By Robin G. Jordan
The Anglican Church in North America’s College of Bishops’ reception of Communion of Evangelical Episcopal Churches Bishop Derek Jones this past June is the tip of the iceberg. Icebergs are always larger under the water than they are above the water’s surface. Upon further investigation I found that the College of Bishops has received at least one other bishop, Communion of Christ the Redeemer Bishop Richard W. Lipka, who, like Bishop Jones, has orders that are traceable to the excommunicated Roman Catholic bishop Carlos Duerta Costa through the Independent Catholic Apostolic Church of Brazil. Bishop Lipka was subsequently appointed suffragan bishop of Forward in Faith North America’s Diocese of All Saints. Both Bishop Jones and Bishop Lipka were bishops of charismatic Convergence churches.
This answers the question that one of my readers has been asking, “Why are the Anglo-Catholic bishops of the ACNA not concerned about Bishop Jones’ orders?” The answer is that they recognize the Duarte Costa lineage of Bishop Jones and Bishop Lipka. Put another way, having agreed to Bishop Lipka’s reception, they were in no position to object to Bishop Jones’. Both bishops share the same lineage.
The ICACB claims that the Roman Catholic Church recognizes its orders on the basis that liberal Pope John XXIII received Salomâo Ferraz, an ICACB bishop, as a Roman Catholic bishop in 1958. My investigation into the matter shows that John XXIII’s reception of Ferraz was an anomaly. It was out of the normal because Ferraz had been consecrated by Duerta Costa without the authorization of the Vatican and therefore both Duerta Costa and Ferrez were automatically excommunicated by the Roman Catholic Church. Duerta Costa, at the time, he consecrated Ferrez as bishop had already been excommunicated by the Vatican and therefore had no authority under Roman Catholic canon law to consecrate Ferrez. Ferrez was also married. This makes his reception even more irregular from the perspective of Roman Catholic canon law. The Pope, however, is the supreme authority in the Roman Catholic Church. John XXIII not only lifted Ferrez’s excommunication but also recognized his orders even though he was married and had seven children. The anomalous nature of Ferrez’s reception is further supported by the fact that the Vatican has not since that time received into Roman Catholic Church any clergy whose orders are traceable to Duerta Costa except as laymen, as far as I have been able to determine.
In investigating the orders of Bishop Jones and Bishop Lipka, I found that Duerta Costa had consecrated a number of independent bishops between 1945 and his death in 1961. All the bishops that Duerta Costa are excommunicated from the Roman Catholic Church by the virtue of their consecration at the hands of an excommunicated Roman Catholic bishop.
Bishop Lipka and a number of other Charismatic Episcopal Church bishops sought re-consecration from the Independent Catholic Apostolic Church of Brazil when they concluded that they had not received the apostolic succession at their original consecrations. Bishop Lipka subsequently broke with the Charismatic Episcopal Church and formed his own jurisdiction, the Communion of Christ the Redeemer.
On his Introduction to Episcopi Vagantes Lineages web site T. J. Boyle identifies four “complex lineages” comprised of scores of independent Catholic and charismatic Convergence clergy who claim valid Catholic orders on the basis that their orders are traceable to an excommunicated Roman Catholic bishop. In addition to the Duerta Costa consecrations for the Catholic Apostolic Church of Brazil, they include the Nun Dinh Thuc consecrations for various groups, the alleged Sánchez consecration for the Mexican National Catholic Church, and the various consecrations for the Chinese Catholic Patriotic Associations.
The Old Catholics of the Union of Utrecht, the Coptic Church, and the various Orthodox churches apply the category of heretics or schismatics to independent Catholic and charismatic Convergence clergy, completely reject the validity of their ordinations, and do not recognize their orders.
Roman Catholic Church has declared that the ordinations performed by excommunicated bishops such as Archbishops Emmanuel Malengo and Piere Martin Nun Dinh Thuc have no canonical effect. It has refrained from commenting upon their validity. It stated that, "as for those who have already thus unlawfully received ordination or any who may yet accept ordination from these, whatever may be the validity of the orders (quidquid sit de ordinum validitate), the Church does not and will not recognise their ordination (ipsorum ordinationem), and will consider them, for all legal effects, as still in the state in which they were before, except that the ... penalties remain until they repent." [Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Decree Episcopi qui alios of September 17, 1976 - Acta Apostolicae Sedis 1976, page 623] The clause "....as still in the state in which they were before.." indicates that the Vatican continued to view them as being laymen. The reception into the Roman Catholic Church of Charismatic Episcopal Church clergy only as laymen supports this conclusion.
With regard to Archbishop Emmanuel Milingo's consecration of four men, all of whom claimed already to be independent Catholic bishops, on September 24, 2006, the Roman Catholic Church, as well as stating that, in accordance with Canon 1382 of the Code of Canon Law, all five men involved incurred automatic ("latae sententiae") excommunication through their actions, declared that "...the Church does not recognise and does not intend in the future to recognise these ordinations or any ordinations derived from them, and she holds that the canonical state of the four alleged bishops is the same as it was prior to the ordination." [Declaration of the Press Office of the Holy See on the present ecclesial situation of Archbishop Emmanuel Milingo]
The foregoing show that John XXIII’s reception of Ferraz as a Roman Catholic bishop cannot be used to support any claim that orders of the Independent Catholic Apostolic Church of Brazil or any other orders traceable to excommunicated Roman Catholic Duerta Costa are recognized as valid by the Roman Catholic Church. Subsequent popes have not adopted John XXIII’s position.
The official view of the Eastern Orthodox Churches may be summarised as follows: "While accepting the canonical possibility of recognising the existence (υποστατόν) of sacraments performed outside herself, (the Eastern Orthodox Church) questions their validity (έγκυρον) and certainly rejects their efficacy (ενεργόν)." It sees "the canonical recognition (αναγνώρισις) of the validity of sacraments performed outside the Orthodox Church (as referring) to the validity of the sacraments only of those who join the Orthodox Church (individually or as a body)." The Orthodox Communion clearly does not, and will not, accept as valid the orders of independent Catholic and charismatic Convergence clergy. [Professor Dr. Vlassios Pheidas, Τhe limits of the church in an orthodox perspective] Any supposedly Orthodox ecclesiastical entity that does recognize their orders is not genuinely Orthodox.
In my investigation of the orders of Bishop Jones and Bishop Lipka I have so far found no evidence that any existing Anglican province recognizes the orders of clergy traceable to Duerta Costa. I did find that the Anglican Church of the Province of Uganda has permitted Charismatic Episcopal Church consecrations in its cathedral in Impala. This, however, does not constitute formal recognition of the Charismatic Episcopal Church or of the orders of its ministers any more than Roman Catholic Church permitting Anglican consecrations in its cathedrals. In recognizing their orders and receiving them as ACNA bishops, the College of Bishops appears to have adopted a unilateral course of action, much in the same way as the Episcopal Church did in the case of Bishop Gene Robinson.
The College of Bishops has also adopted a mechanical, reductionist view of apostolic succession, which ties the transmission of the apostolic succession, not to preservation of apostolic teaching as historic Anglicanism has understood the apostolic succession, but to the imposition of the hands of a bishop in a succession of bishops going back to the apostles, that is, the Roman Catholic doctrine of tactual succession. This doctrine is implicit in the ACNA canons, which are based in a number of places upon the canons of the Anglican Church of Rwanda. The Rwandan canons are themselves based in large part upon the Roman Catholic Church’s Code of Canonical Law.
In its recognition of Bishop Jones’ orders, the College of Bishops has put the Nigerian House of Bishops into the position of recognizing the orders of a number of independent Catholic and charismatic Convergence ecclesiastical entities with the approval of Bishop Jones’ appointment. A number of these entities are nominally Anglican. However, they do not evidence any commitment to classical Anglicanism and Reformation Christianity. The historic Anglican formularies play very little if any part in their teaching and life.
The Nigerian House of Bishops’ approval of Bishop Jones’ appointment will be a coup for independent Catholic and charismatic Convergence ecclesiastical entities that trace their orders to Duerta Costa. A number of these entities are quite Roman Catholic in their doctrine and practices.
Another ramification will be closer relations between the ACNA and the independent Catholic and charismatic Convergence ecclesiastical entities with the Duerta Costa lineage and an high possibility of an influx of congregations and clergy from these entities into the ACNA. The latter will boast the numerical strength of the ACNA. At the same time it will also greatly weaken the Anglican identity of the ACNA, which is already not very sound as it is. It lends credence to my observation that the ACNA is moving in a direction that removes it even further from historic Anglicanism. The prospect of confessional Anglicans—those who uphold the Protestant faith of the reformed Church of England and its formularies and who are committed to the Anglican understanding of the New Testament gospel as articulated in the Thirty-Nine Articles—becoming a decided minority in the Anglican Church in North America is very high, if it is not yet already a present reality.
57 comments:
One question. If you are so anti-Anglo-Catholic, why are you worried about these Bishops? I mean, what does it really matter whether Rome accepts their orders or not? They are going to an Anglican church, not a Roman church.
To say that John XXIII accepted the orders of Ferraz is not to say that Rome would accept any of these men today. The acceptance of such Vagante lines by the Continuing Episcopalians further erodes the very meaning of what is to be an Anglican. They seek to represent themselves as the rightful heirs of Anglicanism for North America. Such actions further erode the very meaning of the word Anglican.
I may not get it, but this seems to be a great article with your knowledge and research. I do think it is a bit of a waste of time though. Your other articles are very very good and you should publish.
Steve,
The Anglican Church in North America is seeking to become an Anglican province, a member of the existing Anglican Communion or a global South Anglican Communion if one is formed. One of the reasons that there is an ACNA is that The Episcopal Church acted unilaterally in consecrating a practicing homosexual as a bishop. In this instant, the ACNA is recognizing the orders of bishops that to my knowledge are not recognized by the provinces of the existing Anglican Communion and about which a pivotal Lambeth Conference made this recommendation:
Resolution 54
Church Unity and the Church Universal - Episcopi Vagantes
The Conference draws attention to the fact that there are "episcopi vagantes" who call themselves either "Old Catholic" or "Orthodox," in combination with other names. It warns its members of the danger of accepting such persons at their own valuation without making further inquiries. The Conference reiterates the principle contained in Resolution 27 of the 1920 Lambeth Conference, that it cannot recognise the Churches of such "episcopi vagantes" as properly constituted Churches, or recognise the orders of their ministers, and recommends that any such ministers desiring to join an Anglican Church, who are in other respects duly qualified, should be ordained "sub conditione" in accordance with the provisions suggested in the Report of the relevant Committee of the 1920 Lambeth Conference.
Episcopi vagentes orders, either the older lineages or the Duerta Costa lineage, may cause no difficulty for the Continuum since a number of its clergy have these orders but it is an issue for Communion Anglicans. As I note in my article, it reveals the ACNA College of Bishops' position on apostolic succession and the episcopate and confirms my earlier observations about the theological bias of the ACNA constitution and canons. If the ACNA was truly an Anglican church for all "orthodox" North American Anglicans, which is what the GAFCON Primates called for, then it would be more comprehensive doctrinally. As it is, it is evolving into an independent Catholic-charismatic Convergence church, which is nominally Anglican at best, hardly the genuine expression of Anglicanism that the GAFCON primates think it is.
GAFCON in the Jerusalem Declaration stresses that adherence to the authority of the Thirty-Nine Articles, interpreted in their plain, grammatical, and intended sense, and not interpreted in ahistorical, fanciful Rome-ward direction as John Newman interpreted them, are constitutive of Anglican identity. How many of the independent Catholic and charismatic Convergence churches, including Continuing Anglican churches, do you know adhere to the authority of the Articles, interpreted in that sense. How many recognize only two sacraments--Baptism and Holy Communion? How many recognized the 1662 Book of Common Prayer and the 1661 Ordinal (interpreted in their plain, grammatical, and intended sense) as authoritative doctrinal standards alongside the Articles? The 1662 Prayer Book as a true and authoritative standard of worship and prayer? How many actually use the 1662 Prayer Book--with no additions from a missal?
The ACNA College of Bishops is using John XXIII's acceptance of Ferraz's orders to justify its own acceptance of Jones and Lipka's orders just as independent Catholic, charismatic Convergence, and Continuing Anglican churches do. It is adopting a mechanistic, reductionist view of apostolic succession in place of the historic Anglican understanding of apostolic succession as a succession of doctrine, not bishops. An influx of congregations and clergy into the ACNA who are nominally Anglican at best and who do not uphold the Protestant faith of the reformed Church of England and her formularies certainly does concern confessional Anglicans like myself. So does the particular understanding of apostolic succession that the College of Bishops has adopted.
David,
Drawing attention to the doctrinal positions that the ACNA leadership is taking, the direction in which the ACNA is moving, and the ramifications especially for confessional Anglicans, I believe is critical at this particular juncture in the history of North American Anglican even though it does take time away from other important projects upon which I am working. A nunber of confessional Anglicans in the ACNA had hoped that the ACNA would bring about a return to the historic Anglican formularies and a restoration of confessional Anglicanism in North America but the indications are that this is not going to happen. This is one of the indications. In the months ahead the ACNA is going to show more of its true colors. It will not be the flag of St. George that it will be flying.
David,
I am preparing a book but it is in the early stages. I am lining up permission to use material from various copyright holders or their agents. If you would like to learn more about it contact me at truevineanglicanatyahoodotcom. Your prayers are always appreciated.
Robin,
My point in asking the question is this. If you see Apostolic Succession as a succession of doctrine as opposed to a succession of Bishops, then you should really have no problem with these new Bishops. As long as their doctrine lines up with the 39 Articles (which you have stated that they don't), then there should be no problem.
Being "Reformed" (in my mind, that spells "Calvinist", where in yours it might be different) means that you are both Protestant (in the English Reformation definition of the word, and not the decidedly Calvinist Continental definition) and Catholic (in the universal, Vincentian Canon meaning of the word).
I'm just as apprehensive as any other at the acceptance of Episcopi Vaganti as you are. I came to Anglicanism by beginning as a Methodist, then moving through the Charismatic Renewal Movement to where I am today. I know the drawbacks of Charismatic Renewal from personal experience. It doesn't mean I reject my Charismatic background, but that I embrace the Anglicanism of the forefather of the Methodist faith of my youth.
I chose Anglicanism, and embrace it. I cannot make a personal judgment on these men who the ACNA have accepted as Bishops because they may have gone through the same "conversion" I have gone through. I think, deep down, all you want to see is that these gentlemen are re-consecrated in some way, shape or form.
I have my own hangups with the ACNA, which is why I'm part of a Continuing Church as opposed to the REC or some other of the foreign churches who have a presence here in North America. I, however, don't think the Anglican Communion has a corner on the market of Anglicanism. Neither do I think the same of the Continuing Anglicans, of which I am a part. I see God as moving in quite a few of these places, whether we agree with his methods or not.
I think Rick Joiner said it best. The rest of the Christian world needs Anglicans to BE Anglicans, and not to try to copy someone or something else. That's the lesson ACNA needs to build upon. Not whether some Bishop they have accepted has had hands laid on him by the right pedigree.
Sorry, I meant to say Rich Warren, not Rick Joiner.
Steve,
No problem once a vagante has joined with a church which is not vagante, he is no longer vagante. But then the ecusa thinks that all the continuers are vagantes. Rome consiiders all other "religious organizations" bogus and their bishops vagantes. But where any does not continue in the Way and strays from the strait and narrow they are vagrants. The Roman bishop himself is a vagante, as is Cantaur, and ecusa and AC-NA.
Technically speaking the REC is not in apostolic succession either because the founding bishop was a suffragan bishop and was on the outs with the Episcopal Church when he broke away.
Then again, the Protestant Episcopal Church has irregular succession as well.
Frankly, apostolic succession is part of the Lambeth Quadrilateral and is Anglo-Catholic and not part of the Ordinal. There is no mention whatsoever of apostolic sucession in the Articles of Religion, the 1662 BCP or the Ordinal. The position of the formularies is that bishops and priests and deacons are equal ministry positions that are ancient tradition, allowed by Scripture, and adiaphora in regards to other denominations not having this order.
This was the issue that caused the break of the REC from PEC.
Charlie
I might add that Gerald Bray points out that Puritan ministers transferred to the Church of England without being reordained because Archbishop Cranmer recognized their ordination as valid.
I do not recognize Anglo-Catholics as Christians since they teach another gospel of infused righteousness and other nonsense. This is the problem with Anglicanism. It's full of heretics who do not even know Jesus Christ:
I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel-- 7 not that there is another one, but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. (Galatians 1:6-8 ESV)
But I am afraid that as the serpent deceived Eve by his cunning, your thoughts will be led astray from a sincere and pure devotion to Christ. 4 For if someone comes and proclaims another Jesus than the one we proclaimed, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or if you accept a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it readily enough. (2 Corinthians 11:3-4 ESV)
For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, "Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them." 11 Now it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law, for "The righteous shall live by faith." 12 But the law is not of faith, rather "The one who does them shall live by them." (Galatians 3:10-12 ESV)
Article XI
Of the Justification of Man
We are accounted righteous before God, only for the merit of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ by faith, and not for our own works or deservings. Wherefore that we are justified by faith only is a most wholesome doctrine, and very full of comfort; as more largely is expressed in the Homily of Justification.
Charlie,
Who said anything about works? Am I a Roman Catholic? No. Am I anti-Calvinist? Yes. Am I anti-Charismatic? No.
I have not turned my back on anything, and I have certainly not turned my back on God. Up until about 4 years ago, I wasn't even AWARE of Apostolic Succession. However, now that I know about it, I understand it, and accept it as a means to keep the faith pure. I also see the drawbacks of it, in that not all Bishops fight to keep the faith pure. In fact, there are those who strive to change that very faith for the worse.
As far as works go, I hold to what James said in his gospel, that "faith without works is dead". But I also believe in justification by grace, through faith.
I don't see Catholics as heretics. They do, however, follow some teachings that are clearly not biblical. That's why I chose Anglicanism. It is both Catholic and Protestant, and, more importantly, biblical.
Steve,
As I have stated in at least two articles my primary concerns are how the ACNA leadership operates, how it reached this decision, who was consulted, and what it hoped to accomplish, and and the implications and ramifications of the reception of Jones and Lipka for the ACNA and North American Anglicans especially confessional Anglicans. The validity and regularity of Jones and Lipka's consecrations is secondary.
Can an ecclesial body that is independent Catholic and charismatic Convergence in doctrine and practice and which adherence to the authority of the Thirty-Nine Articles is confined to a small number of congregations and their clergy be regarded as a "genuine" expression of Anglicanism? The Jerusalem Declaration does tie Anglican identity to adherence to the authority of the Articles. It is evident that is not speaking of one small wing of an ecclesial body but the entire body.
The issue is not Pentecostalism. I did not touch that issue in my articles nor do I intend to. The reason is that it distracts from what I consider a more important issue A close examination of the charismatic Convergence churches from which Jones and Lipka come shows that they are Roman Catholic in doctrine and practice in a number of key areas. For example, I visited one Charistmatic Episcopal Church web site and what greeted me was the picture of a hugh monstrance. Adoring the sacramental species is what Roman Catholics do, including charismatic Roman Catholics, but I do not know any Pentecostals who practice eucharistic adoration. A merger between the ACNA and one or more charismatic Convergence churches would be like a merger with the Charismatic Catholic Church. I used the term "charismatic" because with Convergence it identifies the particular character of these churches as independent Catholic identifies those churches. But it does point to an important question, "Is there a willingness in the ACNA leadership to overlook the doctrine and practice of an ecclesial body simply because it takes a particular stance upon the gifts of the Holy Spirit?" Or should the question be. "Is the ACNA leadership willing to overlook an ecclesial body's stance on the charisma of the Holy Spirit because it is Catholic (read Roman Catholic) in doctrine and practice?" If the charismatics in the ACNA leadership are supporting the recognition of the orders of folks like Jones and Lipka for the first reason and the Anglo-Catholic for the second reason then this need to be brought to the attention of confessional Anglicans in and outside the ACNA. It definitely has implications and ramifications that affect their future and the future of confessional Anglicanism.
Steve, clearly Anglo-Catholics are dissimulators. The Thirty-nine Articles contradict everything you just said. First of all, the doctrine confessed in the 39 Articles is justification by faith ALONE, which is not the same thing as what you have said. Any Roman Catholic can claim to believe in "justification by faith". But that simply is not the truth since the Council of Trent anathematized the doctrine of Articles 9-18 in the 39 Articles of Religion.
Second of all, apostolic succession is not espoused in any of the Anglican formularies whatsoever. It's not in the 39 Articles, the confession of faith of the Church of England. It's not in the ordinal, nor in the 1662 Book of Common Prayer.
While Episcopal polity is the preferred form of church government, it does not equate to either an historic episcopate or the Anglo-Catholic doctrine of apostolic succession.
And finally, IF apostolic succession is the safeguard against heresy rather than the supremacy of Scripture in all matters of faith, doctrine, and practice, then you ought to join up with the Anglican Communion and The Episcopal Church and follow Kathy Schori as your bishop. Your continuing church is not in any sort of apostolic succession whatsoever. You're just another one of us schismatics. Better yet, emasculate yourself and become a Roman Catholic!
Sincerely yours,
Charlie
Steve,
Apostolic succession will not will not save you. It is not a Biblical doctrine as it is applied to bishops. It works to the egotism and pride of tyrants. Bishops have been the persecutors of the faithful throughout history and the bishop of Rome the greatest succession of persecutors. Bishops have been some of the greatest hairy-ticks in the annals of history. Look ecusa claims this "apostolic succession" and look where they are at.
You proudly call yourself a Protestant but said that you are anti-Calvinistic. That term was first placed on the followers of Martin Luther. His most famous and greatest book is "Bondage of the Will." Read it, you may well think that this first Protestant was taking his clues from Jean Calvin.
Being Catholic is good, but anglo-catholicks, roman catholicks and others hold to the Catholic Creeds but believe and teach non-Catholic doctrine such as transubstantiation and adoration of bread and wine and invocation (praying to) the saints and other non-Structural practices. There is no doubt that this kind of shenanigans would have shocked the Jews whom God used to write the Bible. Because of this those who practice can only be called partly catholic. In reality they are heretics.
Joe
Steve,
If you are anti-Calvinistic as Charlie has pointed out you are also anti-Anglican. The 39 Articles of Religion and the standard BCP (1662) are Calvinistic.
Joe
Joe, no they are not. They leave room for a Calvinist interpretation, but they are not Calvinist. I do not reject the 39 Articles. In fact, I embrace them. What I don't embrace is Calvin, or anything he has to say about anything. I told you where I come from. John Wesley was an Anglican, and an Arminian. I, too, am Anglican and Arminian.
One additional thing. I said the term "Reformed" reminds me of Calvinism, not the term "Protestant".
On another note, I also realize that we are all just schismatics, including my own United Episcopal Church of North America. That we can't seem to come together through all of this is a tragedy.
I see no problems with the 1662 BCP. It has been the doctrinal standard of Anglicanism since 1662. I also know that it was a response to the English Civil War, and that a truer BCP would be that of 1559, which was a direct result of the Elizabethan Settlement. But that's neither here, nor there.
You do not have to be a Calvinist to accept and live by the 39 Articles. But in reality, the Bible is what contains all things necessary for salvation, not the Book of Common Prayer, nor the 39 Articles.
Steve,
Augustine of Hippo, Thomas of Aquinas, Martin Luther, and John Calvin was in lockstep on the subject of salvation. Their positions all coming from Scriptures. It that what you reject about Calvin? John Wesley was an Arminian theologically but brother Charles was not. John's Arminianism was in fact a rejection of the 39 Articles of Religion. It is best to call John Wesley a Methodist who at the same time did not break organically with Anglicanism though he did spiritually and theologically. Few associate him with Anglicanism but most definitely with Methodism. Arminianism is just anther word for semi-pelagianism which is semi-heresy. If you accept the 39 Articles of Religion then you accept Scriptural doctrine which was exactly what Calvin was pressing for in relation to salvation. Those who are saved was chosen before the foundation of the world (Paul, Ephesians 1)
Joe
Robin, I see where you are coming from. But given what others here have said, I still ask, why does it matter?
If you guys believe that Anglicanism is only found in the Bible and the 1662 Book of Common Prayer, and the 39 Articles, good. That, historically, is what has defined Anglicanism.
If you want to reject these two Bishops because they came from some "Charismatic Catholic Church", that's fine too. But what bearing does that have on the ACNA, when "Heritage Anglicans" only care about calling themselves Protestant, and completely ignoring another historical facet of the Anglican faith?
Its one thing to have Biblical faith. Its quite another to just argue and squabble for argument's sake. The scriptures tell us to avoid such things. I simply think you are obsessing over this as much as Fr. Hart is obsessing over those who are accepting Anglicanum Coetibus. I'm simply asking does it really matter, if that's the route ACNA is going to take. And if they take that route, does this, then, mean you are going advocate starting yet ANOTHER church in the alphabet soup that is Anglicanism in the North America?
Joe,
I reject predestination in any form you choose to present it. Salvation comes through believing in the Lord Jesus Christ. But Salvation is only the beginning of the Christian walk. It is the birth. What many people do is stop at birth and call it done, without ever growing up.
God has given us all the choice. Choose what he has done for us, or reject it. It is up to us to respond to it yay or nay. It has nothing to do with whether we were "predestined" to be saved or not.
That's the problem I have with Calivinism.
Steve, you wrote, "I reject predestination in any form you choose to present it." Now read Ephesians 1:1 - 2-8. It is not my presentation nor Calvin's but the Holy Ghost as He spoke through his prophet Paul. It is not my doctrine but God's. It is not Calvin or I that you reject but God. Also read John chapter 6.
Joe
From John:
44 "No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day." (Note: the draw here does not mean "woo" but is the same word used in other places translated as drag and to draw a sword).
&
65 "And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father." (Is not Jesus saying that the coming to him is a gift from the Father? Where is the human decision in this? This corresponds with Paul's saying in Romans that salvation is not by works but by grace. It is not earned.
Ephesians 1
3 "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ:
4According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:
5Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,
6To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved."
Note from the above: The choice is before the foundation of the world. The predestination is to adoption. The reason given is "the good pleasure of his will."
XVII. Of Predestination and Election.
Predestination to Life is the everlasting purpose of God, whereby (before the foundations of the world were laid) he hath constantly decreed by his counsel secret to us, to deliver from curse and damnation those whom he hath chosen in Christ out of mankind, and to bring them by Christ to everlasting salvation, as vessels made to honour. Wherefore, they which be endued with so excellent a benefit of God, be called according to God's purpose by his Spirit working in due season: they through Grace obey the calling: they be justified freely: they be made sons of God by adoption: they be made like the image of his only-begotten Son Jesus Christ: they walk religiously in good works, and at length, by God's mercy, they attain to everlasting felicity.
As the godly consideration of Predestination, and our Election in Christ, is full of sweet, pleasant, and unspeakable comfort to godly persons, and such as feel in themselves the working of the Spirit of Christ, mortifying the works of the flesh, and their earthly members, and drawing up their mind to high and heavenly things, as well because it doth greatly establish and confirm their faith of eternal Salvation to be enjoyed through Christ as because it doth fervently kindle their love towards God: So, for curious and carnal persons, lacking the Spirit of Christ, to have continually before their eyes the sentence of God's Predestination, is a most dangerous downfall, whereby the Devil doth thrust them either into desperation, or into wretchlessness of most unclean living, no less perilous than desperation.
Furthermore, we must receive God's promises in such wise, as they be generally set forth to us in Holy Scripture: and, in our doings, that Will of God is to be followed, which we have expressly declared unto us in the Word of God.
Yes, I know article 17, Joe. I also know the scriptures you quoted. You don't think God chose ALL of us before creation? That's what the scripture you just quoted says (unless you want to read it through a Calvinist lens). The God you outline through your interpretation of those scriptures is no different from the fickle God the Muslims call Allah, who can't make up his mind whether he will save man or not.
God draws us ALL to him. He respects our decision to either follow him, or reject him. It is our own choice whether we accept our election, or reject it. So whether it is "predestinated" or not, the choice is still ours.
God chose everyone and then damned the majority of them? What kind of logic is that???? Barthian???
What kind of drawing is it that doesn't draw at least 2/3s of humanity and lets them go to hell?
All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out. 38 For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me. 39 And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day. (John 6:37-39 ESV)
No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day. (John 6:44 ESV)
And he said, "This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father." (John 6:65 ESV)
though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad--in order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls-- 12 she was told, "The older will serve the younger." 13 As it is written, "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated." 14 What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God's part? By no means! 15 For he says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." 16 So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy. 17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, "For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth." 18 So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills. 19 You will say to me then, "Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?" 20 But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, "Why have you made me like this?" 21 Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? (Romans 9:11-21 ESV)
Variously:
@Steve, give it up on Arminianism and mature, biblically. Nuff said.
@Joe, thanks.
More largely, @Robin. What about the REC Bishops like Riches, Sutton, Grote and others? Re-ordination? Your thoughts on this re: the REC may be interesting.
More Leo Riches, REC, required some of his REC presbyters to be "re-ordained" by Bob from Pittsburgh.
As to predestination, end of the discussion. Romans 9 is fiat. Wesley was an abomination like Laud, but I digress.
Hoping the Robin addresses the REC matter.
I think the entire matter one of a flap over nothing.
Steve,
The good news is that our salvation is all the doing of God and none of us. If it were left up to us then no one at all would be saved. Jesus is the Author and Finisher of our faith. It is prideful man who wants to say that my salvation was my decision; God could not do it without me. My good work, my meritorious work was accepting salvation. But our condition is described as being "dead." When ever did a dead man ever do anything to make himself well again? Grace precludes any work on the part of man. It is a gift of God. Faith is a gift of God; it is not a work.
Sanctification is different from salvation. Each Christian takes part in sanctification. We work and study to please God who has by his election has determined to save some and not others. Who are we to ask the potter, why have you made me so. The potter makes some vessels to honor and others to dishonor (Romans 9). Again the good news is that some will be saved and this is only possible because of God's election. I am happy to trust God and not myself.
JOe
To the larger issues:
An Adapted Prayer of St. Chrysostom
Almighty God, who hast given us grace at this time with one accord to make our common supplications unto thee; and dost promise, that when two or three are gathered together in thy Name thou wilt grant their requests. There are more than two to three of us, O Triune God, in this forsaken exile of Anglicanism.
Hear us, O LORD, we few Anglicans in the wilderness, we exiles in the Babylonian Captivity. Everywhere we turn, we find opposition. With Psalm 38 in view, O LORD, do not rebuke us in thy anger nor discipline us in thy wrath. Thy arrows have pierced us and our leaders in the West. Thy hand has come down upon us. Our leaders are compromised by their educations. Righteousness is diminished amongst us. (Ps.12.1-3)
With Psalm 18 in view, O LORD, remember us. “For who is God besides the LORD? And who is the Rock except our God?” Thou hast armed us with strength. Thou hast trained us for battle.
Light a mighty and effulgent light amongst us, we forlorn and sorrowing Anglicans, and lighten our darkness, we beseech thee.
Fulfil now, O Lord, the desires and petitions of thy servants, as may be most expedient for them.
Grant that two or three of us may agree. Grant that we may unite, for the sake of Thy Son.
Grant us in this world knowledge of thy truth, and in the world to come life everlasting, through Jesus Christ our only Savior, LORD, Rock and Refuge, Amen.
Steve,
May I suggest the following book:
Putting Amazing Back into Grace
by
Michael Horton.
Joe
Steve, you wrote, Yes, I know article 17, Joe. I also know the scriptures you quoted. You don't think God chose ALL of us before creation? That's what the scripture you just quoted says ..."
Steve, I do believe the scriptures that I quoted are true. It is what Jesus my LORD and Saviour said and it is what the Holy Ghost breathed into Paul's writings.
Steve, I thought that you said that you accepted the 39 Articles of Religion. Certainly you can have no problem with the clear writings of Scriptures. Scriptures teaches what you call "Calvinism." But it is not of Calvin, it is of God from God that this comes, not man's traditions as unfortunately has been brought into Anglicanism by the anglo-catholics.
Joe
"God draws us ALL to him." Steve, where is that statement proved by Holy Writ? Where is that taught by Scriptures. As I have pointed out the "draw" in John 6 does not mean woo as you imply here. It means "drag" or "draw as one would a sword." Give me some proof for that statement.
Joe
@Joe, good to hear from you, my good man. Anglican exiles, indeed, we are. Hold forth, as you are.
As to Steve, he is in 1 to 3 inches deep regarding God's character, an handbreadth-deep as a charismaniac, forever lite in the loafers, theologically, exegetically, and historically.
An humourous breed, actually, as these yappers have historically been. Same for AMiA advocates.
Yet, the question stands for/to and at Robin.
@Robin, what sayest thou regarding REC Bishops? Episcopai vagantes?
Regards,
Veitch
@Robin, please.
Give your thoughts on REC Bishops.
Veitch
Phil,
"Apostolic succession" in the REC is a ridiculous concept. Bp Cummins never intended such a thing. Nor did the bishops of the Church in England in the 16th century. There is no doubt in either case that the intent of "apostolic succession" of bishops would continue. The REC refers to the "historic episcopate" which is a form of government not unlike the episcopacy of the Methodist Church to which Bp Cummins felt were fellow Christians unlike the anglo-catholics that had infested PECUSA. The Roman religious organization declared all Anglican bishops as not being in apostolic succession because the intent simply was not there. The Orthodox Churches do not recognize Anglican orders either as being in the "apostolic succession." Who cares? The relation to the Trinity is the essential thing. God grants us grace and faith and salvation apart from any of this human tradition. God did not set up a mew levitical priesthood. Jesus Christ is our High Priest and we are all priest in the priesthood of all believers.
***CORRECTION***
"There is no doubt in either case that the intent of "apostolic succession" of bishops would continue." It should read, There is no doubt in either case that the intent of "apostolic succession of bishops should not continue.
Bp Cummins believed that the change a man had in wearing vestments (rochet and chemiere) made him feel and think of himself differently. He saw the bishop as an office of the presbyterate. This is definitely not the thinking of the "apostolic successionists," the anglo-catholics, and other "catholic" churches. Thus Anglicanism has a broken chain. It is kind of like have an ax that once belonged to Abraham Lincoln, but the handle has been changed twice and the head once.
Joe
Joe:
I understand all that about the REC's view of a PB as primus inter pares.
However, my question was for Robin. Namely, on the ACNA's own version of succession, how did Bob of Pittsburg squeeze in REC Bishops without reordination?
We can expect no inquiries from the ACNA-advertising arm, VOL.
And we can expect no answers from Bob from Pittsburg.
Phil,
The ACNA could squeeze in the REC because all "Anglican orders" are broken in the same manner as is the REC they are broken by intent.
Robin, I think that your article is a misinterpretation of the Catholic teaching on the apostolic succession.
Pope John's decision was absolutely correct. An excommunicated bishop is able to ordain validly too. Such an ordination is illicit but valid. And Bishop Duarte Costa was no "episcopus vagans". There was a quite big, organized, independent Catholic Church under his jurisdiction.
Do you know the case of Bishop Arce-Moya?
"Bishop Orlando Arce-Moya
Bishop Moya was the fourth bishop consecrated by Bishop Carlos Duarte Costa on November 30, 1956, with the title of Bishop of Santiago, Chile, for the Chilean Catholic National Church (Igreja Nacional Chilena). Bishop Moya left the Chilean Catholic National Church many years later, and was received by Pope John XXIII into the Roman Catholic Church. Bishop Moya was not re-consecrated, not even sub-conditione, and he was accepted as having valid Episcopal orders. He was appointed by the Pope as Auxiliary Bishop to the Cardinal Archbishop of Madrid, Spain. Bishop Moya died some years later."
http://www.catholic-canc.us/validity.html
Wonderful argument, Theobald. By that reckoning the Church of England still has valid but illicit orders:)
@ Mr. Steve:
It does not surprise me that you think John Wesley was a legitimate Anglican. The fact is Wesley rejected the 39 Articles as the current doctrinal statement of the United Methodist Church proves out.
Augustus Toplady and George Whitefield are much more consistent with the Anglican doctrinal standards than Wesley. Wesley's semi-pelagianism leads back Romeward as your "continuing" church demonstrates very well.
I'm familiar with the Wesleyans since I earned my M.Div. from Asbury. I too moved toward Anglicanism. But my reasons were the Anglican Formularies and their faithfulness to the English and Continental magisteral Reformation, not because I thought Anglicanism is "Catholic". In fact, Anglicanism is "catholic" only insomuch as it is faithful to the Anglican Formularies and the Five Solas shared in common with the Lutherans. The Formularies, by the way, are solidly Calvinistic and do not in the least bit show sympathy for the Remonstrandt heresy at Dort or the Laudian or Tractarian heresies in the Church of England.
Charlie
Charlie, I wrote about a part of the Catholic (not only RC) teaching on the apostolic succession, in a general sense.
Regarding your remark: I suppose you know that Rome does not recognize the validity of the Anglican orders.
Charlie, I think your "Anglicanism" is at best "Sydney Anglicanism". And this category is not really Anglican.
@Theobald The Protestant Reformation is catholic. The trouble with the Anglo-Catholics is they want to play both sides of the fence. Either they are leaning toward Roman Catholicism and should convert to Rome or they are heretics to both Protestantism and Roman Catholicism. I suspect it is the latter.
Regarding the validity of orders, your other church split is no more valid according to Rome than the Anglican split.
@Theobald Since the Sydney Anglicans reject the English Reformation and the Calvinism of that Reformation I would not consider myself sympathetic to Sydney. Sydney is no more faithful to the Anglican Formularies or the Scriptures than the Anglo-Catholics. Sydney has sold out to the pragmatism of the church growth movement which has its roots in the theology of Charles Finney via the Pentecostal/Charismatic movement.
The 39 Articles are in line with Dordt, not with Amyraldianism--which by the way is a much later development. The Sydney Anglicans have more in common with Anglo-Catholics than with Reformed Anglicanism.
I might add that the magisterial Reformers were not so low in their theology that they rejected the Reformed vestments under Edward VI or the 1662 Book of Common Prayer, both of which the Puritans did reject. The Sydney Anglicans ordain women as deacons, which is obviously an office of ministry to be restricted to men only.
Sydney is a hodge podge of heterodoxy, much like Evangelicalism at large. Not only are the Anglican Formularies Protestant but they are thoroughly Calvinistic and in line with five point Calvinism.
"Regarding the validity of orders, your other church split is no more valid according to Rome than the Anglican split."
Charlie, which other church split? The church of Bishop Duarte Costa or the CEEC? Rome recognizes the orders of the former denomination. Regarding the CEEC I have no information about the point of view of Rome.
I sincerely doubt that Rome recognizes the orders of any group that is not part of the Roman Catholic Church.
Charlie, you are mistaken. Rome recognizes, for example, the orders of the Orthodox, the Non-Chalcedonian and the Old Catholic (Union of Utrecht) churches.
Theobald, forgive me for being blunt, but your line of manure is just silly. You pretend that Rome and Constantinople have not mutually excommunicated the other? How can they view Eastern Orthdoxy as having valid orders when the two are not even in communion with each other?
Such silliness is laughable. Ecumenicalism is stupid. Any fool can see that there is no relationship between Rome and the East and saying that Rome recognizes their orders as valid--even if it might be technically true, which I doubt--is an absolutely meaningless and nonsensical assertion which means absolutely nothing.
What constitutes the true basis for fellowship is a common faith in the authority of Holy Scripture, a common understanding of what Scripture teaches about the law and the Gospel, and a common understanding of the sacraments as outward signs of an inward grace.
This is why Anglo-Catholics and various other "quasi" papists are heretics on the same order as Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox "christians". Both are essentially idolaters and pelagians.
Charlie
Forgive me for saying so but I think posting anonymous comments without backing up your words with your own character speaks volumes. I've never been ashamed of who I am or what I stand for on the internet.
Charlie, my person has nothing to do with the problem of the validity of the orders. Let's keep personalities out of it, please. I do not think your remark is fair. Is it possible that you do not have any arguments?
It is clear that you have no idea of the Catholic teaching on the apostolic succession and the Roman practice regarding the mentioned ordinations. Forgive me for saying so but I think your sarcastic and arrogant comments speak volumes.
Otherwise I am an Hungarian Roman Catholic (and a big friend of the Anglican Church) and believe me, please, I know the point of view of my Church.
Theobald, I understand way more of Roman Catholic theology than you understand of the Protestant Reformation, I can assure you.
It does not take a church historian to figure out that the Great Schism took place between Rome and the Eastern churches. The mutual excommunication continues to this day and the issue was the assumption of papal authority over the rule of bishops.
That division has never been healed. The fact is you cannot speak for the Eastern Orthodox and you certainly do not speak for Rome. Only the pope and the magisterium can do that.
As for Anglican theology, I can tell you that the English Reformation represents Anglican theology and the so-called Anglo-Catholics are simply wannabe papists who are afraid to take the plunge lest they lose their theological liberalism.
Forward in Faith is really Backward to Rome.
If you really want to know Anglican theology, read the Anglican Formularies: 39 Articles, 1662 Book of Common Prayer, and the Ordinal of 1552.
Sincerely,
Charlie
Charlie, I think this debate is senseless. You cannot convince me and I cannot convince you. (Otherwise, I did not write about the Protestant Reformation, so I do not think you could form any objective opinion about my knowledge of it. In turn, you wrote some nonsense about Catholicism.) But I hope we have a common denominator: the faith in our Lord Jesus Christ.
Theobald, in case you are unaware of the fact, Anglicans Ablaze is an Evangelical/Reformed blog.
Anglo-Catholicism is a heresy since the English Reformation split with Rome over apostolic succession, idolatrous worship of the saints, icons, statues, and the elements of the Lord's Supper.
Also, the 39 Articles strongly upholds the five solas of the Protestant Reformation. Your "friends" in the Anglican Communion are essentially wannabe papists. They would do better to openly join up with you as many of the English bishops have done.
As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord and not the pope or the Roman Catholic Church.
I do not believe we worship the same Jesus since your church teaches a false gospel of merits.
Sincerely,
Charlie
Post a Comment