Bishop Iker on Anglo-Catholics in the GAFCON Anglican World
My right reverend Father in God, Jack Leo Iker, third bishop of Fort Worth, has given an interview to Greg Griffith of Stand Firm. In the interview Bishop Iker expresses his conviction that "while it is clear that there is no future in The Episcopal Church for traditional Anglo-Catholics, there will be a secure, respected place for us in the province being birthed. Our theological perspective and liturgical practices will be permitted, protected and honored. Our succession of catholic bishops will be secured."
Bishop Iker has, I have done in previous posts here, pointed to the Theological Statement of the Common Cause Partnership as our guide in interpreting the elements of the Jerusalem Statement. Because of this, the bishop is comfortable--as am I--in affirming that "Anglo-Catholics in the future will continue to regard the 1662 Prayer Book, the 39 Articles, liturgical practices, and the Councils of the patristic church just as the Oxford Movement did under Pusey, Keble, and Newman, our fathers in the faith."
Read the entire interview here.
Bishop Iker has, I have done in previous posts here, pointed to the Theological Statement of the Common Cause Partnership as our guide in interpreting the elements of the Jerusalem Statement. Because of this, the bishop is comfortable--as am I--in affirming that "Anglo-Catholics in the future will continue to regard the 1662 Prayer Book, the 39 Articles, liturgical practices, and the Councils of the patristic church just as the Oxford Movement did under Pusey, Keble, and Newman, our fathers in the faith."
Read the entire interview here.
posted by Texanglican (R.W. Foster+) | 12:18 PM
24 Comments:
I find this issue of the 39 articles very troubling and, quite frankly, as a Roman Catholic, it makes me take Anglo-Catholics a little less seriously when they submit to statements that prop up the 39 Articles. I mean no disrespect and am not trying to be antagonistic. I have tremendous respect for the idea of Anglican reunification and welcome all Anglicans back to Rome because I believe such a move would be good for both parties.
I find the 39 Articles to be quite offensive and the fact that Anglo-Catholics - the group most likely to understand the Catholic position - continue to breathe life into them is confusing. Most Anglo-Catholics engage in belief and practices contrary to the Articles.
To wit, the twenty-second article which I find most destructive to Anglican - Roman relations is filled with Anglo-Catholic practices.
"XXII. Of Purgatory.
The Romish Doctrine concerning Purgatory, Pardons, Worshipping and Adoration, as well of Images as of Relics, and also Invocation of Saints, is a fond thing, vainly invented, and grounded upon no warranty of Scripture, but rather repugnant to the Word of God."
Of additional concern are articles XXIV (Of Speaking in the Congregation in such a Tongue as the people understandeth), XXV (Of the Sacraments), XXX (Of both Kinds), and XXXII (Of the Marriage of Priests).
A great deal can be said concerning interpretation of the Articles, ejwilson. Note, for example, the "Romish doctrines" condemned in the line you quote. But what is a "Romish" doctrine? I would argue, as the CCP statement does, that this relates to issues "controverted" at the time--in other words, certain superstitious accretions that had arisen in the late Medieval Church--not by any means the undisputed teachings of the undivied Catholic Church. I personally do not know that ANY of the officially sanctioned teachings and practices of the Roman Catholic Church today would be "Romish" under such a definition. Certainly belief in an "intermediate state" after death, asking the saints departed for their prayers, or the proper use of images in the life of the Church are not condemned "Romish" practices. They are good practices and true teachings of the Church, and are not--in the interpretive tradition of Pusey, Keble, and the pre-Roman Newman--not forbidden by the 39 Artilces. I doubt these practices and teachings as the RCC speaks of them today would be condemned either.
Personally I have no problem with vernacular worship, married clergy, or communion in both kinds as norms for the Church. Those articles don't trouble me a wit, nor have I heard any Anglo-Catholic clergy seem troubled by those. I am sorry they disturb you.
I hope this helps, sir. God bless.
I disagree with your gloss on the term "Romish." My dictionary says this means "of or relating to the Roman Catholic Church" and notes it is offensive. Why not change the language of the Articles to clear up this confusion? Additionally, I think it is clear that it is calling the practices of adoration, relics, and invocation of saints "vainly invented" and "repugnant to the Word of God."
Disagree though we may about the meaning of Article XXII, it stands as an obstacle. Why do Anglo-Catholics stand by a very protestant statement dating back to the 16th Century?
I don't disagree with you about vernacular worship, but the article states "It is a thing plainly repugnant to the Word of God, and the custom of the Primitive Church to have public Prayer in the Church, or to minister the Sacraments, in a tongue not understanded of the people." I regularly attend Mass where parts or all are in Latin. I've never studied Latin, so I don't "understand" Latin.
Article XXV (in part): "The Sacraments were not ordained of Christ to be gazed upon, or to be carried about, but that we should duly use them." I have heard of many an Anglo-Catholic churches with Eucharistic Processions and Adoration. Additionally, the article states there are only two - not seven - sacraments.
Do please note article XXV's express wording, ej. It is clearly true beyond dispute that Christ did not ORDER us to venerate the precious Body and Blood in the Holy Eucharist. He doesn't say a single word about Eucharistic adoration one way or the other. So while there is no "ordinance" of Christ demanding Eucharistic adoration, He never for forbade us to do so. It is, therefore, certainly possible to have Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament and adoration of the Host (we do so happily in my parish). We simply cannot claim that Jesus ordered us to do it (which we don't). What is not forbidden to us by Holy Write is permitted!
Now you can see how crucially important the CCP statement is when it says that the Articles are to be read "literally." We are not trying to get at what they meant 450 years ago and enforce that particular historical reading as normative. Instead, there is a long Anglo-Catholic tradition of interpretation of the precise words of the text. And that is an interpretation I can sign on to. To reject the Articles would be to sever our ties with our Evangelical Anglican brothers and sisters forever. It is not possible if we are to remain together. If we tolerate each other's interpretative traditions we can hold together. That is something I am very much for. God bless.
Father, you suggest that rejecting the 39 Articles would be to sever our ties with our Evangelical brothers and sisters. But is it not generally the case that accepting them in the borderline absolutist way that seems to be proposed in the CCP document and the Gafcon declaration is to sever our ties with our Roman Catholic (and possibly Orthodox) brothers and sisters? I am not sure what gives us the justification of assuming that it is more important to maintain ties to Geneva than it is to maintain our connection with Rome. I hope that doesn't come across as cynical, but I simply find the classical Tractarian interpretation of the Articles to be impossible, and quite likely the exact opposite of the way that most Evangelicals would take the CCP document.
Texanglican,
You said, "Now you can see how crucially important the CCP statement is when it says that the Articles are to be read "literally." We are not trying to get at what they meant 450 years ago and enforce that particular historical reading as normative."
I don't think I understand what you mean by "literal" here? What I perceive you to be saying is that what the words meant 450 years ago are not that important, but what is important is how these words can be used today, with today's meanings and theological battles, to reference a line in the sand beyond which is dangerous to go.
If that is what you mean, then how do you differentiate that form of "literal" interpretation from the recent statements of the PB in which she states, in essence, that there are many ways to read the Bible? Please understand that I am not trying to get in your grill over this, because I am a conservative, High Church Episcopalian in the Diocese of Chicago. The interpretation of Scripture is the major source of the problems in Anglicanism: Conservatives tend to start with the historical, cultural contextual interpretation of Scripture, then apply the meaning to today's situations. I hear you saying that your interpretation of the XXXIX Articles does not rest fully on the historical meanings and situations that gave rise the the Articles. As such I sense a discontinuity in interpretative approach between the Biblical texts and the XXXIX Articles.
Please forgive me if I have read more into your statements than you intended. I realize that when one is trying to quickly present a thesis in a few words, what is obvious to the author is not always obvious to the reader.
Peace and God's Grace to you!
David
I posted this comment with the Bishop Iker interview when I posted it on my weblog.
One of the factors that contributed to the present state of the Episcopal Church is that the denomination departed from the Biblical and Reformation theology of the 1663 Book of Common Prayer with the adoption of the 1928 Prayer Book and ignored the the Biblical and Reformation theology of the Thirty-Nine Articles thereafter. At the time the 1928 Prayer Book was adopted, there was a movement in the Episcopal Church to abolish the Articles. At the 1925 General Convention the Anglo-Catholic leadership of the Episcopal Church introduced a resolution doing away with the Articles. This resolution was adopted by the 1925 General Convention but was quietly dropped at the 1928 General Convention with the adoption of the 1928 Prayer Book. The 1928 Prayer Book incorporated a number of features of the Medieval service books and was decidedly at odds with both the doctrine of the Articles and the 1662 Prayer Book.
What Bishop Iker fails to mention is that Newman sought to reinterpret the Thirty-Nine Articles in Tract 90. He was unsuccessful and became a Roman Catholic. Since then Anglo-Catholics have either embraced Newman's fanciful reinterpretation of the Articles or have called for the abolition of the Articles. The later Tractarians sought to substitute the 1662 Prayer Book for the Articles since they were able to reinterpret the 1662 Prayer Book in "a Catholic sense."
The Common Cause Theological Statement is weak on the Thirty Nine Articles and the 1662 Prayer Book as the standards for doctrine and worship in the Common Cause Partnership. In practice these two historical formularies of Anglicanism are largely ignored. This bodes ill for the Common Cause Partnership. A North American province that does not give a prominent place to the doctrine of the Articles and the 1662 Prayer Book with its strong emphasis upon Scripture as the supreme and final authority in all matters of faith and practice can expect to find itself on the same path as the Episcopal Church in a few years.
Thanks for the comment, David. For me it is essential to note the difference between the Articles and the Holy Scriptures. The Bible is "God-breathed" and the inerrant Word for all time. The Articles are the work of men, very much products of their particular times. We may make use of the Articles as a touchstone to keep us from drifting too far from our Anglican roots (and hence keep Anglo-Catholics and Evangelicals in the same boat). But let's make no mistake--they are not remotely on the same order as Scripture.
It might help you to understand where I am coming from to know that I was a lawyer before becoming a priest. As a result, I tend to view these interpretation issues through the lense of legislative interpretation.
For me--since God is the ultimate author behind Scripture--the "intent of the Framer" way of reading the Bible is essential. I want to know what God intends to say to me through the human authors. Hence I want historical critical input telling me about the world and thought processes of the human authors and the first readers of the sacred text. But the Bible is also God's gift to the Church, and I want to know what the Fathers of the Church have understood it to mean. I am no Sola Scriptura man. The Tradition is an anchor to keep use firmly in place on the Truth. (And note--the Articles don't stand for Sola Scriptura in the radical sense, insisting rather that nothing is to be believe necessary for salvation that may not be proved from Scripture--a wise and proper move, IMHO.)
It is true that one must read the Bible as a person of today, but that reading must never be cut off from the moorings of the intent of the original authors (human and Divine) and in the Tradition of the Church.
The Articles, on the other hand, are a different matter. They deal with matters "controverted" in the 16th century. It can be interesting to know precisely what they were up to back then. But their most important use for us in 2008 is as a rallying point for the orthodox in the present battles. The CCP statement says they are to be read "in their literal and grammatical sense," meaning, as I would read it, read in their "plain sense" meaning to contemporary readers today (a.k.a., read as the signatories of the CCP Statement understand them today). This allows room for both Catholic leaning and Evangelical leaning interpretations.
We are stuck with the 39 Articles, the 1662 BCP, and the old Ordinal as rallying points because these are the only things world-wide Anglicanism has in common. The "literal and grammatical sense" reading of the Articles by today's readers makes it possible for us to work with them. They are not God's timeless Word, simply a convenient point of contact for us to gather around.
Texanglican,
Thanks for your clarifying remarks. I am not a lawyer, nor have I played on on television, but I still don't like to approach any text, Biblical or non-Biblical, with different hermeneutical biases. Proclaiming one to be divinely inspired, and the other not, should not, to my mind, imply that they should be treated differently in their interpretation. Another such document would be the constitution, where much debate today is being waged, over original intent, or how can we make it say something different today than what was meant in the 18th century, of which you are only too aware.
As such, I still fear for the unity of the evangelical and Anglio-Catholic groups who are currently pleased with the GAFCON statements and results. Protestantism (i.e., if I don't like how you think or behave, I'll leave) is still alive and well. It will be only too easy for each side to interpret the same document differently, over time, too differently to remain under the same roof.
Just my two cents.
In Christ,
David
Indeed, David. When it comes to the US Constitution I am a hard-line "intent of the framers" man. But my concern is that CCP will not survive at all if we insist on nailing down too much, too specifically with regard to the Articles. In this case, Anglo-Catholics and Evangelicals simply cannot coexist at all if either side insists on "my way or the highway." As tough as it is to do, we have got to hang together or we most assuredly hang separately. (Apologies to B. Franklin!) That means putting up with varying hermeutics with regard to the Articles, or the CCP province will be still born. And I have no stomach for Anglo-Catholic vs. Evangelical squabbling if it means the collapse of what is left of orthodox Anglicanism in North America.
God bless,
Randall+
I recommend J. I. Packer and Roger Beckwith's The Thirty Nine Articles: Their Place and Use Today for a different take on the Thirty-Nine Articles and their relevance for Anglicans in the 21st century. Packer and Beckwith, like many Anglicans worldwide, see much larger place for the Thirty-Nine Articles in 21st century Anglicanism than does Texanglican. Neither of them would agree with his assessment of the Articles as a thing of the past.
If the Episcopal Church had maintained a firm commitment to the Thirty-Nine Articles, the 2006 General Convention might not have elected a Presiding Bishop who denies the divinity of Jesus Christ and who claims that Christianity is just one of many world religions that lead to God. The Thirty-Nine Articles takes a strong position against both viewpoints. But Texanglican would have us believe that these are 16th century issues and not relevant to our faith today.
The Thirty-Nine Articles established the course for classical Anglicanism, steering it away from Roman Catholicism on one hand with its innovations in doctrine and worship. This included the notion that Tradition is inspired by the Holy Spirit and that the Church must rely on Tradition, not Scripture, to interpret Scripture. The Thirty-Nine Articles also steered classical Anglicanism away from what the English Reformers referred to "Anabaptism." The "Anabaptists" denied the that Christ was divine. They rejected the Old Testament moral code as being relevant to Christians. They believed in the direct inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Whatever the Holy Spirit revealed to them superceded what the Holy Spirit had revealed through the Scriptures. Yet when we look at contemporary American Episcopalianism, what do we find--all of the elements that the Thirty-Nine Articles sought to avoid. Indeed contemporary American Episcopalianism has been described as a synthesis of Catholicism and radical Modernism.
The Thirty-Nine Articles definitely has more than a token place in a new North American province. They offer a firewall against a number of harmful theological influences, or "viruses", if you like, that if allowed to become a part of the fabric of the new province would eventually lead it down the same track as the Episcopal Church. The commitment of the Common Cause Partners to the Thirty Nine Articles and the Book of Common Prayer of 1662 and the Ordinal annexed to that book need to be more than just on paper and motivated by political expediency. Otherwise, the Common Cause Partners will be recreating the conditions that produced the present state of affairs in the Episcopal Church.
Good day, R.G. Jordan
I am afraid you are arguing for precisely what I firmly believe would cause Common Cause to be destroyed before it even gets moving. J.I. Packer is a learned scholar and a fine man of God, I do not doubt, but even he would surely admit that he represents the most stauchly Reformed element of the Anglican Communion. If his strongly Reformed take on the Articles (which is also your's, I gather) became normative in CCP there is not an Anglo-Catholic around who could possibly sign off on them. Victory for the hard-line Reformed point of view as the exclusively acceptable interpretation of the Articles is precisely what my Anglo-Catholic friends fear most, and that fear is why many Anglo-Catholics are holding back on GAFCON. There would simply be no place at all for us at the table in such a strictly Reformed Anglican world.
I am perfectly willing to recognize the Rev. Dr. Packer's take on the Articles as one legitimate take on them. And I am quite content if you chose to read them that way as well (blessings be upon you, friend). Just please don't try to force your understanding of the Articles on me as normative. If Evangelical leaders give us no chance of reading the text as Pusey and Keble did--and thousands of Anglo-Catholic clergy world-wide since their day have done--they will clearly be telling us to hit the road. There can be zero doubt about that.
I pray that such an exclusivist Reformed reading is not widely shared. Anglicanism would be greatly diminished by our departure, and it would grieve my heart deeply to have to abandon my beloved Angican tradition because one portion of the orthodox fold seized power in the post-GAFCON world and left me no place to stand in good conscience. The Left has been doing that to us for years. I fervently hope there are few Evangelicals out there who desire to drive us out by forcing full-throated Reformed theology down our throats.
Pray for unity between Anglo-Catholics and Evangelicals, friend. Orthodox Anglicanism may not survive in any form if we don't hold together! And bitter squabbling between Evangelicals and Anglo-Catholics will serve no one but the Enemy. We should be working together to build up Christ's Kingdom, not ripping into each other over long-dormant divisions. Peace in Christ.
This comment has been removed by the author.
I agree, Randall, that Anglo-Catholics and Evangelicals need to be more tolerant of each other. At the same time I am concerned that, except perhaps in Canada, the new North American province (if one does come about) will have no room for conservative Evangelicals who do subscribe to the Biblical and Reformation theology of the Thirty Nine Articles and the 1662 Book of Common Prayer and Ordinal but will be primarily an enclave for Anglo-Catholics who left TEC in the 1970s and for those who remained in TEC but now would like to become a part of another Anglican province.
In my personal and telephone contacts with other North American Evangelical Anglicans and my monitoring of the Internet I have found that a significant number of Evangelicals feel that they are being asked to make allowances for Anglo-Catholics but they are discovering in their interaction with Anglo-Catholics, the latter is not making allowances for them. Indeed some Anglo-Catholics have evidenced a desire to reestablish in the new North American province, the hegemony that they once enjoyed in the Episcopal Church. Other Anglo-Catholics, in the years since they left the Episcopal Church, have moved even further away from the Anglican mainstream and become extreme in their views.
The same Evangelicals, like myself, view with alarm of such developments as the new AMiA service book, An Anglican Prayer Book (2008), which its compilers have put forward as "the" proposed new prayer book for the Common Cause Partners. It is fairly Anglo-Catholic in tone. This is surprising since the AMiA is largely comprised of Evangelicals. A service book that both Anglo-Catholics and Evangelicals can use with provision for Catholic Holy Communion rites for Anglo-Catholics and Reformed Holy Communion rites for Evangelicals, in traditional and contemporary forms, and that does not emphasize any one Holy Communion rite as "the" rite of the new province, would have been more appropriate.
I have already noted my concern that a new North American province in which the Thirty-Nine Articles and the 1662 Book of Common Prayer and ordinal are only "a" standard for doctrine and worship will be susceptible to the same theological influences that produced the present situation in the Episcopal Church.
I do not believe that it does any good to paper over the differences between Anglo-Catholics and Evangelicals and to pretend that they do not exist. Those differences I are going to become a real issue if and when a new North American province is formed.
Thanks for the heads up on the AMiA Book. I remember looking at the Communion service and being appalled by the lack of an epiclesis in the rite.(It looked almost like a contemporary English version of 1662 with almost no changes to me.) Perhaps I was wrong. I have ordered a copy from the Prayer Book Society (wasn't Peter Toon responsible in large part for this? How likely is it that this thing is really pro-Catholic and anti-Reformed?) I will report back here after I read it.
On the Anglo-Catholics dominating CCP--don't worry, not only is the REC part of Common Cause, but so are Pittsburgh (far more Evangelical than AC), CANA and AMiA. The hardliners of the TAC et al Continuum want nothing to do with us, so fear not. There will be roughly equal numbers of both "parties" in CCP. God bless.
Randall. I think that you as an Anglo-Catholic will like An Anglican Prayer Book (2008). Although the invocation of the Holy Spirit upon the bread and wine (but not the calling upon of God, the orginal meaning of "epiklesis") is omitted from the so-called "1662 English Order" the Benedictus and Agnes Dei may be used with that order- a definite parting of the ways from the theology of the 1662 Book of Common Prayer. It must be pointed out that not all the ancient anaphoras had an epiclesis. The medieval Sarum rite does not. However, the so-called "1928 American Order" has an epiclesis, following that of the 1764 Scottish Prayer of Consecration. In the eighteenth century Anglicans did not agree on whether the Words of Institution or the epiclesis consecrated the bread and wine. The arrangement of the Words of Institution and the epiclesis in the 1764 Scottish Prayer of Consecration was something of a compromise. Unlike the Easter anaphoras it placed the epiclesis after the Words of Institution so the epiclesis can be regarded as "an optional prayer for an effective use of the consecration"(See "Worship," The Scottish Episcopal Church: A New History by Gavin White at http://www.episcopalhistory.org.uk/04worship.html The so-called "1928 American Order" abandons the muted language of the 1928 Prayer Book in regards to Eucharistic Sacrifice. In the so-called 1962 Canadian Order" the compilers were not satisfied to ask God in the Prayer of Consecration that those receiving Holy Communion would receive his grace and heavenly benediction, they also repeated the same petition in the Post-Communion Prayer. For an evaluation of An Anglican Prayer Book (2008), visit my weblog Exploring An Anglican Prayer Book (2008) at http://exploringingananglicanprayerbook.blogspot.com/ I have archived on that weblog all the articles on An Anglican Prayer Book (2008)that I have written so far for Virtue Online .
Randall, you need to catch up to speed on the current theological position of the Reformed Episcopal Church. It has been experiencing something of a Tractarian movement of its own and has abandoned in practice its Reformed principles. REC folk who continue to subscribe to these principles are derisively referred to as "Presbyterians." The Free Church of England has severed its connection with the REC; the conservative Evangelical Church Society no longer regards the REC as Reformed. The other Common Cause Partners that you mentioned are not as evangelicals as you might think. I once mistakenly assumed the AMiA was fairly evangelical but it produced An Anglican Prayer Book (2008).
A friend of mine, an evangelical Anglican, was telling me about his experience in an Continuing Anglican jurisdiction. The Anglo-Catholics in that jurisdiction pushed the evangelicals to the periphery of the jurisdiction and finally out of that body. Like the liberals, Anglo-Catholics are apt to complain that they not being given a place at the table while they are working to not only have most, if not all, of the chairs at the table and among those chairs the chair at the head of the table. In his experience they were always jocking for power and filled a vacuum wherever they found one.
Thanks, RGJ, for the link to your comments on the AMiA Prayer Book. I have ordered a copy and look forward to giving it a careful study. Until your remarks I had pretty much written it off as of not much use. God bless.
Robin said, "I do not believe that it does any good to paper over the differences between Anglo-Catholics and Evangelicals and to pretend that they do not exist. Those differences I are going to become a real issue if and when a new North American province is formed."
This is the understatement of the year! Give me a break. The Reformed Episcopal Church was formed in 1873 because Anglo-Catholics forced the Evangelicals out. The same is true today. The so-called common cause is a facade or a glass ceiling with a thousand cracks in it. As soon as the split is over with the liberal provinces the Anglo-Catholics will go back to their triumphalistic ways.
The short of it is that Evangelical/Protestant Christianity and Anglo-Catholicism are just as incompatible as Roman Catholicism and Protestantism. The sooner you realize that oil and water don't mix the sooner you can get back to reality. Evangelicals and Anglo-Catholics belong in separate provinces.
I for one agree with Martin Luther's assessment that church stands or falls on the doctrine of justification by faith ALONE. In fact, the Latin phrase sola fide is in the 39 Articles. You can't have it both ways. Either the Bible is the final authority or the Anglo-Catholic tradition is the final authority. The 39 Articles are clearly Protestant and Reformed. For Anglo-Catholics to deny this, as even Roman Catholics recognize, is complete dishonesty.
The real irony here is that the Reformed Episcopal Church and the Anglican Mission in America are more comfortable with Anglo-Catholicism than with the 5 solas of the English and Continental Reformations. And even more ironic? The English Reformers were willing to die rather than to compromise the Gospel. If only there were Evangelical bishops and ministers around today who took the Gospel as seriously as Cranmer, Latimer, and Ridley!!
Anglo-Catholics will tolerate Evangelicals so long as Evangelicals compromise the Gospel for the sake of an ungodly union. There is no such thing as "tolerance" when it comes to the Gospel. Either you are for it or you are against it.
Texanglican said, ". I personally do not know that ANY of the officially sanctioned teachings and practices of the Roman Catholic Church today would be "Romish" under such a definition."
That about says it all. The mere audacity that someone who knows of the martyrdom of the English Reformers could even say such a thing is either an outright liar and a deceiver or just plain ignorant.
This the best example there is of Anglo-Catholics who wish to "lord" it over Evangelicals. Not only do Evangelicals disagree but so does the vast majority of the Protestant world!
Until Anglo-Catholics "fess" up to their distortion of the 39 Articles and the English and Continental Reformations there can be no possibility of any "tolerance" between the two movements. Evangelicals who think so are merely fooling themselves. Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it.
Texanglican, " It is, therefore, certainly possible to have Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament and adoration of the Host (we do so happily in my parish)."
This is an outright lie and a violation of the plain meaning of the 39 Articles. The Articles are based on Scripture and clearly forbid such idolatry. As I said before, there is nothing in common between Reformed and Evangelical Anglicanism and the Anglo-Catholic heresy. Yes, I said two strong words. Idolatry. Heresy. Anglo-Catholicism is no less heretical than Roman Catholicism.
Texanglican said, ". (And note--the Articles don't stand for Sola Scriptura in the radical sense, insisting rather that nothing is to be believe necessary for salvation that may not be proved from Scripture--a wise and proper move, IMHO.)"
The Articles forbid everything you do in your church and the doctrine of sola scriptura in the Articles clearly means that tradition is NOT equal with Scripture. It also means that YOU do not get to REQUIRE evangelicals to believe your heresies as necessary to salvation. The Articles not only positively forbid your doctrines but it establishes Sola Scriptura over Sola Ecclesia! Tradition is to be corrected by Scripture and not the other way around. The church should always be reforming in light of the authority of Scripture.
It is just this sort of triumphalistic double talk that should alarm EVERY Evangelical in "common cause" with heretics like yourself.
Texanglican said, "Indeed, David. When it comes to the US Constitution I am a hard-line "intent of the framers" man. But my concern is that CCP will not survive at all if we insist on nailing down too much, too specifically with regard to the Articles. In this case, Anglo-Catholics and Evangelicals simply cannot coexist at all if either side insists on "my way or the highway." As tough as it is to do, we have got to hang together or we most assuredly hang separately."
So you DO understand that the two are incompatible after all? Then why do you continue to insult our intelligence by outright distorting the original intent of the 39 Articles and the plain meaning which even a child could understand? Do we Evangelicals look stupid????
What you are saying indirectly is it IS your way or the highway. You do not and cannot and never will accept the 39 Articles just as Robin pointed out in the above comment.
"If Evangelical leaders give us no chance of reading the text as Pusey and Keble did--and thousands of Anglo-Catholic clergy world-wide since their day have done--they will clearly be telling us to hit the road. There can be zero doubt about that."
Haven't you done the same to Reformed Evangelicals?????
As Bishop Charles Cheney said in the REC split in 1873, Anglo-Catholicism and Evangelicalism are totally and completely incompatible. Only a fool could not see it.
Reading this foolish chatter reminds me why I never left the Episcopal Church and enlightens me why all groups that schismed became fractures upon fractures. The articles were intended by the monarchs of England as a compromise between two powerful bodies in the church which unfortunately did work. puritanism gained control and latter was firmly rejected. The articles talked about ceremonies allowing them unless the people were no longer focused on Christ in otherwards ceremonies were not wrong.scripture contained all we needed to believe concerning salvation. After the Cromwell the church of England followed both a scholastic and renewal trajectory. emphasizing both reason, sacrament and conversion sometimes imbalanced and do its detriment. But to outlaw ceremony based on your reading on the 39 articles which at best is a guide at worst a political statement that failed is wrong.
Anglicanism since that time as contained warring parties everything from high anglicanism to the many camps of holiness charismatic and evangelicals as well as anglo catholics.
What we do hold in common is a love for Christ the sacraments the prayerbook evangelism and social justice yes we may disagree about the details and ceremony but again I appeal to the history and roots of anglicanism and magisterial reformers such as Richard Hooker the Caroline Devine and others I'm not anglo catholic. I am high church or prayerbook catholic with influences from many parties within the church broad if you will.
puritanism and 16th century romanism were firmly rejected which created a English form of spirituality that is with us today in many forms.
Post a Comment
<< Home