TAC Primate Archbishop John Hepworth
Posted on 10/22/2009 3:38:48 PM PDT by NYer
.- The Primate of the Traditional Anglican Communion has responded to the Vatican’s announcement of a new provision for Anglicans who wish to convert to Catholicism, saying his church is “profoundly moved” by Pope Benedict’s generosity. He added that the provision will now be taken to the national synods of his Communion.
In an Oct. 20 statement published on the website of the communion’s The Messenger Journal, Traditional Anglican Communion Primate Archbishop John Hepworth said he had been speaking with bishops, priests and lay people of the Communion in England, Africa, Australia, India, Canada, the U.S. and South America about the recent news.
“We are profoundly moved by the generosity of the Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI,” Archbishop Hepworth wrote. He said the creation of the canonical structure for Anglicans was an act of “great goodness” on the part of Pope Benedict and his “cause of unity.”
“It more than matches the dreams we dared to include in our petition of two years ago. It more than matches our prayers. In those two years, we have become very conscious of the prayers of our friends in the Catholic Church. Perhaps their prayers dared to ask even more than ours,” the Traditional Anglican archbishop added.
He praised the “pastoral nature” of the notes released by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and also noted that his fellow bishops have signed the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
In that 2007 event, Traditional Anglican bishops signed the Catechism and placed it on the altar of the historic National Shrine of Our Lady of Walsingham in Norfolk, England in order to attest to “the faith we aspire to teach and hold.”
The signed Catechism was later presented to then-Fr. Augustine Di Noia, OP, the senior ecumenical theologian at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Di Noia has since been consecrated an archbishop and named Secretary of the Vatican’s Congregation for Divine Worship.
Archbishop Hepworth also discussed the statement issued by Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, the most senior prelate in the Church of England and the Anglican Communion.
The statement shows that Archbishop Williams does not stand in traditional Anglicans’ way, he said.
“Both his reaction and our petition are fruits of a century of prayer for Christian unity, a cause that many times must have seemed forlorn,” Archbishop Hepworth commented, expressing gratitude to Archbishop Williams.
Archbishop Hepworth reported that the response of the Holy See will be taken to each of the Traditional Anglican Communion’s National Synods. While these synods have already endorsed “our pathway,” the archbishop explained, they will now consider the specific structures proposed.
He closed his message by referring to the Te Deum, a traditional Christian prayer of thanksgiving.
“It is with heartfelt thanks to Almighty God, the Lord and Source of all peace and unity, that the hymn is on our lips today,” the archbishop said. “This is a moment of grace, perhaps even a moment of history, not because the past is undone, but because the past is transformed.”
WELCOME HOME ANGLICANS!
I'll agree with that ... Mary is as dead as any other saint that has gone before, which is to say, she's not dead at all, but very much alive.
After all, Jesus said so (John 11:25-26) and Paul says flatly that Jesus has destroyed death (2 Tm 1:10) and that death now has neither sting nor victory (1 Cor 15:55).
So Mary is quite definitely alive. In fact, since she is perfectly freed from sin, she is more alive than you or I are.
Since you know the Bible so well, you obviously already knew that, right?
No Pope has ever said that.
As a child I was in Cathedral parish - in a traditionally 'low' Piskie diocese. That meant almost-evangelical Bible study. I will say that, although the Church Ladies weren't a patch on Sister Mary Attila, it wasn't all beer and skittles (in fact, NO beer and No skittles).
You are correct. The non-material (spirit/soul) part of Mary is very, very much alive. But she is dead in the sense that she is separated from this physical world (2 Cor 5:6,8).
Contrary to popular belief, everyone has eternal life. It’s only a question of “smoking” or “non-smoking”.
In her separation (death), she can do nothing for anyone. And I’ll stick to the Bible by not allowing the veneration of Mary in my worship of Christ.
‘Cause it’s all about Jesus.
Good observation.
How old you are, or how old I am isn’t relevant. Neither are our diplomas, nor the language which we read in. The only relevant document is the Bible.
2Co 10:17 But he that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord.
Yes, I do choose to ignore tradition; when it comes at odds with Scripture. Quite frankly, I do not trust man for my eternal destiny. So I will always defer to Scripture. I do this from the biblical principles of: (1) the Bible is infallible, and Jesus prayed that his disciples would be sanctified by God’s truth (Jn 17:17), (2) if there is something I don’t understand, I pray and consult Scripture for the answer- God hasn’t failed me yet (Jn 8:31-32), and (3) Jesus’ teaching on tradition in Mark 7, teaching that the Word of God becomes of no effect when tradition supplants it. I need not cite tireless examples of God’s Word triumphing over man’s wisdom, nor the constant admonishments in the Bible to stick to God’s Word, not man’s word. It would be overkill on such a basic principle. And principles don’t change.
So if you can show me in the Bible, in the correct content, then I am compelled to align myself with God’s Word. I do believe God meant to be clearly understood; the manner in which the Bible was written is indicative of that.
For instance: “Cloud of witnesses” you mentioned is from (He 12:1); the writer of Hebrews is referring to all the witnesses available to the Jew (hence, the name of the book— Hebrews), to point them in the direction of Jesus as the Messiah, so that they would put aside “besetting sins”, and run a race of faith. The previous chapter (also called the Hall of Faith to some), went through the history of those witnesses. Why? To point out how it was all about faith (not just being in Abraham’s seed). There is always faith aspect with God. Hebrews is a masterful treatment of the entire history of Israel, and the revelation that Jesus is literally the Messiah they had hoped for by their “tradition”. They chose to ignore what was written of Him in the O.T., and still do today.
Intercession by the mother of God? Someone is lying because God says there is only one: 1Ti 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
There is no wiggle room here. If Calvin, Luther, and Zwingli stated as such, then they are wrong. Coming out of the cloud of Catholicism, it isn’t hard to see why they would have said that. But God’s Word trumps man’s word.
Communion with saints? Absolutely. We commune together whenever we meet. The biblical definition of a “saint” is a believer in Christ. Do a word search on saint/saints in the N.T., then write the context. The Bible is a self-defining book.
Prayers for the dead? I’ll need some verses for that. I don’t recall any verse supporting that.
I agree with the tradition of the Apostles, as it is recorded in Scripture.
The hermeneutic I apply is simple, plain interpretation. I don’t over-spiritualize a passage by reading something into it, or otherwise look for hidden messages. I also respect the different literary devices used throughout the Bible.
In Christ Alone,
Salva
Friend,
I merely made a statement of fact: I choose the Bible over man, and I present for your consideration that the Bible itself doesn’t support the veneration of Mary. Not one iota.
You quoted correctly, but I’m not seeing any need for veneration. Show it to me in the passage, because I’m not seeing it. Mary did what God chose her to do, and she glorified God. That’s as far as the Scripture goes.
Can we all agree that Mary was blessed to be used of God? Of course, but unless you have a different definition, or support from other verses, the passage is clear: she is bearing testimony to the Lord, and considerd herself a servant.
Jesus said I was blessed in this passage: Joh 20:29 Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.
I have not seen Him, but I believe. Jesus says I am blessed for that. That is as far as you can take the passage, but the implication is eternal life (Ro 10:9-10).
I’m blessed that God uses me to teach the Bible to whoever wants to learn. Do I glorieth? Nay. I deserve zero credit for that because it’s all about Jesus.
In Christ,
salva
Don't know how many languages you speak, but if you speak more than one you know that translation is difficult and has shades of meaning that are hard to catch, as well as cultural context that can change everything. And reading a text that has been translated in part from Aramaic and Hebrew into Greek, and thence into English (or through Latin into English in some cases) requires a good working knowledge of history, culture, and the languages themselves. The more I study, the more I realize how little I know -- we do stand on the shoulders of giants. And of course the English of 1611 has undergone some surprising changes up to our day, so you also need to be well read in 17th century English literature. If you're not a KJV fan, you may have noticed that the other translations vary substantially and often. Which is correct?
In reading Scripture, therefore, you have two choices: rely entirely on your own resources, or on a teaching magisterium. If you rely on your own resources, you are severely handicapped. Even Martin Luther at the close of his life realized that 'sola scriptura' meant that every milkmaid and haymaker was interpreting the Bible to suit him or herself, with troubling results.
The other choice is what most people who claim to be employing a 'simple hermeneutic' are doing -- relying on concordances, sermons, and interpretive works from various sources. Some of these are well-founded, some are suspect. How to judge the authority of such sources when every man is his own interpreter?
The simple and straightforward answer is to trust the Church that was founded by Jesus Christ and the Apostles and has guarded Sacred Tradition from the beginning. Reading the Early Church Fathers with prayerful attention and in tandem with the Catechism, while listening to the guidance of the teaching Magisterium, is the sensible answer to this vexing question. You have the entire weight of the intellectual giants of the Church to assist you, instead of taking pot luck with a paperback written by a currently popular preacher who may be interpreting the Scriptures to suit himself.
I have some strong disagreements with many of your other comments and your use of scripture -- As for scripture being superior to teachings of men, remember that St. Paul himself exhorted the Thessalonians to heed his teachings whether by word of mouth or by letter. And St. Peter warned that some Scripture was difficult of interpretation and could be wrested by readers to their own destruction without the guidance of the Apostles. And as for prayers for the dead, two examples: 2 Maccabees 12:46 and 2 Tim 1:18. And the communion of saints includes those who have died as well as the living . . . remember that Moses and Elijah appeared with Christ at the Transfiguration, and were discoursing with him. They obviously were NOT dead.
That's a start, anyhow.
I enjoyed your post. And I see your arguments.
I’m a former military translator, so yes, I do know the problems that come with translations. While I agree that some dynamic equivalent translations can help readers get the thrust of a difficult passage, a formal translation is needed for deeper study, because God’s very words are important, not just his thoughts. Aside from that, there is a plethora of resources to assist one; but I favor the Majority Text principle used by the 1611 translators. The archaic words are actually very few— and the cool thing is; once you learn them, you know them for good.
But I think we are straying away from what is at issue: clear Bible teaching vs. passages that can be difficult. I don’t need a lot of resources outside the Bible to get fundamental doctrine.
Coming back to the Catholic veneration of Mary, there simply isn’t Scripture to support it. If glory needed to be given to her, or dead saints, then God would have made that abundantly clear. It’s only the “deeper” things of God that require digging. Secondly, what does it do to our practical theology once adopted? Who saves and intercedes? At what point? Who can add on to Scripture, when Scripture itself says it has been concluded? Fundamental issues.
Let me say this: I believe the Bible was meant by God to be understood by everyone that desires to understand it. I do however, believe it to be impossible to understand totally without the Holy Spirit. That is fundamental.
For my preference, I hold to 1611. It is modern English in its purest form, and all translations are compared to it, not vice versa. And I do keep a library of history, culture, and have access to the largest theological libraries in the world at my fingertips. But all of that isn’t relevant. While they have enhanced my understanding of Scripture, they have they changed fundamental doctrine after having conducted a proper exegesis of a text.
Disagree with your options. The primary teacher of Scripture is the Holy Spirit (Jn 14:16, 26). He does that when we compare Scripture with Scripture (1 Cor 2:11-13). That is non-negotiable. And it isn’t a principle of hermeneutics that can be “claimed”. I can look at any sermon and see clearly whether or not a preacher is on/off target just by following basic rules, rules that apply to any other book (except for cookbooks- which much bad theology is developed when the Bible is treated as such). Biblical interpretation isn’t rocket science, nor is it mysterious. It’s written for the common man in plain language.
Luther was half right— which is why I don’t follow Luther, or any other man, and I certainly don’t run to him for doctrine; I follow Christ. The manifestations of Luther’s fears are in this world (in truth, they were there all along), but that is why it is necessary to compare Scripture with Scripture, using basic plain interpretation (and prayer) to get to biblical truth. I have yet to meet a fundamental doctrine that cannot be refuted with just Scripture. The status of Mary being one of many. You can add purgatory, indulgences, speaking in tongues, laying on of hands, celibacy, or whatever.
The Bible is spiritually discerned (1 Cor 2:14). But that is not going to happen from a person that has disobeyed God, having refused to put their full trust in Christ alone for their salvation (hence, the Holy Spirit cannot indwell you in order to teach you the Bible).
The problem with adding Mary to the mix, is it obliterates with finished work of Christ. To whom does my trust go to? The Pope? Christ commands that I trust him because he is God (Jn 8:58). When Mary is thrown in for any spiritual need, we are not talking about the same Jesus of the Bible. In fact we cannot be. A searcher developing his doctrine might as well be Mormon, because their Jesus isn’t the Jesus of the Bible either. It’s an issue of authority. I can only go as far as the Bible takes me.
Look at your statement concerning my previous statements on Scripture. Are you sure you want to hold to that position? It’s indefensible. Scripture is the Word of God. Nothing supplants Scripture. I cannot even begin to list the verses that refute that. There are too many. Jesus is the Word of God (Jn 1:1, 14; Rev 9:13-16). Do you really believe man’s teachings supplants Christ? I’d rethink that position.
You are using Paul’s letter as a cookbook. Grab the context.
Did Paul ever suggest the idea that his teachings supplant Scripture? No. What was his point? Read it again. God is greater than that.
Maccabeus never made it into the Canon of Scripture.
2 Tim 1:8- all Catholics run to this verse for the doctrine of praying for the dead. Read it S L O W L Y. It doesn’t say Onesiphorous was dead at the writing of the letter. It merely suggests that he wasn’t at home at the time, and Paul was praying for his entire “house” for......Judgment Day. “That day”, when used in conjunction with the “Lord”, always means the day of judgment. Even in the O.T., a basic hermeneutic. A very, very, very weak argument for a doctrine that has tremendous implications. God is greater than that.
The Transfiguration in Mt 17- yes, it proves that we commune with Christ after we die. The entire NT confirms that. We also commune with other saints while we are here alive. I guess I missed your point, but I’m not at odds with it.
2 Pe 3:14-16 does NOT say that. Read it S L O W L Y. Peter authenticated Paul’s epistles, but admitted that there were some difficult passages that the unlearned AND unstable (not simply “readers” as you put it), wrest: Greek word-”twist”. He was warning of those who were not only deliberately twisting Paul’s letters, but they were doing the same thing with the O.T., to their own destruction.
Plain English- isn’t that what it says?
And I know you didn’t intentionally twist Peter’s words. Sometimes we can read things too fast, not meditate on them, and squeeze them into our own theology.
The absolute best, easiest book I’ve found on hermeneutics is Search For the Truth by Dr Jeff Adams. After all, isn’t truth what we’re after? It’s an interactive workbook, ridiculously easy to understand. The best 16.00 I ever spent.
In Christ,
I have to get ready for work, so I'm just going to touch on a couple of points: I can see a problem with relying on the individual's perception of the Holy Spirit -- whether through evil intent or honest confusion anybody can claim the promptings of the Spirit. There's a whole church full of people who insist that the Holy Spirit is leading them to the "full meaning" of Scripture: homosexual 'bishops' and 'unions', abortion, priestesses, and basically the full liberal political program. It calls itself the Episcopal Church (that's why I shook the dust of that place off my sandals).
Maccabees was in the canon for centuries. And thereby hangs a long tale -- the OT that Jesus himself used included it and other Deuterocanonical books, but by the time the KJV was compiled the Jewish authorities had removed it from their canon. Some speculate that this was done because of anti-Christian feeling, who knows? but the fact remains that Christ used the LXX, not the later, truncated version.
As for the Virgin Mary, it seems to me that the Angelic Salutation and the Magnificat should settle that. "Filled with grace" (from all time and always) - "Who am I, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?" - "Behold, all generations shall call me blessed - for He that is mighty hath magnified me" That hardly requires digging, or adding to Scripture.
And it's not necessary to worry about Mary supplanting her Son - remember what she said at Cana - "Do whatever he tells you." And she's the ultimate answer to feminist loons -- she didn't shove herself forward or insist on any privilege, but she was there, witnessing, from the time of Christ's conception to Pentecost. "Per Mariam ad Jesum."
But it seems to me that the most important reason we should not rely on the Bible alone is that it leaves hundreds and hundreds of years of believers completely out in the cold. Right up until the time of the Reformation, the overwhelming majority of people couldn't read. There was no middle class for most of that time (something Americans assume has always existed). Ordinary people couldn't even get a copy of the Bible, since they all had to be copied by hand. People went to Church, received instruction from the Church, and heard Scripture read in Church. Why would Christ have founded His Church and then left His people without comfort or instruction for 1500 years?
Sorry - gotta go - let's continue this conversation.
Civility has traditionally been a casualty in these discussions, which is unfortunate. No one wants to show up before Christ and be found a liar, or one that swallowed a lie. So it takes some diligence. Even Muslims are sincere, so we must go where truth takes us. And God says his word is truth.
We actually halfway agree on the Holy Spirit issue. For certain, no one can stand up and say, “The Holy Spirit said XX.” But many churches are doing that today, and as a former Episcopalian, I wholeheartedly agree that it might as well be Unitarian. Incidentally, my uncle is the bishop of a MAJOR U.S. city. But this points to a total misunderstanding of how the Holy Spirit works, which is a voluminous study. But in short, and dealing with the teaching ministry only (there are 8 other ministries the Holy Spirit is involved in), Jn 16:13 is the key verse. It must be used with all others in the context of the ministry of the Holy Spirit. The word travels in this fashion Father—>Jesus-—>Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit illuminates Scripture, but he doesn’t introduce anything new. He doesn’t speak of himself, but points everyone to the will of God, glorifying Christ. That eliminates any possibility of a new doctrine contrary to Scripture (although that certainly has not been the case).
Which is why we must: Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth (2Ti 2:15).
If one can rightly divide the Bible, then it most certainly can be wrongly divided. In essense, that is the result of all bad doctrine. Go through that workbook, and you won’t have that problem....ever.
The Jews removed all books introduced between Malachi and Matthew (400 years)....well before post reformation. Let me go find when that was debated. At Cartherage? The 8th century Masoretic text confirmed the OT that we have today, was the same books recognized by the Jews. But 8th century sounds way too late. The NT was closed in 367, so it follows that the OT was closed before that. Let me check on that.
Not sure where you are reading at about Mary. I’ve gone over Luke 1 over and over again, and I can’t find those words. The key verse is 1:35. The power of the Holy Spirit overshadowed Mary— i.e., it covered her sinful nature.
The wedding at Cana, we agree. She already having had the revelation of who Jesus was, experienced his growth and stature; fully supports her witness to Jesus, and his authority. The problem is, Mary still remains an agent of grace within Catholic dogma, and this Scripture actually supports an opposite view— i.e., she was powerless to do anything— but she knew someone who could fix things.
We have a different view of church history, no doubt. I subscribe to John Kennedy’s “Torch of the Testimony”. There was always a church that held the truth. The problem was..they were relentlessly persecuted all the way up to the post-reformation. Sandwiched in between, we have the abuses of Rome, 7 crusades, and the Spanish Inquisition. Not a great tetimony of a spirit-filled church. On the contrary, the persecuted church is known by their testimony (their enemies wrote of them), but have largely been overlooked outside of orthodox Christian circles. I posted a summary on it today, but not very good to do it justice. Kennedy’s book is a must read in my opinion, no matter what side one chooses to go with. For the weighty subject matter, it was very enjoyable and digestable.
In Christ,
Salva
The reason I tend to go with the Septuagint is that virtually all of Christ's own quotations from the OT can be linguistically traced to the language of the LXX. Since He used it, it must be the right version. But I do think 8th c. is way too late. There was a lot of turmoil in Judaism in the intervening years, which of course was prophesied.
Looking at "overshadowed" in my Greek Bible, I see ἐπισκιάζω, which my koine lexicon (not Catholic, it's from Duke's Religion department) glosses as:
to throw a shadow upon, to envelop in a shadow, to overshadow. From a vaporous cloud that casts a shadow the word is transferred to a shining cloud surrounding and enveloping persons with brightness. Used of the Holy Spirit exerting creative energy upon the womb of the virgin Mary and impregnating it (a use of the word which seems to have been drawn from the familiar OT idea of a cloud as symbolising the immediate presence and power of God).
My Liddell & Scott (Classical) simply says "to overshadow, throw a shade upon." I think that assuming that her sin was 'covered' or removed at that moment, rather than simply that the Holy Spirit at that time was the agency of Christ's conception (which after all is what Gabriel is talking about, answering her question, 'How shall this be [that I conceive], seeing that I know not a man?'), does not appear from the text.
Former Episcopalians know how to discuss these things in a civilized manner, right? < g > I'm one too, just at the Anglo-Catholic end of things! (sorry to hear about your uncle, we all have relatives . . . )
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.