I find it in-credible when I read that some of the bishops withholding consent around the issue of not adhering strictly to the BCP are, as I know personally, adapting Enriching Our Worship because he does not like the Eucharistic liturgies contained therein. He has exacting standards and, in fact, his revisions are very good. So why deny another gifted and talented priest from exercising his gifts of leadership as a bishop when he is exercising great care and love for the liturgy of the church?
I’m also curious about Anglo-Catholic parishes that still use the 1928 Prayer Book and the 1951 American Missal and wonder whether bishops must insist that such parishes adhere to the 1979 BCP? Again one of Forrester’s strongest detractors allows such diversity in his diocese. And what about parishes that feel strongly about inviting all, even the unbaptized, to the Eucharistic table? This happens all over the country and, shy of instituting a Liturgy Patrol, my guess is it will (and should) continue.
I have heard it said that the model of ministry being practiced and lived out in the Diocese of Northern Michigan is also a cause for some concern. This truly is disturbing. Our church is struggling to find new ways of being the church. What I find amazing is that one small diocese, completely faithful to TEC and having never considered leaving it, is being judged so harshly for its choice of bishop. Here is a man who loves TEC, loves his diocese and is proud of his Anglican heritage and is now facing the possibility of not being able to live out the vision of his diocese which has been the model for dioceses in Scotland, Canada and other parts of TEC.
Either Father Howson truly doesn’t understand most of the dissenting bishop’s arguments or he is deliberately trying to distract the standing committee with numerous red herrings.
The issue for most is not “strictly adhering to the BCP.” There are other liturgical resources that have been approved by General Convention. Enriching Our Worship is among them.
What most bishops have pointed to is Forrester’s mangling of the liturgy for Holy Baptism so far that it is not recognizably Christian. But Father Howson never addresses this.
By the way, I hope this was not a open letter. Brian from T19 would be most displeased to learn that yet another open letter has been written.
In other words:
“Canons?! We don’t need no stinking canons.”
(Except about stuff like property and who controls what…then I’ll labor like a scholar over the fine details).
Hireling.
[blockquote] And what about parishes that feel strongly about inviting all, even the unbaptized, to the Eucharistic table? This happens all over the country and, shy of instituting a Liturgy Patrol, my guess is it will (and should) continue.[/blockquote]
With quotes such as the above, this is an excellent piece for those who [i][b] still[/b] [/i] do not grasp what TEC is about these days. Condemn the opinions if you will (I certainly do), but this is a man who knows what he is about, is honest about it, and is clearly expressing what TEC stands for. I for one find it rather refreshing.
But then again, I am not an Episcopalian.
Christ is risen!
John
Interesting.
Maybe this will shed some light on Fr. Howson’s views. He came to NWPA from the Diocese of Bethlehem, PA and is originally from Canada. At his installation portions of the service were taken from some of the Canadian Liturgy sources. It was, “interesting”, to say the least.
That said, I am pleasantly surprised that NWPA voted No on NW Mich.