Over the last few months I have spending a certain amount of time recently cogitating on the peculiarities of the Affirmation of St Louis, the way in which they might have distorted the development of the Continuing Anglican movement, and whether our present divisions owe something to the Affirmation. Furthermore, I have been thinking about what could be done to reduce the amount of argument that goes on over its provisions, and reach a consensus sufficient to eventually bring about the reunion of the Continuum.

At the very outset I have to say that, in my researches over the years, I have not come across a complete and orderly account of how the Affirmation of St Louis was drafted, nor an explanation of the precise aims of its framers. In absence of such an account I need to take the Affirmation at face value, and let it speak for itself.

It seems to me that the basic intent was to maintain 'business as usual' as understood by orthodox churchmen in both the Episcopal Church, USA, and the Anglican Church of Canada. There was no intent to exclude any Churchmanship - Catholic, Broad, Low or Evangelical - from the original Anglican Church of North America (Episcopal), and lastly, there was no intent to depart from the faith received from the Church of England. On the other hand, there was an intent to close several loopholes, particularly those concerning the number of Ecumenical Councils accepted by the Anglican Church, and the character and method of selecting those to be ordained. There is also a protest in favour of traditional Christian morality, which, given the way society has moved on in the last 34 years, seems almost prophetic.

Unfortunately, like most documents drawn up in a hurry, and passed with very little debate(2) the Affirmation of St Louis has a couple of slip-ups in it, both of which look as though they are intended to allow the Continuum to morph into a narrowly Catholic body.

The first of these is the provision concerning the seven Sacraments. All Anglicans would agree that Baptism (including Baptism by desire) and the Eucharist were directly instituted by Our Lord, and are generally (that is, universally) necessary to salvation. Most would agree also agree that the other five - confirmation, penance, holy unction, marriage, and orders - are sacraments, though instituted by the Church rather than Christ himself. The real snag is that the Western Church left the number of sacraments undefined until the Fourth Lateran Council in 1214. This Council also defined Transubstantiation, and several other things generally (in the modern sense) unpalatable to Anglicans. It also gives the impression that the Affirmation tacitly accepts some parts of Lateran IV, which might lead to some folks seeking to repudiate the whole Affirmation, and might lead others into acceptng the whole of that Papally convened council.

Now you will note that in what I have written above I am not repudiating the idea that there are seven Sacraments - an idea that has wide support in both the Eastern and Western traditions. However, I am expressing a certain nervousness as to the way in which it has been done in the Affirmation of St Louis, and a desire to make clear its basic theological thrust. Like the other sevens in catholic teaching - the works of corporal mercy, deadly sins, etc. - it is a very handy teaching tool, and is backed by a good deal of tradition, and even, in the case of seven Sacraments garnering some support from the Articles of Religion, but it is not a rigid dogmatic pronouncement. The Articles use the term 'commonly called' when referring to what I grew up calling the 'Lesser Sacraments' (or, if we were feeling facetious, Looser Sacraments), which is a simple statement that they are commonly accepted as sacraments, being the outward signs of inward spiritual grace. I assume that the framers of the Article simply wished to point out that, unlike Baptism and the Eucharist, they did not have direct Dominical authority in Scripture.

The other provision that has caused some difficulty is that allowing liturgical forms incorporating the Book of Common Prayer. This has led some to behave as though there is, in fact, a double standard, and that the BCP was retained only for sentimental reasons. I have often had to listen to clergymen justifying their use of the Missal on the basis of the BCP being in some undefined way 'uncatholic' that to some extent I now have an aversion to giving the Missals any sort of official status. However, that is an aversion I am prepared to set aside in the interests of unity, along with my title of Archbishop. However, it is clear from the way in which this provision of the Affirmation of St Louis that the Book of Common Prayer, and no other liturgy, is the standard in this Church. The Missals are allowed, but have no right to supercede the Book of Common Prayer except as a matter of parochial custom.

This brings me to my modest proposal that, as part of the on going process of reconciliation and reunion, the Houses of Bishops of the uniting jurisdictions authorize a statement which in essence states the following two positions:

Firstly, that after Holy Scripture and the three ancient Creeds, the Seven Ecumenical Councils constitute the doctrinal authority in this Church. The Articles of Religion (1571/1801) and the Affirmation of St Louis (1977) and are, in all respects, to be interpreted in accordance with the said seven Ecumenical Councils.

Secondly, that liturgical books incorporating the Book of Common Prayer, do not constitute a liturgical or doctrinal authority or standard, alternative, or supplementary, to the standard editions of the Book of Common Prayer.

To reference another one of Swift's satires, the disputes between the Catholic Anglican and Anglo-Catholic factions in the continuum often resemble the hostilities between the Big Enders and the Little Enders in Gulliver's Travels. Hopefully, a reaffirmation that the Seven Councils and the Prayer Book are the standards after Scripture and the Creeds would cut out a lot of that fractiousness, and reaffirm the clear intent of the Affirmation of St Louis to reaffirm the theological character of the Anglican Church as that of the Catholic Church before the disunion of East and West without Papal additions or Puritan subtractions.

(1) "The Castle" was common slang for the pre-1922 Irish government which was largely housed in Dublin Castle.

(2) The survivors of the St Louis Congress that I have had the opportunity to talk with have all suggested to me that the Affirmation was prepared before the Congress, and was passed with very little discussion and no amendments even though some Central and Low Churchmen had questions about the two provisions which I am discussing in this post. The fact it passed was a reflection of its fundamental soundness, and the desire of all present to maintain a united front against the bigger enemy - revisionism.

----Archbishop Peter Robinson is Archbishop of the UECNA