Today, at the 105th Synod of the Diocese of Mid-America of the Reformed Episcopal Church, the clergy and parish delegates unanimously adopted the following resolution.
The Diocese of Mid-America, being a part of the Reformed Episcopal Church, which is a member of the Anglican Church in North America, in seeking to uphold and remain faithful to the Doctrine and Discipline of the Reformed Episcopal Church, hereby reaffirms the following articles of the Reformed Episcopal Church Constitution as our understanding of the doctrinal standards, which are binding on all REC clergy and parishes and missions.
To read more, click here.
I ran across this post while searching the Internet for a Reformed Episcopal Church web page with information about the modern language prayer book approved by its 2011 General Council. I repeatedly attempted to post a comment in response to the post only to be baffled by WordPress. My comment was too long. The URL was incorrect. And so on. I decided to post my comment here on Anglicans Ablaze.
Whether the folks in the Reformed Episcopal Church are willing to admit it, the denomination has abandoned the principles of its founders--of Bishop George David Cummins and the Evangelical Episcopalians who broke away from the Protestant Episcopal Church in the USA over the growth and increasing influence of Tractarianism and Ritualism in that denomination in the 19th century. Here is my comment:
A comparison of this document with the Constitution and Canons of the Reformed Episcopal Church as adopted by the 17th General Council on May 1903 and revised by subsequent General Councils through the 45th General Council on May 1984 shows that this doctrinal statement is a recent one. The following is taken from the REC Constitution, as revised through May 1984—Article VIII - Of Erroneous Direct or Symbolic Teachings__Nothing calculated to teach, either directly or symbolically, that Christian Ministry possesses a sacerdotal character, or that the Lord's Supper is a sacrifice, shall ever be allowed in the worship of this Church. No Communion Table shall ever be constructed in the form of an altar, no retable erected, and no candle, candlestick, or cross shall ever be placed upon any Communion Table.
Both the 1928 PECUSA BCP and the 2003 RECUS BCP teach that the Christian Ministry possesses a sacerdotal character and that the Lord's Supper is a sacrifice. In contemporary REC churches altars have replaced Communion Tables and these new altars are decorated with candlesticks and candles and altar crosses. Ministers are addressed as "Father," wear eucharistic vestments, and turn their backs to the congregation, facing the new altars as sacrificing priests. The REC has abandoned the principles of its founders. Outsiders have no illusions about the change in the character of the REC. The conservative evangelical Church Society in the UK no longer regards the REC as "Reformed." The only folks who pretend that the REC has not changed are are in the REC.
The 1886 Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral was an Anglo-Catholic document, adopted by the Anglo-Catholic-dominated House of Bishops of the PECUSA, and should not be confused with the 1888 Lambeth Quadrilateral, which was closer to the language of William Reed Huntington's original proposal.
Robin, are you not aware that the 2003 REC BCP you condemn here retains the historic "Black Rubric" which states that:
ReplyDelete"It is hereby declared, That thereby no adoration is intended, or ought to be done, either unto the Sacramental Bread or Wine there bodily received, or unto any Corporal Presence of Christ's natural Flesh and Blood. For the Sacramental Bread and Wine remain still in their very natural substances, and therefore may not be adored; (for that were Idolatry, to be abhorred of all faithful Christians;) and the natural Body and Blood of our Saviour Christ are in Heaven, and not here; it being against the truth of Christ's natural Body to be at one time in more places than one."
I mention this because the presence of this rubric in the 2003 BCP essentially obviates your concerns expressed here, and was retained by the REC specifically for this purpose, as it has been in all the historic Prayer Books.
wyclif.
ReplyDeleteThe presence of the Prayer of Consecration and other material from the 1928 PECUSA Book of Common Prayer, which teach the doctrines of Eucharistic Sacrifice and the Real Presence, negate the Declaration on Kneeling. The 2003 RECUS Prayer Book repeats the error of the 1928 Proposed English Prayer Book and combines services that are decidedly Anglo-Catholic in doctrine and practice with the services of the 1662 Prayer Book. For this reason the English Parliament twice rejected the 1928 Proposed English Prayer Book. The retention of the Declaration on Kneeling in the 1928 Proposed English Prayer Book did not, in the eyes of the English Parliament, obviate its concerns.
As for the Declaration on Kneeling being in all historic Prayer Books, this statement is inaccurate. It was not included in the 1549 Prayer Book, which Martin Bucer and Stephen Gardiner both concluded was open to teaching the doctrine of Real Presence that the English Reformers rejected on Biblical grounds. Nor was it included in the 1559 Prayer Book.
The 1928 Prayer Book incorporates a number of liturgical elements from the 1549 Prayer Book that the Reformed Bucer and the Roman Catholic Gardiner concluded taught the doctrine of the Real Presence. The 1928 Prayer Book also incorporates a number of liturgical elements from the pre-Reformation Medieval Catholic Mass-books, elements that are closely associated with the doctrines of the Eucharistic Sacrifice and Transubstantiation.
The 2003 RECUS Prayer Book also incorporates material from the 1928 Prayer Book that teach the sacramental system of the Medieval Catholic Church--confirmation, penance, unction, and ordination--without referring to the rites as sacraments. As long as the RECUS Prayer Book contains this kind of material from the 1928 Prayer Book, it is a doctrinally tainted Prayer Book from a Reformed perspective.
Compare the 2003 RECUS Prayer Book with the 1956 Free Church of England Prayer Book, which removes from the 1662 Prayer Book any phrases and practices that might be misconstrued to provide plausible grounds for Anglo-Catholic doctrine and practice, and you will see an obvious difference between the two books. The 1956 FCE Prayer Book is Protestant and evangelical in doctrine and practice while the 2003 RECUS Prayer Book is Anglo-Catholic.
The Reformed Episcopal Church has abandoned the principles of its founders and its use of the 2003 RECUS Prayer Book and the 1928 PECUSA Prayer Book are clear and conclusive evidence of its departure from these principles. The Church Society is right in classifying the REC as no longer a Reformed Anglican body.
Robin, I think you're being more than a little pedantic here.
ReplyDeleteYes, my goodness, I'm quite aware of the 1549 Rite and the differences between that and those Prayer Books that came after, but I'm talking about the Reformed BCPs of 1552-1662. The 1928 American BCP is a minority option in the REC. Are you aware of this?
Also, it sounds like you're a bit mixed up about some of these Rites. You do not seem to be aware that the 1928 English Revised Book that was rejected is NOT the same thing at all as the 1928 American Book...they were simply revised in the same year. While I think it stands to reason why many would be confused by that, you would do well to look a bit closer and get things right before you hold forth on this subject.
I'm afraid I'm also not convinced by your logic on the Black Rubric. It most certainly does obviate these concerns, because it states that no adoration is intended. It is abundantly clear that the eucharistic doctrine of Anglicanism is that of dynamic virtualism, and that there is no carnal presence of Christ in the elements of bread and wine, that they retain their natural substances, and that the presence of Jesus is not here, but in the heavenlies. I do not know how much more plain it can be.
This last point is even more pronounced when one considers that at the most recent GC just over this past weekend, the REC reaffirmed their commitment to the Declaration of Principles, which again obviate any idea of priestcraft. I would suggest you review this document. It is included in every edition of the REC BCP and the REC has always taught this.
P.S. The Church Society may have its classifications, but I'm afraid they are simply incorrect on this point. Besides, what the Church Society decrees has absolutely no authority whatsoever on these shores, and not even in the UK, since they are an extra-Church society!
ReplyDeleteMy analysis of the 2003 Reformed Episcopal BCP and its new Modern Language Version shows how much those two books have been influenced by the High Church Anglo-Catholic, Broad Church Latitudinarian liturgy of the 1928 BCP and support my conclusions.
ReplyDeleteThe 1928 Proposed English BCP consisted of forms and services from the 1662 BCP and new forms and services that were Anglo-Catholic in doctrine. Their inclusion in the 1928 Proposed English BCP changed its doctrine as does the inclusion of elements not found in the 1662 Communion Service in any REC Communion Service purportedly based upon the 1662 Communion Service.
The Declaration on Kneeling did not prevent the 19th century Tractarians and Ritualists from claiming that it did not apply to their particular doctrine of the Real Presence. They were infamous for reinterpreting everything in the 1662 BCP "in a Catholic sense."
The 2003 Reformed Episcopal BCP and its Modern Language Version draw heavily upon the texts and rubrics of the 1928 BCP, which in turn incorporates liturgical elements from the 1549 BCP and pre-Reformation Medieval Mass-books strongly associated with the Medieval Catholic doctrines of the Eucharistic Sacrifice and the Real Presence.
The REC is far from being a confessional Anglican church; in non-confessional Anglican churches what is said and done in the liturgy on Sunday morning shapes what people believe, not theological statements issued by General Councils and Diocesan Councils or ratified by such bodies.
The Church Society is "the senior evangelical body" in the Church of England. It numbers among its illustrous forbears the Church Association. The aims of the Church Association, founded in 1865, were "to uphold the Doctrines, Principles, and Order of the United Church of England and Ireland, and to counteract the efforts now being made to to pervert her teaching on essential points of the Christian faith, or assimilate her Services to those of the Church of Rome, and further to encourage concerted action for the advancement and progress of Spiritual Religion."
Church Society's publication Cross+Way and Churchman feature articles by leading evangelicals in and outside the Church of England. The conclusion of the Church Society that the REC is no longer Reformed cannot be dismissed lightly.
The REC has abandoned the principles of its founders. In 2006 "True Unity by the Cross of Christ" the REC bishops allowed the reinterpretation of the Thirty-Nine Articles as John Henry Newman and the Tractariarian interpreted them. This document uses the terms "priest", "altar", and "Real Presence", and speaks of the authority of tradition as well as that of Holy Scripture. George David Cummins, Charles Edward Cheney, W. R. Nicholson, Benjamin B. Leacock, and Mason Gallagher would be appalled the departure of the REC from its Reformed and evangelical heritage.