A comment posted below brought up an interesting point. Are continuing Anglican churches ecclesiaistical dictatorships, with each province being headed up by a egomaniac (my words)? Not really, and here's why.
Every reputable continuing church that I know of has canons that state that the parish owns its property. So the bishop cannot lord it over a parish like, say, an episcopal or catholic bishop can. He can say what he wants to say, and pronounce anathemas out the yin-yang, but at the end of the day he can't do too much to a parish. This creates a different problem, though. The rector of a parish can then strong arm the bishop, which is contrary to our tradition and beliefs about who is in charge. The rector is the one who can become a pope. I have seen this happen - the rector becomes a feudal lord of sorts. When he is pissed off at his bishop, he can pull the parish out and switch jurisdictions. It is very sad, and many people get hurt along the way.
To counter this, bishops need to carefully investigate such "transfers" instead of blindly accepting them. And the clergy need to take seriously their vows of obedience and strive to work with their bishop, even when it hurts. Only when everyone plays by the rules will the "game" work. If a bishop, upon careful and prayerful investigation of the circumstances, accepts a parish and clergy, then they need to make somme kind of gentlemen's agreement that they are going to work together for the ministry, and for the well being of the Church for the glory of Jesus Christ. The bishop has to be there to pastor the flock and help the clergy as much as he can, and the parish and its priests and vestry need to agree to be involved in the life of the larger church. They need to have the diocesan newsletters out, a picture of the bishop up, and etc. They need to participate in summer camps, gatherings, retreats, and more.
Only when everyone plays by the rules will we be able to get on with spreading the gospel of Jesus Christ. Thank the Lord that many jurisdictions are coming together and doing just that... slowly but surely!
Thursday, March 31, 2005
Holy Week and Easter - Continuing Style
Well, another Holy Week and Easter has passed. The Lord is risen; the Lord is risen indeed! We had the usual BCP and Missal services for Holy Week. Simple "said" masses for Monday - Wednesday. For Maundy Thursday we did a solemn high mass, along with the stripping of altar and the vigil at the altar of repose. On Good Friday we had the Solemn Collects and Veneration of the Cross. There was nothing for Saturday. The rector had such a low turnout last year that he didn't do anything this year. On Sunday morning, though, at the early service, he blessed the new fire and Pascal Candle and everything. The Exsultet was chanted, but no prophecies were read. Then we had two masses - one solemn high, and one sung. On Easter Day we had about 150 people. It was a good week.
We did a lot liturgically speaking, but not too much. We certainly didn't do everything that the missal appoints. Why? Because it is just too much. Like many continuing parishes, we are a small group, and our building, though elegant, is small and way out in the boonies. People simply cannot get out for all of that stuff with all of the work and family commitments of today. So why work the clergy to death?
I think we could do everything that the missal appoints if we were in a more urban location. The fact that many continuing church parishes are way out in the boonies usually works against having multiple, elborate liturgies (such as a candlemass).
What did your churches do for Holy Week and Easter?
We did a lot liturgically speaking, but not too much. We certainly didn't do everything that the missal appoints. Why? Because it is just too much. Like many continuing parishes, we are a small group, and our building, though elegant, is small and way out in the boonies. People simply cannot get out for all of that stuff with all of the work and family commitments of today. So why work the clergy to death?
I think we could do everything that the missal appoints if we were in a more urban location. The fact that many continuing church parishes are way out in the boonies usually works against having multiple, elborate liturgies (such as a candlemass).
What did your churches do for Holy Week and Easter?
Saturday, March 26, 2005
Who Cares About the Anglican Communion?
I read Virtuosity, the website run by David Virtue. I encourage everyone interested in contemporary events and Anglicanism to read it and support it. Many of his articles lately have to do with the future of the Anglican Communion and whether or not it will hold together. One listed today reads something like, "AMiA Bishop Says Communion Can Survive." My feeling, though, is who cares if it survives? Do we value a corporate "brand" more than orthodoxy? Do conservatives anglo-catholics, such as in FiFNa or some of the continuing bodies, really want to be in communion with provinces that ordain women, and are otherwise pervaded with liberalism and apathy - such as the CofE? I don't really care, to be honest. It would be different if the ABC was a "pope" of sorts, but he is not. I don't see any value in being in communion with him, or with anyone else in communion with him. What I value is the Jesus Christ - and orthodoxy, mission, sacraments, and maintaining the apostolic tradition. These things just are not important to many people in the "official" Anglican Communion, so why try to be in communion with them, when it would just be a false "communio" anyway?
Tuesday, March 22, 2005
Authority in the Anglican Tradition
Related to my last post is the question of authority. Roman Catholics attack Protestantism and Orthodoxy because they do not have a central authority figure - namely, the pope. They are especially critical of Anglicanism because it is so close to Romanism in terms of its liturgy and theology. They want us all to convert, and "go the whole way", if you will. Of course, there is no need to convert. Anglicans are Catholics - the only diffference being we have not checked our brains at the door.
Romanists assume that their infallible pope, who has greater authority than an ecumenical council, is somehow a safeguard against heresy. They fail to realize, however, that even popes can err, and that sometimes greatly. Just look at the history of the church. The Roman Pontiffs have committed great sins in the past. Why? Because they are human beings, and have a sinful nature like the rest of us. The errors of the past make the recent sex abuse scandals look like nothing, in fact. On the eve of the Reformation the Roman Church and curia were hopelessly corrupt. They cleaned up their act, to be sure, and JPII has been a wonderful witness of the gospel. But who is supposed to have that much power? That much power in the hands of some who would abuse could destroy the church more than anything else before it. And why papists don't realize that... and why it doesn't scare their pants off... is utterly beyond me. Authority in the Church is vested in Scripture and Tradition, and it is up to the Bishops of the Church to interpret them in a way that is normative for the life of the Church. And this is done in a collegial manner.
It is worth noting that even though Rome has these strange and heretical doctrines such as papal infallibility and supreme authority that they decide on matters of faith in the same way as other churches, and the pope in most cases simply "rubber stamps" things. The pope, in other words, has mountains of advisors and theologians who look at Scripture and Tradition, in light of human reason and natural law, when deciding about matters of the faith that may arise later on (such as bioethical issues). The pope rubber stamps this. He doesn't just pull new doctrines out of thin air, in other words.
Well, that is what other churches do too. That is what the Orthodox do, and the we do, and other Protestants do. At the end of the day, we have to the honesty to confess that it is a collegial process, whereas the papists give the pope all of the credit. But the crucial difference is the authority of the pope. The fact that, at the end of the day, the pope can come down and say and do whatever he wants is exceedingly frightening and unchristian, and I want no part in it. Christ ordained 12 apostles, not 1 and 11 assistants.
Romanists assume that their infallible pope, who has greater authority than an ecumenical council, is somehow a safeguard against heresy. They fail to realize, however, that even popes can err, and that sometimes greatly. Just look at the history of the church. The Roman Pontiffs have committed great sins in the past. Why? Because they are human beings, and have a sinful nature like the rest of us. The errors of the past make the recent sex abuse scandals look like nothing, in fact. On the eve of the Reformation the Roman Church and curia were hopelessly corrupt. They cleaned up their act, to be sure, and JPII has been a wonderful witness of the gospel. But who is supposed to have that much power? That much power in the hands of some who would abuse could destroy the church more than anything else before it. And why papists don't realize that... and why it doesn't scare their pants off... is utterly beyond me. Authority in the Church is vested in Scripture and Tradition, and it is up to the Bishops of the Church to interpret them in a way that is normative for the life of the Church. And this is done in a collegial manner.
It is worth noting that even though Rome has these strange and heretical doctrines such as papal infallibility and supreme authority that they decide on matters of faith in the same way as other churches, and the pope in most cases simply "rubber stamps" things. The pope, in other words, has mountains of advisors and theologians who look at Scripture and Tradition, in light of human reason and natural law, when deciding about matters of the faith that may arise later on (such as bioethical issues). The pope rubber stamps this. He doesn't just pull new doctrines out of thin air, in other words.
Well, that is what other churches do too. That is what the Orthodox do, and the we do, and other Protestants do. At the end of the day, we have to the honesty to confess that it is a collegial process, whereas the papists give the pope all of the credit. But the crucial difference is the authority of the pope. The fact that, at the end of the day, the pope can come down and say and do whatever he wants is exceedingly frightening and unchristian, and I want no part in it. Christ ordained 12 apostles, not 1 and 11 assistants.
Monday, March 21, 2005
A Living Tradition and the Catholic Wars
A friend recently left me a mocking voice mail asking if the services of benediction I attended recently were different from what the Articles of Religion forbid (i.e. carrying the host about, lifting it up, etc.). This friend is an ex-Anglican who became a triumphalist Roman Catholic. He is suggesting that I am somehow not being Anglican if I go to benediction, or that benediction is not congruent with the Anglican tradition.
I will admit that benediction is contrary to the Articles of Religion unless you take in some serious hermeneutical liberties while reading them. But what people need to understand is that Anglicanism is not a dead faith - it is, rather, a living tradition. Our bishops are living successors to the apostles. The Articles - especially ones like end of Article XXV - need to be looked at in their historical context, namely, the controversies of the Reformation. Those controversies are long over, so there is nothing wrong with the Church going back at its own discretion and reintroducing various devotions that were once banned in some parts of the world in order to serve a greater need today, such as a devotional need. The Articles are neither Creed nor Scripture. They are not infallible, and over time various parts of them need to be reevaluated. This is a tricky process that requires guidence by the Holy Ghost, and some teachings are not as open to discussion as others (e.g. the doctrine of the Holy Trinity). But they are not "carved in stone", as it were.
What annoyed me about my "friend", however, was that he, and other RCs, seem to think that only the Roman Church can change various doctrines over time. And believe me, they have changed many doctrines over the years. Before Vatican II, if you were not Catholic you were going to Hell. Now, just 40 years later, we can go to Heaven. How is that for a change in belief? Why don't they see how ridiculous that is? How about instituting "four offices" in the Church - deacon, priest, bishop, and pope (yes, the pope is not "just another bishop" - they have four offices)? Of course, they don't call it "changing doctrines". They say that they have come to a deeper understanding of their earlier belief. Well, no one engages in linguistic gymnastics as much or as well as RC theologians. But my question is - why do thhey not grant that dispensation to any other church?
More on this later.
I will admit that benediction is contrary to the Articles of Religion unless you take in some serious hermeneutical liberties while reading them. But what people need to understand is that Anglicanism is not a dead faith - it is, rather, a living tradition. Our bishops are living successors to the apostles. The Articles - especially ones like end of Article XXV - need to be looked at in their historical context, namely, the controversies of the Reformation. Those controversies are long over, so there is nothing wrong with the Church going back at its own discretion and reintroducing various devotions that were once banned in some parts of the world in order to serve a greater need today, such as a devotional need. The Articles are neither Creed nor Scripture. They are not infallible, and over time various parts of them need to be reevaluated. This is a tricky process that requires guidence by the Holy Ghost, and some teachings are not as open to discussion as others (e.g. the doctrine of the Holy Trinity). But they are not "carved in stone", as it were.
What annoyed me about my "friend", however, was that he, and other RCs, seem to think that only the Roman Church can change various doctrines over time. And believe me, they have changed many doctrines over the years. Before Vatican II, if you were not Catholic you were going to Hell. Now, just 40 years later, we can go to Heaven. How is that for a change in belief? Why don't they see how ridiculous that is? How about instituting "four offices" in the Church - deacon, priest, bishop, and pope (yes, the pope is not "just another bishop" - they have four offices)? Of course, they don't call it "changing doctrines". They say that they have come to a deeper understanding of their earlier belief. Well, no one engages in linguistic gymnastics as much or as well as RC theologians. But my question is - why do thhey not grant that dispensation to any other church?
Friday, March 18, 2005
Knock, knock?
My job involves working with churches and selling them supplies that they need for their buildings. I have done this for about two and a half years. One of the things I have noticed about a lot of churches - more than half of the ones I visit each week - is that many times no one is there during the week. The buildings are locked, and the parking lot is always empty. The office windows are always dark. When I get a number to call the pastor, many of these places do not even have answering machines for their phones! This is especially the case with city churches in marginal neighborhoods. It got me to thinking, "How can a congregation minister to people if no is ever there except on 'money day'?"
I suspect that many of these places are spiritually dead in part because no one is there during the week. And I think that many of the neighborhoods around these churches are bad because no one is there working day in and day out for good. The first step in helping people and ministering to them is being "present" to them. It is "being there" (dasein - to borrow a term from Heidegger and use it in a different way).
Most clergy are very busy - I realize that. But someone has to be at the church daily, especially in a more populated, urban area. Even if some crotchety old hag is there, at least she is there. At least there is a human presence. Again, to help people we must be present to them.
I suspect that many of these places are spiritually dead in part because no one is there during the week. And I think that many of the neighborhoods around these churches are bad because no one is there working day in and day out for good. The first step in helping people and ministering to them is being "present" to them. It is "being there" (dasein - to borrow a term from Heidegger and use it in a different way).
Most clergy are very busy - I realize that. But someone has to be at the church daily, especially in a more populated, urban area. Even if some crotchety old hag is there, at least she is there. At least there is a human presence. Again, to help people we must be present to them.
Tuesday, March 15, 2005
Chanting with the English Gradual and Chanting in General
The English Gradual has Gregorian chant tones for the propers from the Anglican Missal. It can be imposing for clergy (and choirs) who do not know how to read music, but would still like to chant the propers from the missal for high mass. But fear not! It is not as hard as it may appear. Here's the trick:
The English Gradual, in just about every case, uses the same tones for the various parts of the mass. Tone VII is used for the introit; Tone V for the Gradual; Tone VIII for the Tract (if there is one); Tone VI for the Alleluia; Tone II for the Offertory; and Tone I for the Communion. So, the priest or cantor simply has to memorize the tune (get someone to pluck it out on the piano for him), and then make various adjustments for the words and phrasing for each liturgy. Albeit, the constant use of the same tones would get old, but at least it is a start.
Many continuing parishes cannot afford nice organs or full time, skilled organists. But it is still possible to have nice, sung liturgies under those circumstances. Chant can be used instead. And if the priest and a few other members of a parish get together and practice chanting (form a "gregorian schola"), some real aesthetic beauty and mystery in worship can occur.
A lot of priests can't chant well because it is not taught in seminaries much anymore. What they need to do if they want to learn is go buy chant cds (by groups like Chanticleer, or the Tallis Scholars) and carefully listen to way trained singers chant and try to imitate them. The key is: knowing the tune; proper pronunciation; proper phrasing (chanting is NOT like regular singing).
The English Gradual, in just about every case, uses the same tones for the various parts of the mass. Tone VII is used for the introit; Tone V for the Gradual; Tone VIII for the Tract (if there is one); Tone VI for the Alleluia; Tone II for the Offertory; and Tone I for the Communion. So, the priest or cantor simply has to memorize the tune (get someone to pluck it out on the piano for him), and then make various adjustments for the words and phrasing for each liturgy. Albeit, the constant use of the same tones would get old, but at least it is a start.
Many continuing parishes cannot afford nice organs or full time, skilled organists. But it is still possible to have nice, sung liturgies under those circumstances. Chant can be used instead. And if the priest and a few other members of a parish get together and practice chanting (form a "gregorian schola"), some real aesthetic beauty and mystery in worship can occur.
A lot of priests can't chant well because it is not taught in seminaries much anymore. What they need to do if they want to learn is go buy chant cds (by groups like Chanticleer, or the Tallis Scholars) and carefully listen to way trained singers chant and try to imitate them. The key is: knowing the tune; proper pronunciation; proper phrasing (chanting is NOT like regular singing).
Wednesday, March 09, 2005
Old Order Anglicans
I thought up a new name for our movement/churches. Rather than saying "traditional", or "continuing" we could say "old order". The name came to mind when I saw a book about the Amish and Mennonites, and how they have "Old Order" Mennonites and then some more modern/liberal ones. The old order groups preserve all of the old traditions and beliefs, as well as dress and devotion. That is what continuing Anglicans do. The difference would be that we hope to reach out to the world and not be, or remain, an "exclusive" community.
Thursday, March 03, 2005
Stations of the Cross and Benediction
Last night I went to the local FiFNa parish for stations and benediction - two of my favorite things to do during Lent. Their building is huge, so it makes "walking the stations" more dramatic. And benediction from their high altar is quite impressive. This Friday we have the same devotions at my home parish (continuing). Our building is elegant, but very small, so the walking effect won't quite be the same. And in fact, we do not even have a monstrance, so we will be doing benediction with the ciborium.
But it is the heart that counts. It will still be a profound experience walking the path of Christ and being blessed by His precious Body. Maybe one day we will be fortunate enough to have a larger building, but the key now is to be faithful with what God has already given us.
But it is the heart that counts. It will still be a profound experience walking the path of Christ and being blessed by His precious Body. Maybe one day we will be fortunate enough to have a larger building, but the key now is to be faithful with what God has already given us.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)