Can the Episcopal Church be brought back?

Vatican 2 is not dogma nor article of faith

 

Do you think Vatican II is a valid council?

 

Talking with Roman Catholic friends and reading Roman Catholic theologians disabused me of the notion that the Roman communion represented some kind of rock of theological uniformity.

 

Ever read the 39 articles?

 

The only problem is that a lot of Anglicans breach them by allowing things such as Anglo-Catholicism and saying that they're just a spectrum. That is, most people agree with a large portion but may doubt at least a few. If you want to believe in most of them but invoke saints, Mary, etc. then that's fine. If you want to believe most of them but deny original sin because you consider yourself "Anglo-Orthodox" then that's fine. I don't know why it is even championed when I keep hearing people talking about this stuff on the forum. I too, thought it was a solid foundation, but am getting disillusioned at hearing people say otherwise. The part where it talks about justification by faith seems to promote a protestant reformed view until you ask someone who says it can be justification as defined by Roman Catholic, Lutheran, Orthodox, or even Calvinist. All that matters supposedly is that it says we need faith for justification, but what follows afterwards is open ended. Anglicanism doesn't really have a unified view of Salvation. I find myself wondering how we can be so ambiguous about something as precious as the process of salvation itself.

 

Unfortunately it comes from both sides. I know of as many (if not more) of the reformed who violate the Articles and the overall Anglican tradition.

For example, do you know of a single Anglican parish with gregorian chant on your typical sundays? That's what Cathedral services in England traditionally were like, prior to the introduction of modern hymns in the 19th century. To a traditional Anglican, the word 'hymn' refers to a Te Deum, or a Gloria, or such like.

Also the Prayerbook clearly states that you could read it, or sing it. Can we all imagine what a beautiful sung liturgy we could and should have? I don't know of a any Reformed-minded person who is learning how to chant the liturgy.

 

Not surprised at that... they're probably all singing the "Hillsong" style music that is becoming so popular in the non-denom and televangelist style churchs

 

Don't knock it. My mom just came back from a Contemporary Christian music concert. It may seem a bit subpar by the musical standards of many, but keep in mind that God uses the average and rugged things in everyday life to do a whole lot of good in the world. Jesus slept in a manger and that was good enough for him. We don't even know what the psalms mentioned in the New Testament that Paul says we should offer up in praise were really like, whether they were acapella or even very musical at all. A lot of very humble and Godly people I know listen to CCM, including Catholics of every branch. The songs are not always distinguished but there's enough melody in it for them to sing along and take in the message. Helps them to remember it.

 

I think our view of the past can be rather rose tinted. Complaints about church music are nothing new. In polyphonic Mass settings the cantus firmus was often taken from a liturgical chant but some composers started using popular folk tunes instead. This drew complaints of liturgical impropriety from some quarters. The Council of Trent held a session dealing with church music and abuses associated with music and the Mass.

Cranmer disliked ornate church music. For the 1549 BCP he engaged John Merbecke to produce simple plainsong settings for services. The result was The Book of Common Prayer Noted. This had a very short lifespan and was rendered obsolete when the more Reformed second BCP was introduced with its different stance on music. Very few copies of The BCP Noted have survived; it was the Tractarians who rediscovered it in the 19th century.

Hymn singing was strickly speaking illegal in the CofE until 1821. The singing of metrical psalms was standard fare in the parishes. BCP's were often bound together with a metrical psalter, initially the Sternhold & Hopkins version and later the Brady & Tate version. In more illiterate parishes the clerk would 'line out' the metrical psalms. (The clerk would sing one line of the psalm at a time and this would be repeated parrot fashion by the congregation.)

English church music really began to flourish under Elizabeth I with composers like Byrd and Tallis (themselves Catholic) writing complex settings for BCP services but this was mostly confined to the royal chapels or cathedrals.

In the 18th and earlier 19th centuries west gallery choirs were common in the parishes. These were groups of singers and instrumentalists who sang and accompanied metrical psalms and some hymns often to lively 'fugueing tunes.' Organs were still relatively uncommon outside of cathedrals and larger parish churches. Instruments might have included violin, cello, flute, clarinet, bassoon or serpent.

I'm an organist and play a lot of English Baroque organ music. There are many tuneful trumpet, cornet and flute voluntaries as well as prelude and fugue voluntaries from the period. I was doing a bit of research recently and found that some 18th century church musicians felt that the trumpet, cornet and flute voluntaries were too frivolous to be played on 'Sacrament Sundays' when Holy Communion was celebrated.

The Tractarians and Ritualists wanted to reintroduce dignity and beauty in worship and return to more medieval practices. 'Hymns Ancient and Modern' was a product of that time. The ancient hymns were early hymns translated from Latin and Greek; the modern ones being those written at the time. The Tractarians were keen on having a choral service so the psalms and canticles were sung to Anglican Chant with books of pointed psalms and chants being published. Surpliced choirs were introduced to sing the services. All this was seen as the height of 'Popery' amongst Evangelicals of the time.

 

I really hope the Episcopal Church can be saved, because about 35% of the most beautiful churches, historically important parishes, and 50% of the largest and most majestic cathedrals in the US are owned by them. In the case of San Francisco and Manhattan, the Episcopal cathedrals are larger and more splendid than their Roman Catholic counterparts.

I don’t want to see these cathedrals, or the Old North Church in Boston, or Trinity Church on Wall Street, become like the beautiful old Unitarian churches of New England, like the Old Ship Church (it breaks my heart that this ancient Puritan parish, the oldest surviving English speaking church in the US, is now a church where the only sure dogma is a rejection of the deity of Christ and the exclusive truth of our Gospel). Or worse, being turned into shopping malls and museums.

Anglicanism will survive, that much is certain, but the deliverance of the Episcopal Church is in my opinion something every Christian in America should pray for.

And let us consider: if the Episcopal Church returned to Orthodoxy, we might be able to take back the ELCA, the UCC, the PCUSA, the Disciples of Christ, even by the grace of God persuade some Unitarian parishes pf the truth of the Gospel and get them to return to the worship of Christ our Lord.

And things like this have happened before, even recently. Consider the revival of the Orthodox, Catholic and Protestant churches of the former Communist lands; Christianity is healthier there than in Western Europe, despite attempts to suppress it and indeed an attempt to liberalize the Russian church (the “Living Church” movement in the 1920s-1930s).

 

This music is a huge problem, and to the extent that the ACNA is not precluding it, that is depressing. I understand why some of us might feel sympathetic to contemporary music, or the people who prefer it, but there are, in my opinion, too many problems with it as far as liturgical churches are concerned.

People who want praise and worship music are not likely to join Anglican parishes, and I think a vigorous respect of Pauline injunctions ignored by the non-denominational churches and contemporary Episcopalians should be a point of differentiation (specifically, his command that worship be done decently and in order, which I believe precludes Charismatic worship and contemporary music, as well as his statements concerning homosexuality and female leadership in the church). The traditional Anglican church should be a “safe space” for people who want to worship according to these Pauline principles, like the Eastern churches and for the time being at least, some of the Roman Catholic churches (chiefly the Latin Mass churches, some of the Ordinariate parishes, and most of the Eastern Catholic parishes, with the tragic exception of many Maronite churches).

 

I ran into some "contemporary worship" at a friends Presbyterian Church a little over a year ago at an evening service.. When I commented my reaction "nice concert" I got a very negative reaction... the person thought it was worship... needless to say my response of "its a concert.. the praise band did all the work.. we were not involved in worship".. in a dignified and respectfull way..received a bad response. Having been brought up in a a liturgical tradition, my idea of worship does not involve raising my hands in the air while the entire congregation sings along with a rock n roll band to song words posted on a big screen in front of a gymnasium located on a piece of property owned by a church. It was disenheartening in a lot of ways. My impression is that the people in the crowd were there to make themselves feel better, as opposed to Worshiping God. The songs were all "Happy Happy !! Joy Joy!!!!. I'm saved by Jesus" and when you thought about the words of the songs, not much there theologically. If anything, I left with a greater respect and admiration for the liturgy of the older mainline churchs

 

Who knows if they can turn things around. I just saw a Episcopal Priest advertising for drag queen story house, is ok with gay marriage, in-vetro fertilization, and transgenderism.

 

We have been infiltrated by radical heretics. In the 1950s the Church was far behind the secularism of the mainstream culture. Today, it is far in advance of it.

The only way that could happen is if the radical subversives made a decision that the Church could not be allowed to get in the way of the secular zeitgeist. And maybe it would even be the leader of it, if they could make it.

And by God, have they made it the leader of heretical secularism. Have you guys read the Pope's working document on the Amazonian Synod?

 

Yes and it is horrific. One reason why I retreated to the cozy world of the eastern churches is because I couldn’t take what was happening to the Western Church any longer; it is inconceivable that a traditional church like the Ancient Church of the East, or the Coptic Orthodox Church, or the Georgian Orthodox Church, or the Serbian Orthodox Church, would ever capitulate on issues of human sexuality. Indeed, these churches in many cases won’t even consider admitting the Gregorian Calendar for fear it violates the canons of the Council of Nicea.

However, having been fortifier by my time recuperating in the East, I am considering working in the Western Church, in an Anglican church or perhaps a congregational church interested in “ancient-future” liturgical worship, but preferably the former, in order to stage something of a fightback.

One thing that really appeals to me is the idea of setting up a religious order in the Episcopal Church like the Order of the Holy Cross, but with friars; an order with its own priests, its own services, and so on, a church within a church, which could operate in parishes with sympathetic rectors, vicars and bishops. Perhaps this could start small, as just a devotional order for purposes of celebrating Choral Evensong and the other offices, and then go from there. Otherwise, it might be fun to do a church plant for one of the continuing high-church Anglican provinces I like. But then I would lose access to the Church of England, which I badly want. A dream job for me would be as a minister assigned to the old parish churches (which now mostly operate as coordinated, multi-church parishes) in the Square Mile of the City of London. Discernment would be needed before I could do this.

One thing which is prodding me in this direction is the fact that I looked at the requirements on this site for an Anglican badge, and I found myself baffled by the fact that I could affirm the requirements for it without hesitation, but most Episcopalian clergy would refuse to on principle. The Episcopal Church, and its august English parent, are entirely too precious to Western Civilization to allow secularism to destroy them.

So please pray for me while I contemplate formally associating myself with Anglicans and taking up the cross of trying to join you fine fellows in doing something to keep this great Christian tradition alive.

 

@Jeffg

Do you have any ideas on doing this? One thing I am wrestling with is whether or not to try to involve myself with the ECUSA directly or instead involve myself with the ACNA or Continuing Anglican churches. It would be difficult for me personally to work with female priests or bishops, let alone the very large numbers of homosexuals, and I have also heard it has become extremely hard for traditionalists to get ordained in the ECUSA.

But there is the Order of the Holy Cross which has a high degree of autonomy, and I have heard they are completely faithful with regards to celibacy, but I am not sure if they actually care that much about the direction of the Episcopal Church.

 

To mind, the hierarchical nature of Anglicanism plays a role here... It is hard to find anything that is truly autonomous in any organization designed to subject all ranks to a series of subordinations...

Therefore you would have to ask where the Order of the Holy Cross gets its power to operate as an entity in the Episcopal Church? I would imagine it derives in some sort from the Bishops supplying them jurisdiction, or else some other way canonically approved... And if so, why could that permission not be stripped from them at a future time?

This is the plight of all traditionalists in Rome as well, ultimately I think they are all doomed because there is no autonomy apart from their Pope

 

This is an extremely sad sentence. There was (perhaps even until Pope Francis to a certain extent) a feeling that whatever any church got up to, there would always be the safe haven of the Roman Catholic Church which 'was and is and ever shall be'. It proved a safe haven for quite a few Anglicans when women were first ordained there.
However, that solid bulwark is now shaking on its foundations too.....