tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post4096707943063013328..comments2024-03-24T15:19:06.377-04:00Comments on The Continuum: Important odds and endsFr. Robert Harthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comBlogger55125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-51495692342338749462009-10-04T10:31:04.983-04:002009-10-04T10:31:04.983-04:00I'm not citing secret sources, and, in fact, a...I'm not citing secret sources, and, in fact, am very uncomfortable with the appearance of secrecy that has been given. There is sufficient evidence on the surface to give at least plausibility to my observations. I mention myself as one example among many. Though I am sure some exist, I have not talked with a single thinking layman in my diocese that would affirm the statement the bishops made, <i>if it be taken to require complete acceptance of the papal claims</i>. If Rome can find no way to loosen up on their insistence on such submission, the deal is not going to fly. (Yes, it is a miracle that is required, a change in Rome itself beyond reasonable expectation, against all conventional wisdom and apparent probability - but I continue to pray to the God of miracles that He grant one. He can.)<br /><br />As to interpreting the statement of the bishops -- it is very carefully and precisely worded, in a way typical of Anglican statements (of any "party") so as to be amenable to more than one interpretation. To take it as necessarily signifying entire agreement with the CCC is to ignore the way that Anglicans have approached such matter. From the BCP, through the Articles, and in a host of more recent documents, wording is constructed to say no more than what the actual words require one to take them as. In this case, the signing was not said to indicate entire agreement (though some bishops may have intended it that way), but merely recognition of the document as the best existing. If Rome understands it otherwise, Rome is misunderstanding it, and will be attempting a kind of absorption that will not ultimately happen.<br /><br />edpoetreaderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11613032927883843078noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-5612894051659197432009-10-04T08:58:06.735-04:002009-10-04T08:58:06.735-04:00Dear Poetreader
Thank you for that. The problem i...Dear Poetreader<br />Thank you for that. The problem is that the 1552 struycture and wording did indeed remain. 1559 excluded the Black Rubric and added in the 1549 words for the Administration of Holy Communion. Nevertheless, any sense of "offering the Sacrifice of the Mass remained excluded. And there was still no "Amen" after the words of consecration. The 1662 BCP added an "Amen" after the prayer of consecration and required some manual acts, but it restored the Black Rubric and still refrained from adding any sense of "offering" to the Consecration prayer. Classical Anglicanism remains essentially protestant in many key areas, including justification by faith alone.<br /><br />In response to your reemark about yourself, I can only say that one swallow does not make a summer. Moreover, I believe we should take the document signed by the TAC at face value. If Rome does not then I dare say they will not agree with it and refuse it short of any further clarification. But, as I read it, the TAC have signed on to the fullness of the Catholic Faith, including the infallibility of the Pope. If I am wrong then Rome will object and there the matter would end.<br /><br />I appear not to have your inside sources, but inside sources not cited are not, as any academic knows, not sources at all.<br /><br />Bottom line - the TAC clearly does not accept the view of the Americans. But the rest of the Anglican Communion has nevcer accepted that American Anglicans are the fons et origo of all things Anglican. In fact the arrogance of PECUSA with all of its money has been a root cause of the disruption of communion between the member Churches of the Anglican Communion. They have forced the pace and from 1976 have single-handedly disrupted the ARCIC process. Where the Continuum is concerned, I ask the Americans not to fololow the poor example of PECUSA, the rock from which they have been hewn, and listen to those closer to the English protestant heritage as to what constitutes the limits of plkurality of doctrine and practice within the Anglican community. In that way, discussion with other Churches will becomemore meaningful. But since Anglicans cannot agree among themselves as to where the limits of plurality lie, perhaps the best option is the TAC approach.Cherubnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-70394456800932293662009-10-03T10:24:55.859-04:002009-10-03T10:24:55.859-04:00Cherub,
Seldom are things as simple as a surface ...Cherub,<br /><br />Seldom are things as simple as a surface reading would seem to indicate. 1552 that was used for a year and a half, and even then, apparently, did not receive general acceptance, does indeed have its problems, and does appear to have been constructed so as to allow interpretation of a much more Reformed nature than even Cranmer actually intended. However, 1552 as it stood was not revived after the Marian interlude. The rather odd (and I would say, unfortunate) structure of the Eucharistic liturgy indeed was carried over into Elizabeth's 1559 and into 1662, but close examination will reveal that the apparently small changes made render Elizabeth's book and subsequent versions far closer in theology to 1549 than to 1552. I too know 1552 quite well indeed, and also 1662, and I find the differences to be extremely striking.<br /><br />Evidence that Some bishops in TAC have made decisions that the people do not accept? Well, I am evidence, in and of myself, that this is true for some. And here again, you've taken a surface view of something much more nuanced. As I said just above, it is by no means certain that their signing of the CCC necessarily signifies absolute and total acceptance of everything there contained. I have reason to know that this is not the case for all participants. The relevant documents are very carefully worded in such a way that entire submission is not there stated.<br /><br />edpoetreaderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11613032927883843078noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-32338306672081679442009-10-03T03:52:25.045-04:002009-10-03T03:52:25.045-04:00Dear Fathers
Actually I know the 1552 BCP very wel...Dear Fathers<br />Actually I know the 1552 BCP very well indeed. Ands doctrine is clearly antithetical to what you believe. The BCP, whether 1549, 1552, 1559, 1662 were all authorised by the state. That is historically a fact. When St Edmund Campion was in debate with the representatives of the then state religion, the 1559 BCP and the 39 Artilces, it was clear that the doctrine being officially propounded by the C of E was clearly protestant. No Church in the whole of Christendom had eucharistic liturgies like these. 1552 had a much longer lasting influence in England where most Anglicans live than did 1549. The anglicans in the United States are rather small beer when compared to England and Nigeria. The fact is that the Anglican Communion generally are in the line of the 1662 BCP and 39 Articles. That in some ways North America is not in that line is intersting but not important when deciding what Classical Anglicanism is or is not. In the end, a few Amercians, venerable, holy, and in many ways right minded as they may be, are but a blink on the Anglican landscape.<br /><br />Fater Hart says: "And, since when has the TAC made up its mind on this Rome business? From my perspective it is obvious that Archbishop Hepworth and a few other bishops have decided one thing, and the people have decided something else." Can you please give me evidence that the people of the TAC think differently from their leaders. And here we would need to take account of the people in Africa, India, Australia, Canada etc as well as the US. I may be wrong but I was under the impression that the various synods of the TAC had decided the matter in favour of Rome. And why does it bother other members of the Continuum. If you are right no doubt you will have an influx of new members. On the other hand, if the TAC are right they may attract some of your members. Is that possible?Cherubnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-29330809884592534502009-10-02T17:20:56.520-04:002009-10-02T17:20:56.520-04:00It's even questionable just what our bishops h...It's even questionable just what our bishops have actually decided. They have signed the CCC. but according to a formula full of weasel words. Whatever their actual intent, calling it the "most complete" statement (words to that effect, I'm working from memory)of the Catholic faith is not declaring acceptance without reservation.<br /><br />edpoetreaderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11613032927883843078noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-13406420142677804572009-10-02T01:44:46.130-04:002009-10-02T01:44:46.130-04:00I agree with Fr. Hollister. The 1552 BCP is mostly...I agree with Fr. Hollister. The 1552 BCP is mostly known by a caricature of the same, not by what it truly is. And, <i>Lex Orandi Lex Credendi</i> means exactly what it says. The law of prayer is the law of belief-like a scientific law. When you pray, you believe accordingly.<br /><br />Also, I disagree with Cherub on this:<br /><br /><i>"Where women's ordination is concerned (and I personally oppose it probaly on the same grounds as Canon Hollister), it is difficult to say that Anglican documents authorised by Kings, Parliament, and Synods cannot be changed by the same Kings, Parliamets, and Synods."</i><br /><br />Matters of doctrine and practice are not authorized by Kings, Parliament or Synods, but by God and his unchanging revelation. That sinful man tries to interfere, and causes division, is a universal problem, and one that has been consistent in history. <br /><br />And, since when has the TAC made up its mind on this Rome business? From my perspective it is obvious that Archbishop Hepworth and a few other bishops have decided one thing, and the people have decided something else. Meanwhile, Rome has not decided anything (and will not).Fr. Robert Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-64589416388168922132009-10-02T00:21:03.552-04:002009-10-02T00:21:03.552-04:00Cherub wrote, "I find it difficult to see how...Cherub wrote, "I find it difficult to see how any reasonable person could say that the sacramental doctrine in the 1552 Prayer Book was 'largely' the same as 1549. On the contrary it is explicitly anti-Real Presence, anti-Sacrifice of the Mass, and anti-priesthood as traditional Catholics would have understood it."<br /><br />Personally – and I cannot possibly speak for anyone other than myself – I do not find the 1552 BCP as completely and hopelessly Protestant as Cherub does, certainly not going as far in that direction as, for example, the rejected 1785 draft did (the one that was adopted in 1873 by the Reformed Episcopal Church). Further, the 1552 text was not in effect for even a year and when the next BCP appeared, that of Queen Elizabeth, we see the beginning of what was, for more than three hundred years, a consistent process whereby “Prayer Book revision” always meant going back and reappropriating more and more of the 1549 text.<br /><br />Nor is it correct that "Anglican theologians and bishops give authoritative accounts of the meaning o the 39 Articles and the Prayer Books." The teaching of the Church is the teaching authorized by the Church and the unofficial opinions of theologians and Bishops are just that. The Roman Church, especially, has in recent decades had reason to be grateful for that fact. <br /><br />Thus, for example, when in 1928 the British Parliament – legislating solely for England, not for Scotland --, for the second time, refused to pass the Bill that would have enacted the “Proposed” BCP, the Church of England, by a decision of a majority of its Bishops, that is, officially, permitted its use anyway. So which was the authentic expression of the mind of the Church of England, the negative vote in a political assembly by largely Nonconformist MPs or the decision of the Church’s Bishops?<br /><br />"It is difficult to say that Anglican documents authorised by Kings, Parliament, and Synods cannot be changed by the same Kings, Parliaments, and Synods." So far as England goes, I think the case of the 1928 "Proposed" BCP is apposite. Even more importantly, after 1789, with the establishment of official intercommunion between the mutually independent Church of England and PECUSA, Anglicanism was no longer confined to the Church of England. However ecclesiastical decisions are arrived at in England, those decisions reflect only the mind of those two Provinces, not those of Anglicanism as a whole. <br /><br />The consensus of "Classical Anglicanism", in Canon Tallis's phrase, is to be found in the formularies that were broadly accepted by all Anglicans during Anglicanism's classic period. Chief among those formularies were the BCPs – in the U.S., for example, the status of the 39 Articles was always questionable, and a very strong argument can be made that those Articles were never actually doctrinal standards even in England because the laity were never required to assent to them. <br /><br />The U.S. series of BCPs, from 1789 through 1892 to 1928, clearly reverted ever more strongly to the 1549 model and the same was observable after 1928 elsewhere. That is precisely why I proposed 1963 as the later boundary of the classical period: the 1954 South African and the 1963 Indian BCPs are the finest examples of the 1549 tradition ever developed.<br /><br />"The TAC has made up its mind: why attack them for that?" In this instance, I wasn't attacking the TAC, although I have been ready enough to do so at other times and on other issues. Here I was merely using the TAC as a convenient example of the effect acceptance of the peculiar Roman dogmas would have on a group's Catholic credentials. That's not an attack, that's a discussion of what the effect will be of a potential future event.<br /><br />John A. Hollister+<br />Veriword: "adletion"John A. Hollisterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01325615323834517909noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-59733212626812469062009-10-01T20:08:34.655-04:002009-10-01T20:08:34.655-04:00First, let me apologise to Canon Hollister. I cer...First, let me apologise to Canon Hollister. I certainly did not intend to be uncharitable towards him. I very much respect the measured way in which he enters the discussion. However, it still seems to me that Canon Hollister is his own authority of last resort.<br /><br />He says: "For Anglicans, such teaching has been encapsulated in its BCPs, which is one reason they are so extraordinarily important to us. From 1549 to 1963, the official BCPs expressed largely uniform teaching on the Sacraments, the requirements for the ministry, etc."<br /><br />I find it difficult to see how any reasonable person could say that the sacramental doctrine in the 1552 Prayer Book was "largely" the same as 1549. On the contrary it is explicitly anti-Real Presence, anti-Sacrifice of the Mass, and anti-priesthood as traditional Catholics would have understood it. The English Reformers may have seen themselves as renovators rather than innovators but the fact is that under the influence of the Continental protestants Cranmer went as far as he coulkd in their direction.<br /><br />The second problem is that the Prayer Books, apart from significant differences in teaching between them, are often so ambiguously worded ("was not by Christ's ordinance etc") that one can in good conscience arrive at mutually contradictory positions on the same fundamental matter. It is true that Anglicanism maintained an orthodoxy on some very fundamental matters such as the Trinity, the resurrection of Christ and so on. But Anglican theologians and bishops give authoritative accounts of the meaning o the 39 Artilces and the Prayer Books. Lex orandi lex credendi here means: "I believe what I take the documents, in all their studied ambiguity, to mean."<br />Where women's ordination is concerned (and I personally oppose it probaly on the same grounds as Canon Hollister), it is difficult to say that Anglican documents authorised by Kings, Parliament, and Synods cannot be changed by the same Kings, Parliamets, and Synods. One cannot say that the authority of last resort [Kings Parliaments, or Synods] in the past had authority which they no longer have. So one is left with a choice - my account of what the documents say or what the authority of last resort says they mean, remembering that the authority of last resort has as much right to change existing faith and practice as theirpredecessors had. Again, my apologies if I seem to have been uncharitable. My concern is to get to the truth of the matter. The TAC has made up its mind: why attack them for that?Cherubnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-40070868800139757242009-10-01T13:17:57.116-04:002009-10-01T13:17:57.116-04:00(Part 2):
I do not know why; the answer lies rath...(Part 2):<br /><br />I do not know why; the answer lies rather in psychiatry than in theology. I do know that, from the perspective of the "Classical Anglicanism" to which Canon Tallis referred and of which I have here attempted to begin working toward a definition, there is substantial doubt whether such folk are, in any meaningful sense, "Anglicans" at all. We would not call "Christians" those who deny the reality of the Virgin Birth or the Resurrection (and, yes, I was thinking here of John Spong and David Jenkins). <br /><br />"And why can we not say that the ordination of women is just the natural development of faith and practice which is in that oldest set of documents, the New Testament?"<br /><br />Well, some officers of Christ Church, Plano TX think you can. (See yesterday's lead posting on this blogspot's home page.) The rest of us must wait and see if you can come up with some hitherto-unknown Biblical exegesis that is logically consistent and that does not do terminal violence to the source materials.<br /><br />"Classical Anglicanism as defined by Canon Hollister surely does not preclude the ordination of women."<br /><br />You and he must differ on that. For example, the Affirmation of St. Louis says the so-called ordination of women was precisely the key event that led the Continuing Church to opt for Classical Anglicanism over NeoAnglicanism.<br /><br />"If the Anglican Church has the authority to define doctrine and correct Roman errors, why can it not define the doctrine of the priesthood to include the ordination of women?"<br /><br />No; the Roman errors consist of unwarranted and idiosyncratic additions to the deposit of the Faith, not of denials of essential elements of that deposit. So R.C. teaching includes all that it is essential for Catholics to believe; it simply, although mistakenly, tells them that there are some other matters that they must also accept as dogma.<br /><br />None of those other things contradicts essential Catholic teaching, however, so they all exist as personal and voluntary "pious opinions", even among some in the non-R.C. portion of Catholicism.<br /><br />The "ordination" of women is utterly rejected by all parts of the Catholic world. Thus the T.A.C. may choose to merge into Rome and so accept as dogma those pious opinions, without losing its claim to Catholicity. Were it to adopt the "ordination" of women, however, and it would thereby vitiate its claims to minister valid Sacraments and so ipso facto and forthwith cease to have any color of claim to be "Catholic".<br /><br />John A. Hollister+ <br />Veriwords: "nosse", "nifighte"John A. Hollisterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01325615323834517909noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-26094229543159047862009-10-01T13:17:26.403-04:002009-10-01T13:17:26.403-04:00Cherub wrote, "It would appear that Canon Hol...Cherub wrote, "It would appear that Canon Hollister is the fons et origo and infallible authority as to what is Classical Anglicanism. He uses these terms to provide his authority: 'One would probably wish to include ...' and 'I myself would wish to include ...'."<br /><br />This is uncharitable. I used the conditional throughout because reasonable men and women might differ about fine details but the question alone implied boundaries within which the answer logically fell.<br /><br />First, people ofte discuss intellectual movements and past times as realities although their beginning and end points are debatable. When did "Classical Antiquity" begin and end? What are the boundaries of "the early Republican period" of Rome? When did "New Testament times" end? When did "the Renaissance" and "the Enlightenment" respectively begin and end?<br /><br />Thus those who discuss such things usually explain what limits they personally use. I propose the 1530s as the beginning because it makes little sense to label "Anglican" the Church in England before it became, in its own eyes and those of others, a national church with a discrete identity, i.e., at the Reformation.<br /><br />I offered 1963 as the endpoint as being the Church of India's adoption of the last traditional edition of the Book of Common Prayer. <br /><br />Cherub further wrote, "Anglicanism has long witnessed the holding of mutually exclusive views about everything from the sacraments to justification by faith alone by its most celebrated bishops and theologians, as well as an extraordinary conflict in actual practice...."<br /><br />All parts of Christianity have experienced diversity in private opinions among their office holders and scholars. That is irrelevant; what matters is what the Church has actually authorized and taught. "Lex orandi, lex credendi" and all that.<br /><br />For Anglicans, such teaching has been encapsulated in its BCPs, which is one reason they are so extraordinarily important to us. From 1549 to 1963, the official BCPs expressed largely uniform teaching on the Sacraments, the requirements for the ministry, etc.<br /><br />So it is incorrect to say, with Cherub, "it would seem that Classical Anglicanism should really be defined in terms of whatever I and my friends believe in from time to time."<br /><br />"As for the definition being 'self-evident', why then do so many Anglicans not agree with this definition?"<br /><br />(Continued)John A. Hollisterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01325615323834517909noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-55679894418291272182009-09-30T22:06:01.928-04:002009-09-30T22:06:01.928-04:00It would appear that Canon Hollister is the fons e...It would appear that Canon Hollister is the fons et origo and infallible authority as to what is Classical Anglicanism. He uses these terms to provide his authority: "One would probably wish to include ..." and "I myself would wish to include ...". And since Anglicanism has long witnessed the holding of mutually exclusive views about everything from the sacraments to justrification by faith alone by its most celebrated bishops and theologians, as well as an extraordinary conflict in actual practice (Rosary, Solemn Mass, and Benediction on the one hand versus Solemn High Matins and the rejection of Romish views re the meaning of the Eucharistic celebrationon), it would seem that Classical Anglicanism should really be defined in terms of whatever I and my friends believe in from time to time. Oh dear ...<br />As for the definition being "self-evident", why then do so many Anglicans not agree with this definition? And why can we not say that the ordination of women is just the natural development of faith and practice which is in that oldest set of documents, the New Testament? Classical Anglicanism as defined by Canon Hollister surely does not preclude the ordination of women. If the Anglican Church has the authority to define doctrine and correct Roman errors, why can it not define the doctrine of the priesthood to include the ordination of women? Is it not the fact that the TAC are being consistent with what they see as the answer to questions about who has the authority to deefine doctrine? If you and your peopole stay where you are (and that is your right and it is to be respected), will you not in the end accept women's ordination if there are too few Anglicans left in the world with whom you can be in Communion. And after all, you have already claimed the authority to determine what is or is not sound doctrine. Or is ther something I have overlooked or misunderstood in your response. If s, I am open to correction.Cherubnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-78666963138737716742009-09-30T08:38:43.873-04:002009-09-30T08:38:43.873-04:00I must thank Canon Hollister for responding to Che...I must thank Canon Hollister for responding to Cherub in terms that I find entirely acceptable. It seems to me that the definition is largely self explanitory and began with Acts 2: 42.Canon Tallishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05182884929479435751noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-54144100943498066002009-09-29T22:33:35.498-04:002009-09-29T22:33:35.498-04:00Cherub asked, "What is 'Classical Anglica...Cherub asked, "What is 'Classical Anglicanism' and who gets to define it?"<br /><br />Quite simply, Classical Anglicanism is made up of historical data which can be identified by anyone who choses to examine what Anglicanism believed, practiced, and taught between the 1530s and, perhaps, as late as the 1930s. One would probably wish to include the Bonn Concordat in that, so perhaps the end of the 1930s would be the earliest cutoff point one would wish to choose.<br /><br />I myself would wish to include the magnificent family of editions of the Book of Common Prayer that developed as a direct result of the Episcopal Church of Scotland's BCP of 1929 and the C of E's "Proposed Book" of 1928, so perhaps 1963 would be my cutoff year for "Classical Anglicanism". Certainly I would cut it off prior to 1970, when the Lambeth Communion reversed its prior determination and admitted the Church of South India (along with the then-new Church of North India) into its membership.<br /><br />John A. Hollister+<br />Veriword: "vokeye"John A. Hollisterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01325615323834517909noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-45719266991476288352009-09-25T01:40:33.106-04:002009-09-25T01:40:33.106-04:00Canon Tallis has said: "those of us who are r...Canon Tallis has said: "those of us who are really serious about Classical Anglicanism and the Catholic faith as handed over by the saints by means of Holy Scripture, the consensus of the Fathers, the Creeds and the General Councils result in an enrichment and deepening of our hopefully common and ancient faith."<br />What is "Classical Anglicanism" and who gets to define it?" The General Synod of the C of E, The House of Commons, the Queen, various parts of the Continuum? From where would the definers of "Classical Anglicanism" get their authority to decide what is the truth?Cherubnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-11863665530089628292009-09-17T15:42:56.848-04:002009-09-17T15:42:56.848-04:00tesslim"Lay Presidency" has far more sup...tesslim"Lay Presidency" has far more support in Lutheranism (or at least in Luther's own thought and ideas), than in Reformed Christianity or (as it is sometiles loosely termed) "Calvinism."<br /><br />Luther believed and declared that all the baptized, women as well as men, had the capacity to carry out all the sacramemts, Baptism, Communion and Absolution (he wavered on whether Absolution was a sacrament or not), but Article 14 of the Augsburg Confession, with its insistence that a man had to be "properly called" to preach the Word and administer the Sacraments left it ambiguous as to whether this meant that ordination was a necessity or whether it was simply a "decent ceremony" for the purpose of preserving "good order," but not strictly necessary.<br /><br />Most European Lutheren churches required, and some still do require, ordination as a prerequisite for these things, or at least for celebrating the Eucharist. (Some of the Scandinavian Lutheran State Churches allow bishops to "delegate" the performance of ordinations to "mere" pastors, but that is a different question.) In others, where the influence of pietism has been strong (e.g., the Church of Norway) or where Luther's own views have swayed actual Lutheran practice in these areas (e.g., many of the German "territorial churches"), lay celebration has been permitted in a variety of circumstances.<br /><br />In America, almost all Lutheran churches have allowed "lay celebration" in some circumstances. The liberal ELCA, like its predecessor bodies, allowed it in a variety of circumstances, although in the run-up to the "Concordat" between ECUSA and ELCA (which ECUSA endorsed in 1997 and the ELCA in 1999) the Episcopalian side indicated its "discomfort" with the practice. The Missouri Synod made formal provision for lay celebration, by males alone, in a variety of circumstances, at its 1989 Wichita Convention. Smaller Lutheran bodies like the Evangelical Lutheran Synod (ELS) also allow it, and the long series of question-and-answer topics on the web page of the 350,000 person Wisconsin Synod (WELS) demonstrates that it not only allows "lay celebration" by males, but has on occasion allowed laywomen to celebrate "the Lord's Supper" for groups composed solely of women -- a practice on which it has declared a moratorium, due to the protests of the ELS, with which it is "in pulpit and altar fellowship."William Tighehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16634494183165592707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-33923369500316425612009-09-16T16:56:27.690-04:002009-09-16T16:56:27.690-04:00I'll respectfully have to disagree with Fr. We...I'll respectfully have to disagree with Fr. Wells,<br /><br />The notion (and practice) of lay presidency at the Lord's Table is not an invention of Sydney, nor do they appear to be advocating precisely what you claim.<br /><br />If I understand Jensen and company correctly, they are advocating that all existing standards apply when there is a presbyter present, but want to make allowance for a responsible lay leader (presumably recognized as such by the bishop) to step in and substitute when there is not. That is a lot different from "just anybody at all", and pays great respect to order and decency, but without, of course, satisfying any part of Catholic order. Yhat is precisely the standard taken by any Baptist I've discussed the matter with -- i.e. anyone at all can, but good order determines who should. <br /><br />I first heard lay presidency advocated about 1954, oddly by a Lutheran pastor, later in some disfavor in the Missouri Synod. He went so far as to declare it right and proper that a father give Communion to his family at home, without any further ecclesiastical oversight. <br /><br />For some years I was a Pentecoatal pastor in a more tightly hierarchical denomination than most. We did insist that the Lord's Supper could not be offered by anyone other than a duly licensed minister, and I, for five years, though appointed pastor, as a lay minister had to call in an outside minister for the quarterly observance. Almost all of my Protestant friends outside the particular church thought that foolish, "You're a Christian, aren't you? Any Christian can do that."<br /><br />No, Father Wells, there aren't any new heresies. I happen to be a great admirer of much about the Anabaptists, and am far indeed from wanting to disrespect them, but it remains true that the kind of egalitarian thinking on which lay presidency is founded, though not invented by them, found powerful expression in their movement, and is directly represented in the non-magisterial Protestant sects today. <br /><br /><br />edpoetreaderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11613032927883843078noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-35408912765206634622009-09-16T15:47:03.345-04:002009-09-16T15:47:03.345-04:00Not quite right, Ed! In the churches deriving fro...Not quite right, Ed! In the churches deriving from the Radical Reformation we do have, I admit, a theology of both sacraments and ministry which, from our perspective, is grossly inadequate. The sacraments are only ordinances. The ministry is quite different from the Catholic priesthood. This I grant.<br /><br />But there is nevertheless a concept of "decency and order," in which the duly authorized ministers (styled bishops amongst the Mennonites, elders amongst the Baptists or Disciples) carry out the rite according to their own traditions.<br /><br />That is a far cry from the Sydney notion that anybody at all can "preside," just as anybody at all can be a greeter or take up the collection.<br />Lay presidency is a distinctly Australian heresy.<br /><br />I am losing patience with the incessant insults heaped on the Churches of the Reformation. Not every error originated with them.<br />LKWAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-12234183186174532832009-09-16T09:26:05.430-04:002009-09-16T09:26:05.430-04:00Lay presidency would seem to have its roots in the...Lay presidency would seem to have its roots in the Radical Reformation (Anabaptists, et al)who taught a kind of egalitarianism not found elsewhere in the Reformation period. The Continental Magisterial Reformers (Lutherans, Calvinists, and even Swinglians) seem to have been no less clerical in their operation than the Roman Church of the time. Though (as we would judge) misunderstanding much about the nature of Christian ministry and the effects of ordination, they were united in seeing ordination as conferring an authority not found in the generality of the laity.<br /><br />edpoetreaderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11613032927883843078noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-35329463204496571162009-09-16T09:08:41.689-04:002009-09-16T09:08:41.689-04:00David: The innovation of "lay presidency&quo...David: The innovation of "lay presidency" is anything but Calvinistic. The Westminster Assembly's "Directory of Public Worship" did not authorize anything of the sort and even went so far as to restrict the reading of Scripture lessons to duly ordained "Ministers of Word and Sacrament." Historically, the Presbyterian and Reformed churches did not allow even their "Ruling Elders" to "serve the Lord's Supper." The Westminster Confession of Faith is quite explicit, "The Lord Jesus hath, in this ordinance, appointed his ministers to declare his word of 9institution to the people, to pray, and bless the elements of bread and wine, and therefore to set them apart ..." So "lay presidency" seems to be an Australian invention, not Calvinist.<br />LKWAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-57712534717604773922009-09-14T14:16:51.505-04:002009-09-14T14:16:51.505-04:00For the record, my criticism was not that some RC ...For the record, my criticism was not that some RC priests have been bad men,since wolves wear sheep's clothing just about everywhere, but that the system of clericalist culture has shielded them. This clericalism is unique to Roman Catholicism, and quite possibly energized by the requirement of an appearance of celibacy, creating an "us and them" mentality, and limiting the field to a number of men so small as to be unworkable.<br /><br />The continued sheltering of certain men who allowed the abuse to go on and on, shows a weakness even now. To trust that same system for leadership, to want to come under it, makes no sense.Fr. Robert Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-46885429711712656052009-09-14T07:33:21.212-04:002009-09-14T07:33:21.212-04:00Typographical horrors - please note that what I me...Typographical horrors - please note that what I meant to say in relation to pedophile clergy in the Roman Church was in relation to sexual abuse by priests of boys (and girls).<br /><br />I think RC Cola's concern with Rome is something very valid. Moral bankruptcy in a large number of priests and bishops, the misuse of the sacrament of confession by scores of priest to obtain silence and all this in the context of a Roman Church in America and Australia in which theological liberalism is rife.<br /><br />Somewhere Christian values of fidelity to Christ, fidelity to vows and understanding the sacred trust that is the priesthood went out the door. Anglicana has experienced the same issue - with pedophile priests, faithless bishops and heresy validated via liberalism en extremis.<br /><br />The challenge for the Continuum is to rise above this moral and spiritual bankruptcy and to restore the dignity of Anglican orthodoxy through a return to Catholic discipline, a deep sense of humility and an understanding that sin and moral falldown is unenviably close.<br /><br />The challenge for the continuing Anglican Churches is to unite at the feet of the Crucified Lord and present a united Church that is the rightful successor to the apostasy of Canterbury and all those jurisdictions that ordain women, marry homosexuals or prefer Calvinistic lay communion like Sydney.Deacon Down Underhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14903366446394957630noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-73973834591709423972009-09-14T05:12:35.579-04:002009-09-14T05:12:35.579-04:00Roman Church has to answer some big questions - be...<i> Roman Church has to answer some big questions - because a celibate priesthood is not to blame for pedophile priests.</i><br /><br />Very true.RC Colanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-39787473244023337542009-09-13T18:25:33.662-04:002009-09-13T18:25:33.662-04:00As an exiled Anglican who has joined the Continuum...As an exiled Anglican who has joined the Continuum and the ACC, I'd like to share a little reflection, prayerful reflection on my journey and this debate.<br /><br />I was raised as an Anglican in the Diocese of Tasmania, and had a clear belief as a child and as a teenager that this was Christ's Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. My evangelical rector taught me that.<br /><br />Introduced at age 12 to Anglo-Catholicism, a year after receiving a proestly vocation, understood in those terms, I was introduced to Anglo-Catholicism. <br /><br />In this environment, of daily masses at the Cathedral, the sacrament of confession and confidence in the Anglican presentation of the Gospel seemed for me solidity and a spiritual rock.<br /><br />Fr. Hart is correct in saying that Cardinal Law and others who toleratred, acquiesced and in some instances covered up the sexual abuse of children by boys in the Roman Church should be made to answer for their sins. The Roman Church has to answer some big questions - because a celibate priesthood is not to blame for pedophile priests.<br /><br />The Anglican Church had it's own issue with this scourge, and it significantly touched my own life - sexual abuse by 4 priests, one of whom, I had some justice in sending to prison decades later. The end result of that trauma coupled with an inability to comprehend the changes within Anglicanism sent me fleeing to the Russian Orthodox Church at age 17.<br /><br />While I managed to develop a love of Slavonic liturgy, a deep appreciation of Eastern monastacism, and could even read Church Slavonic enough to sing in the choir and get ordination as a sub-deacon, the knowledge of the validity of the Anglican way burned my soul, year after year.<br /><br />I even thought that eastern spirituality - non Christian was an answer to my unresolved pain and alienation, caused by the abuse of the confessional by pedophile priests.<br /><br />So my decision to return to Anglicana is in spite of those men. My decisionis because I believe the historic claims of the Anglican Church to be part of the Catholic Church.<br /><br />The Anglican Continuum offers so much to the modern world, apart from sound liturgy. It offers Christ in the Word in a profoundly unique and deep way. It offers the humility of a Church whose mission always was to see Rome, the East and the English Churches united as the Catholic Church.<br /><br />If one looks at the Eastern Catholic (Uniate) churches one sees the watering of Orthodox practice with Roman or Latin rite norms, whether it is pews in churches, western garbed nuns, beardless priests and said celebrations of the Liturgy similar to a low mass.<br /><br />It may be that Archbishop Hepworth will get his wish of an Anglican rite, or personal prelature, but I suspect that Rome as it is is incapable of understanding the nuances and spiritual wealth that is found in Anglican Christendom.<br /><br />To be honest I am at a loss to understand the basis for the "see" of acronyms that is the continuing Anglican Churches today, and cannot understand why we do not have one united jurisdiction. The comments made by one writer who said that perhaps Rome will respect the Anglican Catholic laity and be concerned about their bishops is accurate.<br /><br />Surely the continuing diaspora must be united under the original fathers who led us from the St. Louis Congress, which I understand to be the Anglican Catholic Church - Original Province, + APCK.<br /><br />Please forgive my lack of intimate knowledge of the Continuum in passing comment. For me it has been a journey back to my roots, to Anglican orthodoxy, to the faith of our fathers, and for me I have clarity about what it is to be Anglican.Deacon Down Underhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14903366446394957630noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-80505610461335933072009-09-12T19:30:01.667-04:002009-09-12T19:30:01.667-04:00Father Hart,
Being a bit new to the Continuing c...Father Hart, <br /><br />Being a bit new to the Continuing church, I sometimes miss some of the nuances. <br /><br />Please let me be a little plainer. There was no vote taken in my parish.acalayreaderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00531252940778447585noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-7445559599520607042009-09-12T11:18:26.488-04:002009-09-12T11:18:26.488-04:00acalayreader:
I said "parishes" quite d...acalayreader:<br /><br />I said "parishes" quite deliberately. Are you not referring to mission churches? At least, that is what I thought to be the case.Fr. Robert Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.com