“One of the major things that we sought to do was to craft an Ordinal that was written in contemporary English, but also was clearly in the Prayer Book tradition. Of particular focus was the strengthening of the vows that those who are ordained ascribe to,” said Bishop Bill Thompson, Chair of Prayer Book and Common Liturgy task force.
“We were very deliberate about the tone and content of the Ordinal and the fact that it is clearly connected to our Anglican roots. Our intention is for the other liturgies that we put forth to have that same quality,” Bishop Thompson said.
Read it all and take the time to examine the document itself there.
On cursory inspection it looks very good- quite faithful to the classic BCP heritage. And nowhere does it require the candidate to swear allegiance to the current doctrines of a liberal Protestant sect and its erroneous leaders.
Correction: nowhere does it require the candidate to swear uncritical allegiance to the current doctrines of a liberal Protestant sect and its erroneous leaders.
Agreed. And now, bring on the rest of the book.
While I can appreciate much of this, what I find disturbing is the stripping of language about the role of the priest in pronouncing absolution. Why was this weakened?
Father Jonathon,
I note you ask why the words “whose synnes thou doest forgeve, they are forgeven: and whose sinnes thou doest retaine, thei are retained” from the 1550 Ordinal have been omitted.
I am not in ACNA so I don’t know what the actual reason is. However, it may well be based on the fact that Jesus’ words in John 20:23 were spoken to all the disciples, not just the apostles.
In other words, it was not so much a matter of leaving this power out of the priestly ministry, but recognising that it is a power conferred on all believers. The absolution pronounced by a priest to the people, being penitent etc is of a different nature.
This is not to say that it was wrong to include these words in the original Ordinal, just to say that they may be validly omitted without doing violence to essential scriptural teaching.
I still find the language a bit “stilted”. If you are going to re-write something in 2011, why not use language that is spoken in 2011? I have no problem with any of the liturgy, I just always wonder why we use “church talk” when we can clearer if we don’t use it. Its like saying “there are gratis beignets in the undercroft, which is accessed immediately adjacent to the narthex”, we you can say “there are free donuts in the basement, right out the back door”? Oh well; I know most of you won’t agree with me.
To the extent tht the language used is “church talk,” I am delighted. I only wish there were a traditional language option. Such solemn rites and ceremonies deserve the special dignity such language conveys. And I realize many will disagree with me as well. Other than this omission, the only concern I had upon reading this was that pointed out by #4. I imagine there was a lot of give and take among the Catholic and Protestant members of the commission, as well as in the HOB. A pretty good effort, all told.
Evan, there is a note at the beginning that says
“The ordination Liturgy may be re-cast from contemporary (you, your, yours) to traditional
(thee, thine, they[sic]) idiom when desired.”
This example of differences between the 1979 BCP (p. 526) and the ACNA Ordinal (p. 9), speaks for itself. Bold within the text mine:
[b]1979 BCP[/b]
[blockquote][em]The Bishop says to the ordinand[/em]
Will you be loyal to the doctrine, discipline, and worship of Christ as this Church has received them? And will you, in accordance with the canons of this Church, obey your bishop and other ministers who may have authority over you and your work?
[em]Answer[/em]
I am willing and ready to do so; and I solemnly declare that I do believe the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to be the Word of God, and to contain all things necessary to salvation; and I do solemnly engage to conform to the doctrine, discipline, and [b]worship of The Episcopal Church[/b].[/blockquote]
[b]ACNA Ordinal[/b]
[blockquote]
[em]The Bishop shall then require the Ordinand to take the Oath of Conformity saying[/em]
The Canons require that no Deacon may be ordained a Priest in the Church until he has subscribed without reservation to the Oath of Conformity. It is also required that each Ordinand subscribe without reservation to the Oath of Canonical Obedience. In the presence of this congregation, I now charge you to make your solemn declaration of these oaths.
[em]The Ordinand then declares[/em]
I do believe the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to be the Word of God and to contain
all things necessary to salvation, and I consequently hold myself bound to conform my life and ministry thereto, and therefore I do solemnly engage to conform to the Doctrine, Discipline and
[b]Worship of Christ as this Church has received them[/b].
#5 So it turns out that stripping the absolution language from the Ordinal doesn’t matter because it never meant what you thought it meant anyway. You view wasn’t in Scripture, wasn’t in the Ordinal and shouldn’t be in Anglicanism now. Am I right MichaelA?
Driver8,
I don’t know Fr Jonathan, but just taking his question at face value, I thought it was reasonable. After all, the words from John 20:23 were included in the Ordinal in its 1550, 1552 and 1559 versions. That means that not only Cranmer, but also the team of reformers that he led, had no problem with this verse being applied to priests, even though it also applies to all believers generally.
Cranmer’s team included people like Martin Bucer, Peter Martyr Vermigli and Nicholas Ridley. Given that these men are known to have believed in the priesthood of all believers, and that the power to forgive and retains sins was given to all believers, I think it is a fair inference that they saw the reference to forgiving and retaining sins in the Ordinal as pertaining to the special character of the priest or presbyteros as representative and leader of the congregation.
For example, if the priest decides to exclude someone from the gathering of believers because of their sinful life, he is acting in a representative capacity as leader of the whole congregation – the judgment he pronounces is really a judgment of the whole church. It is one aspect of the power of loosing and binding – it is a warning to the backslider of the spiritual danger that he is in – but it is an aspect that only the priest as leader of the congregation should exercise.
There are probably lots of other examples as well, and (contrary to what I wrote above) there probably is a connection with the absolution that the priest pronounces after the confession, since he does this in a representative capacity as leader of the congregation.
I’m sorry to have taken so long over this, but I just wanted to explain why I think it is okay for the Anglican reformers to have mentioned the power of loosing and binding in the Edwardian and Elizabethan Ordinals, but its equally okay for ACNA to omit it if they choose.
Excellent discussion. As one who has opposed the divisions in the American Anglican community over the past several years and advocated for unity and witness within TEC for correct doctrine, I do see a positive by-product in this close review of the Prayer Book and other liturgical documents. I’m certain that whatever the result, I will be far more satisfied with what ACNA produces than what TEC now uses. It is a very interesting process to follow and I’m very impressed with the people involved and the care they are affording to the process.
MichaelA, it just seems to me that if ACNA is hoping to represent something approximating traditional Anglicanism in North America that it would make sense for them to stick as closely as possible to received texts from classical Anglicanism. Also, I don’t buy your interpretation. The power of absolution conferred in John 20 is clearly given to the apostles, not to all believers.
Father Jonathan wrote,
[blockquote] “Also, I don’t buy your interpretation. The power of absolution conferred in John 20 is clearly given to the apostles, not to all believers.” [/blockquote]
First, its not “my interpretation”. As I wrote, this was the view of the Anglican reformers, who in turn based their teachings and interpretation on the theological work of many who went before them.
Secondly, and more to the point, the passage says plainly that Jesus spoke these words to “the disciples”, and in the very next verse it distinguishes between “the twelve” and “the disciples”. If John had meant to tell us that Jesus spoke these words only to the apostles, he would have written “the twelve” in verses 19 and 20, not “the disciples”.
This is also made plain in the parallel passage in Luke, which tells us who was present at this time:
[blockquote] “They got up and returned at once to Jerusalem. There they found the Eleven and those with them, assembled together and saying, “It is true! The Lord has risen and has appeared to Simon.†Then the two told what had happened on the way, and how Jesus was recognized by them when he broke the bread. While they were still talking about this, Jesus himself stood among them and said to them, “Peace be with you.â€â€¦” [Luke 24:33-36] [/blockquote]
The scriptures could hardly be more plain – the words of forgiving and retaining sins in John 20:23 were not spoken to the apostles alone, but to “the Eleven and those with them, assembled together”. We have to be true to apostolic teaching, not something that some later theologians dreamed up.
You also wrote:
[blockquote] “…it just seems to me that if ACNA is hoping to represent something approximating traditional Anglicanism in North America that it would make sense for them to stick as closely as possible to received texts from classical Anglicanism.” [/blockquote]
I agree – I think that is always a sound principle. But that means, if something is left out (or if something is added), the important issue is: Why was this done?
After all, those very received texts make it clear that scripture is the supreme authority, and the yardstick by which all other texts are to be measured (including the received texts themselves). If ACNA leaves something out that was in the 1550 Ordinal, then as a fellow Anglican I am interested to know why. In this case, I can’t see that it does violence to the true intent of the Anglican reformers to leave out reference to a passage of scripture which has a more general application anyway, and which is frequently taken the wrong way (i.e. as referring to priestly absolution).
Something I find interesting, in the REC ordinal in which the MAN is actually ordained a “presbyter” (avoiding the word “priest”), the ordinand is given the following charge:
RECEIVE the Holy Ghost for the Office and Work of a
Presbyter in the Church of God, now committed unto
thee by the Imposition of our hands. Whose sins thou dost
forgive, they are forgiven; and whose sins thou dost retain,
they are retained. And be thou a faithful dispenser of the
Word of God, and of his holy Sacraments; In the Name of
the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.
So, in the REC, which is not exactly an Anglo-Catholic group (GRIN), the “power of the keys” is mentioned.
Also, MichaelA stated the following:
For example, if the priest decides to exclude someone from the gathering of believers because of their sinful life, he is acting in a representative capacity as leader of the whole congregation – the judgment he pronounces is really a judgment of the whole church. It is one aspect of the power of loosing and binding – it is a warning to the backslider of the spiritual danger that he is in – but it is an aspect that only the priest as leader of the congregation should exercise.
I know of a case where the priest excommunicated someone pretty much against the wishes of a large portion of the congregation. (Of course, the Bishop had to concur with the priest). So the excommunication was NOT as a representative of the congregation.
It is possible that the Anglican Reformers did not believe in the power of absolution resting in the pastoral office, but I would need to see evidence to believe it, as that would be a very serious deficiency on their part. Even if true, it would not change the fact of the classic ordinal rendering it otherwise. The BCP is the authority through which we receive interpretation of the scripture, and as you rightly point out scripture is supreme in our tradition. Monkeying with the liturgy, therefore, is serious business. Obviously, revisions happen and should not be shunned, but excising one of the primary pastoral actions from the ordination to the pastoral office is a highly radical revision indeed.
In terms of John 20, without going into greater detail than this space will allow, suffice it to say that the Fathers of the early Church believed that the power of absolution given here by Jesus was an authority given only to the apostles and their successors, not to every believer. As Saint John Chrysostom put it in his commentary on these verses, “Anyone who considers how much it means to be able, in his humanity still entangled in flesh and blood, to approach that blessed and immaculate Being, will see clearly how great the honor is that the grace of the Spirit has bestowed on priests… What priests do on earth, God ratifies above. The Master confirms the decisions of His servants. Indeed, He has given them nothing less than the whole authority of heaven. For He says, ‘Whoever’s sins you forgive are forgiven and whoever’s sins you retain are retained.’ What authority could be greater than that?” (from his treatise “On the Priesthood”)
Recchip wrote,
[blockquote] “So, in the REC, which is not exactly an Anglo-Catholic group (GRIN), the “power of the keys†is mentioned.” [/blockquote]
Its not the ‘power of the keys’ (see Matthew 16) that Father Jonathan was referring to, but the power of forgiving and retaining sins (see John 20:23). But that aside, your point is precisely the one I was making above. The authors of the Edwardine Ordinal had no difficulty with the words of John 20:23 being included in the exhortation to new priests, because they understood them in a reformed evangelical sense. The REC in its Ordinal reflects the beliefs of Martin Bucer, Peter Vermigli and Thomas Cranmer.
[blockquote] “I know of a case where the priest excommunicated someone pretty much against the wishes of a large portion of the congregation. (Of course, the Bishop had to concur with the priest). So the excommunication was NOT as a representative of the congregation.” [/blockquote]
Of course. But we need to remember that what we are discussing here is not how a particular bishop or priest might misuse the powers granted to him (see KJ Schori for even better examples of misuse!) but about what those powers objectively mean.
MichaelA
I want to make it clear that the excommunication case I was speaking of DID NOT involve any misuse of the power but rather the fact that most of the congregation just wanted to get along. The Vestry was totally (with one exception) behind the action.
Father Jonathan wrote,
[blockquote] “It is possible that the Anglican Reformers did not believe in the power of absolution resting in the pastoral office, but I would need to see evidence to believe it, as that would be a very serious deficiency on their part.” [/blockquote]
I will go to your last point first, because it seems to show an inversion of values: Why would it be a serious deficiency on their part? Who are you (or for that matter, who am I) to sit in judgment on them?
But secondly, we seem to be sliding off the point, and I think the problem is that you haven’t defined what you mean by “power of absolution resting in the pastoral office”. All I can tell is that you seem to disagree with my interpretation of those words! So, let’s look at the way the Anglican reformers expressed the power of absolution in the BCP:
[blockquote] “ALMIGHTY God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who desireth not the death of a sinner, but rather that he may turn from his wickedness, and live; and hath given power, and commandment, to his Ministers, to declare and pronounce to his people, being penitent, the Absolution and Remission of their sins: He pardoneth and absolveth all them that truly repent, and unfeignedly believe his holy Gospel. Wherefore let us beseech him to grant us true repentance, and his Holy Spirit, that those things may please him, which we do at this present; and that the rest of our life hereafter may be pure, and holy; so that at the last we may come to his eternal joy; through Jesus Christ our Lord.” [/blockquote]
This is consistent with what I wrote above: At no point do the BCP words of absolution say that the minister himself absolves or remits any sin. Rather, his power is to [i]declare and pronounce[/i] to the people the absolution which God gives to every sinner who truly repents. This derives from the minister’s leadership role. The only mention of forgiving in the words of absolution is where God pardons and absolves his people.
In that sense, we have no argument – I believe in the power of priestly absolution as set forth in the BCP. It is a function of the leaders’ office, being a special ministerial application of that power of forgiving and retaining sins that Christ granted in John 20:23 to all believers.
[blockquote] “The BCP is the authority through which we receive interpretation of the scripture…” [/blockquote]
According to whom? So far as I am aware, the authors of the BCP never claimed this; indeed, they necessarily DIS-claimed it in a number of places.
[blockquote] “In terms of John 20, without going into greater detail than this space will allow, suffice it to say that the Fathers of the early Church believed that the power of absolution given here by Jesus was an authority given only to the apostles and their successors, not to every believer. As Saint John Chrysostom put it…” [/blockquote]
Actually no, SOME fathers of the church so believed, and none earlier than Chrysostom (5th century) so far as I can tell. As late as the 4th century, Augustine writes in his commentary on the gospel of John that this power was granted “to the church”, with nary a word about exclusive conferring on priests or bishops (or apostles for that matter).
Apart from being a late Father, Chrysostom was not an Apostle, and he was not infallible. We read his writings always subject to the judgment of scripture. When the plain apostolic teaching is that Jesus granted the power of forgiving and retaining sins to his disciples and those with them, that is the end of the matter: Chrysostom has zero power to alter or amend that teaching 400 years later.
Recchip,
My apologies, I follow you now.
And I agree: if any Christian is of the view (after careful consideration, soul-searching, prayer and seeking advice from wise fellow-believers) that the majority of his or her fellow believers are going against the Lord’s teaching, then that Christian has to follow his or her conscience, and not follow the majority.
That applies even more to a congregational leader exercising the special powers and responsibilities granted to him by scripture.
MichaelA, You wrote:
[blockquote] At no point do the BCP words of absolution say that the minister himself absolves or remits any sin… The only mention of forgiving in the words of absolution is where God pardons and absolves his people.[/blockquote]
This is incorrect. Your excerpt, taken from Morning Prayer, isn’t meant to stand as the be all and end all definition of absolution. Consider this, taken from “A Form of Confession and Absolution” in the Ministry to the Sick:
[blockquote]OUR Lord Jesus Christ, who hath left power to his Church to absolve all sinners who truly repent and believe in him: Of his great mercy forgive thee thine offences. [b]And by his authority committed to me, I absolve thee from all thy sins,[/b] In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.[/blockquote]
The Lord left power to his Church to absolve sinners. His authority to do so is committed to certain people within the Church (priests, bishops). This understanding runs all the way through the Prayerbook. It is an essentially Anglican understanding.
Farstrider+ wrote,
[blockquote] “The Lord left power to his Church to absolve sinners. His authority to do so is committed to certain people within the Church (priests, bishops).” [/blockquote]
I assume you mean by this “His authority to do so is solely committed to certain people within the Church (priests, bishops)” (otherwise what are we disagreeing about?)
Simply asserting this does not make it so. As I have pointed out, and nobody has attempted to refute, John 20:23 was expressly written to the whole church. Nor has it been suggested that any other scripture supports the idea put forward by you and Father Jonathan.
The only support offered has been an interpretation of John 20:23 by Chrysostom, which was written 400 years after the apostles and is clearly inconsistent with a plain reading of John and Luke.
[blockquote] “This understanding runs all the way through the Prayerbook.” [/blockquote]
No, it doesn’t. If you had written: “This understanding appears in one place in the 1662 BCP (the little-known form of “Visitation of the Sick”) which is inconsistent with the understanding found in the rest of the BCP”, then I would have to agree. You have, after all, honed in on the one anomaly in the BCP – I don’t think there is any way that the words you have highlighted in your quote from the Visitation of the Sick can be reconciled with the rest of the BCP, the homilies, the articles, or scripture.
But then, that is one of the reasons why Anglicans are careful to assert that the BCP is not the standard of our faith – it is a formulary, whereas scripture is the standard.
And, “all the way through the Prayerbook”? That is obviously incorrect, just by looking at the quotes above.
[blockquote] “It is an essentially Anglican understanding.” [/blockquote]
How is it Anglican? If it were Anglican, it would surely be supported by scripture and found in the teachings of the Anglican reformers, but it is neither. I agree that you have found one inconsistent and little-known passage in the BCP, but that is all.
[blockquote]I assume you mean by this “His authority to do so is solely committed to certain people within the Church (priests, bishops)†(otherwise what are we disagreeing about?)
Simply asserting this does not make it so.[/blockquote]
That is what I mean, and I didn’t simply assert anything. I used the language of the Prayerbook to show you that this statement, “At no point do the BCP words of absolution say that the minister himself absolves or remits any sin,” is false.
[blockquote]”“This understanding appears in one place in the 1662 BCP (the little-known form of “Visitation of the Sickâ€) which is inconsistent with the understanding found in the rest of the BCPâ€, then I would have to agree.[/blockquote]
Firstly, this understanding appears in all of the prayerbooks, including 1552. Secondly, if you were a parish priest, it wouldn’t be “little known.” It’s used whenever we visit the sick, which is typically quite often. Thirdly, it is only inconsistent if one reads one’s modern evangelical convictions back into the rest of the BCP. There is a reason why the Prayerbook only allows priests to absolve sin. You might not like it. You might think it’s unbiblical. Let’s not pretend, though, that Anglicanism has traditionally taught that only God absolves and anyone can speak the words of absolution. I doubt Sydney would even make that claim (with regard to historical belief).
Incidentally, the words of absolution in the service of Holy Communion are also quite different from Morning Prayer absolution– they are not dissimilar, in fact, to a number of Roman Catholic rites. The priest is clearly absolving. If we’re going to argue Scripture, fine. Your arguments regarding the Prayerbook, however don’t stand.
[blockquote]And, “all the way through the Prayerbook� That is obviously incorrect, just by looking at the quotes above.[/blockquote]
By “quotes” you mean the one quote you’ve provided from Morning Prayer?
[blockquote]How is it Anglican?[/blockquote]
It is Anglican in that everything in the Prayerbook points to this understanding. It is Anglican in that Anglicans have historically always believed thus.
[blockquote]Actually no, SOME fathers of the church so believed, and none earlier than Chrysostom (5th century) so far as I can tell.[/blockquote]
I’m glad you added “so far as I can tell.” St Cyprian of Carthage, in the mid third century, wrote, “Let each confess his sins while he is still in the world, while confession can be received, while satisfaction and forgiveness granted by the priests is acceptable to God,” (from his work, [i]One the Lapsed[/i]). I’m fairly sure you’ll find others, as well if you look.
MichaelA,
[blockquote] When the plain apostolic teaching is that Jesus granted the power of forgiving and retaining sins to his disciples and those with them, that is the end of the matter[/blockquote]
“Plain apostolic teaching”? You are free, of course, to interpret John 20:23 however you wish. The Church hasn’t traditionally interpreted it that way, though. Nor do I. Most of the Church wouldn’t find your exegesis here to be “plain,” and wouldn’t accept your personal interpretation to be so binding that it settles the matter. If you want to try to harmonize Luke with John– which has cause problems for others as well (there’s a reason the Diatessaron wasn’t accepted by the Church), you might be able to argue that other followers of Jesus were present when Jesus gave authority to forgive. You won’t be able to insist that Jesus gave authority to forgive to everyone present, though.
MichaelA wrote
[blockquote] I will go to your last point first, because it seems to show an inversion of values: Why would it be a serious deficiency on their part? Who are you (or for that matter, who am I) to sit in judgment on them?[/blockquote]
It would be a serious deficiency on their part because it would mean that they disagreed with the plain teaching of Holy Scripture and the teaching of the Fathers. Of course, this would require some proof that this was the position they held (all, most, or some of them), which is not yet forthcoming. As far as I can tell from my reading—and I’m certainly not an expert on everything the Reformers wrote—they had a mixed view of Confession, depending on which Reformer we’re talking about and at what point in their lives. Nevertheless, the consensus still seems to be that the priest is the one who has been given special authority to forgive sins, not by his own power or merit but because this is what Christ has commanded.
[blockquote]I think the problem is that you haven’t defined what you mean by “power of absolution resting in the pastoral officeâ€.[/blockquote]
The Incarnation is a great scandal now and was a great scandal even from the beginning. When Jesus claimed to be able to forgive sins, he was called a blasphemer for daring to usurp the role of God. Of course, what his accusers failed to grasp was that He is God. Likewise, what some Christians today fail to grasp—and I’m not accusing you of this, I’m just trying to point out the problem—is that the Church really is the Body of Christ, that this is not a metaphor but a spiritual reality.
In John 20:22-23, Jesus gives a godly authority to His disciples, those who are being and have been commissioned for the work of ministry in the Church. He breathes on them and says, “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, their sins have been forgiven them. If you retain the sins of any, their sins have been retained.†He gives this to the apostles and their successors the bishops, who in turn are able to share that authority with priests. The fact that this is a gift given to the apostles, not to every believer through time, is clear from the text. No, John does not specifically call those gathered “apostles.†John does not use the word “apostle†anywhere in his gospel to describe anyone, even the twelve. What Jesus says here, however, could not be plainer. In verse 21, He says, “As the Father has sent me, so I also send you.†In the first instance, the word “sent†is apostello. An apostle is one who is sent. The people receiving this authority are those whom Jesus is sending, His apostles.
[blockquote] “The BCP is the authority through which we receive interpretation of the scripture…â€
According to whom? So far as I am aware, the authors of the BCP never claimed this; indeed, they necessarily DIS-claimed it in a number of places. [/blockquote]
The BCP is an authoritative formulary. This is true right from the start. It is attested to by the Reformers and Divines right up until the present day. If this is not so, then why do we care what the BCP says at all? We pray what we believe, which means that we need to be very intentional about what we pray. I do not suggest that the BCP is infallible or even the highest authority for interpretation, as the Reformers and Divines all point to the Fathers of the primitive Church for that distinction. Nevertheless, in so much as the BCP in its classical form is a reception of the tradition of the early Church which includes a particular understanding of Holy Scripture, it is authoritative for anyone claiming to be an Anglican.
[blockquote] Actually no, SOME fathers of the church so believed, and none earlier than Chrysostom (5th century) so far as I can tell. As late as the 4th century, Augustine writes in his commentary on the gospel of John that this power was granted “to the churchâ€, with nary a word about exclusive conferring on priests or bishops (or apostles for that matter).[/blockquote]
Augustine may not have written specifically about the role of the priesthood in relation to absolution, but he certainly did not suggest that every believer has an equal authority to forgive sins and pronounce absolution. His mentor, Saint Ambrose, was clear on the topic, writing “For those to whom [the authority to bind and loose] has been given, it is plain that either both are allowed, or it is clear that neither is allowed. Both are allowed to the Church, neither is allowed to heresy. For this right has been granted to priests only.†One can also find statements about confession and the role of the episcopate (and later the priesthood) going back as far as the Didache and including Saint Ignatius of Antioch, Saint Basil the Great, Origen, and as Farstrider points out, Saint Cyprian of Carthage.
[blockquote] Apart from being a late Father, Chrysostom was not an Apostle, and he was not infallible. We read his writings always subject to the judgment of scripture. When the plain apostolic teaching is that Jesus granted the power of forgiving and retaining sins to his disciples and those with them, that is the end of the matter: Chrysostom has zero power to alter or amend that teaching 400 years later. [/blockquote]
Of course Chrysostom was not infallible. Neither were the Anglican Reformers. However, when the Reformers wanted to understand scripture, they went to the Fathers, and Chrysostom chief among them. Cranmer in particular quotes Chrysostom far more than any other Father. And, as already shown above, Chrysostom’s view was far from solitary but in fact the normative view of the Fathers. To depart from it is to suggest that we know better than they do.
And finally, though here I am interrupting another bit of the conversation, it is a strange tactic to suggest that the absolution in Morning Prayer is normative while the absolution in the Visitation of the Sick is somehow an “anomaly†that is “inconsistent with the understanding found in the rest of the BCP.†There is nothing inconsistent about it at all. It is the place where private confession is included most explicitly, so it makes sense that this would be where, if anywhere, one would find a reference to why the priest is able to exercise this responsibility. The Morning Prayer absolution is more general, though it certainly does not rule out the deeper understanding of what the priest is doing. The absolution in the celebration of Holy Communion is more direct:
[blockquote] Almighty God, our heavenly Father, who of his great mercy hath promised forgiveness of sins to all them that with hearty repentance and true faith turn unto him; Have mercy upon you; pardon and deliver you from all your sins; confirm and strengthen you in all goodness; and bring you to everlasting life; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.[/blockquote]
The priest here gives the absolution, not in an abstract way but in a direct fashion, by virtue of the authority given to him by Christ. That it is God who is acting to forgive, and not the priest on his own power, is irrefutable, yet clearly the priest is taking the action. There is no confusion here about who has been commissioned to exercise this authority. It is an apostolic ministry. Lay people are barred from exercising it.
Farstrider+ wrote:
[blockquote] “That is what I mean, and I didn’t simply assert anything. I used the language of the Prayerbook to show you that this statement, “At no point do the BCP words of absolution say that the minister himself absolves or remits any sin,†is false.” [/blockquote]
I agree, I concede that my original sweeping statement was incorrect. I should have written “There is only ONE point at which the BCP says that the minister himself absolves or remits sin, and it is a single sentence which is clearly inconsistent with the rest of the BCP. However, since scripture doesn’t teach that, we don’t have to worry about it”.
Is that better? ;o)
[blockquote] “it is only inconsistent if one reads one’s modern evangelical convictions back into the rest of the BCP.” [/blockquote]
Let’s at least do each other the courtesy of debating the actual arguments, rather than descending to self-defeating assumptions about the source of the other’s thinking: “you only believe that because you are evangelical!” “well you only believe that because you are anglo-catholic” “no, you are really crypto Calvinist so you believe something else” etc etc. It doesn’t get us anywhere.
[blockquote] “Let’s not pretend, though, that Anglicanism has traditionally taught that only God absolves and anyone can speak the words of absolution.” [/blockquote]
Your first point is, at the least, poorly worded: all Christians believe that only God actually absolves sin.
As to your second point, since I never suggested that “anyone can speak the words of absolution”, why are you constructing a straw man?
[blockquote] “I doubt Sydney would even make that claim (with regard to historical belief).” [/blockquote]
I have no idea what you mean by “Sydney” in this context (should I ask the Lord Mayor?) and I fail to see the relevance to the current debate.
[blockquote] “Incidentally, the words of absolution in the service of Holy Communion are also quite different from Morning Prayer absolution” [/blockquote]
Let’s just take a look at those words from HC:
[blockquote] Ҧ Then shall the Priest (or the Bishop, being present,)stand up, and turning himself to the people, pronounce this Absolution:
Almighty God, our heavenly Father, who of his great mercy hath promised forgiveness of sins to all them, that with hearty repentance and true faith turn unto him; Have mercy upon you, pardon and deliver you from all your sins, confirm and strengthen you in all goodness, and bring you to everlasting life, through Jesus Christ our Lord.” [/blockquote]
What I am reading here appears to be the same in all relevant respects as the words in Morning and Evening Prayer. The minister is declaring to the people what God does. The concept of “by his authority committed to me, I absolve thee from all thy sins” does not appear at all.
[blockquote] “they are not dissimilar, in fact, to a number of Roman Catholic rites.” [/blockquote]
That may be so, as are many other places in Anglican services. How is this relevant?
[blockquote] “It is Anglican in that everything in the Prayerbook points to this understanding. It is Anglican in that Anglicans have historically always believed thus.” [/blockquote]
Except that the Prayerbook doesn’t, and Anglicans haven’t. All you have come up with so far is that single sentence in Visitation of the Sick.
[blockquote] “I’m glad you added “so far as I can tell.†St Cyprian of Carthage, in the mid third century, wrote, “Let each confess his sins while he is still in the world, while confession can be received, while satisfaction and forgiveness granted by the priests is acceptable to God,†(from his work, One the Lapsed). I’m fairly sure you’ll find others, as well if you look.” [/blockquote]
Firstly, its always advisable to look at the context of a treatise before basing a doctrine on a single sentence from it. Cyprian contended that extraordinary measures were to be demanded of a believer who had lapsed in any way during recent persecutions before being re-admitted to fellowship (if they were re-admitted at all). The fact that he appears to require confession to a priest in this instance does not mean that he thought it was generally required of Christians. In fact, it more likely indicates the opposite.
Secondly, even if Cyprian had required it, how does that help your case? That would mean that you have found one more instance, among the thousands of documents written by scores or even hundreds of church fathers.
We must avoid the tendency to return to a methodology which was rightly condemned by the reformers (and indeed by the counter-reformers), that of picking out a couple of passages in the church fathers that suit us, and then forcing scripture and the rest of the church fathers to conform to them.
I have already taken you to a contrary example from Augustine, but even that detracts from the point that the teaching of any church father is only valid in so far as it is consistent with apostolic teaching.
[blockquote] “The Church hasn’t traditionally interpreted it that way, though.” [/blockquote]
You can’t make such a claim unless you support it. So far you haven’t produced any support. You have come up with a passage from Chrysostom (who although a great saint, was not an apostle and didn’t claim to be) and a very doubtful passage by Cyprian. That is not “the Church”.
[blockquote] “Most of the Church wouldn’t find your exegesis here to be “plain,†and wouldn’t accept your personal interpretation to be so binding that it settles the matter.” [/blockquote]
With respect, you have no authority to claim the support of “most of the Church” simply by asserting it.
[blockquote] “If you want to try to harmonize Luke with John—which has cause problems for others as well (there’s a reason the Diatessaron wasn’t accepted by the Church), you might be able to argue that other followers of Jesus were present when Jesus gave authority to forgive. You won’t be able to insist that Jesus gave authority to forgive to everyone present, though.” [/blockquote]
Yes, I can, for the simple reason that that is what the gospels teach. I have put the case squarely in terms of the plain words of the Gospel of John (standing by itself – you may have missed that point), and the further corroboration given by the Gospel of Luke. You haven’t confronted that at all.
There is no basis for any Christian leader to say in effect, “Well, somewhere in church history I will find a contrary tradition, and that then entitles me not to even consider or debate the plain words of scripture”. That was never the position of the church fathers, nor of the later orthodox divines, of any age.
Father Jonathan wrote:
[blockquote] “Nevertheless, the consensus still seems to be that the priest is the one who has been given special authority to forgive sins, not by his own power or merit but because this is what Christ has commanded.” [/blockquote]
Well I am always happy to discuss the views of the reformers. We don’t disagree that all of the relevant reformers believed that the priest should pronounce the absolution to the people. But what is your source for the idea that particular reformers believed that the priest has “special authority to forgive sins”?
[blockquote] No, John does not specifically call those gathered “apostles.†John does not use the word “apostle†anywhere in his gospel to describe anyone, even the twelve. [/blockquote]
I agree, but he does use the term “the Twelve”, in the very next verse in fact. If he had meant that Jesus spoke these words just to the Twelve it would have been extremely simple to say so. He does not say this in John 20:21-23, because he didn’t mean just the Twelve, but all the disciples.
[blockquote] “In the first instance, the word “sent†is apostello. An apostle is one who is sent. The people receiving this authority are those whom Jesus is sending, His apostles.” [/blockquote]
The word “apostle” is frequently used in the New Testament in a broader sense, to denote people who are not apostles in the sense we have been using. This really reinforces my point: John never uses the word Apostle, but he does use the term “the Twelve” and he does it in the very next verse, which drives home the fact that he doesn’t use it in John 20: 21-23.
[blockquote] “If this is not so, then why do we care what the BCP says at all?”
[/blockquote]
Hang on, your post here veers off onto something else. You claimed that “The BCP is THE authority through which we receive interpretation of the scripture” (my emphasis) and I pointed out that was never the view of the Anglican reformers and they specifically disclaim it.
[blockquote] “Augustine may not have written specifically about the role of the priesthood in relation to absolution, but he certainly did not suggest that every believer has an equal authority to forgive sins and pronounce absolution.” [/blockquote]
You are conflating two different ideas here. Augustine points out the truth, that the power of forgiving and retaining sins in John 20:23 is given to the whole church. “Pronouncing absolution” is just a particular aspect of that, part of the gathering of the people, where elders (what we call priests) are the leaders of the gathering.
[blockquote] “His mentor, Saint Ambrose, was clear…” [/blockquote]
It would help if you provide references. But regardless, you appear to now be asserting that if we read something in Augustine that we don’t like, we can refer to something in Ambrose that we do like, and assert that one must be read subject to the other! Forgive me if I don’t see such a game as truly catholic!
[blockquote] “One can also find statements about confession and the role of the episcopate (and later the priesthood) going back as far as the Didache and including Saint Ignatius of Antioch, Saint Basil the Great, Origen, and as Farstrider points out, Saint Cyprian of Carthage.” [/blockquote]
By all means lets debate the church fathers. But the passages you refer to (if we are thinking of the same ones) don’t necessarily assist your case at all. Note my point to Farstrider about St Cyprian. I won’t say more until I know which passages you are referring to.
[blockquote] “Of course Chrysostom was not infallible. Neither were the Anglican Reformers. However, when the Reformers wanted to understand scripture, they went to the Fathers” [/blockquote]
They did indeed, and they also disagreed with the Fathers when they did not consider that they were being consistent with Scripture. That is precisely what we must also do.
[blockquote] “And, as already shown above, Chrysostom’s view was far from solitary but in fact the normative view of the Fathers.” [/blockquote]
Respectfully, you haven’t shown that at all.
[blockquote] “To depart from it is to suggest that we know better than they do.” [/blockquote]
On the contrary, to follow your methodology is to suggest that we know better than the Apostles and the church fathers.
[blockquote] [of the absolution in the service of Holy Communion]”The priest here gives the absolution, not in an abstract way but in a direct fashion, by virtue of the authority given to him by Christ.” [/blockquote]
No, he doesn’t. We have to read what is plainly written there, not what we wish was written there. The priest announces to the people that God has forgiven them if they are penitent.
[blockquote] “That it is God who is acting to forgive, and not the priest on his own power, is irrefutable, yet clearly the priest is taking the action.” [/blockquote]
No, he very clearly is not taking any action of his own. Rather, he is telling the people what God has done.
[blockquote] “There is no confusion here about who has been commissioned to exercise this authority. It is an apostolic ministry.” [/blockquote]
No it isn’t, nor is that claim made or even hinted at.
[blockquote] “Lay people are barred from exercising it.” [/blockquote]
I agree. The pronouncement of absolution in the gathering of believers should be done by the leaders of the congregation.
[blockquote]Your first point is, at the least, poorly worded: all Christians believe that only God actually absolves sin.[/blockquote]
I rather disagree. God is the source of forgiveness. Ultimately he is the one who forgives. Within the body of Christ, however, the bishop or priest is given authority, on Christ’s behalf, to absolve repentant sinners. That’s why priests say “Ego te absolvo,” in the Roman Tradition, and “By his authority committed to me, I absolve thee from all thy sins,” in the Anglican Tradition.
[blockquote]…since I never suggested that “anyone can speak the words of absolutionâ€, why are you constructing a straw man?[/blockquote]
Your argument, unless I am very much mistaken, is that the authority to pronounce forgiveness was given to all dsiciples, not the the apostles. How does my statement signify the construction of a strawman?
[blockquote]The minister is declaring to the people what God does.[/blockquote] While absolution is based upon the action of God, if you look a bit more closely at the wording, you’ll notice that it’s only the first part that is descriptive. “Have mercy upon you, pardon and deliver you from all your sins, confirm and strengthen you in all goodness, and bring you to everlasting life, through Jesus Christ our Lord,†is something of a different order.
In re: similarities to Roman rites you wrote: [blockquote]How is this relevant?[/blockquote]
It’s relevant because you seem to suggest that Cranmer et al moved away from a Catholic understanding of priestly absolution, and that the absolution in the Visitation to the Sick is unusually unreformed. In fact, both are true to their sources. Put another way, the wording of the absolution in Holy Communion is not suggestive of a move away from the theology behind that in the Visitation of the Sick.
[blockquote]Firstly, its always advisable to look at the context of a treatise before basing a doctrine on a single sentence from it.[/blockquote]
Yes it is. And I know how to read the Fathers. However, context doesn’t always help us wriggle out of the clear meaning of a sentence. Cyprian wrote, “forgiveness granted by the priests.” Ergo, Cyprian believed that priests grant forgiveness.
[blockquote]You can’t make such a claim unless you support it[/blockquote]
With respect, if you are going to make the rather unusual claim that the ancient Church and her heirs didn’t believe in priestly absolution, the burden of proof lies firmly on your shoulders. Contrary to your suggestions above, you are the one who has made sweeping generalities without backing them up. I have simply stated the common wisdom.
[blockquote]With respect, you have no authority to claim the support of “most of the Church†simply by asserting it. [/blockquote]
With respect, again, most historical theologians will back me up on this. Beyond history itself, the heirs of the historical churches believe the same: Rome, the Eastern Church, the Oriental Churches all believe that priests have been given authority to absolve sin. As have Anglicans, historically. Why do you suppose that the rubrics for the Morning Prayer absolution say that the absolution is to be said “by the priest alone”?
Farstrider and Father Jonathan make a number of remarkable (and incorrect and unsupported) assertions about what is “Anglican”. Before responding in detail, I want to post some extracts from “The Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity” Book VI, by one Richard Hooker.
I appreciate that we have been discussing the Anglican reformers, i.e. the Edwardian and Elizabethan divines. So you may ask, why do I cite a Caroline divine? Firstly, because even with the change in language, the manner in which Hooker skewers the view put forward by Farstrider+ and Father Jonathan is admirably done!
Secondly because those familiar with the earlier reformers will note that Hooker in three paragraphs encapsulates the arguments which the Edwardian and Elizabethan reformers put forward in longer works, e.g. Vermigli in “De Poenitentia”, Latimer in “Thou canst make me clean”, Bucer in “Liturgies of the Western Church”, Jewel in the “Homily on Repentance”.
[blockquote] “Whereas therefore with us [i.e. Anglicans] the remissions of sin is ascrib’d unto God, as a thing which proceedeth from him only, and presently [i.e. immediately] followeth upon the vertue of true repentance appearing in man; that which we attribute to the virtue, they [the Romanists] do not only impute to the sacrament of repentance; but having made repentance a sacrament, and thinking of sacraments as they do, they are enforced to make the ministry of the priest, and their absolution a cause of that which the sole omnipotency of God worketh.” [/blockquote]
Hooker goes on to point out the absurdity of Bellarmine admitting (as he must) that forgiveness proceeds immediately from repentance, yet asserting that there remains anything that priestly absolution can “do”. Hooker argues that it can only “declare” what God has already done. He concludes:
[blockquote] “Therefore the further we wade, the better we see it still appears, that the priest doth never in absolution, no not so much as by way of service and ministry, really either forgive them, take away the uncleanness, or remove the punishment of sin; but if the party penitent come contrite, he hath, by their [i.e. the Romanists] own grant, absolution before absolution; if not contrite, although the priest should seem a thousand times to absolve him, all were in vain.
For which cause, the antients and better sort of their school divines, Abulensis, Alexander Hales and Bonaventure, ascribe the real abolition of sin and eternal punishment to the meer pardon of Almighty God, without dependency upon the priest’s absolution as a cause to effect the same.
…
Wherefore having hitherto spoken of the virtue of repentance required; of the discipline of repentance which Christ did establish, and of the sacrament of repentance invented sithence, against the pretended force of human absolution in sacramental penitency; let it suffice thus far to have shewed how God alone doth truly give, the virtue of repentance alone procure, and private ministerial absolution but declare remission of sins.” [/blockquote]
This is the historic Anglican view: absolution of sin proceeds entirely from “the meer pardon of Almighty God”; the priest in absolution does nothing except to declare to those who are truly penitent what God has already done.
Looking over Farstrider’s last post, I think it is mostly dealt with by Hooker as per my last post. A few specific points:
[blockquote] “Your argument, unless I am very much mistaken, is that the authority to pronounce forgiveness was given to all dsiciples, not the the apostles” [/blockquote]
You are indeed “very much mistaken” about what my argument is! You are conflating the “power to forgive and retain sins” referred to in John 20:23 with the public pronouncement of absolution in the church service. I do not hold them to be identical, even though the latter derives from, and is one aspect of, the former.
[blockquote] “It’s relevant because you seem to suggest that Cranmer et al moved away from a Catholic understanding of priestly absolution, and that the absolution in the Visitation to the Sick is unusually unreformed.” [/blockquote]
As to the first part, not at all. I am suggesting that Cranmer et al *restored* a Catholic understanding of the practice of pronouncing absolution during public worship (which itself was a relatively recent innovation). Any “understanding” that is inconsistent with apostolic teaching is not and can never be catholic.
As to the second part, that depends. The real issue after all is not so much the BCP but you! Specifically, your insistence that the Anglican reformers taught that a priest has been granted authority to absolve sins. As I have shown in my last post, Hooker firmly rejected this view and held that a priest does no more than declare to the people what God has already done if they are truly repentant. And Hooker’s teaching is no different from that of Vermigli, Cranmer, Ridley, Bucer or Jewel.
[blockquote] “With respect, if you are going to make the rather unusual claim that the ancient Church and her heirs didn’t believe in priestly absolution, the burden of proof lies firmly on your shoulders. Contrary to your suggestions above, you are the one who has made sweeping generalities without backing them up. I have simply stated the common wisdom.” [/blockquote]
No, you haven’t. Not even close. You have asserted that the “ancient church” believed that the priest has been given authority by God to grant absolution. Even if you are correct about Cyprian (I will check what he actually wrote in Latin when I can dig out my copy), you haven’t done any better than come up with two or three instances in the church fathers and none earlier than the third century. Essentially, you are trying to justify a medieval aberration by pulling out isolated quotes from the huge corpus of work by the church fathers.
On top of that, you have blithely brushed aside the teaching of Christ and his Apostles and you have made incorrect claims about what the Anglican reformers believed.
[blockquote] “Why do you suppose that the rubrics for the Morning Prayer absolution say that the absolution is to be said “by the priest aloneâ€?” [/blockquote]
Why would I have a problem with this? Who else but the leader of the congregation should make such a declaration in public worship?
[blockquote] We don’t disagree that all of the relevant reformers believed that the priest should pronounce the absolution to the people. But what is your source for the idea that particular reformers believed that the priest has “special authority to forgive sins�[/blockquote]
This requires a more detailed exploration and development, which I will attempt to do over at The Conciliar Anglican some time in the near future. I will post a link once that is up. I am tempted to say more, but will hold back for now…
[blockquote] The word “apostle†is frequently used in the New Testament in a broader sense, to denote people who are not apostles in the sense we have been using. This really reinforces my point: John never uses the word Apostle, but he does use the term “the Twelve†and he does it in the very next verse, which drives home the fact that he doesn’t use it in John 20: 21-23.[/blockquote]
Leaving aside for the moment the rather thorny issue of whether or not there is any essential difference between the Twelve and any other apostles named in Scripture (Is Paul not an apostle? Or Matthias?), in verse 24 the reference to the Twelve is in reference to Thomas and the fact that he is one of the twelve who was not present, inferring again (for anyone who might have missed what is so clearly said in verse 21) that whoever else may have been present, the gathering was primarily composed of the Eleven.
[blockquote] You claimed that “The BCP is THE authority through which we receive interpretation of the scripture†(my emphasis) and I pointed out that was never the view of the Anglican reformers and they specifically disclaim it.[/blockquote]
Yes, I pointed out that the BCP is an authoritative formulary in Anglicanism, through which we receive the teaching of the early Church on how to understand the Scriptures. I would love to see where the Reformers say that the BCP has no authority in this matter. Again, if the BCP is not authoritative, then who cares what it says at all? Why are we even bothering to have this conversation?
[blockquote] “Augustine may not have written specifically about the role of the priesthood in relation to absolution, but he certainly did not suggest that every believer has an equal authority to forgive sins and pronounce absolution.â€
You are conflating two different ideas here. Augustine points out the truth, that the power of forgiving and retaining sins in John 20:23 is given to the whole church. “Pronouncing absolution†is just a particular aspect of that, part of the gathering of the people, where elders (what we call priests) are the leaders of the gathering.[/blockquote]
No, I’m simply pointing out that what Augustine said about this does not deny or in any way impede the understanding of priestly authority that we have been discussing. Saying that the Church has been given the power to bind and loose is not something that I can imagine anyone arguing with. But that does not mean that Augustine did not believe that bishops and priests were given a special authority in this regard.
[blockquote] “His mentor, Saint Ambrose, was clear…â€
It would help if you provide references. But regardless, you appear to now be asserting that if we read something in Augustine that we don’t like, we can refer to something in Ambrose that we do like, and assert that one must be read subject to the other! Forgive me if I don’t see such a game as truly catholic![/blockquote]
I did provide the quote, which you do not seem to want to engage. I am not asserting that Ambrose is a greater Father than Augustine. Nevertheless, you dismissed Chrysostom without even beginning to engage with him precisely because you thought he was “late,†offering Augustine instead as a better source because he is earlier (which, for the record, he’s not). I am pointing out that an even earlier source, one who happens to have been Augustine’s own teacher, articulated the traditional view. And yes, we do have to read Augustine subject to Ambrose, and the other way around as well. To take one Father and make an idol of him would be profoundly un-Catholic, as the Reformers well note.
[blockquote] By all means lets debate the church fathers. But the passages you refer to (if we are thinking of the same ones) don’t necessarily assist your case at all. Note my point to Farstrider about St Cyprian. I won’t say more until I know which passages you are referring to. [/blockquote]
We already have three direct quotes on the table, that of Chrysostom, Cyprian, and Ambrose. If you would care to address them, I’ll be happy to move on to other quotes.
[blockquote] “Of course Chrysostom was not infallible. Neither were the Anglican Reformers. However, when the Reformers wanted to understand scripture, they went to the Fathersâ€
They did indeed, and they also disagreed with the Fathers when they did not consider that they were being consistent with Scripture. That is precisely what we must also do. [/blockquote]
The Anglican Reformers argued that Scripture is the ultimate authority for establishing doctrine, but that Scripture must be interpreted through the lenses of Tradition and Reason. Tradition holds the first place as an interpreter, and by Tradition they meant the mind of the primitive Church as expressed through the Fathers, the Councils, and the Creeds. Yes, Scripture is at the top of the pyramid, as it was for the Fathers themselves, but it is a strange thing indeed to suggest that the Reformers would have been willing to go against the mind of the primitive Church, to say that they knew in the sixteenth century how to read the Bible better than those who lived in the first five. Could one Father be wrong? Certainly. Could a fair number be wrong in the same way on the same point? Probably. But the overwhelming majority? The Reformers and Divines here wisely assert that the interpretation of the overwhelming majority of the Fathers must take precedence over our own, lest, as Peter Gunning argued, each man becomes his own pope. The Reformers took great pride in saying that they believed that the theology expressed in the BCP, the Ordinal, and the Articles is consonant with the mind of the primitive Church. I cannot think of a single example where they would have said that the Fathers could simply be swept aside.
All of that being said, I have offered arguments from the Fathers here only to make clear that the traditional interpretation of John 20 has its roots in the Early Church. While some passages of scripture are easy to misinterpret without the help of the Fathers, John 20:21-23 is quite clear in and of itself.
[blockquote] Farstrider and Father Jonathan make a number of remarkable (and incorrect and unsupported) assertions about what is “Anglicanâ€. Before responding in detail, I want to post some extracts from “The Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity†Book VI, by one Richard Hooker.[/blockquote]
If the BCP is not fair proof of what is “Anglican,†I really don’t know what is. The only thing “remarkable†about what we are saying is that we have to say it at all (and perhaps that is our folly, engaging in debate that is becoming ever more divorced from Reason). What both the Scripture and the Tradition have to say here is self-evident. The lengths you are going to in order to redefine words is downright Clintonian.
I am again tempted to say more in regards to Hooker, but again I’ll leave that until later.
Though this is from your response to Farstrider, I can’t help but respond to it…
[blockquote] You have asserted that the “ancient church†believed that the priest has been given authority by God to grant absolution. Even if you are correct about Cyprian (I will check what he actually wrote in Latin when I can dig out my copy), you haven’t done any better than come up with two or three instances in the church fathers and none earlier than the third century. Essentially, you are trying to justify a medieval aberration by pulling out isolated quotes from the huge corpus of work by the church fathers.[/blockquote]
OK, several things…
1) Why is “ancient church†in scare quotes? Or is it your contention that there is no such thing as the ancient Church?
2) Earlier, Chrysostom was a problem for you because he wrote in the fourth century. Now, apparently, Cyprian is problematic because he wrote in the third? Honestly, how early does someone have to be before you’re willing to take them seriously? How about Ignatius writing in the early second century? The Didache is a first century document. Would that suffice?
And why, given this line of reasoning, should I take Augustine seriously since he wrote in the fifth century?
Of course, the primary source I would offer is definitely first century, being Jesus Himself, as quoted by the Apostle John. But then again, John was the latest Gospel writer, so perhaps he is untrustworthy too. Only what’s said in Mark can be trusted, minus the end of chapter 16 of course.
3) You earlier acknowledged that Chrysostom believed in the traditional teaching, so at the very least you would have to say that this teaching is a fourth century “aberration†and not a “medieval aberration†(and yes, my scare quotes there are totally intentional).
4) How else could we possibly talk about the Fathers without quoting from them? Is your contention really that it is impossible to talk about a part of what somebody said? Of course one has to take things in context, as one does with Scripture as well, but surely you wouldn’t say that I cannot understand what John 20 is saying until I have read Proverbs or Obadiah? At some point, we have to be able to deal with the words that are in front of us, whether we like them or not.
MichaelA,
[blockquote]…your insistence that the Anglican reformers taught that a priest has been granted authority to absolve sins.[/blockquote]
Did I actually say “the Anglican reformers” taught this? I wouldn’t be inclined to make such a sweeping statement. Firstly, which “Anglican reformers” are you talking about. You rightly note that Vermigli, Bucer, and co. had an influential role in Cranmer’s theological formation– but are they Anglican? I think not. What Cranmer believed, he put in the Prayerbook. He wasn’t a sloppy individual. What we find in the Prayerbook is typically what was and is believed by Anglicans.
As for other reformers, they lay along a spectrum that had Calvinism on one end, Lutheranism next to it, and men who were one step away from recusance on the other. Are you suggesting that Vermigli hold more authority for Anglicans than Cranmer?
On the other hand, Cranmer the man has less authority for Anglicans than the prayerbook itself, which has been received and adapted by Anglicans down the centuries and across the world.
[blockquote]”As I have shown in my last post, Hooker firmly rejected this view and held that a priest does no more than declare to the people what God has already done if they are truly repentant.”[/blockquote]
So “two or three church Fathers,” isn’t up to scratch, but a quote from Hooker is? Shall I quote Lancelot Andrewes? Take a look at his section on absolution in [i]A rationale upon the Book of common prayer of the Church of England.[/i] Perhaps he isn’t early enough. Or, on the other hand, perhaps his views are more in line with that part of Anglicanism which wasn’t in the midst of a pendulum swing away from Rome on the one hand or Puritanism on the other. Perhaps his views are in line with the fact that he, and his contemporaries had more Patristic resources than had Cranmer and even Hooker.
[blockquote]you haven’t done any better than come up with two or three instances in the church fathers and none earlier than the third century.[/blockquote]
Fr. Jonathan has already pointed out the problem with your ever-shifting timeline. I’ll add that where one Father didn’t suffice, three have been equally insufficient. I’m fairly sure that four or five won’t do either. The question is, how many would?
Just to bring it up to five…
Hippolytus (A.D. 215)– The ordaining bishop prays:
God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. . . . Pour forth now that power which comes from you, from your royal Spirit, which you gave to your beloved Son, Jesus Christ, and which he bestowed upon his holy apostles . . . and grant this your servant, whom you have chosen for the episcopate, [the power] to feed your holy flock and to serve without blame as your high priest, ministering night and day to propitiate unceasingly before your face and to offer to you the gifts of your holy Church, and by the Spirit of the high priesthood to have the authority to forgive sins, in accord with your command”
Basil the Great’s [i]Rules Briefly Treated[/i]: “It is necessary to confess our sins to those to whom the dispensation of God’s mysteries is entrusted.”
I’d like to add (or perhaps further extrapolate on) one more thing. The “spirit of Anglicanism” has always looked back to Scripture and to the primitive Church in its quest for genuine reformed Catholicity. The way of the Puritans was to demand that a teaching be found and shaped by Scripture alone. Hooker, who you quoted MichaelA, spent a great deal of effort refuting this position. Whether he is right or wrong on this or that particular is beside the point. Scripture had priority, yes, but tradition and reason were its handmaids and, to some extent, interpreters.
This was always the case. John Jewell, explaining why he did not accept certain particulars of the Roman doctrine wrote:
“If any man alive were able to prove any of these articles by any one clear or plain clause or sentence, either of the scriptures, or of the old doctors, or of any old general council, or by any example of the primitive church ; I promised then that I would give over and subscribe unto him.”
Notice the list of things he that considers authoritative and binding. This is very much in accord with the impulse that drove most of the Anglican greats down the first few centuries. The primary differences between a John Jewell and a Lancelot Andrewes were context (embattled against Rome or not) and resources. If Jewell had the resources that Andrewes had, I think we should take him at his word in that any position he held which was at variance with the Fathers of the Church would thereafter have been abandoned.
Cranmer may be depart from most reformers and divines in this sense. He was somewhat fluid, theologically, and may have moved towards a more Zwinglian interpretation of the Eucharist towards the end of his life– which view is most difficult to defend from the works of the Fathers. Fortunately this didn’t bear full fruit in the Prayerbook, and it wasn’t embraced by later Anglicans.
Correction to last paragraph: “Cranmer may depart from most…”
Father Jonathan wrote at #33,
[blockquote] “in verse 24 the reference to the Twelve is in reference to Thomas and the fact that he is one of the twelve who was not present, inferring again (for anyone who might have missed what is so clearly said in verse 21) that whoever else may have been present, the gathering was primarily composed of the Eleven.” [/blockquote]
Firstly, you insinuate that there is some doubt as to which group John is referring when he uses the expression “the Twelve” in John 20:24, because Judas is now gone. This is not sustainable – there is no doubt as to whom John is referring.
Secondly, this point arose because you argued that Jesus’ words in John 20:23 were only spoken to the Twelve; I responded that John explicitly states otherwise – he tells us that Jesus spoke in that verse to “the disciples”, and his use of the Twelve in the very next verse (as well as in several other places) shows that Jesus was talking to all the disciples in John 20:23, not just the Twelve.
As a separate point, Luke corroborates this and shows that even the women were present when Jesus spoke to the disciples.
This is why we believe that the power of forgiving and retaining sins was given by Christ to all believers. That doesn’t mean of course that every aspect of that power will be exercised by any believer – anything done in public worship must be done in proper order, under the leadership of the ministers.
[blockquote] “Yes, I pointed out that the BCP is an authoritative formulary in Anglicanism, through which we receive the teaching of the early Church on how to understand the Scriptures.” [/blockquote]
No, you actually said that the BCP is *the* authoritative formulary. I trust that idea can now be dispensed with. The rest of your terminology is obscure and I don’t mean to spend time guessing at your meaning. The important issue is that the scriptures in their plain sense are the highest authority for Anglicans and all other authorities are read subject to scripture, not the reverse.
[blockquote] “I would love to see where the Reformers say that the BCP has no authority in this matter. … Again, if the BCP is not authoritative, then who cares what it says at all? … I cannot think of a single example where they would have said that the Fathers could simply be swept aside.” [/blockquote]
I have grouped these for convenience. Each is a straw man.
[blockquote] “But that does not mean that Augustine did not believe that bishops and priests were given a special authority in this regard.” [/blockquote]
I disagree. If he had believed this he would have said so.
[blockquote] “I did provide the quote, which you do not seem to want to engage.” [/blockquote]
I didn’t write “quote”, I wrote “reference”. Its what people ask for when they want to read a quote in context.
[blockquote] “you dismissed Chrysostom without even beginning to engage with him precisely because you thought he was “late,†offering Augustine instead as a better source because he is earlier (which, for the record, he’s not).” [/blockquote]
“For the record”, I didn’t do this at all. Please re-read my post.
[blockquote] “To take one Father and make an idol of him would be profoundly un-Catholic, as the Reformers well note.” [/blockquote]
Exactly, and for precisely that reason the Anglican reformers rejected the view of any Church Father who may have suggested that priests or bishops remit sin.
[blockquote] “We already have three direct quotes on the table, that of Chrysostom, Cyprian, and Ambrose. If you would care to address them, I’ll be happy to move on to other quotes.” [/blockquote]
No, I want to see what your authority is that the early church believed that priests or bishops have authority to remit sins. So far you have quoted from three fathers who *may* have believed that. As I pointed out above, I could quote to you from writings of three Anglican primates today, yet that would not necessarily tell us anything about what the Anglican Communion believes, and it would tell us nothing at all about what the Anglican Communion believed two or three centuries previously.
[blockquote] “The Anglican Reformers argued that Scripture is the ultimate authority for establishing doctrine, but that Scripture must be interpreted through the lenses of Tradition and Reason.” [/blockquote]
No, they didn’t. Not even close. Rather than discussing obscure 19th century ideas, lets deal with what the reformers actually argued and believed.
[blockquote] “Yes, Scripture is at the top of the pyramid, as it was for the Fathers themselves, but it is a strange thing indeed to suggest that the Reformers would have been willing to go against the mind of the primitive Church, to say that they knew in the sixteenth century how to read the Bible better than those who lived in the first five.” [/blockquote]
This again misrepresents the views of the Anglican reformers. They treated every authority apart from scripture as human and fallible. They called in aid church fathers or medieval divines whenever they believed that those writers reflected biblical teaching. They were as ready to quote Duns Scotus or Acquinas for this purpose, as Chrysostom. But at no point did they indicate that church fathers could “read the bible” any different to them.
[blockquote] “Could one Father be wrong? Certainly. Could a fair number be wrong in the same way on the same point? Probably. But the overwhelming majority?” [/blockquote]
Which is precisely why finding three passages from Chrysostom, Cyprian and Ambrose does not carry your argument anywhere. If you do understand this point, then why start this whole debate, as you and Farstrider did, by making one or two citations and acting as though they prove your point?
Furthermore, if you know the writings of the Anglican reformers, you will know that they believed that the further removed the church became from apostolic times, the more likely one is to find deviance from apostolic teaching. If you want to quote something from Cyprian, be my guest, but don’t imagine that that of itself carries the argument about what the entire church believed, even by your own methodology.
[blockquote] “The Reformers took great pride in saying that they believed that the theology expressed in the BCP, the Ordinal, and the Articles is consonant with the mind of the primitive Church.” [/blockquote]
Indeed they did. And that is why they taught that priests and bishops have no authority to remit sins.
[blockquote] “All of that being said, I have offered arguments from the Fathers here only to make clear that the traditional interpretation of John 20 has its roots in the Early Church.” [/blockquote]
Firstly, its not the traditional interpretation, its your personal interpretation. Secondly, the words of John 20 are plain. Just because you join a long line of people over the years who have sought to argue their way around plain meaning is neither here nor there. Thirdly, all you have done is come up with some quotes from isolated fathers to support your aberrant interpretation, whereas the Anglican reformers knew the church fathers well, and were firmly convinced that no priest or bishop had authority to remit sins.
[blockquote] “If the BCP is not fair proof of what is “Anglican,†I really don’t know what is.” [/blockquote]
Precisely. That is why your attempt to use a single sentence from the Visitation of the Sick as proof of a position that is diametrically opposed to the views of the authors of the BCP doesn’t wash.
[blockquote] “The only thing “remarkable†about what we are saying is that we have to say it at all (and perhaps that is our folly, engaging in debate that is becoming ever more divorced from Reason). What both the Scripture and the Tradition have to say here is self-evident. The lengths you are going to in order to redefine words is downright Clintonian.” [/blockquote]
On the contrary, the words of scripture are plain and the views of the Anglican reformers are plain. You are just attempting to use sophistry to argue around them.
Father Jonathan wrote at #34,
[blockquote] “Why is “ancient church†in scare quotes? Or is it your contention that there is no such thing as the ancient Church?” [/blockquote]
Ummm, because they aren’t “scare quotes” (have I now made this doubly scary by putting “scare quotes” in scare quotes, I wonder?). Farstrider claimed the authority of the ancient church by quoting a statement of St Cyprian. That’s like me claiming the authority of the entire Anglican Communion on the basis of a statement by K J Schori.
[blockquote] “Earlier, Chrysostom was a problem for you because he wrote in the fourth century. Now, apparently, Cyprian is problematic because he wrote in the third? Honestly, how early does someone have to be before you’re willing to take them seriously?” [/blockquote]
Could you please now respond to my actual point? If Farstrider or you are going to claim that a belief was universal in “the ancient church” you need to do a lot more than just quote a passage from Chrysostom, a passage from Cyprian and a passage from Ambrose.
Further, I have never at any time suggested that any church father should not be taken seriously, so I don’t know where that idea came from. I have, however, pointed out that no single church father (nor even two or three or four or five) constitute the views of the entire church.
[blockquote] “How about Ignatius writing in the early second century? The Didache is a first century document. Would that suffice?” [/blockquote]
You should already know the answer to that, if you know this area – It depends entirely on what you want to do with them:
(a) If you want to argue that their opinions trump apostolic teaching, then the answer is a very clear no.
(b) If you want to suggest that a belief was widespread in the sub-apostolic church then the answer is “perhaps”. Unless of course you are someone who believes that everything in the Didache was normative for the whole church in the second century, in which case we really are a long way apart.
Similarly for Ignatius – most of what he writes is very good, but that doesn’t mean he was right in everything. For example, his teaching that a bishop must be obeyed “as though his words came from God” is not supported by any other sub-apostolic Father and is contrary to scripture.
But all of this is hypothetical, since you haven’t actually cited the Didache or Ignatius (vague references don’t count). I rather doubt that either support your argument, but I am always happy to see.
[blockquote] “And why, given this line of reasoning, should I take Augustine seriously since he wrote in the fifth century?” [/blockquote]
Since you obviously haven’t followed my line of reasoning, this requires no response.
[blockquote] “Of course, the primary source I would offer is definitely first century, being Jesus Himself, as quoted by the Apostle John.” [/blockquote]
Thank you for finally getting to the real issue. I pointed out right at the start of this debate that the fundamental problem with your argument is that it contradicts the plain teaching of Jesus and his apostles. Instead of confronting this argument, you tried to avoid by saying, in effect, “It doesn’t matter what the Gospels say; I can find a church father who held an interpretation that I like, so that trumps actually reading the Gospels”.
[blockquote] “How else could we possibly talk about the Fathers without quoting from them?” [/blockquote]
Since I have never suggested we should not, this is irrelevant.
Farstrider+,
I am sorry but I just cannot follow much of your posts #24 and 25. They appear to ramble and often don’t relate to the issues.
You appear to be complaining that I won’t accept that three (or even four or five) cites from the Church Fathers permits you to claim the authority of “the early church. You don’t appear to have grasped the point made by Fr Jonathan:
[blockquote] “Could one Father be wrong? Certainly. Could a fair number be wrong in the same way on the same point? Probably. But the overwhelming majority?” [/blockquote]
If you are going to try and argue that the patristic (or even primitive) church witnesses to a particular teaching then picking isolated teachings out of Cyprian or Chysostom or anyone else just doesn’t cut it. Out of over a hundred church fathers, and over a thousand separate documents, your “four or five” quotes are irrelevant. You also conflate the patristic church in general with the primitive church.
Then you give us a quote from “Hippolytus (A.D. 215)”, without giving the reference. Fortunately I knew the quote anyway – It comes from the Apostolic Tradition discovered in the 19th century, which for obvious reasons has no patristic attestation, is almost certainly not by Hippolytus, and probably dates from the 4th century.
You then come up with a bizarre assertion that the Edwardian and Elizabethan reformers I cited (Vermigli, Bucer, Latimer, Ridley and others) were “not Anglican”, apparently on the basis that you don’t like their teaching. Sure, whatever.
Then you appear to be arguing that the BCP is some stone tablet, a fixed statement of belief that trumps scripture (even though that is contrary to its specific terms).
You wrote:
[blockquote] “I’d like to add (or perhaps further extrapolate on) one more thing. The “spirit of Anglicanism” has always looked back to Scripture and to the primitive Church in its quest for genuine reformed Catholicity.” [/blockquote]
Which is precisely my point. That is why I find your arguments so unfocussed and based on a series of false premises. Even in your quotes from the Church Fathers you have so far not come up with a single reference from the primitive church, as opposed to the later patristic period. Nor have you put any of it in the context of the general councils, the creeds or anything else. Its just grab a quote that you like and throw it out there.
[blockquote] “The way of the Puritans was to demand that a teaching be found and shaped by Scripture alone.” [/blockquote]
No, it wasn’t. Some of the Puritans believed this, some did not.
[blockquote] “Hooker, who you quoted MichaelA, spent a great deal of effort refuting this position. Whether he is right or wrong on this or that particular is beside the point. Scripture had priority, yes, but tradition and reason were its handmaids and, to some extent, interpreters.” [/blockquote]
Now you conflate two different issues, whether scripture is normative or regulative, and how we are to interpret scripture. And I don’t see how either assists your point.
[blockquote] “Notice the list of things he that considers authoritative and binding.” [/blockquote]
Jewell considered many things authoritative. But he didn’t consider them all equally authoritative, as you seem to be asserting.
I’ve had a busy day, Michael. Sorry if the posts aren’t clear enough for you (although I suspect they are more clear than you allow). I’ll try to respond in greater depth tomorrow, but this I can’t let stand.
[blockquote]You then come up with a bizarre assertion that the Edwardian and Elizabethan reformers I cited (Vermigli, Bucer, Latimer, Ridley and others) were “not Anglicanâ€, apparently on the basis that you don’t like their teaching. Sure, whatever.[/blockquote]
Are you being intentionally dishonest here? I’m a bit surprised at the above as it’s not like you. I never said at any time Latimer and Ridley were not Anglican. I was speaking of those foreign nationals (Lutherans, Swiss and Italian Reformed types), such as Bucer and Vermigli, who had influence on Cranmer et al but were not in fact Anglican. There may be overlap between these two groups, but there is also divergence.
OK, and this.
[blockquote]Out of over a hundred church fathers, and over a thousand separate documents, your “four or five†quotes are irrelevant.[/blockquote]
My point, Michael, which you are proving nicely, is that it doesn’t really matter how many quotes I or others provide. You will never accept it. Instead you’ll argue from silence, insisting that your view was common to the Fathers even though the only evidence we have of their beliefs points the opposite direction. You do very well arguing on the beliefs of the Reformers. Here and in other threads (and I’m alluding to ones that I’ve not been involved with) you’ve shown that you don’t know the Fathers well. There’s no shame in that. But that’s how it seems to me.
[blockquote]You also conflate the patristic church in general with the primitive church.[/blockquote]
Nitpicking. (1) Moderns typically classify the primitive church as the Church of the first three centuries, which provides us a significant overlap with the Patristic age. (2) Most of the writers we’ve been discussing, however (Andrewes, Jewell and so on) used the terms fairly interchangeably. It makes sense when discussing the men to use their terms.
I think that at this point further discussion will be fruitless. The Scriptures and the Fathers speak for themselves. I will post a link to my further reflection on this when it is ready, but otherwise I will respectfully bow out. May Christ’s name be praised.
Some further thoughts on classical Anglicanism and Confession, as promised:
http://conciliaranglican.wordpress.com/2011/08/10/all-may-none-must-some-should/
This is not entirely about the role of the priest in absolution, but that thought is addressed.
Fr. Jonathan and Fastrider+,
I’m in complete agreement with all you say. To a simple fellow like me, it’s quite plain what Jesus said and to whom he said it. It might ruffle my anti-clerical feathers if I had any, but the plain reading of Scripture (not to mention the Tradition of the undivided church) support your positions.
Some clarifications on comments above, and then some more quotations…
The Ambrose Quote, referred to by Fr. Jonathan, is from [i] Penance 1:1[/i]
In re: the Hippolytus quote, MichaelA wrote:
[blockquote]It comes from the Apostolic Tradition discovered in the 19th century, which for obvious reasons has no patristic attestation…[/blockquote]
I’m a bit baffled by this comment regarding attestation. Can you enlighten me?
[blockquote] …is almost certainly not by Hippolytus,[/blockquote]
According to recent scholars, yes. They may be right, they may not be. Even if they are, it hardly matters for reasons I’ll deal with momentarily. As a side note, though, if someone suggested that Ephesians is almost certainly not by St. Paul, you’d probably throw a hissy-fit– don’t worry, you’d have company. I’d join you. While I realize that Ephesians and the Apostolic Tradition are hardly on par (one being God’s very Word written, and the other not), the same hermeneutic of doubt is applied to the Fathers as is with Scripture. All of which to say, don’t assume that modern scholarship is unbiased in its appraisal of the Fathers.
[blockquote]…and probably dates from the 4th century.[/blockquote]
This is a most misleading statement. The aforementioned modern scholars suggest that it was [i]compiled[/i] sometime in the last quarter of the 4th century. They also argue that many (not all) of the sources go back as far as ca. A.D. 150.
And now some more quotes:
St. John Chrysostom again, from his work “The Priesthood”:
‘Priests have received a power which God has given neither to angels nor to archangels. It was said to them: “Whatsoever you shall bind upon earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose, shall be loosed” [Matt 18:18]. Temporal rulers have indeed the power of binding; but they can bind only the body. Priests, however, can bind with a bond which pertains to the soul itself, and transcends the very heavens…Whatever priests do here on earth, God will confirm in heaven, just as the master ratifies the decision of his servants. Did He not give them all the powers of heaven? “Whose sins you shall forgive,” He says, “they are forgiven them: whose sins you shall retain, they are retained” [John 20:23].’
Theodore of Mopsuestia, from his “Catechetical Homilies”:
‘This is the medicine for sins, established by God and delivered to the priests of the Church, who make diligent use of it in healing the afflictions of men. You are aware of these things, as also of the fact that God, because He greatly cares for us, gave us penitence and showed us the medicine of repentance; and He established some men, those who are priests, as physicians of sins. If in this world we receive through them healing and forgiveness of sins, we shall be delivered from the judgment that is to come.’
And one last one. St. Jerome writes, in his [i]Commentary on St. Matthew[/i]: “With us the Bishop or Priest binds or looses–not them who are merely innocent or guilty–but having heard, as his duty requires, the various qualities of sin he understands who should be bound and who loosed.”
MichaelA.
I’d like to resurrect this thread one last time in order to issue you an apology.
While our differences on this particular topic remain, I realize, looking back, that I’ve been less than charitable to you in some of my responses.
While you’d be forgiven for thinking otherwise, I have a great deal of respect for you and I always appreciate your thoughtfulness.
Without wanting to make excuses, I’ve had a tiring year and realize I am not on my best form. Fortunately, I have some weeks of holiday coming up. I’ll be posting infrequently, if at all over the next weeks, but I wanted to say “sorry” before I withdraw.
Blessings,
fs
The new ACNA Ordinal departs significantly from the classical Anglican Ordinal of 1662 and its American edition of 1792 in a number of key area. I have written a series of articles drawing attention to these deviations and their significance on my web blog Anglicans Ablaze:
“The Doctrine of the New ACNA Ordinal: Classically Anglican? Or Troublingly Unreformed?”
http://anglicansablaze.blogspot.com/2011/08/doctrine-of-new-acna-ordinal.html
“Archbishop Robert Duncan on the New ACNA Ordinal – Part II”
http://anglicansablaze.blogspot.com/2011/08/archbishop-robert-duncan-on-new-acna_22.html
“What You May Not Know about the New ACNA Ordinal”
http://anglicansablaze.blogspot.com/2011/08/what-you-may-not-know-about-new-acna.html
“Archbishop Robert Duncan on the New ACNA Ordinal”
http://anglicansablaze.blogspot.com/2011/08/archbishop-robert-duncan-on-new-acna.html
“Further Thoughts on the New ACNA Ordinal”
http://anglicansablaze.blogspot.com/2011/08/further-thoughts-on-new-acna-ordinal.html
“Prelates and Pontificals in the Anglican Church in North America”
http://anglicansablaze.blogspot.com/2011/08/prelates-and-pontificals-in-anglican.html
“The New ACNA Ordinal: Shadows of Things That Will Be or Shadows of Things That May Be?”
http://anglicansablaze.blogspot.com/2011/08/new-acna-ordinal-shadows-of-things-that.html
“The 2011 Ordinal: A Foretaste of the New American Prayer Book”
http://anglicansablaze.blogspot.com/2011/08/2011-ordinal-foretaste-of-new-american.html
With the constitution and canons of the Anglican Church in North America the new ordinal places the ACNA further at odds doctrinally with GAFCON and the Jerusalem Declaration.