Continuing Anglican union

[Mary of Bethany]

My hubby's in the ACC, so I had heard about this. It's good news any time we have union instead of further fracturing.

Mary

http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=6043

ANGLICAN CATHOLIC CHURCH AND UNITED EPISCOPAL CHURCH SIGN COMMUNION AGREEMENT

Official Press Statement

On Ascension Day, May 17, 2007, The Anglican Catholic Church (ACC) and the United Episcopal Church (UECNA) entered into a communion agreement. Archbishop Stephen Reber of the UECNA and Archbishop Mark Haverland of the ACC signed the agreement at Saint Stephen's Pro-cathedral, Athens, Georgia to restore or reaffirm the state of communio in sacris between the churches. This agreement came into immediate effect, though it still needs to be ratified by the ACC Provincial Synod and the UECNA Convention.

"This comes at a time when Anglicanism in the USA is at a crossroads, when people are looking for firm ground to stand on and a place to belong," said Bishop Leo Michael of the UECNA, who was present at the meeting along with Bishop Presley Hutchens of the ACC. The four Bishops celebrated Ascension Day with a noon Eucharist after signing the agreement.

"We recognize in each other the presence of the essentials of the Christian Faith, Catholic Order, Apostolic Succession, Anglican worship, and Christian morals," said Archbishop Mark Haverland.

The 1977 Congress of St. Louis, thanks to the efforts of the Fellowship of Concerned Churchmen (FCC), was an answer from faithful Episcopalians and Anglicans, both laity and clergy, to the exigencies of changes wrought by the then Episcopal Church USA. Their ordination of women to the priesthood and episcopate and the doctrinally controversial 1979 Book of Common Prayer necessitated the birth of the Continuing Church. The churches were determined to "continue in the Catholic Faith, Apostolic Order, Orthodox Worship and Evangelical Witness of the traditional Anglican Church, doing all things necessary for the continuance of the same."

Thirty faithful years later, impelled by the commonness of origin and the common participation in the one holy catholic and apostolic church, the ACC and the UECNA have come forth with a pastoral provision.

The effect of the agreement will be to make explicit the somewhat doubtful continuation of the communion that many believe has always persisted between the two churches, both of which stem from the Denver consecrations of bishops in January 1978. Members of both churches will be welcomed at the altars of both bodies, and the clergy of both will be available for baptisms, funerals, and marriages as needed. Each church has agreed to consult carefully with the other in all matters affecting the other, including episcopal acts and ecumenical relations with other bodies and churches.

"This agreement constitutes an important movement towards restoring the unity of the Continuing Church, which stems from the Congress of Saint Louis and the Denver consecrations, " said Archbishop Mark Haverland. "It is the contention of both that this Continuing Church subsists in the ACC, the UEC, and the Anglican Province of Christ the King. The organic unity of these three Churches remains our first and most urgent ecumenical task."

Both the churches pledge to work towards full organic union in a patient, unhurried manner, meanwhile respecting inessential differences and the other church's internal integrity.

"His church is trustworthy, not because it depends upon men, but because it depends upon Him who endowed it with power and who is ever present in its council called in His name" said Archbishop Stephen Reber of the UECNA.

[a_ntv]

I dont see the importance.

Someone can kindly explain it to me.

Every year there are many unions or splitting into the protestantism: it is impossible to follow all of them.

Why this union is relevant for this forum (apostolic)? There is a caming nearer the positions of the CC or of the EO?

[Simon_Templar]

Its important because unlike the liberals, conservatives have traditionally had trouble being unified even when they agree.

The continuing Anglican churches are a prime example. most of them agree on virtually every major doctrinal point, yet they have been splintered for 30 years.

As the church at large becomes more liberal, it is important for conservatives that we be able to maintain formal communion and unity.

On aspect of this that interests me is that I am closer doctrinally to many conservative Catholics than they are to other, very liberal Catholics... yet they have unity with people who for the most part they themselevs consider heretics or apostates, yet they don't have formal communion or unity with me, who disagree on relatively little.

[Mary of Bethany]

I dont see the importance.

Someone can kindly explain it to me.

Every year there are many unions or splitting into the protestantism: it is impossible to follow all of them.

Why this union is relevant for this forum (apostolic)? There is a caming nearer the positions of the CC or of the EO?

It's important to conservative, traditional Anglicans, who are part of this forum. :)

Mary

[Secundulus]

Its important because unlike the liberals, conservatives have traditionally had trouble being unified even when they agree.

The continuing Anglican churches are a prime example. most of them agree on virtually every major doctrinal point, yet they have been splintered for 30 years.

As the church at large becomes more liberal, it is important for conservatives that we be able to maintain formal communion and unity.

On aspect of this that interests me is that I am closer doctrinally to many conservative Catholics than they are to other, very liberal Catholics... yet they have unity with people who for the most part they themselevs consider heretics or apostates, yet they don't have formal communion or unity with me, who disagree on relatively little.

Apparently, in the Roman Church, you can believe any theological extreme. But as long as you pay homage to the man, you are ok.

[a_ntv]

Apparently, in the Roman Church, you can believe any theological extreme. But as long as you pay homage to the man, you are ok.
No it is not.

On the contrart, you can be Anglican whichever you believe, the importat you pay homage to the formal Head of the Anglican Communion, the Queen of England

which other thing make units the anglicans?
They disagree on everything, from the sacraments to the gays, from the meaning of the Mass to the women bishops, from the Sola Fide to the liturgy.

You shall be honest: the Magisterium of the Catohlic Church is always clear, even if unpopular

[Albion]

My hubby's in the ACC, so I had heard about this. It's good news any time we have union instead of further fracturing.

Mary

http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=6043

ANGLICAN CATHOLIC CHURCH AND UNITED EPISCOPAL CHURCH SIGN COMMUNION AGREEMENT

A PR opp for both churches, but minor in actual significance. For one thing, intercommunion is far from union. Second, this proposal does not work towards or have any interest in Continuing Anglican unity generally, just in the restoration of the relationship that these two particular churches had in the past. There is also a reference made to a third one, the APCK, but it is entirely self-serving since that church has shown no interest at all in union with the other two. So, in short, don't hold your breath.

[Albion]

No it is not.

On the contrart, you can be Anglican whichever you believe, the importat you pay homage to the formal Head of the Anglican Communion, the Queen of England

Could you guys possibly learn the first thing about Anglicanism before 'popping off' with bizarrely incorrect comments like that? Thank you. We've tried to help and we'll do that again if there are questions.

[a_ntv]

Could you guys possibly learn the first thing about Anglicanism before 'popping off' with bizarrely incorrect comments like that? Thank you. We've tried to help and we'll do that again if there are questions.
I was aswering Secundulus.

Discussion will be possible only when you, protestants, will stop to bash us catholics

[Secundulus]

It is apparent that the intent of this forum is failing grossly.

[Albion]

It is apparent that the intent of this forum is failing grossly.

I'll say!

But it can hardly be the fault of the Anglicans or the Old Catholics whose presence is almost honorary...and yet resented bitterly by some of the EOs and RCs (as we have seen demonstrated.)

[Albion]

I was aswering Secundulus.

Discussion will be possible only when you, protestants, will stop to bash us catholics

I could stop "bashing us catholics" (if I actually had done that, which I haven't) but that won't make you smarter or less rude.

[Simon_Templar]

I was aswering Secundulus.

Discussion will be possible only when you, protestants, will stop to bash us catholics
There is a valid point that the Roman Church has an outward unity, but tends to ignore wildly varient theology as long as people maintain their outward appearence of alliegence to the Pope etc.

For example, I had an ardent, conservative Catholic friend who told me that whenever he meets a jesuit, because of past experience, he assumes them to be either a homosexual, or an atheist, or both.

He was partially joking but his comments express a real truth, the Roman Church houses just as much liberalness as the Anglican church does. The only real difference is its tolerated in Rome, but not 'official'. Where as the Anglican church simply doesn't have 'official' positions on much of anything.

You are absolutely right that Anglicans can believe pretty much whatever they want. It, however, has nothing to do with the Queen of England. The requirement of supporting the English monarchy was done away with for other national churches not long after the American Revolution.

The only restraint on Anglicans is their local heirarchy. In some of the churches the national church heirarchy has more power. In the US even that is some what diluted.

The Anglican Communion occasionally makes a watered down version of an official statement, such as the pronouncement that the Anglican Communion finds homosexual lifestyle to be unbiblical. However this has no bind force and its openly flaunted by everyone who disagrees.

There are pro-homosexual catholics who disregard the Church's teaching as well, but while they are ignored and allowed to go about their business, the Roman Church's heirarchy is structured differently. If the Catholic church in the US were a autocephalus, independant entity linked to the vatican by tradition and culture but not real authority.. you'd have exactly the same problems we do.

Its not that the problem doesn't exist in the Roman Church, its simply that the leadership ignores it and can do so because they have greater control over the local churches procedurally.

[a_ntv]

He was partially joking but his comments express a real truth, the Roman Church houses just as much liberalness as the Anglican church does. The only real difference is its tolerated in Rome, but not 'official'. Where as the Anglican church simply doesn't have 'official' positions on much of anything.
It is the duty of the bishps to shepard the flock in the right direction, even if unpopular and hard (but to take everyday our cross is not easy).

So there shall be the strong love for the Truth (even if unpopular), with a deep care for the faithfull.
The single faithfull, even if gay, shall be loved, helped, educated, teached, with patience and charity.
But the Truth cannot be watered. The bishops cannot stay silent about hte Truth.

The anglican hierarchy, or at least a little part of it, looks like to follow the faithfull, not to shepard the flock.
What's the use of a hierarchy that cannot lead the faithfull on the right way?
What's the use of a hierarchy that cannot say anything official?
Simply to have a nice coat of arms?

[Mary of Bethany]

For purposes of this forum, the Anglicans belong here as much as anybody. Why is that so hard to understand?

Do we have to agree on everything? No.
Could we possibly have some common beliefs to discuss? I would have thought so.

:doh:

Mary

[Mary of Bethany]

A PR opp for both churches, but minor in actual significance. For one thing, intercommunion is far from union. Second, this proposal does not work towards or have any interest in Continuing Anglican unity generally, just in the restoration of the relationship that these two particular churches had in the past. There is also a reference made to a third one, the APCK, but it is entirely self-serving since that church has shown no interest at all in union with the other two. So, in short, don't hold your breath.

I'm sorry to hear that. I was really hoping that some of the continuing churches would come back together. It seems rather silly to have all these fractures when they have very few, if any, doctrinal differences.

I know Orthodoxy *looks* fractured because of our ethnic/national jurisdictions, but almost all Orthodox are in communion with each other, as Anglicans were until very, very recently. That the continuing churches splintered so quickly after 1978 just seems really sad.

Mary

[zhilan]

There is a valid point that the Roman Church has an outward unity, but tends to ignore wildly varient theology as long as people maintain their outward appearence of alliegence to the Pope etc.

For example, I had an ardent, conservative Catholic friend who told me that whenever he meets a jesuit, because of past experience, he assumes them to be either a homosexual, or an atheist, or both.

He was partially joking but his comments express a real truth, the Roman Church houses just as much liberalness as the Anglican church does. The only real difference is its tolerated in Rome, but not 'official'. Where as the Anglican church simply doesn't have 'official' positions on much of anything.

You are absolutely right that Anglicans can believe pretty much whatever they want. It, however, has nothing to do with the Queen of England. The requirement of supporting the English monarchy was done away with for other national churches not long after the American Revolution.

The only restraint on Anglicans is their local heirarchy. In some of the churches the national church heirarchy has more power. In the US even that is some what diluted.

The Anglican Communion occasionally makes a watered down version of an official statement, such as the pronouncement that the Anglican Communion finds homosexual lifestyle to be unbiblical. However this has no bind force and its openly flaunted by everyone who disagrees.

There are pro-homosexual catholics who disregard the Church's teaching as well, but while they are ignored and allowed to go about their business, the Roman Church's heirarchy is structured differently. If the Catholic church in the US were a autocephalus, independant entity linked to the vatican by tradition and culture but not real authority.. you'd have exactly the same problems we do.

Its not that the problem doesn't exist in the Roman Church, its simply that the leadership ignores it and can do so because they have greater control over the local churches procedurally.

Sadly this is pretty true. I read an article not to long ago about a Catholic women who got married to her lesbian partner. Now she had been going to the Church for a long time and did not hide her homosexuality. However, she was interviewed in a newspaper talking about her marriage. After that she got a letter from the priest or bishop (i forget which) telling her she couldn't take communion. The reason, and he was quoted, was not that she was living in sin but that she was interviewed publicly about it. One wonders, if the issue is really guarding the Eucharist, why it would be ok for her to take it so long as she did not make her sin public? Is it any more or less sinful in the eyes of God when the sin is public?

[Secundulus]

We may be in schism, yes. But at least we don't have to tolerate pro-abortion Nuns holding pro-choice rallys.

http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/abbott/070705

You have parts of your Church that are more liberal than the most liberal Protestants. But you do nothing and heap only contempt upon Christians who are trying to faithfully live the Gospel.

So my comment stands. In the Roman Church you may believe and do anything as long as you profess allegience to Rome.

[WarriorAngel]

Apparently, in the Roman Church, you can believe any theological extreme. But as long as you pay homage to the man, you are ok.

There is a valid point that the Roman Church has an outward unity, but tends to ignore wildly varient theology as long as people maintain their outward appearence of alliegence to the Pope etc.

For example, I had an ardent, conservative Catholic friend who told me that whenever he meets a jesuit, because of past experience, he assumes them to be either a homosexual, or an atheist, or both.

He was partially joking but his comments express a real truth, the Roman Church houses just as much liberalness as the Anglican church does. The only real difference is its tolerated in Rome, but not 'official'. Where as the Anglican church simply doesn't have 'official' positions on much of anything.

You are absolutely right that Anglicans can believe pretty much whatever they want. It, however, has nothing to do with the Queen of England. The requirement of supporting the English monarchy was done away with for other national churches not long after the American Revolution.

The only restraint on Anglicans is their local heirarchy. In some of the churches the national church heirarchy has more power. In the US even that is some what diluted.

The Anglican Communion occasionally makes a watered down version of an official statement, such as the pronouncement that the Anglican Communion finds homosexual lifestyle to be unbiblical. However this has no bind force and its openly flaunted by everyone who disagrees.

There are pro-homosexual catholics who disregard the Church's teaching as well, but while they are ignored and allowed to go about their business, the Roman Church's heirarchy is structured differently. If the Catholic church in the US were a autocephalus, independant entity linked to the vatican by tradition and culture but not real authority.. you'd have exactly the same problems we do.

Its not that the problem doesn't exist in the Roman Church, its simply that the leadership ignores it and can do so because they have greater control over the local churches procedurally.

Just so ya know...the Church does not honor or allow the dissentions.

It is unfortunate that most who have these strange 'ideas' are not open about them.
And the ones that are, are excommunicated.

Catholics for a free choice are excommunicated.
ALTHOUGH, I did read recently that many desired to let go of their strange heresies and return.

Which is good.:thumbsup:

So, no, the Church will remove those who will not uphold the faith.

Its just a matter of getting the 'liberal' Bishops to comply with letting the Vatican know who they are.

[WarriorAngel]

We may be in schism, yes. But at least we don't have to tolerate pro-abortion Nuns holding pro-choice rallys.

http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/abbott/070705

You have parts of your Church that are more liberal than the most liberal Protestants. But you do nothing and heap only contempt upon Christians who are trying to faithfully live the Gospel.

So my comment stands. In the Roman Church you may believe and do anything as long as you profess allegience to Rome.

Again, I wanted to let you know nuns propogating strange heresies and abortions.... are indeed excommunicated.

They claim to be Catholic still..but they are not.

[WarriorAngel]

Sadly this is pretty true. I read an article not to long ago about a Catholic women who got married to her lesbian partner. Now she had been going to the Church for a long time and did not hide her homosexuality. However, she was interviewed in a newspaper talking about her marriage. After that she got a letter from the priest or bishop (i forget which) telling her she couldn't take communion. The reason, and he was quoted, was not that she was living in sin but that she was interviewed publicly about it. One wonders, if the issue is really guarding the Eucharist, why it would be ok for her to take it so long as she did not make her sin public? Is it any more or less sinful in the eyes of God when the sin is public?

IF you got this from a media source, chances are that either the media or the lesbian distorted the matter.

It may have said that she publically sinned...she was removed.
IE...they didnt know prior of her doings and so since they knew she could not take communion.

Unless you can read that letter explicitly, do not speak of it as tho the sources would be honest about it.

In fact, no one even knows if the story is even true....
or propogated mush.

[Albion]

I'm sorry to hear that. I was really hoping that some of the continuing churches would come back together. It seems rather silly to have all these fractures when they have very few, if any, doctrinal differences.

Of course. So let me say a little more on the subject. I was before only commenting on the news of the UECNA-ACC reestablishing intercommunion. This is not as big a thing as has been presented in the Anglican press. And the news release that the churches put out really intended to talk as though the Anglican world was being led by these two.

BUT there is a general trend that you can take comfort in, and it didn't exist only a few years back. For one thing, the splitting is dying down and realignent is taking its place. And unity talk is much in the air. I think there IS something stirring. The APA and REC made compact promising union, they and the ACA and EMC joined in a new Federation. Several of these have established good ties and sometimes actual intercommunion agreements with overseas Anglican provinces of the Anglican Communion. If TEC leaves the AC, it is thought likely that all of these and, logically the others too, will be involved in seeing if all can't be made into a conservative American church with the conservative diocese still in TEC and the allied TEC parishes in whatever diocese who are interested. See "Common Cause" in one of the Anglican listings for more on that.

So yes, there are hopeful moves underway, and I did not mean to pour cold water on the overall situation.

know Orthodoxy *looks* fractured because of our ethnic/national jurisdictions, but almost all Orthodox are in communion with each other, as Anglicans were until very, very recently. That the continuing churches splintered so quickly after 1978 just seems really sad.

Mary

From my perspective, I'd say it was a good thing that they did, for they were the forerunners of the current movement not to just reunite the exiles but to remake the Anglican world into the sound, orthodox network it once was. IMO if these relatively small churches had not said, "enough is enough" in 1978, and fought the fight no one predicted that they could win, i.e. establish themselves and survive, the newer conservative effort would not have made the fight they are currently in and certainly would not have attracted the support of the majority of Anglican provinces in the Anglican Communion which they have. Until 1978, no one thought you could be an Anglican and not be in the Communion. That is all in the past now. Until 1978, no one thought you could even get Anglican bishops to consecrate Anglicans who were not part of the Communion. They did it. Until 1978, no one believed we could attract new people like every other church, just husband a few diehard emigres from TEC. Our churches now consist more of people who were brought to the faith from outside Anglicanism than were formerly in TEC. So that's some of why I have a positive view of the Continuing Movement, even while appreciating that even a temporary disarrangement in the family of faith is regrettable.

[WarriorAngel]

I'm sorry to hear that. I was really hoping that some of the continuing churches would come back together. It seems rather silly to have all these fractures when they have very few, if any, doctrinal differences.

I know Orthodoxy *looks* fractured because of our ethnic/national jurisdictions, but almost all Orthodox are in communion with each other, as Anglicans were until very, very recently. That the continuing churches splintered so quickly after 1978 just seems really sad.

Mary

Sounds like a domino effect...

The only thing that will cure the Church problems is 'getting it all back together'.
:crossrc: That takes courage and prayer.

[Secundulus]

From the Anglican Book of Common Prayer:

For the Church.
O GRACIOUS Father, we humbly beseech thee for thy holy Catholic Church; that thou wouldst be pleased to fill it with all truth, in all peace. Where it is corrupt, purify it; where it is in error, direct it; where in anything it is amiss, reform it. Where it is right, establish it; where it is in want, provide for it; where it is divided, reunite it; for the sake of him who died and rose again, and ever liveth to make intercession for us, Jesus Christ, thy Son, our Lord. Amen.
For the Unity of God’s People.
O GOD, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, our only Saviour, the Prince of Peace; Give us grace seriously to lay to heart the great dangers we are in by our unhappy divisions. Take away all hatred and prejudice, and whatsoever else may hinder us from godly, union and concord: that as there is but one Body and one Spirit, and one hope of our calling, one Lord, one Faith, one Baptism, one God and Father of us all, so we may be all of one heart and of one soul, united in one holy bond of truth and peace, of faith and charity, and may with one mind and one mouth glorify thee; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

[zhilan]

IF you got this from a media source, chances are that either the media or the lesbian distorted the matter.

It may have said that she publically sinned...she was removed.
IE...they didnt know prior of her doings and so since they knew she could not take communion.

Unless you can read that letter explicitly, do not speak of it as tho the sources would be honest about it.

In fact, no one even knows if the story is even true....
or propogated mush.
Doesn't it actually say in the Catechism or at least some Church documents that when one is a public sinner he can be refused communion? Thus being the reason that pro-choice politicians get refused communion whereas plenty of pro-choice laity take it every weekend.

[No Swansong]

It is apparent that the intent of this forum is failing grossly.
More like being submarined.

Mary thank you for thinking of us and sharing the news.

[No Swansong]

It is the duty of the bishps to shepard the flock in the right direction, even if unpopular and hard (but to take everyday our cross is not easy).

So there shall be the strong love for the Truth (even if unpopular), with a deep care for the faithfull.
The single faithfull, even if gay, shall be loved, helped, educated, teached, with patience and charity.
But the Truth cannot be watered. The bishops cannot stay silent about hte Truth.

The anglican hierarchy, or at least a little part of it, looks like to follow the faithfull, not to shepard the flock.
What's the use of a hierarchy that cannot lead the faithfull on the right way?
What's the use of a hierarchy that cannot say anything official?
Simply to have a nice coat of arms?
Do you really want to open the can of worms that comes with hierarchical neglect? Of hierarchy not looking out for the flock? I don't think pointing fingers at each others shortcomings is going to go anywhere good, and I recommend we stay away from it. As for the contention that the Anglican Episcopacy cannot lead I would point you to the Anglican Church at large.

[Mary of Bethany]

Of course. So let me say a little more on the subject. I was before only commenting on the news of the UECNA-ACC reestablishing intercommunion. This is not as big a thing as has been presented in the Anglican press. And the news release that the churches put out really intended to talk as though the Anglican world was being led by these two.

BUT there is a general trend that you can take comfort in, and it didn't exist only a few years back. For one thing, the splitting is dying down and realignent is taking its place. And unity talk is much in the air. I think there IS something stirring. The APA and REC made compact promising union, they and the ACA and EMC joined in a new Federation. Several of these have established good ties and sometimes actual intercommunion agreements with overseas Anglican provinces of the Anglican Communion. If TEC leaves the AC, it is thought likely that all of these and, logically the others too, will be involved in seeing if all can't be made into a conservative American church with the conservative diocese still in TEC and the allied TEC parishes in whatever diocese who are interested. See "Common Cause" in one of the Anglican listings for more on that.

So yes, there are hopeful moves underway, and I did not mean to pour cold water on the overall situation.



From my perspective, I'd say it was a good thing that they did, for they were the forerunners of the current movement not to just reunite the exiles but to remake the Anglican world into the sound, orthodox network it once was. IMO if these relatively small churches had not said, "enough is enough" in 1978, and fought the fight no one predicted that they could win, i.e. establish themselves and survive, the newer conservative effort would not have made the fight they are currently in and certainly would not have attracted the support of the majority of Anglican provinces in the Anglican Communion which they have. Until 1978, no one thought you could be an Anglican and not be in the Communion. That is all in the past now. Until 1978, no one thought you could even get Anglican bishops to consecrate Anglicans who were not part of the Communion. They did it. Until 1978, no one believed we could attract new people like every other church, just husband a few diehard emigres from TEC. Our churches now consist more of people who were brought to the faith from outside Anglicanism than were formerly in TEC. So that's some of why I have a positive view of the Continuing Movement, even while appreciating that even a temporary disarrangement in the family of faith is regrettable.

Thanks for this, Albion. You make good points.

Mary

[Mary of Bethany]

More like being submarined.

Mary thank you for thinking of us and sharing the news.

You're welcome! Glad to see you in here. :wave:

Mary

[Aymn27]

Apparently, in the Roman Church, you can believe any theological extreme. But as long as you pay homage to the man, you are ok.
rofl....!!!! LOVE IT!

[Dorothea]

From the Anglican Book of Common Prayer:

For the Church.


O GRACIOUS Father, we humbly beseech thee for thy holy Catholic Church; that thou wouldst be pleased to fill it with all truth, in all peace. Where it is corrupt, purify it; where it is in error, direct it; where in anything it is amiss, reform it. Where it is right, establish it; where it is in want, provide for it; where it is divided, reunite it; for the sake of him who died and rose again, and ever liveth to make intercession for us, Jesus Christ, thy Son, our Lord. Amen.For the Unity of God’s People.


O GOD, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, our only Saviour, the Prince of Peace; Give us grace seriously to lay to heart the great dangers we are in by our unhappy divisions. Take away all hatred and prejudice, and whatsoever else may hinder us from godly, union and concord: that as there is but one Body and one Spirit, and one hope of our calling, one Lord, one Faith, one Baptism, one God and Father of us all, so we may be all of one heart and of one soul, united in one holy bond of truth and peace, of faith and charity, and may with one mind and one mouth glorify thee; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.


Thankts for posting this. My sons will probably be reading the Common Book of Prayer at their Episcopal private school, as it says so in the academics section on their web page.

[Aymn27]

Do you really want to open the can of worms that comes with hierarchical neglect? Of hierarchy not looking out for the flock? I don't think pointing fingers at each others shortcomings is going to go anywhere good, and I recommend we stay away from it. As for the contention that the Anglican Episcopacy cannot lead I would point you to the Anglican Church at large.
Indeed jtbdad...just look at cardinal law - how many times did he move the pedophiles? - and instead of defrocking him, he got a promotion to the Vatican - which it seems knew about all the scandals going on since the 1960s or so according to investigative reporting by the BBC...

[ContraMundum]

Good luck to 'em. Any unity among traditionalists is a good thing. We should be happy.

[xristos.anesti]

It is a good news that Anglicans are re-communing - you can never have enough of reunification in this day and age.

Also, why do some think that they have any right to question the belonging of Anglicans in this forum?!

It is somewhat rude and ungenerous to do these things -



Many years.

[SirTimothy]

Indeed jtbdad...just look at cardinal law - how many times did he move the pedophiles? - and instead of defrocking him, he got a promotion to the Vatican - which it seems knew about all the scandals going on since the 1960s or so according to investigative reporting by the BBC...
This is a case of when you point a finger there are three pointing back.