Ah. . .tolerant liberalism. . .
(from the Corner of the National Review)
Misguided youth with a liberal fascist instinct:
"In response to a series of controversies over abortion debates on Canadian campuses, the student government of York University in Toronto has tabled an outright ban on student clubs that are opposed to abortion.
Gilary Massa, vice-president external of the York Federation of Students, said student clubs will be free to discuss abortion in student space, as long as they do it "within a pro-choice realm," and that all clubs will be investigated to ensure compliance.
"You have to recognize that a woman has a choice over her own body," Ms. Massa said. "We think that these pro-life, these anti-choice groups, they're sexist in nature ... The way that they speak about women who decide to have abortions is demoralizing. They call them murderers, all of them do ... Is this an issue of free speech? No, this is an issue of women's rights."
Another sign that open-minded classical liberalism is by and large a thing of the past. I think I hear the Emperor's March from the Empire Strikes Back playing quietly in the background.
Thursday, May 29, 2008
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
Baptism
There are two Sacraments ordained of Christ our Lord in the Gospel, that is to say, Baptism, and the Supper of the Lord.
It is through baptism by water in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost that an individual dies to sin and rises to new life in Christ. Through this rebirth, or regeneration, baptism washes away original sin and opens the door to God’s grace. At baptism, a person is grafted into the Church, the Body of Christ, and becomes a branch of the Vine. Furthermore, in Baptism a visible confirmation is given of God’s forgiveness of the individual’s sins, and one’s adoption as a son of God and an heir of salvation.
Baptism is not only a sign of profession, and mark of difference, whereby Christian men are discerned from others that be not christened, but it is also a sign of Regeneration or New-Birth, whereby, as by an instrument, they that receive Baptism rightly are grafted into the Church; the promises of the forgiveness of sin, and of our adoption to be the sons of God by the Holy Ghost, are visibly signed and sealed, Faith is confirmed, and Grace increased by virtue of prayer unto God. The Baptism of young Children is in any wise to be retained in the Church, as most agreeable with the institution of Christ.
Not every deadly sin willingly committed after Baptism is sin against the Holy Ghost, and unpardonable. Wherefore the grant of repentance is not to be denied to such as fall into sin after Baptism. After we have received the Holy Ghost, we may depart from grace given, and fall into sin, and by the grace of God we may arise again, and amend our lives. And therefore they are to be condemned, which say, they can no more sin as long as they live here, or deny the place of forgiveness to such as truly repent.
There are two Sacraments ordained of Christ our Lord in the Gospel, that is to say, Baptism, and the Supper of the Lord.
It is through baptism by water in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost that an individual dies to sin and rises to new life in Christ. Through this rebirth, or regeneration, baptism washes away original sin and opens the door to God’s grace. At baptism, a person is grafted into the Church, the Body of Christ, and becomes a branch of the Vine. Furthermore, in Baptism a visible confirmation is given of God’s forgiveness of the individual’s sins, and one’s adoption as a son of God and an heir of salvation.
Baptism is not only a sign of profession, and mark of difference, whereby Christian men are discerned from others that be not christened, but it is also a sign of Regeneration or New-Birth, whereby, as by an instrument, they that receive Baptism rightly are grafted into the Church; the promises of the forgiveness of sin, and of our adoption to be the sons of God by the Holy Ghost, are visibly signed and sealed, Faith is confirmed, and Grace increased by virtue of prayer unto God. The Baptism of young Children is in any wise to be retained in the Church, as most agreeable with the institution of Christ.
Not every deadly sin willingly committed after Baptism is sin against the Holy Ghost, and unpardonable. Wherefore the grant of repentance is not to be denied to such as fall into sin after Baptism. After we have received the Holy Ghost, we may depart from grace given, and fall into sin, and by the grace of God we may arise again, and amend our lives. And therefore they are to be condemned, which say, they can no more sin as long as they live here, or deny the place of forgiveness to such as truly repent.
Saturday, May 24, 2008
A new book linked to at Cranmer and Laud!
http://cranmerandlaud.blogspot.com/2008/05/hardwicks-history-of-articles.html
Hardwick's A History of the Articles of Religion
A must read for all classical Anglicans, demonstrating the soundness of our doctrine.
http://cranmerandlaud.blogspot.com/2008/05/hardwicks-history-of-articles.html
Hardwick's A History of the Articles of Religion
A must read for all classical Anglicans, demonstrating the soundness of our doctrine.
What's in a name?
(Summer is a time for re-runs, so here's an oldy with some new comments)
This may be completely inconsequential, but as a traditionalist Anglican priest I always take notice of what conservative Anglicans/Episcopalians call themselves. Our parish is within the Reformed Episcopal Church, but we do not label ourselves primarily as "Reformed Episcopalians," because we've taken note that very few people know what this means--are they Calvinist Episcopalians? Not really, since the Prayer Book and the Articles are not Calvinist, but biblical, patristic, Augustinian, and protestant, but by no means Calvinist (indeed, many of the Calvinists of generations past claimed the Anglican Articles did not go far enough and wished to throw them overboard and replace them with something "more Calvinist"!). Indeed, there is no reason to expect anything "Calvinist" in them, for they predates such disputes--see Browne's excellent Exposition on the Articles as well as Hardwick's History of the Articles (see the link over at Cranmer and Laud). It is ironic that in the past history of the Reformed Episcopal Church in the United States the Articles were "rewritten" a strongly Arminian manner--gutting the doctrine of predestination--while the Free Church of England essentially left them alone). This doctrine of Predestination is not "Calvinist," but biblical and Pauline, as many Anglican authors have noted.
Also, we are in full-communion with the Anglican Province of America and the Anglican Church of Nigeria, and in federation with the Anglican Church in America and the Anglican Mission in America. Our primary bond of unity is found in our common history as Anglicans; the designation of "Reformed Episcopal" is a jurisdictional title. Therefore, the moniker of our parish is "St. Andrew's Anglican Church, a Reformed Episcopal parish." Most classical Anglican parishes do something similar, using the word Anglican as the primary designation with a later description that informs the reader of the jurisdictional link. The word "Anglican" in use in the United States has become a bit of a code word for "conservative" or "traditional" Episcopalian, something that seems to make the mainline body quite angry--they're not real Anglicans, they often say, but counterfeits! I've noticed that several parishes in the Anglican Province of Christ the King do something similar to what I mentioned above in regards to my own parish--"All Saints Anglican Church, a traditional Episcopal parish of the Province of Christ the King."
The Episcopal heritage of the Church in the United States is something that traditionalists sometimes use to demonstrate that we really are Episcopalians, just as much as the "official" and now heterodox body. We have bishops, and we have the Anglican Book of Common Prayer. I've seen the title "Anglican Episcopal" used as well to describe parishes in several jurisdictions. Although we lack communion with the See of Canterbury, we lay claim to the heritage and doctrine of the Reformed Catholic Faith as expressed in the Anglican Way via the classical Prayer Books (1549-1928), the Ordinal, and the Articles of Religion. I've noticed that some parishes in the United Episcopal Church and the Reformed Episcopal Church are even bold enough to simply call themselves "Episcopalian" without an "Anglican" qualifier: "St Paul's Episcopal Church, a parish of the. . ." How this must upset the mainliners. Ah, but what is in a name? I prefer the term Anglican myself. If someone doesn't know what I mean when I say "Anglican" I may fall back on something like "traditional Episcopalian." Yes, we have bishops, but is that enough? The mainline church put all of their stock in the office of bishop, but those bishops turned out to be wolves, not shepherds of the flock. They cast aside the Prayer Book and the Articles, cast aside Catholic order of bishop, presbyter, and deacon, and cast aside the heritage of the Anglican Church. Notice how all of the classic texts of Anglicanism once published by the mainline church are now being replaced by books that fit the "new religion" of "affirming catholicism." In the end, all they had was the title "Episcopalian," but that is not enough to be Anglican--it may be necessary, but it is not sufficient. As we continue as "Continuing" or classical Anglicans, let us be mindful that what makes us Anglicans is not just episcopal polity, but the faith of the primitive Catholic Church as expressed in our liturgies and the Creeds.
(Summer is a time for re-runs, so here's an oldy with some new comments)
This may be completely inconsequential, but as a traditionalist Anglican priest I always take notice of what conservative Anglicans/Episcopalians call themselves. Our parish is within the Reformed Episcopal Church, but we do not label ourselves primarily as "Reformed Episcopalians," because we've taken note that very few people know what this means--are they Calvinist Episcopalians? Not really, since the Prayer Book and the Articles are not Calvinist, but biblical, patristic, Augustinian, and protestant, but by no means Calvinist (indeed, many of the Calvinists of generations past claimed the Anglican Articles did not go far enough and wished to throw them overboard and replace them with something "more Calvinist"!). Indeed, there is no reason to expect anything "Calvinist" in them, for they predates such disputes--see Browne's excellent Exposition on the Articles as well as Hardwick's History of the Articles (see the link over at Cranmer and Laud). It is ironic that in the past history of the Reformed Episcopal Church in the United States the Articles were "rewritten" a strongly Arminian manner--gutting the doctrine of predestination--while the Free Church of England essentially left them alone). This doctrine of Predestination is not "Calvinist," but biblical and Pauline, as many Anglican authors have noted.
Also, we are in full-communion with the Anglican Province of America and the Anglican Church of Nigeria, and in federation with the Anglican Church in America and the Anglican Mission in America. Our primary bond of unity is found in our common history as Anglicans; the designation of "Reformed Episcopal" is a jurisdictional title. Therefore, the moniker of our parish is "St. Andrew's Anglican Church, a Reformed Episcopal parish." Most classical Anglican parishes do something similar, using the word Anglican as the primary designation with a later description that informs the reader of the jurisdictional link. The word "Anglican" in use in the United States has become a bit of a code word for "conservative" or "traditional" Episcopalian, something that seems to make the mainline body quite angry--they're not real Anglicans, they often say, but counterfeits! I've noticed that several parishes in the Anglican Province of Christ the King do something similar to what I mentioned above in regards to my own parish--"All Saints Anglican Church, a traditional Episcopal parish of the Province of Christ the King."
The Episcopal heritage of the Church in the United States is something that traditionalists sometimes use to demonstrate that we really are Episcopalians, just as much as the "official" and now heterodox body. We have bishops, and we have the Anglican Book of Common Prayer. I've seen the title "Anglican Episcopal" used as well to describe parishes in several jurisdictions. Although we lack communion with the See of Canterbury, we lay claim to the heritage and doctrine of the Reformed Catholic Faith as expressed in the Anglican Way via the classical Prayer Books (1549-1928), the Ordinal, and the Articles of Religion. I've noticed that some parishes in the United Episcopal Church and the Reformed Episcopal Church are even bold enough to simply call themselves "Episcopalian" without an "Anglican" qualifier: "St Paul's Episcopal Church, a parish of the. . ." How this must upset the mainliners. Ah, but what is in a name? I prefer the term Anglican myself. If someone doesn't know what I mean when I say "Anglican" I may fall back on something like "traditional Episcopalian." Yes, we have bishops, but is that enough? The mainline church put all of their stock in the office of bishop, but those bishops turned out to be wolves, not shepherds of the flock. They cast aside the Prayer Book and the Articles, cast aside Catholic order of bishop, presbyter, and deacon, and cast aside the heritage of the Anglican Church. Notice how all of the classic texts of Anglicanism once published by the mainline church are now being replaced by books that fit the "new religion" of "affirming catholicism." In the end, all they had was the title "Episcopalian," but that is not enough to be Anglican--it may be necessary, but it is not sufficient. As we continue as "Continuing" or classical Anglicans, let us be mindful that what makes us Anglicans is not just episcopal polity, but the faith of the primitive Catholic Church as expressed in our liturgies and the Creeds.
Saturday, April 19, 2008
Saturday, April 12, 2008
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
Thoughts on Common Cause. . .
I have a few misgivings about the current state of the Common Cause Partnership between numerous Anglican bodies (mostly those that are somehow linked to Canterbury); they can be summed up in the following 1) the use of numerous and conflicting liturgies, 2) the open rejection of Catholic order in some quarters (while this a minority position, in many estimations), 3) a sometimes glaring lack of contact with actual Anglican theology, leading to a "reinvention" and questioning of things settled in the Magisterial Reformation. However, the basics are sound:
"1) We confess the canonical books of the Old and New Testaments to be the inspired Word of God, containing all things necessary for salvation, and to be the final authority and unchangeable standard for Christian faith and life.
2) We confess Baptism and the Supper of the Lord to be Sacraments ordained by Christ Himself in the Gospel, and thus to be ministered with unfailing use of His words of institution and of the elements ordained by Him.
3) We confess the godly historic Episcopate as an inherent part of the apostolic faith and practice, and therefore as integral to the fullness and unity of the Body of Christ.
4) We confess as proved by most certain warrants of Holy Scripture the historic faith of the undivided church as declared in the three Catholic Creeds: the Apostles', the Nicene, and the Athanasian.
5) Concerning the seven Councils of the undivided Church, we affirm the teaching of the first four Councils and the Christological clarifications of the fifth, sixth and seventh Councils, in so far as they are agreeable to the Holy Scriptures.
6) We receive The Book of Common Prayer as set forth by the Church of England in 1662, together with the Ordinal attached to the same, as a standard for Anglican doctrine and discipline, and, with the Books which preceded it, as the standard for the Anglican tradition of worship.
7) We receive the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion of 1562, taken in their literal and grammatical sense, as expressing the Anglican response to certain doctrinal issues controverted at that time, and as expressing the fundamental principles of authentic Anglican belief.
In all these things, the Common Cause Partnership is determined by the help of God to hold and maintain as the Anglican Way has received them the doctrine, discipline and worship of Christ.
"The Anglican Communion," Archbishop Geoffrey Fisher wrote, "has no peculiar thought, practice, creed or confession of its own. It has only the Catholic Faith of the ancient Catholic Church, as preserved in the Catholic Creeds and maintained in the Catholic and Apostolic constitution of Christ's Church from the beginning." It may licitly teach as necessary for salvation nothing but what is read in the Holy Scriptures as God's Word written or may be proved thereby. It therefore embraces and affirms such teachings of the ancient Fathers and Councils of the Church as are agreeable to the Scriptures, and thus to be counted apostolic. The Church has no authority to innovate: it is obliged continually, and particularly in times of renewal or reformation, to return to "the faith once delivered to the saints."
To be an Anglican, then, is not to embrace a distinct version of Christianity, but a distinct way of being a "Mere Christian," at the same time evangelical, apostolic, catholic, reformed, and Spirit-filled."
I can find nothing to disagree with in any of this--the sticking point is to get all those involved to take such a declaration with the utmost seriousness. Classical Anglicanism, in the past, would take this all quite seriously: No innovation. Period. End of sentence. To fully resolve any issue in dispute, see what the practice and belief of the ancient Church was.
The problem with extreme "party" aspects of Anglicans (here I do mean Anglo-Catholic, Evangelical, and Latitudinarian/Liberal) is that they all want to introduce innovations and somehow baptise such innovations as right, proper, and truly Anglican (meaning, in essence, truly ancient and Catholic). Elements of the Anglo-Catholic movement have tried to impose elements of the Roman system into Anglicanism and say "it is as it always has been" (extra-liturgical devotions to the Blessed Sacrament, Roman feasts and their underlying doctrines, Purgatory, etc--Catholicism is assumed to be an equivalence with 19th century Italian Roman practice or the Council of Trent). There is a tendency among some in the Evangelical party to ignore those parts of the Prayer Book found to be "too Catholic" (the teachings concerning confession, the theology of Baptism as an ingrafting into the very Body of Christ, the nature of the ministry--a Puritan streak comes about from time to time which tends to reject anything not in the Bible and even to embrace some things not in the Bible as long as they flow from "evangelical theology"), and there is the most striking tendency, that of the modern Liberal, to pretty much throws out all foundational doctrine while retaining the externals (perhaps the unkindest cut of all).
American Anglicanism does indeed need a Reformation and a restructuring. The CCP is a good place to start. I hope and pray it succeeds. As a body the CCP must seek an honest return to the old and Catholic ways of the Reformed Church of England as outlined above, and it must not be afraid of saying to Canterbury that it will walk apart from her such a move would be the best thing for the survival of the Anglican Way in its fullness. I am given some hope that there is strength in the current numbers of parishes now associated with CCP--right now over a thousand. For those in the Continuing Anglican Churches, please pray for those in the various Episcopal groups that comprise the CCP, that they may be filled with the Holy Spirit to follow the truth of Christ in all things.
I have a few misgivings about the current state of the Common Cause Partnership between numerous Anglican bodies (mostly those that are somehow linked to Canterbury); they can be summed up in the following 1) the use of numerous and conflicting liturgies, 2) the open rejection of Catholic order in some quarters (while this a minority position, in many estimations), 3) a sometimes glaring lack of contact with actual Anglican theology, leading to a "reinvention" and questioning of things settled in the Magisterial Reformation. However, the basics are sound:
"1) We confess the canonical books of the Old and New Testaments to be the inspired Word of God, containing all things necessary for salvation, and to be the final authority and unchangeable standard for Christian faith and life.
2) We confess Baptism and the Supper of the Lord to be Sacraments ordained by Christ Himself in the Gospel, and thus to be ministered with unfailing use of His words of institution and of the elements ordained by Him.
3) We confess the godly historic Episcopate as an inherent part of the apostolic faith and practice, and therefore as integral to the fullness and unity of the Body of Christ.
4) We confess as proved by most certain warrants of Holy Scripture the historic faith of the undivided church as declared in the three Catholic Creeds: the Apostles', the Nicene, and the Athanasian.
5) Concerning the seven Councils of the undivided Church, we affirm the teaching of the first four Councils and the Christological clarifications of the fifth, sixth and seventh Councils, in so far as they are agreeable to the Holy Scriptures.
6) We receive The Book of Common Prayer as set forth by the Church of England in 1662, together with the Ordinal attached to the same, as a standard for Anglican doctrine and discipline, and, with the Books which preceded it, as the standard for the Anglican tradition of worship.
7) We receive the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion of 1562, taken in their literal and grammatical sense, as expressing the Anglican response to certain doctrinal issues controverted at that time, and as expressing the fundamental principles of authentic Anglican belief.
In all these things, the Common Cause Partnership is determined by the help of God to hold and maintain as the Anglican Way has received them the doctrine, discipline and worship of Christ.
"The Anglican Communion," Archbishop Geoffrey Fisher wrote, "has no peculiar thought, practice, creed or confession of its own. It has only the Catholic Faith of the ancient Catholic Church, as preserved in the Catholic Creeds and maintained in the Catholic and Apostolic constitution of Christ's Church from the beginning." It may licitly teach as necessary for salvation nothing but what is read in the Holy Scriptures as God's Word written or may be proved thereby. It therefore embraces and affirms such teachings of the ancient Fathers and Councils of the Church as are agreeable to the Scriptures, and thus to be counted apostolic. The Church has no authority to innovate: it is obliged continually, and particularly in times of renewal or reformation, to return to "the faith once delivered to the saints."
To be an Anglican, then, is not to embrace a distinct version of Christianity, but a distinct way of being a "Mere Christian," at the same time evangelical, apostolic, catholic, reformed, and Spirit-filled."
I can find nothing to disagree with in any of this--the sticking point is to get all those involved to take such a declaration with the utmost seriousness. Classical Anglicanism, in the past, would take this all quite seriously: No innovation. Period. End of sentence. To fully resolve any issue in dispute, see what the practice and belief of the ancient Church was.
The problem with extreme "party" aspects of Anglicans (here I do mean Anglo-Catholic, Evangelical, and Latitudinarian/Liberal) is that they all want to introduce innovations and somehow baptise such innovations as right, proper, and truly Anglican (meaning, in essence, truly ancient and Catholic). Elements of the Anglo-Catholic movement have tried to impose elements of the Roman system into Anglicanism and say "it is as it always has been" (extra-liturgical devotions to the Blessed Sacrament, Roman feasts and their underlying doctrines, Purgatory, etc--Catholicism is assumed to be an equivalence with 19th century Italian Roman practice or the Council of Trent). There is a tendency among some in the Evangelical party to ignore those parts of the Prayer Book found to be "too Catholic" (the teachings concerning confession, the theology of Baptism as an ingrafting into the very Body of Christ, the nature of the ministry--a Puritan streak comes about from time to time which tends to reject anything not in the Bible and even to embrace some things not in the Bible as long as they flow from "evangelical theology"), and there is the most striking tendency, that of the modern Liberal, to pretty much throws out all foundational doctrine while retaining the externals (perhaps the unkindest cut of all).
American Anglicanism does indeed need a Reformation and a restructuring. The CCP is a good place to start. I hope and pray it succeeds. As a body the CCP must seek an honest return to the old and Catholic ways of the Reformed Church of England as outlined above, and it must not be afraid of saying to Canterbury that it will walk apart from her such a move would be the best thing for the survival of the Anglican Way in its fullness. I am given some hope that there is strength in the current numbers of parishes now associated with CCP--right now over a thousand. For those in the Continuing Anglican Churches, please pray for those in the various Episcopal groups that comprise the CCP, that they may be filled with the Holy Spirit to follow the truth of Christ in all things.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)