http://www.anglican-mainstream.net/?p=12518#more-12518
[Anglican Mainstream] 5 July 2009--In his Address to the Assembly, Bishop Keith Ackerman said, "We are giving birth to the promise of a secure life as orthodox Anglicans in a new province which will be born next week in Fort Worth."
FiF/NA is now a two pronged effort:
1. Those who are associated and affiliated parishes, both in and out of TEC. This prong will be represented in ACNA. Its purpose will be to help TEC parishes get out, and to witness to the consensus of the undivided Church of the first millennium.
2. A Missionary Diocese of All Saints, in formation. Father William Ilgenfritz will be consecrated as its Bishop on August 22. This Diocese is one of the 28 jurisdictions in ACNA. The Missionary Diocese of All Saints will witness, along with many others in ACNA, to the consensus of the undivided Church of the first millennium.
The Missionary Diocese of All Saints, along with other like minded dioceses, will be free to form a sub-province within ACNA, with the following safeguards, guaranteed by the ACNA Constitution and Canons:
1. Integrity of Holy Orders
2. Synod for the sub-province, as desired
3. Traditional Anglo-Catholic theological education
4. Separate ecumenical relations, if desired
These are the safeguards that FiF/UK proposes for a third province of the C of E. A third province would be in the C of E, but as separate as it needs to be regarding these four points. In other words, a sub-province would relate to ACNA as the third province would relate to the C of E.
Where does the ACNA Constitution and Canons permit the Missionary Diocese of All Saints to have seperate ecumenical relations from the ACNA?
4 comments:
Sunday, July 5, 2009
Mr. Paul Hewitt, SSC/FiFNA and Unionism with Rome
Although we had this article earlier from field-intel ops, Virtue has posted this yesterday or so.
http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=10750
First, it comes from Mr. Paul Hewitt of the SSC. Alarm bells should be ringing for Protestant and Reformed Churchmen. The SSC was the front-guard shock troops of the 19th and 20th century anti-Reformationists. We recommend all of Mr. Walter Walsh's works through http://www.books.google.com/ for an introduction to the issue.
Second, Mr. Hewitt corresponds with, and without rebuttal from, a host of Churchmen from the Reformed Episcopal Church. Compromise has come to be viewed as normative for the REC.
Third, it is amazing the protection afforded the SSC-Anglo-Romans. Here’s the fourfold guarantees. (1) Integrity of Holy Orders (2) Synod for the sub-province, as desired (3) Traditional Anglo-Catholic theological education, and (4) Separate ecumenical relations, if desired. This protectionism has long been noted by Robin Grant Jordan at http://www.anglicansablaze.blogspot.com/ and http://www.heritageanglicalnetwork.wordpress.com/. We've noted in other posts that VOL is protected by biased moderators; the ACs surely take care of their own.
(continued)
Fourth and listen closely. Paul Hewitt says: “Also, ACNA cannot be thought of as a static entity. It is part of a world-wide movement, the re-alignment of Anglicans and believing Christians of all streams…. will rally Evangelicals and Anglo-Catholics in London next month, to join in a common witness to the Gospel and the One Great Tradition. Moreover, as Archbishop Duncan said, "God isn't just bringing Anglican Christians together.” It has long been a characteristic of Anglo-Romans in their desire for recognition by and union with Rome. Here’s Paul hinting at it.
The ECT-group, including Jim Packer, would agree. Jim Packer is entirely outside the theology and spirit of the Reformers, Englishmen included. Those men would have no place in the new ACNA and would roust Mr. Hewitt from the Catholic and Reformed Church. Although Anglicans have forgotten and abandoned their Reformation-roots, it is troubling to see a wider “evangelical” group of men sign the ECT.
Fifth, Mr. Hewitt through FiFNA embraces other Anglo-Roman communions. How this is reconciled with the Thirty-nine Articles is well….it isn't reconciled with them or the theology of the Reformed Church of England, no matter what the revisionists say.
(cont'_
Sixth, without being explicit, Mr. Hewitt “hints” at what we noted in paragraph four above. Let him speak. “I believe that God is bringing together the various facets of the movement, the great reform that began in St. Louis in September of 1977, which is in turn a part of the greater re-alignment of Anglicanism, and of the entire Body.” SSC-men have always, as a matter of history, longed for a realignment of the entire body, under Rome if possible.
Notice the hubris when Mr. Hewitt ascribes to himself and the FiFNA this messianic role. They, Paul and company, are the vanguard of the army. They are leading us, as the forward-looking eyes. As a retired military officer (who worshipped with an USMC General this morning in fact), Generals and senior officers move out in advance to oversee the big picture. That is what Paul is telling us. Let the elect take heed.
Paul has the eagle-eyes and the vision as the Pope would have it. This is a call to a false Gospel.
Paul says two things below:
1. Fighting for unionism until this is achieved: “…the consensus of the undivided Church of the first millennium, the paradigm for unity endorsed by Pope John Paul II: as we enter the third millennium, we overcome the divisions of the second by embracing the consensus of the first."
2. “….sharing the experience and the lessons of our many years in the wilderness as a reconnaissance to the main body of the army.”
(cont')
Let the true Catholic and Reformed Church beware of this false Gospel and call to union with Rome. It is standard SSC-stuff for those who read. We once expected things in the old REC; that day is over; we cannot rely on Christianity Today or the other venues of Anglican advertisement.
Seventh, we insist on charity and fairness to and with our theological opponents. This scribe insists on it. He shall insist on it from Churchmen on his own side of the theological fence. Of course, we are offended, even angry, at this hubris. Yet, charity must inform our comments. Yet, we assuredly cannot follow Mr. Hewitt’s theology (women’s ordination is a speck in the eye compared to the beams in the Anglo-Roman eyes). While we insist on being kind, we must resist Anglo-Romanism while being kind to them; authentic and Reformational Anglicanism still has enough beams in its own eyes; let us work our issues out with consistency and then remove the two-by-fours and pinetrees in the eyes of the Anglo-Romewardizers.
It does no good to be angry and ugly while disagreeing with an opponent. All one gains is anger and closed communications. In being kind, yet disagreeing, we can at least talk AND disagree at the end of the day. The latter comports with elemental charity without theological compromise.
No Reformation Churchman can possibly make missional, ecclesiastical or common cause with Mr. Hewitt. This is said with as much charity as this scribe can muster.
Paul’s article is below.
http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=10750
Post a Comment