tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post7278326960019051893..comments2024-03-24T15:19:06.377-04:00Comments on The Continuum: VICTORIA BCFr. Robert Harthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comBlogger22125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-29891898686397220092011-06-08T07:49:38.389-04:002011-06-08T07:49:38.389-04:00This seems like the right place, among such theolo...This seems like the right place, among such theologically-gifted-trained-minded Anglicans, to set this down: [http://anglicansablaze.blogspot.com/2011/06/disappearance-of-historic-anglicanism.html]<br /><br />Seems like the St. Louis and the Victoria meetings were both also trying to state exactly is Traditional Anglican Patrimony and theology and to define its absolutes or essentials. <br /><br />Do you agree with any part of Mr. Jordan's criteria?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-87522340558985594382011-06-07T14:56:54.666-04:002011-06-07T14:56:54.666-04:00Fr. Wells and Hart,
The APA has a solemn declarat...Fr. Wells and Hart,<br /><br />The APA has a solemn declaration very much the same as the 1893 Canadian but adapted to American circumstances. It is part of the APA's C&C, but differs from the earlier Solemn Declaration, naturally, by maintaining the 1801 Articles along with "the spirit of the Affirmation of St. Louis 1977". It's a great model of the rest of the Continuum, I believe, perhaps for the future. We'll see if the upcoming Boston conference desires any clarifications along these lines, 12 Articles or otherwise, etc.<br /> <br />Sincerely, Charlescharleshttp://www.anglicanrose.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-64872128942539281982011-06-06T22:21:54.787-04:002011-06-06T22:21:54.787-04:00As I read Bp Marsh's statement "We are no...As I read Bp Marsh's statement "We are not a confessional Church....." I believe he is contrasting our distinctive theological method with that of Rome, which has written down almost everything in a massive Catechism (a splendid scholarly achievement, by the way). The same thing has been said many times to draw out our differences with the Lutheran and Reformed Churches, which put great stock on their own excellent Confessions and Catechisms.<br /><br />(We are entitled to disagree with the theologies contained in the Roman or Lutheran or Reformed documents. But we cannot deny their clarity, precision, or thoroughness. Even when they are wrong, they are wrong in a splendid manner. So I take envious delight in the CCC, the Book of Concord and the Three Forms of Unity.)<br /><br />I wish someone would research and write a history of how Anglicans have looked upon our Articles of Religion. This has ranged from the billy-club use of Abp Whitgift to the disdain of Bishop Seabury to the contempt of modern Anglo-catholics and Revisionists to the unrealistic desire in some quarters to revive the Articles as a Presbyterian-type Confessional test.<br /><br />All that being said, I must confess my own uneasiness with Bp Marsh's statement. Yes, we are not a Confessional Church. But neither are the Baptists, the Society of Friends or the Unitarians. So wherein are we different from Baptists, Quakers and Unitarians? The statement "we are not a confessional Church" carries an obligation to say just what sort of Church we actually are are and where can an inquiring mind uncover the boundary between what is Anglican doctrine and what is not.Fr. Wellshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00842080747345893229noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-58280470048424365542011-06-06T13:46:14.851-04:002011-06-06T13:46:14.851-04:00Charles:
As I understand the words, "We are ...Charles:<br /><br />As I understand the words, "We are not a confessional faith," Bp. Marsh is reminding us that Anglicanism is not built simply on some written statement by a few men in one time and one place (e.g. The Westminster Confession). I would not bother to make the same remark because, when given due consideration, no church body claims to be built on a single Confession. It tends to become a straw man argument.<br /><br />Nonetheless, I appreciate the point that Bp. Marsh was making. It is that Anglicanism is not built on what a few men, not even the English Reformers, put together; it is built on the Whole Faith of the Catholic and Apostolic Church. Whereas all reformers intended to do this, Anglicanism alone retained all the essentials.Fr. Robert Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-36960529888377266242011-06-06T11:16:01.228-04:002011-06-06T11:16:01.228-04:00"We are not a confessional faith. We resist b...<i>"We are not a confessional faith. We resist being pinned down, wriggling on a wall. We like the mysteries that exist in the theological cracks; the mysteries of which only God knows the answers. There is no ready formula; Anglicanism is not an 'easy' branch of Christianity"</i><br /><br />I have to ask what was the subscription of Elizabeth, James, and Charles I? Without subscription declaring 'norms' in the church, I wonder what would have become of Anglicanism during our formative/ restorative years, properly understood as the Settlement? Just a quick reminder, here's the <a href="http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/three_articles.htm" rel="nofollow">1584 Three Articles, also ratified in 1604</a>. Yes, Anglicanism does have a 'jazz' but within certain boundaries that daresay are more narrow than just Western Creed. It seems like in all quarters we are still struggling with the "broad and hazy", at least, if we take Bp. Marsh's remarks seriously. The Twelve Articles and the apparent call of ACA clergy for greater visible unity is very positive, and I hope further elaborated upon at Boston. Thank you Fr. Hart for getting the Victoria Congress to us. <br /><br />BTW. Why don't you link the 1893 Solemn Declaration on the top of your blog in your pages/home section (alongside the Layman's Guide)?charleshttp://www.anglicanrose.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-22255203374052614912011-06-04T18:36:03.632-04:002011-06-04T18:36:03.632-04:00F.Y.I.
(from the Affirmation of St.Louis)
IV. PR...F.Y.I.<br /><br />(from the Affirmation of St.Louis)<br /><br />IV. PRINCIPLES OF WORSHIP<br /><br /> Prayer Book -- The Standard of Worship<br /><br /> In the continuing Anglican Church, the Book of Common Prayer is (and remains) one work in two editions: The Canadian Book of 1962 and the American Book of 1928. Each is fully and equally authoritative. No other standard for worship exists.<br /><br /> Certain Variances Permitted<br /><br /> For liturgical use, only the Book of Common Prayer and service books conforming to and incorporating it shall be usedFr.James A. Chantlernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-90935179364990882392011-06-04T18:32:12.051-04:002011-06-04T18:32:12.051-04:00F.Y.I.
(from the BCP Canada 1962)
SOLEMN DECLARAT...F.Y.I.<br />(from the BCP Canada 1962)<br /><br />SOLEMN DECLARATION<br />1893<br /><br />IN the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.<br /><br />WE, the Bishops, together with the Delegates from the Clergy and Laity of the Church of England in the Dominion of Canada, now assembled in the first General Synod, hereby make the following Solemn Declaration:<br /><br />WE declare this Church to be, and desire that it shall continue, in full communion with the Church of England throughout the world, as an integral portion of the One Body of Christ composed of Churches which, united under the One Divine Head and in the fellowship of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, hold the One Faith revealed in Holy Writ, and defined in the Creeds as maintained by the undivided primitive Church in the undisputed Ecumenical Councils; receive the same Canonical Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, as containing all things necessary to salvation; teach the same Word of God; partake of the same Divinely ordained Sacraments, through the ministry of the same Apostolic Orders; and worship One God and Father through the same Lord Jesus Christ, by the same Holy and Divine Spirit who is given to them that believe to guide them into all truth.<br /><br />And we are determined by the help of God to hold and maintain the Doctrine, Sacraments, and Discipline of Christ as the Lord hath commanded in his Holy Word, and as the Church of England hath received and set forth the same in 'The Book of Common Prayer and Administration of the Sacraments and other Rites and Ceremonies of the Church, according to the use of the Church of England; together with the Psalter or Psalms of David, pointed as they are to be sung or said in Churches; and the Form and Manner of Making, Ordaining, and Consecrating of Bishops, Priests, and Deacons'; and in the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion; and to transmit the same unimpaired to our posterity.Fr.James A. Chantlernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-31804451760263827972011-06-04T16:09:55.199-04:002011-06-04T16:09:55.199-04:00It is like butting one's head against a stone ...It is like butting one's head against a stone wall to continue trying to convince certain people that the Articles of Religion are really and truly a part of our 1928 Book of Common Prayer. But I will simply cite page 601 in Dr Massey Shepherd's "Oxford American Prayer Book Commentary." He wrote:<br /><br />"Inasmuch as the Articles are but one part of the Prayer Book, it is important to remember that the doctrine of the Anglican communion is enshrined in the Prayer Book as a whole."Fr. Wellshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00842080747345893229noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-61093999550966918122011-06-04T11:50:15.478-04:002011-06-04T11:50:15.478-04:00Dear Fr. Hart,
Frere says the Title Page provide...Dear Fr. Hart, <br /><br />Frere says the Title Page provides the official content of the BCP. The 1928, for example says, "the book of common prayer and administration of the sacraments and other rites and ceremonies of the church according to the use of PECUSA together with the psalter". That is the BCP proper. Whatever is attached inside is basically ancillary. Thus, the status of the 39 Articles, if not for synodal approval in 1801, would be much like the table of affinities in the 1662. <br /><br />This is why I am always suspicious of folks who affirm the BCP but in the same breath omit the Articles of Religion. If it was so obvious that the BCP necessarily includes the 39, then why did the historical form of subscription to Anglican standards treat the two separately? A: because the 39 was not a formal part of the prayer book. <br /><br />I understand your argument for canonical endorsement of the Reformation Settlement stands upon reception through the BCP as normative, but I believe it is not necessarily so, and must be clarified by either provincial or diocesan canons. I would urge this clarification by our bishops, formally adopting declarations like the 1893. I think the 12 articles listed above is a great start, and such requires no endorsement by national synod. This kind of sub-standard can exist as a clarification of the St. Louis Affirmation (where needed) on the diocese as basic unit of the church. Bishops have always had this freedom to clarify, btw, 'asterisk' or otherwise. <br /><br />Sincerely, Charlescharleshttp://www.anglicanrose.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-88351792806259402272011-06-04T08:03:01.749-04:002011-06-04T08:03:01.749-04:00I must agree with Fr. Wells in that we do not know...I must agree with Fr. Wells in that we do not know enough about the source of this standard. All we really have to go on is that it was posted on VOL as part of their coverage of his meeting, but there is no authorship listed. Still it is a good start.<br /><br />I can see how not listing the 1662 BCP may have been a minor problem with the Affirmation, but an understandable one considering that the proposal that would become the 1979 book was a major issue at the time. That being said, in order to subscribe to these 12 statements the affirmation churches would need to alter the affirmation and in some cases their canons. Not impossible but certainly not automatic.<br /><br />However my main problem is not in allowing older BCP's. It is still in saying that anything with a foundation in those older books is allowed. Being that the 1979 book is a major point for the St. Louis churches and those descended from them any basis for inter-communion that allows it would seem to be a deal breaker to me. I think this will lead to only a small number of continuing churches being able to adopt this standard. Getting together a small amount of Anglicans is clearly not the goal here.AFS1970noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-38313177806670910132011-06-04T00:45:07.831-04:002011-06-04T00:45:07.831-04:00Wycliff wrote:
What they want is to make Extreme ...Wycliff wrote:<br /><br /><i>What they want is to make Extreme Unction a part of their platform, no?</i><br /><br />No. The answer, as you say, is no. That particular "corrupt following of the Apostles" is not consistent with our practice of anointing the sick for healing.<br /><br /><i>Although the Articles are certainly *bound* with the Prayer Book, I don't think I buy that line of reasoning... </i><br /><br />More than that. They are in the Table of Contents, which may sound technical; but only the <i>contents</i> of the book can be in the table thereof. It is more than mere reasoning. It is a simple matter of fact.<br /><br />AFS1970 wrote: <br /><br /><i>While the Affirmation is very strict in listing the 1928 & 1962 books as the only books...</i><br /><br />I cannot agree with that. These two were the only books mentioned in the Affirmation of St, Louis in 1977 for one very basic and simple reason. The St. Louis Congress was a gathering of American Episcopalians and Canadian Anglicans. They hoped that the Church of England would not succumb to the same illness. Can we doubt for one minute that, if the C of E or the C of Australia, was faced with women "priests" in 1977, we would not had English and Australian Anglicans there as well, and that the 1662 would not have been likewise identified and Affirmed?<br /><br /><i>...this seems to allow anything as long as it has roots in the 1662 book...</i> <br /><br />I cannot understand the objection. No doubt the 79ers saw their book as Biblical. Some of the people who made it were Reformed and Evangelical. They were not all "liberals." Nonetheless, the 1662 BCP is sound and orthodox; it was the triumph of the Caroline Divines over the Puritans once and for all (which is why modern Anglo-Catholics amaze me when they fail to see that). <br /><br />But, even the claim to be Biblical creates "wiggle room." Anything can be misinterpreted and misused. I believe that acknowledgement of the 1662 BCP as an international standard is a step forward that makes up for a deficiency in the Affirmation of St. Louis.Fr. Robert Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-78276706271618548792011-06-03T22:04:45.917-04:002011-06-03T22:04:45.917-04:00Perhaps I am reading too hastily and overlooking i...Perhaps I am reading too hastily and overlooking information already furnished, but we need a little more context for the "Manifesto" of twelve points. This document was plainly written by someone (or maybe even a committee) skilled in theology and precise expression. But who wrote it, who has subscribed to it, and what is its intended purpose? <br /><br />I was delighted to see the word "inerrancy" in the first point, relating to Scripture. "Divine institution and Apostolic foundation" of the five minor sacraments should present no difficulty to those who understand the Spirit's role in the Apostolic Church. I wish "sanctity of human life" had been spelled out "from the moment of conception until natural death." "Establishing of His kingdom" really should be "manifestation of His kingdom," since the kingdom was established firmly at Our Lord's ascenson. (We are not premillenialists, are we?) I am glad to see 1662 BCP mentioned, but I wish 1547 and 1637 were mentioned also.<br /><br />But it's a good document and I hope all present at the Canada meeting subscribed to it cheerfully.Fr. Wellshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00842080747345893229noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-20141078106003610002011-06-03T20:00:06.518-04:002011-06-03T20:00:06.518-04:00I'm afraid my comment was in the context of th...I'm afraid my comment was in the context of the aforementioned 12 articles put forth by this Congress you copied above. I'm also aware-- very aware-- of the biblical data here. I mention this because what this article is driving at is something more than mere anointing with oil and prayer e.g. James 5:14ff. What they want is to make Extreme Unction a part of their platform, no?<br /><br />I also find it rather odd to blame the omission of the Articles on the assumption that they are part of the BCP. Although the Articles are certainly *bound* with the Prayer Book, I don't think I buy that line of reasoning, since what the Congress is doing here is outlining principles of communion. <br /><br />I agree with the above commenters that without the Articles, this platform is a total show stopper.Daniel Stoddarthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14084268720966975050noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-74405518302724915592011-06-03T19:53:09.038-04:002011-06-03T19:53:09.038-04:00Glad to see these posted here also. I will repeat ...Glad to see these posted here also. I will repeat my comments from VOL:<br /><br />This is a good basis, however I wonder why #7 & #8 need to be different points? I would think that they are really the same thing, and by separating them, it seems to allow future innovation by changing one while keeping the other.<br /><br />#11, I think is interesting because of the recent discussion about the new prayer book being tested in the REC. It uses a newer translation of the Bible, which would seem to exclude the REC from eventual unity. Granted that goes beyond the scope of unifying the continuing churches, but it is food for thought, especially when compared to #12.<br /><br />#12 seems almost the opposite, in that it allows for too much wiggle room. While the Affirmation is very strict in listing the 1928 & 1962 books as the only books, this seems to allow anything as long as it has roots in the 1662 book. I bet that someone intent on making such claims could even say that the 1979 TEC book uses 1662 as it's foundation.AFS1970noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-84378420482749635562011-06-03T19:02:59.548-04:002011-06-03T19:02:59.548-04:00Wyclif:
While much of this is fine and acceptable...Wyclif:<br /><br /><i>While much of this is fine and acceptable to me, #6 isn't something I can get behind at all, as claiming that confirmation, penance, and unction are of "Apostolic foundation" is quite overreaching since they are medieval developments.</i><br /><br />Medieval developments my left hind leg! You seem to know neither the Scriptures nor Church History. <br /><br />Confirmation is from the Book of Acts. Penance is simply the key word for confession and absolution (John 20:23). "Unction" or anointing is from the Epistle of James-5:14f.<br /><br />That the Church has always so interpreted Scripture and so practiced is proved by the writings of the Fathers in the earliest centuries.Fr. Robert Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-86733699977935089842011-06-03T17:08:32.790-04:002011-06-03T17:08:32.790-04:00Fr.Steve
I encourage you to visit The Prayer Book ...Fr.Steve<br />I encourage you to visit The Prayer Book Society Of Canada web site.Look for The Solemn Declaration Of 1893 in the prefix and recall the status of the BCP Canada 1962 for Continuing Churchmen as defined in the Affirmation Of St.Louis.Fr.James Chantlernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-88430975218455256462011-06-03T17:08:31.499-04:002011-06-03T17:08:31.499-04:00Fr. Hart,
Its because so many simply ignore them ...Fr. Hart,<br /><br />Its because so many simply ignore them or write them off. They should be included because to be a Priest, one of the things you promise is adhere to them.<br /><br />I do think its nice that they go back to the 1662 BCP, instead of just to the 1928 American BCP.Fr. Stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16869676716891199486noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-90913080341533006232011-06-03T15:53:00.085-04:002011-06-03T15:53:00.085-04:00While much of this is fine and acceptable to me, #...While much of this is fine and acceptable to me, #6 isn't something I can get behind at all, as claiming that confirmation, penance, and unction are of "Apostolic foundation" is quite overreaching since they are medieval developments.Daniel Stoddarthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14084268720966975050noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-56274963215333023472011-06-03T15:42:39.169-04:002011-06-03T15:42:39.169-04:00This is good stuff. I am glad to hear that much of...This is good stuff. I am glad to hear that much of the Continuum is talking unity and inter-communion in real terms, but they are not rushing things.Georgehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18402467584294418765noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-21012245273543579522011-06-03T15:20:44.563-04:002011-06-03T15:20:44.563-04:00How can the Articles can be considered absent wher...How can the Articles can be considered absent wherever we find a clear affirmation of the Book of Common Prayer?Fr. Robert Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-57492633178911924532011-06-03T15:04:38.775-04:002011-06-03T15:04:38.775-04:00I asked it on Virtue Online, and I'll ask it h...I asked it on Virtue Online, and I'll ask it here. Why are the 39 Articles absent from that list? Why are they absent from the discussions?Fr. Stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16869676716891199486noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-30617600168869972602011-06-03T14:24:25.709-04:002011-06-03T14:24:25.709-04:00Fr. Hart: Could you comment on the omission or ev...Fr. Hart: Could you comment on the omission or even a reference to the 39 articles in this statement?Timothyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11348004504241440566noreply@blogger.com