Posted on 06/29/2008 2:52:47 PM PDT by Huber
Can we uphold the 39 Articles and still include Charismatics and Anglocatholics in Communion?
On anglocatholics (if you mean theological anglocatholics as opposed to those who simply like high-church liturgy), see the comparison above between the Affirmation and the Declaration on the 39 Articles.
For anglocatholics, the 39 Articles (which were never “normative” or “confessional” for any jurisdiction except the CoE) have both historical value and theological merit, but that merit is subject to the correction and interpretation of Scripture, the Creeds, the seven Ecumenical Councils, and the consensus of patristic tradition. The Declaration, by contrast, appears to make the “39 Articles” second in authority only to Scripture (though it does not give, other than that, guidelines on their interpretation).
Remember, too, that Anglicanism existed before the 39 Articles. After Henry’s excommunication (1533) we have formulations of “Anglican” thought in the The _Ten Articles_, the _Bishop’s Book_, the _Six Articles_ and the _King’s Book_ which predate them and are far more “catholic”, as well as the proposed _42 Articles_ (more “protestant") before we got to the finalization of the _39 Articles_ in 1571—nearly 40 years after Anglicanism’s break from Rome, and well into the “second generation” of Anglicanism which had come under the influence of radical Calvinist refugees from the Continent.
Likewise, the 1662 BCP—which the Declaration makes normative—is a “protestant” choice from the Prayerbook tradition (if going for “early”, why not 1549 for example, from the first generation of Anglicanism?) and ignores the “corrective” influences of the Scottish Anglican right and BCP which was formative on the very first American BCP.
.
In short, for better or worse, by elevating the status of the 39 Articles, mandating them as an authoritative theological norm, and choosing the 1662 BCP as liturgical norm, GAFCON and the Declaration have put themselves firmly into the “protestant” side of Anglicanism.
Neither the 39 Articles nor the 1662 BCP have ever represented “all” of Anglicanism (Anglicanism predates them both); nor have they been normative for all jurisdictions of Anglicanism—and making them so represents GAFCON’s conscious selection of the non-catholic “wing” of a denomination which has always tried to include both protestant and catholic wings.
.
This isn’t to say that they’re wrong to do so. I’ve held for as long as I’ve been informed about Anglicanism that the “shotgun marriage” between protestant and catholic Christianity within Anglicanism is, ultimately, impossible if one is to have doctrinal and sacramental clarity.
And so I think it is a good thing that GAFCON and the Jerusalem Declaration are coming out clearly on “one side” of that divide and making it mandatory for their members.
But everyone should recognize that that is precisely what is going on—that it is one “side”—and that even if friendly toward (or, at very least, grudgingly tolerant of) some degree of “anglocatholicism” in its membership, the emerging definition and character of the movement is clearly and intentionally Protestant, and will, in all likelihood, include norms of both faith and order (in what is accepted and what is prohibited) that “theological anglocatholics” (as measured, for example, by the Affirmation of St. Louis) will not be able, without abandoning anglocatholicism, to accept.
.
So, no, I don’t think “anglocatholics” will find a home in GAFCON… but then, as I said, that isn’t necessarily a bad thing. The doctrinal and ecclesiastical clarity the movement is providing is a very salutory thing, even if it means that the “tent” it is pitching isn’t big enough to include all traditional “Anglicans” within it.
So even while I, myself, am an “Affirmation” Anglican rather than a “Declaration” Anglican, I think the Declaration is to be praised for moving toward that kind of necessary clarity. In the long run, better the clarity of being one thing or the other than attempting the continued, unsustainable incoherence of trying to be both.
.
pax, LP [140] Posted by LP on 06
Traditional Anglican ping, continued in memory of its founder Arlin Adams. This isn’t to say that they’re wrong to do so. I’ve held for as long as I’ve been informed about Anglicanism that the “shotgun marriage” between protestant and catholic Christianity within Anglicanism is, ultimately, impossible if one is to have doctrinal and sacramental clarity.
Absolutely right.
As Anglo-Catholics, we simply looked the other way when the XXXIX were mentioned (especially XIX, XXII, and XXV). There was a lot of peaceful coexistence via wilful blindness going on in the pre-2003 church.
Once the cards were forced onto the table by the actions of Vicki Gene and the rest of the far left wing, that sort of polite accommodation could no longer be upheld. So I don't think it's going to be possible for those (like my family) who are nosebleed-high, one-step-from-Rome, ultramontane, or whatever term you want to use, to stay in the same communion with Anglicans who are essentially evangelical and 'low' in their worship forms, and take the XXXIX seriously.
"High" Anglicans will always be welcome on this side of the Tiber. We did not find it difficult to make the change -- in fact, my daughter noted that we had always had a crucifix and palms and holy pictures and rosaries in the house . . . so from her point of view nothing really changed. When we conferred with our new rector, we found the only points in which we differed were the validity of Anglican orders and the supremacy of the Pope . . . and given the horrible mess the Anglican Communion finds itself in these days, I can't really quarrel with the Church on those.
H, I noticed on another thread that the GAFCON Declaration asserted an acceptance of the “Four Ecumenical Councils”. Do you know which four? It will likely make a difference to the Orthodox Church when it comes to any renewal of the dialogs which have been terminated in light of the unfortunate choices the Anglican Communion has thus far made.
It can be traced back to Lancelot Andrewes. As an Easterner, I thought that you might find this source of particular interest:
http://fullhomelydivinity.org/iconsfullpage.htm
In the seventeenth century, Bishop Lancelot Andrewes asserted that the basis for authority in Anglicanism is to be found in one canon of Scripture, two testaments, three creeds, four councils, and five centuries of patristic teaching. In limiting the authority of the ecumenical councils to the first four, Andrewes, and those who follow him in this, would appear to deny the significance and authority of three of the seven generally recognized ecumenical councils of the early church. These three councils fall outside of Andrewes’ “five centuries”. Also, Andrewes was writing at the time of the Reformation when images, the particular issue addressed by the seventh council (Nicaea II in 787), were a particular sticking point for protestants. However, it would be a mistake to say that the Second Council of Nicaea, which brought an end to the iconoclastic controversy and established the legitimacy of icons in the architecture and worship of the Church, was concerned only with images. For the fathers of the council, the issue of images, or icons, was a Christological issue: the material depiction Christ and the saints in icons is an affirmation of the reality of his Incarnation and bodily Resurrection and of the restoration of the image of God in all who are sanctified in him.
Before the Reformation, images abounded in English churches. Wood and stone carving, stained glass, painted and woven work depicted God and his saints, biblical stories, and the lives of the saints. Much of this work was essentially decorative and educational, but a lot of it was also devotional: for example, statues of Christ and the saints were often the centerpieces of elaborate shrines to which the faithful would often resort for prayer. In fact, authority for the use of images—even icons—in English Christianity may be found nearly two centuries before the Second Council of Nicaea: when St. Augustine arrived in 597 to begin his mission to the English, a picture of Jesus Christ painted on a board was carried before him.
Many images were destroyed at the Reformation, but some survived and in time new ones were created. It is said that a group of Orthodox clergy who were being shown around an English church in the 20th century were told that the stained glass windows were “Anglican icons”. The comparison is not entirely accurate, as windows are not generally venerated as icons are. The function of stained glass both before and after the Reformation was educational and decorative, not devotional. Nevertheless, the point was made that images were never completely eliminated from Anglican church architecture. And later in the 20th century, actual icons, painted on prepared boards, began to appear with great frequency in Anglican churches, and also in the homes of Anglican Christians, just as crucifixes and other devotional objects were introduced in response to the catholic revival of the 19th century. It would be fair to say that for many Anglicans icons are a variation on stained glass—decorative and educational, an attractive addition to the fabric of our churches, bringing an ecumenical flavor to them. However, others are finding meaning in the theology of the icon and its use in prayer...
Thanks for the link. The links in that link were also informative. Right now it looks like the GAFCON declaration will not in any serious fashion restore the suspended Orthodox/Anglican dialog, but then again, that’s not what they were about.
When you're trying to keep from drowning, you don't pause to discuss the finer points of synchronized swimming with the guy on the next dock.
You can read some very good posts by LP at the Midwest Conservative Journal
As a Catholic I think it wonderful and a testament to the Glory of God, that GAFCON has issued this statement. I do not mind tht it is a clear expression of Protestant Christianity. I think those with a more Catholic/Orthodox view of the Sacraments and the meaning of “Church” do need to asses what this means for them.
But the Anglican Church simply can not continue to be all things for all people. True that started out with every good intention and for a long time it worked (at least on the surface). But it also meant that those who advanced women’s ordination and other innovations were able to argue “ but we have always had our differences and see how well things work out”. The people who forced gay rights as the 11th commandment were able to condemn the very thought of schism by appealing to the the “Rodney King” settlement. Truth is secondary the important thing is to get along.
So Global Anglicans have decided to define themselves as Protestant. That is a good thing it means they can have a clear meaning of what wil and will not fly in that communion. This allows those who gracefully disagree to depart without rancor. More importantly it allows the drawing up of disciplinary procedures for those who would defy the faith as taught and expressed within the communion.
So God bless and keep all those who have prayed, worked and hoped for this day.
Agreed. Clarity is critical and beneficial.
“When you’re trying to keep from drowning, you don’t pause to discuss the finer points of synchronized swimming with the guy on the next dock.”
But, AAM, the devil is in the details and The Church has on a number of occasions discussed the “finer points” while trying to keep from drowning, Nicea and the 7th Ecumenical Council spring to mind.
As lastchance said, GAFCON has determined to define itself as Protestant. That’s fine; indeed under the circumstances its truly wonderful, but its not “catholic” or “Catholic” nor “orthodox” or “Orthodox” as The Church defines those terms. I believe that is regrettable as I had hoped for a move towards Rome or Constantinople and an expression of appreciation for the danger of communion even with those who themselves are in communion with soul destroying heresy let alone with heresy itself.
Both ECUSA and Canterbury have done everything they could for five years to AVOID discussion of the issues (or alternatively to ensure endless discussion of the issues with no decision). That suits their goals.
Also, everybody at those councils was a Christian. I am no longer at all sure that the folks in charge in the U.S. or England are, actually and in truth, Christians.
This is a case of "fly from the wrath to come." GAFCON is escaping from the wreckage and went with a definitive stand for evangelicalism and 'low' Anglican. Under the circumstances, they had to make a strong theological stand.
I understand why they did it, of course it's a disappointment to those of us who hoped to see the 'high' wing reconcile with the Church, but it's better than remaining yoked to unbelievers.
When one's church is realigning, it is important to understand the theological implications of this realignment. Both you and K have frequently called attention to your own moves to Roman Catholicism and Greek Orthodoxy, respectively. From your posts, it has been clear that in your decisions you carefully considered what some might consider “finer points” of theology and its reflection in the liturgy. Whether or not you were “drowning” when you made your move, you chose paths which derive their legitimacy in part from an unquestionable apostolic succession and an understanding of the sacraments that carried forth from the first centuries.
It is truly a great blessing that Anglo-Protestants now have a clearer future, but it is important for orthodox Anglo-Catholics to understand that this announcement appears to do little to address their path forward. At this point, their options appear unchanged: to join a Continuing Anglican (”Affirmation of St. Louis”) Church, to embrace Protestantism, or to swim the Tiber or Bosphorus.
All I'm saying is that the changing realignment required GAFCON to make plain something that has always been glossed over -- the theological differences between 'low' and 'high' Anglicans.
So the fallout over Vicki Gene and his ilk has exposed a far deeper and older split, which can no longer be ignored because the survival of actual Christian Anglicanism is at stake.
Although I wish that all the evangelicals could find it in their hearts to reconcile with Rome, given the history of the Anglican church that is probably impossible. The evangelical wing of the Anglican church, to a greater extent in Britain and to a lesser extent in the U.S., has always been anti-Catholic to some degree. Just read anything written by Charles Kingsley and you'll see what I mean.
The people who met in Jerusalem want to strengthen Anglicanism and equip it for Great Commission ministry while the world’s leading Anglo-Catholic body, TAC, is actively trying to jump ship for Rome. We have a golden opportunity to now rid Anglicanism of female ordination, and with the help of the Anglo-Catholics, we can pull it off.
“Both you and K have frequently called attention to your own moves to Roman Catholicism and Greek Orthodoxy, respectively.”
Actually, H, I didn’t move anywhere. Like my family for the past 1800 years or so, I’ve always been Orthodox (we have little imagination), however my reasons for staying there are as you have written.
“It is truly a great blessing that Anglo-Protestants now have a clearer future, but it is important for orthodox Anglo-Catholics to understand that this announcement appears to do little to address their path forward. At this point, their options appear unchanged: to join a Continuing Anglican (”Affirmation of St. Louis”) Church, to embrace Protestantism, or to swim the Tiber or Bosphorus.”
Going to Rome or Constantinople have always been my advice when asked, but I am compelled to say that the more I learn about Continuing Anglicanism from people like the noble sionnsar, the more I see a sort of Western expression of Christian Orthodoxy. I do understand that it is not Orthodoxy, but I do also think its a “modern” expression of something very ancient in English speaking Christianity and to that extent it looks familiar and pleasant and “licit”, canonical issues aside.
In practical terms, how would you see this playing out?
I think of eliminating women’s ordination as similar to taking a pot of boiling water off the stove. The hot stove represents the western liberals and the boiling water represents women’s ordination. Sure, right after you remove the pot, the water is still really hot, but then it starts to cool.
The way it can happen is as a general phase out. First, I think everyone agrees that women bishops are out of the question. Next would be to require deans and rectors to be male priests. This step could take a little bit of time, particularly with smaller parishes. The goal would be to have women priests serve in auxillary roles such as vicar, chaplain or assistant rector. The last step is to cease ordaining women to the priesthood and have them remain as “super deacons” of some sort- much in the way I see some Catholic parishes use nuns.
One of the main differences between Protestantism and Catholicism/Orthodoxy is that Protestant churches or movements are self defining. Want to throw out all of the councils or 2 or 3, fine. Want to develop a new theology of Baptism, fine. Want to support and teach the heresy of Arianism, fine. Want to bless same, sex unions fine. Its your church, go for it. Many Protestants will say you are wrong, many will condemn with sound theology your teachings. But they remain yours and as such do not speak for any kind of “universal” Protestant church. Heresy is not driven underground it is just driven to the next block over.
This concept is totally foreign to Catholics and Orthodox. What defines us is not the day to day whim of one man or movement within the Church. We do not attempt to domesticate heresy. Those who dissent and leave (please do) do not just become another branch of the Church. They set themselves outside of the Catholic/Orthodox Church. Because once they have decided to define for themselves right doctrine and what it means to be Church. They have become just another branch of Protestanism. Which is varied enough, that no doubt someone will take them in and celebrate their liberation from the Catholic or Orthodox Church.
Protestantism can never stop dividing. At least now the majority of divisions are caused by orthodox Christians leaving denominations which have gone off the rails. That is why it is so important that GAFCON define what they believe is the legitimate expression of Anglican Christianty. It lets those who are honest start getting their luggage packed. Even so, I know some day there will be a new set of protesters in the GAFCON churches. And it will be deja vu all over again.
No offense meant, but I think those who cannot affirm salvation by faith alone, through Christ alone, revealed by the Apostles witness in Scripture alone, all by Grace alone, for the glory of God alone, don’t belong on “this side of the Tiber.”
The Roman Church has changed a good deal since 1564 and Trent. I think Anglo-Catholics belong there.
As for me and my house, I’ll stick to this side of the.....Jordan.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.