Note: The author of this article is the Rev. Victor E. Novak, a priest of the Diocese of Mid-America of the Reformed Episcopal Church/Anglican Church in North America, and the rector of Holy Cross Anglican Church in Omaha, Nebraska. I am posting this article because it reflects the changes in the view of the Lord's Supper that have been occuring in the Reformed Episcopal Church.
"How I hate this folly of not believing in the Eucharist. If the Gospel be true, if Jesus Christ be God, what difficulty is there?" - Blaise Pascal
Dom Gregory Dix, the great 20th century Anglican Benedictine scholar wrote, "At the heart of Christianity is the Eucharist, a thing of absolute simplicity - the taking, blessing, breaking and giving of bread and the taking, blessing and giving of a cup of wine and water as these were done with their new meaning by a young Jew before and after supper with His friends on the night before He died. He had told His friends to do this henceforward with the new meaning for the recalling of Him, and they have done it always since."Was ever another command so obeyed? For century after century, spreading slowly to every continent and country and among every race on earth, this action has done, in every conceivable human circumstance, for every conceivable need, from infancy and before to extreme old age and after it, from the pinnacles of earthly greatness to the refugees in the caves and dens of the earth.
Men have found no better thing than this to do for kings at their crowning and for criminals going to the scaffold; for armies in triumph or for a bride and a bridegroom in a little country church; for the proclamation of a dogma or for a crop of good wheat; for the wisdom of the Parliament of a mighty nation or for a sick old woman afraid to die; for a schoolboy sitting an examination or for Columbus out to discover America...
"And best of all, week by week and month by month, on a hundred thousand successive Sundays, faithfully, unfailingly, across all the parishes of Christendom, the pastors have done this..."
To read nore, click here
23 comments:
Robin,
Could you write an article stating where this priest's article errs? Or could you point me to an article that accurately portrays the classical Anglican view on the relation between sacrifice and the Eucharist?
So, I take it that there is no specific, theological criticism of this article? There's just the insinuation that the REC has changed. I'm not sure how useful that observation really is if it's not accompanied by a demonstration that there has either been a real change, or if there has, why it should be particularly worrying.
wyclif,
I posted this article to illustrate how the eucharistic theology of the REC has undergone a decided shift in recent years. I plan to post two more articles on the Communion Office of the 2003 Reformed Episcopal BCP and its Modern Language Version in a day or two. These articles will demonstrate that there has indeed been a "real change." Whether this change should disturb members of the REC will depend upon whether they continue to subscribe to the Biblical, Protestant, Reformed, and evangelical beliefs and principles of the English Reformers and the REC founders. If they no longer maintain those beliefs and principles or have never held them, then this change might not be particularly worrisome to them. An Anglo-Catholic might not have problems with the change other than it did not go far enough.
I assume from your comments that you are a member of the REC. How long have you been a member of that denomination? You do not appear to have a grasp of the theological issues that prompted the formation of the REC--what the REC founders believed, what caused them to leave the Protestant Episcopal Church in the USA, and what they sought to accomplish in establishing a reformed Church with a reformed Prayer Book. What contemporary REC leaders have been doing is working assiduously to undo the reforms that the REC founders and later REC leaders who stood in continuity with them implemented and to move the REC in a more High Church, Anglo-Catholic direction, which they misrepresent to REC members as being the "mainstream" of Anglicanism. The changes that they have introduced are essentially a repudiation of the principles of the REC founders.
"Hackney,"
I cannot recommend an article but I can recommend a number of books.
Philip Edgcumbe Hughes, Theology of the English Reformers - Revised and Expanded (Third) Edition, (Abington, PA: Horseradish, 1997)
Byron D. Stuhlman, Eucharistic Celebration 1789 - 1979 (New York: Church Publishing, 1988) Examines the changes in the eucharistic doctrine in the Episcopal Church from its founding to the adoption of the 1979 BCP.
J. I. Packer and Roger T. Beckwith, The Thirty-Nine Articles: Their Place and Use Today, (Vancouver BC: Regent College Publishing, 2006). Examines whether the 1958 Lambeth doctrine of eucharistic sacrifice is consonant with Scripture and the Thirty-Nine Articles and concludes that it is not.
The following works may be found at the University of Toronto's Internet Archives web site at:
http://www.archive.org/
W. H. Griffith Thomas, "A Sacrament of Our Redemption",(London: Bemrose & Sons Ltd,19.?)
Frederick Meyrick, The Doctrine of the Church of England on the Holy Communion, (London: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1908)
Charles H. H. Wright and Charles Neil, A Protestant Dictionary, (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1904) Contains a number of articles. Check the index.
Daniel Waterland, A Review of the Doctrine of the Eucharist, (Oxford: Claredon Press, 1868) A classical study of the Church of England's doctrine of the Eucharist. For comtemporary readers it may prove heavy going due to Waterland's eighteenth century style of writing but it is worth reading.
Robin,
You are indeed correct to note that the REC under its present bishops (hum, wolves) first changed the REC from a Low Church position to a high church position. Then cemented its positions by permitting(under cover originally) anglo-catholics with the use of the 1928 BCP. They violated the Declaration of Principals and the Constitution and Canons of the REC. This was without doubt a conspiracy. But it also shows something about people. Many, too many, are loyal to the organization and not to the Gospel, loyal to bishops and buildings rather than to God.
I have to agree with Robin that their is divergence from REC's foundational views. Bp Cummins also rejected Apostolic Succession and baptism regeneration. The REC difference in Sacramental theology was very clear at its founding.
Side note, REC however, has through strict adherence to the BCP maintained Apostolic Succession because of this and they conditional ordain those from churches outside episcopal structure while still receiving them from other churches in their orders.
oh, should clarify though the REC still rejects AS they maintain the historic episcopate because it is an "ancient and desirous" form of church polity. I don't really know a good way to qualify what that means for others to understand. Robin is properly better equipped to define that.
George,
Bp Leo. Rches in a sermon preached before the his synod that maintaining the historic episcopacy as desirable, means that all other forms of ecclesiastical government are therefore undesirable.
But that doesn't fit with the actions of Bp Cummins and the REC practices before Leo. Logically speaking something being desirable does not mean that something is of necessity undesirable. What is means is that Leo is a bishop and therefor, he being a bishop, makes the office desirable and more prestigious. A small change that leads to a high church position that leads to the belief that without bishops there is no church.
Leo also maintained that the diocese was the smallest unit of an episcopal church. After all, bishops are needed for confirmation and ordination. Just imagine what his doctrine would be if he were the pope.
Rev. Victor E. Novak could well be an actor is a paraphrased Shakespearean play and stand on the stage saying, "Friends, Protestants, Reformers, lend me your ears, for I come not to praise the REC but to bury her."
May REC RIP.
Joe you're mistaken in the idea that desirous makes all others undesirable. It us whether it is Divine Right that the founders of the REC contended. Read the founding principles from 1873.
"This Church recognizes and adheres to Episcopacy, not as of Divine right, but as a very ancient and desirable form of Church polity."
so Bp Riches is not breaking with REC practice and he is right in terms of his preaching.
George,
It is not I that is mistaken. I wrote the following:
Bp Leo. Rches in a sermon preached before the his synod that maintaining the historic episcopacy as desirable, means that all other forms of ecclesiastical government are therefore undesirable.
It was not what I said but what Bp Leo Riches said. I am thoroughly in disagreement with Leo. I was not mistaken as you proclaim.
Secondly, Leo does break with the low church position on episcopacy. It is not necessary. It's desirability is in that it is long standing. It is a rejection of the doctrine of apostolic succession. The question what is Leo's belief now that the REC is uniting with the anglo-catholics of the ACNA who do believe in apostolic succession. That union with a-c, the acceptance of 28 BCP a-c in the REC is the complete undoing of what the REC was founded on. Bp Cummins would once again have to establish a Reformed Reformed Episcopal Church. Leo etal have nothing to do with the REC founders.
Read the document Anglican Faith and Practice used for the concordant for intercommunion between the REC and the APA. it nowhere states the doctrine of AS, however, refers to the Historic Episcopate in agreement with the REC founding principles.
Furthermore, as I stated early the REC has maintained AS (but not as requirement of those in the body itself), which would allow for inter-communion with a body that believes it is required. This would mean neither party would have to abandon their own principles. So there is no break in "low church" understanding on the REC side as you suggest. Example of this REC is apart of the ACNA, however, the REC does not ordain and will not allow women who are supposedly "ordained" from other ACNA bodies to transfer into the REC or celebrate in their churches. Their by maintaining to its principles.
My reason for saying you are mistaken is because you misunderstand what Bp Riches is saying. He is restating one of the REC founding principles. You disagreeing with him means you with disagree with one of the REC's founding principles.
George,
I do not disagree with the REC's founding principles. I do disagree with you and Leo's interpretation or logic or lack of it. The REC never intended apostolic succession, therefore by intent apostolic succession was never transferred. Ministers have been brought into the REC without the "benefit" of episcopal ordination from both the Presbyterian and Methodist churches. No apostolic succession here. The founders of the REC recognized the ordination of non-episcopal churches. This was one of the things that caused Bp Cummins to split with the PECUSA because he dared to have a communion service with ministers who were not episcopally ordained. You are obviously new to the REC and are willing to distorted version of its founding and founders.
Now again, it is not logical to conclude that one thing being desirable therefore makes another thing necessarily undesirable. There is absolutely no proof that the REC founders or the church until recent years ever thought that way. Are distortions great when they support our wants?
George and Joe,
You both need to clarify what you mean by apostolic succession. You both appear to assume that you are talking about the same thing. However, I do not think that you are.
Robin,
Apostolic succession is the succession of bishops by the laying on of hands from the apostles down to the present day. It is believed by some that (1) this line is unbroken and (2) that the seven gifts of the Holy Spirit is imparted to the succeeding bishop. The Eastern Churches and one of the ecumenical councils (not sure which) mandated 3 bishops for the consecration of a bishop in case one or two of the bishops have a broken line.
The problem with the first belief is it is unknown if any bishop has an unbroken line. The problem with the second belief is that a mere mortal man cannot by his imposition of hands transfer the gifts of the Spirit to another man. That is in the power of God and God alone.
The REC did not use the term apostolic succession but rather historic episcopacy. Its desirability is that it is ancient not that it was actually an unbroken line of succession, hence, the REC did not use the term apostolic succession. The REC accepted the ordinations of Methodist bishops and Presbyterian presbyters and even Congregationalists ministers into its own ministry and accepted their ministers communion. This is hardly a belief that any form of episcopacy was essential or even beneficial.
The problem with the term historical episcopacy is that mischievous individuals may well interpret it to mean apostolic succession in the two beliefs listed above. Because the REC has this historic episcopacy, though its founders rejected the superstitious beliefs of the a-c, modern day a-c looking for apostolic succession have come into the REC though rejecting its principles. The AOC has a similar problem. Quite simply the REC rejected the necessity of apostolic succession and all the anglo-catholic superstitions that go along with it. I do, however, think that the present bishops of the REC reject the founders concepts and accept the anglo-catholic position.
Bp Cummins did not think that the bishop should dress any differently than any other minister, so he rejected the rochet and chemere for the black academic gown. My how things have changed.
REC RIP
Joe,
I suggested a clarification of terms in case one of you was using apostolic succession in the sense of a succession of doctrine and the other in the sense of an unbroken succession of bishops.
George,
You might want to look at the following publications.
"Primitive Episcopacy: A Return to the "Old Paths" of Scripture and the Early Church." on the Internet at:
http://anglicanhistory.org/usa/rec/cummins/
primitive1874.html
Points of Difference between the Church of England in Canada and the Reformed Episcopal Church, on the Internet at:
http://www.archive.org/stream/
cihm_39330#page/n3/mode/2up
I have read what Leonard Riches has written as far as what is available on the Internet. From the perspective of the old Evangelical Episcopalians and the founding fathers of the Reformed Episcopal Church, he does not accurately represent their views but offers a revisionist reinterpretation of what they believed.
Joe,
More than ever I believe that a Reformed Evangelical Anglican Church is needed to fill the niche that the Reformed Episcopal Church once occupied. It is not simply a question of the Reformed Episcopal Church in the USA and Canada and the Free Church of England in the UK having slipped their moorings and drifting with the wind and tide. Those who have taken the helm are guiding the two churches in the same direction and it is away from everything for which both churches historically stood.
Robin,
I have Leo's sermon on the desirability of episcopacy and the undesirability of all other polities, that he gave about 2001 before the synod. Would you like a copy?
Joe
Joe,
Yes, I would like a copy. Is it in the form of a Word or PDF file or a paper copy? You have my email address.
I was thinking of posting as articles the sermon and position statement that I recommended to George. I might do an issue of Anglicans Ablaze devoted to the topic of changing views of episcopacy in the Reformed Episcopal Church. Riches would appear to be advocating the view of the Church and episcopacy that the REC founders rejected and consequently his sermon would represent a top leader's repudiation of their principles.
My analyses of the 2003 REC Prayer Book and its Modern Language Version to date show that these books depart from the theology of the 1963 REC Prayer Book and its predecessors, including the 1662 Prayer Book, and embody a repudiation of these principles.
It may be rather late in the game to draw attention to this abandonment of the REC founders' beliefs as far as the REC itself is concerned but it needs to be documented and brought into the light. I believe that we owe it to Bishop Cunningham and the founding fathers of the REC to make what they stood for better known and to expose the revisionism of the present REC top leaders for what it is.
Robin,
I have actually read both of those already. I am not going to attempt to persuade you or Joe. Because your minds are already made up. From what I have seen in attending a few RE churches and talking to some of the clergy they are still fairly inline with REC founding principles (yes, I know this anecdotal). The exception being the newer churches that were admitted using the '28 prayer book.
As far as AS joe and I are using essentially the same definition. The previous post I made was merely stating even though the REC denies AS on principle it still meets what is considered valid AS by use of BCP Ordinal, matter, form etc... it may be irregular in terms of a catholic understanding however, still valid. (again I know depends on how you define catholic) I know I read in one of Bp Cummins sermons he addressed this very topic, but I don't remember which one.
I think the present REC leadership is trying to seek unity among the separated Anglicans as ECUSA unraveled over the past 30 years. The REC has done a good job of maintaining control and soundness to it principles while reaching out to those unchurched Anglicans parishes and people that are out there.
It is very plain that our interpretations come to different conclusions.
also I would like a copy of that sermon as well via email would be fine.
George,
What I am planning to do is post the two sermons and the statement and let my readers draw their own conclusions.
I am not convinced from what I have read that the present top leaders of the REC do hold the same beliefs as Bishop George David Cummins and the nineteenth century conservative Evangelicals who founded the REC. They espouse theological views that are antithetical to those of the REC founders and they embrace liturgical practices that the REC founding fathers abhorred.
As for their motives my impression is that they are more complicated than you describe. The unification of seperated brethren may be how they justify the changes that they have implemented--a major talking point--but the same justification is also used by other groups to rationalize their introduction of doctrine and practice not consonant with Scripture, for example, the Convergence Movement and the Roman Catholic Church.
Uniting a church around false teaching I do not believe is what Jesus had in mind when he prayed that all who believe in Him through the words of the apostles, that is their teaching, should be one as he and the Father were one. Those who have not come to faith in him through apostolic teaching cannot be one with those who have. They lack what Cummins himself recognized as essential to true Christian unity--a vital faith in Jesus Christ and the gift of the Holy Spirit.
This is quite different from what the Convergence Movement and the Roman Catholic Church asserts are essential for Christian unity. The Convergence Movement emphasizes common piety and practice while the Roman Catholic Church emphasizes organic unity and communion with the Roman Pontiff.
Cummins in a sense was an ecumenist but his ecumenism was not directed toward the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches, which he regarded as corrupt. It was directed toward the Protestant and evangelical denominations in North America, which shared the New Testament and Reformation doctrine of salvation by grace alone by faith alone in Jesus Christ alone.
The following statements from the Solemn Declaration of Principles of the Heritage Anglican Network, adapted from the doctrinal statement of the conservative Evangelical Latimer Trust in the United Kingdom, stand in continuity with Cummins' beliefs.
"...being members of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church of the Lord Jesus Christ, united by Faith to Him who is Head over all things to the Church which is His body; and recognizing the essential unity of all who, by a like faith, are united to the one divine and common Head...."
"We affirm that the true unity of Christ's Church is a unity in faith, doctrine, and love and not of ministerial orders or external uniformity, and hold that the Lord's people should openly express this unity in particular at the Lord's Table as well as in other ways of witness and worship."
This is how conservative Evangelicals have viewed Christian unity and continue to view it.
As for the REC clergy, I would suspect that those who actually share the beliefs and principles of the ninenteenth conservative Evangelicals who formed the Reformed Episcopal Church in 1873 comprise a tiny minority in the REC, if any remain in the REC at all. The REC clergy's tolerance or acceptance of practices and usages that the nineteenth century conservative Evangelicals found utterly abhorrent and their use of the 1928 Prayer Book and the 2003 REC Prayer Book belie whatever they may say about adhering to beliefs and principles of the REC founding fathers. These practices and usages and the doctrinal content of the 1789 Prayer Book, which pales in comparison with that of the 1928 Prayer Book and the 2003 Prayer Book, are among the major reasons that the REC founders left the Protestant Episcopal Church. When the REC of today is compared with the REC of the nineteenth century, it is quite evident that the changes that have taken place in the REC are far reaching and the REC of today no longer stands in continuity with the REC of the nineteenth century.
Post a Comment