Continuing Anglicanism & Churchmanship

[mark46]

There has been an outbound trickle for some time, despite the claims of some to the contrary. Now, it appears that trickle will become a stream. ACNA has other issues too: unchecked Pentecostalism, wide-spread disdain for a prayer book, and an apathy toward confirmation (and confession) in some constituencies.

Anglican Church in North America

I'm not sure whether the use of the ACNA liturgy will be more or less than the use of the 1979 BCP by those in TEC. ditto for the apathy toward confirmation and confession.

Pentecostalism is a ACNA problem that isn't experienced by TEC. But then, TEC has problems not experienced by ACNA.

 

[mark46]

I agree with his conclusion if not his argument. It's an all or nothing proposition. Real world experience has proven over and over that provinces eventually drift into ordaining women to all three orders of ministry.

So, a diocese or province should avoid having female deacons because this may lead to having female archbishops?

 

[Shane R]

So, a diocese or province should avoid having female deacons because this may lead to having female archbishops?

My jurisdiction had the Canon theologian prepare a paper on this subject for presentation at the last GC. A distinction was made between the lay order of deaconess and ordination to Holy Orders. If you read the REC canons (which were commended for our consideration by the Abp.), this distinction is carefully drawn. The Declaration of St. Louis and some of the Continuing provinces are amenable to this understanding of the deaconess as well - basically, she has a ministry, but no sacerdotal function. Of course, the ACNA has a large population that would probably not recognize any sacerdotal function for any ordinands. And the document that was released a couple of months ago prior to your recent bishop's conclave reveals this dizzying array of ecclesiological positions - I plowed through reading the whole thing.

 

[thecolorsblend]

I agree with his conclusion if not his argument. It's an all or nothing proposition. Real world experience has proven over and over that provinces eventually drift into ordaining women to all three orders of ministry. Why the ACNA thinks she can defy gravity is much in discussion among American traditionalists. Some of our bishops look upon the recent ACNA decision, or lack thereof, as an incredible gift of stupidity.

Apparently it was a bit of a tactical decision. Female deacons was the most some people could agree on and the least other people would demand. Arguing the point beyond that would've killed ACNA in the crib.

So basically in thirty years ACNA will be where TEC was in the 90's.

an apathy toward confirmation (and confession) in some constituencies.

I think it's common among a lot of the clergy too. When I was considering confirmation (because if it's worth doing, it's worth doing right) at my old ACNA parish, the pastor gave me a book and told me I would be automatically confirmed after reading it. I'm not criticizing him. He's a great guy and a good priest but I was a bit surprised that a sacrament was being treated so casually.

 

[Paidiske]

Confirmation is not a sacrament for Anglicans.

 

[Shane R]

Confirmation is not a sacrament for Anglicans.

And there shall none be admitted to Holy Communion, until such time as he be confirmed, or be ready and desirous to be confirmed. (1928 BCP, American)

The more typical practice conforms to this statement: Our fellow Christians of other branch's of Christ's Church, and all who love our Divine Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ in sincerity, are affectionately invited to the Lord's Table. (REC Prayer Book) My own priest makes the statement, "If you can confess the Nicene Creed with us, you are welcome to receive communion." I don't much like it because he assumes baptism, which I have found many confused folk in American Evangelical culture have not received, though they have come to study church history or are just sick of repetitively bad Contemporary worship services and are exploring Anglicanism, Lutheranism, Catholicism, or Orthodoxy.

But surely, even in Australia, there are Anglo-Catholics who affirm seven sacraments? I think the Articles waffle on the question by making two normative and the other five hazy. Interestingly, Melancthon proposed more than seven in his proto-Lutheran systematic theology, while recognizing that not all would be experienced by all Christians (most notably: matrimony and Holy orders).

 

[Paidiske]

But surely, even in Australia, there are Anglo-Catholics who affirm seven sacraments? I think the Articles waffle on the question by making two normative and the other five hazy. Interestingly, Melancthon proposed more than seven in his proto-Lutheran systematic theology, while recognizing that not all would be experienced by all Christians (most notably: matrimony and Holy orders).

In Australia, it has become common for people to be admitted to communion long before they're ready for confirmation.

I've heard Anglo-Catholics here debate whether marriage or confession or ordination ought to be considered a sacrament. The Society of Catholic Priests affirms seven sacraments, which I've heard some quite catholic clergy give as their reason for refusing to join.

My own take on it (which is pretty mainstream here) is that the articles affirm two sacraments and note that the others are admission to states of life or pastoral rites, but not sacraments.

Interestingly, I remember one lecturer of mine arguing that there's a better Scriptural case for exorcism as a sacrament than confirmation, since Christ specifically commanded his disciples to exorcise!

 

[gordonhooker]

And there shall none be admitted to Holy Communion, until such time as he be confirmed, or be ready and desirous to be confirmed. (1928 BCP, American)

The more typical practice conforms to this statement: Our fellow Christians of other branch's of Christ's Church, and all who love our Divine Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ in sincerity, are affectionately invited to the Lord's Table. (REC Prayer Book) My own priest makes the statement, "If you can confess the Nicene Creed with us, you are welcome to receive communion." I don't much like it because he assumes baptism, which I have found many confused folk in American Evangelical culture have not received, though they have come to study church history or are just sick of repetitively bad Contemporary worship services and are exploring Anglicanism, Lutheranism, Catholicism, or Orthodoxy.

But surely, even in Australia, there are Anglo-Catholics who affirm seven sacraments? I think the Articles waffle on the question by making two normative and the other five hazy. Interestingly, Melancthon proposed more than seven in his proto-Lutheran systematic theology, while recognizing that not all would be experienced by all Christians (most notably: matrimony and Holy orders).

There most certainly are Anglicans who affirm the seven sacraments, but also affirm only two were instituted by Jesus (Gospel Sacraments) Baptism and the Lords Supper. Some Theological colleges are obviously disowning the other five which are not Gospel sacraments which are Penance, Confirmation, Holy Matrimony, Holy Orders and Extreme Unction or so it seems given some of the comments I have read in the forum previously. I was formed in an Anglo Catholic Parish and we were taught there were seven sacraments as described above. For some reason some think the word sacrament only applies to those seven which have been affirmed as Gospel and Lesser Sacraments, actually a sacrament is a thing of sacred significance as well an outward sign of an spiritual grace.

This little poem that was attributed to St Francis of Assisi pretty much sums up a the other type of sacrament for me:

The Sacraments
I once spoke to my friend, an old squirrel, about the Sacraments —
he got so excited.

and ran into a hollow in his tree and came
back holding some acorns, an owl feather,
and a ribbon he found.

And I just smiled and said, “Yes dear,
you understand:

Everything imparts His grace.

Francis of Assisi

 

[gordonhooker]

In Australia, it has become common for people to be admitted to communion long before they're ready for confirmation.

I've heard Anglo-Catholics here debate whether marriage or confession or ordination ought to be considered a sacrament. The Society of Catholic Priests affirms seven sacraments, which I've heard some quite catholic clergy give as their reason for refusing to join.

My own take on it (which is pretty mainstream here) is that the articles affirm two sacraments and note that the others are admission to states of life or pastoral rites, but not sacraments.

Interestingly, I remember one lecturer of mine arguing that there's a better Scriptural case for exorcism as a sacrament than confirmation, since Christ specifically commanded his disciples to exorcise!

We will have to continue to agree to disagree on the sacraments and as a matter of fact I totally agree with your lecturer exorcism is a sacrament it simply did not make it to the list. One the reason I do not normally make lists - once you do you either find something else that should be added to - or you find someone who says a particular items should not be on the list. The boom! the mystery is missed again.

 

[gordonhooker]

Confirmation is not a sacrament for Anglicans.

That is not quite correct it may not be called a sacrament by some Anglicans - I know lots who believe otherwise.

 

[Paidiske]

Some Theological colleges are obviously disowning the other five which are not Gospel sacraments which are Penance, Confirmation, Holy Matrimony, Holy Orders and Extreme Unction or so it seems given some of the comments I have read in the forum previously.

I'm not sure whether it's fair to blame the colleges for this one. At mine this was something where not even all the staff would have agreed, and their interaction gave the students room to explore our own views as well. But "the college" wasn't taking a definitive position one way or the other.

It's true that the curriculum emphasised some; I never had a class on penance at college, for example (and I think that's a grievous oversight!), but that's not so much disowning penance as leaving it for post-ordination training (not done by the colleges).

 

[mark46]

I'm not sure whether it's fair to blame the colleges for this one. At mine this was something where not even all the staff would have agreed, and their interaction gave the students room to explore our own views as well. But "the college" wasn't taking a definitive position one way or the other.

It's true that the curriculum emphasised some; I never had a class on penance at college, for example (and I think that's a grievous oversight!), but that's not so much disowning penance as leaving it for post-ordination training (not done by the colleges).

You went to a Anglican theological college that never taught anything about penance? IMHO, this would be a theological college to avoid.

 

[Paidiske]

You went to a Anglican theological college that never taught anything about penance? IMHO, this would be a theological college to avoid.

Well, I can guarantee you the other one in my diocese definitely didn't! (I was at the more catholic of the two).

Now, to be fair, two things should be said; when I raised that as an issue staff agreed there should be a class on it and saw the lack. But due to various other constraints it didn't happen in my time. And also that we were very thoroughly trained on it in our year as deacons (before we could hear confessions), but that wasn't done by the college.

So by the time I was priested I felt ready for that. And there is always a problem for colleges that there are more things they could and probably should do than they can squeeze into our limited curriculum. I recently heard one academic at college saying he'd ideally have candidates as for twice as long as he does, for proper formation. But they have to work with what they have...

 

[gordonhooker]

Paidiske I can understand why there needed to be some rationalisation of theological colleges under umbrella Universities mainly for reasons of Government funding. Now in our diocese because of the shortage of Priests they are talking about ordination formation being reduced from 4 years to 3 years if they believe the candidate is ready, and leaving the rest to post ordination training. I don't agree with that idea because that post ordination training really never happens in reality, a young priest ends up at a parish that probably really needs two young assistant curates and the training never really happens as it would have in formation. There is a lot to said for denominational seminaries but our Anglican tradition is simply too broad to have a single entity.

 

[Paidiske]

I must give Melbourne credit on this; they take post-ordination training seriously and the quality of it is, on the whole, quite good. But I can see why in geographically more dispersed dioceses it would be much harder to do well.

The perennial question is: how much training is enough? And what should be included? And there really are not simple answers to that!

 

[Deegie]

In my core liturgy sequence at seminary, the focus was clearly on Baptism and Eucharist. We discussed Confirmation quite a bit in that sequence, but mostly because of its complicated historical relationship to those other two. We talked a fair bit about Ordination in several classes just because it was so relevant to us. But the other three (yes, I'm a seven sacrament person) were only covered in any depth in a Pastoral Liturgies class which I took as an elective. There we planned weddings and funerals, and heard mock confessions. Both most students would have graduated without any of that.

 

[gordonhooker]

I must give Melbourne credit on this; they take post-ordination training seriously and the quality of it is, on the whole, quite good. But I can see why in geographically more dispersed dioceses it would be much harder to do well.

The perennial question is: how much training is enough? And what should be included? And there really are not simple answers to that!

For an Anglican in formation I would suggest Anglican foundations including the Oxford Movement should be a core subject.

 

[Paidiske]

For an Anglican in formation I would suggest Anglican foundations including the Oxford Movement should be a core subject.

Yes. We get too many clergy coming from other denominations who never really stop being Baptist (or whatever it was they were before) in approach.

For that unit we did cover the Oxford movement, but as one in a series of developments within Anglicanism all of which are important in making it what it is today.