雅典 格鲁吉亚 2008年8月

近日,包括许多普世圣公宗官方“圣公会南半球联盟”的教会肢体的主教和大主教,及一些有传统安立甘基督徒信念的教友聚集在耶路撒冷,召开了一次名为“全球圣公宗前途会议(Global Anglican Future Conference,以下简称GAFCON)”的大会。会议旨在应对美国及加拿大圣公会教省拒绝尽早在两性道德领域,尤其是擅自任命同性恋神职和祝圣同性婚姻问题上及时悔改的问题。

GAFCON发表了一则目前已广为人知的声明,但其中并没有提及1976-1978年,因按立女性神职、使用有争议的《公祷书》及关于堕胎的观点而引发的普世圣公宗内部持续安立甘教会的另立门户。关于GAFCON的声明,我有几个观点,并相信其在安立甘公教会中也已得到广泛的认同,事实上,大多数持续安立甘教会的神职人员也颇有同感。出于这个原因,本人大胆地使用第一人称复数陈述如下:

关于促成GAFCON会议的直接问题,我们支持GAFCON及其声明。换言之,安立甘公教会坚信并传讲那些已被普世教会广布四方的两性道德。我们仅要指出的是GAFCON并没有解决离婚和再婚这两个早于目前同性恋危机出现的问题,这两个问题也从多方面,为近来教会的失序埋下了祸根。

GAFCON在声明中对于授予女性执事、司祭(牧师)和主教等神职的问题上保持沉默,这意味着对这个更早的错误采取了绥靖的态度。如若继续放任,相比同性恋问题上的误入歧途,这与正统大公教会的普遍习例更是相去甚远。这种沉默和绥靖是完全错误的。女性神职和同性婚姻都源于对性别角色和身份在教会和基督徒生活中的误解,并且,即使是假意祝圣女性神职,也是对圣经教导和大公教会习例的否认。女性神职是一种一意孤行的错误,实际上也是某些普世圣公宗教会对信仰的僭越,普世圣公宗更无权变更那些由罗马天主教、东正教、古安立甘教会一致代表的基督世界的教义和核心习例。这样的主张一旦被提出,就可以被用来为任何在教义或道德上的改弦更张或僭越提供辩护。如果对那些在20世纪70—90年代任命女性神职的教会熟视无睹,那么其在20世纪90年代和21世纪头十年开始将同性行为合法化则更是顺理成章。

GAFCON维护并呼吁支持具有显著圣公会传承的教导:即1662年版《公祷书》、《三十九条信纲》、三大信经和前四次普世大公会议决议。没有人能够,也不应该否认这些教导的权威性。然而,这些同意以上教导的圣公宗官方教会,其后继者自20世纪70年代后,已经放弃了这些大公且正统的教义。许多普世圣公宗教会习惯性地培养着一种教义上的模棱两可:将多种神学上的重大错误混杂于正式确认的信条和教义。因此,持续安立甘教会的肢体明智地将我们的教义立场坚定地定论于《圣路易斯声明》中。由安立甘公教的宪章和教义所确定的该声明,明确地将安立甘公教锚定于以第一个千禧年惟一至公至正大公教会为代表的基督世界的伟大核心传统。由于一些传统圣公宗在研究上的含糊不清,以致近年来神学上的重大错误接踵而至。因此仅仅概括折衷的立场和要义是远远不够的,时代呼唤着更清晰、更明确的大公性、正统性立场。

因此,GAFCON的声明远不及《圣路易斯宣言》。从长远看来,该声明对教会的行差践错终究是杯水车薪。同时需要指出的是,《圣路易斯宣言》不是一种信仰的告白,也不是一种新的信理声明,而是对基督教世界伟大核心传统的肯定。

为了明确厘定安立甘公教的教义,我将阐明以下在GAFCON的声明中未做声明的事项:

  1. 普世大公教会会议共有七次而非四次。
  2. 虽然1622年版《公祷书》有很多优点,但也有一些诸如简化了圣餐理论这样明显的缺点。美国的1928年版,南非的1954年版,以及其它后来的版本都对此做了修改。我们绝不断言1622年版《公祷书》的任何范式是无效的,但我们也不能接受1622年版是安立甘宗礼拜仪式的中心或最好的模式。
  3. 美国1979年版《公祷书》,及许多使用当代语言并在普世圣公宗官方各教会使用的《公祷书》,都存在着根本上的缺陷,并经常遭到神学上的严重反对。
  4. 三个圣职(执事、司祭、主教)必须皆为男性。
  5. 圣洗礼和圣餐礼作为基督亲设的圣礼,客观而坚定地传达了上帝的恩典,通常是得救的必要条件。普世教会的传统接受七个圣礼,即是圣洗、坚振、圣餐、告解、终傅、婚姻、圣职。
  6. 所有安立甘宗的范式、习例、信理都必须在核心传统下进行评估和解释。如果东正教和罗马天主教都拒绝某些安立甘宗认可的东西,那么那些东西可能是错误的,尤其当它们涉及重要的事项。我们的确信来自于基于普世大公教会的传统和现世大公教会诸成员的共识解释的《圣经》,而非圣公会特有的观念。
  7. 生命自受孕到死亡,皆神圣不可侵犯,蓄意堕胎实为重罪。
  8. 有效的基督徒婚姻建立了一种不可分割的神秘纽带,就是一男一女在他们一生中承诺和联合,只有死亡才能破除这种联合。

我们呼吁一切有安立甘宗信念的人果断而明确地放弃以祝圣女性神职为代表的近年来在礼仪、道德和神学上的错误。

我们呼呼一切有安立甘宗信念的人重回基督世界的核心传统,并意识到福音派和五旬节派新教均非安全的避风港。

我们对GAFCON重返正途的一小步表示欢迎,但我们也确信其含糊的陈述和上文所提的沉默在神学上的助益将乏善可陈,并将迅速招致分裂和混乱。GAFCON以某种适当的方式解决的唯一问题是同性恋,但更多的问题仍岌岌可危。

安立甘公教全权代表、大主教及代理首席主教  马克·哈弗兰博士

本译文经安立甘公教神父校对许可后发布。

翻译:威尼斯商人

校对:神父

原文链接:http://www.anglicancatholic.org/statement-on-the-global-anglican-future-conference-2008?class=greenlink

英文全文原文如下:

Statement on the Global Anglican Future Conference (2008)

Athens, Georgia.  August 2008.

A number of self-described traditional Anglicans from around the globe, including many bishops and archbishops from the “global South” bodies of the official Anglican Communion, recently met in Jerusalem at a meeting called GAFCON. This meeting was called largely in response to the refusal of the Episcopal Church in the U.S. and of the Anglican Church of Canada to heed earlier calls to rein in innovations concerning matters of sexual morality, including notably the ordination and consecration of self-proclaimed and practicing homosexuals and the blessing of “same sex unions.”

GAFCON produced a now widely published statement which does not address the innovations that led to the formation of our own Continuing Church in 1976-8: namely the “ordination of women,” a new and radical Prayer Book, and a pro-abortion policy. Concerning GAFCON and its statement, I have several observations, which I believe are widely shared in the Anglican Catholic Church and, indeed, by most Continuing Churchmen. For that reason I make bold to write in the first person plural in what follows.

On the immediate issues that led to the GAFCON conference, we stand with GAFCON and its statement.  That is, the ACC believes and teaches what Scripture and the universal Church have always taught everywhere concerning human sexuality.  We would only note that GAFCON fails to address the problem of divorce and remarriage, which antedates the present crisis concerning homosexuality, and which in many ways prepared the ground for the more recent aberration.

The GAFCON statement, by its silence concerning the ordination of women to the diaconate, priesthood, and episcopate, implies that this earlier aberration is tolerable, if not desirable, and is at worst a much less serious departure from the universal practice of the orthodox and catholic Church than is homosexuality.  This silence and its

implications are profoundly mistaken.  The ordination of women and homosexuality both flow from a confusion concerning both sexual roles and also the place of sexual identity in Church and Christian life.  Furthermore, pretending to ordain women to Holy Orders requires a rejection of clear Biblical teaching and of the unbroken practice of the Catholic and Orthodox Church.  The ordination of women is in effect a claim by official Anglican bodies to authority over the deposit of the Faith.  The ordination of women assumes a falsehood:  that Anglicans have authority to alter the doctrine and practice of the central Tradition of Christendom, which is represented by the consensus of the Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and all older Anglican Churches.  Such a claim, once made, can be pressed into service to justify any further innovation or aberration in doctrine or morals.  No one should be surprised that Churches which began to ordain women in the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s, began to legitimize homosexual conduct in the 1990s and in the first decade of the 21st century.

GAFCON asserts and appeals for support to formularies which have a notable Anglican pedigree: namely the 1662 Book of Common Prayer, the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion, the three Creeds, and the first four Ecumenical Councils.  No one can or should deny the authority of these formularies.  However, these same formularies received formal assent from the same Anglican bodies that since the 1970s have abandoned orthodox and catholic doctrine as noted above.  Many Anglican bodies traditionally cultivated a kind of studied doctrinal ambiguity which combined material toleration of grave theological errors with formal acceptance of traditional creeds and formulas.  Therefore, the Continuing Churches wisely have fixed our doctrinal stance firmly in the Affirmation of Saint Louis.  The Affirmation, confirmed by the Constitution and Canons of the Anglican Catholic Church, explicitly positions the ACC within the great central Tradition of Christendom, represented by the consensus of the Orthodox and Catholic Churches and of the teaching of the Undivided Church of the first millennium.  Since the studied ambiguities of some traditional Anglicans permitted the grave errors of recent years to arise, it is no longer enough to recapitulate compromise positions and formulas.  A clearer, more explicitly catholic and orthodox stance is demanded by the times.

By way of fixing our own Church’s teaching clearly, I note the following teachings of the Affirmation of Saint Louis and of the Anglican Catholic Church on matters about which GAFCON is silent:

there are Seven Ecumenical Councils, not merely Four;

while the 1662 Prayer Book has many strengths, it also has some notable weaknesses, including a truncated Eucharistic Canon, which the 1928 American, 1954 South African, and other later Prayer Books have corrected.  We by no means assert the invalidity of any form in the 1662 book, but neither can we accept that 1662 is the central or best model for Anglican liturgy;

the 1979 Episcopalian Prayer Book, and many other contemporary language books at use in the official Anglican Communion, are radically flawed and are often subject to grave theological objection;

all three Holy Orders are male in character;

the sacraments of Baptism and the Eucharist are generally necessary for salvation and as divine acts convey God’s offer of grace objectively and unfailingly;

there are seven sacraments received by the central Tradition of the universal Church, namely Baptism; Confirmation or Chrismation, the Eucharist, Penance, Unction of the Sick, Matrimony, and Holy Orders;

all Anglican formularies, practices, and beliefs properly are subject to evaluation and interpretation in the light of the central Tradition.  If both the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches reject something that some Anglicans believe, then that something probably is false, particularly if it concerns a matter of importance.  Our security lies in the authority of Scripture as interpreted by the universal Tradition and by the living consensus of the great Churches, not in peculiarly Anglican notions;

human life is sacred from the moment of conception to natural death, and directly willed abortion always is gravely sinful;

valid Christian marriage establishes an indissoluble sacramental bond which cannot be broken save by death.

We call upon all self-described Anglicans to reject clearly and decisively all of the liturgical, moral, and theological errors of recent years, beginning with the ordination of women.  We call upon all self-described Anglicans to return to the central Tradition of Christendom and to recognize that evangelical and neo-Pentecostalist Protestantism is no safe haven.  We welcome GAFCON as a small step in the right direction.  But we confidently predict that the ambiguities and silences that characterize its statement will lead rapidly to fragmentation and confusion without any countervailing theological achievement.  The only issue addressed in a somewhat adequate fashion by GAFCON is homosexuality.  Far more is at stake.

The Most Reverend Mark Haverland, Ph.D.

Archbishop and Acting Primate

Anglican Catholic Church