Actually Mark, if what you report is true then the canons of the REC are being violated. Canon 10 states as follows: Section 5(a) Thereafter the Bishop, being satisfied of such Minister’s theological attainments and soundness in faith, may (1)Receive him into the Diocese or Missionary Diocese in his order, if he has already been ordained by a Bishop in the historic succession; or (2)Confirm him and make him a Deacon and, no sooner than four months thereafter, ordain him as Presbyter if he has not received such ordination; or (3)Receive him as a Minister of the Gospel and conditionally regularize his status as a Deacon or a Presbyter by laying on of hands and by use of the proper form as found in the Ordinal of the Book of Common Prayer. The Number three is what is done for those ordained as "Ministers of the Gospel" in other jurisdictions not recognized as "Apostolic". Read all of Canon 10 and it is quite apparent that conditional ordination is what is happening. The APA Canon 10 is practically the same thing since both our Canon 10s come from the same source document. Erich Zwingert+ Quoting mark.mary@...: > Fr Mike: > > I'm only a lowly deacon, so you can address me as Mark. I have no problem > w/Fr X (in fact, I prefer it) for priests. > > As far as I can tell, the straw that broke the camel's back concerning > breaking w/PECUS was the requirement that one must be ordained in apostolic > succession to serve the Eucharist. Bishop Cummins was castigated > specifically for participating in a Eucharist w/presbyterians. In the REC we > specifically require all our clergy to vow that no ordained person is a > priest in any way different than any layman. We do not reordain even > Baptists that become REC clergy. The clergyman is an elder, not a sacerdotal > priest. Since high ritual was tied w/apostolic succession, we rejected a lot > of things came w/apostolic succession. However, we take no such vow, nor > was it required even at the beginning, that we reject high church ritual. > Therefore, we are allowed to change ritual, which we have done to a certain > extent. The 4 Declaration of Principles, one of which contains the part > about the priest, areunchangeable. > > mw > > > > Mark+ (or you prefer Fr Mark?) > > > > But again, aren't those things exactly what the REC was originally formed > in > > opposition to? I guess my point is to ask this question: since the REC > > seems to have moved a bit (some would say quite a bit), is there now room > in > > the house for both Evangelicals and Anglo-Catholics? And I mean real > > Anglo-Catholics, not crypto-Romanists. > > > > MLW+ > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: mark.mary@... [mailto:mark.mary@...] > > Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2005 3:31 PM > > To: faithandlife@... > > Subject: RE: [FaithandLife] Anglo Catholics and Evangelicals in the new > > Church RSVP 2 > > > > Fr Mike: > > > > Not taking you as contentious. This is the kind of conversation that > needs > > to occur between the APA and REC, rather than some bland plattitudes. > > > > As far as my high churchmanship goes, I'm quite flexible. I can live in a > > low or high chuch environment, even tho I prefer high (given the right > > doctrine). I was in a smells and bells CEC parish (nose-bleed high. Left > > bec of doctinal differences.) and now am in a quite lower REC parish. We > > have no smells or bells. No one genuflects; few cross themselves. > However, > > when I attend Synod, I get to do all those things. > > > > mw > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > To unsubscribe, send ANY message to: > faithandlife-unsubscribe@... > > > > -- > To unsubscribe, send ANY message to: faithandlife-unsubscribe@... > > -- The Very Rev'd Erich A. Zwingert, SSC, Rector St. Mary the Virgin Anglican Church 101 Homewood Blvd., Delray Beach, FL 33445 561.265.1960