No Word From Rowan??

These glad tidings are certain to add joy to the Advent season. Left behind are TEC bishops and priests prancing and mincing their way in gay parades, TEC fundraisers at S&M festivals, worshipping pagan gods, Easter lectures from the presiding schoolmarm about trashing the planet, and militant feminist screed. Let the festivities begin.

This is the good news that so many of us have been waiting for, but it's BAD news for Schori and Company. I can imagine the spin she's going to put on this!

Cennydd

Wouldn't cheering be inappropriate at this early date???? I haven't heard anything about the snakeoil that is still being use by some of these bishops of Common Cause.

Until they officially say that they are going to have NO WO, they are wasting our time.

No, I don't think so.

Our bishop is not a snakeoil salesman.

Cennydd

To be "orthodox" Anglicans there can be NO ordination of women, so what are these people doing saying they are "orthodox" yet not being clear about the WO issue???

And what about Fort Worth? Are they in on this, even though they have no WO?

The new C&C's neither proscribe nor explicitly provide for WO:


As for who's in or out, it is for each entity to sign on, or not.

So can someone tell me exactly how this is going to work? What is the status of individual priests who may be members of FiF or the Network, but are not in a Network diocese? What about the dioceses of SC, C. FL, Albany, W. KS, who are Network dioceses? By virtue of that membership are they automatically now part of the new province?

Lots of questions with no real answers or clarity.

Just curious.

Now the real work will have to be done

I watched the press conference in Wheaton on Anglican TV. When Duncan was pressed about women's ordination he responded by saying that Scripture is not clear on that issue. He also said that those network members who currently ordain women to deacon(ess) and priest(ess) will conitnue to do so. Those who don't will not be expected to start doing so. That is what I took from his words anyway.

WO is a deal breaker

Women's Ordination is but one item of many that need to resolved. The words in Item 7 and the reported statement of Bishop Duncan do not give me a lot of confidence that they will be. As I read the statement in Item 7, it's truly not clear what is or is not the will of the communion. It is up to the bishop. Not good.

If this is the way we start, I have a hard time seeing a "communion" emerging. A "federation" possibly but that is not what orthodox is all about.

Oh, Bishop Duncan also said that all the prayer books currently in use will still be used. So the '79 has not been dumped.

There seems to be no coherent theology in the canons as they are drafted. How can "and I consequently hold myself bound to conform my life and ministry thereto," be affirmed and then say WO is unclear by Scripture? Clearly doubleminded.

WO was an exercise in 60's era bra burning and nothing more. The original women simply wanted to breach a male institution they felt was no different from the local all male social club (ok in some cases it likely was not at least outwardly speaking). A secular approach to a perceived secular problem. Now WO is an institution in search of scriptural warrant and there is none. There is also no doubt as to who may be ordained as laid out in Timothy. Duncan is being less than truthful and in no way claim orthodoxy.

While I wish them luck it is hard to see how turning back to the 1662 and to all the same mistakes will produce a different outcome.

The language regarding BCP's was a bit vague anybody know if the 28 will be allowed?

A matter of conscience?

It is simply a matter of willful disobedience to Scripture and Tradition.

If personal interpretation is a matter of conscience so be it but then how do you deny Vicki Gene Robinson his personal conscience and 'calling'?

Either this whole thing is based on bigotry or it is based on Scripture and Tradition (Hookers definition does just fine). Can't have your cake and eat it too. Indigestion is going to catch up sooner or later.


BTW I have no issue with WO I just point out that Scripture does. It seems you are the one with an issue with Scripture Bishop.

WO is WO.....These are NOT the views of an "orthodox" Anglican.

Sorry, I was referring to Dean Lewis' statements. WHERE ARE THE REAL ANGLICANS?

Regarding the prayer book:

Quote:

It appears that, and this is an opinion, the 1662 prayer book has been chosen as “a standard for Anglican doctrine and discipline.” Entities wishing to use the 1928 or other versions could do so as long as they also conform to the “doctrine and discipline” of the 1662 version (but see Article V-3 below).

However, this area of the constitution is interesting:

Quote:

It also seems the “Provincial Assembly” will deal with the issues that are of concern to several posts and numerous observers (i.e. 3 and 4).

Also pay close attention to the area regarding church personal and real property.

A pole has been set in the ground around which those who choose may gather. It is a beginning. And a hades of a lot better that what TEc or the ACoC have to offer. But as Fr. Taylor states above, “the real work will have to be done.” May God guide this venture.

CANA Bishop Martyn Minns lauded the new transitional structure and said it provided a safe place for orthodox Anglicans.

I don't think so!

The interesting thing here is that the good Bishop says only male bishops will ordain priests and deacons as if this should be of some calming reassurance that coherent theology is being observed. The problem is that if only a male Bishop can ordain and there is one sacrament of ordination then it stands to reason that if a woman cannot ordain it is because she never received the charism (there is only one sacrament of ordination not three just as there is only one baptism) in the first place and thus is not and cannot be valid and is tantamount to an admission that WO is defective because women cannot 'lay on hands' as the Apostles did and that it is not Biblical but a secular institution.

Called? By what spirit that is the question.

! Timothy:
Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.
A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife.

Be a husband of one wife.

If you cannot agree with this you are a revisionist.

If you willfully teach a doctrine that contradicts a plain teaching of Scripture you are a heretic. Not because I say so but because the NT teaches so.

The only way this can work is if people are grouped theologically, not geographically. So +Iker, +Schofield + Ackerman will tend to Anglo-Catholics and non supporters of WO and +Duncan will attend to those who support WO. At least they are not even considering women bishops!
Personally, I would prefer to see WO phased out.

This entity will be more like a federation since there are options on WO, Prayer Book versions etc... too much is left up to local option so if the wrong bishop gets elected we could be right back to square one so I am not jumping up and down with excitement at this time.

"On the practice of women's ordination Duncan said those who ordain women to the priesthood can continue to do so."

WO was the beginning of the fall of TEC. It is the 500 pound gorilla in the room. Failure to deal with the issue now dooms the new province.

Solicitor

You got it, Solicitor!

Ikerliker,

Your comments seem to suggest a church within a church is the solution. Is this not the reason these Dioceses left in the first place because theology that is compromised is not theology at all? I recall much about how two churches cannot exist under one roof.

The bible is clear on who is to be ordained. So the question is why the rush to have a new alphabet soup entry rather than wait until coherent theology is established?

Scenario: Bishop Duncan ordains a woman as a 'priest'. That woman moves to Fort worth or San Joaquin and expects that she has been dully ordained in this new province she should be able to serve your parish as a priest.
The majority of your diocese agrees with the biblical standard and says no.
what happens? I'll tell you what happens you become the ECUSA all over again. And you risk litigation by denying the women the same position as a man if your standard is not biblical but secular. Don't think for a minute this will not be tested by a ringer sooner or later.

BTW Objection to WO is not an Anglo Catholic thing vs Anglo Evangelical. All bible believing Christians reject this innovation from Baptists to Eastern Orthodox.

Here and in comments on other news reports, +Ackerman is often mentioned along with +Duncan, +Scofield and +Iker. As a matter of interest I have noted that +Ackerman retired prior to the Synod of the diocese of Quincy, and did not leave TEC with his former diocese.

I have tried to be patient and to do my best to hold my tongue amidst all of this endless arguing, and it's really been hard, but I have got to say it:

Can ANY of us come up with a better solution? One that ALL of us can agree with? All of this disagreement only serves to work against us! It reinforces what the revisionists have been saying about us, for Pete's sake, and it only makes matters worse! I'm an Anglo Catholic, but this doesn't mean that I can't worship with Evangelicals....I DO!

This new province of ours isn't going to satisfy everyone....it's not meant to! Everybody wants this, that, and everything else, and what do you get? A little bit of this, a little bit of that, and nobody's happy. One bunch wants things their way, and another wants things THEIR way.

My wife and I welcome the new province, and we wish our leaders well in their efforts to reform the Church. I recognize that there are undoubtedly some things which will need fixing, and I trust that they will be fixed as it becomes necessary. We will continue to worship in our present church and will support Bishop Schofield and the other bishops of the Anglican Church in North America.

Let's get on with reforming Christ's Church in the Anglican expression by doing our best to put our differences aside and work towards a common goal, shall we?



Cennydd

Cennydd,

I suppose the issue is that yet another body has formed and it is based on a compromise that is un-biblical. So I wonder what has been accomplished? Now you have your own TEC? The "disagreement" and "differences" are embodied in the new canons and constitution I think people are just observing that.

If having a new church that is simply to satisfy a few is the point why call it Anglican or Catholic? That is not what has been claimed.

Let's get on with reforming starts at home. If this was about just another jurisdiction it would be nobody's business but the mantle of the legitimate Anglican Province USA has been claimed and as such every Anglican in the USA has an obligation to speak to those things which are unorthodox and that serve only to continue to do damage to Anglican identity. It was sexual confusion that led to WO and then to Homo O and that confusion has been imported into a body claiming to be THE orthodox and legitimate Anglican Body in the USA. This body that formed in order to escape the problems that WO/Hom-O engendered (pun intended).

Sorry but that is not going unchallenged.

I wish the so called orthodox would stand up for Holy Scripture and the Apostolic Tradition. Although I view this as relatively good news and I'm glad my priest attended this event, I wish he would look at the Orthodox Anglican Communion as an alternative to this experiment that is doomed if they permit WO.

http://orthodoxanglican.net/

It might occur to you and the "new" province that some parishes in the diaspora are looking to this as a way forward as well. But we cannot sign on to theology that contradicts Scripture and that is part of being "Christian". The conflicting theology seems tragic to me.

SaintElvis, since this constitution is only provisional, it is possible to rewrite it to include the reforms needed, including the phasing out of women's ordination. It is not set in stone, and won't be for the next six months.

This would be the time to ask for those changes, since this period has been set aside for ratification. If you want those changes to be made, tell your diocesan representatives and your bishop how you feel.

I certainly will! And thank you, Barclay+, for your comments!

Cennydd

Welcome to the Titanic. This vessel represents the finest in English craftsmanship. I hope all will find their accommodations satisfactory

“Let each Anglican pent; unwillingly represent to a source of innocent merriment”

Gilbert & Sullivan

I left TEC for the REC because of W.O. and the celebration of homogenitalism. I have met females who I thought were more filled with the Holy Spirit than many ordained men. There is no way of knowing whether a female desires ordination because of her calling or a gender equalization feat. I regained my respect for bishops,clergy, and laity in the REC. Our presiding Bishop Riches said if a female came to him desiring holy orders he would refuse her, but would direct her to one our partners who would consider her. That is good enough for me since we will never be forced to allow any female as presbyter. Now for the 79 book of occasional services, I peruse mine occasionally to reinforce just how right our REC BCP is and just how wrong the 79 boc is. If they want it, they can keep it, but I think it is a travesty they will answer for and I voted for the thing. I support the Province because it unites us like never before. I just have a suspicion and I hope I am wrong, that TECII could be waiting in the wings. The one significant thing is since many of have been active participants in the TEC excaberation we should be able to fend it off if it arises in us.

Unites? Unites??

No agreement on WO, no agreement on liturgy, no agreement on doctrine, no agreement on the sole supremacy of Scripture...

Comments about saying 'mass' indicate that many are not even Protestants!

In what exactly are you united?

Further, the constitution makes episcopacy necessary - what does that say about non-episcopal churches and Christians therein?
I'm with the likes of patulous etc. this is a dangerous move which will simply cause more division and pain down the line, and confuse unbelievers as to what the gospel actually teaches.

There is a certain amount of pastoral sensitivity in not "throwing out" the '79 prayer book. I had the opportunity several years ago to ask Bishop Riches what how he would handle a TEC parish that came into the REC with regards to liturgy.

His perspective was that you have to approach that kind of situation pastorally. Liturgy, by its very nature, becomes very personal. You can't just rip it away with the stroke of a pen without causing pain to the flock.

By setting the 1662 BCP as the liturgical standard of the new provence suggests that they may move, like the AMiA has started to do, toward a more traditional prayer book.

However this is handled, it will take time, grace and prayerful work to change the liturgical practices of an entire generation of Anglican believers.

Very true Dominic, this Anglican priest does say mass and does not consider himself a protestant. I celebrate mass each day according to the liturgy of St. Basil(Eucharistic Prayer D)found in the '79 BCP. I am a priest of the catholic faith as expressed in Anglicanism. We have one Lord and one Eucharist. Yes, even on Anglican altars Jesus' Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity are made manifest. Disagreements over WO or prayer book preferences do not change that!

The Very Rev'd Robert M. Lewis
Diocese of Springfield

Good God Almighty!

Would all of you whiners please get over yourselves? This is the best hope we all have for a new beginning in North America. It's messy and not all details are worked out, but it's lead by some very godly men who are doing the best they can with what they have to work with. All whiners need to either get on board or get off the dock. The train is leaving the station--now!

I can understand the need for expediency - TEC has reached the third stage of its spiritual syphilis and is going crazy.

However, what saddens me is that there has not even been a moratorium placed on WO (which is really a symptom of a deeper problem) until everyone can sit down and hash it out. No, instead it will be business as usual.

As was pointed out - that's fine that one's current bishop is orthodox in faith and practice - but what if that changes? Bp. Riches (at this time I am in the REC, BTW) has said that he would refer a woman seeking orders to another of the partners - but Bp. Riches will not be in his position forever. In the above picture, I see Bishops Kanu (CANA) and Sutton (REC) both of these are godly men and teach pure doctrine but neither they or Iker, or Schofield will be bishops forever. Let's say you get down the line and clergy whose formation took place under folks like Duncan go on to teach in the seminaries or even end up bishops in your area. Think about that.

As you said Dominic "this is a dangerous move which will simply cause more division and pain down the line"

I am personally pleased that a new province has come to life yet deeply saddened that the very factors that caused this event are still deeply ingrained in the makeup of the denomination.

Did the movement away from the Episcopal Church start because of the ordination of women, revision of the Book of Common Prayer, creation of a homosexual bishop, and departure from biblical truths or the simple desire to just have another team on the playing field.

All of the underlying factors are still there, so where do they go from here?

The Anglican Church in America continues to hold the faith as once delivered.

Bob+

Quote:

I think you are over-simplifying the issue. Those who are not in favour of the innovation of WO, see this, not as a matter of keeping it a "boys only" club, but of the authority of Scripture itself since it as seen as touching alot more than who and who does not get to wear a collar.

The very fact that there are many who have strong opinions about this on both sides indicates that there should have been a moratorium placed on the practice of WO until a true consensus could be reached across all groups (can two walk together unless they are agreed??). To try and trivialize this as being on an intellectual high horse all in the name of "The Mission" only further illustrates part of what makes this such an uncomfortable situation for those with an Orthodox understanding of Scripture.

Quote:

Simply stated, Deborah was never made a priest of God. She never donned the garb of the priesthood nor offered sacrifices before the Lord.

Further, You have over 2000 years of practice informed by Scripture in the church catholic and it seems that no one had a question about this until the 20th century following the rise of feminism in western culture.

WO is not the result of sound exegesis but of subjective eisegesis.

So....

Perhaps this has God's blessing and the Ark is being made ready or perhaps we are seeing nothing more than another tower of Babel - only time will tell.

father1,

You are correct that this is a baby step but it is already stumbling and headed towards hitting its head on the coffee table.

As I've stated already, there are things that should have been put on hold until a consensus could be reached. That they will continue to allow congregations to use whatever BCP they have been using, while not ideal because it will mean the continued use of the 1979 BCP (at least for now), was the probably the best thing to do.

Any further instances of WO should have been treated in a similar manner and at least been put on hold. Instead we already have indication that it will continue full steam ahead.

Either you are with the new Anglican province or you are against it. You can't have it both ways. For those that are against it, go form your own Anglican Communion. It is just that simple. God's speed in your journey.

Using labels of catholic, protestant, evangelical, scriptural, Anglican, we are expressing in this small group enough differences in understanding of the priesthood that the range of opinions on the national scale must be enormous. If this is true, something as essential as the priesthood could very well end up (if it is not already) a dividing issue rather than something which unites us in Christ. I am cautiously supporting the new province, but feel that a full theological study of WO to (the diaconate and)the priesthood should be near the top of our concerns - and that until such a study is completed there should be a moratorium on WO. This issue cannot be answered by what pleases those who support WO, nor by what pleases those who oppose WO - but by what pleases God. A "cafeteria-style" view of the Sacraments, the Ministry, Worship, the Real Presence and other doctrinal issues will not create a province.

Ctowles is right. You are either for or against the new province. If people are unhappy they can form their own province.This is what the AC's did 30 years ago and would up with 75 jurisdictions and today they have an ASA of under 3000 its deja vue all over again

Failte..."a full theological study of WO to (the diaconate and)the priesthood should be near the top of our concerns"

AMiA did this years ago

http://www.virtueonline.org/stories/AMiA_WO_Study.pdf

M+/

deaconM

I agree that Christian clergy do not make sacrifices for the sacrifice for sin has been made once for all. Christ's sacrifice was indeed sufficient for all time.

However, I have hardly made your case for you.

You have done precious little to make your "case" other than cite an unrelated Scripture reference. If you are going to make a case from Scripture, you are going to have to do MUCH better than that.

In the OT, references to the priesthood were ALWAYS male. Likewise, Paul (provided you believe in the inerrancy and inspiration of Holy Scripture, otherwise we have nothing further to discuss) gives clear qualifications for both deacons and presbyters and, again, does so in reference to the male gender. Therefore, I fail to see how Scripture can be any more clear. It only seems so because you vision is blurred by the opinions of men.

As far as an appeal to history, I can make a case based on Scripture by itself quite easily. However, my appeal to history only further illustrates that it is those who support WO are at odds with the church's understanding of the subject.

If WO is such a secondary issue, and considering the mischief and division it has caused, wouldn't you think that folks like Bob Duncan and others would abandon it for the sake of real unity?

Apparently you really don't see it as a secondary issue otherwise you would be willing to set it aside. Anti-WO don't see it as secondary so how about WO just stop all together? After all, it's all about the mission isn't it?

deaconM

The Eastern Orthodox did this millenia ago. The position still holds.

With all that has been said, we still have to read and abide by the scriptures.

Bp Duncan is not letting the Holy Spirit guide and direct him. Schoria is already laughing.

NO TO WO
NO TO FALSE TEACHING...1979 BCP
NO TO HOMO

"You are either for or against the new province. If people are unhappy they can form their own province. This is what the AC's did 30 years ago and would up with 75 jurisdictions and today they have an ASA of under 3000 its deja vue all over again."

There is a third stance to take regarding the new province, not just the two options mentioned above.

As an Eastern Orthodox Christian in the Western Rite, my position and approach will be as follows:

From the Eastern Orthodox perspective, the foundational problems that will still exist in the new province will cause some members to experience a "spiritual restlessness."

This restlessness will be the result of things like Women's Ordination, Holy Scripture being placed above Holy Tradition, and the continued practice of contemporary or watered down "user friendly" worship that most will experience.

Scripture will be taught, but parishoners will still continue to argue private interpretations and suffer confusion as a result. It's easier to argue about what scripture means and harder to obey it.

Pragmatism will still tend to trump doctrinal standards, albeit in a more conservative direction. "The Mission is the message" and so forth.

The restlessness I've mentioned is already evident in many of the comments I've seen today.

Since my hope and dream is to see the planting of new and vibrant Western Rite parishes, I will seek a friendly relationship with the new province by asking the leadership to pastorally refer those who are still "not home" spiritually to us. Referrals! Referrals! Referrals!

I envision doing this by eventually writing letters to province clergy to that effect.

This is a realistic approach, because the new province cannot simply be "wished away." Nor will my wishes that you all would simply become Orthodox happen either. Some of you aren't ready to do this yet, but some of you will be at some point in the future.

God will work with many fine people in the new province, but some will grow beyond it and need a new home.

So I hope the new province can be a "feeder" or "transitional" group for many to Holy (as in "whole") Orthodoxy.

So in the language we frequently use in "our parts,"

God grant the North American Anglican Province Many Years, and God grant the Orthodox Church many converts as a result!



Sincerely,

Columba Siluoan

Deacon M,

Just a thought or two:

Hebrews 13:10
"We have an altar from which those who serve the tent have no right to eat."

We eat the sacrifice at the altar of the Eucharist. Jesus is our High Priest after the order of Melchizedek, the Great Shem, the righteous first born son of Noah. Melchizedek offered Bread and Wine to Abraham and blessing Abraham with the blessing that Shem had received from Noah, the blessing that is now ours through Christ, the true righteous firstborn Son of God.

As a Type of New Creation coming out of the flood waters of Baptism, Priestly Noah, whose name means "REST", offers a sacrifice at an altar and eats the sacrifice with his family.

Jesus, whose one sacrifice once offered is made present at the altar of the New Covenant Eucharist,is the True Bread of Life which we eat at God's family table.
We drink His Blood, the medicine of immortality.

Jesus says, Come to me all who are weary and heavy laden and I will give you "Rest"/Noah in Hebrew.

Let us never deny the Real Presence of Jesus' Body and Blood in the Bread and Wine of the Eucharist, which according to Hebrews is the altar from which only those in God's Covenant family have a right to eat and Commune with Christ.It is the earthly priest that stands as Christ's represenative at the altar of the Eucharist every Lord's Day.

Artistree

Cenndd - thank you so much. For one who lives in a wasteland of TEC, my only concern is whether I will be included in the boundries of the Diocese of Ft. Worth or the Diocese of Quincy......

Deacon M,
Greetings,
You seem to feel WO is a secondary issue. Are readers to infer that Scripture is secondary in the new province?

Deesend, check your PM. I sent you a message.

Cennydd

Hello Barre,

Yes I have read it when it was first published on Dick Kim's List thought it very amusing that this fellow would act as if he were the first to write the be all/ end all to whom or what ordination is and who may or may not. I was happy with the Epistle of Timothy. In fact, I have been reading everything from Kew's 'Megatrends in Episc. Ch.' forward and then much in reverse. I have been reading for 15-20 years and I have yet to read anything supporting WO from Scripture or Tradition including deaconesses. Rodger's paper seemed rather par for the course on fence sitting as I remember. I do not consider him to be a theologian of any merit but a good and decent Bishop with a pastoral touch if a bit Presbyterian in some ways. What specifically is your point?

I want to clear one thing up with you before anything else. You have declared me a "naysayer" in error. It is not me or others who have questioned here who said "nay" it is those who support WO without Scriptural warrant or precedent from Tradition that have said 'no' to the Faith delivered to the saints. Yoiur comment sounds amazingly like that of those who critized Rodgers and Murphy for leaving the ECUSA, remember R&M were the "naysayers" then... be careful!

You say you feel WO is not appropriate. What does that mean Barre? Appropriate? Scripture is clear is Scripture inappropriate? Is Scripture a matter of opinion? There issues that remain mysterious but "The husband of one wife" don't mean the ladies get to be ordained. This is the result of Christ ordaining his Apostles. Your indifference your judgement of appropriateness of Scripture is not with me or the others here it is with Jesus Christ and his Apostles and those they laid hands on etc etc etc.

Rogers work is the opinion of one man and of one who can't carry the sandals of the Apostles or those they appointed. +Rodgers is a good man and he has an opinion but what he practices cannot square (ordained deaconesses) with either tradition or Scripture and that my friend is vacuous in the context of orthodoxy. Fact is AmiA just sends the women to Africa for ordination. Came in through the bathroom window!

So again who is saying "no" to what here?

You say no the the Church Catholic? I say no thanks to you.

There can be a compromise if the new entity declared WO as incompatible with Scripture and Tradition and declared it an error but allowed a pastoral provision to let them serve in some capacity within those parishes that have them now and with the understanding that they could not ordain or consecrate or transfer outside of a particular diocese and there would be a permanent prohibition on such consecrations then I would be good with it

I would not object to a title of 'minister' of sorts either as long as said ministry does not contradict Scripture.
Very simple here all were saying is wanna be orthodox then follow Scripture. WHat is so difficult for you Barre?

1662? 1662?*!& The 1549 prayer book or the Missal or NOTHING! AND AS FOR WOMEN? Silent in church, hats on their heads,and obedient to their husbands! ;)

The Anglican Church in North America is an amazing work of God. Don't like it? Don't join it. I personally have faith that (with perhaps a modicum of birthing pains)it will become THE ORTHODOX expression of Anglicanism. Not of Eastern Orthodoxy. But Anglicanism.
AP+

"The Anglican Church in North America is an amazing work of God."

Interesting statement. From an Eastern Orthodox perspective, I would say rather that God works in an amazing way through The Anglican Church, because HE is so kind and generous and compassionate, and to the extent that the Anglican Church lines up with true apostolic faith, which faithful Anglicanism does in many ways, but not in all ways.

And this is in spite of it being a creation of men, past and present, who continue to choose to stay apart from the three oldest churches that have a much more legitimate claim to be THE CHURCH.

To wit: The Eastern Orthodox Church, The Roman Catholic Church, and the Oriental Orthodox, (sometimes known as the Coptic) Church.

"We know where the church is. We cannot say conclusively where the church is not."

So yes, God will work powerfully in many ways through the many solid and good parishes in the AMIA, CANA, and the North American Anglican Province because HE is good and kind and gracious and desires for all to be saved, but I believe His BEST plan would be for you all to come home.

Alas, in this fallen world, most of us fail to live up to His Best plan, and we end up with second best. Still good, but not what He intends for us.

So I say: Come on home to Eastern Orthodoxy and help us build The Church! Line up with His BEST plan.

In peace let us pray to The Lord,

Lord Have Mercy!

Columba Silouan

Barre,

Why do I need another reference?

Timothy is sufficient, it is inspired Canon as agreed upon by the Great Councils and it is therefore authoritative as Holy Scripture. Nothing you, I or Bishop Rodgers can say changes or modifies that fact anymore than the local board of supervisors can override Federal Law. Rodger's paper is not Canon.

In fact the admonition from St Paul is crystal clear: "husbands of one wife" and it is repeated exactly for both Deacons and Bishops (Overseer). So there are two references in the "Pastoral" Epistle lending clear direction from Paul on who may be a leader in the Church. No offense to Bishop Rodgers but St. Paul carries more weight than he does. BTW note this also excludes the male serial monogamists as well from Holy Orders.

Those of us who recognize that WO is a (wo)man made invention revising doctrine to suit a particular generation of individuals are not being "nay-sayers" by pointing out the problem of claiming orthodoxy on one hand and ignoring Scripture on the other. It is the task of those who judge as irrelevant or condemn outright Holy Writ to disprove the authority of Scripture and Tradition. What is different between WO and say the Roman doctrine of purgatory or indulgences in this sense? How many here will rail on about Roman inventions and yet support their own… WO! Hypocrits. It reminds me of local politics: ‘Well he may be a crook but he is our crook’! Well, in this case ‘it may be an innovation but it is our innovation’!

Ask yourself where were the holy women who saw Jesus first on the Road to Emmaus when Jesus breathes the HG onto the Apostles or when he laid hands on them or gives them the power to bind and loose or forgive or retain sins? Clearly a role has been established here!!! He reveals himself to them (women) first because they have a specific role to play but he does not ordain them. Why did not Jesus ‘call’ the Samaritan woman- she figured out who he was before the men in the village? What was different in that encounter and the one with James and John doing their chores? He does not because it does not fit his order. Why didn't Jesus turn the Church over to his Mother at the foot of the Cross? He had every opportunity and he is God! Why are not the women involved in the first Apostolic Council? Where is one single woman ordained in the entire Bible? There certainly is no shortage of them. Where is one woman ordained in any record of the early Church? In many cases the women gave critical financial support so why were none ordained? Clearly the role of ordained servants was given to men and to men only.

No picking here Barre it is a plain read of plainly spoken Scripture and the real issue behind WO is authority: is Holy Scripture authoritative or do we get to ignore that which we do not like? If Scripture holds only selective authority in any Church that Church is not orthodox and in this case it would prove your new province is simply schismatic because you split from TEC over a non essential issue- that of Homo Ordination. Why? If you get to pick and choose roles rather than God and institute a social justice issue/right by ignoring Scripture for women to usurp the role of the male then VGR is perfectly within his social justice rights to do the same.

Let me clear this a bit: Choose which horn of the bull to gore yourselves upon. Either that Scripture is authoritative and WO willfully mocks Scripture or Scripture is not binding and VGR has every right to the Priesthood and a Bishopric that Katherine Jefferts Schori does and you schismed over a nonessential- that of the "Sacrament of Ordination" which is no Sacrament at all but a mere job description.

I have observed many women in traditional Anglican Churches who choose to cover their heads in piety and humility. I have nothing but the greatest respect for their devotion.

The childbearing example is exactly why a homosexual relationship is abominable and exactly illustrative of the roles men and women are given by design or not. The "abomination" is there can be no fruit of the womb between homosexuals and thus it robs God of his people.

What we are talking about here is God's Order.

Can you be orthodox and ignore Scripture?

Barre,

That is the best thing that you can do, no one could expect more.

Mariel,

That "priest" or presbyter as the word priest is derived from, is not mentioned is moot because you cannot become a presbyter or overseer without first being ordained a deacon and ordained they were as Paul and others lay hands on them just as is done in Anglican Churches, Orthodox Churches and Roman Churches today and presbyter is mentioned in other texts.

But the real point is the "Binding and Loosing' gave the Apostles the power and authority to build Christ's Church (to institute it's Offices and to continue in dispensing the Sacraments) and Christ promised the Holy Ghost to help them and that power was verified by the healing and other miraculous things the Apostles did in Christ's name recorded in the NT. The Apostles had the authority to do as they did- none of us has the authority to undo those works and that is why those of us who point to unscriptural innovation and cannot support it or look the other way. We (all of us) are directed by Scripture to challenge error. No man has the authority to overturn Scripture and ordain that which God has decided against for whatever His reasons.

The compilers/authors of the BCPs never conceived of such a thing as WO why would they? Remember the English Reformers proposed to restore Catholicity and remove innovations not institute man made churches and doctrines.

Any debate that clarifies and forces light onto a heresy is helpful to the Christian Cause. A heresy is an error willfully taught in spite of the consensus of the Church and Scripture.

Jesus said "this is my body and my blood" and "I am the bread of life" What do you not understand ? If this were simply a observation of passover why does Paul admonish all to take it with such care and why is that repeated in the BCP that you value?: "for otherwise the receiving of the holy Communion doth nothing else but increase your condemnation."

Your condemnation does not come from consuming bread and wine and getting indigestion. It comes from consuming the Spiritual Body and Blood unworthily and that is why laying on of hands and the gifts of the Holy Ghost through anointing or as w e call it now- Confirmation are an absolute necessity. If you like the traditions then observe them.

Barre,

You asked for some other verses I think these also support the establishment of authority in the Church:
Hebrews 13:
7Remember them which have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God: whose faith follow, considering the end of their conversation. 8Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever. 9Be not carried about with divers and strange doctrines. For it is a good thing that the heart be established with grace; not with meats, which have not profited them that have been occupied therein. ...Salute all them that have the rule over you, and all the saints.

Mark7: 9And he said to them: "You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe[a] your own traditions! 10For Moses said, 'Honor your father and your mother,'[b] and, 'Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.'

2 Thessalonians 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

Whether by word or by Epistle. Is it any wonder the English Reformers sought the words of the Fathers in rooting out innovations as well as the Scripture? Is it any wonder Richard Hooker consults both Tradition and Scripture and the right Reason of Biblical Wisdom?

Barre,

I have a proposition for you...

I assume you are a woman. I mentioned my respect for those woman who choose to cover their heads as a sign of their deference, devotion and obedience to God. This not because I read it but because these women awe me. Their devotion is palatable- I am not sure I can describe it.

I assume your parish likely does not observe this. Would you consider as an experiment if you like, to start wearing such a cover and let us know the effect of it among your brothers and sisters?

Every church I have seen this instituted has the immediate and intimate sense of the Holy. If you want to discover how humility has power give it a chance. As a man when I see a woman in church with her head covered I do not think of her as barefoot and pregnant or my inferior or that she is stupid, I think immediately about how inadequate I am coming before Christ in his Church.

You want to help reform the Church? courage, submission and example (for all of us) is the real power. And this would likely require courage as you might get some flak for it.

Dear Barre and SaintElvis,

Jesus transforms the Old Covenant Passover Meal into the New Testament Passover Meal, the Eucharist. In the Jewish Liturgy of the Passover Meal which Jesus was celibrating in the upper room, there are 4 cups of wine. Jesus and the disciples drink from the third cup, the cup of blessing, sing the Great Hallel (Psalm 119 if my memory is correct)and then they go out without finishing the meal liturgy.

Christ fulfills the 4th cup of the Passover Litury on the cross when He drinks wine from the hysop branch which is lifted to Him. Then He says, after He drinks the "4th cup", "It is finished". What is finished....The Passover Liturgy. Christ transforms the Passover meal into the Eucharist Meal with His sacrife upon the cross.

In the first Passover in Egypt, Moses instructed the people to put the blood of an unblemished lamb on their doorposts with a hysop brach. Then they had to eat the lamb. If they would have only sacrificed the lamb and put the blood on the doorpost and failed to eat the lamb, they would have woken up the next morning and their firstborn would have been dead.

That is why we must Eat the Lamb of God. Jesus said if you do not eat His Body and drink His Blood you will have no life in you. Jesus is the Life, that is why we must feed on Him literally, in faith.

Jesus becomes incarnate in the Bread and Wine and we must eat Him to have life. We are what we eat. If we desire to be the Body of Christ we must eat the Body of Christ in the Eucharist with a loving lively faith.

Actually, all seven of the Jewish feasts are fulfilled and transformed by the Eucharist.

Let us never deny the true and Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.
Blessings,
Artistree

Artiastree,

I do not know anything about the cups in the Passover but I agree with your overall assessment.

I have read that rather than the Passover the meal celebrated in the Upper Room was based on the meal called the Kiddush: "it Consisted of a simple meal of common (leavened) bread and wine mixed with water, the cup being passed from one to another, and prayer offered." "Outline of Christian Worship" William D. Maxwell/Oxford University Press

Passover was a family meal, the Kiddush was observed by pious male friends and only one cup was passed. Also there is no mention that the Exodus was read at the Last Supper which would be necessary had it been a Passover meal.
Also the Kiddush solves the problem of "the night on which he was betrayed" because holding trials or executions during Passover which was forbidden by the law of the Jews.

This theory may or may not hold water I do not claim to know conclusively either way but thought you might find it of interest.

Regardless, the outcome is as you say: "Let us never deny the true and Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist."

Hope you are having a blessed Advent.

Is the "new" province in communion with Canterbury? Yes.

Is TEC in communion with Canterbury? Yes.

Nothing new here.

I, for one, applaud the development of the new province. It holds so much promise that was squandered and ultimately lost by the TEC cult.

This is not the time to criticise the Province as it is still being built.

"Jesus becomes incarnate in the Bread and Wine..."

Dominic,

You are correct. I missed that - reading to quickly and certainly did not mean to agree with anything other than the statement I quoted regarding the Real Presence.

However you should be careful not to characterize the Roman Communion in the same way the Reformers did. We are not the same people and neither are they. Benedict has written about this very topic and what he says is not the "chunks of himself" as you put it, and as the Reformers sought to correct, in fact he (Pope) never goes past the Real Presence as understood in the BCP and classic Anglican teaching. The 'eating' is a spiritual eating but it is the body and blood as Christ says so and as Paul warns us that to eat it unworthily is to eat condemnation. Not a chewing but not a memorial only either. A transformation does take place not flesh and blood but not wine and bread either. Maybe we have finally gotten through!

But by all means do not recommend people who would believe such to Rome because Rome no longer teaches this by the words of Pope Benedict himself. No need for us to continue to inflame old wounds that are no longer relevant.

No need to substitute medieval superstition for what is a spiritual reality any more than staging fake healings in a TV studio by corrupt Evangelicals in order to convince people miracles actually happen or solely for monetary gain such as collection plate ar'teeests like Todd Bentley.

However you are somewhat incorrect in your characterization of " Anglican, Reformed, Protestant Church " it is the "One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church" that is what is meant by Anglican and it is self explanatory in the BCP. I cannot find the statement " Anglican, Reformed, Protestant Church " anywhere in the BCP's I have including Cramners 1549.

In any BCP the word "Protestant" does not appear a single instance. The old American editions say Protestant Episcopal Church in the USA but that is a cover sheet describing an edition of a local province that no longer exists and it is a description that is as more a social political statement than theological. In fact PECUSA was dropped for ECUSA and now TEC. This first change was because of the confusion the word Protestant engenders.

Every Sunday we affirm in the Creeds we are Catholic not Roman and not Calvinist or for that matter Anglican!

No where is the word Protestant affirmed before God as a statement of identity in the Book of Common Prayer.

Dominic and SaintElvis,
I appologize for not using a more clear use of words. When I said,"Jesus becomes incarnate in the Bread and Wine", I did not mean to imply that the Bread and Wine are changed into Jesus' earthly human flesh that He had during his earthy ministry. I only meant that He becomes incarnate in the sense that God the Son is with us in the form of Bread and Wine.

Maybe I am using the wrong word, but I intended to mean that He becomes "incarnate" in the sense as when He appeared in visible and physical form and spoke to Adam, Abraham, Hagar, Jacob, Moses, Gideon, ect.

I meant it in the sense of a theophany as when He appeared to Moses in the form of a burning bush, when He took the form of a pillar of fire and led the Israelites,when He took the form of a Rock and followed the Israelites giving them water to drink,when He took physical form and wrestled with Jacob, ect.

As Christ was with the Israelites in the form of a pillar of fire, He is now with us in the form of Bread and Wine in the Eucharist; God the Word, "desends" upon and is united to the earthy creatures of Bread and Wine.

He does not have three natures in the Eucharist; human flesh and blood, earthy bread and wine, and divine spirit. No, he has two natures in the Eucharist; God the Word united to earthly Bread and Wine. God the Word, is "housed" in the Bread and Wine, His Body and Blood.

Hope that makes things clearer.

SaintElvis, I can't argue with anything you said here.

Artistree

Artistree,

Thanks for the clarification. Sounds good to me. There is a good article on the Continuum about this very subject- we have gotten off on a tangent that perhaps would be better on the other venue for the comments since the subject here is not the nature of the Elements.

Anyway it will be interesting to see how the new 'province' shapes up on it's theology since three of the four dioceses are Anglo Catholic (I really do not like phrases like anglo this or anglo that) I suspect they will get it right as the AC's seem to have a better grasp of theology than any of the other parties.

I hope they will clarify a number of issues I feel that GAfCon has not.

Keep the Faith

There is not prohibition on having a wife in the Anglican Communion or the Orthodox for Deacons and Priests or to the Protestants. At to what others do or not perhaps you should address them and whether their practice is Biblical or rather simply a self imposed discipline of piety. Traveling around from one church to another is usually the mark of someone looking for a religion that matches their personal world view rather that seeking God unconditionally. Isaiah 32:18; 1 Thessalonians 4:11

I have looked back at the comments and see no reference to judgement to Hell that you impose on us. Perhaps you are imposing some personal issue of unresolved anger? Many who resent Scripture and the demands it places on all of us do so because we tend to identify some mortal or carnal aspect of our selves as the core of our identity instead of 'throwing off the old man and putting on the new' as St Paul instructs.

Unless one's knowledge and spirit is leading one into a path of holiness and unless one's actions are as what their lips profess then they are living doublemindedly. This is the error of the extreme feminist as well as the homosexualist to place their gender or their confusion before all as an idol. Idolatry kills the Spirit ( just as does the Law) in each of us, as each is a temple unto the Lord. Does anyone believe that gender does not have roles or that gender and sexuality is the end all/be all to a person? Funny by listening to those who are zealous fundamentalists about gender and/or sexuality one can here them imply by their "external" ritualism and "tradition" (as you point out) what is in their hearts.

There is one Lord, one Faith, one Baptism, and to compare Baptism to carpet and hair style says a lot about who you are and what you believe J. Henry.

God does look at the heart but outward action reflects what is in the heart: "...not only on our lips but in our lives". Holy Tradition is not an empty act as you characterize simply because it does not enable you or support your behavior or personal opinion. Rather it is Holy Ghost inspired as He has been with us from the beginning as Christ promised and if you think the Holy Ghost comes only to you and your generation at your whim and must agree with you as if you were God then you have made a horrible and arrogant error. James 2: 20You foolish man, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless?

As to the rest of your examples I know of no one that eats blood except pagan tribes in Africa with cattle and little water. I do know many that practice a holy kiss in greeting and we do wash each others feet on Maunday Thursday; Paul has rightly dealt with speaking in tongues and as to worship- "let all be done with diginty and grace." The rich tried to consume our parish and left without success attempting to use money to manipulate. We discussed a widow's need just this morning. Publically prophesying along with discovering in yourself what gift(s) of the seven of the gifts of the Holy Ghost you may have has been preached from our pulpit regularly.

The church makes demands on all of us just as Christ made demands at every miracle and healing and none of these demands has been known to be of evil intent or caused any one to fall before the throne of Judgement.

No need to incorporate your examples as individual items in a constitution, by acknowledging the Canon of Scripture in a constitution obedience and subservience is self explanatory. Otherwise you depart from the Christian Church.

As to the OT Law perhaps a close read of Hebrews would be a peaceful way for you to pass Advent.

A sacrament is the outward expression of inward Grace by definition. One does not exist without the other and that is what Saint James says in the very Bible that you have quoted from. The Bible is full of hard things and you do not get to cherry-pick or ignore them without risking your salvation.

Pax



Isaiah 26:10 Though grace is shown to the wicked, they do not learn righteousness; even in a land of uprightness they go on doing evil and regard not the majesty of the LORD.
Acts 6:8 Now Stephen, a man full of God's grace and power, did great wonders and miraculous signs among the people.
Romans 12:6 We have different gifts, according to the grace given us. If a man's gift is prophesying, let him use it in proportion to his faith.

1 Corinthians 3:10 By the grace God has given me, I laid a foundation as an expert builder, and someone else is building on it. But each one should be careful how he builds.

2 Corinthians 1:12 Now this is our boast: Our conscience testifies that we have conducted ourselves in the world, and especially in our relations with you, in the holiness and sincerity that are from God. We have done so not according to worldly wisdom but according to God's grace.

2 Corinthians 8:9 For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor, so that you through his poverty might become rich.
Ephesians 3:7I became a servant of this gospel by the gift of God's grace given me through the working of his power.
James 4 7Submit yourselves, then, to God...

James 3: 1Not many of you should presume to be teachers, my brothers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly. 2We all stumble in many ways. If anyone is never at fault in what he says, he is a perfect man, able to keep his whole body in check.

2: 3If you show special attention to the man wearing fine clothes and say, "Here's a good seat for you," but say to the poor man, "You stand there" or "Sit on the floor by my feet," 4have you not discriminated among yourselves and become judges with evil thoughts?

It's interesting to note that the Anglican Province of North America was formally born on 4 December, the Feast Day of Saint Barbara, patron saint of artillerymen, gunners, gunsmiths, miners and anyone who works with EXPLOSIVES...

Saint Elvis, Please read the PM I sent you. Thanks for your thoughtful response. Much of my previous post was tongue in cheek. Sadly churches have split over the issues I mentioned. I was only pointing out that single men according to Timothy would not be qualified as deacons or bishops if taken literally. In 'Never Silent' it is mentioned in the preface that the laying on of hands onto VGR and Shori and the spirit that TEC follows is a different spirit than the Holy Ghost. That is what I meant by following the path to hell with non-biblical ordination.

Scripture must be and will be the backbone of the new Province. Tradition as passed down through the saints and the Holy Spirit living in us today make up the other two legs of the proverbial stool. Ironically my wife and I were married into the Episcopal Church in 2000 but never found a church home throughout college in SC and strongly considered the RCC and had many dear friends go Orthodox. in 2003 we decided to remain in TEC after VGR ordination b/c there was work to do and we saw a role to play. This is my first time posting on VirtueOnline over the previous 5 years b/c I am excited and prayerful as to the direction of the new province.

Sorry missed the tongue in cheek. It is hard sometimes to communicate thusly. I thought you were on about the 'oppressive' Church thing so many secular liberals go on about. -apologies.

It is perfectly fine and orthodox to take Scripture literally. If you read the text in Timothy we find the reason for 'of one wife' if you cannot husband your own household then how could you expect to lead a larger family. I think it makes perfect sense and again you or I do not get to pick and choose. It is Scripture, it was accepted by the Great Councils as Canon, and that means it is binding. We can make excuses and say well we are different then those people back then but look at where we have come in 50+ years by saying 'oh no reason to take the Bible literally'. How many clergy are serial monogamists? How many woman (& men) have taken on a role never theirs? When you speak to the Zeitgeist these things cannot be ignored. My old ECUSA parish hired a priestess and she imported all her heresies within a year and the result is a deeply divided community even after 12-15 years. What wreckage do we have because people have ignored the Scripture and said "no need for a literal interpretation we are more sophisticated now"?

The proverbial "stool" is oft misunderstood and used not really as Hooker wrote. Hooker and the Reformers did not throw out Holy Tradition they used it to compare as best they were able to compare the innovations of their time. We should do the same for our time. Many simply think the Articles or the 1662 alone will solve todays problems but they were for a different time we need voice put to the errors of today. Today we need Scripture taught completely and literally as it is literal because any attempt to circumvent Scripture by the wisdom of men will bring the same results as we have seen with our own eyes these last 2 generations or more. The culture of divorce, WO, Hom-O, abortion have brought our church to the ground, or more likely, it is God who has brought it down as He promised to uproot a tree that produces no fruit (see the similarity to what St. James says?).

Scripture must be observed not dismissed to be the backbone of any orthodox Church and yes all these things we discussed are required of any who claim to be orthodox, otherwise we are merely relativists and no better than those most of us have departed from. So we will wait and see if it is indeed backbone or or a slab of bacon that will buck up the new province and if the Bible is followed or if desired, where is suits those who would rather follow the doctrine of men.

I am hopeful as well and as actions speak louder than words (outward sign of inward orthodoxy if you will) the proof will soon be known.

A little friendly advice: don't get "excited": be sober, be vigilant and hold your clergy up in prayer and do not let anybody off the hook on following the Scripture. That is what got us all in this predicament in the first place. We have permission to reprove we just have to remember that hardest of things... charity.

Sounds like good news to me! Finally, the faithful may unashamedly worship Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith. CAUTION: Please be careful NOT to get tied up in the knots of Religion like TEC did!

SaintElvis,
Just a note I thought you would smile upon as do I; My former priest's wife was at Eucharist today. She was wearing her head covering as the Scriptures instruct her to do. My heart smiled when I saw her obedience.

Artistree

It's funny you mentioned charity as the hardest of things. 1 John 1 was discussed yesterday evening during our service. I think it would be interesting to note how many uncharitable things have been mentioned through the years on these message boards. It would probably be a worthwhile exercise to go back through old posts and edit those that are not. True charity is a litmus test for our faith both personal and churchwide.

As far as excitment goes - I have compassion for those that can no longer get excited anymore or recognize humor for that matter. Praise God joy and hope are in abundance in the christian life.

In regards to biblical literalism - when was the last time someone whom you respect as a christian gouged out their eye or cut off their tongue? How about giving everything they have to the poor? Likely many of us are not using public computers. Also where does the time come from to literally spend hours and hours on the internet neglecting our families, prayer, assisting the widows and orphans, loving God with all that we have to include our mind, heart, and strength. It is difficult to love our neighbors as ourselves when we spend enormous amounts of time in an activity like surfing the internet.

I have two broken wrists and a broken hip from a bicycle accident. What is your excuse?

Dear Dominic,

You are correct, I am not espousing Protestant Reformed theology. I am espousing Biblical Early Church theology. I hold to the views as taught in the Bible and held and taught by men whom the Apostles approved and ordained. I am an English Catholic who does not believe in Sola-Scriptura because it is not biblical; I believe in Prima-Scriptura, interperated through the lense of Holy Tradition, using the writings of the men who were ordained by the Apostles themselves as my guild.

I hold to the spirit of what Bishop John Jewel said, ( Apologia Ecclesiae Anglicanae, 1562)

"We have returned to the Apostles and old Catholic fathers. We have planted no new religion, but only have preserved the old that was undoubtedly founded and used by the Apostles of Christ and other holy Fathers of the Primitive Church...."

The English Reformers intended to bring the English Church back to the roots of the Primitive Church; we need to continue to reform in order to do that. We should not follow Luther or Calvin or even Cranmer, but follow the Bible ( the Apostles Bible not the Protestant Bible)and the oral Traditions of the Apostles preserved in Holy Tradition.

I agree with you that the Roman Eucharist Table is not Christ-like in that they do not allow all of God's baptized Chilren to come to the Altar. Yes, the Anglican Communion Altar is much more Christ-like.

God's Peace,

Artistree

May the Lord lead and guide them to greater orthodoxy, through the eventual eschewing of Women's Ordination.


For all our other problems, at least the CEC is clear on THAT ONE!

I hope for the best, but I'm predicting this new jurisdiction will soon divide of WO, and that the WO'ers will eventually become as liberal as TEC..... We seem never to learn!

(Bishop KJS says...'The worst is over'...)
Note to: Province of the Anglican Church of N.America... get ready to make more room!

Today, Los Angeles' Diocese (TEC) Bishop J. Bruno declared, 'It's OK to Bless Gay Unions & Seniors living Out-of-Wedlock'("because if they marry, they might lose their retirement benefits.") --LA Times 12/08.

Joe,

You have it a bit wrong:
AC's understand the Incarnation and believe the bread and wine are what Jesus says they are not what evangelicals say they are.

AC's can count and therefore know the Church came before the NT and therefore is it's steward and interpreter- just one of those pesky historical facts.

Since they understand Scripture belongs to the Church and the Church interprets it by the guidance of the Holy Ghost they understand WO is a secular invention because no tradition has ever attempted to twist Scripture in this manner. I think that sort of proves the point.

the 1662, 28, and 79 as compared by you is a serious stretch. The 79 has as much in common with the 28 and the 62 as Barny the Purple Dinosaur has in common with T Rex.

AC's believe what can be proven by Scripture in the Articles, They und4erstand they were a "SETTLEMENT" that shallow evangelicals insist on making a fight over. They believe if you read the Articles and self interpret out of historical context you get it wrong. They believe if you think you know what they mean and forget to read the Homilies first you are fooling yourself if you think they support Calvinism or Puritanism or modern unbridled Protestantism. Remember the Homilies are required reading by the Articles how many Evangelicals have bothered to read them - so don't preach about who ignores them.

AC's understand the Articles are not Scripture and as such are not inspired but reasonable explanation and guideposts and in the USA that has been demonstrated for a couple hundred years as not binding as no Deacon, Priest or Bishop has ever been required to swear an oath to them- ever.

AC's understand there have been multiple versions of the Articles and as such have been used politically.

The five solas are Calvinism, AC's understand the Articles don't like Calvinism and Richard Hooker pointed out Calvin's problems and the Articles clearly speak out against his allies the Puritans.

Evangelicals can't get along with themselves as there are hundreds if not thousands of independent or denominational Churches that describe themselves as 'evangelical', they split off from each other fast than poor Barna can count: why do you think it is the poor AC's responsibility to get y'all to behave yourselves?

Dominic, If you could see past the RCC time to the time of true pro testaments you'd know that we are Orthodox and not a failing "Reformed, Protestant Church".

Anglican worship was established long before the traditions of later Englishmen decided to innovate more than the RCC.

humbly, gregory




Orthodox Anglican Priest's Manual
Free download from: www.orthochap.com

joemahler, Which of the 33,000 different gospel preaching "Evangelical"s that trace their heritage to the Church of England are you talking about?

And are you talking about the original Anglo-Catholics that believe in the same Full Faith of the Orthodox Church?


humbly, gregory

St. Elvis: Wikipedia can be terrific...IF one is not writing for a grade or publication!

I did look St. Barbara up, and the reason she's known as the patron saint for people who work with explosives is that:
a) Her Roman father was struck dead by lightning a moment after he martyred her and/or
b) Barbara's decapitated body poured out fire and smoke immediately after the deed too...

Kinda grotesque stuff, but, hey it's historic legend. Early 4th Century.

I sincerely doubt ++Duncan and CCP chose this date due to St. Barbara's feast day, but, interesting coincidence none-the-less (says this Calvinist).

Either way, the bad guys got blown away....

Gregory,

When you speak of the "original Anglicans" I assume you are speaking of the Church which was birthed and grew in Britian as a result of the missionary work of St. Paul. Is that right ?

Clement of Rome, a fellow worker with Paul said that Paul preached righteousness even to the British Isles. Tertullian mentions that the name of Christ reached "all the limits of Spain, the diverse nations of the Gauls,and the haunts of the Britons -- inaccessible to the Romans, but subjugated to Christ."

From these original Anglos, two bishops traveled to the Council of Nicea centuries later.

Oh for the day when Anglicans could return to the Full Faith of the Orthodox, without the Roman additions and the subtractions of neo-gnostic Protestants. The original Anglo-Catholics
were much closer to the Orthodox than they were to Rome or the innovative doctrines of the Reformation.

I hope that we can all agree that whatever form our varius diverse Anglican Churches take, we truly need the fire and zeal of the evangelical spirit that desires to evangelize the lost and bring sinners into the Kingom of Christ the King, the True Son of David whose Kingdom will reign forever and ever, world without end.

Peace brothers,
Artistree

Joe;
You might be right about it being a celtic Church and not an anglo church.I'll have to study up on it. I appologize if I'm wrong about the most western churches identy during the Roman Empire.
But was it not two British Bishops that went to the Council of Nicea ?...and Pelagian was British?
The Ante Nicene Fathers called the region "Britain".....but maybe I'm wrong to assume it was Anglo....sorry.

But I have to come to Clement's defense. I do not think Clement of Rome was a liar concerning Pauls missionary travels. Nor was Tertullian a liar .

You seem pretty hostile toward us Anglo Catholics to the point that you seem to imply that you don't even believed we are saved.
I have a challenge for you....I go to an Anglo Catholic Parish; St. Mary of the Snows Anglican Church.

http://stmaryofthesnows.com/

Go to the website and click onto the sermons. Then make your judgment and get back to me if you still feel Anglo Catholics are on their way to hell.

I do wish you peace,
Artistree

Joe,
You were corect, it was not Anglo-Britain during Paul's missionary journies that ventured into this region but Roman Britain, known as Britannia. I stand corrected. I appologize for speaking in haste.

Yet,in the words of Capellus: "I scarcely know of one author, from the times of the Fathers downwards, who does not maintain that St. Paul, after his liberation, preached in every country in Western Europe, Britain included." "Of St. Paul's journey to Britain," writes Bishop Burgess, "we have as satisfactory proof as any historical question can demand." The same view is substantially maintained by Baronius, the Centuriators of Magdeburg, Alford or Griffith, next to Baronius the most erudite of the Roman Catholic historians, Archbishops Parker and Usher, Stillingfleet, Camden, Gibson, Cave, Nelson, Allix, etc."

Pauls' fellow worker in the gospel, Clement, the Third Bishop of Rome said that Paul preached in this region. I beleive him.

Artistree

Artistree,

Thank you for your response. I am always delighted to have the opportunity to share the Gospel. As you may well have noticed and I rejoice that you recognize that slight misunderstandings of history color our view and as a result attribute to the wrong people various acts. For example, King Arthur was not English. His enemies were the Saxons one of the tribes who eventually conquered Great Britain and became the English. The Romanized Celts or Bretons were not English and the Gospel that first arrived on the island came to the Bretons. The Church of the Bretons were not English and developed independently from the rest of the Western Church because they were isolated. The exact character of that Church is unknown. It may well have been similar to that of Ireland which was not forced to submit to Roman (Bishop of Rome) practices until the 12 or 13 century. The Roman version of the Church was brought to Great Britain with Thomas of Canterbury who hardly recognized the existing Church which was primarily in Wales. However, England was principally Christianized by the Irish coming down from the North and not by the Roman Church. Roman dominance was a political solution influenced by a queen. Again I personally don’t know much about the Irish Church to make too many statements. But it is always wrong to think that Paul went to England, because England did not exist. Now if as is reported by various ancients and traditions and legends that Paul did in fact go the British Isles he did not bring the Roman system that we know from the 5th century onward. We have no reason to believe that he would have taught any differently than that which we find in his epistles. Paul makes no difference between bishops and presbyters. His epistles show a Church which was centered around a synagogue system of teaching with agape suppers and the supper of the Lord. There are no special vestments ever mentioned. One cannot apply the Levitical law concerning the cultus of the tabernacle and the temple to the Church. Christ fulfilled the purpose of the animal sacrifice. Any sacrifice for sin that we make would be to say that Christ’s sacrifice at Calvary was insufficient. (One full perfect and sufficient sacrifice for the sins of the whole world.) There is no mention in all of his epistles of any such things as a sacrifice of the mass. The necessity of Apostolic succession or confirmation, the power of a priest to forgive sins. The 1662 Book of Common Prayer makes it clear that forgiveness of sin is an act of God and not man. There is nothing in the Scriptures that teaches transubstantiation or even consubstantiation. There is indeed a mystery in what Jesus said but no explanation of how. It is man’s desire for power over his brother and pride that creates the gorgeous vestments and rituals and ceremonies not mentioned in the New Testament that are so much a part of the Anglo-Catholic ceremonialism. Christ is sufficient and bishops and priest are not. The fullness of the Gospel is not completed by them. It was the attempt of the Reformation in England to get the Church back to its primitive state. That state that Paul would have brought to the people Great Britain if he went. It would have looked more like a synagogue and then a primitive one. It would have met in houses and in fields or other convenient places.

Now what did Paul teach about salvation. It certainly was not the heresy of Pelagius or the heresy of semi –pelagianism (the doctrine of Rome and the Anglo-Catholics). What Paul would have taught is found in Romans 8 and completely stated in Ephesians, chapters 1-2:8. Salvation is by no work of man. Read especially Ephesians 1-2:8 and note very carefully the order in salvation and God’s choice. It is Gospel; it is good news; it is wonderful and comforting. It destroys all of the man made inventions of religion and pride and we begin to rely on Christ for our salvation and not priest and bishops.

Also, if you were to find a Westminster Confession of Faith with the Scriptural proofs, I think you would be on the road to understand the fallacy of both the Roman (Anglo-Catholic) and Eastern Orthodox positions.

A parting question, do you believe that Jesus is God incarnate? Read the Second Commandment of the Decalogue.

Joe

artistree, Yes, you are correct and since my writing skills are poorer than most, i stand by all of your posts. Thank you for posting and for the great references that you've shared with me.

And especially your most recent link;
http://stmaryofthesnows.com/

BEAUTIFUL, ABSOLUTELY BEAUTIFUL !!!

humbly, gregory


Links;
"The main aim of the present work is twofold: first, to provide a spiritual (as opposed to a political or social) history of the decline and fall of Orthodox England, and secondly, to collect material relevant to the hoped-for future glorification of the great spiritual heroes of the period – notably King Edward the Confessor and Martyr-King Harold – in the Orthodox Church. The writer feels that such an undertaking is especially timely now..."
http://uk.geocities.com/guildfordian2002/AngloSaxon/FallOrthodoxEngland.htm

=====

Orthodoxy and the Conversion of England
By the Rev’d Derwas J. Chitty
http://www.westernorthodox.com/chitty.html

======

There used to be a full Forum on VOL concerning when The Faith/The Way was brought to the Isles but the forums are gone and i failed to copy and bookmarked all of the info.

Joe,

The 79' was not "promoted" by AC's that is an ignorant distortion, do you suppose the same AC's who held out for 30 yrs on WO authored the very book that justified that secular social engineering experiment in the Episcopal Church? Surely if what you say is true it would be documented in Dr Toon's book comparing the 79' to the 28'. Toon is no AC but is fine with the 1928. The AC's hoped they were going to get a bone or two thrown if they would pipe down- if memory serves, it was getting the Gloria upfront, which makes better sense to me but hardly a thing to get your knickers in a bind over. Name names Joe, what AC's were on the commission who edited the 79? just a handful of people, surely you know the names.

The 79 is a product of the 'scholars' of Vatican II. Massey Shepherd who turned revisionist after VII cannot be said to be an AC and Benedict is moving away from VII as fast as he is able. As an example I happen to know that soon the local RCC will not be using the VII "And also with you" anymore but something closer to "and with thy spirit". VII is dead. Seems the Episcopalians will be the only ones left saying that ridiculously meaningless substitution.

Parliament decided what version of the Articles were to stay or not as well as subsequent editions of the BCP in England. The Preface gives latitude to nonessentials. A Province of a different nation has the same freedom to chooses to publish it's own edition as have a number of the African Provinces who signed on for Gafcon. The 28' is the last legitimate American edition. Period. For a guy who claims to be a Protestant you sure want to impose (XXXVII.) a similar medieval Magisterium of England's BCP! I got news for you, in case you have not noticed, the 39 Articles have not kept the C of E from engaging in all kinds of buggery and heresy.

The Black Rubric is obsolete. No Anglo Catholic jurisdiction or scholar teaches what you claim they do and even the Pope's teaching is compatible with it. Nobody teaches the superstitions dealt with in the Articles of 1571, or earlier, regarding carnal flesh and blood that can be identified as such under a microscope. Are you a Church Re-enactor? Cause you livin' in de past. Do you actually know a modern day RC Professor/University that teaches that? You live only an hour or so from Dominican School in DC why not go up there and ask around? I suspect you will not because you would be relieved of your strawman quickly.

The problem with so many people who have no business commenting on such things is they lack any real education or understanding of the historical context of what they quote and or the reality of what the issues mean today. "The Bishop of Rome hath no jurisdiction in this Realm of England." No kidding! In case anybody hasn't noticed the Bishop of Rome has had no civil or temporal authority outside the Vatican since 1870-71!!!

Here is what Benedict (Cardinal Ratzinger) says (lifted from The Continuum where there is an current article or two on this very subject that destroys Joe's contention):
"...Concerning the Eucharist it is said to us: The substance is transformed, that is to say, the fundamental basis of its being...The Lord takes possession of the bread and the wine; he lifts them up, as it were, out of the setting of their normal existence into a new order; even if, from a purely physical point of view, they remain the same, they have become profoundly different".

Clearly, transubstantiation, as understood by the authors of the Articles of old is not what Rome is teaching today. Other issues are changing as well. Limbo has been dropped and the Pope has held discussions on Luther that really are rather amazing. The Articles also refer to Rome's desire to hold civil authority England. Obviously that is no longer the case. You want a dog to kick not the truth.

You cannot prove a thing you say here regarding the beliefs of RC's or AC's. Now I'll grant you there are Anglo Papists who do frolic around with more lace than grandma's living room doilies and hold views the Romans laugh about, but by and large, most AC's are simply prayer book catholics. If you would take the time to read AC authors you would discover they rail against the same 'papist' issues you do only they are more articulate and precise. Try Hall or Grafton. Both were very tough on nonbiblical accretions by the RCC.




Back up your contention with something more than "The Evangelical and the Anglo-Catholic cannot worship together because they have mutually opposing theologies." How about some specifics?

If Anglo Catholics and Anglo Protestants confess the theology of the Creeds, accept the Tradition ratified by the Councils of the undivided Church and can ascribe to the Homilies/Articles as can be proven by Scripture or edit them, by necessity of the age, to reflect todays problems and share a common liturgy and have latitude to use a duly authorized BCP until an updated edition can be worked out then what is the beef? If you want to beat a tambourine in your parish go right ahead, if you want to swing a thurible go for it!

BTW It seems you forgot to mention the the Black Rubric was opposed by Cranmer in no uncertain terms and was slipped in last minute by parties UNKNOWN meaning UNAUTHORIZED individuals, which is an illegal act as the B.R. had not been accepted by the authority of Parliament or Cranmer the Archbishop and many of those BCPS did not have the inserted page, in other words it was not even uniformly distributed. Perhaps you should buy a copy of MacCulloch's work. For that matter, the 1662 is not Cranmer's edition either! but here is an interesting demonstration of the back and forth of opinion and difference regarding the rubric (which demonstrates being Anglican could never possibly be the homogenous fairy tale Joe thinks it is)
"The Declaration on Kneeling was significantly altered in BCP (1662). This was done, it seems, to avoid any confusion between the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist on the one hand and the doctrine of transubstantiation on the other (Proctor and Frere, 1929: 394)". AS we see above Benedict's teaching is in harmony here.



"THEY ASCRIBED TO THE 39 ARTICLES OF RELIGION BUT DID NOT REALLY BELIEVE THEM (and that makes them liars and hypocrites)".

No it just means you have a rather flat earth understanding of the Articles. As a matter of fact I would caution you that you are becoming idolatrous about them. Scripture, Creed, Tradition, Ecumenical Councils, ... Articles are subservient to these not the other way around.

I think you are doing the pretending Joe and your argument is propped up on an outdated and unrealistic stereotype of Anglo Catholics and Romans as well as Evangelicals. If your faith is built on making boogymen it is not much of a faith. Romans 2: 21 You then who teach others, will you not teach yourself?


ps
"The necessity of Apostolic succession or confirmation, the power of a priest to forgive sins. "
Ok that is easy enough.

Matthew 16:19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.


Acts 8:16(For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.) 17Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost. 18And when Simon saw that through laying on of the apostles' hands the Holy Ghost was given, he offered them money,

John 20:22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost: 23Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.

\

Thanks for the rant.

OUR VIEW IS THAT THEY ARE SOME LIVING DOCUMENT TO CHANGE IN INTERPRETATION ACCORDING TO THE TIMES. LIKE AL GORE SEE THE CONSTITUTION AS A LIVING DOCUMENT.

You apperently see them as Obama's supporters see him. A blank page to write all your own feelings upon.

Question. Have you actually read the Homilies?

Sorry your comparison of Scripture demonstrates the rest of your arguments.
I checked out your website seems not too many people buying into your philosophy.
This is it right? http://www.epiphanyanglicanchurch.org/ REC Williamsburg, VA?
If not, don't matter, lets look at how an REC Church describes itself:
Formerly Church of The Blessed Redeemer in another communion, we became independent and spent several months praying for the Holy Spirit's lead and studying the alternatives for affiliation with a communion having traceable apostolic succession of Bishops and Priests and demonstrated belief in the authority of Holy Scripture. We wished to maintain liturgical, sacramental, evangelistic, and charismatic focus, and to retain Holy Eucharist as our central form of worship.

Pretty sensible I think.
Boy everybody is a "Roman" nowadays!

Cranmer opposed the Black Rubric does that make him Roman as well?

Well, folks, I doubt if anyone remembers, but I said in a thread here a while back that as realignment progressed you'd be seeing every snake belly-low, closet Calvinist coming out of the woodwork and looking to redefine "Anglicanism" as something any honest, intelligent observer can clearly see it is not, and never has been.

If you so-called 'Evangelicals' want to claim this or that is objectively wrong, well, it's a free country. But to make claims that terminology and understandings that have been part and parcel of Anglicanism since it's earliest emergence as a recognizable tradition are somehow alien to it, is just ridiculous. Whether you think you're doctrinally right or wrong, at least have the sense and intellectual honesty to recognize and admit that the positions you're arguing for don't represent classical Anglicanism anymore than those of the most extreme Anglo-Papalists on the other side.

Some of the arguments presented here are nothing more than arguments against the basic, defining tenets of historic Anglicanism itself, without which you'd be left with a church entirely unrecognizable as Anglican. If you don't like Papal primacy, etc, then don't be a Roman Catholic, because Roman Catholicism is what it is, and it intrisically includes that. Likewise, so is Anglicanism. It is what it is, and if that doesn't suit your taste then you'd be better served finding a different tradition to immerse yourself in, rather than arguing that black is white and cats are dogs. Centuries of precedence define Anglicanism, not temporaneous, abstract arguments. Please, just end the inanity of things like arguing we should wholeheartedly ignore everyone from the Caroline Divines to the Oxford Fathers when we try to establish an understanding of Anglican Eucharistic theology. The testimony of history regarding what Anglicanism was and is, and what it was not and is not, is clear enough to most reasonable people. I mean, what's next? Arguing Charles I was the last recognized monarch of the United Kingdom?

Dear Joe,

Thanks for taking the time to write. I appreciate the history. Very interesting.

I'd add a few things from what I see the Bible teaching relating to what you wrote me.

Don't forget human free will. One must hold to the holy Mystery of both God's sovereignty and human free will. If one denies either they will fall into heresy. God's sovereignty is so infinite that it somehow encompasses human free-will. The Bible teaches both, therefore I believe both even though I don't pretend to comprehend it.It was only the Gnostics that denied free-will. All of the men ordained by the Apostles and in succession affirmed free-will.

All who ever are saved, or ever will be, are saved by and through free grace prevailing over free will, by free grace securing the voluntary concurrence of free will.
God, our Father, does not commit spiritual rape, be does not force us to love Him. The Spirit draws and we yield. We participate with God.

All who are finally saved were from eternity chosen by God to salvation through sanctification of their hearts by faith in Christ. They were chosen to salvation by means of sanctification. Salvation is the end-- sanctification is the means. We yeild and submit to God's means of sanctification in our lives.

As Paul says, "Work out your salvation with fear and trembling."
Yet we should not despair in fear because it is God who is at work in us to do His good pleasure. He is the Coach, but we must run in order to finish the race and reach our final salvation.

God's grace enables us to excercise the OBEDIENCE of faith. (Romans 1:5)

God will judge every man according to his WORKS: those who in patience in WELL -DOING SEEK....He will give Eternal Life. Those who are factious and do not obey the truth but obey wickedness, there will be wrath.(Romans 2:6-10)

Those who walk by the flesh and mind the appettites of the body and seek after self indulgence of the sensibility will die in death. (Romans 8:7-12)

Those who walk by the Spirit, and mind the Spirit, and produce the fruit of the Spirit, will receive no condemnation but rather peace and life instead. (Romans 8:1-6)

"We are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for GOOD WORKS." (Ephesians 2:10)

Paul taught that we are not justified by works of the Old Covenant Mosaic Law, but we are saved by faith working in love. We are saved by works of the NewCovenant Law of the Spirit, through Faith.

As James said, "You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone." (James 2:24)

But James was not speaking of the Old Covenat Mosaic Law, but the Law of the Spirit; Faith working in Love.

Joe, You said,
"One cannot apply the Levitical law concerning the cultus of the tabernacle and the temple to the Church".
We do not follow the Levitical Priesthood and temple. Our priests are priests after the order of Melchizedek, the Great Shem, the righteous firstborn of Noah, who served Bread and Wine to Abraham. Christ is our Great High Priest. Our priest serve at the Altar of the heavenly temple who is Christ Himself.

Hebrews 13: 10 says, "We have an ALTAR from which those who serve the tent have no right to eat." We eat the bread and drink the Wine at the Altar of the New Covenant where Jesus' one sacrifice , once offered, is made present.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And should the priests after the order of Melchizedek wear vestments as the Old Covenant priests were commanded ?

"John, who reclined on the Lord's breast, became a priest wearing the petalon, a martyr, and a teacher. He rests at Ephesus." Polycrates 190 AD ( The Septuagint uses the word petalon to refer to the breastplate worn by the Jewish High Priest).

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Joe, you said, "The 1662 Book of Common Prayer makes it clear that forgiveness of sin is an act of God and not man. "

True , only God forgives sins, but Jesus gave the Apostles His authority to forgive sins, through Him, as representatives. (John 20:23)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Joe, you said , " There is nothing in the Scriptures that teaches transubstantiation or even consubstantiation."
Those words are man's attempts to define a Mystery, as you say. Just as Augustine said that the only reason we use the word "persons" to help define the Trinity is to prevent us from remaining mute.

I personally do not use these words but prefer the "Real Presence" of Christ in the Eucharist; for the Bread and Wine are truly Hid Body and Blood. The Scriptures teach that the Bread and the Wine indeed His Body and Blood.( 1 Corinthians 10:16; 1 Corinthians 11:27; Matthew 26:26-30; Mark 14;22-26; Luke 22;14-20 )

In the context of the Passover and the prefigured Eucharist, Jesus said that unless you eat His Body and Drink His Blood you have no life in you. ( John 6).

Ignatius, ordained and trained by John said, "....breaking one and the same bread, which is the medicine of immortality, and the antidote to prevent us from dying, so that we should live forever in Jesus Christ."

Jesus said the same thing in John 6

Ignatious said of the Gnostics, "They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not believe that the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ. Those therefore who speak against this gift of God incur death."

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We rely only on Christ for our salvation. Yet it is the Church that is the God ordained channel of grace through which we are made members of God's Family and are fed to mature and grow in faith and love to reach our final salvation in glory. How could ones faith survive and preservere without preaching and teaching from the Scriptures, fellowship within the family Communion, grace through Eucharist, singing and working in love to support oneanother. ?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Joe, you asked a final question of me; "do you believe that Jesus is God incarnate ?"

I believe that Jesus is the Son of God. Jesus is God's Eternal Word incarnate.
We are to worship the Father, through the Son, and in the Spirit. We are not to worship earthly images of anything in heaven or on earth.We are not to worship the icons and paintings and scuptures in our Churches.

Blessings brother,

Artistree

Calm down Joe, If you can't take a poke don't give one.

I do not consider myself an AC and I certainly am no Roman. I am in an AC jurisdiction and happy, nobody has never taught the lies you promulgate. My church is 28' BCP (only canonical allowed version) and not the only one and no one has made demand we install a Tabernacle wear lace or swing incense, not that I agree with your conclusions on any of those things. I quote the Pope not because I have any interest in going to Rome but because he is a first rate theologian and if I am going to take the word of somebody or some Church about what they believe I am going to read what their highest authority says not what you say they say after all you said for me not to get my info from bloggers. That does not make me a Roman it makes me reasonable. They may not be doing somethings right but by and large they are doing better right now than the heirs of the Articles.

The Articles are dated but that certainly does not preclude them as a teaching tool and we use them with confirmands (oh yea you don't like confirmation). But as I said in the US no clergy has ever, since the days of Seabury, sworn an oath to them. Historical fact (A39 forbids such a thing anyway). And one wonders why? Perhaps they too saw them as a Settlement for a particular age and circumstance. Funny how they were able to be updated to reflect different issues people other than Cranmer felt were important back in the 16th and 17th century kind of sloppy time line to claim inspiration though. If they were as you imply, cast in stone, then only Cranmer's first draft would be authentic. Seems though at least for that century it was in fact a living document... but no one in this century has made a case of why it should not be the same and address the concerns of this time. The Articles do not forbid transgendered TEC, C of E, Cof C clergy or woman's ordination. They do not address crossing provincial boundaries as we have today. They do not address innovations like the ACC or the ACC's manipulating the agenda of Lambeth to impose secularisms on the Communion. They do not forbid the hostile effluent poured out of the TV onto children to turn them against Christianity. They do not address a resurgent Islam. They mention nothing about the homosexual agenda.

The Articles have been in place during the adoption of the divorce culture, WO, skyrocketing abortion, relativism, and have in no way had any effect in staying these things.

When I made the off hand remark about Obama I am simply saying you are superimposing a Calvinist/Continental view on them not unlike what we have seen with the misplaced projection placed on Obama. Not that you are alone; the Puritans who vandalized churches and destroyed candles sticks, altars (as you point out) and used baptismal fonts for umbrella stands, white washed everything ceretainly would agree with you. Problem is they were foreigners or under the influence of foreigners. Problem is the Articles were also directed against their abuses.

Here is an excerpt from Article 37: "The King's Majesty hath the chief power in this Realm of England, and other his Dominions, unto whom the chief Government of all Estates of this Realm, whether they be Ecclesiastical or Civil, in all causes doth appertain, and is not, nor ought to be, subject to any foreign Jurisdiction.

The Princes of the realm had authority to keep the teaching of the early Church including the AS. The authority refers back to the Ecumenical Councils. But there really are no more Princes and no more Popes interfering in civil authority so what is the practical use of this Article for Evangelicals Joe?

Tell us!

What is the difference in explaining Princes have authority in our "realm" to a kid who lives in a Republic and that the Elements are going to reveal Christ's DNA under a microscope? Surely a guy who lives in WIlliamsburg where Patrick Henry faced down the King's Navy and had them return the arsenal back to the Magazine would understand the ridiculousness of claiming this Article to be of help to today's society! 39 that need to be sworn too to save us from our perils? Really! Sorry I for one am not a Monarchist. Well it may work if the kid is a Dungeons and Dragons fan... do they still play that on video?

From the Homilies:
"So our louing Sauiour hath ordeyned and established the remembrance of his great mercy expressed in his passion, in the institution of his heauenly Supper (Matthew 26.26-28), where euery one of vs must be ghestes, and not gazers, eaters, and not lookers, feeding our selues, and not hiring other to feed for vs, that we may liue by our owne meat, and not to perish for hunger, whiles other deuour all (1 Corinthians 11.21)".

When is the last time someone here paid somebody to go take the Communion for them? Most Episcopalians are tight wads anyway.


"But to come nigher to the matter: Saint Paul blaming the Corinthians for the prophaning of the Lords Supper, concludeth that ignorance both of the thing it selfe, and the signification thereof, was the cause of their abuse: for they came thither vnreuerently, not discerning the Lords Body".

Guess they thought it was memorial only, acting like those Puritans.


But here is something worth teaching:

The true vnderstanding of this fruition and vnion, which is betwixt the body & the head betwixt the true beleeuers and Christ, the ancient Catholike Fathers, both perceiuing themselues, and commending to their people, were not afraid to call this Supper, some of them, the salue of immortalitie and soueraigne preseruatiue against death: other, a deificall Communion: other, the sweet dainties of our Sauiour, the pledge of eternall health, the defence of Faith, the hope of the Resurrection: other, the food of immortalitie, the healthfull grace, and the conseruatorie to euerlasting life (Irenaeus, Bk. 4, Chap. 34; Ignatius, Epis. ad Ephes.; Dionysius?; Origen, Optat. Cyp. de Cana Domini; Athanasius, De Pec. in Spir. Sanct.). All which sayings both of the holy Scripture and godly men, truely attributed to this celestiall banket and feast, if we would often call to minde, O how would they inflame our hearts to desire the participation of these mysteries, and oftentimes to couet after this bread, continually to thirste for this food? Not as specially regarding the terrene and earthly creatures which remaine: but alwayes holding fast, and cleauing by Faith to the rocke whence wee may sucke the sweetnesse of euerlasting saluation? And to be briefe, thus much more the faithfull see, heare, and know the fauourable mercies of GOD sealed, the satisfaction by Christ towards vs confirmed, and the remission of sinne established. Here they may feele wrought the tranquilitie of conscience, the increase of Faith, the strengthening of hope, the large spreading abroad of brotherly kindnesse, with many other sundry graces of GOD. The taste whereof they cannot attaine vnto, who be drowned in the deepe durtie lake of blindnesse and ignorance. From the which (O beloued) wash your selues with the liuing waters of GODS word, whence you may perceiue and know, both the spirituall food of this costly Supper, and the happy trustings and effects that the same doth bring with it.

"Not as specially regarding the terrene and earthly creatures which remaine":- The Homilies
"even if, from a purely physical point of view, they remain the same," -Benedict

Hmmmm. Maybe plagiarism?

You wrote a home grown translation? Changed all those u's and v's back around? Good job.


I would wish you a blessed Advent but I am not sure if that is considered the same as having candles and such.

Is Merry Christmas Ok?

One last comment, the discussion here only goes to prove my initial post. The theologies of the Protestant, Reformed and Evangelical Anglicans is opposed to that of the Anglo-Catholics that they cannot in good conscience worship together. Though they may be able to support each other in certain issues, such as moral issues. To put them in the same church with the same government would require a form of liberalism in which they would be literally committing theological suicide. How could for example an Evangelical bishop celebrate mass in an Anglo-Catholic parish? He doesn't believe what they do and doesn't practice what they do, and vice versa, the Anglo-catholic bishop would disrespect his position to celebrate the Lord's Supper in an Evangelical Church. These matters are not adiaphora.
May the light of the Gospel of Jesus Christ light our way.
joe