ACNA and the Sacraments?

[file13]

You are misunderstanding my statements. First of all, I'm not saying that the 39 Articles don't have a Calvinist influence. Second, the Articles went through several revisions, the version mentioned on the theology section of the ACNA - the one that you quoted to me - specifically says "1571..."

Fair enough. I apologize for the misunderstanding on my part.

Here's my point: the 39 Articles are not the only standard that Anglican clergy make vows to uphold. The 1662 BCP (as well as the other standards that I mentioned previously) is also included among the doctrinal standards that the clergy affirm, both in the CofE and the ACNA. Because the 1662 and the 39 Articles have different nuances in their theologies, there is a range of doctrine that could be said to be in keeping with them, which depends on how much you emphasize one over the other etc.

Will do brother. But, FWIW, I don't see your point about different nuances between the 1662 and the 39 Articles because the 39 Articles are a part of the 1662 BCP. But besides that, the other standards outside of the BCP itself are in doctrinal accord with the articles (i.e. Apostoles creed, Nicaea, Athanasius or the 1st four councils). So really the only area it seems where you'd run into possible conflict would be between the implied theology in the prayer book rites and the explicit articles. It seems a given to me that if (and keep that "if" in mind) we are to take the articles in their literal and grammatical sense and they do represent an authoritative (if incomplete) statement of faith for the CoE, then if there's any ambituity in the BCP rites (such as what you brought up earlier about regeneration in baptism), it seems pretty obvious that you'd see if the Articles have anything to say about the issue since the Articles are explicit. This seems to clearly be the most reasonable approach.

So unless there's something in the BCP that's not covered in the articles (and I'm sure there probably is), then I could see some need for nuance. But if the issue is covered by the articles, I think it's pretty clear where the church stands (well, at least did and perhaps, should probably stand).

But ya know, these are just my thoughts on the matter since it's not really my fight anymore.

I'm not saying that historic Anglican doctrine can mean anything that anyone wants it to mean, and I'm also not saying that it can mean Roman Catholicism without a Pope. They do preclude certain theologies, such as "syngergism." The doctrinal standards of Anglicanism were written to exclude Catholicism as well as Anabaptism, however they were intentionally drafted to bring the middle together.

I'm with ya brother.

Anyways, thanks for letting me chime in. I'm not in the ACNA, but I have some friends who are, and really do hope they can some to some kind of solid unity. As is, things seem pretty tenuous.

 

[file13]

Ok, I've re-read your post, and I think I see where things got confused. The 39 Articles are not the only authoritative source of doctrine for Anglicans (and for ACNA)....

Oh no worries brother. I just brought this up in the post I just wrote, so I won't repeat it here.

Sorry for the confusion, I think we were just reasoning with different premises.

Ditto!

 

[RadixLecti]

If anyone's interested I've resumed our discussion of Baptism and the 39 Articles in the thread "Baptism Saves . . . "

 

[julian the apostate]

Hey guys. It's been a while since I've posted, but I still follow the board from time to time. My question is for people involved with ACNA:

What do you say that the sacraments of Baptism and the Eucharist "do"? In other words, would you say that they actually play a role in causing our salvation and sanctification, or would you say that they have some other purpose?

i dunno
are their sacraments even valid?

 

[Albion]

i dunno
are their sacraments even valid?

Yes.

 

[julian the apostate]

Yes.

for canterbury?

one of their bishops , when he was a local cult leader years ago (yorba linda ca)

i spoke with him ,, i was in some turmoil as to the state of conservative christianity

i asked him,, could he recommend a church to me that wouldnt think i was a son of satan for the fact that i thought evolution was a fact

he couldnt even wrap his head around the question-- he belonged to a church that claimed regularly that they were growing limbs raising the dead and so on
the vineyard - i couldnt wrap my head around that

i told him i thought i was going to become an anglican and why- he of course thought i was nuts- i thought i made a pretty good argument
now of course i regret that and beg forgiveness

now he is bishop todd hunter
and still a grand nitwit professional christian

if you dont call out wingnut christian "leaders" we are giving tacit approval to them
and if you are wrong and they really are good in what they do, they will live


consider if Jesus endorsing the pharisees might have changed things a bit


so no

they arent valid

they are out of communion and think canterbury is a nest of vipers and not ashamed to say it

 

[Albion]

for canterbury?

2/3 of the provinces/national churches belonging to the Anglican Communion have recognized the ACNA and many have established full communion. That would not happen without valid orders, but of course it depends on whether or not you value the judgment of member churches of that organization (Anglican Communion).

now he is bishop todd hunter
and still a grand nitwit professional christian

if you dont call out wingnut christian "leaders" we are giving tacit approval to them
and if you are wrong and they really are good in what they do, they will live


consider if Jesus endorsing the pharisees might have changed things a bit


so no

they arent valid

they are out of communion

Bishop Todd Hunter does not belong to ACNA. He is a bishop of the Anglican Church of Rwanda's mission in the Americas, and that church is a full and regular member of the Anglican Communion. So it looks as though almost nothing you've said here is correct.

 

[julian the apostate]

anglican mission acna hard to keep track
he is still a nitwit
but has something changed when i wasnt paying attention

Archbishop Carey's comments from his final address to the Anglican Consultative Council in 2002 were:
I have been clear in my condemnation of the schism created by AMiA and the actions of those Primates and other bishops who consecrated the six bishops. Sadly, I see little sign of willingness on the part of some bishops in the Communion to play their part in discouraging teaching or action that leads some conscientious clergy to conclude that they have no option other than to leave us for AMiA.[12]
Many in the AM took issue with the above statements, holding that they were very much a part of the Anglican Communion through the oversight of the Church of the Province of Rwanda. Nonetheless, the AM was not formally in communion with the Church of England or recognized as being in communion with the worldwide Anglican Communion by any of its four instruments of communion. The current Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, has taken the same line on the standing of the AM by refusing to invite any Anglican Mission bishop or representative to the 2008 Lambeth Conference.

 

[Albion]

anglican mission acna hard to keep track

It's still a good idea to do a little homework if you're going to blister any church as invalid, don't you think?

 

[julian the apostate]

ROFLMAO
i need to keep up with these things,,,

the AMiA is no longer under Rwanda then what are they? a rolling schism


The Anglican Mission in the Americas (AMIA), the first group of Episcopalians to leave The Episcopal Church over a crisis of faith and leadership more than a decade ago, has withdrawn from the Anglican Province of Rwanda following a breakdown in talks between Rwanda and the Anglican Mission, which was exploring the possibility of reorganizing as a Missionary Society and no longer simply as a Personal Prelature.

The chairman of the Anglican Mission, the Rt. Rev. Charles H. Murphy, III announced yesterday that he and seven of his fellow Anglican Mission bishops, along with retired Bishop John Rodgers, have resigned from the Anglican Province of Rwanda due to a strong difference in opinion about the future structure and identity of the Anglican Mission. You can read the letter of resignation here: http://www.theamia.org/am_cms_media/letter-of-resignation-from-the-house-of-bishops.pdf

 

[Albion]

ROFLMAO
i need to keep up with these things,,,

the AMiA is no longer under Rwanda then what are they? a rolling schism

Part of that body is in the Rwandan church and part in the Church in Congo. Both of those, you know, are members of the Anglican Communion and therefore have valid orders.

The Anglican Mission in the Americas (AMIA), the first group of Episcopalians to leave The Episcopal Church over a crisis of faith and leadership more than a decade ago

No, the Episcopal Missionary Church came before them, and the Continuing Anglican churches before it, and the Reformed Episcopal Church before all of these. The bleeding of the TEC is an ongoing phenomenon.

 

[RadixLecti]

are their sacraments even valid?

Along the lines of the OP . . .

1. What would you (or anyone else who wants to jump in) say that a "valid" sacrament actually does, if anything?

and

2. If a denomination does not have "valid" sacraments, what does that mean with respect to the spiritual state of their members? i.e. does that mean that those in the Episcopal Church or the Roman Catholic Church (presuming those groups have "valid" sacraments) are any more "saved" or are somehow closer to God than someone from the United Church of Christ, the United Methodist Church, or the Presbyterian Church?

 

[julian the apostate]

Part of that body is in the Rwandan church and part in the Church in Congo. Both of those, you know, are members of the Anglican Communion and therefore have valid orders.


are you sure, ?
An 11-year-old denomination that has prided itself on its submission to majority-world leadership broke away from that leadership Monday. Amid a dispute over authority, bishops in the Anglican Mission in the Americas (AMIA) resigned from their positions in the Anglican Church of Rwanda.

Leaving Rwanda: Breakaway Anglicans Break Away Again | Christianity Today | A Magazine of Evangelical Conviction




No, the Episcopal Missionary Church came before them, and the Continuing Anglican churches before it, and the Reformed Episcopal Church before all of these. The bleeding of the TEC is an ongoing phenomenon.

i know i was randomly copying and pasting

 

[julian the apostate]

i sorta like these guys

"You have constantly disregarded the decision and counsels of the House of Bishops," Rwaje wrote to Murphy, giving him a week to submit to the Rwandan bishops' authority. "You have misused the authority given to you. … You have insulted our house using abusive language (knucklehead, reversed colonialism, lawlessness, etc.). You have dogged [sic] questions of financial transparency."
This week (Dec. 5), Murphy responded by resigning his leadership position in the Province of Rwanda. In his resignation letter, he said AMIA's relationship with the African church was a "voluntary submission" that would not be renewed at the association's upcoming winter conference.
"In not renewing our voluntary submission to the Canons and Constitution of Rwanda, we recognize that we remain bishops of the Christ's One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church in good standing," Murphy wrote in a letter that listed eight other AMIA bishops —all but two—as endorsing his statements and similarly resigning their membership in Rwanda's House of Bishops.

 

[FreeinChrist]

MOD HAT

This thread has had a clean up. As a reminder, the site rules include:

Congregational Forum Restrictions, Christian Only Forums, and Off-Topic posts
Do not teach or debate in any Congregational Forum unless you are truly a member and share its core beliefs and teachings. Questions and fellowship are allowed, proselytizing is not.
​

 

[No Swansong]

for canterbury?








consider if Jesus endorsing the pharisees might have changed things a bit


so no

they arent valid

they are out of communion and think canterbury is a nest of vipers and not ashamed to say it

When did Canterbury become Rome? Being in communion with Canterbury is not necessary in order to have valid sacraments. Would you argue that the Roman Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Churches or the Oriental Orthodox Churches do not have valid sacraments?

 

[RadixLecti]

When did Canterbury become Rome? Being in communion with Canterbury is not necessary in order to have valid sacraments. Would you argue that the Roman Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Churches or the Oriental Orthodox Churches do not have valid sacraments?

That, and it's worth noting that the Episcopal Church was not in communion with Canterbury when it was founded. In some ways their situation was not unlike that of AMiA and ACNA in the way that they broke from the established church (the CofE) and then pursueded another "province" (Episcopal Church of Scotland) within Anglican Christianity to consecrate their schismatic American bishops.

 

[Albion]

It's a point worth considering. We go on thinking that the Anglican Communion--although it only represents about 2/3 of the world's Anglicans anyway--is somehow like a pope-less Papal organization. In reality, it is of recent origin and has virtually no enforceable standards. Rather than wring anyone's hands at its current problems, we might do better to contemplate that it and Anglicanism generally is undergoing a perfectly normal evolution to a looser worldwide federation not unlike those known by members of other families of faith...and quite possibly, we'll all be stronger for it. It's just hard to envision at this moment.