http://www.gafcon.org/news/primates_statement_on_vatican_offer/
[GAFCON] 10 Nov 2009--We have received the Archbishop of Canterbury’s letter informing us of the Pope’s offer of an ‘Apostolic Constitution’ for those Anglicans who wish to be received into the Roman Catholic Church. We believe that this offer is a gracious one and reflects the same commitment to the historic apostolic faith, moral teaching and global mission that we proclaimed in the Jerusalem Declaration on the Global Anglican Future and for this we are profoundly grateful.
We are, however, grieved that the current crisis within our beloved Anglican Communion has made necessary such an unprecedented offer. It represents a grave indictment of the Instruments of Communion whose very purpose is to strengthen and protect our unity in obedience to our Lord’s clear command. Their failure to fully address the abandonment of biblical faith and practice by The Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada has now brought shame to the name of Christ and seriously impedes the cause of the Gospel.
The Primates Council of the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans (GAFCON/FCA) is convinced, however, that Anglicanism has a bright future as long as we remain grounded in the Holy Scriptures and obedient to our Lord Jesus Christ’s call to reach the lost and make disciples of all nations teaching them to observe the whole Gospel. We also believe that there is room within our Anglican family for all those who hold true to the ‘faith once delivered to the saints’. We would like to encourage those Anglicans who are considering this invitation from the Roman Catholic Church to recognize that Anglican churches are growing throughout the world in strength and offering a vibrant testimony to the transforming work of Christ.
We are convinced that this is not the time to abandon the Anglican Communion. Our Anglican identity of reformed catholicity, that gives supreme authority to the Holy Scriptures and acknowledgement that our sole representative and advocate before God is the Lord Jesus Christ, stands as a beacon of hope for millions of people. We remain proud inheritors of the Anglican Reformation. This is a time for all Christians to persevere confident of our Lord’s promise that nothing, not even the gates of hell, will prevail against His Church.
+Peter Abuja,
Chairman,
GAFCON/FCA Primates Council
November 10, 2009
35 comments:
Peter said:
"We believe that this offer is a gracious one and reflects the same commitment to the historic apostolic faith, moral teaching and global mission that we proclaimed in the Jerusalem Declaration on the Global Anglican Future and for this we are profoundly grateful."
Same apostolic faith? Horrifically weak. Rome holds a FALSE GOSPEL, PERIOD!!!!
Would one of these fellas just please stand up and say that???
Peter said:
"Our Anglican identity of reformed catholicity, that gives supreme authority to the Holy Scriptures and acknowledgement that our sole representative and advocate before God is the Lord Jesus Christ, stands as a beacon of hope for millions of people. We remain proud inheritors of the Anglican Reformation. This is a time for all Christians to persevere confident of our Lord’s promise that nothing, not even the gates of hell, will prevail against His Church."
Hoorah! "Proud inheritors of the Anglican Reformation."
Will Jack of Texas say this? Will Keith of Quincy? Will the FIF- and SSC-men say this?
At least Peter did.
It's not a matter of being impolitic, impolite, or ill-mannered to say that "Rome's" Gospel is a false Gospel.
It's polite, loving, and well-mannered necessity to say this to steer people from Romanism, its abundant fictions, and its continuing adherence to Trent's Gospel.
The Confessional Lutherans have not yielded.
I believe this is more of Anglicanism's continuuing weakness--mildly, but charitably put.
This priest of the ACNA Diocese of Fort Worth, for one, counts himself a proud heir to the Anglican Reformation, sir. And there are more of us here than you think, I'll bet!
Indeed Rome's offer is gracious. The anglo-catholics do indeed need to join their true brothers and sisters on the other side of the Tiber. Let them go then burn the bridge. Unless the anglo-catholics give up their idolatry and man made up traditions which are the same as is Rome's, their fate and rewards are the same as Rome's. There is not enough difference between the two to justify a split. But maybe that is another tradition that the anglo-catholics can't give up. Reformed Protestant Anglican Christians cannot afford to continue being unequally yoked to the non-believer.
Tell us, Sir Tex Anglican, about the "proud inheritors of the Anglican Reformation" in Texas.
Want to hear it. All ears. And I'll have questions, for sure.
Let's hear it, shall we?
And give us the data on your leading Presbyter, Rev. Jack Iker of Fort Worth. And we'd like to hear about the ultra-Romewardizers in Texas.
Tell us too about the SSC-men in TX and their faith.
Peter of Africa seriously erred to say Rome represents the "same committment to the historic apostolic faith."
Sir Texas, do you agree with Peter of Africa? "The same historic aposotolic faith?" Would Jack agree?
Better, would the "English Reformers" agree with Peter?
I will leave Bishop Iker to speak for himself here, if he cares to on this issue.
But as for the English Reformers agreeing with Archbishop Peter that Rome shares the same apostolic faith as Anglicans, I submit this passage from Richard Hooker's "Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity," III, 1, 10:
"Notwithstanding so far as lawfully we may, we have held and do hold fellowship with them. For even as the Apostle doth say of Israel that they are in one respect enemies but in another beloved of God; in like sort with Rome we dare not communicate concerning sundry her gross and grievous abominations, yet touching those main parts of Christian truth wherein they constantly still persist, we gladly acknowledge them to be of the family of Jesus Christ; and our hearty prayer unto God Almighty is, that being conjoined so far forth with them, they may at the length (if it be his will) so yield to frame and reform themselves, that no distraction remain in any thing, but that we “all may with one heart and one mouth glorify God the Father of our Lord and Saviour,” whose Church we are."
RWF resumes: Sounds to me like Hooker would recognize Rome as adhering to sizable portions of the apostolic faith, Reformation, though they are in grave need of fundamental reform (which is my own position on Rome).
Of course, if the vehement comments of Joe Mahler and Reformation above are indication, the typical reader of Anglicans Ablaze may consider even the venerable Richard Hooker some sort of despised Romanizing Ritualist! :-)
And Hooker was dead wrong. And substantively inconsistent with the English Reformers who watched Trent develop...I'm trying to bring myself to re-read the dreary tome again.
He loved Calvin by the way, his veritable superior and of whom he said Calvin's comments were worth a 1000 Jeromes, Augustines, and Chrysostoms.
As Calvin wisely said, "If we could but settle for a half-Christ, we could sue for peace with Rome."
That is, while Rome routinely recites and confesses the Nicene Creed during her services, they vitiate and give the Christological lie to it by their sacerdotalism and soteriology.
Calvin had the eyes for it. Do you?
Where is the vehemence? In the tolerance of AC/Tractarians like Rev. Jack? I found Newman quite vehement beneath his exterior of reserve.
Ritualist? Stop it. This scribe uses the 1662 BCP daily and has been disciplined in the BCP for three decades. Just stop it.
Tex:
Maybe we can get you to do some book reviews on Calvin, Bullinger, Luther, Cranmer, Hooker, Ridley, Cranmer, Coverdale, Tyndale, Parker, Grindal, or Whitgift?
I'll read them. All ears.
Have you read all of Calvin? His 22-volume set of commentaries? Maybe some book reviews on Institutes? Would love to see it.
Or Luther's 58-volume set, the Am. Ed.?
We really need some context on the the Articles as interpreted by their historical context.
What do you think of ABC Grindal's letter to Bullinger in 1566, from London, to wit, that he and "the others" embraced the Helvetic Confession.
Any historical and accurate reviews by you, Peter from Africa, or Jack from Texas would be most welcomed by this scribe.
Thanks if you can add to the information on the English Reformers.
And who is "texanglican"?
I think the GAFCON statement is weak because it still upholds "historic apostolic succession", which is a fiction at best.
It would seem we've lost focus. The Lord Jesus did not go to the cross for Rome, England, Reformers, Catholics or any other human brand.
He went to the cross for the elect, those given to Him as the Fathers gift to the Son before the foundations of the world. God said it, that makes it true, I believe it because He enabled me to and now I live onto Him and that by His Grace.
If you believe you are right before Christ, put down your guns and live onto Him. The fruit your life bears will proclaim louder than the words of your mouth (fingers). Remember a false doctrine will drive your life with as much force as a sound doctrine, the fruit borne fromit is the difference. We must pray for those still in darkness, they cannot see, hear and understand until such time as the Lord gives them a heart of flesh.
Charlie,
I looked over that statement more than three times and I found no reference to the "historic apostolic succession." I did, however, find a reference to the "historic apostolic faith." "historic apostolic succession" and "historic apostolic faith" are not the same thing, as I understand these two concepts.
Robin, look again at points 6 & 7:
6. We rejoice in our Anglican sacramental and liturgical heritage as an expression of the gospel, and we uphold the 1662 Book of Common Prayer as a true and authoritative standard of worship and prayer, to be translated and locally adapted for each culture.
[Notice it says the 1662 BCP is "a" true and authoritative standard. In other words, it is not THE standard. In short, this is the out for the Anglo-Catholics.]
7. We recognise that God has called and gifted bishops, priests and deacons in historic succession to equip all the people of God for their ministry in the world. We uphold the classic Anglican Ordinal as an authoritative standard of clerical orders.
[The bishops, priests and deacons are "in historic succession." While the term "apostolic" is missing the concept is still there.]
Put those with point #2:
2. We believe the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to be the Word of God written and to contain all things necessary for salvation. The Bible is to be translated, read, preached, taught and obeyed in its plain and canonical sense, respectful of the church’s historic and consensual reading.
[Again, notice that the Bible is not said to be the FINAL authority but is to be read in light of "the church's historic and consensual reading." This does not say the church is a secondary authority. It implies that other views are possible, including the Tractarian view that the church is equal in authority to Scripture.]
Point 3:
3. We uphold the Thirty-nine Articles as containing the true doctrine of the Church agreeing with God’s Word and as authoritative for Anglicans today.
[Point three sounds great. But it does not say that the 39 Articles are to be interpreted in the light of the English and the Continental Reformations or in their plain meaning. Couple this with what I pointed out about the "historic succession" and the idea that Scripture is interpreted "respectful of the consensus of the church" and you have the formula for Anglo-Catholicism in dissembling and dissimulating form.]
GAFCON is weak and just another way of hiding the fact that Evangelicals are unwilling to stand up to the Anglo-Catholics but are willing to sell out the Gospel for the sake of a moral issue like homosexuality.
The issue is not homosexuality or other moral issues. The real issue is that AC-NA is still a theologically relativistic and theologically liberal organization. In short, it's a recipe for repeating over gain what has already happened in TEC and in Canada and the UK. The real issue here is the English Reformation, modernism, and postmodernism. The theology of N. T. Wright is even compromising the Presbyterians here with the Federal Vision and New Perspectives on Paul heresy.
Sydney is selling out the Gospel for a mess of pottage in my opinion. If you live long enough, you will see that I am right. I will even go so far as to say it will happen in our lifetime. You can see the indications of it many times over. David Virtue is already endorsing transexuals as legitimate and Sydney is ordaining women and allowing them to serve communion.
The fact that Sydney endorsed GAFCON with these serious sorts of compromises is enough to warrant suspicion. If the Reformed Episcopal Church can twist the truth and deny their own Declaration of Principles forbidding these sorts of things, what makes you think an ambiguous document like the GAFCON statement can halt the progression of liberalism and relativism which is already inherent in the document?
Sincerely in Christ,
Charlie
See:
Anglican Church League: GAFCON Statement
Yes, I know. I'm just a paranoid sectarian fundamentalist. I've been told that many times already:)
I would rather be a sectarian and sound the alarm than to go along with selling my soul to a secular organization like AC-NA. No, if I'm the only one I will still call an apostate "province" what it is: APOSTATE.
The AC-NA is no better than TEC. BOTH are apostate and secular organizations and I would as soon recommend someone join a satanic cult as to join either organization. The end result is the same: hell.
Sincerely yours in Christ,
Charlie
Ashley Null points out that the term "Reformed Catholic" is code for a particular view of Anglicanism which is not really reformed at all. It's a variation of the via media view.
Charlie
Charlie,
I assumed that you were referring to the GAFCON Primates statement on the Vatican offer, not the Jerusalem Declaration. The former contains no reference to historic apostolic succession.
As for your interpretation of the Jerusalem Declaration, I think that you need to read the GAFCON Theological Group's commentary on the Jerusalem Declaration, Being Faithful: The Shape of Historical Anglicanism Today, which has been approved by the GAFCON Primates as the official exposition of the Jerusalem Statement. The GAFCON Theological Group was commissioned to come up with an official exposition of the Jerusalem Declaration to provide clarification of the provisions of the Jerusalem Declaration and to avoid different individuals and groups promoting their own particular interpretation of the Jerusalem Declaration. I have read Being Faithful: The Shape of Historical Anglicanism Today and the GAFCON Theological Group's exposition of the Jerusalem Declaration does not support your particular interpretation of its provisions. Being Faithful: The Shape of Historical Anglicanism Today assiduously avoids any reference to "apostolic succession" in the Anglo-Catholic sense of the term. It insists that acceptance of the Thirty-nine Articles is essential to a genuine Anglican identity and that the theology of all liturgies used in the Anglican Communion must be measured against the standard of the 1662 Book of Common Prayer. It rejects Newman's reinterpretation of the Articles in a Romanward direction.
Robin,
I hope you will forgive me for not believing your interpretation of the Declaration.
Why mention "in historic succession" at all if it is not part of the agreement?
Charlie
Joe's right. This generous offer needs to be taken up by those who are in the Anglican church just because it has a nicer liturgy or because of personal sin. The A-C's need to have the courage of their conviction, just like Newman did, ultimately.
Charlie,
Read Being Faithful: The Shape of Historical Anglicanism Today. Your argument is with the GAFCON Theological Group, not me.
I am not interested in wrangling over what the provisions of the Jerusalem Declaration do or do not mean.
I'm not interested in arguing over the plain statements made in the Declaration itself. It says what it says. If Anglo-Catholicism proves anything it is that they are dissemblers and dissimulators. Anything they say in any Declaration or agreement is immediately suspect due to their post modern methods of interpretation.
Sincerely,
Charlie
Charlie,
Certainly the a-c's cannot be trusted to tell the truth. Their birth in the Oxford Movement was from the get go one of dissimulation and fraud. They took an oath declaring that they subscribed to the 39 Articles of Religion but in truth did not. They worked to claim that the Articles said something that they plainly did not and they practiced those thing condemned by them. A-c's can sign off on anything. We must not be hitched to them.
And lawlessly added Anglican Missals and, privately, Roman breviaries. Not just dissimulators, but energed and devoted anti-Reformationists.
Sola duplicita.
And due to Anglicanism's sola capitula, we have AC/TRACTO's to this day.
ACNA is a forlorn and ill-founded effort. Sola mixta. Sola confusa.
ACNA is the future of broadly orthodox Anglicanism in this country.
It is not the future of self-justifying pharisee-ism, or of Anglicans who think they know better than the 1662.
In case you missed it... Justification by faith alone IS the Gospel. Sola Fide! This means that ACNA is not only Pharisaical but it is an apostate church on the same order as the Roman Catholic Church or the Eastern Orthodox Church. ACNA is an Anglo-Catholic "secular" organization which barely tolerates Evangelicals as long as Evangelicals do not "dare" to say that faith plus works is heresy or that prayers to Mary and the saints is idolatry, etc., et. al.
I for one am not interested in false union with apostates and hypocrites who twist the Scriptures to their own destruction. They not only do not believe the Scriptures but they also distort the English Reformation, the 39 Articles and the 1662 Book of Common Prayer. I do not know of any other word for this except "apostasy."
I like the term Phil coined for Anglo-Catholicism: sola duplicita. Accurate and fitting.
Charlie
Charlie,
From the Internet accounts of attendance at GAFCON and the drawing up of the Jerusaelm Declaration, the Anglo-Catholics were in the minority. The UK Anglo-Catholics did not attend GAFCON and the US Anglo-Catholics returned from Jerusalem complaining about the Declaration. Jack Iker in public interview assured Anglo-Catholics in the ACNA that the Common Cause Theological Statement, not the Jerusalem Declaration, would be setting the direction of the ACNA.
As I pointed out earlier, the GAFCON Theological Group was commissioned to prepare a definitive exposition of the Jerusalem Declaration to prevent individuals and groups from putting their own spin on the Declaration, which has happened to past statements. It was recognized from the outset that the wording of the Declaration would need such exposition so that everyone would be on the same page. I think that you need to read that exposition of the Declaration before drawing any conclusions about the Declaration.
Robin:
Do you genuinely think the GAFCON Theological Group has any relevance to ACNA? Quite seriously.
I doubt it. Further, there are no disciplinary teeth in it. Mere words. Nice sounding, but irrelevant. Do you think otherwise?
If so, please make the case.
Thank God for my education pre-Episcopalian days...with the modest REC efforts afterwards. Thank God for my baptism, my parents, and my Reformed heritage.
And I can claim to be a "proud inheritor of the English Reformers," unlike Jack in Texas.
Don't have to rely on "sola fudga," "sola confusa," "sola two-steppa," and "sola duplicita."
Back to the original post re: Peter of Africa...claiming Rome has the "same" apostolic Gospel and, within a paragraph or so, boasts himself to be a "proud inheritor of the Anglican Reformation." It's "confused," quite confused. I want to howl every time I think of that charlie horse between Peter's ears.
"Sola confusa." But then, we have the resident theologian, Mr. Dom, to comfort, to assure, and to to inform us on the central tenets of the ACNA effort.
Tell us, Dom, what the answers should be.
No answers yet, Dom. Waiting. Must be two months now that I've been waiting for "your" answer.
I don't have the GAFCON Group's statement on the XXXIX Articles and the comment on the Declaration.
Won't buy it either. Have classics here to read, real classics.
Let them show me by their actions.
Talk is cheap.
Non verba, sed acta.
As Marines would (and do) say: "We have a leadership problem."
Phil, I agree. If the GAFCON statement and the Jerusalem statement does not believe in apostolic succession or require it, why is it mentioned in connection with the ordinal in the Jerusalem declaration without any qualifications at all? We have to go to the "fine print" of a commentary to find out if we've been sold out or not???
Please.
Charlie
Charlie,
My initial reaction to the phrase “in historic succession” in the seventh clause of the Jerusalem Declaration was similar to yours. However, I came to the conclusion that I might be making too much of that phrase. The clause emphasizes that God has called and gifted bishops, priests, and deacons to equip all the people of God for their ministry in the world. The emphasis upon God’s calling and gifting for a particular ministry in the clause suggests a Protestant view of ordination in which the rite of ordination constitutes a formal recognition of a particular individual’s calling to and gifting for a particular ministry. It is also reminiscent of the language of Canon 1.6 of the Canons of the Church of Nigeria (Anglican Communion):
“6. This Church holds that each of the three Orders of the Ministry - Bishops, Priests and Deacons - has particular duties in the Church and that this distribution of duties may rightly be attributed to the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Thus, the Bishops have a special responsibility and authority for the preservation of the truth of the doctrine of the Church for the purity of its life, and the worthiness of its worship; the Priests, in co-operation with and under the guidance of the Bishops have a special responsibility for preaching the word of God and administering the Holy Sacraments and generally for the cure of souls, and the Deacons have a special responsibility for the care of the poor and distressed, for the instruction of the young and the ignorant, and for giving assistance to the Priests in Divine Service.”
As Stephen Noll in the Internet debate over the meaning of clause three of the proposed Fundamental Declarations of the ACNA observed, the language of the Jerusalem Declaration is “descriptive” rather than “prescriptive.” If Noll is correct, then the qualifying phrase “in historic succession” is descriptive. It is also used in reference not just to bishops but also to priests and deacons. If it referred only to bishops, then one might argue that it is a reference to “historic succession” in the sense of “a tradition that goes back to the ancient church, in which bishops already in the succession install newly-elected bishops with prayer and laying-on-of hands.” This tradition is what the 1888 Lambeth Quadrilateral refers to as “the historic episcopate.” It is not synonymous with the Catholic doctrine of tactual succession even though Catholic interpreters of this term would lead us to believe that it is.
In clause seven the qualifying phrase “in historic succession,” however, is applied to priests and deacons as well as bishops. This points to a more general meaning. God has called and gifted ministers to prepare his people for the work of ministry in a continuous sequence since the days of the early Church with the ministers in one generation succeeding the ministers of the previous generation.
One of the dangers of interpreting a document like the Jerusalem Declaration is the temptation to read into a clause or phrase a pre-conceived notion of what it means. I decided to wait and see how the GAFCON Theological Group interpreted the phrase “in historic succession” in its official exposition of the Jerusalem Declaration.
In their commentary on the Jerusalem Declaration the GAFCON Theological Group emphasize that the interpretation of the Jerusalem Declaration, like the Thirty-Nine Articles, must be consistent with the Holy Scriptures, as well as the plain and grammatical sense of its wording. If someone interprets the language of a passage in the Jerusalem Declaration so that is inconsistent with that sense and/or the Bible, then his interpretation of that passage cannot be the correct one. He is assigning his own meaning to the passage.
I do not have access to the Internet from November 26, 2009 until November 30, 2009. During that time I will put together a summary of the GAFCON Theological Group’s exposition of clause seven and post it when I have access to the Internet again.
The "guidance of the Holy Spirit" is given only to ordained ministers, Robin? Do you hear what you are saying? That's code for the over-emphasis on ordination. We are ALL prophets, priests, and kings and thus there is no difference in status between the ordained and the lay person. All are to be under the ultimate authority of Holy Scripture first and any guidance of the Holy Spirit is mediated through Scripture FIRST and only secondarily through the church OR bishops, presbyters, and deacons. The Jerusalem Declaration is revealing because it too is worded ambiguously and only those trained to put Scripture first can see the obvious flaws.
No thanks. Count me out. Institutional unity at the cost of the five solas is an exercise in compromise.
Charlie
Charlie,
How does the Holy Spirit primarily guide the church but through Scripture? You are assuming a charismatic or Anglo-Catholic interpretation of "guidance of the Holy Spirit" but is that how the Nigerians understand the phrase. I myself would want to examine the doctrinal statements of the Church of Nigeria and the writings of the most influential leaders of the Church of Nigeria as well as the entire constitution and canons of the Nigerian Church before I drew any conclusions about what the Nigerian Church believed.
I am judging from what I have seen in the videos and of the GAFCON services held in Jerusalem and Nigeria. If it looks and smells like a duck, it's a duck. I'm more than willing to read anything online you have to the contrary.
Post a Comment