover that Anglicanism has since also come under strong co-opting attack from those enamored of the Counter-Reformation. And, most recently, Anglicanism has all but been set aside in the established Communion -- though Parliament has yet to real the Book of Common Prayer, the Articles of Religion, nor Act of Settlement -- in favor of generic Liberal and Liberation theology and equally whacky liturgics. <br /><br />Choose to stand as you will -- after all Anglicans respect the freedom of a hopefully informed conscience. But, please stop contorting history by abusing the word Anglican towards sectarian ends with precious arguments and special pleading, and the naked co-option, of plainly Anglican documents. Scribble all the quasi-Anglican constitutions and canons you want, but don't butcher the word. It smacks of ignorance and/or intellectual deceit.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-57537117250612187792009-12-04T20:26:36.622-05:002009-12-04T20:26:36.622-05:00So, no, the Continuum jurisdictions, save possibly...So, no, the Continuum jurisdictions, save possibly the UEC as a serious attempt to continue Anglicanism proper, are not particular churches as contemplated by Article XXXIV. And, yes, there are good reasons why men strong for church principles have always seen the introduction of Roman ritual and ceremonial into the English Communion. And, attempts to justify this deceit by creating a discrete jurisdiction and asserting that, from henceforth Anglicanism will be comprehensive enough to include Roman liturgical use, is simply rank nominalism. Its playing church in a very peculiar and most pathetic way.<br /><br />I am simply calling out those who are trying to highjack the St. Louis Movement, which expressly purposed itself to continue Anglicanism -- not sectarian parties attempting to co-opt the established English Church, whether they be pan-Evangelical, Counter-Reformation admirers, or the still ascendent Liberal 'Christians' running the C of E, the Canadian Church and 815, among others, into the ground. <br /><br />Moreover, I am reasserting mostly clearly and loudly as possible that this creature called Anglicanism, which is prominently referenced in the St. Louis Affirmation, whereas the word Anglo-Catholic is conspicuously absent, is not some mythical beast like the Unicorn, know by all but unreal, but rather a concrete and historical theological-liturgical position was enshrined into the English Constitution by way of the Elizabethan Settlement and whose parameters were once widely understood by educated men.<br /><br />Cont.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-32378615441340582132009-12-04T20:24:46.092-05:002009-12-04T20:24:46.092-05:00The ACC and ACA are most certainly not particular ...The ACC and ACA are most certainly not particular churches in the sense intended by the Articles. Indeed, I think you will hard pressed to find any scholarly discussion on this point that does not indicate that the Articles are referring to historical jurisdictions such as the ancient Patriarchates and major dioceses within them (for e.g., Milan) and/or national -- in the sense of the Greek "ethnos" -- churches such as the Eclessia Anglicana.<br /><br />Indeed, the devolution of the English into multiple political states and ecclesiastical jurisdictions, based largely on the unwarranted willfulness of certain sub-cultures is something entirely foreign to both Christian antiquity as well as the zeitgeist of the English Reformers. Understood in this context, the Articles and the preface of the Prayer Book had to make an apology for the C of E's extraordinary decision to engage in wholesale, centrally directed liturgical change revolution. And, this apology is the end to which Article XXXIV in particular contributes. It was not meant as justification for liturgical sectarianism within the English Church.<br /><br />Cont.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-66077739641218755702009-12-04T19:46:53.673-05:002009-12-04T19:46:53.673-05:00Fr. Wells,
Do you propose the Gospel is anything ...Fr. Wells,<br /><br />Do you propose the Gospel is anything other than the Free Gift of Eternal Life in Christ, for which He suffered and died and was raised for the sins of the whole world, freely accounted to the man who believes?<br /><br />It's amusing to consider that a C.S. Lewis would have been excommunicated by an R.C. Sproul or John MacArthur for his doubts about the Substitutionary model.<br /><br />And also the good Bishop of Durham himself is the new apostate according to the Piper brigade for his insufferable tinkering with the Pristine Reformed Doctrine of <br />Justification.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-73852583984220862832009-12-04T17:21:13.211-05:002009-12-04T17:21:13.211-05:00DB.
The article says nothing whatever about "...DB.<br /><br />The article says nothing whatever about "English-speaking Christians", but rather about "Every particular or national Church". <br /><br />The ACC and the ACA are particular churches, not bound by formal authority to any other. Do they or do they not possess the authority of which the Article speaks? Any denial of liturgical freedom to such a particular church, even in an attempt to establish some sort of consistent tradition is very difficult to reconcile with this Article, and is therefore destructive to any authority that the Articles have.<br /> <br />One may indeed condemn a rite on the basis of its content (as most of us do with the US 1979), but the article forbids us to do so merely because it differs from the BCP already known. <br /><br />The same right claimed in 1549, 1552, 1559, 1662 in England, in 1789, 1892, and 1928 in the US, and at other dates in other countries, still inheres in each particular church.<br /><br />edpoetreaderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11613032927883843078noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-49724529234394339102009-12-04T17:16:14.136-05:002009-12-04T17:16:14.136-05:00I cannot help but apply the words of the Article a...I cannot help but apply the words of the Article as a general principle that is presented in a well balanced manner, and that must have a universal application beyond England and the 16th century. Its application must never be used to justify anything that cannot be reconciled to the earliest centuries. But, it seems unlikely that they meant for me, a modern American with hundreds of years of precedents added, and with a local congregation that expects continuity, to duplicate 16th century English practice in every minute detail (not that I suppose you mean that exactly).<br /><br />The reproduction of this same Article in the American BCP, and subsequently in other countries, some with other languages, takes its application into what I call the Revelation 5:9 mode- "for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of <b>every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation."</b><br /><br />To be pragmatic in the best way, is it not possible to conform perfectly to rubrics of one edition of the BCP, but lose the spirit and meaning of the whole thing?Fr. Robert Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-74994971346055243122009-12-04T16:48:09.480-05:002009-12-04T16:48:09.480-05:00Fr. Hart,
I usually hear Englishmen call their 19...Fr. Hart,<br /><br />I usually hear Englishmen call their 1928 the "Deposited Book" to distinguish it from the US 1928, which is actually in use.<br /><br />Also, Article XXXIV defends the English Churches decision to have its own Common Prayer, apart from that of the East and Pope Pius V -- not to have uncommon worship among English-Speaking Christians.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-69214326902452517162009-12-04T16:32:57.112-05:002009-12-04T16:32:57.112-05:00Death Bredon:
I share your firm appreciation for ...Death Bredon:<br /><br />I share your firm appreciation for the 1928 BCP. But, as this is an international blog, it is good to clarify that you are speaking of the American BCP (for example, not that experimental book in England that did not go over very well). The 1928 BCP in the U.S. was the last acceptable BCP put out by the Episcopal Church, just as I think the Canadians can say about the 1962 BCP in their country.Fr. Robert Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-73257128863806754852009-12-04T16:28:32.954-05:002009-12-04T16:28:32.954-05:00Fr. John wrote:
And isn't it strange that not...Fr. John wrote:<br /><br /><i>And isn't it strange that not a single "anglo-catholic" clerk or layman has appeared here to defend such practices as described.</i><br /><br />This could use clarification, because so many things have been described.<br /><br />For example, the ACA parish that cuts the 39 Articles out of the BCP is by no means whatsoever genuinely Anglo-Catholic. <i>Meshuga</i> (םשָׁגַע) is the best word from Holy Scripture to describe them. Self-loathing fits as well.<br /><br />But, by and large it seems that the best defense of genuine Anglo-Catholic practice is along the lines of the Anglican objective: The goal is to be faithful in the sense of Universal Consensus and Antiquity. Second to that objective is the BCP tradition as the means to the end. If, however, we treat the means as the end, we lose the spirit of the whole enterprise.<br /><br />A legitimate question that must be thought out clearly involves the extent and limits of this Article:<br /><br /><i>XXXIV. Of the Traditions of the Church.<br />IT is not necessary that traditions and ceremonies be in all places one or utterly alike; for at all times they have been diverse, and may be changed according to the diversity of countries, times, and men's manners, so that nothing be ordained against God's word. Whosoever through his private judgement willingly and purposely doth openly break the traditions and ceremonies of the Church which be not repugnant to the word of God, and be ordained and approved by common authority, ought to be rebuked openly that other may fear to do the like, as he that offendeth against common order of the Church, and hurteth the authority of the magistrate, and woundeth the conscience of the weak brethren.<br />Every particular or national Church hath authority to ordain, change, and abolish ceremonies or rites of the Church ordained only by man's authority, so that all things be done to edifying.</i>Fr. Robert Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.com