APA Opts Not to Join Common Cause Partnership

What does this do for the unity that the REC and APA were trying to accomplish?  Does this take the REC out of the Common Cause?

As an outside observer [and thus with no special insight] it seems like a very solid, faithful decision.

It will be interesting to see if FACA becomes a partner in the CCP—the six entities of FACA are The Anglican Church in America (ACA), The Anglican Mission in America (AMIA), The Anglican Province of America (APA), The Diocese of the Holy Cross (HDC),
Episcopal Missionary Church (EMC), and The Reformed Episcopal Church (REC).

I agree with Sarah.  Anytime a church or congregation is split 50/50 on a decision it is best to step back from that decision and wait.

I understand that there are issues in the CCP that still need to be resolved amongst the members, such as womens ordination. I understand that some members are for it and others against it. I think Bp. Grundorf is wise to stand apart and see how things fall out.

Why so much opposition to joining the Common Cause Partnership?

Lawsuits and withdrawal symptoms don’t spread through this sort of affiliation—-and thus don’t seem adequate grounds for the opposition. And there’s certainly much to be said for demonstrating that post-ECUSA U.S. Anglicans don’t suffer from terminal fractiousness.

As a member of an APA church, I am grateful that our Presiding Bishop has the patience to wait for greater unity within our organization as a whole, and is willing to support CCP in the meantime without forcing a decision on those who are not ready.
The APA deserves deep respect from those of us new to the recognition of false teaching in TEC (ie 1998 forward) and who have recently left.  They predicted this trajectory 30 years ago, and what seemed ridiculous then has become stark reality now.  What I love about APA is just what +Grundorf wisely explains we want to avoid - It amazes me how loving and welcoming my parish is to those who need a lifeboat.  No anger, no inviting you into bitter conversation about what has been - On to mission and ministry! Many in my parish have been holding fast to the faith for thirty years, and my family knows what a gift this is.
Those of us in the APA who are excited about the possibilities of CCP and the upcoming GAFCON need be no less excited - The Lord is still at work reforming His HOLY Church!

Carrie in MD

We certainly cannot fault the APA for taking a wait and see attitude.  After all, within TEC there are about 15-20 diocesan bishops also taking a wait and see attitude.

If I were an Anglican bishop I would first see that we were seperated and clear from TEC and maybe part of the AC.  If I believed in a hiearchial system, since the total church is already divided and has been since the eastern group hived off then the reformation group, I would be happy to be in some sort of federation with few rules but core doctrines that the church catholic has always agreed to.  I am afraid that so many want to mimic the RCC and all get under one umbrella which the Romanist can’t even produce.  To me the federation model would give you the best mix and not be cumberson.  After all, ISTM that you all have demonstrated that the connectional church system is unable to exert discipline and manitain orthodoxy quite well.  But of course there are those who like Charlie Brown want to always try to kick the football one more time.  Now if we could just reassemble at Gettysburg and re-do Picket’s charge surely the South would rise again.  Ah, the romantic view of reality!

At the present time, we are part of an Intercommunion Agreement with the REC and through this relationship we have formed ourselves into a Federation of the Anglican Churches in the Americas. There are now 6 jurisdictions that are part of this Federation. FACA has requested as a Body to be a part of the CCP. We are thereby in a position as part of this Federation to be observers of CCP as we watch how it unfolds over the next few years.

If APA is part of FACA, and FACA is part of CCP, how is APA staying out of CCP?

James you beat me to making a comment about that. APA is solidly a part of FACA and now FACA is asking to join the CCP.  Does it not sound like all the parties in FACA besides REC and AMiA (already members of CCP) would then be part of the CCP?  Anybody able to explain this better?

Mad Potter:

FACA has requested as a Body to be a part of the CCP.

That doesn’t square with what you posted, hence the question.

At this time, when the majority membership of the CCP has just recently departed from the Episcopal Church and are going through the withdrawal and anger symptoms which so many of our people experienced 30-40 years ago, do we want to be caught up into their present day battles? 

Or conversely, has not APA reached a level of maturity where they can share their past experience and help CCP get through its upcoming experience? What is more noble, self-preservation or self-sacrifice?
And which would Jesus do?

(a refugee from the Briar Patch),

I met Bishop Grundorf at the 2001-2004 Episcopal / REC and APA dialogue and have great respect for him. I appreciate his wisdom and his statement.

Tom Rightmyer in Asheville, NC

This could have been predicted.  He’s taken a look and decided that the CCP is going nowhere w/o some solid TEC diocesan members - but San J went to the Southern Cone - not CCP.

I’m guessing the “monumental issues” are WO and the role of Bishops.  As Grundorf has demonstrated, Bishops in the APA follow the RCC model, viz: Apostles.  I believe the APA does not have a house of deputies. TEC Bishops are basically chief pastors and share their leadership with lay persons and pastors.

The “Catholic charismatic” group he is talking about is probably the CEC remnamt - Community of Christ The King (or whatever) - see Trinity Cathedral, Ocean Pines MD.  (I may have the name wrong - one of +Zampinos old groups).  These folks have valid Apostolic Succession via the Brazlians.  They say on their website they are talking with APA.

I can understand why they don’t wish to get involved with problems they have already solved to their satisfaction but I don’t read this as a rejection of Common Cause. It seems to me that it is a call for patience in the hope of deeper understanding in the future.

Psalm 40
1.  I waited patiently for the LORD; and he inclined unto me, and heard my cry.
2.  He brought me up also out of an horrible pit, out of the miry clay, and set my feet upon a rock, and established my goings.
3.  And he hath put a new song in my mouth, even praise unto our God: many shall see it, and fear, and shall trust in the LORD.

The Group he’s talking about are bishops who formed the Communion of Christ the Redeemer. It has nothing to do with Communion of Corpus Christi headed by Bp. Zampino other than friendship.

Star-Ace, you’re wrong about SJ. They didn’t choose Southern Cone over CCP. They are in fact a part of the CCP through the Network and Forward in Faith.
As for the APA, I respect the decision, but wish they could have taken the step to move ahead at this time. I’ll be praying that as CCP does indeed become the new, united Anglican province in the US, the APA will join then.

As many have already opined, this seems to be a wise and well reasoned response by PB Grundorf. Notice that he hasn’t shut the door permanently on the prospect of joining CCP; rather, he states: “My position is that I do not recommend becoming partners in the CCP at this time and that we wait, watch and pray that as CCP develops and unfolds, we will have clearer direction as to whether we can be a part of it.” Prudent in this context especially, with the APA being so divided on the issue.

#19 - Bob - Thanx for the clarification.  Yes, +Phil left the CEC with a lot of others, then retreated to his “thing” up in Westminster MD.  I see he has a affiliate church in Towson.  This situation is quite fluid - - -

But, don’t give up in +Phil.  I’m guessing that he would rejoin whatever if he were offered Primate or Patriarch (or Pope).  I still stay in contact with Larry and the other ex TEC folks in Ocean Pines - good people.  Sorry it went bad for them - - - -

Further note:  This decision was made by +Grundorf.  He did not wait for the March APA meeting (or whatever).  That’s apostolic leadership !!!

#20 - well - everybody is connected to everyone else somehow.  It gets confusing.  There are about 10 “unbrella” groups.

But they did not wait for +Duncans alternative province or separate eccleastical (sic) entity to evolve.

And Southern Cone is not CCP.  Why should they be - the’re already an orthodox province of Anglicanism reporting to ++ABC.  This does not mean that southern cone folks do not attend CCP.

I can understand their frustrations, if you go back to AnglicanTV and listen to the press conference after the CCP HoB meeting in September you can hear a bit of it, then with some of the personalities involved and to the in-your-face WO stance last month. Their caution is very understandable, especially if they feeling pressured, better to wait and see the join in with a group that does not value the same thing or does not show concern with your view point. They’d probably be quite happy with FiFNA types but add AMiA, CANA & ICON especially with a fervent Evangelicalism and it cause for them to worry. Having a more Catholic view they realize the implications (federations would only be a stepping stone in a Catholic mindset, where evangelicals are more content to go off by themselves to maintain their ‘purity’ but that also means able to join a federation with less concern).

FYI - I certainly throw no stones for abstaining when your body is split, +Lee should have abstained at GC03 because DioVA was divided. So ++Grundorf did the wise thing IMHO.

You’re right in that the Southern Cone is not the CCP. It is a bit confusing.
So while SJ didn’t wait for +Duncan’s new “alternative province,” neither is +Duncan as Pittsburgh is set to follow SJ into the Southern Cone later this year. That means +Duncan will be a bishop of the Southern Cone and the Moderator of the CCP at the same time.

Star-Ace, Regarding Post 17, “I’m guessing the “monumental issues” are” . . .
I cannot accept conclusions based on a guess. This letter was very clear and it seems to me that it would be best to patiently, wait for information from those who are more knowledgeable about the APA than we are.

Holy Cow!  The Federation of Partnerships of Causes of Provinces of Jurisdictions of…..oh, I give up.

I’m not today a member of an APA parish, so I can’t say definitively what the issues are.  However, I assume women’s ordination is a major one, as a part of the general discussion on the nature of the priesthood and the sacraments.  I read with great interest the thread here on infant baptism.  Apparently many Evangelical Anglicans have qualms about the traditional Anglican (and universal church) view of baptism.  This is a major issue.  We have said all along that the disagreements about same-sex behavior are a symptom of the core disagreement about the authority of Scripture.  There are other issues relating to sacrament and ecclesiology which are very likely to be problems for many APA people.

Visit the APA web site if you are really interested.
http://www.anglicanprovince.org/

I have found this thread interesting.  As I believe that the baptism thread illustrates, the differences on WO are merely surface.  I’ve been saying for three years now that the issues amongst the CCP entities are far far far greater and deeper than WO.  I believe that one of those is the salvific efficacy of the sacraments.

I believe them to have sanctifying effect, not justifying effect—and merely my using those two words illustrates the divide already, since many Anglo-Catholics do not divide salvation in that way.  I also believe that the ordo salutis will be a “dividing” issue amongst Anglicans.

There is much more info under “Common Cause Partnership” at the link Betty posted.

Of course the APA has a “House of Deputies” in its General Synod, and the laity play a full and majority role in diocesan synods. It’s Constitution and Canons are based on those of TEC prior to things like the omission of the “use” of the Articles and of course the Dennis Canon.

And of course the APA General Synod may not decide to follow its PB’s advice when it next meets. I rather think it will at least for the present seek to preserve its internal unity and wait and see. +Walter Grundorf has taken a brave and principled stand in the light of his jurisdiction’s internal division on the subject. The APA has survived many crisies since it was founded forty years ago. It has now some mileage and some wisdom. I hope and pray this decision will not weaken ties with the REC. The concordat of intercommunion between these two stable extra mural Anglican presences in our midst, both with long and illustrative experience for good and ill should be an inspiration to us all.

It’s quite understandable that those currently leaving TEc over the homosexuality issue are anxious to see as many people as possible join forces with them.

But we must remember the APA—like all the groups descended from the “Continuing Church” jurisdictions formed in the late ‘70s—departed TEc 30 years ago when the institutional and theological roots of today’s apostacy were already being laid.

Many members of CCP who are only now leaving have, in those intervening years, accepted departures from Scriptural and Traditional norms - not just in moral theology but in sacramental theology, ecclesiology, etc - at least (if not more) significant and fundamental than today’s cause celebre of clerical homosexuality.

.

It should come as no surprise, thus, that the APA leadership is reluctant to make common cause with those who hold positions, beliefs and practices even more divergent from their own than the PEcUSA which they left decades ago. To do so would be as incoherent as those who are leaving TEc today making common cause, 30 years from now, with a splinter of today’s pro-homosexuality/anti-Scriptural-authority revisionists who merely refuse to follow TEc’s next set of innovations (paedophilia, polyamory, or whatever).

.

Certainly there are degrees of fellowship and association - ranging from fraternal camaraderie to full sacramental communion. And an argument can be made that the APA and other groups might profitably join limited associations where such camaraderie is possible.

But the danger in joining formal affiliations when not enough substance is shared (or when too many fundamental divisions remain) is to create a false impression of (if not false attempt at) a common identity and belief which simply is not there… not to mention the danger of diverting limited time, resources and energy into a partnership which, as yet, hasn’t enough institutional identity or stability to warrant it.

.

+Grundorf has it quite right that the sensible and responsible thing to do is to allow the latest batch of refugees from TEc work out their own identities, differences, and theological/ecclesiological norms before precipitously alligning with those with whom they may have only a little more in common than they do with today’s TEc.

.

pax,
LP

#33 Gundorf would not have made this proclamation unless he knew he had the support of his folks.  The APA-REC “thing” will never happen.  Too many theological differences.  The APA is Catholic, the REC is Calvanist (and anti-catholic).  Read their stuff.  Never the twain will meet for the forseeable future unless somebody gives up a lot of ground.

PS in anticipation of downstream objections.  Pay no attention to what I say about the REC.  Read their own material.

EG.  Here is Article XXIV—Of Ministering in the Congregation

THOSE who take upon themselves the office of public preaching, or ministering the ordinances in the congregation, should be lawfully called thereunto, and sent to execute the same. And those we ought to judge lawfully called and sent, which be moved to this work by the Holy Ghost, and are duly accredited by the Lord’s People.

That doctrine of “Apostolic Succession,” by which it is taught that the ministry of the Christian Church must be derived through a series of uninterrupted ordinations, whether by tactual succession or otherwise, and that without the same there can be no valid ministry, no Christian Church, and no due ministration of Baptism and the Lord’s Supper, is wholly rejected as unscriptural, and productive of great mischief.

This Church values its historic ministry, but recognizes and honors as equally valid the ministry of other Churches, even as God the Holy Ghost has accompanied their work with demonstration and power.

Do you think the APA folks will agree to this ?

The complete 35 (not 39) articles are here:

http://www.redemptiontrec.org/Pagec.html

In one sense I’d agree with you Sarah. I’m not sure if the order of Salvation is the most critical as much as the process used to in the debate. Meaning, the more dogmatic the discussion becomes the more division will occur, we’ve seen this throughout the Reformation, but in particular the English Reformation. Passions run high and people will become set in their hermeneutics, often convinced of their ‘rightness’ to bully or pull away.

As an insider, who traveled in Anglo-Cath and Evangelical circles, I see all the signs that this could fracture and splinter badly. We have some powerful leaders with charisma to create their own following in a personality cult. We have others who may react to this as more an alley sort of path, which may be more hesitate than before. I’ve already heard internal reactions to some of the ways anther CCP group has presented itself that drawing a defensive “as long as we” line of logic, others of wondering if we really want to be connected with “X” (these are in two very alike groups IMO).

I sound like a broken record, but if CCP stands, it will be an act of God. The egos are very strong and still see the self horn tooting. The difference are vast and many with seemly very little respect for other positions held. The very things you declared as ‘good’ in December, I say are a sign how close CCP is to shattering and the subject matter is only the presenting cause. Then maybe the LORD is in this too, for maybe it must be allowed to come to a point where those inside CCP humble themselves and ask had questions, take Kendall’s wisdom of being self-critical and pray, working with the LORD, then we’ll now that it was not +Duncan or +Iker or +Minns or +Riches or anyone else but the LORD who built CCP.

Star Ace I would not want to speak for the REC or the APA for that matter, or for anyone else but myself nowadays but I am under the impression that the REC has now accepted the text of the Articles of Religion ex animo rather than the reactionary text of the 35 Articles which it adopted in the heat of controversy with PECUSA over a century ago.  If anything it illustrates the point about what reaction may do even to good theology when one has one’s hackles up!  I would rather point you to the text of the joint agreement between the REC/APA which I believe may be found on either websites.

In #31, Sarah says “As I believe that the baptism thread illustrates, the differences on WO are merely surface” and goes on to suggest that a deeper issue related to the nature of sacraments.

Well, yes, if one frames the WO matter as SF does. And certainly, yes, the nature of the sacraments is at the core. However, as an interested bystander (my wife’s AMiA, I’ve become Catholic) it seems there’s more entangling.  Folks who accept the sacramental nature of holy orders have, it seems, found it difficult to post to SF’s satisfaction on exactly this point.  My own take is that while WO is not “surface,” given differing understandings of the nature (and number) of sacraments and the resulting difficulty of clear communication, the discussion is facilitated by focusing on sacramentality in general and leaving WO out of it (even though there are obvious implications, at least from the catholic side). 

However, if the discussion is not to then become too abstract and theoretical, other concrete illustrations would, I think, have to take the place of WO.  The extent of the “sacramental” nature of marriage in the Anglican understanding could, perhaps, be a substitute?

#37 - yes - but the joint text, which I would admit is of Catholic Interpretation is still just a talking document and awaits final approval.  There is considerable opposition within REC (no-way-apa, and the like).

If they are able to bridge the theological gap - more power to them.

I also don’t want to speak for REC.  They have lots and lots of documented history (better documented than most break-away movements) which, I am sure, many REC folks are proud of.

In a speech last year (given, I think, at Nashotah) Bp. Duncan admitted that we, the orthodox still in TEC but ready to move out, have much of which we need to repent as we move forward (e.g., many of those innovations like the wretched baptismal covenant and divorced clergy).  Why don’t we give CCP a little time to work things out before predicting their demise?

A more significant decision regarding future unity is in the hands of AMIA and CANA.

I hope that the leaders of these two entities will move more strongly toward unity with the other GS sponsored Anglican churches, and support the Common Cause movement to a greater degree.

It might also make sense to have a moratorium on additional US Bishops in each of the GS tied groups until greater unity is achieved.

Yes I regret that there remains opposition within the REC towards the APA and within the APA towards the REC. I worked hard and long over many years to bring the two jurisdictions to take each other seriously and I would hate to see that progress regress.

It is not to be wondered that some on both sides wonder at such a marvel and perhaps fear its consequences. The power of “tradition” is strong, and the history of Evangelical-Anglo-Catholic discord colorful and large. Yet I know of few consistently Anglo-Catholic people in the APA. Many more are shaped by a rather more High Church tradition of 28 BCP worship. I know few REC people outside their bishops and so can’t comment, but do remember my first contacts with the REC over 35 years ago, when Geneva gowns were worn everywhere except in Chicago and the residue of Bible Church versus Calvinist squabbles were still echoing around the halls of the seminary in Philadelphia. Much has changed since those days and that in great measure in response to the events in TEC and the opportunities afforded to minister to people much like those who founded the APA. I think therein lies the connection, one not to be ignored or distracted by the shades of non-essential ghosts.

If you read the history of the REC, you will find that after the premature and untimely death of Bishop Cummins,  their founder, who was definitely a “churchman” the REC was left in the hands of strong and often conflicted leaders few of whom were steeped in Anglicanism and from whom some reforms emerged which may well have curdled Cummin’s blood. Many parishes and members returned to PECUSA or dropped out. That the REC survived is a miracle.  The AEC has had its share of perhaps forceful leaders, mea culpa, and has survived them! There’s another miracle.

#41 - yes - I agree, but why have 2-3-4-5 African groups in the first place.  The “toothpaste is out of the tube” and they have consecrated boo-koo bishops.  Now you’re asking someone to give up his job for something abstract like Anglican Unity (which has never existed anyways).  I’m guessing, trench warfare for additional churches/converts.  Hey, if the DIVISION statute is upheld, there are 300+ potential parishes available for takeover in Virginia.

But don’t worry - they’ll have to compete with the KICKASS (Kirk of Independent Christian Klowns Associated for Sunday Services) Denomination for property seizures.

RE: “It’s quite understandable that those currently leaving TEc over the homosexuality issue are anxious to see as many people as possible join forces with them.”

Actually, I don’t think it understandable at all.  I think it a huge mistake—because as you say the differences between the various alternate Anglican entities are quite large, as I have been saying now for three years.

Hosea,

RE: “The very things you declared as ‘good’ in December, I say are a sign how close CCP is to shattering and the subject matter is only the presenting cause.”

I always think it a good thing to be honest and straightforward about one’s values and priorities, as Minns was in his CANA speech.

You see . . . as I have said for three years now . . . I don’t necessarily believe that the attempts to mash together up to a dozen entities is a good thing at all.  I think it precipitous, and I think it extremely foolish.

Thankfully . . . others do too, as the APA decision reveals.

“Actually, I don’t think it understandable at all.  I think it a huge mistake—because as you say the differences between the various alternate Anglican entities are quite large, as I have been saying now for three years.

The irony I’ve found is the largest gulfs are between those most alike.

#44 Sara - we still have the 3-year Abbot position available, and a Assistant Arch-Deacon (5 year term) is perhaps becoming available in the near future.  These can be obtained for a quite reasonable fee, payable in installments of course.

Just imagine - Assistant Arch-Deacon of the KICKASS (Kirk of Independent Christian Klowns Associated for Sunday Services) Denomination.  You get to pick your vestments

RE: “Well, yes, if one frames the WO matter as SF does.”

Hi TDunbar—actually it is the Anglo-Catholics who have forcefully “framed” the WO issue, not SF.  In the old days, evangelicals simply argued “scripture”—some believed that scripture was clear and that WO is allowed.  Some believed [as I do] that scripture was clear and that WO is not allowed.

But the Anglo-Catholics cannot use merely scripture as their rule and argue either for or against based on that.  They must also use tradition, and the nature of the sacraments, in particular if it is important to use a person “in place of Christ” for the Eucharist. 

Evangelicals do not believe that that is important, neither do they believe the Eucharist to be salvific . . . thus, they are more than capable of merely arguing scripture alone.

So no, SF is not responsible for “framing” WO in that way.  I have been personally very grateful for the clarity that Anglo-Catholics have brought to their stance on this and other blogs.

The eucharist is a salvific issue for them.  Getting it right is of deep and eternal significance, based on the salvation of men’s souls.  Thus—for them—it cannot be a matter of adiaphora as, for me, it is.

Big big differences—and if they had not come out over WO, they would have come out over baptism, or some other sacrament.

Hence, I’ll repeat what I’ve also said for the past three years.  WO won’t be the “dividing” issue in the CCP, if there is one—it will be over far deeper issues.

“I always think it a good thing to be honest and straightforward about one’s values and priorities, as Minns was in his CANA speech.

I guess if one is trying to make marketing difference, than you’d be correct, but I’m sorry I disagree with you if the intent of CANA is to work with those very different than themselve, in which case such a bold stance a week before the CCP HoB meeting could have had a negative effect. I was not in the room, but the somewhat weak statement the CCP HoB when earlier was expectation of calls for a new recognition of a province, hmmm, could there be a cause and effect? I don’t think I’m crazy connecting the two. Though I’m not involved in discussions inside APA, I can see how Dec. could connect to this announcement in Jan.

I realize and read how you think all this are good things, but I still strongly disagree in timing and force of the position is not one that leads to construction of a unified alternative province.

RE: “I guess if one is trying to make marketing difference, than you’d be correct . . . “

Spoken like a revisionist member of TEC, Hosea!  ; > )

That’s exactly what they say—“don’t be ‘divisive’ by merely being honest.”

RE: “but the somewhat weak statement the CCP HoB when earlier was expectation of calls for a new recognition of a province . . . “

I had no such expectations—and had people merely read the rather specific timeline that the CCP clearly listed, they would have had no such expectations either.  Most of the “expectations” that were publicly and vociferously declared I noticed were on revisionist blogs—and they repeatedly refused to read the clear timeline.  It was just bizarre—but typical.

RE: “not one that leads to construction of a unified alternative province . . . “

Right.  And I don’t think that a fake, artificial “unified” alternative province is at all a good thing.  I think it a very very bad thing, and can only thank God that cooler heads have prevailed.

Understand that I think it possible that a dozen alternate Anglican entities could eventually come together.  But not a dozen in three years, mashed all at once rather than one by one, with little to no ecumenical dialogue.  I think such “unity” would be false, and simply dissolve yet again at the first sign of real disagreement.

I want CCP to be successful—and in order to be successful, mergers need to be conducted with sense and time and individual [not mass] attention, rather than a hasty need to “produce something right away so that the public will come on board.”

“Understand that I think it possible that a dozen alternate Anglican entities could eventually come together.  But not a dozen in three years, mashed all at once rather than one by one, with little to no ecumenical dialogue.  I think such “unity” would be false, and simply dissolve yet again at the first sign of real disagreement.

In that we agree.

However, I am unsure I accept your position that ‘honestly’ overtakes ‘etiquette.’ If I were blunt and honest about everything it could lead to great trouble. I’ve even be able to tell a woman she has a nice butt in espanol, and work in one of the most honest and forthright places, if someone thinks it, they say it. Even here, the successful team builders understanding there is a time, place and form to be honest.

I do think there was a cost you discount. Thankfully you are a ComCon who desires to work where you are at, so not important for you to figure out how to bridge these gulfs and public statements allow you to comment a be apart. One the inside, one in a mid-range of authority commented that he thought it would take a long time and many of the leaders would have to retire before there could be a hope of unity because of the current approaches.

I agree with you, Sarah, that “if they had not come out over WO, they would have come out over baptism, or some other sacrament.” It is sacramental theology that is at issue, as we think about the nature of the Church.

I think everyone should just relax and await events.  I hope that CCP continues to move forward to create an Anglcian Church USA with as many bodies/groupings as possibe going from Federation to Union.  Obviously compromises will be too great for many - and some groups will not join.  Their may be room/need for two vialbe orthodox Churches in the US - hopefully they can belong to the same federation -Evangelical/Catholic or WO/no-Wo and that the Federation could be recognized as a Province (I think India got in the AC under such a format)
As to the foregoing discussion San Joachin is a member of the Network and is therefore part of CCP.  I also think Holy Cross is part of CCP through FiF.  If FACA joins CCP then APA is joining through the backdoor.  The more interlocking relationships the better for eventual union. 
If a vialbe 2nd Province does form many entities who did not join early many come calling if their Parishes vote with their feet - in APA half already wish to join - they may have trouble holding on to that half if they do not join.

I agree with you, Sarah, that “if they had not come out over WO, they would have come out over baptism, or some other sacrament.” It is sacramental theology that is at issue, as we think about the nature of the Church.

It’s certainly true that it’s very hard to figure out how two groups with totally different views of sacramental theology can be in the same organization, but the Anglicans seems to have managed it for several hundred years. 

The point about WO is that it is the ONLY insurmountable obstacle between the two groups (or rather, I should say, the only issue in which the two groups can’t agree to have it “both ways”), because the “efficacy” (as Catholics believe it) of most of the sacraments depends on priestly mediation.

If are an Anglo Cathlic and you belong to a church that you believe has valid Apostolic Succession, then you believe that the sacraments of the Eucharist, Confirmation, absolution, ordination, and the Last Rites (to use an old term) can be validly administered.  Now, if there are Evangelicals among you who say “well, I don’t think the sacraments have a “salvic” effect”, it’s not hurting you any, because they’re welcome to their opinion.  Just as if there are Evangelicals among you who choose not to baptize their babies, it’s not hurting you (the Anglo Catholics) any.  Because you can go right ahead and baptize YOUR babies anyway. 

But…if your church ordains priests that you believe are NOT part of the Apostolic Succession (or, even worse, makes them Bishops, who then ordain other priests) then the whole ballgame is over for you and you need to move on to another church immediately.

For goodness sakes! It is foolish for non TEC Anglican groups to not join together. CCP should be viewed as a large Chamber of Commerce or Rotary. Get together in a common cause and talk it out. If the APA, REC etc etc don’t like the direction it is taking why just withdraw. I am sure joining in CCP doesn’t require some giving up of, dare I say, polity upon joining the “study group.” Even Rome has lots of different Rites. I am sure we will also. Standing apart in The Slendid Isolation Of The Only True Believer Church strikes me as really the wrong thing.

The gulf between the REC and the APA is nothing compared to the gulf between the TEC and them. Work together my friends, give solace and shelter to the battered escapees from Apostacy. Discuss birettas or Calvanist gowns later.

Catholic Mom #54 has it exactly right.  If the evangelical in the pew next to me has a different view, it’s no problem to me, but if the priests are not properly ordained or the sacraments not properly administered it’s a big deal to me.

I know Roman Catholics feel the splitting of Protestants is caused by the break from Rome, but I wonder if it doesn’t go farther, into the nature of the Western mind.  We just can’t stand not to know exactly how things work.  In the early years of the Church, the great battles about Christology were necessary.  If Christ is not risen, and if He is not who the Church says He is, then none of us is saved by any way of looking at it.  But after the great consensus, scholastics began wandering into needing to define exactly what happens in the Eucharist, when, and how, and exactly what theory accounts for the fact that we are saved through Christ. The theories overwhelm the reality.

A wise decision by +Grundorf.  If there were an APA parish within driving distance, I would be sorely tempted to leap in that direction.
Sarah’s points about the inadvisability of trying to cobble together an artificial unity among groups with such deep unresolved differences in understanding what it is to be the church, right worship, the sacraments, etc., are spot on.

Every angry “reasserter” should carefully read and think about the paragraph of the bishop’s letter which begins:

“At this time, when the majority membership of the CCP has just recently departed from the Episcopal Church…”

Want a way forward that’ll work for you ? Consider the example of the APA.

Sarah,
Thank you for #48. You are precisely en point at least concerning this Anglo-Catholic. One thing. You write “some believed that scripture was clear and that WO is allowed.” How clear and where in Holy Scripture?
AP+

I agree with all of the comments about being careful about mergers.

But CANA, AMIA, Uganda, Bolivia, Pittsburg, et al need to display greater urgency on the unity question.  .

The APA and other Common Cause entities should also look very carefully at creating a situation where unity is possible with the above.  The APA has some nice small parishes and some very sincere and Godly leaders. But like the rest of the prior Episcopal splinter groups, it simply hasn’t flourished in terms of numbers. 

Alone, each of these groups is statistically insignificant, and can’t even be described as a “movement.” For orthodox Anglican style presence to be a significant presence in the US, we need critical mass.

I would be very interested David Roseberry and John Yates’ take on all this.

ah, “critical mass” .. and what critical mass would be sufficient for the Church to effectively stand up to the State?

#60 How does “critical mass” and the desire to be “a significant presence in the U.S.” relate to doing church well ? I’m starting to believe that appeals to shear numbers, David Roseberry style examples, etc… should be classified as “The Megachurch Fallacy” when used in discussions such as these.

You need to make a decent case that “large churches are doing ‘it’ right” while “small churches (ala the APA) are doing ‘it’ wrong” instead of just throwing that out there as a given.

I think the importance of achieving critical mass is more that there are enough persons/parishes so that the average American can have the opportunity to attend an orthodox Anglican Parish in his community - or if one moved to be able to continue in the tradition.

Chips: Reaching that “critical mass” -I’m not being High Church -took PECUSA nearly a century and it has been retreating from that position now for nearly 50 years. The APA is 40 years old this year, went through a debilitating split in thirteen years ago, but has recovered and has now overtaken its former membership level, an achievement not attained by any other “continuing” church. It has parishes now with memberships in the hundreds and that is not a exaggeration or a parsonic addition of angels and archangels and all the company of Heaven to the ASA. (average Sunday attendance). Granted it is still a very small jurisdiction and what it will become will depend on faith, grace, guts, and a continued access to well trained clergy and laity.

When it began, it was served by necessarily hastily trained and ordained lay readers, a very few former TEC clergy, and possessed no buildings and had no money or wealthy benefactors. It developed into a goodly fellowship through the sheer determination of its members and its Synods then and I am told now, became occasions of remarkable blessing and fellowship.

A huge debt of gratitude is due to the self-sacrifice and often personal loss of its present Presiding Bishop and a band of dedicated laity and clergy.  They deserve our support and prayers. The decision made was hard to make, potentially divisive, and the present outcome is continued testimony to the toughness and mutual grace of that band of brothers (and sisters!)

It is amazing to me that those purporting to be “Catholic” refuse to be in communion with anybody.  Can anyone spell I-R-O-N-Y?

#65—No, it’s not ironic—they’re cautious about joining a group that with so many evangelicals that have expressed things which merit extreme uneasiness, but the answer is “watch and pray that as CCP develops and unfolds, we will have clearer direction as to whether we can be a part of it.”  I’d take that as a catholic answer, a more evangelical one is to go ahead and move in the direction of “doctrinal purity” without looking back (many evangelicals can be okay with it too).

However with APA connected with REC & FACA, your charge of “refuse to be in communion with anybody” is incorrect.

Hosea, I was not referring to the APA in particular, or this particular “wait and see” (imagine that tactic occurring among Anglican leaders) tactic; I was observing in general that “Catholic” means “Universal,” but the Continuing Catholic churches tend to have difficulty being in communion with ANYBODY, nor do they seem to be interested in it, particularly if it means a lower status for their highest ordained officers.  And as far as union with the REC and FACA as an example, let alone evidence, of Catholic ecclesiology, I have to respond with: “please…”

BTW, I stand by my use of the word irony: “Irony is a gap or incongruity between what a speaker or a writer says and what is generally understood (either at the time, or in the later context of history). Irony may also arise from a discordance between acts and results, especially if it is striking, and seen by an outside audience. Irony is understood as an aesthetic evaluation by an audience, which relies on a sharp discordance between the real and the ideal, and which is variously applied to texts, speech, events, acts, and even fashion. All the different senses of irony revolve around the perceived notion of an incongruity, or a gap between an understanding of reality, or expectation of a reality, and what actually happens.”

Chips wrote so that the average American can have the opportunity to attend an orthodox Anglican Parish

Well, I can certainly see how this would be important to most of the crowd at Stand Firm. But honestly now - this whole Episcopal/Anglican fracas is really a tempest in a teacup for Christians in general.

The vast majority of American Christians don’t give a flip about the availability of an orthodox Anglican anything. They just want to find 1) the nearest RCC parish, 2) their favorite flavor of Baptist church, or 3) a big, happy-clappy, non-denominational megachurch.

And then there’s the large, and growing, number of Americans in general who think Christians are a bunch of bigoted loons, and who reserve their Sunday’s for the newspaper, leisurely breakfasts, and their local St. Arbuck’s. And on alternate Wednesdays, I can’t say I blame them…

RE: “I was not referring to the APA in particular, or this particular “wait and see” (imagine that tactic occurring among Anglican leaders) tactic; I was observing in general that “Catholic” means “Universal,” but the Continuing Catholic churches tend to have difficulty being in communion with ANYBODY, nor do they seem to be interested in it, particularly if it means a lower status for their highest ordained officers.”

RE: <i>And as far as union with the REC and FACA as an example, let alone evidence, of Catholic ecclesiology, I have to respond with: “please…”

Hmmm, almost an endorsement there!! The Lord does love to prove those who think they know everything and easily scoff to not be so smart. So without meaning to, you may have just given the clue that this will be the area the Lord chooses to confound the wise. Again I speak from a vast wealth of experience where “I know everything” and the Lord proved me wrong by choosing what I have easily dismissed.

Hosea:  Thanks for a gentle, self-deprecating, nevertheless accusatory statement that I have broken one of the commandments… must have touched quite a nerve…. sorry….

However, I don’t think an honest assessment that it is ironic that tiny “Anglican” jurisdictions purporting to be “Catholic” by cozying up to one or two other tiny “Anglican” jurisdiction constitutes false witness.  If a church believes that it is more important to continue in the Apostles’ teaching than to go along with the majority, which is my own feeling and practice, then let them stand by that decision…. but please don’t call it “Catholic” unless you are prepared to have to deal with the very real irony inherent in the decision to use that label.

You are free to disagree without further ad hominem accusations of breaking the commandments….

Grundorf, interestingly signing with the title “Most Rev.” seems to be a very decent, considered fellow who made a prayerful decision about that portion of the mystical (as opposed to bureaucratic) Body of Christ over which he has been given charge.

That is not what I am taking issue with.

Hi Christoferos,

I’m not so much in disagreement with your definitions as much as the application of them to APA. I think by taxonomy they deserve the classification as Continuing Church, but their actions as late have been very different and they do seem to be moving in a Catholic direction in desiring to unify to the greater whole. There have been plenty of scoffing above about the REC/APA merger, I think that certainly shows a catholic desire because of all the reasons people scoff have legitimacy.

There is a situation between two evangelical groups in my local area which is not that cozy. I have moved from one group to the other do to some serious “acceptable” sins which left me very burnt, upset, very seriously doubting God, the works. It is actually to my advantage that there is a little separation between these groups because how things played out (a parish move within the group actually was not enough, an analogy is a untrained 100lbs year plus old lab that still puppyish that causing havoc but those responsible refused to deal with and many favored the one creating havoc because of charisma {aka it has a personal element to it that the distance between groups provides a bit of boundary lacking})

However, I have a Catholic streak in me, part Anglo-Catholic but part educated in Catholic schools. So I agree with your take. It is this streak that is causing me to confront my bitterness and unforgiveness towards the group I left. While personally good for me if the two are separate, the overwhelming good is if they merge in some way in the future down the road so that we maybe one.

So I’ve not taken your comments personally, but my personal situation gives me a little empathy for these complex issues in the CCP players. In the depth of my heart I’d love to see a unification because of my Catholic side, but all I see in the Protestant Reformation is a splintering and with the Continuing Churches the many divisions again, TEC side of CCP already has AMiA, CANA, FiFNA (seemingly Southern Cone direction), ICON (Uganda & Kenya). So it looks as if history will repeat itself. However there are days when actions of one cause me to pause and ask if I really want to be in any sort of union with them. This is not going to be easy, just like if it does succeed, it’ll not be easy on me to fully reconcile in my microcosm.

APA seems to continue on even after the blunt answer last Sept. in the press conference of wondering where they fit in, even other stuff. Maybe I’m projecting onto them, but I think they seem to desire a move towards a whole, which is radically different from what I’ve read of other Continuing Churches.

72 mentions a perceived radical difference between the position of the APA and other Continuing churches. Drawing differences is not always helpful but there’s truth here, not in comparison of worth but of ethos. I won’t bore you all with a history of the APA. It’s online. A few points may illustrate the divergence.

The AEC was founded by more “Catholic” minded Episcopalians who had separated their newly formed parishes from an already established body of Evangelical persuasion and frankly racist bent. This happened forty years ago.

Within two years of its foundation its bishop suddenly resigned, leaving the tiny body with massive debt, a law suite brought by a disgruntled member and those who lost the battle in Synod over lay powers versus those of the bishops and other clergy.It lost three of its eight congregations although the separating parishes, except for one soon expired.

Its first eight or nine years were years of struggle, with few if any resources. It was attacked then and later, by a steady barrage of anonymous hate letters, its Orders were denied and its leadership lamented, not, mind you by liberals in the Episcopal Church, but by others now in the growing number of exilic Anglican bodies in the US.

During these years the AEC as it was then developed an internal cohesion, a moderate approach to what we once termed Churchmanship. It grew gradually but solidly. Its clergy and laity bonded.

In the 1980s a steady stream of parishes and even continuing dioceses joined it, attempts were made twice to solve the Orders questions, never to the satisfaction of those who seemed to hate its very existence. It spread across the country with three dioceses. It also experienced grave difficulties in assimilating those who still looked back in anger at TEC or justified their positions with reference to TEC.

Under the leadership of PB +Jack Allin attempts were made to bring the AEC into a separate but “in communion” status, with encouragement from Archbishop Runcie. It was believed then that a necessary connection with a living orthodox Anglican tradition was necessary to ensure the AEC didn’t become quaint or stuck in a time warp. These attempts failed when +Edmund Browning became PB and because one AEC bishop sought to take advantage, prematurely of a concordat for his own benefit.  Bishop Wantland of Eau Claire and the AEC primus headed the joint commission.

An attempted “marriage” with refugees from another “Continuing Church” in 1991 ended in division. I here am not seeking to say who was right or wrong, merely that this is part of the APA experience. There is little wonder that the APA as it is now styled has forged its own way and now perhaps is wary of unity schemes when like-mindedness not only in faith but in mission and ethos are not entirely apparent. By mission and ethos I point to the present APA’s Presiding Bishop’s statement about not being an anti-TEC church and seeking a positive mission to build Anglican parishes and missions which attract all sorts and conditions of people.

I think Rev. Grundorf’s letter indicated the possibility of the APA joining the CCP at a later time.
I hope I am mistaken but I get the impression that some who post information about controversy in the APA and differences of belief are predicting failure of CCP’s efforts toward unity.
I would rather be patient and wait and see, CCP may ultimately be able to bring believers together even if current efforts with the APA have failed.

#35 The official Articles of the REC are the 39 Articles not the 35. 
If you go to the website of the REC you will find them there.

Lawrence, As you know the APA is the subject of this thread but Post # 35 seems to think the subject is the REF and I am not sure his information on that is correct either, but here is the address for the APA website.

http://www.anglicanprovince.org/

# 75. Like I say - pay no attention to me, read their stuff.  The best site for REC information I have found is http://trecus.net/  According to this site “The 35 ARTICLES of The Reformed Episcopal Church as adopted by the General Council on 18 May 1875.  (39-8+5).”

Why are REC folks in denial about this, or other (strange) teachings of this breakaway group.  Again, I say, read their stuff - pay no attention to me !!!

If they merge with APA they will have to deny a lot of Bishop Cummins (and the other Founding Bishop’s) teachings (as documented on this site).

The pictures from the joint MASS are quite interesting.

75:  I think it true to say that the Evangelicals and the old High Church people managed to get along fairly well until the publication of the later Tracts. As the Tractarians became more extreme I think it true to say that Evangelical reaction became the more extreme. For instance no one had questioned the regeneration sentence in the 1662 BCP rite or that of the first American BCP until Anglo-Catholics as they became to be known squared off against both High Church and Evangelical Episcopalians.

The joint theological statement of the REC/APA is not an attempt to solve the squabble between people like Bishop Cummins and his Tractarian foes such as the Anglo-Catholic Bishop Tozer of Zanzibar who complained to the Bishop of New York about Cummin’s participating in a pan Protestant Communion service, the proverbial straw that boke the camel’s back for Cummins. Rather it is an agreement based on pre Tractarian classical Anglican theological positions. I have no doubt that there are individuals in both churches who may find the statement too much or too little but I think the majority would find them in harmony with their jurisdiction’s official teachings.

My point was the official position of the REC is that there are 39 Articles.  Re: #78, Exactly, there was overreaction. 
#77 You are misinformed. We teach the 39 Articles in seminary and it is in our current BCP.  The official REC website is rechurch.org not the site you referred to.  At the official site you can also read the Articles of Intercommunion between the APA and REC which reaffirms what I stated about the articles.  The stuff you are reading is from folks unhappy with the current state of affairs.

I’ll jump back in with two more cents about REC and/or APA.

I think we all need to pay more attention to who folks say they are today verses what they may have in the past. It is possible people repent of an error or change their mind. Honestly, I’d hate for you to bring up stuff I said or done around 1986 or 1990, hopefully the Lord redeemed me and brought me along since that time.

We should be especially ready to hear a correction from one who belongs to that group if they believes us in error of our representation or understanding.

#60 How does “critical mass” and the desire to be “a significant presence in the U.S.” relate to doing church well ? I’m starting to believe that appeals to shear numbers, David Roseberry style examples, etc… should be classified as “The Megachurch Fallacy” when used in discussions such as these. You need to make a decent case that “large churches are doing ‘it’ right” while “small churches (ala the APA) are doing ‘it’ wrong” instead of just throwing that out there as a given.

First, respectfully, the “megachurches” thing is a red herring.  We are not talking about 5,000 plus churches, which don’t exist anywhere in western Anglicanism.  I can only think of a couple of Anglican churches with an ASA of over 2,000. CC Plano, our oft cited “megachurch”, is a medium sized church its Baptist counterparts.  We are simply talking about enough churches, with enough parishioners, in enough areas to effectively proclaim the gospel.

Small churches can be wonderful. They often “do worship” well. But the purpose here is to maintain, or create, an Anglican identity in the US through which Christ can be glorified, to be an effective branch of the Christian church. If our goal is instead to simply create a cluster of small parishes, serving primarilly older members without need for a developed youth program, campus ministry or communications structure, why worry about this fight?

I can’t guarantee that all of the larger Anglican churches at the forefront of this fight, such as CC Plano, Falls Church, or the other larger GS parishes are “doing it right” in terms of their congregants or their community.  But by getting people in the door and babies in their nursery, they at least have a chance of doing it right.

Again, there are committed Christians in each of the continuing churches, and each of the new Anglican churches. But alone they (we) are isolated and ineffectual in terms of creating a movement that will reclaim a genuine and faithful Anglican presence in the US.

Laurence, Thank you for giving us information about the REC’s web site rechurch.org , it is very informative, not only about the church but also about their relation to Common Cause Partners and the APA.

P.S. I think you should know that I had a problem typing rechurch.com when I typed this post off line because my spell checker changed it to rechurche’ for some reason, I had to turn off auto correct to type it correctly.

#79 - well, the folks at http://trecus.net/ may be happy or unhappy or perhaps dissapointed that the REC has abandoned it’s historical positions.  But they do link to official prouncements of the REC.  I would like to know if you can specificallly point to anything on their site that is untrue or does not represent the HISTORICAL position of the REC.  If there is, I would be the first to comfront them with the deception. 

YOU want to hope that the number of folks that are unhappy does not exceed the number of folks that are happy.  Your total numbers are not all that big.  But then, if you are getting absorbed, it really does not matter.

Yes, I have read the joint statement.  It effectively disavows most of the historical beliefs of the REC.  Bishop Cummins must be turning over in Purgatory.  (The place referred to in the Canon of the MASS where they prayed “And we also bless thy holy Name for all thy servants departed this life in thy faith and fear; beseeching thee to grant them continual growth in thy love and service, and to give us grace so to follow their good examples, that with them we may be partakers of thy heavenly kingdom”.)

This is not a thread on the REC and I apologize to the moderators that things have gotten off track.  This will be my last post on this thread. 

Star-ace, it strikes me that you are more concerned with what “was” than what “is” and are only seeking to argue. These more recent changes were approved by our General Councils, so the changes are hardly wishful thinking nor the thinking of a minority in the REC.  Where the REC now stands is more in line with the classic Anglican formularies than ever before while still retaining both an open ecumenical nature and the concern for religious welfare of ethnic minorities that it so strongly held at its founding.

Lawrence,
Thank you for representing the REC so clearly. We need better information than the rumors that are offered by Star-Ace. I think his intentions are to discredit the CCP and anyone connected with it because he has been predicting doom for quite a while.
In a way his posts are helpful to us if they stimulate a reply from a knowledgeable person who can set the record straight and tell us what the reality is.  It is good to know that there are those out there who can defend the Faith.
I wish the REC success with their endeavors and if there were a REC church in our area I would certainly visit it and try to learn more about it. I hope the CCP will succeed in bringing Christians together.

Star-Ace,
Are you unaware that we pray the same prayer in the Episcopal Church, it is on page 330 of the 1979 Episcopal Book of Common Prayer on the same page as the Confession of Sin.
Thank you for letting us know that we have this prayer in common with the REC.

Folks:
As the president of the standing committee of the Diocese of the Eastern US (APA), all I can say is that we as a province haven’t made a decision on our membership in CCP one way or the other, nor can we make that decision until our Provincial Synod in July.  This letter from Bishop Grundorf is a pastoral communication from him to his clergy, stating his thinking at the time. As you are all very well aware, the whole fabric of the CCP and the Anglican Communion is changing almost daily. It is a long time until July and a lot can happen between now and then. We may or may not vote as a body to affiliate with CCP, but that remains to be seen.  Don’t write us out of the picture yet.

Michael L. Ward+
Rector
St Mark’s Church
Vero Beach, Florida
http://www.stmarksvero.org

Betty See.  I don’t want you to believe either me or Laurence w.r.t. the REC.  They are very very well documented.  Look up their stuff on either http://trecus.net/ or http://www.rechurch.org  and read the history.  I think you will find a church that seems to change with the wind.

Pay NO attention to what I (or Laurence) say.  Read their stuff and then make a considered decision.

This will be my last post on this thread.