I noticed this story below, and as near as I can make out, the writer is confused. Not that I can really blame her, because it is confusing! Basically, and feel free to correct me if I am wrong, but she is conflating the ACoC / ANiC split with some trouble that is happening within the TAC (which did not, as stated below, split over same sex marriage – theirs is an older division) regarding whether to accept the offer of an Anglican ordinariate within the Roman Catholic church.
A new faction of the Anglican Church is to open today in Victoria, a third offshoot in the fractured church.
St. Mark’s Traditional Anglican Church is to have its first service at 5 p.m. today at St. Ann’s Chapel on Humboldt Street, with its own church location to be announced within the next month.
Just how many people will show up at the service and be part of the congregation isn’t known. But with several local Anglican churches in the region closing and the rift in the church over the episcopal constitution, which was announced last October, there are Anglicans looking for a home, said Canon Stanley Sinclair of St. Mark’s.
The Anglican Church initially split over changes to long-held traditions associated with the church, such as blessing same-sex marriage. Since October 2009, a third split has happened within the traditional segment as a result of the episcopal constitution published by the Vatican.
Under that constitution, traditional Anglicans could unite with the Roman Catholic Church but, among other things, the clergy would have to be ordinated again.
The acceptance of the constitution “created a considerable problem for many clergy and laity across Canada,” Sinclair said. So the third group asked the archbishop of the Anglican province of Christ the King, based in San Francisco, to accept them under his authority, which was done.
“That has led to the formation of the St. Mark’s Traditional Anglican Church here,” Sinclair said. “There are similar moves taking place across the country which further divides things, but it’s simply that people can’t conscientiously accept that the Anglican orders are invalid as the episcopal constitution says. It makes a second-class form of Christians.”
The new church will be traditional, Sinclair said.
The Archbishop James Province from San Francisco will attend the service as an episcopal authority to inaugurate the church.
To me, the division that gave rise to ACNA is a tragic necessity – necessary because of the heresy promulgated at the highest levels in the North American Anglican churches; tragedy because of the kind of witness these interminable divisions send to the rest of the world.
Actually Peter as I’m sure you know there has nearly always been divisions with anglicanism these have led to many so called schisms. I think she is referring to the two major happenings in post modern time. The first being WO which in fact was the catalyst for the formation of the Ang. Catholic Church in Can. As well as TAC international.
The great sadness here and in the seemingly unfolding and dividing future of Anglicanism is the obvious but temporary victory of Satan. This can only be attributable to our corporate failure in remaining obedient to the instruction and the word, regarding church operation (the body of Christ).
Is this more “border crossing”?
Hello ML (3)
I do not think that you could call this border crossing. I understant that the ACCoC has already lost one parish in Ontario to the ANiC over the Ordinariate move (and this before the ACCoC Synod). Unlike the ACoC, the ACCoC allowed this Ontario parish to depart without any hinderance. No border crossing. No sheep steeling. Just respect for the decisions that people of a parish made in good concience.
Can we be happy for the ACCoC that it is making significant progress in its stated goal of achieving full Corporate Communion with the See of Rome? They have been working towards this for about 20 years. I have to wonder. Is the ACNA willing to work 20 years to be accepted into the WAC (or whatever new global Anglican Communion that emerges) ? I hope it is.
I think this relates to an earlier story on VirtueOnline (http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=12802) that the former rector of the ACCC’s St John’s the Evangelist in Victoria, BC had been expelled and excommunicated because of his refusal to go along with the rest of the Traditional Anglican Communion in accepting the pope’s offer of unity.
So it looks like some who were formerly in the TAC are joining the “Anglican Province of Christ the King” (http://www.anglicanpck.org/dioceses/index.shtml) which currently has 40 some parishes, all in the US.
A little digging found me also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diocese_of_the_Holy_Cross – a breakaway from the Province of Christ the King.
The dander here is that division breeds division–Continuing Anglican churches have become just another flavour of Protestant, and there are so many already.
BTW, the base article is massively wrong about “third offshoot”- the Methodists are one of the oldest breakways from the Anglican mainstream, the REC is next, the ACoC/APCK are next, and I may have missed a few in there.
Henry (#6), I think the “division” thing is sometimes overblown. While living in the US, I’ve become acquainted with several people from a variety of evangelical independent Bible churches. Whilst these churches value their independence in terms of having no external oversight, they actually play together very well and cooperate on a number of fronts – including Bible Institutes and seminaries. I also think it is common for pastors to move between these churches.
Sad, really. All these “sects” each claiming that they have “the” definitive knowledge or who/what is God’s church. Funny thing is I can’t remember the early church fathers ever mentioning them. Tell me, in which of his writings did St. Augustine make mention of the Methodist or Unitarian or even Anglican tradition for that matter?
Eph 3:20 (#8), are you willing to set aside the distinctives you hold dear and become a member of a church that you have had no previous involvement with – and worship in a style that seems foreign but cannot be considered unbiblical? If not, I guess you’re part of the problem. Maybe I’m rootless, but I’ve generally had little difficulty in moving between a variety of sects as my career has taken me many places. I have found a lot more similarities than differences; as well as a willingness to cooperate. This doesn’t make me sad.
P.S. Did you sign the Manhattan Declaration?
I didn’t know the Manhattan Declaration existed. hank you for pointing it out. I have now signed it.
Warren,
Thank you, from the bottom of my heart, for setting me straight. I just signed the Manhattan Declaration. As committed Christians from a myriad of denominations, we do have a common union that we can all celebrate.
I will say however, as one who pledges a seamless veil approach to life, that it saddens me that the church that gets all the knocks for its passionate defense of the the unborn are the RC’s. Not once have I ever heard a sermon, much less public outcry, on the evil of abortion in an Anglican church. For that matter, their definition of sin is often more of a collective or social nature rather than an individual one.
You’d've heard it if you were a regular attender at St. Alban’s.
This list from Anglicans Online is rather lengthy. We certainly have divided ourselves. All the more shamefull when we remember that Christ prayed for us to be one as He is One with the Father, and the Father with Him. Hopefully, someday, there will once again be a single “undivided” Church. How long that will take to accomplish, and what form such a Church will be, only God knows.
http://anglicansonline.org/communion/nic.html
Hello Eph 3:20 (11)
I fully agree that it is very sad that the ACoC has failed misserably when it comes to the abortion issue. What is even worse is this:
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/apr/09040205.html
#13 I don’t think we have to have the same signs above our church doors in order to be one in Christ.
Hello Kate (14)
Wouldn’t you agree that being one in Christ is more than just being Batized in His Name? Shouldn’t we be working with other denominations to resolve any differences in doctrine (such as who can receive Holy Communion)?
Before the book of alternative stuff, we Anglicans were supposed to have been Confirmed in order to recieve Holy Communion. Now some “Anglicans” require only that a person be Baptized. Other “Anglicans” continue to require Confirmation. Even the rules pertaining to Marriage, divorce, and remarriage are not consitant from one Anglican Province to another within the WAC. And in Matthew 19 Jesus Christ speaks directly to these specific issues. Shouldn’t we be trying to have the same rules as those given to us by Christ? How can we say that we are one in Christ as long as we continue to have such enormous differences?
I think that we are one in Christ with anyone who can say the creeds without crossing their fingers (in other words, who believes that what the creeds say is literally true), who believes in the authority of scripture and tries to live by it. I don’t think that it matters particularly if the sign above the door is Anglican, Preabyterian, Christian Reformed, etc etc etc. It is inevitable that we are going to disagree on some things – until Christ comes again, anyway.
Hello Kate (17)
I fully agree with being able to recite with complete honesty and integrity all three of the Creeds. I found it both interesting and disturbing to be at a Presbyterian service and see that they had replaced the word “Catholic” with the word “Christian”. I can only assume that they had forgotten what the word Catholic meant when the Nicene Creed was written, and had confused it to mean “Roman Catholic”. But this presents a problem. If some denominations have changed the words (some Anglicans included) than what are any of us really saying when we recite these Creeds? Perhaps this is a topic for another thread.
AMPisAnglican (#18), they haven’t changed the Nicene Creed at my Presbyterian church (Presbyterian Church of America) – although they do have a short explanatory note. I think this is perfectly understandable and reasonable when you have a large number of people in the congregation who are recent converts or come from denominations where the creeds are not used. There would definitely be misunderstanding otherwise.
Since the language in which the creeds were written was not English, are we not looking at a situation similar to Bible translations where a balance is normally sought between faithfulness to the original languages and comprehensibility in modern English? If someone was to translate the Nicene creed today – and was unaware of the English tradition – are you certain that they would choose the word “catholic” as the most accurate rendering for the original Greek word?
Warren #7 Says; “I think the “division” thing is sometimes overblown.”
Kate #17 says; “It is inevitable that we are going to disagree on some things – until Christ comes again, anyway.”
Jesus says
Matthew 24:21-23 (King James Version)
21For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.
22And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect’s sake those days shall be shortened.
Please, open your eyes, turn around, go back down, back the way you came, if you would do this you would find at the beginning, perfection in the beautiful simplicity of Christ’s Church and maybe then you could comprehend with all the saints what the Lord meant when He prayed to His Father that “THEY may be one as WE are one.
So long as you look in the here and know for the Church (the Body) that Christ heads you will not find it. Oh yes remnants scattered, the elect of course somewhere in the four winds, But the true universal Church that Christ the Lord presented? IT CAN ONLY BE FOUND in His and the apostles instructions. So when I chant, back the way you came I’m talking ………Way back! God have Mercy.
Stuck (#20), you proved Kate right.
Hello Warren (19)
Yes, of course different translations could likely end up with different words, as English has so many words with very similar meanings. Instead of the word “Catholic” it could have instead been “Universal”. This because the meaning of the word “Catholic” at the time the Nicene Creed was written meant “open to everyone”, and not a particular denomination. To replace the word “Catholic” with the word “Christian”, who’s meanings aren’t even close, results in a real change to the Creed.
Just to clarify, the Presbyterian Church where I witnessed this is in Canada. I fully understand that the Presbyterian Church in the USA might not have done this.
But back to the point at hand…
If one denomination changes the words of any of the Three Ancient Creeds in a manner that changes their meanings, than can we say that we are “one” with them?
AMPisAnglican (#22), appreciating that it is not always easy to agree on what are essentials, I would consider myself “one” with anyone who I agree with on the essentials – even though I may differ greatly with them concerning traditions, practices and customs.
The Presbyterian Church in America (PCA), has some interesting parallels with ANiC/ACNA. It split from the mainline Presbyterian church (PCUSA) in 1972 because of the increasing drift of the PCUSA into liberalism (which is much like TEC). The PCA has grown steadily since then and has planted many new churches. Intriguingly, the PCA church that we attend, which has approximately 1400 members, appears to have as many people from a Baptist background as from a Presbyterian background. This is a good example of unity – beliefs concerning paedo baptism versus credo baptism are not a big issue. There are no compromises, however, when it comes to the authority of Scripture.
Warren 21; Until you take the time to “go back” and examine with the Holy spirit, scripture relating to the formation of Christ’s Church You and others will not be able to understand that disagreement is so unnecessary. Further it is disagreement that has been the ‘thin edge of the wedge’ that has allowed the enemy to do the damage that our history and present troubles so clearly demonstrate. Finally “like-mindedness”, so often called for by Christ and the apostles is really not that difficult when seen from the eyes of the original apostolic church.
If you care to read my #20 again I hope you will find that I did not disagree with Kate but rather made suggestions of how you might come to the knowledge of the truth. You would be much better served with less fight and more love. But of course none of us are perfect. Yet we are called to move “on unto perfection”.
Your brother in the Lord.
It seems to me that there are several people who are not willing to consider anything that would lead to closer relations with the Roman Catholic Church. The reasons for this are likely as numerous and varied as the people who feel this way. But just as the ANiC came together with other Anglicans in North America to form the ACNA, and the ACNA is now seeking to be accepted as a new Province in North America in the WAC, perhaps these moves towards Christain re-unification will further expand and flourish. Will a day ever come when Anglicans, Roman Catholics, and Easter Orthadox give serious consideration to closer relationships? Perhaps. It might not be during my lifetime, nor anytime soon, but still, perhaps. Surely, these denominations, being the three largest Christian denominations, have far more in common than not. Seeing that Jesus, having started His Ministry to only the Jews was able to expand His Ministry to include the Gentiles, surely we can reach out to other Christians, and go from walking side by side to walking hand in hand.
In essentials, unity, in non essentials, liberty, in all things, charity. Not everything is an essential, Stuck, so it isn’t necessary or I think, even desirable to seek unity in non essentials. God must have liked variety, because He made so much of it, after all.
AMP, I don’t think that the Orthodox, RC and Anglican churches have as much in common as all that. The Orthodox church teaches that they are the only true Christians, and that Protestant Christians aren’t saved. The RC teachings on Mary and on praying to saints are unbiblical. Both churches teaching on capital “T” Tradition is unsupportable by scripture. That is why I personally am unwilling to consider anything that would lead to closer relations to the RC or Orthodox churches. Work together for common Christian causes, sure. Work towards unity, and being under a common church authority? Not unless the RC and Orthodox churches would be willing to embrace sola scriptura.
Stuck (#24), for someone who are argues against disagreement, you can sometimes be quite disagreeable.
AYBABTU
The long and methodical work of ARCIC (Anglican—Roman Catholic International Commission) from 1967 bogged down. The 1970′s planned union of the United and Anglican Churches of Canada came unstuck. It’s far easier to divide than to unify.
#28: Yes, it is far easier to divide than to unify. That is the story of church history!
Yes. That’s because all were once united, but divided for various reasons, some trivial, perhaps, but some legitimate. In any case all of them must have seemed important at the time. To reunite, all these differences that once seemed so important would have to be reconciled. Probably not going to happen. For example, take even the current situation. What would it take for ANiC to reconcile with ACoC, as long as the ACC continues it’s spiral away from biblical truth? No way.
Denominational Unity without spiritual unity is like having a car without an engine. It aint gonna start. Oh you can say, “I have a car in the driveway” but with no engine it just loks like a car. With a car you have to maintain the oil the way you were told when the car was new. If you don’t do that, sooner or later it ceases to run well and eventually the engine quits.
as for division being easier than unification …… I disagree.
We should look at the example of the Anglican Catholic Church of Canada in its decision to accept the offer from Rome (which is actually the root of this thread.) In order to create unity, the ACCoC (mostly) were willing to give up having married bishops. Specifically, the existing bishops were willing to accept a theory that their consecration as bishops somehow wasn’t really valid in the first place (I’m not making fun of them.)
It’s a hard question – what would I (you) be willing to give up to create unity in the body of Christ?
Henry; The way I have understood it, denominational paradigm was initially created by Rome. In their decision to unilaterly declare themselves as head of the Christian Church they broke the apostolic tradition of archbishop equality and caused the first serious schism.
it is my opinion the the “Body of Christ” exists in individuals across the denominational spectrum but no single denomination can lay claim to that title.
Unity in the body of Christ begins with individual spiritual unity in one another. Our archbishop Duncan publically declared himself a servant to the servants of God. (the ACNA HOB) which in turn exist to serve the people of God. In doing so he placed himself and his Bishops squarely in the center of apostolic purpose which is to say – the will of God! This in turn brings us to your question.
Scripture teaches us exactly what we have to “give up”. In obedience to this we can easily move into like-mindedness which is the key to the liberating power of the true unity with Christ, with each other, and with the Faith once given.
Giving up some things may very well be required. But we have seen some success a move towards a closer relationship between the ACoC and the Lutherins. So with some determined effort it is possible for Christians to come closer together.
I would suggest that instead of starting with what divides us we instead start with what we have in common. Such as the Three Ancient Creeds. Also, what other Christians accept the Apocrypha as part of the Holy Bible?
I don’t think that includes Anglicans. Article 6 of the 39 articles says that the Apocrypha can be read for instruction in life and manners, but not for the establishment of any doctrine. I would interpret that to mean that they are not canonical.
Anglicans and Lutherans both spring from the Reformation. There is far less separating them than there is separating Anglicans and the RC and Orthodox churches. Both churches are firmly convinced that the Reformation was a bad thing. We would have to give up the substance of what makes us Anglican, leaving only the liturgy and the forms.
Kate #26 an excellent quote from mysterious sources and an unagueable truth. The problem is that it creates more difficulty than it explains. For instance you said “so it isn’t necessary or I think, even desirable to seek unity in non essentials.” you are technically correct, except for your assumption or should I say opinion that I am basing my statements on non-essential scripture. That sister will not fly.
Speaking of flying Warren, YA THINK? BTW is that a new signature or a mysterious anagram?
Remind me to tell you about this amazing new thing called Google one of these days.
Oh, so it doesn’t mean, “And Your Boils Are Bigger Than Ulric’s”. Live and learn.
I guess I need to learn more about this Google thing too.
Is that a Monty Python reference?
Warren38; Well I finally took your advice and looked it up, on google I mean. Fat lot of good that did!
Why don’t you slip out the back door, come on down here with us peasants have a beer n’ ‘splain it.
It’s a joke – if you have to ‘splain it long after, it isn’t funny. It wasn’t very funny to start with.
No Probs Bro – But in truth I just didn’t get it.
As one who grew up in (and at one time was a candidate for ordination in) The Episcopal Church, U.S.A., I have found a home in the Orthodox Church. I heartily recommend you consider the option of the Western Rite liturgy as provided by The Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese. http://www.westernorthodox.com
Eph 3:20 “Tell me, in which of his writings did St. Augustine make mention of the Methodist or Unitarian or even Anglican tradition for that matter?”
Well, obviously since none of these groups existed St. Augustine wouldn’t mention them. So other than being snarky, I’m not sure what your point is. Lumping Anglicans with Unitarians?
Anglicans must sort out the mess they are in. The main body has abandoned historic faith and practice. However, by looking at the original prayer books we can see what Aglicans believed: they were Creedal (the Nicene Creed), Sacramental (Holy Communion was appointed as the prime service), and they had Bishops, Priests, and Deacons in apostolic succession (much to the Presbyterians and Puritans dismay). They had retained (sometimes barely) all that allowed them to remain catholic, and in continuity with the early church.
That being said, I’m rather sure St. Augustine would have something to say about the current issues and clergy such as this:
“Episcopal Bishop James Pike denied all of the major tenants of the Christian faith. He said, “Religious myth is one of the avenues of faith and has an important place in the communication of the Gospel” and he spoke of the “myth” of the Garden of Eden and the “myth” of the virgin birth. Pike said, “I have abandoned ship on the doctrine of the Trinity. I have jettisoned the doctrine of the virgin birth of Jesus Christ” (Christian Beacon, Mar. 17. 1955).
As unfortunate as breaks and schisms are – they are necessary at times unless one wants to participate in heresy. It was a difficult and painful time when my parish had to separate itself from the Episcopal Church in the U.S. due to false teaching and other issues.
As to the Manhattan Declaration. “As committed Christians from a myriad of denominations, we do have a common union that we can all celebrate.”
This is NOT the common union Christians for 2,000 have as celebrated. THE common celebration that united us was the Eucharist . The statement of belief started with those summed up in the Apostles Creed, and later to clarify things the Nicene Creed. If The Manhattan Declaration is some sort of New Creed that is supposed to unite us all – forget it, I am not interested. This isn’t the heart of the Christian religion and should not be THE thing that unites us.
And since when does the secular State have any authority to “marry” anyone? As far as I know, the State has no authority to administer any Sacrament whatsoever. State unions of any kind are not valid Christian Marriages, but rather civil legal contracts. To confuse the two is bad theology.
Kate: “Not unless the RC and Orthodox churches would be willing to embrace sola scriptura.”
Sola Scriptura, as other Protestants understand that term, is not held by traditional Anglicans. Anglicans are only Protestant in that they are not Roman Catholic. The Anglican formula is that clergy may not teach as necessary to salvation that which is not contained in OR proven by Holy Scripture. Evangelicals (i grew up one) do not believe in the threefold historic ministry in Apostolic Sucession, the Eucharist and Real Presence, or Baptism for the remission of sins- and they read the Bible more than many Anglicans do. Yet, the Bible does indeed say these things are necessary. How those scriptures are interpreted are in light of Holy Tradition, which Anglicans once held to.
As to the Orthodox denying salvation to Protestants, I have never heard this from any of my Orthodox friends. Consistently it has been along these lines “What we Orthodox Christians believe is that we leave everything to God. If we say yes or no, we are placing judgments on matters that only God can decide on. We leave it to God and let Him decide.” And as one priest said “I do not understand how God saves those outside of the ways he has revealed to us, and it is to those things we are bound.” The same goes for Anglicans- I do not understand the notion of salvation without Sacraments, particularly Baptism and the Eucharist – as do all Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox. The Book of Common Prayer even says that those sacraments “generally necessary to Salvation” are “Baptism and Holy Communion”.
As to unity, “Stuck in Toronto” has it right in that the “denominational paradigm was initially created by Rome. In their decision to unilaterally declare themselves as head of the Christian Church they broke the apostolic tradition of archbishop equality and caused the first serious schism.” This lead to the split in 1054AD between the East (Orthodoxy) and those in communion with the See of Rome. The Bishop of Rome was once only “the first among equals”. This was very much considered at in the English Reformation – something VERY different from Calvin and other Protestants. In other words – The Sacraments, the historic ministry of Bishop, Priest, and Deacon, the Creed, Liturgy, etc. kept the old Anglicans in unity with the ancient church. (No other Protestant body kept all of these things except the old Swedish Lutherans.) Anglicans, due to Medieval false teachings stemming from the Roman church, found it necessary to break with them, in the very same way that many Anglicans have had to break from Canterbury and ECUSA. This is why the Archbishop of Canterbury isn’t essential to be “Anglican” per say any more than being in communion with Rome is essential if Rome is teaching heresy such as Mary as the Mediatix of Grace, and the Storehouse of Merits. Remaining truly Catholic (not Roman) was important to Anglicans at the Reformation and it is what is important to most “break away” Anglicans now. It was most certainly not important to Calvinists and other groups. When any Anglican Bishop denies any part of the Creed or teaches strange doctrine his entire diocese goes into heresy, one is in communion with heresy, for all ministry (priests and deacons) stems from their Apostolic Bishop. But a Christianity without these hallmarks: Sacraments, Apostolic Succession, adherence to the Nicene Creed, the Holy Scriptures as Canon (ruler), the Real Presence and not bare symbol) regardless of “tradition” (be it Roman, Russian, Latvian, English, German, or otherwise) is a defective version of The Faith Once Delivered.
Now – whether one outside of denominations holding the hallmarks of Catholic Christianity aforementioned, in of all sorts of “traditions” (Orthodox, Roman, or Anglican), are eventually saved or not… “If we say yes or no, we are placing judgments on matters that only God can decide on. We leave it to God and let Him decide.”