"If GAFCON does nothing and allows the Diocese of Sydney, with its innovatory doctrine, and pride in that innovation, to remain as a full member, then GAFCON will become, and will be seen by thousands, as merely and only an international, Evangelical Anglican Group - with no serious claims to a serious catholic ecclesiology and historic Ministry, and no real opportunity or intention to set a godly example to the whole Anglican Communion of Churches." - Prayer book Society.

This statement, by Peter Toon, the Chair of the Prayer Book Society of the USA, is indicative of the resistance of many of the 'catholic' party within the GAFCON Group, to the efforts of the Sydney Diocese to promote diaconal and lay presidency at the Eucharist.

This, together with statements from F.i.F. and Reform, voicing their concern for the retention of catholic Order within the Church; ought to put paid to Sydney's ambition to become a leader of other people in schism from their parent Anglican Church bodies.

Such a presumptuous step away from traditional Anglican theology and polity, as the Diocese of Sydney advocates, can never be acceptable to anyone who respects the traditional Ordering of Ministry in the Church Catholic and Reformed - to which most Anglicans would claim membership.

This is a complete hoot! Could anyone have foreseen that Sydney would be the straw to break the donkey's back in this alliance of traditional antagonists?

I think Toon has a point -- why not expel Sydney? It'd be funny to see how FOCA and GAFCON derive their continued funding with Sydney out of the picture, even if the IRD really is wound up in it somewhere. But it's Toon's comments that are the most amusing: asking for the impossible, just like a good socially conservative Anglo-Catholic.

Reminds me of why I always think of him as a bit of a CAR-Toon....

Please note that the quotation from the GAFCON Declaration does not deny any other form of ministry..it merely recognises the historic nature of the three fold ministry. There is no mention of Apostolic succession..a doctrine alien to historic Anglicanism.

Furthermore GAFCON has the Church of England in South Africa on board and have lay presidency.

Six months on and there is no list of GAFCON signatories and that is deliberate policy.

How can the pipers expell the one who is paying them to pipe his tune?

Anyway in all fairness to Sydney , they have turned a blind eye to violations of the 39 articles by Bishop Iker and other Anglo-Catholic Gafconites.

Dr Toon is hardly an anglo-catholic. He comes from that wing of the CofE which might be most sympathetic to Sydney, and taught for 6 years at Oak Hill, nowadays virtually a satellite of Moore College, Sydney.

Frankly, that someone of his outlook and background should be so critical of Sydney should seriously put the wind up the Jensens and their cronies.

Robert I. Williams,

How on earth could you say "There is no mention of Apostolic succession..a doctrine alien to historic Anglicanism."

This betrays, once again, your Roman Catholic misunderstanding of the historic foundations of the Church of England. Apart from the Papal claim to inerrancy (which is questionable, to say the least) you have no evidence to say that the Church of England and its Communion partners are totally disconnected from the notion of apostolic succession in its ministry.

It may be that in your former association with Anglicanism - in its more protestant form - you were ignorant of the Anglican claims to apostolic validity; and perhaps this is why you constantly seek to undermine this claim in your postings.

Please do not insult our readership here with your ill-considered protestations of 'catholic' exclusivity for the Church of Rome. We know where you are coming from. Please try to understand that we are 'Thinking Anglicans' here, striving to live out the implications of the Gospel - not aliens from another planet.

Pleasec remember Peter Toon is not an Anglo-Catholic. He is a very conservative evangelical, clearly in the Reform camp. He used to teach at Oak Hill!

"Anyway in all fairness to Sydney , they have turned a blind eye to violations of the 39 articles by Bishop Iker and other Anglo-Catholic Gafconites."

...and let's not forget the flagrant disregard Sydney has for the golden 39. The irony is that they wouldn't want to be bound by the Articles or the 1662 BCP if they really had to live them to the letter on a day-to-day basis. Methinks the daily offices might test those wanna-be free church folk: could be a touch too liturgical for them. It could finally cure them of this bizarre insistence on the 39 Articles and the BCP as the only litmus test of Anglican *orthodoxy*.

If Sydney goes ahead with lay presidency it will be the end of the road for GAFCON, FOCA and all the other putative 'replacement' Anglican Communions. Who would have thought it would come so quickly, much less this easily?

I don't think it will put an end to GAFCON. GAFCON will use whatever fellow travellers it finds coming to it at the time. The Forward in Faith bunch will want to see if GAFCON can and does set up its own bishops and male only hierarchy, and they would want to jump on the bandwagon. But if they cannot, they are just as easily disposed, and Sydney will be a part of GAFCON. GAFCON is an organisation that fronts basically an extreme literalist pseudo-Anglicanism, with right wing political (demonstrated) as well as religious aims. For those behind GAFCON, bishops are no more than authoritarian functionaries, people who are in charge, and presbyters their deputies. So deacons and laypeople will be able to preside at the Eucharist.

It will be interesting, however, to see if this splits Reform, between traditionalists and contemporary-unhinged extreme evangelicals. The point about bodies like those behind GAFCON is that it is others that split as the core group pursues its goal.

"Who would have thought it would come so quickly, much less this easily?"

Well, everyone knew it was inevitable. You can't be broad and narrow at the same time, after all, and if their argument with the parent body is about purity of doctrine, it was only a matter of time before their wide differences concerning that doctrine would come to the fore. Their union was built on fear of change. They only focussed on current changes, ignoring, or unaware of, the fact that both the Anglocatholic and Evangelical factions each consider the other to be practicing unacceptable changes to the faith. I have noticed that Evangelicals seem blissfully unaware that others can have principled, theologically based issues with what they believe, almost as though they feel that only they are capable of detecting error in others or something, and that others think them to be just as apostate as they think the rest of us are. It seems this attitude extends to conservative Anglo-catholics as well, and it seems to have blinded them to the oddity of their joining of forces. But then again, the ACs in that group were so blinded by their own righteousness they had no problem affirming a very heterodox Christology, as though they forgot that it is Christology, not sexual mores or fear of change, that defines orthodoxy.

Various folks have noted that Peter Toon is not an Anglo-Catholic, and that he taught at Oak Hill. Well, he also taught at Nashotah House, too. When I graduated from Nashotah (back in 1966), it was an Anglo-Catholic seminary -- I can't figure out what it is now. They're smoking something, and it ain't just incense....

An addendum to Fr Ron Smith's response to Robert I. Williams' statement, "...Apostolic succession, a doctrine alien to historic Anglicanism."

"It is evident unto all men, diligently reading holy scripture, and ancient authorities, that from the Apostles' time, there hath been these orders of Ministers in Christ's Church, Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, which Offices were evermore had in such reverent estimation, that no man by his own private authority, might presume to execute any of them," etc. etc. (The Preface to the Ordinal, 1549.)

Umm...is there something about that which isn't clear? (The original spelling was archaic, but hardly obscure.)

Fact: Peter Toon is President of the American Prayer Book Society , was a lecturer at Nashotah House and he has shifted in his once unequivocal evangelicalism. He certainly wouldn't be happy with Reform.

Fact: Violating Catholic order accusation by Ron Smith...thats how Sydney felt when your province voted for women priests!

Non of the Anglican fathers believed in the esse of episcopacy, ( see the Church of England and Episcopacy, by Canon Mason ) and all recognised the orders of the Continental non-episcopal Churches. That is why the French Reformed Church has a church in the very crypt of Canterbury Cathedral.

By the way Peter Toon exposed how the Common Cause ( basis for Duncan's new province ) is riddled with re-married divorcees.

Ah how the Jordan rolls.

GAFCON now faces, has faced, and will surely face...

First wave is the unanswered question of whether GAFCON devotions to policing and punishment have any use at all internally. Though we must all recall how useful policing and punishment are constantly claimed to be externally, especially right now aimed most often at Canada and/or TEC. With some test rumblings in CoE? If fully loaded magazines in the latest presuppositional doctrine weapons (wielded expertly in the sure hands of Realignment Marines striking hard blows against the enemy) are the surest sign of our properly Realigned God and Jesus these days, the GAFCON habit of ignoring all weapons among its own Homeland Security screened and vetted troops is under constant hidden pressure. Hot button differences, a proud refusal to agree to disagree as a creedal new Anglican foundation, and guns?

Second wave - the other dilemma about having a realigned conservative big tent while destroying big tents among all others. If you loudly preach that big tents are secular humanism, godless, confused, and signs of sin – is not your own big tent vulnerable?

It takes a certain disciplined cerebellum physicality to keep balance atop all conflicts. Set your own flint face against all enemies then. Ignore outsiders who might ask how you have a leeway graceful among yourselves as conservatives that you say is a demonic sign of modernity when it pops up among outsiders.

IF GAFCON can continue to avoid and sidestep the blatant marker of divorce and remarriage among so many of its holier than thou straight believers - while still loudly presupposing all queer folks without exception to be nothing but pornographers and hedonists - then surely GAFCON is still marching about in its own special campaign, answerable de facto to nobody at all, except that special Realigned Anglican God of the Marine Anglican boot camps.

Or, perhaps, homophobia really IS the unifying theme.

Note on preface..this does not exclude the validity of non episcopal ministry...read it carefully.

Neither do the articles of religion affirm
Apostolic succesion in their definition of what constitutes a true Church.

The Church of England always recognised orders of non episcopal continental and Scottish protestant clergy.

When episcopacy re-introduced to Scotland in 1610...no ministers in Presbyterian orders were re-ordained and the new bishops were not previously ordained either deacons or presbyters.

On the Channel islands part of the Diocese of Winchester there were no episcopally ordained clergy until the 1630s and on Guernsey , only after 1662. On the island of Sark as late as 1820!

In the crypyt of Canterbury Cathedral, Non-episcopal clergy have ministerd to their flock since 1584. At one time the congregation numbered 2,000!

Archbishop Laud affirmed the validity of the French Reformed Church as did the exiled bishops during the Comonwealth.

Read Canon A J Mason .. The Church of England and Episcopacy.

Robert Ian Williams,

Just settle down for a moment, Having borrowed from your nearest theological library a copy of the life of Richard Hooker (whose memorial we in the Anglican Church celebrate today - 4 November) and get someone to read to you what this eminent Anglican Scholar says about the Elizabethan Settlement, and other matters of polity within the Church of England of his day. -

(N.B. You probably won't find a copy of any book about Richard Hooker in your local R.C. library (except perhaps in the list of 'banned books')because it would be too threatenting to anyone who was of the opinion, like your good self, that God only loves and sustains the Roman version of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.)

Then, having learned something of the reality of Anglican Church history, go to the same (secular) library, and see if you can find anything about the Double Papacy in Avignon and Rome; Saint Patrick's putting 'women in charge of the little wooden churches' in Ireland; and other assorted evidence of the 'peculiarities' that have been discovered in your own newly-espoused Italian 'Tradition'.

THEN - come back and discuss the relative merits of English Catholicism and Roman Catholicism with people who have some real knowledge of both.

"In the crypyt of Canterbury Cathedral, Non-episcopal clergy have ministerd to their flock since 1584. At one time the congregation numbered 2,000!"

And? For part of the 20th century, in the crypt of the Washington National Cathedral, a congregation of Jews held regular services. Letting other religious groups use your space proves nothing.

A number of posters here have taken issue with my labelling Dr Toon as an Anglo-Catholic. In his associations with Melbourne, he has been connected up mostly with traditionalist Anglo-Catholics, which led me to conclude that he is among their number in his home manifestation.

RIW -- it is axiomatic to the life of institutions that when you search for precedents, you will find that there is precedent for just about any eventuality you care to imagine. Since you seem particularly informed on this point, could you tell us more about the examples you provided above? In the case of Channel Island parishes, what was the staple of weekly worship during the periods when an ordained minister was not in residence? Were the islands regularly visited by clergy? Were clergy appointed to these places who never resided in their parishes?

Since it's Melbourne Cup week, I'm prepared to take a bet that Matins and Evensong were the most common form of weekly worship in these places from the time of the imposition of the BCP to the times you give as the introduction of regular clergy. Let's keep ourselves to a discussion of post-Reformation practice for the present, and please provide more information.

The precedents you quote actually beg many more questions than providing useful answers. How about a discussion of the use and abuse of Papal power over the last century, and its effect on diocesan behaviour in the sexual abuse scandals of the last 30 years?

I must repectfully disagree with Ron..Hooker in his Ecclesiastcal Polity, Book seven , chapter 14 teaches that ordination is not restricted to bishops.

He also states, " that the most blessed body of Christ is not be found in the sacarment of the lords supper but in the worthy receiver. "

May I reccomend the brilliant book of Nigel Atkinson on the life of Hooker. Doctor Atkinson is the Incumbent of Knutsford and a member of Reform.

I would not describe Nigel Atkinson's book on Hooker as brilliant.It was helpful in providing a less hagiographical "via media " slant which had not paid enough attention to the reformed context. The best account of Hooker's position on the theology of grace is surely now, Nigel Voak's Richard Hooker and Reformed Theology , Oxford 2003 which sees H as more innovative.Hooker's remarks re the eucharistic gift also need to be put in the context of his irenic intention to transcend the polemical polarities of the eucharistic disputes begun at Marburg.An accessible introduction to Anglican eucharistic theology can be found in William Crockett's essay in The Study of Anglicanism 2nd ed ed by S.W. Sykes, John Booty and Jonathan Knight esp ( for Hooker) pp 309-311.

An interesting article for Mr. Robert Ian Williams:

http://anglicancontinuum.blogspot.com/2008/08/apostolic-succession-and-scripture.html

I have just posted a summary and my reflections on Sydney's anti-catholic tendencies at:
http://www.liturgy.co.nz/blog/sydney/167

Bosco Peters, the final quote is particularly amusing, and bang on the money. This is not about doctrine, or catholicity, or faith or anything so high falutin'. It is not even about gays or women, for that matter, it is about fear of change wrapped up in piety. On an even deeper level, it is about being opposed to anything your opponents support, until that rabid "anti-them" attitude leads you to inadvertently support something your opponents said long enough ago that it has fallen off the radar of Evil Hell Bound Doctrines. How embarrassing for Jensen! Has any one else publically rubbed his nose in it? And the next time some Conservative mentions Spong as the AntiChrist, can we point out this little confluence to them?

lets not be beastly to the Sydneysiders....

Non of the early Anglican divines taught the absolute necessity of episcopacy...read Hooker, Laud , Juxon etc. Show me one quote where they say that it is absolutely necessary for a valid ministry.

As for Bosco's piece he claims that the chasuble was worn in the Church of England from the 1559 Elizabethan settlement. It was most certainly not, and was only revived in the mid nineteenth century, and finally legalised in 1964! He could not show one example of a seventeenth or eighteenth century Anglican chasuble. Imagine if there had been ..they would be on display at the V and A. In fact chasubles in 1559 were cut up for dress material for clergy wives. A few Catholic families hid them, and I recently saw a few of these magnificent survivals in an exhibition in Liverpool.

Bosco was not a cradle Anglican so perhaps we can exuse that.So until he comes sup with the goods, read his liturgical pages with a pinch of salt.

However He has the cheek to call Sydney revisionist and yet he exists quite happily under a woman bishop!

The rightness of women bishops I leave to Anglicans to debate but I feel this is the kettle calling the teapot black..or people living in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

A quotation from the article of the Revd Bosco Peters, regarding the chasuble. (Robert Ian Williams, pay attention please! You wrote the opposite.)

"Sydney is well-known for anti-catholic measures. Priests there are forbidden from wearing a chasuble at the eucharist. Whilst vociferously quoting from the Book of Common Prayer (BCP) when it fits with its particular style of Calvinist Gnosticism, the Sydney diocese picks and chooses when to apply it. It does not merely breach the BCP’s requirement of a chasuble at the eucharist, but forbids its clergy from following that requirement!

The Book of Common Prayer has, since 1559, had the rubric “such ornaments of the Church, and of the ministers thereof, at all times of their ministration, shall be retained, and be in use, as were in this Church of England by the authority of Parliament, in the second year of the reign of King Edward the Sixth.” Clearly the chasuble is required by the Prayer Book (photo: example of the type worn during the second year of the reign of King Edward VI). Puritans regularly insisted on presiding in their street clothes, or peasant’s jacket. One priest wanted to make his point by wearing his hat during the service. The authorities made concessions, allowing the surplice to suffice, although the rubric was not changed."

Robert Ian Williams, you were faster than me in replying.

Thanks PeterK for underscoring what I actually wrote in your response to Robert Ian Williams’ patronising ad hominem rejoinder and misquotation.

Incidentally, an Australian priest, Fr Stephen Clark, independently makes a similar point to mine:

"There may be a point forgotten here; that 'lay administration' as proposed by the Jensens may not just be about freeing up deacons or empowering lay people...but may indeed be a an attack on Katholick order with a capital K.
I think it is difficult for those outside Australia to appreciate just how anti-catholic the Diocese of Sydney is. Its flagship organization the Anglican Church League (here http://acl.asn.au/) seems slightly to right of Ian Paisley.
There is no suggestion that the narrow focus on the ministry of preaching will be delegated to deacons, women or lay persons in general.
This is about devaluing the Eucharistic focus of the wider church in favour of a very, very Sydney world-view."

Comments: http://bishopalan.blogspot.com/2008/10/sydney-lay-presidency-pushme-pullyou.html

RIW, the chasuble only became illegal with the passage of the odious Public Worship Regulation Act in 1874.

Back to Chasubles..

The chasuble was not worn in any Anglican Church from 1559, until the mid nineteenth century. The chasuble and the eastward position became the hall mark of the ritualists..and this was why Oscar Wilde called the clergyman in his play, "The Importance of Being Earnest."Canon Chasuble."The Victorian audiences would have realised the significance.

The puritans objected not to the chasuble (as this was not required ) but the surplice...read any book of history about the period.

Please read Doctor Nigel Yates, whose work, Ritualism in Victorian Anglican Britain (OUP,2000)is the definitive work.

RIW wrote:"The chasuble was not worn in any Anglican Church from 1559, until the mid nineteenth century."

But this does not mean that it was illegal to wear it.

I think that's quite enough for now about chasubles in Sydney. Please, let's focus on the original issue.

With reference to the relationship between GAFCON and the Sydney Diocese; one wonders what will now happen to this relationship now that the local Pittsburg membership of GAFCON has issued its statement about newly-installed re-Asserter Bishop Duncan's intended severance from the leadership of Canterbury - in his intention to form his own Provincial Church within the USA and Canada?

Now we know that former Bishop Bob Duncan's interview with the ABC did not turn out to
provide offical acknowledgement of his ambition to form a breakaway Province of the Anglican Communion in the USA and Canada. This seems now to be leading to a definitive schismatic action by GAFCON in the USA and Canada.

What does this say about Sydney's future, as the seat of the GAFCON Secretariate, in the world-wide Anglican Communion?