ACL are currently featuring a story about Cardinal Newman and his possible canonisation.  The article is completed with a reference to Article 22 of the 39 articles on the condemnation of relics and the invocation of saints.

However ACL are also holding their annual meeting and dinner this week, where they will lbe treated to news of GAFCON.

Whats the betting, they will not be condemning Anglo-Catholics for signing the Jerusalem Declaration, with its re-affirmation of the thirty nine articles as truth. ...and then returning home to keep on braking them.

After all the rosary group is still meeting in Bishop Iker’s catherdal.

Which just goes to show that the re-affirmation of the 39 articles, is not worth the paper its printed on.

If there is any good Protestant at the meeting I hope they raise this double standard.

We can take criticism in the Church of Rome ( after all our Lord prophesied it) but we cannot regard any one as having integrity, when they adopt such a double standard.

TC Hammond condemned both Anglo-Catholicism and Roman Catholicism.

And its no use Bob butting in and saying there you go again Robert. I believe that my point is a legitimate one, and those who claim to represent truth , and Biblical truth at that ,should carefully examine my concern....or one day they may find themselves answering before a Higher authority.

It smacks very much of motes and beams.

You concern is perfectly fair, Robert.  If I as an outsider were to attempt to second-guess what an ‘official’ Sydney Anglican response to it might be, I’d suggest it would be along the lines that unlike Article 22, GAFCON 2008 was just the first step in recovering the Communion for canonical classical orthodoxy.  In that case it would be comparable to the way the 1549 Prayer Book was a staging post towards 1552.

A very interesting answer..but my point is that the GAFCON declaration is being held up to the world as a statement of truth uniting orthodox Anglicans...when in reality it is nothing of the sort.

Bearing in mind that the attendees at GAFCON are the first to castigate TEC for signing documents which they have no intent in keeping, namely Windsor and Dar es Salaam.

Maybe then it’s all a grand evangelical plot to discredit the Anglo-Catholics!

Robert

what is your theological position on the matter that ‘Cardinal Newman is to be reinterred in preparation for sainthood’?

Not at all...there are many ways to give an appearance of unity and orthodoxy.

The one employed here is the lowering method....the bar of the gate is lowered so the horses of party A and party B can jump over.

For instance baptism is described as “an effectual sign of grace.”..party A and party B can agree to that definition..but further definition is avoided as that will bring about division....the deeper definition touches upon the very issue of salvation....the same is true of other doctrines.

Party A has one version of the Gospel and party B another.

It suits party A to appear united with party B. There is an historic formula which both are asked to accept.

Party A and party B subscribe to the formula , and party A knows full well that party B will not really abide by the formula, However party A deliberately turns a blind eye.

But it gets worse because party A , now attacks another Church who practice the self same doctrines condemned in the formula, which they happily ignore in B!

My question is this, is there any one in the ACL who will honestly admit that they are unhappy in the way that the 39 Articles have been used to give a semblance of outward unity, whilst disguising the serious division that has existed in Anglicanism since Anglo-Catholicism arose in the nineteenth century. For was not that the very reason why the ACL was founded , to defend the Protestant nature of Anglicanism and never to concede that Anglo-Catholicism was an orthodox valid expression of Anglicanism?

And its no use Bob butting in and saying there you go again Robert.

And here’s me thinking I was legitimately engaging in robust conversation.  Didn’t realise I was being so rude!  Story of my life really!
:-)

Robert, you’ve expressed the matter exceptionally well with your latest choice of words.  I congratulate you!  And I think it will be interesting for you, I and others to note what Peter J. says from time to time in terms of the development of GAFCON/FOCA over the next few months.  Then we’ll see whether the ACs eventually feel the heat too much to stay in the kitchen.

Of course, the concept of attempting to hold evangelicals and ACs together is implicit in several websites that have sprung up since November 2003, viz. Anglican Mainstream, TitusOneNine, David Virtue, Kendall Harmon and so on.

Did any one raise my serious concern of double -standard at the ACL meeting? I was praying for you all.

Firmly I believe and truly,
God is three and God is one,
And I next acknowledge fully,
Manhood taken by the Son

And I hold in veneration,
For the love of HIm alone
Holy Church as His creation,
And her teaching as His own.

Adoration, aye be given,
To the glorious three in one,
Father, Son, and Holy Spririt,
Ever three and yet ever one.

John Henry Cardinal Newman

Robert,

i was not at the ACL meeting, so I couldn’t raise your serious concern of double-standard. Are you able to answer Dianne Howard’s serious concern about Cardinal Newman?

Timbo

Robert ian Williams - 18 July 2008 06:11 AM

Did any one raise my serious concern of double -standard at the ACL meeting?

Without accepting your premise of a double standard, I would note that a question was asked about how Anglo-Catholics and Evangelicals could hold together in such an alliance.  While the answer didn’t deal with your particular issue, a reasonably lengthy answer was given.  As often happens at these kinds of occasions, most of the speakers went over their time allotment, which meant we had all of 6 minutes for question time!

In any case, Robert, if your really serious about wanting an ACL perspective on this issue, I suggest you write to the ACL president, Dr Mark Thompson.

Bob

I am pleased that the issue was raised...I have repliedt o Diana, as I did not want the thread side tracked… I fully accept the Catholic doctrine of venerationo sacred relics, which I belivee can be seen in the Book of Acts.

Go on Bob, can’’t you tell us the outline of the reply. ACL is not a conclave is it ?.

Robert
I didn’t think my question was irrelevant to the discussion and I don’t see where you have given a reply.
Dianne

Robert ian Williams - 18 July 2008 05:26 PM

I am pleased that the issue was raised . . . Go on Bob, can’’t you tell us the outline of the reply. ACL is not a conclave is it ?

Robert
I’m not sure I can do justice to the answer, which as I recall Mark Thompson gave.  [I’ll blame it on a heavy head cold which may be clogging up my brain!] The guts of it was that Evangelicals, Anglo-Catholics (and Charismatics) are united on the authority of Scripture, which was the heart of the issue that gave rise to GAFCON.  There was a recognition that at some points the relationship between those groups will be strained, but that on this issue of the Bible (as expressed in Article VI in particular) we are in strong agreement.  I’ll PM one or two others who were there and see if they want to add anything.
Bob

Rob, I was the one who asked the question. The answers that were given were as follows (and this is not verbatim, rather my paraphrasing):

First, all parties at GAFCON were clearly commited to the authority of the Bible, despite their churchmanship. There was a real desire to stand with those who stand in the same way and so that primary bond is what hheld those of different churchmanship together. At the conference the 39 A were seen by all to be an attempt to faithfully expound the teaching of the Bible.

Another speaker noted that the basic prayer book of TEC was derived from the 1549, so that few understood the 1662 heritage. The sharp theological distinctions we experience from the 1662 are simply not there. Many evangelicals see it as normal for all clergy to be fully “attired” every Sunday.
Nevertheless, they are also committed to the priority of the Gospel, so though we may think that the gospel is shrouded by their form – they are nevertheless committed to introducing people to their Lord and Saviour.

Another speaker noted that it was a gathering of orthodox bible believing Anglicans, with broad approaches amongst them on age-old questions. There was also a move to accomodate this broader approach with phrases such as “historic succession” in the declaration.

Finally it was noted that all sides were being persecuted, in line with their commonly held positions above.

What intrigued me was this came from a panel of very clear evangelicals. They are all abundantly clear on where they think Anglo-Catholicism is defective yet they spoke with great support of their Anglo-Catholic brethren.

Thanks David.