Monarchy Forum
Register Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 1 of 10      1   2   3   4   Next   »
Ethiomonarchist

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 4,983
Reply with quote  #1 
Five Anglican Bishops have announced that they are leaving the Anglican Church and joining the Roman Catholic Church. The catalyst for this move seems to be the decision to install women as Bishops in the Anglican Communion.  The five bishops are:

The Right Reverned Anderew Burnham Bishop of Ebbsfleet
The Right Reverend Keith Newtonthe Bishop of Richborough, 
The Right Reverend John Broadhurst Bishop of Fulham,
The Right Reverent Edwin Barnes, former Bishop of Richborough,
The Right Reverend David Silk, the former Bishop of Ballarat in Australia,

Additionally, the congregation of St Peter's in Folkestone has become the first Anglican Church to begin the process of leaving to join the Roman Catholic Church.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11709148

__________________
The Lion of Judah hath prevailed.

Ethiopia stretches her hands unto God (Quote from Psalm 68 which served as the Imperial Motto of the Ethiopian Empire)

"God and history shall remember your judgment." (Quote from Emperor Haile Selassie I's speech to the League of Nations to plead for assistance against the Italian Invasion, 1936.)
BaronVonServers

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 11,968
Reply with quote  #2 
I'd have thought the East would be a better theological fit...

And there are Primates within the Anglican Communion in Africa who don't contenance she-priests....(Talk about border crossing, that'd get the ol' dither's sheets in a knot, now wouldn't it....)

__________________
"In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas"

I am NOT an authorized representative of my Government.

Learn more about the Dominion of British West Florida at http://dbwf.net
royalcello

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,768
Reply with quote  #3 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BaronVonServers
I'd have thought the East would be a better theological fit...


Not really; English Anglo-Catholicism has been aping Rome since the 19th century.  Many Anglo-Catholics, even those not about to accept the Ordinariate just yet, tacitly accept Rome, not Constantinople, as the standard of Catholicity.  The liturgy in most Anglo-Catholic parishes has far more in common with Roman liturgy (ancient or modern) than Eastern.  

Canterbury has not been in communion with Constantinople since (at the latest) 1066, but was in communion with Rome as "recently" as 1558.  England is Western, not Eastern, and has never been a self-consciously "Orthodox country"; she once was a Roman Catholic country, even after the Reformation began on the Continent and "Catholic" could no longer be assumed to mean "Roman."

One could say that Anglicans and Orthodox were closer on ecclesiology, but it is Pope Benedict who has made this offer.

African Anglicanism tends to be on the evangelical, Low Church end of the spectrum; it's hardly surprising that disaffected Anglo-Catholics would not see primates like Akinola as a potential solution.


BaronVonServers

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 11,968
Reply with quote  #4 
Yes, it was the 'primacy not supremacy' and the seven councils (not the Rome only ones) that I was thinking of.  I admit to looking through a ACNA lense....

There is the Southern Cone....(If +Fort Worth and +San Joquin were happy there...)

What's really frightful is that this is 3 of the 4 fyling bishops.  What of the poor low church head-ship based rejectors of 'women who think they are priests'.

Will no one rid us of this dithering priest?  It can be done bloodlessly.  More charged changes have been....

__________________
"In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas"

I am NOT an authorized representative of my Government.

Learn more about the Dominion of British West Florida at http://dbwf.net
royalcello

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,768
Reply with quote  #5 
It was +Williams's allegedly "conservative" predecessor George Carey who originally saw through WO, even going so far as calling opponents "heretics" (he later backed away slightly from that, but still).  I don't see the point in blaming RW.  Female "priests" meant female "bishops" sooner or later; the halfway position was and is inherently unstable and impossible to coherently defend.

Interestingly, and sort of back on topic, the Prince of Wales reportedly did not want +Carey (not known for attachment to the 1662 BCP) to confirm Prince William, as would have been customary for the Archbishop of Canterbury, preferring the (at that time) traditionalist Bishop of London Richard Chartres.  I have a feeling that HRH's preferences had more to do with liturgy than with WO, though who knows, maybe he's secretly on our side there too.   The Royal Family never receive Communion publicly anyway, so they could easily hold privately to the traditional position without attracting attention.

From what I've read, Robert Runcie didn't seem to be sure what he thought about WO; Donald Coggan (in office when the Americans and Canadians got the ball rolling) was in favour.  I don't know who was the last Abp of Canterbury who firmly believed in the all-male priesthood, but it's certainly been awhile.

royalcello

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,768
Reply with quote  #6 
Sometimes I feel like I'm living in a fantasy land and there is no defense of my position.  My only response to myself and any potential critic is that if I can remain a citizen of the United States and not accept what happened in Philadelphia in the summer of 1776, I can remain a member of The Episcopal Church and not accept what happened in Minneapolis in the summer of 1976.
BaronVonServers

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 11,968
Reply with quote  #7 
Cognitive dissonance; a position I can live with and without!
If he's for it, let him be for it, not the 'compromise which is not a compromise' as he proposed at Synod.  The current ABC makes Lord Dorwin look positively absolutist by comparison...


(Comments from a high-church baptist, potential REC in ACNA fellow being what they're worth...... ;-) )

__________________
"In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas"

I am NOT an authorized representative of my Government.

Learn more about the Dominion of British West Florida at http://dbwf.net
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,567
Reply with quote  #8 
Bishop Burnham, one of the soon-to-be apostates: "It's about whether the Church of England, as it's always claimed to be, is faithful to the undivided Church of the first thousand years...". Which rather ignores the point that the division was forced by Rome and the absolutist Petrine claims, rejected in this country all of five hundred years ago and having not prevailed here until the latter half of that first thousand years (in what was already a Christian land, at least in part).

Just say straight out that you're leaving because you can't stand either women or queers in orders, don't dress up a low decision in high, misleading and ahistorical language. I still won't respect you, but at least won't be able to call you either ignorant or a hypocrite. As for the Archbishop, if there had been any trace of a spine about him he'd never have been chosen for the post. Anyone likely to defend his flock against Roman poaching and accuse Pope Benedict of aggressively promoting disunity, which is what he has been doing, would never have even been on the list. So there's no use being disappointed in him.
BaronVonServers

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 11,968
Reply with quote  #9 

Uh, they'd be leaving over women in orders (celibate 'queers' are still OK by everyone except maybe Rome).  The claim is that they're 'in the tradition' up till the Great Schism (which seems reasonable, or did, until the women who think they are priests bit).  The CoE are now turning their back on the first 1000 years (as well as the last 1000 minus what, 30?) of tradition that the priesthood is male (and married was an option in England at least until Anselm).

The East has had married priests and unmarried bishops for several centuries now - the 'division' between 'OK as Priest - NOT OK as Bishop' can be continued for a long time.  Not that I'd be at all happy with a woman who thought she was a priest, I think the 'distinction' is not inherently deadly.  I hope that ACNA can pull it off (until they come to their senses and stop 'ordaining' women).


No use, perhaps, but I'm still disappointed. 
Spineless clerics have their uses, but this one is spineless about something I care about..

I added a bit above....

__________________
"In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas"

I am NOT an authorized representative of my Government.

Learn more about the Dominion of British West Florida at http://dbwf.net
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,567
Reply with quote  #10 
For obvious reasons I am no fonder of Evangelical than of Catholic bishops as a class, and I was having a sideswipe at the former, lumped in with the latter. I have to admit though that the result didn't read very logically.

I am rather conflicted about woman priests. Not very, not being a woman, but while I concede the points from tradition and also the liturgical matters that concern royalcello I see no sound theological argument against, and am of course feminist in my attitudes generally. What I do agree is that no denomination should be compelled to accept women clerics against its traditions. Whether they ought to voluntarily accept them is another question, and is the one I'm conflicted about.

Incidentally, as well as the European Convention on Human Rights reservations that Britain entered regarding royal and aristocratic inheritance that I mentioned on another thread, we also entered one protecting the right to sex discrimination in the priesthood. And I do think it was right to do so, otherwise compulsion could indeed have been used, and probably would have.

I guess it comes down to whether you see priests as in effect an order of magicians, imbued with mystical powers and literally able to command God, or as leaders of a congregation in worship. In the former case being male might well be a necessity, in the latter not. The question of voice register for the liturgy aside, which as I already admitted is a legitimate point to raise.
royalcello

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,768
Reply with quote  #11 
Pope Benedict was charitably responding to a request from traditionalist Anglo-Catholics, already closer liturgically and theologically to Trent than to the 1662 BCP, who felt that there was no longer any place for them in Anglicanism and disliked the idea of remaining on their own.  It is the advocates of the abomination of women's "ordination" who are guilty of "aggressively promoting disunity."  While I obviously don't agree with the course of action being taken by those who are departing for Rome, being determined to remain Anglican no matter how illogical it seems, I don't blame them.

WO and homosexuality are two quite separate issues.  I wish they would not always be grouped together so casually the way the media often do when reporting on Anglican controversies.  One destroys catholic sacramental order, publicly & visibly abandons 2,000 years of tradition, and ruins the musical integrity of responsorial liturgy; the other does not.
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,567
Reply with quote  #12 
Irredentists invariably "respond" to "requests". There is nothing charitable about it, though. It is true that generally evangelicals are more exercised about gay than women priests and Anglo-Catholics vice versa, while the middle ground have no strenuous objection to either. To that extent the issues are separate, but they are the two largest and most damaging problems facing the Anglican Communion today so their being grouped together is unfortunately inevitable. What I do not see is the logic of Anglo-Catholics submitting to Rome, which despite being very much and inflexibly to their mind on "their" issue is as inflexible and utterly without charity on the other. Plus, you either accept the Petrine claims or do not, and they are rather more than a detail. I would have thought that a sincere Anglican could never accommodate him or herself to them.
royalcello

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,768
Reply with quote  #13 
What exactly was Pope Benedict supposed to do--tell those Anglicans who had approached Rome, "no, sorry, I don't want to upset poor Rowan, you'll simply have to either get along on your own or just become regular Roman Catholics individually no matter how bad the liturgy at your local RC parish is"?  I can't see how that would have been a preferable approach.

The Petrine problem is a real one; however, I must admit there's something to be said for the argument (not mine) that it makes more sense to become a Roman Catholic despite having doubts about the Papacy than it does to remain an Anglican despite being certain that women's "ordination" is wrong.

If there are gay or gay-tolerant Anglo-Catholics going over to Rome because of WO, I would guess that they feel they can just ignore the issue; there is after all no positive obligation for Roman Catholics to constantly rant about how awful homosexuality is, and it's not as if there aren't already plenty of gay people (including priests) in the Roman Catholic Church.  I'm sure that some gay Anglo-Catholics (especially priests) are genuinely celibate, in which case there is no conflict.

Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,567
Reply with quote  #14 
He could have said "the Anglican Church is a Christian church, and Catholics don't evangelise other Christians, especially whole congregations". But of course that would have been a major policy change, the present policy being that no church that does not submit to Rome is truly Christian.

I would guess that is what such Anglo-Catholics are doing, ignoring the issue. I would not, but their consciences are their own. On the more general question of women's ordination, I'd like to try and articulate my feelings better. I start from the standpoint that discrimination must be justified, and of course excluding women from orders is discrimination. Then I ask what the justification is, and theologically I just don't see it, all the arguments advanced seem extraordinarily weak.

In practical terms women as priests can do all that men might do except sing certain vocal ranges, not a negligible point but, to me, not enough by itself. Then there is the undoubted and very strong point that never before in two thousand years of Christian practise have women been priests. But why not? It seems to me that we don't actually know. Is it because they were not in Judaism, from which Christianity grew? Well, a lot of other things changed between the older and younger faiths. Is it because women were sincerely believed to be inferior, and especial vessels of sin? Well, happily we have put such beliefs behind us. Is it to differentiate from pagan cults with their priestesses? Such needs are, I would have thought, also behind us.

Whatever the cause was, we are left with the tradition and no certain knowledge of the reason for it. Though all the reasons one can think of seem to be based on error from the beginning, or no longer applicable. In the end I say that the tradition alone is not enough either to shut out half the human race from a particular calling. Or were I an Anglican I think this is the conclusion I would have come to. As I am not even a Christian my thoughts are unimportant, but I offer them to the debate for what they're worth.
jovan66102

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 2,479
Reply with quote  #15 

Quote:
Originally Posted by royalcello
Female "priests" meant female "bishops" sooner or later; the halfway position was and is inherently unstable and impossible to coherently defend.


As female 'deacons' meant female 'priests', which is why I left when the diaconate was 'conferred' on women. I didn't have to wait until General Convention approved the illegal 'ordinations' carried out by (amongst others) my friend, Bishop Daniel Corrigan. (With a name like that, you'd assume he was RC, eh?)

__________________
'Monarchy can easily be ‘debunked;' but watch the faces, mark the accents of the debunkers. These are the men whose tap-root in Eden has been cut: whom no rumour of the polyphony, the dance, can reach - men to whom pebbles laid in a row are more beautiful than an arch. Yet even if they desire equality, they cannot reach it. Where men are forbidden to honour a king they honour millionaires, athletes or film-stars instead: even famous prostitutes or gangsters. For spiritual nature, like bodily nature, will be served; deny it food and it will gobble poison.' C.S. Lewis God save Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom, Canada and Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith, etc.! Vive le Très haut, très puissant et très excellent Prince, Louis XX, Par la grâce de Dieu, Roi de France et de Navarre, Roi Très-chrétien!
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation: