No Way APA
A wonderful anglo-catholic friend in the early stages of pursuing holy orders told me over some drinks the other night that he had come across the the "No Way APA" website. We joked at how silly it is. This site is run by someone who is obviously not excited about the APA and REC merging. For it exposes all of the "awful" catholic things that we do in the APA.
To be sure, it is accurate in some ways. Yes, we do offer the Blessed Virgin Mary the WORTH-ship (hyperdulia) that she is worthy of; we do recommend and practice private confession as it is one of the seven sacraments; we have lots of ritual (following Ritual Notes, of course); we celebrate the Sacrifice of the Mass; we pray for the dead; and more. But it is inaccurate in other ways. First of all, we worship (dulia) other saints too...not only Mary. Also, the site suggests that we have only "semi-nuns". I object to that... we have full nuns, just to set the record straight (The Order of St. Athanasius).
It is worth noting that the "No Way APA" website has been condemned by the bishops of the REC, who, besides being thoroughly catholic, are in full support of merging with the APA. It is too bad that those running it do not take the time to learn and study about catholic theology. Sadly, their error is just as bad as the ultramontane Roman Catholic who erects all sorts of straw men about protestantism, and never takes the time to seriously study it.
To be sure, it is accurate in some ways. Yes, we do offer the Blessed Virgin Mary the WORTH-ship (hyperdulia) that she is worthy of; we do recommend and practice private confession as it is one of the seven sacraments; we have lots of ritual (following Ritual Notes, of course); we celebrate the Sacrifice of the Mass; we pray for the dead; and more. But it is inaccurate in other ways. First of all, we worship (dulia) other saints too...not only Mary. Also, the site suggests that we have only "semi-nuns". I object to that... we have full nuns, just to set the record straight (The Order of St. Athanasius).
It is worth noting that the "No Way APA" website has been condemned by the bishops of the REC, who, besides being thoroughly catholic, are in full support of merging with the APA. It is too bad that those running it do not take the time to learn and study about catholic theology. Sadly, their error is just as bad as the ultramontane Roman Catholic who erects all sorts of straw men about protestantism, and never takes the time to seriously study it.
posted by J. Gordon Anderson at 5:58 PM
12 Comments:
Gordon,
I say no way to No Way APA (GRIN)! I have been unable to find out who is behind this site. At least the "TREC" site is run by a known person (a pastor of a REC church in PA). Just remember, that there are more of us "Hey Hey APA, let's pray together this Sunday!" Folks in REC land. I second your comment about the "semi-Nuns." When I met the two sisters in Florida, they seemed "full nuns" to me. I think that some people are still fighting the battles of the 19TH century (heck, down here in Virginia I KNOW that people are still fighting about the "recent unpleasentness of 1861-65!). I look forward to the day of merger (although the REC/APA merger might be subsumed in something larger at some point)so that Bp. Grundorf is as much my bishop as yours!!. (I met him in Florida and I have to say, I loved what I saw.)
I don't understand some people's problems with "high church." Heck, I experienced more "high church" stuff in several ECUSA situations than I ever have heard of in the APA. Oh well, Maybe I am out of step. I am the guy who used to stand between my old presbyterian friends and the Roman Catholics at the local Pro-life events since I could "pray both ways." I could be "praise the Lord" with my Presbyfriends and then turn and say the Rosary with my RC friends. I know that I am one of the few REC people I know who has been to Lourdes! One of my favorite experiences was marching up Capitol Hill between an RC priest and a RC Nun as we sang "Amazing Grace."
Chip
I have had the honour of being part of both an REC parish and a high church continuing parish. Certainly there are some major differences: the REC parish had communion once a month didn't have candles on the altar, would be horrified at Marian devotions, etc. The high church parish said the Angelus every Sunday, right before their sung mass. At the same time, they both used the same prayer book, the same hymns, the same KJV, and - most importantly - preached the same gospel. The two parishes were part of dioceses that considered themselves to be in communion with each other, and their bishops would often attend the other church's synods. The two churches even assisted at times with matters of pastoral care.
There is a tremendous amount that needs to be worked out between various traditional Anglican jurisdictions, and yet, there is a great deal that holds us together already. Those of us who are part of the Prayer Book tradition already have much more in common with each other than members of some other denominations.
The main thing for everybody - from whatever church - to keep in mind, is that there is no sanction anywhere in the New Testament of a fractured Church. Although some have such deep disagreements that they consider each other heretical, anything less does not constitute a valid excuse for separation. For example, I have some disagreements with Roman Catholicism, but since I do not believe these to touch on essential matters of faith (though they may be serious), I have no excuse to avoid considering intercommunion with Rome, if the possibility arises of doing so in a way that does not compromise what I believe to be essential to the faith. The same applies to the the Orthodox, to the REC, or to any other group that will accept the faith and order of the undivided church.
It is pretty sad that some people have to spend their time being so negative, and doing things so unproductive. The problem with people like those who run that site is that they believe they possess the truth.
That is pretty amusing. I've nothing to say about it. Silly people!
Although I disagree with the No Way APA people, I'm not trying to deny that there is a certain logic to the low church position.
The C of E is a reformational church, at least in some way. The 39 Articles, even though many Anglo-Catholics have done a good job of interpreting them from a catholic perspective, have a great deal of Puritan influence. They certainly imply that there is something about medieval catholicism that was seriously wrong. And, depending on how they are interpreted, they could certainly be taken to condemn certain Anglo-Catholic practices. I don't believe that the articles need to be taken that way, and I believe that Holy Tradition and Scripture both provide a solid basis for Marian devotion, the Real Presence, prayers for the dead, etc. But the No Way APA people - no matter how much I may disagree with some things they say - have some valid arguements.
Well, the problem these people have is that while they affirm some sort of allegience to the articles, they do so while ignoring the teachings of historic BCPs. The two need to be read in light of each other, and used to interpret each other. And often these folk are complete 5-point TULIP Calvinists, which the articles - and especially the BCP - doesn't support (in my mind, anyway).
Granted.
Actually,
I think the Articles (39 not 35) and especially article 17 are very "Calvinist". Having been involved with a Conservative Presbyterian Denomination which placed great emphasis on the Westminster Confession, I find the Articles to be more "Reformed" than the Westminster in regard to the doctrines of Election and Predestination.
I cannot see anything in the articles (or in the teachings of the great CATHOLIC Father St. Augustine of Hippo) which is not in agreement with a "mainstream" TULIP.
Chip
Maybe I need to spend some time going over Calvin again, then! Perhaps his later interpreters whom I have read have done him an injustice. As for TULIP, I do not see T, L, I, or P in the Articles. Some are there in a mitigated, Augustinian way, but not in an extreme way (e.g. no double predestination). And I do not see how one squares away the idea of an invisible church and "P" with the rite of baptism in the BCPs. But admittedly, I do not see all things, so it is something I need to study more.
Hans Kung wrote a book where he essentially argues that their is no real difference between Protestant and Catholic soteriology... I think he compares and contrasts Barth (Calvinist) and Urs Von Balthasaar (RC). Part of me agrees with him, but it is hard for me to articulate why at this point.
I was amused by the site and had to write them a note:
Well, of course everyone should be shocked -- shocked!! -- to discover that there are Anglo-Catholics in the APA.
Well, of course there are! The Continuing Anglicans that left the Episcopal Church in the late '70s were overwhelmingly parting in protest over the church's destruction of Catholic Order by ordaining women, although the gratuitous vandalism to the Book of Common Prayer doubtless contributed substantially; they were in any case overwhelmingly Anglo-Catholic.
I was confirmed myself in the (legendarily Anglo-Catholic) Dio of Fond du Lac about half a century ago, back before the Episcopal Church decided that actual Christianity was too unfashionable. We didn't do any Marian devotions -- that would have been a little much, and besides St. Patrick's RC church was right across the street -- but we had lots of bells and smells and so on.
If you dislike union with an organization that includes Anglo-Catholics, on theological grounds or whatever, that's fine and your privilege. (A fair number of ELCAs are upset at their cooperation with the Episcopal Church because of the requirement for apostolic succession; it seems to me they should be worrying about EC's total abandonment of Scripture instead.)
But anyway, please don't act as though it were some big secret. APCK, APA, and nearly all the rest are from the high-church tradition within Anglicanism; I presume your church leadership was well aware of that when the arrangements were made.
And by the way, please don't confuse the Real Presence with Transubstantiation; they're different doctrines entirely, Tract 90 to the contrary notwithstanding.
It also seems to me that in a culture like ours, where we have seen it move from overwhelmingly Christian through postChristian to paganism-with-occasional-mentions-of-Jesus in only a generation, there might be more important areas for rabble-rousing than fine details of theology. I have my reservations about both Calvin and the Council of Trent, but in an age of rampant abortion and casual euthanasia, it rather strikes me as of higher Christian priority to work together fighting what John Paul II called "the Culture of Death" than to, say, spend a lot of time arguing, as for example the Milwaukee Synod Lutherans do, that the Pope is the Antichrist. (Nope, even most strict Baptist and Presbyterian scholars have concluded that it was Nero.)
Best wishes and God bless,
Craig
Dear Craig,
Amen, amen, and amen! Your note to the people who run that site is perfect and 100% correct. I hope that they take your sound and rational words to heart!
Sincerely in Christ,
J. Gordon Anderson
I grew up until the age of eleven bouncing between my grandmothers United Methodist Church and what ever local baptist church was bribing us with donuts and a free bus ride to church. At eleven I converted to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (the mormons) and stayed there until about 23. I had become agnostic at about 21, staying in the church for social reasons. I continued to pray the entire time, at 25 I was on top of the world except that I missed that comfort I felt as a young man (with no father). Jesus was always the male figure in my life. I had a day when I went fishing and asked God the higher power for some clarity in my life and the comfort I had as a child, the faith I had as a child. I then made my way through various protestant churches, charismatic, baptist, reformed,etc. I was kicked out of some for too many questions. Others mandated I date only girls in the congregation and stop watching t.v. Being a history buff I decided to started studying history, best I could anyway. I made my way to the Luthern Church Missouri Synod. There I discovered that the reformers took alot of their beliefs from the writings of several Western Fathers (except for Wesley who studied and incorporated the Eastern Fathers as well). I tried and tried to figure out Roman Catholicism. I began to learn about the East and then I found Anglicanism.
I have no family background in Anglicanism or Eastern Orthodoxy. I would more easily fit in with the non-denom, watered down theology type. If I did not believe in God I would be a Mormon again. I really don't have an axe to grind or a point of view that I favored at the start. This is what I came to believe (though still evolving to a point). The reformation is the incompleted effort to return to Orthodoxy. Calvin and his theology were innovative and un-neccesary and largely mirror the attitude of Roman Catholicism where emphasis is often placed on the opinion of one father rather than listening to the chorus of the fathers and finding concensus. To a redneck like me Calvin seems to be making something so simple so complicated. When I found out he practised law it was not at all a suprise. I am sympathetic to Luther though I think he suffered from what alot of us suffer from, the desire to rule. I have to wonder "what if", what if the Lutherans had been succesful in rejoining the faith of the East?
My father in law always ask what my opinion or the opinion of the Eastern Church is regarding the Westminster confession. Speaking for myself I always say. Un-neccesary and a failed attempt at returning to the faith of the 5th century church (if it was an attempt at all). I lean towards Eastern Orthodoxy. I think the years of murder, isolation and oppression have helped to maintian the Trinitarian theology. I have learned more about the bible in the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom than I ever did in a baptist bible study type service. The ethnic issues are a real problem for me and my family. Orthodoxy seems to be where Lutheranism was prior to WWI. Perhaps if we go to war with Greece, Syria, or Russia Orthodoxy will force itself to identify more as Christians who are Americans rather than Greeks who are Orthodox Christians. I don't support pluarism though. Just like Sts. Methodius and Cryil, I want the liturgy in the language of the people.
Now Anglicanism.... The EO, from time to time, say that the West will become Orthodox again when it once again loves all of the saints (Eastern and Western). Well I think in some jurisdictions that is as true for EO as the West. Augustine is a saint. Listen to him alone and there are some problems, listen to him as part of the chorus of the fathers and you have a solid faith from age to age. I was told that Anglicanism was started by Henry VII. When I researched the claim I was shocked to learn it was not only false but that Anglicanism was Western Orthodoxy, as much as 4th Century Rome. It appears that Anglicanism was a victim of Roman occupation and papal aggression, just like the East. The English Reformation appears to be an attempt at throwing off the yoke of Rome. The problem as I see it is that some people clung to whatever piece of theological wood floating after the shipwreck. I honestly believe that Anglicanism can and in some cases is the faith of the unidivided church. It sure mirrors the opinions of the Saints. There are varying pious opinions but alliegance to common creeds. I believe that the 39 articles are un-neccesary and prior to the English Reformation unkown in most of the West and all of the East. Are they all wrong? No. But there is some error. Scripture, creeds, etc. all have to be viewed through the lens of the pillar and ground of truth, the church.
This is where I am at. I have no animosity towards anyone one. I think it is much harder to be Anglican, EO, and truly a Roman Catholic than other churches. Anglicanism and EO seem attempt to bring a historic faith and liturgy to the world as opposed to changing the faith to be relevant to a world that see's the cross as foolishness.
Sorry for the length.....
Post a Comment
<< Home