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?

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

Confirmation

Confirmation day is fast approaching for the 8 or so students in my parish's confirmation class. Father wants the class to to be turned into a church school/youth class when he's done with them after confirmation. Unfortunately for a few of them confirmation will probably be "catholic graduation day". Their parents will no longer bring them to church and they will remain babes in the faith (at best) or be little better than pagans (at worse). For all of its good intentions, continuing Anglicanism has not been able to "fix" this problem. I think the parents are ultimately to blame. Teenage kids are usually lazy, and if the parents leave it up to them whether or not they will go to church, then of course the kids won't go. Parents have to drag them out of bed and go to church with the kids. So if the parents hate going to church, the kids won't go.

Moving

I have moved recently and have not been able to post much. My dsl service should be up in about a week and a half, so I will be posting more in a few weeks. This weekend I went to NYC with my girlfriend. We worshipped at Church of the Transfiguration, an historically anglo-catholic parish in lower Manhattan. The priests' ceremonial was way off. I was quite shocked. They chanted the litany, which was nice, but it was all downhill from there. It did not follow ritual notes at all. The deacon ad subdeacon didn't hold up the priest's chasuble while he censed the altar; the priest didn't wear a cope during the first part of the mmass; thhey didn't wear maniples; they didn't do the introit, gradual, etc. It was quite out of the ordinary. They were basically '79 BCP anglo-catholics. We in the various anglo-catholic continuing churches do it the old way - a full missal mass straight out of ritual notes. Are there any episcopal parishes that still do it that way? I think Ascension and St. Agnes in Washington DC does. Does anyone else know of any?

No Crazy Church Politics

Several times on this blog I have mentioned some of the difficult things about being a continuing Anglican. But, as we all know, there are many good things about being a continuer. One of these is in the area of church politics. I take great comfort in the fact that in my jurisdiction I do not have to worry about issues like women's ordination, pansexualist agendas, liberation theology, universalism, and more. They are non-issues and are not even up for discussion. We have our views on those subjects, and can defend our views, but we are all of one accord on subjects like that. We hold to catholic teaching as enshrined in scripture and tradition. We do not have to worry about one of our bishops ordaining women to serve as "priests".

We have issues to be sure, but they are not gargantuan in proportion, or related to redefining morality. Our issues are things like "when should we get a new organ", "what service should we have and when", and so on. But nothing like "should we recognize mormon baptisms?" We do not even go there. Now, it is true that there are politics in the continuing churches, and they can be annoying - especially for clergy. But they never really directly affect the day-by-day ministry in the parish church or the lives of the laity. This is in stark contrast to many dioceses and parishes in ECUSA.

All of this is very refreshing because it means we can be busy proclaiming the catholic faith and ministering to people. I feel sorry for those conservative parishes in ECUSA that have to spend their time and energy fighting their bishop and their denomination. If that energy could be used for spreading the gospel, and for healing, imagine what could be done on this earth! So whenever I read something on Virtuosity about Anglicanism that is disconcerting, I can be comforted sommewhat in that it usually is not happening in my denomination or in others, such as APCK, and more. I have more time, then, to pray for my brethern who not in such a good denominational situation. And may all continuers pray that God would give us grace to use our situation for his honor and glory... that we would be "strengthened for service"!

High Church REC

I visited a friend's REC parish in PA this past weekend, and it had a rack of votive candles at the rear of the nave, along with a statue of their patronal saint in the sanctuary near to the altar. And they have icons all over the parish, including in the nave! It just goes to show that you cannot put any particular continuing Anglican denomination into a box. I have been to some ACC parishes that are extremely low in their churchmanship and would never have anything like that in their church. It is a good sign for the APA-REC merger since the APA tends to be a lot more anglo-catholic.

Old School Phraseology

In continuing Anglicanism one encounters all sorts of old school phrases that are quite fun to say aloud in an English accent. The 1940 Hymnal has notes indicating how a hymn should be sung. Some of these are:

- Unison, with Stately Movement
- Without Dragging
- With Serenity
- In Unison, with Vigor

Ritual Notes, the classic manual of anglo-catholic ceremonial, uses phrases such as:

" .... this is strictly forbidden..."
"... an unedifying amount of movement..."
"...as is sometimes improperly done..."

The 1928 BCP has its share of interesting phrases too, such as "it is meet and right so to do", and "fie on thee" (in the Psalter). Too me, these phrases are beautiful. They show how seriously every aspect of worship is to be taken, and/or are memorable and unique ways of expressing things. To those who want to change the language of the liturgy I say, "Fie on thee! So to do is strictly forbidden!"

Anniversary of the Denver Consecrations

Today is the 27th (I believe) anniversary of the Denver Consecrations, when Morse, Doren, Mote, and Watterson were consecrated the first bishops for the Anglican Church in North America. This was one of the beginnings of the continuing Church - the APA actually began a couple of years earlier. And the REC began almost 100 years earlier. Well, so obviously the bishops and the Church they founded back in Denver did not stay together. They could not work out differences with regard to divorced and remarried clergy, churchmanship, canon law, etc. And I think there were personality issues as well. I won't rehash all of the details... they hardly matter anymore. A lot of those people involved are either old, retired, or dead. They point is that the Church (and by this I mean the traditional Anglican continuing "churches") needs to move on into the 21st century with timeless truth of Jesus Christ. We are basically one Church that is morally and doctrinally, but not corporately, unified - thanks mainly to the bishops, who are supposed to be a sign and symbol of unity. It is a sad but true fact that a few bishops have really hindered the growth and ministry of the Church.

This is beginning to change. As we discussed before, there are good talks going on. The old guard is passing away, or passing into retirement. New people are taking over, and people - especially bishops - are beginning to realize that a "house divided cannot stand". That we have stood for so long is a testimony to God's grace, but we need to take this tremendous gift He has given us, and one that we must now consiously use for His glory. Egos must be put aside, and "he who would be greatest among you must be least." And I want to clarify that there have been many godly continuing bishops over the years. They have served the Lord with gladness, and Jesus will say to them one day, "Well done, thou good and faithful servant."

We should take this day to remember our clergy in our prayers, and especially our bishops. I am sure that Satan wants to "sift them like wheat", so we need to pray to Jesus that He would minister to them and protect them. And we need to continue to pray for unity, and ask our leaders about it, and promote it at diocesan and provincial meetings, and so on. Innumberable benefits come from unity! May we be one as God and Christ are one!

Lectionary for Mass

In almost all cases, the parishes in my jursidiction use the 1928 BCP and/or the American or Anglican Missal (the 1928 BCP mass and propers are included in the missal). There are some parishes which have joined us recently from ECUSA that have been given a dispensation to use Rite II in the short term. One of the advantage of the 1979 BCP is that it uses the 3-year lectionary. The 1928 has a one year lectionary, so you do not cover as much scripture during mass. Now, if a person reads morning and evening prayer in the 1928, and goes to mass regularly, he will cover most of the Bible. But many parishioners do not read morning and evening prayer on their own. They just pray, maybe do some spiritual reading on the side, and come to mass on Sundays. They may not be disciplined, or not be very "proficient", but that is what they do. That is a problem. And the Church has to respond to that. So I think a 3-year mass lectionary is a good thing to have. It gets people to hear more of the scriptures.

My jurisdiction allows the use of the 3-year lectionary with the 1928 BCP. And while I think this is a step in the right direction, I do not think it is a perfect solution just yet. The reason I think that is because the Collects in the 1928 BCP, and the mass readings and readings for the daily office are all supposed to "go together" in theme and sentiment. The 1979 BCP changes the order of the collects around, and so has some slightly different readings. Put another way, the 79 readings and collects all "match", and the 28 readings and collects all "match", but when you mix them up a slight disconnect occurs. It may be relatively minor, but it is still important. The lectionary readings were chosen for a reason, so randomly combining and switching them is not very wise in my judgement.

What I think my province - and others - should consider doing is authorizing some of the 1928 daily office readings to be read as alternatives for mass. So a priest would have three epistles, three gospels, and some OT readings to choose from.... though we continuers do not really have "OT" readings in our liturgies. That way we would still be using the 1928 lectionary. (Isn't it somewhat hypocritical to say the 79 BCP is "revisionist", but we will still use its lectionary, or other parts if it suits us?) Either that, or several of the continuing provinces need to create a new lectionary to serve our pastoral needs. But again, mixing and matching is not very wise in my judgement.

People Still Love Traditional Anglicanism

This past weekend my girlfriend came to mass with me for the first time. She was raised in a very devout Mennonite family, and had never experienced the Anglican rite before. More important, she hasn't been to church in a while. Anyway, she loved it. She loved all of the symbolism, the formality, the dignity, and the language. The sermon - a strongly prolife sermon - was a bit short, she thought (about 10 minutes), but she had no negative comments about the subject matter. She said that the people were extremely friendly and nice. And more important, she wants to come back and maybe take the rector's study on the church year that he'll soon be offering.

This affirms more and more to me just how "relevant" (I hate that word) traditional Christianity - the true gospel of Jesus Christ - and the sacred liturgy of the church is to people today. They just need to be exposed to it. They need to be invited to mass, and we need to boldy proclaim who we are and why we are here. "We are Anglicans, and we are here to worship and glorify the Triune God, and to proclaim the faith 'once dleivbered to the saints'." When we focus on that mission - the Great Commission - people will come. Our Lord said, "I, when I am lifted up, will draw all men to myself." (John 12:32)

Reading for Orders 2

If a postulant must read for orders, the appropriate diocesen or provincal authorities should designate an official reading program. Areas that should be covered include philosophy; fundamental theology; philosophical anthropology; theological anthropology; christology; Old Testament (Pentateuch); Prophets; Poetical Books; Synpotic Gospels; Pauline literature; Catholic Epistles; ecclesiology; moral theology; philosophical ethics; social ethics; Greek; Latin; maybe Hebrew; Liturgy; Sacraments of Initiation; Eucharist; Orders; Penance and Annointing; Church History; and more.... There are too many to list.

They need to designate specific, in-print books. Sadly, many important Anglican books are out of print... such as Shepherd's Prayer Book Commmentary. So new books must either be used or written. Raymond Brown's "Introduction to the New Testament" is a great book to use, for example. I think reading Copleston's "History of Philosophy", or even Bertrand Russell's would be good - clergy need to be philosophically informed. All areas of systematics should be studied with reference to both the Church Fathers and modern scholarship. Wacko writers, such as feminist scholars, should be read as well.

The person reading for orders needs to have strong leadership throughout the process. His mentor must meet with him regularly and discuss the readings, ask various questions, assign papers, and so forth. And a regular schedule must be followed. The person reading for orders should do so within a timeframe, so that, like the person in a traditional seminary, he knows when he'll be finished his studies. People who read for orders are often very sincere, and pursue Holy Orders at great expense fo time and energy, so they should not be jerked around.

Indeed, reading for orders can be as complex for the candidate's mentor as it can be for the candidate himself! But it can be exciting too! A lot can be learned through theological discussions - sitting at a pub and discussing theology with someone who is very learned, for example.

Reading for Orders 1

This can be a hairy topic to get into, but I am going to give it a try. I have known several priests - both good and bad - who have read for orders. "Reading for orders" means that instead of completing a formal seminary training/educational program, the candidate for Holy Orders reads all of the books (or types of books) that one would read in seminary under the direction of a priest appointed by the bishop or some other authority. He is still responsible for passing all of the canonical exams, and basically has to do everything a seminarian does for te rest of his formation.... i.e. volunteer at his parish, sit in on various meetings, learn the basics of liturgics, and more. Reading for orders is ideal for men who have not completed college, or for some good reason were not able to go to college. It is also good for men who cannot, because of family and work commitements, attend a seminary. Further, it can be a godsend for those who wish to become priests but do not live near any theologate.

To briefly compare and contrast this approach with seminary from a traditional Anglican perspective, I find at three things worth mentioning. 1) Good and bad priests go to seminary and read for orders alike. Going to seminary doesn't necessarily mean a priest will have orthodox, pastoral theology, and reading for orders doesn't mean a priest will be a dunce or theological buffoon. 2) The contemporary continuing Anglican priest needs to learn all of the traditional liturgical ceremonial, and this is not taught in any seminaries anymore. The manual acts of the priest, and how to say mass, has to be taught by another priest who knows how to do it from way back when. So going to seminary will be little help in terms of learning to lead various liturgies (there are some small exceptions, such as learning how to do benediction, which may still be learned at a Roman seminary because they still do it pretty much in the old school way). It is learned in the parish. 3) Success in seminary or in reading for orders, as well as in ministry and in all other areas of life, depends on how seriously the individual takes it.

Seminary Ideas

Here are some basic ideas I want to throw out for a viable traditional Anglican seminary. For the basic foundations of a seminary you need an OT professor, a NT professor, a philosophy professor, a church history professor, and maybe 2-3 systematics professors (liturgics, general/fundamental theology, moral theology). They should all be in orders, and have pastoral experience. Pastoral theology can be taught by them through practicums, retreats, etc., as well as through their courses (i.e. how philosophical principles trickle down into everyday pastoral experience). They should all have earned Ph.Ds, or something very close, in their field. They do not necessarily have to be published writers, or "famous" scholars - pastor/scholars or pastor/teachers is closer to the mark. They should be in the traditional Anglican world (e.g. continuum, AMiA, FiFNa, etc.). A town needs to be located where a suitable facility may be purchased for use, such as Boston or Newark. One of the Catholic/Episcopal churches that are being closed in those areas could be bought (rectory and all) and used for classes, housing, and liturgy. An urban location that is also relatively affordable is essential. Students could live on or off campus at first, and then eventually (perhaps) they would be required tolive on campus. There obviously needs to be an endowment of sorts, and the tutors would need a way to make an income until the seminary was self-sustaining... perhaps by assisting at a local parish or doing chaplaincy work. The seminary should be open to all students of the continuum and other traditions (unlike the APCK one). Anyone who pays, and wishes to abide by the house rules should be invited to take classes. Though, it should be noted for those folk that the purpose of the seminary is to train pastors in the Anglican tradition - it's purpose is to serve the Church. It should eventually seek accredidation. It should not be a place for huge egos, or the fiefdom of some megalomaniac priest. And obviously it needs a small administration to oversee fundraising, classes, scheduling, etc. There would be daily mass and offices.

Organ-ization

We have probably the worst organ in the entire universe at my parish. It sounds like something you'd hear in an episode of "Tales from the Darkside". It is some relic from the 50's, I think, with vacuum tubes that are no longer made. Well, we finally approved the process to buy a new organ! Thanks be to God! In a continuing Anglican parish there simply must be a good music program/organ. We have too much music in our liturgy for there to be a bad instrument. Lord willing, our new organ will be installed in no more than a year. We want to raise 80% of the funds before buying. God will not bless reckless spending!

Now if we could just plan to get a nnew organist in a few years. We have a very sweet old lady that plays, but she always plays the Willan service... and I get so tired of hearing it. So does the rector, but he wants to tread carefully here, as organists are hard to find. We are lucky to have one at all. Anyway, she is a pianist by training, which also has its own problems, and she never uses the pedals. She often shows up five minutes before the service begins, and freqeuntly messes up the "Gloria Tibi", "Laus Tibi", and other standard old school Anglican pieces - which she plays every single Sunday! I just don't know how one could mess up pieces that are played so frequently! So, we have to see about replacing her later down the road.

But for now I a jjust thrilled that we are getting rid of our Dracula organ! Thank you blessed Jesus!

The Incredible Shrinking Church

I have been to a "prominent" continuing church's website recently - won't mention any names - and see that they have the same people serving as clergy in their diocese as when I was in that denomination three years ago. Even the old geezers who were supposed to have retired are out working in parishes. It is sad, not because these men are old (on the contrary, it is great that they are willing to continue serving the Lord), but because it shows that the church hasn't grown much at all in three years. They have no vocations that result in ordination, no new parishes, etc. The postulants who were there when I was a member of that denomination are nowhere to be found. If a church, diocese, or parish is not growing - at least slowly, and if people's lives are not being changed for the good... i.e. people are not drawing closer to God through the redemptive love of Jesus Christ, then something is seriously wrong. In such a case they need to search their souls and spend a great deal of time in prayer asking God what to do, and asking God to bless their ministry for His glory.